The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-16-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS January 16, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2001, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor. Also present were Mr. Wall, Attorney; Mr. Hornsby, Interim Administrator: Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; and Ms. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Martin. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Deputy Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. ADDENDUM AGENDA: Correction: Item #1: The remainder of Item #1 should read: intersection of Busbia Avenue and Kissingbower Road. (1951 Kissingbower Road) DISTRICT 5 Deputy Clerk: We have some revisions to the agenda. We have one correction on Item 1. The last couple of lines of the planning petition were omitted from the agenda. Deletion from the agenda: Item #29B Deputy Clerk: We have one deletion from the agenda, Item 29B. And we have a request for three additions to the agenda. Additions to the agenda: 1. Discussion of Special Grand Jury’s presentments and methods of implementation. (Requested by Commissioner Bridges) 2 Approve Administrative Assistant Position for Juvenile Court. . 3. Communication from the Mayor regarding a request by Habersham County to withdraw 12.5 million gallons of water from the Savannah River Watershed. 2 Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, you’ve heard the correction, as well as the deletion and additions. What is your pleasure? Mr. Cheek: I move to add. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? The Chair recognize Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: You don’t have unanimous consent to the additions to the agenda. I will add the correction and the deletion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that non-unanimous consent to both items 1, 2 and 3, or any particular item? Mr. Beard: I would [inaudible] 1, 2, and 3. All three. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So noted. There is no unanimous consent. The Chair recognize Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On item 3, this is an item in which Habersham County is attempting to withdraw water from those streams that flow into the Savannah River and send that over into the Atlanta area. I think it’s something that this Commission should act on today, if Commissioner Beard would consent to allowing that one to go on. Mr. Beard: I would consent to number three. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask the Commissioner this. Commissioner Bridges, since it’s being added on and you’re requesting this, is staff prepared to also make a comment in reference to this, or are we going on our own with it? You’re right, it is important, but I mean are our people ready to address it for us? Mr. Bridges: I’m not sure they are, Mr. Chairman. The Mayor and I discussed this, and the Mayor has provided some detailed backup along with this item. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory, and I’d be happy to answer any questions that I may be able to field at that time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No problem. I’m glad you’re way ahead of it on it then, and I’ll recognize that fact. We have a motion and a second on the addition of item 3, as well as the corrections. Is there any further discussion? 3 Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct. No further discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have to get used to this particular machine. Not used to sitting here. My name is usually down at that other end. We can move to the regular order. PRESENTATIONS: A. ARC Employee of the Month Award Mr. Edward N. Gilliland Public Works/Facilities Maintenance Department Deputy Clerk: The first item we have is a presentation of the Augusta Richmond County Employee of the Month Award to Mr. Edward N. Gilliland with Public Works/Facilities Maintenance Department. Mr. Gilliland is being recognized for his outstanding achievements in designing and implementing seasonal plants and decorations at the Municipal Building. Mr. Gilliland, through his innovating and cost-cutting ideas, has started a greenhouse program here at the Municipal Building. Through this program, savings are made of the replacement costs, seeds are restarted, as well as plant cuttings rooted. (A round of applause is given.) st B. 1 Sergeant Bernard McAdams Certificate of Appreciation- Safety Day Honorable Willie H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem Deputy Clerk: We have a presentation of a certificate of appreciation for Safety Day. Lt. Col. Urey. Col. Urey: [inaudible] take a couple of minutes and thank you for [inaudible]. A few months back [inaudible] training mission [inaudible]. We did that in an effort to reinforce safety [inaudible]. Labor Day is one of the last summer weekends that the soldiers have the opportunity [inaudible] summer before the fall and winter start. [inaudible] over 4,000 participated in [inaudible]. [inaudible] ran past displays of various safety aspects. And one of the ones being particularly noted was the driving under the influence, DUI’s and DWI’ and to reinforce to our soldiers that the designated driver is the only way to go. And along with that, we had the support of the Hon. Mays [inaudible] we had a hearse from him [inaudible] automobile [inaudible] accident, the soldiers representing [inaudible], laying on the ground, as if they had been injured or even further, a couple of yards down was the hearse [inaudible] that did not pay attention during the Safety Run and had an unfortunate accident. So we’re here today to say thank 4 you on behalf of all the soldiers that went through the Safety Run [inaudible] and present to you a certificate of appreciation on behalf of our battalion and also on behalf of the brigade that participated that day and [inaudible]. I’m going to ask Capt. Morgan from my headquarters [inaudible] to read the certificate. Capt. Morgan: This certificate of appreciation is presented on behalf of the Headquarters [inaudible], Fort Gordon, Georgia, is awarded to the Honorable Willie Mays, for your outstanding support rendered during the [inaudible] Safety Day Run on 30 August 2000. The vehicle support provided greatly enhanced the [inaudible] safety awareness display. On behalf of all the officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers, thank you for your efforts [inaudible]. Signed [inaudible], United States Army and [inaudible]. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It was brand new and I’m glad nobody had to ride in it. Deputy Clerk: Our next item is a delegation. DELEGATION: Ms. Denise Hocker, President Brentwood Neighborhood Association RE: Neighborhood Zoning Concerns Deputy Clerk: Ms. Hocker? Ms. Hocker: Hello. My name is Denise Hocker and I am the president of Brentwood subdivision. We come today to voice our concerns regarding a home located at 2829 Brentway Drive. This home has raised many concerns throughout our neighborhood for many years. There have been residents in this home that left our neighborhood -- I mean there have been many residents in our neighborhood left questioning the safety of our children and family, as well as our rights. Within the last few years, there has been drug users in this home, thieves, and even domestic issues. We have had some residents from this home who needed food, not knowing that this home was for the homeless. These individuals placed in this home was never tested for drugs or given background checks or were never monitored. This proves that our safety was not an issue. Even if they monitored, they would have been aware of the wrongdoings in this home. Every few months, there were different single men that was placed in this home. All things considered, we discovered this home on our own, about this home, that this home was owned by an organization here in Augusta by the name of CSRA Economic Authority. We immediately questioned authorities regarding our rights and our safety. Why were we never informed about this home? How could this home be placed in our neighborhood without our knowledge? Why wasn’t there a zoning sign placed at this residence? From the beginning of this ordeal, our rights were placed on the back burner. We followed our guidelines and made a complaint. However, to our dismay, our complaints were given to the CSRA Economic Authority, which I was 5 thought our complaint was still anonymous. This person by the name of Ms. Suarez is an employee of CSRA, contact me at my place of employment. Once contacted by Ms. Suarez, I then knew that things were done incorrectly, and they knew that we were upset. Even though Ms. Suarez admitted things weren’t done correctly, that basically it was too late. She then states that if anything ever happened in our neighborhood concerning this home, just call them. Now that is what we are trying to prevent. Our children play in front of this home, as well as catch the bus in front of this home. We didn’t know if there were any sex offenders, murderers, whatever else in this home, and neither did that organization. We have voiced our concerns to many people. Mr. Rob Sherman. Randy Oliver. Mr. Patty. To name a few. And all promises were broken. The sad thing is the rights of those in that home, their rights were protected but ours were not. What is wrong with this picture? This organization does not keep decent people in this home. They have sent you a letter indicating now the home house families for 20 months, 24 months at a time. But this has not occurred. By us only monitoring this home, we know that the last family moved in and moved out within less of a year. This is not even -- this was not even known to the organization until we called a Commissioner and the Commissioner contact them. That’s when they ran out to see what was going on with this home. Why should we be forced to monitor this home? Apparently they find it’s a task for them to do, and the City does not have enough manpower to make the organization abide by the regulations. Therefore, we don’t want this home in our neighborhood and we feel that there should be no room for compromise. We all gratefully thank you, and God bless. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you for coming, Madame President. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there other members of the Association or supporters who are here with you in reference to it, the official matter? If you would, raise your hands just for the official count so that the Clerk can take note. (12 objectors to home noted) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, are there any records, police records of police visits or problems to this home that we could use to perhaps facilitate closing of this facility? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to yield to my colleague, Mr. Colclough, because I think until it got very recent and you talked about bringing that issue to their attention, I think Richard can probably answer that about any conversation that occurred actually that was dealt with in meeting with the Administration. I was probably absent and not privileged to, so I’m going to yield to Richard on that. 6 Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chairman, this has been an ongoing problem out in Brentwood for a long time, and we’ve tried to resolve the issue without Ms. Hocker coming in. And as she says, it has been a difficult task to do. EOA do own this building and they have made promises that this home was for families and they would be there for 24 months and that the home would be monitored. I think the last family that was out there was some domestic violence where I think the husband had to be run off and the lady had to be protected, finally she moved out, and I don’t know who is out there now. But it has been a problem out there and the police has been involved with that home, particular home. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I would suggest at this stage, because if there has been a breakdown in that level of communication and you’re where you should be at this point, where do we got from here? I would suggest and I can’t make the motion, but I would be glad to entertain one, that we probably need to do something on our own grounds and probably in terms of Public Safety Committee, in terms of entertaining that as an agenda item and asking the people from the agency to come in, as well as to have neighborhood representation in that Committee meeting, and we be the mediating force in public meeting of doing that and to see can we hopefully get that situation under control. That’s just a suggestion. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chair? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes? Mr. Colclough: I will entertain that as a motion as stated. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second that we do so. Is there any further discussion? I give you a chance to get back. I am going to recognize Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we’ve dealt with this particular type of situation at some of our monthly morning breakfast meetings and discussions of Section VII and other housing similar to this, and we’re always given assurances that there are periodic inspections, that these things are watched very carefully and that neighbors and good neighborhoods are assured that these houses are being filled with people who have a lot of concern about becoming first-time homeowners, and that these will not be menaces to the existing neighborhoods. I would suggest that if that mechanism is broken down or if we’re not seeing the kind of coverage that we’re being promised, that we seriously review this type of program and limit it to keep it from destroying neighborhoods who are in some cases struggling to maintain a decent standard of living. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? 7 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree with what’s been said in the motion, but I’d like to ask George or either Mr. Sherman whether or not, you know, what their finding was when they was called, when they went out to address this issue, to speak for this residence. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question is asked, Rob, you want to address that? Or George? Okay. Mr. Williams: George coming up. Mr. Patty: I wasn’t running. From what I heard, I’m not familiar with this particular property. We’ve had other similar situations and I don’t think there is any zoning violation. I mean as I understand it, somebody owns this house and they’re renting to folks that come in there, they may live there for six months to a year, maybe a little more, maybe less, but I think from a zoning standpoint, that’s just like any other residence. I mean [inaudible] doing about that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re saying at least not from a zoning aspect? Mr. Patty: Not from a zoning aspect. I’m just talking about zoning. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard, then Mr. Williams again. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, since I think we’ve put it into Committee -- wasn’t that your suggestion? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was my suggestion. Mr. Beard: That was the motion? Why not let’s take it to Committee and deal with it there. It has to come back to this body anyway. So I mean, it’s kind of a moot thing here now until we hear from the Committee. The only other thing I would like to add to that is maybe we get both sides notified that this will be coming up at the next meeting, Public Safety Committee meeting, that both sides be notified so we can hear from both entities. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I didn’t mean to necessarily just send it to your Committee, but it sound like a safety issue and concern, so I knew you’d welcome it there in Public Safety. But I merely was trying to get it into a formal committee state inasmuch as this has been discussed obviously in a private situation per se, and the only way to get a point of general public, as well as neighborhoods, and as well as agency that renders support, is to get everybody in the room at the same time. Commissioner Williams, if you have 8 anything final, then I’m going to recognize the young lady who is president, then we’re going to go ahead and take a vote. Mr. Williams: Well, I just wanted to say George brought some light to my eyes when he said that for the zoning, if this place had not been zoned or been zoned, and that was my question. But I can wait till it come to Committee. We can hear both sides. We can get it back on this Commission floor and hear it. I just wanted to know was that place zoned for that particular type business, and if it was zoned then somebody should have been, you know, watching and keeping and monitoring that particular situation. Was it or was it not, George? Was it zoned? Mr. Patty: It’s a single-family dwelling. Mr. Williams: Single-family dwelling. Mr. Patty: It’s a single-family use and it’s a single-family zoning. Mr. Williams: So it had not been zoned for any particular -- okay, that’s what I wanted to know. Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame President? Ms. Hocker: For certain this home that was placed in our neighborhood, other than last year, December 24, 2000 is when they decided to house families. CSRA Economic Authority has owned that home for approximately five years. They have been housing single men in this home, and they’ve called it a transitional home until they were given a definition that a transitional home was not allowed in our neighborhood, they indicated that now they house families. You started off housing all these single men, doing no background checks, doing no drug testing, no monitoring, and once we found out about the problems that we were having in that home, is when they decided to change the format of that home to families. [inaudible] they’re still not abiding by it, they said the families would stay in this home for 24 months. No family has stayed in this home for not even a year. And when I spoke with Mr. Sherman concerning this zoning problem, he indicated the information we gave him, that they did not go by the guidelines. He gave them a short period of time to fax a letter over to him, which they had not. So within that time he told me to be prepared to watch for a sign placed in our yard, a sign on the home, and we would have a right to come and address this issue to you all. So we were never given a chance. I called Mr. Sherman on numerous occasions. Our calls were never answered. So then, when the issue was brought up in the newspaper is when he responded. I spoke with Mr. Patty as well, when I spoke with Randy Oliver. Mr. Patty was -- I talked with him, he was on a loud speaker. They indicated they may have done wrong, but basically if we bring this to court, if we take it to court by them not going by the guidelines, they more so get a slap on their hands. So basically now that they’re doing right, why won’t we just go and allow them to? I said we can’t trust them. They’re not to be trusted. They came to the neighborhood without allowing us to know 9 what they want to do, now why do you want to discuss the safety of our children and family when you didn’t think about us from the beginning? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it was not into a committee’s attention at that particular time, and where we’re trying to move it now. Ms. Hocker: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is to an arena where it will be addressed. Ms. Hocker: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we will have that notification to both you and the agency so that we can deal with some mediated force in between and try and then reach some type of agreement in there as to what is really going on, [inaudible] and see can we get to a point of where everybody is protected in that situation, particularly the neighbors that are there. And that’s what we’re trying to get to at this point. Ms. Hocker: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we want to go ahead on. If we can, move that issue on and the notification will be on our next committee meeting of Public Safety, which you got? Ms. Hocker: [inaudible] January? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, there is a motion and second on the floor that it be sent to Public Safety Committee and that the proper parties be notified, the President of the neighborhood association in terms of passing that information on to her group, as well as to the agency involved and to out staff people, whether they fall under Public Safety or not, if the maker of the motion, I think that that needs to be in there, whether they are covered under Public Safety Committee or not, that zoning, also be present at that particular meeting. Mr. Colclough: Exactly, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, same. Motion carries 10-0. Ms. Hocker: Thank you. 10 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Deputy Clerk: The next item under our consent agenda, which will consist of items 1 through 29. For the benefit of any objectors, I’ll read the petitions from the Planning Commission and the requests for the alcoholic beverage licenses. 1. Z-00-115 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim Reeves Commercial Properties, on behalf of Cedar Hill Limited Partnership, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Kissingbower Road, 74 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Busbia Avenue and Kissingbower Road. (1951 Kissingbower Road). DISTRICT 5 2. Z-01-01 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) this Special Exception be for animal grooming within the existing accessory building or an enlargement not exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the square footage on record with the Tax Office; 2) any additional construction related to animal grooming require an amendment to this Special Exception and another hearing and all improvements to or enlargement of the accessory building conform to Section 7-2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance; 3) this Special Exception not include any animal boarding, a petition from Frances Wallace requesting a Special Exception for the purposes of establishing an animal grooming operation in an A (Agricultural) Zone per Section 7-2, Subparagraph (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Parwood Road, 1,460 feet, more or less, southeast of the southwest corner of the intersection of Pine Tucker Road and Parwood Road (3853 Parwood Road). DISTRICT 6 3. Z-01-02 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rosalie J. Patio, on behalf of Jose Lagman, requesting a Special Exception for the purposes of establishing a Family Day Care Home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Brentway Drive, 580 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Brentway Drive (2814 Brentway Drive). DISTRICT 4 4. Z-01-03 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition; with the condition that the temporary modular units will be removed within three (3) years. If after three (3) years the modular units are still needed the petitioner shall initiate another application for a Special Exception, from Frank Mullins, on behalf 11 of Broad Street Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and private school as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) and (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Sibley Street intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street a distance of 176 feet to a point located where the southeast right-of-way of First Street intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street. This property includes 15 and19 and 20 and 29 Ellis Street. DISTRICT 1 5. Z-01-05 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Eddie McCorkle and Peggy McCorkle requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the east right-of-way line of Davis Road, 320 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Toucan Road and Davis Road. (148 and 150 Davis Road). DISTRICT 7 6. Z-01-06 - Request for concurrent with the decision of the Augusta Richmond Planning Commission to approve a petition from David Hutto, on behalf of Rascal Enterprises, Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Georgia Highway #88 intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Bath Edie Road; thence, N2w4 degrees 34’25”W along the northeast right-of-way line of Bath Edie Road a distance of 347.14 feet to a point. DISTRICT 8 7. Z-01-07 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve, with the following conditions 1) the existing structure shall be adapted without a significant change of appearance; 2) vehicle parking shall be in the rear yard and shall be adequately screened from the adjacent residential land use; 3) no changes to the front of the property shall be permitted, except that a sign may be erected that conforms to zoning standards for the area; 4) the only business on this property be a general office use or those uses permitted in a P-1 zone, a petition from E. W. Reece requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Central Avenue, 151 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Glenn Avenue and Central Avenue. (2614 Central Avenue). DISTRICT 3 8. Z-01-08 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Herbert Newsome requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 984 feet, more or less, southwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Parham Road and Gordon Highway (3161 Gordon Highway). DISTRICT 3 12 22. Motion to approve a request by Charles E. Sconyers for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with C. J’s located at 2512 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 23. Motion to approve a request by James E. Allen III for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Handy Land Truck Terminal located at 4706 Deans Bridge Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 24. Motion to approve a request by Heinz J. Sowinski for a retail package wine license to be used in connection with Wines by Heinz located at 404-A Telfair Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 25. Motion to approve a request by Ok Cha Kervins for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Kervins Convenience Store located at 2443 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 26. Motion to approve a request by Martin Garcia for an on premise consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Viva Mexico Restaurant located at 2579 Tobacco Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) Deputy Clerk: Are there any objectors to these requests? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any objectors to anything on zoning or on alcohol? None are noted. PLANNING: 1. Z-00-115 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim Reeves Commercial Properties, on behalf of Cedar Hill Limited Partnership, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Kissingbower Road, 74 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Busbia Avenue and Kissingbower Road. (1951 Kissingbower Road). DISTRICT 5 2. Deleted from consent agenda. 3. Deleted from consent agenda 4. Z-01-03 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition; with the condition that the temporary modular units will be removed within three (3) years. If after three (3) years the modular units are still needed the petitioner shall initiate another application for a Special Exception, from Frank Mullins, on behalf of Broad Street Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and private school as provided for in 13 Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) and (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Sibley Street intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street a distance of 176 feet to a point located where the southeast right-of-way of First Street intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Ellis Street. This property includes 15 and19 and 20 and 29 Ellis Street. DISTRICT 1 5. Z-01-05 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Eddie McCorkle and Peggy McCorkle requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the east right-of-way line of Davis Road, 320 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Toucan Road and Davis Road. (148 and 150 Davis Road). DISTRICT 7 6. Deleted from consent agenda. 7. Z-01-07 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve, with the following conditions 1) the existing structure shall be adapted without a significant change of appearance; 2) vehicle parking shall be in the rear yard and shall be adequately screened from the adjacent residential land use; 3) no changes to the front of the property shall be permitted, except that a sign may be erected that conforms to zoning standards for the area; 4) the only business on this property be a general office use or those uses permitted in a P-1 zone, a petition from E. W. Reece requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Central Avenue, 151 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Glenn Avenue and Central Avenue. (2614 Central Avenue). DISTRICT 3 8. Z-01-08 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Herbert Newsome requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 984 feet, more or less, southwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Parham Road and Gordon Highway (3161 Gordon Highway). DISTRICT 3 FINANCE: 9. Motion to approve the award to Bobby Jones Ford to guarantee pricing for the 2001 Model Year 116-119 Inch Wheelbase Sport Utility Vehicles, (Bid # 00-163). (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001) 10. Motion to approve qualifying fees for 2001. (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001) 11. Deleted from consent agenda. 12. Motion to ratify the appointment letter of Ms. Donna Williams as Acting Interim Comptroller. (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001) 14 13. Motion to approve contracting with Slavens Accounting & Consulting Services, L.L.C. for an extended period of 90 days at a rate of $75 per hour. (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001) 14. Motion to deny a request for abatement of taxes (2000) from Augusta Woman’s Club on property located at 1005 Milledge Road and waive penalty. (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 15. Motion to approve $285,000 from CDBG Housing Development funds to be allocated to Transition Centers, Inc subject to an appraisal and the approval of the attorney. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 8, 2001) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 16. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $45,070.87 to J. S. Haren Company for additional work to be completed at the Little Spirit Creek 5 Million Gallon per Day Ground Water Treatment Plant. Funded from account no. 508043410/5425110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 8, 2001) 17. Motion to approve a proposal from Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. in the amount of $217,000 to design a sanitary sewer collector system for the Jamestown sanitary sewer pocket. (Funded by Account Number: 509043420-5212115/80150215-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 8, 2001) 18. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $41,250 to provide a study to determine the most practical route for the Central Connector. (Funded by Account Number 509043410- 5212115/80110110-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 8, 2001) 19. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $60,100 to design a sanitary sewer collector system for the Berckmans Road sanitary sewer pocket. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150050-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 8, 2001) PUBLIC SAFETY: 20. Motion to approve and execute Maintenance Renewal Agreement with SunGard Bi-Tech Inc. for the period covering January 1, 2001 – December 31, 2001. (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 8, 2001) PUBLIC SERVICES: 21. Motion to approve a resolution to authorize a pre-application to be filed with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant for land acquisition at Sand Hills Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 15 22. Motion to approve a request by Charles E. Sconyers for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with C. J’s located at 2512 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 23. Motion to approve a request by James E. Allen III for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Handy Land Truck Terminal located at 4706 Deans Bridge Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 24. Motion to approve a request by Heinz J. Sowinski for a retail package wine license to be used in connection with Wines by Heinz located at 404-A Telfair Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 25. Motion to approve a request by Ok Cha Kervins for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Kervins Convenience Store located at 2443 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 26. Motion to approve a request by Martin Garcia for an on premise consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Viva Mexico Restaurant located at 2579 Tobacco Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001) 27. Deleted from consent agenda. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 28. Motion to approve the regular minutes of the December 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001 Commission meetings. 29. APPOINTMENTS A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Julie Binic to the Historic Preservation Commission representing District 8. B. Deleted from the agenda. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second that we approve the consent agenda. Are there any Commissioners that would like to have any pulled out for separate discussion? Mr. Bridges: Pull item 6, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 6 is off. Mr. Williams: Pull number 3, Mr. Mayor, just for some information, if I could. 16 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Six and 3. Mr. Cheek: Number 2, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Six, 3 and 2. Anything on this end? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anything on this end to be pulled? The Chair will pull off the consent agenda items 11 and 27 that relate to Public Transit. There’s a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, absent of those which have been pulled. Is there any further discussion or anything else to be taken off? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed the same. I vote Yes, and the persons that may be other then Commissioner Colclough that wish to vote No on a Sunday sale can be noted at this time. Mr. Bridges: Please note that I vote No on Sunday sales, Nancy. Mr. Williams: Me, too, Nancy. Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion. Motion carries 10-0. [Item 26] Motion carries 10-0. [Item 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-25, 28-29] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We could come back, I guess, to 2, then 3, then 6, with the Commission’s approval I think we can take 11 and 27 at the same time. DeputyClerk: 2. Z-01-01 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) this Special Exception be for animal grooming within the existing accessory building or an enlargement not exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the square footage on record with the Tax Office; 2) any additional construction related to animal grooming require an amendment to this Special Exception and another hearing and all improvements to or enlargement of the accessory building conform to Section 7-2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance; 3) this Special Exception not include any animal boarding, a petition from Frances Wallace requesting a Special Exception for the purposes of establishing an animal grooming operation in an A (Agricultural) Zone per Section 7-2, Subparagraph (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Parwood Road, 1,460 feet, more or less, southeast of the southwest corner of the intersection of Pine Tucker Road and Parwood Road (3853 Parwood Road). DISTRICT 6 17 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Patty, does this conform with the surrounding use, and does it pose any long-term problems to this area? Mr. Patty: Mr. Cheek, this is area is dominated by fairly large site-built homes on large lots and this particular home, the homeowner has an outbuilding that’s a relatively small building. She wants to groom dogs in that building. And the only neighbor anywhere near that building, I think that their home is 400 feet or more from this building, has signed a letter saying they have no objection to the use of it. Our conditions would not allow them to enlarge the building over 20% or build a bigger building if the business is successful, and so I think -- it also stipulates that there not be any boarding of dogs. And with those stipulations, I think the neighbors would be protected. Recommend approval. Mr. Cheek: No further questions. Move to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on item number 2? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. DeputyClerk: 3. Z-01-02 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rosalie J. Patio, on behalf of Jose Lagman, requesting a Special Exception for the purposes of establishing a Family Day Care Home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Brentway Drive, 580 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Brentway Drive (2814 Brentway Drive). DISTRICT 4 Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty, what I wanted to know, is this adjacent to -- first thing, this is not the same property we just discussed earlier, right? Mr. Patty: No, this is -- well, it’s in the same block. Mr. Williams: In the same block? Mr. Patty: Yes. I believe that’s 2928 or 29 or something like that. Mr. Bridges: 2829. 18 Mr. Patty: 2829. It’s close, but it’s not the same property. Mr. Williams: It’s not the same property? Okay. I just noted the address and I wanted to be clear on that that it was not the same property. Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair vote Yes. Motion carries 10-0. DeputyClerk: 6. Z-01-06 - Request for concurrent with the decision of the Augusta Richmond Planning Commission to approve a petition from David Hutto, on behalf of Rascal Enterprises, Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Georgia Highway #88 intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Bath Edie Road; thence, N2w4 degrees 34’25”W along the northeast right-of-way line of Bath Edie Road a distance of 347.14 feet to a point. DISTRICT 8 Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this be pulled. I’ve got some questions on it for George. In changing that from Agricultural to B-2, is that consistent with the master plan? Mr. Patty: The master plan said that, in south Richmond County neighborhood planning area, it listed certain highways and arterial road that had the intersections of those roads where commercial development is already established, that you should consider commercial rezoning, and in this particular intersection, the Jefferson Electric property is zoned Light Industrial, the property immediately across Highway 88 from this one is zoned B-2. As a matter of fact, we approved a site plan for a gas-food mart at that location, a large site. So I would submit to you that the zoning pattern is already established at the intersection. What we’ve tried to do is hold it at the intersection and therefore it does conform to the plan. Mr. Bridges: My understanding of the master plan, other than those that were grandfathered in, there would be no more commercial development at those intersections in these developing neighborhood areas. 19 Mr. Patty: These type intersections where you’ve got two arterial highways, what I think what it said was that where you’ve got existing established commercial use or zoning, that rezoning to Commercial would be considered, but not in the areas between the intersections, so actually it’s limited to a 500 foot radius around the intersection or the streets where you would consider rezoning. Mr. Bridges: Were there any objections at the Planning and Zoning? Mr. Patty: We had one gentleman who owns a house just north, I guess that would be the intersection, on the other side of Highway 88, and he may be here and he may want to speak for himself, but I think what I heard him say was that he would rather -- he was more opposed to the manufactured homes that in all probability would be alternative to the Commercial, than the Commercial. Mr. Bridges: I think he’s probably right [inaudible]. I’m not going to object to I’ll make the motion that we go ahead and approve it. this. In fact, Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Bridges: In the past, we have had some people who have gotten -- and I’m assuming he’s putting a convenience store of some kind here; is that the case? Mr. Patty: Well, there’s no proposed use. It’s speculative rezoning. Mr. Bridges: If a convenience store is in the proposal, then he might want to consider before he goes and builds a building like they did at Brown and Old Waynesboro, if he has an intention of getting a beer and wine license, he might want to consider getting that first, as opposed to building the building and then going and getting it, because that is a developing neighborhood, and our recreational center is directly across the street from it. But I think the motion has been made and seconded, and I believe we should approve it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion by any Commissioners? None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes Yes. Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: 11. Motion to approve an increase in Transit fares. The regular passenger base fare will increase 25 cents. The new fare will be $1.00. Senior citizen, disabled and student fares will be increased from 35 cents to 50 cents. The base ADA paratransit fare will be increased from $1.50 to $2.00 and proposed pass program. There will be no increase in the cost of a transfer. (Approved by Finance Committee January 8, 2001.) 20 27. Motion to approve an increase in the Transit fares. The regular passenger base fare will increase 25 cents. The new fare will be $1.00. Senior citizen, disabled and student fares will be increased from 35 cents to 50 cents. The base ADA paratransit fare will be increased from $1.50 to $2.00 and proposed pass program. There will be no increase in the cost of a transfer. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 8, 2001.) Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second to approve both items. I guess in this business I learned how to count. Back about 21 years ago. But I asked that they be handled and pulled off separately because I wanted to address them. I realize they been through two committees and the vote came out of those two committees is 7 to 1, so that’s pretty good elementary math to know where that’s going. But I’m going to say the same thing I said in the committee on which I serve in Public Services, as well as during the budget session. I applaud our Transit Department people in terms of what they’re trying to do basically with what we give them, in terms of an operating budget. I think that they do quite well with what’s given, and they try and stretch it as far as they can. I was really pleased earlier when we came forth with suggested cuts, that they were one of the few departments that had put in monies that could already be saved in terms of six figures prior to being asked to do anything. Now I made a commitment promise that I am going to stick to, and when we were talking about business licenses and we were talking alcohol licenses, we had somewhat of a common denominator that was off the table that we abided by. We stuck to a 10% and we went no higher. I can’t be hypocritical to a point and I raised the objection when it looked as though Transit fees was going to go into a 10% situation when in reality those fees were basically going to be up around 33%. And that’s still at that level. And so I know where this one is going, but I want to be on record to a point that I oppose that, both on items 11 and 27. I think that when we ask certain areas to bear the brunt of increases, that we ought to be as fair, particularly with the disabled, with the students, those that have to use public transit, with a percentage, just as we do folk who buy alcohol. We stayed in the 10% range there. I think we ought to be just in terms of dealing with that at 10% of where we are going here, if that’s to be done. And that’s my statement for the record. If there be any further discussion regarding items 11 or 27, the Chair so entertains. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I mentioned this during the budget process. I would hope that at some point in the future that we would look at bus routes that we can no longer maintain ourselves, and attempt to send out a request for proposals to allow private sector individuals to run these on a schedule under license by the City of Augusta to provide those services at or near the same cost that we are charging the citizens now, to allow that service to continue. That would keep us from having to buy buses and hire personnel and they would still come under the licensing agreements of the City of Augusta. 21 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion on this end? My only response to that -- and I think that it’s a good idea, Commissioner Cheek, but the problem is we don’t have a real problem in getting money to buy buses. We can get enough buses almost to give everybody one. Our problem is that we’re not really getting the operational monies. We don’t get a contribution from the state, and that that we get from the federal government is not intended towards operations. The problem is that when you start trying to privatize and send that out into certain areas, you get companies that want to cherry pick. They want those items that will make money on routes but want to leave you as a government with the ones that don’t make it, so then you’re back basically to square one. But I think any improvements that we can make, I think that we can get some other help out of the state in terms of operational costs, then that’s something that we as a delegation can work on. But I think at this point, I cannot support where we are going with that one. If there is no other further discussion, all in favor of the motion on both items, 11 and 27, will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, no. The Chair votes No on both items. Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, before we go over into our additions or into our regular agenda, since we’ve moving along pretty rapidly and we might be approaching, gentlemen, our slow down period, to a point I would like to recognize a couple of people here in the audience. Our newly-elected Board of Education member, the young fellow by the door there whose hair is still dark in places, but I’m sure it will get much lighter in where you’re going. My old principal there, Commissioner from District 1, Marion Barnes. Glad to have you and appreciate your being here with our body and look forward to working with your body as well. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I see a constant visitor of ours, one of our airport commissioners, Mr. Ernie Smith, who is over there. It’s good to have our board members from various committees that are there that serve on appointed committees throughout this government. Ms. [inaudible], Ms. [inaudible] and others that are there as well. And to my old working colleague on the front row over there, former Commissioner Freddie Handy, who is there with us today. Glad to have you, Mr. Handy. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we’ve got another school board trustee in the audience. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: She’s a regular of this Commission. That’s my other vote that I need sometime. I got to look and see. That’s why she’s sitting in the center. She normally sits in front of me to help keep me straight and keep my [inaudible] between the 22 two fellows I got to sit between, so she’s here all the time, almost like a regular of this Commission. It’s good to always have you here. You can bring Mr. Barnes along with you every week, coming back. Andy? Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to make note that Ms. Helen Minchew was also voted unanimously at our breakfast meeting as an honorary south Augustan. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now I guess we move on to war games. Deputy Clerk: 30. Z.-01-04 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bonnie Holmes, on behalf of Bonnie and Herbert Holmes, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home as provided for in Section 26- 1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County, on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Brookstone Road and Spirit Creek Road; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the northeast right-of-way line of Brookstone Road a distance of 143 feet, more or less, to a point. (1401 Brookstone Road). DISTRICT 6 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the petitioner present? Mr. Holmes: On behalf of myself, Herbert Holmes, and my wife, Bonnie Holmes, I would like to say good afternoon. We are here today to graciously ask the committee to grant zoning privileges for my wife’s day care. We are grandparents ourselves. Therefore, we know the value of good child care. We have six kids of our own, and three grandkids. We have one son in the last year of college, two girls in first year of college. We understand that [inaudible]. We’re not asking the committee to grant us structural changes in the neighborhood. We’re not asking for any type of monument or change the way the neighborhood looks. We’ve been in our home there for over three years. The only thing that has changed in my wife and myself. The land is still the same, our home is still the same. There is no traffic backed up. There is no increase in crime. [inaudible] most people that we feel would be affected by the day care, this home care facility, we discussed briefly last night. And [inaudible] they were 100% behind us on this. And they are the main ones that we feel that we should consult in the fact that if there is a problem, that they could let us know, because we are law-abiding citizens. We don’t, we don’t want to do anything that would be in violation of city or county or state regulations. That’s why we’re here today. But we have full support of our neighbors. The people that live on our street. The people that watch our home, as we watch theirs. And they are in 100% compliance in what we’re trying to do. If any of you have ever tried to get in-home care or day care for your children, you know how hard it is. My wife, she’s only allowed a maximum of six. She only has two right now. So 23 therefore there is no traffic congestion. There is no strangers coming in and out of our home. The children that we are referred to either come from a neighbor or relatives of a neighbor or a friend. Therefore we are petitioning here to the committee in full compliance that we are granted zoning privileges so we can open up [inaudible]. Ms. Holmes: I would like to add [inaudible]. I have [inaudible 19 years. I have license [inaudible]. I have [inaudible] from Georgia [inaudible]. I have [inaudible] and background checks [inaudible]. Mr. Holmes: I would like to [inaudible] available, affordable, quality child care [inaudible]. Bonnie Holmes has proven that she is working to operate a quality child care program by getting training and staying in close contact with available resources. This is to show the full support of the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency for the approval of Ms. Holmes’ request for zoning. Please feel free to call me with any questions. [inaudible]. Ms. Holmes: [inaudible] My family day care is not commercial [inaudible]. [inaudible] background checks, everything. [inaudible] 19 years [inaudible]. Mr. Holmes: [inaudible] care and education is vital to Georgia’s children, families and communities. Quality child care and education provides the foundation for a child’s future success. [inaudible] quality child care and education is necessary for Georgia’s families to pursue work, training and educational opportunities. Quality child care and education is essential [inaudible]. Quality child care and education takes place in a safe, healthy, nurturing and stimulating learning environment. In partnership between involved parents and trained, dedicated care givers, underlies quality childhood care and education. The wide range of childhood care and education options for children and families should be available in all communities. We thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask you this question before any Commissioners that may have a question for you. You mentioned in reference to support or your surrounding neighbors. Did you bring any petition from them as well? If you would, give it to the -- Ms. Holmes: [inaudible] we also have references. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Clerk will take it. Do any Commissioners have any questions or Mr. or Mr. Holmes? Recognize Commissioner Cheek first, then Commissioner Beard, then Commissioner Henry Brigham, then Commissioner Richard Colclough. In that order. Mr. Cheek: I guess before I get started, are there those in opposition to this personal care home? 24 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I wonder if we have a spokesman from those that are in opposition before I make my comments, please. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Let’s get a count first and then bring the spokesperson in. (17 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 17 noted. Okay. State your name and address for the record, please. Ms. Frazier: My name is Gloria Frazier. I’m at 2717 Willis Foreman Road. Walton Farms neighborhood. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You may proceed. Ms. Frazier: I am president of the Walton Farms Neighborhood Association, and I am here with all of the residents from four subdivisions. Walton Acres, Walton Landings, Walton Hills, the mentioned neighborhood, and Walton Meadows. We are here to oppose this day care center. We have no objections to Ms. Holmes’ qualifications for opening up a day care center, but I feel that with her -- we all feel with her qualifications, that she needs to open this center up in a business area. Not the middle of our subdivision. And the petition that she had from her surrounding neighbors is only one street. I have the entire four subdivisions here who oppose this because this will devalue our property. And that’s what we are here for, to oppose this day care center because we do not need it in our neighborhood, and we are more than willing to support Mr. and Ms. Holmes because they are in our neighborhood with any business that they have except they need to be in a business zone. Thank you. Mr. Holloway: [inaudible] Holloway, 2007 [inaudible]. I’m a retired [inaudible]. I worked with hundreds of people. But I bought a $140,000-150,000 home to be secluded and not in a zoning area where the next thing I know is a day care center, we would have a senior citizens center or a mechanical shop. And I feel that this is unfair when we have open areas on Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road and can secure these [inaudible] for my neighbors. Ms. Frazier: I also ask the Commission can I -- I have one more speaker here. Can they talk? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s a little heavier than me. I might let him go ahead and speak. [inaudible]. Mr. Charles: My name is [inaudible] Charles. Most of you know me and I was just recently elected as the President of the Neighborhood Alliance Association which represents over 30 neighborhoods in this county. Some of you live in those neighborhoods. I was asked to come here today -- and this is very annoying to me, as 25 over the years I have come before this Commission down here about this same type problem here. And I listen and hear her say we’re in compliance with this ordinance and that ordinance. I listened at the Mayor the other night when he delivered his speech about revitalizing sections of this county. And I’d just like to say to this Commission here, revitalization does not only include downtown Augusta. It includes these outlying communities out here in which we’re living in. And we have to look and see what we’re doing. We’re building neighborhoods and at the same time, we’re tearing down. It’s not fair that we’re tearing them down. And I think that in the future, this Commission may want to look at some of our zoning laws. I think we have some of the poorest zoning laws in the CSRA. We have people come into the neighborhoods, and nobody wants to see anyone be deprived of their rights of whatever it is. But once property has been rezoned, business is put in, [inaudible] allow any other thing to come in. We have homes in this neighborhood here that exceeds $150,000 or $160,000. Some up to $200,000. We have some prominent people who live in those neighborhoods out there. And if we continue to allow this type thing here to happen, we’re going to saturate these neighborhoods before they get completed with a lot of commercialized business when they could be put someplace else. So I would ask this Commission here today to take a very serious look at the burden we are putting on the neighborhood, number one, and look at the burden that we’re putting on the License Department over here. They are one of the departments within the county that has the responsibility of somewhat kind of looking over these. They’ve just been given a burden here recently with this sign ordinance. I see signs out on the road right now. Telling me Mr. Sherman is having a hard time over there. But yet, we still dumping this on him to do it. We had a lady here today complaining about the same thing. When are we going to stop, when are we going to start looking at this and say guys, ladies, maybe we’re making a mistake, maybe we need to look at an alternative? And it’s not to deprive anybody of any legal rights. Maybe Georgia laws need changing. We don’t know that. But we definitely need to look at the neighborhoods and start creating what we are standing up every day saying we are trying to clean up, and that is neighborhood that is being [inaudible] with this type of activity. I thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you have a petition to give us at this time from any of the associations in there? At this time, Ms. Frazier? Ms. Frazier: No, I don’t have a petition. I brought bodies with me today. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Ms. Frazier: Because I feel the bodies are more important. That’s why I brought you a lot of bodies here to represent our neighborhood. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Watch how you saw you bring bodies to an undertaker. Ms. Frazier: I’m sorry. 26 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That could be [inaudible]. Let me say this in all seriousness, I’m asking the question to both sides. We’ve heard both the petitioners in terms of their petition to us. We’ve heard objectors from different neighborhoods that are here. Before I entertain questions from the Commissioners that may be to either side, since we’ve heard both, Mr. Patty, do you have anything that you want to add to this at this point from Zoning, so that we can get any questions of you prior to us asking either side anything? Mr. Patty: Well, the Planning Commission heard the same argument. It was a split vote, which I suspect this one will be. The issue is whether or not to grant a special exception, which does not change the zoning, does not change the zoning map, simply will give them a special right to basically babysit for six children in the home. It’s not a rezoning request for anything like that. There are standard arguments against these. However trivial they may appear to be, they are a business and that goes against the grain of the neighborhood and that was the prevailing thought on the Planning Commission. There is one other thing that I want to mention. There is one built-in safety guard with these uses, and that is if it were approved, and once again we recommend that it be denied. If it were approved, there would be a 1200-foot radius around it within which no other similar use could operate. So there is somewhat of a safety feature there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: When you recommended denial, was that staff’s recommendation for denial? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do any Commissioners have any questions of either Mr. Patty, the objectors, or the petitioners? Mr. Cheek? I move that Mr. Cheek: Seeing no comments or questions, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we deny this petition. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second for denial. Is there any discussion from any of the Commissioners? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes for the motion that’s on the floor. Mr. H. Brigham out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The motion is for denial. The petition has been turned down. Next item. Deputy Clerk: 27 31. Consider the following for appointment to fill the position currently held by Quincy L. Robertson on Richmond County Hospital Authority. A. Mr. James L. Kendrick B. Rev. Clyde Hill, Sr. C. Dr. Roscoe Williams Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to -- the members of the Board sent the three over to us, and we are supposed to select one. And I was in the process of selecting Mr. Kendrick, presenting his name. However, we found that he is already on a , so I’m going to recommend Rev. Clyde Hill, Board and chairs one of our county board Sr. to fill that position. Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second for Rev. Clyde Hill, Sr. Any other nominations? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes Yes. Mr. H. Brigham out. Motion carries 9-0. DeputyClerk: B. Commission appointment to Richmond County Hospital Authority. Commissioner Lee Beard (I) Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second for the approval of Mr. Beard. Any other nominations? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes Yes on that one, too. Mr. H. Brigham out. Mr. Beard not voting. Motion carries 8-0. Deputy Clerk: 28 32. Consider Resolution endorsing the Water Bill of Rights. (Deferred from the January 2, Commission meeting) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I had this placed on the agenda the last time and [inaudible] wasn’t able to get here to that meeting. We [inaudible] in that but I did want us to have a position taken prior to us going to our association meeting and before it got too deep into the General Assembly. The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second. Is there any discussion or would you like to address this and see how far you move ahead? Mr. Booher: No, sir. [inaudible] asked by the Georgia Wildlife Federation to present this before the Commission. I notice there is another resolution below. I’d like to just point out to the Commissioners that we’re really talking about two different issues here. The Georgia Water Bill of Rights that I’m offering to you all has to do with the citizens’ rights. And we feel that citizens’ rights are represented by the county commissioners so we’re asking the county commissioners around the state to consider this resolution so that their citizens rights through their commissioners are represented by the state legislators. I’ve read the resolution following number 33, and that I think has more to do with guidance to the General Assembly members on how they, how this organization, your Association of County Commissioners organizations wants this issue addressed. They’re telling the legislators how to address the issue. One of the points they make out, as of course we all know, is the Governor and the General Assembly create an adequate and finance an office of water resources. My resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how to implement it. We’re just asking that the General Assembly members look at what’s best for the citizens. We’re saying the citizens’ needs should be addressed through their county commissioners, and that’s what I’m offering you, is that resolution. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions of Sam or any questions about the resolution? Mr. Kuhlke is recognized. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I don’t -- Sam, I don’t have any questions of you, but I just want to throw this out. It seems to me that this is the creation of a body that could at some point maybe even come back and bite us. It’s made up of a lot of different organizations. It appears to me that it’s going, with enough endorsements, that it’s trying to get the clout to work on your state legislators in passing bills and so forth. I feel like that we’ve got enough restrictions applied to us business wise and person that I have a problem in supporting anything else. We’ve got a position paper, I think, with ACCG and GMA. Those are the organizations that we are members of, and I don’t see any need in us really getting involved in this. 29 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners on this end? Any Commissioners here? Steve? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim, I share Mr. Kuhlke’s reservation about this broad policy statement. We oftentimes in commissions or in legislatures or even in Congress we pass bills that have effects that are unintended, and they’re call the bills of unintended consequences. Jim Wall, I’d appreciate it if you would give us a little comment as to whether you think this might jeopardize our defense in the future if we had a litigation such as the Boyce and McElmurray litigation. I mean what legal problems might we encounter by passing a broad policy statement like this and the defense of such as that? I’m cautious and it hasn’t been through committee and I think I’m ready to vote for it. Should we be cautious about a broad statement like this, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Yes. Absolutely I think you need to be cautious. As a general principal, most of the things that are stated in there, I don’t think anyone on the Commission or in Augusta is opposed to. But you can’t help but wonder down the line what may fall out of this. Obviously, it could be used in examining witnesses about any particular thing and then you have the possibility -- I submit that’s all it is, is a possibility -- that they try to compare the stance that the witness is taking as against one of these isolated principles taken in a vacuum. And so it does have some concerns. I have been hesitant to say anything as far as whether or not the Commission should or shouldn’t. I think that, you know, the concerns that have been expressed are valid concerns and I’d urge the Commission to consider the potential ramifications of adopting the policy, as the Commissioners have stated. I mean y’all have followed these principles in your practice without having to go on record and adopting a broad policy statement that may be used potentially against you. Mr. Shepard: If I could follow that up, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Well, what I’m concerned about, Mr. Mayor and fellow members of the Commission, is that somebody that maybe is outside of this community uses this document to bootstrap their standing in litigation against us and they say well, you subscribe to it. We subscribe to it. You either have a citizens’ suit or something under the various acts. I’m just worried about that and maybe our speaker could allay my concern about that. I’m just very warm about being hoisted on our own [inaudible]. That’s one of the most interesting things we could do in the courtroom, is to introduce some adversary statement against that adversary, and I’m just concerned that we are laying the groundwork for that later on it time, and my comfort level is not there with it, quite frankly. I don’t know what you can do, Mr. Booher, to raise that comfort level or whatever, but I just have some problems with it, like Mr. Kuhlke. 30 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Prior to you answering that, Sam, let me try and get the Commissioners around on this. Commissioner Cheek, then Commissioner Williams on this end, and other Commissioners on this end. That will basically conclude that, then Commissioner Bridges. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess my question is can we satisfy some of the lofty commentary in item 32 with some additional protection utilizing item 33, which is endorsed by the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia? Is that something that we could do to meet both ends and have them somewhat meet in the middle? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I do agree that probably there is some different language in what our associations endorse because you are taking a mindset of trying to take counties of different size, different population and blend them into some type of cohesive order, for lack of a better term of trying to keep from offending anybody. Where I think, and Sam can answer this better, but I think the citizens’ initiative has been brought about just from the main point of people wanting clean water, economically priced, and at the same time, environmentally safe, and I think there is a doubt in terms of where a lot of governments have been on the plus side, quite frankly, of doing that. Whether it’s been in terms of industry that has not been friendly or cautious in terms of dealing with it, and what I think that initiative has aroused from is the fact that outside of where the associations have taken the position, there usually have been to the point that where we know from the number of things that the General Assembly passes each year that GMA wants and that ACCG wants, those of us that have been around long enough know that usually when we go from fall session to summer session, the same things are there to be discussed again, which means that a lot of them are never getting passed. They’re just constantly being brought up to the General Assembly. And unless to a point that at some point the General Assembly realizes that it’s somebody there other than just the generic associations who produce these resolutions, whether they be jointly or whether they be separately, then sometimes there is a concern that there is no concern, and therefore nothing gets addressed. And then you run the risk at some point that some of the groups are looking at, that everywhere gets to be part, too, of the Chattahoochee River situation. And that’s the only way I look at it, to the point to I think ours is probably more generic. That one is maybe more specific but to a point of saying that somebody else in concerned with it other than just the political associations. Because the political associations, quite frankly, have not gotten a lot passed through the General Assembly. The General Assembly basically dictates its own agenda. It does, to a point, what it wants to do. And it passes those particular things down to us, whether the mandates are funded or unfounded. And that’s just a [inaudible] point on it. But I recognize, Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Bridges, in reference to it. And Sam, you can address the whole deal once it’s made [inaudible]. Mr. Booher: Appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Williams: Mayor Pro Tem, I just wanted to get Sam to kind of help me out a little bit. I agree with my law partner, my senior partner in Williams & Shepard law firm in what he said, and also what Mr. Wall said. We have to be cautious. But every time I 31 look around, something still coming back to us, Steve, whether we voted for it or not, you know, always putting us under scrutiny and trying to figure out this, that and the other. I just wanted Sam to kind of, you know, enlighten us, let us know from his standpoint. I mean I’ve seen both of them but I want to get his input. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I might, and Sam’s going to hold, if we can go through the Commissioners first. Commissioner Bridges and then Lee, if you wanted to address that, we’ll finish up with the Commission. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course I think water is very important and the mayor has asked me to address and issue that I think would be of concern to all of us. My concern with this water bill of rights is that from an environmental standpoint, this could come back and bite us later down the line. I think the groups that put this together should have included government leaders, Chamber leaders, and invited other parties to the discussion that has concerns about this. But I think the fact that the environmental groups together met over the summer and fall to draft this document, I think that’s good, but as a governing body, I would prefer to keep my representation with ACCG and the GMA, and I think that’s where we should put our emphasis in regards to the water issues, particularly regarding the fact that those groups did not have any input into this measure. I think we need to be cautious about supporting the water bill of rights. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I’m a little concerned, and maybe he can enlighten me when he talks. I just want to get this in. That GMA position on this. In fact, I’m looking at the backup material in here on that statement in the book. What they have said. I do know from one of the meetings this summer, or maybe it was fall, that you had a lot of interest in this, and of course there was the meeting in Wrens. I assume it was the same thing discussed, in reference to the water situation, and we are in a type of crisis situation as water is concerned. So maybe if you can enlighten me on those positions and possibly if any of the governmental entities were involved in this, because we are hearing a lot of things that some of them were, and we do have the letter here, I guess where they had not made a recommendation. But I think that might clear some things up also. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concern is that if this resolution was one that was being endorsed by ACCG or GMA, they would have already endorsed it. [inaudible]. That has not happened. I don’t think that we ought to get out in front of our organizations and endorse something that [inaudible] controversial. I think that clean water is a necessity for all of Georgia. I’m not opposed to that. But I am opposed to just blanket support of groups that are in favor of [inaudible] issues. I think we need to go with our tried-and-true group that we are a member of and endorse them and support 32 them in their attempt to improve our water quality resources. I don’t think we ought to be going out front. As far as I’m concerned, I think [inaudible]. If we want to write our own, I think that’s appropriate. But I think [inaudible] somebody’s else’s resolution [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Brigham? Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I guess I’m on the save wave length as Mr. Brigham. It seems to me -- some of us are going to Atlanta this weekend, and if it’s going to come up at that time, it might be that we will have a better handle if they could change this thing [inaudible], then maybe we ought to hold that off until we do go to Atlanta and get some idea of what the latest is, [inaudible] kind of fluctuating or it’s changing from time to time. We just a few more days and we’ll know from that point what’s going to happen, I would like to see us just rather than trying to make a decision now either way. postpone it for a while. It won’t hurt you to much. And if you’re going to Atlanta, you can get it first hand. But I think it kind of put us into a bind if we go and make some [inaudible] here now and then the parent organization appears to be headed in the other direction. That’s my position. Mr. Beard: Is that a substitute motion? Mr. H. Brigham: I’d move that if the Chair would recognize it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: I second the substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that is to postpone? Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Motion and a second. The substitute to postpone. Sam, we’re going to recognize you before we vote on the substitute motion. I think everybody has asked a variety of different questions and if you would, in answering that, would you also point out since it’s a public meeting, the cities and counties hat have signed on to the resolution that are comparable in size to Augusta Richmond County? Mr. Booher: Yes, sir, if I may. First off, this is a non-binding resolution. So this resolution doesn’t bind this county Commission to anything whatsoever. It’s purely a resolution that gives the [inaudible] of the Commissioner. Since I last met with you, Chatham County, which means the city of Savannah, has also signed on this endorsement. So we have the city of Atlanta, who several of their Commissioners served in these meetings we held over the summer. We had businesses in the meetings. We had county commissioners in the meetings, we had the Environmental Protection Division, EPD, head of their water people were in the meetings with us. We had all sorts of organizations and businesses with us in writing these [inaudible]. This wasn’t your 33 environmental groups, because we knew if we got together and wrote these, then it wouldn’t be representative of the business interests and the commissioners and the state and House of Representatives throughout the state. So we had over 60 different organizations, businesses and elected officials. Also, if you’ll notice, Congressman John Lewis has signed on this resolution. He supports it, as well as Congressman Bob Barr has signed on to this resolution, and he endorses it. So this is definitely a non-partisan -- it’s strictly a -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s putting it mildly. Mr. Booher: We have been after both of them and we got both of them. We knew what we were doing. The city of Atlanta participated in the writing of this with us, and they signed on to this. One of the reasons is they knew, as we now all know, that Gov. Barnes is taking on the water problems in the city of Atlanta. So the city of Atlanta commissioners signed on to this and endorsed this. So this gives guidance to their state House and state members as they deal with water issues in Atlanta. I don’t know what more I can say other than Columbus Muscogee, Roswell, Atlanta, Brunswick has signed on, the city of Brunswick commissioners have signed on, the county commissioners in which Brunswick signed on. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Glynn County? Mr. Booher: Glynn County, yes, sir. So you know, but not signing on to it, I think this is sending a message. I don’t know what that message would be, but around the state people are signing on. And again, this is non-binding. Everyone is bringing up, and I read the letter from your lobbyist association. The words were [inaudible] implication strategy for legislative action. This resolution has no legislative action pending with it. We’re not recommending any legislation. We’re strictly talking about the rights of the citizens that you represent as commissioners. Their own resolution they have does recommend legislation. Then they go on and say expanding the citizens’ ability to file lawsuits against local government. Gentlemen, every citizen has that right to file any lawsuit they want any time. This doesn’t open up any new rights for citizens to have the ability to file a lawsuit against a local government. Any of us can file a lawsuit against this Commission anytime we want to, or for any reason. So I just leave you with the fact that other counties around the state, to include the city of Atlanta, are signing on board, as well as our own Congressmen John Lewis and Bob Barr. Thank y’all very much. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Booher, you’re a Columbia County resident, right? Mr. Booher: Yes, sir, I am. Mr. J. Brigham: Did you work on this resolution? 34 Mr. Booher: I wasn’t asked to by the Georgia Wildlife Federation. They asked me to come before the Augusta Richmond County. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]? Mr. Booher: Sir, I am the county coordinator for the Georgia Wildlife Federation for Columbia County, and in the absence of you having anyone else, they’ve asked me to handle Richmond County. I was requested to come here by the Georgia Wildlife Federation and present this. This has nothing to do with -- if you would like me to, I’ll be more than happy --- Mr. J. Brigham: I don’t care whether you do or not. Mr. Booher: I understand. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Booher: They’re a small county. The Georgia Wildlife Federation is going to your major counties. This is a major county. You represent a significant body of people, and that’s who they asked me to come and see. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]? Mr. Booher: Sir, I just go where I’m told to go. I do what I’m told to do by the Georgia Wildlife Federation. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Booher: Thank you, sir. [inaudible], I will see Barry Fleming. I taught him when he was in junior high. I was his math teacher. I’ll be seeing Barry Fleming, who is their county commissioner, on another matter. I’ll be more than happy to hand him a copy of this and ask him to. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Booher: [inaudible], thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other? Mr. Beard: To me, Mr. Mayor, personally I’m not interested in what Columbia County is doing. Secondly, I think the motion was, just to give everybody a little more comfortability with what we are going to do. We all know how important this is. The water situation is in our state, and as Mr. Henry Brigham just stated, you know, we would like for everybody to be comfortable if you’re going to send out a resolution. And if you’re going to do this, let’s wait a few days. As you said, some of you are going to 35 I would like to add to that if Mr. Brigham would accept it that the Atlanta, and Mayor Pro Tem be responsible for checking this out for us. Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, sir, be glad to. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Inasmuch as I’ve been given that assignment, look like through the motion I’m not going to vote for it. That’s about the only protest I’ll have with it. I’m going to have to take it, I’m sure going to vote against taking it. And particularly since I put the motion on the floor. But let me just remind you of something real quick, and I’m not going to dictate from the Chair. But I think to a point that there comes a time when we respect the associations that we are members of, and I don’t have a problem with y’all dealing with a delay on it. I think to a point that it would be better suited, I won’t back away from a responsibility that you give me, but inasmuch as I’m not one that’s going to vote for it, I think that the two board members who sit on this Commission that represent GMA on one side and ACCG on the other, that as the representative of the board of directors where you sit, I really think that those commissioners ought to be responsible for it, but if you’re going to give it to me, I’ll make sure it goes there. I don’t have a problem with it. The other thing I’d like to comment on is I think sometimes we need to think outside of the box and not get to a point that we wait until 158 other counties sign on to something or what they do next door in terms of dealing with it before we decide what we do down here. We’ve had water problems for a long time. And to a point if the General Assembly is not [inaudible], we’re taking this so-called benign approach from where the associations are going to go. I can tell you where they going to go before you go up there. They going to basically have meetings. They going basically do what we normally do and they going to pass the same generic resolution that’s down there. They are not going to go anywhere with it in terms of endorsing this one. If communities are going to deal with it in terms of where you support a citizens’ initiative, it’s going to be those progressive communities that are going to think out the box and are going to do it on their own and not be dictated to a dues-paying commission in which to deal with. I think we’ve accomplished a lot out of it. I’ve served in various capacities in both associations, but I think it’s about time to a point that we quit the wait-and-see attitude to see who is on, who is off, and then when the lights come up and everybody is on, we decide to jump on at the last moment. That’s the only comment I make. All in favor of the motion of whatever y’all sending me to do on the postponement will vote by the usual sign. Any opposed, and the Chair votes No. Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Mays vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s amazing how no can mean two different things. Mr. Booher: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Deputy Clerk: 36 33. Consider Resolution endorsing the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Regional Water Efforts. (Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham) Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] I move that we approve this. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Ms. Killam: [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Young lady? Ms. Killam: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I didn’t see your hand, young lady, when I pulled it. We’re not on -- let me go ahead and carry this particular motion. Ms. Killam: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me carry this particular motion, and if somebody will deal with the right of personal privilege, I’ll recognize the young lady. I didn’t look at your hand. You are pretty, I was looking at you and I didn’t see your hand when you put it up there. Okay, we have a motion to approve that one that was put on by Commissioner Brigham and the joint resolution of our two associations. Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. And the Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Before we move, is there any objection? I did not see the young lady’s hand when I pulled the two items, 11 and 27, in reference to Transit, that she wish to make a comment. The Chair would like to recognize her. I guess for no other reason where it would be somebody’s comment on there other than mine. But unless there is an objection to doing so at this time? You’re so recognized, ma’am. Ms. Killam: I’m not the only one, Mayor Pro Tem. I have friends behind me. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We know each other real well. We’ve been lobbying a long time together. Ms. Killam: Good afternoon. My name is Laura Killam. I ride a paratransit van and it’s hard for me to get transportation to come to get me. My wheelchair is a little too 37 wide and I have a little problem getting to certain places like this. I’m asking you as a rider as well as a person who votes to think about what you do when you raise the rates. Some of us cannot afford to get where we’d like to be if the rates are raised. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I recognize that, ma’am, real well, and that’s why I pulled those two items and that’s why I made the discussion that I did, not only during budget season but I made them during the committee that I serve on and I made them during this Commission meeting. Unfortunately, that vote has been taken. Those fares will be implemented unless there is some reversal of that order at the end of this day. But I did want to give you the opportunity to be recognized. And I apologize that I didn’t see your hand. Go ahead. Ms. Killam: I only have one question, and that’s simply in the fact that up until the meeting in May Park, [inaudible] a lot of people who did not believe that you guys listened nor cared about us. [inaudible] we really do care, we do listen. I honestly didn’t expect anything. I came [inaudible] and it was really a joy and an answer to a prayer that you did. And then you turn around and [inaudible]. Shortly after that, I was told by someone who worked at University Hospital you didn’t really think they listened to your kind. I have a little jar that I have [inaudible] carries me for as long as I can. That means skipping some buses and having to walk because I can’t afford a whole lot of [inaudible]. I wish I could have the things that you guys have. The nice cars and everything else. I can’t. And you [inaudible], cutting those people that can’t do it. She hasn’t been out of her apartment until today [inaudible] because Medicaid won’t pay for anything else. [inaudible] in all honestly, I pray that you would actually think about changing that. Because [inaudible] off the buses that won’t be able to. [inaudible] more and more until there is nothing. Think about what it would be like if you had to ride like we do and you don’t have enough to take care of it [inaudible] bus fares and you can’t go because you just can’t do it or you have to walk just so you can make it to something. A majority of people at the Bon Air [inaudible] that you [inaudible] and it’s business as usual. Unless you had some real good pull, nobody was going to listen. The other are at [inaudible] or they would have liked to have been here. You’re limited by the time that you can be somewhere because, by God, my bus cuts off early. It used to run long, but it doesn’t. You ever do away with the transfer, I’m going to be up the creek. It takes me three buses to go to my doctor appointments. Every two weeks I have to go out to south Augusta. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, that’s about the only part of it that I do agree with, is that the transfers were not tampered with, but I agree with you 100%, and I had hoped that after we got through the budget process, since it was not tampered with, that it would not come back to this Commission, but it was so put on and it was so voted on, and the democratic process wins. I have, I think my record is very clear on that. I came from old city government. I never supported the undue increases as a part of the county commission when I came in, particularly as Chairman and with help of other Commissioners that were present at that time, we put the first subsidies, even from the county side, over into that transit system, which it had never had any. As a child of two catastrophic illness parents, both of them in wheel chairs, I can personally sympathize with you and know where that’s coming from. But I cast my vote in the only way that I 38 can. As they say in government, it’s now a done deal. It’s been voted for, and I appreciate you voicing your concern to us, but that’s about all I can do with it. Ms. Killam: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We thank you for your coming. DeputyClerk: 34. Consider ACCG Resolution endorsing Minimum Salary Legislation. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does anybody -- okay, Bill? I move that we Mr. Kuhlke: Correct me if I’m wrong on this, Mr. Attorney, but vote against this. Mr. Wall: Correct you if you’re wrong? The motion is not to support the resolution. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: That sounds better. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I’d like to know some of the legal detail of this resolution, Jim, if you could enlighten us with that, please. Mr. Wall: Well, what this would do is to tie the commissioners’ salaries to the state minimum salary bill, and there is a state minimum salary bill for all the constitutional elected officers. Now insofar as part-time commissioners are concerned, it would set it at 20% of the Sheriff’s, and I’m not sure what the Sheriff’s compensation is under the minimum compensation bill. Also, there would automatically be a cost-of- living adjustment and a longevity increase, depending upon the years of service. I mean that’s the legal effect of it. It would also tie the Mayor’s compensation or the Chairman’s compensation for those others to10% more than the Sheriff’s minimum compensation bill. Now this would not preclude the General Assembly from enacting local legislation for Richmond County or for any specific county, to set it at something differently. In the minimum compensation bill there is an exception for local legislation. So this would be a 39 minimum that the Legislature could set higher. They could not set it lower than this minimum compensation bill. Mr. Bridges: We’ve always done this by Legislative act, have we not, in the past? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Bridges: I think Mr. Kuhlke’s motion is in order. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? Jim, my only observance I would make is we just unanimously supported our association’s recommendation and turned down a citizens’ resolution, and I guess my only comment a little sarcastically would be is that I’m glad to know our association is not infallible, either one of them, that they will send us some legislation that we have some concern about, that we would vote against it in this particular instance, but that we accept it as gospel truth on the other. So it just means to a point that every resolution needs to be considered, I think, gentlemen, quite frankly, on its own merit, even though I agree with Mr. Kuhlke’s motion. But I think it’s ironic that we need to point out that just because the association puts its stamp of approval on something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s in the best interest of a particular county’s government in order to pass it. So you know, it may mean that we don’t know completely that we don’t know what’s in the other one, either. I just wanted to make that observation from the Chair. Comment, Ms. Cain? I saw your hand up. Ms. Cain: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: Yes. Ms. Cain: You all are going to vote for increase? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we’re not. The motion is to deny. It came from the association. It’s a resolution of which they have adopted that would affect some particular counties in terms of having a vehicle that they would not have to go home, raise their own salaries, and they would put it through the association, be able to go through the General Assembly and then raise everybody’s salary. So quite frankly, it means what you lobby for in the association, get a group of people to put it up, lobby for it, pass it through the resolution committee, then get it passed, and it goes on basically to the General Assembly to try and get it pushed through. And that was why I commented like I did a little sarcastically in reference to the water situation, in reference to us you know accepting primarily what associations did. But no, that’s not, that one is not going pass here today or probably any other day. Ms. Cain: Thank you. That’s what I wanted to know. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No. No, it won’t. Mr. Shepard? 40 Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to call the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any other discussion? None being, all in favor of the motion to turn that down will do so by the usual sign. And the Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. DeputyClerk: 35. Consider Resolution supporting the completion of the Savannah River Parkway and Fall Line Freeway. (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? Steve? Mr. Shepard: Is there any text on this, or is my book the only one that didn’t have it? Mr. Hornsby: To my knowledge, there is no text on it, but the suggestion was that this a suggestion of the local Legislative delegation. In order to give them some additional ammunition insofar as fighting for it. Mr. Shepard: It’s a dummy, then, huh? Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s one we’ll probably pass until we see asphalt. Andy, did you have a comment on that now? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Seems to me several years ago I remember a 1996, 2006, some type of deadline that this was going to be done. Do we have any concrete numbers as to when they did promise to have this completed? And is there any way, this maybe being an election year or whatever, we could wave that flag around and say promises made, let’s see if we can make promises kept here? I waited until I got gray hair for this thing, and that gave up, and now I have no hair and it’s still not built. I’m just wondering whenever we’re going to get this thing done. It’s gone on and on and on and on and on. These are two major arteries of commerce that need to be completed. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? 41 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: While we -- what we were doing was checking for our Public Works Director, Mr. Cheek, in reference to a possible comment. Mr. Cheek: We’ve been promised every election. It’s just not happening. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I was just going to say that taking some of the Governor’s last statements that he made a few weeks ago or maybe a week ago, that you know, he was going to try and push the forward. We also understand the political interest that is all of this, and the political clout. But I do think I read somewhere a few days ago that he was putting this on, they were going to try to put this on the front burner. And maybe the Public Works people may have some different information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Public Works Director, or either one, is the question Mr. Cheek -- in terms of a verbal update? Ms. Smith: I’m sorry, what was the question? Mr. Cheek: Have you heard any new completion date? I think I’ve heard probably a completion date for this ever since I was a child, every other year. Do we have a new completion date for either the fall line or the Savannah River Parkway? Ms. Smith: Neither. Mr. Cheek: Neither? Ms. Smith: Not that I’m aware of. I know that they ran into some environmental issues and some environmental justice issues on the Fall Line Freeway, and I’m not -- I don’t know off the top of my head the specific date associated with the Savannah River Parkway. I know that there have been some funding issues being discussed about how quickly the money is going to come in to actually get the work done, but that’s as much as I know about it, because it’s being done in segments. Mr. Cheek: Is most of the money for state highways still being diverted to the Governor’s Rail Initiative in favor of road construction, or do you know that? Ms. Smith: I can’t answer that question. Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, that was estimated to cost about 10 times to 20 times more for rail construction than initially reported, and so our monies are going into railroads instead of car roads. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other discussion on that motion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. 42 Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: 35A. Consider Resolution endorsing HB 35 amending the “State Space Management Act of 1976” (Requested by Commissioner J. Brigham) Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I requested this be put on the agenda. Surfing the internet the other night, I happened to come across House Bill 35 and one of the options of House Bill 35 is to divert [inaudible] state agency jobs from Atlanta to the rest of Georgia, a mandatory 25% reduction by year 2005, the way I read the legislation and it’s copied in your book. There’s not a written resolution, but I think we are all interested in bringing jobs to this community and we all need to support this resolution I recommend that we endorse it and send notice to our [inaudible] and therefore Legislative Delegation for the government. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. This is something, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, that Secretary of State Cathy Cox has done within her own division, I think, and has relocated several of her offices, subdivisions to the city of Macon, so I think we should get in there and compete for some of these facilities as they’re leaving the metropolitan area of Atlanta. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Should it not be feasible also to send this to our lobbyist up there and indicate this is something that we want them to try to work on? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That will be so done if that’s passed, and I’m sure it will be. The only observance I’m going to make on that, gentlemen, is that I’m going to vote for the motion and I’m glad that Commissioner Jerry Brigham placed it on, but I think we also need to be mindful that when we sign on to these deals, particularly of the type requesting for jobs, which is good and we should be supportive of, but we also got to keep in mindset that we don’t have the right to pick and choose, and we need to keep that clear in our minds that when we are sent job operatives [inaudible] state government and we sign on the resolutions and we sign on the bills, then we got to be receptive to what we may graciously want and to what we may not want. So I just make that observance to a point that we can’t have a situation both ways, and I think that’s something we need to consider. Some of the other communities that are getting jobs have done comprehensive plans to a point that they realize that if placed in strategic areas and complimentary zoning areas that they’ve done, they’ve been able to take smaller things and get larger things. We can’t have the type of cherry picking deal where we get some things we want 43 and then some we don’t want a certain item, then we vigorously oppose it. And I think you ought to keep that in mind before we get out and ask an agency to move in something that’s going to be of a certain nature and then you don’t want certain things of another nature. Just an observance. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: 36. Discuss the process for the selection of the City Administrator. (Requested by Commissioner Beard) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This is Commissioner Beard’s request. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just had a couple of questions in reference to this. I have received this memo, and I think we all did, from the Mayor. And his tentative outline of how he’s perceiving this to be done. And I guess my question is more or less for clarification than anything else. At the first time, I heard that the Mayor would present three candidates to us. Then the next time I received this memo and outlining a little different scenario here, and I guess my question is -- and then I went to the Code and the Code is listing differently from what we did in ’96. As I [inaudible] and I don’t know if you had a chance to go back and read those, but I guess this maybe to the Attorney more so than anybody else. You know, how do we justify that if we accepted something in ’96 and the Commission in ’96 voted on that, and then when we go to the Code, it’s different. Because it says in the Code the Mayor shall present recommendation of three top candidates for appointment. And which one -- maybe which one do we abide by? I know we did accept the Code. But the ordinance that was supposed to been conducted in ’96 states that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, and at this point, at that time it was Mr. Carstarphen, but at this point it would be the -- I guess -- Interim Administrator -- would make that selection. The Committee would bring it down to five and they would interview the five. And then they would bring the three to us for a recommendation. Maybe you just need to qualify all this to me so that I can understand. I don’t have a big problem with it, but there is a difference here in the Code and there was supposed to have been an ordinance [inaudible] in ’96. Mr. Wall: Well, with all due respect, I don’t think there is any difference between the process. If you’ll look in the minutes, up in the upper left-hand corner of the minutes, page 548, and this is the -- may need the second set of minutes. And you will see there that the Mayor, in the process that you approved earlier, would bring to you the three most qualified candidates, and those would be the three that you would interview. So it has always been that the Mayor would bring the three candidates to you. Now there was a process that was adopted back with the initial Administrator where there was a citizens committee and a selection process that was set up at that time, which involved the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the consolidation manager. 44 Mr. Beard: Manager. Mr. Wall: And as a part of the Code that has been adopted, it indicates that from nominations presented by the Mayor following the Commission-approved recruitment process. Now the recruitment process back then was to go through the citizens committee. The recruitment process that y’all have approved this time involves Bennett & Associates bringing those back. But in each instance, both in ’96 as well as now, the three recommended names come from the Mayor, and that was what was done then. Mr. Beard: I beg to differ with you, Jim, and maybe you know, because I’ve read all of these minutes and it says down to five candidates, that the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the consolidation manager were to bring this to the Commission. Now we had I’m three or four different meetings, and I guess instead of just haggling this out here, going to move that maybe you review the minutes, and if no more than just let me understand. Maybe the other Commissioners don’t want to understand, but I want to understand what the process is. Mr. Wall: All right. Mr. Beard: And there are about three or four different minutes in this, and I just would like to know that. Mr. Wall: If I may respond, the interview process was by the five individuals that you talked about, but the Mayor brought the three forward. That was the selection process used then. Now you’re using a different selection process. Mr. Beard: That was not the process used. That’s the difference between me and you and I think we need to clear that up. Mr. Wall: I’ll be glad to get with you on that. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. I’m like Mr. Beard, also. I’m not understanding, and from what I did understand, from what I thought what was happening with the [inaudible] between the Mayor Pro Tem, the Mayor and the Administrator at that time, with get the five finalists, down to five finalists, then we get three out of that to bring to this body for us to pick on. To pick from. I, too, would like to get some clarification, Mr. Wall, maybe between the three of us. I don’t know about anybody else that do not truly understand this situation or the way it was done, and I can’t see how that could even be feasible for us to do it in that way when we were doing it the other way for such a long time. I mean that’s the only fair and equitable way I see it. It’s with the Mayor Pro Tem, 45 the Mayor hisself, and the Interim Administrator at that point. But if you bring that information, Mr. Wall, I certainly like to have -- I’d like to be able to look at it as well. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners have any comments on it? Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, I’m looking at page 548. Mr. Wall: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: And the paragraph at the top of the page. And once you get beyond the sub-committee, which you are saying now would be Bennett & Associates? Mr. Wall: Correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Right? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Kuhlke: And if I’m reading that correctly, it says the subcommittee, which will be Bennett, would reduce to the five top candidates that would be reviewed by the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, the project manager. Out of that five candidates, the Mayor, in the process you approved earlier, would bring to you the three most qualified candidates. Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Kuhlke: And that’s the process that we went through, and that passed 8-2. Mr. Wall: Correct. Mr. Kuhlke: So I’m -- Mr. Beard: That is in one set of minutes, Mr. Kuhlke, but also Mr. Bridges made a motion -- this is why, that’s why I’m asking. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. I’m not going to argue with you. That’s the motion he made. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Look, if I can clear a little bit of this. The Mayor and I have discussed this, gentlemen. It’s not a private conversation. And I think that the Mayor plans, and I think he has had the same conversation with Jim in reference to following what the Code says. I don’t have any problem with abiding by whatever we have in writing and I think each of you know how a stickler I am in terms of procedures. I did make the comment to him, and I share this because it’s not a secret, that when we embark upon the next phase, particularly one thing being changed that we use the consulting firm this time, so that’s something that’s different in terms of being able to help us in that process. And that’s a good thing. I did say that I thought that regardless 46 of what might be written into the language of the Code, that it was most important that consensus be built out of this decision, whatever way that we go, and that that would be the bottom line in terms of what we do. We follow the law, but we also follow to a point of trying to get the support and input of all of us, and I just trust that that will be done within the dialog with each of you in terms of when we get down to that process. And that’s what I’ve shared with him in private and have no problem in sharing that with each of you here in public, and that’s where we left our conversation in terms of trying to get that done. So however you all discuss the rest of that in terms of clarity, then I think, you know, all of that’s good. But that’s the conversation that we had in reference to how to move on once we got down to that point. And that is not so much of a sharing with the person that holds this position, but really a sharing with each of us when we get down to those short numbers in terms of having some dialogue with each of the Commissioners that’s here. And I think and pray that that will be done. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, Pro Tem, I’m going to make a motion that the Attorney review all of the previous minutes of ’96 and bring back to us at the next meeting his findings on that. Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second to instruct Mr. Wall to bring back the findings of ’96 and to bring that back to us. So that could come back the next Commission meeting, Commissioner Beard, or to a committee? Mr. Beard: Next Commission meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next Commission meeting? Mr. Beard: I think he have ample time to do it. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Doesn’t the ordinance speak for itself [inaudible]? Mr. Beard: Because the ordinance can be changed. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second that’s on the floor. I’m not going to try to interpret or debate where that motion goes. I’m going to get like Garfield. Since I resemble that remark that’s in there, where the Mayor Pro Tem fits in, I know what I’m going to deal with it on. The Chair is not going to even vote on it. I’m going to exercise the Mayor’s good right today. He doesn’t have a vote. I’m not going to take 47 one, either. So if there be no further discussion on the motion, it’s a motion and second, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Mr. J. Brigham votes No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I figure the Mayor want me to take one no vote today for him. Deputy Clerk: 37. Discuss operations of Housing and Neighborhood Development Department. (Requested by Commissioner Beard) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to ask that since this would involve personnel that we discuss this when we go into legal. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second. But before carrying the motion, it’s possible, gentlemen, that we might could hold off on dealing with any motion and that we finish up the items that might be on the regular agenda that do not require any personnel action or anything that the attorney may not have to deal with, and we could go through those and complete it. Mr. Beard: That’s fine with me, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And whatever we need to deal with in reference to personnel, that we do it all at one time. If we could, go to the regular listed items. Deputy Clerk: 37A. Discuss setting date for prioritizing the SPLOST PHASE IV List. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was requested by Commissioner Shepard and we put it kind of all because the budget was a necessity when we started doing that, and I think it’s time we returned to that. I’m happy you put that on, and I don’t know whether the Interim Administrator may have some suggested dates already or if there’s something you want to place on at this time. Mr. Shepard: I have something I wanted to place on. 48 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, my suggestion is now that we’ve completed the budgeting for the General Fund, that we turn to the SPLOST prioritization. I think that’s going to be a very important process that this government undertakes, and I think we should undertake it at our first meeting in February, rather than waiting to the second my motion would be to discuss this at the first meeting of the meeting in February, so Commission in February, 2001. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. That that be placed on the first regular meeting in February. Mr. Shepard: Right. Mr. Hornsby: That sounds okay. The only thought I had concerning was I didn’t know whether you all wanted to try to have a working session prior to actually [inaudible] to get together on any ideas of whatever at that particular time as far as distribution of those funds over the years. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was going to be my only question. I don’t think it should be placed off on a long period of time. It may be one that you may want to look at from the standpoint that I think we are shifting some dates because of one our state meetings and I think that’s a good idea, Steve, to get it on. But are we going to -- sometimes with dealing with priorities, just as we had the drainage situation, be it sales tax, whether we’ve got the time to devote during a regular 50 or 60 item agenda meeting to deal with sales tax priority or whether or not we need to, whether it is working session or regular meeting, do we need to maybe look at the possibilities of leaving that open with maybe and A and B choice of having the opportunity to do both? Of putting them on a separate type date, just to deal with those items alone. Because we could be here all night, just dealing with prioritizing sales tax. Mr. Shepard: My suggestion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could respond is we have no other more important business than prioritizing SPLOST and perhaps we could control our agendas from the committees somewhat. I’m looking at the second meeting in the month. Usually we deal with zoning. That’s always very time consuming, so we may have to have a special called meeting, but I think -- my recommendation would be that we handle the SPLOST first because that has five-year implications of cash flow and we should come in here and do that first on that day. Maybe if we just do a consent agenda and that. If we have other items that have to be discussed, let’s discuss them at another meeting to clean up the agenda business, but I think it’s time that we come in here on a meeting and instead of waiting to the end of the meeting to do the budget or the end of the meeting to do the SPLOST, we come in here and do the SPLOST first on the first regular meeting in February. That’s just my suggestion now. And I wanted to bring it forth to the full body now so we could get some other thoughts about it. It’s my thought, 49 but let’s start early enough in the month so that we have time to get it done. The cash has begun to come in. It started coming in January 1, I think. There’s a two month delay in the receipt of that SPLOST money into our actual coffers, so I think what we’re still receiving, Walter, is 2000 SPLOST money, so I think we just need to get to it gentlemen, and that’s my suggestion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we’ve heard the suggestion of the Finance Chairman, and I have no problem with when we have it. I just know that our observances are to a point that when we schedule major [inaudible], sometimes it gets to be -- and I agree with you, if we are going to move it to the front burner of the agenda, that may be good. But if it’s conducted like we normally deal with in trying to take a five or ten minutes recess and return to it, we start getting to the point of where our concern level runs out and we just start throwing numbers together, and that’s how we prioritize a list. That’s my only concern with it. I’d rather see us do it in [inaudible], but whatever time we have it, we send out for lunch, we can eat here, we can do whatever. I’ll be here. But Commissioner Kuhlke, I’m going to recognize you at this time. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering if the maker of the motion would consider adding to his motion that if the Administrator can schedule a work session prior to that particular meeting then it might be beneficial in us being able to take some action pretty quickly at that first Commission meeting if we could get things resolved in a work session and I think that makes sense. Mr. Shepard: If I can respond to that? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Steve. Mr. Shepard: I have no problem with a work session beforehand . I would point out that I think we’re supposed be in Atlanta on Augusta Richmond County Day on February 1, so we might want to do it January 31. That afternoon or something like that. Or that weekend. Look at your calendar, Walter. I know we’re going to be in Atlanta on February 1. Mr. Hornsby: Let me try to arrange it and then notify you all if we can find a good date when we can have a work session prior to that first meeting. The first meeting, th however, is going to be on the 6 of February. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just that motion? Mr. Shepard: Do you want me to restate the amended motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think she’s got it. We may not have it, though. Mr. Shepard: The amendment to the motion would be that we ask the Administrator to schedule a work session in the week prior to that February 6 date and 50 we’d make SPLOST prioritization item number one on that regular Commission meeting of February 6. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I hope that between now and then this Commission will either find a money tree or have a change of heart and not come before the people of Augusta with a $43 million judicial center when we only have $20 million to spend on it. I hope that we will try to live within our means rather than try to mortgage the farm for a judicial center we can’t afford. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I’m going to remind you is [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So noted by the accountant at the other end of the table. The young lady in the back had her hand up. Ma’am, I’ll recognize you for a second but we need to move on with this motion if we can. Is it related to the item that we’re discussing right now? If it’s not, I don’t like ruling out of order, but it needs to be on the motion that’s concerned about this. Ms. Speaker: It’s related to the Neighborhood and Housing Development. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We are not into that point yet. Ms. Speaker: Are you going to get to it? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, we’re going to get to that point. That’s why I wanted to hear you before I ruled you out of order. I never would have known what your question was unless I heard you. I heard you, so we’re conducting something else but we will get back to that. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Any opposed, the same. Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: Did you want to take item 39? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s take everything other than legal or personnel. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] if you want to. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we can. You know what -- 38. PUBLIC HEARING RE: Dismissal of Mr. Lon Morrey. 51 Mr. Wall: Insofar as item 38 is concerned, I spoke with Mr. Mike Brown on th Friday the 12, and then I received a letter which was dated yesterday saying that they would decline to go through with the name clearing hearing as scheduled for today I would ask that because they felt like they would not get a meaningful hearing, and so you just receive the letter as information and take action on it in that manner. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second. Which one of you all made Jim, I wonder if it can be so noted in the motion, even though that? The motion? we’re receiving as information, that the opportunity and time was extended as a part of an open meeting on our agenda? Mr. Wall: Absolutely. He had requested it. We responded, provided notice to him that the hearing would take place today at 2 o’clock. He made no objection as to the time of the hearing. He did, he just contends that he would not receive a meaningful hearing before this Commission. But he had requested that it be before a “neutral body” but the name clearing hearing comes to you. You’re the body that under the law should hear it, and that’s the process. And he chose not to avail himself of that opportunity and I submit that you just need to receive the letter as information and make it a part of the record and that’s the only action that would be required since he’s chosen not to avail himself of the opportunity to be here. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The minutes speak for themselves. Being no further discussion, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: 39. AN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA OF AN INVESTMENT SALE AGREEMENT AMONG AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, SUNTRUST BANK, AND MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTING MONEYS IN THE SINKING FUND CREATED UNDER THE BOND RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 21, 1996, AS RATIFIED, REAFFIRMED, SUPPLEMENTED, AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 3, 1996, DECEMBER 17, 1996, AUGUST 22, 2000, AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2000; AND FOR OTHER RELATED PURPOSES. 52 Mr. Wall: This has to do with the construction funds. You’ll recall that several weeks ago you authorized A.G. Edwards to go out and solicit bids, insofar as investing those monies. And they have come back with a bid amount of 5.425%. This is a five- year agreement rather than a 10-year agreement. They also reduced their fees because the interest rate change in the market. It was a little less than what they had originally projected. This would authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to sign the agreement, and this should give us a higher rate of return on the investment of those proceeds until the payments come due. You’ll recall that payments are made into the construction fund on a monthly basis, but the payments on the bonds do not come due until every six months, and so you would earn the monies, earn interest on the monies during that six month increment, that five month increment. Mr. Shepard: I so move as recommended by the Attorney, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. Deputy Clerk: 40. Consider recommendation from the Interim Administrator regarding the appointment of the Human Resources Director. Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor, we have been through the process of trying to make a selection. There was quite a large field. We narrowed it down. We did the necessary telephone interview and final interviews with the Commission. It think it’s my duty to recommend that it was my feeling that among those interviewed, that the best individual for the position is Ms. Brenda Byrd-Pelaez. I’m recommending her to fill that position at as salary grade of 59. I’m also recommending the salary for this individual to fill this position would be $61,000 annually. Mr. Cheek: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a lot of seconds. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Congratulations, Ms. Pelaez. Would you like to have anything to say? Yes, ma’am? It’s always good to have a peaceful statement before we go to war. 53 Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: First of all, I’d like to thank the Mayor and Commission, the Mayor Pro Tem and Commission for their support. I was very appreciative when you allowed me to serve in the capacity as the Equal Opportunity Director. There are a lot of things we have to do in terms of personnel, and I will try my best to make this place a much better work environment and I will not let you down. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. And congratulations. We have a couple of addendums. Mr. Wall: And would request a legal meeting. I had asked -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on just one second. Don’t we have a couple -- an add- on or a couple of add-ons? DeputyClerk: Addendum Item 3: Communication from the Mayor regarding a request by Habersham County to withdraw 12.5 million gallons of water from the Savannah River Watershed. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Young has done some research on this and he’s pretty concerned about this proposal that Habersham County has before the Corps of Engineers, and that is withdraw about 12.5 million gallons of water a day out of the Savannah River basin and place that in like a 32-acre holding area to be placed in the Chattahoochee River basin. So it’s something we need to be concerned about. The Corps will certify their request 30 days from the date which will Mayor is requesting that the Commission support be January 27 deadline, so what the him in expressing concern about what Habersham County is proposing and that we request a public hearing on this matter. I make the motion before the Commission. Y’all have everything I have. You have got the backup on it. It’s something that we’ve discussed -- water everywhere today, and this is just another item of it, and we not have any to drink if this one comes to pass. It’s something that we need to be concerned about and I think we need to support the Mayor as he leads the drive on this, that we protest this action and request a public hearing on the matter. Mr. Cheek: Second that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Hornsby? 54 Mr. Hornsby: Yes. One other item that you might be interested in. Number one, th the deadline is the 27 for [inaudible]. The Mayor had indicated to me earlier this morning that it was his intention to also make known as his position as Mayor that he was opposed to it for the city of Augusta, but he also wanted to ask that the Commission themselves make known their idea that they were opposed to the idea of pulling from the Savannah River. Mr. Bridges: And that is the motion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Just briefly. The decision-making agency here, Jim, is the Corps? Is that correct? Mr. Wall: I think it will be the Corps, but I think EPD is going to have a say-so in there, too. But primarily the Corps since it’s coming out of the Savannah River basin. I’m not sure to what extent EPD. In one of the conversations that I’ve had with the Mayor, he has spoken to Barry Fleming, Chairman of the Columbia County Commission, and I think they are going to be supportive. He has asked me to touch base with Doug Batchelor and one of the attorneys in that office is formerly from the EPD office. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in light of that answer, let me follow this up. The backup material suggests that we forward comments to the Savannah District in the , but should we not also, Mr. Bridges, have a copy of this motion sent to EPD? Corps Mr. Bridges: I can incorporate that in the motion if you’d like. Mr. Shepard: I would appreciate it if you would. Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would think that we would also send copies to Savannah and any other entity south of this point that draws water from the Savannah River. These people will be first in line and it will directly affect our ability to draw water, impact water quality for the entire two-state area. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody else? All in favor -- Mr. J. Brigham: You might want to go north, too. 55 Mr. Cheek: We’re as far as you can go. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Don’t want to go too far to get up in Habersham County. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: End up going up further and we can’t have them included. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. 41. LEGAL MEETING. Personnel matters. Mr. Wall: I would request a legal meeting for the purposes of discussing not only personnel but also real estate. Mr. Shepard: I so move, Mr. Mayor, for the purposes as stated by the lawyer. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll resume our session at this time. We’re not back to order. 42. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. J. Brigham: I make a motion that we authorize you to sign the affidavit. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes. Motion carries 10-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] 56 Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission, hereby that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Comission held on January 16, 2001. Deputy Clerk of Commission