The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-19-2000 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS December 19, 2000 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., with 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. The Invocation was presented. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECOGNITION: Augusta-Richmond County Employee of the Month Clerk: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we would like to acknowledge the Employee of the Month. We’d ask that Mr. Tom Beck please join the Mayor at the podium, along with the selected Employee of the Month, Mr. Tom Moraetes. Mr. Mayor: Would you read the letter? Clerk: [Reading] Dear Mayor Young, the Employee of the Month selection committee has selected Mr. Moraetes with the Recreation and Parks Department as the Employee of the Month for the month of November. Mr. Moraetes has worked for Augusta since October, 1974. He is currently employed as the founder, director and head coach at the Augusta Boxing Club. His supervisor, Buck Salter, nominated him. The committee felt that based on Mr. Salter’s recommendation that Mr. Moraetes’ attributes, he would make an ideal choice for Employee of the Month. Mr. Salter states the reason for his nomination is: his service to the youth of Augusta and the CSRA is outstanding. He gets sponsors for programs at the Augusta Boxing Club and all training classes are free to youth ages 8 through 15. He can be found working at the Boxing Club early morning until late in the evening. On Thanksgiving Day, with the help of a local sponsor, Tom carried 12 boxers and their families to a local restaurant for a Thanksgiving dinner. Mr. Salter also states Tom has over 25 years of coaching experience and is a Level 4 International Olympic Certified Coach. Mr. Salter states that in 1976, Tom started the Augusta Boxing Club his garage and moved to five different temporary locations until he found a permanent home in 1993 for the Boxing Club at the present address on Walton Way. The committee would appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Tom Moraetes Employee of the Month at the December 19 meeting. (A round of applause is given.) 2 Mr. Moraetes: I want to thank Tom Beck and also the Commissioners for their contribution to the kids in our community. I have an opportunity to meet with different recreation departments from just about every state in the United States and I’m telling you right now we are very luck to have the recreation [inaudible]. The kids are lucky [inaudible], the impact that we have on the kids is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Even compared to other recreation departments. Compared to most recreation departments. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) DELEGATION: Ms. Inez Griswold Mr. Mayor: The next delegation we have is Ms. Inez Griswold. Is Ms. Griswold here? Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Griswold, if you would come to the podium, please, and just restate your name and address for the record and then under the Commission rules you have five minutes to address the board. Ms. Griswold: Inez A. Griswold, [inaudible] Edgewood Drive, Augusta, Georgia. Mayor Young, Commissioners, and all these people that are here waiting for me to get through, thank you for the time that is allowed me. [inaudible] consideration you have shown the people of Augusta Richmond County. And if you are now in government business as well, then thank you for at least trying to help. [inaudible] we should be more considerate about children and old folks and [inaudible] animals that are [inaudible] abuse the animals. There should be more interest shown in people and not pets and projects. You need to stop the policy of voting for the pet project because somebody said if you vote for my project, I’ll vote for your project. You need to be more concerned about the things that really, really need to be done. The things that need to be done first should be done first. You should be concerned about the honesty and integrity of the people that work in this government. They continue to steal and abuse their privileges as being employee of this government. They use the time, supplies and equipment and the money that belongs to the people of this county. Are they really on official business or are they really on official breaks? Are they using supplies and equipment for official city and government business? I’ve read, I’ve been told that it’s not all true what you read in the newspaper. The use of the telephone, the telephone cellular, the government vehicles, they take materials that belong to the government, they steal the money, they embezzle. Fire them. Get them prosecuted legally. Get them out. If there are ways to have responsible people handling the funds, I believe there should be. You can have more checks made. More people responsible that know what’s going on. You can’t see to stay within a budget. You borrow money. Who winds up paying for it? Us taxpayers. All of 3 us. Some of them get a very, very high salary. A lot of income. That’s not necessary always for them to live and to live well. They just have nicer homes, more expensive cars, a lot of luxury trips at government expense. The raises and bonus, it would be nice. Every time we get one, the grocery bill goes up, the gasoline bill goes up. Then people are laid off. I agree that if positions are needed, then the people don’t need to be working for city government or any other place. As the Mayor, as a Commissioner, it’s your responsibility to be here and I’m glad to see that I believe the seats are filled today. This is only the second time I’ve been here. And that you’ve been here on time. I don’t know what’s going [inaudible] cause I’ll be leaving shortly. It’s your obligation to be here, to not absent yourself. It’s your obligation to vote and not abstain from it. It’s people that you’re supposed to represent, not money, it’s not politics. People should be the order of all the Commissioners and the Mayor. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Griswold. And certainly you’ve brought to our attention here today these allegations of theft and embezzlement and I would ask that you please pass those along to the District Attorney because there is a special Grand Jury empanelled that is looking into this city government and that would be an appropriate forum for you to take that specific information. RESOLUTION: Consider adoption of Resolution endorsing the Water Bill of Rights Mr. Mayor: The next item we have is Mr. Sam Booher, is here to speak to the Commission with respect to the Water Bill of Rights. Mr. Booher: My name is Sam Booher. I live in Augusta, Georgia. I have brought the Georgia Water Bill of Rights to you for your information today and ask that you consider sending this resolution to a committee for future consideration by this Commission. I was asked by the Georgia Wildlife Federation and the Chattahoochee River Keepers to ask that you consider this resolution. I decided to wait until other municipalities around the state have had a chance to vote on it. As it stands right now, Atlanta, Brunswick, Columbus Muskogee, Savannah, Roswell and Bainbridge have already voted to pass this resolution. The intent of this resolution is to lay out basic principles that we can all agree upon to help Commissioners around the state and the legislators to all come together on the same page when talking about clean water for the citizens of Georgia. Today, 1.3 million citizens through their Commissioners are on board with this resolution. Gov. Barnes has no problem with it, and the Georgia Municipal Association has no problem with it. In fact, they think it will help them. I hope that you’ll use this resolution to say that Augusta shares with the other municipalities around the state and support these basic principles. I look forward to working -- I hope you’ll pass this on to a committee and I look forward to working with that committee. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do we have a motion to -- you’ve got the backup information -- a motion to accept it as information and pass it on to the appropriate committee. Mr. Shepard? 4 Mr. Shepard: I was going to make that motion, Mr. Mayor, and send it to Engineering Services. Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Under our consent agenda -- Public Hearing Phase on the Budget. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. Pursuant to the notice of public hearing, which was published in the local legal gazette, we’re having a public hearing today on the budget, which the Commission will be considering. Certainly we won’t finish action on it today, but we will be considering it in coming days to complete action by December 31. So at this time, what we’d like to do is hear from any delegations that are here to speak with respect to the budget during this public hearing phase of that. Are there any people here today who wish to speak in reference to our budget today? None indicated. Let me just state for the record that we have had the required public hearings for the increase in fees for business licenses and for the bus charges and so forth. Ms. Lorraine: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Did you want to speak about the budget or did you want to speak about the Transit fees again? Ms. Lorraine: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re talking about the budget but if you’d like to address the Commission. This is the time to address the Commission now because when we finish this, the public comment period will be closed for the budget consideration today. Want to give everybody a chance to have their say now. If you’d give us your name and your address for the record. Ms. Lorraine: My name is Lula Lorraine, 2101 Walton Way. And I understand about the [inaudible], if it’s not a fare increase then it would have to be property taxes. In the long haul, I know the fares will probably eventually go up and there’s nothing you can do to stop that in the long haul. But we haven’t -- to be honest I don’t think you really get that much to help things and it really is hard on some of us who barely make ends meet as it is. I beg of you that you truly think about the alternatives to the fare increases. It has worked for another community and that’s the most I can say. Please, I beg of you. Property taxes, [inaudible], please, some of us -- I have a cost-of-living 5 increase [inaudible] in January. It would be eaten up with medical costs. I won’t [inaudible]. The most I can ask of you is consider other options. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Are there any other people here who wanted to speak to the budget during out public hearing phase? All right. Madame Clerk, we’ll move along with the agenda, then, and we’ll come to the budget later for consideration. We’ll move ahead to Item 45. We have a delegation here for that. Clerk: 45. Z-00-116 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Osric Hargett requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of- way line of Rollins Road, 5,575 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Rollins Road. (4751 Rollins Road) DISTRICT 8 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: This is a petition to establish a family personal care home, which is a facility limited to six or less people in the home. In this particular case, the petition owns 16 acres on Rollins Road and currently lives in a site-built home on the property and wants to be a manufactured home on the property, a double-wide, and establish this personal care home in the double-wide. We had some objectors at the meeting that live on the street, concerned about the effect on the neighborhood and on the property values and there was a split vote and the Commission voted to approve it. They felt that these are needed facilities that on 16 acres in a rural area where only six people are going to be kept that if you can’t approve this here, where could you, so I think that was what was expressed and they did approve it. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Ms. Hargett: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Are there any objectors here today? If you’d raise your hand so the attorney can get a count for the record, please. (19 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Is there any the petitioner, Ms. Hargett, that you’d like to tell the Commission? If you would come up to the podium, up here, maybe the Commissioners have some questions for you. If you would speak, try to speak as close to the microphone as you can so we can all hear you. 6 Ms. Hargett: My name is Osric Hargett. I live at 4751 Rollins Road, Augusta. Now I would like to have a personal care home. I’d like a license for about five people, but I only intend to keep about two. But sometimes someone may want to go away for the weekend and they want to leave their parents with me or something like that. I think I have enough land that the residents want bother anyone else. And I think that [inaudible], but I don’t know why my neighbors are objecting but that’s [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: How much land are you talking about? Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, over here. Commissioner Beard has a question. Ms. Hargett: I have 16.76 acres. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Ma’am, you say you’re only going to keep two people in there? You’re applying to be able to keep six, but you say there’s only going to be two? Ms. Hargett: I only intend to keep two. Maybe some weekends someone may want to go away and leave someone with me, but I only intend to keep two. Mr. Bridges: But what you’re actually applying for is the greater amount, is that the case? Ms. Hargett: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Ms. Hargett: I’ve applied for a license for five. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions of the petitioner? All right. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. Ma’am, are you planning to put this personal care home on your property next to your house? Is it going to be away from your house? I mean you’re talking about 16 acres of land. Are you planning to put this on the right-of-way or is it going to be next door to you? Where exactly will this be located? Ms. Hargett: Next to my house. Mr. Williams: Next door to your house? 7 Ms. Hargett: Yes. Mr. Williams: How far -- Ms. Hargett: [inaudible] from the road. Mr. Williams: How far are you from your adjacent neighbor? How far a distance? Just speculating. You don’t have to be exact. Ms. Hargett: About a block. Mr. Williams: About a block away? Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions for the petitioner? All right. Let’s -- yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Ma’am, what level of care will you be providing these individuals and will they be folks with physical or mental handicaps? Ms. Hargett: I don’t intend for it to be physical handicaps, but not mentally handicapped either. But people that need care. Mr. Cheek: Will you have a nurse there or will you be providing the care? Ms. Hargett: I will have a nurse and I’m also a registered nurse. I taught nursing in New York for 34 years. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make the motion to deny this application. This is a residential area. Rollins Road is a residential area. What’s being proposed here is a business to go in a residential area. I don’t think that’s good. I think the residents are concerned about it. We’ve had this dispute come up time and time again concerning personal care homes, and I would make the motion that we deny the petition. Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. We have some objectors here. Let’s see if any of them would like to be heard. Is there a spokesman for the group? Okay, we have a couple of people. If you’ll come up, give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Atkins: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, my name is James Victor Atkins, Jr. and live at 4764 Rollins Road. I live directly across the street from Ms. Hargett’s 8 property. Of her 16 acres, a good bit of this property is not clear cut. It is wooded area. To say one block distance from her house to the neighbor, I think that’s stretching it a little bit. At the most, I think from front door to front door we’re looking at 300 to 400 feet at the very most. I represent a group of concerned citizens from the Rollins Road - McBean community, many of whom are here today. According to the staff report that was done by the Augusta Richmond County Planning and Zoning Commission, this was to be a personal care home, which she has stated here today, for elderly people. She has told one neighbor directly across the street that she was going to keep children in the home. Two weeks ago, me and some of my neighbors were here for the Planning and Zoning meeting, and in a discussion in the elevator on the way out of the meeting, she informed us that this was people who would require very little care, that would be working during the day, and would only be there in the evening and at night. Well, my understanding, this translates to a transitional home, so there’s no consistency of what she’s talking about doing. But as Mr. Bridges pointed out earlier, our main concern is this is a residential community, is it growing every day with new houses being sold, and mobile home facilities, and we would like to keep it a residential community. It is a dead end street with limited access. We have many children. There are three school buses that come down this road. All three of the school buses turn around directly in front of this property and the children are required to walk by it. So our concern is it’s for the neighborhood. We want to keep it just that, a neighborhood, and not a commercial property. Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Ma’am, if you’d come to the podium and give us your name and address for the record and tell us what you’d like to about this petition. Ms. Potter: My name is Shell Potter. I reside at 4638 Rollins Road, just up from them. I have a copy of the covenants that when we purchased our land from [inaudible], who owns most of the property out there, on reel 49, on page 876, number 2, it says no lot shall be used for commercial property. Whether or not she falls under this covenant, I am not sure of. I have not checked that. But the way I read this is that no property in that area can be zoned for commercial use. As Mr. Atkins has stated -- I have two kids myself. I have one that’s in elementary school and an 11-month old. I am very concerned for their safety. We already have other problems out there that we are trying to take care of as well, as this is not one that we need to add to it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Are there any questions for the objectors? Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to ask Mr. Patty to come up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty, this petition did meet all the qualifications? The lady stated about the lot may not be able to have a business on it because of that covenant out there. Are you familiar with that? Did they pass that? Is that something you know about or what? 9 Mr. Mayor: Well, there was a subdivision constructed out there in the last five years, and I suspect she may live in that subdivision. If so, then the lady -- I don’t believe that the petitioner does live in the subdivision where she would be subject to these covenants, but I don’t think that the Commission needs to be making decisions on this basis, on what covenants are there. Mr. Williams: No, just for my own information I just wanted to know. Is that the same area? Is that the same subdivision? This 16 acres of land, this gentleman said it was a wooded area which brought something else to my attention. If it’s that wooded, you know, we tend to not want to look at having places for seniors or someone to do that. If this lady is not capable, if she’s got a staff that she’s going to staff this property and she pass all the zoning requirements, regardless of who she is, if that’s her property and it’s passing the zoning, I’m thinking that -- I’m trying to find a good reason not to support this. So that’s why I’m asking you about that, whether or not that ordinance would be covered under her, whether she was there before that development was set up or what. Mr. Patty: I do not believe she’s in the subdivision where these covenants exist. As far as the criteria of the Planning Commission, the only objective criteria we have is that these homes, these type, all these type facilities, have to be at least 1200 feet apart. And if they are, then that’s not going to saturate any one area or neighborhood with these type facilities, day care homes, personal care homes and other uses that you allow by special exception. Everything else is discretionary. So the only requirement would be the 1200 foot spacing and she does meet that. Mr. Williams: Let me ask you one other question, George, while you’re there. It was mentioned that she wanted to -- she had said or the word had been spread that she was going to do children and going to do seniors and not going to be have two. Could we not put a stipulation in there that if it was to be passed that it only could be for the number of people and if it ever was closed down it had to revert back to whatever, rather than opening up the business? I hear the concern. If you’ve got 16 acres of land, and you can’t put nothing on 16 acres of land you own, I mean you sure ain’t coming downtown to put nothing no where. Now if you had of had two acres of land or one acre, I can understand the difference, but you got 16 acres that you own. I mean it don’t make good sense to me. Could we not put a stipulation in there that she could have no more than and if she ever reverted from that, we could go back to whatever the land was in the beginning? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. You could stipulate to less than six. Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we approve this and with the stipulation that we can’t go any more than the five and if it ever would be changed from that, that it wouldn’t be able to go to anything else, rather to create some other business, that it be only that particular event that we’re voting on today. 10 Mr. Mayor: All right. So if it ceased to used by her as a family personal care home, under the conditions set down by your motion, it would revert back to its status previous to granting the special exception; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Williams: Exactly. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any discussion, gentlemen, on the motion? We have a substitute motion on the floor to approve it with these stipulations? Yes, sir? Mr. Summers: I wanted to say something. Mr. Mayor: Would you please come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record? Mr. Summers: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I’m Mr. Summers. I live on Rollins Road. We have a little horse ranch out there. It’s a dead end street. There’s two great big lakes just about 100 yards from her home. On Mike Padgett Highway, just about half a mile from where we’re at, there is a home for people just like she’s trying to start. One of them walked away from the house and drowned at Bennock Mill Pond. I think you might have heard about that a couple of months ago. They were looking for him. And these ponds being so close to her home, if one of them wandered away from the house, or decided to do away with theirself, it would be -- like I say, there’s two great big ponds down there. As far as medical, my wife is at nurse at International Paper, which is not even a mile from where we’re at, and it takes 45 minutes for an ambulance to get just to International Paper. If she had a disaster out there with one of the patients, there’s no transportation out there, and the ambulance -- it takes a long time for it to get just to International Paper. And like I say, we have one already on Mike Padgett Highway within half a mile from where we’re at now. I strongly object to this. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Attorney just reminded me we didn’t have a second to Mr. Williams’ motion. Is there a second to the motion to approve? All right. The substitute motion dies for lack of second. That takes us back to the original motion, and that is from Commissioner Bridges to deny this petition for the special exception. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I wanted to know if the petitioner had any response -- I think the last question is real valid. I’m not familiar with where the 16 acres are specifically and what’s around it, but I heard what was presented in the petition for the housing of the patients. But was there any other things that the petitioner had planned to do on the property? I mean, I know 16 acres, I agree with Mr. Williams that it’s big enough, but in terms of some of the other surroundings there, to protect just that aspect in terms of the drifting and the wandering off that can happen, even in the best of care situations, is there anything, George, 11 that was discussed that would be done from that aspect of it? Other than just the double wide aspect? And that was partly my reason for not seconding the substitute motion. Mr. Patty: Well, what you’re being asked to grant is a special exception, which is a special condition to do the one thing that she’s saying she wants to do, which is have a home for up to six people. This is not a request for commercial zoning or any change in zoning or anything other than what is base zoning, which is agricultural, allows, plus this special exception. I don’t know if that answers your question or not. Mr. Mays: I know in some cases where we’ve done it, and depending on the lay of the land, that we have asked petitioners to do more than just what those requirements might be, whether it be in terms of fencing or whether it be safety or whether it be privacy. Sometimes in some aspects that has come up on these petitions. And I was just inquisitive in terms of where that was leading. Also in terms of whether or not the petitioner might want to withdraw without prejudice from the standpoint that I think that everybody on both sides needs to be aware that she still could open something and with the minimum amount of patients in there, would not have to come back before this body in order to do that, and so you could very well end up with a personal care home just not of the size and magnitude that’s being presented here today. And I still would have a question in there. That’s why I brought that up about the safety aspect, because whether you’ve got two or whether you’ve got give, whether you’ve got six, you still would have it in the same place, and she may want to just enlighten us as to where, you know, what would be in addition to that. Because there’s a possibility of rather than turning it down, she would withdraw and then do the same petition in terms of trying to say build a track record and then have communication with the same people who might have an objection at this point, if she was keeping two and that got to a point of where there was a relationship built and maybe later on she could come back and deal with that. But I think at this point, and she may want to answer that. Ms. Hargett: Well, I can [inaudible], I can [inaudible] a personal care home, and I will have help there [inaudible]. Is that what you’re asking? Mr. Mays: I guess what I’m getting to, George brought up a word, discretion, in there. To a point of where with personal care home, probably regardless of whether they’ve been downtown, old inner city, western area of the city, or in south, that we’ve respected somewhat the wishes of neighbors and of neighborhoods where they’ve been. That’s kind of been the common denominator of where this has swung, regardless of who the person is it that’s petitioning to get in. And that’s why I mentioned the fact that maybe, I don’t know if it was discussed in Planning or not, maybe sitting here today, maybe you might, she might still have that option, Mr. Mayor, in terms of wanting to withdraw and in terms of being able to do the minimum where she had two and then at the same time have some dialogue with that same neighborhood that if that track record is built, that would afford her the opportunity to come back. That’s not a guarantee. But it still leaves -- Mr. Mayor: Well, if she wants to withdraw, she needs to do it now because we have on the floor a motion to deny we’ll proceed with. So it’s up to the petitioner. Would you 12 like to withdraw your request and go back to the Planning Commission and see if you can work something out? Ms. Hargett: I can do that. Mr. Mayor: Otherwise, the motion on the floor is to deny it and then you can’t come back for, what, a year. Then you’d be blocked by law from coming back here for a year. Mr. Mays: Cause what I’m looking at, Mr. Mayor, is that even with the two, I think if it’s denied, she still can return to the aspects of two, and then we still don’t know in terms of what she may plan. Cause you mentioned you would be willing to [inaudible], and I would be just as concerned with two as I would with six. I mean, I’ve had both my parents with catastrophic illness. Two invalids. One double amputee and the other one paralyzed. And to a point of where you know if you’re going to open, even though you can open, even over the objections of the neighborhood, from the standpoint, you can turn around if this is denied today, you still can go in next week, deal with the double-wide and have two folk in there. And I would much rather have it in some dialogue with Planning and the neighborhood of where you’re going and that would still leave it open to where she needs to come back at some point in time. It might be one that works out well. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you might want to make a substitute motion to either send this back to the Planning Commission or just defer action on this until our next meeting or the meting following that. If you want to do that or she can just withdraw it and start the process over again. Mr. Mays: That was the only one that I could support. If she wants to withdraw, I could support that. But otherwise, I probably have to vote with the consent, particularly this Commissioner in that District and with the sentiments of the neighborhood. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to withdraw your petition, then? Ms. Hargett: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: You’ll withdraw it? All right. Do we need a motion to allow her to do that at this point? Okay, the Chair will entertain a substitute motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw her petition. Mr. Mays: So moved. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion on that? All in favor of the motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. 13 Mr. Mayor: That ends it today and I would suggest that you confer with Mr. Patty and the staff of the Planning Commission on seeing what you can work out and come back before us. Okay? Ms. Hargett: Wait a year? Mr. Mayor: No, ma’am, you don’t have to wait a year because you withdrew it. If we had defeated it, you would have had to wait a year. But you can come back another day as soon as you can work something out. Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Patty: Let me state that she would have to come back and reapply and we’d have to readvertise and go through the same process again, so it’s not going to be a situation where she just appears down here. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Mays: But it would be limited in terms of what she -- if she had to do anything else she’d have to do that, but I guess what I’m getting to, George, she can deal with two regardless. Mr. Patty: That’s correct. Anybody by right can have two boarders in their home. So if she wants to have two people with whatever health condition in her home, just like you and I, she can do that. Mr. Mays: And I still -- Ms. Hargett: I was told anything more than one you have to have a license. Mr. Patty: Two. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Why don’t the two -- Mr. Patty, when you finish with the zoning issues, just chat with her in the hallway about this? Ma’am, if you’ll see Mr. Patty when we’re through with these zoning issues, he can explain it to you, okay? Ms. Hargett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. I know we’ve got some people here with respect to Item 47. So -- I’m sorry? We also have some people for that? Let’s take 47 and then we’ll come back to 44. 14 51. Consider appeal hearing request by Regattafest, Inc. regarding the denial by the Director of License & Inspections of a Special Event Liquor License application for a New Years Eve Party to be held at Regency Mall. Mr. Mayor: While we’re clearing the Chambers, with respect to Item 51, I received a phone call today from the organizers of Regattafest to withdraw their application for a special purpose license on New Year’s Eve Day and if we could just take a formal vote to remove that from the agenda today, it is a moot issue. Mr. Bridges: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to removing Item 51? Okay, it’s ordered removed without objection. So if you’re here for Item 51 today, there is no more Item 51. Okay, George, Item 47. You want to read the caption, Madame Clerk, and then we’ll take that up. Clerk: 47. Z-00-118 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from Brian E. Kelly requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Pine Needle Road, 700 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Magnolia Drive and Pine Needle Road (3046 Pine Needle Road). DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is on Pine Needle Road. The petitioner in this case came to us several months ago. It’s kind of a unique situation. It was a lot that’s got about 260 feet of frontage at the time and it had a house, a large house, a wall that connected that large house to a cottage and a pool, and what he wanted to do was to cut a lot off that included the cottage, which would then be torn down and the lot would be sold to somebody to build a house on it, and the house would be more in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood, and after some consultation with the neighbors, agreement was reached and the Planning Commission did approve one R-1A lot to the side of this property. The petitioner came back last month and wanted to subdivide the entire property with the intent of tearing down the cabin, the cottage and the house and subdividing the lot into three lots. In order to do that, you need to change the zoning from Zone R-1 to Zone R-1A, which would allow lots 80 feet in width and 10,000 square feet. And the Planning Commission staff recommended no, the Planning Commission recommends no. The problem we see is the precedent of the original case was limited in that there aren’t going to be many situations where you’ve got an existing house that is on the same lot with a big house, but in the request before you today, the precedent you set if you approve this would be enormous 15 because there are a lot homes, a lot of lots up there big enough be subdividing or be rezoning to R-1A to subdivide and create additional lots, and we recommend that you deny this. It’s had considerable neighborhood objection. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here, Mr. Kelly? Mr. Kelly: Yes, I am. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to say anything to the group here, and also while you’re coming up, do we have any objectors to this? Get a show of hands here. Get the count, Mr. Wall. (4 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Do the objectors have a spokesman or do a couple of you want to speak? Mr. Allen will. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly: Brian Kelly, 3046 Pine Needle Road. What I was wanting to do is divide this property into three lots, which would be approximately 86 feet apiece. According to the rezoning that I just got, I thought that we had it for three lots for 90 feet approved. So all we’re talking about really is 4 foot. The houses would be torn down, the lots would be sold, and probably with the new houses on there, it would probably add, I don’t know, a million dollars worth of value to the neighborhood. There are a lot of other lots in the neighborhood on the street, the streets close to it, that are smaller than 86 feet. I have a little chart here that shows which ones, colored in yellowed, which ones are smaller than 86 feet. [inaudible] I just ask that y’all approve my zoning for being less [inaudible] four feet. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions for Mr. Kelly while he’s at the podium? Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible] extend that up to four feet, is that right? Mr. Kelly: I just want to make the lots 86 feet apiece, cause to divide the property, the width it is now, they come out to a little over 86 feet a lot. Mr. H. Brigham: George, what would he need for that? How much would he need? Mr. Patty: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the question. Mr. H. Brigham: When you go from 86 feet to 90 feet? Mr. Patty: It would have to be a hundred. Hundred R-1 standard. The current standard would be 100. Mr. H. Brigham: So it’s more than just four feet? 16 Mr. Patty: Well, now, yes, we did approve one lot. The lot that the cottage sat on, to be subdivided to the R-1A standards, but the surrounding zoning patterns, which is all R-1, requires 100 foot wide lots. That zoning, I can tell you -- I lived up there in the 70’s, probably been R-1 since the area was zoned in the 60’s. But in fairness to the petitioner, there are some lots up there that are smaller than the 100 feet in width. As a matter of fact, the next two or three east of this property are less than a hundred feet in width, I believe. So there are some smaller lots, but it’s been R-1 ever since I can remember. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kelly: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Allen. You’re representing your neighbors there? Mr. Allen: I’m one of them. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: All right. If you’ll give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Allen: I’m Richard Allen. I live at 3042 Pine Needle Road, and that is directly next to Mr. Kelly, the petitioner. He’s my neighbor. A few years ago, the Planning Commission formulated a plan [inaudible] the neighborhood, and it was loaded with [inaudible] neighborhood dividers. And part of this plan talked about density and it said that we should allow, I guess it’s you should allow family, single-family development only at the R-1 density. It went on to say do not allow additional encroachment by higher-density, single-family land uses. That is the plan, goal and the wishes of the community of Forest Hills. Forest Hills [inaudible]. As far as the wishes of the people on Pine Needle Road, they have been made abundantly clear. There was a petition presented to the Planning Commission. Fifty signatures on Pine Needle Road. Well, two of them from [inaudible] Road. For those of you that are not familiar, Pine Needle Road is a short road. It’s one block. It goes from the end of the back of Daniel Village, the Central Avenue end, and it runs up to the old VA Hospital property. It’s been Cardinal and Park Avenue, if that helps you. So it’s not a very big street, a long street. But I think all but two or three houses on that street are represented in this petition which asks -- excuse me, this petition to the Planning Commission asking that Mr. Kelly’s petition be denied. So that is the vote of the people there. The Planning Commission realized the feelings of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Mr. Kelly’s petition. We ask that you do the same. There are some lots -- mine is one of them. My lot is [inaudible] 80 feet. So where do I come from? My house was built in the 20’s and it was a little cracker box of a house. And it’s still an 80 foot lot. But as this neighborhood developed, the house was no longer appropriate for the neighborhood and we’ve added to the back, rooms are added to the side, and now the house is appropriate for the other residents in the neighborhood. But it’s too small for the lot. I wish I had more room. It is too small for the lot. I’ve only got about 9 feet to the size boundary on each size. We are looking here at the character of the 17 neighborhood and I think it would be very detrimental to the character of the neighborhood to allow this plan to go forward. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Mr. Knapp, Frank, if you’ll give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Knapp: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Frank Knapp. I live at 3048 Pine Needle Road, which adjoins this property to the west. Just about three things I’d like to remind you of. First of all, what Mr. Kelly said about -- I mean what Mr. Patty said about the precedent that may be set here, if you take large lots in Forest Hills, if you allow this to be subdivided [inaudible], then you’re going to have more requests from people in Forest Hills. There are some other large lots. And anytime this is done, it can be done again. You’ll have some more requests. The other thing is although there are a couple of lots like Richard said, those lots were set back in the 20’s. If you allow this, what we’ll have now is five lots less than 90 feet, starting at my property and going to the property on the other side of Richard Allen. And the third thing is as far as it impacts me and Richard Allen, right now the house that Mr. Kelly lives in is probably about 40 to 50 feet from the property line. If you allow three lots and allow three houses to be crammed in there, obviously the house next to me and to Mr. Allen would be about 10 feet off the property line. I think this is really detrimental to all the property values on Pine Needle Road. And I appreciate your help in the matter. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any questions of any of the speakers? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we deny this request and go along with the recommendation of the Zoning and Planning Commission. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back to Item 44. It’s been brought to my attention we have some people here for this item. 44. Z-00-104 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from James H. Fambrough requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Warren Road 990 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the north right- of-way line of Crane Ferry Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Warren Road (301 Warren Road). DISTRICT 7 18 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: This is another petition for a personal care home, which is special exception for the petitioner to keep six or less folks in the home. This house is the first house north of Warren Road School. Its driveway is directly across the driveway the Warren Road Gym. There’s considerable opposition to it. The substance of the opposition, I believe, is it’s a congested area due to the bus traffic going into the gym -- into the school rather, and the traffic going into the gym and it’s not a suitable area for elderly folks because of the noise from the playground and the play area from the school and things like that. The Planning Commission, I think, pretty close to unanimously recommended that it be denied. Mr. Mayor: All right, is the petitioner, Mr. Fambrough, here? Are there any objectors here? Mr. Kuhlke: I make a motion that we uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Y’all were so quick on that, do you need to hear from the objectors? No? Okay. All right, we’ll go ahead and move ahead on the motion, then. All in favor of the motion to deny this petition for the special exception, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Is everyone Mr. Mayor: And we have another group of people here for Item 48. else in here or are you doing this by yourself today? Mr. Speaker: I’ve got some support. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kitchens, do you have some other people involved with this here today? Mr. Kitchens: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we want to let everybody get in here before we get started. Sheriff, good to see you again. Madame Clerk, why don’t you go ahead and read the caption while people are coming in and getting seated? Clerk: 48. Z-00-106 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Miller 19 Heath, on behalf of K & W Investment Company requesting a Special Exception to establish a transition center as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (p) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County on property located on the southeast of the intersection of Walton Way and Sixth Street (620 Walton Way). DISTRICT 1 (Postponed from the November 21 Commission Meeting) Mr. Mays: I move it be approved. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and two seconds to approve this. Do we need any discussion? Do y’all need to hear from anybody? I think the neighborhood has something worked out on this. Okay, all in favor in of the motion to approve, then, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, for the purposes of the ethics ordinance, I abstained because the property is owned by a client of my law partners. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Okay, if y’all would leave quietly, please, we’re going to move ahead. We have a lot of business today. Madame Clerk, Item 46. Clerk: 46. Z-00-117 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘1) that a six (6) foot tall solid board fence be constructed and a tree buffer be retained along the common property line with Cockatoo Road residents in accordance with the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; 2) the entire storm-water drainage system, including the area located in Columbia County, be approved by the City of Augusta’s Engineer’; a petition from Vernon Smith, on behalf of George G. Beasley, requesting a Special Exception for the establishment of single-family attached dwellings in an R-1 (One-family Residence) Zone as provided for in Section 8-2, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on a bearing S ? 2646’44” E and beginning 300 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Ravenwood Drive and Cockatoo Road. DISTRICT 7 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? 20 Mr. Patty: This property is part of a larger tract owned by George Beasley where there were numerous towers a few years ago and it’s located mostly in Columbia County. 5.75 acres are located in Richmond County. And they moved several towers from this site and they found that they needed to leave one tower there so they’re going to retain one tower and the rest is probably going to be developed as patio homes. The request in Richmond County is to build patio homes on part of the 5.75 acres. The main issue that we identified was the storm water issue because this drains into the basin, sub-basin that goes through Commonwealth and the problems we had there, so this will have a direct effect on that. And the Planning Commission recommended that it be approved with the conditions that you see and the obvious reason that we want to review the entire storm water system, review and approve the entire storm water system, not just that part in Richmond County, because we’re concerned about the impact it would have on that sub-basin. Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Smith here today on behalf of the petitioner? Mr. Smith: I’m Vernon Smith, Remax of Augusta. I’ll be glad to answer any questions you have for the petitioner. Mr. Mayor: Anybody have any questions for the petitioner? Okay, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Smith, suppose the engineering department came back and required you to have a 100-year flood plain retention. What, in fact, would that have on your development? Mr. Smith: I’ve already that with [inaudible] and that’s doable. I mention I also addressed that with the [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: And the requirement now, George, is 50 year? But that’s something the County Engineer will look into and make a determination. Is your plan already completed? Mr. Smith: Well, we’ve done a lot [inaudible], of course, we’ve [inaudible] address that with the Planning Commission. Mr. Kuhlke: So that probably ought to be addressed up front before you go too far with it, right? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Kuhlke: I move for approval. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor: All right. 21 Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Kuhlke, does that include the 100 year? Mr. Kuhlke: It does not include the 100 year. My question, Mr. Brigham, to Mr. Smith is the way I understand the conditions on there, that the storm water is going to be looked at by the County Engineer, and that determination will be made and if that determination is made, Mr. Smith said that should not be a problem. Mr. J. Brigham: I make a substitute motion that it be approved including a plan for the 100-year flood plain retention. Mr. Cheek: I second that. Mr. J. Brigham: My concern is also [inaudible] resident just adjacent to this property. I’m very familiar with this case. Mr. Mayor: Are you downstream from it? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. J. Brigham: Everybody is downstream from somebody. Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask, do we have any objectors to this petition here today? Don’t want to overlook anybody. Okay. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I probably would have seconded both of my colleagues’ motion on either side. I wanted to get it out for discussion. The one concern I have, and I guess where Jerry was coming from, mine would be the point that I know our Engineer, in terms of looking at this situation and that’s good, but -- and it may be just because of the way we have to do within the wording of just an agenda item -- but my question, I guess, would be probably more to the County Attorney, from the standpoint that in here, it says entire storm water drainage system, including the area located in Columbia County. My question would be what if the Richmond County Engineer and the Columbia County Engineer differ? What jurisdiction do we have in terms of the fact that we can give a ruling or a reading and say what our Engineer says, and if he says that something is in harm’s way, but the Engineer from the other county says that it’s perfectly fine, then doesn’t our jurisdiction stop at the county line? That would be my question in there. How are we including some business of another county to a point that we’re going to vote on, and that’s where I wanted to get it, to that part of the discussion. How do we control that? Mr. Wall: Well, yes, our jurisdiction ends at the county line. You’re exactly correct. But as I understand this stipulation, what they’re saying is that they’re going to look at the entire development, even though part of it is included in Columbia County and they’ve got to build it to Richmond County standards. Now I assume that if Columbia 22 County were to impose a more stringent requirement than Richmond County, I don’t believe our Engineer would have a problem with that. However, if the Columbia County Engineer were to recommend something that is less stringent, then what we’re saying is it would be -- this approval is contingent upon its meeting Richmond County standards. Mr. Mays: I guess what I was [inaudible] from my slender friend to me without having to get into a personal argument about it, cause he’s the neighbor on it and I’m his attorney here today, he kind of wants to know from the standpoint that not being business objective, but objective to where this is going on the planning, but you mentioned that if the requirements were far more stringent, but we are looking at what comes to us eastward in the flow, whether we’re talking about Rae’s Creek, Crane Creek, drainage off of I-20, off 520, off other development in that area, and there’s already been a question as to the fact how much, how much sand rights we have on the flow stream, and I think it’s good that we have a relationship there, but I’m just wondering to a point that, you know, this is good, that I think this is being done, but is there anything in here that we’re fooling ourselves with when we pass it, to a point that we have some level of control that we don’t have. Because I mean I think if it’s done, and you’re saying that you’ve got something in here from another county, and let’s say, you know, Jerry calls and he’s sitting out on the porch, you know, up on a stool ducking that water, and you know, that’s to the point at two o’clock one morning, then you know, can we blame something in another county or is all that onus? Mr. Wall: Well -- and I’m not familiar with all of the land that lies upstream. The only concern I have is what I call the Wal-Mart problem, which is in Columbia County, which was constructed under Columbia County’s ordinance, that water comes downstream and comes into the Commonwealth subdivision. And we had absolutely no say-so, no control over what guidelines were put into place there. So if there is another piece of property upstream that has the potential of being turned into a shopping center or a parking lot or something of that nature, we can’t control that and that is the only possible problem, but it’s going to be up to our Engineer to be sure that this system controls the drainage that comes off that development. Columbia County’s ordinance I think is similar to ours in that it mandates that the upstream property owner control the water that comes off of that property, so assuming that everyone does their job in enforcing that ordinance, then the approval here should cover the situations. And it’s contingent upon them meeting it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: And I’m going to be through. I can support where Jerry is coming from with the conditions there and the petitioner or his representative don’t think I beat up on him. Actually, I think it probably should be phrased from the standpoint that it’s probably one of the few we’ve had come before us where it’s been even thought about on this area of where it’s a line situation, of working with two different governments and [inaudible], but I just didn’t want us to be out there on a motion on something where if we were not clear as to whether we had some jurisdiction in somebody else’s government that we voted on and 23 that’s why I asked the question. But I think that’s a good idea in terms of that being done and one of the few we’ve seen like that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion or questions? Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, one of my questions has been answered. Mr. Wall has answered one of them. But after the fact it’s too late. I understand where Jerry is coming from with the [inaudible], but after our Engineer looked at this and know what, before the fact, our Engineer research and go through that process, shouldn’t it come back to someone before they go ahead and do something? I mean before they build or whatever they going to do, to make sure? Jerry did put 100 year in it and I can support either one, but I’m just trying to think of -- it ain’t no sense is closing the gate after the horse done got out. We need to make sure that [inaudible] that we know for ourselves that it’s going to be sufficient for the building that’s going on. Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Cheek here today? Can he respond to that? Doug? Mr. Cheek: According to Mr. Patty, they’re going to have to submit the plan to him anyway, so it will go through our normal process, just [inaudible] all offices within in Richmond County, so it will follow normal procedure of review for a site plan. And I was told by Drew -- I don’t know if Mr. Wall mentioned this or not, but there was an agreement that said that Columbia County would actually follow our rules and regulations on water discharging into Richmond County. And I guess it’s a pretty common thing anyway, but that was what Drew told me, that there was some sort of an agreement out there about that. Mr. Wall, I don’t know if you know anything about that, but he said it was an old, whole agreement. Mr. Williams: I understand what you’re saying, Don, but from the past history of the agreements we been making with other entities had not been standing too good lately and I appreciate what you’re saying, I appreciate your answer, but I don’t trust that, that agreement that we talked about. Not just with Columbia County but with any county or any other entity for that matter. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve had the question called. This is on the substitute motion from Commissioner Jerry Brigham to approve this with these stipulations, including building to the 100 year flood plain. Yes, sir? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Patty, can we make that Columbia County Planning Commission is aware of our decision before [inaudible]? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the substitute motion, then, please vote aye. 24 Mr. Colclough out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and take up Item 50. We have some people here with respect to that. That’s the continuation of our appeal hearing. Clerk: 50. Consider appeal hearing request regarding the denial of an on premise consumption of liquor, beer and wine license for Distinctive Catering & Events, 2603 Washington Road, Augusta, Georgia, which was disapproved by the Commission on October 17, 2000. (Approved continuation at the December 5, 2000 meeting) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, welcome back. Let me get a head count here before we get started. Is the petitioner here today with you? Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any objectors here today? Okay. Mr. Bill Williams: And we’ve got some supporters. Mr. Mayor: And do we have some supporters here today? Okay. Let me just stated for the record that we will include the record of the previous two hearings that we’ve had on this issue into this record to perfect the record. We have the arguments, both pro and con. Mr. Williams, you have some new information you want to present today? (6 objectors noted) (2 supporters noted) Mr. Bill Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, and a good afternoon and a Merry Christmas to each and every one of you. A couple of things. I know we had a couple of Commissioners that were missing. I’ll be glad to answer any questions that they may have or pass to them any of the exhibits that we presented [inaudible]. Let me restate a couple of things real quickly and then give you some new things that I think are significant. This business is not a restaurant, not a nightclub, is not a bar, is not a lounge. It is a facility for private events and functions. It has been for a number of years and served as a place for meetings of civic clubs, for folks to have private parties, wedding receptions, corporate outings, those type of things. Anybody there is there by invitation. You won’t walk off the street and come into this place. And the granting of this license will not significantly change anything that has been going on on this property for the last several years. From the outside 25 looking in, you won’t be able to tell any difference. What it will do, though, and I think is important, and I failed to mention last time, is that it will put somebody in charge of the alcohol beverages that are served there and will put somebody as being responsible, and as you know, if there are problems with an establishment that has an alcohol beverage license, whether it be something as egregious as serving to minors or as probably innocuous as somebody walking down the street throwing trash into a neighbor’s yard, you can pull the strings on the folks that have the license. Now this business, this location has served many functions with the special event license. Once that event is over, whoever had the license for that event probably doesn’t care what you think about them, other than from the standpoint that they may reapply down the road, if your memory is long enough to remember. So it does put somebody out front that’s responsible directly to you and directly to the Sheriff’s Department. I would point out, and I’ve got a sample contract that has been employed in the past and will be employed in the future, any event where alcoholic beverages are served, an off- duty Sheriff’s deputy is required to be there and a fire marshal. So if people don’t leave here -- Mr. Cheek had a concern about trash being thrown in the neighborhood - - people do not leave this establishment on foot, number one. There will a valet service, bring their car to the front door and they leave, and they do not leave this establishment with anything in their hands. It’s against the law for alcoholic beverages to be carried off premises. There is a deputy Sheriff and fire marshal there, so if anybody is going to trash the neighborhood, it’s very unlikely that it’s any of the folks who have attended any function at this establishment. I would hand this to you and call your attention to the second page [inaudible] deputy sheriff and fire marshal [inaudible]. A question was asked of me the other night at a wedding reception by Commissioner Kuhlke about [inaudible] that we have off-site parking. Well, we have acquired additional off-site parking. As a matter of fact, we have parked more cars than we can sit people in this place. And I’ve got three writings that confirm the fact of off-site parking. The next door neighbor who owns the corner property has agreed that parking can occur on his property. He’s out west on a family trip and I can’t get anything in writing from him, but with the capacity of on-site, which is in excess of 80 automobiles and this, you can park more cars than you can get people in the building. I don’t know whether the Commissioners that were absent have any questions. One other thing that I would request, since it is a concern, a primary concern appears to have been from the church. We would like to withdraw our application for Sunday sales without prejudice. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the petitioner withdrawing the request for Sunday sales without prejudice? Any objection to that? All right, we’ll allow you to do that, Mr. Williams. Mr. Bill Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions of Mr. Williams? We’ll start here with Mr. Williams and then come around. Commissioner? 26 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I just wanted to ask you, the only difference you’re saying in what they got now and what they would be having is going to be an every day type of situation, in other words? Right now, from what I’m hearing, it’s special event when somebody rents the building or somebody holds something, private party or a wedding reception or whatever, that may happen one, two, three days a week, and then it could happen every day. But if we approve this, it’s going to be an every day type of situation where it will be open every day; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Bill Williams: No, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay, I need some clarification. Mr. Bill Williams: It’s very unlikely that there will ever be, except during ?? Masters week. Now during Masters week there is continuous functions going on, seven days a week. Other than that, there are some civic clubs that have luncheons there when they have their meetings once a month or once a week, and normally ? excluding Masters there might not be half a dozen events that occur on a monthly basis. And so -- and I think it’s unlikely, I mean I guess my client would hope that there would be somebody wanting to book the place and have an event every day, but it hasn’t happened in the past and it’s very unlikely that it will happen in the future. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m just trying to figure out the difference cause I mean ? during the Masters, like you say, there’s something going on all the time, it’s already picked up for that week or whatever amount of time that it is. Mr. Bill Williams: It has been in the past, with a special event like that. Mr. Williams: It has been, you know, in the past, so if it’s that way now, I’m saying -- I’m trying to decide how the difference going come in to change it if it’s being used on a party-type situation or on a requested situation, how would it be to an advantage or even a disadvantage, for that matter, I mean it sounds like it’s already sit there. Mr. Bill Williams: Well, first of all, my client who owns this business wants to be able to control the alcohol beverages that are served on that property. Now, for a fact and reason, an economic reason. I’m not going to stand here and tell you that it’s not an economic reason. Economically, it would be of benefit to her to be the one that is in charge of and selling the alcoholic beverages that the folks that come to these events want to be served. I think and I submit to you that it’s an advantage for the government and an advantage for the Sheriff’s Department and advantage for everybody out there that one person be in charge and that one person be responsible. Heretofore, the only responsible party was the person that actually held or the organization that actually held the special event license, and it was a one-time deal. If there were problems that night that surfaced the next morning, well, they are gone. 27 Mr. Williams: That person still be held accountable, even though -- because you wouldn’t find out about whatever happened till the next day, but whoever name that it was in would still be held accountable. Mr. Bill Williams: You don’t have the control. If I’m operating an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages and this Commission has got a problem with some activities occurring there, all you’ve got to do is get me the message, hey, pal, you got to clean this act up or your license is going to be pulled, or your license will not be renewed. Well, a special event license is over and done with by the time you know of any problem. They gone. They’re not in business. They don’t have a license. So I think it actually gives you more control. And it puts a person that is responsible. It’s one of the few areas of our law where somebody can be vicariously responsible from a criminal standpoint for activities that occur if an establishment has the alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you. I thank that clears it up just a little bit for me. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, you had your hand up? Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Williams, I’ve looked at that property and my question is in regard to the parking. I understand you say you’ve got valet parking and you’ll be taking those cars off-site. But I couldn’t help noticing how convenient it is for somebody coming in, should the parking in front of the building be full, how convenient it is for somebody to drive their own car to park over in the church’s parking lot and walk back over. And that’s a church, my understanding, that meets more than just on Sunday, it meets during the week and at nights as well. Do you have any plans to see that that doesn’t happen, or how are you going to keep your clientele from parking where they want to and then walking back over? Mr. Bill Williams: That’s something that would be no different if you came to my law office and parked next door at Blanchard & Calhoun. You shouldn’t. Folks are not encouraged to do that. They know there’s a valet service and I think if you didn’t have a valet service your point might be valid. But most of us, especially folks my age and size, get a little lazy. And if I can drive to the front door and get out and walk in and somebody goes and parks my car and when I get ready to leave they bring it back to the front door, I ain’t going to park it in the church’s parking lot and walk 100 yards. So folks are discouraged from doing that, but again, if you come to a party there and you decide you’re going to park wherever you want to park, I don’t know that we can stop you. Mr. Bridges: I see your point, Mr. Williams. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? 28 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Williams, the issue of continuity of ownership seems to be important, and I’ll ask this question and then make this observation. The observation first, we had a problem with the Tinted Windows club and we’ve hauled them in here to show cause on the business license and I think we got her attention. We haven’t had any problems since then. I’ve talked to some of the commercial neighbors there and they seem to be happier that those conditions have been corrected. My question is, what do we do, Jim Wall, about these single-day event licenses? I mean, is it a problem enforcing? I see the nodding of the Administrator’s head. Mr. Wall: The point that Mr. Williams makes and your observation is valid, that with a single-event license, you relay upon somebody coming back for a second single-event license and at that time, hopefully the memories are still such that a single-event license is not granted. But if you are having a wedding reception or some kind of event like that that is not likely to have a recurrence, then again, enforceability is an issue, because that single-event license holder doesn’t hold a license. You can’t summon them back down here. If they’ve not violated any criminal statute that you can bring them into either Magistrate Court or State Court, but you don’t like how they conducted the business, then you really don’t have an enforcement tool. If you’ve got the business owner who has the alcohol license in his or her name, if there is conduct that is disturbing to the neighbors or is violation of our ordinance or whatever, then the point is valid that you have the ability to bring them in here, suspend the license, put them on probation, whatever. It gives the Sheriff’s Department more control over the activity because they’re a license holder. They can go in there a police it. So there are some very valid arguments to having a license in a single individual’s name who is in control of the property. Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I might point out one other thing, too. I see the representatives from the Sheriff’s Department and the License Department still here. This business has had special events up there for seven years, six years, and I don’t believe there has ever been an incident where’s there has been a problem. And it may have sounded like I was suggesting that special events had caused problems in the past, but there have been none. Mr. Mayor: You just made a pretty good argument to maintain the status quo, didn’t you, Mr. Williams? Mr. Bill Williams: I’m not urging that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard wanted to speak. Mr. Beard: I just have one question. Just for the record, this has met all the requirements for the Sheriff’s Department, License & Inspection, so we don’t have a problem there, do we? Just for the record. 29 Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir, it has met all the requirements. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I make one other comment, Mr. Mayor. I have to clear this up. Mr. Williams had said that with the valet parking that at his age and his weight or size that he would always wait. The rest of y’all might never been near the dance floor, but when it comes to taking an alcohol drink and getting to the music, I seen people park on the other side of the street and walk across. I’m probably guilty more than anybody else. At one time, I know that when it come to dancing, something about that music and bringing your attention to it. I don’t agree with what, you know, what you said. Some people would do that. Some people can’t wait at a traffic light for the light to hold them up. They’ll cut through a parking lot just to get to an event. I’m going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Let’s go ahead and vote on this. I think Mr. Williams made a good argument, I mean, brought a good case, but I still think if they’re doing that well and been doing that for some time, no problems, I just can’t see any reason for changing it. I mean if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Mr. Mayor: I appreciate your calling the question, but we don’t a motion to call the question on. However, let me just do this before we proceed any further. We had some objectors here. This is not a public hearing. We’ve already had the public hearing. This is an appeal. If any objectors have any new information they’d like to put into the record, I give you the opportunity to do that. We’re not going to rehash what we’ve talked about before. Come up and give us your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. The Chair will accept new information you have on this. Mr. Gaither: Howard Gaither. 2730 Springwood Drive. Secretary of Whole Life Ministries. We still don’t like the idea of the alcohol sales since our driveway onto Azalea is right across from our parking lot. The other issue is as far as parking. In spite of the fact that they have contracted valet parking, etc., every occasion they have there, we still have parking on our parking lot. So just having the valet parking available does not resolve that problem. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Someone else want to [inaudible]? Give us your name and address, please. Mr. Murphy: My name is Greg Murphy. I live at 1120 Oakdale Road, which is just right on the corner [inaudible]. I did have a couple of questions. Something I’ve heard of. You said the building is not going to change? Mr. Mayor: Sir, you direct your questions to the Chair. 30 Mr. Murphy: Oh, I’m sorry. I wanted -- there was something that I heard that it was going to be expanded to a two-story building. Is this correct? I don’t know if anybody has asked that question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, can you respond to that? Mr. Bill Williams: No plans for any renovations or remodeling at this time. Mr. Murphy: With the parking and even with the valet service, we’re fearful of traffic in the neighborhood, where the traffic will flow, to what areas that they’re actually flowing to, and we’d like some idea of what’s happening as far as that’s concern. This is our main concern. Mr. Mayor: Well, I would imagine the traffic would flow in the same areas as it’s flowing now, just flow more frequently if you have more events there. I don’t think there will be any change in traffic other than frequency. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to one thing? There are remedies for trespassing. There are civil and criminal remedies for folks that trespass. Mr. Mayor: I’ve never heard of a church arresting anybody for trespassing. They want people to come to church. Mr. Bill Williams: I can tell you this, that our church, Trinity-on-the-Hill United Methodist Church, and St. Mary’s Catholic Church have a running feud with folks parking in the parking lots, and nobody goes to jail, but what I’m suggesting is the priest nor our preacher can control where the congregation park, other than suggesting where patrons park and make them, but it’s -- that’s not going to change. I mean what’s gone on in the past, it’s not going to change. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead. Mr. Kuhlke has a motion he’d like to get onto the floor. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we approve the license. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the motion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes. Let me say this. I think Mr. Williams has tried to do and with great success in terms of bringing clarity to a business there that’s in existence and is going to be in existence one way of the other, either under the catering license forum or whether the petitioner has control of the license herself. I made a vote 31 commitment early on when the church raised the objections to vote for that and to support that objections. Even when it was turned down last week, though, I thought they needed to opportunity to be afforded to bring other information to us and to be able to bring some clarity to that. I think they pretty much have done that. I don’t like to back up on commitments. I think you’ve got a very good business owner on one side. I’ve known them for a long time. I’ve got folks on the other side. If you ever want to talk about a conflict that’s not legal, I got one today. But I won’t renege on where that [inaudible]. I do think that the control factor has been clarified to a point that really if it’s going to be there, eliminates some of the problems [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We’ll go ahead and move ahead with the question that’s before the Commission, and that is to approve the license for Distinctive Catering & Events. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 7-2-1. Mr. Mayor: Just for the record, you did withdraw Sunday sales. Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir. And [inaudible] 2001 [inaudible]. This would be approved for the 2001 license? Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back [inaudible]. Ms. Boulus: I’d really like to thank each and every one of you and I would like to assure the church and the neighborhood that we will work with them every way that we possibly can. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with our consent agenda. Clerk: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 43. For the benefit of any objectors, we will read the Planning Commission petitions, and if there are any objectors, would you let us know that by signifying, the raising of your hand for those in objection to the Planning petition. 1. Z-00-113 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Albert Brown, on behalf of Donald Hadden requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing transition housing as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the west right-of-way line of Belmont Avenue, 120.0 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection 32 of Easy Street and Belmont Avenue. (1810 and 1814 Belmont Avenue) DISTRICT 5 2. Z-00-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘1) that all events must end in accordance with the following schedule (a) Monday through Thursday – all events end by 10:00 PM building cleared not later than 10:30 PM, (b) Friday and Saturday – all events end by 11:30 PM building cleared not later than Midnight, (c) Sunday – closed except for church, school and non- profit organization sponsored activities; 2) a Richmond County Deputy Sheriff will be present at all events that end after sunset; a petition from Edward Heffernan, on behalf of Peter S. Knox Community Service Center Owners Association, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of utilizing the Peter S. Knox Community Center for banquets, receptions, etc., as provided for in a P-1 (Professional) Zone as per Section 20-2, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Greene Street, 300.42 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Greene Street (326 Greene Street). DISTRICT 1 3. Z-00-119 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘1) the only commercial business operating on the property will be medical equipment repair; 2) should the business cease to operate the zoning will revert to its original A (Agricultural) zone’ a petition from Mark Usry, on behalf of John Usry, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Flowing Wells Road, 320 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Flowing Wells Road (1425 Flowing Wells Road). DISTRICT 3 4. Z-00-120 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Vance O. Rankin III, on behalf of Metrac, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) and LI (Light Industrial) to LI (Light Industrial) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 642 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Mike Padgett Highway (3653 Mike Padgett Highway). DISTRICT 8 5. Z-00-121 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charles M. Baggs requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B- 2 (General Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 165.68 feet west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Roy Street and Wheeler Road (3730 Wheeler Road). DISTRICT 3 Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: Are there any alcohol licenses? 33 Clerk: Alcohol petitions: 39. Motion to approve a request by H. Bryan Mitchell for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Cotton Patch located at 816 Cotton Lane. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 40. Motion to approve a request by Nicky Parker for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with J. C. Package Store located at 2501 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 41. Motion to approve a request by James Calvin Reames for an on premise consumption beer license to be used in connection with Arirang Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 42. Motion to approve a request by Matthew Inglett for a retail beer & wine license to be used in connection with Garden City General Store located at 224 Eighth Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Bonner? Clerk: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Am I -- wasn’t that General Store pulled from the agenda? Clerk: Deleted? Mr. Kuhlke: Wasn’t it? In committee? Mr. Mayor: Which item is that, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: 42. Mr. Mayor: 42? Clerk: 42? Mr. Kuhlke: 42. Wasn’t that pulled in committee. Clerk: Yes, I believe it was. 34 Mr. Mayor: Is that correct, Mr. Colclough? It was pulled in committee? Clerk: Yes. Mr. Mayor: By the petitioner? Clerk: It was a request by the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. He’s right. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Clerk: So that was put on in error. Mr. Mayor: Okay. When we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, it will include the deletion of item 42. Okay. Consent agenda: PLANNING: 1. Pulled from consent agenda. 2. Z-00-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘1) that all events must end in accordance with the following schedule (a) Monday through Thursday – all events end by 10:00 PM building cleared not later than 10:30 PM, (b) Friday and Saturday – all events end by 11:30 PM building cleared not later than Midnight, (c) Sunday – closed except for church, school and non- profit organization sponsored activities; 2) a Richmond County Deputy Sheriff will be present at all events that end after sunset; a petition from Edward Heffernan, on behalf of Peter S. Knox Community Service Center Owners Association, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of utilizing the Peter S. Knox Community Center for banquets, receptions, etc., as provided for in a P-1 (Professional) Zone as per Section 20-2, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Greene Street, 300.42 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Greene Street (326 Greene Street). DISTRICT 1 3. Z-00-119 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with conditions ‘1) the only commercial business operating on the property will be medical equipment repair; 2) should the business cease to operate the zoning will revert to its original A (Agricultural) zone’ a petition from Mark Usry, on behalf of John Usry, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Flowing Wells Road, 320 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the 35 intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Flowing Wells Road (1425 Flowing Wells Road). DISTRICT 3 4. Z-00-120 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Vance O. Rankin III, on behalf of Metrac, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) and LI (Light Industrial) to LI (Light Industrial) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 642 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Mike Padgett Highway (3653 Mike Padgett Highway). DISTRICT 8 5. Z-00-121 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charles M. Baggs requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B- 2 (General Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 165.68 feet west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Roy Street and Wheeler Road (3730 Wheeler Road). DISTRICT 3 6. ZA-R-119 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by amending the definition of “STRUCTURE”. 7. ZA-R-120 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding front setbacks. 8. S-592 – HEATHER’S GLEN SUBDIVISION – FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a request from McGill & Associates, on behalf of Tony E. Burnley, requesting approval of the final plat for Heather’s Glen, Phase I. This development is located on Old Waynesboro Road, south of Taylor Road. FINANCE COMMITTEE: 9. Motion to approve a request from Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Alpha Chi Lambda Chapter for City participation in the sponsorship of a table for the Fourth Annual Unity Breakfast in the amount of $150 funded from the Complete Count account (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 10. Motion to approve a request from the Greater Augusta Arts Council for City participation in the purchase of a corporate table in the amount of $500 th funded from the Complete Count account for the 4 Annual Oscar Night America Gala. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 11. Motion to approve a request from Ministry in Psalms, Inc. for City participation as a corporate sponsor $150 for the Founders Day Banquet funded from Complete Count account. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 12. Motion to approve a request from Richmond County Neighborhood Association Alliance, Inc. for City participation in the purchase of a table in 36 the amount of $220 for the Fifth Annual Neighborhood Alliance Banquet funded from Complete Count account. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 13. Motion to approve the second year renewal of the Vehicle Maintenance Services Contract by SKE-Baker Support Services on a monthly basis and placed on probationary status during the contract year (2001). (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 14. Motion to approve award to Bob Richards Chevrolet as the supplier of 2001 Model Year Chevrolet Impala Law Enforcement Vehicles for all Public Safety Departments (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-149). (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 15. Motion to proceed with the Request for Offers for a Debt Service Fund Forward Supply Contract to invest the monthly sinking fund deposits for the 1996/97 and 2000 Bond Issues. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 16. Motion to approve a request to add On-Call Maintenance Personnel at Filter Plant to Rotational Drive Home List. Funded by Account No. 506043520- 5312710. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) 17. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Richmond County Civic Center for City participation in the purchase of a table for the Second Annual Performance of the African –American Philharmonic Orchestra in concert with the Paine College Concert Choir in the amount of $240 funded from Complete Count account. (Approved by the Finance Committee December 11, 2000) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 18. Pulled from consent agenda. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 19. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $140,200 to Mabus Construction Company for additional work to be completed on the Mid-City Sanitary Sewer Relief Force Main Project. Funded by Acct #508043420/5425110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 20. Motion to approve Change Order #5 in the amount of $83,676 to AquaSouth Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the Water Treatment Plant on Highland Avenue. Funded from account no.508043410/5425110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 21. Motion to authorize construction of 240 LF of 24” Storm Drain Line along Old Waynesboro Road at a cost of $11,580.00 by Jefferson Contractors, Inc. Funded by account no. 507043420-5425210/80000007-5425210. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 22. Motion to approve Change Order Number One to Nordmann Contracting, Inc. on the Willis Foreman Road Drainage Improvements Project (CPB#322- 04-292822791) in the amount of $13,415.00 to be funded from the Project 37 Construction Account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 23. Motion to approve Proposed 2001 Supplemental LARP Program List; adding Belafonte Drive subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 24. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to offer extension to existing Solid Waste Collection Contracts for a period of six (6) months. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 25. Motion to approve the amount of $20,000 for the purchase of four (4) wetland mitigation credits required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of the Rae’s Creek/Wrightsboro Road Sanitary Sewer Extension. Funded from account no.508043420-5425210. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 26. Motion to approve selection of Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. to complete the engineering design for replacement of the chiller, boilers and electrical switchgear in the Municipal Building and consider design/build as an alternative project delivery method. The contract amount is $121,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 27. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of $8,400 to revise a design for the Mike Padgett Sanitary Sewer Extension. Funded by account number 508043420-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 28. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of $2,160 to revise a design for the Colony Park Sanitary Sewer Extension. Funded by Account Number 508043420-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 29. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of $1,920 to revise a design for the National Hills Sanitary Sewer Extension. (Funded by Account Number 508043420-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 30. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $11,260 to design a water main to improve the water supply to a transmission main in Riverwatch Parkway. (Account Number 509043410/5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 31. Motion to approve a proposal from ZEL Engineers in the amount of $10,030 to modify the existing design of the 18” raw water main conversion process and design an additional stretch of water main to improve the existing pressure zone in the National Hills Area. (Funded by Account Number 509043410/5212115 80110160/5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 32. Motion to approve request to add on-call maintenance personnel at Filter Plant to rotational driver list on the drive home approval. (Funded by Account No. 506043520-5312710) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 38 33. Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 (Year 2001 Agreement Modifications) to Agreement with OMI for a 2001 budget cost of $5,496,494. Funded by Account No. 506043310-5211110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) 34. Motion to proceed with the Request for Offers for a Debt Service Fund Forward Supply Contract to invest the monthly sinking fund deposits for the 1996/97 and 2000 Bond Issues. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) PUBLIC SAFETY: 35. Motion to authorize the rollover of year 2000 security funding to 2001 budget in the amount of $122,685 and approve allowing the Security Committee to obtain competitive bids for the acquisition of security equipment, which will be in the Municipal Building and the Joint Law Enforcement Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 11, 2000) 36. Motion to approve professional service agreement with the Chaplain for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department as recommended. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 11, 2000) 37. Motion to approve the purchase of services subcontract between Augusta- Richmond County and Eloise Hodges to provide community service supervision services to juvenile offenders with no city match. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 11, 2000) PUBLIC SERVICES: 38. Motion to approve the reappointment of two members of the Construction Advisory Board whose terms have expired to new terms for a period of four years. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 39. Motion to approve a request by H. Bryan Mitchell for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Cotton Patch located at 816 Cotton Lane. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 40. Motion to approve a request by Nicky Parker for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with J. C. Package Store located at 2501 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 41. Motion to approve a request by James Calvin Reames for an on premise consumption beer license to be used in connection with Arirang Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 42. Motion to approve a request by Matthew Inglett for a retail beer & wine license to be used in connection with Garden City General Store located at 224 Eighth Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) 43. Motion to approve a Resolution in acceptance of a $10,000 grant from the Governor’s Discretionary Fund, State of Georgia for the construction of a 39 skate park in Augusta. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 11, 2000) Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: So moved and seconded. Would you like to pull any items? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Number 1, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Like to vote No on Sunday sales. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bridges: I don’t want to pull it necessarily yet, but was Item 1, George, was that worked out with the neighborhood? The Knox Center? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: I’d like the record to show I vote No on Sunday sales, Item 39. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we need to pull any other items, gentlemen? So far the only one we’ve pulled out is number 1. Mr. J. Brigham: Pull Item 18, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Number 18 is pulled for Mr. Brigham. Any others? All right, we’ll move ahead on the vote for the consent agenda, deleting Item 42 and pulling Items 1 and 18. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales. Motion carries 10-0. [Item 39] Mr. J. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 9-1. [Items 9-12, 17] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-8, 13-16, 40-41, 43] Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll go back to Item 1, then. 1. Z-00-113 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Albert 40 Brown, on behalf of Donald Hadden requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing transition housing as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the west right-of-way line of Belmont Avenue, 120.0 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Easy Street and Belmont Avenue. (1810 and 1814 Belmont Avenue) DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my question on that one is we’re establishing a transition home, a transition center here. What’s the difference between this and the other one that we asked the applicants to discuss this with the neighborhood? I’d like some information on who we plan to house there and so forth. Mr. Patty: Mr. Cheek, the petitioner is here. I’d like for him to answer those questions, please. Mr. Brown: Mr. Cheek, my name is Albert Brown and [inaudible] neighborhood across from [inaudible] housing [inaudible] there. [inaudible] substance abuse programs and also [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: And you have concurrence with the neighborhood on doing this? Mr. Brown: I have concurrence, yes, sir. [inaudible] no objections [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Okay. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor, vote aye, then, please. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to Item 18. 18. Motion to ratify letter authorizing $50 paid to ARC employees as outlined in the signature letter dated December 11, 2000. (Approved by the Administrative Services Committee December 11, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] 41 Mr. Mayor: All right, we need a motion to move ahead. Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Cheek is your hand up to discuss? Mr. Cheek: I’m just going to -- no, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Item 18, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: That should take us, Madame Clerk, up to Item 49, unless I’ve lost track somewhere. 49. Motion to approve bid contract to Mabus Construction in the amount of $649,015.82 regarding construction of the Rae’s Creek/Wrightsboro Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. Funded by Account No. 508043420- 5425210. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee December 11, 2000) Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is the item that came before the Committee and there was some discussion about some monies from developers and from the school board to match -- not to match, but to contribute to this project. Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Mr. Cheek: I am just wondering, do we have those checks? Do we have those monies? Is it in the mail or are we just going to pass it and move this project up and then wish it well? Mr. Wall: We don’t have the checks. I have had discussion with Dale Bridges. I have also had a discussion with John White on behalf of Mr. Atkins, and I spoke today with Mr. Bagby. And I have also talked with Pete Fletcher. The Board of Education’s money is available and it there and they are counting on this sewer line going in. Mr. Bagby’s son has written a letter that you may have seen, and in any event, in my conversation with Mr. Bagby today, I don’t know that he is going to -- I don’t think that 42 he is going to back out on his commitment. I may be wrong. I have sent him a letter today confirming the understanding and have asked him to sign that and return to me. Whether I get that back or not, I’m not sure. We are in the process of negotiating with him insofar as right-of-way is concerned, so there’s going to be some further discussions with him concerning that. I was not able to speak directly with Mr. Atkins. However, in response to my trying to reach him, John White called me. My understanding from my conversation with Mr. White, who is an advisor to Mr. Atkins, is that he is still agreeable to that process. But I do not have anything in writing. I likewise have sent Mr. Atkins a letter and asked him to sign that and return to me, and I do not have that back. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you may continue. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I would just like to make a substitute motion that we delay this until such time as we have written record to support payment for this project. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and second to delay this. You want to hold it within the Commission here or send it back to Committee? Mr. Cheek: Commission, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I guess my question is to Mr. Hicks. Mr. Hicks, my concern is if we delay this action, are we going to jeopardize this project from being completed by the time school opens in August. Mr. Hicks: If we can start construction I’d say within about, no later, no later than the first of February, that will give us February, March, April, May, June. That would be five month. Now if we have five months of good construction, they can build this sewer line in that amount of time. But the sooner we can take action on this, the better. [inaudible], the School Board is willing to put up their money. They’ve not backed out or backed down on what they said they would do. And to me, that was the main driving force in this whole effort, was the school board. It was not, in my own mind it was not Mr. Bagby or Mr. Atkins. I knew if the School Board said they would put up their money, we could count on them. I knew they had a school going where they had planned on doing a septic tank and drain field, and I knew for a school, the best [inaudible] is a sewer line. In the initial consideration of that school, when they approached us about would we have a sewer line up there, I frankly -- that was back in about ’96 or ’97, I guess, and I thought by that time they would have their constructed 43 long before we had money to do a sewer line. But as it turns out, it’s all come together so that we can have a sewer line completed by the time they have their school. That’s my only comment on that. We need to get started as soon as we can because as you well know, if we have a wet spring or bad weather and you’re constructing a sewer line in a low area to begin with, then it could delay it. Mr. J. Brigham: I would be [inaudible], Mr. Hicks, but I do have to ask, do you have [inaudible] or do you promise us that we’ll have the construction [inaudible]? Mr. Hicks: No, sir, I -- Mr. J. Brigham: I know you have good standing with the man above, but I just thought I’d just check if you had any other [inaudible] on the weather or not. Mr. Hicks: No, sir, I don’t. Mr. J. Brigham: I think I made my point. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Hicks, it seems to me that I remember when you were negotiating with the school board that there was talk at that time that they would like to have that sewer line in by sometime in March and not wait all the way to the end or just before the school. Has that changed? Mr. Hicks: It has not. Their drop dead date, Commissioner Kuhlke, would be sometime in July. They would like to have the line in as soon as they can so that as they begin to put materials in the school, begin to have staff come there, working in the school, they would like to be able to have the water and sewer available to them, sewer service available to them at the time, but they could -- Mr. Wall, you might want to speak to that issue. You’ve spoken with Mr. Fletcher on this more than I have. They would like to have it as early as they could. But they just have got to have it by July so that they would have at least six weeks to get ready for school. Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, what prompts my question is that if in fact they can wait until July, I certainly don’t want to give the Board of Education the opportunity because we haven’t done anything of not paying what they promised to pay us. Have we got anything in writing saying that that deadline can be extended from March to July? Mr. Wall: Well, here’s the -- no, I do not have anything in writing. Here’s the discussion that I’ve had with Mr. Fletcher. Number one, he has indicated that they need it by the first of June, not July, and that’s because as Mr. Hicks has commented, they are going to have staff in there, they’re going to have people in there. They’ve been -- they can have the port-o-lets there and can utilize the port-o-lets with people who are working in the building if we are not completed with construction by the first of June. Now once you get to children being in the school building, then there’s a major problem. I have 44 been told by Mr. Fletcher, and my understanding is that the Health Department will not let them truck that waste and so at that point, they’re not going to be able to occupy the building. And so they are building a building and have gone through the process with the understanding that there is going to be sanitary sewer to the building. They have not built a drainage field and a septic tank and all that would be involved in that process. They’ve been moving forward with the understanding that again, they would be able to tie in and although I hope that we can construct it in the time period that Mr. Hicks has, I concur with him that at some point we’ve got an obligation to them, to tell them either they are going to have to put in their own sewer system or we’re going to allow them to tie in. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, it seems like to me we could answer some of Mr. Cheek’s concern by giving them maybe two more weeks to collect those other two agreements from the developers. They don’t have to go before a body and pass a resolution. I think they can just sign a contract, can’t they, Jim? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Shepard: And I think time is of the essence. We’ve got potentially three discounts or three incentive payments on this system. One is in-hand, the school board. We don’t want to lose that. And we’ve got the chance at two more from two more developers. So I as wondering if the maker of the motion would allow this to come back to the next meeting of the Commission and give everybody kind of a deadline to work against as far as collecting those two developers’ checks, not necessarily the checks, at least just a contract to participate in the project. Mr. Cheek: That was my original intention, to have that come back before the body at the next meeting. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek: I’ll be brief, partner. Mr. Mayor, it never ceases to amaze me how when this came up at committee last week it was no big deal that we didn’t have a firm handle on collecting $180,000 for the people of Augusta Richmond County, but then we quibble over things we could have resolved probably months ago. In my heart and my conscience, I cannot represent the people of this city and allow this to be carried forward without making sure we have that money, which is about a quarter of this contract, and that we have it in-hand or at least in writing under contract. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to echo what Mr. Cheek has said. You know, we’re talking about holding people accountable, we’re talking about running this government in the way it is going to be fair and accurate to keep things in line, and when we let that kind of money or those kind of contracts, when you’re serious 45 about this business, when you’re holding people accountable, those are some of the things that we should obtain. A contract. A signature to say that they’re going to do that. Now here we are now, we got to go back to get that what we should have had now. I just want to say we’re not trying to hold up or delay the program or the project. We would like to have it in already. But we’ve got to stop and do things the way they should be done and not go by what somebody said he’s going to do cause we been mislead several times. And we talked about Columbia County a while ago with the storm water. I mean people will tell you anything to get what they want. But if you going to run a city or run a business, you got to handle it like a business and I agree with Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, when this came up originally, it wasn’t my thought or any or any of our thoughts of where the school was or what District it was in, but it was an opportunity to do two things between two governments. Fortunately or unfortunately there was some private interest involved in this. And I supported it then because I thought they needed to be on the sewer system, and I still support it. I can live with the delay my colleague has made, but to go back to something that Andy brought up at committee meeting, even though we voted different ways in the committee on that particular issue, but I think you had something that was very healthy that might help this situation, that he brought to another one, and that was when he was talking, Mr. Mayor, in reference to the incentive factor. And I’m not sure that whether or not, I don’t know how that private side in terms of their recruiting or what they’ve done to be able to get some of these situations to tie on, but you know, we were talking about the fact of packaging off some of those areas, and I know, Jim, that got us into a thing of where we were questioning whether we could legally do or not do, but I think it would be in everybody’s best interest if maybe they follow a different formula than whatever they’ve been following. Because just as it would be good to do that, as Andy has brought out, and I hope we can find a way that even though we may not be directly involved in the formula of allowing those people to enter into those sewage agreements, in terms of a city package, our procurement area, but to be able to put together in a liaison effort a way that it would be cheaper that a packaged area for those folks to be able to come on as a group. Maybe the same thing needs to be done by those private folk in that same area that’s near that’s particular school. Whatever we have to do to get that entity moving. Because I think if the two governmental bodies, school board and this body, are in agreement, I would hate to see whatever the shortcomings are or whatever the delay is by whatever that private side of it is of that amount of money to allow us not to participate in this project. I can see where we need to get that done. I can wait on that. But I’m still in support of it and I hope they’ll come through in that time frame, but I’m still prepared to vote for it and to keep that vote where I’ve had it at the same time. That may win or lose, but I think we need to adhere to what Andy said in committee meeting about another sewage situation and to provide that type of incentive for that area. If they just simply waiting, nobody’s [inaudible], nobody’s coming on, and they’re not ready to make the commitment to give us the money, then maybe they need to do something different than what they’re doing. We’ve stepped out to work with the board on it and to work with those developers. So if situation A isn’t working, then they need to do something 46 different. The bottom line is you’ve got kids that are in that school that live in that area and are bussed to that area that are sitting out there, totally in portables. With all the tax money that the board has done and with all the other conveniences that we’ve put forth with tax money. That should be everybody’s main concern. And I think whatever gets us to closing that gap is to where we need to take that. So if the delay will help us to do that, I don’t have a problem with it. But I think somebody, Max, we need to tune them up to a point, you know, of a little backside prodding to the fact that maybe they need to do something different that would encourage those folks in that area to bring them into this project. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. The only comment I want to make on this, whereas this might appear that we’ve got two governments working together on this project, I think this is another case that where this is a situation where the two governments did not work together on this project, and this is the third situation I know of in which the school board has bought property, made plans to build a school and even started building a school, and then sought sewage after the fact, and I think if we as a government, if our utilities people can be knowledgeable, and I’m not blaming them, I in essence think the school board needs to approach us and let us know what their plans are, then we can tell them whether or not we can supply their needs, meet their needs, or make plans to meet their needs in the future or maybe offer them some other alternatives maybe in the location they’ve chosen. So I just hope the future is different from what we have here. I hope we do a better of job of working together with the school board on their capital needs. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard and then we’ll move forward. Mr. Shepard: Let me offer this, Mr. Mayor. I talked with the Superintendent of schools and some members of the board recently and there are going to be, I think, four new members being sworn in in January, and I think they are very interested in a meting like we had in the fall of 1999 with the school board, and I think they want to share some of their goals with us, and I think what you said, Mr. Bridges, needs to be shared with them, because we need to coordinate our development of these projects. I think rather than there being exceptions like the Garrett gym, that should be the way things are done, that should be policy instead of there being property purchased and we run the sewer after the fact. We should be coordinating it. So when that meeting comes up, I hope we’ll all attend that. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Jerry, I want to move on with the question. Mr. J. Brigham: I know you do, but I really need to say this. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. 47 Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, the school board is willing to go ahead with the sewer for this school. We all sit up here and we all know that we look in an urban county. We also all know that we need to have all our systems as much as possible on a sewage system and not on a septic tank system. It’s as much to our advantage to extend this line and maybe more so than to the school board’s advantage to extend this line, whether or not we have the money from those developers. And I agree with Mr. Cheek and Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams, if we can get those developers to commit and hand over the money, we need to do that. But I also understand that this project needs to get forward whether or not that happens. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve this -- I’m sorry, to delay this to our next meeting. That’s the substitute motion. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I know the vote had been taken, but I just would like to say this. I would hate for the idea of we present the perception here that we are not cooperating with the school board or they’re not cooperating with us. I don’t think we need to get into that at this point, and I think some of the comments that have been made have indicated that, and from my knowledge for the last few years that I’ve been on council, I think they have been more than willing to work with us and asked us for a meeting and I just didn’t -- after thinking about what I’ve been hearing, I just thought it’s necessary to clarify that, that not all of the Commissioners feel that there has not been any cooperation. Mr. Mayor: I might add, too, Mr. Beard, that we have appointed a liaison Commissioner to the school board, and likewise the school board has appointed a liaison to this body, so perhaps we could use those positions more effectively, too. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to conclude on this whole thing. It’s not about waiting and holding the school up [inaudible] favor of that. It’s about making sure that when $180,000 was promised to the people of Augusta Richmond County, that it is in fact delivered. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move on to Item 52, Madame Clerk. Clerk: 48 52. Consider approval of payment of 2001 annual dues in the amount of $28,460.76 from publication account 101016140 for the following organizations: (Requested by Mayor Young) ?? National Association of County Commissioners $ 3,522.00 ?? Georgia Municipal Association $12,000.00 ?? Association of County Commissioners of Georgia $12,588.76 ?? Central Savannah River RC& D Council $ 350.00 $28,460.76 Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Let me just point out one thing for the record. As luck always has it, as we work on this budget, we got a letter from Jim Calvin at the GMA Monday, a letter to Ms. Bonner and he copied me. GMA has been graciously allowing us to coast along for five years on a dues scheme that is based on the population of the old city of Augusta, allowing us to go through the transition to a consolidated government, and so they say our dues for 2001 will be more along the lines of $39,000, and they welcome the opportunity to discuss and negotiate that with them. Ms. Bonner has told Mr. Calvin that since I’m a member of the board that I can undertake that discussion with him, and Mr. Beard is on a GMA committee that’s looking at the whole issue of the dues structure and revenue, so we will be revisiting the figure of GMA dues and we consider this a down payment, but it remains to be seen just how much the total payment will be for next year. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, in support of both you and Lee on that proposition, I think while we’re talking it may be good that probably our first meeting in the year that we send them a friendly resolution signed by all of us to a point that it was once discussed when we first consolidated that there would be a more realistic structure of dues for a consolidated government, and that both ACCG and GMA had promised to get to that point of where they would work with us, and I don’t think tripling it is going to cure their problem, and I really think that between the two directors, between both Jim Calvin and Jerry Griffin, they need to get to a formula of where we can meet because there is more than one way to skin that cat. I enjoy, and I think there are benefits to both of them to where we need to be, but I think tripling it in that measure and then us, at the same time, paying as Richmond County to ACCG, that there needs to be a formula in between that they can work out. Because that was one thing that has been discussed previously at joint meetings, but the leadership of both groups have been happy collecting where we’ve been paying, and I think that something needs to be worked out to a point that it’s between where GMA wants to go, because the next thing will happen is that I don’t know where ACCG may go, and we’ll end up to a point with joint dues paying more than some of the counties that’s in the doughnut around Atlanta for membership fees. And I think we should support both of you in that effort, but I think something they need to hear from in terms of resolution form very early on, that even before we get there before our January 49 meeting and Mayors day, that they understand that we are seriously concerned about that type of hype. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We’ll see an appropriate resolution is drafted for our next Commission meeting for your consideration. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: If ACCG is going to have a rate increase, it’s not going to be nowhere near that kind of increase. Mr. Mayor: ACCG shouldn’t change at all cause the population of the county didn’t change. But the fact is, as a consolidated government, there should be a special category where you’re not penalized by one organization or the other for being consolidated. Mr. J. Brigham: What I was trying to say is I think there is going to be an increase, but I think we’ve already received [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of prepaying these dues, then, out of the Publication account, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Item 53. Clerk: 53. Consider appointment to seat three (3) on the Downtown Development Authority. ?? Mr. Charlie Freeman, Jr. – (I) ?? Mr. Wayne Frazier ?? Mr. Julian H. Roberts, III Mr. Mayor: We have three names. These names were nominated last week and carried over to this week. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve discussed this appointment and some other positions that have come open with Mr. Frazier, and I’d like to withdraw his name at this time. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll remove the name of Mr. Wayne Frazier. We still have Mr. Charlie Freeman, Jr., who holds the seat, and Mr. Julian H. Roberts, III. Are there any other nominations? All right, we’ll vote on these nominations as they’re 50 presented on the agenda. The first one, Mr. Charlie Freeman, Jr. All in favor of Mr. Freeman, please vote aye. (Vote on Charlie Freeman, Jr.) Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion fails 3-6-1. Mr. Mayor: All right, the next name in nomination after the Clerk clears the board is Mr. Julian Roberts, III. Please vote in the affirmative with your green light for Mr. Roberts. (Vote on Julian Roberts, III) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Can we take Items 54 and 55 together? Is there any reason not to? Whose items are these? Clerk: Mr. Mack’s from Housing and Neighborhood. 54. Approve Resolution authorizing submission of Year 2001 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and HOME Investment Partnership Funds. 55. Approve final version of Year 2001 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and HOME Investment Partnership Funds. Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Mack here? Mr. Kuhlke: I move for approval. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? This will be on Items 54 and 55. Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Did these come through Administrative Services? Clerk: No, sir, they were received late, after the agenda, and they didn’t make the committee agenda. Mr. Mayor: Is there not a deadline for filing these? Is that why they were pushed forward? Mr. Hornsby, are you familiar with this? 51 Clerk: He called, and Mr. Mack called to request that they be approved today because they had notified HUD that these applications would be to them on December 20. We had already approved this in draft form in order to do the public hearing 30-day notice and response time, so it was approved by the Commission in draft form about a month ago. But he did not make the deadline for committee and he asked that they be placed on the Commission agenda because of that commitment to HUD to have these in by December 20. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby, these are routine filings that are done every year, are they not? Mr. Hornsby: Yes, they are. Mr. Mayor: So it’s not surprise that these deadlines are coming up, is it? Mr. Hornsby: I think that part of his problem is the simple fact that he had a board meeting, if I’m not mistaken, the day that it was due and he couldn’t get it together, get it in on time, but he wanted it approved by the board. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Let’s take these up today and we’ll send a message back over to that department to be more attentive to their deadline, to do a little bit better planning. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I was going to just ditto to what you said. I mean if this is an annual thing that we do, I mean, this -- I don’t see any excuse for not having this ready to come to committee. We talk about doing things and doing things by the same rules, and so often there is some times when it just can’t be helped and things have to come this way. But I don’t understand how this can be an annual thing and then we still didn’t get it to committee to come through the proper channel that it should have come. And I just don’t know. Mr. Mayor: That may be something the committee wants to address with the department director at its next meeting. Might be appropriate. I would suggest, then, what we do is go ahead and approve these today and if we, if you take this up in your next committee meeting and you find a need to amend the report, file an amended report with HUD, I think that probably would be the appropriate way to handle that. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? 52 Mr. Beard: I would also suggest that the motion -- I don’t know who made the motion for approval, but I think that a letter should be sent to Mr. Mack informing him of missing the deadline and that he should adhere to the deadlines. I think a letter from the body is in order. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I add something to that? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Williams: I mean, is there no one here from that department? I mean Mr. Mack is not here, but is there not even a representative? Okay, that’s all. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll amend my motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the letter from the body to Mr. Mack? All right, no objection. Mr. Cheek: No objection, just a comment. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: On all of these things, department heads, if they cannot attend themselves, should have a second to come in. The department heads or the second may be only one heartbeat away from being the department head or temporary department head, so they should be here representing. Mr. Mayor: Well, depending on the nature of the business, a person might leave here the department head. Mr. Mays, you have a comment? We’ll call the question. Mr. Mays: It’s just a brief comment, Mr. Mayor. Cause I guess I started this little mess here by asking. And my point has been answered. You’re right, it is routine, but a point that with all the questions that we’ve had, pro and con, in reference to how we’ve dealt with HUD money, and I kind of knew my answer of the Clerk when I asked it, but I wanted to get it out there, and I think when you miss a committee meeting and then it’s no representation at a regular meeting, you know, I know how we flip things back on the general public. Folk come and apply for a license, they are there at zoning, and then you know, we take the hard line, we turn around and say well, somebody should have been there to tend to their business. You know, this is our business, and it gets into seven figures of money and this is what leads us to a point that when we get up into February and March and then they’re writing us at times as to why didn’t you do thus and so? Now if anybody thinks that they’ve absorbed what’s in this whole [inaudible] package or an essence of it, then you’ve got a good thing for memory. I’m going to vote for it because it places us under the gun about the deadline, but I think when you deal with both committee and 53 the regular meeting, then somebody ought to be here. And I’m not necessarily saying that has to be the person who is the number one person in charge of any department, but I think when you’ve got, asking us to approve that much, then somebody ought to be present one of the two places, and particularly if there is a federal deadline waiting with it. And I’m not being apologetic to the department head about it, either. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll go ahead and call the question on the motion, and that is to approve both of these items, 54 and 55. All in favor, please vote aye. And that motion included sending a communication to the department head from the body to the effect of our disappointment that the procedure was not followed and the deadline was nearly missed. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. What we’re going to do now is take up Item 56, and then following that, we will move along to our Attorney for a real estate issue. We’ll take a recess after that, then we’ll come back and deal with item 58 through 61 and take up Item 57. We’ll take up all the budget issues after the recess. 56. Discuss Municipal Parking Deck. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, the floor is yours. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Mr. Sanford Lloyd, who is chairman of the Downtown Development Authority, is here. And I’ll go ahead and say a few words and then turn it over to Sanford. The purpose of placing this on the agenda is you are all aware that the Board of Education has expressed some interest in purchasing a building downtown that ties into the municipal parking deck on Greene Street. The Downtown Development Authority being your arm in trying to promote development downtown would like to make a request of this Commission that the DDA be given the authority to negotiate with the Board of Education in regards to that parking deck. There are some legal ramifications that need to be considered that would have to be taken up by the Attorney. As we presently stand, the Downtown Development Authority has a lease or is in charge of that particular deck until 2013. 2011. And so there would have to be an extension to that and maybe some cleaning up, cause this thing started back in 1975 under another department. So Mr. Lloyd, I’d like to turn it over to you. These people are real nice and I’m sure you can do a good job. Mr. Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. My name is Sanford Lloyd, current chairman of the Downtown Development Authority. We do support the Board of Education for bringing their administrative staff downtown and there has been some interest expressed in the use of the parking deck at Ninth Street. And my current understanding of the situation is that the Downtown Development Authority basically built the structure and leased it back to the city, which the city is sub-leasing it currently. Right now, as Mr. Kuhlke said, it’s set to expire in 2011. What we believe, that if we actually were given a permission from the Commission to negotiate with the county 54 education on that, that we actually would be able to have a good process of trying to work something out where the education would be able to use that facility, would be willing to do some improvements as well as consider the possibility of doing some additional work for that. But we believe we would be able to facilitate that discussion and actually come to some agreement in pretty quick order. And we think it will start to build some kind of consensus for all the deck coming under some common control or authority. I think we have three decks currently, and I think the city sub-leases Ninth Street from the Development Authority, and I think the Radisson has the other pieces, and I’m not certain about the piece over, I think it’s at Fort Gordon. But I think what we’re trying to do is from the downtown government’s position, one, establish what our relationship with all the entities in the city are and start working in a position that we think will actually facilitate some of the things that are being done, and we think this is one of them that we -- it’s kind of an extension of our arm and what we start to do and it gets us involved in the process, and I think [inaudible] for the county itself. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lloyd, thank you for bringing that before this body. It’s encouraging to see some activity, particularly with that parking deck, and I would certainly encourage you in your efforts. And as you negotiate with the school board, and I’m sure in a moment we’ll give you permission to do that, I would hope you would keep that neighboring church in the loop. They are very concerned about what goes on with that parking deck, and we hear from them if they see something they don’t like. But just as a matter of currently. Mr. Jerry Brigham, you had your hand up? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir, I want to make a motion to allow the Downtown Development Authority to negotiate with any entity that may be interested in using it, not just the Board of Education. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes, I just wanted to clear something, Mr. Mayor. Is that the, we talking about all the decks downtown? I mean we got one down there with the abandoned cars that I been really concerned about. Mr. Mayor: No, this is the one over on Ellis Street. If that’s the one with the cars up on the second deck you’re talking about, those cars are gone. They’ve been removed. Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s the one I was thinking we were talking about. You’re talking about the one -- Mr. Mayor: This is the one they’re talking about. Mr. J. Brigham: Ninth and Ellis. Mr. Williams: Ninth and Ellis? 55 Mr. J. Brigham: Right diagonally across from the library. Mr. Mayor: I drove up there myself. The cars are gone. Personal inspection. Mr. Williams: I walked up there myself to inspect it and found some squatters, I guess would be a good name for them, Mr. Shepard, they was living in all kinds of vehicles. Mr. Shepard: That might have been some other law partners. Mr. Mayor: All right, further discussion of the motion on the floor? All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to Item 62. Mr. Wall, we’ll take our executive session and then we’ll -- LEGAL MEETING: 62. Discuss Real Estate Mr. Wall: If I could, I want to get direction on one litigation matter. Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purpose as stated by the lawyer. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of that, please vote aye. Mr. Williams abstains. Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. H. Brigham not voting. Motion carries 7-0. [LEGAL MEETING - 4:20 - 4:50 P.M.] 63. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: Are we waiting for Mr. Slavens? Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Hornsby, do you want to go ahead or are we waiting for Mr. Slavens. I remind the Commission we still have a couple of agenda items on here related to the budget. Those items are 58, 59, 60 and 61 should you choose to adjust any fees or charges today. And the request of 56 those is to waive the second reading. Let’s go ahead. We’ll take a motion for the Mayor to sign the affidavit from our executive session. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? All right, I’ll sign it without objection. 57. Consider adoption of 2001 Augusta-Richmond County Permanent Budget. (Public Hearing) Mr. Mayor: We’re waiting for Al to arrive? All right. Mr. Shepard, do you have anything you want to talk about before Al gets here? Mr. Shepard: I talked with him. I’ll be happy to do it if you want me to. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize our finance chairman, Commissioner Shepard, for the purpose of beginning the discussion on our budget while we await the arrival of Mr. Slavens. Mr. Shepard: I thank you, Mr. Mayor, for talking, but I don’t know -- there’s a lot of pain here that we’re going to have to deal with. I’ve talked with the Finance director and I’ve talked with our consultant, Mr. Slavens, before the meeting and I think you have before you the latest in the series of revisions we’ve had to make to these figures. The latest involves our Risk Management fund and the appropriate charges to be placed in the General fund for Risk Management. If you’ll notice, Risk Management is allocated over to the General fund $618,750 and to law enforcement, $875,000. So that was a problem that the Finance folks had to deal with today. I can go into this in more detail, but I’ll give you the short version, and Lon, stop me if you see I’m going astray. But it looks like to me that we’re going to have to -- this isn’t simply enough. We’re going to have to make our resources the controlling factor in this budget, and I think the resources we could utilize is about $91 million -- on the best case, $91,342,000. The alternatives that I have tentatively selected, subject to you gentlemen’s revision, would be the Commission 12/19 Plan B, which shows we have $88,041,290 available to us. We would utilize fund balance of $1,750,000. There is a figure for rounding in there to bring it to $89,800,000. Then I would suggest that we select the alternative that does include the raising of selected fees but not ad valorem taxes. The selected fees that I would raise would be the cable franchise fee from 3% to 5%, yielding $333,000 more, business license increase yielding $177,000 more, the liquor license, $164,000. Animal control, $18,000. Transit fares, $150,000. And the transfers from the urban services, public transit fund, $530,000. And transfer from the urban services, former city services fund, $170,000. We’re still short when we do all that so if you look below the line, the line that beings with $92,782,437 we’re going to have to impose departmental, agency, and elected official decreases or cuts in the amount of nearly $3 million. The specific figure is $2,982,437. They are given to you in a break-out sheet that is captioned up at the top the budget, 57 Augusta Richmond County Budget by Service Area Detailed 2001 Budget. It’s an eight- page document which shows a set of 3.5%. That’s three-and-a-half percent reductions by departmental budget category beginning with the Clerk of Commission, the Mayor’s office, the Mayor’s Discretionary account, the Commissioners’ Commission Other. It’s spread throughout the budget. Three-and-a-half percent reduction. We have to deal with the additional funds for the Risk Management allocation. $618,750. And the Risk Management allocation of $875,000. We also have a capital, acquisition of capital assets category for $48,250. So if you adopt Plan B, in summary it’s got three features that I think have been recurring. Part use of fund balance, a minimum increase in new fees, and a three-and-a-half percent across-the board cut, which I would suggest be utilized, that we allow the department heads, the elected officials and the agency folks to control their own destiny, that we set targets and that we cap these departments based on the reductions shown on this detail sheet, which is some eight pages long. We make them report back to us during the year so that we have this controlled into a, in a [inaudible] path so to speak so that they have an opportunity to cut where they thing they can cut without impacting the service, or I should say with a minimum impact of the service. I don’t think we can sit here on the board and make those decisions for those elected officials, those department heads, and those agency heads. Rather, they would make those decisions and we did in the Finance Committee the last time pass a budget calendar which indicated three target dates that folks would be back to us to report on their budget status. So we could utilize that calendar. I’m not saying the Finance Committee would be the committee that comes with the responsibility. There would be some committee here to see that these paper cuts that we’re dictating today be in fact made. The other thing that came to our attention in the series of workshops that was pretty clear, we have to do the capital budget. And the capital budget, quite frankly, was starved when we look at it at the last work session. If you look in the far right-hand column of the December 19, 2000 memo, it shows Commission 12/19 Capital Outlay. And according to the Finance folks, there’s an ad valorem levy that will produce $2.8 million and then available for prior years, there’s $831,000 due to a transfer that’s available, and I’ll let Harry go into that from the Fleet Management side of things. That will yield a budget of $3.6 million, which will go partly toward our goal, I think it was $4 million in IT alone, but we had capital needs for Sheriff’s cars and other things. We address that as shown below in the leases, $902,791. Leases, law enforcement, $1.6 million. And then we just have $1.1 million available for the acquisition and replacement of capital assets. It’s not a budget that does all things for all people, but it’s I think the best that Finance has done. It’s been a process that Al called me up about at 11 o’clock last night, so I returned the favor by sitting in his office for an hour-and-a-half this afternoon. So there will be a lot of discussion, but I think ultimately we’re going to have to go with some variation of Plan B and also with a capital outlay budget. I don’t pretend to have all the answers here, but I think we are going to have to dictate that these spending reductions that Al has set out by service area be part of this document. I think we are going to have to dictate also that what Commissioner Cheek always reminds me of, that everybody is going to have to get on the Bi-Tech system so that we solve some of our audit problems and we have -- I think the Sheriff has been on the Bi-Tech in part for a good, long time and we appreciate that. We’re going to have Civil Court come aboard this year by Judge Jennings’ decision and Judge Allen’s decision. I think the last piece of this thing is we’re going to have to 58 have a hiring freeze so that we have some way of controlling this budget. That would be certainly much more preferable to a reduction in force. It’s basically an attrition-based system that will get us through this year. This year is going to be a very difficult budget year. I don’t make any apologies about that. I just think that’s a very accurate forecast. They’re saying there may be a recession, a mild one. I think we’re going to have to anticipate that, so we’re going to have to be in a real belt-tightening mode as we go through this next budget year. With that, that kind of gives you the benefit of what I’ve been doing this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t have all the answers but I have Al now here who can address some of the specific accounts. I do think we’ve added for prison medical. There is still a fairly good amount of money in there for indigent care. Like I said, there’s no ad valorem tax increase. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I yield to Mr. Slavens. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Slavens? Mr. Slavens: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of council, Commission. We basically left last Saturday’s meeting with an edict that we would balance the budget at $89.8 million. As you will recall, we had something in the tune of $2.7 million in [inaudible] at that time. Staff and I have been working many late hours in trying to come up with [inaudible]. Basically, you don’t have a lot of options. I don’t think at this point we have in the proposed budget $3.7 million across the board reduction. I don’t know that we can go much stronger than that. I don’t know -- particularly this is the first year for many of the department heads and [inaudible] trying to implement that kind of policy. In addition to that, late last night we discovered as a continuing problem that we had Saturday with the fringe benefit package. Late Friday night as we were looking at it, we thought that we would not have a problem with Risk Management. I told [inaudible] I didn’t think that we -- probably lightning would strike twice. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Our Risk Management pool is [inaudible] of [inaudible]. We don’t many options about that. David Collins was gracious enough to come in late last night and help us try to sort through some of that. So the reason for Plan B, which is a different plan than what we left with last Saturday is because primarily the Risk Management allocation [inaudible]. What has happened, I’m not sure that I have all the answers. We were something like a million dollars short in 1999, however we were able to cover that within surplus [inaudible]. We don’t have that luxury in 2001 so I think we have very little choice in terms of proposing a budget that adequately expresses the financial needs of the city. So that is the reason for Plan B. Now I understand that there has been and that this is a tight budget year. Let’s talk a little bit about where we are in comparison to last year so that might give us some perspective. The budget that we, even under Plan A, was going to be reduced by 2%. And primarily revenue [inaudible]. Our revenue from sales tax is minimized, and ad valorem tax was minimized this year about $1.9 million. However, we had some deficits that we had to overcome. [inaudible] allocation is probably not going to be as attractive as has been, so we’re going to have to reduce anywhere from about $600,000 for that. The every-popular Sheriff’s staff and deputy grant came home to roost this year. We all knew that was coming, but it is here. So we’re having a reduction in the revenue of about $1.6 million without any [inaudible]. So the options that we have now for Plan B, and I’ll be glad to answer as many questions 59 as I can, basically [inaudible] is pretty much the same as we had Saturday. We did make a few adjustments, we did add in [inaudible] $100,000 that was not in the budget [inaudible] so that is a change. In addition to that, basically I think everything else is pretty much the same frame as we left Saturday. The big kicker is this year, right now today as opposed to Saturday, is the Risk Management allocation. And I’m thoroughly convinced that we that additional funding. I don’t have any miracles. I can’t tell you that we can -- and I would not suggest -- there is $5 million of the General fund balance that has been set aside in 1999 and for prior years for Risk Management, and I think that’s fine that we have that. I would not access that fund balance for that purpose this year, because this is an ongoing operation. I don’t think that we need to draw down that. We need to leave it there for emergencies if they come, so I think the other plan of recouping this cost through increases in fees and etc., as distasteful as it is, I don’t think we have -- I think the Commission has expressed the desire to go any further than $1.75 million into the fund balance [inaudible]. As it’s presented, that’s pretty much where we are on it. I feel comfortable and hope that there are no more major surprises. I said that Saturday, too. I’ll be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Mr. Slavens? Commissioner Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Al, I notice that the decrease from 5% to 2% as savings there on salaries is not included here. Are we saying that now the raises will be 5%? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges: I didn’t see it in the revenue considerations. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges: And I’d like an explanation again of the Risk Management hit that we’re taking this time. What specifically happened there? Mr. Mayor: What page are you on, Al? Mr. Slavens: I’m sorry, the last, the last page. Page 9 of 9. [inaudible] but it 3% [inaudible] three months [inaudible] General fund [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: And explain the Risk Management effect this time. Mr. Slavens: When you were looking at the employee fringe benefits in the past, employee fringe benefits and the Risk Management allocation was wrapped up primarily, I think, into a composite figure that was charged out based on employee cost. That employee cost, unfortunately as it stands right now, is only going to be great enough, even including $600,000 that we will have probably have in claims, etc. So that basically left us with exposure on the Risk Management. We have claims that have been generated over the past couple of years [inaudible] last year. I think we’re only going to exacerbate that problem for 2000. Right now, I think this is our best estimate as it stands today. 60 Hopefully we won’t have major increases. Primarily [inaudible] appropriately to [inaudible]. And that second sheet that you have sort of goes through where the costs are and who will bear those costs. We have a $2 million excess right now expended for total revenue and you’ll see -- the $2 million, some of it is budgeted and [inaudible], etc. But General fund law enforcement, we don’t have the money present and budgeted [inaudible]. We think this will [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Al, what I don’t quite understand are in resources utilized. Mr. Slavens: All right. Mr. Beard: Okay. Now that -- the problem in budget reduction there. We’re showing a deficit, right? Mr. Slavens: $2.8. No. Plan A and Plan B are budgeted. They balance. Plan C with capital outlay also balances. But it balances with charging back to the departments $2.9 million [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: How do we get that? Mr. Slavens: How do we get that? Mr. Beard: Yes. I mean maybe I’m just a little confused about understanding this, but this is the 3.5% that you, we talked about on Saturday? The departments? Mr. Slavens: That’s right. Mr. Beard: Now what if we don’t get the 3% from each department? What happens then? Mr. Slavens: As I tried to convey, if we don’t get it, we’re going to be funding that primarily out of prior years surplus. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: But Al, the way I understood it, we could cap the spending authority of everybody, cause we have the checkbook. We could cap the spending authority this year and tell them that’s their target and we review their progress toward their target, and then if they miss the target, we go into fund-outs, but we could take these numbers in this attachment that you gave me that shows the breakdown, the 3.5% reduction by departmental budget center, and we could cap those, we could write those reductions in right now, in this budget, could we not? 61 Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] you need to also, in addition to [inaudible], excuse me, a hiring [inaudible], you are also going to have to have a reduction in force. Mr. Beard: That’s my point -- did we get the -- Mr. Slavens: Other option, I think in terms of reduction in personnel absent what we [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: Are you suggesting we give the department heads the opportunity to do a reduction in force in order to reach their 3%? Mr. Slavens: I think that I would take the position at the moment that we will try to avoid that. [inaudible] part of the process would be that we would ask for their plans back by January 31 on how they are going to implement that reduction. If after that series of meeting or that [inaudible], and it looks like you still want to have the hard and fast rule and you can’t make it, then you may very well want to implement that [inaudible] option. Mr. Mayor: Well, Plan A and Plan B you say are both balanced? Mr. Slavens: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. What is the disadvantage of using Plan A over Plan B, since Plan A does not call for any increases in fees? Mr. Slavens: Well, cannot fund Risk Management. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Slavens: That would have to be funded out of prior years surplus. And that’s an ongoing problem. Mr. Mayor: So that is the only difference between the two plans? Mr. Slavens: Basically, yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I asked it, I don’t need to be recognized, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams? 62 Mr. Williams: Al, if we don’t use Plan B, if we don’t increase somewhere, will this continue next year? Is that going to help us to try to move out of this slot that we’re in now? Evidently we’re in a position where we -- Mr. Slavens: Is the question, Mr. Williams, whether we do Plan A -- Mr. Williams: And not Plan B. Mr. Slavens: And not Plan B? We’re going to get further behind quicker. Mr. Williams: That’s what I needed to know. I mean if that’s the case. Mr. Slavens: I don’t like it. I’m sorry [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: But that’s what’s been a problem, Al, we don’t want to do things we don’t like. Mr. Slavens: I wish it weren’t that way. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Al, just a -- and I may mix terminology on you here. What percentage of our departmental budgets go to administrative overhead costs? Mr. Slavens: It’s difficult -- I don’t know the answer. Quite frankly, I’ve not [inaudible]. We have talked about -- are we are talking about departmental budgets or are we talking about in aggregate for each department? Mr. Cheek: This would be the -- Mr. Slavens: This would be [inaudible] Mayor and council? Mr. Cheek: This would be the burden put on, say, Public Works to support HR, [inaudible] administration and other things. Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Al, let me make sure I understand this correctly. If we do implement Plan B and we don’t control spending, that we’re going to look at $1.7 million from fund balance and an additional $2.9 million on expenditure side, so we could be looking at as much as $5 million out of fund balance? Mr. Slavens: Mr. Brigham, you probably [inaudible]. 63 Mr. J. Brigham: Not [inaudible] Mr. Slavens: $1.6 -- we have added $1.6 million to the expenditure [inaudible]. $1.7 [inaudible] fund balance that we had already identified. And that gets [inaudible Mr. J. Brigham: And if we go to [inaudible], we’re also going go fund an additional $2 million, so we’re looking at $7 million to fund balance? Mr. Slavens: The aggregate of all that. Mr. J. Brigham: Right. Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. J. Brigham: Well, I’m assuming that we’re going to control expenditures. I’m assuming. But that’s a very difficult thing to do. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Slavens, the other day we were talking about the idea of not filling vacancies. Has that been put into this equation in any way, and if so -- I’m sure it’s there some place, but how can we -- Mr. Slavens: We still have 3% lapsed salaries in the budget. We also have $2.9 million worth of budget reductions that we’re asking department heads and elected officials to do. Most of our department heads cannot get to the $2.9 or their share of that absent some reduction in force, either forced, retire or hiring freeze, as worst case, a reduction in force. I don’t -- does that answer your question? Mr. H. Brigham: Uh-huh. Mr. Slavens: We need [inaudible] even to get close on the budget reductions. Mr. H. Brigham: So the department heads will have the opportunity to lay off somebody if [inaudible]? Mr. Slavens: We haven’t made that option. We haven’t taken that option. What we are telling the department heads as it stands and as I interpret what I have heard is that we are going to have a hiring freeze. And that hiring freeze is not the same as reduction in force. And reduction in force policy or a mandate would have to come, I think, it could come at this budget time, but I think I would prefer to see if we could get to the $2.9 reduction without a hiring -- excuse me, without a reduction in force. We can make that determination I think sometime as we see the requests [inaudible] and see how we stand [inaudible] January 31 or something in that time frame. 64 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Pelaez, what is the figure of positions that we have that are vacant right now? Do you have that totaled up? Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. I did a quick calculation only on those that are impacting the General fund, and we came up with a total of 55. Mr. Mayor: 55. And all the others, then, are assigned to Enterprise funds? Ms. Pelaez: Yes. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Ms. Pelaez: No, we backed all those figures out, yes. Mr. Mayor: And do you have a number as to what size payroll these 55 positions represent? Ms. Pelaez: This is an estimate, simply an estimate. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Pelaez: Because of course we [inaudible] lapsed salaries. It came to like $1.3 million. Mr. Mayor: I see a hand up down here. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: The hiring freeze is effective now or January 1? Ms. Pelaez: It’s effective now. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Ms. Pelaez: Because the reason why we went ahead and sent out to department heads to restrict interviews, processing new hires, is because if we bring on people now and come to the conclusion that we have to have a reduction in force, what will result is that we will be paying unemployment compensation because we put the people on payroll and so we’ll just paying out of another pot, and if we can’t afford to pay them on our payroll, we certainly can’t afford to pay unemployment. Mr. Bridges: Does that include things we’ve advertised for? Ms. Pelaez: That includes -- yes, sir, it does. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Jim, I have got a question here in regards to the bill of consolidation. The original bill said that you could not lose your job as a result of consolidation. If we’ve got -- 65 Mr. Wall: It did not say that. Mr. Bridges: What did it say? Mr. Wall: Everybody has said that it said that, but it did not say that. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Maybe there is a technicality I’m missing there or something. Mr. Wall: It said that there could be no reduction in benefits insofar as retirement is concerned, and that only applies to those, well, the past retirees and the employees. But it did not guarantee a job. And we could, in fact -- Mr. Bridges: So if we’ve got a guy from the old city and the old county that’s -- we may be carrying them along because of consolidation, if there is a reduction in force, we can actually get rid of those people even though they came over from one of the previous governments? There’s just no decrease in benefits? Is that -- Mr. Wall: Right. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Now you have not addressed, though, Al or Brenda, any kind of an early retirement program to decrease the number of employees. Mr. Slavens: I don’t have that information. Ms. Pelaez: No, we would have to have some type of parameters so that we could call Pension Services and say if we were to give, you know, X number of years and whatever so they could run us a true estimate, but we don’t have that. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I hope that’s one of the items that the committee, we each have an appointment on the budget committee, will address. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just to follow on what Commissioner Bridges has said. Brenda, does the reduction in force policy say basically for local roll that it’s last in, first out the door on a reduction of force? Ms. Pelaez: There’s three elements that it speaks of. One is length of time and service, which is your employment here at Augusta Richmond County. Length of time in the particular job grade that you’re in, as well as your performance evaluation. Those are the things that have to be taken into consideration in a reduction in force. 66 Mr. Cheek: To follow right into that, based on what you’ve seen, are there adequate performance evaluations of our local roll and exempt employees to make an assessment as to performance to terminate someone? Ms. Pelaez: I would hope so. Mr. Cheek: Yes or no, please. Ms. Pelaez: Yes. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Is there a procedure for bumping? Ms. Pelaez: No. Not -- no, sir, we don’t have a procedure for bumping. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me, based on what Finance has brought to us, that as we go into next year, if we leave the department heads up in the air that there is some latitude to go beyond what the [inaudible] or if we leave them with the idea that we’re not going to be serious about saying this is how much money you’ve got to spend in your department, that we are just asking for total chaos on January 31 of next year. We don’t have but so much money, and I think that one thing that this Commission needs to do, we need to be very, very stern on what our reserve bottom is going to be, and not go below that. It appears to me, I think Commissioner Shepard was hitting on this a little bit earlier, but the Finance Committee has gone through these scenarios and we just don’t have any more money to spend. So what are we going to do, Commissioner Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Bill, my Super Commissioner. Bill, the only suggestion I have is to look at this eight-page document that sets forth by departmental cost center or departmental grouping the 3.5% reduction. For example, the Clerk of Commission is mandated, it could be mandated to reduce her budget $7,486. Isn’t that correct, Al? And this eight-page document could be attached today to the budget mandating all of these cuts. And that would lock it in. And then if there had to be, rather than asking them to not comply with that, in other words, if there was to be some latitude, there may be contingency expenses that could be addressed, but they would be told to meet these targets. Period. Would that do it? Mr. Kuhlke: My question is, based on Mr. Slavens, this is all the money we’ve got without dipping further into our reserves. Mr. Shepard: And this is a proportional way -- Al, correct me if I’m wrong -- of getting to what Mr. Kuhlke wants to do. Isn’t that correct? Mr. Slavens: That’s correct. 67 Mr. Shepard: And what we would have to do is -- what I’m thinking about is if we pass B we would have to attach as an exhibit to the motion these reductions by category and say they’re in there, do it. Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays has had his hand up, so let me take care of Mr. Mays and then we’ll come back around. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just need about 45 seconds of my time. Mr. Mayor: Let me get a watch. Mr. Mays: And I’ve been very brief about this whole budget thing. My thing has been very similar. You’ve got a certain amount of money and you’re got to estimate in there to a certain extent because you’ve not voted on anything, and I’m kind of in agreement with what Mr. Beard was saying the other day. Until you actually take some votes, and I know we’re going to talk about fees, doing them or not doing them, in a little while, but you know what you’re saying about a consensus but you know consensus, leaving without getting to one, is not necessarily a consensus. Now I keep seeing these plans up here and I’m going to be in a friendly way objective and argumentative to a point that, one, Al, Steve, have we decided to a point when we talk about where the cut- off zone and where the safe zone was on the so-called what we would take out of reserves, whether we vote that in stone with the $1.7 or has that been decided just within these plans? Because I think till you take a vote and you decide that that’s going to be your plug-in number, I mean it could very well be to what this Commission decides that it’s $1.8, $1.9. I mean I’m advocating that we stay as low and as safe as we can. But I mean to say that’s where it is, that’s not it, because we’ve not taken a vote. The second thing is I think on your line items, you’ve got to get to those to get a clear understanding of where you are, and that gets me back to Ulmer and Jim’s exchange a minute ago, Mr. Mayor. Now we’ve been going basically on that premise, whether it’s written in the bill or not about these jobs. Now Jim mentioned another thing about the benefit package, and what folk could not lose in terms of benefits. Now there are some folk with a listening ear to this budget when you talk about benefit packages, because I guess Al, I need the answer to this point, whether or not on the [inaudible] side and where we were talking about the $700,000+, is that on the table in here or not in here? Mr. Slavens: Part of Plan B. Mr. Mays: Okay. So it has basically -- Mr. Slavens: From urban services back to the General fund [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: My only reason for throwing that out to a point where our Attorney, I know you’ve answered that question, but if we’re telegraphing that message to a point 68 that you don’t have a right necessarily about an automatic job but you’ve got one in there where you’re dealing with benefits, then I’m wondering if that was a big question sometime ago and how we will prevail in the face where just out in the parking lot, Steve, in terms of well, I operate my law practice out there some times, where you get that from past employees that have left that are basically now waiting to see whether or not we’re going to use those benefits to a point of whether you’re dealing with litigation, and you’re saying today you can’t reduce in dealing with the benefits, well, if that’s a part of a benefit in their terms, they file an injunction, then we get back to whether or not can we use the $700,000? I’m not interested in whether we can prevail. At what point can we prevail? It may be September, October. We may be in another budget season before we get to be able to use that money, if we face a lawsuit with it. I mean, I’m hearing two different things, and I just wanted to get a clear understanding. I’m regurgitating those things out now to a point again, I guess this gets me [inaudible] might was well do it, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to go on into my five minutes. Now Randy’s left. Even inclusive of his voodoo economic theory, with some of these crazy numbers that he plugged in, and I guess he’s rode off in the Teflon field now, but these numbers are now being where we’ve got to deal with them in human terms. Now how, is anything in those numbers from a servicing aspect, from an employee aspect, of a reduction of force that’s in there that we will be voting on out of that package that’s included in one of these [inaudible]. And my main reason for throwing that out is the fact that I’ve seen that as a part of budget processes, that if you’re not careful, you’ll vote on something that you don’t know what you’re voting on. And then you get into mid-year and you have found that you’ve made a decision that was a part of a policy, but the policy affected money in other [inaudible]. Those are the kind of things we need to also know. And this $2.9, and I’m through, it still has to -- and you made the point the other day about being realistic with cuts. Freeze is fine if you’re going to deal with it. But be realistic in terms of what you’re freezing. And you go back, if you put some of these folks to the limit, some have not even gone to the 3% and even if you return to it in January, if there are some jobs we’re advertising for that we know we got to fill, then you are going to see that animal again. I mean, we should deal with all these realistically, not to a point that they’re going to disappear off the radar screen and how it equates to services. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond and ask Al also to respond. The number we had talked about at one time was $700,000 hit to the pensioners specifically. Aren’t you talking about that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mays: That’s what I’m talking about. Mr. Shepard: And I think he would like to know is that in or out of this budget. Mr. Slavens: Plan B has the $700,000 as a revenue source transferred from urban services to the General fund. Mr. Shepard: But does it take it away from the pensioners is my point. 69 Mr. Slavens: I’d like the council to know that it is not reducing any benefit of any pensioners. Mr. Wall: But you are talking about the pensioners -- the pension fund paying for it. And no, you’re not reducing a benefit because you have a defined benefit plan, and the plan requires you to pay a certain benefit to the pensioners. And so you have not reduced their benefit. And that, Mr. Mays, in response to your question, and Al, correct me if I’m wrong, but budgeting that $700,000, anticipating that eventually you are going to win that lawsuit if a lawsuit is filed, is a valid budgeting item. Cash flow wise, you’re probably not going to realize that cash flow for some period of time and September may be optimistic, it may be longer than that. But you’ve got to ensure that from a cash flow standpoint that you can stand the $700,000 that may not come forward if in fact there is an injunction. Mr. Slavens: It’s similar to the way that we would look at [inaudible] would not know with certainty what the [inaudible] but to that extent, we may or may not [inaudible]. Ultimately [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: My only reason for bringing it up, and I might have to end up being one of those people that votes for that, but I believe in being honest and real to a point that that might be a situation of reality. I think some dialogue, if we’re realistic enough to anticipate that there probably will be an injunction, we maybe ought to be realistic enough that two to three folk need to go talk to two to three folk, to a point I think if there is some dialogue you maybe can avoid that in this particular year, because there have been some things with sales tax that we are in the process of correcting in terms of where pensioners’ money has been used by the old city without their consent, and we’re buying that back now to get it the proper order. I think there is a better relationship, but I think if it’s arbitrarily done, I think there is a difference, though, in what you sent out in a tax bill on a piece of property as opposed to going into pension money from the standpoint of where somebody may have a legal leg to stand on. Now they may protest about a tax bill but if it says it’s $1,000, it’s $1,000. You’ve got it where he can pay or you take lien on the property. But you do not necessarily have control per se over that amount of money that’s in there. And I just think that that’s one thing in there, that $700,000, it’s closer to a million than it is to zero, to a point that if we are going to use that, and whatever day we going to do it, we know who the players are in that situation, ain’t no secrets about it, we may need to try and head that off and talk in realistic terms, because that’s a fight I’d rather not have and I look at that like one of them Republican conversation that George Bush had to Ronald Reagan. That still falls in my voodoo category. I’m just sorry, gentlemen, to a point that when you’re doing that knowing that they going to right in Superior Court dealing with that, and you’re going to have to fight that battle to do it. And then we’re going to have to pay Jim in terms of paying the piper. He can’t go down there and fight it for free. And if we lose it, we going to keep the money where it is, we 70 going to pay it to who gets to represents them and we going to pay our attorney. But I think we are in good hands and I think that’s good and predictable. But I just hate for us to assume that we got almost ¾ of a million dollars that we know we got to go into Court and possibly to fight for. And if I’m going to do that, I’d rather spend my time this weekend going and talking to some of those players in that field and say, hey, let’s talk about it. Because that’s a lot of [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Shepard, do you respond to that? Mr. Shepard: I did. Mr. Mays, so that we can kind of focus what your point is, Al, is the $700,000 in the first line resources available? And I think Mr. Mays’ point is they may not be available. And the first line in Plan B or A or any of them is $88,041,290. Is that where the $700,000 is? Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: You’ve broken those out into the two last categories? Mr. Slavens: $530,000 and the $170,000. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Mr. Slavens: $700,000. Mr. Shepard: So if you took that number out, you’d have to either increase the cuts by that amount, or you’d have to increase the fund balance appropriation? I mean those are the alternatives. You see that? Mr. Mays: I see it, but I’m just saying that it’s in there, I think if we’re basically going through tonight to a point where we’re going to digest this, maybe other than fees, then we need to, Steve, we know where they come from, some of the old city folk may need to go, and we might need to have breakfast somewhere to a point that if we’re anticipating a lawsuit, let’s just go on and head on and say that’s where we’re going with it. Mr. Shepard: But I’m just saying -- my point, Willie, is if you take those two items out of Plan B, you’ve got to make it up in some other category. Mr. Mays: I can understand that. That’s why my first opening statement was, was $1.75 the written-in-stone figure? It’s been a consensus, but remember we’ve been driving on that figure at what has been suggested. We also went through a scenario the other day of what we had versus what was suggested and what was certain. And if it’s not, then I keep throwing the other element in there of services, because one of the three, gentlemen, you’ve got to deal with. You’ve are going to cut folk and service, you’re going to go deeper into where you’re talking about on the $1.75 and you’ve got to deal with money that you can collect and get and it’s not questionable. 71 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s let Mr. Beard have the floor and then we’ll go down the line. Mr. Beard: I just want to ask Al under regular consideration, now you gave a percentage there in the first, the cable franchise, business license -- what would that? Is that the 10%? Mr. Slavens: I think that’s 10%. Mr. Beard: How about the liquor license? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Slavens: The liquor license was a composite 15%. Mr. Beard: I’m just wondering what percentage you used. I think [inaudible] and I look at the transit fares, that’s increasing it a dollar? Mr. Slavens: 10%. Mr. Mayor: A dollar is increasing it 25%. This would be less than that. Mr. J. Brigham: 10% increase. Mr. Mayor: If you go from 75 cents to a dollar, that’s a third. That’s increasing it a third, and this proposing increasing it 10%. Is Mr. Johnson here? Mr. Speaker: You have to remember that these were the items brought up by Randy Oliver so I don’t -- Mr. Mayor: No, we’re trying to get a clarification on the number. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]. That’s a 33% increase [inaudible] your senior citizens, your disabled, [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: He had it number three, I’m looking at Randy’s list. Mr. Mayor: It says on here 10%. Mr. Beard: But he had it in a letter [inaudible] from that, and I see $150,000 in here and I’m asking if you have increased that a dollar. Mr. Speaker: That’s the recommendation. 72 Mr. Mayor: Lee, I think the gross number on here, $150,000 is correct, but it’s the 10% reference over here on the left that is incorrect. Mr. Beard: He had here, in his letter he’s stating that -- I don’t know how you get the [inaudible], and he said that this would generate approximately $150,000, and I don’t quite understand all that. That’s why I’m asking for some clarification. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the understanding is clear. He put the numbers in there, hoping you’d never deal with percentages. Went from that looking from one to another one, that’s why you’ve got numbers generated at $600,000 but it didn’t say some folks’ license would go up 100% in some areas. Some in 50%. If you take $150,000 in Transit, you basically may be thinking off your head that you’re going up a dime. Well, you’re not going up a dime, you’re going up a quarter, and you’re going up 33% in addition to what you’re paying. 75 cent is what you’re [inaudible], if you take another quarter and put onto that, that’s 33-1/3 from where you are. [inaudible], Lee, cause what he puts in writing wasn’t always what he needed. I ain’t holding back. I’m going to tell you what I have always told him in private. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from Commissioner Cheek, Commissioner Williams, and Commissioner Bridges. Mr. Cheek: Al, what I think I’m hearing here is some of the critical skill positions, we’ve identified the assistant county engineer, reorganizing Finance, none of those positions are funded in this freeze, they’re completed factored out until we come up with money to pay for them, right? Mr. Slavens: They are in the organization, each of the organizations. They are in there. The freeze [inaudible] you cannot fill those. Until you make a permanent reduction [inaudible]. [inaudible] the vacancies are in our organization or in our [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to [inaudible] Mr. Oliver’s letter about employees about making those cuts. I understand this is tight and I keep saying we all got to bite this bullet. I mean every department have to do that, their part. But I don’t think, I mean as long as we’re not going to pass or vote on something that’s going to come back to bite us later on, we’re talking about making cuts in departments, but some of those departments I know have got key people who bring in revenue and you know we probably in this shape now because we did not have sufficient amount of staff or the level of qualification in those [inaudible] keep from getting in this position. So I think employment is very, very important. I just don’t want to go ahead and approve something, like Commissioner Mays has said, just going to come back in the middle of the year and bite us that we passed and not know exactly what’s on the table, and I think every Commissioner in this whole body ought to be concerned enough to try to find out exactly what’s there and what’s not there. And I’m not in support of laying off anyone. I 73 think we got some people that work hard for this government. I think there are some cuts, that I think you did good job, Al, in trying to work this thing down, but this is tough year, and we’ve got this way because we have not done some gradual things that we should have done, and I think we need to look forward to doing some things that are going to help us get out of this situation rather than staying in this situation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Al, where is indigent care in this? Mr. Slavens: There is a line item [inaudible] less than [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: So that funding is still available to us? Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges: Jim, maybe I’m not asking the right person. How much of indigent care is it that we certify them as indigent care. Isn’t that like half a million dollars that we use every year to certify these people as being? I’m just asking this for information. Mr. Wall: I’m sorry, I don’t remember the number, but I don’t think -- I was thinking it was more in the neighborhood of $250,000. I may be wrong. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Wall: As far as -- Mr. Beard: That was for DFACS. Mr. Wall: Right. Mr. Beard: I mean because they do the certification. It’s nothing like a million dollars. Mr. Bridges: I was thinking it was less than half a million. I didn’t know how much it was. Okay. We’ve mentioned this before but I think some of the staff has asked regarding Enterprise funds. These freezes do not apply to the Enterprise funds like Utility Department, is that correct? I want that on that on the record. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] creating [inaudible], which is General, law enforcement. Mr. Bridges: What I’m saying is I want it on the record we’re not applying this to the bond issue that we’ve got out there in Utilities. I mean because we’ve got to hire people for, you know, to meet the deadlines in that regard. I just want that information out there and on the record. That we’re not putting those hiring freezes into the Enterprise funds. 74 Mr. Slavens: That funds identified are the only ones we [inaudible] freeze. Mr. Mayor: Al, I’d like to take a couple of moment here and thank you for the work you and the people in the Finance Department have done. My observation, having been through the second budget here of my short career in this office is that we’ve taken an entirely different approach to budgeting this year as we did last year, and I appreciate the emphasis being on cutting, trimming the size of this government. For five years now, people have been waiting to see the benefits of consolidation. Quite the contrary, the cost of the government has gone up and the fees and charges have continued to rise over the five years, and we just wonder what is the benefit to this community of having a consolidated government. It really troubles me that we continue to look at fee increases to balance this budget again for next year. If the cable franchise fee is increased from 3% to 5%, it will be the highest cable franchise in metropolitan Augusta. Everybody else is 3%. I don’t think that we need to penalize people by increasing that fee. Likewise, increasing the business fees and the fees on the liquor licenses, here we go back and we try to balance the budget by penalizing businesses in this community. I’d like to see this budget committee that we have appointed take a look at these revenue sources. Let’s set some appropriate levels and let’s index them so that they go up as our cost of business goes up and we don’t have to come back and re-authorize fees every five and ten years with significant increases. What troubles me about raising fees now is that starting in April, we’re going to be increasing water charges to our customers by 11%. That’s a pretty big hit. And if you want to couple that with business increases, cable increases, and other increases, it’s getting pretty darn expensive to live in this community. I think one thing we ought to do next year is really take a serious look at collecting the debts that are owed this government. The back taxes. The water bills. The clean up, the demolition charges. All these things that people owe us. We need to collect the money and put it to work for the citizens. Let’s look at the property we own. Let’s sell it. We need to put it back on the tax books so it can generate revenue. I think we’re off to a good start for budgeting next year, but I’m really troubled that we need to go back to the business community, go back to the television viewers, go back to the people in this community for additional money to balance the budget, when we have some tools at our fingertips now with a reduction in force and some other ways that we can bring the expenses of this government down. Because what I keep hearing as we meet and talk about this in work sessions is that this time next year, we’re going to be back in a similar situation, that it’s not getting better next year. And if we don’t get smaller, if we don’t get a grip on our expenses, if we don’t reduce the size of this government, the chickens are coming home to roost next year. There’s no doubt about it, and it’s going to be a lot more painful than it is right now. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to echo what you said, and I want to add a little to that. I think we need to do all those things, but I think we are kind of missing the boat here a little bit. As Commissioners, we’ve been accused and abused and everything else, but we’re not doing our job. I mean we’re not holding people accountable. We talk about collecting fees and selling properties and all that, you know, and all that’s good, but if we don’t hold those people in those positions accountable for 75 doing those things, that’s why we’re in the position we’re in now. We sit here and act like there’s nothing wrong, act like nobody knows what the problem is and how did we get this way. I don’t think none of us run our household like that. I mean I don’t know about our businesses, but we certainly don’t run our household like that. And until you hold people accountable for that position or keeping up with the money, knowing where sources are, or what we need to do, we meet and meet and meet, but we don’t change anything. But I just want to echo what you said. You’re 100% correct in my eyes that we need to sell those properties, we need to do those things, we got demolition, we got folks that leave property sitting up, we have to go in there and clean them, we can’t funds for them. Those are the things that our Attorney needs to be checking on with our Legislators or whatever the law got to be to be done. I mean I’m sure he’s got a bunch of things to do. But those are the type things we ought to be accountable for the money that comes in to this government and know where it is. Here it is at the end of this year, we fighting and fussing and going on about the money, but I don’t wait for any of you to watch my little money, I watch it every week, and we ought to be trying to watch this every month, if nothing else. But we sit here and act like, well, you know, and really it’s the taxpayers’ money and we are accountable for that. We need to be holding people accountable. I mean it’s going to be micromanaging but somebody got to do something. If you ain’t doing nothing, the ship going sink. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I think we’ve pretty much convinced a lot of people that that’s called total quality, not micromanagement. One thing, Mr. Mayor, I think we don’t want to overlook in this coming year is that we take this message back to our work force. We brief them on the situation this government is in and not allow that to be done second hand through any media. We take that message to them. And we don’t rely just on our department heads to look for cost savings. We encourage all of our employees in the trenches to come back with things that they find in the field that could save money, just like the Japanese have done in their successful auto industry, we need to incorporate every effort we can to do things right the first time, to get people involved in cost savings. We need to reduce our injuries. This Risk Management budget -- we need to have a safety program that is going to cut down on the total number of injuries and the costs we’re paying out. We can start saving money by reducing energy costs in these buildings, and that needs to start January 1 if not sooner. And I hope that with out budget, that message will go out to our employees. We are a team. We need to solve this together. We’ll either all hang together or hang separately, but I would rather be with the team. And that’s the message we need to send out to all of our employees. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, let’s get the program on the road. I move that we adopt Plan B. Mr. Bridges: Second. 76 Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion and a second to adopt Plan B. Discussion on the motion? All right. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I said at the outset that I thought we would be coming around even next week to Plan B. If you start taking things out like the fee increases -- that’s $674,000 -- if you take out the pension money, that’s $700,000. That’s $1.3 million you’ve got to come up with in additional cuts, and I think that the professionals think we can’t stand that in additional cuts in this type of transition period. You’ve got to adopt this budget by the end of this year, and I think it’s fine to talk about philosophy, that we cut here, that we sell property. We don’t have time to sell property in this time frame. We’ve got to come up with a practical budget that cuts where we can cut, that raises minimally where we have to, that leaves ad valorem taxes alone, and that doesn’t take away a lot of money from the fund balance. The professional, Mr. Slavens, is recommending that we only go into fund balance $1.7, we lived out of fund balance earlier this year, and I think that we can talk all these various philosophies, but I think Plan B is the best and I hope the maker of the motion would include that that includes the stated reductions that are on this eight-page attachment that shows everybody is a target that they have to go to. They would also require the departments to report back during the year, Mr. Jerry Brigham, on the oversight and that the capital budget also be passed in the amount shown here on this sheet of $3.6 million, that there be a hiring freeze and that the Bi-Tech system be mandated as the standard accounting system throughout this government. If you’re going to accept the funding from this government, you’re going to have to use the Bi-Tech system in order to compile the audit report. It’s not the best alternative -- I mean it is the best alternative. It’s not a perfect alternative but it’s what we can do now to move this motion forward, so I would support Plan B. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you had quite a few stipulations in there. How about if the Chair accepts what you stated as a substitute motion? Mr. Shepard: I’d be happy to make that. Mr. Mayor: Would there be a second to that? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second to that. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to -- I do think that Al and the staff have done a very good job in putting all of this together. But you know, this is just hard to digest in 20 minutes. And I’m sure you know everything in here is good, but you know to sit here and say we’re going to do this tonight is kind of ridiculous because I personally would like to know a little more about what’s in here and I haven’t had the chance to look in here. I only see the figures here. And I’m sure we probably will adopt this, but I don’t see it being done and maybe it will be done tonight, because six votes will do anything up here. But I think I need to, and I’m speaking for myself, I need to 77 digest this a little bit more, and you know I’m very sorry we didn’t look at the vacancies, because I think in not filling those and going to reduction in force, that I know we’re going to have to -- I know we say we’re going to do it, but I think we’re going to have to do that. If we’re going to look to these departments, because some of them can’t come up with the 3.5% we ask them to, so we have to go to reduction in force. And to me, and if we had -- and I’m not talking about a freeze, though we will probably have to go that route, if we had utilized the vacancies concept and not filling any vacancies, that $1.5 million or $1.6 million there that we could have utilized. I mean things like that, you know, but we didn’t get that at that particular time. So I just don’t see, speaking for myself, I just don’t see adopting this. And I know we need to do it, but I think we need to come back one more time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I, too, am not prepared to vote on this at this time. I’m very concerned about fee increases on these businesses. We, as far as I know, did not incorporate any figure into this or conservative values that would show businesses lost as a matter of having these fees increased. People that choose not to do business in the city of Augusta any more because the price has become too high. I would like, too, I am very proud of the efforts the Finance Department and Mr. Slavens have made. They have done a tremendous job, but we need to continue to dig and I would like some to digest this as well. I would like some more details on the path forward, the mechanism for reduction of force and so forth before we commit to those efforts. It’s got to be done. We need to reorganize this government in ways that will improve efficiency and eliminate redundancy, but tonight I’m just not prepared to vote on this. I think we need to digest it and come back and look at it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if we don’t adopt Plan B, then when we go to Plan A, right today we’re spending $4 million of our surplus. That’s more -- almost 25%. Am I close, Lon? Mr. Morrey: 20. Mr. J. Brigham: 20%. Okay, we’re spending a fifth. One out of five dollars that we have managed to save over more than a decade. I do not think that is appropriate. I don’t like tax increases. I’ve never like tax increases. I don’t like fee increases. But I also understand you’ve got to live out of your current year’s income. This is not looking at 19 -- this is not looking at 2000, but we’re looking at 2001. We’re looking at where we’re going, not where we are. We need to figure out -- this is a blueprint of the road we’re going to travel financially. And we are either going to go in reserves and spend out of our savings and not have anything for the future for any kind of emergencies. This is ridiculous. We’ve got to look at doing these things. It’s not what I want. We’ve got $3 million in here. I don’t care how we’re going to do it, it’s not going to be easy to save $3 million out of expenses without having cuts. Hard cuts. This is where we are going to 78 review the reduction in forces. This is where we’re going to review the freeze that’s going to thaw. This is where it’s got to be made. This is not a good budget for this Commission. This is going to be a very hard budget. It’s something we’re going to have a tough time living with. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say that I’m not saying that we’re not going to adopt Plan B, Jerry, I mean in my eyes, but I think that we should -- I’m not ready to vote on this tonight. What you’re saying, Jerry, is very true. Those hard things is hard but we should have done them earlier. I just still thing we ought to come back and vote on this while we have time to look these things over. It’s a blueprint we’re looking at but we hadn’t went all the way through it yet, and we need to make sure that we ain’t going to vote on something that’s going to come back to bite us. It’s probably the best thing we going to get. I take my hat off to Mr. Slavens again. I think he did a fine job. But I still thing that I need some time to look it over again before I just go ahead and vote. I’m not ready for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I only have one vote. When I left here the other evening, and I just express very quickly I came prepared tonight and I said it then and said at the meeting before, that we need to get to the fees, up or down. And I am prepared to vote for the fees. Up or down. But I think the rest of Plan B, and I think I can support a modified version of Plan B after some mental digestion of Plan B. I agree with what everybody says, with our financial people, and they have put in tremendous overtime numbers of trying to figure out how ten of us are going to think, and God bless them for trying to figure that out. But at the same time, just as from what has changed in the last 24 hours, with numbers as they’ve had, I think they did an excellent job of trying to crunch out and get stuff ready for us today, but we have been used to a point, and this is a different time, I agree to that, but you know, I for one would have like to have had the opportunity on some of these things to come [inaudible] and say all right we’re going to go through some of these in a line item fashion, and we’re going to vote them up or down. If they stay on the radar screen and they are there, then we commit those amounts that we don’t need back into contingency over into capital to here we know we know we don’t have enough money in there to do those things we want. But you know, I’m not prepared on a quick draw measure, past what I said I was going to vote the other night, and if it passes, then you know we all going to live happily ever after, we got to deal with whatever numbers that are out there and make it work. But I think there are some uncertainties there. I think even to the point where you ask departments maybe that have met certain goals to a point where they have them in and yet there is unclear as to what they still may be asked to do in this bare bones of it, and we don’t know what the service impact is going to be in there. I think there needs to be some digestion time in there. I think we need to go on and deal with the fees so that our folk can get those numbers out, those businesses that are waiting to see whether it’s going to be the same or if there is going to be some increase in it, deal with that, take the rest of this stuff home, come back 79 here and deal with a one item deal, whether it’s line item or not, that’s just only one person’s wish, and deal with that and vote on it at that time. But I think to hit in here today, get this stuff ready where it’s [inaudible] out and do that, is not the way that we need to make the final decision on $90+ million. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? Go ahead and call the question on Mr. Shepard’s substitute motion, which incorporates Plan B and the capital budget and the list, is that correct, with the targeted cuts? Mr. Shepard: And the hiring freeze. Mr. Mayor: And the hiring freeze. Okay. Mr. Shepard: And the Bi-Tech. Mr. Mayor: And the Bi-Tech. All in favor, then, 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: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I know the first budget meeting, the suggestion was made about these freezes and a comment came back that we wouldn’t save any money. Now we’re at the point where these freezes are going to save some money. This budget process has been a constant evolution of figures and strategies. Again, I still think that we’re probably 48 hours away from making a decision on this, and I hope that we could go back and continue to look at it to find some other savings. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. We have the original motion still on the floor, which is to adopt Plan B without all the amendments that Mr. Shepard enumerated. Let’s go ahead and dispose of that to get it off the floor. All those in favor of the original motion, that is adopting Plan B as it is here, vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion fails 2-7-1. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest we deal with the fees? 80 Mr. Mayor: That’s where I’m headed next, Mr. Brigham. We have Items 58, 59, 60 and 61 that are on the agenda. The first item is to increase the franchise fees for cable companies, the second is to increase the business tax, the third is to increase the regulatory fees for the alcoholic beverages, 60 is for certain business, and 61 is for alcoholic beverages, and in each case to waive the second reading. Do we have a motion to adopt any or all of these? Do you want to take them up together or separately? Mr. Mays: Is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: No, sir, there’s nothing on the floor, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mayor: May I make a motion that we vote on these individually? Mr. Mayor: We’ll vote on these individually. Let’s just take them up. We won’t worry about a motion and a second and we’ll just put them on the floor. 58. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing franchise fees for cable companies nd and to waive 2 reading. Mr. Mayor: All those in favor of Item 58 -- Mr. Wall: Well -- Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Wall: Let me suggest on Item 58, because I don’t have an ordinance prepared because I guess what I would like for you to do is to vote in concept to increase from 3% to 5% and let me bring the actual ordinances back so that you know which companies it applies to. And so even though I put it on the agenda in this fashion -- Mr. Mayor: Is that the case with each of these? Mr. Wall: No. No. Mr. Mayor: You do have the others? Mr. Wall: I have the others. Mr. Mayor: All right. So this would be a 2% increase in the franchise fees for cable companies/ Mr. Wall: And I bring that back with the specific companies. 81 Mr. Mayor: All right. And then would you not need to waive the second reading today? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. So all in favor of -- trying to move the meeting along here. All in favor of doing that, vote aye. Mr. Beard: That’s moving it to 5%, right? Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Wall: Going to 5%. Mr. Mayor: Move to 5%. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. J. Brigham: Is this waiving the second reading, too? Mr. Mayor: No. The actual ordinance will come back. Mr. J. Brigham: We’re just telling you how to draft the ordinance? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, did I understand or did I misunderstand, does that mean every cable company in this city will be paying the same fee increase? Or will there be some cable companies paying --- Mr. Mayor: No, they’re all the same. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All pay 3% now and they’ll pay 5%. Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: And then the next item would Item 59. 58. Motion to approve ordinance increasing business tax license fees and to nd waive 2 reading. Mr. Mayor: And you say you have this one written? And this was the one to increase the business tax. 82 Mr. Wall: I have this one written. It was in the agenda. This is a 10% increase in the business tax. Mr. Mayor: And this would waive the second reading? Mr. Wall: This would waive the second reading. Mr. Mayor: So these bills can go in the mail. Is that right, Mr. Hornsby, get the bills out? Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of increasing the business license fee then by 10% vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Wall: The next one is to increase the regulatory for certain businesses. 60. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing regulatory fees for certain nd businesses and to waive 2 Reading. Mr. Wall: The increases here that you need to be specifically aware of is adult entertainment establishment goes from $500 per year to $2500 per year. That was the recommendation. The other [inaudible] dance hall goes from $50 to $100 [inaudible]. These two changes here would be adult entertainment establishments go from $500 per year to $2500 per year. And the dance hall goes from $50 per year to $100 per year. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Mayor: All right. And you waive the second reading on that so these bills can go out? All in favor of that -- Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Beard: Wait a minute. What is the percentage? You’re going from $500 to $2500. Mr. Wall: It’s only two businesses, two licenses that are affected. More than that businesses. Your adult entertainment establishments go from $500 to $2500, so that’s five-fold increase. 83 Mr. Mayor: 500% increase. Mr. Wall: 500% increase on those licenses. And then the other one is the dance hall licenses go from $50 to $100. Now these are regulatory fees, and that would go, that’s a 100% increase. Mr. Mayor: You want to make a substitute motion? Mr. Beard: No. Mr. Mayor: The motion is on the floor and we’ll call the question -- Mr. Colclough: No, no. Mr. Mayor: You have some discussion down here? Mr. Colclough, I’m sorry. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] going from $500 to $2500? Mr. Wall: That was the recommendation. Mr. Williams: Whose recommendation, Jim? Mr. Wall: What? Mr. Williams: You say recommendation. Whose recommendation? Mr. Wall: That was part of the recommended, recommendation from the previous Administrator. We have to justify -- the regulatory fee cannot be revenue producing. You’ve got to demonstrate that the cost of regulation approximates that. Rob and I have had some discussion concerning the $2500. But you’ve got to understand that there is an increased presence of law enforcement and other things insofar as that, and I think that you know we may be pushed a little bit, but hopefully we can justify that. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Any more questions? All in favor -- Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote cause they need the money, but I hope we’re not including in the support in that that you’re [inaudible] from law enforcement because the times when we’ve had the question as to whether or not the businesses that had any more of a presence of law enforcement than your main stream clubs, it’s been proven that the activity there has been far less in terms of calls. That you have more in terms of where you may have a teenage club or where you have just a regular main stream activity. It’s there and I think the Sheriff and those log books can prove that. So I mean I wouldn’t base that on the support now of getting into that claim that we’re doing it on a safety basis. We need to do it based on the fact we need some 84 money and they can pay it. But if you’re going base it on safety, you may be hitting in a wrong, gray area there. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, I understand and I respect you, but I’d rather you vote on it based upon safety because that’s the only way it’s legal. If it’s for the purpose of raising revenue, it’s illegal. So if you disagree that this money is needed for the purpose of regulating, then I’d urge you to vote against it because that’s the only way we can justify this. Mr. Mays: I’d hate for the log books to be subpoenaed. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and -- Mr. Mays: And road block the other night clubs where they have traffic tie ups and they have to divert folks from going there and you don’t have to divert them from going there. Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to call the question on the motion. All in favor of the motion raising those fees, vote aye. Mr. Colclough votes No. Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion carries 7-1-2. Mr. Mayor: Now, that included waiving second reading, but did you need unanimous consent to waive that second reading? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: All right. So it will have to come back for a second reading? Is that correct? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: Since it’s already passed, I’d like to -- I make a motion to waive the second reading. Even though I may not have voted but trying to move it along. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to waive the second reading. 85 Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor, vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Now the next item, Mr. Wall, is number 61, which is the alcohol license fees and to waive the second reading again. 61. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing alcohol license fees and to waive nd 2 reading. Mr. Mayor: And I’ve got a menu here. I’ve got four versions. Mr. Bridges: Then you take over the Chair. Mr. Wall: Well, I’ve got a 10% increase and I’ve got a 15% increase and if I understand it correctly, Rob, the $164,000 is based upon a 15% increase. Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: That’s [inaudible]. So that you will know, the consumption on- premises beer would go from $500 to $575. Retail beer from $500 to $575. Consumption on-premises wine same thing, $500 to $575. Retail wine, same. Consumption on-premises liquor would go from $2500 to $2875. Same for retail liquor, up to $2875. There was no increase proposed insofar as the brewer, the malt beverage brewer or the brew-pub operator. Those would remain at $500 according to information. The wholesale liquor would remain at $5000 because the State statute limits you to that amount. Wholesale beer would go from $500 to $575. Wholesale wine would go from $100 to $115. There was no recommended increase in Sunday sales and it would remain at $1000. And then on the single event license, it would go from $25 to $50. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Why didn’t we go up on the Sunday sales amount? Mr. Wall: I defer to Rob on that. 86 Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] the fee right now is $1000 so that’s $100,000 [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, do you want to amend the motion? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m uncomfortable with going up on any of these fees, but it seems to me they’re have the benefit of being kind of a monopoly on Sunday for sales and not paying any additional increase, as we’re asking other folks to do. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m a little uncomfortable with the 15%. I think 10% is more [inaudible]. You have a lot of small retail package stores that [inaudible]. I [inaudible] can’t pay all whole lot, and I’m going to make a substitute motion that we do it at 10% increase in liquor licenses. Mr. Cheek: I second it. Mr. Williams: I second it, if the maker of the motion could include something for me. And that motion would be all sales, Sunday sales as well, at 10%. Mr. Beard: Jim, how would that fit in to this? Mr. Wall: Strike through this and put $1100. Mr. Beard: All right. Mr. Wall: That would be a 10% increase. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending that motion to including that? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, I have objection. Mr. Mayor: All right. Then we -- Mr. J. Brigham: I’d like to explain why I have an objection. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Chairman, I believe most of our Sunday sales [inaudible], are they not? The majority of our Sunday sales [inaudible]? I know [inaudible] already increasing their license on the beer side of it, which when we [inaudible] license to sell a normal day [inaudible] sell on Sunday. 87 Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Sunday sales license [inaudible] only license they have. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, do you want to address the amendment? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, if I could, Mr. Mayor. What would be the effect of making the 10% increase applicable to Sunday sales and not making the 15% rate applicable? Is it about the same amount of revenue or slightly less or do we even have a guess, Rob? Mr. Sherman: It would be slightly less. [inaudible]. Probably about $30,000 less [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Wall: I need to read these figures in so everybody knows what we’re talking about. Mr. Mayor: You going to read them all in so we don’t need to amend it? Mr. Wall: No, because -- Mr. Mayor: That what you’re going to do? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] across the board. Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s what they were saying. The amendment is to take Mr. Beard’s 10% motion and have it apply across the board to all those fees. Mr. Wall: But it can’t apply to all of them and that’s the point I want to make. Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, why don’t you do that and let’s see how we need to deal with it? Mr. Wall: The consumption on-premises beer would go to $550. That’s 10% above the $500. Retail beer, same thing. $550. Consumption on-premises wine, $550. Retail wine, $550. Consumption on-premises liquor, $2,750. Retail liquor, $2,750. The brewery license, there has been no recommendation to increase that. Mr. Mayor: There just was. They just said across the board, Jim, so that’s what we’re -- 88 Mr. Wall: $550. The brew-pub operation would go to $550. The wholesale liquor is maxed out at the State. We cannot increase it, so that would remain at $5,000. Retail beer, $550. Wholesale wine, $110. Sunday sales would go to $1,100. And this would also increase the single-event from $25 to $50, which is a 100% increase. That’s the way it’s worded now. Mr. Mayor: You wanted a 10%, Mr. Beard, or a 100% on that last item? Mr. Wall: That’s a regulatory fee. That needs to be increased to $50. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard: That sounds reasonable. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, do you accept all those numbers in your motion, and then we don’t need to worry about [inaudible]? We got there, okay. Any further discussion on the motion to increase these 10%? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I want to point out, and it’s fine with me, but we got to find $30,000 to cut somewhere. Just need to know that. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll call the question on the substitute motion, which is to increase the fees by 10%. All in favor, vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Wall: I wonder if Mr. Bridges would consent to a motion to waive the second reading. Mr. Mayor: Well, there’s another. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: So the motion passes unanimously to waive the second reading. You do want to formalize it? Okay, I need a motion and a second to waive the second reading. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. 89 Mr. Mayor: All in favor, vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Now gentlemen, we need set -- we’re going to recess this meeting but we need to set a date and time certain to come back here and continue this meeting to again work on the budget. Mr. Kuhlke: Why don’t we [inaudible] new year’s eve? Let’s do it new year’s eve [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: You want to wait a couple of days or what? Andy? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got two previous engagements. I’ve got a public meeting tomorrow on trash collection in my District, for half my District, and I have another meeting on Thursday. Mr. Kuhlke: What are you going to be doing Thursday? Mr. Cheek: I’m going to be on the radio and you’ve invited to come answer questions from anybody in the public. Mr. Kuhlke: What show? Mr. Cheek: I’ll be on Austin Rhodes’ show, hosting the show. Mr. Beard: This is the new Austin Rhodes. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I represent Mr. Jerry Brigham, and whatever date we set, he’ll be th leaving on the 28 of December and I’d like to have him present here on whatever we do prior to December 28 so as his attorney for the evening, I want to make sure that whatever date we set that it’s prior to December 28. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I brought my calendar for once. How about -- let me suggest noon Thursday? High noon. Not quite 48 hours. Mr. Mayor: Thursday at 12 noon? 90 st Mr. Shepard: 21. Mr. Mayor: That gives you something to talk about on the radio, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, just one thing. I encourage all Commissioners to get on the radio and answer the public’s questions whenever they -- Mr. Beard: You can still make your show. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you have something to say? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to propose as an alternative that there’s a problem getting together for this Thursday deal, that you set another date in there for th the 27 to deal with it. That’s just an alternative date to throw out. What I’m saying is you are talking about Tuesday night and you’re talking about Thursday, you’re talking about a day. Now I don’t absorb as fast as some of these brainy fellows. I’m a little old now, and there are some questions I’d like to ask of some folks, there’s some folks I’d like to meet with about that $700,000 and quite frankly, I don’t know whether I can do that in a day. Mr. Shepard: Everybody is talking about 48 hours, Lee. Mr. Beard: Oh. Mr. Mays: But I’ll be here whatever day y’all set it. Mr. Mayor: Friday? Need another day? Want to do it Friday? Mr. Kuhlke: Let’s do it Friday. Mr. Mayor: Friday at noon? Mr. Mays: I mean if we’re driving this thing for a Christmas date -- Mr. Cheek: High noon, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: -- rather than an absorption date of what we’re dealing with with $90 million I think that’s a mistake. Everybody understands it except my dumb butt, then that’s fine. But if y’all understand where y’all got all this $90 million and you’re going to do that in the next 36 hours, then that’s all well and good with Willie. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Hornsby: We’ve got a meeting next week. Why not have a joint Commission meeting [inaudible]. Give the staff time to get all this stuff today. 91 Mr. Mayor: What meeting do we have next Wednesday? Clerk: Committee meetings. Mr. Mayor: Oh, my God. The Committee meetings won’t start till 4 or 5 o’clock. Okay. Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: You want to try it at noon next Wednesday? Mr. Cheek: That’s fine. Mr. Shepard: That’s fine, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: 11 o’clock? How much time do you think you need before the Committee meetings start? Mr. Beard: Well, the Committee meetings should be very short. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I may not be here Wednesday. Can we do it -- I mean Willie suggested this Friday. Maybe it wasn’t Willie, maybe somebody else suggested this Friday or possibly Saturday. Can we shoot for a weekend date. Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] this is Christmas weekend. Mr. Bridges: All right. Mr. Shepard: I think the staff -- Mr. Bridges: I think what it comes down to is some of us ain’t going to be here regardless of when we do it. I mean it’s just a matter of when we -- Mr. Mayor: Let me try this. Let’s go back to this Friday at 12 noon. Is there someone who cannot be here Friday at 12 noon? Mr. Colclough: Some of us have got a job. Some of us go to work. Mr. Mayor: I understand. I understand that, Richard. Mr. Mays: [inaudible]. 92 Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that. We will reconvene the meeting at noon on Friday. If people, if the -- Mr. Beard: Let’s don’t do that. Friday is going to be a -- Mr. Mayor: We’re running out of time and -- Mr. Beard: When do we have to have it? Mr. Mayor: We just had some people say they couldn’t be here Wednesday at noon. Mr. Beard: Why can’t we do it after Christmas? Mr. Mayor: That’s Wednesday of next week. They can’t be here Wednesday of next week at noon. Mr. Kuhlke: What about Tuesday of next week? Mr. Speaker: It’s a holiday. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could you do it Wednesday after the Committee meetings? Mr. Mayor: We can do it Wednesday after the committee meetings. Mr. Bridges: I can handle that. Mr. Mayor: You can handle that? Mr. Bridges: I can handle that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s just say 4:30. All right. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Slavens wanted to speak. Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay. Mr. Slavens? Mr. Slavens: So I can have a little bit of direction about where the staff and I go with this, [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: No, we’re going to meet a week from tomorrow at 4:30. Mr. Slavens: And at that meeting, we will have the same budget with the increase in there, is that correct? 93 Mr. Mayor: You have -- Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: You have all but one fee increase in there because one needs a second reading and if the coalition doesn’t stay together -- the franchise fee. I guess assume you have them. But that needs a second reading. But you do have -- now you don’t have, you don’t Animal Control, you don’t have Transit, because we didn’t take those up today. Those will be taken up, I assume, as part of the budget that you bring back on Wednesday of next week. Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] gets into what we take up as a budget, will we be able to vote up or down on what’s being taken in as [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we can vote on specific pieces. It was not on the agenda today to vote on those fees. Not all fees were on here. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I just wanted to know [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, I’ll give you the opportunity to vote any increases up or down individually. Okay, any other discussion? All right, this meeting is in recess th until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the 27. **** The Augusta Richmond County Commission reconvened at 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 27, 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 were Mr. Wall, Attorney; Mr. Hornsby, Interim Administrator; and Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: The reconvening of our meeting December 19, we had concluded the discussion, at least at that time, of Item 57, consideration of the adoption of the 2001 Augusta Richmond Permanent budget. We’ll revisit that item in just a moment. The Chair would like to Item 58, which is a motion to approve the Ordinance increasing franchise fees for cable companies and to waive the second reading. 94 58. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing franchise fees for cable nd companies and to waive 2 reading. Mr. Mayor: You’ll recall in the first part of this meeting on the19th this was approved on a first reading and the second reading was not waived because I think Mr. Wall did not have a copy of the ordinance in front of him and what we’d like to do is revisit that today and go ahead and get a motion to suspend the second, dispense with the second reading of this so we can move ahead with this item. Mr. Wall, did that make any sense what I said? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Wall: That’s what we need to do. There are four ordinances. Comcast is one, Knology Holdings it the second, KMC Southeast is the third one, and Adelphia Business Solutions is the fourth one. All of them [inaudible] franchise fee from 3% to 5%. Mr. Mayor: And we have approved this first reading. We need a motion now to dispense with the second reading so we can go ahead. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, again I’ll say these fee increases, albeit somewhat necessary with the pressure that we’re under, we have got to create an environment of being friendly to business, and raising these fees time after time is driving business away. Mr. Mayor: And the Chair would add for the most part these fees are passed on to the consumers in these cases, and in this case it’s a 66% increase in what the companies are paying us. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye. Mr. Wall: To waive the second reading takes unanimous consent, so you may want to take it as a separate motion. The motion that was made was just to waive the second reading. Mr. Mayor: To dispense with the second reading. 95 Mr. Wall: It does not indicate approval. That would be a separate motion and a separate vote. It does require unanimous consent to waive the second reading. Mr. Mayor: We don’t have unanimous consent to waive the second reading. Mr. Mays: I’ll change mine. Just to let people know, I’ll change it on the unanimous consent. Mr. Bridges: I’ll change mine, too. Mr. Mayor: So we now have unanimous consent to waive the second reading. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: So we need one more motion, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Yes. To approve. Mr. Mayor: To approve. Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board. Do we have a motion to approve? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Then vote aye if you’re in favor of approving these franchise fee increases. Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mayor: For the record, Mr. Wall, do those ordinances have an effective date? Mr. Wall: Effective January 1, 2001. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Wall: I would point out that even though that’s the effective date, the franchise provides for them to be affected 60 day after approval, that’s when the collections begin, so you’re going to have a 60-day delay. Mr. Mayor: All right. 96 Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I have a question. In raising these fees, Jim, what is -- what position are the alcohol licenses in right now as far as this weekend? Mr. Wall: Well, they -- the bills were mailed out the end of last week. They [inaudible] get them out. I guess don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I mean we’re going to give them a period of time to pay the license fee. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. We will return to Item 57, consider adoption of the 2001 Augusta Richmond County Permanent budget. 57. Consider adoption of 2001 Augusta Richmond County Permanent budget. Mr. Mayor: From the previous portion of this meeting, there was a motion on the floor from Commissioner Shepard and I would ask him to restate that motion to refresh our memories. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to make the same motion, Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, that I made last week, suggesting that we adopt Plan B that was presented to us and outlined on December 19, 2000, adopting a budget of $91,324,000. It is balanced. I suggest that we utilize the approach as indicated on Plan B as shown on that attachment, as shown in that document, rather, that was given us at our last session of this meeting, that it mandate the reductions as shown in that document across the board, that it utilize the resources shown in that document and that we have a report back from the constitutional officers and our department heads in the form of a report to an oversight committee that will monitor this budget as we implement it over the year, that the capital budget also be passed as shown on this capital outlay/general law enforcement fund sheet in the amount of $3.6 million, specifically $3,688,000, utilizing the resources shown to be available to us from the various sources shown on that document, also utilizing in the fashion for the leases and the acquisition of capital assets as shown on the document. Also, as part of the motion I move that we have a hiring freeze effective with the action of this body and that the Bi-Tech system be mandated for use throughout the government to standardize the accounting system, that it be required of every constitutional officer and department so that the consolidation of the audit financials can be handled in a more efficient and effective fashion. That’s the motion. 97 Mr. Mayor: Okay. We had a second for that, did we not, Madame Clerk? We didn’t have one at the last? Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke seconded it. Mr. Mayor: The motion is still on the floor. We haven’t voted on the motion, have we? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I have the results. We did vote on it and it was voted down. It was voted down. Mr. Mayor: Okay. And you renewed that motion today? Mr. Shepard: Right. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll need a second for today. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: So that motion is back on the floor. The Chair received a communication last week from the Sheriff who wished to address us today before we proceed any further with budget discussions. Sheriff Webster? Sheriff Webster: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioners. You know, I only got four days left, essentially a short-timer. Old people say that a man that’s going out of office, a short-timer, don’t have much pull, and his say-so don’t mean much, but I still would like to say a few things about the Sheriff’s Department [inaudible]. And what we have today is in the best shape we’ve ever been in. I know we’re always talking about the [inaudible] a few years ago. This was the first time we were able to give the people of Richmond County the protection they needed. We were able to cut the beats down to size where we could [inaudible] and give the public the protection they need. They need more, but this is the best protection we’ve ever been able to give them. I can recall up until we got the [inaudible] people, I used to have probably [inaudible] come to my office each week, complaining about the crime in their area. Some of you [inaudible] in crime areas, you know what I’m talking about, and you’re [inaudible] so you know what crime is. And there are people there, people on fixed income. Fixed income to where they can’t go anywhere else. They don’t have anyplace else to go. They have to stay there. And we’ve got them where they can sit on their porches late at night now. Some of you have never lived in a crime area, don’t know what it is, and I [inaudible]. I wish it [inaudible] all over the county. But at the present time we have 36 beats. Each beat patrols about 9-1/2 square miles. Some of them are 4 square miles, some of them are 15 to 20 square miles. Take Tobacco Road, south of Tobacco Road, you used to have three beats. It 98 has six now. [inaudible] to be able to give those people the protection they never had before [inaudible] out there, you know what I’m talking about. You don’t have near as many complaints. This has really been beneficial. I have been the Sheriff, I know you have a job to do and I know you’ve got to cut this budget. But the working people out there, let me tell you something, the taxpayers don’t [inaudible] if they’re getting the protection they need. I hope that y’all consider it and I hope you’ll give this man that succeeds me the opportunity to have the manpower to do the job. I’m not worried about his capability. I know he has got the capability of being one of the greatest sheriffs Richmond County has ever had, and I’m speaking because we were both elected. I was elected for almost 17 years to protect the people and the property of Richmond County to the best of my ability [inaudible]. And he’s got the same job in front of him. And I hope and I know we got to cut the budget, and I can see your point of view, and I’ve always [inaudible] and I’ve enjoyed working with you, but I hope that you will give it consideration that public safety is something that’s [inaudible] as far as this county is concerned, and I hope and pray that y’all won’t cut the protection of the people of Richmond County back, because this is affective a very important decision. I thank y’all for the cooperation. This is the last time I’ll be here. [inaudible] coming by and talking to you, but I appreciate [inaudible], thank you and God speed. And I turn it over to my successor now, Ronnie Strength. Mr. Mayor: All right. Sheriff-Elect Strength: I also want to thank you for the opportunity and I won’t near the time I took last time that I was up here, but I do appreciate the opportunity to just say a few things. I spoke to you folks probably two weeks ago at the meeting, and voiced of course my concerns about cutting law enforcement in the county. Well, my concerns are still the same. And we owe it to the citizens of this county to give them the best protection and the best service possible, and this definitely will not -- not cannot -- but will not be done if these services are cut. I told y’all in 1999 we answered 297,000 calls. That’s a call every 1.8 minutes. We did not have a number for this year. Right now we’re at 310,000 calls this year that we’ve answered out there. 18,000 overtime hours. We don’t pay our folks overtime. We give them comp time and we can’t even give them their comp time back with as much as we’ve had going on. Cut the budget, and that 18,000 hours is going to jump up to a federal legal level that we have to start paying overtime to our folks, and that will happen. No doubt in my mind. And cutting law enforcement is going to have a major negative impact on the citizens of this county. They expect good law enforcement and of course that’s our duty and job to give it to them. To give you a quick example, something we would not be able to do if the budget is cut, right up front, for instance in the last three weeks we had this guy breaking in houses, I think he broke in 5 or 6 houses on the Hill from Harrisburg to the Hill area. We had absolutely nothing, but we did narrow it down by what he was doing, that he did not have a motor vehicle, he had a bicycle or was walking. So we took 18 men around the clock, staked out the area, and of course we got him in jail. The only reason we were able to do that was we had the manpower that we could shift around. Cutting, 99 we would not have been able to do that, not that we wouldn’t have arrested him -- I don’t know -- but we would not have had that luxury. And everything is based on this so-called study that we had were 68 people were hired, and I don’t have the study. You fellows do have it. It said that we had 26 too many men on the road patrol. So we’re saying cut road patrol. I’ve heard nothing about the 23 men short it said that we were in the jail. So we’re talking a difference of 3 people here. And it did say 10 investigators and 2 out of our records bureau. So I think overall, if we went by that study, we were 9 people too many. If we go by this study, 3-1/2% recommended, the proposal, we’re talking a minimum of cutting 41 people. 41 officers out of the street. And of course that’s going to eliminate a minimum of 7 beats throughout this county. The Sheriff and I sat down, we’ve got two or three options here that we’re looking at. We’re going to work with you, do everything we can, we understand your problem, just like the Sheriff said, but these areas are going to have to cut immediately two south of Tobacco Road. Six beats to four beats. We will immediately eliminate the Weed & Seed. We’re talking six people. They will be taken out. Added to that, not in our budget of course, is 18 other people that came with this grant wherever and whomever is funding that. That, the whole Weed & Seed program at that point would be eliminated when we get out of it. But those are the areas that we’ll definitely have to cut. We’ll have to cut beats in the inner city without a doubt. And it’s the high crime areas. That’s where we’re heavy now and that’s where we would have to cut from if we eliminated that many folks. So I, too, would beg, plead or whatever it takes for the citizens of this county and not start cutting public safety. If we don’t have those officers out there, not only are we going to have problems with the budget, we’re going to have some major crime problems. And I can stand here today and predict it and come back in one year and show you the numbers. Please take that into consideration and again I do thank you for the few minutes today. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sheriff, for being with us today. And Sheriff Webster, we appreciate your comments. I particularly took note when you said the Sheriff’s department is in the best shape it’s ever been in. Quite frankly, the finances of this consolidated government are in the worse shape that they’ve been in since we consolidated. And even with the 3-1/2% cut that we’re talking about, we’re not doing much to significantly improve the financial situation going into 2002. The problems are just going to be compounded next year and we may even be back here looking for additional cuts or a property tax increase. That’s the nature of the money that we have here. But I really applaud you and appreciate your coming in here and standing up for your department and your people because y’all do indeed provide a valuable and necessary service to this community and I know they appreciate your being here today, too. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a couple of comments and maybe ask the new Sheriff a couple of questions. You know, when you talk about safety, there is always going to be an aspect of fear in people when you talk about cutting safety. And we wouldn’t be sitting here as Commissioners or even men of 100 this city to want to eliminate any Sheriff or any patrol person, whether it be in the jail or out of the jail. Like you said, and I think you mentioned this yourself, this is a hard decision, but the budget, the finance impact of this city relies a lot on the Sheriff’s Department because of the size of their budget. You said about cutting deputies out in the inner city, and that’s the high crime area. But if that is the high crime area, why would that be cut from those, particularly south Augusta or the inner city, if that’s where you know the problem is? Sheriff-Elect Strength: That’s very easy to answer, because that’s where we have a concentration of officers. I may have five in this area because of high crime, and one in that area. I can’t cut that one, so I’ve got to go where we are heavy, and we are heavy there for a reason -- high crime. Mr. Williams: Well, I asked the former Sheriff this question at the budget workshop the very first time and my District is probably the main District that’s got the high crime, the inner city and some south Augusta area, who has been neglected for a long, long time. We don’t have a good rapport with the Sheriff’s Department for a lot of reasons. But when we got two or three officers in two or three different cars, who I still find a problem with trailing each other around my District. I don’t know about any other but in my District, I can find two and three vehicles going in the same direction at the same time. The Sheriff told me, said when you see the officer on the highway or state patrol, you slow down when you see it, and said that is the same thing when you see that kind of participation. I can understand it if they going backwards and forth or all around the area. But when you got three officers, and when I see them that tells me that evidently we got either too many cars or too many polices, one of the two. Sheriff-Elect Strength: There’s a simple answer to that, too. Very simple. And you’re going to see that many times when I [inaudible] you. They’re the only that can do that. If you call me and say look, I’m having a problem in such-and-such area, I may call that supervising and say put a five-man squad of there [inaudible]. They are all going to go in there together and then they’re going to get out and go to different areas. Beat cars definitely can’t do that because they don’t have [inaudible]. We’ve got 36 beats in this county. There’s one patrol unit in each beats. The suppression unit, that’s a unit that we used in high crime areas that we can send anywhere in this county and they don’t have to stop what they’re doing and answer a call. They can stay right in there till that problem is taken care of and eliminated, whereas that beat car that goes [inaudible], he can’t do that, because the minute he gets in your area, [inaudible] and he’s got to leave again, and that suppression unit goes in like that. They’re trained to go in like that and that’s why you see -- you may see 3 or 4 of them. They may send a 10-men team in there, and until they get there to do what they’re going to do, they are going to be behind each other. 101 Mr. Williams: So what I’m understanding is that if you got a 5- or 10-man suppression team, and that’s going to be 5 or 10 automobiles and 5 or 10 cars on the same street, right directly behind each other? Sheriff-Elect Strength: Getting there. Now I don’t --- Mr. Williams: No, no, no, I think you misunderstand me. And I’m not going to get into it, what I’m trying to say, we are here [inaudible] you said you want to work with us? Sheriff-Elect Strength: Absolutely. Mr. Williams: Okay, and we’re not here, I’m not here to cut anything. The Mayor just told you, if we don’t do something, get some revenue from something, we’re going to have to raise taxes. Nobody want to raise taxes. It’s like putting money in a hole. They don’t know where it’s going. But we’re here to make some harsh decisions, some cuts, and it has [inaudible] that 3% and whatever the problem, whatever area that you possibly can. You got officers that work off duty with the Sheriff’s cars, you’ve got officers that drive personal cars, we need to cut, you need to find whatever way that you know how to do that, cause I don’t, to maybe to save those men that’s on the beat, that’s on the street, but all of us going to have to bite this bullet. I mean, it’s not fair for the rest of this county to suffer and let the enforcement side say, well, okay, it’s law enforcement. What about our fire department? When you talk about those type of jobs, those type of protection, you going to always be able to panic the people, panic the people meaning well folk can always say, well, we ain’t got nobody so y’all going to go lacking. We do not have the money. We just don’t have the money. And we need to find some way of cutting 3%, not just your department, but in every department of this government. Sheriff-Elect Strength: Mr. Williams, I understand everything you said. You folks handle the money. Not me. You tell me y’all have this. Whatever y’all give me, I have to accept that. I was just making a point what we can anticipate and I know it’s going to happen. If you say this is all you get, I’m going to accept that and I’m going to do the best job with what you give me that I can do. But we cannot give what we’ve been giving. And that’s common sense. [inaudible] would know that now. But I just needed to make that point that definitely I am personally against it. I’m a taxpayer, too, just like everybody in this room, and I just have a problem with cutting public safety. Fire department, too. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I just have one question, Chief. I’m sorry, Sheriff. I notice you said [inaudible] if you cut 3-1/2% it would really hurt, and I’m sure any would really hurt at this time, but could you give us any idea of what you could possibly cut and not really affect service? 102 Sheriff-Elect Strength: I would have to sit down -- I couldn’t give you an answer now because we went to work -- when y’all told us 3-1/2%, that’s when we went to work looking at, to do the best we could. I do not have any numbers here. Be more than happy to sit down, come up with something, get with you again, one to one, as a group. I [inaudible] but I’d be more than happy to do that, but I couldn’t give you that right now because I did not even anticipate anything like that. We look at [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: How about Sheriff Webster? You told me in your letter here that there are several option you’d like to present to the Commissioners for our consideration today. Did you have some specific cuts in mind, Sheriff, when you said that? Sheriff Webster: The three that I’m talking about [inaudible] to the 3.5%. Mr. Mayor: Okay. And what are those three options? Sheriff Webster: Cutting [inaudible]. Another one we’d like to present would be through attrition. [inaudible] if you make them all at one time [inaudible]. [inaudible] you come up with 3.5%. If you take 3.5% out of the Sheriff’s Department at one time, it will be [inaudible]. The [inaudible]. [inaudible] to protect people and the property of Richmond County, and that’s what we have to [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, Commission, I guess my comments are a little different from my fellow Commissioners. I picked up a paper last week we were reading it, and it named the upper class in Augusta and the lower class. And it got down to the area that I live in and said the declining neighborhood. I really took offense at that. And yet if we kind of do what they’re talking about here, my neighborhood is going to continue to decline, because the Weed & Seed is going to come out, the patrols are going to come out, and that’s going to put us in a worse position than we are in. And I would hope that my Commissioners would somewhere down the line -- and I don’t know how much money would be involved to cut this -- but I would hope that we would not cut it or either give the Sheriff an opportunity to find other ways of getting [inaudible] patrol. I voted for it then, I ran on it, and if I [inaudible] this time, I run on it again that I think that the protection -- I haven’t had one complaint of the people in the Fifth District about too many patrols. Not one of them has said you have too many patrols. And some of my [inaudible], they don’t live in that area out there where we see these patrol cars coming. I just, you know, I [inaudible] talk about I’m living in a declining neighborhood, and I can’t afford to sit up here and vote against law enforcement if I’m living in a neighborhood, and I would hope my fellow Commissioners would see where we can do something a little differently. I [inaudible] at Gracewood [inaudible] whereas if we had $29 million in 103 reserves and it only takes $22,500,000 to operate [inaudible], would we need next year $6.5 million to just be sitting there [inaudible]? Good business does not require it, the law does not require it, but yet we are going to say that we’ve got to keep that money there, and I’d rather take that amount, whatever it is, Al, I rather take it out if this, if you [inaudible] hear me, cause he going to put something up there on the screen. If y’all could somewhere down the line give us the difference of what we are going to be talking about as far as what’s [inaudible] and let’s see can we find that somewhere. And if not, like Mr. Mays, I may not get a second, but I make a motion that that amount, the equivalent of that amount, would still come out of the quote, reserves. You got another word for it. What that word is you have? [inaudible] Mr. Slavens: Fund balance. Mr. H. Brigham: Fund balance. Mr. Mayor: Fund balance. Mr. H. Brigham: But that’s my please, Mr. Commissioners. [inaudible] get caught in the trap that I’m caught in by living in a declining neighborhood, and we can’t afford to have a decline anymore. We need this protection, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Mayor: Was that a plea or a motion you made, Mr. Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I didn’t make the motion, that’s a plea right now. But I’ll make the motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, to follow up on Mr. Brigham, and I’m going to be quick because I want to return, I don’t want you to [inaudible] me out, but there’s a motion on the floor, and I’m not prepared to make one yet because I think if we, if we do that just on those numbers -- I’m in agreement with Henry to a point that -- and I talked with Al about this earlier today, he and Walt. What I would at least like for us to do for the sake of argument, and I guess from the standpoint that particularly since both motions were defeated on last week, the first item we come back to is the same thing that we defeated. I really don’t think that’s the way to start this whole discussion off, but this is a democratic process and I’ll agree with any motion that’s on the floor being there. But I think we need to look at some numbers that go within the so-called safe zone and have a spirited debate up or down on this as to where we may go with a different point of reserves. Now if there’s a difference to be in there of whether that be to $2.5 million or where that number came up some weeks ago, I think that needs to be a part of the discussion and needs to go on the board, if as a starting point or somewhere in there tonight, whether it be from $1.75 million to $2 104 million, whether it be from $2 million to $2.5 million, but I think that needs to come into play, because earlier in Finance, we put together, which I think is a good move, the oversight group that will be coming back within hopefully a 30 day period to look and evaluate this procedure in terms of being able to justify necessary unfilled positions. Whether they stay on the radar screen or not. But let’s realistically look at it, and I think this is the best way to start if off. You’ve already talked about what may happen in one department. You’ve not even gotten to some of those that have been struggling to make the 3.5. And if you’re going to return to that crime, you might as well just dissolve the rule to do if there’s not going to be at least a cushion to come back with. That’s why I keep saying you’re going to somewhere deal with an increase in the reserve money, even if -- and I don’t mind it being tacked on, Henry, that we talked about this, that where in that reserve amount that if it’s not used, then it flips right back over here to reserves again, it can go into Contingency money, it can go wherever you need it after that other period. But I think to go right back where we were, we just well have done that the other night. So I’m really to [inaudible] pop up there on that screen other than where we left it at the other night. Because I think for the point of discussion, in all fairness to my colleagues, that got into this $1.75 deal of bring written in stone, if you have two motions on the floor and both of them were defeated with $1.75, at some point we need to start talking about something else. Cause you know, that’s not going to obviously get us anywhere and we may return to it, but I think we’re at least on a -- look at some other numbers that take us -- get to a point of where we’re talking about positions in there, then if we’re going to common sense mode, to quote [inaudible] earlier today, if we’re going to get back to what we have to plug in [inaudible] what we have to plug in, then I think we’re going to have to have something to deal with [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, and that’s the reason I think somewhere in we need to see something else up floating up there on that screen. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me ask if anything has anything else for the Sheriff so they can return to their seats if y’all don’t. Okay. Sheriff-Elect Strength: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Al, did you have any additional -- where did Al go? Mr. Slavens: Right here. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Did you have any additional information, any new information to present to us tonight? Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay. 105 Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] addendums to the packets that [inaudible] that should th go under Tab 1. When we left on the 19, a difference between where we were then and where we are now, we’ve had $89.8 million revenue projection, we added in the cable franchise fee, $333,000; business license of $177,000; liquor license at 10%, which is $121,000. We also added in the $700,000 transfer from urban services to the general fund, which was freed up if an when the pension fund makes its 1949 Pension Fund -- picks up its employer share of the cost. So that figure right now, the budget that we have for General fund, is $91,231,000. That will be found in that sheet that’s been passed around under total general fund, law enforcement fund. The $91,431,000. Excuse me, my math’s wrong, includes the 3.5% reduction that everybody is talking about now. It also includes using $1,750,000 worth of surplus funds. And that’s pretty much as well as the capital projects fund that we had talked about, was $3,688,000, I think is the figure that we -- $3,688,000 [inaudible]. If you would, I think we can [inaudible] letter that you have under [inaudible] Randy’s letter, which we’ve changed certain [inaudible] to make them [inaudible] congruent with our budget that we are proposing. [inaudible] bring up an attachment to the letter. I think if we’ll go to the attachment to the letter, probably identifies those items that are right now under consideration, things that have been -- the major items that are in the budget or out of the budget as it stands right now. Under revenue considerations, we are utilizing general law enforcement funds balance in the year 2001 of $1,750,000. That is in the revenue budget. Increasing cable franchise fees from 3% to 5% is in the budget. $333,000. Increasing business license fee of $177,000 is included in the budget. Liquor license fee also $121,000. Transit fee of $150,000 is not in the budget. Water and sewer rates, 11% increase, [inaudible] amount of that but that is included in the water and sewer revenue Enterprise [inaudible]. Landfill rate increase of approximately 5% effective April 1 of $170,000 is included in the budget. The 1949 Pension Fund [inaudible] 1949 Retirees Insurance of $700,000 is in this budget. Under the expense considerations, the 3% employee pay raise, 2001, that’s $351,000, is included in expense budget. Establish a budget for the 911 ambulance service which has been referred to as Metro Augusta, starting July 1, of $312,500 is in the budget. Funding for inmate medical service of $647,346 is in the budget. Again, expense reduction of $2,882,000 which 3-1/2% is taking out of the budget. The budgeting for lapsed salaries that was part of the [inaudible] is also included as a reduction to expense. Increased funding for fringe benefit risk management for all funds of $2.6 million is included in the budget. We have reduced hospital reduction in the funding for indigent care, $285,000. In this budget. We have provided for the new law department of $190,000. Those basically are the considerations that are in the budget for the moment. The budget does balance at a figure of $91,131,[inaudible]. There are some other things from human resources that you may want to consider. They are not in the budget. They are as follows, and I think [inaudible]. I think there was some sentiment we needed to increase the Administrator’s salary. That was $125,000. That’s $33,600 over [inaudible] applicable costs. There are some fringe benefits and that does include those. If you go on down to purchasing, there was a contract manager [inaudible] with fringe benefits, about $42,900. There was a document that suggested that they were going 106 to delete the Purchasing Tech II at pay grade 39. Riverwalk requested $15,000 for temporary worker. The law department included -- again this is included in the budget -- general counsel, staff attorney, and secretary. [inaudible] it has been recommended that the Clerk of Civil and Magistrate Court fund two full-time positions, I believe it is, and principally that can be budgeted out of their temporary budget that they are presently paying temporary employees so that’s [inaudible]. Animal Control officer, pay grade 38. $22,730. Juvenile Court administrative assistant, [inaudible]. Coroner assistant, [inaudible]. Trees and Parks has a [inaudible] in the budget. License & Inspection, upgrade manager of customer service, [inaudible]. Indigent defense requested an assistant, two increases, with assistant director, assistant coordinator, $10,000 and $5,000 respectively. And then the reorganization of the Finance Department, which I understand the Committee is going to make a recommendation on that [inaudible]. That’s pretty much -- those requests and those actions that you may want to consider today in addition to whatever other things [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Al? Mr. Slavens: Yes, sir? Mr. Bridges: These last thing you mentioned here, the human resource considerations, those are not in the budget, right? Mr. Slavens: Not in the budget. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Slavens: Those items were basically human resources [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: Al? So we’re saying that anything that we add on that you’ve listed in the last few minutes up there on the board, we would have to fund the funds for because it’s not listed? Mr. Slavens: I think we do have the contingency balance in the fund, general fund, that can be used for [inaudible] without raising the overall expenditure level. Mr. Beard: Are you saying for all of those that you listed up there or whatever we select? Mr. Slavens: Whichever ones you select. Some of it can be funded from that contingency [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? 107 Mr. Bridges: The contingency, you say you’ve got a contingency in this budget? Mr. Slavens: Yes. Mr. Bridges: How much is it? Mr. Slavens: About page -- it’s under tab 2. Right now it’s $925,949. It’s -- Mr. Bridges: What page number? Mr. Slavens: [inaudible]. We’ve had six or seven hundred [inaudible], $788,000 last year budgeted in contingency, [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions of Mr. Slavens? Mr. Bridges: I’m still looking for that. Where is it? I haven’t found it. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Al? Mr. Slavens: Yes, sir. Mr. J. Brigham: When you talked about reduction of fund balance, [inaudible]? Mr. Slavens: That’s not the only reduction [inaudible]. Mr. J. Brigham: I mean [inaudible]? Mr. Slavens: Not right now, no. The only thing we’re taking out of capital right now is the amount that is in the general fund, excuse me, [inaudible]. [inaudible] outlay fund that will bring you forward, which is $831,000. We’re not taking anything outside of the fund balance. Right now projected [inaudible]. Mr. J. Brigham: If we start adding back expenses [inaudible] much more is going to come out fund balance? Mr. Slavens: Either comes out of expenses -- comes out of fund balance or you reduce your contingency. Mr. J. Brigham: How much is the 3.5% reduction of [inaudible]? 108 Mr. Slavens: $2.9. Mr. J. Brigham: $2.9? [inaudible] how much of the contingency are we spending? Mr. Slavens: Jerry, I don’t know how much was spent. Mr. J. Brigham: We spent all $900,000 [inaudible]. Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] because we did have to augment some of the, some of the funds that were used for Risk Management, things like that. So I think-- Mr. J. Brigham: I have not seen a year gone by lately that we have not [inaudible]. Mr. Slavens: I don’t have that with me. Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll call on our Finance Chairman, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To follow up on what Mr. Jerry Brigham said, when the last year’s contingency was set, and I think we had no idea that the Lock and Dam would be the problem that it was. The Corps tested it. Several of our facilities next to the Lock and Dam fell in the river. We had to use contingency there. What other comes to mind, Jerry, was that at Animal Control we had to go in with an infusion of substantial monies for the last quarter of the year in Animal Control, based on the recommendation of our department head, the new vet. That comment being set aside, Al, the last time we were together, and I can’t find my Plan B, but the budget was balanced at $91,342,000 expenses. Now it’s at $91,131,000. $91,131,000. Mr. Slavens: On that list was Transit fees that we have not included in the budget. That was part -- but that was not approved last week. That makes up part of the difference. Mr. Shepard: So that could later be amended to take care of that, I guess? Mr. Slavens: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: But today, the number that we’re starting with today is not where we were the last time. We should be starting at $91,131,000; is that correct? Mr. Slavens: That is correct. [inaudible] That is the same figure that we last week absent the Transit fees, I think, and Animal Control increase. We take those 109 two, as well as liquor licenses was not quite as high as we had [inaudible] 15%. You passed 10% and that reduction is in there. Mr. Shepard: So the appropriate thing would be to substitute those current th numbers for what we had for the old Plan B back on the 19? Mr. Slavens: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: Al, is it your recommendation that we utilize only $1.75 million of fund balance? That’s the consistent recommendation in Plan B last week and this current week; is that correct? Mr. Slavens: That is the amount of money that Mr. Oliver thought that we needed to use and is pretty much what we used in last year. You know, again, it’s up to whatever the Commission feels is -- Mr. Shepard: The fund balance -- today was the day that most of you know that our property taxes were due without a 10% delinquent penalty. It’s a little late, you can still postmark it, I think, and get it paid on time. Isn’t that right, Mr. Reeves? Mr. Reeves: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: I know I remembered the day, and what we’ve lived off of due to the revenue delay has been our fund balance. I mean isn’t that the cushion that we utilized for unforeseen revenue interruptions, such as the State being slow on approving the digest, this kind of thing? Mr. Slavens: Those types of items [inaudible] temporarily [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: I mean having an adequate fund balance is a sign of a healthy city financial. Mr. Slavens: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: Well, I do, too. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I think there’s some question, though, as to how you define adequate. Mr. Henry Brigham raised the point about the differential. Since Mr. Plowman is here, I wonder if I could get Mr. Plowman to come up and talk about what kind of reserves -- you guys just audited us -- what kind of reserves do we need to have, and I think there was some notation in your audit of the 60-day reserve being adequate. And we’re well above that. I hate to put you on the spot, but I need to. Mr. Plowman: What we just audited was 1999. So I don’t have any idea at this point -- did you use your reserves during year 2000 or did you accumulate more 110 reserves? I mean I, you know, [inaudible] -- they’re saying they broke even for the year. Mr. Mayor: Well, then based on your 1999 review if we broke even. Mr. Plowman: Depending on what the operating results are, you want to at least have two months certainly. Of good operating reserves. Numbers can go down. I mean you don’t want to use up all that. Get a couple of weeks behind. Too much is a good number, but then you’re -- some of that you’ve got to keep that liquid, too. It can’t all just be [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: But in relation to that two month benchmark, where are we? Mr. Plowman: [inaudible] and I was on ’99. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Plowman: They’ve got the current numbers. I just don’t know. Mr. Mayor: All right. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, where are we as far as having our 2000 books reconcile our accounts, reconciled through month are we at at this point in the year? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: So our accounts aren’t reconciled? We’re making these -- I guess taking these numbers on best estimates? Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Our expenditures are current and our accounts are reconciled for each month through, say November? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: We’ve got about 100% assurance that the money we’re showing on this, our budget is accurate within 1% or so? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I -- I’m having a problem understanding. Al, you know, you’re in that department there and you’ve been trying to work with this thing and you didn’t know that it was that close? 111 Mr. Slavens: Mr. Williams, I have no knowledge of how we stand this year compared to last year. I know that I was hired to assist the Finance Department. My -- most of my efforts for the last six weeks has not gone towards that effort, it has gone towards that the budget. So quite frankly, I don’t know and I cannot tell you with any certainty that we are further along than it was [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: Well, I understand that, but I mean, this is -- anything else you run in your house you are going to take care of yourself, but your money is going to have to count for it. I mean if you ain’t got enough clothes, you ain’t going to go nowhere, but if you ain’t got no money, you can’t be buying stuff. If your car ain’t got no gas in it, you ain’t going to run. But you’ve got money or you don’t have the money, money is a very important part of this government. And we talking like hey, don’t worry about it, it’s going to work out. And it ain’t worked out. Mr. Slavens: I think to answer your question, on a day-to-day basis, whenever there are purchases being made and purchase orders, funds have got to be there in terms of the budget, as far as budgeted expenditures. The other side of the equation about the revenue, my gut feeling is that the revenue is pretty close to projection. I don’t know for certain that this is the case because I have not looked at that. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we have a motion on the floor. Are there any Commissioners who want to have Al run different numbers, look at any other scenarios? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: We’ve certainly had a lot of conversation about this. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Just for my interpretation, Kip mentioned that two months of reserves would be adequate. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Kuhlke: Somehow the number three months was the more appropriate number to have in reserves. Mr. Slavens: The number three came up several meetings ago and was bantered about. Two or three months. Mr. Kuhlke: Two or three months? It’s $7 million a month, so two or three months? 112 Mr. Slavens: Two months is $15.5, so seven months would be about $127. [inaudible] Three months would be $23.4. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Al, you’ve given us a rather big book here today and I take it that the number $91 million should be substituted -- $93,131,000 should be substituted for the figure that I made in the motion of $91,342,000. You agree with that? Mr. Slavens: Yes. Mr. Shepard: And we also looked at the capital budget. Shouldn’t we also put these other tabs, Al, and see what other budgets we should pass? Not on the capital budget and the general fund budget. The general fund is the one we have the most trouble with right now? Mr. Slavens: General fund is the one you have [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: And then the capital looks like we’ve got tied down. But would about the [inaudible] budgets we need to pass? Get them passed? Mr. Slavens: I would have to defer to the Attorney on that. If you’ll look under Tab 1 -- Mr. Wall: The operating budget is the only one we have to pass. Mr. Shepard: The operating budget is the only one? Well, what about the rest of these? Enterprise and whatnot like that, Jim? Well, we hadn’t talked about it Mr. Wall: The operating budget is the only one that you have to. Mr. Shepard: Deadline? Mr. Wall: Yes. And the capital budget we adopted after the first of the year last year. I think around the first of October. I mean first of February. Excuse me. First of February. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Shepard: Al, excuse me. One last question, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Certainly. 113 Mr. Shepard: I thought from my discussions with the Finance staff that we should go ahead and do the capital budget at this time. Now is that -- we’re going to have to -- Mr. Slavens: We have two items. We’ve got capital outlay requests, which is found under tab 9. Those are all of the capital outlay requests coming from all sources of funding. Capital outlay funds itself. This is a tax revenue generated fund. Funds typically for law enforcement, indigent from capital requests. That is part of the compilation of funds. If you wish to pass that, that’s fine. You don’t have to. I leave that up to you. If you got to tab 1 under compilation of funds, we’ve identified all the resources provided and all the resources utilized for each of those funds listed, and they are pretty much in balance. They are the composite of all the sources that the city has at its disposal at the present time. That’s more than what you’ve done in the past. Typically you’ll only do the general fund. Is that right, Jim? Mr. Wall: And the Enterprise fund. I mean we need to adopt the Enterprise fund, but [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: But the Enterprise is fully funded by those sources of revenue, such as water and sewer, public transit, Bush Field, Daniel Fund, golf course, tennis center, Old Government House? Mr. Slavens: There is a -- under Enterprise funds, we do have an exception to the balancing, and that’s on the Augusta Public Transit System. $2,975,000. We do think we’re going to have to come back and revisit that issue at some point after this meeting because I’m not certain that we have properly accounted for all the sources [inaudible]. I think we’re going to have to look at that. [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I just want to make sure we have not included any of those employees that cut, that Mr. Oliver had on that list that we had. None of those are in here? Mr. Slavens: No. All of those -- the only ones, I believe I’m correct, in attachment A that are, that is included in the budget are the three for the Law Department. General counsel, staff attorney, and a secretary. The rest of them are not in the budget as it stands. Is that correct, Brenda? Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible] 114 Mr. Slavens: So they are not there. You don’t have to do anything with them. But if you want to do something, you need to tell us. You can pass the budget without those. Revisit those later. Mr. Williams: I think Mr. Oliver had something in there with three positions being cut out of the tax office, I think. Mr. Slavens: We did not take -- those are back on the table. Those are included in the budget. Mr. Williams: Okay, included in the budget. Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. Mr. Slavens: We went back to the meeting that we -- when we substituted the 3-1/2% reduction, we went back and rolled those deductions that Mr. Oliver had taken out because of the management study. The Tax Commissioner and I think the Sheriff. We rolled those back into expenditures so that they could then look at cutting the 3-1/2% out of the whole budget. [inaudible] in other words, taking the Tax Commissioner’s office out and then requiring him to come up with another 3-1/2%, we thought that would be a disadvantage to him, as well as the Sheriff. So those positions are back in the budget in both cases, the Sheriff’s Department, as well as the Tax Commissioner. Mr. Mayor: And the effect of Mr. Shepard’s motion would be to add in the fare increase for Transit and the increase in Animal Control fees; is that correct, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: If you go back to the original motion, yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: If you’re going to deal with $91,131,000, today’s figure, you could adopt that -- we could adopt that as well. With my motion -- Mr. Mayor: Leave those two? Mr. Shepard: Correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I just have one question, I think, and that is [inaudible]. All of this is predicated on the 3-1/2% from the Departments? Mr. Slavens: That’s correct. 115 Mr. Beard: What happens should we don’t get that? Do we go into [inaudible] at that time? Mr. Slavens: As we indicated before, the 3-1/2% is probably the best that we could get. As we go through the year, and as you allow attrition through vacancies and things like that to be used by the departments, they are not all going to come in January [inaudible], and there is going to be some degradation of that number. That figure will have to come from either FY2001 excess revenues over expenditures or other reductions [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: Well, okay, I understand that. But I also understand that I know we talked about the hiring freeze and I guess this is more or less a statement, more than anything else. I really see us in the same predicament next year this time, and I think it’s our objective to decrease this government, and since personnel is our largest source of decreasement, then I think that we really need to look at that, and I know the Chair look at it now, but I think that’s where the Oversight Committee should come into play, because I think the simplest way of decreasing this government without involving reduction in force is going back to those 200 or 300 positions that are existing and not filling those positions, and I know nobody want to, you know, get into that, but I think we have to look at that, and I would hope that, you know, the Oversight Committee, after January, would look at the possibility of doing it, because this is the one way I see that we’re decrease this government. And that’s more or less a statement. It’s not -- but I think I really need to look at that. Mr. Mayor: Of course, Mr. Beard, one thing we had talked about that is not in this equation that certainly we can deal with during the year is the issue of early retirements, too, of a way of reducing the work force and the personnel costs. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one thing that I haven’t heard, and we’ve asked everyone to take these cuts, I would like to see us take a 20% reduction in our gasoline allotment and a 20% reduction in our travel budget. That would add some money back to the fund. Also, to follow up on what Commissioner Beard said, if you look at the total consumption and cost of electricity and gasoline, things like on-the- job injuries that we have to pay for, our Risk Management, we need to target for energy consumption starting now for this coming year a 10% reduction and hold our department heads accountable for that kind of reduction, which would allow us savings this coming year, keep money in our pockets instead of paying it. We should increase our safety programs to where we reduce the number of on-the-job injuries. The total number is several hundred thousand dollars that we’re paying out in Risk Management fees for different things that we could save if we worked smarter and worked with out employees to wear their protective equipment and do things safely. These are all things, upon passing this budget tonight, which I hope we’ll do, that we will institute as policy in this government where we can start savings money and utilizing it for keeping staff on hand and for capital equipment and other things, other 116 than wasting it. And I hate that the Sheriff left, but certainly none of us can come here tonight and say we, the only thing we can do is cut personnel. We can do what we’re doing smarter. There are ways to save money and we’ve got to address every one of those things first before we cut personnel. And that way, if we have to cut personnel, say we did our very best. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, Mr. Mays, and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Shepard: A couple of questions and observations. Seems like to me, Mr. Mayor, in response to Mr. Cheek’s question that take the energy reduction, for example, if the department head who is in charge of his or her budget chose to utilize energy reduction 10% of whatever it is usage, that could be one strategy under this document for reaching the budgetary goal. Isn’t that correct, Walter? So I mean it seems like to me that rather than telling them they have to cut personnel, we have given them a broad policy outline that they could utilize that strategy if they so chose. I think they’re the ones who are closest to their mission. I mean the Sheriff has told me that, you know, that he will work with us, but yet he wants the freedom to work within the 3.5% reduction. That gives it to him. I mean he’s the program manager. I mean we’re setting him the goal, and to borrow one of the phrases that Mr. Williams uses all the time, that’s the accounting standard, it’s 3.5% down. And they’ll have to be coming back to us during the year. I mean this is just the most practical thing we can do. The other thing, I think Mr. Wall corrected me last time, was that when we set the budget at this reduced amount, having -- and correct me, if I’m wrong, Al and Jim -- we set it at this reduced amount, that if the department head wants more, they’ve got to run the gamut before this Commission to get instead of the 96.5% of 100%, if they say we want our 3.5% back, they’ve got to come and ask for it back. And justify it. I think our question at that time to them is what have you done to reach 3.5%? Have you reduced energy costs? Have you reduced supplies? Have you reduced travel? What have you done? I mean we can banter about all these categories, but I think tonight is the numbers night and we’ve got to go with these hard numbers and some version of them, and those, this package gives these department heads, these program managers the latitude. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I go back to where I started off, where I was last week, where I was the week before, where I was the week before that. First, can I get a clarification on where we are? Or at least a rough estimate on where we are with a specific number on reserves? In particularly in the three month category? Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Plowman is prepared to speak to the reserve. We’ve done a little bit of reserve. So let me call Mr. Plowman back up to respond to that, Mr. Mays. Mr. Plowman: You caught me off guard before. 117 Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Plowman: [inaudible] highlight some of the things we presented back and forth, and again, these are ’99 numbers. I don’t know the 2000 numbers. The unreserved fund balance at the end of ’99 was about $28 million. 80% of that was in cash. That’s [inaudible] how much is actually in cash. That’s going to fluctuate throughout the year. As a percentage of the general fund operating expenses, there’s about 33%, that’s about a third, so that’s roughly four months with the reserves you had in terms of accumulated reserves, 80% of that being in cash. Now, here’s the thing. Over the last five, say four years, last year your surplus, your revenues over your expenses, I say last year ’99, was about a $535,000 surplus. Your revenues were more than your expenses. In ’98, you actually had a deficit of $2.3 million. This is before transfers. You remember what happened in those prior years, we had water transferred into the general fund, so these numbers I’m quoting you are before the transfer from any of those departments. Now one thing we said in here in this analysis was the City should anticipate increased financial pressure from the absence of transfer from Water Works and increases in payroll costs. What’s happening is before you had transfers in ’98 from the Water Works and some of the other departments, you experienced at $2.3 million deficit. Once you had those transfers in, your accumulated fund balance has gotten bigger. So in other words, you’re at $28 million in accumulated fund balance, but it’s going to be hard to get back to that kind of level because you’re not going to have those revenues coming in from the Water Works, the same place you created them from before. So while you could go into those, rebuilding them is going to be much more difficult. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that answer your question, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: It answers it technically, and in all due fairness to Kip, I’m just, I operate on a little bit of James Brown Boulevard mathematics. Can we get a little closer on numbers? The $30 million, $32 million, $29 million, $28 million? You’ve reeled me in a little bit better when I get with numbers. I know where we were in ’98 and ’99 and I can comment on part of what got us into that deficit back then, too. It wasn’t just COPS and the non-transfer of water, but I’m going to leave that alone, that that won’t be your baby. That isn’t for you and me to debate. But I need to get some numbers. Mr. Plowman: Okay. In ’99, and these are real rough numbers. I’m looking at a graph. I’m going to estimate, so bear with me. Let’s say it’s about $86 million in revenue. Your expenses in the general fund were $85, 500,000. This is before the transfers and all. So you had a $500,000 surplus in revenues over expenditures. And we’re talking about that surplus, that $500,000 went on to what you had accumulated in the prior years, over the whole history of the government. What you’ve accumulated in the general fund is $28 million. In the general fund. At different points in time, more of that is going to be in cash. If we’re doing the audit at the end 118 of the year, all of your property taxes are coming in at the end of the year, so you’re kind of cash heavy at the end of the year. 80% of that was in cash and investments. You get into about May, June, July and the summer, your cash is getting really low before you start getting in the taxes at the end of the year. So while we’re looking at this one snapshot of time, you’ve got to have enough reserves and enough liquid cash to be able to go, say for a couple of months. That’s why when the taxes were delayed this year [inaudible] problem because you had the reserves and they were liquid to go for several months without having to go do something else. Is that answering your question? Mr. Mays: We can move. What I’m trying to get to is that we went in and we got a number, a consensus number that we put in for $1.75 million. We took that as a transfer out of a certain figure. What I’m looking at is to go back to the figure that we took, the 1.75 out of. If somebody in the room can give me that figure, that we took the 1.75 back, give me a number that is in addition to the 1.75 that keep me within the three month range in so-called safe zone, if it’s no more than 75 cents, that’s what I’m looking for. And maybe I’m the only idiot up here that is not -- where that number is getting to. The only thing I’m just still asking and want to play with, is what can we do to [inaudible] as to where we are, looking at those numbers? Because I mean if we’ve gone back to 3.5 and the Sheriff is gone now, and I can have my disagreements with law enforcement on everything from Court filing to you name it. But I’m never going to reach a point of where I have [inaudible] a department [inaudible] and representing four of those Districts directly and eight of them together, I got a problem, Mr. Mayor, when I get thrown out at 41 numbers in there, that’s been in there, and to go and I know where those folk are going to come from when they go down. They going to come out of District 1, 2, 4 and 5. Now that’s the reality of that. And we can debate him about discrimination, we challenge it, we put all of that on the table on some other night. Or day. But the mere fact is that if those folk are coming out of those areas to a point -- I always wonder, Mr. Mayor, how I was going to plan my retirement from down here, I tell you what, I know how I’m going to deal with it now. Cause if you [inaudible] up there and you headed to where I think you’re going, with some of the cuts that you are going to have to deal with, without dealing with some other sources in there, then you know I wish y’all luck in going to that. Cause I’m going to spend the most of my time probably somewhere with a gun. Cause some areas where I live, that’s just won’t work. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let me see if we can find the speaker you’re looking for. I believe Mr. Morrey just said that with respect to what our use of reserves is this year was a wash for ’99. Mr. Morrey: We had at the end of 1999 a total reserve of fund balance of roughly $28 million or $29 million. Mr. Mayor: How much of that -- 119 Mr. Morrey: Five million of that was reserve for Risk Management and potential claims. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Morrey: So we had an unreserved fund balance of between $23 million and $24 million. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Morrey: That equates to a little bit more than a three month operating reserve, which is more than the 60 days -- I’m going to say 90 to 95 days, I believe, was what the time [inaudible] was. So we had adequate operating reserves and were meeting a suggested targeted figure. The $1.75 million -- $1,750,000 figure was the original projection we thought we would end this year with [inaudible] and Mr. Oliver developed that and used that, and that’s how that figure was arrived it, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Mays: Oh, hell. Mr. Mayor: Let him finish. Mr. Morrey: My estimate is that we will not hit that figure, that we will be a little bit below that this year. We will end up with an excess of revenues over expenses, but I do not think we will hit the $1.75 million. So the bottom line, Mr. Mays, is that I believe our reserves at the end of this year will be somewhere between -- unreserved will be somewhere between $24 million and $25 million, which is going to equate to a little bit over three months of an operating reserve. Mr. Mays: All right. That’s based on an estimate. Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: That’s got me close to some numbers, you know, where we are. Mr. Mayor: While you ponder that, let me go down to Mr. Bridges and we’ll come back to you. Mr. Mays: You’re right, Mr. Mayor, you please move on, cause I’m beginning to get real ticked tonight. I’m going to help you slice this budget tonight and I’m probably going to get mad enough we come back there and five other votes, I got a real way we might be able to get rid of part of it. Mr. Mayor: All right. 120 Mr. Mays: We probably should have done it six months ago. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go down to Mr. Bridges and hear from some of these other Commissioners. Mr. Bridges: I’m repeating here, Al, but what I’m hearing -- or Kip or Lon or anybody -- but what I’m hearing Lon say is we’ve got $28 million balance or approximately. $5 million of that we keep in reserve for Risk Management. That leaves $23 million, which is a little over a three month supply. And we’re -- for our safety net, you need two to a three month supply in the fund balance for dire emergencies or what not? Mr. Speaker: To operate. Mr. Bridges: For operating. But what I understand Kip had to say is that if we should go into that $23 million, the danger in doing that is because part of that was built up when we were taking money from the Water fund. We’re no longer doing that now, so the amount that’s going into that fund balance has declined and will remain in that state as a result of not getting the water fund. Is that right, Kip? Am I understanding that right? Mr. Plowman: Yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now Mr. Jerry Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on Mr. Shepard’s motion. We’ve got two hands up. Let me take those two very quickly and then we’ll move on with the vote. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask the question then, and what Mr. Bridges just said about the $5 million for Risk Management and the 23 we had. Was that not two years ago? I mean was that not 1999 that the comptroller is speaking of? I still have yet not heard of what in this year, 2000. I keep hearing about what happened in 1999 and hopefully we ain’t got to go back that far. How can we know what’s going on? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Morrey just gave us the figure. Mr. Williams: No, sir. 121 Mr. Mayor: Yes, he did. He said it would be between $24 million and $25 million this year, backing out the $5 million for Risk Management. Mr. Williams: I thought, and I stand to be corrected, he said 2000, I’m with that. I thought he said 1999. Mr. Mayor: No, he said 1999 was $23 million to $24 million. 2000, we’ll probably end this year with $24 million to $25 million. Mr. Williams: Okay. You said probably? Mr. Mayor: Those are the numbers Mr. Morrey just gave us. Mr. Williams: Okay. You said probably? Mr. Mayor: The year’s not over yet. Okay, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: And I think to answer Mr. Mays’ question, cause this is another idiot talking up here, Mr. Mays, but it looks like the 1.75, Al, that you’re appropriating for this year’s resources utilized comes out of the $23 million to $25 million figure depending on whether -- isn’t that correct? That’s where it comes from, it comes out fund balance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called on the motion to adopt Plan B as stated by Mr. Shepard. Does anybody the motion read back to them? Mr. Mays: A point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Okay. While we’re voting on Plan B again, is that -- are we going to vote first or are we putting in the Transit fee in there? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard can answer that. He’s the maker of the motion. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I made that motion without the most recent figures, and I think we should utilize the most recent figures that don’t include the Transit fee as a substitute motion, increase, and so with the consent of the body or alternatively, I would, instead of the figure of -- I use $91,342,000, in my recent motion, but I think the only amount of money we have to deal with tonight, because we don’t have those additional fees, is $91,131,000. Mr. Mayor: That would not, Mr. Mays, that would not include Transit and it would not include the increased fees for the Animal Control. 122 Mr. Mays: I’m just glad -- just a point of clarification. I’m glad that that 10% changed in 33%, just for the point of clarity, cause that’s what it’s been all the time. I’m just glad to see that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: Got right up there with it. Those numbers. Mr. Mayor: We’re trying to move ahead. The question has been called. Do we have any additional -- Mr. Beard: As clarification, Mr. Mayor, it might be better to clarify now than to get a no vote. Mr. Mayor: Clarify the motion. Mr. Beard: If Al, so I’ll understand what I’m going to vote on, now Commissioner Shepard’s Plan B, is that the same thing that you have outlined up there for me? Is there a difference between those two? We went over a lot of things up there, and I need to know, since I don’t comprehend all of this stuff, I need to know are we talking about the same thing when you went over the two different things that you went over? th Mr. Slavens: Mr. Shepard’s figures from Saturday, I believe [inaudible] 19 and my figures are the same with the exception I did not include in this budget the $150,000 Transit fee and I think there was an Animal Control of $18,000. Mr. Mayor: $18,000. Mr. Beard: Okay, so that’s the difference in the two? Mr. Mayor: Right. Yes. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard, I took those out to confirm my figures with the consent of the body to what just came in here tonight, $91, 131,000. Mr. Slavens: $91,131,000 does not include the Transit. Mr. Shepard: Does not include an increase in Transit fees. Mr. Mayor: What Mr. Shepard did was use the number in the book we got tonight as opposed to the number in the worksheet we had last Tuesday. Mr. Shepard: Well, when I originally started I used the worksheet number because the book wasn’t before us. When I opened the book, I saw the discrepancy 123 between the number I had used for my original Plan B and the number tonight, and that was just because I didn’t have the number tonight until afterwards. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek, any question to clarify the motion? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just wondering if we could get consensus on some contribution from our travel fund and gas allotment? It’s a paltry sum, maybe -- Mr. Mayor: I appreciate that. We may be able to clarify that in a few moments, but we have a motion on the floor and the question has been called on it, so we need to move ahead with the vote. Mr. Mays: This is for clarification, too, Bob. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, on the -- when we met here last week, and I feel compelled to say this inasmuch as we’re going to use, I think without any form of litigation, with meeting with some of those leadership persons and at least part of that leadership. You’ve got different positions there. What I did and I believe in keeping a promise if I’m going to make one. If I meet with somebody, if I say I’m going to make a statement publicly in reference to it, then I am. And they know we’re dealing with apples and oranges. They know that that vote for what they my want otherwise is not on the floor tonight. But there is a general consensus that there will not be any action, at least from that group, against us in terms of using those monies that are there, but I might say that they will be back to the table to look at the numbers and their soundness from the independent actuarial firm, to revisit those persons that left under very hard circumstances the old City of Augusta, to be included in it, and I did make a promise as one Commissioner, I didn’t commit anybody else to it, that’s not my style, that I would support that at that time. I supported it earlier, I still support it now. I think it also leaves open the window of opportunity, if we’re ever going to talk about using pension monies and being able to do some creative legal things, with pension money, and to have the support of them, such as early retirement on those that are not in that group without a fight, I think you’re going to have that window of opportunity to come open. It will be up to this Commission whether we close that window or not when it comes open. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays: And Mr. Mayor, I am going to say this, too, and I’m going to shut right up. But for those tonight, I think I have to say this in defense, since I’m going to wrestle with that decrease in those four Districts of mine, when I predicted three years ago when we had so much money that we could walk away from the $7.5 million that we were so rich, that we could forgive, and when those Commissioners who sat here and would not even vote for the compromise measure of $3.75 to invest, we would 124 have had what you’re looking for now, you would have had it in the deficit year before then, and you wouldn’t be even arguing about this right now. So it’s amazing about how we can get conservative when we want to, liberal when we want to, it just depends on who in the hell we are helping. Mr. Mayor: All right, the question has been called on the motion, and it’s time to vote on it. All in favor of the motion as outlined by Mr. Shepard, please vote aye. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I ask for roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays has asked for a roll call vote. Just a moment, the Clerk will -- Clerk: Get the roll. Mr. Mayor: Get the roll. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, while she’s gone, I’ll support my colleague Mr. Cheek on those reductions in reference to gas and travel. Cause from May 1990 since I’ve been here, I haven’t pumped one gallon of the county’s gas, so that’s 12 times a hundred gallons per year going on 12 years. So we don’t have to cut it 20%. You can cut mine back to 100% Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead with the roll call vote, please. (Roll Call Vote) Mr. Beard - Yes Mr. Bridges - Yes Mr. H. Brigham - Yes Mr. J. Brigham - No Mr. Cheek - Yes Mr. Colclough - Yes Mr. Kuhlke - Yes Mr. Mays - No (asked that it be recorded as Hell, No) Mr. Shepard - Yes Mr. Williams - Yes Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Plan B has been approved. Mr. Cheek, we’ll come back to you with respect to cuts. Did you want to make a motion before the body? Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we reduce our travel budget and our gasoline allotment by 20%. 125 Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: I defer to Mr. Mays. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mays: I’d like for the make of that motion, if he would, to consider an option of which we take, because I’m giving up 100% now, and y’all asked us for 20. So I’m 80 ahead of the game. So I think it ought to be a choice between the percentage you deal with in travel or gas in making that particular statement. Because some of us do wish to learn what’s going on in other places and be able to give some creative ideas. Some of us serve as delegates, some of us serve on boards. So I’m not prepared to get 20% in one area and 20 in another. I’m giving my 100. So I’d like to have that amended to have the option that since you are going to ask 20, I give you my same 100 I been giving ever since I been here. I’d like that in there. If not, I’ll make a substitute motion that everybody give their 100 like I do. And there are some of us that don’t [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to give 100 of what? Mr. Mays: Whatever you want. Mr. Mayor: 100 of gas? Gas and travel? Mr. Mays: I’m giving 100 of gas. Been doing that 11 years. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, are you talking about gas and travel or just gas? Mr. Mays: No, I think we ought to have a choice of what we do. We’re talking about 20%. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: I mean 20% of the gas, you know. Like I say, I’m giving a hundred. I think there ought to be a choice in there to a point that if you do attend a conference, then you ought to have that choice in there as to whether or not, you know, this city is paying for that tab, if you’re going to give the 20% they’re out of the game. 126 Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion would be 100% and you can choose whether it’s gas or travel; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Mays: Yeah, I’ll leave that on there. As Richard Pryor used to say, that’s the ultimate [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right. Just trying to see where we’re going. Mr. Mays: 100 of either one them. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I think the motion that Mr. Cheek made is reasonable. If you look at the gas deal, there’s only about four of us that use that. And so there are about six people giving 100%. Willie, you’re correct there. But if you look at the travel side of it, I mean I’ve given my 100% on the travel side and I think it past years that travel budget has all been spent, so somebody has been spending my money, you know, and I guess I can understand how you feel there, but I think the motion that Andy makes is reasonable. My gas bill a month gets cuts down from $100 to $80 and those that do the traveling, they get theirs cut down from 100% to 80%, and I think that’s a reasonable motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Mays: The maker of the substitute will accept any amendment you want to mine. It doesn’t have to be a 100 but I made it that kind of stupid, I said it ought to be choice. But it ought to be a choice. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard has the floor. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just think we shouldn’t rush into this thing. I think what it is is something that could be worked out, but I think in the spirit in which we are going out there is not meaningful at this time, because we are just throwing some things out there. Yes, some of us travel. Some of us don’t travel. Some of us use gas. Some of us don’t use gas. So, you know, it really needs to be thought out and I would rather see this come back and let Andy work out something that is reasonable, that all of us could live by, and it wouldn’t put any strain on any of us, and I just wish that we would take this up at another time instead of here. Because I don’t see where either motion really gets us where we want to go. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I think we’re going to have to give back our 3.5%, too, and I think we need the flexibility like Mr. Beard says. Those who travel can give it back 127 in one fashion. Those who can give it back in gasoline give it back in another. But I think we need that flexibility. So as part of this monitoring process, I think the Commission needs to set an example to show that we’ve cut, you know, we’ve bandied about all these percents, but it takes a whole lot of travel to cut a surprising amount of dollars, so I think we need to come across with our plan and report back to this committee that we’re going to set up as to how we as a body cut our expenses 3.5%. Mr. Beard: And Mr. Mayor, one more thing. You may note in the memo that I passed out earlier, this was a suggestion that I made early on, even before we looked at this. But I just don’t think tonight is the time to wrestle with that. Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll see where we -- we have a substitute motion on the floor and that’s Mayor Pro Tem -- Mr. Mays: I withdraw mine, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Mays: I can withdraw mine. Mr. Mayor: You can’t withdraw a motion. Once it’s made, it belongs to the body. Mr. Mays: I make a motion to table Commissioners’ travel. Mr. Mayor: We can only have two motions on the floor at a time. Mr. Mays: I make a motion to table, Mr. Mayor . I defer to the Parliamentarian. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to table -- which one, yours? Mr. Mays: All of them concerning expenses, and that precedes any other motion. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of tabling the main motion and the substitute motion, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges votes No. Motion carries 9-1. 128 Mr. Mayor: The Attorney has advised me that we need to adopt the Enterprise budget. I defer to the Finance Chairman. Mr. Shepard: So move, Mr. Mayor. I so move that we adopt the Enterprise fund budgets as set out in the budget book. Do I need to list them, Jim? 509, 541, 546, 551, 552, 556, 566, 571 and 576. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Mays not voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you needed to add one item tonight? LEGAL MEETING: ? Discuss personnel. Mr. Wall: Yes, consistent with the earlier discussion, I think there is a personnel matter that needs to be discussed if y’all want to address it today. Mr. Bridges: Might as well. Mr. Mayor: We need to go into executive session and discussion personnel item. Mr. Shepard: I so move for the purpose stated by the lawyer. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Shepard: I move that we approve you signing the Open Meetings Law affidavit and that we adjourn. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any opposition? I’ll sign it and we’re adjourned. Motion carries 10-0. 129 [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 December 19, 2000. Clerk of Commission