Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2000 Regular Meeting THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING January 18, 2000 Commission Chambers The meeting convened at 2:10 p.m., with the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present were Commissioners Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheeks, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Lee Little of the City Attorney’s Office. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. THOMAS WALKER. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you’ll proceed with any additions or deletions to the agenda? Clerk: Under our addendum agenda: Additions: 1. Approve establishment of “Skyfest 2000" bank account and a transfer of $100,000 of operating funds from the Airport Revenue Account. These funds will be refunded at the close of Skyfest 2000 air show. 2. Motion to approve the appointments of Silas Hawkins, Jr. and Paul David to the Community Service Board. Deletions: Items 24, 42 and 43. Mr. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mayor Young: What were the item numbers to delete, Madame Clerk? Clerk: Items 24, 42 and 43. Mayor Young: We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Bridges: Second. 2 Mayor Young: Motion and second on the addendum agenda. Any discussion? Is there any objection to adding and deleting these items? None heard so this is ordered without objection. Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and take up the zoning item that brought most people here this afternoon so they don’t have to stay. Clerk: Item 29: Z-99-115 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. B. Kuhlke, Jr., Trustee, on behalf of Virginia D. Murphy, Brenda G. Murphy and Aldersgate United Methodist church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing church parking as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Arnlee Way and Wheeler Road (3177 & 3179 Wheeler Road). District 7. Mayor Young: I’ve gotten letters from a number of people opposing this and I’ve given those to the Clerk to be included in the permanent record. Could we have a show of hands, please, how many people are opposed to this zoning request? A show of hands for the opposition, please, and keep your hand up until we get a head count. (14 objectors noted) Mayor Young: How many of you are here in support of this request? And please keep your hand up so we can get a head count. (58 supporters noted) Mayor Young: Do you have those? Let the record show, too, that Mr. Kuhlke is listed as the petitioner on this. He has excused himself from the discussion and the deliberations on this issue. Where’s Mr. Patty? You going to represent the Planning Commission today? Mr. Austin: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Why don’t you–can you bring us up to how we got to this point and what your recommendation is and why you’ve made the recommendation. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I might ask this question that usually Mr. Bridges or myself want answered, in reference to the persons that are in favor of, the follow-up question to that, how many people 3 in the affected zoning area that are also in favor of it? I think you need to see those hands. That’s a standard that has gone on in zoning cases lately. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays has asked for the people who are in favor of it that actually live in the neighborhood. Mr. Speaker: Would you define the neighborhood, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: I’d say who live within a three block area of the– {21 supporters who live in the area noted) Mayor Young: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Austin, if you’ll go ahead. Mr. Austin: I’m Bob Austin. I’m representing the Planning Commission and this one was postponed for a month and we tried to find out what the church’s needs were going to be, and I think that in the next ten years this parking area is all the church is going to need, and I think our tree ordinance will provide an adequate buffer for the piece of property to the immediate, behind the property on Arnlee Way. So the staff recommendation and passed on to the Planning Commission was for approval. Mayor Young: Does anyone have a question for Mr. Austin while he’s up here? Let’s move ahead. We have a representative of the petitioner who is here today? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: My question would not be of either one, the supporter or the petitioner. I would like to ask a question of Bob before he leaves. In reference to one of the things that was brought, I’m sure, that we received in the communication in reference to the question of run-off, how did you all deal with that, through staff or through Planning Commission in reference to the question of the run-off issue and as to whether or not you all made that decision or did you make it jointly with the folks in Engineering or did Planning & Zoning make that decision? Mr. Austin: Willie, I was ill at the last meeting, but George told me that the storm water run-off issue was settled. It was going–the new parking, the additional run-off was going to be able to flow toward Wheeler Road to an existing catch basis and was not going to negatively impact the residents on Arnlee Way. I know that Public Works was involved in that, in concluding that. I’m not sure on the details about who in Public Works. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask before they get started as to whether Public Works has any comments in reference to that drainage and while I’m doing this, regardless of the side of the issue they’re on, what I don’t want us to do regardless of what way the vote goes down, that 4 we’ve been caught in these situations before on storm water, and if Public Works is making a direct decision where we’re dealing with an engineering project is one thing, where we’re dealing with zoning, I think it ought to be clear as to whether Public Works and them have conjunctively made a decision or whether or not this is one that Public Works–whether it’s one that Zoning has made, because we get into the question and then the water starts and then folks come back to this body a year or two down the road and run-off starts and the finger pointing starts and then nobody can answer the question as to who gave the guarantees. I think we can have situations whereby the potential run-off can be avoided and those things can be done properly. But I just think it ought to be for the record, we don’t need to get 24 months away from this thing, if there is a problem, and that Public Works has not checked off on it or there is not some official record as to how this decision was arrived it. Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, can you address that? Or Mr. Murphy? Mr. Mr. Oliver: We’re looking for Mr. Cheeks. He’s scheduled to be here. He was down at Goodale Landing. Mayor Young: Could you come to the microphone, Jack, please? Mr. Murphy: Doug is at the Lock and Dam and Goodale Landing, trying to be at both places right now. He is the person that was on site at this particular location and I have no knowledge of what the facts were. Mayor Young: Mr. Murphy, let me ask you this. Could you reach him by phone and get the information for us while we go on with the discussion and relay that back to us? Mr. Murphy: I can do that. Mayor Young: Let’s do that. Let’s go ahead and hear from the– Mr. J. Brigham: What was the purpose of the delay on this; do you know? Mr. Austin: The neighbors brought up some concerns and George and I thought that we needed to find out more what the church, where the church was heading, were they going to need any additional property, etc., and they pretty much concluded that these two properties were going to give them what they needed for about ten years or so, so that was primarily the reason that we asked for a postponement, Mr. Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Also, Mr. Austin, do you know if any restrictions–I didn’t see any restrictions proposed or special exemptions. Were there any restrictions proposed or anything? Mr. Austin: It came over to y’all with no access easement to Arnlee Way and Wheeler Road. Of course we have the built-in tree ordinance provisions that are going to provide the buffer. No access easements to Arnlee Way or Wheeler Road are the ones I remember. 5 Mayor Young: Mr. Austin, you mentioned the tree ordinance, these trees. Could you tell us, tell us something about these trees? We saw how the tree ordinance was complied with at the Target shopping center, they put those twigs in out there. What kind of trees are you talking about? Mr. Austin: The caliper of trees of the tree ordinance is now an addition to that. It’s two or three, it’s three inch caliper trees, Mr. Mayor and at that time it was two inch, so there is a big difference. And it’s really, in a nutshell, it’s a 20 foot natural area with a fence and a shade tree buffer area on that back. Mayor Young: Let’s go ahead and hear from the petitioners if we may, please. Give us your name and address for the record and then go ahead. Rev. Hinton: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Coy Hinton. I’m the pastor at Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 3185 Wheeler Road in Augusta. I’m here today requesting a variance at 3177 Wheeler Road and 3179 Wheeler Road. Why are we making this request? Aldersgate United Methodist Church since its beginning has continually grown, and we continue to grow today, and in order to continue to be the church for the community that we think we can be and want to be, we need additional parking. We are also contemplating a new building, and if that is to be done, we need the parking as well. Let me give you some very quick history and deal with some of the points that have already been brought up by various members of the Commission. On December 28, we invited the neighborhood in to listen to their concerns and try to respond to them appropriately, constructively and creatively. Approximately 25 people attended that meeting. Three of those persons are adjacent land owners who are not members of the church who are here today and are willing and able and would be happy to speak in favor of the petition that we bring you. That is Mrs. Morton, Mrs. Pendarvis, and Mrs. Patterson. The issues that were raised at that meeting are as follows: (1) a concern for ground water as the parking lot is built at the top of the hill and fear of water running down the street or down the property toward the base of Arnlee Way. We had the County Engineer to look at that, and what we proposed doing and what he agreed to was the parking lot be built in such a fashion that it slopes toward Wheeler Road, away from Arnlee. The water going into the catch basis there at the corner of Arnlee and Wheeler Road, going into the storm sewer, staying parallel to Wheeler Road and never going back down the hill [inaudible] the people that lived at the bottom of the hill. There’s also been some discussion about the retention pond at the back side of our property. We currently have a retention pond that drains out to Shelley Court, stays on the surface of Shelley Court until it goes into the catch basis at the corner of Shelley Court and Arnlee. We are more than willing, if this permission is granted, at our expense to put that water underground on the right-of-way of Shelley Court, making the water go directly into the storm sewer system and getting it off of the surface. We currently are in complete compliance with the requirements for the lake, the retention pond. But we are more than happy to do this to help our neighbors out. The second concern: that we are attempting to slowly take over the neighborhood. That simply is not so. It is correct that we contacted all those persons who live within or are adjacent to our property asking them if they were interested in selling their 6 property. When we discovered that Mrs. Murphy was willing to, we stopped our search because we do not need any more property and will not need any for at least ten years. With Mrs. Murphy’s property purchased and paved for a parking lot, we get the ideal spot for our church. Item #3: decrease in property values. We simply do not think that is correct. People have lived next to the Aldersgate Church with its parking lot intact for 37 years. People have continued to sell and buy homes there, and the property value of those homes have continued to go up at the same rate as homes that are not adjacent to the parking lot. We have no way to say that that is a valid contention at all. Number four, the concern was raised that we would be reducing the appearance of the neighborhood. The beauty of the neighborhood. Let me assure you that is not the case. We live in that neighborhood. We go to church in that neighborhood. It’s a beautiful and wonderful place to live and to worship. We have a beautiful lot at this time, we maintain our building very nicely, as well as the yards and the parking lots, and we will continue to do so. There are people who have visited our church and who have subsequently joined who have said to me the beauty of the area, your church, and the parking lot and the surrounding landscaping initially attracted me to this church. We will do nothing that will harm that attraction that we so desperately needed. There’s been some concern, and it’s already been discussed, that people would try to be entering from Wheeler Road or Arnlee Way. Please look at the sketch that’s here and the paper that I pass to each of the Commissioners. The only access to this proposed parking lot is through the current parking lot. It will create no traffic entering and exiting off Arnlee or off of Wheeler Road. Finally, this was not raised but I want the Commissioners to be sure and hear this. This would increase safety in the neighborhood. At the rate we’re growing, we will be asking for parking on Wheeler Road, Aumond Road and Arnlee in the near future if we’re not able to create these additional 50 or 60 more parking spaces. I would rather, and I think you would rather, also, that parking be done in a paved, safe parking lot rather than on the street. Quickly, let me tell you just a little bit about who uses our church, who is benefitted by the present parking lot, and the parking lot we wish to build. We average in worship about 550 people every week. We have in Christian and religious education about 400 every week. But listen to the number of people who are not members of the church who take advantage of and benefit from that church being in place, and we can’t do it if we don’t have parking. Our church is used as a polling place. Every time there’s an election, the community is there voting. Our church is used by a community square dance group two times a week. Our church is used by a group called Compassionate Friends. These are adults whose children have died and they come to our church, using our facilities, seeking emotional and spiritual help. Our church is used by the Boy Scout Troop #45 with approximately 65 or 70 members now. They are there every week. They use our church van, as well as our facilities. They have Cub Scout groups that support them. Our church is used by the pre-school program, the Aldersgate Pre-School for children walking through four years of age. Our church is used by the Junior League. They rent it from us six times year. Our church is used and is the home for the Augusta Children’s Chorale, with approximately 50 or 55 children who have sung with Jessye Norman and have toured in Europe. They are there every week. During the opera season, our church is used as a practice place for the Augusta Opera. Fort Gordon has used our church, renting facilities for meetings that they’ve needed to have. Our church is used by non-members who rent the facility for weddings and reception. All in all, I would say that probably a thousand people are in and 7 out of our parking lot and facility on average every week. Last year, in 1999, our church made a major study for the future. We tried to decide is this the neighborhood and the area where we want to be, and if so, how can we best stay here and continue the ministry that we have started? We seriously consider the option of relocating, but the decision was made that we wanted to be part of west Augusta. We have been there for 37 years. We’ve looked forward to staying there for many, many years to come. We have wonderful neighbors around our church, and we believe that we likewise have been a good neighbor. We have supported those people, as they have supported us over the years. Mr. Mayor, this is the first time I’ve ever been before the council to say anything or do anything like this. I’ve been here and prayed for you several times and I tell you, I’d rather pray for you than talk to you. I’m also praying for your right now. Mayor Young: Well, we’re praying for you. Rev. Hinton: In conclusion, I’d like to say this. I’ve thought about how in the world do you end this kind of presentation. What is it that I would impress on your mind as I stand before you, asking for this variance today. And the thing that I think is most important and makes my position most strongly is that we have objective, non-biased, professional and volunteer people who have considered the information and the evidence, who have looked at this not from any biased point of view, but from the profession that they represent and the charge that you have given to them as members of various committees and boards. Who are these people and what do they say? Not Coy Hinton. Not Aldersgate Church. Who are these people and what do they say about what it is that we’re trying to do? The County Engineer has been on site. He agrees that there will be no problem and that the water that will be on the lot will drain towards Wheeler Road and never go back down the hill, down toward Arnlee Way. We have invited and discussed the Tree Commission and since we are asking for no variance whatsoever from the requirements of the Tree Commission, that being the buffer zone that exists 20 feet between the property line adjacent to us and our parking, that being the 6 foot privacy hedge that will be planted and put in place, that being the trees, the shrubbery and the landscaping that will be on three sides of the property, bordering on Wheeler and Arnlee and giving something of a buffer there. The Tree Commission has no problem with what we’re doing since we’re in complete compliance with their requirements. Mr. George Patty, Executive Director, the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission, your paid professional, has looked at this, evaluated it, discussed it with those people who need to be in the discussion, and at the Planning Commission meeting, he made his recommendation that this be approved. But finally and publicly most important, the group that has stated very clearly their position on this, and that is the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission, two weeks ago they listened to the presentation that I made and they listened to the presently that Mr. Findlay made, representing those who are opposed to this recommendation. They listened as concerned citizens from north and south, east and west Richmond County. And they voted and they have sent their recommendation to you. Their recommendation is not a close vote. Overwhelmingly, 8 to 2, they voted in favor of the request that we have made and are making of today. I think these third-part opinions should weigh heavily on your minds as you make your decision today. Pay less attention to what I say and less attention to what Mr. Findlay says and listen, I ask you, to those persons who have come 8 before you, objective, third-party, non-biased, and make their recommendations. If this is approved within the next few months, we will remove the [inaudible] in question, we will create a parking lot, and we will continue to grow the ministry that is already started there. And according to the Planning Commission and those others that I have named, we will do exactly what we have described without doing any harm or any damage to the neighbors who live next to us or close to us. I ask you, as you consider this, to vote approval for the variance that’s been requested for church parking. Mr. Mayor, this concludes my remarks. If you have questions or the Commissioners have questions, I’ll be happy to try and answer them. Mayor Young: Thank you, pastor. Let’s hear from Mr. Findlay and then we’ll open it up for questions from the Commission. Mr. Findlay, if you’d just state your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Mayor, I’m James Findlay. I represent those people who predominantly live on Arnlee Way and Shelley Court. Those people I consider to be the true objectors, the people who are most impacted by this. Commission Mays asked for a showing of hands of those people who live in the area, as opposed to those people who were in fact church members. Now I take that one step further and ask are there people who live on Arnlee or the people who live on Shelley who in favor of this? If there are, would they please raise their hands? Mayor Young: Mr. Findlay, the Chair will do the polling. You may go ahead with your argument, please, sir. Mr. Findlay: Thank you. Now having said that, Mr. Mayor, I think we need to go back as I did before Planning & Zoning and give just a bit of historical overview. I told them and I tell you that I can well remember my youth of walking on that road in the heat of summer when Wheeler Road was nothing but clay. I remember there was a horse stable out there where some of my friends would ride horses. I remember that through the visions of Augustans who made Augusta so wonderful, they developed the Brynwood Subdivision after the Murray Hills Subdivision was developed. I saw Judge Hammond’s pond, what we always referred to his pond, and the beautiful camellias. I fished in that creek that I later found out was in fact Rae’s Creek. I was there before any of these things came about. I now see that through the prosperity of Augusta and the guidance of men like yourselves, we have in this area hundreds of homes. In this area we have numerous subdivisions. We also have Christian worship centers, churches for every denomination. This particular area has been blessed with a congregation that has supported the ministry of Pastor Hinton, and seen it grow far outside of its bounds, over the stream, we may say. It is now too large for its present location. To that end, we have seen other churches that have remained, may we say, community churches. St. Augustine Episcopal Church has a population of some 300 families. We’re also seeing Covenant Presbyterian on Walton Way with some 400 members or families. We’re seeing Our Redeemer United Lutheran Church building on at this time. None of these churches have found that, the growth of Wheeler Road that has been by found by Aldersgate. Now who are we really impacting by this? Are we impacting those people who travel on Sunday morning to this church? I think not. Are we impacting the Boy Scouts and those organizations that this church has so duly supported? I think 9 not. I think we are actually trampling on the toes and memories of those people that live in the subdivision that I like to consider myself representing, that is Woodside Terrace, my subdivision made up of 18 home sites. 18 home sites. 