Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2000 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS June 20, 2000 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough, Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Lee Beard, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Sharon Caldwell. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Proclamation: Korean War Veterans Mr. Mayor: …recognizing the Korean War veterans from our community, and this is a joint effort with Fort Gordon and with the Mayor’s office, and everybody involved, the Augusta- Richmond County Historical Society, Congressman Norwood’s office, and the VA. I’d like the representatives to please come forward. I think we have some of the veterans groups here. Are there any veterans groups? We have a proclamation to present. Clerk: [reading] In recognition of the Korean War Veterans Day, whereas since the founding of our nation, American men and women have given of themselves to preserve the ideals of freedom of democracy at home and abroad; and Whereas, from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953 United States forced valiantly fought as more than 135,000 North Korean troops invaded South Korea in at attempt to seize the southern half of the peninsula from Communist forces; and Whereas, more than 75,000 Georgia men and women served during the Korean War, with 740 killed in action, 140 wounded in action, 97 who were made prisoners of war, and 178 who are still unaccounted for; and Whereas, it is our duty to educate every generation on the lessons and historical impact of the Korean War in saving a nation from enslavement and preserving peace, freedom and prosperity; and 2 Whereas, we remember those men and women who have served the United States of America with distinction and valor as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and recognize the value of their sacrifice and the honor of their courage; Now, therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim June 25, 2000 as Korean War Veterans Recognition Day in Augusta, and encourage our citizens to observe with appropriate ceremonies and activities; In witness whereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to th be affixed this 20 day of June, 2000. Mr. Mayor: General Richardson, I’ll present this to you and ask that you receive it on behalf of all the Korean Veterans in Augusta and those associated with the United States military. We are indeed proud of what our ancestors did and those who came before us 50 years ago to fight for freedom on the Korean peninsula, and I know you still have troops serving there today, in an area that’s still very volatile. We thank you for that. Gen. Richardson: Thank you very much. A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, unless there’s a war about to break out, you’re welcome to stay with us. It could be quite exciting this afternoon. Gen. Richardson: No war on the [inaudible], but certainly a major war in Signal Towers this afternoon if we did that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with our delegation. Augusta Metropolitan Convention & Visitors Bureau Mr. Barry White Re: ’99 Tourism numbers Clerk: Our delegation is the Augusta Metropolitan Convention & Visitors Bureau, Mr. Barry White, regarding the ’99 tourism numbers. Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I’m here to just share some information that came from the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism a few weeks ago and it’s good news. Tourist expenditures in Augusta and Richmond County increased 6.8 percent in 1999, more than $403 million for Augusta and Richmond County. The report also stated that 284 businesses in Augusta are supported by tourism, and that’s an increase of almost 3 percent. And jobs in those businesses increased 3.5 percent. More than 6,400 jobs are supported by tourism in Augusta. And local tax revenues increased by 6.8 percent, to more than $12 million for the city. The vast majority of this spending comes in three categories; that’s shopping, hotels and 3 restaurants. The CVB is currently working with some staff members at Augusta State University to determine the impact of recent hotel development in the city of Augusta. In the past three years, we’ve had seven new hotels open in, which contribute more than 600 rooms to our hotel inventory. Currently we have two more hotels under construction. People are building hotels in Augusta, banks are lending money to the hotels and to the construction companies. Because visitation is up, business is good, and it’s good to do business here in the hospitality industry. We’ve also seen the opening of more restaurants and retail establishments than we can keep up with. It was actually nice to hear yesterday at the sign ordinance meeting the number of businesses downtown that referred to the amount of business represented by tourists, and that was good news to hear. Recently we hosted some travel agents from the United Kingdom. We had a brief moment in our itinerary, some free time, and we asked them what they wanted to do. The first place they wanted to go was Augusta Mall. They went, and they walked out with bags, shopping bags full of clothes and goods. The CVB is the sales, marketing and advertising organization for the city of Augusta, and we’re challenged every day by an increasingly competitive marketplace. Every city, large and small, wants a piece of that tourism dollar. With your support of new and existing tourism projects, Augusta will continue to grow as a viable visitor destination. More importantly, Augusta will reap the benefits of visitor spending, more than $403 million, and contributing $12 million to the tax base. I just wanted to give you an update from the Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism on the economic impact of visitor spending in Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Barry, thank you. Please take our thanks back to your agency and all the people that work for you, for the hard work they do to help bring tourists to Augusta and make them feel welcome when they come. Are there any questions? Thank you. Thanks very much. Madame Clerk, if we could move ahead with Item 48, please. I don’t think there’s any pressing issue, at least more pressing right now, than getting water to the people in Augusta-Richmond County, so I’d like to go ahead and move on Item 48, which is selection of bond underwriter. We have an ambitious list of projects ahead of us, and we need to get the money available to fund those. Clerk: Item 48: Selection of bond underwriter. ?? A.G. Edwards ?? J.C. Bradford ?? Robinson Humphrey Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we’ve heard the presentations from the companies that are soliciting this business. Do we have any motion on the floor today? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve A.G. Edwards. Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second for A.G. Edwards. Is there any discussion? 4 Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Just for the point of information, I wanted to thank the Clerk and the Risk Management Department for coordinating and providing me the film work on your meeting last Tuesday. I know that Steve and I joke about this money times, about verbatim minutes, and the Clerk does an excellent job, as well as her staff, but I wanted to get a feel for what had happened visually at that meeting. We did have a death in our own family on last Tuesday and I was not able to get here. So I was able to use that visual work to go over that meeting and it was quite helpful, and I just wanted to thank both her office, as well as Risk Management, Mr. Mayor, for providing that opportunity to be able to look at what you all did in that particular proceeding. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays, since you were not here to participate in the question and answer, the representatives of the companies are here if you have questions for any of them. We’ll be glad to entertain those now or any of the Commissioners who may have additional questions. Mr. Mays: I think the video provided me a pretty good idea of your back and forth questions and answers in there, in terms of that proceeding and in deference to time, I won’t go into that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I make a substitute motion for Robinson – Humphrey. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? No second is heard, so the motion dies for lack of a second. We’re back on the original motion. The motion is to hire A.G. Edwards as the bond underwriter. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0 . Mr. Mayor: Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda, Madame Clerk? Clerk: Yes, sir, we do. What I’d like to do for clarification on our consent agenda, under the grant, Item 14, I have a couple of corrections. The Augusta Neighborhood Improvement, that should read Neighborhood Improvement Project, Inc. And you will find that on the list from the state on page 39. And we also omitted one grant recipient, Augusta – Richmond Opportunities in the amount of $10,000. You would also find that on page 39. And we have consent items, 1 through 23. We’d also have consent items recommended from our Engineering Services 5 Committee which met at 1:00; Public Services, which met at 1:30. On our regular agenda, they would like to recommend to be added to the consent agenda under Engineering Services Item 29, Item 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Under the Public Services agenda, they would like to add to the consent agenda Items 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. And for the benefit of any objectors to the Planning Commission petition, I would read the location – Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, just a moment, did we get the addendum agenda, too? Did you get those items? Clerk: We haven’t added those on yet. Mr. Oliver: I would note on Item 39, that 39 is actually to award a contract to Putt Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $13,929.00 to convert the basketball court at Woodlake into a tennis court. That is the actual motion and it was approved by the subcommittee. Mr. Mayor: Let’s deal with the consent agenda, then, Madame Clerk, and then we’ll come back to the addendum agenda. We’re getting a lot of numbers out here and it’s going to get a little confusing. Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Now if we go ahead on and take our addendum agenda, there’s items on there as well that were added in our Engineering Services that we may want to add to our consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s do that then. If we can deal with those, let’s do that. Clerk: We need a motion to address our addendum agenda. Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask this. Are there any objections to adding those items enumerated by the Clerk and as shown on the addendum agenda? We need unanimous consent to add, so is there any objection to any item? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I have a point for information. Under the additions to the agenda for the Engineering Services, we also sent to the full Commission without recommendation discussion of the reservoir closing. We need to add that on as part of this addition as well. Mr. Mayor: Did you get that, Ms. Bonner? Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. Shepard? 6 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, wouldn’t that go under the regular agenda because that came forward with no recommendation, Mr. Bridges? It would not go to the consent agenda, it would go to the regular agenda? Mr. Bridges: Okay. It would, but it would be part of the addition of the list. It should be on this list. Mr. Mayor: The addendum agenda, not the consent agenda. Clerk: Right. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to adding any of these items? No objection is heard, so the Chair will order these items added to the agenda today. And let’s move ahead now with our consent agenda, Madame Clerk. Consent Agenda: PLANNING: 1. Z-00-38 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Godefroy & Associates, on behalf of Fleming Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing church into zoning conformance including pre-school and day care activities as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 218 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Eastside Court and Peach Orchard Road (3027 Peach Orchard Road). DISTRICT 8 2. Z-00-39 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bill Fulcher, on behalf of David B. Bell and Samuel F. Maguire, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care and pre-school activities as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 2,935 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Willis Foreman Road and Peach Orchard Road. DISTRICT 8 3. Z-00-40 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from David L. Moretz, on behalf of Ras E. Aladin, requesting a Special Exception for vehicle parking as provided for in Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Reynolds Street, 346.52 feet th east of the northeast corner of the intersection of 4 Street and Reynolds Street (321 Reynolds Street). DISTRICT 1 7 4. Z-00-41 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Marilyn Nobles requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of old Savannah Road intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Norton Road (2294-2298 Old Savannah Road). DISTRICT 2 5. Z-00-43 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sharon P. Barron, on behalf of Michael J. Barron, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Newmantown Road intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway (3317 Gordon Highway). DISTRICT 3 6. Z-00-44 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 2,156 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. DISTRICT 3 7. Z-00-45 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and Fort Gordon Gate 1 Entrance Road. DISTRICT 4 8. Z-00-47 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company and Dr. Fred Sims, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located where the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Old Gordon Highway. NOTE! The area for rezoning was reduced from 470.5 acres to 305.6 acres. DISTRICT 3 9. Z-00-48 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the north right- of-way line of Gordon Highway, 6,793 feet, more or less, west of a point where the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the northwest right- of-way line of Old Gordon Highway. DISTRICT 3 10. S-593 – BILL’S DOLLAR STORE/HARTRICH ROAD – FINAL PLAT – request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Mangusta, LLC, requesting 8 Final Plat approval of Bill’s Dollar Store/Hartrich Road. This roadway is off of International Boulevard, 874 feet south of Tobacco Road. 11. S-587 – CAMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION – SECTION I – FINAL PLAT – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl Homes, Inc. requesting Final Plat Approval of Cambridge Subdivision, Section I. This section is located on Tobacco Road, west of Tobacco Road Elementary School and contains 24 lots. FINANCE: 12. Motion to abate 1999 taxes on property located at 1057 Katherine Street purchased by Augusta State University, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2000) 13. Motion to accept $2,239.57 from BakerHydro Filtrations, Inc. for payment of 1996 business asset tax. (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2000) 14. Motion to approve the following Georgia Department of Community Affairs Local Assistance pass-through grants subject to the approval of Attorney and Administrator: (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2000) AGENCY AMOUNT Shiloh Comprehensive Center $2,500 Lucy C. Laney Museum $2,500 Beulah Grove Resource Center $2,500 CSRA Transitional $12,500 Imperial Theater $25,000 Augusta-Richmond County $25,000 Belle Terrace Community Center $5,000 East Georgia Easter Seals $5,000 Augusta Nghbrhd. Improvement Proj., $10,000 Inc. Good Hope Social Services $20,000 Eastview Recreation Facility $45,000 Augusta Arsenal $40,000 Harrisburg West End $25,000 Boyhood Home of President Wilson $25,000 Marshal’s Department Illegal Dumping $30,000 ARC Museum $25,000 Master City Little League $24,000 Delta House $20,000 Southeastern Firefighters $44,000 9 Richmond Boxing Club $24,000 CSRA Economic Opportunity $40,000 Eastview Recreation $75,000 Safe Communities $20,000 Southside Tutorial $32,000 Delta Leadership Training $16,000 Augusta Ballet $20,000 National Legacy Foundation $150,000 Augusta Richmond Opportunities $10,000 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 15. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $370,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to assist with the construction of a community center at Eastview ($240,00), replacement of roof on warehouse at Golden Harvest food Bank ($130,000). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2000) 16. Motion to approve the employee of the month award program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2000) 17. Motion to approve funding and an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood (Historic District): 1413 Picquet Avenue, 1411 Picquet Avenue, 1409 Picquet Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9): Pendleton King Neighborhood: 1825 Irvin nd Street, (District 5, Super district 9); and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2000) PUBLIC SAFETY: 18. Motion to approve recommendation by 911 Steering Committee to appoint Phillip K. Wasson Director of the 911 Center at an annual salary of $53,673.34. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2000) 19. Motion to approve the attached addendum to Revenue System Incorporated Tax Commissioner software contract with no increase in contract subject to the approval of the Attorney and Administrator. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2000) 20. Motion to approve purchase of service subcontracts between Augusta Richmond County and Larry B. Marshall at a cost of $10 per hour not to exceed $5,000. Grant funded. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2000) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 21. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 6, 2000 and the minutes of the Called meeting held June 7, 2000. 10 ATTORNEY: 22. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code Section 7-1-9©, providing for the charge for the temporary sign permit and inspection. (Approved by Commission June 6, second reading) APPOINTMENT: 23. Motion to ratify the Legislative appointment of Mr. Locke McKnight due to the resignation of Mr. Earnest G. Smith to the General Aviation Commission – Daniel Field. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 29. Approve an increase to the Utilities Operating Budget in the amount of $945,000 by increasing revenues and expenses by a corresponding amount. 30. Motion to accept proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $53,675.66 for engineering services in restaking the Rae’s Creek Trunk Line Extension along Wrightsboro Road, designing lateral sewer extensions and preparing easement plats. Funded by Account No. 509043420- 5212115/80090010-5212115. 31. Motion to accept proposal from Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller for completion of a Maintenance Management Implementation Plan at a cost not to exceed $97,400 (Funds available in Account No. 507043420-5212115/80000006-521115). 32. Motion to accept proposal from George Butler & Associates for implementation of a computerized maintenance management software, using the GBA Master Series programs, for Augusta’s wastewater collection operations in the amount of $168,477.00. (Contingent upon the acceptance of the budget increase, funds will be available in Account No. 506043110-5424320.) 33. Motion to approve low bid award construction contract to Blair Construction Company for the Old Waynesboro Road 16-Inch Water Line in the amount of $565,561.00. Funds available in Account No. 508043410-5425110. 34. Motion to approve change order in the amount of $43,805.87 for additional work performed by Heavy Constructors on the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project S-7. Funds available in Account No. 508043420-5425210. 35. Motion to accept proposal from OMI, Inc. for Local Limits Study for Spirit Creek Water Pollution Control Plant at a cost not to exceed $16,225. (Funded equally by Utilities Department Account No. 506043110-5213119 and Solid Waste Disposal (Landfill) No. 541044210-5212999.) 36. Motion to approve counteroffer of $2,015.00 from Vinod K. Bhalla to acquire necessary easements on Wrightsboro Road. PUBLIC SERVICES: 11 39. Motion to approve bid of Putt Construction in the amount of $13,929.00 to convert the basketball court into a tennis court at Woodlake Park. 40. Motion to approve a request by Didier Rubio for consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Jackie 63 located at 1167 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. 41. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Vines for a consumption on premise beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at 2763 L Tobacco Road. District 4. Super District 9. 42. Motion to approve a request by Warren K. Rindt for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Macaroni Grill located at 275 Robert C. Daniel Jr. Pkwy. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. 43. Motion to approve a request by Kum Yon Parker for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Un Ha Sue Karoke Restaurant located at 1855 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. 44. Motion to approve a construction contract to Ammar Construction for $52,600 for improvements and renovations to Central Park. 45. Motion to approve LPA Work Authorization No. 9 for the completion for the design of the Airport Terminal Improvement Project. ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Motion to approve executive by Mayor of quitclaim deed releasing Lot 15, Block A of Rolling Meadows Subdivision, Section 1 from liens on other properties. 2. Motion to approve appointment of Dr. Ralph H. Walker to the Personnel Board. th (7 District appointment) 3. Motion to impose a 90-day moratorium on the enforcement of Section 28-B-6 of Ordinance 6261 such that no enforcement action would be taken against any individual or business which has no more than one “sandwich board” per location for a period of 90 days and to direct the Planning Commission to review said ordinance as it relates to temporary signs. 4. Motion to approve procedures for the application of an encroachment by a business or merchant upon a City sidewalk which adjoins a building which has a setback from the right of way line of ten (10) feet. 5. Authorize construction of 1,645’ of 6” water line along Thornhill Drive and establish a project budget of $20,000 for materials. (Funded by Account No. 506043410-5318110) 6. Authorize Mayor to execute a contract with Khafra Engineering Consultants, Inc. for GIS update at a cost not to exceed $295,000, subject to approval of Attorney & Administrator with contract to be paid per drawing delivered. 12 7. Authorize construction of 630 LF o 8” sewer line along Old Waynesboro Road at a cost of $32k700.00 by Jefferson Contractors, Inc. (Funded by Account No. 507043420-5425210/80000007-5425210) 8. Discuss the creation of a Law Department. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) 9. Discuss extending reservoir closing date 90 days to October 1, 2000. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) No objections noted in adding addendum agenda items. ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS ADDED TO CONSENT AGENDA: 2. Motion to approve appointment of Dr. Ralph H. Walker to the Personnel Board. th (7 District appointment). 5. Authorize construction of 1,645’ of 6” water line along Thornhill Drive and establish a project budget of $20,000 for materials. (Funded by Account No. 506043410-5318110) 6. Authorize Mayor to execute a contract with Khafra Engineering Consultants, Inc. for GIS update at a cost not to exceed $295,000, subject to approval of Attorney & Administrator with contract to be paid per drawing delivered. 7. Authorize construction of 630 LF of 8” sewer line along Old Waynesboro Road at a cost of $32,700.00 by Jefferson Contractors, Inc. (Funded by Account No. 507043420-5425210/80000007-5425210) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Now Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead and read the zoning items and the alcohol licenses on here, please. Clerk: Under our consent agenda: PLANNING: 1. Z-00-38 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Godefroy & Associates, on behalf of Fleming Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing church into zoning conformance including pre-school and day care activities as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for 13 Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 218 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Eastside Court and Peach Orchard Road (3027 Peach Orchard Road). DISTRICT 8 2. Z-00-39 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bill Fulcher, on behalf of David B. Bell and Samuel F. Maguire, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care and pre-school activities as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 2,935 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Willis Foreman Road and Peach Orchard Road. DISTRICT 8 3. Z-00-40 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from David L. Moretz, on behalf of Ras E. Aladin, requesting a Special Exception for vehicle parking as provided for in Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Reynolds Street, 346.52 feet th east of the northeast corner of the intersection of 4 Street and Reynolds Street (321 Reynolds Street). DISTRICT 1 4. Z-00-41 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Marilyn Nobles requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of old Savannah Road intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Norton Road (2294-2298 Old Savannah Road). DISTRICT 2 5. Z-00-43 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sharon P. Barron, on behalf of Michael J. Barron, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Newmantown Road intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway (3317 Gordon Highway). DISTRICT 3 6. Z-00-44 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 2,156 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. DISTRICT 3 7. Z-00-45 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on 14 property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and Fort Gordon Gate 1 Entrance Road. DISTRICT 4 8. Z-00-47 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company and Dr. Fred Sims, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located where the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Old Gordon Highway. NOTE! The area for rezoning was reduced from 470.5 acres to 305.6 acres. DISTRICT 3 9. Z-00-48 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the north right- of-way line of Gordon Highway, 6,793 feet, more or less, west of a point where the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the northwest right- of-way line of Old Gordon Highway. DISTRICT 3 Clerk: Are there any objections to these zoning petitions? Mayor: None are noted. Clerk: None are noted. For our alcohol licenses: 40. Motion to approve a request by Didier Rubio for consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Jackie 63 located at 1167 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. 41. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Vines for a consumption on premise beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at 2763 L Tobacco Road. District 4. Super District 9. 42. Motion to approve a request by Warren K. Rindt for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Macaroni Grill located at 275 Robert C. Daniel Jr. Pkwy. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. 43. Motion to approve a request by Kum Yon Parker for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Un Ha Sue Karaoke Restaurant located at 1855 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. Clerk: Are there any objections to these petitions? 15 Mr. Mayor: None are noted. We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Gentlemen, would you like to pull any items from the agenda at this time, the consent agenda? Mr. Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I would not necessarily like to pull an item, but I’d like, in the numbering, the one on the AROC, I’d like to [inaudible] and that’s part of the consent agenda. Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The record will so reflect that. No indication anyone wants to pull an item, so the motion is to approve the consent agenda as presented by the Clerk, and the printed agenda today. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Let it be known that I vote no on Sunday sales. Mr. Bridges: Same here, Madame Clerk. Mr. Cheek: Same here, Madame Clerk. Mr. Williams: Same here, Madame Clerk. Mr. Oliver: That makes it 5-4 and Sunday sales fail. There are only nine Commissioners here, and if four people go no on Sunday sales, I believe the numbers are 5-4 on Sunday sales and nobody requesting a Sunday sales license will get it. Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Bridges: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays, you want to say something? Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I won’t get into anybody’s preference of -- Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Excuse me, Willie. I want to go back and vote no on all – 16 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, Mr. Mays has the floor. Let him have his say and then I’ll be glad to recognize you. Mr. J. Brigham: I’m sorry. Mr. Mays: He’s bigger than I am. You notice I didn’t bother him. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays will be brief, Mr. Brigham, and then we’ll get to you. Mr. Mays: The only thing, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to note in some of those, do we have businesses, particularly new businesses? I know for instance, restaurants that are either opened or have their businesses advertised and already out there doing a business a point. Are they to totally stop serving under this in terms of what we’re dealing with today? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall would have to answer that question. This would not affect regular sales, it would just affect the Sunday sales part of the application; correct? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. The regular license would be approved but they would not be able to serve on Sunday. In fairness, if they choose to contest this, you’ve got other businesses that operate under a Sunday license. Our law allows it. I recognize that some of you are either religiously or philosophically opposed to it; however, it is the law and until the law is changed, unless there is a valid reason for turning it down, personal beliefs and wishes should not override what the law allows. Mr. Mays: I’ll yield. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek: I’ll change my vote. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek has changed his vote to yes on the alcohol licenses that include Sunday sales. Mr. H. Brigham abstains on Augusta Richmond Opportunities portion of Item 14. Motion carries 9-0. [Item 14] Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion of Items 40, 42, and 43. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-13, 15-23, 29-36, 39-45, Addendum Items 2, 5-7] 17 Clerk: Under our regular agenda, Item 24: Z-00-42 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Daniel M. McLeod requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Wooten Road intersects the northwest right-of- thth way line of 15 Street (1959 15 Street). DISTRICT 2 Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors? Any objectors to Item 24? (No objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, could you bring us up to date on this item, please? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. We had some objectors at our meeting. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow the development of property for an auto supply store. The surrounding zoning pattern is commercial. The issue involved Wooten Road, which probably most of you th are not familiar with. It’s essentially a one lane alley that enters 15 Street near the thth intersection of 15 Street, 15 Avenue, Martin Luther King and Milledgeville Road, and folks back there on this alley, actually about 40 homes access this alley, which frankly, I didn’t know at the time. They were concerned about the accessibility issues. I talked to the traffic engineer after their comments and found that there has been for some time a concept that Wooten Road might be cul de saced and that traffic be redirected out another way. What I’d like for you to consider is approving this with the condition that one of two things happen on the access to this property. If Wooten Road is cul de saced, that all access would be from the current cul de sac of Wooten Road, or if it’s not cul de saced then there would be no access to Wooten Road. I realize that’s dumping a lot on you, but we found out for the first time the situation existed at our meeting. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, the question I’d like to ask in there, I’d say where you’ve got 40 residents, that’s a street. I mean you’ve got some long term residents down on Wooten Road, on both sides of Wooten Road, and the problem I have, if we’re going to close it on one end, really I think – is there a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Not yet. Mr. Mays: I’m going to make a motion that this one be postponed because I think you maybe need to hear some residential input on this one because you’ve got Eagle’s Way on the other end, formerly White Road, that when you have – and I realize that a football game or other activity doesn’t occur every day or every night. But that’s a busy street on one end that 18 you’ve got. You’ve got a busy street on the other one. And I think to lock those folks in to deal with one way coming in and out that have been there for a long time [inaudible] I don’t think they ought to bear that burden down in there to deal with just being totally locked in and then when access gets heavy on the other end, then you close them in on one end, then they don’t have another way out on the other end. So I’m going to make the motion that we let them come back to have some opportunity to speak to this if they’re not here today. I realize this is over in your district, Marion, but that’s more than just alley in there. You’ve got some long term residents, some nice homes in there that have just become maybe the victim of other surroundings, and some of the other surroundings may have been positive. But I don’t think they ought to bear that burden in there of being locked in and just one way in and one way out. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you like to put a date certain in your motion to take this up again? Mr. Mays: It can come back to next Commission meeting . I think that gives enough time. I don’t think it has to go back to Planning and Zoning, but I think it gives those residents some time to come back before us. Mr. Williams: I’d like to second that motion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a comment, too, if I can. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: That Wooten Road, that particular street, like Mr. Mays said, is in my district, and there’s some homes, some nice homes there. All of them are not nice, but to close that road off, I think would be an injustice to those people in that area. I’m really surprised of the fact that it wasn’t even discussed. I think Mr. Mays made a proper motion that we get with that neighborhood and come back and get some feedback from some of those people, because these people have been living there for some number of years. This is not a new residence or new area that’s there, so I certainly support his motion and I do put a second to that. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? The motion is to postpone this item until our next meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke votes No. Motion carries 8-1. 19 Mr. Mayor: Next item? Clerk: Item 25: Z-00-46 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition “That there shall be a one hundred (100) foot undisturbed natural bugger and a six (6) foot privacy fence along that portion of the property that adjoins Barton Village and that portion that is adjacent to Gordon Woods Subdivision” a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R- 1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 3,328 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Fort Gordon Gate 1 Entrance Road and Gordon Highway. DISTRICT 4 Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, your pleasure on this item? Mr. Patty? Want to give us a synopsis of this? Mr. Patty: This is recommended with two conditions, that there be a 6’ fence and a 100’ undisturbed buffer on the property lines adjoining Barton Village and Gordon Woods. The petitioner is here, and I believe that since our meeting, there were some objectors at our meeting, and I think since that meeting he’s met with some potential buyers and can make some additional concessions that should help solve the problem. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today, to this item? None are noted. Gentlemen, your pleasure? Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Oliver: I got the impression, Mr. Colclough, that Mr. Patty indicated that the developer of this property was willing to make some additional concessions to try to meet the needs of the community. Is that correct, George? If it is, you may want to get those on the record and include those as part of your motion. Mr. Patty: Based on the comments that we heard, I talked to the petitioner, who is here and can speak for himself certainly. But we talked about some additional things that would mitigate concerns of these residents, which were the possibility of single-wide units, temporary set-ups and that sort of thing. And he’s here and I think he’s prepared to speak to that. 20 Mr. Oliver: Because absent them being included in the motion, he would not be required to do things but would rather have a gentleman’s agreement with the neighborhood and you may want to make these things a requirement of the changes. Mr. Mayor: Let’s get the petitioner up here and let’s put these issues on the record then. Your name and address for the record. Mr. Mills: Mr. Mayor, my name is Vic Mills, and I represent Georgia Vitrified Brick Products. After the Planning and Zoning meeting, we did meet with property owners and we discussed it with Commissioner Colclough and we talked with the developers of the property, and they have no intentions of putting any single-wide units on the property, so that would be an acceptable condition. Also, all of the units will have masonry underpinning, so there would be permanent structures. Modular units but on permanent foundations. And there were the requests of the homeowners and we’re happy to do that. Mr. Mayor: And that includes the fence, the privacy fence, too? Mr. Mills: Yes, sir. And the 100’ buffer. Mr. Mayor: And the buffer. Mr. Oliver: So the additional conditions would be no single-wide structures and brick aprons? Mr. Mayor: Is that correct? Mr. Mills: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: That was also my question. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Item 26: Z-00-49 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Yong Chan Chu requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Old Waynesboro Road and Brown Road (1680 Brown Road). DISTRICT 8 21 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Gentlemen, this location and the location that is the subject of the next case are locations that you’re familiar with. The petitioner had a store for some time at the location involved in Item 27 and he subsequently moved that store to the location in 26 across the road. These properties are zone B-1 and have been B-1 for a considerable time and he now wants it zoned B-2, which one of the proposed uses would be a hand car wash and the other one is unspecified. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission’s feeling is due to the residential nature of this area, this B-1 is what it ought to be. There are some B-2 uses that are not compatible in a situation like this and we felt that it ought to stay B-1. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Let the record show there’s no response. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I move we concur in the decision of the Planning Commission and deny . Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0 . Clerk: Item 27: Z-00-50 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Yong Chan Chu requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Old Waynesboro Road and Brown Road (4190 Old Waynesboro Road). DISTRICT 8 Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on this? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0 . 22 Clerk: Item 28: Consider funding for Karenina Dance Masters Intensive, Inc. (No recommendation from Finance Committee June 12, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Oliver: We had determined, based upon the last meeting, that Parks and Recreation had opened a purchase order for this purpose to accommodate 35 students. Consequently, even though the event is over, from what I understand from Mr. Wall, you can consider funding by increasing the purchase order. Mr. Mack indicates, however, that because the event has already passed, that HUD funding would not be a source that they would permit that to occur from. The Commission Other account has a total of $3,405 in it. Mr. Williams: I make a motion we approve this . Mr. Oliver: They requested various amounts ranging from $100 to $10,000. There were—I didn’t know what the committee recommended. $1,500? The letter says $100 to $10,000. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, what figure would be in your motion for approval? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m coming from committee and I’m trying to remember what they had asked for in committee. Mr. Wall: What they asked for said that their normal charge was $100 [inaudible], $50 per child. They used the number 30, as I recall, and Recreation, in the information they furnished, said 35. But they indicated 30 children at $50 a head is what they were asking for. Mr. Williams: And I think Recreation and Parks had gave them $50 per child, so that was half the amount; right? That would leave a balance of $1,500. So $1,500 from Commission Other then? Mr. Oliver: Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Mayor: That’s your motion? Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think Ms. Brown is here and you’d like to address us? If you’d come up and give us your name again for the record and your address. 23 Ms. Brown: Good afternoon. My name is Karen Brown. My address is 1144 Druid Park Avenue. We did ask for -- we had 30 children, but by Wednesday, we had 35. So that is an accurate number. And we were asking for a $100 registration fee per child and we received $1,500 from the Parks and Rec. We were here on Tuesday, we asked for $1,500, but then Wednesday we got five more kids. Who did very well on Saturday at the performance. They learned all kind of things, not only dance, but the technical aspects of the dance as well. There were seminars on injury prevention, nutrition, as well as theatrical protocol Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I hope we can support the initiative. I think a couple of things need to be pointed out, that in this portion that Ms. Brown is asking for is really a small, small portion of what it has taken to put this particular event on. Sometimes we question whether or not private sources are being sought and whether there is any participation within the community. This part that we’re doing is not -- and I saw we’re doing cause I’m getting ahead of the vote or what might happen, but that’s hopefully wishful thinking, but there are expenses that have been incurred tremendously. But I think the important thing is that -- and I stressed this when I spoke at one of the events they had -- in terms of exposure, many times we do not, when we are having those that have succeeded in various field, whether it’s in athletics, whether it’s in business and other things, that children don’t get a chance to see people that have come from their own environment and their own city that have done well, that also come back and contribute and put in, as well as their time, talent and money, to be able to get some of these events to take place. I’m a little disappointed that the technicalities caught us in here, and I was going to get to that in another issue is reference to how we deal with the event or what has happened or what has not happened, because nobody here wants to be in violation of the law, but I think when a presentation is made prior to something happening, that’s kind of to me on the edge and Mr. Wall is the lawyer and I won’t get into that debate today. But I think that was made prior to the event itself taking place. So if you get to the technicality of whether or not that was done prior to or on the verge of or after the fact, but to get back to what’s on the floor and to try to gain some support for them, we came in, and I can remember the presentation that we made, money, promotional event. I realize that was good for the city when we did the event with Jessye Norman. Got our city a lot of exposure. Many times we don’t get the hands-on things. There are other folks, athletes, etc. who come back, who contribute, and sometimes even ask for money. But the most part, the majority of those funds are usually dealt with by private solicitation and by folk putting in that money themselves. And I don’t think that this is any exception to that rule. And I hope we would support that on the Commission Other side, but I hope we would also, Mr. Mayor, look at the technicality of that line. I was not at that committee, I’m not on Finance. But I know we have helped out of CDBG money various arts groups, and I’m trying to find out whether or not we’ve known and whether we’ve monitored whether everything that has taken place on the date of, whether other folks’ events have 24 happened beforehand. It would be interesting to know whether we go through that process of knowing when all that’s being done. But I just wanted to add that to the discussion, but I hope that we can do that in this process because there have been other events than this particular one that Ms. Brown has put on. This is not the first thing that’s happened, but this time, she did need some help. I think where we’ve used departments to put into action certain things that maybe our departments cannot directly sponsor, and I was glad -- I ain’t going to beat Jim up too much -- I was glad that you did realize the fact that a contractual agreement with Recreation that we could do something in dealing with them. Just sorry this is the only funding source that we’re finding that we can deal with it, because I do think in the terms of the number particularly of low to moderate income children that benefited from this event, and while we’ve had to question of where we spend monies at, whether or not we have money to give back at times or not and turn back over to the federal government, I think this is a classic example of where we get caught up in a time line of whether an event happened before or after the fact the request was made, and I think we could have done that. But I’m in support and hope we’ll get this through the Commission’s money, but I would after a vote’s taken up or down, I would like to hear how that was arrived at, what part of the law, and what statute states that to say that you can or cannot do that, and what is our own monitoring process of how we keep up with everybody else’s money. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver, if you would supply that information to Mr. Mays, please. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to reiterate the same thing I said in committee. I think the goal that y’all are working toward is laudable. I mean I think it’s a worthwhile effort. My problem I have with this is the funding of it. I think there are proper procedures we go through in regards to funding. I think Kevin Mack’s group is a proper route to go through. I think one of the main problems I have with this is the timing element in regards to this. Maybe you can start now for next year, working with Kevin Mack’s group to get the full funding that you need for this program. I question whether we should pay this out of Commission Other. This is not a necessarily of government. It’s not a necessity of the Commission, which I think the Commission Other Account should be for. And what concerns me is we’re getting back into funding sources off of this floor that are not necessities of the government and get into more of an area of providing funding for private projects type of thing, and that’s something we’ve gotten away from over the last four years, and I think it’s good we’ve gotten away from funding those things. It concerns me that this is getting back into that area. And while I think there are avenues that the city can use to fund this program, it’s a matter of timing at this point, and maybe these sponsors of this event need to, like I say, begin to prepare now for next year through the proper channels. But I don’t think it’s proper to fund this out of Commission Other Account. Ms. Brown: We would like to respond to that. 25 Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you half a minute to do that, okay? Ms. Brown: I’d like to introduce Ms. Shirley Fields, who is the project consultant. Ms. Fields: Good afternoon, Mayor Young, and good afternoon, Mr. Bridges. I want to deal directly with the comment. First of all, Karenina Dance Masters Intensive is not a private organization. It was designed to work within city and local government activity. It was designed to work with the local school district, which is public. That’s the first thing. We have a 501C3. When Ms. Brown began a year ago to try and put this project on board, she did contact the appropriate sources. She waited, she made grant funding. There was a huge grant placement that was made with Karenina Dance Masters Intensive included, and that grant funding did not come through. It was supposed to come through in February. We were then told it wasn’t coming through until July 1. Well, as of July 1 the project that we designed for the children of Augusta would have been over, as it is. We’re in a unique position in the sense that the project that is on the table today to try and find $1,500 for has already happened. The impact has been made on the children and the Housing Commission. They did very, very well. As far as the impact of a program across the board, how does one place a dollar value on the lives of children and what they learn and what they achieve. And at $1,500 considering that this project was slated at $100,000 and most of that money as project coordinator was raised by myself through gifts in kind, I think that $1,500 being offered from this Commission as an act of generosity is more than admirable. And so we ask the Commissioners to consider that we have extended ourselves to the city of Augusta. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor. We’ll call the question on that motion and Commissioner Williams’ motion was to fund this project for $1,500 from the Commission Other Account. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Mayor: Next item? Clerk: Item 37: Motion to approve Sprint’s proposal in the amount of $12,373.59 for RFP 00-143 for upgrade to telephones at Housing & Neighborhood Development. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee June 12, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this? Mr. Rushton? Mr. Oliver: Mr. Rushton. 26 Mr. Mayor: Where’s Mr. Rushton? There he is. Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Shouldn’t we do the Engineering Services regular additions, Ms. Bonner, at this point? Wouldn’t they fit here or are you putting them at the end of the agenda? Clerk: Right. Mr. Shepard: Two no recommendation items that came forward that are not published in the book. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and do this item. Mr. Rushton, if you’ll go ahead with this item, please. Mr. Rushton: This is an RFP that was put our for telephone service for Housing and Neighborhood Development. We received four bids and we’re recommending the proposal from Sprint because of the features that are included in this proposal that Sprint gave us. They were over and above what the vendors had, as well as it is compatible with the other technology we already have. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to this item? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I have asked [inaudible] this question and the answer that time was confirmed, the system that we’re putting in and the location of Housing and Neighborhood Development, I believe the lease is up within a year. And whether or not this system is portable, and I think your answer was yes? Mr. Rushton: It is portable. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: This was forwarded on from committee because, in my eyesight, that Augusta Telephone, who had bid it also -- and I need to hear from them before we vote on this. I am not clear about the RFP that went out and what was done. From my understanding, the bid was sent out and the bid came back. At that time, Augusta Telephone said they did match or they did bid on what the proposal was to bid on. And I’m hearing here today that may be something different. I’d like to hear from them, Augusta Telephone. 