Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2000 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 17, 2000 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:31 p.m., Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Randy Oliver, Administrator and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. MAYOR YOUNG: I would ask you to please rise. We'll call on the Reverend Rosa Williams, the pastor of the Ever Faithful Baptist Church, to give our invocation, and then I'll call on the clerk of the commission, Ms. Lena Bonner, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Williams. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MAYOR YOUNG: Let me, please, remind you, too, that we are guests of the court in this room. You're not allowed to eat or drink or smoke in here. We ask you to please maintain the decorum and the dignity of court in the room we're in. And I know there are a number of people in the hall. There is court going on in the other courtroom at the other end of the hall so we'd please ask that you keep the conversation down to a very low tone in the hallway. As we move on through our meeting I know that some of you are going to hear things you like. You're going to hear things you don't like. I'm going to ask you please to refrain from outbursts. This is a meeting of the commission and let's conduct it with dignity today so that all sides can be heard and everyone's position can be respected, although maybe not always agreed with. These gentlemen have some difficult decisions to make today. I hope that you have kept them in your prayers and you will continue to do so after today. Some people will leave here pleased today, and others will not be so pleased. We’ll move along with our agenda. And we would like to present a resolution. Mr. Shepard, you had this on the agenda, a resolution for Mr. Oliver. MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could, Madam Clerk, would you like me to read it or would you like to read it? CLERK: However you want to take it. MR. SHEPARD: Well, we ordinarily have you read it so I'll ask that you read the resolution and I'll make a motion after that. Thank you. CLERK: A resolution of appreciation for Charles R. "Randy" Oliver. Whereas Charles R. "Randy" Oliver was the first administrator hired by the consolidated government of Augusta, Georgia, and whereas Randy Oliver brought to this position the combined expertise of his training as a certified public accountant, a professional engineer, and a masters in business administration, and whereas Randy Oliver through his leadership has caused the consolidated government to examine its base needs, its management, and its salaries, and whereas during 2 Randy's tenure Augusta has successfully completed a $97 million revenue bond issue for expansion of its municipal water and sanitary sewer system and has extended its special purpose local option sales tax for another five years for the funding of $150 million in new capital projects throughout Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and whereas the elected officials, city employees, and people of Augusta have benefited from his keen analytical skills, financial acumen, integrity, and leadership and where now, therefore, it be resolved that the Augusta- Richmond County Commission does hereby express its thanks to Randy Oliver for his outstanding service to our community. And be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the official minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission and a copy thereof given to Randy Oliver and his family this 17th day of October 2000. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, the resolution being read by the clerk, I would move approval by this body. MR. WILLIAMS: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion? All in favor please vote by raising your hand. Motion carries 10-0. MAYOR YOUNG: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Randy, I will afford you a moment if you'd like to say anything in response to the resolution because I think we'd all-- MR. OLIVER: I'd just like to recognize my wife, Valerie, who I couldn't do it without. As everybody knows, she's always with me everywhere I go. And I would like to thank each of you for the privilege of being the administrator of Augusta-Richmond County. It's been very exciting. I think that it's been an exciting endeavor, and while there are things to be done as you go forward I think there are a lot of things that have been accomplished. And I'm just proud to have been a part of it and to have known each and every one of you. And I will treasure that now and into the future. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: The next item of business, Madam Clerk? CLERK: City of Augusta Employee of the Month. MAYOR YOUNG: The employee of the month selection committee has selected Mr. William H. Steptoe with the Richmond County Sheriff's Department as the Employee of the Month for the month of September. Mr. Steptoe has worked for Augusta since 1989. He is currently employed as a deputy sheriff, road patrol. His supervisor, Sergeant Mike Anchor, who writes, Deputy Steptoe is assigned to a shift traffic car and, as such, is responsible for investigating serious traffic accidents and enforcing law--enforcing traffic laws, nominated Mr. Steptoe. He is also utilized as a shift field training officer and handles these assignments in a professional manner. The committee felt that based on Sergeant Anchor's recommendation and Mr. Steptoe's attributes he would make an ideal choice for Employee of the Month. Sergeant Anchor further states that Deputy Steptoe does not call in sick nor is he ever late in reporting for duty. Deputy Steptoe conducts himself in a manner that reflects highly on this sheriff's department. Sergeant Anchor goes on to say, the way in which he carries out his duties make my job as supervisor much easier as he can be counted on to assist the younger, newer deputies at accident scenes and training. This department, this shift, and the citizens are 3 fortunate to have an employee of Deputy Steptoe's caliber. The committee will appreciate you joining in awarding Deputy Steptoe Employee of the Month this 17th day of October. MAYOR YOUNG: Congratulations. We're all very proud of the job you do every day for the people of Augusta-Richmond County, and you do it with honor and great dignity to the office of sheriff. And we appreciate that. Thank you. [Award is presented.] MAYOR YOUNG: Anything you'd like to say? DEPUTY STEPTOE: No, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Back to patrol. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, the next item we take up will be item number 43. CLERK: Reconsideration of the denial of an application of Judy Tyler for an on-premise consumption liquor, beer, and wine license to be used in connection with Off Broadway Dining and Dancing located at 1285 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall and Sunday sales. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. This item actually is recaptioned because this is an appeal of the denial of that application, and that appeal was filed in writing by the petitioner. Mr. Williams, you're representing the petitioner today in this appeal? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I am, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We will let you proceed in one moment. We always like to have a head count for the record so if we could have a--we will try as best we can to estimate the number of people on both sides of this issue. Those who are in favor of—if you are in support of this license being granted for this location would you please raise your hand? Mr. Wall is our official statistician and he tries to include everybody. MR. WALL: Approximately 55. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Now, those who are opposed to the granting of this license please raise your hand. MR. WALL: Are we counting the children as well? MAYOR YOUNG: We'll count anybody who is opposed to it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they're not voters. MAYOR YOUNG: Voting has nothing to do with it. Some of the people who own property downtown and businesses downtown don't live in Augusta, so. So we don't get that concerned about geography. This is an appeal from an action by the commission at our previous meeting denying the application. At that time when the denial— CLERK: 245. MAYOR YOUNG: --was recorded into the minutes— MR. OLIVER: 245. MAYOR YOUNG: --as a matter of the vote of the commission that was the time when we had the public hearing. Today is not a public hearing. It is an appeal. The petitioner has come back to us to ask us to review that decision, though in order to perfect the record I will ask the clerk to include in the minutes of the meeting today those comments that were included in the minutes of the meeting from last 4 week from those in favor of this license and those opposed to it. So those will be carried over to the meeting today from--for that record. Mr. Williams, if you will stand on this side over here so this microphone can pick you up and everybody can hear you, you may go ahead and proceed. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: The entire proceeding from last time will be included, not just comments. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. It will be included. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: It will be the entire proceeding. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Call Mr. Stewart Walker. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Now, if you'd like to put Mr. Walker under oath you may do that, just out of habit. We have a question. Commissioner Cheek? MR. CHEEK: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding then that those that are in opposition to this will not be allowed to speak today? MAYOR YOUNG: Well, they spoke two weeks ago in their opposition to it. This is an appeal to our decision. MR. CHEEK: It just seems like it would be in order for those that have concerns to be able to— MAYOR YOUNG: All right. The chair will take that under advisement. Go ahead, Mr. Williams. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I don't think it's necessary to put him under oath, is it, Jim? MR. WALL: No. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: You're going to tell the truth anyway, aren't you? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. STEWART WALKER, Was Examined and Testified as Follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Q. State your name and your position. A. Stewart Walker, license manager, Augusta-Richmond County. Q. And how long have you held that position? A. Since consolidation after '96. Q. Are you familiar with the application submitted on behalf of Ms. Tyler for a license at this location on Broad Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, where is this property located? A. Located at 1285 Broad Street.Q. And is that in the central downtown business district? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which is obviously primarily businesses. There is very little residential use surrounding this property; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, was the application in order? A. Yes, sir. It met all the requirements of the license and inspection department and it was approved by us and the sheriff's department. Q. And you do a background check to see if Ms. Tyler is qualified to hold a license? A. We don't. The sheriff's department does, and they approved it. 5 Q. Okay. So as far as your office is concerned there is no reason based upon the ordinance or other legal requirements for this license not to be granted? A. That's my opinion, yes. Q. Do you know of any reason why it should not be granted? A. No, sir. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: That's all the questions I have of Mr. Walker. Mr. Osbon, Julian Osbon, to testify. [Mr. Walker remains; Mr. Osbon takes the stand.] MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Osbon, if you'd give us your name and address for the record, please. Then you may proceed, Mr. Williams. MR. OSBON: Julian Osbon. 1117 Kirk Place, Augusta, Georgia, 30909. JULIAN OSBON, Was Examined and Testified as Follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Osbon, what relationship do you have to this property at 1285 Broad Street? A. It's part of a complex that I own in that 1200 block—1200 block of Broad Street. Q. Do you have a lease agreement with Ms. Tyler? A. Yes. I've got a copy of it right here with me. Q. And does that lease agreement contemplate her opening up a restaurant? A. Yes. Yes, it does. Q. Are there any restrictions on her further use of that property with you as her landlord? A. Yes. When we were approached by Ms. Tyler we were concerned as to the possibility of a tenant misusing any of our property. So we contacted the--Mr. Patty at the Richmond County Planning and Zoning and we requested from him phraseology that would prohibit the property to be used for anything other than what we intended and also would prohibit it from becoming a distasteful destination. In particular, one of the additions, a stipulation that was suggested by Mr. Patty to prevent it from being an adult entertainment destination it says no adult entertainment allowed as defined by the Augusta-Richmond County zoning ordinance. And we also put in place restrictions as to what could be done outside the building to eliminate unnecessary noise, to be anything that would be destructive or distasteful to the neighborhood. Q. Now, Mr. Osbon, are you familiar with downtown Augusta? A. My father moved into the building in this complex the year I was born, 1940, and I've been there ever since. Q. You are actively involved in the revitalization of downtown Augusta? A. I served for one year as president of Main Street. I'm currently on the Downtown Development Authority. I'm currently serving as president of Augusta Tomorrow, and I'm also a member of the Chamber of Commerce and some other organizations. Q. Are you aware of the feelings of other business owners as it relates to this piece of property being used as a restaurant and having a alcohol beverage license? A. Right. I have been approached by many other business people in the community, very concerned that what happens here may affect long-term use of all the properties in downtown. And, as one told me, if you eliminate all of the liquor licenses in downtown Augusta you 6 might as well, you know, put the fire to it because downtown will be gone. Q. Is it true that downtown Augusta has become more of an entertainment center as opposed to a retail center? A. Right. The thing that's impressed me the most about downtown--and, again, I've been there all my life—is the young entrepreneurs that basically took everything they owned, put it on the table to gamble and they created these really unique destinations, small restaurants, spots. And probably the most impressive thing to me is to come through downtown Augusta on a late evening or perhaps a weekend night and have trouble finding a parking place between 7th and--700 block and the 1100 block of Broad Street. There's a tremendous number of people now coming to downtown Augusta and twenty years ago they did not know downtown Augusta existed. Q. Are you familiar with any other locations that are closer to Curtis Baptist Church that either have a license to sell, on or off premises, alcoholic beverages? A. To my knowledge there is one that's much closer to Curtis Baptist Church located in the--on 13th Street between Broad and Greene Street. Q. And what is that location? A. I don't know the address but it is— Q. No. What is it? A. I'm sorry. What kind of destination is it? Q. Yes. A. It's a location that, I guess, for better purposes it would be described as a convenience store that people go to for gas and bread and milk and beer and whatever else they want to buy. Q. And that's like just across the street from the church; is that not correct? A. That's a stone's throw from the church. Q. And then behind the church are you familiar with the Sacred Heart Cultural Center? A. Yes. Very familiar with it. It's--at one time was a fine Catholic church for many years. Pete Knox, Jr., saved it and has restored it. It's really one of the real prime jewels in downtown Augusta. And I must admit that I had a son to get married there about six weeks ago and I had to sign a check for about $3500 for liquor for the—for the party that was held there. So it is one that is used for a lot of social events. Q. And the only thing that separates that property from Curtis Baptist Church is a street; is that correct? A. One street, yes. Q. How far is your property located from Curtis Baptist Church? A. I would say probably at least five--I'm just guessing, five or six hundred feet. My--the front door of Curtis is somewhere to the- -to the east of the middle of the 1300 block and my property is somewhere to the west of the middle of the 1200 block. So it's about a block apart. Q. On opposite sides of the street? A. Opposite side of the street separated by two main thoroughfares, 13th Street and Broad Street. Q. And do you know of any reason why this license should not be granted? A. No. I really don't. Obviously there is no legal problems, and I've heard questions asked about whether or not there's safety and security problems. Frankly, I think those are nonissues. I think that 7 there are simply people who don't like alcohol, period, grasping at straws and simply do not want the license to pass. I'm not a particularly big alcohol proponent, but I'm also a business person and I know what it takes to make businesses work. And I think it's good for Augusta to have these type of destinations in them that take care of the entertainment needs of people who visit Augusta and people who live in Augusta. Q. Ms. Tyler have a substantial amount of money already invested in this property? A. I'm not too sure exactly. She's given me a pretty good bit as far as a deposit, and I understand she's got somewhere around $10,000 tied up in it. She has done a tremendous amount of work. This building was a Goodyear Service Store for about thirty years, and we used it for an antique mart for a while. So it took an awful lot of work to get it to where it can be used, and she's done a lot of work inside it. And it's a big building. It's got, I guess, a little over 10,000 square feet in it. Good-size building. Q. And you understand that the county requires if patrons are going to dance in an establishment, whether it be a restaurant or Sacred Heart church or wherever, that you have to get a--what's known as a dance hall license? A. And that's a little bit of a misleading term. I've been to, not only Sacred Heart, I've been to the Greek church. I've been to many other institutions in downtown Augusta including the Civic Center and Bell Auditorium where there's been dancing and there's been drinking and I guess you'd call them dance halls, but I--you know, I never saw anybody really, you know, doing things that would be considered untasteful. Q. But your lease agreement and, of course, the county ordinance would prohibit--A. Right. Q. --professional dancing such as we find at the other end of Broad Street? A. Right. We were concerned. The property in the 600 and--500 and 600 block of Broad Street there are some people there that I have no problem with but--and I don't really frequent those places, but I understand that they have entertainment going on that some people would really consider distasteful. But we were concerned that where we were would--could be possibly used in that regard, and that's one of the reasons we--we configured our contract to prohibit that. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: All right. That's all I have. Thank you. MR. OSBON: Thank you. [Mr. Osbon remains.] MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any other witnesses. I'd just like to make a statement for the record. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir, you may. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I'd like to suggest to the commission that the denial of this license last time was based on political rather than legal reasons. And I would respectfully suggest to you that the commission is charged in these instances with making decisions based on the law, that is, the state law and your own county ordinance, and that you should not make decisions based on politics. There has been shown 8 no legitimate reason for denying this license other than politics. And I, again, suggest that that's inappropriate. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Williams. What I'd like to do now is ask any of the commissioners, for point of clarification or whatever, if they'd like to--if they have any questions for any of the witnesses that were called or if you have any questions for any of the folks who spoke on the opposite side at the meeting last week. If you need any clarification from any comments they made I think most of them are here today. Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've got several questions I want to ask. I guess I'll start with Mr. Williams, and if he don't know the answers we'll go somewhere else. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Williams, will come back around by the microphone so we can all hear. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: If I don't know them I'll make them up. [Mr. Williams takes the stand.] WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Was Examined and Testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BRIGHAM: Q. Mr. Williams, I'm somewhat concerned about whether this is a restaurant or a bar. Is there anything that you can do to relieve my mind of these fears? A. Commissioner Brigham, I can tell you that it's my understanding that this restaurant will be no different than restaurants like the Green Jacket or Michael's or any other upscale restaurant that has a bar area for patrons to get a drink of whatever, soda water or straight alcohol, if that's what they desire, while they are waiting to be seated. Q. So this--this is--now, if I remember Mr. Osbon's lease correctly he can--this person can operate till 2:00 a.m.; is that correct? A. I don't know about that. I don't know what— MAYOR YOUNG: Where's Mr. Walker? He could answer that. Where's— MR. WALL: Hours of operation that are included in the lease does it allow them to operate until 2:00 a.m.? MR. OSBON: I think that's one of the limitations. It can't go beyond 2:00 a.m. It doesn't mean that it has to operate till 2:00 a.m. We did put in limitations that would restrict it from having an open- ending period. MR. WALL: That's consistent with county code, too. MR. BRIGHAM: I figured it was consistent with county code. My point is I don't know any restaurants that are serving dinner in Augusta, Georgia, at 2:00 a.m., including some of those that we have licensed. 9 MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know that it would be any different than any other restaurant that's allowed to do that. I don't think any of them stay open, like you say, till 2:00 a.m., but I guess if they wanted to they could. MR. OSBON: This is basically an older crowd and if they're like me they're going to be in bed asleep by ten o'clock anyway. So I don't know that it's going to be that busy that late. Q. [Mr. Brigham] Well, these are some of the concerns that I have, and I'm wanting to get a feel for your client's situation. A. Well, my client has informed me that her business is going to be that of a restaurant and she wants to be able to serve alcoholic beverages like most other restaurants in this community do. It's not a bar. It's not a lounge. It is a restaurant that's going to have a bar in it. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: If I'm wrong now, Ms. Tyler, you tell me. Is that correct? MS. TYLER: You're right. And there is other restaurants, the Word of Mouth stays open till two o'clock. There are other restaurants in the neighborhood there. MR. BRIGHAM: There is a number of restaurants that stay open in this town till 2:00 a.m. that are not necessarily serving meals, in my opinion. Q. [Mr. Brigham] The other question that I had is what percentage— MR. BRIGHAM: Maybe I need to ask Ms. Tyler this. Do you have a business plan that gives us a percentage of your business that's going to be related to alcohol? MS. TYLER: No. I don't guess--we would do a lot of our--we're going to have--there'll be a salad bar and a soup bar in town and a lot of our business will come from lunch. And we do plan to have like a early dinner and then a later dinner. There's a lot of young people that live downtown that like to eat later, maybe nine, ten, and eleven o'clock. And we have no idea yet. MR. BRIGHAM: But you don't have any projections as to what percentage of your sales will be alcohol? MS. TYLER: We have no way of projecting that. I mean it's--the restaurant at first will be--if we're doing lunch and--you have to build a night business or the dinner business. We know we'll get the luncheon business. MAYOR YOUNG: With all due respect, Ms. Tyler, I believe you're applying for Sunday sales. And you have to show that more than half of your income is going to be from food to have Sunday sales. MS. TYLER: It will be. 10 MAYOR YOUNG: So I think, in all fairness, you have to make some kind of a projection in your business plan and you need--I think Commissioner Brigham is trying to find out what that projection is. MS. TYLER: Well, I'm sure 60 percent of our sales will come from food— MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. MS. TYLER: --because we will do a large luncheon business. We know that. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: No. That's— MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Cheek, did you want to hear— MR. CHEEK: Just a— MAYOR YOUNG: --from some others? MR. CHEEK: --question. I've heard--last week I saw a chart that showed the business on the diagonal where the church and the walk--walk to the business down around the end of the block. It is not diagonally across. And I've heard 800 feet and today I've heard somewhere just over 400 feet apart. What is the actual distance between the two? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Walker or Mr.— UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 841 feet. MR. CHEEK: 841 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Certified plat done by a surveyor. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. If I could address Mr. Williams, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Williams, what were the legal reasons you--in your closing you cited for allowing this? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: What were the legal reasons for— MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: --allowing it? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I think as far as y'all are concerned if a business and the applicant meet the criteria established by the Richmond County code and by the state of Georgia, unless there are some other reasons given to you that would demonstrate that that business is 11 going to affect the welfare or the safety of the community I don't believe you have any real choice about what you should do. And that was my comment, that I didn't--you know, I understand that the church is opposed to it. And I made the comment--and I wasn't trying to be cute--that if the folks adhere to the doctrine of the church they should be opposed to any alcohol ever being sold again in Richmond County anyplace. So that's not an issue. I mean you've got to separate— MAYOR YOUNG: Let him speak. All right. Please let him speak. He's responding to a question. MR. BRIDGES: But, Mr. Williams, didn't—you represented a client for McDade and Old Waynesboro Road that was seeking an alcohol license. Didn't you make those same arguments during that— MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Mr. Bridges, I made them in front of you, I made them in front of Judge Fleming, and I made them in front of seven supreme court justices in Atlanta. MR. BRIDGES: How did that case turn out for you? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, prior to us taking that case us some other cases had gone ahead of us that were--had not been properly and thoroughly presented and there was precedent that the Court had agreed that the ordinance was constitutional and I vehemently disagree with them. MR. BRIDGES: That case did not turn out in your favor, did it? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: You are absolutely correct. MR. BRIDGES: And, Mr. Mayor, I would like to present that the arguments that we've made in the past at the previous meeting, Jim, were the same arguments against giving that--the alcohol license to this establishment that stood up in court. It has stood up in court in the past. We're consistent with our past practice, and I think we should be consistent at this point. Thank you, Mr. Williams. That's all. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall, just for the record would you want to restate those reasons? MR. WALL: At the last meeting we cited three reasons that are contained in the Augusta-Richmond County code, section 6-2-65, and specifically it was the location as to the--and these are discretionary criteria: the location for which the license is sought as to traffic congestion, general character of the neighborhood, and the affect such an establishment would have on the adjacent and surrounding property values. The second one was the number of licenses in the trading area and there was comment made at the last commission meeting about the other alcohol licenses that were in the area. And then the third area was the congregation of minors in the area, and, again, there was comment at the last commission meeting concerning the location of the school and the ongoing programs at the church and seven days of the week, et cetera. 12 MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Mr. Shepard? I'm sorry. You wanted to follow up on that? MR. BRIDGES: Can I follow up— MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: --with what Mr. Wall said? MAYOR YOUNG: All right. MR. BRIDGES: So, Jim, the idea that there are other alcohol licenses in that area is an argument that we're not denying anybody alcohol in that trading area; is that correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: All right. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, maybe Mr. Williams or Mr. Walker could state what the distance requirements are. We've heard that they've been met, but as far as a separation between these schools and churches and youth centers what are our requirements? MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Walker, would you respond to that, please? MR. WALKER: The distance requirement for a lounge or bar or a package shop is 300 feet or 100 yards. A restaurant, a full-fledged restaurant, does not under our ordinance have to meet a distance requirement. But this one is beyond the normal 300 feet anyway. MAYOR YOUNG: What about a dance hall? Is there a distance requirement— MR. WALKER: No, sir— MAYOR YOUNG: --for a dance hall? MR. WALKER: --there's no--no, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. All right. Mr. Shepard, go ahead. MR. SHEPARD: One other question, Mr. Mayor. What about the character of the streets, Broad Street and 13th Street? I think we know they're multilane facilities. What is the difference, if any, between those and the case Mr. Williams took up on McDade Road, if any, Mr. Williams? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: What's the difference? MR. SHEPARD: Uh-huh. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I mean I would assume the major difference is that Broad Street and 13th Street are major thoroughfares and in the 13 Richardson case I don't think it was McDade Road. It was Old Waynesboro Road. MR. SHEPARD: Well, I was relying on— MR. BRIDGES: McDade and Old Waynesboro. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Obviously less traffic. Much, much less traffic. And I don't know that there are any traffic controls out there where this particular site was as opposed to the traffic controls that permeate Broad Street in downtown Augusta. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Walker, the distance requirement that you're speaking of is 100 yards; is that correct? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Is that as the crow flies? MR. WALKER: No, sir. That's from the—the travel way. In other words, you go out the front door of an establishment, down the sidewalk, across the street, the normal way you walk. MR. BRIDGES: In other words, what you're telling me is two business--a church and a alcohol-licensed store can sit 10 feet away from each other, but if they're walkways and sidewalk was long enough they could--they would meet the legal requirements as— MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: --our code has it? MR. WALKER: Going down the normal travel way, yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Do you remember one time I asked you— MR. WALKER: It was— MR. BRIDGES: --to measure the distance out the front door of the bottom floor of this building as someone would walk to the back door of this building? MR. WALKER: At it met the requirements. MR. BRIDGES: Do you remember? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir, I remember. MR. BRIDGES: Do you remember how many yards it was? MR. WALKER: No, sir, I don't. MR. BRIDGES: It was 172 yards. MR. WALKER: Yeah. I remember. 14 MR. BRIDGES: And, Mr. Mayor, the point I'm making is that according to the distance requirement, which is a copy of the state law, you could operate--if you put up a 2 by 4 partition on the bottom floor in the lobby down there you could operate a church out of the back and a alcohol-licensed building out of the front and you'd be perfectly within the legal requirements of the 100-yard distance because it's 172 yards. And that's why this commission has such a hard time--we get in situations like this. The ordinance is not fair. It's not proper. There are a lot of situations that you can come up with that aren't reasonable. And we've tried to change them in the past. But I think we're completely within our rights as the commission and as the--the items and the--the items that the attorney has mentioned, I think we're completely within our rights to deny this license. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Any further comments or any questions? Do the commissioners want to hear from anyone else? All right. The chair will entertain a motion on this appeal. According to our attorney the proper procedure is either a motion to uphold the appeal, which would grant the license, or a motion to deny the appeal, which would end the process right here. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor— MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays? Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: Mine is not to make a motion, but it is to--I know this is the appeals process, but I guess in the point of fairness or due process, since we're putting folk on the witness stand, in reference to allowing whether it's in terms of time of rebuttal or time of statement to the original folk who were against the petition, and I believe they were represented by a spokesperson. And whether that's in the proper language of the chair for the opposite side to be recognized during the process of appeal inasmuch as we've heard the petitioner call upon three to four different folk in order to make testimony. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, Mr. Mays, this is an appeal process. It's not a public hearing. But if you'd like to get one of the objectors to come forward and answer some questions or clarify some points for you certainly the chair would entertain that. MR. MAYS: I'll yield— MAYOR YOUNG: Would you like to do that? MR. MAYS: I will yield my time then, I guess, to the pastor in reference to making those statements. MAYOR YOUNG: Reverend Harris, would you come up front by the microphone? Please. They're having court at the other end of the hall so we're going to please have to hold it down in here. Thank you. [Reverend Harris takes stand.] REV. HARRIS: Commissioner Mays, I thank you for the opportunity of allowing— MAYOR YOUNG: The commissioners get five minutes. 15 REV. HARRIS: Commissioners get five minutes. Okay. Well, I'm going to have to fly then. All I'd like to say to you as the commission as you deal with this appeal process is over the last couple of weeks, I think, all of us have listened as various entities have tried to frame this issue. And I just want to share with you as you make your final decision today as a commission on this issue that you understand from the position of Curtis Baptist Church and those that are standing with us today that we want you to understand what we really see as framing this issue. First of all, we want you to know that this is not an issue about the support for downtown. It's an issue about safety, security, and good common sense, just like we shared before. Curtis Baptist Church supports downtown Augusta. We support it with our ministry to the needs of people. We support it with our money. Do you realize that Curtis Baptist Church brings people downtown every week, often several times a week, from as far away as Aiken County, Jackson, South Carolina, Thomson, Georgia, Warren County? In fact, are you aware that we bring more people downtown from a larger area than this one restaurant will ever bring to downtown? And, by the way, gentlemen, I want you to understand our support is for real, regardless of the vote on one establishment, unlike the threats I've read over the last two weeks. I reference from the Metropolitan Spirit, October 5th, where Mr. Osbon said, and I quote: in fact, I wish I had my money in my pocket because I would walk out of town. Our support is for real. Curtis Baptist Church supports downtown. It is an issue of safety, of security, and common sense. Secondly, the issue is not about revitalization of downtown. It's about respect, respect for a church and a ministry who has been here making a difference for nearly a hundred and twenty-five years. As Commissioner Cheek pointed out, when you weigh out what the church has meant and done in this community for that length of time and what it means to this community against this one establishment with no track record and, obviously today, a number of questions about what they will be or what they will become Commissioner Cheek said you have to come down on the position of the church. As Commissioner Bridges has already pointed out today, nobody is being denied liquor in downtown. As Commissioner Mays pointed out to the record last meeting, that the commissioners have discretion on two clear bases to deny this license. One is saturation. There's already alcohol in that area. And, number two, it is in close proximity to a place where minors tend to congregate. Curtis Baptist School has more than four hundred and fifty students enrolled. We have an active church with hundreds of families, youth and children, week in and week out. It's been said more than once this week that the church should be the conscience of the community, not the governance. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that statement obviously does not understand that the church is not a building. The church is not an organization. The church is the body of Christ. People make up the church. And to say that we are not to be involved in governance is to say give us your money as citizens with your taxes, give us your business in downtown, but keep your convictions, your beliefs, and your opinions to yourself. And that's not what America was based on and I trust that's not what Augusta was built on as well. And, finally, let me say this. This issue is not about power and prestige, but it's about principle. As Commissioner Williams said, and I quote, I'm between a rock and a hard place, but I'm going to continue to go on my faith and vote against the license. Commissioner Richard Colclough and Commissioner Jerry 16 Brigham, you voted to deny this license in public services committee, and then you voted again with the full commission. And we--and we need your support again today. I want you to know that Curtis has not created this media frenzy that we see here today. I haven't called one television station, one radio station, one newspaper over these last two weeks. They have all called me. We've heard the phrase mob rule and how this is not a way to govern. Well, we were contacted--we have not contacted any churches in the area. In fact, I received a contact from our association that is over forty thousand Southern Baptists in Augusta, and the opportunity was given that a letter be sent to those churches to encourage them to come and stand. I did not pursue that matter, and I'll tell you why. Because I have faith in the system, that from a four-to-zero vote with the public services committee to a six-to-four vote by the full commission, I can only hope that at the end of the day you'll be able to know that you stood, not because of power and because of prestige but because of principle. MAYOR YOUNG: Time is up. REV. HARRIS: It was a good decision in September, and it's a good decision still today. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR YOUNG: Commissioner Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call for questions on this— MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we don't have a motion to call the question on, Commissioner. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to make a motion that we deny this appeal, that we-- MR. BRIDGES: Point of order or information? MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Jim, since this has--this license is being granted- -I mean has not been granted previously, the--what happens today if there--it comes to a five-to-four vote? I mean what I'm saying is what we did at the previous— MR. WALL: I mean it takes six votes to grant the license. So without six votes there will be no license issued. But if it--if there is no decision, if it's five-four and no action then it would be brought back to the next commission meeting unless they chose to enter into some type of agreement that that would be considered a denial and go forward which we've done on occasion. MR. BRIDGES: But let me word it this way. We denied the license previously. It's my understanding that this is a reconsideration of that. And those that want the license or make a motion, if they fail in that motion then the previous action— 17 MR. WALL: Stands. MR. BRIDGES: --of the commission stands? MR. WALL: And that's the effect. I mean there's a denial of the license. MR. BRIDGES: If a motion is— MR. WALL: But you do have--by state law there is a right to an appeal. So technically the appellant is entitled to a decision. And a no decision could be brought back before the commission or it could be treated as a denial. If there wasn't a statutory appeal right in there then I would agree with you, but at some point there's got to be a decision, either yea or nay, to grant the appeal. MR. BRIDGES: All right. Let me say this. If the motion is made to deny and that fails today what is the action? MR. WALL: Until there is a motion to grant the appeal and that grant receives six votes then there is no license issued. MR. BRIDGES: So it doesn't really matter what the motion is to deny? MR. WALL: No. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I'll second the motion. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you. Discussion? Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've got a point to inquire of the attorney. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. MR. BRIGHAM: Are we limited to either the approval or the disapproval of this motion? Is there anything else we can do if we so choose? MR. WALL: Well, I mean, yes. They've applied for alcohol sales, both liquor, wine, and beer. Those are three separate licenses. They've applied for a dance hall and they've applied for Sunday sales. So you could grant, you know, some--the appeal and grant a license for beer and wine, for instance, and deny the dance hall, deny the Sunday sales, and deny the liquor sales if you wanted to or any combination. But there are five different licenses but they're being considered all at one time unless somebody wants to break them out. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard, I believe you had your hand up? MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I make a motion that we grant the appeal and approve the licenses as requested. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Let's see. Mr. Kuhlke, you had your hand up? 18 MR. KUHLKE: No. I just seconded. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. All right. Discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to make a statement, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges has made a pretty strong argument in regards to another case that really has nothing to do with this. But one of the points he's trying to make is that he thinks we need to change the requirements as far as distance goes. But right now those requirements are where they are. I happen to sit on the Downtown Development Authority. I have a great deal of interest in downtown Augusta and Augusta in general. And I feel like that this is a legitimate business. I feel like that they meet all the requirements. I feel like we as elected officials are charged to uphold the state law and our local laws. And in that regard I feel that we will be shirking our responsibility if we don't support this particular investment in our downtown area. So that's the reason that I want to second this motion and I hope my colleagues, the ones that are so inclined, would reconsider their position from the last vote. MR. WILLIAMS: May I call for a question? MAYOR YOUNG: Question has been called. Any further discussion. All right. We'll move—the question has been moved on the substitute motion which is to uphold the appeal. All in favor of the motion to uphold the appeal--and that would, in effect, grant that license-- please raise your hand. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. WILLIAMS, MR. CHEEK, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. BRIDGES AND MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 4-6. MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to put another motion on floor. MAYOR YOUNG: Just a moment. Let me make sure she gets it all down. All right. Are you ready to go ahead, Madam Clerk? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Mr. Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion to grant the beer and wine license to Off Broadway. Looking for a second. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Is there a second to that motion? MR. CHEEK: I'll second that. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. And, Mr. Williams, just for the record would you want to respond to that? Is that something that your client wants? MS. TYLER: No alcohol. I mean what is beer and wine? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the difference? 19 MAYOR YOUNG: Just a moment. Let her--if the commission approved a beer and wine license today that's not what you want? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We'd be interested in that. MAYOR YOUNG: You'd be interested in that? All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve a beer and wine license for this location. Any discussion on that motion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: And maybe this needs to be in executive session in reference to advice from the attorney. I don't plan to vote for the motion, but we've made a--we made a decision, right, wrong, or indifferent, now three times. Obviously, we're going to deal with a situation one way or the other and I don't think there's any secret passage to this that this is probably going to deal with the point of litigation. I think Mr. Wall, to a point, has to decide in terms of the representation. We turned down a license. We turned down an appeal. Now, if we're granting half of that then to a point I think maybe we need some legal advice to a point as to whether or not we--and I think we ought to be truthful with the folk on both sides. If we're coming out here with a half-cocked situation to where we--we grant half of what we're doing so that it sets a form of precedent for the court to decide that you've done half of it so then you're crippled in terms of your defense. Then I think we ought to say then that we ought not make a defense of the case at all. And I don't blame Mr. Williams. I'd take the half and go into court with it right now. So I think we either need to go in executive session or we need to maybe get a response out here in reference to where that puts us squarely in terms of how we deal with the case because we've turned down in one breath. If we pass this motion it means you deal with half of what you're doing. And then I think then at that point then you don't even need to make a case one way or the other. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Mays, Mr. Brigham asked me that question earlier today. And my opinion is that you can make that distinction because state law makes the distinction. And the state law makes the distinction insofar as distance requirements insofar as whiskey and insofar as malt beverage and wine. There are different distance requirements. So state law treats whiskey different than it does beer and wine and so, therefore, it was my opinion to Mr. Brigham and it's my opinion that--as I voiced earlier, that there are five different licenses. And you can apply, I think--and I agree it's not clear-cut, but the state law does treat whiskey differently than beer and wine and so, therefore, I think that you can justify treating beer and wine differently insofar as granting the license without creating an argument that well, what's the difference between beer and wine and whiskey. State law says there's a difference because there are different distance requirements. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, anything further? 20 MR. MAYS: No. My only point for bringing that was just to get that point of clarification, Jim, into the record. And I think the last time that we dealt with the argument we were dealing with beer and wine but the difference being, which it was referred to--and the only reason I brought it up is because it was referred to as part of what was in that area in terms of the convenience store. And the difference being you're talking about on-premise consumption in one argument and you're talking about off-premise consumption in another argument. And that's the only thing--the reason I wanted to get that clarification into the record. MAYOR YOUNG: Just a point of clarification for the chair's benefit, too, this motion does not include Sunday sales; is that correct? MR. BRIGHAM: It does not. MAYOR YOUNG: Let's see. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams. MR. CHEEK: Mr. Mayor, I've labored over this issue ever since we discussed it several weeks ago. It's been a very hard decision. The initial map that I saw had the appearance that the restaurant was directly diagonal to the church. After going physically to the site I discovered that there was actually a good bit of distance between the two, 800 feet. And clearly if you look from the front of the church to the front of the restaurant it would be hard to distinguish what anyone had in their hand in front of either establishment. The thing that you have to consider through all of this is is there something that would allow a business owner to operate and still meet the needs of the community around it. And I think that this compromise is something that will eliminate the dance hall activities and the Sunday sales, the things that are--have a tendency to attract sometimes people that are maybe not beneficial to the area. This may be a way for us to help to improve Broad Street with another business and also meet the needs of the church and the citizens that do attend that church. MAYOR YOUNG: Commissioner Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want a point of clarification and I'm thinking that the applicant could clearly come back and reapply for a beer and wine license at some other time. I think the issue now is whether we denied this license and--that this appeal is on. And I think we need to vote and put down on what we-- what has been addressed here and not whether to break it up into different entities or different sections. I think we should either vote up or down on this appeal and if the applicant want to come back and apply that's a whole 'nother day. But I think we need to vote on the issue we've got. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Commissioner. Any further comments? Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the comment I'd like to make is that it doesn't matter whether it's beer or wine or whiskey. It's alcohol, and the purpose of this is alcohol at this location. And for the same arguments that we've made previous in the June decision and in the 21 other decision, those same arguments--and that we've made here today this morning with the first vote, those same arguments apply to this motion on the floor. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you. All right. No indication of any comments further so let's move ahead with the vote on the motion from Commissioner Brigham, that is, to approve a beer and wine license for this location. All in favor of that motion please raise your hand. MR. WILLIAMS, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. BRIDGES AND MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR YOUNG: So the license is approved. Madam Clerk, the next item of business--if y'all— MR. BRIDGES: Point of order, Mr. Mayor— MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Is it my understanding that's strictly for the beer and wine and it's not for the dance hall and it's not for— MAYOR YOUNG: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: --Sunday sales? MAYOR YOUNG: Beer and wine license. The next item of business will be for the Double Eagle Club. If any of you all are not interested in that and want to leave we'll give you a moment to clear the chamber. If you'll do so quietly please, keeping in mind court is in session at the other end of the hall. Thank you for coming. [Brief recess 3:33 - 3:35 p.m.] MAYOR YOUNG: The next item of business, Madam Clerk, would be item number 28. CLERK: Item 28 is a motion to approve a request from Liddell W. "Cissy" Boulus for an on-premise consumption liquor, beer, and wine license to be used in connection with Distinctive Events and Catering at the Double Eagle Club located at 2603 Washington Road. There will be a dance hall and Sunday sales. MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And I'm representing them. MAYOR YOUNG: Have you got your lucky tie on today? Okay. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I'm doing better. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Bill, Are there any objectors here today? If so, please raise your hand so we can get a count. Y'all just bear with us. We have a little procedure we go through. Dr. Kennedy, you'll be the spokesman for the objectors? Are there any other speakers that you're aware of? 22 DR. KENNEDY: Probably one. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Mayor, I am from the neighborhood— MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, ma'am. You'd like to speak? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A very short speech. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Fine. For those of you who are standing we have a few more seats up here and some seats over here if you'd like to be seated. This may take a few minutes so we'd like you to be comfortable. Here are some seats over here if you want to sit next to the press. All right. Mr. Walker, would you please come up here and tell us about this application? MR. WALKER: This application for 2603 Washington Road meets all the requirements of the license and inspection department. It has been approved by the sheriff's department, and we recommend approval. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Walker, just a point of inquiry from the chair, have alcoholic beverages been served at this location previously? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. On one-day licenses. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Mr. Williams, I'll turn the floor over to you. And let me just say for the benefit of the audience this is a public hearing on this petition. This is not an appeal. So procedure will be a bit different for this than it was for the previous license. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I represent Ms. Boulus. This location is on Washington Road across the street from the National golf course, Augusta National Golf Course. In the past it has served as a place for many functions, as the mayor asked Mr. Walker. Over the last six or seven years there have been many events that have been held at this property and alcohol has been served, special event licenses. There is no history of any problem with the operation of this business during those times. Now, my client wants to operate basically a catering service at this location and will do it for special events such as wedding receptions, corporate outings, civic club meetings. Primarily it will be active during the Masters, as it always has been, for events, suppers, whatever. It's not going to be a business that is going to be open seven days a week, six days a week, or five days a week. It's not a bar. It's not a lounge. It'll be a place where folks, like we said, can go have a party. If you wanted to have a reunion party or you wanted to have a wedding reception or you wanted to have a civic club luncheons and, I think, right now we've got one civic club that is having their meetings there and having lunch there. And my client intends to try to get them all to start coming up there. So it's not going to be a restaurant. It's not going to be a lounge. It's going to be a place for special events. And it basically has served that function for the last seven years. And I would suggest to you again that there's no reason that I know of that it should not be approved. Thank you. 23 MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Those who wish to speak in opposition to this let's start with Dr. Kennedy. If you'll come up front and give us your name and address for the record. And then under the commission rules you'll have five minutes. [Dr. Kennedy takes the stand.] DR. KENNEDY: Sandra Kennedy, 309 Lake Horse Drive in Augusta. Mr. Mayor and commissioners, first of all, right off the bat I would disagree with what Mr. Williams said is at that particular facility it has not been in operation doing the things that it's doing now for many years because it hasn't been that long ago when they were trying to occupy part of our facility. And we went to the same route before to keep them from serving alcohol. At that point there was only 8 inches in between us and them. But they have only been in the particular location where they are for about two or three years. So that needs to be corrected. And my understanding maybe about—maybe about five years. But the one thing that I want you to understand is that we are not against the Double Eagle Club. That is not--matter of fact, I believe I would like to have Pastor Harris on my side up here. He did an excellent job presenting his thing and I could almost say ditto to everything he said because the issues are the same. It's a matter of principle, it's a matter of safety, it's a matter of security, it's a matter of common sense, and it's a matter of neighborhood. We are not in a downtown area. We are in a neighborhood. We have a neighborhood across the street from us, the Vineland subdivision. We have a neighborhood behind us of more than two thousand homes from Lake Olmstead all the way up to the National Hills Shopping Center. And the Double Eagle Club is just a few yards beyond the 100-yard requirement. And I did not even know that they had been serving alcohol before. Matter of fact, there are a group of us that had planned to attend the hearing on October the 9th, and we discovered that morning that the meeting had been canceled and that there had been a meeting held on October the 5th with the announcement that the subcommittee had approved the alcohol license. That was news for us because we had planned to attend on October the 9th. Now, I want to commend the commission for—you have been trying to upgrade our city, to beautify our city. I appreciate the things that you've been trying to do and I am particularly happy that you're trying to establish a city of character. Well, we're standing today for the moral character of the city. We are in a location where we have had to deal with alcohol before. We're in a--just a couple of years ago we had a death of a teenager right in our driveway. And that will kind of get your attention when someone's killed right literally in your drive- way there on Washington Road. I do believe that our church, we meet basically every single—something going on every single night, including Saturday night. There's something happening almost every night of the week, happening there. We're not talking about a few dozen people; we're talking about hundreds of people. You're talking about a Sunday license. We're talking about thousands and more people who are in our services on Sunday mornings and I believe that we're here today to lift up some standards in this city and to try to help you understand there are enough locations on Washington Road already that serve alcohol that I do not believe we need to add another one. And I don't think just because the rights for somebody to be able to come and say we meet the requirements does not mean that you need another establishment and that you need to keep increasing the fact that you just want to keep 24 swamping us and saturating us with alcohol. And so that's the stand that we're trying to take. We're trying to be a part of the community there. We are, as I said earlier, aware of the boundaries and that the Double Eagle Club does really meet those boundaries. If we had known that the Double Eagle Club intent--what it was when they requested a parking variance to pursue an alcohol license we would have opposed that particular thing that they were trying to do. We're here because, as I said, we are a part of a neighborhood. We believe it's the place of the church to stand and to speak on behalf of it. And I think there's one bumper sticker all of us could agree with, and that's the one that says, pray for me, I drive on Washington Road. And so we're trying to make Washington Road a little bit safer and not bring right there in our backyard more alcohol and to put--if you have ever seen the Double Eagle Club, it also has in front of it all of the trees that now have been put up. They have a fence up; they have trees up. And the entrance and exit to that particular facility is so marked that you can hardly see coming and going out of it. And if there's anywhere you need to be able to see clearly somebody coming and going on it's Washington Road. And so we're just not interested in bringing something else where we have to be concerned about our children--not only our children, us, ourselves. And so those are the kind of things that we're trying to say. We know they're a private club— MAYOR YOUNG: Time's up. DR. KENNEDY: --we understand that. We also understand they're talking about a dance hall. We also understand they're talking about leasing it out for public facilities and who is in control of those. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Let's see. Who else wanted to speak? Yes, ma'am, if you'll come forward. MS. ELIZABETH JOHNSON: I'm a senior citizen. You've got to give me time. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, ma'am. Now, this does not count against your five minutes. MS. JOHNSON: If y'all can hear me I can stand right here— MAYOR YOUNG: Well, that'll be fine. If you'll give us your name and your address for the record. MS. JOHNSON: Elizabeth Johnson. 1014 Magnolia Drive and have lived in that neighborhood fifty-three years. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. MS. JOHNSON: And I'm speaking as a property owner and I just wanted to say that we who I represent--and I represent the people in the neighborhood and have a petition here signed by some who signed the petition and we just respectfully request that the liquor license that has been applied for and the Sunday sales be denied. We've maintained our houses for years and years and those of us in the upper part of Magnolia have lived there from the very beginning and we have tried everything possible to preserve it as a residential character 25 neighborhood. And where we live that has not been easy. But it's--we were doing this even before the Washington Road became commercial. And our homes represent a lot and a tremendous investment for us, and we're just trying to keep that investment up and protect it. We would be opposed to Sunday sales of liquor. We would be opposed to a dance hall atmosphere. We want a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We're opposed to the congestion and to the safety and to the traffic movement. And I have to give you a little history here. There have been other places there before the Double Eagle was put there in the same location, and they had games, pinball. There's also been an adult bookstore years ago. And you would come home at about ten o'clock at night and when you'd get in the middle of Magnolia Drive you'd turn off right there where the Green Jacket used to be, and people would be all milling all around. And when you got down to my house, which I'm five houses down now, when you got to my house people were lined all over our lawns, sitting all over our curbs, all kind of people and young people. And then you'd come down the street and somebody would be blocking it. And I remember one night my husband started to say something and he looked at the man and the man gave him some kind of sign, I said, don't make eye contact. Don't make eye contact anymore, and let's just go home. But we've had a time with all of that and we want to talk about the parking. I know they have a parking lot there. I'm aware of that. But people who come to things, they're going to park where they can find a place. They're going to get out when they can get out. And Magnolia Drive is just right there and they park down the street. And that can be a problem for all of us. And there have been disturbances and noise and this is the kind of thing that I speak for today for the older section of Magnolia Drive and also for the neighborhood association as well. I'm just adding that into it 'cause we are members of that. Thank you very kindly. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. If you would bring your petitions up and give those to the clerk we'll make those a part of the record. Is there anybody else who wanted to speak in opposition to this? Yes, sir. If you'll come up and give us your name and address for the record. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Miles Anderson. I live at 295 Ashton Woods Drive in Martinez. I'm a member of Whole Life Ministries. One of the things I really wanted to address here is the safety aspect of putting an establishment at the--at this location on Washington Road. If you would drive by there you would see that both exits and entrance from this establishment empty onto Washington Road just a short distance from the red light at that intersection. And there are hedges on the Washington Road side and then on the Azalea Drive side there's a fence. Now, anybody coming out of there under the influence of alcohol, you know, it would immediately shorten the response time of anybody that have to stop for them. And having to stop for a person that close to the red light would almost guarantee a multiple car accident for people if you know the volume of traffic on Washington Road. One of the other things that Mr. Williams said was that this is a special event establishment. Well, we know that they're trying to rent this place out. He made the statement that they're trying to get other--other organizations to come down there and have lunch. Well, it's my contention in the American way of doing business if you can get somebody down there every day you will. So you have to realize that they're going to try to increase the volume of business. All right. 26 Now, the people that they're going to rent to are people that--to the public. It's supposed to be a private--from my understanding it's a private establishment, but they're going to rent and lease to the public. So they have no control over the clientele. Okay. They have no--no say-so over what the people do once they rent this thing. So, you know, we're opening ourselves up to on Sundays or anytime of day, just the people coming out of there, you know, and causing accidents. Azalea Drive is the main entrance into the neighborhood. We've mentioned they have over two thousand residents in that neighborhood. You know, what we're introducing here is a safety factor for people getting to and from their homes. You know, no one in America should have to go a different way to get home because they fear safety. Now, what we're asking here is for you to consider the general welfare of the public. Okay. And even--they talk about on Washington Road where they're serving alcohol during the Masters. At that time why introduce a facility that would put more people into that environment that are under the influence of alcohol, either driving or walking? So my opinion is that, you know, you would take into consideration--I'm asking that you would take into consideration the location of the facility and the general safety of the neighborhood and the general safety of citizens in general going up and down Washington Road. There's no way that you can guarantee that, you know, for a person coming out of there--in other words, they have only maybe 3 or 4--maybe 5 feet at the most, a person leaving that establishment to see the road. Okay. And if he's not looking clearly and goes out there, you know, it shortens the response time for him to even try to, you know, prevent himself from going out into oncoming traffic. So we are asking you commissioners, you know, to consider that we're asking-- we're citizens asking you to look out on our behalf, you know, consider our general safety while traveling up and down Washington Road, consider our general safety about putting more people under the influence of alcohol in an already volatile situation and dangerous situation that can cost the life of someone. Take a look at the residents in this room. Take a look at the people that goes to Whole Life to church, people that live in that neighborhood. Which one of their lives would you want to put on the line? Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Is there anyone else who'd like to--do you want to add anything to the conversation? MR. BILL WILLIAMS: I just want to clear up a couple of points, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. MR. BILL WILLIAMS: Have y'all got a plat showing the property? I think Mr. Walker's office may have a plat. This property has an entrance on Washington Road and it also has an entrance on Azalea Drive. So--and the traffic flow that historically has been adopted up there is that folks can come into the property off of Washington Road and then they're directed out to Azalea Drive back to Washington Road where there's a traffic control device. And this plat that Mr. Harris handed me shows that. And there's off-site parking. When my clients have special events and if the license is approved and they're allowed to operate this business they'll have a valet service that will actually park cars. And if there's a need for the off-site parking then the valet service will park the cars there. So this business 27 poses no more traffic hazard to Washington Road than any other business, whether it be a Laundromat or a book store, shopping center, or, for that matter, a church. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: Commissioners? Any comments from the commissioners? Do we have a motion? Mr. Shepard, yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, how many one-day event licenses have been granted at this location in the past? Do you know? MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Walker, could you respond to that? MR. WALKER: Seems like there was seven at one time. Seven at one time during Masters weeks they've— MR. SHEPARD: That would be for each day of the Monday through Sunday— MR. WALKER: Monday through Sunday Masters week, yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: Have there been any other times— Mr. WALKER: Without the records I couldn't tell you right off, sir. I'm sure there have been, but— MR. SHEPARD: If this license is denied the individual renters of this place could still come forward and apply for individual event licenses— MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: --and that would just continue the practice? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess to follow-up on the question that Steve just asked, I think it shows somewhat a tolerance level that both the neighborhood and the church has had because I can remember-- and I think that it's no secret the church and the neighbors and the petitioner all know where they are in terms of the size and the location of Washington Road and also what we bring into there one week during April. I can't remember from the standpoint of where on the one-day licenses during the Masters season--I think that's been a tolerated period from the standpoint that even the church has not opposed the one-day license period. But I think what you're getting into is that when you're changing from the one-day license period to a permanent location and I think that's what's brought about the opposition level. So I think there is a tolerance level that's there probably in one of the busiest neighborhoods in America during that particular week. And yet you've not heard one bit of opposition over those years, not just with this location but I think you can check your records and you'll find that other places, small and large, that ask for one-day event license and they have been tolerant in those locations to a point of where maybe they might have been closer than they are now. But we didn't get any opposition in terms of that being 28 one day because of what was going on and because that would be a controlled situation at least as best that it was going to be in and out of there in a seven-day period. And I just wanted to make that observation for the record to a point that it's not been a condition of intolerance, but it's been one of tolerance to where they've not opposed that on any occasion. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? Mr. Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've got a couple of questions I want to clear up in my mind. So, for my benefit, is this a restaurant license or a caterer's license— MR. WALKER: It's a caterer's license. Basically they're going to catering and having private catering events there. MR. BRIGHAM: It's a caterer's license. It's not for a seven-day- a-week— MR. WALKER: No. MR. BRIGHAM: --operation? MR. WALKER: No. MR. BRIGHAM: And— MAYOR YOUNG: This will be similar to the Club House? MR. WALKER: Similar to the Club House. That is correct. Same kind of license that the Club House got. Yes, sir. MR. BRIGHAM: So a caterer's license just allows them to sell alcohol when--or when they're having certain events if they want--if their clientele so request? MR. WALKER: Yeah. That's right. MR. BRIGHAM: Motion to approve. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second to the motion? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a second. All right. Commissioner Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I wanted to make a comment. MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brigham was talking about the seven days a week as a caterer. But if we--if we approve this license and they are fortunate enough to have business seven days a week it's going to be 29 just like a restaurant, I mean, if they're set up to do that. They're going to be able to serve alcohol anytime that, you know, they're catering. So I just wanted it clear that even though they're not applying for a restaurant-type license, but if they've got the business, if they're open, they're going to be able to serve seven days a week. Is that right? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. If they have the license. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I just wanted to clear it up and bring I out. MAYOR YOUNG: Any further discussion on the motion? Yes. Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor--if they have this license, Stewart, would they need to come back for one-day licenses anymore? MR. WALKER: No, sir. They will not. MR. SHEPARD: And this would put them on the same footing as the Club House down the street? MR. WALKER: The Club House down the street and the other licenses— MR. SHEPARD: Are there any others like that on Washington Road other than the Club House? MAYOR YOUNG: Plantation House. MR. WALKER: Plantation House but I don't think it's open now. But that was— MAYOR YOUNG: Well, I was at a function there about three weeks ago, yeah. Anything further, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I think the point Mr. Mays made is a very good point. These people have not complained as long as the one-day temporary license was granted. It's when it goes into full- time operation that they've complained. And this is a residential area. It joins a residential area. I'd like to point out to this commission that we have denied alcohol, beer or wine--really beer or wine licenses on an establishment that was at the entrance to a residential area, that being the Sand Ridge community off of Tobacco Road. So it would be consistent with us to deny this license. I think the issue that the lady raised from the neighborhood association concerning the overflow crowds in their yards and the issue that it raises with the congregation--and that congregation of the public in private places, I think that's something that we need to be concerned with. I think we need to protect the integrity of a neighborhood and I will make a substitute motion we deny the license. MR. WILLIAMS: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Who seconded that? 30 CLERK: Mr. Williams. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Williams. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? MR. CHEEK: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir, Mr. Cheek. MR. CHEEK: Thank you, Mr. Mayor— MAYOR YOUNG: Speak up so we can all hear you, please. MR. CHEEK: The National Hills area over there is one of the highest voter turnout areas in the city. I say that not for an election, but for the fact that those are active neighbors in a very beautiful neighborhood that they are struggling against the commercialization to preserve. And I would hope that we would support those neighbors who have maintained their property values through over fifty years, who have actually seen those property values increase because of the quality of life they maintain there. All of us tolerate the one week a year, the traffic, and all the other things. It's a part of the festival atmosphere that comes with the Masters. But to have that allowed perhaps many, many nights a week, many, many weeks a year would be an intrusion on this neighborhood. And I have similar types of establishments on the edge of neighborhoods that are in my district and my neighborhood itself has one, and it has never been a contributing benefit to the community. And I would hope that we would protect this neighborhood by voting to deny this license. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Any further discussion? We have a substitute motion on the floor and that is to deny the license. All in favor of the motion please raise your hand. This is to deny. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE AND MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR YOUNG: So the license is denied. Please. I don't want the bailiff hauling us all off. All right. The commission--the commission is going to take a ten-minute recess as we move up to our chambers on the eighth floor. [Recess at 3:59 p.m.] INTRODUCTION: Mr. Henry Wilson Solid Waste Manager Mr. Mayor: We’re back to order. And to give us just a little break from the intense deliberations we’ve been through, what I’d like to do is, Mr. Oliver, if we could take up the introduction of Mr. Henry Wilson. We can go ahead and do that. Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] let me check with Teresa. 31 Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that and then we’ll move on, Mr. Beard. Mr. Oliver: I tell you what, I don’t have my cheat sheet. If they find Teresa -- Mr. Wilson was here. Ms. Smith: I would like to introduce to you our new Solid Waste Manager, Henry Wilson, who comes to us from New Mexico and has about 13 years of experience in the solid waste field and brings with him a total of about 41 years of experience in construction and solid waste. Mr. Oliver: And we think Mr. Wilson is a valuable addition to our staff. Mr. Wilson: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be with the great city of Augusta, and I look forward to working with you for a long time. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wilson, it’s a pleasure to have you on board, and you have quite a task ahead of you because we’ve gotten some excellent inspection results at our landfill and so we’re looking for you to continue the fine work that has already been started out there by the employees we have. Mr. Oliver: He’s going to be bringing you county-wide garbage. Mr. Mayor: You can say that because you’re leaving, Mr. Oliver. We may bring you back for that one. What we would like to do is move forward in the interest of time and the availability of our presenter to Item 40, if you would. 40. Receive recommendation from Ms. Caryle B. Sumner, PC Attorney at Law regarding Augusta Richmond County’s legal services. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, do you want to take the lead on this? This is your Committee. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, first of all I think I would like to kind of chronicle the events we are about to get you into. At the beginning of the year, there was a decision made by this body to form a committee of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and three other Commissioners, which I was included in this. And we were asked to review the law situation and see what we could come up and bring back to the body. Now this was made in a motion that was consented to by the full Commission and I must also ask and get you to understand that even though there were a few of us involved in this committee, there were only two drivers of this committee, and they were the two neophyte Commissioners. They are the ones that asked that we look into this and they are the ones that demanded that we either comply with the Bill which state that we should have in-house counsel and an outside counsel. This is what the Bill called for. And in this interim of four years, we had just kind of played with it. We hadn’t done anything with it until we got two Commissioners come on board and demand 32 this. And from that, the Committee decided that we would have a hybrid-type situation, one that is dealing with an in-house counsel and also an outsource counsel. And this is something that the Committee also voted and approved that we would ask an attorney, a neutral attorney, to come in and give us a proposal as to how this would operate and what we will do at this interim. We asked Caryle Sumner to present this proposal for us today, and I must remind most of the Commissioners that we are dealing with the proposal that she has and not anything else. Now I think that of all the talk that we’ve had about the Bill itself and I can say that I thought that the Committee came up with a prime example of a win situation for everybody involved, and I think when you see this proposal, and most of you have had over the weekend so I’m sure you’ve read it, I think you will agree with me that this is a win situation for all of us and at the end of her presentation, Mr. Mayor, I would like to come back and make a motion at that time at the end of her presentation. We also must keep in mind that this was done by our Legislative Delegation when they established the Bill that we would have this. And I think that it’s time that we come to the table and face reality that we are going to do what the Bill asked us to do or comply with that Legislative Act, had asked us to do. And I feel that we have done this at this time, I think we’ve done it in good faith, and I see no reason, Mr. Mayor, that we can’t conform to this. It was my intention at the beginning to set up that motion that we did have this by July and that we would have time to activate any new people coming on, but we must remember that time is an element here and that even if we don’t activate this by December 1, we will have a whole year to activate this if we don’t get it in that time. So I’m going ask Ms. Sumner to come forward and present her proposal. Ms. Sumner: Thank you, Councilman Beard. Thank you all for allowing me to work on this project for you. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sumner, you need to get real close to the microphone and speak up so we can hear you. Ms. Sumner: Can you hear this? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Sumner: That’s good? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to present this proposal. One of your staff has been kind enough to use the overhead projector. I’ve done some projected slides to simply summarize this report to you. I hope that -- Councilman Beard said you’ve each received your copy of the actual report and had the opportunity to review it. This is simply a summary of that report. As Councilman Beard said, I have studied the provision of legal services to Augusta Richmond County, and I first of all would like to show you as an overview what that study consisted of. First of all, I looked at, or the study considered the present legal services that are provided to the City and the County. Second of all, I considered a projected change in demand for services to the City-County. From that review, I have formulated a recommendation to meet an increased demand for legal services. I considered, as Councilman Beard stated, the creation of an in-house law department, projected a potential scope of services for that department, projected a 33 budget for that department, and provided some forms for internal review procedures. I’d like to talk about each of those steps of this work with you. First of all, to the review of present legal services. Again, as my report reflects to you, first of all I reviewed a year of invoices from your present provider of legal services, who is, of course, Mr. James Wall, and the firm of Burnside, Wall, Daniel, Ellison & Revell. I also reviewed various litigation reports for that year, looking at the types of litigation that you were involved in. I subsequently composed a questionnaire concerning the provision of legal services to attempt to ensure that content neutral questions were posed to your various department chairman. I then, with that questionnaire, talked to your department chairmen concerning the completion of work, whether it was done in a timely manner, accessibility of attorneys to your City-County staff, the overall quality of work, and then when all that’s said, in my opinion, whether reasonable fees were charged for those services. Let me begin by stating to you unequivocally the over all quality, every statement made concerning the work provided by Mr. Wall and by his firm is of overall quality of excellence to you. As to whether work is completely in a timely manner, I was informed by department heads that as to routine work -- say for example the review of a contract -- that such work was done within one to two weeks. If, instead, a request was made that the work be done more quickly, those requests were always met and work was done in one to two days. As to accessibility, department heads commented -- and I think I actually put quotes in the report -- that they realized that you can’t always get the attorney on the phone but they are aware that the attorney will call them back as soon as possible. So clearly, again, your legal staff is quite accessible. Overall quality of work as stated by your department heads was judge very favorably. No criticism. And indeed, certainly from my point of my view, you’ve been charged very reasonable fees. There’s really only one caveat that I can make, which in no way reflects upon Mr. Wall or Mr. Wall’s firm’s work, and that is I think you, the City and County, enjoy a relatively litigation-free environment. And that’s wonderful. It’s a compliment. But my review of the bills of ongoing litigation reveal really, but for one major case, very little money spent on litigation. That certainly was something that I thought about as I considered potential growth for you. With that said, the one thing that department heads did comment upon was an overall concern that if SPLOST and the General Obligation Bond passed, that they projected an overall, three-fold increase in work. Again, with no disrespect to Mr. Wall or his firm, certainly, because none was expressed, the concern whether that amount of work could be met. I then, from my own point of view as an attorney experienced in local government, considered whether such an increase in work would also potentially increase litigation. Unfortunately, many times those two increase the workload and also provide an increase in litigation. With that said, I reached the following recommendation to you, and that is a two-fold recommendation. And please notice that the first word is if. I would recommend to you that if SPLOST and the General Obligation Bond passed, that an in-house law department be created. However, outside counsel should continue to be used in the present manner to handle litigation. With that said, let me talk a little bit about my thoughts in the creation of an in-house law department. First of all, again, if you read -- and I’m sure you have -- if you read the report, one of the things that I think is of paramount importance to you is to consider that in any attorney-client relations, you want to have a feeling of rapport, confidence and of course, also confidentiality, as well as impartiality on the part of the attorney to reach a decision. And with that said, I think 34 that certainly there is always concern about maintaining that degree of impartiality and professionally. I think the best way, in my opinion, that you can provide for such safeguards, as is well the importance of you being able to feel confident in the opinion of those attorneys is to choose attorneys with experience and expertise as part of your staff. Again, dependent on work load, I would recommend a staff comprised of two to three attorneys, as well as support staff. I would similarly recommend a pay equivalent equal to the District Attorney’s office, because again you would want to have a high degree of expertise in your attorney. As to a projected scope of service for the in-house department, my intent was to separate out, if you will, litigation. I began the [inaudible], and certainly in my discussion and the more complete report, with land acquisition. That became apparent that if indeed your SPLOST and your General Obligation Bond issue pass, you’ll be having many projects going forward that are going to include land acquisition, be it through outright purchase or through condemnation. Certainly I think that this is an area in which an in-house department can clearly be beneficial to you economically. Similarly, I would assume on a day-to-day basis a city-county such as Augusta-Richmond County has many questions concerning open meetings, open records. I’m sure you have many contacts that need reviewing on a routine basis. Legal opinions in the sense of the types of issues that department heads may come to, as far as going forward with their work, employment issues in the sense of the kind of issues that are no doubt also handled by your Personnel Department, but a way to provide legal advice. And I put attend meetings, simply meaning when you as a council would wish those attorneys at the meeting, and of course similarly at department meetings. Money. Budget. The chart -- this is, of course, simply a projection of the chart that’s included in the report. The fees that are shown on this chart for Chief Attorney, Assistant Attorney and support staff are the pay ranges for the District Attorney’s office. I did them as a range, because of course it would be dependent on the experience and experience of persons that you would ultimately hire. The projected benefit, as you probably cannot read from that footnote but you can from the report, is the percentile figure for benefits that was given to me by the City-County Personnel office. And so I derived two sets of total ranges, depending on number of people. Second of all, still looking at the budget and money, the second chart looks at a projection of costs, some of them being hard costs, some of them of course being expendable costs, meaning your paper, supplies will have to be replaced as they are used. As noted again, a footnote that is in the report but not on this particular slide, I simply took one of the purveyors of office supplies to you, and I used Office Depot, with some mid-range prices and plugged those in for the furnishing of an office. That’s basically where those figures come from, the most recently catalog. Finally, there is a final small chart, which simply takes those expenditures, i.e., the total of personnel salary ranges, the total office expenditures, and totals them. I would certainly want to comment to you that if you were to compare this particular total, the $340,000-some to the $447,000 figure, you are of course looking at in a comparison state 60-80%, depending on how you looked at it, of the present annual attorneys fees. However, if your workload were to increase three-fold, I think it would be at that point in time that you would be looking at the cost effectiveness of creating the in-house department. Certainly I assume you would not be supporting to you of these expenditures but for the increase of work. Finally, the last item included in my report, for want of a better word, is internal procedures. And these are simply forms for 35 documentation, both internally and externally, for a law department. You’ll note I noted these came from Gwinnett County. I developed these forms for Gwinnett County. The overall intent of such forms is to provide to you, the elected officials, as well as to the department heads, some kind of an understanding of the amount of time and the amount of work your attorneys are providing to you, to help you make some type of budgetary sense of what they’re doing. Finally, in capitulation or to repeat, my recommendation is really very simple, and that is I would recommend to you to create an in-house law department if SPLOST and the General Obligation bond pass. I would similarly recommend to you to continue using existing counsel for litigation. Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Beard finish. Ms. Sumner: I’m finished. Thank you. Question. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Beard, with the presentation, and then we’ll open it up for questions. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion at this time, and I move that we accept the proposal submitted by Ms. Sumner which includes a hybrid effect with an outside counsel and an in-house counsel with the in-house counsel being the primary person also securing the services of Ms. Sumner to meet with the Committee to establish the mechanism for such a department. Mr. Williams: I second that. Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. As we open the questioning, the Chair has one question. Ms. Sumner, I’d like to ask you this question. This report that was given to us today is dated October 17, 2000, and we had a meeting with our Finance people earlier and someone talked about the land of audits, and quite frankly, during some of your presentation I thought I was in the land of Oz, because we had a referendum on SPLOST and the General Obligation Bond a month ago. And the General Obligation Bond did not pass. And I’d like to know whether or not your assumptions of a potential for three-fold increase in work are still valid in light of that. Quite frankly, I’d like to know why you wrote the report not knowing that the Bond issue failed, because this casts a shadow over the creditability of your report, at least in the eyes of this member. Ms. Sumner: I appreciate that. I was not aware that the General Obligation Bond passed. I was of the opinion -- Mr. Mayor: No, the Bond filed. The SPLOST passed. The Bond failed. Ms. Sumner: I’m sorry. I meant to say that. I was of the understanding that they were on the November ballot. Mr. Mayor: On the November ballot? And where, for my information, did you get that understanding? 36 Ms. Sumner: From discussion with a department head. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: If I’m in order, I’d like to make the substitute motion that the Shepard model be approved. I’m grateful for Ms. Sumner’s presentation, but I did a presentation to the Law Committee on May 25, 2000 which is included in your agenda book which I proposed the creation of a hybrid law department which would have our current City-County attorney, Mr. Jim Wall, serving as the head of the department and handling litigation and he would be serving at the pleasure of this body. And so if I’m in order, I would make that motion and I would like to discuss it and rebut some of the things that Mr. Beard has stated, because I think we have differing views on this matter, but I would make that in the form of a motion, and it would be specifically that we create the hybrid law department under my model dated May 25, 2000 with all of the provisions outlined in Agenda Item 40 as stated in our agenda book. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion? Okay. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Wasn’t that motion defeated in council? Mr. Mayor: I believe people can bring motions to the floor any time they wish. Mr. Beard: Wouldn’t it have to be reconsidered? Mr. Mayor: Well, we can ask the Parliamentarian about that. I certainly don’t think the motion is out of order in the context of discussion. Mr. Wall: I think I’m going to recuse myself from my opinion. Mr. Oliver: I’m not. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, are you offering an opinion? Mr. Oliver: I believe you can have two motions at any one time. I think the timing -- Mr. Shepard: This is a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. 37 Mr. Mayor: We’ll start at the end and go around. Let’s start with Mr. Bridges and we’ll work our way around. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Okay. Ms. Sumner, as the Mayor’s mentioned, the GO Bond did not pass, but the SPLOST did. The present Attorney -- we’ve had a SPLOST for I guess 15 years now, so he’s handled the last SPLOST which is now ending. How will issuing a new SPLOST increase his workload two- or threefold at this point? Ms. Sumner: It was my understanding from discussion with department heads, as well as review of the documentation furnished concerning the various projects under SPLOST that the amount of projects, especially land acquisition and condemnation included in SPLOST, tripled. And that would be the basis for the reason for the [inaudible] from the present SPLOST. Mr. Bridges: Okay. So you were getting that from our staff? Ms. Sumner: Yes. And from looking -- what I was furnished, first of all, is I’m sure the large [inaudible] book on SPLOST. I reviewed that. Following that review, I incorporated questions concerning SPLOST into my questions of the department heads. Mr. Oliver: I would note for the record that I never talked with Ms. Sumner. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Oliver, based on the SPLOST, from last SPLOST to this, in your view is that going to increase based on the projects we’ve got? Mr. Oliver: I don’t believe that the property acquisitions between the two SPLOSTs are that different. Mr. Bridges: Ms. Sumner, based on the fact that the GO Bond failed and you’re tying the creation of a legal department to both of them passing, what is your recommendation at this point considering strictly the SPLOST passage? Ms. Sumner: I believe that you -- based on what I know, my thought is that your work will increase. It will not, of course, increase as much as it would if the General Obligation Bond had passed. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Oliver: If you recall, the General Obligation Bond was all drainage projects, which would have involved quite a bit of property acquisition through some relatively small properties because of the easements that would have been required around creek beds and things like that. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? 38 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, whether we had a bond tax out for vote or not, it doesn’t make any difference. My thing is that we as a government have come together as a city and county to make city, and the law said that we should have an attorney that works for this government. For the last seven, 6 or 7 years, and I wasn’t here at that time, but as far as I know, as far as we concerned and consolidated, we been having Mr. Walls, and not only him, but the counsel before, to act on us. I think Ms. Sumner did a good job and I think we ought to commend her for doing that. I think we ought to do like Mr. Beard has suggested and adopt this. But I think we are missing the point. Whether she knew about the General Obligation Bond, whether the Bond failed or whether we even had a Bond, that’s not the point. In my view, the point is that we should have an in-house attorney. We have been talking about it at the beginning of this year. We gave ourselves until July to come up with a study as to what we was going to do. We met in July, then we got a report. Mr. Shepard who is probably going to disbar from his firm, the Shepard & Williams firm, probably won’t be in existence any more, but Mr. Shepard did a good job. I got no problem with that. But Mr. Shepard should not want to have anything to do with the legal services, being a member of this council and being a member of the legal Bar himself, should not want anything, not that he going to do anything wrong. I really trust Mr. Shepard. I trust him with my life. But it’s not the fact that he’s going to do anything, but being a part of this Commission and being in the legal aspect, he should want someone such as Ms. Sumner, someone on our side, who is a neutral party, who has nothing to gain and nothing to lose. We have no friendship, no kinship, or nothing else in this relationship. I’m just appalled that after trying to find, to try to pick what was said or what was done or whether it was done, whether the Bond was passed or not, the thing we are voting on now, we’re talking about what the law said that we should have. We’re talking about ethics, we’re talking about doing what’s right, we’re talking about leadership, we’re talking about this government. This governing body is not doing what the law has already stated, and we just started. I repeat again, 6 or 7 years that we’ve been consolidated. Every year we vote the same thing. Whether we met today or January 1, we going to meet it, and we need to go ahead and do what the lady we had already voted to do the study, we already paid her the funds to research everything, to come up with this thing, and I think this is more than fair. This is not about Mr. Wall. This is about what the law say we should have, and we should have an in-house hybrid situation where we are come together with a law firm. Let me say something else that’s not represented here, too. You know folks tend to stick their heads in the sand and act like they don’t know what’s going on. Mr. Wall has been with this company or with this government for the last 6 or 7 years and also his firm. We are 51% of the population as minorities in this town. There is no minority representation. We ask everybody that comes in this building for minority participation, whether a contractor or whatever else. We have not even thought about it. We have not even looked at it. Now folks don’t want to say nothing about race. When you say something about race, then it’s wrong. But right is right and wrong is wrong. The law said we should have an in-house attorney. And that’s a lawyer or attorney that works for this governing body, not someone who bills us by the hour. We have went over this a hundred times, same as we [inaudible] today. We still doing the same thing and look for 39 different results. We ain’t getting nowhere. That’s wrong. It’s two left shoes. And I support Mr. Beard and I think we ought to go ahead and adopt this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One item that has been kind of left out of the conversation to this point is the $240-some-odd million in utility bonding that we plan to do if this government has the will, and I would assume that whatever legal representation we have as a government will be acting upon those issues on behalf of this government. That, in itself, is a $240 million increase over the current workload that we have, and I’m sure there’s other legal fees, land acquisitions, condemnations, probably some suits. Who knows? So there will be an increase in the workload. I’m very concerned on timing of this thing. I support the legal department. I have. I’ve heard time and time again from citizens of this community that the consolidation Bill was passed many years ago, and many of the things we were promised haven’t been delivered. This Commissioner took it as the first action as a Commissioner to change that, to take the law and make it apply not only to this government as we expect it to to the people, but then to bring that to fruition. I support having the lead counsel an in-house attorney and subcontracting out as per the hybrid model. I’m very concerned with timing, not only from the aspect of how we will implement this and the positions, but over what period of time to allow a transition to occur. I don’t want to see us in a position of where we pull the rug out from under our current Attorney, nor would -- I would hope that he would be willing to work with us in a transition should we decide to do this. But I do support this. There will be an increased workload. Again, we did pass SPLOST, which admittedly by conversation earlier, was about the same workload as we’ve had for the last so many years. But we did pass a $89 million utility bond, and if this government has the will to follow it through to completion, that’s another $100+ million worth of work to do. And so if we decide to phase this in over two to three years, a year or however long, I think it would be in the best interest of this community to do that, not only for the immediate two to three years, but also in the distant future as well. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you have something you’d like to add? Mr. Beard: Since you’re going around -- Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, I am. Go ahead. I couldn’t tell if your hand was up or not. Mr. Beard: Oh, okay. Mr. Mayor, you know, we are -- it’s amazing how we can latch on to small points about different things and kind of utilize them and give them a little twist and then we make like we’re doing something that’s not happening. The Bond thing should not be an issue because we have the utility bond, and I think that was the whole point of Ms. Sumner’s point, that we do have a bond, the workload has increased. And I think that is something people may want to latch on to, if they want to. But it is going to increase and I think she was right in stating that. Also, it appears that the minor difference here is who is going to be in charge. You know. Who is going to have the power. And it always come down to who wants the power. Where is the power going to 40 be. And I think that’s it. I think that Mr. Shepard was in agreement. In fact, he was the one who also advocated the hybrid effect. But it’s now down to who is going to be in charge. And this is not about -- we’re trying to inject our present Attorney into this, and we shouldn’t be subjecting him to this simply because this does not concern him per se. And all of this that we are trying to rule out our present Attorney, I think all of us are thankful for the things that he has done for us and the workload that he has created for us and in fact all of that. He’s been a very good Attorney. And so I was hoping today that we wouldn’t get into that. That we would stick with what the Bill has called for. The two people that asked us to do this, and also demanded that we do this, and I think the general public who say, and I’ve seen it in many instances that, conform to the Bill that was given us. Now, I see nothing wrong with the in-house counsel being the primary person in this. If that’s where we’re going to go. But if we go with Mr. Shepard, what he has talked about and his proposal, we don’t need to do anything. I mean we be to stay just like we are and we need to drop this right now because if you vote on that, you’ve voting for the firm that we have to continue as is, and there won’t be any difference. Now if we’re going to make a difference, let’s make a difference. And let’s move on from there. If we don’t, we accept what we have, continue with what we have, and we continue to violate the law, and that’s what we will be doing because we have done it for over four years, and we continue to do that, and we just don’t need to breach this subject any more. There’s also the thing about the time limit of this, and I thought I made it clear that if we work as a committee and have her come back and work with the committee, but nothing has been written in stone in this so when this [inaudible], but it would move one thing forward and that is that we have complied with the law. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to tell my colleagues I think they will recall that one of the first issues that I attacked, and I might say unsuccessfully, was to change the Bill, and I made two efforts at that, to change the Bill to conform to a situation where I thought we had good counsel and we should continue with that good counsel. Let me assure you, ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing neutral about this report. Ms. Sumner, correct me if I’m wrong, you come out of a culture of an appointed law department in-house. You’re presently in private practice but you mainly serve in in-house capacities with Gwinnett County, Georgia; am I not right? Ms. Sumner: With due respect, that is correct. I don’t think it is a fair way to portray my position. I have done nothing but look at what you provided in as cost-neutral a way as possible. Similarly, I happened to be in Gwinnett County when the Law Department was formed. It was formed at exactly this point in time. The point in time, the legal work for that county increased three-fold. It was that very push that created a movement from five outside counsel handling all the work to going into a much greater area of representation. So to say, and I’m sorry, but that’s just a very unfair portrayal that I have a bias and I am presenting that bias to you. That is simply not the case. I have not been in private practice five years and I’m certainly trying in no way to fault or is there any fault to find with Mr. Wall. But when you’re speaking about representing a government that is growing in size, growing in service, growing in population and 41 growing in number of projects, and subsequently will be growing in the amount of litigation that it faces, you are then looking at a time to question economics and a provision of service. Mr. Shepard: Ms. Sumner, let me ask you a couple of questions if you’d come back to the podium, I’d appreciate it. Ms. Sumner, you have a letter from me. You didn’t respond to that letter in this process, did you? Ms. Sumner: I reviewed your letter. I considered your letter. I considered your proposal. Mr. Shepard: You didn’t respond to me by telephone or letter, did you? Ms. Sumner: No, I did not. Mr. Shepard: You didn’t speak with the Administrator in this process? Ms. Sumner: I did not. Mr. Shepard: Is he correct? He was correct on the record then; is that correct? Ms. Sumner: I spoke with department heads. That is correct. Mr. Shepard: Yes, ma’am. If I could ask the questions, please. I have some things I’d like to clear up and I’m sure you’ll be forthcoming with me. Did you consult with any elected officials of this county? The Sheriff, the Tax Commissioner, the Clerk? Ms. Sumner: No, I did not. Mr. Shepard: And you would agree with me that the present counsel has represented them and that would be a duty of this government in the future to continue the representation of those individuals in civil rights suits and other matters, would you not? Ms. Sumner: Absolutely. Mr. Shepard: So you consulted with none of them; is that correct? Ms. Sumner: No, but their amount of litigation was represented in the litigation report, so it was certainly considered into the first. Mr. Shepard: And Ms. Sumner, let me ask you this, have you personally -- I haven’t appeared in the Superior Court of Gwinett County, for example. Have you appeared before any of the Judges of the Superior Court of the Augusta Judicial Circuit? Ms. Sumner: No, sir, I have not. 42 Mr. Shepard: I mean you couldn’t tell me the difference between Judge Fleming and Judge Carl Brown, for example? Ms. Sumner: I could not. Mr. Shepard: Have you ever appeared in the State Court of Richmond County? Ms. Sumner: No, I have never appeared in Court in this county. Mr. Shepard: How about in the Southern District of Georgia? We’re in a different -- as lawyers we can appreciate the different Districts, the Northern, the Middle, the Southern? Ms. Sumner: I have not. Mr. Shepard: You’ve never appeared in the Southern District of the State of Georgia here? Ms. Sumner: I have not. Mr. Shepard: Do you realize we have an Augusta Division here? Chief Judge Dudley Bowen is the Presiding Judge. Have you ever appeared before the Administrative Law Judge, Judge Williamson here in Augusta that presides over the cases? Ms. Sumner: I have made no appearances in Augusta-Richmond County. Mr. Shepard: Other than Mr. Beard, have you consulted with any Commissioners in the preparation of this report? Ms. Sumner: In the meetings with your committee, yes. Mr. Shepard: That’s the only time? Ms. Sumner: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: Have you consulted with anyone outside that process other than Mr. Beard? Ms. Sumner: I don’t understand your question. Mr. Shepard: Well, have you telephoned any of our Commissioners up here or corresponded with them? Ms. Sumner: No. 43 Mr. Shepard: Could you tell me what the case of Pace v. [inaudible] Bianco is about? Ms. Sumner: I haven’t a clue. Mr. Shepard: You haven’t a clue? You reviewed litigation reports that had nothing to do with that? You know nothing about that, would you? Ms. Sumner: The one major case that you were involved in is the Boyce case. Mr. Shepard: Yes, ma’am. And what I find incredible, Ms. Sumner, and just maybe I’ve been out to lunch during the legal sessions during the past 2-1/2 years, but to state categorically that this government is relatively litigation-free is just, with all due respect, contrary to my experience both on this body and as a practicing attorney for 24 years. So to say it’s litigation-free is just beyond me, Ms. Sumner, quite frankly. Ms. Sumner: As your bills are reflecting, there is very little money but for one case spent in attorneys fees for litigation. That is the basis for that statement. Mr. Shepard: And you wouldn’t know what the case of William Brown v. Augusta would be about, would you? Ms. Sumner: No, I would not. I did not go into the background of any of your cases other than to categorize them as I showed on the reports of the number of condemnations and then similarly to look at one very large case and then determine what it is. Mr. Shepard: What about the case of Ansley v. Richmond County? Do you know anything about that? Ms. Sumner: I’ve answered your question. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Milledge Williams v. Richmond County? Ms. Sumner: That was not part of the scope. Mr. Shepard: Lafavor v. Webster? You wouldn’t know, would you, Ms. Sumner? Ms. Sumner: No, I wouldn’t. I would not. Mr. Shepard: Okay. King v. Elaine Johnson, the Clerk of our Court? Ms. Sumner: You know, I’d be more than -- Mr. Shepard: Do you know who Elaine Johnson is, Ms. Sumner? 44 Ms. Sumner: No, I do not. Mr. Shepard: She’s the Clerk of our Superior Court. I just wanted to know. And then -- I just don’t know how you can make a statement that we’re involved in very little litigation when you don’t know what litigation we’re involved in. How many workers compensation cases do we have pending at one time in this City Attorney’s office, Ms. Sumner? Ms. Sumner: I don’t know the answer to that. I can tell you amount of your bills by category, which I could have shown you on a slide but I thought that was not a particularly prudent thing to do. Mr. Shepard: How many active trial files do you think we have? Do you have any idea? Ms. Sumner: Not at the moment, no. I looked at your attorney bills as stated for one calendar year. Mr. Shepard: Well, I appreciate your candor, Ms. Sumner. I just wanted to know where you were and I think you. And Mr. Mayor and fellow members of the Commission, I think this is pretty clear what this is. This is a thinly-veiled effort to get rid of Jim Wall. Well, if we want to get rid of Jim Wall, let’s do that. But I’m certainly not going to be a part of it. And I think we’ve just seen Mr. Wall and his firm win at the trial level one of the most significant threatening piece of litigation, and that’s the Boyce and McElmurray cases, and I can’t tell you how happy I was the day to see that that defense ruling came in in my behalf, and what I think we’re going to do today, if we follow Mr. Beard’s proposal, is to fire him, and I just think that I will absolutely no part of that, no matter what is put on it in the form of a label. We should, if we go to any model at all, we should go to the model I proposed and that’s the one that retains the services of an attorney’s that what we called AV rated, which I’m sure Ms. Sumner would understand, was one of the highest ratings conferred by Martindale Hubble rating organization, and it’s a man who has been at the Bar here 26 years, or more perhaps, it’s a man who knows Judge Williamson, who knows Judge Dudley Bowen, who knows every Judge here before we go here, I just don’t think that you go into Court as a City Attorney, and Ms. Sumner, I’ll tell you, if you look back at who has represented the City of Augusta, this lawyer represented this government back in the early -- late 70’s, excuse me -- and I think I have some credibility from which I speak. You know politics is not separated from the City Attorney going into Court. The politics of the judiciary is an entirely different thing, and I think that we have a senior lawyer here who is well respected in all Courts in this city, and that’s something you can’t put on a spreadsheet, ladies and gentlemen. It’s something you can’t quantity, but it’s something we’ve benefited from, and we’d be foolish not to continue to benefit from it. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Before we move on, the Chair has a couple of questions about the projections you make for costs, Ms. Sumner, if you could respond to these. On page 8 of your report, you have a [inaudible] that shows the capital 45 expenses, but then you move down to summary of expenses. You show the total range of $340,000-447,000 as the projected costs of the department, being anyway from 60-80% of the current annual fees charged by the city Attorney. Now you recommend in your report on page 10 an in-house and using outside counsel to handle litigation in the present manner. Where are your projections in here for the costs of outside counsel? Ms. Sumner: That was not part of the report. Mr. Mayor: If we represent savings on page 8, then how do we know whether we are going to have real savings if we don’t project out the costs, the total costs of the law department? Ms. Sumner: As I said in the report, it’s a project based on a three-fold increase in work. Of course, the reason that there is a range of costs is whether or not you would need two or three attorneys, hence the range for costs. Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, you have not made a recommendation on whether we need two or three attorneys. Ms. Sumner: No, I have not. Mr. Mayor: And why can you not make that today? If you can make this report, why can’t you say that? Ms. Sumner: I cannot until it becomes more clear, the increase in work. Mr. Mayor: All right. So you have no idea what the outside counsel charges would be? Recognizing that -- Ms. Sumner: I can only -- all you can is -- no, that’s crystal ball. Mr. Mayor: You couldn’t project that based on the -- Ms. Sumner: I cannot. Mr. Mayor: You made a characterization of the amount of litigation we’ve involved in and these other things, but you’re not able to get us some idea of what outside counsel would costs, even based on your experience in Gwinnett County? Ms. Sumner: In fairness, the litigation, although not known by case name, each of those cases is ongoing in calendar year 1998-1999, is reflected in Mr. Wall’s bill and is categorized as such. So those costs are there. I certainly cannot stand here and discuss with you because that’s way outside the scope of my study, of what those cases were about. The only reason the Boyce case stood out was because it was such a significant expense. 46 Mr. Mayor: I understand that. So when you say that the range of the cost of the legal department would be $340,000-447,000 you’re saying that that will not be the total cost of our legal department? Ms. Sumner: Yes, sir, I am. Mr. Mayor: And there’s not way to quantify what that total cost will be. Ms. Sumner: Well, yes, sir, I am saying that based on whether you have two or three people, with the assumption that you have office space. Mr. Mayor: I understand that, but you’re not able to say what the total cost would be because you’re not able to tell us what outside counsel would cost? Ms. Sumner: Oh, I’m sorry, I misunderstand. You’re saying your total legal fees. Mr. Mayor: The total legal -- the total costs of the law department would include fees paid to the outside counsel, I presume. They would all be charged back to the same department. Ms. Sumner: No, that would not be correct. Mr. Mayor: Then how would you charge back those costs? How do you charge them back in Gwinnett County? Ms. Sumner: I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying. Mr. Mayor: When you pay -- Ms. Sumner: Outside counsel’s bill are separate. This projection was [inaudible] salaries based upon the District Attorney’s salaries, District Attorney’s support staff salaries, and the cost to equip an office. This has nothing to do with fees earned by litigation by outside counsel. Mr. Mayor: All right. Ms. Sumner: Totally separate. Mr. Mayor: Well, where do you charge those back in Gwinnett County? Ms. Sumner: I don’t understand your question. Mr. Mayor: When you pay outside counsel to handle litigation in Gwinnett County, where is that cost reflected in your charge of accounts? Is that charged back to the law department? 47 Ms. Sumner: No, it is not. It is a totally separate line item. Mr. Mayor: And it’s paid for, what, out of each department? Charged back to the department? Ms. Sumner: Actually, in Gwinnett County, there is a risk fund. And that’s where that money comes from. Mr. Mayor: So that’s not reflected in the cost of legal services then? Ms. Sumner: No, it is not. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I have heard that if we vote on this that Mr. Wall is going to back his bag and going to Columbia County. I don’t think that’s true. I think if we vote on this, we accept a concept of what could be done. Mr. Wall has an opportunity. In my opinion this is not true. That he has an opportunity to still be a part of this if he chooses. Mr. Mayor: That is the Chair’s understanding, Mr. Brigham. Mr. H. Brigham: That’s what I wanted to make sure, that we have not put the word out. A colleague has said that we are goodbye-ing Mr. Wall today and that’s not quite true. And my concern, and Mr. Wall knows this and the Commissioners up here know this, that we have for years tried to get minorities involved in the legal process. And that’s the concern that I have and I will continue to have that concern, and I certainly hope that that will be one that will be addressed at some point. But I certainly want it clear that we were not goodbye-ing him today, for him to pack his car and go home. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Sumner, I’d like to ask you a question, please. And this is on your pro forma for the in-house law department. Ms. Sumner: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Where you go from -- kind of along the lines of what the Mayor was asking you, but you go from $340,000 to $447,000, okay? And outside counsel, or litigation is outside of that; am I correct? Ms. Sumner: That is absolutely correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. My question is that if I look back at what you are showing us as what our expenses are now, and if you back out outside litigation, which may be -- I’m assuming is Boyce -- if you back that out, our fee is $331,000 a year, if I’m correct? 48 Ms. Sumner: I’m quickly totaling -- you have Boyce is $150,000, you have miscellaneous litigation -- Mr. Kuhlke: I understand that, but I’m saying if you take the top four that you have -- Ms. Sumner: Right. Mr. Kuhlke: -- and consider the Boyce outside litigation -- Ms. Sumner: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, if you do that, Mr. Wall’s fee was $331,000, including the SPLOST that we are now in, okay? Compared to your pro forma of $340,000 to $447,000. The numbers don’t make sense to me. You know, I’m all for progress and doing what’s the right thing, but I don’t want to do something that’s stupid. And I’m looking at your numbers and that’s what I’m breaking it out to. Am I wrong? Ms. Sumner: I would not characterize the point the way you are, sir. I would characterize looking at the attorneys fees totaling $563,000-some. Mr. Kuhlke: But I’m saying, you got -- if you’re going to compare outside litigation with one, you need to compare it with the other. Ms. Sumner: Well, outside litigation would remain outside litigation and would go to a firm such as Mr. Wall’s. The cost projections, if you remember the recommendation begins with those words, if, if the work increases. If the work doesn’t increase, I don’t see why you would make a change, and I would be the first person to tell you that. Mr. Kuhlke: Right. Ms. Sumner: But if your work increases, if indeed you have a projected increase in work, you will subsequently have an increase in costs. Mr. Kuhlke: And I understand that. What I’m saying, though, if we didn’t have the qualified people within our government based on your pro forma, the full force of the outside litigation on the Boyce case would have to go outside. So why not back it out of what he’s had to do and was capable of doing for us, probably at a reduced fee, than what we’d have to pay on an outside basis? Does that make sense? Ms. Sumner: I don’t know -- Mr. Kuhlke: What’s the hourly fee for somebody in Gwinnett County? 49 Ms. Sumner: I don’t know now. Typically it’s $100 an hour. Mr. Kuhlke: In Gwinett County? Ms. Sumner: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Um. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: No. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity. I guess some of the things I was going to ask, they’ve already been asked around that side of the table. So I won’t have to go into that. To Ms. Sumner, it’s good to see you again. Good to see you under much better circumstances. I think that first of all, that I’ve always been one that’s not necessarily in favor of killing the messenger, even though I may or may not like the message. I appreciate you being able to hold your own in terms in dealing of what were asking you to do in terms of committee and of bringing that information back. Ms. Sumner: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: While I’m not a member of your profession, I was raised in such a way that I try to be polite even when I’m in a fighting stance, and so I do want to express that to you as an attorney and a professional. So we thank you for whatever you’ve done, whether we agree with that in part, totality, or none of it. But I want to say first, Mr. Mayor, the question -- and I’m just going through some of the things I’ve heard. One, in fairness to Ms. Sumner, in reference to the dates of the referendum, whether it was held or not, whether things were passed or not, I think with all of the delay we went through in terms of when we would bring her back and if we would bring her back, had we kept this probably on the same format, this would also be quite frankly a very moot issue in reference to the referendum, because basically the delay in bringing her here was on this Commission’s part, not in terms of on the person we sent to do the work’s part. That’s the first thing. I think that we still are overlooking the fact in terms of what the Bill says and how that is to be answered. I disagree in terms of that this is a personal thing in terms of where we make a decision, whether this is about the current Attorney or not. I think that in fairness to him, and I’ve said this when I made the statement, when we voted to allow Ms. Sumner to proceed with this process, was that I didn’t think that Jim Wall should be an issue. Period. Every department, every person that holds any type of decision making position in this government, since we consolidated, has had to deal with some form of examination of scrutiny per se. I don’t think that the Attorney’s office ought to be above the law or beyond that scope of the process. That’s just the fair, American, democratic way. And I think in fairness to him, and he would be the first to admit it, that anything that does not lend a finger, because he’s the one who calls our 50 hand, he is the referee, he is the parliamentarian, he is the one who says when we are going wrong, when we’re not going wrong. When Judges are on trial, lawyers are on trial, they don’t make the decisions on themselves by themselves. Somebody else does. That was the whole argument of getting this a neutral playing field, even though it’s drifted, quite frankly, into something else. And the only argument I made, Mr. Mayor, is while we were under the gun of a Grand Jury that’s still going on, of the total government operations, while we had a Bill situation that under home rule, and I think Steve is correct in terms of where we make a decision pro or con, and it was voted down and I think it was voted down because of the way it was handled. Quite frankly, it was a push and shove attitude and take it, and that’s why it was basically left on the table. Because it had been lying dormant since we consolidated this government. So I think all those things have to be considered. And the only thing that some of us were trying to do in the committee process was to keep it totally clean. I think Steve’s proposal, while it may be a great work of law that’s equal to Ms. Sumner’s -- it just depends on what way you want to go with it and who you want to be charge and where you want them to be in charge at. But the process being is the fact that it is not neutral. While I appreciate my colleague’s advice, just as Mr. Wall recused himself from even rendering an opinion about what was there, I think in terms of it puts the rest of the Commission, those of us who are so learned in the legal profession, that is why we dealt with a neutral person. Now I don’t think that it’s wrong to scrutinize and to ask questions. But you know, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to have to say it because I kind of resent the little bit of a hit dog type run that went on here this afternoon. You know I think, quite frankly, Steve, that we went through a lesson and exercise one-on-one to a point of quoting case law, you know I’ve seen us ask more questions of one consultant that we sent out to do one particular job under one set of circumstances, to be asked about the different personalities in this town, to be asked about different forms of case law in here which was not included in the scope of what was to be asked, and you know, quite frankly, Mr. Mayor, you know, if some of my colleagues maybe had asked the same questions that we preceded today at a one o’clock meeting -- I’ve heard more questions asked of Caryle Sumner in a visit as a consultant than I have heard asked of a whole Finance Department for the last 6 or 7 months. Now we want to get tacky, you’re dealing with the tacky one. I know how to get in that gutter water and wallow, too, and I think her for being a lady about it. But you know, if we’re going to get into that type of thing about it, you know, we raised all the concern on a proposal, which takes us really no where, it’s not a decision that we are going to make today, but yet when we’ve had to wallow in terms of things that have been brought before this government for 6 or 7 months, then all of a sudden today and only today do we make a decision about it. But yet, this is something that we are going to get in here and basically nail this lady to the cross because we got a difference of opinion about it. I agree, though, we still ultimately had a right to do whatever we want to do. And I agree with both Henry and Marion that -- I’ve said this on the floor of this Commission, and I’m going to be through, Mr. Mayor -- I’ve said it on the floor of this Commission, I’ve said it to the Attorney in private, that I would never tell Jim Wall or any Attorney to hire anybody of any color that was, one, incompetent, two, that they could not work with. And he knows I’ve expressed this to him over and over. But I do think in a city where you’ve got a diverse population, and everybody likes to say, well, I do listen to my constituents. Well, I listen to mine, too. I represent four Districts directly and eight as a 51 person that represents this City at large from an elective process. I have said, and I will hide that fact, to a point that if we are talking about having the opportunity to bring in people in a diverse society when vacancies are open, and I understand they have been and are open at this time, that let’s cut the chase about one department versus another. To those that have been concerned about this issue, Mr. Wall took over when my good late friend Bob Daniel died in 1993. It’s 2000. There has been an opportunity, quite frankly, and I’ve said this jokingly to you, Mr. Mayor, that Jim Wall’s choice, not a forcing, that if you are going to look at dealing with diversity, he could have walked up I-95, went to Howard University, found somebody, walked back down I-95, and basically been able to at least find somebody that looked like a certain part of this population to put inside of his legal operations. Now we might as well talk about that, because that is an issue. It may be one that we don’t want to deal with, but that is an issue. And the only thing I’m saying is I don’t want you to deal with a token, I don’t want you to deal with somebody because of, but when you’ve got the opportunity to do something, then consider somebody, and that’s where I left it 7 years ago when I had this same conversation with Mr. Wall at Eleanor’s Kitchen, and I told him I wasn’t -- and you remember, Jim -- that I wasn’t going to argue with you about that no more. That you do what you think is right. And I’m going to do what I think is right. And that’s the only thing that I am going to discuss in reference to that part about bringing minorities into the fold. But we are asked, many of us, on the so-called “our” side of the fence, that if the District Attorney can find qualified people of color to bring into a department, if the Solicitor can find qualified people to bring into a department, then when y’all are represented legally by somebody, that at some point, somebody who looks like some of y’all ought to be represented at some given time before the end of time. So now that’s the other part of this equation, that we aren’t talking about, and any time anybody wants to talk about it, I’m willing to publicly, privately, or phone booth or alley, anywhere else to talk about it. But I think in terms of creating this total BS climate to a point of why it’s got partially to this point, then we ought to just drop that, and we ought to deal with the reality of it. That’s what part of it, Mr. Mayor, is really about it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: And we can play this game to a point, and we all know what it’s going to boil down to. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let’s -- Mr. Mays: Six votes in whatever we do. Mr. Mayor: Let’s give someone else an opportunity to talk on this. Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would yield some time but I’ve got some things I want to say. Ms. Sumner, I’m going to have to start with you, and I don’t want to. Your report, and I disagree with your report, cause I’m going to pick out some things in your report that concern me and should concern some of these Commissioners. 52 Your recommendation of hiring an in-house attorney -- I believe it says you will hire a local attorney with governmental experience. On page 10, summary, about the third sentence. Only local attorneys with governmental experience should be hired to staff the in-house department. Ms. Sumner: What I mean by that is attorneys with local government. People like me who are members of Mr. Wall’s or of the local government Bar think of, not as people [inaudible] being local, although that would clearly be a plus because they would know your Judges and they would know whatever is going on in your community. My intent there is to speak to the skills that you would need in an attorney to represent you. Mr. J. Brigham: If you’re sitting where I’m sitting, do you know how many people in this Circuit practice local government? Ms. Sumner: Not without looking through the local government section of the Bar, no. Mr. J. Brigham: You have any idea? Ms. Sumner: No, I do not. Mr. J. Brigham: Well, there’s two major counties in this Circuit. You’re in one. We have one Attorney firm. Our neighbor to our west has an Attorney firm. I don’t know how you’re going to react to this and I know how I feel. To start with, if I’m looking for a lawyer, I’m going to look for a lawyer that I know that is local, and I’m going to find the best that I can find, and I think if you were inclined, you would be doing the same thing. Ms. Sumner: I would certainly be doing as you were saying with the caveat I would be looking to someone with experience in the area I needed. In other words, I wouldn’t be wanting a divorce to represent you. I would be wanting someone perhaps with personnel experience, employment experience, local land use experience, the kinds of things that touch on what you do, to be your representative. Mr. J. Brigham: Preferably, all of those experiences. In particularly, local government experience. I think the pool in this area for that experience is very limited, in my opinion. There are very few firms that I would even consider, much less individuals. The other problem that I have, you say that the in-house department should remain independent of outside counsel. Okay? Now, I’m doing the hiring, who am I going to have -- I’m going to have confidence in an in-house attorney that I don’t know, have not met, and I’m going to hire and I’m going to put him in charge -- would you feel very comfortable if you were a Commissioner sitting in that situation? Ms. Sumner: First of all, as I think I said in the beginning of staffing legal representation back on page 3 of local government, I think what you, most of all, you meaning the council directly, have to be comfortable with whomever represents you. As 53 part of that is, and I certainly espouse this a recommend highly, if you were to hire, just as if you were to hire someone instead of Mr. Wall as outside counsel, you should be the body that does the final interviews. You should make that selection. And part of that, regardless how else you would like to categorize your choice, is going to be -- I guess one word you could use is chemistry -- it’s going to be that feeling of comfort beyond your degree of their ability, etc. Mr. J. Brigham: Ms. Sumner, you know, I got two motions on this floor that I got to deal with. They are very similar motions. And I think Mr. Beard said it’s all about power and who is in charge. You know, that’s pretty much what it’s about. He’s right. But there’s a comfort level that’s got to play in this. And you’ve got to have the comfort of 10 Commissioners, at least six of us, which it’s sometimes very difficult to get that comfort level for 6 of us. Now I don’t always agree with Mr. Wall and I promise you if we get to know each other very well, we’ll find that we don’t always agree. But I know this, I know that when I have to make a decision, I think I’m getting good advice, and I have a real problem when I also know that if we want to go out and hire an in-house attorney, that I can’t hire Jim Wall for $100,000 a year and make him my in-house attorney. I can’t hire a Doug Batchelor, who is the other Attorney that deals with local government, pay him $100,000 a year and make him my in-house Attorney. I know that up front. Now that means that I’m going to pull somebody from outside of this community and I feel like that’s going to put me at a disadvantage. I much prefer to see us go through the situation where we leave Mr. Wall in charge and have a grooming period of where we get to know our in-house counsel that we help select, and he gets to tutor them a little bit. Ms. Sumner, what would you do if you were sitting in my situation? Would you feel comfortable with just bringing in new faces all the way around in your legal department? Ms. Sumner: Well, no, sir. Of course I would not. But that is not the recommendation that’s before you. You would be retaining your outside counsel for litigation. There is discussion within this report concerning a transition period. And three, you would want to be choosing attorneys that you do have a level of confidence in. Now in fairness, and I mean this in no way respectfully to Mr. Wall, or any other person in this room including myself as an attorney, you don’t just begin to have an attorney/client relation. It does have to develop. You have to develop that sense of trust. And that would have to happen over time. Mr. J. Brigham: And you don’t just terminate an attorney/client relationship overnight, either, do you? Ms. Sumner: And that is certainly not the recommendation. Mr. J. Brigham: But I feel like it is. I feel like the only reason we’re having this discussion is there’s not a black face in Mr. Wall’s law firm. And this community has already dealt with the racial situation. We’ve all been called a bunch of racists, and we probably are. We’re probably both kind of racists, black and white racists. But I’m tired of that also. I want this community to move forward. I want to see us do the things we 54 need to do. I’ve voted every time I could possibly vote to change the wording on the law department. I have looked at this. I have been in public office long enough that I don’t feel comfortable with an in-house law firm. I feel like it’s going to be more costly, much more costly than what I have now, and that’s what my concern has been. It’s not who it is. Yes, we have a relationship, this Commission, and I know I’ve about used my time. But my real concern was your recommendation of the independent -- and I don’t know how independent anybody is going to be when they’ve got to depend on 6 votes up here. And the other thing is I felt like you were trying to tell me I needed to look for local counsel. Ms. Sumner: No, sir. A person with local government expertise. Mr. J. Brigham: But I believe you also believe that a local counsel with local government expertise is a better candidate. Ms. Sumner: I think the more knowledge that you have of a community, the better you can represent that community. Mr. J. Brigham: And I also think that the pool here is much more limited than the pool would be, say in Atlanta. Ms. Sumner: I would assume that would be true by sheer population. Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, this horse has been ridden to death, and I don’t think there’s much more can be said and I think we need to get on with the [inaudible] at hand. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall has asked to make a comment, then we’ll proceed with the voting. Everyone has had more than ample time as allowed by the rules of the Commission. Mr. Wall: First of all, I respect y’all’s right to make this decision and understand that. Also understand that as an attorney practicing in the Augusta area, all any attorney has is his reputation. And I’d like to make one point perfectly clear, and that is that I have involved minorities participation in the legal practice. I have had Ben Allen as Assistant County Attorney, prior to consolidation. The consolidation Bill specifically provided that he could not continue to be an Assistant County Attorney, and therefore he resigned. After that, I involved Harry James in the work that is done for the county. I presented statements to many of you to rebuke some of the rumors that were going around, to demonstrate that he was paid over -- approximately $50,000 last year for legal services. He is a minority attorney. Just last month, I approved a statement for $6,000 for one month’s work. So I have involved minorities in the work. And so to the extent that there is some implication that I am a racist, I don’t appreciate that and I resent that. 55 And let me say one other thing. I don’t want anyone to assume that something. I mean I nd am not going to pack my bags and go to Columbia County come January 2. I’m going to go to my office and I’m going to go to work just like I’ve always done. But, representing the County is a two-way street. And I respect your right to make a decision. I understand the decision that is about to be made. I have practiced independently all my life. I intend to continue that. You do need to make a decision. You do need to get forward with hiring the lawyers, because there is a lot of litigation, contrary to what Ms. Sumner says, and there’s a lot of decisions that need to be made in the next 2-1/2 months concerning litigation matters. And there are strategy decisions and the decisions you make over the next 2 months are going to impact the outcome of that litigation. So I urge you -- it’s obvious to me you’re going to create the in-house law department, you’re going to put the in-house lawyer in charge. That’s fine. I will not participate in that law department. But I do urge you to make that decision. Move forward with it. That’s been the direction. I have urged you as a Commission for months now to make that decision, because you need to make that decision. You need to get the attorneys involved. You need to make that transition. Unfortunately now, we’re down to 2-1/2 months to make that transition. That’s a short time period. So you need to move forward as quickly as possible to hire those lawyers, to get that transition, because January 2, I’m going to go to the office and I’m going to go to work, but it looks like that I will not be the County Attorney, which I fully respect, and that’s fine. I didn’t anticipate in 1993 ever being the County Attorney. That was an unfortunate event that called me into that situation. But please act and please move promptly because there are decisions that need to be made. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall. And with that, we will move ahead. We have a substitute motion on the floor, and that is to adopt Mr. Shepard’s previously-submitted version of a hybrid model for the law department. We’ll call the question on the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion fails 4-5-1. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Now if we’ll clear the board, we’ll go back to the original motion. Let’s go ahead and vote on the original motion. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: I’ll take a point of inquiry here. We’re through with debate. Mr. Cheek: A point of inquiry, if it’s in order, I would like to offer a substitute motion at this point. Mr. Mayor: I guess that would be in order. We’ll take a substitute motion. 56 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we adopt the Shepard model transitioning to the Beard model over the period of the next three years. Mr. Mayor: All right. Does everyone understand what that means? Mr. Mays: Question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Do you want to try to clarify that and see if we can find you a second? Mr. Cheek: Yes. Mr. Mayor, what I’m interested in doing, and I think this may be a way to do this perhaps, is to begin our quest for a legal department employing two in-house attorneys as subordinates, moving to with a planned transition date to an in- house head of a law department within the next three years. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I got a question. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: You had a question, Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, are we binding the future Commission when we make this motion? Mr. Mayor: I would think, Mr. Brigham, that a future Commission can make up whatever mind it wants to and make whatever decision it wants to, and if it wants to change that course of action it would be within its scope of authority to do that. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to be supportive of Mr. Cheek’s motion since we’ve never voted but once together I think, but I have a real problem in trying to say that I’m going to be able to make my decision within three years. I -- Andy, we know how time frames go around her. It took July x 8 to get to October before we can get to this. And what my concern more or less is as I expressed earlier, I want to have a comfort feeling to the people that are involved before I make any radical changes. Maybe three years is long enough and I’m willing to listen to some additional discussion about it, but I’m nervous on it, I’ll be honest with you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, are you nervous? Mr. Mays: Only one vote [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this, and Mr. Wall is still the Parliamentarian and I respect that. He’s in a position in here most of the 57 time, even when we disagree, we still agree on the majority of things, but I do have to question two things at this point. One being that your mainess of this, and I know where my colleague is coming from in trying to reach a compromise on this situation. But number one, how does this compare with how we select in terms that in the first meeting or a meeting period in January in terms of how we select an attorney of any form if we are dealing with this now to deal with 3 years? Which in that situation comes first? Does one negate the other one? And the second thing is just on a point of parliamentary procedure. We had two motions on the floor. One a substitute motion which was defeated. Another motion which was in order that you asked could that be done, and it was said you could make a substitute motion at any time. Well now remember, and I hate to be the jackass, but we got some records back there that can be pulled up to a point of where I know there is a different ruling, because when you defeat the substitute motion, two of them are on the floor, it is common procedure that you go back to the motion that’s on the floor. Then the Chair has the right to recognize a third motion if both motions are defeated, and I called the hand of the Parliamentarian to re-examine his ruling on that procedure, because I think the current substitute motion to do two in a row, Mr. Mayor, is out of order. Mr. Wall: I agree with Mr. Mays. Mr. Mayor: The Parliamentarian has changed his mind, and so the Chair will rule the second substitute motion out of order. And that will bring us back to the original motion, and certainly Mr. Mays, we’re glad you clarified the precedent. That’s why you’re the Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. That’s why I need you sitting here next to me, like I had you downstairs. That takes us back to the original motion. Mr. Beard’s motion. And that’s the adoption of the report from Ms. Sumner and the subsequent action to that. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now let’s move along with our agenda and see if we can get out of here at a decent hour tonight. We have a presentation from Mr. Phil Rhodes. Did Phil hang around? Where are you? There you are back there. All right. You have five minutes for your presentation. If you can do it in fewer than five minutes, we’d appreciate that. PRESENTATION: Mr. Phil Rhodes RE: Plans for new Animal Control facility Mr. Rhodes: [inaudible] I appreciate the time. I’m here to talk about the Animal Control [inaudible]. Dr. Bragdon is the new Director of Animal Control. She extends her apology. She’s at a Humane Society Conference in Atlanta and could not be here today. [inaudible] plans for the new facility. I’d like to briefly go over with you and just 58 give you an update as to where we are. Over the last three months, [inaudible]. There is new technology out there [inaudible], new requirements for animal control and humane society facilities. The model of this facility [inaudible], Richmond County control facility was started just two years ago in Colorado. [inaudible]. Basically [inaudible] structure [inaudible] center court area, and on the front side you have administration, animal control [inaudible], [inaudible] between the actual animal housing control area, the surgical ward, [inaudible] back side back here and [inaudible] back here also [inaudible]. Basically the white areas are administration, the tan areas are receiving areas, the animal holding areas are all in the yellow [inaudible], the [inaudible] or pinkish color are animal support areas. [inaudible] blue area is referred to as [inaudible], which allows sound and odor control, and the green area is the one thing that we added to this proposal, is a surgical wing, when Dr. Bragdon came on board, for the spaying and neutering of the animals. She is going to try to [inaudible] within the scope of this work. And if we’re successful in that area, she’ll be [inaudible]. [inaudible] in this day and age, I think the term is overused, but this facility for animal control is cutting edge. It utilizes a chase area that you can see, it runs down between the runs where the dogs and animals are being house, will serve multi-functions. It’s a wash down area for each of the runs and four slopes in that area with a little slot in the rear of each one of the run areas. It also [inaudible] air coming through [inaudible] will be [inaudible] dog runs up through the chase and exhaust out through [inaudible]. We truly think this facility [inaudible]. [inaudible] Gainesville area, their facility and also the facility in Spartanburg [inaudible] modeled after it [inaudible]. As you notice, the [inaudible], the yellow area [inaudible]. Basically four areas. We subdivided the building [inaudible] disease or airborne [inaudible] break out in this facility, would not have to shut the entire facility down. It would maintain its operations [inaudible]. The [inaudible] was driven by the model itself as well as some added features of one of the facilities we reviewed, as well as the setting for this facility out on Mack Lane, across from a residential area. We wanted to give it a residential flavor, architecturally, aesthetically if you will, because of the need for [inaudible] to house [inaudible] and workable [inaudible] around the facility. This is the proposed rendering of the facility, which basically houses the large, high-roof area in the center down [inaudible], easily expanded by extending the ends of it to increase the housing capacity of the facility. The front portion of the [inaudible] houses the Animal Control offices, the administration area. The back portion [inaudible] which will house receiving and surgical wing area, as well as the [inaudible] on the back side. We’re just here today to present this to you to let you know we’ve been doing our homework. We’re excited about it. I appreciate the Commission giving me the opportunity to design the facility [inaudible]. I’ve become very excited about it because of the new technologies that are out there and [inaudible] sterile situation rather than an outdoor type [inaudible]. Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] Can you tell the Commission what [inaudible] bid document, when you expect the bid [inaudible]? Mr. Rhodes: [inaudible], Mr. Oliver, the facility as it’s designed right now is not in the budget, with dollars available. We took that into consideration because we wanted to design what the needs were, to satisfy all of the concerns, issues around it, but the 59 building as designed with furnishings can be [inaudible] out to where those particular areas can be finished at a later time and the building can be operational. It will not have to have a stop-gap measure of additional work in the very near future, so that we can fit it within the budget dollars that are available. Mr. Mayor: What percent would be completed? Mr. Rhodes: The entire outside would be completed. [inaudible] Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] most expensive part of this building is the surgical suite, and she is trying to get a private donor or donors to pay for the surgical suite [inaudible]. Mr. Rhodes: That and the [inaudible] are the two highest [inaudible]. All of the other, less the surgical wing, would be built out initially within the budget dollars that are available. Some portion of the animal runs. We have 105 dog runs and 87 cat cage areas within the facility, so it will house not only the present needs but also for the future, and some of that [inaudible] so that the entire project [inaudible] can be initially constructed with the [inaudible] dollars that are available. The other answer to your question, Mr. Oliver, I have [inaudible] I gave to Dr. Bragdon a schedule of events which showed the completion of the architectural and engineering documents [inaudible] by mid-January [inaudible] bid advertisement period of time of 30 days, so the middle of February, approximately, when we receive bid for it, and completion date of construction should be around the first of October, 2001. Mr. Mayor: Any questions, gentlemen? Andy? Mr. Cheek: So Dr. Bragdon has given this her seal of approval? Mr. Rhodes: Yes, sir. We met just last week before she got out of town this week and we’re going to make some minor modification on the interior workings of this portion of [inaudible] this end, but it’s very minor. And we agreed those can be accomplished within this [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Thank you very much. Madame Clerk, let’s move on. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a move that we reconsider the Legal Department, and if that passes, I’d like to again the motion for the transitional period. 60 Mr. Mayor: One step at a time. You’re making a motion that we reconsider the action we just took on the Legal Department? Mr. Cheek: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that? Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to reconsider our action on the Legal Department. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough and Mr. H. Brigham abstain. Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Mays out. Motion fails 4-4. Mr. Mayor: Move on to our consent agenda, and we’ll take up Item [inaudible] of our consent agenda. The consent agenda, minus Item 28, which we’ve already taken up. Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors regarding the zoning matter petitions: 1. Z-00-88 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from CFS, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road, 805 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road. District 4. 2. Z-00-92 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition ‘That a six (6) foot solid board fence be erected on the west (rear) property line’, a petition from Timmy Richards, on behalf of Ignatius P. Price and John Walter Price, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 260 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Valley Road and Mike Padgett Highway (2905 Mike Padgett Highway). District 8. 3. Z-00-93 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘That all vehicles be kept in operating condition and all vehicles maintain valid license tags’, a petition from David Rabun requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Camilla Road, 790 feet, more or 61 less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Davis Road and Camilla Road (241 Camilla Road). District 7. 4. Z-00-94 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Barbara Bowen Moore and H. Clay Moore, Jr. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C(One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 151 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Wrightsboro Road (2619 Wrightsboro Road). District 3. 5. Z-00-95 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘(1) That there shall be no improvement of the front yard for parking; and (2) that the site plan showing adequate vehicle parking in the rear yard allowing a forward exit be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-residential use of this property’, a petition from Talib Sharef, on behalf of Muslim Community Center of Augusta, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 160.0 feet west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Merry Street and Wrightsboro Road (1808 Wrightsboro Road). District 5. 6. Z-00-96 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corporation, on behalf of Stanton D. Loring, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway, 1,100 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road Extension intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway. District 1. 7. Z-00-97 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with condition ‘That the use of the property be limited to truck cleaning, repair and storage and those uses allowed in a LI (Light Industrial) zone’ a petition from William Fulcher, on behalf of Marge Russell, et.al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) on property locatedon the southeast right-of-way line of Gun Club Road, 31 feet, more or less, north of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Interstate 20 intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Gun Club Road. District 7. 8. Z-00-99 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from A. Rowland Dye, on behalf of Tosco Marketing Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of PeachOrchard Road and Tobacco Road (3603 Peach Orchard Road). District 6. 62 9. Z-00-100 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from A. Rowland Dye, on behalf of Tosco Marketing Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Olive Road and Gordon Highway (1500 Gordon Highway). District 2. 10. Z-00-101 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Harry T. Shore, IV, on behalf of Harrison Trust, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry)on property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 500 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of North Leg (a.k.a. McDuffie Road Extension) and Milledgeville Road. District 3. 11. Z-00-102 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘(1) That the side and rear yard buffer provisions of the Augusta Tree Ordinance be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a nonresidential use of this property; (2) that the present driveway be modified and approved by the Traffic Engineer coinciding with condition #1; and (3) that off street parking be in the rear except for two (2) Handicapped spots to be located in the front’, a petition from Glenn Johnson, on behalf of Sylvia L. Johnson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Marks Church Road, 538 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Tanglewood Drive and Marks Church Road (1292 Marks Church Road). District 3. Clerk: Under Public Services, Item 27: 27. Motion to deny a request by Terry Loskoski for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Barracks located at 1923 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) Consent agenda: PLANNING: 1. Z-00-88 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from CFS, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor 63 Spring Road, 805 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road. District 4. 2. Z-00-92 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition ‘That a six (6) foot solid board fence be erected on the west (rear) property line’, a petition from Timmy Richards, on behalf of Ignatius P. Price and John Walter Price, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 260 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Valley Road and Mike Padgett Highway (2905 Mike Padgett Highway). District 8. 3. Z-00-93 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘That all vehicles be kept in operating condition and all vehicles maintain valid license tags’, a petition from David Rabun requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Camilla Road, 790 feet, more or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Davis Road and Camilla Road (241 Camilla Road). District 7. 4. Z-00-94 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Barbara Bowen Moore and H. Clay Moore, Jr. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C(One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 151 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Wrightsboro Road (2619 Wrightsboro Road). District 3. 5. Z-00-95 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘(1) That there shall be no improvement of the front yard for parking; and (2) that the site plan showing adequate vehicle parking in the rear yard allowing a forward exit be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-residential use of this property’, a petition from Talib Sharef, on behalf of Muslim Community Center of Augusta, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 160.0 feet west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Merry Street and Wrightsboro Road (1808 Wrightsboro Road). District 5. 6. Z-00-96 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corporation, on behalf of Stanton D. Loring, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway, 1,100 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road Extension intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway. District 1. 64 7. Z-00-97 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with condition ‘That the use of the property be limited to truck cleaning, repair and storage and those uses allowed in a LI (Light Industrial) zone’ a petition from William Fulcher, on behalf of Marge Russell, et.al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) on property locatedon the southeast right-of-way line of Gun Club Road, 31 feet, more or less, north of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Interstate 20 intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Gun Club Road. District 7. 8. Z-00-99 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from A. Rowland Dye, on behalf of Tosco Marketing Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of PeachOrchard Road and Tobacco Road (3603 Peach Orchard Road). District 6. 9. Z-00-100 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from A. Rowland Dye, on behalf of Tosco Marketing Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Olive Road and Gordon Highway (1500 Gordon Highway). District 2. 10. Z-00-101 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Harry T. Shore, IV, on behalf of Harrison Trust, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry)on property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 500 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of North Leg (a.k.a. McDuffie Road Extension) and Milledgeville Road. District 3. 11. Deleted from consent agenda. 12. ZA-R-116 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission requesting an amendment to Section 4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance thereby modifying the parking requirements for private clubs, lodges, and fraternal buildings not providing overnight accommodations. 13. S-593 - FAIRWAYS AT GOSHEN - PHASE III - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift &Associates, on behalf of Bruker Company Homes, requesting Final Plat Approval of Fairways at Goshen, Phase III. This phase is located on Ossabaw Court at Ossabaw Drive and contains 16 lots. 14. ZA-R-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County 65 Planning Commission to amend Section 28-B of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance thereby changing the regulations for temporary signs. (Approved by Commission October 3 - second reading) 15. Consider request from the Mayor’s Downtown Sign Committee to amend Code Section 3-8-11 relative to encroachments on Public Sidewalks. (Approved by Commission October 3 - second reading) FINANCE: 16. Motion to approve a request for City sponsorship of a VIP Corporate Table in the amount of $1,000 for the CSRA Classic, Inc. Banquet. Funded from the Promotion Account. (Approved by Finance Committee October 6, 2000) th 17. Motion to accept bid from James L. Kendrick made on the 5 and Reynolds Streets for surplus property in the amount of $24,500. (Approved by Finance Committee October 5, 2000) 18. Motion to accept bid from William Howart made on the Fenwick Street for surplus property in the amount of $5,400. (Approved by Finance Committee October 5, 2000) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 19. Pulled from consent agenda. 20. Motion to approve amendment to Transition Center to allow change in use of funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 5, 2000) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 21. Motion to approve Final Augusta Utilities Design Standards and Specifications. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 5, 2000) 22. Motion to approve reorganization of Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 5, 2000) 23. Motion to authorize condemnation against Commercial and Military Systems (Tax Map 122-1, Parcel 102). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 5, 2000) 24. Motion to authorize condemnation against Habitat for Humanity, Inc. (Tax Map 34-1, Parcel 308). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 5, 2000) 25. Motion to approve submittal and implementation of HMGP sub-grant agreement for the acquisition and demolition of eight structures. Approve submittal of additions and amendments to the current project and scope of work. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 5, 2000) PUBLIC SERVICES: 26. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 1-3-3 so as to prohibit the Chairman of the Augusta Aviation Commission from serving as Chairman for more than two consecutive full one-year terms, until after the lapse of one year from that person’s last term in office. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) 66 27. Deleted from consent agenda. 28. Deleted from consent agenda. 29. Motion to approve a request by Terry L. Cato for a dance hall license to be used in connection with On the River Café located at #2 Riverwalk at Eighth Street with music and dance inside only. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) 30. Motion to approve street banner location for Junior League of Augusta at Walton Way in front of Augusta State University, Episcopal Day School on Walton Way in front of the school; and that all future requests for street banners be handled administratively through License & Inspections Department. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 31. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held October 3, 2000. 38. Approval of Purchase of Service Grant for Juvenile Offenders in the amount of $14,500 (100% State funded, no local match required). Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mack has asked that Item 19 be amended to include HOME funds. This is just for public advertisement purposes. Public hearings are required and final modification will have to come back to you before it is actually submitted to HUD but without the inclusion of that he indicates that we will not make the filing requirements by HUD. Mr. Kuhlke: I move for approval Mr. J. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We’re going to pull Item 27 and deal with it in a moment. Are there any objectors to any of the zoning or the alcohol that she called out? None noted. Mr. Colclough: Number 11. Clerk: 11? Mr. Mayor: 11? Mr. Cheek: I had a question about 19, just a point of inquiry. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: Same here, 19. 67 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other items? We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, including Item 38 and minus Items 11 and 19. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-10, 12-18, 20-26, 29-31] Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back to 27. Clerk: 27. Motion to deny a request by Terry Loskoski for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Barracks located at 1923 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) Mr. Mayor: And the petitioner is here? Mr. Loskoski: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker, would you bring us up to day on this, please? Mr. Walker: This was approved by the License & Inspection board. It meets all the requirements and the Sheriff’s Department. We recommended approval in the committee meeting. Mr. Mayor: And the Committee denied it? Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here to this license application? Okay, if you’d like to tell us about it. Mr. Loskoski: Can I pass these over? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may. Please make sure the Clerk gets one. Mr. Loskoski: Please forgive me for speaking up earlier. I’m not too good at procedure. The two issues of concern that came up two weeks ago when I spoke with the room next door, they were concerned about the parking. If we had a parking plan. And also what the neighbors thought. Now this property has come up in the past and has been approved for the location. However the petitioner had a death in the family and she no longer has any interest, so it is my interest to have a club here. If you’ll turn to the first page, 1913 Heckle Street, that is a picture of the parking lot. Fenced on both sides. It has capacity of at least 40. Security lights have already been installed by Georgia Power. Of course it’s zone B-1. On the next page -- I’ll move through this quickly cause I know 68 you guys are tired -- the next picture, 1923 Walton Way, that’s the rear entrance to the property located at 1923 Walton Way. In addition -- Mr. Mayor: Are you sealing off one entrance on Walton Way? Mr. Loskoski: That’s correct. There will be a side entrance and a rear entrance. Mr. Mayor: Side and rear entrance? Mr. Loskoski: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: So what you show here -- Mr. Loskoski: Is the rear entrance. In addition to the 40 or so parking spaces on Lot 274, the building itself has enough room for at least 10 cars. The next picture is Franklin Lane. At the back of the parking lot, this is a road that is an outlet. The parking lot to the Barracks lies between Heckle Street and Franklin Lane, pictured above. Franklin Lane pours out onto Eve Street, so they can back their cars out, pull right onto Franklin Lane, and pull on down. In speaking with the neighbors who live around that road, they’re delighted that we’ve got security lighting up. Apparently there have been people hanging around there that should not be and even some gang activity, I guess in years past. Mr. Mayor: Franklin Lane is what is represented by the word alley? Mr. Loskoski: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: On this drawing? Mr. Loskoski: That is correct. Lot 383 on your map, the one that is on Walton Way, is the building itself, and Lot 274 behind it is the parking area that I’ve highlighted in yellow on the front. On the next page, the vacant lot, left rear of the parking lot, opposite Franklin Lot at the rear of the parking lot is Lot 275, of which the back half is completely vacant and overgrown. The parking lot has been completely fenced from Lots 275 and 273 on either side. On the next page, I wanted -- another concern that we had, that the Committee had that I spoke to two weeks ago was as far as the neighborhood. Now most of this property, on the next picture looking out, from there on down past the parking lot, including the parking lot, is zoned B-1. To the left there is a rental property. On either side of this building that I’m going to be leasing, it’s all zoned Commercial. What I have done is taken pictures of the properties in that area and I have gotten the residents who live there to sign and it says at the bottom by signing above, the resident agrees that the opening of the Barracks at 1923 Walton Way will have no adverse effect on their quality of life and therefore supports the Barracks being granted a liquor license. And if you go just go through the next few pages, that’s all that is. Properties behind the property and the tenants. And some of them have given their phone numbers if, for some reason, y’all would want to call and verify that we did indeed make 69 this effort for you. And I hope based on that, that y’all will kindly grant me my liquor license so I can go to work. Mr. Mayor: Any questions, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, if I’m looking at this map right, where is the Augusta Boxing Club at in relation to 383? Mr. Loskoski: I think it’s on down -- is it past Eve? Mr. Mayor: It’s up, it’s further up. Mr. Bridges: I believe you’re 381 or 382. You know, we have young, impressionable youths there and at the Boxing Club. It’s part of our recreational program. Mr. Loskoski: I don’t believe that’s 382. I may be mistaken but I’m pretty sure that it’s not 382 or 381. It may be further up. But there is nothing like that where there is any youth activity on either side of this property. Mr. Bridges: Tom, can you speak to that, as to the location of the Boxing Club? You may have to look at that. Mr. Mayor: Well, the vacuum cleaner place is next to you as you go up Walton Way, right? Mr. Loskoski: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: And then what’s next to that? Mr. Beck: The Boxing Club. Mr. Bridges: The Boxing Club. Mr. Kuhlke: Two doors up. Mr. Loskoski: Again, if the business is on Walton Way, all the patrons who go to those businesses do enter from the front, and our patron will be entering from the side or the rear. Mr. Mayor: But your side entrance is on the side of the building where the vacuum cleaner company was; is that correct? Mr. Loskoski: If you’re on Walton Way facing our building, the side staircase would be on the right. So if I’m not mistaken, that is the vacuum cleaner business, or was, right next door to it. 70 Mr. Mayor: So your entrance is on that side? Mr. Loskoski: Well, we’re going to probably use that just as a fire escape. And we do have a staircase that goes upstairs. More than likely we’ll use the rear entrance. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, continue. Mr. Bridges: Tom? Mr. Beck: To the best of my ability to read this map, because the Boxing Club is right directly across the street from Baker Avenue, as Baker comes in. So I believe it’s 381. Mr. Bridges: 381. Mr. Mayor, based on the fact that we have part of our recreational program there, we’ve got youths that congregate in that area on a daily basis and the location of this facility, I recommend that we approve -- that we deny and agree with the Committee recommendation. Mr. Loskoski: This has already been approved once before. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. We have a motion on the floor. Let me see if I can get a second to it first. We have a motion to disapprove this. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Yes, sir, you wanted to say something now? Mr. Loskoski: I’m a bit confused, because I know when the other lady who was getting a license was already approved through this committee or the one that I was at two weeks ago. Whatever activities, I mean this club is not going to be open during the day. It is an evening thing and I don’t -- if young kids are out that time of night, then their parents should take them home. I mean I should not be penalized because kids are going to be congregating out there in the late evening hours. I beg you to please change your position. A lot of time and effort has gone into this. The area was already approved location -wise. There was no objections whatsoever when it first went to Larry Harris’ office. Everyone has looked at it. I just don’t see any reason why, any valid reason you could not. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, this is an area where in the evenings many youths do practice boxing. I try to go down there on Monday and Wednesday nights, which is adult night myself, when I get a chance. And many of these youths are inner city, poor inner city youths. They ride the buses to and from home. Their parents may not have 71 transportation for them. I don’t think this is an appropriate place to issue a license and I hope that my fellow Commissioners will vote to deny. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Quick question to the petitioner. I notice you’ve surveyed all the residents. What about the property owners? They’re all shown as owners, and then you’ve talked to the residents. Mr. Loskoski: All that property in there, a lot of it’s run down. I went and visited all of the tenants. For me to have gotten in touch with all the people that owned the property, I don’t know that I could have done that. I was mainly concerned with who lives there. The people who own that property live in nice homes in Jones Creek and West Lake and they’re probably not that concerned about their rental property that mostly sells from $25,000-35,000 apiece. Mr. Mayor: Did you want to speak to this license? All right, if you’ll come up here and give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Loskoski: He’s my Richmond County representative. Mr. Mayor: We are all your Richmond County representatives today. Mr. Steeley: My name is Tim Steeley. I reside at 1222 Meigs Street. I just wanted to add there was a license approved for a lady who was going to have a business at this location. It was approved back in the spring of this year by this council. There seemed to be no concern with the Boxing Club at that time. Mr. Mayor: What was that license for? Do you know? Mr. Steeley: It was for alcohol on premise consumption. Mr. Mayor: Beer and wine, liquor, dance hall? Mr. Steeley: For liquor. Mr. Mayor: For liquor? Mr. Steeley: And she had family tragedy and person reasons and she decided she had no further interest in the business. If I may, I might also add recently the Red Lion Pub, which is directly across the street from the Boxing Club, was granted their license by this committee and there seemed to be no concern over the Boxing Club at that time. I 72 fail to see why there is concern all of a sudden for this particular business in the very same proximity. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I just say it’s indeed fortunate that the petitioner presented us with a map that at least one Commissioner knows where the Boxing Club is at. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion, gentlemen? We have a motion on the floor to deny this application. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. H. Brigham out. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Loskoski: That amazes me. I hate that I wasted my entire day here with all of you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. That will be enough. That’s enough. Thank you. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Did you have something to say about that item, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: No, sir. Just a point of clarification, please. Mr. Mayor, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable, if you will, and I believe that this motion on this legal committee encompasses a transitional period and so forth, but can we have that reread, please? Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair is going to deny that request in the interest of time. We want to move along. Mr. Cheek: In the interest of time, it would be something that we would consider. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Item 11 on the consent agenda. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I was out of the room when y’all [inaudible] on that earlier and I’d like the opportunity for rebuttal on that. Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m sorry. We’ve already taken up the matter for reconsideration, and the Chair has called for Item 11 on the consent agenda to be dealt with now. Clerk: 73 11. Z-00-102 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘(1) That the side and rear yard buffer provisions of the Augusta Tree Ordinance be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is used for a nonresidential use of this property; (2) that the present driveway be modified and approved by the Traffic Engineer coinciding with condition #1; and (3) that off street parking be in the rear except for two (2) Handicapped spots to be located in the front’, a petition from Glenn Johnson, on behalf of Sylvia L. Johnson, requesting a change in zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Marks Church Road, 538 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Tanglewood Drive and Marks Church Road (1292 Marks Church Road). District 3. Mr. Patty: There was an error made by my staff and the condition was actually supposed to say that the side and rear yard provisions of the Augusta Tree Ordinance be met and as a minimum a six foot solid board fence be included in that buffer before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. I think that was agreed on by the petitioner and the potential objectors that were at our meeting. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to include that into the records that upon voting on this item, that the fence be added to it as stated by Mr. Patty and I make that in the form of a motion that we approve it with those stipulations. Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion on this item? All in favor of this item, then please vote aye. Item 11 on the consent agenda, with the restrictions as enumerated by Mr. Patty. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is #19. Clerk: 19. Motion to approve Year 2001 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG, ESG funds. Mr. Mayor: And HOME funds. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, you asked that this be pulled. 74 Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second in the middle of all that. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. Keven, I sit on the Board of Health as a representative from the Commission, and we are currently looking for funding sources to complete the south Augusta clinic. We are $800,000 short of the project. Just wondering if there was Community Development Block Grant money available, and if that would be something we could consider in the future. Mr. Mack: I think that that would something we could consider in the future. Mr. Cheek: Okay. If not 2001, which I’d like to see it on 2002, have that listed as a line item for funding. Mr. Mack: We can consider that. Put it in a request. The Board of Health would have to put in a request for those funds. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you had a question about this? Mr. Williams: Yes, I just wanted to find out from Mr. Mack, Mr. Oliver read something else into this, Mr. Mack, that we needed to consider. What was that, Mr. Oliver? Mr. Mack: [inaudible Mr. Williams: No, no, no. Mr. Oliver, you [inaudible] something for us about Mr. Mack and this 19 and I wanted to get some clarification on it. Mr. Oliver: The Mayor covered it when he mentioned it again. This needs to include the HOME application also. This is an authorization to advertise it for a public hearing on how those funds are going to be distributed. The purpose of those hearings is to get public input, and then after that public input is received, then it ultimately comes back to this body for a decision. Mr. Williams: And if we don’t approve that now, what would happen? Mr. Oliver: You won’t -- my understanding from Mr. Mack is you will not make the time frame for doing the advertisement, getting the public input, and submitting the application. Mr. Williams: So my question to Mr. Mack is why wasn’t that done, Mr. Mack, in the proper time frame so we wouldn’t -- 75 Mr. Oliver: It was on the Committee, Mr. Williams. It was just that there were some questions that came up at that time that could not be answered. Mr. Mack was not at that Committee meeting and he is here and available to answer those questions. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mack, I say again, why wasn’t that done? Mr. Mack: I think Mr. Oliver responded correctly. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, but I was -- Mr. Mack: It was on the agenda and on the Administrative Services Committee agenda, and there may have been some questions, and for some reason it was taken off. Now -- Mr. Williams: Okay, I think - Mr. Mack: Can I finish? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, go ahead. Mr. Mack: The other thing is that this application has to be to HUD around November 15 and we have to go through a public advertisement process. A 30-day public comment period. And then it will come back to you. Mr. Williams: Okay. But in Administrative Services, one of your representatives, one of your staff people brought this to us; is that right? Mr. Mack: That’s right. I was on vacation. Mr. Williams: I’m just trying to figure out why we didn’t get it then. That’s my question. Was it an oversight? Mr. Mack: It was not an oversight. It was on the agenda, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well. Thank you, Mr. Mack. I still don’t have the answer to my question, but that’s all right. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Any further questions on this? We do have a motion to approve it. We have a second. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. This is Item 19 on the consent agenda with the addition of HOME funds to that caption. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Regular agenda? 76 Mr. Mayor: Let’s give it a shot, Ms. Bonner. Clerk: 32. Z-00-98 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ben L. & Beverly G. Weathers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One- family Residence) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Fleming Avenue, 220.0 feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Walton Way and Fleming Avenue (835 Fleming Avenue). District 3. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The petitioner on this one is not going to be here. We showed him another way to do this that didn’t involve zoning and he agrees, so I would say go ahead and deny it. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to deny. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. H. Brigham abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Clerk: 33. ZA-R-117 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance thereby adding beauty shops as permitted uses in a P-1 (Professional) zone. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty: Mr. Patty: We’ve had several situations where folks wanted to do beauty shops but they had to do Commercial zoning in order to do it. The places they wanted to do it wasn’t appropriate for Commercial zoning but might have been for a beauty shop. And one of those was on Berckman Road. We had one recently over by Beulah Grove and we had one last year on Telfair Street. And this is to allow beauty shops in Professional zones, which we feel is a good move to keep from over-zoning some areas and beauty shops, beauticians are licensed. They’re not unlike some of the things we already allow in Professional zoning. Recommend approval. 77 Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Oliver: I just want to make sure everybody is aware that this would be county-wide, so any place that there is a business zone of accountants or lawyers, it would give a beauty parlor the same right in zoning, if you will, as a Professional, such as a lawyer or an accountant. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Gentlemen, any discussion on this? Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Patty, that’s for any number of chairs; right? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. J. Brigham: Would it be a good idea to limit the number of chairs? Mr. Patty: Well, they’d be bound by the same developer regulations. I mean the sign would be limited to 12 square feet. They’d be controlled by the same development standards that any other professional uses would be. Mr. Mayor: Would that include number of parking spaces and things like that? Mr. Patty: Yes. Size of sign and setbacks and things of that nature. So the building would look like a professional building. Mr. J. Brigham: I understand that. What I’m concerned about is if we end up with a Professional zoning where it breaks from a Residential to a Commercial area, basically Residential or a Residential area that potentially is going to go Commercial, like Alexander Drive, if you allow 20 or 30 chairs in a Professional zoning, you have a business [inaudible]. Mr. Patty: I don’t know much about the nature of that business. I don’t know if that’s something that could happen or not. But you could limit it if you want to. Be fine with me. [inaudible] Limit it to ten. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays, is your hand up to discuss it? Mr. Mays: No, sir. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to amend it to limit it to ten chairs. Mr. Mayor: You’d like to make that amendment? Is the any objection to amending the motion to limit the number of chairs to ten chairs? There’s no objection 78 heard, so the motion will be amended to add the restriction to ten chairs. All in favor of the motion, then, as amended, Item 33, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, number 34? 34. ZA-R-118 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to provide for facilities for public or private assembly such as conference centers, convention centers, meeting rooms and facilities used for similar events by Special Exception in professional zones and by right in commercial and industrial zones. Mr. Patty: Number 34 is -- I guess given the hour, I won’t beat around the bush on this. This is coming back to you as a way to solve the problem. This is the Knox Center on Telfair Street. It would allow those type uses by Special Exception in the Professional zone. It would not allow those type uses by Special Exception in the Residential zone, which I presented to you roughly nine months ago, and there was some concern about that. Mr. Mayor: Have you gotten any feedback from the neighborhood? Mr. Patty: The head of the neighborhood association was here. His comment to me was he had talked to some folks. There wasn’t any concern about it, in essence. Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, any discussion? Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that and I’d like to discuss it a quick minute. Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got a motion and a second. Go ahead with your discussion. Mr. Shepard: This would not affect the Knox Center, but it would deal with issues like the Knox Center? Mr. Patty: It would affect the Knox Center. The Knox Center was given one year. The rezoning to B-1 of the Knox Center was denied a year ago in October. I believe exactly a year ago. Mr. Mayor: Yes, a year ago. 79 Mr. Patty: And they were given a year basically to clear out. And if you approve this zoning, then it would allow them to apply for a Special Exception in a P-1 zone, which would then grant them relief. Mr. Shepard: Okay. But they would still have to come back before us, George? Mr. Patty: They’ll have to come back. Mr. Shepard: They’ll just have a vehicle this time? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: All right. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, if I’m understanding, just doing from memory the issue with the Knox Center, they’re in a Professional zone but to do what they have to do, they have to be in a Business zone; is that correct? Mr. Patty: As the ordinance is currently written, they would have to be in a Commercial zone. They would have to be zoned B-1. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Patty: And that was rejected. Mr. Bridges: And at that time, we had a lot of residents that were opposed to that. It sounds like what we’re doing is after this year of breathing period, we’re going to allow them to do what they wanted to do anything, it’s just another way around it. Mr. Patty: Well, a lot of those residents, if you’ll remember, were opposed to the B-1 zoning. They were not opposed to the use. Some of them were, but a lot of them were opposed to B-1 zoning. Mr. Mayor: It’s been operating with some restrictions on it, Commissioner, and the neighborhood seems to be receptive to the way it’s been operating in the past year. There haven’t been the problems and the police calls they had previously. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: And these restrictions would be maintained? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, can I follow back with George on one thing? 80 Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: Could the residents -- there’s no where -- when they left here, they knew that these people had a year. There’s no way that they know anything about this resolution, is there? Mr. Patty: No, but they apply -- I assume they’ll apply for Special Exception, we’ll put a sign on it. They’ll know then. And when this comes to you to grant the Special Exception, they’ll know and they’ll be able to voice their feelings at that time. They actually do know. I mean the head of the organization has talked to me several times about this. He was here two hours ago, and his feelings were that it was not a problem now. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then, the motion to approve, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item 35. 35. ORDINANCE - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Code 8-1. Requiring "as built drawings" by a registered Professional Engineer (Approved by the Commission September 19 meeting deferred from the October 3 meeting – second reading) Mr. Patty: This is the flood ordinance, second reading, and we were asked to add the specific language on the “as built” certifications, and I hope and pray that each of you got one of these that’s in your book. And if you look at page 18, item N provides for the “as built drawings” of certifications. Mr. Mayor: What is the paragraph number on that, George? Mr. Patty: N. Yellow highlight. Last yellow highlight on page 18. Mr. Mayor: On 18. I don’t have any yellow. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. 81 Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve the second reading of this ordinance. Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Bridges: Yes. George, what are we supposed to be looking at on page 18? Mr. Patty: N on page 18. This is the specific language on the “as built” certifications. Mr. Mayor: Paragraph N as in November. Mr. Bridges: Tell me what “as built drawings” mean. Does that mean that if we construct a new Waffle House, that the runoff from that will not flood the neighborhood standing next to it? Mr. Patty: What this is, is the ordinance currently requires “as built” certification on the finished floor elevation on any structure in the flood plane. It also requires a certification from an engineer on flood proof buildings which are essentially non- residential buildings that can be flood proofed in lieu of elevation above the flood plane. It also says that when, if and when the site plan regulations and subdivision regulations require “as built” drawings which would be before the subdivision regulations committee at their next meeting, then those would also be required for development in the flood plane. Mr. Oliver: I would strongly -- to answer your question, Commissioner Bridges, while this is a partial fix, the real fix is to include in subdivision regulations because you need to ensure that what’s designed is what’s really built, and you don’t know on that Waffle House, for example, whether that water is going to affect an adjacent property owner or not, without a certification by a professional that it won’t, and if they give you that certification and it’s not a true certification, then the professional is liable and can be held negligent. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: It’s my understanding, as we do “as builts” it accurately reflects what is actually in place, and that becomes the final drawing rather than the initial drawing. It basically holds the developer to the original development plan and makes sure the site is completed and prepared according to that plan. Mr. Oliver: But it also recognizes that you design something and there are going to be field modifications, but those field modifications are going to be reflected in the “as builts.” Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, further discussion? Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. 82 Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion to approve. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Williams out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Item 36. Clerk: 36. Abolish position of Public Information Officer in the Fire Department. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee October 5, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Mr. Williams out. Motion fails 5-3-1. Mr. Mayor: Item 37. Clerk: 37. Consider approval of a waiver to the existing City Ordinance for Fire Hydrant distance requirements in regards to an expansion of Training Center at 1225 Gordon Park Road. (Staff recommends owner install an additional Hydrant at owner’s expense). Mr. Mayor: All right. We have somebody from the Fire Department to speak to this? I see Chief Rogers. Mr. Oliver: I can, Chief, if you want. There is currently a requirement that any part of a building be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant. At this particular location, the owner of the property needs to install another fire hydrant to be able to comply with that requirement. It’s staff’s recommendation that they be required to install that hydrant and perhaps they can work with their friends at the Plumbing Local to get a plumber to install that, but we think for the public safety purposes, that the fire hydrant should be put in and to approve this any other way would set a bad precedent and potentially put us in 83 an awkward position at some point in the future, because then somebody is going to come back and ask for it. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a representative from the person making the request here, the Carpenters Union. Did you want to come up and speak to this? Mr. Jenkins: Well -- Mr. Mayor: I need you to come up to the podium, name and address for the record, and then speak to this, if you would. Mr. Jenkins: I’m Thomas Jenkins. I represent Local 283, Augusta, Georgia. I represent members of Local 283, and after hearing Mr. Oliver, what he just said about a precedence. We’re not trying to set a precedence. What we’re trying to do is save the membership some money. We self-performed this task. I went down and got a general contractor’s license for $70. I don’t agree with that, but that’s the system in Augusta, and so I went and bought my license. And we self-performed this, saved $40,000. We could not afford to do facility. We use our contractors that are [inaudible] to our Local, and at that time we could not afford to add on to our training, our apprenticeship training facility. So what we did was we self-performed it. We ordered pre-engineered building. We went through the process of starting to get the permits and all this, and then we found out through I guess Planning and Zoning that we had to put the fire hydrant in, and then when we found out, we’re 40 feet out of [inaudible], you can recognize -- this room here is exactly 50 feet wide. This is how far we are out of the 500 foot [inaudible]. The building, I mean the fire hydrant, is 500 foot to the front of the building that we added on, but the ordinance says you have to be 500 feet from the back of the building. We’re exactly 544 feet. The estimate we got was $8,000 from [inaudible], one that is signature to us, to put in the fire hydrant. We’re trying not to set a precedence over this. We’re just trying to get some kind of relief cause this is going to break our budget. We can use this $8,000 in training aids for [inaudible], and that’s all I’m asking for, some kind of waiver or some kind of help of putting this hydrant, moving this fire hydrant 40 feet, or splitting the cost or anything. This is new to me. This is new to me, this ordinance of putting a fire hydrant in through the City. Mr. Oliver: I just hate for a fire hydrant to be 40 feet short and [inaudible]. Mr. Jenkins: What I’m asking is release the Fire Department of that responsibility. I’ve talked to my insurance company, I’ve talked to everybody else. There’s no problem with this 40 feet. Mr. Mayor: Let me say Tom and I have been trying to work on this for about a month, and we worked through Public Utilities and we worked with the Fire Department, tried to work everything we could and didn’t find a way to do it other than for him to come here and ask for a waiver, and you’ve heard the staff recommendation on that. Mr. Bridges? 84 Mr. Bridges: I was going to ask Jim what is his recommendation as far as liability in regards to a fire there. Mr. Wall: You and I spoke about this, but what’s the training center? Mr. Jenkins: This is the training center. Basically [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: I’m okay with this. We granted this for a convenience store in the past, and as long as it’s not an assembly hall or some type of assembly facility, I’m okay with it, as long as they sign a release agreement similar to what we used with the convenience store. Mr. Bridges: I make the motion we approve is subject to the stipulation as stated by the Attorney. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect again to Mr. Wall, I think on waiving a fire regulation, while that may be a legal opinion in reference to what an insurance company may say, a hold harmless agreement, I’d kind of rather hear from my fire chief before I waive a regulation. Now I know we did that for a convenience store and it voted in. This particular Commissioner didn’t vote for it, but I think we’ve had some buildings around the city, 401 Walton Way was a good example of where I think one of the prideful things that we can say about that jail, as backwards and sorry as it was built, is that Dick Edenfield and Bill Maddox wasn’t pushed around on putting their signatures on a sorry, substandard situation over there. And we got around it based on the fact that Richmond County government at that time, even though it sat in the City, was able to circumvent that process and do it, and I think regardless -- and I feel for them, I think that we can work out some way in order to get that done, but I just have a problem when we start waiving fire regulations. I don’t think that’s -- you may get a legal answer out of it, but I want a fire answer out of it. Mike or Carl, one, to deal with how they are having to deal with those situations and what predicament that puts in. Mr. Mayor: Before Carl speaks, let me refer you to the backup that Chief Scott did submit to us where he recommends not to approve the waiver. But go ahead, Chief. Chief Scott: First of all, I’m really not [inaudible] area here, but we have discussed this situation, Chief Rogers and myself, and Chief Rogers really is the expert in this field, in this area, and his division was the one that went out there and got [inaudible] he can tell you more about this than I can. So Chief Rogers [inaudible]. Chief Rogers: Basically what we have is the State fire prevention Code says that the nearest fire plug has to be 500 feet from both corners of the building. If you’re asking me, it was 540 feet, are we going to put his fires out? Yes. But the fire department, for 85 reliability, at the present we have to adhere to these fire Codes. We can’t vary on these fire Codes. [inaudible] As far as [inaudible], sir, we may have patrons that may be in that building or this building may change hands or if we have a fire in the [inaudible] and where is it going to place the City and the Fire Department? In my good judgment, I can’t agree with waiving the law [inaudible] people smarter than we are about these fire Codes, it’s a State code put out by the State of Georgia [inaudible]. There again, if Jim thinks we can [inaudible] letter saying they will hold harmless for the business itself, that’s fine. My concern is for the patrons [inaudible] and my firefighters. So I leave that decision up to y’all. But as far as the Fire Department is concerned, I don’t think we should vary from the ordinance itself. They are here for us to go by and I think we are setting a precedence by starting to give various [inaudible] again, so that’s just my opinion and that’s what the fire Code reads. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Chief. Commissioner Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, on the recommendation, and I’m willing to accept the recommendation of Chief Rogers, simply because I think it’s necessary to follow -- if we’re going to have professionals in office and advising us, I think we ought to follow that, their advice on this. And I can see where when we start waiving on one, I can’t understand, we start waiving on another. Was there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: There is to grant them the waiver. Would you like to make a substitute motion? Mr. Beard: I make a substitute motion that we follow the advice of our Fire Department. Mr. Mayor: That would be to deny the matter. Is there a second to that? Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Further discussion, gentlemen? All right, we’ll call the question on the substitute motion first. That is to deny the request. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is #39. Clerk: 39. Discussion: Consider a request by Debora Berlin for a massage therapist license to be used in connection with Paradise Island Day Spa located at 3435 Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee October 5, 2000) 86 Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, your pleasure? Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker, do you want to say anything about this? Mr. Walker: [inaudible] Ms. Berlin: [inaudible] Mr. Walker: [inaudible] recommend approval. Mr. Mayor: Any questions, gentlemen? Ready to proceed with the vote? All in favor of then of the license, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: 39a? Clerk: 39a. Motion to approve the award of the leased tire contract to Firestone (Bid Item #00-136 – low bid) for a three year period with an option for two one year extensions. Funds are available in Acct #546091210-5422410 and 797111640-5422410 . Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe these are AT Wilderness tires, are they? Mr. Colclough: I don’t care what they are. They’re Firestones. Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible] you want to tell us what we have here, please? Mr. Johnson: We had to go out for bids because we could not have a contract that goes over five years and we have had Firestone for the last five years and that we have had none of the problems with the bus tires as you’ve seen in the news. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? 87 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams, you have your hand up? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Just some clarification, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Williams: We’ve been hearing all this hoopla on the news about Firestone tires and what [inaudible], and even if we had a normal situation, and normal [inaudible] with a tire, and using the Firestone brand going to cause us some problems that we probably should do without. I understand we need the tires. I understand Mr. [inaudible] tried to acquire the best bids for low. I’m just a little skeptical because all of the bad press that we have, not just on us as a Commission, but about these tires, and I’m just a little concerned. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Your concern is noted in the record. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Johnson, you said you can’t go out for a bid over five years contract. What would it take for you to be able to extend that in order to get tires for your buses? Mr. Johnson: We’ve already extended. That first contract was for -- it ran until 1998, and so then we used the extension. And so we have used the five years at one time so we had to go out for other bids. Mr. Colclough: So you could not -- Firestone was the lowest bid that came in? Mr. Johnson: Right, sir. Goodyear was the other bid, and if you looked, they are about two times the amount. Mr. Colclough: I can imagine, but they’re not the one that’s blowing out right now. Mr. Johnson: What we have to reiterate, those are only SUVs [inaudible] and they were not on the buses. And we have used them approximately now for five years with contract and then we used them for three years before that and we’ve used them for 8 years and we’ve had none, no separation. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Johnson, I have a ’99 Saturn, which came with Firestone tires on it, and I got a letter from Saturn saying that those weren’t the tires that we separating, but I can guarantee you they’re not on that Saturn right now. Saturn changed them. But anyway, I understand you need tires, but they are branded with Firestone and Firestone is having a major problem with their tires and Ford has even gone to Michelin on some of their vehicles. I know you need the tires and I want to support it. 88 Mr. Mayor: I think we’ve had more blowouts during this meeting today than tires that have blown out. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Jim, we’ve turned down a low bid before on another matter, and we legally said we couldn’t. Can we turn down this low bid? Mr. Wall: Well, I mean, before there was no justification for turning down the low bid, and I guess in a way, and then the question is whether or not the taint on Firestone raises a concern to the level that you don’t want to buy any tires even though there is not any known problem with this particular size. That’s a close question. You can reject all the bids and go back out, but I’m not sure from a time standpoint. Mr. Oliver: You don’t want to do that. Let me throw in an additional wrinkle. These are [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: There’s no reports at all about these tires blowing up? Mr. Bridges: And you’re confident that these tires will hold up and you’ve investigated it and this type of thing? Mr. Wall: Without some reasonable basis to suspect that these tires will fail, I think you are [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I was going to say to Mr. Johnson, being in that capacity and being the person that makes that decision, you’re talking about the safety of citizens back and forth, and who know, you and I may be on that particular bus, and that doesn’t mean that those tires will give, but I just think that we need to maybe go back out for bid again or look at some other sources. It may be just a myth that we have. But if something did happen, and we had those tires and there was something that caused the blow out on the highway, it don’t necessarily have to be that tire itself, but just having that brand on there and knowing what we know and what’s been said, then we tend to, we go ahead and go on with this, and something happens, it does not have to be the tire’s fault, but it is going to look bad on us. Mr. Mayor: Your concern is duly noted and appreciated, Commissioner Williams, but I think absent a showing of any defect in these specific tires, the fact that Firestone is a local corporate citizen of this metro area and there are people who live in Augusta Richmond County who work at the Bridgestone/Firestone Company, I think what we ought to try to do is support our local businesses and support our local workers. Mr. Williams: I have no problem, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to reiterate this again, that there have been some RV’s, recreation vehicles the size of buses that was on the news here recently, that carried those similar size tires. It wasn’t a passenger car. It 89 wasn’t a sports utility vehicle. And I mean I’m just bringing for clarification. I just want you to know it is not just the small passenger car that had the problems. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s move along with the vote and see how the majority feels about it then. Any further discussion? Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I did hear one error. It’s three years with an option, and it’s not for 2 one-year. It’s just for two-year option. Not 2 one-year. Mr. Mayor: Two year extension? Mr. Johnson: Right. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, all in favor of the motion on item 39a, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough: I’m voting for this item in the positive, against my better judgment, because I know I’m already locked in with the State law. Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion carries 6-2-2. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you saved the day on that. Let me just leave Mr. Johnson with a parting word, that if you have any trouble with these tires, you need to remove them from your buses immediately and let’s go to another brand. Mr. Johnson: I will. Mr. Mayor: That brings us back to 39b. 39b. Discuss management letter and response. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to pick up where we left off? Mr. Shepard: Sure, Mr. Mayor, I’d be happy to. About a year ago, we were in a Finance Committee meeting, and it seems like a lifetime ago, but I think some very good discussions were had in there. We had our accounting firm that with three partners, I think. I see Mr. Plowman there in the back, I see the other gentlemen to my left, I see Ms. Lamb now. We had a comptroller. Let me see if I can put a motion on the table that would summarize, in my opinion, where we went in the direction of that Finance I would move that we contract with Mr. Al Slavens, who is a former Committee. Comptroller here, to provide senior level accounting services to the Finance Department for a period not to exceed 90 days at a rate not to exceed $55 an hour as independent contractor. That would be in addition to consulting services that we previously contracted with CB&H for on or about August 1, 2000, that the funding 90 of Mr. Slavens’ compensation come from lapsed salaries in that department. I believe that was Mr. Oliver’s recommendation. I would further move that at the second Finance Committee meeting in November, 2000 the Finance Committee receive a report and plan from CB&H and our Comptroller regarding the implementation of that consulting contract that was approved by this body on August 1, 2000 and that plan would include specific recommendations which would touch on trend reporting in the year 2000, that’s the year we’re currently in, trend reporting in future years, so we know where we are more expeditiously, more quickly than we have. We’ve been considering the year 1999 which is a closed year. We want to look at the current year. Also, in that report I would ask they consider the adequacy of the work review in the Finance Department, that they suggest some milestones that we have for the plan implementation. It includes bar charts or whatever would be most explanatory of that, that they also consider the adequacy of the staffing of the department and the adequacy of the staff’s salaries and in the budgetary process, I suggest we consider hiring a Grants Coordinator and that would be something I would ask the Administration to bring up in the context of the budget process which we’ll be starting shortly, and that we further in the budget process encourage our constitutional officers to adopt the Bi-Tech accounting system so that we won’t have this year end conversion problem, and further I would ask that the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and I will serve on this committee, get a schedule together to schedule a work session on Finance and related departments so that we can go into that in as much detail with as much time as necessary. Mr. Bridges: Second it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion and second. Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Let me thank the Finance chairman for getting a very detailed motion on the floor and helping us to get out of here and eliminate any discussion any further. It’s been a long day in terms of dealing with that. The only thing I would suggest in there, Steve, that we may want to do, and this does not necessarily have to be in the motion cause I think the motion is fine in terms of covering the suggestion that we want them, and when you’re talking about Constitutional officers, working within the system that we’ve got, but I think we also need to ask the Attorney to research where the law is in reference to dealing with them to do this. Because it’s one thing to ask folks to do something, something that’s this serious magnitude. I think they’ve been asked before. I guess since I’m in the process of starting other wars, I might as well go on and start this one. I think if it’s legal and if it can be done as a part of the budgetary process, that we need to bring everybody under this umbrella tent for some reason, then I think if that’s the legal thing to do, then we need to make that a part of the budgetary process. I mean you can’t have a process to work and you ask somebody to comply with something that your folk need in a particular department and then you have folk out there that can 91 comply if they want to or not, and I think we need to really go ahead on and see whether, you know, that can be done and make that specific. But I think your motion is fine. But I just think that maybe needs to be done outside of the motion to see where we can get with that, because I think if you ask and you beg and some folk don’t want to do it or they say that doesn’t work for me and I’m going to keep mine like I want to and I been doing this this way, guess what? They going to continue to do it that way and we going to be here forever chasing it and we going to constantly be reading in the news or hearing about what a department has done when it’s not necessarily in conjunction with our Finance Department, whether it’s in terms of late stuff getting out, whether it’s in terms of money missing, regardless of what the procedure might be. We will be in a position of having to react to it instead of everybody being under the same tent. That’s my only suggestion with that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Beard and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard: It’s quite a lengthy motion and I know I missed a lot of things, Mr. Shepard. When was the audit, the auditors in this? Did you mention anything? I know it was kind of long. What part would they play? We need to clarify that. Mr. Shepard: As I said, August 1, if memory serves me. Correct me if I am wrong, Randy, or somebody. We extended the audit contract and as a sidebar to that we asked for additional consulting services to be rendered by CB&H, and that was to draft the departmental organization plan in Finance, provide for various accounting services, and also additional training. So that was their command then but what I am asking them to do, they haven’t gotten very along with that -- correct me if I’m wrong, Kip -- but I believe that was your statement to the Finance Committee. We would like to have them back on the second meeting of the Finance Committee in November with that information, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Okay. That’s fine. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m learning more and more every day not to take things for granted, and so as we establish this, this is this Commissioner’s wish that we establish a punch list of monthly, quarterly and yearly activities to be completed within the Finance Department. To facilitate the proper reporting of information, that we establish target dates for completing the process of implementing these changes, that we task load the job of each one of these assignments to make sure that we have adequate personnel and funding to cover that, where we’ll get a good idea of what we need to have in place when we restructure the Finance Department for efficiency. And I would hope that when we come back in a couple of weeks with this information that these dates are in place, that we have a pretty comprehensive outline of our plans for getting us from where we are, which was mentioned several months ago, but somewhat ignored, to where we want to be, which is a highly efficient Finance Department. To me, it is amazing, and I kept hearing Mr. [inaudible] mention over and over again, this is the way we’ve done it 92 for so many years. This is the way we’ve done it for so many years. Now we’re eat up with the idea that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well, I looked outside and there are no covered wagons parked out front. There are better ways of doing things and we need to update and improve and continuously improve our techniques every year. That’s Commissioners, department heads, all of us. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to ask and Mr. Shepard was clear in his motion, that accountability we’re talking about, the person that is over that department, that Finance that we’re talking about now, accountability that they would realize that they are held accountable to see that the work is being done and will be done, along with auditing. Now we mentioned that in Committee but I didn’t know whether that was mentioned or not because there was a pretty long -- Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, if I could, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I don’t -- I don’t have a brief motion here, I grant you that. But I did have part of it to address what I call the adequacy of the work review within the Finance Department. That’s why I was putting that in there, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Shepard: We can pull our notes and play it back from the Clerk, but that’s what is in there. Mr. Williams: I understand. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Just on the clarification, and I think Steve got it really in terms of the work review. But Steve, within that process that you mentioned, particularly on the work review side, even though we’re getting back on the second meeting in November, in between that time, and I think probably that would be unfair to put a date specific in there right now, but I’m still hoping between now and prior to that second meeting in November, that we can deal with that date and devote some time to what we were talking about inasmuch as we’ve got the budget situation occurring, you’ve got transition of the Administrator that’s in there, that I think we need to really give Finance, whether it be a day, day-and-a-half, whatever it might be, prior to that second meeting in November. I think that’s very important because we’re right now sitting just past the middle of the month in October. We’re talking about the fourth week in November. That’s a month. And while I think that the teamwork that we may put together down there may be at work, I think there are some things that the Commissioners in this process need to really totally be brought up to speed on. And I just hope that in between that time, I don’t think we have to set a time, but I think somewhere within that four weeks, we need to be able to devote some quality time in there in listening and hearing to the folk that we’ve got down there. Once you put Mr. Slavens in place, and that you’re listening to Mr. 93 [inaudible] and the staff you’ve got on board and everybody dealing with Finance, first and second floor, auditors, other consultants, everybody and all Commissioners and the Mayor being involved in that workshop type process. Prior to that second meeting in November. I just think that while they need that time to do work, but that’s a long drift, and you get into Thanksgiving holiday, you get into Christmas, we’ll find ourselves in the first of the year still floating. And I just think somewhere in that process we need to work that out. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I hear what you’re saying and let’s just get our calendars together so it’s at our mutual convenience. Mr. Oliver: I think it’s going to take about 30 days to get that information together with the new person coming and I don’t think it’s something he’s going to be able to do in a week. Mr. Mayor: We’ll move on that as expeditiously as humanly possible. Mr. Mays: I agree with you, Randy, but there are some things we don’t have all that time to a point of where we’ve got to deal with what is there in a budget and I think while they are working in that 30-day period, I’m not saying that that be the only workshop we need to have. Because this is a situation we’re correcting after months of this year, it may be that we need to do two of them. Maybe everybody can’t get to one of them, but I think this is very serious to a point because there’s not going to be a single permanent boss running day-to-day activities in this county until 2001. That’s a fact. And whatever decision we make in Finance, we need to be on top of that in a very serious manner. Because I think if we have some caring folk in there, I think we got some things we need to correct, and we keep talking about who else we may lose in the process, I just don’t want us drifting 30 more days to a point of where we are not totally on top of that. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll call the question on the motion from Mr. Shepard. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is 41, a motion to approve the appointment of Nita Mulherin to the Department of Family and Children Services Board. 41. Motion to approve the appointment of Nita Mulherin to the Department of Family and Children Services Board. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. 94 Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item 42. Are the airport people still here? Mr. Wall: They are in the next room. Mr. Mayor: I saw them lurking in the hall. Okay, there we go. 42. Approve lease agreement with Garrett Aviation and authorize expenditure of up to $50,000 for relocation of roadway. Mr. Wall: If I may, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Wall. We’re on your item, Mr. Weegar. Mr. Wall: This Garrett Aviation lease, we entered into a letter of intent almost a year ago and at the time, the Garrett test cell was expected to be a $900,000 expansion. Since then, there have been increases in the size of the project and the moving of the test cell itself, and that has been the delay in formalizing the lease agreement. They are now ready to proceed with the construction of the test facility. The lease agreement is really a financing mechanism for the test cell over a 10-year period of time. This is where basically they would pay interest only for the first 9-1/2 years, with a balloon payment at th the end of the 10 year. In the event that they renewed the lease, the principal amount, some $3.1 million, $2.6 million of which is test cell, the other approximately $450,000 is the hangar expansion that they’ve already completed, would be amortized over an additional 10-year term, also the right to lease additional property which lies south of the We’re also asking that you approve a existing property and south of the runway. budget amendment of $50,000 for relocation of a roadway, and since the agenda was printed, to approve a contract with LJ, Inc. for $44,474 which is the award, bid amount that was given by LJ, Inc. Quotes were obtained from six contractors and this was the lowest amount. Questions have been asked of me about the roadway, and if I could hold this up, this is the exhibit to the 1976 lease, and you will see where it shows the road coming out of the county’s maintenance facility, and it shows the driveway here. Well, that road connects those two points, is on the Garrett property, and that’s the roadway, the area that they are to construct the test center. So what we are having to do is we are tying into Doug Barnard Parkway in order to get access to maintenance facility and that’s the $44,000 estimate. And we ask your approval for that lease again, subject to the approval of the City Administrator and the airport Director and myself. There are a few minor details that are still be discussed by Garrett and it’s being reviewed by corporate counsel. But I don’t anticipate anything of any significance and ask that you approve it subject to that. Mr. Oliver: And I would note that this is with the full parent guarantee of General Electric, which is important because that will make this a AAA credit. This will be 95 bonded through people that they select. They will pay the total cost of issuance, the total cost of debt service and everything. It’s just a pass-through. It’s really an accommodation by Bush Field to do that because by doing it through Bush Field, it’s tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Codes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I had a couple of questions. And these go more to the ongoing work on the master plan with respect to tying up 10 acres of property out there with that option and relocating the road. Has this been discussed with Black & Beach and is this consistent with what they anticipate for the master plan? Mr. Wall: Well, I can’t answer the question of whether it’s been discussed with -- Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Weegar is here. Could he do that? Mr. Wall: Let me show you. The area you’re talking about is an area south of this runway. It, first of all, is low lying land. It’s low lying land. It’s got drainage problems, etc. where the property narrows. And I did have a discussion with them cause I was concerned that [inaudible] I think everyone is comfortable [inaudible] area that [inaudible]. Mr. Weegar: Mr. Mayor, the Black & Beach team has been well aware of the [inaudible]. The opportunity with Garrett, that’s some good news coming down the road here with Garrett in a couple of years, maybe less than that. I think we can expect some future growth with Garrett. Almost certain that’s going to happen with their new test cell facility. We’re looking at having a groundbreaking ceremony with the new test cell and [inaudible] expansion here shortly. Mr. Mayor: What’s the gut feeling on the 10 acres? That’s not going to pose a problem with the master plan? Mr. Weegar: No problem at all. Mr. Mayor: Okay, the other issue is the first refusal of Garrett on hangars and buildings. Mr. Weegar: Right. Mr. Mayor: Doesn’t that -- does that tie our hands if we want to tear something down if it’s abandoned? If we have to give them first refusal? Mr. Weegar: The way the lease is structured, the maintenance facility, if we decide to move our maintenance facility tomorrow and somebody else comes knocking on the door, we’ve got to go talk to Garrett and say, do you want to get serious now and build a facility? If not, you know, we’ve got somebody else in the wings. 96 Mr. Mayor: But that wouldn’t preclude us from demolishing something if we wanted to? Mr. Weegar: No. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. 42a. Authorize increase in Bush Field budget by $35,000 for marketing. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, if I can address the next issue. Mr. David Dorminey presented a proposal for a promotion to ComAir. He feels it’s important that we promote ComAir in advance of their actually starting the flights. There is an approximately $60,000 cost involved in chartering an aircraft in which some 50 passengers would be taken to Cincinnati in an effort to promote them and also to bring people to Augusta and show them the advantages that Augusta has, the opportunities for people traveling in and out. That is going to -- he’s got a budget shortfall of approximately $25,000 in order to finance the cost of that. The $35,000 was an amount voted upon by the Aviation Commission so that he would have an additional $10,000 for the balance of this year for other marketing needs that he will have. And this comes as a recommendation from the Aviation Commission, and David, I don’t know whether you want to add anything or not. Mr. Oliver: And I would assume, David, this is coming from Bush Field reserve? Mr. Wall: Yes. One point, well, not reserves. They are showing a surplus of roughly $1.6 million in revenues over expenses today and so it would come out of those funds. Mr. Shepard: I so move that we take it out -- you call it retained earnings, Jim? Mr. Oliver: Surplus. Mr. Shepard: Surplus, Mr. Accountant. Mr. Cheek: Second that. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Yes, Mr. Colclough? 97 Mr. Colclough: Where is it coming from? Jim said one thing and then we said something else. Where is the money coming from? Mr. Weegar: The $1.6 million, like Jim said, is surplus. Revenue over expenses. Mr. Colclough: We’re still on the same page? Mr. Weegar: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That brings us up to Item 45. Commissioner Shepard? 45. Discuss Athens-Clarke County delineation of responsibilities of elected officials and management. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I yield to Mr. Cheek on this point. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. This came up a few weeks back and I began working on basically the concept that delineates responsibilities, roles, limitations of elected officials, the Administrator and so forth. I’ve been developing a flow chart of the current system, and truly right now we have citizens, the Mayor and Commissioners, the Administrator, and Augusta Cares potentially sending requests through to our department heads. They, in turn, try to allocation our resources. The strength in this is we are getting to deal with some district priorities, it’s easier for Commissioners to get things done if they happen to be in favor with a department head. Typically we could call and forget it. It will get done. If something doesn’t work, then there is someone else to blame. The weaknesses? It’s a poor tracking of projects and jobs. It’s a poor reporting of the status of the jobs when Augusta Cares gets something they can call back usually and tell people that something is either being done, done, or will be done. The department heads have one master to serve at that point. And right now, they have many masters. Jobs and projects get bumped. It’s hard to work a schedule. That’s why we’re in the crisis of the week mode. It allows favoritism and so forth. I think this is an opportunity for us to visit this and perhaps form a committee to look at coming up with a system that would allow the Mayor, Commissioners, Administrator and citizens to have a similar system to Augusta Cares where we can deal with our emergencies, urgent needs, routine issues, and wish lists that are routed through a single system to the department heads in some order of priority, and then they’re able to allocate their resources and work a schedule. That will enable our department heads to return that information back to Augusta Cares, who can in turn keep us abreast of situations. We have seen where we have had projects and jobs and many other things that get lost or fall through the cracks and we end up 98 scrambling weeks or months later trying to find out what happened to that project. This is an opportunity for us, I think. We learned today that a lot of things we take for granted, like in Finance there are things that are institutional practices that have been in place for years without looking for a better way. I think we have an opportunity, Mr. Mayor, to come up with a way to better delineate our responsibilities, use a system that will work for everybody, that will still allow us to deal with our concerns and plans and needs and expectations, working with the Administrator, with the department heads, that will free them up from the many calls that they get from so many different people, as the current system exists. I just hope that we will investigate this further and perhaps set up a committee to work on a way to establish a plan like this. Mr. Oliver: Augusta Cares, the software has the capability to give other people access and as you say, it is a tracking mechanism. The advantage of that is you know who goes in first and who gets done and that type of thing, and in fact, anybody who has a computer that knows how to use it could log in those requests. So if a Commissioner wanted to take a call from a constituent, they could log it in. That would be no problem. And the advantage to the Augusta Care is when a project is done, people are notified that it’s been completed, and that’s one of your strongest ways of quality control because when they get a letter that says it’s been done and it hadn’t been done, you can believe you hear about it pretty quickly. When that first started, we got some of those calls. Mr. Cheek: Just one quick thing. Randy, can you flag that for emergencies or urgent needs or so forth? Mr. Oliver: Sure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to move that a committee be established to look into this possibility of responsibility that was suggested by Commissioner Cheek and that they report back to the appropriate Committee. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item 46. I don’t know where that came from. Whose item is this? 46. Discuss personnel matter . Mr. Beard: That was mine. So I forego that, Mr. Mayor, in the interest of time. 99 Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting Item 46? It takes unanimous consent. No objection heard. Item 46 is deleted. Mr. Wall, anything for Item 47? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, I do have several matters that I need to take up with you. Unfortunately the time is critical on three of them. I would ask for a legal meeting to discuss litigation matters. 47. LEGAL MEETING: * Discuss pending claims . Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: In light of some of the things that have happened over the past few months and since there is no recording of conversations held in legal meetings to be released, I would like to see us move to have some verbatim language recorded in these legal meetings and to be released at the end of the litigation that is being discussed to allow this to be part of public record. There’s a lot of things that are discussed in there that is public information that needs to be made public at some point in time. Mr. Wall: I strongly advise against that. That is a bad policy, in my opinion, and you potentially are waiving the attorney/client privilege, and once you start having those tapes in there, you have to understand you are going to wind up in a fight of where someone is going to subpoena that tape, the mental impressions, the mental thoughts, the process by which you evaluate a case, I think would be very detrimental to Augusta to release that at any point in time. Mr. Cheek: Well, I would like to address the things like we had run into with the Finance Department, the fact that it did come up many months ago and that was never documented, and some of the issues like that. Now perhaps we can get around or work to partition it between some of the things dealing with litigation and personnel issues or other concerns. But the fact is, there is a lot of information discussed in legal meetings that needs to be made public, it needs to be recorded and made public at some point in time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Also, with Mr. Cheek, I agree with him 100%. In fact, if there is a case or there is a situation where we don’t have someone name or someone maybe a potential claim that’s going to be discussed, I can understand that. But I decide not to go into legal meeting again until, unless we going to record what we being saying. There a lot of stuff been happening in legal. Mr. Bridges was good enough to put personnel on there one time and we discussed some things in open. We been back in legal and there some things that leaked out of legal different way than it was said in legal. And I’m not going to go back and be a part of a situation where it’s one side when it comes out. I rather stay out here and let y’all handle the legal part of that. 100 Mr. Mayor: Are you saying that is a second to Commissioner Cheek’s motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m seconding his motion, but I want to make my point clear, that if it’s going to incriminate or it is a situation where there is a claim that is being the process of something pending, I understand that there is legal language and legal things that being done in there that we can’t just include everybody but there is a lot of stuff that we discuss that general public information and I think if we go back and continue doing it, we going to be doing it illegally rather than legally, so I intend to stay until we -- Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that would require us to take verbatim minutes of the legal session. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, due to the lateness of the hour and since that’s a rather major policy change that my colleagues are proposing, I’d make a substitute motion for this evening that we go in legal session, that we discuss the pending claims that are time critical that Mr. Wall has brought to our attention, and discuss the personnel matter. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to this substitute motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just some quick discussion, Mr. Mayor. It’s not the intention of this Commissioner to jeopardize, legally jeopardize or have this government liable in areas, legal areas, but it is my intention to make sure any information that can be made public is recorded and made public. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Andy, just to offer the law firm of Shepard, Cheek & Williams additional information from the senior partner, there’s a matter called admission against interests, which our adversaries in Court will ram down our throats and some other parts of our anatomy if we have too detailed a record, and I’m sure that your concern for public information may be outweighed in certain circumstances by adverse verdicts which we will spend hundreds of thousands, if not seven figures of money in paying. So I think there’s a balance here. We’ve got the issue of public disclosure. You also have the issue of being good stewards of the tax dollars that we’re vested with. So I would be happy to talk further with you about the concepts, the policies there. But I think the down side to all this disclosure is that we hand to the adversaries the spear that kills us down on the third floor and in the Federal Court and wherever else we send our lawyers, whether they’re in-house, out-house or whatever. Thank you. 101 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I kind of urge my colleagues to give us time to look into this or think about this a little more. I hate for this to come to a point where we are going to have to vote on this today, because I think it is kind of grievous. It’s a serious matter and I think we need some time to ponder this and consider it. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion -- Mr. Cheek: Quickly, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, under the rules of the Commission, you can be recognized for discussion and rebuttal, and you’ve had discussion and rebuttal. So -- Mr. Cheek: Are we going to continue to enforce these equally from now on? Mr. Mayor: Well, it depends on what the hour is. The hour of the day. I give you 30 seconds and then we’re going to vote. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, there are some members of this Commission that don’t mind allowing half of the information out to the public, and it’s just this Commissioner’s intention to make sure that the public gets all the information, not half the information. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. We’ll vote on the question, which is Mr. Shepard’s substitute motion to go into legal session on the items enumerated. All in favor, vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No. Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 7-2. [LEGAL MEETING 7:15 - 7:50 P.M.] Mr. Mayor: We’ll come back to order. We’ll entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor signing the affidavit. 48. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. 102 Motion carries 7-0. [Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams were absent from the legal session.] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have anything you want to add? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I would ask that three items be added to the agenda. To authorize the execution of a release agreement in settlement of the claim against Cellular One for consideration of payment by Cellular One of $134,920.00. Second item is motion to approve repairs to 1999 Graddall at a cost not to exceed $25,000. And then the third item is to authorize condemnation against 83.10 acres owned by Jack Mason in connection with the Diamond Lakes Regional Park Project. Mr. Kuhlke: I move to approve we add and approve. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 9-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner 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 October 17, 2000. Clerk of Commission