16 of these home sites are still occupied by people who call this their home. One of the home sites in 1992 was sold to our friends at this church, and that’s another matter I’d like to take up and mention here today. A second home site is the subject matter of this rezoning, so to speak, in that Mrs. Murphy is asking that she sell her property. Now I canvassed and I polled my clients as to who they were. They don’t say this with a great deal of pride and raising their heads above their fellow citizens of this community, they are just saying they have enjoyed this community and they want to stay as it is today. Three of these men, these men who came home and came around corners every night, they were professors, Ph.D.’s may I say, at the Medical College of Georgia. When they came home, they saw their children in the driveways. They still want to come home and see those same driveway with those same memories. They don’t want to find out that in fact what they considered a part of their neighborhood has now been changed. Now we look to several of the people who live there. Mr. and Mrs. Elliott. They are directly to the north of the Murphy property. Mr. and Mrs. Elliott, one is 83 years of age and one is 85 years of age. I look to Mr. Toole, who lives right behind him. Mr. Toole spent over 20 years in the United States Air Force. He came back to Augusta because Augusta is where his roots were. He came back to Augusta and wen to work for Josey R.O.T.C. and supported Augusta through his efforts there. He look directly across the street to his neighbor. We’ve got one of our neighbors, Mr. Chou, who is Chinese by birth. He has lost his wife to the ravages of leukemia. He lost his daughter to leukemia. Is this a person we want to have his landscape changed? I look to Mr. Watson, who is back in the back, seated in a wheelchair. He’s got chronic disease with his lungs. Do we want to deprive him of spending the rest of his years there? The County Commission as shown by the people in favor of this, who told this is all about water, if we all overcome water. This is not about water. This is about these people’s subdivision. 19 people are in favor–excuse me, 16 people are in favor of leaving this subdivision where it is. Two groups are in favor of changing the makeup of this. I suggest to you that when you start snipping away, it’s two lots today, and they come forward and they say to you, this is all we need for ten years. Now is that the way we do things in our society and our life, say the only thing I want you to do is get through the terms that you’ve been voted in for and you won’t have to worry about the citizens of this community ten years from now? I think not. In this very room or a room similar to this, in 1992, Commission Kuhlke or then possibly a representative of the church came forward and said I have got a proposal for you. Our church doesn’t meet the criteria for special zoning in Richmond County, I’d like you to reconsider, and at the same time I’d like for you to look at this piece of property which is located on Wheeler Road which we know as 3179 Wheeler Road, we would like you to zone this for church from its present single-family residential. Your representative or the people that came before you had enough foresight to see through that. They said yes, we will bring the church into compliance, but you have told us that the assistant pastor lives in the church. Why should we change the zoning on that residential to that of special exception to zoning that is for a church? At that time, the same motion that they have made today was voted down as to the property that was owned by a third person or then purchased by the church. But the first person to sign that bill of particulars or those objections to it was Mrs. Murphy, saying I do not want a parking lot or 10 I do not want something in the sense of Christian worship next door to my house other than seeing the sanctuary that is presently there. Mrs. Murphy has now said to you, I would like to reap the rewards of probably what is far more valuable as a parking lot than it would be for single-family residential. I’m going to give you these 1992 minutes and I would ask that they be passed down for you to peruse those minutes, if I may. Secondly, or just as important I believe, is the petitions that have been signed by these people who are objecting to this. Every one of these is dated and signed by people who have given the sweat of their brow and they’ve given their tax money to Richmond County to make Richmond County a better community than it was when they moved here. I hope that you would appreciate their position. I move forward, and in conclusion of this, I am reminded of a letter that I got from Mr. Toole. Mr. Toole, of course, was the chap that I suggested had been in the Air Force for 20 years and he has given of himself to his country. He came back and he lives on the corner of Shelley Court and Arnlee Way. He said he was approached by the church at one time, and although no money was mentioned, he himself thought about that. I’ve got a copy of that letter, the original of which was given to Planning & Zoning and through my neglect did not retrieve it. It basically said that he was offered what he pursued to be a future sum of money handsome in size, but long after he had forgot about how much money it was, he would still have the recollection that he had betrayed his neighbors who were steadfastly against the rezoning of this piece of property. The pastor, Pastor Hinton, would have you believe that George Patty said, you know, we’ve done this before so why don’t we do it again? You know, we may have done it before, but I think every case has to stand on its own footing, its own fours. This subdivision and this area is as fine a residential area as one can find in all of Richmond or Columbia County. I’m going to again give you pictures. These are pictures of nothing more than representatives of all the various housing that is in that area. When you look at these pictures, I want you to know that a lot of tenderness, a lot of love, a lot of consideration went into these houses. Some of the very people who own these houses may not have bought these houses if they knew that they would be faced with this possibility. You know, the church has said that we are a good neighbor, suggested by Pastor Hinton. Pastor Hinton, I do not object to that. I think you are in fact as fine a Christian person as anybody could have for a neighbor. The church, however, owns a piece of property at 612 Aumond Road. Now is today the beginning of the end that we’re going to take snip off of this? I use the concept of somebody with diabetes. They tell you we’re going to cut off your toe today, don’t worry about a thing. I had that happen to a loved one of mine. The next thing I know, it was that person’s foot. After the foot, came the leg, and then after that we all met at a funeral home to discuss what a beautiful person she was. Now at this time, are we going to just start snipping off and changing this? This was zoned single-family residential when the church acquired their piece of property. I reminded the Planning & Zoning that those people who are members of the First Baptist Church of Augusta had unbelievable foresight. The Baptist church being what it is in the southeast United States, in the late 1800's they were located, the home place of the Southern Baptist Convention right here in Augusta, something we’re very proud of. Those very people packed up their bags in the early 1970's and left probably one of the most beautiful churches, and I think we will all agree that it was beautiful, they left here and went out onto Davis Road or Story Road and they acquired 30 acres of land, enough for a gymnasium, Bible study groups, they’ve landscaped it beautifully, they have not intruded on any subdivision. We suggest to you that 11 possibly this church should do as our friends at Hill Baptist Church have done and buy property elsewhere for some of their meeting purposes. I leave you with the idea of this church came into this community as a special exception. It must be a special exception to be able to do what it’s doing today to change its makeup. I’m tell you that the people that live in these subdivisions do not want it changed. I remind you and my friend of the Bar, Mr. Steve Shepard, as we know, Gould v. Holcomb Bridge Road lays out six items that one should look at when they get ready to change the zoning, the most important of which is whether or not the pieces of property in the neighborhood are going down in value. Is this one of those fringe areas? I tell you as Pastor Hinton has said, nothing is further from the truth. Every one of these houses can be sold for the very purpose for which they were constructed. Why tear down what has been made by your fellow man for the enjoyment of the entire neighborhood? Now in addition to that, Gradous v. Board of Commissioners of Richmond County says you, better than anyone else, should decide the fate of the fellow members of your community as to how its property should be used. The Court should not be involved in this. The people have spoken in the early 1970's when they acquired their houses in this subdivision, that is in the Woodside Terrace Subdivision, and we only ask that you continue to allow them to live out their lives as comfortably as they have in the past and respect the very wishes. The parties in favor of this would have you believe that water is not an obstacle, that water is not a problem. Water may not be a problem to my friends on Arnlee Way, it my not be a problem to my friends in Hillwood Subdivision, but I’ll assure you when you pave that parking lot, you’re going to be put water into Rae’s Creek eventually and it’s going to affect somebody at some time and in some place. May God bless the church, and thank you for your consideration. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Findlay. While we have just a moment, Mr. Murphy, did you get in touch with Mr. Cheek and can you give us a report and an answer to Mr. Mays’ question? Mr. Murphy: I got in touch with the County Engineer, Doug Cheek, and he has said, as has been said previously, that he did visit the site and made two suggestions that could possibly lead to approval of the site plan, which has not been submitted to the County Engineer for approval yet. One was the existing detention pond on the church’s property now flows into the end of the street, the cul-de-sac. His suggestions is to carry that to the existing underground system which would be a whole lot better. Also, the two lots in question that front on Wheeler Road, as long as they put detention facilities on those two lots and then cause the water to flow into the existing Wheeler Road drainage system, that is the pre-developed rate, it could lead to possible approval. Mr. Mr. Oliver: Let me point out that at this point, there is no site plan that’s been submitted. Zoning does not give approval to a site plan. And if the site plan does not meet the requirements of the Engineering Department, even though the zoning may be correct, it may be subsequently denied. Because it’s a responsibility of the owner’s engineer to do the engineering on it, and then our Engineering people would view it and determine that it’s in compliance with all regulations. 12 Mayor Young: Let’s see if any of the Commissioners have any questions of the petitioner or the objectors. Mr. Cheek, you had your hand up? Mr. Mr. Cheek: This is more for the County Engineer. Is there adequate set-back to compensate for a 6-foot hedge and shade trade at the corner of Arnlee Way and Wheeler Road? Mr. Murphy: That’s a Zoning issue. Mr. Austin: There’s no prescribed set-back. It couldn’t be put in the right-of-way. When that’s reviewed, if it would be a site distance problem, the tree would not be placed in there. Mr. Mr. Cheek: Is it my understanding that this plan that we’ve been presented here may significantly changed when it goes through review for site approval? Mr. Austin: What you’ve got there is a conceptual plan or a diagram that shows what they would like to build. They did that plan with the knowledge based on the design criteria that we have. Depending on the storm water flow and the other various things that could go into it, it could change. One thing that would not change would be a 20-feet street yard, buffer yard in the rear. The standard for which is if you stand in the residential area behind the proposed parking lot and look toward the parking lot, in three years when the vegetation matures, there would be an impenetrable view from that location to a height of 8 feet. So this would be a substantial buffer. I heard Mr. Mayor’s comments, and the tree ordinance has been drastically changed as a result of the Augusta Exchange Shopping Center. Rev. Hinton: Mr. Cheek’s question implied, I think, that there is to be a six-feet hedge at the corner of Arnlee and Wheeler Road. That is not the case. The six-foot hedge is along the property line between the two lots in question and the Elliott property. At that intersection, it would be a much lower hedge, approximately two feet high, so that it would not interfere with vision when one is approaching that intersection. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Bridges, you wanted to say something? Mr. Bridges: Yes. Reverend, I’m trying to understand the map that I’ve got here and the plan that you’ve given me in this regard. Rev. Hinton: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: Are you buying two lots there on the front of Wheeler Road? Rev. Hinton: We own the first lot currently and it’s occupied by a staff member. We have a contract on the second lot which is at the corner of Arnlee and Wheeler, and that contract is contingent not on the rezoning but on the variance of the rezoning. 13 Mr. Bridges: Okay. The questions I’ve got, is this the 60 spaces you’re building or is this the 60? Rev. Hinton: The second one. That’s the 60. Mr. Bridges: Okay. So where you’re putting the parking, then, is fronting on the road that you actually enter, where the church is fronted now, is that right? Rev. Hinton: Yes. And we already have parking on Wheeler Road between the sanctuary and Wheeler Road. Mr. Bridges: My last question is I heard some discussion about y’all possibly purchasing someone’s home and skipping houses in between to use as a drive into the church. Is that in this proposal? Rev. Hinton: That is not in that proposal. There is no plan for that. This is the ideal location for us because it allows us to do what we want to do without interfering farther down between two houses. And so there is no plan and we have no intention to do that. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Mr. Colclough: This question is more for the Engineer. In building your catch basins, Mr. Murphy, bringing in the site plans, do the Engineers view that catch basis prior to we accepting that plan into the County? I know in some areas, the catch basin are put in and then when it rains, we accept them in and it floods out people’s homes. And is this a fact where we’re going to put in a catch basis? You already have one, you’re talking about putting in underground pipe in to catch the water to put it that catch basin. Is that catch basis, the requirement will be will that catch basin be dug out to meet the overflow of water coming in from underground? Mr. Murphy: As I understand what Doug Cheeks told me over the phone, they have got to build a detention facility on site to run the water, to accept the water, and then the release rate from the detention pond will be at the pre-developed rate. Mr. Mr. Colclough: Okay. Mr. Murphy: Into the existing drainage system along Wheeler Road. And he has indicated preliminarily that the existing drainage system on Wheeler Road can accept this water. Mr. Mr. Colclough: Thank you. Mayor Young: Any further questions? Mr. Shepard? 14 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To the petitions and to George, my question is the diagram that we’ve been furnished here today shows a planting screen in trees. After the passage of the strengthened tree ordinance, do we no longer put those conditions of buffers in a zoning case? I mean we used to put that there would be a private planting screen or some sort of privacy fence. How are we handling that? I don’t see it either in the agenda book caption or in the backup material. Mr. Austin: It will be a requirement of the tree ordinance. The condition is not needed. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mayor Young: Any further questions? Any further discussion. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. My question got us started on water. And I’m sitting here, particularly looking at the church’s growth and trying to find a reason for supporting the petitioner’s motion. I’ve got two slight problems, and maybe this is one that neither party on each side of this is even responsible for, and it’s something I’ve asked before. But I think this is the kind of thing that gets not the responsible people who want a petition and those who have the objection in trouble about but gets us in trouble down the road. One, if we’ve got a situation there where we are going into an area, regardless of what this parking lot does, where we know we’ve got, even though it’s on a high elevated area where you are talking about further into the hill, but you’ve still got some down flow streams that you’ve got in that area, whether you’re talking about Hillwood or other places over in there, are we not a little bit cart-before-the-horse to a certain extent getting into a situation where you are dealing with the zoning on something and you don’t have a site plan presented? I mean I’ve seen zoning come to us many times where it’s never got out of Zoning because the vote’s been that the site plan had to be sent in first, and that was all put together in one package and objectors and petitioners knew that. And this Commission has had a record in many cases of turning those down because there was no site plan evidence on the spot. That’s one. The second thing is, and I know it’s a hard day for Mr. Cheeks in dealing with this, and I’m not going to put Jack on the spot or stretching this further than where we are, into Hillwood, but we’ve got some problems that’s down that hill. This is no disrespect to the people who are objecting on the street adjacent to it, but there’s been a combination, not just where their objections are, but to those that aren’t even directly affected where the water does eventually flow. And I just have a problem, Mr. Mayor, of us getting on record what our professional people saying to a certain extent where water is not going to go, and I think the one that knows that supreme answer looks above us. We’ve got some funny running water in Richmond County, and I’ve had my experience with folks saying this is where we hope it’s going to run. Now we’ve got some water sitting in some of those low-lying area that’s in Hillwood. There are some folk that may not be here from that area today, but have called some of us enough about standing water that they’ve already got, to a point that even though they be going in that basis, where does it eventually go? Is it going to be diverted away from there? How far down underground Wheeler is that going to go before it goes down into the natural flow of where water is going to go before it gets back down into those low elevated areas, even though it may be in an area overall high elevation. Are we prepared to answer that, and I think professionally, I could probably vote for the plan that’s out there if our folk–I won’t say a blood 15 oath, but if you’re willing to sign off that and say and guarantee that that’s not going to happen. But to come in here with no site plan and to basically say we may revisit this again, I just think that that’s not the way that we have done these, when you know that you’re going to run, quite frankly, into one where there is going to be controversy and where you are going to have objectors, and in all fairness, to those petitioners, because they are there in good standing with what they want to do. But yet we’re here to put–I’m getting a conversation by phone with an engineer, I’m hearing Planning said it was all right, I’m hearing the phone conversation saying it’s going to be approved but they need the site plan. There’s a lot of buts and ifs in there. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I’ll make a motion that we concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and approve this subject to the site plan designed such that the water from this construction drains toward Wheeler Road as we’ve heard today. Mayor Young: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the motion for purposes of discussion. Mayor Young: Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Is it possible to bring the site plan–is it possible to bring it forward at the same time as this position, in other words, have one debate and not have two? Mr. Mr. Oliver: The site plan per se would never normally come back through this body as long as it was signed off by the appropriate officials. I mean clearly if that’s the direction of the Mayor and Commission, that can be done, but that would not be the normal course. Mayor Young: Would you like to delay this until they present a site plan? That’s an option, too. Mr. Cheek, you had your hand up? Mr. Mr. Cheek: Yes, my concerns and I think all of you can understand this. My concerns are that ten years down the road, we continue to have this residential anchor in our community that will attract people from other communities to live in that same neighborhood, and that we don’t diminish the quality of life in that neighborhood in that these neighbors have worked so hard to have, and I guess my question would be to you. Are you building something in their back yard that you wouldn’t want in your own? Rev. Hinton: Mr. Cheek, I would be honored to live next door to that church or any other church of similar caliber. I think the statement that I have made to the Commissioners today I 16 hope is understood as indicative that we are one of many churches throughout Richmond County that gives, we think, as much as we get. And in this particular situation, what we have tried to do as a good neighbor, not only for those who are members of the church, but for a host of other people who benefit from our church, we feel that this will only help this to continue. We do not want to take over this neighborhood. We do not want to make it an ugly place. We want to continue the beauty and the service that we have started and we do not feel, based on the facts, not the emotion, based on the facts, we feel that is what we’re asking you to do. Mayor Young: Let’s respond to questions. We’ve already had arguments on it. Rev. Hinton: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard? Mr. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I can empathize with both sides in this, but I think that another item has been projected into this, and this is the site plan. And I think before we make a decision, we ought to make sure that this isn’t affecting anybody else in that community and I– Mayor Young: Would you like to make a substitute motion? Mr. Mr. Beard: Yes. I would like to see this delayed until we possibly get all the information from engineers and they sign off on this and everybody is satisfied with it and then I think we can make the type of decision that will satisfy everybody on the basis of what is going to affect everybody in that community. Mr. Mr. Oliver: Until a site plan is submitted, we cannot review the engineering part of it, I mean formally, and obviously we would need to get a site plan before we could make any kind of complete technical review. Rev. Hinton: Point of information. May I say simply that I have heard nothing about a site plan. This is the first this has been mentioned. If this is a document that we should have had in hand coming to you, we would have been glad to do that. Mr. Mr. Oliver: Site plans are not required at the zoning level. The reason for that, for the benefit of the audience, is you may have a site that’s zoned Commercial, for example, and obviously there are a number of different looks to commercial property and with drainage, there are a number of ways drainage can be handled and handled very effectively, so the solutions can vary. Mr. Mr. Williams: I had a question for the pastor. Being a pastor myself, I certainly sympathize with the growth of the church and trying to do what’s necessary for parking and other situations. You mentioned something about at one time you considered maybe moving or relocating, but you didn’t elaborate much on why not or what was the reason you did not consider that. Because you’re saying in ten years, with the growth of the church, that naturally 17 should go on and on and on. So I’m just kind of curious about what kind of study or why didn’t you proceed in going out and trying to find a larger area? Rev. Hinton: May I answer that? Mayor Young: Well, actually it’s not germane to the motion on the floor but I’ll give you a minute to answer that. Rev. Hinton: We have been there for 37 years. We have many people who live in that neighborhood immediately. They love that area. The church has worked effectively. We think we can continue that. We could relocate probably to Columbia County, but I would suggest to you that if the First Baptist Church had stayed in downtown Atlanta, downtown Augusta, that that would be a better thing for downtown Augusta. We don’t want to move away. We love it where we are and we’re very satisfied there. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard, you have a motion, Mr. Beard? Mr. Mr. Beard: Yes, I am going to move this off center and make the motion I just suggested a few minutes ago to delay this until the next meeting. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Mayor, before there is a second– Mayor Young: Just a moment, let’s move forward. Mr. Mr. Beard: That would be my motion and we would have the site plan and other things in order. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion to delay this until the February 1 meeting and it has been duly seconded. Mr. Findlay, you wanted to say something? Mr. Findlay: We have no reason to believe that an engineering firm could not prepare a site plan. We have the greatest respect in the world for our County’s Engineering office. We don’t think for a second that this matter should rise and fall on Engineering. We, not to reargue the case but to adopt what Mr. Cheek has said, that is Mr. Andy Cheek, we think this is a matter of special exception to a zoning, wherein a church has to come and say to the neighbors will you allow us to do it? In this instance, my clientele has steadfastly refused to accept what they’re doing. In conclusion, I don’t think any of us relish the idea of having a parking lot as a new neighbor in exchange for these two beautiful houses which have been on Wheeler Road for in excess of 30 years. We ask that you– Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Findlay, thank you. Mr. Shepard? 18 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would question whether the length of time provided in the substitute motion is adequate time for the petitioners to submit a site plan. Mr. Mr. Oliver: It will take at least 60 days to get a site plan engineered, submitted, and reviewed. You may want to consider, to my knowledge, that’s an issued you’ve got to address. But it will take at least 60 days. Mr. Mr. Beard: I will amend my motion to the point that it takes the necessary time to do this. Mayor Young: Is there any objection to the amendment to the substitution motion? That would, in effect, would be brought back here under completion of the site plan and subsequent review by our Engineering Department. Mr. Mr. Oliver: I would note that the preparation of the site plan and I don’t know the number, but I would think it’s going to cost the church probably $10,000 to $20,000 and they would be going forward not knowing whether the zoning may or may not be approved. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, did you want to say something? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, just as a point of record. To inform Mr. Oliver, we may not have done that to your recollection of being here, but just as Mr. Findlay brought forth the minutes of 1992, he and I have been on the same side of issues, he’s been on some where he beat me and some I beat him, where we’ve seen a difference of opinion, but I think he also can agree and our Zoning people can agree, this is not setting a precedent for this Commission to ask for site plans in terms of what’s being done. And I would hope that in the asking for the site plan that we would so also, Mr. Beard as the maker of that motion, direct our Engineers, even though we’re dealing with the immediate neighborhood and the church that’s in here today, that we also direct the folk that we pay to be able to present us what impact, yes or no, pro or con, not only in reference to the street that’s adjacent to the church, but in terms of the downward flow where we already have standing water and were we are constantly getting complaints from down in Hillwood and other places that are there to run over as far back as Boy Scout Road and those complaints are not letting up, you can get a mild shower and we’re still getting the water. Some of us, and this is church folk here, but some of us get cussed out when their water stands. I’m still getting it. And I want Engineering that we pay to be able to stand in here and basically agree that it’s not going to dump any more water down in there. Cause I do think the issue is two-fold. I think the integrity of the neighborhood is important, and I also think that the integrity of the existing neighborhood is just as important if that’s going to be dumped in there. So they are asking questions as well. So you have a neighborhood, one that’s presented by petition and that is here, another one, Mr. Mayor, that’s calling and it is concerned, that’s adjacent to that one. So I think our folk, even though not involved in the site plan, our folk need to be able to answer that and I hope no disasters occur, but somebody be able to put it on paper so that if we have a 19 disaster we won’t get a phone call conversation on how we’re going to deal with it. We need to have it here in person and it needs to be in writing. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: And I hope the maker will amend it, if that’s okay with Mr. Beard to add that. Mayor Young: I think Mr. Murphy heard loud and clear what you just said here today and he’ll get that information for you and I assure you I get those phone calls, too. We have, we’ve been talking about this for almost 50 minutes now. I think it’s time to move along with some consideration of the substitution motion that’s on the floor from Mr. Beard, and that in effect would put this matter off until an approved site plan can be included with it and brought back to this Commission. On the substitution motion, all in favor, please vote with your green light. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Kuhlke out. Mr. Cheek votes no. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Findlay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Thank you. Rev. Hinton: Mr. Mayor, thank you for your time. WE look forward to being back with you. Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Thank you, Pastor Hinton. That y’all for coming. We’ll take a short recess so we can clear the chamber. (Brief recess) Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you’ll move ahead with the order of the day, please. Clerk: Under Delegations, Mr. Greg Goodwin, Executive Director, the Imperial Theater . Mayor Young: Mr. Goodwin? Ms. Speaker: My other people stepped out the roof for a moment. Mayor Young: All right, let’s move on the next delegation, Ms. Bonner, we’ll come back to Mr. Goodwin. 20 Clerk: Delegation regarding the water treatment facility on Old Waynesboro Road. Mayor Young: Do we have a spokesman? If you could come forward and give us your name and address for the record, and you have five minutes to address the Commission. Mr. Pender: Thank you, sir. My name is Jimmy Pender. I live at 4450 Old Waynesboro Road, and I’m here to address you gentlemen today about a water treatment plant that the water and sewerage department is putting in on Old Waynesboro Road. All of the neighbors out in this area found out about this plant quite by accident when there were some surveyors out there doing some surveying, and one of the neighbors, the most affected, Mr. Mel Linville, went and spoke with the surveyors to find out what they were doing. And he saw the plans for this water treatment site. He called me and some of the other neighbors and we in turn called the Water Department and talked to some of the folks there. I talked to a young lady. I believe she told me she was an engineer, but in my hurry to get this issue, to find out what was going on, I did not get her name. And she told me they were looking at several sites in the area and that nothing was set in concrete and there were going to be public meetings before a permanent site was picked. At midnight on Tuesday, January 4, 2000 we finally found out that a site had been picked and it was, has already been decided on by you gentlemen, when some equipment was delivered in front of Mr. Linville’s house at midnight and it was delivered on the wrong site. This was our firs inkling that this had come before you gentlemen and been passed by you. Mr. Linville and I both called Mr. George Patty at Planning & Zoning the following day and were giving him the riot act, pretty much, and Mr. Patty, who is entrusted with the orderly planning and zoning of the whole of Richmond County did not know that this plant was going on this site. And Mr. Linville and I were under the impression that all of this land in this area had been changed to Residential property. We voted for that. And now after I talk with Mr. Hicks, I found out that a water treatment plant is going on supposed Residential property. There was never one of the little red zoning change signs, there was never any type of sign whatsoever to alert neighbors that this was going to happen. I had a meeting with Mr. Hicks, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Weidmeyer on Tuesday, 1/11/00. We submitted to them a list of questions which I have given you gentlemen, and also I have submitted you a list of their answers. The first question we asked them was how many sites were considered and what were their criteria for deciding on this one. The only two sites that Mr. Hicks said that had been considered was the present site that they’ve already started moving dirt on another site that is approximately 800 feet down the road that’s marked on the maps that I gave you marked in cross-hatch green that is a swamp site. We asked Mr. Hicks if there was any consideration of the property values, the home owners, or anything given when he made this decision, and he said no. We asked him, one of our other questions was the size of the area. It’s 3.97 acres as you can see by his answer. We asked him what he had paid for the property. He told me $10,000 per acre, that you gentlemen had voted $10,000 per acre. He told me that the first appraisal they got for this property was much less than that $10,000 but he would not tell me that amount. He said a second appraisal that y’all got from a certified appraiser was for $8,000 per acre. But you gentlemen, they ended up recommending that you pay $10,000 per acre. So basically, all of this area were sitting on way more of a goldmine than we thought we were. 21 Mayor Young: You have about 30 seconds Mr. Pender: All right. We found out that there was environmental study done, there was no noise study done, we found out that this property has been inundated with sludge from your sewerage treatment plant for the last nine years that I’ve been there. According to Mr. Weidmeyer, there have been ten dry tons put on the site but if you add it up by the amount of truck loads that have been there, that’s more like six million gallons, and you’re putting people’s potable water treatment on land that has had sludge dumped on it for many, many years. Mayor Young: Your time is up. Do you have a specific request of this Commission today? I’ll let you make that. Mr. Pender: Our first request is that the site be moved by 1500 feet down the road to another comparable site that you can see on the maps. It is marked in the solid green. This land is exactly the same elevation, it’s open field, but it does have some trees across the front of it so the site would not be visible from any homes, and it would impact nobody in this site. This land is $1,500 an acre and it is for sale. Mayor Young: All right. And do you have any other requests? Mr. Pender: Yes. If you decide not to do this, we would like a chance to get with you gentlemen and Mr. Hicks and whoever else makes the decisions so that we can have [inaudible] put around the present site, we would like the present building instead of the cut block to be put in with a brick fascia so that it doesn’t look so much like an industrial site, we would like monitoring systems for your hazardous chemicals, which I included MSDS sheets in all of your packets so you’ll know what we’re talking about. And we would like a monitoring system with a warning alarm on it in case there’s any chlorine gas or acid releases and stuff like that, and we would like our concern answered that if there is a spill on this property, there’s no sewage in this area, what is done with any spills, leaks, that type of stuff? We can get no answers from Mr. Hicks. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Bridges, you have any questions? Mr. Bridges: Randy, can you respond to the request by Mr. Pender with regard to what effect–what are we planning on doing as far as aesthetics, the trees, the brick veneer? What effect would this have as far as satisfying the water needs of the Brown Road/Old Waynesboro Road area if we should hold this off? Mr. Mr. Oliver: If you elect to postpone this decision to consider going to another site, that will delay being able to provide water to south Augusta by about six months. You will have a water problem this summer. In addition to that, the increased costs will be several hundred thousand dollars because the site has been purchased, the contractor has been mobilized. As it relates to part of the environmental questions, what this particular facility is for is it is a holding 22 facility. We are not, as you know the wells have been previously permitted by EPD. They tell us where we have to take the water out. What this is, is this is the area where we, if you will concentrate the water it’s held in a tank. It’s treated and then it’s repumped. As it relates to Mr. Pender’s concern, we indicated a willingness to meet with them as it relates to aesthetic buffers, specifically we talked about landscaping and that type of thing. We have not done any cost analysis as it relates to using brick, however I think you’re going to find the cost of that is pretty substantial. He indicated at that particular time that he would rather make a presentation to you all with the hopes that the site location may be changed, and if that didn’t happen, then we could subsequently sit down and talk about that. I’ve also asked Mr. Hicks to look at the equipment as it relates to some form of audible alarm in case of a chlorine leak, which that is the most prevalent. That is one possibility, really. The rest of it is a liquid lime system and that type of thing so I don’t see that as being as much of an issue. And we will be glad to work with Mr. Pender and the people with him in the immediate area to try to minimize the impact upon their property. Mr. Bridges: Can you speak to the sludge and an EPA study being done in regards to the chlorine, chloride, that type of thing? Mr. Mr. Oliver: Well, as I previously indicated, this is just a holding tank. It’s like a big swimming pool with a lid on it. And it does not come in contact with the ground. As it relates to where the water is being drawn from, those are sites that have been previously permitted through an arduous permitting process with EPD. Those are decisions they make. We do not, have, you do not have, I do not have the ability to make those decisions and those wells as it relates to where we can get that water from are from them. As it relates to this facility, in fact it would not matter what was on top of the ground, cause as I say, the water does not come in contact with what’s on top of the ground in any manner, shape or form as it’s being processed on the site. Mr. Weidmeyer is available if you need any further explanation of the matter. Mr. Pender: I need to disagree with Mr. Oliver on one thing. The EPD did not, does not have anything to do with picking a water treatment plant site. When I talked to you, Mr. Bridges, you seemed to be under the impression that the EPD told them where this site had to go. That is not true. Mr. Bridges: No, we made that decision. Mr. Pender: And this plant is going to aerate your water. If you look at your own drawings– Mayor Young: Excuse me. You had your five minutes and the Commission has rules and we try to follow those to give everybody a fair opportunity. Mr. Pender: I understand. 23 Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up on another thing Mr. Pender has just mentioned, the aeration. Is there going to be an odor, Tom? Is there any odor from this plant/ Mr. Mr. Oliver: I would suggest Tom or Max address that. Mr. Bridges: Tom, could you address that? Mr. Weidmeyer: I’m not aware of a detectible odor coming from an aeration system of raw water. Mr. Mr. Oliver: We have the engineer from ZEL in the audience, too, who actually did the design for the plant, if you have any questions for him. Mr. Bridges: What we’re doing here is the same thing on Highland Avenue; is that right? Is that correct or am I wrong? Mr. Speaker: No, the same thing that happens at Peach Orchard Road and at Plant Two out by Bush Field, it will be similar to those two treatment plants. Mayor Young: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Do we have a motion to receive this as information? Mr. Bridges: Mayor, I’ll make a motion that we receive this as information and instruct our staff to meet with the neighbors in that area for developing some kind of plan for the aesthetics of the building itself. Mr. Mr. Kuhlke: I second it. Mayor Young: All right, we have a second in that motion, and y’all can add any other thing to the table when you meet, I think it would be appropriate. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Let’s go back to A and see if Mr. Goodwin is here. Clerk: Mr. Goodwin, Imperial Theater. Mayor Young: Mr. Goodwin, under the rules of the Commission you have five minutes. Please give us your name and your address for the record. Ms. Speaker: I’m not Mr. Goodwin, by the way, but I am still the president of the Board of Directors of the Imperial Theater, and on behalf of the Board of Directors I’d like to speak to 24 the Commissioners that were here in 1998 and to bring up to date those that were not here and thank you for the allocation that you gave us through the SPLOST account. Greg Goodwin, who is our new Executive Director of the Imperial Theater is here this afternoon to tell you what we’ve done with the monies that you allocated for us and how we are using those at the theater. Thank you. Mr. Goodwin: And I am Greg Goodwin and my address is 581 Hunterdale Road in Evans, Georgia. We just basically wanted to thank you for the money you allocated to us and tell you what we have done with the money you have granted us. We have replaced the rigging, the lighting, the exterior doors of the Imperial Theater to secure the building and replaced the stage floor, the curtain and spotlights. All of these things were items that regarded the safety of the building and our users. So we used the money to ensure the safety of the arts groups that use the building and so in the future they would not have the fear of anything going wrong with the building. We just wanted to take this time to thank you for that and tell you that we are conducting now a seating campaign to replace the seats, and that will be done with private funds. So thank you so much. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. Any questions for Mr. Goodwin? Thank you. I was over at the theater last week and y’all have done a very good job over there with the refurbishing. Thank you. Madame Clerk, if we could move to Item 1 on the addendum agenda, take that up next. Mr. McDill needs to get back to the airport and plan for an air show, so if we could take this item up, I know he’s got some things he’s got to get to. Clerk: Addendum Item 1: Approve establishment of “Skyfest 2000" bank account and a transfer of $100,000 of operating funds from the Airport Revenue Account. These funds will be refunded at the close of Skyfest 2000 air show. Mayor Young: Al, do you want to say anything about this? Any Commissioners have any questions about this? Mr. Mr. Oliver: Our recommendation would be checks over $5,000 require two signatures on the check for internal control purposes. Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham? Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll so move and include the amendment outlined by Mr. Oliver. Mr. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? 25 Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: While I’m supportive of this, I’m curious as to why $100,00. It seems like a large amount Mr. McDill: It’s a rather large amount for me, too, Mr. Brigham, but it represents about one-third of the budget that I just passed out to you that was approved by the Aviation Commission at their last meeting on January 13. That’s what we anticipate to be the front-end cost for contracting with the various performers and concessionaires, insurance, so forth. Mr. Mr. Oliver: This is an eligible aviation expense, Al? Mr. McDill: Say again, please. Mr. Mr. Oliver: This is an eligible aviation expense to be funded out of Bush Fund? Mr. McDill: Yes, it is. It is an eligible expense but it’s anticipated to be reimbursed out of the air show proceeds. Mr. Mr. Mr. Oliver: And if the proceeds aren’t enough to reimburse it, is it an eligible expense? Mr. McDill: Then we will absorb it, yes. Mayor Young: Probably some of the best marketing money they could spend for the airport. Mr. McDill: Precisely. Mayor Young: Any other discussion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: In my motion, I didn’t hear Mr. Oliver’s suggestion to require two signatures. I want to include it as part of my motion. Mayor Young: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None heard. So the amendment is accepted. Mr. McDill: I’d like to make mention that the way we propose it, it’s two signatures, mine being one and then Lon Murray, the treasurer, for all checks, regardless of the amount. 26 Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion– Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the motion and am in favor of the show. I guess to follow up what Randy asked in reference to an eligible item in there, is there a particular source, Al, of your funding of where this is coming from, of airport monies? Mr. McDill: Yes, we would take it out of our marketing budget. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. McDill: If there’s a shortfall. Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking that, Mr. Mayor, is to pre-ask it so that you have the negative pre-question that you’ll be asked, before it’s answered, to a point where on previous situations, another situation of FAA money, and I want to clear that out of the way, get it done so that they’re on sound footing and we’re on sound footing. Mayor Young: We anticipate most of this money will be recovered through corporate sponsorship for the activities, and we’ve got people who are calling us now that want to be a part of it. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye with your green light. Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Thank you. Clerk: Under Appointment: Appointment of Legal Counsel for 2000. Mr. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Beard? Mr. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, since 19–we started in ‘96 here, I think we have inculcated all of the parts of the Bill that was sent down from Atlanta except this particular item. And for the last three or four years we’ve been trying to figure out what to do with this. And I’ve talked to several of my Commissioner friends and I think I’ve come up with a procedure that we could use here, and I would like at this time to put it in the form of a motion. What I would like to see done is that we appoint out present legal counsel for this year with the stipulation here that a committee be formed of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and three other Commissioners to work with this aspect of it, and I’m also aware that 27 we’ve had a study some–I think it was last year or the year before, but to come up with a recommendation and then first meeting in July present this recommendation to this Board, and I said Commissioners because I think it’s our problem and we need to deal with it and any Commissioners who want to participate in this committee function that is formed, they have that opportunity to do so, and bring us back this recommendation in July and whatever they do at that point, then we accept it and we put this thing to rest and in January, 2001 we will know where we’re going and they will have, we will have after the meeting, the presentation in July, at the first meeting, whatever that is, we would have six months to make that transition. And I think this is an appropriate way to handle this at this time. There are many things that are being presented to us now that we need to take the time to study it, and I think this will give the public the opportunity to know that we are moving forward and we are going to do something about this. So that’s my motion. Mayor Young: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d second the motion, but I’d ask the maker for an amendment in the discussion period. Mayor Young: Okay. Now discussion on the motion. Mr. Shepard, did you want to speak to this? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’m reminded of Mr. Mays talking about the value of verbatim minutes yet again and we passed out minutes, so I’m going to pass out minutes to my left and to my right and we’ve over this ground before, and on January 20, 1998, Mr. Todd asked for a discussion of the Law Department and at that time, I offered a suggestion which I think got the attention of a majority of this body on a first reading but did not get the attention of this body on the second reading, and that was in Section 13A of the Consolidation Act, using our home rule powers to amend the Act, which we have that power to do as Commissioners of this County under the home rule provisions of our State General Statutes and our State Constitution, and that is to make the change of the word, referring to the Law Department, from “shall” to “may” create a Law Department. And I ask the maker of the motion to incorporate that the City Attorney, Mr. Wall, be directed to bring that process again forward and that upon its conclusion that we have an amended– that the Committee be seated upon the conclusion of that process. That would be two readings of the ordinance, which we could do fairly expeditiously. And that we then have that Committee have all the options in front of it which would be a full, In-House Law Department. Some people say the present arrangement, an out-house Law Department, but I think we refer to that as outside counsel. And I also suggest that would give the Committee the flexibility to recommend a hybrid combination of City Attorney and some Law Department. This is an issue that’s on the minds of many Commissioners, it’s been on our minds before, it was the subject of an extensive study which Mr. Oliver just again reminded us in a memo of January 5, 2000. It was an extensive study that was done in 1998, and the summary was passed out, the first point of that summary being at that time 28 there was no convincing argument for a change in the present system of procuring legal services for the City of Augusta. And I think, without going into this right now, Mr. Beard, we certainly have a qualified and competent counsel that we have come to value the advice. I understand that we have three new members of our body that have come on board since this report was brought back, and I think that if you would accept the stipulation that we go ahead and amend the Charter from “shall” to “may” that you could pass your motion. The flexibility would be there, the deliberation would be there, and we would bring this issue to closure. We would then have, no matter what decision the Committee reached, we would have, we would end the legal argument that some advance, which I quite frankly tell you in advance, I do not subscribe to, that we are out of compliance with the present Consolidation Bill. But I think by making this slight wording change, we would be in compliance, we would end that argument, we would show our Legislative Delegation in Atlanta that we can police our own act, and we get on to business providing the taxpayers appropriate representation. I remind you that I think it was two meetings ago we passed a very tight budget, and looking at the minutes of 1998, I remember that on my mind in January, 1998, which was, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams, my second meeting on this Commission, that I was reminded that Athens-Clarke County, the second consolidated government in this State, had gone to a combination In-House Law Department and retention of outside counsel, and we saw in their experience an increase in the cost of legal services, which is something that our budget with just a $500,000 contingency does not have appropriate room for. So I would comment the amendment to the maker of the motion. Mr. Mr. Beard: I can accept that. Mayor Young: Are there any objections to amending the motion with the amendment as proposed by Mr. Shepard? No objection is heard, so the motion is amended. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to offer a substitute motion, please. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Mr. Cheek: The motion would read that Augusta Richmond County create a Legal Department consistent with that described in the Consolidation Bill in not less than 120 days and not more than five months be allowed to advertise for the position, to interview the candidate, and to hire a County Attorney with such staff as needed, that the current legal representation be retained until such time as adequate turnover has occurred between our existing legal representation and future County Law Department, and the future County Law Department be allowed such time as to become knowledgeable in the areas of current and pending litigation involving Augusta Richmond County, that period of time not to exceed one year. Mr. Mr. Williams: I second that motion. 29 Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second from Commissioner Williams. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion. Gentlemen? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, it’s not on the substitute motion. Mayor Young: Is your microphone on, Mr. Brigham? We’re having a hard time hearing you. Mr. J. Brigham: My only concern about the study of the Legal Department is I think it’s something that’s going to affect this whole Commission and I would hope that the leadership of this Commission sees fit to make it a working session and to include all members and not just part of the members. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I think probably in the world of political arithmetic, I think we’re going to end up going back to the original motion and vote, but let me say this for the record. And Mr. Shepard, my colleague, we talk all the time about verbatim minutes is absolutely correct in terms of my staunch support of them. And I will not read what I said in the verbatim minutes on that day, but I think as far as the reflect upon the record, I did give him my support on his first reading of that motion when it was done at that time. And I stated it sort of conditionally when I gave that vote to do it. I talked about the establishment of a committee, I talked about the fact that if we were going to do it and if we were going to stay where we were, that we needed to be on record, as our reasons why. Not only from the point of money and what it would cost to establish it, but also the comparison there of the quality of the individual or individuals that we might hire, and the whole gamut of what we go into with legal. Well, we came back to vote for the second time. My colleague lost my support due to the fact that we were still on the issue of “shall” or “may.” We had not at that time, we appointed a particular committee of outside people, business persons and attorneys, to study this issue and to come back to get a full public review on what way we should go, as to whether or not we should take an issue that was put into Bill, voted on by people in this County, to consolidate a government. That, to this day, we have not done. Now personally speaking, as I said on that date, personal preference I probably like the system that we’ve got. I wasn’t a strong campaigner for consolidation. I recognized the point of where this was getting us along with some other things when I was out there on that campaign trail. But probably on the other side of that issue. I lost that fight. I know how to count. (End of tape one) (Beginning of tape two) 30 Mr. Mays: I think in light of what we dealt with in this year, we’ve been before the Grand Jury, on some occasions, some of us two to three times. We’re dealing with a situation as to where the attorney’s office and whoever represents us currently, that person is the Parliamentarian, they are the legal conscience, not only counsel, they are the legal conscience for this governing body. But yet in that vacuum, we’ve been here going into another century, we’ve been here since elected in ‘95, came in in ‘96, and we’ve not addressed that issue. Now I think that’s a dual responsibility, not only for the Commission to have done that, with the exception of newcomers, and included in that number, not only the two new ones but Mr. Colclough as well. But I think that those of us that are here, in the absence of–and well as you, too, Mr. Mayor–as well as the absence of a charter, which we do not have, this question brings us to another question. What supersedes what? County Code in reference to how we’re dealing with the dates and terms of an attorney anyway, or in the lack of a charter which the University of Georgia so admonished to finally get together, write one since we are operating on a Bill, still are and have not voted on one, do not have one to the day. Where then do we lie in this mix? I, quite frankly, fault the leadership of legal counsel. Legal counsel has not brought up one time out of its own mouth to deal with this issue and put it on the front burner. We could say we should have done it, but also he should have done it. He’s the Parliamentarian, he’s the legal conscience. He’s going to render the right or wrong decisions. We’re the ones that’s getting and taking advice, we go before Grand Juries, he partially decides that. He decides whether we sue, whether we settle, bring those issue to us, and also spends the largest pocket of individual money without having to report through any ethical body to deal with anything. Can hire, can sub out, can farm out, can do directly or indirectly basically what he wants to do. This is something we have talked about for five to six years. Now out of protest today, I’m not going to vote for that other motion. The one that the newcomers have on the floor, it’s going to fail. I can tell you that. But I admire your courage for putting it out there. Because that’s what the Bill has said it should be addressed. But I think it’s high time, inasmuch as in January, and y’all thought I brought this back as a joke when I got up out of Minnesota from double pneumonia off that deathbed and I came back, and I told y’all it was going to be a day of reckoning and I was going to remind you. I did not like and still do not like the way in which the raise of the Attorney was handled. It was not on this agenda. It was done in the confines of the legal setting. You all came back out, you put it on an agenda, and you voted for it. This is not the first time I said that. I said it in January then, it’s January now. A person took a job, and I thought really after you set a budget to take a job, you agree to work for that in all honesty. You don’t come back out and deal with a deal if you’re the legal conscience of a governing body, put it in legal session for folks to talk about it, get it put on the agenda, vote on it, and get yourself a raise at the end of the day. Basically when everybody’s gone with the television cameras. I resented it then and I was in Minnesota, when Lee told me about it, called me long distance, hell, my blood pressure went back up. I didn’t like it that day, don’t like it this day. Now I think that’s something Legal Counsel should have somewhere within this five years before Richard came on here, before you got here, Bob, and before these two newcomers got here, to have addressed this issue, if nothing else, in a forthright way to say this needs to be cleared up. I do not want to work under a cloud. If he had the political clout to stay here this long, he ought to have the political courage to present it and say 31 this is what I want to do. And y’all know I ain’t talking about Mr. Wall: just cause he ain’t here cause I will get on Mr. Wall: ’s behind just if he’s looking at me or if he ain’t here. That ain’t nothing new. But I think it ought to have been addressed. It’s not been done properly. Folk voted on it and we going to go around tampering with the Bill. Ain’t nobody running down here, Mr. Mayor, saying okay, change the Bill, let’s give you a vote. Let’s do some veto power. We going to change this. One word without the written facts to put before the general public of how you change a Bill that was voted on. And I do think Mr. Beard’s motion leads us to that, but I think it’s a rehash situation that we’ve been over before and I think, in all due respect to the Attorney, this is something and this is an area that he probably has had the most support of any quasi-department head in this whole building and in this department of being able to have the freedom to hire folk that he wants to. And we can debate the budget, whether it’s half a million or one million, sixty-eight thousand. It’s a lot of figures floating around directly and indirectly. But everything that’s flowed through there, we have not objected to one penny that’s been spent with him or without him.. And if you’ve got that kind of confidence, and especially you’ve got that kind of confidence and living somewhere else, you ought to at least have the fortitude to come here and say, hey, let’s clear this up and get it right. Do with me what you want to do with me. And I’ve said it to him in private, I’m just saying it in public for the record, and I think we ought to address the Bill in the formal way that it should have been addressed and the person who’s reaping the benefits from that, who’s had that leadership, who’s had that support of the Commission, should be one who’s in order to argue with that and to deal with it and should have presented it after the first year that this Commission went back. There were reasons why we kept the legal folk like they were. We knew it was a wreck, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, I feel bad cutting you off. Mr. Mays: No, I’m through. Mayor Young: We do have Rule 2.02, which says two minutes. And I do have my stopwatch with me today. Don’t want to have to gavel anybody to be quiet. Mr. Mays: No problem at all. No problem at all. No, sir. I am basically through. Mayor Young: Thank you. Your points are well taken and I’m the Commissioners will take them to heart. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just had a comment on a couple of things, and being the new kid, newcomer, however, and when the Consolidation Bill called for this, this is nothing personal. I think everybody know that. I try to make sure that people understood that it’s not nothing personal, but we just talked about a new Ethics Ordinance for all of the Commissioners as to what we could do and what we cannot do. Our legal department is not under that same Ethics Ordinance. If we had in-house service that would fall under any other employee of this County, he is at liberty to do business with or without any scrutiny whatsoever. I just think that if the Bill call for that, we as Commissioners need to stand up for what’s right. We are bound by 32 the people that voted for us to do what the Bill calls for, whether it’s going to cost us money. We are spending money now that we don’t have, and I’m not saying that we should pass it just to spend money. But I’m saying that we need to do what the Bill for the law calls for, and then we worry about the other things that will eventually fall into place. Those are just my comments. It’s not a personal thing. I just think we need to do something. Mayor Young: Mr. Mr. Cheek:? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve reviewed some of the past documents and the studies done and they are indeed inconclusive in this matter. Some places this works and some places it does not. Costing is higher in some areas and lower in some areas. I, too, agree with Rev. Williams in that this is what time after time the citizens are saying. We consolidated this government and then we’re not doing what we said we would do under the Consolidation Bill. I would like to see some closure to this and whether it’s now or six months from now that we follow it through and that we resolve it and not have it on the back burner indefinitely. Thank you, sir. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t have anything. I would ask that we call the question. Mayor Young: Call the question? All right. The question has been called on the substitute motion, and that would be in effect to create a Legal Department. Does anyone need the motion read back to them? The question has been called. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote no. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion fails 3-5-2. Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original motion. Is there any discussion on the original motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Bonner, could you read that motion, and then I have a question, the original motion. Mayor Young: We’re back to the original motion. 33 Clerk: The original motion made by Mr. Beard was to appoint our present legal counsel for this year with the stipulation that a committee be formed, consisting of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, three Commissioners, with the aspect to come up with a recommendation to be presented at the first meeting in July. The amendment was to amend the Charter from “shall” to “may” create a Law Department. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: One question for the Attorney. Ms. Little, if this, if we vote on this motion and with the change in the Charter, what does the vote have to be for that change to become effective? Do you have to have seven votes? Ms. Lee: My understanding is that it’s six, and that that has been the recommendation of Mr. Wall: Wall. Mr. Kuhlke: I’m saying what does the Charter, to amend the Charter, this motion includes amending the Charter. Mr. Oliver: I think what the motion provides for is to bring back a resolution of whatever document it takes to propose an amendment to the Charter. Ms. Lee: Mr. Wall: would draft an ordinance. Mr. Oliver: This isn’t a formal amendment, this is just to bring back that language that would initiate that change, and that would take subsequent deliberation and vote. As I understand it, it takes two readings. Mr. Shepard: May I speak to that, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Please, Mr. Shepard. Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: My understanding is it does take two readings, therefore it couldn’t be done today. And I didn’t review the number of affirmative votes, Mr. Kuhlke, required, either six or seven. I thought that it was six two years ago, but I, quite frankly, didn’t review that. Mayor Young: We can go to the index. Ms. Lee: Six. Mr. Shepard: So I think we’d have to do it, to amend the Charter by local Ordinance we have to do it by an amendment which, by and Ordinance rather, that passes twice. First and second readings. 34 Ms. Lee: Yes. Mr. Shepard: This couldn’t be a second reading today. Ms. Lee: No, sir. Mr. Shepard: It couldn’t even be an Ordinance today. Mr. Oliver: I agree with that. It needs to come back as an Ordinance. This isn’t even the first reading. Ms. Lee: The Ordinance would have to be drafted and then would come before you fro the first and then again for the second reading. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke, does that take care of your question? Okay. Let’s go down to Mr. Mays and then we’ll come back. Mr. Mays: If it takes me ten minutes, I just want to enter this into the record. This Commissioner does object to any language being used in reference to the changes of this Bill inasmuch as this City consolidated in a municipal form of government does not have a written Charter, a Charter commission was never established, we were urged to do one, and there is not one, and if there is one, I urge and challenge somebody to put one up in the air, in writing or wherever it is. One was dissolved in the consolidation Bill when the old City of Augusta voted to give their Charter up. One was not re-written. The backdoor provision of the Georgia Constitution which provided that Bill. And I want that into the record that any reference that says we are voting to put anything in writing that will deal with a Charter is illegal and I will challenge later on out of order because there is no Charter, and if the Attorney of Record sitting here today has a Charter, then she can produce one, but there is not one. And if any of you have written one somewhere and hid it, then produce it. But there is not one. So I think Charter language, if you are going to put it in the record, I object formally to it and any reference to is. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s go to Mr. Williams and then Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mr. Beard: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make an amendment to Mr. Beard’s motion to read six months instead of one year to retain this Attorney and still have the other wording as it has been worded as far as putting the Mayor and five Commissioners together, instead of one year, six months. Mayor Young: Is there any objection to adding that amendment? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d object. 