27 Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s hear from Mr. Rushton first as to why he did not recommend Augusta Telephone’s bid. Let’s do that first. Mr. Rushton, if you could address that. Mr. Rushton: One of the, in the RFP, we listed a few of the features that we wanted to make sure were included in any bid that we had. Augusta Telephone met those features that were listed. One of the items, though, in the RFP, it said list all features that your systems have, so we can compare to any other system. When you look at the packages that were turned in, the system from Sprint, if you want to for visual sake, look at this. The blue pages here list the features that were listed in the Sprint RFP in the blue. Augusta Telephone features that were listed are in the yellow. We and the IT Department then researched the equipment that was presented in all four bids that we received, and that’s why we went ahead a recommended the Nortel bid. We found that there were a lot more features even than the Augusta Telephone bid features that were not listed in the bid itself that the system could do. But the number of features were just way below what the Nortel system is capable of doing. Mr. Mayor: Cooper, you want to address -- if you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record, please. I’ll give you a moment to talk to the Commissioners about your bid. Mr. Cliatt: I’m Cooper Cliatt with Augusta Telephone, Martinez Boulevard, Martinez, Georgia. Those type two sheets are from Mayor Young and Mayor Pro Tem Mays that says Augusta -Richmond County wants to do business with small business. And I want to believe that. Several of you are small businessmen or advocates for small business, and I ask you to take a good look at what we ran into when we tried to bid on this project. And if we go into this letter, and I’ll make it short and sweet. I know you have a lot of things. We appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate Public Safety, Mr. Williams and those folks, not recommending Spring, and letting it come on to the full Commission to decide. We met every specification and the list of differences is minute, to say the least. What we did will take care of this department and lots more. In fact, we’ve got features on our phones system that they don’t have on Nortel, so it kind of works both way. So we met every specification. We provided references of people like Federal Paper. We do theirs. We’ve got some large accounts. We’re capable of doing the job. We have 23 employees but we’re still a small business. We’re the only local company. They chose Sprint who doesn’t even have a local presence anymore. Out of Columbia, South Carolina. The big difference. This is big. Y’all need to look at this one. On warranty, we gave a five year unrestricted warranty. Unrestricted. Covers everything. Labor, material, lighting, power surges, everything. Sprint had a one year restricted warranty. Doesn’t cover lightning. Doesn’t cover power surges. Doesn’t cover customer action. That’s $4,000 minimum difference right there. Voice mail. Sprint did a three hour storage on the voice mail system. That department cannot get by with three hours, I don’t believe. And I’ve been in business 30 years. You get some folks go on vacation, get a lot of message in the voice mail, you haven’t got enough storage. We bid 100 28 hours. Our price, we bid two systems. We bid Samsung, which is $3,000 less. We bid a Lucent AT&T system, that was $1,500 less. If you add in the warranty difference, it’s as much as $7,000 difference. And I checked, and I think the gentlemen is over here sitting, but Sprint doesn’t even have a business license here. So I think that would be something you ought to consider. Anyway, I have two questions. If you answer these, I’ll go home, happy or unhappy. Whichever way. Why is only Nortel equipment being considered, if it wasn’t so stated in the pre-bid conference we went to, the walk-through we went to, and RFP? And if you look at Attachment A and B, it came out of Public Safety Committee meeting, and it looks like the technical department and the County Administrator said it’s supposed to be Nortel only. If you look at the last sheet, Purchasing Department, and the RFP says it’s not a sole source, Nortel only. So we’ve got a big conflict. You’re looking at a small business person trying to bid on contracts and trying to do the right thing and these specifications, you’re putting us at an awful disadvantage. All I ask, what conditions did we not meet on this RFP? What did we not do right [inaudible] this job? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there someone here from Sprint who would like to speak? We’ll give them equal time. Anything you’d like to add, Mr. Rushton? Is the department head here? Would he like to speak to this since it’s going to be in his department. Mr. Speaker: A couple of things, comments on what was just said. On the local presence, yes, Sprint used to have a business license, Sprint used to have a local office. Now they are working out, their maintenance personnel works out of homes and not out of an office, so we do have local people from Sprint maintain and work for us here in Augusta, just not in an office environment. Also we have the features. We looked through it, the Nortel, one of the systems that was bid was also an AT&T Lucent. There are some compatible Lucent systems with the Nortel system, but the one bid was not equal to the one that we were working with just now. That’s why we looked at the Nortel system and went to it. You can go forward with the features there. They’re not the same system. They’re not a matched system. Mr. Oliver: I have one comment to make. The question I would ask when you consider this particular item, if it was your business, your law firm, SRS, your accounting practice or whatever, would you buy two different phone systems for your office that you were going to own and maintain? Because we have a telephone person on staff who has to be trained on whatever equipment we have. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Mack is here. Mr. Mack, is there anything you want to say about this? This equipment is for your department. Do you have a preference or opinion or anything? 29 Mr. Mack: We discussed this situation with Information Technology. They are the experts on it and we left it up to their judgment, that bid, and so forth. We’re satisfied with what they recommend. Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, as a Commissioner and as a business of the government, we talk about bids and being fair and local participation, minority participation, and all those kind of things, and we try to this city to let this city know that we are a government who is trying to be fair and impartial to all businesses, and recognizing that Augusta Telephone is a small business and could not compare to Sprint by no means, if they had 40 more employees in addition to what they’ve got. I’m not, I don’t know anything about Augusta Telephone except when we met in committee the other day, but my thing is if we are going to send out for bids, if we are going to do, if we are going to be policy makers and do the things that we are supposed to do as Commissioners, we had an incident, I’m thinking about where a man came in to do some work for us, Mr. Cheek, and didn’t have a license to work in this area or to do the type work, and we flat turned him down. If we’re going to play ball, all of us need to play with the same ball. I’m tired of throwing one ball out and somebody else throw another ball in. Now we are sending out for bids. If the man bid it fair, if everything was straight, I think he ought to be awarded the bid. Now if he didn’t meet those bids, if he didn’t meet those criteria that we asked for, then I understand. But Spring is known all over the world. This man is hardly known in Augusta. So how can we compare what they can do to the fact that he’s a local man? And if we had not sent out for bids, you probably wouldn’t have bid it on in the first place. You probably could have sent it on the Sprint. Mr. Mayor: We’re getting a lot of discussion, but we really need a motion on the floor so we have something. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my motion that we give this, award this bid to Augusta Telephone . Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. A motion and second to award this to Augusta Telephone. Mr. Bridges, you had your hand up, and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Bridges: In regards to, if I’m understanding you right, in regards to the quality and what these will do, you’re saying that it just does not meet the standard of existing phones 30 we’ve got now? And are we getting into two different phone systems for the government if we move with Augusta Telephone? Mr. Speaker: This particular system they bid, yes, it would. Different from what we have been using. Mr. Oliver: And our person would have to be trained in the other system, also, because you need somebody that knew both systems unless you were going to contract with this particular firm, say, to maintain the system and pay them contractually. Mr. Bridges: And in regards to this, what you’re saying, that even though it’s not the lowest bid, it’s the best bid? Mr. Rushton: Yes, this is the best bid. Many times we look at the lowest bid and that’s the only factor you look at. With us, training in the system and the quality of the system for the best bid. We have bought from Augusta Telephone before. This is not to say. We have bought from Augusta Telephone before. So this is not not buying from a local vendor. Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question, Mr. Mayor, concerning the charge that Augusta Telephone brought up concerning the license of some of the people making the bids. What do we know about that, Randy? Mr. Oliver: I had not heard that. Mr. Bridges: Jim, anything? Mr. Wall: I don’t know, but if they’ve got a business license anywhere in the state, it is valid in Georgia. Mr. Oliver: I would think as large as they are, they do work in Atlanta. But I don’t know. Mr. Bridges: When they put in the bid, don’t they have to show their license? Mr. Wall: They do not have -- well, I don’t know what was in there. This was a request for a proposal, and I’m not sure that requirement, whether it was in there or not. But if they’ve got a business license from the state, it’s valid here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Bridges: Ms. Sams, can you answer that question for me, please? 31 Ms. Sams: I was told that they have a license in Atlanta in the state of Georgia, and those license would be provided to me if they received the bid. The other thing I would like to call to your attention is, this is an RFP and at the time when we reviewed all of the RFPs that were submitted to the Purchasing Department, Augusta Telephone only supplied the information that you have on the yellow sheet. The decision was made based on the information received in the RFP the day that the bids opened. All of the other things that you are hearing that Augusta Telephone Company, and I’m sure they’re a [inaudible] company because we did award a bid to them in April of ’98 at the Raw Water Plant, but if you’ll look at the very first sheet that says executive summary, we asked for all of those features to be included in that RFP. And they simply were not on that day, the day that we opened the RFPs. So surely, after the fact, any company can come and say, but I can do, but on that day they did not list those features. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Sams. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Ms. Sams, was there a recommendation made by Purchasing that the contract be awarded to Sprint? Did you make a recommendation? Ms. Sams: Recommendation from the Purchasing Department is for Sprint. Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Oliver, the question I have for you, where is the interface point with this system and the rest of our system? I mean, this is a separate location. Make me comfortable with the compatibility issue. Mr. Oliver: At this point, it’s a separate location. Clifford can answer the tie-in better but ultimately it’s envisioned we could replace the phone system two or three times by the [inaudible] we get there, but it is anticipated that these offices are going to be consolidated into one complex with the new judicial complex and that’s another reason we would want systems that could be brought into this building, or definitely relocated because we want to move out of the space over there at Riverfront Center. Mr. Shepard: We have a Nortel system now in this building now, for example? Mr. Rushton: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 32 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve heard some of these discussions, and it sounds to me like we sent out the RFP with one set of criteria and then we accepted a different set of criteria for selecting our company that we recommend to get the service from; is that correct? Ms. Sams: No, sir, I’m not recommending a different set of criteria. Mr. Cheek: Initially we went out with one set of criteria, a minimum set of standards that we wanted from our system. Sprint apparently provided over and above that amount. Now did Augusta Telephone provide just the minimum amount of information to meet the criteria? Ms. Sams: They provided a minimum amount of information to me. Mr. Cheek: Did it conform with -- Mr. Oliver: I think if you look at page two of the first, the larger handout that Ms. Sams passed out. That compares the features, the first column being Sprint, the second column being Samsung, and as I understand this, Gerri, the RFP means that this was a condition in the RFP, the yes/no means they either met it or they didn’t meet it. Ms. Sams: Right. Mr. Cheek: I guess to summarize my question here, we sent out a request for a proposal for a certain set of criteria for things we buy. If someone conforms to that and is the low bidder, we ought to give them the job. But if someone provides additional services over and above that minimum amount for an additional cost and we’d like to get the extra toys, I don’t think that’s fair to the people because we only asked for a certain set of criteria. Is that the case here? Ms. Sams: Mr. Cheek, on the executive summary we asked that everything be disclosed and the prices also be disclosed for that service. And according to the specifications, everyone was given that opportunity and based on my review of all of the specifications, I would still recommend Sprint. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let’s cut to the chase. What’s the cheapest system? 33 Mr. Cliatt: May I say something? Mr. Mayor: No, Mr. Cliatt. Mr. J. Brigham: Either the Administration or -- Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, can you respond to that? Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. Augusta Telephone bid a Samsung at $9,287. Mr. J. Brigham: That was the cheapest system? Ms. Sams: That was the cheapest, but it’s not the best system. Mr. J. Brigham: All right. I understand that. Mr. Oliver: It did not include the training, for one. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham has the floor right now. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Rushton was trying to say something. I want to hear what he had to say. Mr. Rushton: What I was trying to say is on the training, training is an issue. Training is included. We’ve got two people who need to be trained, to go to a different product that we’re not used to. Yes, one of our employees has experience on Samsung equipment, but not this particular Samsung equipment. Training is an issue and we would have to be brought up to speed. We’re trying in-house to do our moves and changes, service people. That’s being done by us. That’s the reason we went this way. With the Nortel, there’s no training that’s necessary because we are already up to speed on that equipment. Mr. J. Brigham: One other question. Mr. Rushton: Best bid compared to a low bid. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Rushton, while I’ve got you, how often do we replace our phone system? Mr. Rushton: Sir? 34 Mr. J. Brigham: How often do we replace our phone system? Mr. Rushton: They’ll last many years. The one there now, 1984 is the system we’re replacing. Mr. J. Brigham: How often does this government replace the telephone system? Mr. Rushton: Ten years is a standard right no. Mr. J. Brigham: How long have we been on our current system? Mr. Rushton: Our current system, we just installed in this business. Mr. J. Brigham: The Nortel system we just installed when? Mr. Rushton: The Nortel we put in two years ago. Mr. J. Brigham: Two years ago? Mr. Oliver: We had push buttons in this office pretty much until up to two years ago. Mr. J. Brigham: The reason I’m asking is I don’t anticipate any of this department being consolidated anytime in the next five years, so the compatibility issue, I do not believe, is an issue. I think we’re into this on price and service and that’s what I’m trying to get at. If it’s on price and service, what would you be recommending to us? Mr. Rushton: I still would recommend the Nortel because of the system that is there and functions and features it has that is over and above the others. Mr. J. Brigham: Can I hear from Mr. Cliatt about training? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Cliatt: If Nortel was so superior, why didn’t they give a five year warranty? Mr. Mayor: No, talk about your bid now. This is not a public training. Talk about the training with your proposal. Mr. Cliatt: Our bid did include the training and had the five-year warranty that covered all of those things, so you wouldn’t have to worry. 35 Mr. Mayor: You have a five-year warranty to cover your training? Mr. Cliatt: We train for five years. Mr. Mayor: The question is about training. Mr. Cliatt: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. J. Brigham: You say your bid did include the training of our employees? Mr. Cliatt: Yes, sir. In fact, in the RFP, they even asked for the technical manuals and we agreed to do that. They asked for the technical manual for the system. Mr. J. Brigham: And this price is inclusive of the price? Mr. Cliatt: Yes, sir. Everything is inclusive. The only other thing is any brochures for both the phone systems, AT&T Lucent and the Samsung, they list all the features on the back, but those that weren’t on the sheet if they’ll look on the back of the brochure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays has the floor now. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might, before making a brief statement, I just want to ask Mr. Wall a question. Where, not just in this process, but the fine line of where we cross into professional services versus bidding and when we are considering any forms of capital equipment, merchandise, stuff that we purchase per se that involves more than the time and consulting services, does anything in that realm constitute a service per se, a professional service, if it involves merchandise? Mr. Wall: Well, that’s going to be a hard one for me to answer without the Code in front of me. Basically here, you are bidding for a combination. First of all, you were bidding for equipment, not bidding, asking for equipment. But you were asking for more than that. You were asking for a proposal as it related to the service as it related to the training. So it was a combination. So from that standpoint, it was a request for proposal that would look at the overall scope of what you were looking for. Had you just simply said we are going to take this telephone out of the wall and plug this one in, then it could have been bid strictly on hardware, low price wins, no questions asked. But here you were asking for an area of service in addition to equipment, and that’s the reason that an RFP was submitted. 36 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, on days when I got on my winning tie, on days when I get slightly confused, I’m a little bit more brief, and that’s going to be one of them. What’s confusing a little bid, and I like to support our departmental people, I think what may at times give us a bit of fuzziness, I think once something goes over into procurement for Purchasing to handle, we somewhat have to deal with the fine line there of what’s in the total all best interest of where we deal with with a bid. I don’t think you necessarily have a guilty party in this situation, but what does bother me a little bit, and I think what’s confusing to this Commissioner, is the fact that if we are, and I’ve said this more than I want to say it, in fact when I stepped down as Commission Chairman, I said this to Larry Sconyers and gave him my blessing of trying to find a way to handle it, is that we need to get some point of real clarity of where we divide up services, where we divide up a bid. Now if the system is such that we’ve got to go on with the best, so-called best bid in this situation, then I think what would help our Purchasing Department, help all the vendors involved in it, is two things: one, we either get to local preference and we’ve heard the arguments pro and con about that. I’m through with that deal. I won’t resurrect that deal. But the one I think is the most important of this is if there are best bid situations continuing to surface, of where you are keeping in uniformity, I think those are things that maybe we need to deal with in the guise of service. Let the Administrator and the department head handle it, and then you don’t get into the realm of say confusing a vendor to even a bid in the process. Because if you have a thing where you’re saying that you are going to deal with just Chevrolets and you may feel that the Ford and Chevrolet are both equal, and you can drive both of them away but you’re saying, Willie, I got parts that fit this one and I got six of them in the garage and we’re trying to keep them uniform, then why deal with a bid? Why not just deal with keeping it uniform, continue on with the service? And I think, Mr. Mayor, somewhere we need to get to the point in city government of asking that question, because I think that puts Procurement on the spot of having to deal with strict guidelines. I think it opens up the process maybe of daydreaming for a vendor, because if they thing they’ve got a ray of hope and you are going to continue on with equipment because it’s best, and I have to address that because of the author, and I don’t think we’ve taken it out yet, Jim. I remember making the motion that dealt with, in county government, the procedures versus lockout of situations, or equal in all of those provisions. If or equal does not apply, and if we’re dealing with having to continue what we’ve got, I think, Mr. Mayor, we’re moving on a moot issue that maybe shouldn’t have been in the bidding process at all. Mr. Cliatt would not be down here making an arguing point because he wouldn’t have been in the scope of getting anything anyway. Because this would have been a continuation of it. So to get me confused has certainly, y’all have been successful in doing that, and I don’t think I’m going to vote at all on this situation. I think it’s somewhere in our history before we die. We need to decide what’s going to continue under services, what’s going to be dealt with as bids. And if it’s bids, deal with it as bids. If it’s in the service form and it’s the best thing to do and continue it, with a company, an advisor, a product, whatever it might be, then do that and don’t put it into the process so that Procurement has to turn around and defend it, and then we have to sit here and say it’s better because if they all ring, 37 then you know, you get charged for them, I don’t know if he or Sprint has got a better product. I’m trying to find a cheaper one of these today. I might even find one. But I’m just trying to make that point of where it’s confusing and where the line forms in there, because if that’s the basis for making the decision on a best bid, then I think maybe this one ought to been kicked in terms of the service category and you continue with what you had. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, thank you very much. Your points are well taken. We’ll have a final word from Commissioner Williams and then we’ll have the motion. Mr. Williams: What was I going to say, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: If Mr. Mays didn’t say it, I don’t think it can be said. Mr. Williams: I understand our in-house IT Department and what they are doing and I do support them. But as Commissioners and as policy makers we talked about doing business and you ought to do business like business, what’s right is what’s right. If you are going to put out a bid, now if you’re going to stay uniform and you want to keep the same thing you’ve got, that should have been noted so people would know. If I don’t have that Ford Mr. Mays was talking about, I’m going to stick with the Chevrolets and you won’t have to bring a Ford over here. But if you put it out and people bid on it, we ought to go with that. I’m going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor, but I truly think that as small business people, we cannot, there’s no way humanly possible to compete with large business. That’s the difference, large and small. Small business just not able to do that. I understand all of this that Sprint has provided for us, and I certainly understand this small sheet that Augusta Telephone has provided. But if they had had the blue paper to match, the yellow paper to match this blue paper, then they wouldn’t be here bidding probably. It would probably be a difference scenario we’re discussing this afternoon. But my think is, if they are the low bid, if they’ve got the stuff that is going to be compatible, then we need to go ahead and do that. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and call the question on the motion on the floor, which is approve the bid from Augusta Telephone. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays abstains. Mr. Shepard votes No. Motion carries 7-1-1. Clerk: That is to Augusta Telephone. Mr. Oliver: And that is for the Samsung system, I assume, the cheapest price system, because they offered two. 38 Mr. Mayor: Right. Okay, next item? Clerk: Addendum Item 9. Discuss extending reservoir closing date 90 days to October 1, 2000. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, this is your item? Mr. Shepard : Yes, sir, it is. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that the full Commission consider extending until October 1 the closing of the reservoir to pedestrian and bike access. We have presently closed the area to vehicular access. I think that’s been applauded by the residents in the area. The past 90 days it has been well used, but I laid off Max during the time that he was preparing for this bond issue and the financing which we just approved. I had Mr. Cheek up there. He’s taken an interest in this. Mr. Beck, I was looking for Mr. Beck. There he is, behind the city flag. Mr. Beck has prepared several plans in this interim and he hasn’t fully coordinated those with Mr. Hicks. In addition, we had a presentation I think last Commission meeting, Mr. Mayor, from the Augusta State University, and they’re interested in extending the history walk to connect the two campuses, the main campus on Walton Way with the athletic complex on Wrightsboro Road. This may or may not give us an opportunity to work with ASU, and I just ask that we continue the status quo for an additional 90 days. I’m very mindful of the fact that the Highland Avenue source of water is our sole source for a great part of the system. There are wells. I’m very aware of the health and safety aspects of making that supply safe for our citizens, but I think this would be an appropriate compromise that would allow us to fully evaluate all these alternatives, and so I would move that we extend the reservoir closing date and extend the present policy until October 1. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, any discussion on the motion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is an item that we probably were not going to add on in committee, and I think out of respect for my colleague, Mr. Shepard, we went ahead and allowed it to be placed on, and in fact I made the motion for it to get on so he could get the right to discuss it here. And this may pass going over to October. And I did that part in committee, Steve, out of courtesy. But my feelings haven’t changed. And it may pass. But I think we’ve gone through a 90 day period with this. We just went through selecting a bond representative. And while I agree that the people who use it probably provide better security for the area, maybe than we are providing for our #1 product in terms of dealing with water, because they are there and they present a positive presence. But I said in that meeting, you weren’t there, that we don’t have good luck in this city when it comes to chance taking. We fall always, Murphy’s Law hits Augusta right smack in the face. If Rec has a proposal and 39 Water Works has got a proposal and they’ve got some dollars on the proposal, I don’t mind hearing that. But I think we need to move to a point of either giving Max the security that is needed up there, we need to either hearing from Rec that they can use the outside corridor, but we’ve had a regulatory agency that’s told us for some time, secure that area. We’re going out and dealing with asking the general public to support the sales tax, which is in conjunction with their indebtedness of dealing with bonds. That’s very serious. I don’t think we can treat that letter as though it’s something that we’re getting from them as information. Now I went along the last time, but I hope this motion is going to be turned down. If we are going to find an outside track, way of doing it, then let’s bring that back sometime within the 90-day period and do it, but I think we need to, when we compare water to having walking and jogging space, then no offense to the folk that are walking, but I got somewhere to walk in my neighborhood, I just like walking somewhere else. It helps me get a little bit smaller. I’ve lot 29 pounds do it. But we need to, Mr. Mayor, obey what EPD has asked us to do. This is years old. This has been around too long. We do not need to proceed with another 90 days. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, we’ll take a vote then. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add that in my visits to both our water works facilities, they have improved the security status of those facilities. The doors and gates have been locked on these nighttime visits, which I like to drop in, and if I can’t get in, then certainly no one else off the street can get in. That’s been an improvement. I would like to see this facility maintained for the citizens of that area. This thing could drag on indefinitely. I plan on supporting the measure for another 90 days but I will not vote again to support keeping it open. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to extend this for 90 days. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Item 38: Motion to approve proposal from Law Study Subcommittee regarding the Proposal of Services from Attorney Caryl B. Sumner funded from Lobbyist Acct. (Approved by Law Study Subcommittee June 12, 2000 not to exceed 24 hours at $125 per hour plus expenses. No recommendation from Public Safety Committee June 12, 2000) 40 Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and take Item 8 on the Addendum Agenda at the same time. Clerk: Addendum Item 8: Discuss the creation of a Law Department. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: That’s your item, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d be happy to speak to that. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you appointed me a few weeks ago to a law study committee, which consisted of yourself, the Mayor Pro Temp, Commissioner Beard and Commissioner Williams. I didn’t know how much the value of my work was but now I guess it’s worth $3,000 because after we received the Raise the Bar reports from Mr. Cheek on some of the Health Department issues and other reports that he did a fine job on, I got out pencil and paper and tried to put some thoughts together on creating a law department. I think we had a mid-year deadline. I have basically, done, what we are asking Ms. Sumner to do at the cost of $3,000 from the Law Department. So I would ask that we return this to the Public Safety Committee and that we take a vote on my proposal first to create a Law Department. I’m not going to ask you to vote it today up or down on the Law Department because I’d like for you to have an opportunity to review the proposal. Certainly the three of you Commissioners and Mr. Mayor, you’ve had a chance to review it, but I’d like my fellow colleagues other than those three to have the time to look at it. To give it a thumbnail sketch, the proposed Law Department would include two staff attorneys. There would be staff attorney that’s called the senior staff attorney, who I would suggest we put in charge of trial work. And by trial work, I mean administrative law judge hearings, special master hearings, condemnations, Magistrate Court, this type trial work. The second attorney, who would be junior to the senior staff attorney, would be just a staff attorney. That attorney would have responsibility for what I call office law type work, drafting ordinances and contracts, reviewing EEO issues, doing this that would be of that nature. Supervising it all would be a city-county attorney who serves at the pleasure of this body, who currently is Mr. Wall. I’ve been asked by several members of that committee, principally Mr. Beard, and he’s not here to speak for himself today, to develop a hybrid law department that includes staff and includes an appointed city-county attorney, and I’ve also attached a budget to it, which I don’t want to . So I make a motion go into at this point, but I would like you to all have the opportunity that we sent this back to Public Safety Committee so that you can study it and let that committee have a recommendation on it. Mr. Bridges: Second. 41 Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, who is my favorite -- is that right, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I don’t know, the status changes all the time, Mr. Williams, but I appreciate it. I appreciate whenever I am the favorite Commissioner. Mr. Williams : Mr. Shepard, who I think did a great job in trying to do what you asked him to do, appointing him chair of that committee. But being a part of this government, being a part of this Commission, I think if we had an outside source, Ms. Sumner, who is not affiliated and not acquainted with none of us on this council, would be the person who has nothing to lose, nothing to gain in any respect. No disrespect again, Mr. Shepard. I’m just trying to learn from the attorney you so graciously are, that I sit beside sometime. I’m trying . But I just think the substitute to adhere to what we tried to do and what you have done motion ought to include the price that this lady has offered to put together a Law Subcommittee such as we had asked for, which is a hybrid type law firm. We have been placing this on the back burner for some time, and at the beginning of the year we got a mid- year date in July that we should come back and come up with something. And I think we’ve done good. I think the committees have worked well together. I think we are working with Mr. Wall. I think Mr. Wall has worked with us. I just think we would [inaudible] better, we would have less headaches on our table and our place if we have an outside source to do this rather than somebody that’s working here. Mr. Mayor: So your substitute motion is to approve hiring Ms. Sumner and the conditions specified in the caption? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Cheek: I second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second on that. Any further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays. 42 Mr. Mays: With all due respect to my colleague and the maker of the original motion, he sometimes borrows from my dialog. I’m going to borrow a little bit back from his. And I know he’s a stickler, not only for minutes like I am, but also a stickler for a committee process. I do think that the Commission and a committee will have to end up making the final say. But you did appoint a committee in order to bring us to this point. I think it was also the feelings of that particular committee that in the eyes of the general public that we keep a certain air of independence, and I don’t think that that puts any tarnishing effects on the city attorney, nor on the attorney on this Commission that happens to be a member of the same profession. But as the late Miss Margaret Twiggs used to say, I think if we’re going to reorganize and we’re going to keep all these departments any way we put them, we have no other choice. We had other means of dealing with other departments, because there were other ways to do it. This was one and the Administrator was where we had to deal basically with independent sources. I don’t think this should be any exception. I think the committee process that we set up has already been followed. I think this keeps us in line with so doing that. That is no disrespect to the maker of the original motion, nor disrespect to our attorney. But I think in the long run and eyes of the general public, this will keep this whole matter clean, it will bring in one that’s in the same profession, but not a part of this government, and as Mr. Williams has said, not tied to anyone else. I think we should respect what that Law Subcommittee has already done, keep that process moving, and then we still will have the opportunity, Mr. Mayor, to vote up or down whatever is in place. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be beneficial to this community to provide some outside information. We have had several studies on this matter who have recommended the status quo that were from within this community. I would be interested to hear form someone outside the community to see if they concur with those findings or are they offering a different approach. I, for one, would like to see our chief legal officer in this community an employee of this county, operating under the same ethical guidelines and standards that all employees operate under. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, the way I read the backup information on this is the charge to this person is not to evaluate what’s already been done, from the previous committee, but to set up the structure of the law department, and that is what Mr. Shepard has put forth to carry back to the Public Safety Committee. So in my opinion, all you’re doing is just throwing money down the drain to go outside to have somebody to show you how to set up a law office when we already have somebody here that can tell us how to set it up. In my opinion, she’s not going to review the study that was done by the committee about a year or so ago. 43 Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion, which is to approve hiring Caryl Sumner for up to 24 hours for $125 per hour plus expenses. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Mr. H. Brigham abstains. Motion fails 4-4-1. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to send this item back to the Public Safety Committee. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays vote No. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion fails 5-3-1. Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item. Clerk: Item 46: Consider business plan/proposal for acquiring Newman Tennis Center . Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this? Tom? Mr. Oliver: In fairness and to bring everybody up to date, this item was scheduled for committee. As you are aware, the committees did not meet at the time so designated. It was scheduled at that time. We had asked that it be deferred to the next committee. However, Mr. Mays aptly pointed out that these individuals were here and he felt in courtesy to them that it may be beneficial to hear this proposal. However, to give staff an opportunity at the next committee to respond. Mr. Mayor: So we could receive this as information. Is that what you’re suggesting, Mr. Oliver? Mr. Oliver: That would be our recommendation. Mr. Shepard: So moved. Mr. Bridges: Second. 44 Mr. Mayor: Well, we don’t have the information yet. Mr. Beck, go ahead. Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, what I did want to do would be to introduce our presenters today. I would like to introduce Mr. Michael Hardin and Mr. Fred Lehman who have presented a proposal to my office for consideration at Newman Tennis Center, so with that, I’ll turn the podium over to Mr. Hardin, who will make the presentation. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: This was an unsolicited proposal, Mr. Beck? Mr. Mayor: Please go ahead. If you can do this briefly, we’ll give you a couple of minutes to do it since we’re not going to take any action today. Mr. Hardin: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with us today. We are here to discuss assuming management and operations of Newman Tennis Center. As you may be aware, the contract with the current management staff is up for renewal at the end of this month. The limited partnership of Fred Lehman, Jan Clark, Mike Hardin, and [inaudible] has a vision on how to grow the game of tennis in the Central Savannah River Area. And Newman Tennis Center is the cornerstone of that growth. The basis of our effort and vision stems from our program collaboration, innovation, organization and enthusiasm. I want to address our collaboration. We believe that our success in this venture is dependent on collaboration. We are achieving collaboration with other organizations in the community, such as the YMCA, Richmond County Board of Health, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta Housing Authority, the Central Savannah River Area Tennis Association, and other local businesses and organizations. We have a long- standing history with Richmond County Parks and Recreation, running tennis programs at the May Park Community Center and the Dyess Park Facilities. We have been running educational and recreational programs at May Park since 1992. In summary, the programming, collaboration, and limited partnership expertise will make the Newman Tennis Center once again thrive and provide the catalyst for growth in tennis in the Central Savannah River Area. My partner, Fred Lehman. Mr. Lehman: As the owner and tennis director of Forest Hills Racquet and Swim Club, our future relies directly on facilities like Newman Tennis Center. Over 70 percent of the private club memberships begin their tennis careers at the Park and Rec level. The membership at Newman Tennis Center has 12 family members and 58 individual members as of 1999 and the current management, which has been there for ten years is not cooperating 45 with the community. Their neighboring facility, which is ours, Forest Hills Racquet Club, posts over 70 family members and 68 individual memberships and over 350 members with corporate status. $54,000 of Newman’s gross income comes from 20 days of operation in which the tennis club community donates their courts and facilities. A large part of their income comes from donation of these courts from the private sector. We plan on working on the other 345 days a year. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor to receive this as information. It’s been seconded. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: If I might, under discussion, and I realize that if we have to have a response from Rec & Parks to get ready, I can respect that. But the question I want to ask is one, the contractual dates that are in there. Randy, either you or Tom can answer this. What position does that put us in? Will we be doing that management through Rec and Parks? What I’m looking at are [inaudible] dates, Mr. Mayor, coinciding from the fact that this will th be our last time. And if I’m hearing correctly, July 1, going into a 4 of July weekend, are we -- and I realize we have great people working for us -- but are we going to deal with that since we have an expiration of contractual dates in there? That’s my first question. Mr. Oliver: The only contract that I’m aware of is a contract that we have with the tennis pro. Mr. Beck would know the dates on that better than I have. I thought that may have come up a month ago. Mr. Beck: The dates, as far as our contracts with the manager go, they do terminate July 1. Based on this proposal being out on the committee agenda, on the Commission agenda, we have not addressed that contract. We have a tennis professional, the head tennis professional who works strictly on income derived from lessons. His contract is not up until December 31. Mr. Oliver: My suggestion would be we may want to just extend those on a month-to- month basis, pending a decision. Mr. Mays: Mr. Oliver and Mr. Mayor, my reason for wanting to go ahead and deal with this, there is something that’s been made true or false. A statement was made in reference to access and both community orientation and family situations in terms of the operation and usage of this center. I won’t dwell into other comments that I’ve heard in reference to how this could be improved, and this is not a situation -- I know the 46 Commissioner to my left asked was this report solicited. And sometimes when you say solicit, you ought to have to elaborate on solicit because that puts sometimes a dim light on the positive party that may be making that. But what I’m getting to is that this one has been laying around. We’ve either heard about the proposal coming verbally to committees, and I apologize, due to death and Mr. Colclough was out of town, and this is one reason I wanted to go on and at least hear these folk today. But if we’ve got a situation there that was addressed in terms of access, and I’m a big stickler about access in terms of where public money is used and where we put something together. I don’t think necessarily one month, two weeks is going to kill us. But if we’ve got a situation there that can be made better, I think then current management ought to put something else on the table, answer it, Rec ought to either answer it, Mr. Oliver ought to answer it, or we ought to address the deal of going ahead with something different. I don’t think we ought to just keep status quo and leave it at that level to a point that we can’t do better. If it’s fine and we’ve got an opportunity to do better, then I think we ought to consider that. Because sometimes these receiving as information proposals, they get received. They get received and they get lost. And we’ve done a lot of things in terms of transferring management to other groups. I’ve supported that. I’ve supported the transfer in terms of neighborhood associations taking over center. And I’m just kind of a little bit puzzled as to why we aren’t ready to answer this side of this question today ourselves. Jerry, they didn’t just -- and this is not because of your question. They didn’t just pop up today in terms of having this idea. And if we need more time to do that, I respect that. But I think we ought to set, Mr. Mayor, a time date, because I get a little problem with us, before we even talk about addressing this or Rec bringing back a response to this, that we’re already talking about the possibility of giving somebody a contract to keep on doing something when an accusation has been made. We need to address that and deal with their proposal and deal with current management and then we ought to make a decision. This ought not keep floating. Just like the proposal. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Mr. Beck a question. Tom, could you have a recommendation on this at the next committee meeting? Mr. Beck: Yes, sir. And I think what that’s going to be is just to present the facts and to answer any questions that any of you may have as to the operation and as to the access that we’re providing to the community up. And I would be more than willing to answer any of those questions today. I was just given the indication it would not be heard today, but I’m ready to answer questions. Mr. Mayor: If I understand your answer correctly, at the next committee meeting you will not be making a recommendation with respect to management, you’ll just be giving a factual presentation? 47 Mr. Beck: If you ask me for my recommendation as to what I think the best direction will be, I’ll give it to you. Mr. Mayor: Do you have a recommendation today that you can give us? Mr. Beck: I really don’t because -- I would like to hear the rest of the presentation that they have got because there are some specific questions, I think, that probably need to be asked. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, how about at the next committee meeting? Does that sound date certain enough for you? Mr. Mays: If they’ve got the time set, I think they are interested. They been working with us almost a decade. They don’t mind coming back for a fourth presentation. But I think, Tom, somewhere in there, and I’m not saying that they aren’t doing and we aren’t being accessible. But when we compare those two sides, if there is something there that we can do better, and if somebody has been doing something for ten years and they’ve had it, somebody’s coming up and challenging it and say we can do better, then I think we ought to look at it, we ought to at least evaluate it, and we ought to soon put it to bed. It shouldn’t be out there. We’ve done of the rest of these in a shorter period of time than we’ve had some of this other stuff. We’ve turned over buildings and we’ve put sales tax money in it, we’ve turned over two others in neighborhood associations. We’re only asking in terms -- this is the same thing where we’ve dealt with, Commissioners, where we’ve talked about somebody else assuming management level. This one is at least at the point where somebody else already is doing some managing, and I think maybe to a point of finding out, not only to listen to what the other side has, but after a decade, and if somebody is bringing a proposal to the table, then we ought not just keep talking about extending, prolonging, extending, prolonging. [inaudible] or let them go. Mr. Mayor: Do you have a substitute motion, Mr. Mays? The motion on the floor is to receive this as information. Mr. Mays: What’s handicapping about that, Mr. Mayor, is if I make on to let these folks start an operation, I’ve got an Administrator and a Director of a department that say they have no response. So I’m not stupid enough to make that out of ignorance and then they come up and shoot holes in it next week by saying what they can’t do with the proposal. So I can’t do that. The only thing I’m saying is that somebody needs to get up off their behind and answer the proposal. That’s all I’m saying. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Mays, I’m not suggesting that you try to manage the Recreation Department today. What I’m suggesting today is would you like to make a 48 substitute motion that would give the department head some clear direction as to what you expect back from him and when you expect it back? Mr. Mays: I just like for them to handle it like they handle the rest of them and bring them on back to us where we can make a decision. Cause I don’t want to disrupt -- they have a working relationship. It’s there. I’m just saying they keep making a proposal, they keep wanting to talk, I keep hearing that we are going hear it later. At some point we need to hear it. And we need to hear what’s on the other side of the table. If it’s there currently, then hear that, make a decision, do we get rid of some folk that we’ve had for a decade and let somebody new that says they can do better handle it or keep what we’ve got? At some point that needs to move on. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: That’s all I’m saying. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I may not have been here for the last 4-1/2 years, because as far as I know, this is the first proposal come to us. Am I missing something here? Mr. Beck: It’s the first one I’ve seen. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s all I wanted to know. In this proposal, first of all, I want to know how well we are doing at the Tennis Center before I make a decision on it. Mr. Bridges: Amen. Mr. Kuhlke: I’m saying these things, Tom, because I’m sure Mr. Mays wants the same thing. The other thing is, is that while this is a proposal to take over the management of the tennis facilities up there, they are also asking for a great deal, and a lot of expenses are staying with the county to take somebody and take over the management. I would like to have some financial information, Fred. I’d like to know a little bit about y’all, make sure that if you took it over, you can handle it. Okay? Little statement, something like that. That always help. And the other thing, there are people that are in the tennis profession, people that play tennis, that really don’t care whether y’all take it over or not. And so I think some of those people need to come in and have a chance to say what they want to say. I commend you on taking this approach. Fred, I’ve talked to you about it. As a matter of fact, I furnished you with the financial information on the Tennis Center. But I don’t think we blindly step out and contract with somebody without knowing all of the facts. And Mr. Mays, I would hope that would come back to us as we begin to evaluate this. 49 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, the reason I was asking if it was solicited or not, to the best of my knowledge, every other community service that we’ve turned over to any community organization or abandoned, we as a Commission first declared these operations as surplus. We have not done that with the operation at the Tennis Center. That was my concern about whether or not it was a solicited proposal or not. And if it was, the next question was going to be did we solicit more than one person. And I didn’t get to the second part of the question because the first part of the question was answered no. That was my concern. I’m always interested in finding a cheaper way of government to do business, but I am not necessarily in favor of government giving away its assets and still assuming a lot of its maintenance costs for no difference. I don’t see where that saves us necessarily. I’ve read part of the proposal. I may not understand all of the proposal, but I’m willing to look at any proposal, solicited or unsolicited. I just want to know whether or not we did solicit it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I’m like Mr. Kuhlke, and what he said. I concur with it 100 percent. We need to know some figure amounts. We have partnerships with some other communities and even some non-profit organizations and to fund or to take care of or to take care of the expense of these facilities and not having that money come back in to the government -- we have got a Recreation Department, and Mr. Beck is the head of that department, and I’ve been told on many occasions, second to none in the state of Georgia as far as recreation. But if we are going to have a Recreation Department and somebody else can come in that don’t have all the facilities and don’t have all the equipment that we have and can do a job better than we’re doing it, then I think we as Commissioners really need to look at what’s going on and whatever it is, whether it’s tennis, baseball, or just pitching horseshoes. I have no problem with these gentlemen and what they want to do, but like Mr. Kuhlke just stated, we need to look at something. There’s a lot of things that come into play that nobody has even mentioned, but we’re here talking about accepting hat as information, and I understand that too, to get to the next level. But we have got the staff, we have got the people, our budget in Recreation is the third largest budget in this government. We’ve got folks, we’ve got the building, we’ve got the courts, but there is a link in a chain broke somewhere, and we need to find that link and fix it so we can continue to grow and do all these things. The tennis court I part of the Recreation Department and it’s been there. We need to find out how we got it started, if we acquire these young men to get in there and train is and give us some direction. But if we get rid of, not got rid of, if we partnership with every group that comes along, then our Recreation Department is not going to be run by our Recreation Department. I mean Mr. Beck is going to kind of push himself out of job. All I’m saying is that we need to have more 50 information. We need to be aware. We need to be told about what’s going on and what’s going to happen so we all be playing with the same ball. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m kind of like Paul Harvey. I’d like to hear the rest of the story from Mr. Beck. I know that for a fact, that the natatorium and Newman Tennis Center and there are other complexes we’ve seen fit to build for the people of this community are attracting national, state and local tournaments to this area, which put money into our hotels, restaurants and stores. Before we tamper with something that is a growing market share for the people of Augusta and increasing our one cent sales percentage and other income to this area, I’m willing to give Mr. Beck and his operations the benefit of the doubt. If it isn’t broke, I don’t want to fix it. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor to receive this as information. And certainly I think that would be accompanied by an implied instruction to our Recreation Department Director to come back to our next Public Services Committee and let’s put this out on the table and discuss it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I make a couple of corrections about this ownership? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays. If you want to correct the record, go ahead. Mr. Mays: Just for the record of information, I think we need to know a little clarity in there. And I said earlier I wasn’t going to be stupid enough to make a motion on approving somebody to do something when even their presentation has not been totally presented. My first question was asking how did we operate contractually. But I think some of you need to know the history of the Tennis Center, number one, whoever operates it in terms of management. It was built partially with federal funding. It will always have to be a part of this city. It has been for a long time always managed, gentlemen, to a certain extent -- Tom can correct me -- by somebody else. It was just very recently when we were going to lose it totally, and through the graciousness of Rec to step in and deal with is because Augusta State University had the management of it. We are still dealing with an outside management situation. So let’s not confuse the issue as though this is a first time that somebody from the outside has made a management proposal. That’s all I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, that this is not a first-timers. We’ve had first-timers before and it got there to a point. It’s only that somebody had somebody on the table to actually want to help Rec. This ownership goes nowhere. We cannot even legally get rid of it if we want to get rid of it, and that’s why I fought it when the Commission tried to do it some time ago and wanted out, even finding some plaintiffs to sue us if we so needed to do because of the funding source. That’s a moot issue to deal with that. But I just wanted to bring that to the attention of those who did not 51 know that this has not been sole Recreation deal of where they have been in charge of it for some historic purpose of a long time. It has always had a level of outside management. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We’ll call the question on the motion that’s on the floor, and that is to receive this as information. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item? Clerk: Item 47: Motion to adopt an ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code Section 6-645 to provide distance requirements, criteria and qualifications for the issuance of an arcade license, and for other purposes and to waive the second reading . Mr. Shepard: So move . Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? Any questions? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Item 49: Motion to approve rescheduling the July 4 Commission meeting to July 5, 2000. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Item 50: Discuss Governor’s Green Space Initiative . Mr. Williams: I move we approve a letter of intent for this. Mr. Shepard: Second. 52 Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move to Item 51A and that would be in conjunction with Item 3 on the Addendum Agenda. Clerk: 51A: Discuss possible revisions to Sign Ordinance. (Requested by Commissioner Beard) Addendum Item 3. Motion to impose a 90-day moratorium on the enforcement of Section 28-B-6 of Ordinance 6261 such that no enforcement action would be taken against any individual or business which has no more than one “sandwich board” per location for a period of 90 days and to direct the Planning Commission to review said ordinance as it relates to temporary signs. Mr. Shepard: So moved. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second on that. Let me just state that we had a very good meeting in here with the downtown merchants yesterday and some of the concerns they had. And there were some business people from other sections of the city that were here also. Government tries to operate with good intentions, but sometimes we find after the fact that the devil is in the details, and this is one of those cases where perhaps we need to do some fine tuning and this cooling off period will give our Planning Commission, which recommended to us the original ordinance, a chance to go back and take a look at it and make any suggested changes in it, and a chance for them to work with the business people on this. Mr. Cheek, we’ll start with you. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, according to my readings -- I was unable to attending the meeting -- the people represented on this study committee was composed primarily of those business people from downtown. I strongly urge you and anyone else that is associated with this committee to reconsider and have people from across the county, plus people involved in the industry plus some folks that had an initial interest in this from the neighborhoods, to participate in this and fine tune it to where we do, in fact, take those things that have worked in other communities and apply them here. I don’t think any of us had the initial vision of having the impact on the community that it’s had. I don’t want to see thinks disrupted downtown with the fine progress we’ve made down there, but also if there are issues 53 downtown, most certainly there are issues in other parts of the community, and we need representation from those areas. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, let me respond to that, if I may. We put together the committee with the downtown business people yesterday because that was the issue on the table. Downtown is a unique geographical area in the city in that the private property rights tend to end at the front door. And so much of the environment around the businesses is public property. And so that committee is going to work on downtown-oriented issues with respect to this ordinance. With respect to other areas in the city, we’ll take a comprehensive look at those areas in the context of those areas, and I’ll be working with Mr. Patty on this as we put together a group of people that include some of the merchants from outside the downtown area to look at those other issues. I think we’re headed on the right track and we’re going to reach a comfort level that I think the ordinance will recognize the differences, the uniqueness of the different areas in the city, and each one will be addressed. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question in that regard. Is this a 90-day moratorium strictly for downtown or is this a 90-day moratorium -- Mr. Mayor: City wide. Mr. Bridges: This is a 90-day moratorium city wide, none of the sign ordinance will be enforced? Mr. Mayor: No, sir. Mr. Oliver: This applies to the sandwich board signs. In other words, the flags, the banners -- Mr. Bridges: That strictly is only for downtown? Mr. Oliver: According to what I read here, this would be for one sandwich board sign, would be permitted per business location. Mr. Mayor: There were people from outside the downtown area discussing that issue yesterday, about the sandwich board. 54 Mr. Bridges: I just make a substitute motion that we issue a 90-day moratorium on the sign ordinance. Mr. Oliver: I think that’s going to open you up to billboards on Tobacco Road and Riverwatch and people are going to come in and try to permit those and grandfather those in when the moratorium expires, and I would ask that you seriously not consider -- Mr. Bridges: Well, I recognize the businesses have downtown have complaints, but I’ve heard enough complaints from out our direction on this thing, too. I think we need Planning and Zoning to look at the whole issue here. So I’ll make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion? Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the substitute motion? Richard, you had your hand up? Mr. Colclough: It’s centered around most of the discussion, city wide, this moratorium be city wide. I’ve gotten a lot of calls on it, and they feel that the folks who do have the [inaudible] out in the county area are feeling that they are being left out of this moratorium. Mr. Mayor: A couple of Commissioners had their hands up. Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to mention to my colleague, Mr. Bridges, when the sign ordinance was presented, and they went through a pretty long process on this, plus we had a public meeting. And there are some things that I think that are acceptable within that sign ordinance. I really think that maybe there are some things we want to take a look at, but to put a total moratorium for the next 90 days, I don’t know. Maybe I’ll wait. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, if I could amend motion to be restricted to temporary signs. Non-permanent signs. Mr. Mayor: Would you want to restrict the number of temporary signs or do you want to open it up to where you put dozens of Coke signs and banners and all that at one business? That’s the thing we’re really trying to deal with. Mr. Bridges: Well, I think those are the issues that Planning and Zoning is going to have to deal with. 55 Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the substitute motion for a temporary moratorium, I’m sorry, for a moratorium on temporary signs? Any objection to that? It will stand as amended then. All right, we’ll continue our discussion here. Mr. Kuhlke, did you finish? Mr. Kuhlke: No, I never did finish, but what he did is fine. Mr. Mayor: Jerry? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concern with the original motion is I’m not necessarily opposed to it, but it says sandwich board. I think it should say temporary sign. I would feel more comfortable with that than sandwich board, because I think sandwich board is more definable unless Mr. Wall is going to tell me is just another name for a temporary sign. Mr. Wall: Well, sandwich board is, but temporary signs include things other than the signs that were discussed about downtown and outside the downtown area. You did have the merchants on Monte Sano, you had the merchants in Surrey Center who were complaining about it. So this was designed to be city wide as it related to those sidewalk signs. What we did not want to do was to open up all the issues about the banners and things of that nature and the multiple signs that are at a lot of the convenience stores, other things. We’ve done a good job of getting people to voluntarily comply, to take down a lot of the temporary signs off of every post and wall and everywhere they can hang it. With the 90-day moratorium being limited to the sandwich boards, 90 percent of what the merchants, both outside the downtown area, as well as the downtown area, were complaining about was the sidewalk signs. And so the moratorium was designed to be limited to that. Now if y’all are not agreeable to that, then limit it to the temporary signs but recognize that you are going to have service stations, convenience stores, small businesses, etc. that everywhere they can hang a sing, everywhere they can hang a banner, those are going back up. Which has been a lot of the clutter that has been cleaned up over the last 60 days. So we were trying to restrict it so that no, it was not just for the downtown merchants. It was city wide. It was Monte Sano Avenue, it was Surrey Center, it was all your shopping center, that were complaining because they couldn’t put a th sign out in front of their business to say 4 of July sale, sale, fall merchandise, summer merchandise, or whatever. And so that was what it was designed to be limited to to deal with that, because again, 90 percent of the complaints at the meeting yesterday were related to those sidewalk signs. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, while I hate to differ with you, my constituents that were in that meting were complaining about banners. I am as concerned about my constituents as Mr. Bridges is about his or anybody that represents downtown is about theirs. And I think if we are going to make an adjustment to a moratorium, we need to be encompassing in the 56 adjustment. Whether it be -- now, I’m not opposed to limiting the number of temporary signs, but I do think we ought to be willing to be able to let the business choose what type of temporary signs they want to do, if we’re going to allow this. Mr. Wall: Mr. Bridges and Mr. Jerry Brigham, either one of you say no more than one temporary sign per location, that way they could have a banner or a sandwich board or whatever, and that way you still don’t have the clutter on the locations that you’re going to have if you put the moratorium on all temporary signs. Cause there is not limitation on how many they can have on the lot. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you like to be heard on this? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let me just, for a point a information. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: What are we doing to our citizens who we ask to sit on committees? I remember we appoint a committee to look at the signs and to come up with a sign ordinance in this city and we had town hall meeting after town hall meeting, you had people visiting, I remember the sign ordinance came out, we brought it back and we changed it, and I remember that everyone was kind of comfortable with that sign ordinance. And all of a sudden now some people become upset about some signs, but they didn’t attend, I don’t think, these public hearings that were going on throughout two, three months. Mr. Patty: Meeting over the period of a year. Had 15 meetings, which were all open to the public, and the public did attend some of those meetings. We had two public hearings, the first of which was scarcely attended, the second was better attended. Mr. Colclough: What are we doing to the folks that we asked to sit on these committees and asked to come back with a recommendation to us? And we go back and put on moratoriums and some changes. How are we going to ask them to come back and do some things for us if we are not going to take their recommendations? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you like to speak to this, please? Mr. Patty: Well, I would hate to see you declare a moratorium on all signs because I think knowing that something is going to happen here with essentially no rules on signage for 30 days, I shudder to think what would happen. I like better the idea of a moratorium only on temporary signs, but I think you see a proliferation of the portable signs and other signs that I think some people in the community find offensive. I would rather see you declare a moratorium on all signs except for one temporary sign per business or property or however 57 you want to say it. I think that gives the folks who have spoken what they need and it gives us some protection and some continuity. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, further discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Wall, would you, is your legal comfort level equal with the one temporary sign of any kind or choosing, as well as the first recommended -- this is your caption that we read into the record here. Would you express your opinion as to the two versions and which you’re most comfortable with, as far as it being administratively possible and definable? Mr. Patty seems to indicate that one temporary sign of the merchant’s choosing is appropriate. Can we ascertain that? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, we can ascertain that. Temporary sign is a defined term under the ordinance and we can go with that, and that way it can be a banner or it can be a sandwich board, it can be a poster. But I guess, again, and I agree with Mr. Brigham, there were some comments made about the banners, but it seemed to me that the majority of the discussion was around the sandwich boards out on the sidewalks. That is primarily what we were trying to address, but recognizing that there is apparently not a consensus to go that way. One temporary sign per location is a second alternative that is much better than doing a moratorium on all temporary signs. Mr. Shepard: But is that in either motion? I don’t -- Mr. Wall: Well, it’s not. Mr. Mayor: It’s not in either motion, no. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just like we put an ordinance together and seemingly we found out certain things after the enforcement period went in, I don’t really see the scare in Ulmer’s motion in terms of trying to get to a point of dialog and discussion, in terms of the way businesses were affected. I think we learned something yesterday and I applaud you in terms of putting the meeting together. Mr. Beard put it on the agenda. But in addition to working with the downtown group, the situation for those of you who weren’t here yesterday was that there was a certain level of complaints that I think any reasonable person could understand when you see a small business person, and this is no disrespect to the people who sat on the committee, but there’s two sides to a coin. One in terms of those who caused the effect, and another one to decide of those who are affected. When I hear a small business person talk about being in business 25 years, one person for 40 years, where you had no neighborhood complaints, no situation that were involving unsightliness, but just due to the technical category of where their signage was put in, it meant that something they may have had for the last 20 years fell into the category of being temporary. One even in Summerville. And I made 58 the statement that if you could live there in Summerville and didn’t get a complaint, Steve, then heck it must have been doing pretty well. But it would have to come down off of somebody’s business that’s there. And those are the type of things that the small business folks were talking about yesterday. And I think that while we are trying to pick and choose what we are going to hear in the dialog, I think Ulmer’s motion gets to the point of hearing at least all of that. We still are going to have the power of the pen and the vote to come back and put into effect just like we put the ordinance into effect, quite frankly, whatever six votes deem to do. But I think the moratorium at least allows, Mr. Mayor, a period as you suggested of cooling off, hearing some of those things that can be done for reasonable business people that are small, out there, that operated, who have a unique situation who also want to see an ordinance. They were not against an ordinance. But want to see how we can live within the confines of an ordinance that they will not necessarily, and in some cases, just have to surrender, and quite frankly, go out of business. And I think that that’s all this brings us to and I hope we can support it. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion. The substitute motion is for the 90-day moratorium on the enforcement of the provisions for temporary signs. This would be all temporary signs that’s in the ordinance. So all in favor of the substitute motion, please vote ay. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Shepard: Madame Clerk, did that motion include just one temporary sign? Mr. Oliver: No. Mr. Mayor: No, that was all. All temporary signs. All right. And then the next item is on the addendum agenda, Item 4, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve procedures for the application of an encroachment by a business or merchant upon a City sidewalk which adjoins a building which has a setback from the right of way line of ten (10) feet . Mr. Mays: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this? 59 Mr. Bridges: What number are we on, Ms. Bonner? Mr. Oliver: Number 4. Clerk: Number 4 on the addendum agenda. Mr. Bridges: Okay. I’d like to hear some discussion on that, Jim, what this does. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Bridges would like to hear what the effect of this is. Mr. Wall: The effect of this would be to allow the executive director to issue encroachment permits. They would have to be confined to the area immediately in front of the storefront. The encroachment could not be more than 50 percent of the sidewalk area. There would have to be a passageway of at least five feet between the tables and any other obstructions or obstacles, such as a light pole, anything like that that might also be on the sidewalk. Mr. Bridges: Don’t we already have that? Mr. Wall: We do not have a mechanism in place for the executive director to issue encroachments. Any encroachments have had to come to the full Commission. This basically would allow your tables and chairs and things of that nature on the public sidewalks. Mr. Bridges: I thought you could already do that by ordinance up to four feet from the door. Mr. Wall: Not that I’m aware of. I don’t think we’ve got that encroachment permit procedure in place. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I just had two questions. One, administratively, this brings us to the point then that we handle the part in terms of any enforcement being done in the downtown area, then, right? Even though I know we’re dealing with encroachment procedure, but those businesses that have the signs, have the tables and that type of thing, this means that they’re not get ticketed. I want to make sure that we are on a common sense level with that. Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. 60 Mr. Mays: Okay, that being understood, I heard it mentioned in reference to the encroachment permits. I’m hoping that we’re talking about a permit which allows our folk to look at something but not a permit that we are fixing to charge folk for. And I want to make sure before I vote. When I hear the word permit and license, I want to make sure it doesn’t come with a fee. Is that being proposed? Mr. Oliver: There is a $25 fee proposed. Mr. Wall: There was a proposed $25 fee for the processing of that. So, yes, sir, that was part of it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, then my discussion continued. These folk that are trying to revive businesses, that buy a business license, that cater to a clientele who will come out, who are trying to revive, quite frankly, a downtown for us, for this city, and make a choice, quite frankly, of eating in a gentleman and ladylike manner there that may be on the outside of their business, I just have a problem voting for another tag-on for a different fee when we’re talking about an area, quite frankly, that if it’s violated we’ve got supposedly bike patrol, we’ve got walking patrol, we got law enforcement down there that’s already, and I just think I’m going to make a substitute motion that we that’s an excessive add-on in terms. approve the motion that’s on the floor, with the exception of the fee that goes with that tag-on. Mr. Williams: I second that motion. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, the Chair missed the motion. Mr. Mays: It’s the same motion but without another add-on of a license for these folk just to be able to operate to get folk on their sidewalks with their businesses. Some of these folk are taking some very serious, risky investment to be down there in the very beginning, and to highlight that has brought back a life downtown, to where you are being able to function, to come back and to see people and then I think it’s a little punitive, like the cow kicking over a bucket of milk, to allow them now to do it, and then turn around and charge them to do it. I just don’t think that’s fair. That’s what’s in my motion. Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion is to approve this minus the fee? Mr. Mays: Minus license and fee. Mr. Mayor: And that’s been seconded. Mr. Cheek? 61 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say to everyone that hasn’t done it, eating downtown or anywhere else on the sidewalks is fun, and I encourage them to come down and enjoy the atmosphere. It creates a unique environment in Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, while we are back on encroachments, let me ask a couple of questions, please. Does this include merchandise? If a vendor wants to put merchandise on the sidewalks? I notice it only talked about tables and chairs. Mr. Wall: Well, it talks about restaurants and businesses. At this point, what we hope to do as a part of the process that is going forward is to allow the executive director to come up with criteria to look at whether or not it’s appropriate to allow merchandise out for th 4 of July sale, Labor Day sale, Christmas sales, what time period those would be, etc. But we were hoping that would be allowed to be done administratively through the executive director. He will come up with those criteria. Quite frankly, there was not enough time between the meeting yesterday and today. There was some concern expressed that it ought to be allowed, and I think that’s something that needs to be reviewed and looked at. I don’t think that there is overwhelming sentiment that we want to have bags of fertilizer stacked out on the sidewalk in front of hardware stores. But that criteria would be developed by the executive director, the way it’s worded. Mr. J. Brigham: Would it come back to us? Mr. Wall: It can if you would like for it to come back. What I would propose is that the executive director implement it, and then if there’s a problem that it come back before you. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: I totally disagree with Mr. Wall’s last statement. I’m looking, all due respect to Randy. Randy is [inaudible] off on a note, on this, that this shouldn’t be done. And while there may be some bad things in there, I think this is why you create a period of dialog. We experienced yesterday a room full of business, both majority of downtown, but from other places. I don’t think we ought to take an attitude again of enforcing something, see how it works, and bring it back. I think we formed already, at least unofficially, a group of downtown merchants, who are now willing to meet. Maybe a bad ordinance came up in a way that sparked them to get together. But I think they need to be able, out of that group that was put together, have the dialog, Mr. Wall, with the executive director, and be able to 62 tastefully do certain things, not to a point of where somebody decides that they’ve got a rack of clothes out there that ladies might want to browse through, that as long as they’ve found a way to keep from stealing them, that’s their business. But I think they ought to be able to determine that in conjunction with the director. I don’t think we ought to make that rule, set it up, and then see how it works. We’ve seen what happens with enforcement. That’s why we’re dealing with backtracking today. And again, I get back to my old phrase y’all don’t like to hear. You plan with folks. You don’t plan for folks. And the more you plan with them, the more you learn about what they can do creatively and what you can do from an administrative side. You don’t shove it at them and then you see how it works. They’ll show you better how it works. They’ll appear like that did yesterday. Mr. Williams: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The question has been called by Commissioner Williams. Mr. Mays: Do I need to make that in my motion, too, Mr. Mayor, that we bring that action back to us? Mr. Mayor: You’ve already made a motion. We have a main motion and a substitute motion on the floor already. Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is I’ve heard Mr. Wall say that was up to us. I need some clarity as to whether Randy is going to call that shot or whether we together are going to call that shot. As a policy maker, I want to know where that’s going to stand. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called, but the Chair will entertain an answer to that question that Mr. Mays asked, and then we’ll move along. Mr. Wall: I had it drafted one way where the policy would be brought back before the Commission. We felt like this was something that could be done administratively. We have no problem with bringing those policies back before the Commission if that’s the desire of the Commission. We’re more than happy to do that. It’s something that obviously, Mr. Mays, we’re going to have the dialog with the merchants association and other groups that come up with those policies. But as the motion is stated, it would be up to the executive director of the Planning Commission to come up with the criteria, but again, if y’all want to bring it back to you, I’ll be happy to do so. Mr. Oliver: And I would note, Mr. Mays, that’s the Planning Commission, not the Administrator. 63 Mr. Mays: I hear director, you know, you usually run everything. I apologize for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, do you want to be heard on this? Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: I worked with those folks downtown for a long time and there are a lot of diverse opinions down there and it’s hard to get them together on anything for long, and I would be a lot more comfortable if it came back to you guys. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion. The motion is to approve as captioned minus the administrative fee. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Having looked at what we’ve passed earlier on 51A, I’m very concerned that we are going to return to the land of signs again. I’d like to, and I’m not sure, being one of the new kids on the block, how to revisit this, but if it’s appropriate, make a motion that we revisit that, reconsider that. Mr. Mayor: That would be Item 3 on the addendum agenda? That would be the moratorium on the temporary signs? Mr. Cheek: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. That would be Item 3 on the addendum agenda. We have a motion to reconsider. Is there a second? Mr. Shepard: I second that. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a single sign per location is like one man, one vote. It makes sense -- 64 Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Was that voted on? Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider and he’s arguing the motion to reconsider. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Peach Orchard Road, I’m seeing grass in areas that I’ve never seen it before. Mr. Mayor: You need to argue reconsideration, not the merits. Mr. Cheek: I think we need to reconsider it because if we don’t we’re going to see just a multitude of these temporary signs which obstruct your vision, they make our neighborhood look like Saigon, with signs everywhere, and we need to establish some middle ground, visit it where there is at least one sign, not do completely away with it at this point, until we look it over again. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion to reconsider? All in favor of the motion to reconsider, vote aye. Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 6-2-1. Mr. Mayor: So the motion is back up for reconsideration on Item 3. Now did you have a motion with respect to this, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: If I can restate it properly, that we have a 90-day moratorium on signs limiting one temporary sign per business . Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is there discussion on the motion? Mr. Wall: For the 90-day period? Mr. Cheek: For the 90-day period. Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 65 Mr. Bridges votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Now let me ask Mr. Wall a question. In view of what we’ve done with the temporary signs and the encroachment permits, does this preclude the city from enforcing the state law that prohibits signs on the public right-of-way, you know, all those diet signs and everything else we see tacked on utility poles and all street corners? Can we still remove those? Mr. Wall: Sure. You can remove those. If they do not have an encroachment permit to have whatever is in the right-of-way, it’s illegal. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have one or two items left, Madame Clerk, other than legal? Clerk: Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve executing by Mayor of quitclaim deed releasing Lot 15, Block A of Rolling Meadows Subdivision, Section 1 from liens on other properties. Mr. Wall: Mayor and Commissioners, this is an item -- Mr. Walker has a number of properties that he has tax liens and demolition liens against. Those are identified in the agenda items. He has another piece of property that by virtue of tax liens, there is general execution lien against this. He has a loan commitment that will expire this week. He’s seeking to refinance those properties. The Land Bank Authority has not met to accept those properties, but I anticipate that they will do so, and this will allow him to refinance that property, would free that one piece of property up and typically each individual piece of property has stood for its own taxes and I’m recommending approval. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: The next item is Item 51. Mr. Mayor: Let’s defer that until after our legal session. Mr. Wall? Legal meeting? 66 Item 52: Legal meeting. ?? Personnel. ?? Discuss/appeal settlement condemnation action. ?? Discuss sludge litigation. Mr. Wall: Legal meeting to discuss personnel. May have a brief discussion concerning the condemnation action. I need to call the office. As well as an update on sludge litigation. Mr. Mayor: And I have two personnel items to put on there. Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the reasons stated by the lawyer and the Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Before we go into legal session, if I could have about 15 seconds for personal privilege. We’ve got two young ladies --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, could we finish the vote and then I’ll give you that. Mr. Mays: Sure. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we had a motion and a second. All in favor, please vote ay. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Mays on a point of personal privilege. Mr. Mays: We’ve got two young ladies with us that have probably attended more meetings other than elected officials and media folk, and they’ve been kind of under the weather a little bit, and I see both of them back with us today. They’re in their familiar seats. They follow Henry up to the sixth floor, up to the eighth floor, Ms. Kernaghan and Ms. Harrison, and I just wanted us to recognize them back there in the back. They believe in following us, keep an eye on us. If you want to find out anything that happens with this government, you don’t have to follow the film. You call either one of them and they can tell 67 you what’s happened from the beginning to the end. But it’s good to see both of them back out again and at our meeting. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Commission will now go into executive session. [LEGAL SESSION 4:40 - 5:45 P.M.] Mr. Mayor: We are back in session. Item 53: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion for the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Mays: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Item 51: Discuss the operations of the Finance and Housing and Neighborhood Departments. Mr. Mayor: With respect to Item 51, what’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek: A motion to remove it from the agenda. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of removing that from the agenda, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 8-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner 68 Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 20, 2000. Clerk of Commission