35 Mayor Young: We can only amend it by unanimous consent. Is there any–let’s see, we’re going to go down here to Mr. Colclough and then back to Mr. Beard. Mr. Colclough: If the motion on the floor passes, my question is possibly to the Commission or the Attorney. If the motion on the floor passes, do our current Attorney make the changes in the Bill or would we have to get someone outside to do the changes in the Bill? Mr. Oliver: I’ll help out a little bit since Lee hadn’t been that involved with this. What I would see is that it would come back as an Amendment and it would take two readings as well as advertisement to do that. As I understand what you proposed is Mr. Wall’s firm would be retained for the year, you would set up a study committee of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, three Commissioners, with the study committee to come back in July. If the study committee recommended that we proceed with an In-House Law Department, then at that point, we would go forward with job descriptions, advertisement, and advertise it for an anticipated or contemplated change as of July 1, 2001. Mayor Young: Does that answer your question? Mr. Colclough: No, sir. What I’m saying is there is a motion on the floor that the current Bill be changed, and I guess Mr. Mays just object to that. Who would do, would we have to hire someone outside to make those changes? Mr. Oliver: No, sir. Mr. Wall would do it. It’s a pretty straightforward change that would be required. Mr. Colclough: Okay. Mr. Oliver: And I think that the Ordinance was previously developed on Mr. Shepard’s request. Mayor Young: Let’s go down here to Mr. Beard and then to Mr. Shepard. Mr. Beard: I guess I would like to see this separated. My primary objective of this, at the beginning and what I introduced as a motion, was that I thought this committee, along with other Commissioners, could come up with whatever we’re going to do within that time. This would have given them time to assess the situation, look into the financial aspect of it, the legal aspect of it, and come up with a conclusion of what we could do and give us ample time to do that. The amendment has created a problem in this, and the way it’s going, I think we’re going to lose everything here, and I don’t know whether we want to–I would like to see maybe separate the two and possibly have a vote on that, on each one, without the Amendment. I don’t know whether we can do that legally or not. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? 36 Mr. Shepard: To respond earlier, Mr. Mayor, the work was done in 1998. The Ordinances were prepared. I’m sure that we can resurrect those and bring them forward again. What I’m saying is that we should have a full range of options for the committee to choose. If we’re going to play the same game that we did before, pass it now and then defeat it on the second reading, that’s a risk of this strategy. But I think that we owe it to the taxpayers of this County to do this in the most efficient and economical manner, and I don’t think we’ve seen a financial impact of this proposal from the proponents of the substitute motion, and I do think in all due respect, Mayor Pro Tem, that we do have written Charter. I think the Legislature passed it. It was passed in 1995. This Consolidation Bill is now an Act. We refer to it as a Bill offhandedly, but it is an Act, just as the Charter of the City of Augusta was an Act, and was amended scores of times from its creation in the 1700's, over its 250-year life as a city. So I commend to you the amended motion which would give us the present counsel, it would give us a transition time, it would give us the adequate time to review the work that was done in 1998 by the citizens committee, we could come to a decision, and if we decided that we could have a totally outside counsel, we could have it. If we want a Legal Department, we could have it. If we want a combination, we could have it, if there’s some way to split up the duties. But I think that on the budget that we passed, we should not be creating new bureaucracies, we’re not going back to the old City of Augusta economics where our checks come back NSF, not on my watch as Finance Chairman. So I mean you gave that office to me last time and I’m going to take that very seriously. So I think we need to remind ourselves that we have to live within our means and we have the authority to do this, and we’re right back where we were in 1998 and I would commend the amended motion to a vote of all my colleagues. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got one question. I guess I’m going to have to address it to you cause I have not heard. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. J. Brigham: Who is going to appoint this committee? Who is it going to consist of? I would like to know. I don’t want, I don’t mind a committee, but I don’t want a stacked committee. Are we going to have a result before we have a meeting? Mayor Young: The motion didn’t make mention of that. Let’s move along on the original motion. Mr. Cheek, briefly, and then we’ll move along. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, briefly, this report on Augusta legal service sub-committee that we received– Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want an answer to my question first. 37 Mayor Young: Well, Mr. Brigham, I just said that the motion did not answer the questions that you asked. It’s not stated in the motion. Mr. J. Brigham: I didn’t hear you. I think it’s important that we know who is going to appoint this committee, though. Mayor Young: Well, it’s not stated in the motion, so the Chair is not in a position to answer your question. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, do I have the floor? Thank you, sir. This report came back September 22, 1998. One of the underlying things that stuck out most in my mind, in this City of Augusta which is experiencing one to two percent growth in population and economy. If Augusta were a bigger city, perhaps we would consider a Law Department. My concern is that we– Mayor Young: That motion on a department has already been defeated, mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Yes, I understand that. Mayor Young: We have another motion on the floor. Mr. Cheek: In order to resolve, we’re going to review this and decide if that’s a path forward, but I’m concerned that one of the ways we can assure Augusta maintains the current rate of growth, but population and economic, is to continue to hold onto the trappings of the past. It’s not my intention to spend money we don’t have, but I assure you that with the monies we are spending currently with legal representation, that we can adequately staff a Law Department. Mr. Beard: Call for the question. Mayor Young: The question has been called. There is a motion on the floor. Mr. Beard’s motion as amended. All in favor of it, lease vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Mays votes no. Motion carries 9-1. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, let’s move along with our consent agenda. Clerk: The consent agenda, Items 1-28. We deleted Item 24. That’s the consent agenda. PLANNING: 1.Z-00-3 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Dr. Joe Dromsky, on behalf of Nell Hancock, requesting a Special Exception to establish a vehicle parking area per Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta 38 Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way line of Franklin Lane, 107.5 feet east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Eve Street and Franklin Avenue. District 1. 2.Z-00-6 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Isaac Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3A (Multiple- family Residence) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 139.0 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Burdeshaw Lane and Wheeler Road (2556 Wheeler Road). District 1. 3.Z-00-7 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. F. Franke, Jr., on behalf of W. F. Franke, Jr., et al. And Vanessa M. White, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Hickman Road and Kings Way (2101-2115 Kings Way). District 3. 4.S-580 - Buckhaven Place Subdivision - Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Herbert Homes, Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval of Buckhaven Place Subdivision. This subdivision is off of Buckhaven Lane, 257.19 feet east of Bertram Road and contains 51 lots. 5.S-597 - South Park Commons, Tract “A”, Phase I - Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George L. Godman & Associates, on behalf of The Lifsey Group, requesting Final Plat Approval of South Park Commons, Tract “A”, Phase I. This phase is located off South Park Drive, 356.0 feet south of the right-of-way of Tobacco Road and contains 6 lots. 6.ZA-R-111 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County to add an inert landfill as a permitted use in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone. FINANCE: 7.Motion to approve award to the low bid Bobby Jones Ford for Ford Crown Victoria P71 Police Interceptor Automobiles for Model Year 2000 (Bid #99-138). (Approved by Finance Committee January 10, 2000) 8.Motion to approve award to the low bid Willoughby Ford for Ford Taurus Midsize Automobiles for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-140). (Approved by Finance Committee January 10, 2000) 9.Motion to approve award to the low bid Willoughby Ford for Ford Ranger Compact Pickup Trucks for model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-141). (Approved by Finance Committee January 10, 2000) 39 10.Motion to approve affixing and publishing qualifying fees for 2000 election. (Approved by Finance Committee January 10, 2000) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 11.Motion to approve a policy that provides guidelines for the cleaning of vacant lots and lots with vacant buildings. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 10, 2000) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 12.Motion to approve Resolution to close a portion of Monte Sano Extension as a public street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10, 2000) 13.Motion to grant four utility easements at a purchase price of $6,409.00 across Parcels No. 009, 012, 014 and 016 of Tax map 87-2 that Georgia Power needs in the Hyde Park and Aragon Park area for a new power line to be constructed. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10, 2000) 14.Motion to authorize allocation of Sales Tax Phase III Administrative Funds for the Combined Sewer Overflow Projects and the Wetlands Project to utilities with funds used for capital projects. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10, 2000) 15.Motion to approve Change Order Number Three with Mabus Brothers Construction in the amount of $155,941.80 to be funded from the project construction account for the Cook Road & Glendale Subdivision Improvements Project (CPB# 323-04-296823403) of the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10, 2000) PUBLIC SERVICES: 16.Motion to approve a request by Jay Jahn for a on premise consumption beer license to be used in connection with Pizza Central located at 1858 Central Avenue. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 17.Motion to approve a request by Tommy Dudley for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with M & C Spirits located at 3334 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 18.Motion to approve a request by Johnny Glasker for an on premise consumption liquor & beer license to be used in connection with Johnny’s Supper Club located at 1669 Olive Road. No Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 19.Motion to approve a request by Michael Schepis for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The 40 Modjeska Theater located at 813-817 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 20.Motion to approve a request by Brent Allen for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Red Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 21.Motion to approve a request by Jesse Hooper for a gameroom license to be used in connection with Pot of Gold Gameroom located at 1511 North Leg Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 22.Motion to approve a request by Scott Levin for a gameroom license to be used in connection with The Playground Lounge located at 873 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 23.Motion to issue hold harmless waiver for gymnasium at schools and churches used for youth and adult basketball leagues. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) 24.Deleted from the agenda. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 25.Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held January 4, 2000. APPOINTMENTS: 26.Reappoint Mr. R. A. McElmurray, Jr. to the General Aviation Commission - Daniel Field representing District 8. ATTORNEY: 27.Motion to approve amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code to authorize code enforcement officers to issue citations to any person violating any provision of the Augusta Richmond County Code or any ordinance of Augusta Richmond County which relates to drainage or soil erosion and sediment control, subdivisions and zoning, water and sewage, alcohol and business licensing, and private property maintenance codes including specifically Section 7-2-1, Section 7-3-1, Section 7-1-16 and Section 3-5-134. (Approved by the Commission January 4, 2000 - second reading) 28.Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code to bring the Code in line with the Georgia Code. (Approve by the Commission January 4, 2000 - second reading) Mr. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. 41 Mayor Young: Motion and second on the consent agenda. Do you have any zoning or alcohol licenses? Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to the zoning matters, I will read the petition request, the location, and if there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? Item 1 is a request for the concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a special exception to establish a vehicle parking area on Eve Street and Franklin Avenue. Item 2 is a petition request from Isaac Johnson requesting a change of zoning from a zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to a zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residence) on property located at 2556 Wheeler Road. Item 3 is a petition for concurrence requesting a change of zoning from a zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest corner of Hickman Road and Kings Way. Item 4 is for Buckhaven Subdivision, final plat. Item 5, South Park Commons, Phase I, final plat. Item 6, a request from the Planning Commission to add an inert landfill as permitted in Heavy Industry Zone. Are there any objections to those Planning petitions? For the benefit of any objectors for our liquor applications: Item 16, a request from Pizza Central located at 1858 Central Avenue for a beer license. Item 17, a retail package liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with M & C Spirits, located at 3334 Washington Road. Item 18, a request for on-premise consumption liquor and beer license to be used in connection with Johnny’s Supper Club. No Sunday sales. Item 19, approve a request for an on-premise consumption liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with the Modjeska Theater. 42 Item 20, a request for an on-premise liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with the Red Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way. Are there any objectors to those liquor application requests? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question of the staff on #16. Did that get resolved between the business and the neighbors? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. We got a letter on that today, Mr. Bridges. I think the Clerk has it. Mr. Bridges: I’ve seen that, but I just wanted to confirm that. Clerk: We’ll read this into the record. This is an agreement between the owner, Mr. Jay Jahn, and the objectors, the neighbors. [Reading] This is to confirm our telephone conference today wherein we discussed your above petition and my representatives of varied neighbors who oppose the same for reasons which have been expressed. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our agreement in principle which today as follows: In exchange for the neighborhood residents withdrawing their opposition to your license petition, you agree that for so long as the beer license remains in existence, that you will (a) not attempt to extend your operating hours past 10 p.m. in the evening and (b) not seek to obtain a liquor license for on-site consumption. And this was signed by Mr. Jahn. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges, anything else on that? Mr. Bridges: That’s all. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, that was my point, and I wanted it understoodthat as a part of the passage of the consent agenda that those condition in Mr. Paine’s letter agreed to by Mr. Jahn attached to his license, which Madame Clerk, the highlighted part says he’d not attempt to extend the operating hours past 10 p.m. and not seek to obtain a liquor license for on-site consumption. Could we just attach that as part of the conditions? Clerk: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Anybody want to pull any of the items? All right, we have a motion and a second for the consent agenda as presented. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Speaker: I have a question on #18. 43 Mayor Young: A question on 18? Mr. Speaker: Correct. We don’t think that really should have been on the consent agenda with respect to no Sunday sales. Mayor Young: Are you here to speak against that? Mr. Speaker: Yes. Mayor Young: We asked for objectors and you didn’t indicate that at that time. Mr. Oliver: He’s here to speak for Sunday sales, Mr. Mayor. He represents the applicant. Clerk: The Committee disapproved Sunday sales in committee. Mayor Young: Well, let’s do this. Let’s pull Item 18 out and then we’ll hear it separately. Let’s go ahead and move forward with a vote on the consent agenda minus Item 18. Clerk: And 24. Mayor Young: We’re taking a vote on the consent agenda minus Item 18 and Mr. Batson, we’ll take it up in just a moment. (Vote on consent agenda) Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Now let’s move ahead to item 18. Clerk: Item 18: Motion to approve a request by Johnny Glasker for an on premise consumption liquor & beer license to be used in connection with Johnny’s Supper Club located 1669 Olive Road. No Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, 2000) Mayor Young: Mr. Walker? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion we deny it. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: A motion and second to deny it. Mr. Walker, could you tell us about this one, please? 44 Mr. Walker: yes, sir, we have approved the beer and wine license. They meet all the requirements and went through Committee. We did not recommend the Sunday sales. He does not meet the requirements of a full-fledged restaurant. He has been open, had an alcohol license the last two or three years and we cannot substantiate any kind of food sales whatsoever. He does have a kitchen, but Mr. Harris inspected it and there was no food present and we recommend denial of the Sunday sales license. Mayor Young: We have a motion on here to deny him a license period. Mr. Oliver: I think the intent was to approve– Mr. J. Brigham: Let me state the motion. Mr. Oliver: –but to deny the Sunday sales. Mayor Young: State the motion, please. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we are making the motion that passed Committee, which will approve his license and deny Sunday sales. That is the motion that is on the floor. That is the motion that’s supposed to be on the floor. Mayor Young: Well, I thought that was the intent of what you wanted to do, but that’s not what was said. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I have a question for Stewart. Is there also a time limit that you will look at him at a specific time to see if he will be eligible for– Mr. Walker: We recommend six month and we will audit him at the end of six months, and if he meets the requirements, we’ll bring it back to the Commission. And we need that because if you deny it, he has to wait a year. We could bring it back in six months. Mayor Young: Mr. Batson, you wanted to speak? Mr. Batson: Yes, Mr. Glasker wanted to speak. Mayor Young: Okay. This is the petitioner. Mr. Glasker: Johnny Glasker, 132B Shady Grove Drive, Martinez, Georgia. To speak on the six-month time limit, then come back before the Commissioners, they had me to come back once before and then they straight-out denied the license even though I was in compliance and I had had a liquor license. So I’m asking and requesting today that they say that I’m not in compliance but I am in compliance with the regulations as far as the regulations that are set forth by the Commission as the local ordinances and licenses. My place, as far as being a restaurant, does qualify for those things. I have, from the Health Department, I made a 91. It has always 45 been on the honor list as far as being clean. My restaurant has been in the business, I think since 1991. I’ve had no citations, no oppositions, no problems. As far as my restaurant is concerned, I was audited, I think about two years ago from the License Inspector’s office. Since a few years back I got sick, so depending on my health, since I’m an individual-owned and operated business, I do basically the bartending, most of it, but I hire people when I have on occasion to have a large number of people coming in, then I hire people to cook, work behind the bar, do things for me, and I pay them accordingly. They can say that I have no proof whatsoever of ever having a restaurant or selling any food there. That’s not so. And it’s to be challenged on those premises. I would appreciate it, sir, through this Commission, that if I am allowed to be granted the license because of my consistency, being in business for a period of ten years or better, as a restaurant, but some people feel that since I have a large crowd of people on Saturday nights, they say it’s strictly a nightclub because of the dancing and things on Saturday nights, maybe. But we do serve food almost any given time that we’re open. As far as Mr. Harris being in the restaurant last Friday morning to see if I was operational, I did comply. I had everything there that he needed, because we set up an appointment for me and for he, and for I to be there. When he came in, he inspected the place, I got 40 chairs, tables, I got a full-fledged restaurant for State compliance, hood, vent, I spent about $7,000 getting in compliance and it’s been that way since I’ve been in compliance. And if they say that I’m not a restaurant, then he didn’t inspect and it’s just on a personal level. It’s not because we changed the business. I have basically documentation that I am, from the Health Department, that it is a restaurant and from his office I have, when I got my business license, it cites that I am a restaurant. Mayor Young: All right. Any questions here for Glasker? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I just want to ask Mr. Walker, would you just explain to us in simple terms why you are not recommending Sunday sales? Is it a law that he is not meeting? Mr. Walker: He has not met, as far as we can tell, he has not met the 50% food sales. He’s been open all last year. The year before that he was open, but he had a alcohol license. When he’s open, we don’t know. And he’s supposed to file mixed drink, 3% mixed drink excise tax. None of his excise tax forms showed any food being sold during that period. So we’ve got no way to know. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s the criteria you use? Mr. Walker: That is the criteria with everybody. That you have to sell 50%. Mayor Young: Any discussion? Any other questions? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please vote. Mr. Williams votes no. Motion carries 9-1. 46 Clerk: Item 30: Z-00-1 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mt. Calvary Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception to establish church related activities as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the east right-of-way line of Mill Street, 204 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Mill Street and the northwest corner of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Conklin Avenue (1420 & 1422 Mill Street and 1427 Chestnut Street). District 2. Mayor Young: Are there any objectors? Okay. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion caries 10-0. Clerk: Item 31: Z-00-1 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ollie Parrish, on behalf of Earl Parrish, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the south right-of-way line of Richwood Drive, 535 feet, more of less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Parkwood Drive and Richmond Drive (2388 Richwood Drive). District 6. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Bridges: Is the motion to deny? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mayor Young: Are there any objectors to this petition present? Mr. Patty, can you tell us why y’all recommended denial of this, for the record? 47 Mr. Patty: This is to be a staff-operated home, keeping up to six people in a neighborhood. There were objectors. They questioned whether or not it would be Veterans or the nature of the clientele and the Commission felt it wasn’t suitable for this area. Mayor Young: Is the petitioner here? Would the petitioner like to be heard? Let the record show there’s no response. All right, gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor to deny this and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 32: Z-00-4 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Frank Sweeney requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Elizabeth Drive and Peach Orchard Road (3420 Peach Orchard Road). District 8. Mr. Sweeney came up, and he had a supporter who had to leave because he had to go to work. He wanted the record to note that. Mayor Young: Do we have– Mr. Speaker: No, that was opposition. Clerk: Opposition, oh. Mayor Young: Is there any opposition present in the room? Mr. Speaker: Yes, there is. Mayor Young: Would you just hold your hands up and we could get a count right now. (4 objectors noted) Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, would you like to walk us through this one? Mr. Patty: This is a request for Professional zoning at this intersection that there about four blocks of residential properties in this section of the east side of Peach Orchard Road. There have been a couple of rezonings up at an intersection, I believe that’s Satcher Boulevard and Peach Orchard Road, but the zoning in this area is pretty clean along 25. Our concern is for the precedent you would set by zoning this Professional, whether it be Professional or Commercial. A lot of these houses are similarly situated. Probably not the ideal residential environment, but still a lot of owner occupancy and we feel that commercializing this area would result in a driveway every 75 feet or so on Peach Orchard Road and a bad decision. Hopefully when the 48 time comes for this transition to occur, maybe we can look at al these properties at the same time, combine some driveways, and come back with planned development. But as of right now, we feel that Residential is the best zoning for the property. Mayor Young: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. Speaker: He’s out of town. Mayor Young: Would you like to take a moment and address the Commission on that, sir? Please give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Josey: My name is Kyle Josey and I’m at 105 Windam Josey Trail. The property has been vacant for several years. My company, along with another company, has had it listed for two years, and we’ve had it listed as Residential but everybody that we’ve seen, that I’ve shown the property to, when they look out the front window they see Peach Orchard Road and it’s something they don’t want. And I have a buyer for it now and the stipulation is that he have it zoned P-1 before he purchases the property. He wants to put a small insurance office there, and the insurance office is not going to like a McDonald’s or anything that’s going to have a high volume of traffic. He’s proposed, also–we had some people that protested, the person that had come and protested said there was going to be a lot of parking on Elizabeth Drive. He has proposed to add additional spaces there in the yard to have parking inside the property that is adequate. And there was a petition going around in the neighborhood that claimed that the people that were buying were going to put a car lot there. A car lot would have a lot of cars in front and have a lot of business. But an insurance office, a lot of his business is done through the mail, and I don’t believe personally he would have that much traffic, no more traffic than it would if somebody with a teenaged boy, a teenaged son. And the people that I talked to that did sign the petition, all of them did state that the person that was going around with the petition said it was supposed to be a car lot. The 14 or 15 I saw [inaudible] talking with each resident, and the lady next door agreed to [inaudible] and the other people there [inaudible] say they would like it as an insurance office there because the people, like I said, it’s been vacant and it would be an improvement, as far as possible use. Mayor Young: So what you’re saying is you have sales contract that’s contingent on the change in zoning; is that correct? Mr. Josey: Yes, sir, and the house is vacant and I think that to make an improvement in that area. Mayor Young: Let’s hear from the objector. Do you want to speak for the whole group? Mr. Johnson: I can. 49 Mayor Young: Would you give us your name and your address for the record, please, and tell us what you want us to know? Mr. Johnson: Mr name is Burles Johnson. I live at 1938 Elizabeth Drive. I’ve been a resident there for about 20 years now. The people sitting back here have been living there for 30, 40 years or longer. This is an older, established neighborhood. We like our neighborhood the way it is. If you drive up and down Peach Orchard Road right now, you’ll see that it’s commercialized all along the road, up until you get past Satcher, and then it starts turning back into a residential area. We as the people in the neighborhood that signed his petitions would like to keep our neighborhood as a neighborhood. Once you let someone come in and change the zoning, who is to say this insurance agent isn’t going to move out six months or a year from now, sell it to someone else to do something else with? We as a neighbor, as people living in the neighborhood, like our neighborhood. We feel that we want to keep it that way and we feel sorry if you look out and see Peach Orchard Road, but the Sweeneys lived there for 40 years and they didn’t ever have any problem looking out on Peach Orchard Road. We would like to ask the Board to keep our neighborhood as a neighborhood and if this gentleman wants an insurance office, there’s plenty of commercial property up and down Peach Orchard Road that he go rent, small office, probably spend less money, and have all the parking spaces he wants without destroying our neighborhood. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, in looking at the map of this, this gentleman is correct. There is residential housing all up and down Peach Orchard, up until it becomes a business district. And this would be very close, if it’s not spot zoning, George, it’s very close to it, so I recommend we concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny. Mr. Colclough: I second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny the request, please vote aye. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, while I’m here, I know this isn’t on the agenda, but across the street we have a house that built a six-foot fence, stockade fence across the front. Can I get someone to look into that. Mr. Bridges: Could you give that to Mr. Patty, please, sir? He’ll take that. Mayor Young: We’ll take care of that. Just see Mr. Patty over there and he’ll get it passed along. Mr. Johnson: Thank you. Motion carries 10-0. 50 Mayor Young: We’ve already started the neighborhood deputies program here. All right. Next item. Clerk: Item 33 - Z-00-5 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Emma Hightower Perry requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Twelfth Avenue intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Dyer Street (1119 Twelfth Avenue). District 2. Mayor Young: Are there any objections to this petition that are present today? The objectors, if you oppose the zoning change, please raise your hands so we can get a count. If you are against the zoning change. You don’t want it. If you don’t want it, raise your hand. Now is the time to be counted. (13 objectors noted) Mayor Young: We’ll give y’all extra credit for sticking it out today. Mr. Patty, if you would please come forward and bring us up to speed on this item. Mr. Patty: This is a request to place a manufactured home under our definition in our Zoning Ordinance on a lot that’s current vacant, currently a garden, in this area, a few lots off of Grand Boulevard. That area is modest but well-kept homes. There are no manufactured homes in this area at the present time. We feel that it would be spot zoning and set a precedent that you wouldn’t want to set. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Is the petitioner here? Are you Ms. Perry? Ms. Perry: Yes, I am. Mayor Young: What would you like us to know about this, Ms. Perry? Ms. Perry: I want you to know the land is important to the family and I don’t want to get rid of it. I would like to put a home on it for my daughter. She has nowhere to stay. I’m from Philadelphia and I will be coming home within the next year because my husband, he is an invalid and I have to take care of him, and in Philadelphia you have to walk up and down so many steps, and I just want to come home on my land. I was born and raised here. It’s just pathetic the way people fight me. This home I’m getting, it make the neighborhood look beautiful. I have a corner lot. It’s not nothing on wheels. It’s a beautiful home and I want to come home. Mayor Young: Are there some people here with Ms. Perry who support her petition? Let’s get a count of that. 51 (6 supporters noted) Ms. Perry: One had to go to work, Your Honor. Mayor Young: That’s fine, Ms. Perry. Thank you. Is there anything else you’d like to say to the Commission? Anything you’d like to add? Ms. Perry: I would like to say I hope this pass in God’s will, bless all of you, I miss my home and I want to come home. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you very much. Do we have anybody who’d like to speak for the objectors? Your name and address for the record, please. Ms. Clark: My name is Belle Saxon Clark. 1003 Seventh Avenue. To Mayor Young, to all of our Commissioners, and especially to our representatives Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams. I represent Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc.. Rev. Larry Fryer is our President. Yours truly is Vice President. I’m sorry Rev. Fryer could not be with us. He had a doctor’s appointment. We ask that you do not rezone this area for trailers to be put in our area. Mr. th Green live across the street from this lot. On 12 Avenue and Dyer Street. Mr. Green has remodeled his grandparents’ home and brought it up to a beautiful, beautiful home. We are grateful to Mr. Green for coming back to our area and redoing his grandparents’ home. Whenever a trailer is put in your area, it lowers the value. Therefore, the value of his home will be lowered. We have single-dwelling homes in our area and our area has been upgraded, thanks to you. We have nice sewers, we have paved streets, sidewalks, and lights, thanks to you. And it makes our area look real good. But we know if these trailers are put in our area, it would lower the value of all our homes. And we are zoned for one, then here come everybody else. So we do not want trailers in our homes. We are looking good. A lot of us have worked hard and are retired in our area and we appreciate our homes and we intend to stay there and we want the value of our homes to be kept up to the value it should be. We welcome new neighbors to our community, but the only request that we ask that they build a constructed home like we have built and enjoy their residence like we do. I’m very sorry, but we do not want trailers in our area. There are several members present and some that came that had to leave. I do have a list of names that submitted from our area of petitioners who would like for this to be denied. Thank you for listening to my request. Mayor Young: Thank you, Ms. Clark. Do the Commissioners have any questions or any comments? Do we have a motion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I’ll move that we concur with the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second. 52 Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny the request, please vote ay. Mr. H. Brigham abstaining. Motion carries 9-1. Mayor Young: Thank you. So the Commission disapproved your request. You will not be able to put the mobile home there. Ms. Perry: Your Honor, Your Honor. Wait. I have to say this. It’s not–wait a minute. It’s not– Mayor Young: A manufactured home. However you want to define it. Your request has been turned down by the Commission. Next item please. Ms. Perry: Excuse me. Mayor Young: We’re– Ms. Perry: I know you’re finished. Mayor Young: We’re finished with that item and we’re moving on to our next order of business. Thank you. Go ahead Madame Clerk. Clerk: Item 34: Consider the appointment of Mr. Charles Rivers to the Downtown Development Authority due to the resignation of Mr. Bill Thompson. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Next item. Clerk: Item 35: Discuss location of city offices. Mayor Young: Let me ask at this point do any of the Commissioners need to take a short recess before we get into this? Okay, we’ll declare a five minutes recess. (Brief recess) 53 Mayor Young: We’ll come back to order. Madame Clerk, the next item? Clerk: Item 35: Discuss location of city offices. Mr. Oliver: Several Commissioners have indicated that they want to either try to resolve this issue or determine a methodology to resolve the issue, and what we’re here to ask today and we’ve tried to provide the back-up information that Commissioners have requested. We’ve also tried to provide information as requested to the new Commissioners because they were not involved in all the interim meetings that were had, and what we’d like to do is to just try to come up with either–make a decision or come up with a game plan to make a decision, because as your work construction costs escalate about three percent per year, so regardless of the decision that you make, it does become more costly as time passes. Now we also recognize the fact that we want to make sure we make the right decision. But what I’d like to get a sense from the Commission relates to how you’d like to proceed, whether you’d like to look at any specific location, if you’d like to have another workshop, or what your desire is. Mayor Young: The Chair would just state for sake of conversation this afternoon that we do have an issue of security at the Municipal Building before us and we have a committee working on that, and it’s going to be very difficult to develop a long-term security plan for this building until the Commission determines what functions you want to have in this building so we know what type of security is needed. We don’t want to spend a lot of money on security issues in this building which we’ll have to come back in and spend a lot more money changing.. So there is some sense of urgency in that regard to making a decision about the long-term plans for this building and the use of this building. Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor, for your benefit and I don’t recall if you were on the Commission at that particular time or not, but previously the Commission had decided that this building was going to remain a courts building and they directed that Administration be looked at the relocate to one of three possible locations. Those three locations were Davison’s on Broad Street, the Belk building at Regency Mall, and a new building on county-owned property. And at that particular point in time, it was Damascus Road, and because of the size and configuration of the property, the Damascus Road site was subsequently thrown out. But that was the direction of the Commission at that particular point in time. And I don’t remember, there may have been reconsideration of that. Mayor Young: The floor is open. Let’s start over here with Mr. Bridges and go around. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Randy, I know we turned down the location over on Damascus Road for various reasons. Is there other County property that a building could be located on that might reach consensus of the Commissioners that we could consider? 54 Mr. Oliver: I think Mr. Acree can address that. You mean that we currently have under our control? Mr. Bridges: Yes. You know, Marvin Griffin Road, Phinizy Road, somewhere like that. Mayor Young: The Pension Fund owns the property on the riverfront. Mr. Oliver: They’d love to sell it. Mayor Young: Mr. Acree? Mr. Acree: Mr. Bridges, by my calculations we need approximately seven acres to accommodate the building and the parking adequate for County offices and we don’t own any currently that has configuration for adequate size that would accommodate that much parking. We do own some parcels that size but part of them are encumbered by wetlands and that sort of thing. Mr. Bridges: Is there some recommendation you could bring back to us? I mean we could continue to consider Davison’s and Regency. I don’t think today, unless I’m wrong, Willie, I don’t today there’s the votes to do either one of them, and I wonder if there’s other options we could look at along with these two, that even if we don’t own the property, that might be an ideal setting for a central location, to centralize the offices. Maybe there’s some property adjacent that if we own a piece of property, maybe there’s property adjacent we can buy. If there is. Or is there something else we can look at. Mr. Acree: We have not investigated properties that we do not own. Mr. Oliver: Well, one of the issues– Mr. Bridges: Maybe we should consider that, then. Mr. Oliver: One of the issues, though, I think that we need to look at is we need to kind of limit our search to a certain area, because doing a search over the total county there’s a lot of land in the total county, and if there’s any way possible, I think that that’s appropriate, but I’d like to limit that search to a given area.. That would be the only thing I would request, because just to look for parcels of ground, I’m sure we can come back with quite a few. Mr. Bridges: Well, given that we considered Davison’s to Damascus Highway, could we limit it between Bobby Jones and the river? Mayor Young: If I could just ask for a point of clarification, you said seven acres for building and parking. Is that surface parking or is that deck parking? Mr. Acree: That would be surface parking. 55 Mr. Oliver: Deck parking is about $7,000 to $8,000 a space. Surface parking is about, depending upon land costs obviously, is about $1,200 to $1,500. Mayor Young: Let’s–Mr. Williams did you have anything to say? Mr. Cheek to say or ask while we’re going around the table? Mr. Cheek: If we’re going to discuss this, I know there’s a lot of comment been made about the adverse economic impact moving roughly a third of the County employees out of this facility to Regency Mall. I think we need to look at those numbers. Or to any other location. Look at those numbers and make sure we’re not creating a problem downtown and answer that once and for all. And I hope we’ll move on with this issue. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, Mr. Mayor, we’ve been over this for the last couple of years, I guess, and maybe more than that. I think that the point that we’re going to have to decide on, hopefully today, as to the location. Whether we’re going to remain downtown or whether we’re going to move out somewhere else. And I hope that we can get a vote. If not, a vote on the particular place downtown, but more or less remaining downtown, because I know a lot of people have some thoughts about that. I don’t have a problem with that. We did a study, we’ve done the study, we did a sub-committee thing on this wherein we’ve narrowed it down to about three locations, and I think the point now is going to be we need to move off center and make some decisions, and I think today will be a good day to make a decision. If not, where, but the location, as far as the location is concerned, if we’re going to remain downtown. And I think if we’re going to do that, then I think we can work out the particulars of whether it’s the Davison’s building or whether build a new building or remain here or where in this particular building, but I think and I urge my fellow colleagues today to let’s make some kind of decision here. And for the record, I’m on record as downtown. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Shepard, did you want to add anything? Mr. Shepard: Briefly, Mr. Mayor. With apologies to my good friend Sylvia, I asked to write an article for her competitor, The Spirit, which Jerry Brigham joined and I can offer that as my position here. It was my position then and that’s that we ought to move these administrative offices out of this building over the Davison’s/Macy’s building and utilize and the deck that already exists over there, which is plenty of parking for everybody that we would move and the visitors there. Renovate this as a judicial complex, this Municipal Building. I point out to you that substantial numbers of my colleagues in the law have invested a lot of money in their offices around this judicial center. That’s for the same reason doctors invest money around a hospital. It’s convenience. We do two counties’ business here. I think the growth in our courts show that this is headed toward a judicial facility, and Mr. Mayor, I’d go ahead and make the motion that we do just that, 56 that we acquire the Davison’s building and we renovate it as our administrative offices and that we further renovate this building as a judicial center. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Okay. Motion and second. Mr. Henry Brigham, would you like to join in here? Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to talk about the idea of since, decided [inaudible] the idea of moving across town, I hope we haven’t yet, but just to look at it and see if that’s another option that we look at. We might not want to move everybody out to the south side of Augusta or cross town or whatever you want to say, but certainly it seems like to me that we have also look in this area to satisfy the judges or some of the other people who may be using this building other than just the persons on the Administrative staff. And I just want to make sure that the people who are going to be involved are happy about it, the D.A., the attorneys, the judges, or what have you, before we make a final decision as to where we will go. Now whether that can be done today [inaudible], I just don’t know. But certainly it ought to be discussed. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, this astute body was kind enough to appoint me to the Downtown Development Authority, and I attended my first meeting about a week ago. And I think that it’s the sentiment of the Downtown Development Authority to sort of refocus itself and really pushing for some more private investment downtown. In addition to probably the Davison’s building being able to accommodate what we want, we’ve got, Randy, I guess a $2 million parking deck that’s sitting up there vacant at this point that we can utilize. We have private investment already going on downtown. I can see that move being a catalyst to really make some things happen downtown. And so I embrace my colleague’s motion and second it and wish that you would seriously consider this move. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, anything you’d like to throw in at this point? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I guess as I was awakened this morning and read an article in the paper–since I don’t take the paper–let me just say this and maybe Sylvia needs to move down this way. I love her, but when you carry it back over the folks on [inaudible, get it right. I want to make the tape is running like it’s supposed to. Let me clarify something. I’ve taken some knocks and hits when the folks at the same paper were satisfied with the river being a squatters’ place. I made a decision in this same room, when the first money, even though the creative ideas and good friends of Mr. Kuhlke’s over at Augusta Tomorrow, but they didn’t have a quarter they were contributing. The first half-million dollars out of that came from minority development that was intended for the CSRA Business League. And I took some hits from it. But the overall good was for money to go downtown. To hire American Citicorp and Rouse Corporation. I live in the inner city. And by the way, that’s still downtown in case some folk have forgotten about that. So I have a personal commitment and I’ve made a voting commitment 57 when a lot of other folk wasn’t on board to deal with downtown. But let’s deal with the reality of what we’re actually dealing with. And if we’re going to be honest about this game, then let’s play it the honest way. First of all, I’m going to go down a series of things, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to abide by that rule that’s in there so I’m going to do them real quickly. #1, do we have a total cost factor on what it’s going to take to make this building a judicial complex, a total cost factor? No hidden ghost costs, no runaway train like 401 Walton Way was and we had to take it to go Phinizy Road. Do we have a real cost on what it’s going to take. And you’ve heard me use the statement many times every mule’s got to carry his own backpack. I’m going to direct this one to Mr. Oliver. Do we have a situation, you asked Mr. Oliver where are we going with this, how are we going to deal with this, what would you like to see done. One, I’d like to see publicly for us to put the judiciary in a situation of those folk that Mr. Brigham has named. Everybody who handles murder one down to traffic case. Let’s meet publicly with it, let them sign off on the fact that they can come in here. I think there’s a feeling, Mr. Mayor, in that old adage of where there are no [inaudible] secrets, I think we know what that answer is already. I think the legal community, yes, is committed to staying downtown, but will this building satisfy those needs that a professional judicial complex is needed in a growing county like Richmond to deal with the total court system, D.A.’s office, Solicitor’s, and everything else that we are going to need to put it in here. This look like a very big building for those purposes. Most of it’s taken up in space and elevators. Are you going to be able to do that or are we headed down a road, we talk about budgetary money, are we headed down a road–y’all are talking about one building, but in reality, are we talking about really building two? Not just remodeling. Are you going to have to turn around and gut this one and this isn’t a very easy building to redo for other purposes. This isn’t sheetrock you see around this marble palace. Are you going to be able to do that and build it cost effectively and also have you got the cost figures for what it’s going to take for you to deal with downtown? Now, let’s talk about the political reality of it. And the reason why I say putting the judiciary up front to deal with it, all of us, the elected officials, it’s time we quit playing this game and y’all quit blaming it on Willie, okay? Let me tell y’all why Willie is going to come off of square one. Some of you have never been under a Court order or dealt with one. Bill knows, chairing the Citizens Committee, we worked together on it. Henry knew about it in the old County. You know what we had to do in reference to the fact of getting off square one on that runaway train. There are some other factors, gentlemen, I don’t think you want to return to, and the reason why I’m saying you better get the judiciary to publicly sign off on it is the fact that you don’t control the Court docket, you don’t control anything that loads up Phinizy Road, you have some hidden unknowns to a point that you have not even dealt with. And I think you need to face the political reality of getting everybody on board to deal with that. Now if that’s been done in some public setting, if I slept two days and don’t know about it, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Mayor, then I apologize to somebody, but I don’t think it has. I think you’ve confined it down to a real estate fight to where you dealt with one Regency Mall and you’ve dealt with one downtown. It wasn’t that I was chicken to vote. I hadn’t seen a fight yet I’d run away from. I’d do a political fight in a phone booth or an arena, I don’t really care where it takes place, but if I feel like I’ve got a cause and I’m right, I’m going to stick to it. My questions on this money deal have still not been answered. Somebody wants to interrupt my while I’m talking, you can. If you had a conversation with the judiciary that they are satisfied and everybody that mix with it 58 and you can put in here and you can do it cost effectively, then stop me and let’s talk about it. But I think somewhere you need to get out your planning stages where you do it for people and get back to doing it with people. They can teach you some very valuable lessons about an area that you don’t control. And what you’ll find yourself in is that if you’re not cooperative, is that you get into the mold of where you end up back there adding a jail part before you know it, adding some more deputies before you know it, unless everybody is singing off the same sheet of music. I think you need to return back to a workshop arena of where you put everybody in the same room, everybody sings off of it, Randy, we’ve got room for all of the judicial chillen and all th governmental chillen. Find somewhere to put them and put a price tag on it. Be able to make a decision. I made a decision. I think according to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Mayor, Constitution of the State of Georgia, and also the Bill that put us together as a government, that abstaining is a vote. It is a statement of vote within itself. There was nothing shifting or illegal about me presenting that position. If it’s got y’all attention by one vote, if what you did on either side was so great, then I don’t see a glowing consensus that’s been built to go either way. Now it may pass because of some things that happened this weekend. If that does, then all well and good. But I admonish you to at least explore the idea that you are doing the right thing that’s going to get everybody on board with where you are going. You’ve got $10 million that’s set aside already that we can stay right where we are and use this building to deal with the people that we control and explore the idea which I have not seen on the table yet anywhere of dealing with a first-class judicial complex or what numbers it would be or what we would compare it to. Any I said stop me anytime if you’ve got some– Mr. Kuhlke: Can I stop you? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, you sure can. If you can answer that question. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I think we paid a considerable amount of money for a space study. We got professionals to look at that. They came back to us with recommendations. The motion that’s on the floor is one of the recommendations made. I agree with you a hundred percent that we have got to look at details, but we’ve got to start somewhere. I’m not opposed to planning meetings or anything like that. But I think we need to focus on some things so that we can get started in this process. But I think there’s enough information in that space study to tell us what the estimated cost figures are. We have Mr. Acree who has gone through this just recently and come back to us with some information and costs, and the other thing is if we’re going to really pay attention to the judicial system, then what we need to do, we need to first maybe look at the administrative part of the government, we’ve got a facility that will accommodate our needs, the renovations can be made to that. Once they’re done, you can move into a new facility and then you open this building up to start doing what you’re going to have to do. I can tell you right now that you’re not going to add courtrooms in this building. The expansion of courtrooms is going to be outside of this building. Structurally you can’t put courtrooms in this building unless they’re little small ones and the judges don’t want small ones. So I can tell you that right now. So all I’m saying is that sure we’re going through the planning process. But we’ve got to get started somewhere and we need to focus on something. 59 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, may I rebut that? I agree and we work quite well together, Bill. You keep going back, many of you to the study that we paid for. We paid for a study also on the jail. You know what that was about real well. You served as Chairman of the Citizens Committee. Some of us had to fight folks there and in other places to get off that to quit building the tower of Babel cause we would have still been over there 30 to 50 million dollars with a cost overrun if we had not taken the free land that the State gave us, borrowed the $32 million, paid for it, got into it five months ahead of time, $2 million under the cost of it. We did studies on that, too. Just because you’ve done studies, just because you have a road map is not saying that that’s the only road map or that’s the one that’s going to lead you where you’re going. If we had followed that one for 401, we would have never passed another sales tax. It would have been gutted and the people would have turned it down because they would have known we did not know how responsibly to use money. I agree with you, yes, sir, we do have to start somewhere, but do we have to start wrong? We ought to start with the facts. I’ve still asked the question of what is it going to cost? You answered part of it so eloquently for me when you said courtrooms couldn’t go in here. Well, then that still means not only are we going to have renovate in here, we’re going to move then to Davison’s and then we’re going to also build some courtroom space somewhere else, whether it’s out there in the parking lot or in another building. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, let’s let Mr. Acree address that. He’s at the podium. Mr. Acree: Mr. Mays, the study from day one has indicated that if this was to remain a judicial center, you would have to add on. Mayor Young: Rick, would you speak up, please? Mr. Acree: From day one, the study has indicated that we would have to add on to this building, not only for courtrooms if this is to remain a judicial center, but if it remains administrative, because the existing core elevators and restrooms cannot cost effectively be made ADA compliant. That is in the study. That is part of the cost consideration. Mr. Mays: I cam read. We also will be building twice then, won’t we? We’ll be building there and somewhere else, am I correct? Mr. Acree: Regardless of which option you take. Mr. Mays: Okay, then, so neither one of us are really wrong. I’ve said that all the time and your study has said that, too. Mr. Oliver: And remember, Mr. Mays– Mr. Mays: What we’re saying to the general public, though, is though we’re going to abandon something and that this is going to be the perfect, cozy situation for the judiciary. That’s not the way that that’s being publicly perceived and presented. Not what’s in the study. 60 No disrespect to you, Rick, but that’s not the PR that’s coming out of this courthouse that that’s the way that’s going to be done. It’s as though this will be the judiciary and we’re going to put administrative down there, we’re going to do one building and everybody is going to take their little trunks and boxes and move over here and be happily ever after. You’re going to still have to build one and the only thing I’m saying is why hodge podge the deal? Get the cost on doing it right. Mr. Acree: Regardless of who remains in this building, be it administrative or judiciary, you’ve got to renovate and replace. The systems in this building are 40 years old, and they need to be replaced. Mr. Mays: You’re right, and that’s why I also voted to put the $10 million where it is, it’s sitting on ice so that we could do it. Mr. Oliver: And $10 million is not nearly enough money. Mayor Young: Let’s move along if we can to Mr. Jerry Brigham> Mr. Mays: Maybe we can find somebody else to build that like we found somebody else to build the jail then, Randy. Depends on what you want to do with the $10 million. It was enough to do it when we started. Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham has the floor now. Mr. J. Brigham: As far as my feelings and commitment, I have a commitment to the downtown central business district for whatever we do, whether we expand courtrooms or expand administrative area, I think that the commitment of this community is to the downtown central business district, no matter which way it falls, and I am committed to do that. I believe that is what my constituency wants and I will support that. Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough, would you like to add anything to the discussion? Mr. Colclough: We talked about needing land because we don’t have enough land that we control that we could build a facility. The State owns quite a bit of land in this county, and if the State gave us the land to build jails, then we can get land from the State to do whatever we want to do, whether to build a building for the judiciary system or for the administrative system. I would suggest that we look to the State who has a lot of land in this county, who would be willing to give it up, I suppose, to this government to do whatever we want with it. And my recommendation would be to ask the State for the land that we need. They gave us land for the jail free of charge. Why can’t we look at going to the State Properties Commission? Mr. Bridges: Where specifically? 61 Mr. Colclough: Atlanta, Geogia. Mr. Bridges: No, I understand. I men where in the county? Mr. Colclough: Wherever we look at building whatever we want to build, whether it be downtown, west Augusta, wherever, we need to look at building a facility that can accommodate the needs of either the government or the judiciary system. We need to put them–I mean we have a county right up the road from us who have a beautiful complex. Why do we want to renovate something when we can start anew and don’t have to add on to it? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: One correction. The State didn’t give us anything. They made property available. I believe this County spent funds obtaining that property. Mr. Colclough: Well, it didn’t come out of a real estate agency. I think if you go to the State, I think they’ll give you land for less money than you can purchase it from a real estate. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think anyway we look at it, we’re going to end up with two buildings somewhere. I think the motion was downtown for the Davison’s building. I think we need to consider that and get started because it’s evident we’re going to need another building. We’re going to need a place for the judicial system to be and we need to go on and vote on where we’re going to have it at. If we just look for land and it was brought up earlier that we can go several places, but we’ve got to look at the convenience, we’ve got to look at the downtown area which I think needs to be really considered because it is downtown. I think every city has got a downtown, we ought to be like any other normal city with downtown progress. Mr. Shepard stated about attorneys and I can understand that, the same as doctors being close to the hospitals. I think we really need to consider downtown. That’s my first choice. That’s all I have to say. Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion? Let’s go ahead and take a motion that’s been offered by Mr. Shepard. All in favor– Mr. Beard: What is the motion? I’ve heard so much. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard, would you like to restate? Mr. Shepard: I’ll restate my own motion. 62 Mayor Young: You want the Clerk to read it for you? Mr. Shepard: Sure. The Clerk can read it for me. Clerk: To renovate the Davison building for administrative offices and the Municipal Building as a judicial building. Mr. Oliver: I would note we’d have to bring back obviously a contract. That assumes a lot of things. I mean this isn’t something that’s just going to happen. We’d have to bring back a contract assuming we negotiated it for what we believe to be a fair price and you’d subsequently have to approve that, but at least that would give us direction of which way we are going to go. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Williams: This is to consider that, right? This motion is to consider Davison’s building? Mr. Oliver: No, what would happen, Rev. Williams, we would go to the owner of Davison’s building, try to negotiate a price. If we negotiated what we believe was a reasonable price, we would then come back to you all and ask for approval of that contract. At that point you may decide that that price is reasonable or not reasonable and then if you deemed it was reasonable, we would proceed into the design phase of that particular property. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, let me ask Randy this, just from the standpoint of how you would proceed. And this may give a degree of comfort to some of the Commissioners, that you negotiate the price, but then you obtain maybe an option so that Mr. Acree and his people can do due diligence on that building to see really if it will work. Mr. Oliver: Correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. And I don’t know whether that will require an amendment to– Mr. Oliver: No, we can handle that. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s just the procedure. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could address. Obviously, if Davison’s building is going to cost a billion dollars, we don’t want to be doing that sort of foolishness, but I mean I’d be happy to accept those caveats, Mr. Kuhlke, that you were proceed in a business-like and prudent fashion as recommended by the Administrator. If he can handle it administratively, fine. Let’s not be foolish. Mr. Oliver: No, we can handle that. 63 Mr. Shepard: You might think to support my motion is foolish, but that’s your privilege. I think it’s the only motion standing, so I mean. Mayor Young: I think the sales price on the property is pretty well known. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, is that the only motion that’s on the floor? Mayor Young: That is the only motion that is on the floor. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion, then. Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Mays, your substitute motion. Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion that in consideration of trying to get these complexes in the downtown area, that we have an open, open meeting with all the judiciary parties that are involved to set a scope on what we will need and do as a follow-up and guideline of using your study, Mr. Acree, but that we do this within a 30 day period and let everybody have their say on what they want to do in this process. I have no personal problem with the commitment to downtown, but I think we need to clear that air on what is needed, what real estate is not so much the cost in there, I think we need to look at what it’s going to cost to rebuild and to renovate and also what possibly we’re going to need and what the demand is going to be put on us to deal with this judicial complex under one roof, two, or three, and bring them into a public setting to be represented and to have their say in that public process. That is my substitute motion. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: We have a second on the substitute motion. Any discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’d just like to ask Mr. Mays now in this motion, we will be considering downtown? Mr. Mays: We’re considering a downtown overall scope of what we’re doing, because that involves your legal community as it exists, but also it takes into consideration what you do within Broad Street parameters, what you’re going to deal with with the judicial complex, and also we get out in the open what is the demand there. Gets back to my theory of every mule carrying its own backpack. I take enough criticism, you all do, too, for what office you hold by yourself. I think everybody needs to have their expression in this process, and I, too, am ready to put it to bed, but I want it to be truthful, I want it to be up front, I don’t want the messages brought back to me secondary that the judges are on board or somebody else is on board, put it on front, have a public meeting, let folk express what they want to do in there. Those that do not 64 show, hey, that’s just too bad. Then we have a process and reason for moving on. But then let’s discuss it openly and not somewhere else on the second or third floor and where we deal with the details of it. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mays, let me make sure I understood your motion. I seconded it but if what I understood is correct, you’re considering only a downtown location? Mr. Mays: Within the scope of that talk, and it is to have a meeting for discussion in that process. Mr. Bridges: But we’re only looking at a downtown location in this process; is that correct? Mr. Mays: That is what is in my motion. And to discuss that process of doing it for a meeting. That meeting no action could be taken because that is a meeting of a multi-group of people which puts us together in a brainstorming session to try and get this to a head, get it back to this Commission and make a decision. Now when we come back, that does not rule out the options that we can’t present other things on that table for somewhere else. But I think we need to decide what and what can go downtown and whether we’ve even got the space and availability to do everything you need to do downtown. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: My question to Mr. Mays is why can’t we do exactly what you’re talking about doing under Mr. Shepard’s motion? Mr. Mays: The difference in my motion and Mr. Shepard’s motion, is that when you put specifics into a motion and you start specifics into a motion, then I guess that’s going to be the conservative side of me saying that, when you put them in in terms of something specific, you start locking yourself down to only those parameters. It is naming a particular location. It is naming a building. It does not open, in all fairness if you’re going to invite somebody to a meeting, and you have one building that’s settled, you’ve pretty much made up your mind, part of your decision to do that. That takes away the openness of the meeting, it takes away the spirit of dialog. I think when you leave it open and put it on the table to say we want to do something that we can rejuvenate this downtown, we can do it in a manner in which we have a judicial complex, that we can protect the investment and the properties that the legal community has made, and also deal with the governmental administrative offices, then I think it lays the groundwork for everybody to be able to discuss it freely and openly. I think that’s what’s wrong with us when we go in, when we have a situation halfway settled or all the way settled, and then we invite folks in and say what do you think about it? 65 Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I have no problem with Mr. Mays’ motion and I think he made it clear as to where we’re going to be dealing with downtown, and as long as it’s that, that’s fine for me, because I think it may need looking into whether we’re going to have to build another building or what we can with renovation here. So I think it’s a motion that I could support. Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to, on whatever we do, to establish a door, if you will, to close this thing. Some time limit on it that we close it in two months or three months or something. I’d hate to see this thing be open-ended. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would like to commend Mr. Mays for setting a time line. I think that we’ve had the largest competitor to the facility plan that I recommended ruled out by the consultants at Rocky Creek Center, formerly Regency Mall, and we had narrowed it down to those two alternatives and I thought that really the only alternative left standing was what I proposed. But if you’re willing to do this in 30 days, if the seconder of my motion is willing to give you that opportunity to have that hearing, I could withdraw my motion, give you the 30 days, but I bet you we’ll be back with a variation of my motion in 40 days or 60 days. I’m willing for you to bring our judiciary in this room, I’m willing for you to bring the other officials. They’ve been consulted with before but I’m willing to go through that public process and I think we need to try to understand that somebody’s got to write a check for this and there’s not unlimited funds to do it, but yet we’ve got to go ahead and make a decision. The practical alternatives have been ruled out, really, from my standpoint, just down to the alternative of this building and Davison’s. And I’ve stated that before. I’m not going to clutter up the record with my arguments again, but if you want that opportunity, if the seconder of my motion is willing to give you that, say 30 days, I’m willing to withdraw it and you have the only motion. Mayor Young: You can’t. The Chair would state that you cannot withdraw a motion. Once you make a motion, it belongs to the Commission. The only way to deal with a motion is to vote it up or down. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, in– Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham had his hand up. Let’s go to him. Mr. Mays: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. 66 Mayor Young: Then we’ll come back to you, Mr. Mays. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, I want to support your motion, I really do, but you tend to practice law on me now and then. I’d feel a little bit more comfortable if you’ll define for me downtown is. Mr. Mays: I think we pretty much, and I mentioned where I live, I said that a few minutes ago. So you’re right in terms of downtown. But if we’re saying that in terms of north of the Gordon Highway, obviously that eliminates a whole lot of things in there because there is nowhere in there to put anything. My reason for putting it 30 days in there, Mr. Mayor, and I want to say this particularly for my colleague Mr. Bridges before he leaves, my reason for putting this 30 day deal in here is that when we met the other day at the Pinnacle Club and the possibilities of the south Augusta location not being involved, I think it gives us time and the spirit of, let’s be honest about something, this is a political body. This is not some anointed body with some holy oils. This is a political body sent here by folks with constituencies. Some in districts. These two fellows here with multiple districts. You with the whole city. But it gives them that may have to deal with the south Augusta location, I think it gives us the opportunity to bring that concept back to the table to support it in its form that it was presented in and to pledge this City’s assistance in trying to seek investors and of trying to develop that plan as it is so written that would not be a moving of government, but not exclusive of some satellite things, but of bringing that concept to the table and approving it hopefully within the next two weeks, and of being able not only to support from those that have been supporters of downtown, but then give the option then to the downtown supporters of being able to draw from those Commissioners in south Augusta of being able to support that complex because of where a commitment of the legal community is. But I think when we get into the specifics of a particular motion, that closes the door on the judiciary because you’ve got a made-up mind decision and they are going to tell you that before they come in. If it’s open, I think they’ll come. I think it also leaves the door open for people in the south for us to get that on board and support that concept fully running in terms of that way that it was presented. I don’t think because it was ruled out, Mr. Mayor, that it might be ruled out for the shifting of a total government, but I think we shouldn’t put it on a back burner, and I agree with you that we bring it up within and even before we have the meeting with the judiciary so that we can support that concept that was done at the Pinnacle Club in open meeting and present it in its form that we can get support for that. And I think that will help us to politically get off square one– {End of tape two) (Beginning of tape three) Mayor Young: Let’s move down here, once again to Mr. Bridges and then to Mr. Cheek. Mr. Bridges: Quickly, Mr. Mayor, there’s a couple of points I do want to make in regard to this conversation. I keep hearing that Regency Mall was ruled out by the Greater Augusta 67 Study. That’s not the case at all. In fact, according to the Greater Augusta Study, and I went to the meeting and read the study, it wants to preserve the same building that those of us who have supported a central city location have advocated, that’s the Belk building. It wants to use it for the same purpose that we would be using it for, office space. And so it fits in well with the plans of moving the administrative portion of the government to a central location to better serve the citizens. It fits in very well with them, and that statement was made by one of the developers at the first meeting that was held at Regency Mall. And in the second regard, I’ve heard this argument about we’ve got a parking deck that we could use for Davison’s. I’ve seen those plans that Mr. Monty and the Greater Augusta group has. That parking deck is not only take for the expansion of that area that they have planned, but they have about two others planned to be able to accommodate all the visitors that they expect for it. So you may plan on that parking deck right now for Davison’s, but in a few years, it’s not going to accommodate you and the visitors that are supposedly going to be coming here. So I don’t think the parking deck is as big a draw for the downtown building as some would like to have us believe. But those are my comments and I’ll cast my vote as it approaches. Mayor Young: All right. Thank your, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Cheek and then let’s go ahead and call the question. Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have to concur with Mr. Bridges. He stole a lot of my thunder. Let’s call the question. Mayor Young: The question has been called on the substitute motion. This is the proposal from Mr. Mays. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Oliver: So based on that, we will scheduled a workshop with the affected parties? Mayor Young: Within 30 days. Mr. Oliver: Within 30 days. Mayor Young: We’ll proceed from there. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Can we have this in the afternoon where people that work can come easily and attend, people that have regular jobs? Mayor Young: I think the scheduling really will hinge on the availability of the court officials, because that’s who we’re going to have at the meeting. 68 Mr. Cheek: This is going to be a public meeting, too? Mayor Young: Yes, it will be a work session. There will be no official action taken at the meeting. It’s strictly a work session. Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] perhaps a Saturday morning cause I think this is going to take several hours but I don’t know how receptive some of the participants may be to that. Mayor Young: You might ask the judges if Saturday morning is good with them. Mayor Young: The next item Mr. Wall explained to me that he actually had asked this be one item, 36A and 36B. I asked him how this broke down. The first item on here is the Ordinance as approved on December 21. The second, #37, is the Ordinance with the issues that I raised at the last meeting, which are included in the Ordinance but I gave you a copy of the e- mail he sent to me that broke out those specific items which y’all requested to have in writing. Mr. Wall said a vote on either one of these would be a second reading on the ordinance and I would encourage you to vote on what’s marked Item 37 on the agenda, which has the expanded definition of relative consistent with the nepotism policy in the personnel manual, the vendor definition, the expansion of the costs that would be prohibited unless approved by the Commission for representatives, and also it sets the reporting, the first date for the vendors to file their report. Item 36: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to add to Title 1 Chapter 1, a new Article 2 to provide for a Code of Ethics for employees and public officials of Augusta, Geogia; to renumber Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-1-11; to provide definitions; to establish rules of Conduct; to provide sanctions; to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to amend and renumber Code Sections 1-1010 through 1-10-22; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission December 21, 1999 - second reading - December 15 draft) Item 37: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to add to Title 1 Chapter 1, a new Article 2 to provide for a Code of Ethics for employees and public official of Augusta, Georgia; to renumber Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-1-11; to provide definitions; to establish rules of Conduct; to provide sanctions; to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to amend and renumber Code Sections 1-10-10 through 1-10-22; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. (January 11 draft) Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. 69 Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: #37. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second on #37. Any discussion? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, which one is this? Y’all done soaked my mind today, and I left my winning tie at home. Usually the one I wear, every time I don’t wear the tie I got my butt kicked. Clerk: We’re on Item 37. Mr. Mays: I know, but which– Clerk: The one the Mayor’s recommending. Defining the relatives. Mr. Beard: What about the original? Mayor Young: The original is 36. Mr. Mays: We got both of them on the same time? We’re on 37? Mr. Oliver: No, you pass either 36 or 37, not both of them. It would be either one. Mr. Mays: So we’ve got a motion to do 37? Mr. Oliver: Yes. Mr. Mays: I guess serving on the committee, I can’t backtrack on when I was on the committee. A substitute motion, then, to support the original one that we drew and drafted on 36. Mr. Beard: Second. Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mayor Young: All right, the question has been called. All in favor of the substitute motion, Item 36– 70 Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, could I ask a question? I hate to drag this on, but under your proposal, Mr. Mayor, maybe I should address this to you. But vendor, when we were working on this, a vendor had to come to the Clerk of Commission’s office, a new vendor, before they could talk to a Commissioner. That is not in your proposal; is that correct? Mayor Young: No, sir, this just defines, expands the definition of a vendor to someone who solicits to sell a contract with the City, in addition to those who already do business with the city. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Oliver: Neither version requires advance registration but rather requires filing after the fact. One version requires filing in January with the Clerk of Commission’s office as it relates to people currently doing business with the County, that’s 36. 37 requires filing with the Clerk of Commission for both vendors hoping to do business with the Commission, as well as those actually doing business with the Commission. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Is the Chair ruling we can’t discuss this? You called the question or can we? Mayor Young: The question has been called and under the rules of order, we need to move ahead with the vote. Mr. Shepard: All right, sir. Mr. Williams: Have you called the question on the substitute motion? Mayor Young: The question has been called on the substitute motion, which is Item 36, the original report from the Committee which was approved by the Commission on December 21 without amendment. All in favor of the substitute motion, 36, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion - Item 36) Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote no. Mr. Beard abstains. Motion fails 4-5-1. Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original motion. Any discussion on the original motion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could, in the substitute motion I thought there was a problem in Section 1-40, which has been corrected in the version in 37 which is on page 14, 71 because it did not set--this present motion would approve the ordinance that sets February 1, 2000 date for the disclosure report filing. The other was silent, so I thought it was quite ambiguous not to do. That’s why I think this is a more commendable version, and I notice that both vendor definitions also work in concert with Section 1-123, which talks about the receipt of the gift and the categories are lobbyist, vendor or any other person seeking to [inaudible] official action and I think that saves a lot of the definition of vendor. It may make it anybody solicited would be covered in that language, but I think it’s because of that time deadline, it was not stated in the original motion, this 37 is a more commendable version. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Al in favor of the motion– Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, yes, further discussion. I’m sorry I’m coming in late. Mayor Young: That’s fine. It’s late in the day. Mr. Bridges: The vendor thing, does both the vendor and the Commissioner have to make a disclosure? Mr. Oliver: Just the vendor. Mayor Young: Just the vendor. Mr. Bridges: Okay. So if they take us out to eat or it’s a gift over, for $101, the vendor is the one that makes the disclosure, not us? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: All right. Mayor Young: And that’s the issue that was addressed in the Grand Jury report, was with companies trying to do business with us on the front end, was the abuse that was cited by the Grand Jury. This just includes that. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, Item 37, please vote aye. Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote no. Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Beard abstains. Motion carries 6-2-2. Mr. Oliver: And that is the second reading. Mayor Young: Thank you, gentlemen. I commend you for that. All right, next item, 38. Clerk: Item 38: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 4 of The Augusta Richmond County Code entitled “Boards and Authorities” so as to provide 72 Qualifications for members, to provide for removal for failure to met such Qualifications; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission December 21, 1999 - second reading). Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion on Item 38? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: Item 39? Clerk: Item 39: Motion to approve funding in the amount of $1,200 for supplies used for framing of e.g., proclamations, certificates of recognition, etc. from account 101- 01-3314/60-11110 (Promotional). Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 40: Consider Resolution regarding Water Authority. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I asked that the next two be placed on there. We passed a resolution expressing our opposition to the creation of a Water Authority last year and I thought it wise due to the Legislature being in session that we let them know our hopefully negative wishes of having a Water Authority placed in Richmond County, and I offer this same resolution to the Commission and make it in the form of a motion that we send this resolution on to the Legislative Delegation. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mayor Young: Thank you very much for that motion, Mr. Bridges. I think it’s quite appropriate since we have a couple of new members on the Commission to redo that motion. All in favor of the resolution opposing the Water Authority? Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. 73 Mr. H. Brigham abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Clerk: Item 41: Consider Resolution regarding External Auditor. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, this is another one. In discussion with our Commissioners I placed on here. I don’t have any backup in there for it, but I think the motion should be to ask our legal representation to prepare a resolution in regards to– Randy, if you could express the desires on the External Auditor, such that we can maybe farm some of those duties out. Mr. Oliver: Currently, the way the process works is the Grand Jury chooses three firms and then you all pick one of those three firms. There are only three firms, frankly, that have the breadth of staff that’s sufficient to do that. What has been suggested and has been used in some other counties in Georgia is to go to an RFP process, and that would permit local firms to go together to provide all the services and you could provide, you know, different firms could co parts of it. It would also provide an opportunity to provide a larger firm, you know, may want to come in to do it, and we just think that’s a better process, it will provide both a better service and you’ll get what you want rather than the process now bringing back three firms, cause I know the first year I was here, the Grand Jury brought back three firms. Well, two of the three firms they brought back were either solo practitioners or only had one or two people and they clearly didn’t have the resources to do it. They subsequently changed that, but that’s what this would do. Mayor Young: As a point of inquiry, Mr. Oliver, would this open it up to firms from outside of Augusta being considered? Mr. Oliver: It would open it up to anybody. It would open it up to anybody who had a desire in doing it and it would make the selection based on qualification and who provided the best proposal, cause you could have a case where you may have two or three firms that go together, and each one of them brings a certain amount of expertise to the table. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I think it would bring more of the smaller firms into the process and I think it would be a good motion. I make it in the form of a motion. Mayor Young: Any discussion on this? Do we have a second on this? Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion–Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: What text do you actually suggest? There’s nothing here. I mean we’re sort of in the same situation we were on the other one. 74 Mr. Oliver: It was presented to the Delegation, Mr. Shepard. Mr. [inaudible] did the research and I’m trying to remember, I don’t remember if it was Athens Clarke County or one of them just changed to this process and they were very happy with it. I’d be happy to get the text of it. Mr. Bridges: I think we’re going to have to have a resolution actually brought back to us. I mean right now I’m just making the motion that the Attorney draw up the resolution. I think it needs to come back. Mr. Mr. Oliver: I will do this since we’re going to do that. I will send out to all members of the Commission what that proposal involves. Mayor Young: All right. Let’s go ahead and vote on it. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Item 42: Deleted from the agenda. Item 43: Deleted from the agenda. Mayor Young: I think we have one item on the addendum agenda. Addendum Item 2: Motion to approve the appointment of Silas Hawkins, Jr. and Paul David to the Community Service Board. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I’d like to nominate Mr. Silas Hawkins and Mr. Jack Cheatham, Dr. Jack Cheatham, to the Community Services Board. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mayor Young: Are there any other nominations? Mr. J. Brigham: I move the nominations be closed. Mayor Young: All in favor of these two nominations, Mr. Hawkins and Dr. Cheatham, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. 75 Mayor Young: Is there any further business to come before this body this afternoon? Mr. Mays: Yes. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification. On the ordinance and voted for both of them because [inaudible] but on the ethics ordinance, Randy mentioned a minute ago the second reading. Was that the second reading? Mr. Oliver: Mr. Wall indicated to me, and I think he did to several of you all, that either one because the changes weren’t significant, that that would be deemed a second reading, which would make it [inaudible] force and effect. Mr. Mays: Okay, as long as it’s deemed that way and we voted in that language. I know that the day we voted [inaudible] we allowed the [inaudible] to put on. I just wanted to make sure nobody came back technically and made [inaudible]. That’s not going to change my vote for supporting it, but I just wanted to make sure. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, anybody at any time can disagree with Mr. Wall, so it could come back. Madame Clerk, I would ask that you send a copy of the Ethics Ordinance to the Grand Jury and make sure that they have that and also a copy to GMA. Thank you very much. If there’s no further business, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. [Meeting adjourned.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission