Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS March 6, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday, March 6, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Kuhlke, member of the Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was presented by the Reverend Holcombe. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. PRESENTATION: Augusta Aviation Commission Ms. Marcie Wilhelmi, Chairperson RE: Update on Augusta Aviation Activities & Projects. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think the first item is a presentation; is that correct? Clerk: Presentation from the Augusta Aviation Commission. Marcie Wilhelmi. Mr. Mayor: Welcome, Marcie. Under the rules of the Commission, you have five minutes. So take off. Ms. Wilhelmi: [inaudible] do our best [inaudible]. In the given five minutes, we’re going to try to cover a lot of ground [inaudible]. [inaudible] December 1, Delta yanking the big jets caused [inaudible] our service. [inaudible] Washington, D.C. [inaudible] our number one destination, followed closely behind are [inaudible] and then [inaudible]. A couple of background [inaudible] to show you how we stack up relative to other cities in the region. [inaudible] same thing when we take those cities, how many people are living there versus how many passengers they board the first quarter of last year. So the question comes, where are we trying to drive this airport? Where are we flying to next? Our number one priority is air service [inaudible]. These are some of our strengths. We’ve got a nice, stable economy. We have [inaudible] high tech industries [inaudible]. We’ve got a lot of international countries, a lot of business traveling into and out of our city. [inaudible] We’ve got an awful lot of [inaudible] and travel virtually anywhere in the world [inaudible]. We need new airline [inaudible] something terrible [inaudible]. Southwest Airlines, if they choose a location in South Carolina versus Georgia, it’s going to be a real hard baseball game [inaudible]. [inaudible] airline brands, you’ll see a higher number of flights leaving Augusta to transport the same number of people. The smaller jets, still jet service, still get anywhere you need to go in the world [inaudible]. Second quarter, our number one priority is new air service. [inaudible] tell you I just [inaudible] 15 minutes worth of slides because I could not [inaudible]. I think 2 this time next [inaudible] you’ll see a major media blitzkrieg coming on, and the purpose of that blitzkrieg is we have invited Continental Airlines and United Airlines to the Masters tournament. What that means to us is direct service to the Newark hub, New York market, and then direct service to Washington Dulles and the Washington, D.C. market. Purpose of the blitzkrieg is to get everybody [inaudible] on the same speed, where we’re trying to drive this airport, [inaudible] probable in this calendar year. So there are a couple of things the Airport Commission would like this Commission to understand. One is how we should be relating to each other, and I have to say that 95% of the changes are occurring on our side of the fence. We want to be working with this Commission. We realize that without all ten of your Commissioners, the Mayor, our State Legislators and our federal Legislators, there isn’t going to be any [inaudible] and it is time for us to act as a team, and as such the airport has got to realize that it’s time -- anytime somebody has a question, you have the right to ask, you have the right to a prompt answer. The Finance Department has the right to ask any question, get any bill paid, anything that’s not working well we need to fix. We don’t want you to be shy about telling us when things are not working well. We basically want to hear what isn’t working so we can fix it. We hope you will feel free and open enough to bring that kind of problem to our attention. We need [inaudible] to be on our fence as cheerleaders because if we can’t sell Augusta to you, how will we ever expect to have anybody else yell for us? Very, very important piece [inaudible]. Augusta has got to believe in Augusta. We need to be thinking regionally. Our passengers don’t stop at that river. They come from both sides of the river. I’m happy to tell that better than 2/3 of our Airport Commission in the past four weeks has traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to meet with our State Legislators there and Columbia, South Carolina to meet with the folks on that side of the river. We have additionally traveled to both cities a second time to meet with the Department of Transportation officials. Many balls in the air. Lot of things going right at that airport. We need also -- Richard Colclough you come to mind. You were saying a year ago we couldn’t get our posters hung in the airport terminal because there was no cooperation, no spirit of cooperation. It’s time to put that kind of attitude away for good. The bottom line is Augusta Regional Airport, the week of Masters is probably the best target-rich environment of any place in the United States of America in terms of promoting Augusta, Georgia. [inaudible] Daniel Field, same thing. That’s how they come. Some people come regionally by car. Everybody else comes by air. It’s time for us to be thinking city on the move. We’ve got a lot to sell, a lot to offer. It’s time to take advantage of it. Finally, I was told by a [inaudible] when old Bush Field, they didn’t want the City meddling in their affairs. They had doors slammed in their face. Don’t [inaudible] kind of thing. That attitude has been shelved for good, too. We hope you can feel that, because that is reflected in the employees, the Airport Commission, the people that you have placed on that board have gotten their attitude straightened around and screwed on right. [inaudible] an historic first occurs tomorrow. We are going to open the first Joint Aviation Commission meeting to plan for the future of Augusta’s two airport aviation system. The hatchet has been buried. The hatchet has been buried, and I’d like [inaudible] Tim Weegar from Augusta Regional and Buster Boshears. I think our City owes both men a tremendous debt, because these are the two men who took the lead, got together on their own Sundays, decided it was time to do something for the good of the City, shelved all the old attitudes and made it happen. I want to thank you both. I can’t 3 see how it would not have happened without you. That is it. We are wide open for questions if anybody has them. There’s a lot we can tell you about air service, a lot of [inaudible], but five minutes doesn’t permit. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Marcie. We certainly appreciate the energy and the enthusiasm you bring to your position as Chairman of the Board of the Augusta Aviation Commission. Are there any questions or comments? Yes, Andy? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to comment that we’ve seen the attitudes and the cooperation increase, and I know that we’re only seeing the very tip of the iceberg with the improvements and growth we’re going to see in our aviation, and we really appreciate it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to say that both of these Commissions, Daniel Field and Bush Field, that I applaud y’all for getting together, because when I sat on the Daniel Field Board for awhile, I think there was some separations, huge separations there. I just want to applaud y’all for getting together and you, Ms. Wilhelmi, for taking the lead and moving this effort forward. I thank you. Ms. Wilhelmi: We would certainly love to have you join us tomorrow. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has to leave us this afternoon to take care of some business in the courtroom downstairs, so in deference to his schedule this afternoon, what we would like to do is go ahead and take up item 39 and get that report from the Site Selection Subcommittee. I think you’re giving that report in Mr. Kuhlke’s behalf. SITE SELECTION SUBCOMMITTEE: 39. Consider recommendation from the Site Selection Subcommittee regarding the location of the proposed Augusta Richmond County Judicial Center. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke is out of town and on the way back and asked me if I would sub for him, but Mr. Mayor, thank you. Yesterday, the Site Selection Committee met. Everyone was on board with a unanimous support for the 600 block of Greene Street site, and we would ask that this Commission following the recommendation of the Site Selection Committee and select the 600 block of Greene Street as the site for the Judicial Center, and I’m going to further recommend, Mr. Mayor, that the committee that you’ve put together be continued, not as a site selection committee, but as an Oversight Committee to form the basis for moving this project forward. I asked Mr. Kuhlke, in return for my presenting this report, if he’d continue to serve as Chairman. It wasn’t that quid pro quo, but he said he’d be interested in serving on such a committee, and Mr. Beard has indicated he would. I haven’t been able to talk to the other members. I would be so available. But I think we had a good representation yesterday of the Commission, 4 and of the judicial system, and I think we’re going to have to continue to involve your office, Mr. Mayor, and also the other users of that facility, we need, as it becomes appropriate to reach out to those other officers, particularly the constitutional officers, the Sheriff comes to mind, the Solicitor of State Court, the State Court Judges, the Civil Court Judges, even the Probate Court, which occasionally will have to under the new laws that are in effect in Probate Court, try jury trials. So I think as it becomes appropriate we expand that group and we, like Ms. Wilhelmi said with the airport, that we work with this group of affected officials, affected elected officials, and move this So I move, Mr. Mayor, that we adopt the 600 block of Greene Street project forward. as that site and we continue the Site Selection Subcommittee as an oversight committee. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that? Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham seconded that. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question. It’s my understanding that we’re going to obtain that property and that there will be several historic houses that will be left and we’re relying on the Civic Center parking lot for primary parking for people that will visit this facility; is that correct? Mr. Mayor: M. Shepard, perhaps you can respond to that. I think it was discussed. Mr. Shepard: I can. It was. The concern for the three or four historic properties which are mainly on this end of the block was broached, and the Committee decided we could deal with that in the terms of the progress on the site. It may include moving those historic properties, which was done, Mr. Cheek, in a case involving my own church where some properties had to be moved. The answer was, it was difficult but not impossible to move those buildings. That’s one possible solution to them. Another possible solution is to incorporate these structures into the facility. But we thought that even with those considerations, we should move on that site. And then as far as parking goes, there would be some off-site parking, excuse me, on-site parking. Mr. Acree has been dealing with some figures based on the current square footages of structures and how many parking spaces are required for those square footages. We are going to look at whether we should vary that for the courthouse and also will look to utilize some of the Civic Center parking. For example, the parking lot that is diagonally across the street from the current Bank of America building is under-utilized during the day. It’s surrounded by a wall. It is on the Civic Center property. There is other Civic Center th parking, of course, off 7 Street. So these would be things that we will work out as we move forward with the site. But we still feel like this is the site that’s preferred over a site at May Park or a site at the fairgrounds or any other place in this area. 5 Mr. Cheek: I had wished that we would come up with a site that did not have limitations to begin with, but I do plan to support this. I’m sure the Committee has looked through it thoroughly and that this is the best option. I just hope we will look at ever effort we can to save money to build this facility. Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Mayor, if I could have the floor just briefly, we also are going to consider the option that we follow a design/build/lease function which may stretch our dollars, Mr. Cheek. And perhaps have a private developer develop it and then we lease it back from them to utilize our SPLOST dollars. We understand we only have so much in the current SPLOST and we are going to try to make that go as far as we can and still develop a first-class facility, a facility that’s a monument to this community, a first-class public building, not just something that makes do. We’re going to try to have it all, and we want the Commission’s support and the community’s support as we go through it, and that’s why I think we’ll get something that we’ll all be proud of if we involve our elected officials that are going to be functioning in this building with the efforts of this Commission and this Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I serve on that committee and it came out of the committee yesterday as a unanimous decision and I’m going to support the motion that’s on the floor. But my questions still have not changed and I won’t be redundant from yesterday. They are part of the minutes of the committee and I just ask that they be reflected on to the carryover of this particular proceeding. But I do think, and I agree with Andy, when you start on these things, and nothing’s perfect. That’s only in a perfect world. You’re going to run into problems. But when you are starting off with hitches and then you’re starting off with a deficit, that’s two real hitches that are there. And when you start talking about seven figure deficits that are in a project to begin with, then you better be certain about where you’re going to go if you don’t know where your funding source is or where it’s going to come from. Now I had some serious problems on yesterday. One, I think anytime when we’re dealing with real estate, that when we start telegraphing the message out in public as to what we may purchase something for that’s there, it’s almost like what you put on a sales tax ballot. We’ve seen that, Mr. Mayor, when those figures come back in, that if you estimate you’re going to build a building for $5 million, I guarantee you it’s going to come in at $4.999 million, and maybe a penny left over. So that was out. I think that that should have been a back-up procedure. The second thing is, as we go down the road, and I don’t have a problem with dealing with the site. You’re right, it’s been said it’s the preferred site. Oftentimes what we prefer is not always the area we should go in when we’re spending other folks’ money, if it’s not a preference of everybody. It should be for all the considerations that will work, with money included, and I’m not one for saying we shouldn’t maybe spend a little more if the total benefits are going to be better. And I think in this case, it can be. But I do think that when we see certain red flags that are in this thing, if they come up, then we shouldn’t continue to go on as what happened a half-decade ago in the reversal process of the jail. We should be ready at some point and that’s why I wanted, and I’m glad the committee at least brought other alternatives to the table and have some other numbers out there. 6 Because I’m not certain that we may not have to return and at least look at those alternatives at some point. So I just wanted to make that as a part of the record. And the last thing, I’m going to ask this for a question. Since we’re talking about other folks’ property, has any discussion been held with the ownership, if somebody can give me that answer, of the properties that are in question that we may be dealing with, whether they’re historic or whether they are not. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, all I can say is that the Chair has received a letter from Herb Upton, who owns the printing company on the corner, who indicated to me he did not want to be dislocated from his place of business. And that’s the only communication I’ve had about any of the property holdings. Mr. Shepard, you may have some discussion. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, some of the Superior Court Judges have talked with some members of the church and members of the Coliseum Authority in a very preliminary fashion, but they felt it would be inappropriate to have really detailed discussions until we made a commitment. If this body is not willing to make a commitment to the 600 block of Greene Street, then it’s unnecessary to have those discussions. But I think they’ve decided as interested parties, as stakeholders in the process, as people that will be actually holding trials in the new building, wherever it is, they wanted to have some preliminary discussions to indicate from the Elders of the First Presbyterian Church and the members of the Coliseum Authority as individuals, not as a member of the Authority, are they at all interested in this process which would involve the City moving to the 600 block of Greene Street, its Judicial Center, and in return the Presbyterian Church swapping some property to the Coliseum Authority. I think they are all very much interested in working with us so that they all three win. The County, the church and the Coliseum Authority. So the discussions that have occurred have occurred on a, as you’ve put it before, in groups of ones and twos and threes. They haven’t occurred in terms of any specific body or any specific meetings which have occurred. So they are receptive is my answer. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to the Judges or anyone else, we still are the trust holders of how the sales tax is spent. My problem that I have, when we deal with funds in this manner -- and I said the same message when we were dealing with Augusta Tomorrow, I say the same message in dealing with the Judicial Center. And even if I’m wrong, I’ll be consistent when I’m wrong. At least that way. And I’ll be honestly consistent. I think that whether we’re dealing with the church or whether we’re dealing with anybody else. I just wanted to make sure that it was not a surprise to property owners. And with all respect to my fellow Commissioner, I have seen that happen before where people read about their properties being a part of a project, if nothing else out of governmental respect, that we talk to them about it and that they don’t just learn it through a process that’s there. And you’ve answered my question to that degree. I think we can work with that. But I’m just going to be -- I’m going to support what we’ve got out there, but I’m going to cautious because I think we’ve telegraphed some numbers out here that are already out there, and we’ve not seen yet what everybody else may want in this process. And so while the site may be preferable, we are already to 7 the tune of $4 million in terms of what we’re estimating acquisition costs are going to be. And we’re talking about a situation of having $20 million that we know about. That’s getting down in the rough numbers, $15 million and some change. High change. So I mean I’m just saying we need to think about from the standpoint that we need to look at what preliminary acquisition may get into being, and if that is not feasible, then we may have to return to some of those options. And that’s why I’m glad at least the options are on the table. But I can respectfully again support what the Committee has got out, but I just think we ought to be respectful enough to be talking with folk about what’s going on. Because I’ve seen that happen and I’ve seen us as a government be very dictatorial in our affairs once we get a concept approved about where we’re going. And that’s the only problem about concepts. Once they get off the table and they get to rolling, that usually becomes the process that you can’t reverse. Under very extreme conditions are you able to turn them around. The jail was one of the few exceptions. But you know what the common denominator was, gentlemen? It was money. And that’s why we went to Phinizy Road. I don’t want to see us get down the road where we extract a lot of money because this is preferable and then we turn around after $3 million to $4 million into it and have to do something else. I just wanted, Madame Clerk, for part of the record, and I’ll support the Committee’s decision, but I hope we keep a very watchful eye and an open mind on where we’re going, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I would hope, Mr. Mays, that we wouldn’t proceed with acquiring property until we identify all the financing to complete the project. It would be a shame to get involved in some property transactions and then for some reason or another we don’t follow through with what we intend to do. Mr. Mays: I agree with you thoroughly. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of other quick things. It is my understanding this is the most expensive site of those that we looked at. What is the difference between the lowest estimated price for a site that we looked at versus this site? Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Acree here? Mr. Acree: Mr. Cheek, as you are aware and all of you are aware, as originally presented that site was the most expensive because it involved the acquisition of the historic properties, as well as construction of a pretty significant parking deck. The option presented yesterday incorporated the deletion of those historic properties from the overall property acquisition as well as the land swap with First Presbyterian, to offset some of these acquisition costs, as well as utilization of the Civic Center parking lot for the additional parking requirements, which brought it down significantly to be in line with all except for the Exchange Club site. That still remains the cheapest, but there is only a couple of million dollars difference between that and the 600 block of Greene Street at this point. 8 Mr. Cheek: Did the scope change on this job in that we’re eliminating the parking deck? Mr. Acree: No, sir, there still is some money left in there for a parking deck or additional parking spaces to provide the total that is required by Code. Mr. Cheek: Then there is still money? Mr. Acree: In the estimated costs. Mr. Cheek: Which is what? $5 million above everything else? Mr. Acree: No, sir. At this point it’s $23 million. The Exchange Club site was $21 million. The May Park site is $24 million. Excuse me, I apologize. That is the shortfall. Let me go back through that. The Exchange Club site is $41 million. The 800- 900 block of Walton Way is $45 million. May Park, $44 million. And the modified Greene Street option is $43 million. Mr. Cheek: A lot of shortfall. I guess that’s the thing that concerns me is as just being in the ranks of citizens a little over a year ago, we’re still $23 million short and still it’s full steam ahead and that’s scary. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Any other comments? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes. Just finally, real quickly, and I think Mr. Acree did a good job of spreading those numbers, because those comparable sites that he’s got in there include a lot of different mixtures and Rick can correct me if I’m wrong. But I think for the sake of those that may not be on the Committee, when Andy asked about the differences in there, when you talk about the May Park site, it should be noted that in the May Park site, the numbers that are plugged into that site also include the figures for a brand new May Park as well. If we’re going to May Park, May Park would not be destroyed and just left. There would be a new gymnasium, there would be new ball fields, there would be new everything to replace that. So when you talk about the May Park figure, you’re talking about the location going to May Park and then building a new May Park prior to doing the Judicial Center, so actually you’re getting two new facilities, if you’re going with that option. You’re going with a new modern, updated park and the Recreation Director is here, and Rick can correct me if I’m wrong on that, but we’re looking at two bangs for the buck as opposed to one bang for the buck, and we are spending more in terms of what we are dealing with with one. So I think that ought to go into the record of where you know it’s not as though May Park would disappear. You’re talking about a new facility that would be located on where part of the fairgrounds is located in doing a new May Park and the same walking distance from it, and then building the Judicial Center right next door to where you deal with the jail, and I think some of you Commissioners may want to ask Rick if he’s got any numbers that relate to what could possibly be saved in the transport costs in which you’re going to deal with in terms of bringing prisoners from one place that’s right next door, to where you can tunnel walk them, as opposed to where 9 you are going to drive them up here, and the security measures that you cost factor into that, too. So it’s some intangibles in there. It’s not just with the difference in the bottom line. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rick, while you’re up, can you give us those figures of how much savings will be saved and -- Mr. Acree: No, sir, I don’t. I requested some information from the Sheriff’s office. What was provided were the trips to the Court for transportation of prisoners for the month of January, 2001. Specifically from the Law Enforcement Center, they made 108 trips from the Law Enforcement Center to this site for Court, involving a total of 500 inmates. And 35 trips to the State Courtrooms, which are in the building, which involved 730 inmates. With State Court relocating to the new Judicial Center, those trips would have to be made from the Law Enforcement Center to the new Judicial Center. But I do not have any dollar figures to put with those numbers. Mr. Williams: And that price you quoted for May Park, it would be for the center and the new park here; is that right? Mr. Acree: Yes, sir. Mr. Beck and I discussed the estimated costs for replacing what we have at May Park, and those were the numbers that I used. Mr. Williams: And give me those numbers again once again for the May Park site. And we’re talking about -- Mr. Mays’ banging those bucks down there, he throwed me off. How much? Mr. Acree: The total estimated cost for the May Park site is $44,170,075. For the Greene Street with the property swap and using the Civic Center parking lot, it’s $43,108,723. Mr. Williams: All right. Mr. Mayor: Regardless of where you locate, whether it’s in May Park or in the 600 block of Greene Street, you still have got to move prisoners from the jail to the courtroom. So you’re still going to have transport at either location. Mr. Acree: You would have transport. With the May Park site, your transport would not involve deputies driving cars or vans or buses. Mr. Mayor: But you still need deputies to walk them or however you move them. Mr. Acree: You still would have to have some there. Mr. Mayor: You still would be moving them across the street. 10 Mr. Acree: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I was just -- the May Park idea of getting two projects for one really sounds reasonable to me. I was just wondering why the subcommittee may have rejected that one. Was there something that we’re not seeing? Is there something other than cost here that we’re not seeing? Can anyone enlighten me on that? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to respond to that? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Bridges, I think that the 600 block of Greene Street was preferred for some other reasons. I think it was preferred for economic development reasons. We’re thinking that we could spread the economic development of the legal community who has invested around this building further to the west if we did that, so there were a lot of things that couldn’t be quantified. We don’t think that the May Park site, since it’s bounded on one side by residential neighborhood, where zoning cases as you know have been difficult in that area to rezone to Professional, it’s bordered by a cemetery, it’s also bordered by the Law Enforcement Center. We just didn’t feel like that was significant. No one came forward in the Committee to advocate that site and I think Mr. Mays correctly pointed out that if we went to May Park, that we would be faced with a replication of that entire recreational complex, which is important to that neighborhood before we did the Judicial Center. So there would be a delay in the Judicial Center down there. There was really no one that advocated May Park for a lot of those reasons. The Courts and the LDR study are all on the same page as far as the 600 block of Greene Street goes, and I think that there are just a lot of factors that went in thinking that this is the best decision for the long haul for the community. They’re just economic development, convenience of the people. If you look at those who utilize the courthouse, the number of prisoners coming in is one of the lowest expenses you have. You have a much more larger population of jurors coming in, you have a larger population of litigants and of course their counsel coming in. So that is probably one of the more small expenses that you would have in that area is prisoner matters. One thing that the Courts want to implement in any new Judicial Center would be a video arraignment system I understand, which would reduce the number of trips wherever the courthouse is located. So I think to compare the present number of trips for incarcerated persons to court with those at a future facility, you have some technology issues and some other improvements to the Court system which could be taken advantage of which would minimize the number of prisoner trips over to the courthouse. Instead of them coming and appearing before the Court, they would go to a room at Phinizy Road and they would go to a room in the LEC and they would be arraigned on camera. I don’t know if any jurisdiction -- maybe Mr. Wall will help me, but I don’t know of any jurisdiction in this part of this State utilizing it, but I do know that they’re doing that in some other metro areas and this is positive for security, it’s positive for expense, but until we redo the whole facility here, it’s really not practical, I think, to do it here. That would impact those numbers severely. 11 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, to my colleagues, another thing that kind of impact the decision, I know with me, was when you are choosing two sites of May Park and this one, is because the time element there with May Park. I mean this is not one of those things where you are going to build the center, the Judicial Center, and then do something for May Park. I think all of us who have an interest in that area down there feel that you must do something with May Park prior to doing anything for the Judicial Center, and I think the other thing that may have impact some of the decisions that were made on yesterday was the location of the two buildings here together. You are having them adjacent to each other. There is also the possibility that for the Judicial Center, they may still have to occupy some parts of this building, such as the courtroom and others, and this may -- I think this had an impact on some of the decisions that were made yesterday. Mr. Mayor: One other thing that has not been mentioned is we had a previous Grand Jury report which recommended consolidating the jail services on Phinizy Road th and phasing out the Law Enforcement Center on 4 Street and not using that any longer over a ten-year period. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment in that regard? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Bridges: When that jail was put on Phinizy Road, the public was promised that there would never be violent criminals placed out there. And I think we need to maintain that promise and that commitment to the public. And I think maybe that information might not have been available to the Grand Jury. I’m sure if it had been, they would have taken a different recommendation in there, in the matter. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m sure this won’t be the last debate we’ll have on this site, but I think we need to go on and vote, and I’m ready to call the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on Mr. Shepard’s motion, the two part motion for the preferred site and maintaining the committee as an oversight committee. All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: That committee is good for oversight, but if this thing is going to move on, and I guess this is my past experience from the jail deal. I’ll shut up on that, but I just think that that committee that’s in place, that oversight, and I’m going to be very candid about this. We need to get some other operatives I think on that committee. Mr. Mayor: We discussed that before you came in, Mr. Mays. 12 Mr. Mays: Well, I wanted to make sure that that’s done because there is a horse and buggy stage that we’re looking at from part of where we’re going, and there’s some state of the art technology that relates to new Judicial Centers that I think that part of that pie is not being brought there, and talked about, and I think that seriously needs to be done in this process, even if this is the selected site. But there are some parameters that new Judicial Centers are being built by, whether it be -- you mentioned about transport costs and how many -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, we’ll note that, but the question has been called and that ends debate on the motion. Mr. Mays: He called for the question. But you’re presiding. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Well, I am and I thought you had a question on what we were voting on or something, but what you’re doing is reopening the debate. We need to move along with the vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Mr. Williams votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: That will move us over to item 44. Since the site selection was one of the things we wanted to take care of before we went back to revisit the SPLOST. Mr. Hornsby? Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Is there any possibility we could [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has a pending legal matter downstairs and we were trying to accommodate his schedule this afternoon, take up the SPLOST and then go to the consent agenda. Mr. J. Brigham: We’ll spend a whole lot more time on SPLOST than we would on the consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to accommodate one of your colleagues, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Shepard: We can take 44 later on if you want to. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard has just advised me he can go down and take care of his business and we’ll come back and revisit 44, when he comes back up. Let’s go ahead. Madame Clerk, let’s see. For the addendum agenda, we had two items to add. Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission, we had a request to add two items: 13 1. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to add a new section: Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-1-13, provide limitations upon contact between the Mayor and Commissioners with employees; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. 2. A request from the Mayor regarding an Economic Development Grant Application. Mr. Mayor: There was one other. I see we had three items to add. Clerk: No, that was just information on the update on the ambulance issue. That’s just additional information. Mr. Wall: For item 36. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there any objection to adding the two items? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Which item? Mr. Mays: The ordinance. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: I have not seen it nor read it. Mr. Mayor: All right. So the ordinance is not added. What about the grant application. Any objection to that? None heard. Let’s proceed with our consent agenda then, Madame Clerk. Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 33. For the benefit of any objector to the liquor application requests, we have one request for Sunday sales: 30. Motion to approve a request by Liddell Sissy Boulus for a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Distinctive Catering & Events at The Double Eagle Club located at 2603 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 26, 2001) Are there any objectors to this petition? There are no objectors to this item. FINANCE: 1. Motion to approve refund of 1999 taxes in the amount of $101.62 to Augusta Industrial Services for overpayment of taxes on Account 2061217. (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 14 2. Motion to approve refund of 1999 taxes in the amount of $1,724.72 to ICX Corporation for overpayment of taxes on Account 2066649. (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 3. Motion to approve the purchase of a Sewer Rodder Truck for the Utilities Department – Construction & Maintenance Division from P & H Supply Company for $64,770.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-099). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 4. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Utility Body Truck for the Utilities Department – Customer Service Division from Augusta Dodge for $21,905.96 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-123). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 5. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Ford Taurus Automobiles for the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department from Bobby Jones Ford for $29,820.40 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-130). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 6. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Compact Pickup Truck for the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $14,593.15 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-132). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 7. Motion to approve the purchase of Two (2) Compact Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department – Customer Service Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $29,992.30 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-132). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 8. Deleted from consent agenda. 9. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Thermoplastic Highway Line Applicator Truck for the Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division from Linear Dynamics Corporation of Montgomery, Pennsylvania for $279,850.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid Item 00-153). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 10. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Expedition 4x4 Vehicle for the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department from Bobby Jones Ford for $28,339.25 (lowest bid offer on Bid # 00-163). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 11. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Explorer 4x2 Vehicle for the Augusta Richmond County Sheriff’s Office – Canine Division from Willoughby Ford of Thomson, Georgia for $22,471.00 (lowest bid offer). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 12. Motion to approve budget amendment request from Augusta Regional Airport regarding Airports 2001 operating budget in the amount of $109,750 to be funded from Airport revenues/reserves. (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) 12A. Motion to approve Budget Calendar for 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 13. Deleted from consent agenda. 15 14. Motion to approve award of Neighborhood Matching Grant at Mayor’s request in the amount of $5,000 to Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association in conjunction with Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation (A- NIC) community clean up. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 26, 2001) 14A. Deleted from consent agenda. 14B. Motion to approve the salary upgrades for the Director of Indigent Defense $43,788.68 to $54,172 and the change of title of Assistant Coordinator to Assistant Director of Indigent Defense with salary increase of $3,800 with Burke and Columbia counties funding 20% of the upgrades. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 26, 2001) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 15. Motion to accept Deed of Dedication from Whisenhunt Children, Inc. & L.P.B. Properties, Inc. for utility easements in Whitney Place. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 16. Motion to approve the amount of $51,000 to G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers for engineering services regarding extension of sewerage to the Pineview Drive area. (Funding from Account # 509043420-5212115/G/L 80150210- 5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 17. Motion to approve a proposal from Godefry & Associates, P.C. in association with Brian G. Besson & Associates, P.C. in the amount of $38,250 to prepare a design for the sanitary sewer in the Sherwood area of Rae’s Creek. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150035-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 18. Motion to approve a proposal from Godefry & Associates, P.C. in association with Brian G. Besson & Associates, P.C. in the amount of $17,100 to prepare a design for the sanitary sewer in the Skinner Mill Road area of Rae’s Creek. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150045-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 19. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering Department to notify consulting engineers of results of selection process and proceed with negotiations of contract for professional engineering services on the new Landfill Design & Permitting Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 20. Motion to approve the request submitted by the Public Works and Engineering Department for the hiring of a contract employee to assist with acquisition of right-of-way and easements for roadway and drainage construction projects. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 21. Motion to authorize to let for bids the Woodlake Subdivision Drainage Improvements (CPB#323-04-299823625) Project. This project is funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 22. Motion to authorize to let for bids the Warren Road Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB#323-04-296823314) Change 16 Number Two in the amount of $1,151,000 for remainder of funds programmed in Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 23. Motion to authorize to let for bids the Stevens Creek Road Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB#321-04-288821235) Change Number Two in the amount of $1,416,000 to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 24. Motion to approve contract with Parsons Engineering Science in the amount of $253,877 to complete the Source Water Assessment Plan for Augusta. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-5212114/80190175-5212114) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 25. Motion to authorize signature of the contract with Parsons Engineering Science for the Countywide Watershed Assessment. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-5212114/80190150-5212114) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 26. Motion to authorize the Solid Waste Facility to reduce their hours of operation during Augusta Richmond County’s scheduled holidays. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 27. Motion to approve bid award of contract to Johnson Utilities, Inc. low bidder in the amount of $223,750.00 regarding construction of the Rae’s Creek – Sue Reynolds Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) 28. Motion to approve Project Plans of Atlanta Gas Light Company for Augusta Manufactured Gas Plant Cleanup. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 26, 2001) PUBLIC SERVICES: 29. Motion to approve Change Order #1 to R. E. Shearer Construction Co. in the amount of $26,462 regarding renovations to Library Branches. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 26, 2001) 30. Motion to approve a request by Liddell Sissy Boulus for a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Distinctive Catering & Events at The Double Eagle Club located at 2603 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 26, 2001) 31. Motion to approve bid award for electrical update to terminal hangar to Guy C. Smith Construction in the amount of $44,390.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 26, 2001) 32. Motion to approve budget amendment request from Augusta Regional Airport regarding Airports 2001 operating budget in the amount of $109,750 to be funded from Airport revenues/reserves. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 26, 2001) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 33. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February 21, 2001. 17 Mr. Mayor: What is your pleasure with regard to the consent agenda? Mr. Mays: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Would you like to pull any items? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: 13 and 14A, please, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: 13 and 14A. Mr. Williams: Number 8, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Eight? Mr. Williams: Eight. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Number 8 for Mr. Williams. Anyone else? Nothing heard. So we have a motion to adopt the consent agenda minus item 13, 14A and 8. All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Bridges: Let our record show I voted No on Sunday sales. Mr. Mayor: Did you get that, Ms. Bonner? Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard out. Mr. Bridges votes No on Sunday sales portion. Motion carries 8-0. [Item #30] Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-7, 9-12A, 14, 14B-29, 31-33] Mr. Mayor: The next item will be #8. Clerk: 18 8. Motion to approve the acquisition of Eight (8) Full Size Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department - Administration Division from Augusta Dodge for $176,136.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid Item 00-133). (Approved by Finance Committee February 26, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I needed to know whether or not we were replacing any vehicles or -- Mr. Mayor: Ron, would you come over to the microphone, please, so we can pick you up. Mr. Crowden: Ron Crowden, Interim Fleet Manager. On item 8, sir, this would support new inspectors within the Administrative -- these are inspectors. These are eight new positions in the Administrative division under the reorganization plan. I believe those positions were approved by the Administrative Services Committee already, so this would provide them the support they need to do their jobs. Mr. Williams: So this is eight new positions and we buy eight new vehicles; is that right? Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. We don’t have vehicles to support their requirements. These people will be off the road primarily. A lot of their -- as I understand, and I haven’t seen the job descriptions of them, but as I understand the requirements for these people, they will be off the road, they will be doing survey, they will be doing inspecting. So these full-size trucks gets them up a little higher than the Ranger would, and it is a 4x4 capability. So it will allow them to do their jobs in the environment in which they’ll have to do it. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek has got a question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just based on what I’m hearing about their job description, there doesn’t seem to be load justifying a full-size bed. I’m the proud owner of an S-10 series four-wheel drive truck that will go anywhere a full-size truck will go, plus it gets an average of 8-10 miles a gallon better. Since our gas prices were a half million dollars, our gas was half a million dollars over budget last year, I don’t see the justification for full size pickup trucks in this. Mr. Crowden: The F-150 has a greater ground clearance than the Ford Ranger. These are not full beds, these are regular beds, sir. 19 Mr. Cheek: The ground clearance issues, if it’s not something that an S-10 four- wheel drive can go into, a full size truck is not going to be able to go in there, either. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, would you like to speak to this? These trucks are for your department. Mr. Hicks: Our primary concern would be the issues that Mr. Crowden has outlined, and that is the better clearance and heavier weight. I myself have a small pickup truck. I’ve driven it a lot of places. I’ve also been in some smaller 4x4 pickups, so I can’t say that I’ve been in those situations in a full size pickup and had any better results getting out of a mud bog or anything, Commissioner, or place you might stick otherwise. But if you wanted to do the compact pickup trucks, they could try that. I do think they need to be four-wheel drive. In any event, I think they need to be four-wheel drive. Mr. Cheek: Apart from the four-wheel drive, which I agree with based on water lines and the woods and so forth, we have got to get a handle on this spiraling gasoline cost, and market indicators are that the cost of gasoline is going to go up and up and up. And we have got to start looking at more economical vehicles. And full size vehicles drink more gas, even with fuel injection they drink more gas. They have more cylinders and so forth, and we’ve got to get a handle on that. And again, something Commissioner Williams has stated, we’ve got to get a handle on our fleet, too. Our fleet management costs are going through the roof, and it’s becoming a severe burden on Public Works and probably on Utilities in the future. We’ve putting money in vehicles that could be going into pipes and pumps and I just hope that we will look at that seriously before we bring stuff to the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask the question of Max if these trucks will be used for inspection only; is that right? For getting into different situations, different areas for inspection? Mr. Hicks: That’s right. That’s what they’re designated for. Mr. Williams: And not buying these, buying the smaller trucks, with four-wheel drive right on would probably save us some $30,000 or more? I’m mean I’m just estimating, guessing. I’m going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we Mr. Mayor: We don’t have a motion, do we, Madame Clerk? Clerk: No. Mr. Williams: I’m just going to make a motion that we send this back to Finance and maybe look at trying to get the smaller trucks with the four-wheel drive and that is going to be needed to help these guys do their job. I just thing if we’re not 20 going to be hauling materials, it’s going to be used basically going back and forth to inspect, I think we could do a lot better job and lot better efficient job with the smaller type. Mr. Cheek: Second that. Mr. Hicks: If I might request, if all here would approve, the funds are there, if you wanted to recommend or make a motion for the eight compact pickup trucks, that would be fine. Mr. Williams: Well, I think we need to go back, Max, to do it right, send the bid back out again, so the playing field be level, won’t nobody say, well, I could have did it cheaper, I could have did it better. Let’s just send it back and get -- send it back through Finance. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Ron. Mr. Crowden: Mr. Mayor, if I may, the bid -- the process that we’ve done with regards to the acquisition, we would not rebid this package of trucks because we already have bid and agreed upon price. That’s not an issue. We know -- we sent out a bid that we want this kind of truck. Let’s say a truck equivalent to a Ford Ranger. And we sent out the specifications for it, to all the dealers. They came back with a price, a fixed price for this year. So we have that price guaranteed to us. If you all agree that we would go with the compact price, it’s already a done deal. We would come back to you, to the Finance Committee saying this is the cost, and then you would approve that cost. Mr. Williams: I understand perfectly and I’m in agreement with you, but since we’re spending taxpayers’ money, I would like to see the Finance look at it so we know what we are saying okay on. Mr. Crowden: That’s fine. Mr. Williams: You know, I got no problem with the trucks, but I just think we need to know before we vote to say yes, to do that. I mean we may not be saving anything, but I just would appreciate it if we did it that way. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to send this back to the Finance Committee. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Mr. J. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: The next item is 13. 21 13. Motion to approve resolution of support and request of a $400,000 loan from 2002 CDBG funds to be allocated to 30901 Development Corporation for the development of 48 independent living senior apartments. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 26, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Question for Mr. Mack on this one. Did we open the door for all of our folks to come in and apply for 2002 money? Mr. Mack: No, sir. This was a situation wherein the 30901 Development Corporation was asking for an exception -- I don’t want to say exception. Asking that we grant them $400,000 out of the 2002 CDBG budget to apply for a tax credit deal with the State of Georgia. Mr. Cheek: What I have a problem with is the government providing preferential or special treatment to anybody. If we’re going to open 2002 money up, which this is a loan against the 2002 money, we need to open it up for everybody. I know it’s a worthwhile project, but fair is fair. When we do take this money out of the pot, then that reduces the total sum that’s available for other people to bid against. Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion that we hold this until we open it up and allow other people that have worthy causes, too, to submit proposals on this 2002 money if we’re going to open it for anybody. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard : Mr. Mayor, I really think that Mr. Mack ought to work with the Committee that has been established which consists of Commissioner Kuhlke and Commissioner Cheek. I don’t see this -- I think that this needs to go on today. I don’t see any reason to hold this up. And I think that if the Commissioners have questions about this, then it ought to deal with Mr. Mack. Because there is nothing wrong with what is being done here. The procedure may have been wrong in that not opening it up to everybody. So I think that that Committee ought to deal with Mr. Mack on that, but not necessarily hold up that -- these funds that Administrative Service, as it came before us, in that meeting. We agreed to it, and I see nothing wrong with that, because it can be done, it has been done in other situations wherein I know a few years ago with the City, when we were dealing with the project down here in Olde Town, you can advance money. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But the point is, you know, and I understand what Commissioner Cheek is talking about. It should be opened up to -- . So I’m going everybody ought to have the same opportunity and the field should be fair to offer a substitute motion on that, and the motion would be that Mr. Mack appear before the committee and explain his actions on what was done there and let them report back to either the Administrative Services Committee or the full body on the 22 justification of this. I see no reason to hold up those funds, and I think that motion would be to let those funds go on because I think that that could happen in that way. Mr. Mack: Can I clarify? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. We’ve just had a motion made. Is there a second to that? Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Henry. Yes, sir, Mr. Mack? Mr. Mack: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify. What we were basically trying to do is grant 30901 Development Corporation a letter because they are applying for the tax credits. The tax credit application is due in April, and basically what we were trying to do is strengthen that application by getting a commitment letter to them. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this question. This may clarify it. Mr. Mack, do you have $400,000 in CDBG money in the current year that you can reprogram to this project? Mr. Mack: Yes. Mr. Mayor: So you would not have to pledge next year’s entitlement to it? Mr. Mack: We can do that. Mr. Mayor: So why didn’t you do that then? Mr. Mack: The application would not be available -- I mean this project won’t be available probably for another year or two. Mr. Mayor: Right. But what it does, it doesn’t automatically lock up about 10% of the money that we get next year. Okay. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in 100% support of the project. I got no problem with that. Commissioner Beard stated that this probably been done before. And we done a lot of things before that wasn’t right. And we need to start to do those things that’s fair and equitable to everybody. I’ve got some calls about how can money be appropriated for 2002, and it is a concern. It’s a legitimate concern. That if the Housing Neighborhood Director is going to open up that type of situation, it should be open up to everybody. I’ve got several calls about some who have tried to do this very same thing and say they wasn’t able to. I don’t want to get into the pros and cons. I’m in support of the project. It’s in my District. I think it is well needed. But two wrongs don’t 23 make a right. And I still think that we are, we need to make the playing field level and make it fair and equitable for everybody. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Beard. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays had his hand up. Mr. Mays: I’ll wait. Mr. J. Brigham: I’d like to ask Mr. Mack a question. Mr. Mayor: Certainly. Go ahead. Mr. J. Brigham: Mack, wasn’t this approved by the Citizens Committee? Mr. Mack: Yes, sir, it was. Mr. J. Brigham: Also, if we take it out of current CDBG funds, we have already got a problem in that we are not spending current funds fast enough. Mr. Mack: That’s correct. Mr. J. Brigham: So if we take out of future funds and the City -- your Advisory Committee that we appointed approved this, wouldn’t we be better off to wait and take this out of future funds since it will be several years away from -- several months away from construction? Mr. Mack: You’re exactly right. Mr. J. Brigham: It won’t be done this year. Wasn’t that the original intent for this being brought to us that way? Mr. Mack: Yes, sir. You’re exactly correct. Mr. J. Brigham: So I don’t understand why we’re having this big debate. If we’re going to be penalized for not spending out CDBG funds, and if we’re trying to do the project and we’re trying to make sure it gets done, why are we having this talk? Why are we going to crucify Mr. Mack over this? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard: I just want to quality something, Mr. Mayor. It’s giving the appearance and the perception that something is wrong with this. And I would be the last one to say that two wrongs make a right, but the point is, as I said before and I think that the Attorney will agree with me on this, there is nothing illegal about what is being done here. So I don’t want the perception to go out here that something is illegal by what has 24 taken place here. It can be done. But now they both, Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Williams have a point in that maybe it’s not fair to the entire community, but those are two different aspects of the thing. If you want to deal with the fairness of a Director and how he’s treating a community, then you deal with that. And I’ve suggested a way to deal with that because you have an oversight committee that is working with Mr. Mack. So if they don’t like the way he’s doing things, then deal with him on that. But I don’t think that you should hold up projects that can simply move forward, because you have a problem with the way a Director has handled that. And it’s nothing illegal about it. So why would you hold up the project? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Maybe things have changed and I haven’t paid attention, but last time I looked, crucification involved boards and nails or rope and discussion with a department head on why one group was allowed to do something others weren’t when that is the function of government, to make sure that all people are treated equally and given the same opportunities, that’s our job. And whether it’s been done or not in the past, the fact is if we’re going to open the door for one group, we need to open the door for everybody, because this is locking in money, future or present, to a particular group, and when you’re not giving everybody equal access to that money, then you’re denying the public their God-given right in this country. And that’s what we’re about right now. I agree with Commissioner Beard, if we can move forward, I don’t have a problem with this. I support this project, but I just want to make sure everybody is granted equal access to that pot of money at the same time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think the makers of both motions are right. That may be hard to deal with when you’ve got two different motions. But let me deal with Mr. Beard’s first insofar as a comment on it, and I’ll be through. One is a question and one is a comment. The question is to the Director. Is it public knowledge or can it be disclosed at this point what the leveraged amount of private money per se is on this project? What’s the numbers on it or the percentage on it? Mr. Mack: [inaudible] about $3,500,000 to $4 million. Mr. Mays: Okay. I think, Mr. Mayor, the support of Mr. Beard’s motion can also get what Mr. Cheek needs to get done as well, in that the job that he and Mr. Kuhlke did in that committee -- I think they put a lot of time into it, a lot of effort. I think they brought out a lot of good points that need to be addressed. I think one of those points in there, and Andy can correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Mayor, but one of those specifically that deals with Mr. Mack’s department meeting with all of the existing [inaudible] and of going down that list in terms of what can be done that’s available, what flexibilities might be there in the program, so that if you’ve got other existing projects that may fall between the time label or if there are projects whereby the leveraging amount for private sources might be high, as this one is, and to take advantage of that from the small amount that we 25 are putting in. I think you can achieve both things, but I would encourage, Mr. Mayor, the Director to really look at what that committee outlined, and I’ve talked to him in private about that in terms of the fact I think we need to fast track with not just persons or groups that may be questioning this particular situation and how it’s done, but just all of them period who have an interest in terms of applying, and then if there is some flexibility in there and a group has the opportunity to maybe leverage seven figures of money with a small commitment from the City, then that achieves Mr. Beard’s motion, it doesn’t block a good project that is on the floor, but it also I think gets to the heart of Mr. Cheek’s motion to a point that it’s adhering to what the Committee has so directed, and I think that can be achieved. But I would strongly urge that a quick meeting of those associations [inaudible], etc., whoever falls in that bag, that that quickly be done, because I think you probably have some waiting situations out there with some questions. Something may be able to be done. Something may not be able to be done, but at least that way they know where they stand and then you don’t stand in the way of one that can go ahead and move, and that’s my comment on it and I’m going support Lee’s substitute motion on it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had your hand up. Did you want to say something? Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Mayor. My question has been answered already through Mr. Mays’ long, drawn-out comment. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mack, I had one question that I raised in the Committee that we didn’t get an answer to. Part of this proposal is to waive tap fees, permit fees, inspection fees and so forth, and I asked if those could be paid out of community development money so that the City wouldn’t lose the revenue. Mr. Mack: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Are these charges that we can charge back to CDBG? Mr. Mack: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: I would hope that we would do that, then, because they have a significant amount in the pro forma assigned to fees in here. Mr. Mack: To the project. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Okay. Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification. What happened with the fees? Mr. Mayor: I was asking if those could be paid back out of community development? In other words, we could give the project the appropriate amount of 26 money to pay those fees to us so that our water department wouldn’t lose the tap fee. In other words, the federal money would pay the tap fee, as opposed to waiving the cost. We’re recapturing some of our costs using the community development money. Not the $400,000 but an additional appropriate to cover that. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, what’s the substitute motion that we’re voting on? Mr. Mayor: Give it a try, Ms. Bonner. Clerk: The substitute motion was to approve the resolution and the support of the $400,000 along with Mr. Mack appearing before the Commission with an explanation of his action and report to either the Administrative Services Committee and the Commission for justification for recommending this request. Mr. Beard: And that was reporting to Mr. Cheek. Clerk: The subcommittee. Mr. Beard: That’s the oversight -- should be the oversight committee. Clerk: [inaudible] you were referencing the subcommittee? Mr. Beard: I’m referencing the subcommittee cause I think those are the people who have been working with him, and then they are -- they would report to the Administrative Services Committee. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, seems like we’re voting on a matter before we are getting all the answers then, if he’s supposed to report back to the committee. Mr. Mayor: Well, that is the motion on the floor. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: So we will proceed with that substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Shepard out. Mr. Williams and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 6-2. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 14A. Clerk: 27 14A. Motion to approve the recommendation from the HND Subcommittee. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 26, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In my absence from the committee meetings, I wanted to address this before it goes to the floor. Commissioner Kuhlke and I took on the task of basically a top-down review of Housing and Neighborhood Development. We met with all the different portions of Housing and Neighborhood Development from the citizens committees to those that do business with the Housing and Neighborhood Development department. One of the things that we discovered was that this group had some established goals set forth by the City that they have been meeting or nearly meeting, in some cases exceeding those requirements set forth by the total number of projects done in different categories. What there was an absence of is guidance towards from this City government, guidance towards continuous improvement, what is expected in the way of involving committees and communities in dialog, and treating people like customers and team mates. We addressed in this recommendation, which comes back to you today, several things that will help remedy the problems that we found. Mr. Mack and Mr. Mack’s staff work very hard over in their department dealing with federal, state and local regulations, the like of which the average civilian hasn’t really got any concept of. One of the things to address, the reason that this investigation was brought about was dealing with complaints on housing rehab and other complaints. If you’ll note in your documents you see in your back-up, that a grievance process and grievance committee will be established, and we were assured by Mr. Mack that a contact person will be established to take phone calls and deal with the grievances and issues that are brought forth by citizens in the rehab and other programs. We will be losing qualified personnel if we don’t adjust their salaries to other groups like ANIC. Quite frankly, we’re paying professionals a lot less than they are worth. Dealing with the Code or federal regulations and other state regulations, the paperwork load is enormous. Additional staff will help proceed with getting these projects done sooner. Mr. Mayor, we met with the [inaudible] and let them know very clearly from us that we would not tolerate them sitting on funds with projects that weren’t prepared and completed or the preliminary work wasn’t done and completed. We recommend that we look at recapturing funds if the [inaudible] are not performing in a manner that will have their projects done on time, or at least within a reasonable schedule. Many, many other things that are in this recommendation I hope that we’ll consider and favorably approve today. I’ll move to approve the recommendations of the One thing I would like to add, and subcommittee and adding that there be a six-month review of these goals to make sure that we are progressing against these goals and that we’re going to meet these goals. I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. That review would be by the committee? Mr. Cheek: By the Committee. 28 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Cheek, I would just say I want to thank you and Mr. Kuhlke for the time you put into this. I think your report is well researched, well thought out, well reasoned. You’ve got some very positive recommendations in there. It’s a department that can do a lot of good for this City and I’m glad we’re giving it the attention it deserves. All in favor of the motion to adopt the recommendations from the Committee, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: We move to our regular agenda now. Item 34. 34. Motion to approve Waiver and Indemnity Agreement by Herbert Newsome, thereby allowing construction of an auto parts business on Gordon Highway in an area that is not serviced by City water. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? We’ve got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: The only thing I would like to hear from is the Chief, I think that he had something -- I know we didn’t act on this in the Public Safety Committee, but I’m wondering are they in compliance with whatever is needed from a water standpoint of fire protection and that kind of thing? Chief Mack: [inaudible] The only question I would like to know is the water that is out there in that vicinity, is that also the water that is supplying the medical correctional institute? Mr. Sanders: That I don’t know. May I respond in more depth about that? I do not know whether it is or not. There are water tanks. There is a racetrack out there and there are water tanks at the racetrack that can be used for firefighting, but the medical facility I believe has its own water tanks, water supply that is dedicated to that facility. Mr. Hicks would know more about that than I do. Mr. Hicks: They are supplied by Fort Gordon. Mr. Mayor: Chief, what’s your recommendation on this? Chief Mack: That they get some sort of water supply that can guarantee me a supply of water. If there is something that happens at that property, there is no guarantee 29 that I’m going to access to these other tanks and there is no guarantee that there will be water in the tank if it ever comes time to use it on somebody else’s property. Mr. Mayor: Freddie, you want to identify yourself for the record and respond to that? Mr. Sanders: My name is Freddie Sanders. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I represent Mr. Newsome. Let me give you a little bit of the background. Mr. Newsome is a -- we do not have county water in this area. Being a rural area. And I think the requirement that the Fire Chief is talking about, there’s not a fire hydrant within 500 feet of this building. There is no county water out there, so there can be no fire hydrant at this time until the water lines are run out there. We have signed an indemnification and wavier indemnifying the County if there is any litigation filed because of the approval of this building permit without the fire hydrant, and we have also agreed that if the water lines are ever run out there, that we will immediately tap on to the water lines. Mr. Newsome is an existing business operator in Richmond County and has been so for a number of years. He has put a lot of money in this property out here. It’s located on the Gordon Highway. There’s a racetrack out past the ACMI facility, and it’s zoned Commercial, and he has gone to great expense and trouble to meet all of the requirements of all of the different agencies that he can other than the one about the fire hydrant. He has spent a lot of money in putting steel on the ground out there to build the building, and he’s been working at this for some four months. His business is only a 50x100 feet building that is going to be used to sell racing car parts. It’s not going to have any big influx of people out there. He’s going to have about three employees. A large amount of his business is going to be shipping these parts UPS, but he will have some customers coming there. It’s a full metal building, so the fire hazard to that extent is not as great as other areas or other buildings. And of course this is not a nursing home or a hospital or anywhere where we are going to have patients or anybody in that vicinity there that would need help in a business of that nature. But he was approved in every manner but the Fire Department by not having a fire plug. In the past, there have been waivers granted because the rural area is developing faster than the water lines were run, and there has been waivers granted that is similar to this for businesses that are really more critical for fire protection than you have in this type of business. So this business has been built or it’s in his best interest to build this business at the racetrack because of the uniqueness of this type of business. And I’m sure you’re interested in economic development, and it’s just that this area is developing faster than the water lines are run. There’s plenty of businesses out there. There’s plenty of other types of structures out there. We’re just asking for you to allow what has happened in the past with other businesses, to allow Mr. Newsome to get the benefit of the money he has already spent. We actually learned about this problem here recently and we tried to use the water tanks at the racetrack, which we have permission to use, to fight fires, but they don’t have the water flow that you have to have on a fire plug. But they actually have more water accessible to this building than the other buildings which were given a waiver. In fact, one of the buildings was a Pump ‘N Shop that has gas tanks there. And because it was in a rural area, a waiver was given. So that’s all we’re asking is for you to consider his expenditures, consider the development and the fact that he is willing to tap onto the line 30 if you ever run it and has already signed a waiver and indemnification agreement so the County will have no exposure in that regard. I understand the Fire Chief’s concern, but I think it’s appropriate to issue a waiver in this situation as you have in other situations. And I’ll be glad to respond to any questions that you might have. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you had your hand up? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make a comment. If I’m not mistaken, I think the road construction that widened out the traffic road, it’s a lot better out there in that area now where they are doing some construction. Hadn’t been out there way in a while but the last time I was there I remember some road construction being done. Being around that type of facility and knowing what is being stored there, if our legal department don’t have any problem with the waiver that’s been signed, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for the motion. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Wall then, and see what he says. Mr. Wall: I drew up the waiver and I’m comfortable with it, and as Mr. Sanders has indicated, where you’ve got these commercial developments that are trying to locate out in some of the rural areas where water has not gotten there, this is the only solution that I see until water gets out there. They are mandated to connect as soon as water gets there. And the waiver releases the County from liability. And so I am comfortable with it. Mr. Mayor: Chief, you put your hand up. You wanted to speak again? Chief Mack: I’d just like to say I think the near hydrant is at least one mile away, so if there is ever a fire there, that means [inaudible] just to connect to a hydrant [inaudible], and the other thing is you’re opening the door for this individual or you’re opening the door for future individuals who are doing the exact same thing [inaudible] until the County gets water out there. And if it takes five years, you may then enjoy [inaudible] if there is a profit margin and it doesn’t succeed, what happens the building and the contents? Mr. Wall: Well, the covenant is recorded in the real estate records, so it goes with the property. And so anyone who buys the property would be subject to this waiver and indemnity agreement, so that if the automobile parts dealership or parts business were to change hands to a tee shirt place or whatever, I mean, that business would pick up that responsibility. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor to approve. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays. I didn’t see your hand. 31 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me ask Mr. Sanders something. Something he mentioned that -- and I’m not on that committee, but I was in the meeting and I was trying to -- I asked some questions about it and I was trying to find a way to be supportive of the gentleman’s business. And at the time, I think what Mr. Beard referred to earlier, we asked the question was there some agreement, and I know that there is a difference in what the flow that the Chief needs, but was there anything that’s been brought over to the Fire Department either by you or through your client that maybe would give them some different access? Because the Chief brought that up at the committee meeting in reference to being able to use the tanks that were on that track. And I know in some cases whether we’ve extracted water from rural ponds or wherever, is anything different from what we heard at that Committee meeting? Mr. Sanders: It’s my understanding, Mr. Mays, and my client is here, that he has an agreement with them that he can actually access those tanks for water if need by. They probably sit unused except during the races on Friday or Saturday night, and they’re right large tanks. They just don’t have the pressure that you need as a fire plug. But they have an agreement that they can actually use those if need be. I would ask that we not make it, if it is approved, contingent upon that in case they change hands. I don’t represent them so I don’t know the racetrack owners. But right now they do have an agreement that they can use those tanks out there and I don’t see any problem with it. Mr. Mays: See, I was kind of hoping that if we had an agreement that we could make it contingent on that. I think it will pass. My personal problem with this, and Jim and I stand respectfully agreeable to disagree, and we’ve disagreed before on this waiver. I have a serious problem with building permit standards being waived and also fire code standards being waived. Now the question was brought up a minute ago by our Chief. I supported the last Chief when waivers were brought in to be waived. We may have overruled him. The Chief before Chief Few, when we dealt with waivers, I supported the Chief on those. Now he asked a serious question, gentlemen, in terms of what precedent do you set? I’ve heard it today mentioned, and I’m not trying to knock where the project goes, but I do think that when you start that process, think about it. If it’s all you do, think about it. Because you’re asking your Chief here what he recommends. Now we did one, I know. On the gas station, and I definitely voted against that one because they signed an indemnity agreement, too. But we all know that if we get caught in a lawsuit, if there are minors there or people there where chemicals are involved, there is an explosion, that indemnity agreement basically goes out the window. They going after us if we don’t do nothing but pay Jim to defend us, we going to pay something. It’s not going to cost zero. I think you do have a different situation in terms of what this gentleman has on the premises, but I was looking for a way that maybe there was some agreement, Mr. Mayor, where our department had some type of access that could be used on these tanks, even though it would have to be something written in return there, but I’m just very leery of us getting into where the legal side makes the determination on safety waivers. Because you’ve got a lot of county out there, and when you start this process, you could get everything from chemical housing to service stations to you name it. That can line up and say they have got a waiver. And you’ve got court case precedent then 32 that’s in place. And you’ve had two different Chiefs and their staffs to both recommend against waiving policy. And I just wanted to throw that out there to you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor to approve. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Mr. Colclough votes No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 6-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Next item, no. 35. Clerk: 35. Motion to approved Addendum #1 for the AIA Contract Document B141 to increase architect fees from $43,000 to $122,000 due to the increased scope of the new animal control shelter project. Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve with a second. Discussion? None heard. All in favor of the motion, vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is 36. Clerk: 36. Update from the Attorney and Administrator regarding the ambulance service contract. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Wall: We have been meeting with the representatives of University Hospital, as well as Rural Metro. I’ve tried to update in the additional agenda material. Five years ago, University Hospital entered into a contract with Rural Metro whereby Rural Metro would provide the ambulance service to Richmond County. We previously had a contract with University Hospital dating back to 1971. That contract is still is in existence, so basically University Hospital was subcontracting the ambulance service out to rural Metro. The contract with Rural Metro provided that the County would supplement the cost of that service during the first three years and for the last two years 33 we have not been providing any supplement to the contract. Rural Metro has indicated that they are unwilling to continue that contract beyond the termination date which is the first part of July without some supplement to carry forward. University Hospital has indicated that they are not willing to pay any money as far as ambulance services, and as a result of that, what we are asking to do is to extend the existing Rural Metro contract beyond the first part of July termination date to December 31. That will give you as a Commission and the committee that has been formed the opportunity to look at options as to how they may wish to address the ambulance service in the future. Monies were included in the budget which you have approved, for $300,000, which is $50,000 a month, which will carry Rural Metro through the end of the year. The mechanism by which this will be done is that there would be an amendment to the contract between University Hospital and Rural Metro carrying it to December 31. We would take an assignment of the contract from University Hospital so that University Hospital is out of the middle of it. We would be dealing directly with Rural Metro for the balance of the year and we would also terminate that old 1971 agreement that automatically renews which provides that we will pay to University Hospital the cost of providing ambulance services within the County. The reason that we’re bringing it forward today, there is a provision in the Rural Metro contract where they have to indicate their intent to either renew or not renew and which that date is Thursday of this week, and so we’re asking that we go ahead and authorize the assignment of the contract, once it’s amended, to the County, get University out of it and we’ll basically be in a position that we’ll contract directly with Rural Metro and give you as a Commission the time to study the situation and make a plan as far as what it wants to do with regard to ambulance service on the long term. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, the Chair would like to add a couple of notes to this. I think if we go ahead and proceed with this contract extension and take University Hospital out of the picture, it would probably be appropriate that we sign contract compliances and oversight to one of our city departments, perhaps the Fire Chief, to monitor the contract. Secondly, I think we ought to move fairly quickly to develop and RFP to get it out on the market, because we only have nine months in which to make a final resolution of this. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Bridges: Question for Jim, Mr. Mayor. What’s the purpose of taking University Hospital out of the equation? Is there a legal or financial reason for that? Mr. Wall: There is not a legal reason in my mind. The financial reason is it gives us the flexibility. It gives us the flexibility to seek other funding. It gives us the flexibility to possibly determine what source of funding, whether it comes out of general funds or whether it comes out of some other source of funding, and also gives us the authority and the control over the process by which another company or this company is selected for the long term. And it just removes them, rather than bringing them into the picture, and having them involved in the contract through December 31, you as a Commission have the decision, can make the decision about how you want to proceed with ambulance service without having to route it through them. 34 Mr. Bridges: So this committee that you’re speaking of, of course, as the ambulance committee, they would be bringing back the recommendation of whether to bid or whether to go with -- Mr. Wall: Absolutely. Mr. Bridges: Do we have -- Walter, do we have any time of when they will bring back a recommendation/ Mr. Hornsby: No, sir. Mr. Bridges: Jim, one other thing. There is a license or something involved in this procedure. I think you’re the -- I don’t remember what it is. Mr. Wall: We have kept the license all along. Mr. Bridges: Who is going to get the license? I understood it was University Hospital. Mr. Wall: We still have it. No, it’s in Augusta’s name and it would remain in Augusta’s name. Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right. Mr. Mayor, I think that regardless of if we gave it to somebody today, we are still going to be looking at a subsidy of some kind, regardless of who it is. I think the approach to extend this out six months, subsidize it with budgeted funds as we’ve got is reasonable. I agree with you that we should immediately start looking. Hopefully the Committee will bring back something to us as far as recommendation for the future after December, but I make a motion that we approve. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams, then Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, I just need some clarification on what you said about the 1971 agreement. If we do that, will that end, you’re saying, that agreement with -- Mr. Wall: Terminate the agreement with University Hospital. That agreement -- it’s an old agreement. But basically under that, we were required to pay to University Hospital the cost of providing ambulance service. Prior to the Rural Metro contract, that’s what we were doing. We were paying directly to University Hospital and I don’t know the exact numbers, I don’t recall them, although I do know it was more than $600,000 and so that was the reason when they subcontracted out at $600,000 the County was saving money even by subsidizing. And then for the last two years, when we hadn’t had to pay anything, obviously it was a big savings to the County. 35 Mr. Williams: I guess what I’m getting at, cause I had a couple of constituents in south Augusta to talk about how much money they was being charged after we paid over $600,000 to University and they was charged additional monies and I had a meeting with some of the Rural Metro people, but where are with our Fire Department? You know, we talked about one getting the Fire Department cross trained. Mr. Wall: I’ll let the Chief -- the Chief has been in on the meetings. I’ll let him address it if he wants to. Chief Mack: Unfortunately the tax cap that I’m operating under for this year, the budget, is $13.9 million. The cap is at $14.2 million. The $300,000 I don’t think there is any way we can get into the business of ambulance transportation. Mr. Williams: Okay. What you’re saying is because of the finances we’re not about to do that. But what about our readiness as far our men? Naturally we got a lot of different locations where our fire department at. We’re adding, we’re building. If we going to build, we need to build with that in mind so we can build those stations with that, if that’s the direction we are going to go. There’s no sense in building and then adding on. Chief Mack: We can build stations and then add additional bays if we’re going to house ambulances in them. That’s not a problem. But your initial start-up cost is basically prohibitive at this point in time because there isn’t enough money to support whatever you want to try to do to begin that. Mr. Williams: Okay. One other question. Jim, what we pay University Hospital, is that an annual thing? You say over $600,000? Mr. Wall: I’m going back to pre-1996. Yes, it was a pass through. What their costs were were billed to us by University Hospital. Mr. Williams: I guess what I was thinking about if we do this, and I got no problem in doing this until the end of the year. Mr. Wall: Rural Metro is going to make up the difference. I mean we are paying them $300,000 for the six month period. It’s their obligation to provide the ambulance service under the standards that are set forth in the contract that will be assigned to us, and it’s then their responsibility. Mr. Williams: I think what I was thinking about was beginning of the year 2002, then if we spend $600,000 a year, that money ought to be able to go to the Fire Department to get them in some way. I mean if that’s the direction of this governing body. But I mean I’ve got no problem. I just want to ask those questions wherein that contract of ’71 that we talked about and where was the Fire Department in their minds as far as running the ambulance service, you know, EMT service, out of the Fire Department. That’s all I have, Mr. Mayor. 36 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a couple of comments here, that I particularly see nothing wrong with excluding University out of the equation of this because they really haven’t been in it anyway. I guess the other comment would be we appointed a committee to work with this, and maybe the Chairman could tell us where they are. I hope they are moving on this. It was a long time before we could get a chairman of our committee to work on this, and I think this is what is needed. Thirdly, I think that we, although we understand that the Fire Department cannot sustain this at this particular time, but I would highly recommend that we be considered in future years as working toward -- this is something that we should work toward. And I know that we have other ambulance services out there and I’m sure the committee which has been established will be looking toward other avenues to explore and bring back to us, and Mr. Chairman, I just hope that y’all kind of get bids on that because time is running out. And I’m referring to my good friend over there, Mr. Brigham. Jerry Brigham. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I just wanted to go back to what Rev. Williams was asking. If we do what we’re doing now, will there be an extra cost, as University has been tacking on, for people riding ambulance service? Mr. Wall: Not insofar as emergency calls. Now the non-emergency calls, it’s strictly a matter of contract between the carrier and the patient. But this deals with the emergency calls. Mr. Colclough: Somebody call an ambulance, I mean they’re just not going for a taxi ride. I mean they call an ambulance because they need to get somewhere. Mr. Wall: Yes, but there are the non-emergency calls. Mr. Colclough: What do you call a non-emergency call, Jim? Mr. Wall: For instance, if someone needs to be transported from a nursing home to there or if somebody is in their home but has to be transported to a doctor or a hospital for care, those are non-emergency. Mr. Colclough: So explain to me what is emergency then? 37 Mr. Wall: You’re involved in an automobile accident or any other kind of accident, you call 911, and 911 dispatches the ambulance. But I mean, I don’t have the charts and maybe -- Mr. Colclough: Maybe one of the ambulance carriers can explain to me what an emergency is. I mean if you’re sick -- you don’t have to be laying out on the highway near dead to be an emergency I hope. I hope that there may be someone in a home which cannot get to the hospital and need transportation for an ambulance services. I mean they may not be laying out there bleeding to death, but I’m quite sure that’s an emergency. I don’t think people just call ambulances services just to get down to the corner grocery store. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Doss, if you would give us your name and your affiliation for the record, please. Mr. Doss: Ernie Doss. I’m the general manager of Rural Metro. To answer your question, sir, unfortunately people do use 911 for non-emergency services. Mr. Wasson is behind you. You can ascertain that fact. But an emergency ambulance call in Richmond County is anything that the individual who dials 911 believes is an emergency and we respond to those calls in that fashion. The non-emergency ambulance calls, as Mr. Wall has indicated, are types of ambulance calls where someone is at a hospital such as University, is being discharged back to their residence or is being discharged back to a nursing home or is at home who needs to go to dialysis or is at home who needs to go to a doctor’s office. But as far as 911 calls are concerned, here in Richmond County it doesn’t matter why you need 911. When you dial 911, you get a response from an emergency ambulance. That ambulance may not always be going lights and sirens because we use emergency medical dispatch to make sure that if somebody has been two weeks and they dial 911, we’re not having an ambulance going up and down the highways running hot, going to that. But an emergency really is what you say it is when you dial. Mr. Colclough: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Continue, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: Once your ambulance people arrive on the scene at this 911 call and you do an assessment and you determine it’s not an emergency and you turn around and go home, is that a cost to that patient or person? Mr. Doss: As we sit here today, we are charging a response fee. That response fee will go away July 1. Mr. Colclough: July 1? Mr. Doss: Yes, sir. 38 Mr. Colclough: So if I’m at home and I dial 911 and you come out and your people make an assessment that under your policy and procedures this is not an emergency call, and you tell the patient or person we don’t feel that we can transport you because after our assessment it is deemed that it’s not an emergency, is that person charged a fee? Mr. Doss: First of all, in the state of Georgia, EMT’s and paramedics don’t have the right to tell anyone that they can’t go with them. Mr. Colclough: But they can make an assessment? Mr. Doss: They make an assessment, but the patient ultimately decides whether he or she wants to go to the hospital. Our rules in this State are very specific. If, in your scenario, our ambulance arrives to a scene where someone has requested 911 and we make an assessment of the patient and we ask the patient what would you like us to do, and the patient says I don’t know, we always recommend that they go to the hospital. It’s actually less litigation for all ambulance companies involved in that particular situation. But if the patient still, after an assessment and after we talk with them, chooses not to go to the hospital, then we do, as I’m sitting here today, charge an emergency response fee for responding to that because we are still putting up the time, effort and resources to respond to those types of calls. The subsidy, and while it is a large number, the subsidy is a very small portion of the total cost of providing emergency services here in Richmond County. Mr. Colclough: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and you and I talked more than once about the feelings on this particular situation, and I support -- and part of that is in the motion -- what you said in reference to getting along with the RPF, count on a fast track, as well as to go ahead and deal with this subsidy amount that we’ve got recommended. This agreement makes me feel real old today. Cause I guess when I look out there in the audience and I see Tom Snyder and I wasn’t wearing glasses then, and I look across there and I can remember being one of those volunteers that moved from the old hospital to the new hospital. I can remember the transfer of AAA Ambulance Service that was under contract at that time with Richmond County and then blend to the hospital and where this whole thing came about. I’m a little -- and this is strictly business, it’s not a negative or a boost to anybody in this whole thing. But a contract, and I agree with Lee that regardless of how we feel, whether University has been a big player in this since it’s been done or whether they are kind of looking to us and Rural Metro, I’m a little leery about walking away from a 30-year contract until there are things that maybe we as county-city government discuss quite frankly with you, Jim. In reference to contractual basis. I think we need to move on with the subsidy. I think we need to move on in dealing with the RFP’s. But I think to a point when you eliminate a party, regardless of what has been their response, and that’s not an indictment. We’re the ones who have been providing the 39 money up until a point and then we’re out of that. I think they’ve expressed a need that they don’t want to be in the ambulance business. I think it’s going to have to be a situation where we are back into some negotiations with somebody. All that’s agreed on. But I think for the benefit particularly of many maybe who’ve never even seen the agreement, to put in motion today a motion that contains the abandonment of a 30-year contract, while it may be generic, I just think that that’s something, Mr. Mayor, the level of responsibility, we need to move on with getting the RFP’s out, I think we need to go on and support the subsidy. But I think just from the standpoint of where we stand in the middle of litigation or not, and of clearing the air, we don’t need to be 30 days, 60 days down the road and a question pops up and we’ve made a motion to eliminate a party out of a contract. I just think it’s good business that we have some time, quite frankly, Mr. Wall, with you. And I think we can do that under legal. But there are questions I’d like to ask about that responsibility, and Mr. Mayor, I am not going to ask them out here. And I think when you are relinquishing a contract that is 30 years old, if the contract ain’t got but two lines in it, you need to ask those contractual questions of the attorney that represents you. And we’re the city. That’s a 30-year old contract. If it didn’t mean anything, it never would have been signed. And we’ve had a lot of procedures that have taken place in there. There are certain things that have been purchased. There are other items that we’ve been joined at the hip too long to get one motion out here today and deal with saying we’re not going to at least look at that with each other. I just think we should. I think there’s a lot in that motion. I think we can get what we need to do in the motion to move on, but I think the contract -- somewhere we need to talk about what’s actually in that contract, and when we let University out of it by a vote, that there is a I make a clean break with everybody. That’s just where I am on it. And in fact, substitute motion that we do the two items in terms of the subsidy and the RFP and that we have at some time, scheduled at Mr. Wall’s convenience, whether it’s today or some other time, that we discuss the merits of the contract. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. We’ve got a motion, Mr. Wall. Let me see if we have a second to the motion. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Okay, the Chair recognizes Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, I would request, because of the information that we intend to present to the Commission, that you not make the decision at this point to go out for the RFP. I think there are some decisions that need to be made, and that may be the ultimate decision which you come up with. But I think that there’s some information that needs to be furnished to the Commission and each of you before that decision is made. 40 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Maybe I misunderstood something, and I’ll back up. Was it not in the original motion on the floor to deal with RFP’s? Mr. Mayor: No. Mr. Wall: No, sir. That was requested by the Mayor. Mr. Mays: So the Mayor and I are the only ones that are in cahoots on that, then? About the RPF’s. Let me just say this, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We see the clock running. Mr. Mays: I made the motion, but what I’m saying is we’re dealing with the subsidy at this point? Mr. Wall: We’re dealing with the subsidy. Mr. Mays: With the subsidy. But at some point -- Mr. Wall: And extending the contract to -- Mr. Mays: And extension of the contract. But what I’m saying is at some point in there, in order to get to some element of who is going to provide, the only way you can deal with another provider, and that may not even be the option that you do, but you are going to stay with [inaudible], staying through just the subsidy. You can’t get to a point, if you solicit the RFP’s, then I think you’re at a point to where -- cause I mean what you’re in essence are saying today, when you break free with University on this matter, we’re still joined at the hip on a lot of other things and I hope we stay that way. We got indigent care, we got hospitalization, we got lot of stuff we’re going to stay with the hospital on. But I think that -- and I can live with taking that out. But then I can live with taking that out if we’re not going to go with eliminated contract today. Because if you want me to take the RFP part out, then I think you need to explain to me something about a 30-year contract in all fairness. Now I can live with backing that out, and what y’all do may pass whether I want to do it or not. But I think to a point if you’re telling me that we’re going to extend a contract, we’re not going to send any message about what we are going to do of getting some costs in this deal, we are going to eliminate a contract with the hospital, so we’re sailing on our own, we are in the ambulance business again. We’re renewing a contract that’s going to run out at the end of the year. We better be getting some numbers from somebody, if they off the moon. And we’re going to get out of a contract, too? So then we’re in the business with nobody. We’re in it for ourselves by ourselves. Now you need to explain that to me. And I don’t mind amending my motion. I don’t mind voting for the first one. I can get out of the motion 41 business, Mr. Mayor, and take it off the floor. But I think at some point, if we are eliminating contracts today and we’re extending and giving away money today, and then don’t know where or what direction we are going to go into tomorrow, we got a whole lot in the first motion out there to a point that puts us totally, totally completely in the liability business without a sense of direction as to where we are going to go past January. Mr. Wall: Let me address the several issues that you’re talking about. Insofar as the 1971 contract, that was my recommendation. The Committee met, talked about just extending the contract. In my view, there is greater flexibility on the part f the County by removing University Hospital from the equation, because the contract that we have with University Hospital, if you view that as a fall-back contract, which is all it is at this point, number one, they have no ambulances. We have the obligation to buy the ambulances under the contract. They have no one to man the ambulances, so they would then be out, if Rural Metro were say, what, to declare bankruptcy or whatever, closed down, we would have to look to University Hospital to go out and provide ambulance service. I assume that they would go out and subcontract it. They would be the one making the decision. It just removes them from the picture. I think it also gives us flexibility insofar as possible funding. There is a possibility of some State money, some Federal money. There is also the possibility of other sources of funding within the government, and I think just by eliminating them from the equation, you give yourself flexibility. That’s my recommendation. It’s not essential to getting to December 31. University Hospital has indicated that they don’t want to have the ambulance contract any more. Frankly, the reason that they’ve had that contract in the past, I think, is because in some sense it was a steering of patients. It steered the patients to University Hospital for care. You eliminate that insofar as removing them from the contract. So that was the discussion and the rationale for recommending that we remove University Hospital from the equation. Insofar as the RFP is concerned, Columbia County is currently going through an RFP process. Columbia County has paid $500,000 a year as a subsidy for ambulance service. That’s a county with a population of 80,000 compared to 200,000. A county with -- I don’t know what the comparison is insofar as 911 numbers are concerned. And my concern is, be careful what you ask for. You set in place an RFP process and go out and say that’s the method by which you are going to get, I’m concerned with what that number is going to be, quite frankly. And I think that the committee has to look at that. You’ve got the Fire Department that is, on a long term basis as Commissioner Beard has pointed out, is looking at the possibility of getting in the EMS service. You’ve got flexibility insofar as the term of that is concerned. I don’t know how you are going to go out for an RFP until you determine the length of time that it’s going to take to phase in. You’ve got 911 dispatchers that if you go to the Fire Department, they’ve got to be trained to do emergency medical dispatch. Chief Wasson has indicated that it may take as much as 12 months to do that. I think there’s some considerations that have got to be made before we can determine what that RPF is going to contain, whether you want to go in that direction, what the alternatives are. And so again, from the committee, and this is a staff committee, our perspective was remove University Hospital from the equation so that you’ve got the maximum amount of flexibility and renew the contract, let the committee look at it, let them look at the Fire Department potentially taking it over, look 42 at the training issue insofar as both the Fire Department staff and the 911 staff, look at what other counties are contracted, how they addressed it, look at what other sources of revenues there may be to pay for it, and in my mind, and I think that the people that were in on the meeting, the two recommendations give you the maximum flexibility as we go forward to make a decision as to how you want to handle emergency care after January 1. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I may not be a thoroughbred, but I’m not going to be made to look like a total jackass. I merely asked the Attorney from the standpoint of what we were going to talk about on the contract, and being in a 30-year situation, which I respectfully ask that we talk about the merits of that in our legal session. With all due respect, I think I probably know as much or maybe more than the Attorney does in reference to the history of this whole contract, the ambulance business and how some of it’s been provided. So I didn’t need a one-on-one lesion in terms of where we were going there. I think that the people -- you said staff -- that met in that room, well staff is not necessarily in -- with all due respect to staff, we are in the contract. The City is. The Mayor and ten Commissioners and the lawyer represents us. We talk about what’s in a contract. When we’ve had the advice before to say you need to know what’s in there. I merely said if we don’t know, you’re talking about 30 years and anybody sitting up here on this Commission, if you know what’s in the merits totally of that contract, you said it was to steer business in there to University. For your correction, Mr. Wall, it was not just to steer business. At the time the contract was signed, University I believe was still an operative as a county hospital. Legislative changes were made into the tiered proposals that created University to be in a different form and mode of operation. Therefore, the contract precedes what was changed at University. So there were some other means as to why the contract was put together in the beginning, because University had an obligation to provide something to its citizens and to be a part of that. The only thing I’m saying is I would like the respectability as one Commissioner and for those who maybe have already read it and know the parts of it, to a point that it’s 30 years old. At least let us decide whether we want to talk away from it. There may be something in that contract that we may, that University may want to leave. But yet it may be something we want to hold them for. But how are we to make that decision if that’s not reviewed? And I don’t think this is the place to review and discuss that. And I still think that, Mr. Mayor. I don’t mind backing up on the RFP’s but at some point we got to know cost. It may not be through the RPF process, but it’s going to have to be by some, and I agree with you in terms of where we need to solicit that. I think everything probably needs to be included in it, even though the Fire Department is not ready. It gives the Chief at least time to say what it would take in a period of a year to two years or what he come back with at the end of the contractual period to say if my department has to even do a semi-basis with whoever holds the contract, whether it’s Rural Metro, whether it’s Gold Cross, whether it’s somebody that’s not on the scene. That’s why you have the gap here and that’s why I can support extending and putting the subsidy back in. But I think to say you’re not going to do anything else, but yet you’re going to eliminate a 30-year contract with one sweep, that I can bet nobody here has read and thus not know the full contents of it, and there are some question you ought to want to ask of your own in Legal prior to releasing that. 43 Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Jerry Brigham now. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] but I’ve had a conversations more than once with Mr. Wall and [inaudible] about this contract. [inaudible] goal to work out an extension of the contract [inaudible] December [inaudible] time to bring back to this Commission [inaudible]. The only thing I thought we had a longer due date until I found out just very recently we had a [inaudible] this week. That’s the reason it’s before us today. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in agreement with Mr. Mays. I realize when you do away with a contract or you end a contract, at least we as Commissioners, Commissioner Colclough wanted to know about a 911 situation and when was one a 911 or emergency call or not. There are a lot of hidden factors, a lot of things that we don’t know as Commissioners, such as how much we actually paid through University and how much the ambulance service charge addition to that. I’ve got several constituents that I said that reported and complained about how much additional cost that they had to pay being citizens of Richmond County, and really I was amazed at the type figures and the type money that even our citizens are paying out after we done paid over $600,000. So when we talking about a contract, I’m in agreement, I want to know a little bit more about it. I don’t think I want to vote on terminating now. If it takes us into six additional months and into year 2002, whatever time period is, but I just think when you talk about some of those things, and this thing really need to be addressed. We can talk about it probably all day, but we really need to sit down with our Attorney, we need to look at a copy of that contract and see is there anything that we do want to keep. There may be some things that we’ll never get again. And once the contract was written in ’71, I’m sure it’s a lot different today, and if you tried to re-write it or do that same contract, you wouldn’t have the same words that’s projected in ’71 that you have today. So I’m going to call for the question, we go ahead and vote, Mr. Mayor, but I don’t think we need to do anything on this today. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion. Mr. Beard: Did you take the RFP out of this, Willie? Mr. Mays: I can live with that. Mr. Bridges: What does that leave on the substitute motion, Lena? Clerk: The substitute motion being to approve the subsidy and the scheduling and discuss in Legal the merits of the contract. The RPF comes out and to discuss in Legal the merits of the contract. Mr. Bridges: What about the extension of the contract? 44 Clerk: The extension was in the motion. Mr. Wall: The subsidy and extend the contract to December 31. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Let me make sure I understand. The only thing -- University is still in the contract, then? Mr. Wall: University is still in the contract, yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any further clarification on the motion? Mr. Mays: I saw my attorney come in, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard. And when he got back I decided to amend that because we can come back with RFP’s at a later time. Mr. Shepard: Let me ask this, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Do we have -- I believe we set aside money for a subsidiary for the balance -- Mr. Mayor: This subsidy is budgeted. Mr. Shepard: I wanted to see if I would as informed being outside the room as inside the room. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item, no. 37. Clerk: 37. Reconsideration of Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Finance and Administration in the amount of $65,000.00. Funded by account no. 506043110-5111110 for Salary & Wages. (Requested by Commissioner Ulmer Bridges) Mr. Mayor: What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? 45 Mr. Bridges: Could I ask that this be removed and placed on the next Commission agenda? The person that’s holding this position has sent a letter to the Commission. I think it’s bringing out some facts that maybe some of the other Commissioners that had a negative view of this in the past might view positively. It’s not something that we’ve got to do today, but it would give them the opportunity to look at that letter and maybe form a different conclusion. So I’d ask if the Commission would allow it to go to the next regular Commission meeting. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to withdrawing this from the agenda? None heard. We’ll carry this over. Madame Clerk? Clerk: 38. Consider approval of letter of support for MACH Academy of Tennis & Chess Inc. regarding a 2001 grant application with Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council. The Clerk: This was handled at Sunday’s meeting so we would ask that it be deleted. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to deleting item 38. None heard. We’ve already done 39. That takes us to 40. Clerk: 40. Discuss ARC Carpenter Shop’s storage facility located at Highland Ave. and Wrightsboro Road and other related safety issues and concerns. (Requested by Commissioners Andy Cheek and Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Gentlemen, if you’ll in your back-up, you’ll see a series of photographs on pages one through five. Let me state from the get-go that this facility is not the only facility where we have this type of problem. We have equipment yards and material storage across the County and there seems to be a persistent problem that I hope we can address today. On page one if you look at it, you’re going to notice a bunch of boxes, a pile of American flags and some other things. What this doesn’t show you is that apparently somebody decided to take their uniform off the hanger and instead of throwing the hanger in the trashcan or taking it somewhere else, it was just thrown on the floor, along with several pieces of cardboard boxes and other things. Also found on the floor when we walked into the room were several American flags. These flags are outdated, they need to be disposed of properly with dignity and 46 honor as is proper for our national symbol. If you walk through the rest of the yard, you’ll find out that there is a total disregard for the equipment and material assets of this government. My understanding of this was something that was allowed in the past and in fact when we asked questions about this, this was a problem that we inherited from consolidation. Well, I hope the message will ring out loud and clear today that was six years ago, and that excuse no longer holds water. In reviewing information from Risk Management, you’ll find that in 1999 this government spent over half a million dollars on injuries. Injuries from not wearing glasses and gloves, injuries from tripping and falling. In the electrical building, equipment is taken off the shelf, the boxes were open, the boxes thrown on the floor. I’m sure that for every hazard you’ll find poor housekeeping may have been the result of it. The shop areas, while congested, it was somewhat functional. It definitely needs to be cleaned up. It’s time for the employees to start taking a little pride and ownership in their facilities. I work in an environment where we’re roughly one-third the manpower in our shops where we were before but we still keep them clean. As you go out in the lay-down yard, one of the other problems is assets management. Equipment and materials have been dumped in this yard for a number of years with no hope for disposal, no path forward. In fact, the owner of the yard didn’t even own the material that was placed there. If we’re going to have someone responsible for a yard, they need to at least have the material, have control of the material where it can be disposed of in a timely fashion. They have been making efforts recently to clean this up before we got there, and I know that their efforts are continuing, but this needs to be a policy. And if you read the employee manual that we passed, safety and housekeeping are requirements. Now I wasn’t clear, I was told that Risk Management had come and approved the building. I certainly hope that Risk Management, being the only safety department we have right now, would take a little bit more serious approach to making sure that housekeeping and wearing personal protective equipment is done and handled. And lastly, Mr. Mayor, we have houses all over this city that we are writing code enforcement tickets for that look better than this. We should not live in a house which is our government right now to where ours looks worse than everybody else’s, but just because we’re the government we get away with it. Mr. Mayor, this yard needs to be cleaned up and we need to send a message out to the entire work force that sloppiness and not paying attention to details and tolerating this type of behavior may have been okay in the old days, but it’s no longer okay in the city of Augusta. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I echo some of those things that Commissioner Cheek has just said. When we visited this site, on the first page we view all those boxes that you see there. Christmas lights and strings that lights go into. We spend some $19,000 if I’m not mistaken, in September or October last year for additional lights and lighting. Other than the lights that you see in those boxes there, there are bulbs, a huge number of bulbs, I don’t know how many but the photograph ought to represent to you how many are there. Not only were there light bulbs, but we found as you look through these photographs in the yard, there were light poles, there were telephone poles, creosote type poles laying out, there were metals poles that had been taken down, and laid all over the yard. There was Christmas awnings, the type we put up 47 through the city downtown, that’s been laid out and the trucks have ran over these pieces of equipment, damaged them terribly. They was laying out in the weather. There was hundreds that had not been used. There was a few that was used this year. But I was really upset when I saw all of the equipment that we have that was not properly stored and put up in its proper place. There were a lot of areas I thought maybe we could use some of this material, like these lights or these metal poles, we ought to be able to find somewhere in the city that’s not, that don’t have that equipment, that don’t have the access to the lights, to use those. There was hazardous material that had been there and nobody know who brought it, how long it’s been there. There was no records of what was hauled in, there was no books on how long it’s been there. Everybody had the same story, it was there when I got there or it’s been there as long as I can remember. This is a new day. We didn’t decide to just go for any particular reason. We were just at another site and just decided to stop in. And we didn’t do any micromanaging. I want to bring that out too, in case somebody want to know did we direct any employees about doing anything. No, we did not do any micromanaging. We simply walked around the yard and found it deplorable behind those hedges. Even the hedges have grown up to be a cover to this. Like Commissioner Cheek said, we got residences in our area where we had done cited for being in violation, and when it comes to hazardous material that has been there for some years that we’re not even supposed to have moved and nobody knew when or how it got to that point. I just think we need to send a message as Commissioner Cheek has stated. If you look at these lights and this picture on page four show you a small portion of how many lights, how much decoration that we had laying on the ground. Got in one of the vehicles, and Mr. Shepard knows if I see a vehicle with a key in it, I want to drive, but I got in the machine, one of the heavy duty trucks. Cranked the truck up, came over the fence, in 1966 I could have drove through the gate if I wanted it. All I’m saying is nobody is being held accountable. I just think that somebody needs to get a message that this is a different day, that we going to hold our constituents, neighbors accountable, then our government, our codes and our ethics and our [inaudible] ought to start from the top, from within, and then go out. That’s all I got, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Do you have something else to add, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We’ve all heard this discovery and it certainly needs to be remedied. I want to offer something positive out of this in the way of the ’d like to make a motion that we take one-half day or one day -- form of a motion. I let’s say one day and have housekeeping day in our shops. This will take the pressure off our employees to get their daily routines done and allow them a day of concentrated effort to get these shops in order. So I’d like to make a motion that we have a stand down sometime in our shop areas this spring to have a housekeeping day in the shops of the City of Augusta. Mr. Mayor: I’d suggest you set a specific date by which to do this or it will be an open-ended process and may never get done, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 48 Mr. Mayor: You might want to set a date, like April 30 or something. Mr. Cheek: We need to have it before that golf tournament occurs. Mr. Mayor: It will be March 30 then. Mr. Cheek: Let’s have it March 30, that Friday. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: No. 41. Clerk: 41. Discuss the televising of the regular meetings of the Commission on the local cable station. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I had this added to the agenda for the sole purpose of trying to get us as a group of the leaders of this City to see about getting the local cable company to television our meetings. There are a lot of times that our news media do a good job and a lot of time they leave before the 5:30 hour or the 6:00 o’clock hour to be able to make the deadline and kind of miss something. But I’ve talked with some people in the cable industry that’s more than willing to do this. They said they could do this at a minimum cost and I think we as Commissioners ought to want this advertised for our citizens can’t get here to be in our Chambers and to see the actual meeting and what actually took place. A lot of times the wrong perception goes out where we are being portrayed as not doing or have not done something that somebody thought we did, and I just think that we I want to make a motion that we seek cable as a board ought to want to do this. industries, I think there is two in this town, that we try to encourage or try to get a contract with them to be able to televise our meetings. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there further discussion on that? Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask my colleague Mr. Williams, you’re talking about done at minimum cost. You mean minimal cost to the cable companies which they’re going to absorb or minimal cost to the City? What do you have in mind? 49 Mr. Williams: Well, the cable company illustrated several times that it wouldn’t be a large sum. I don’t have any figures, Mr. Shepard, but they said it would be a minimum cost. They are looking for some sponsors, hopefully there are some sponsors out there that would love to see us do this and be able to assist the City in helping us get this broadcast. Mr. Shepard: Well, so you’re asking for a conceptual type thing to move forward today so you can come back with some specifics? Mr. Williams: Correct. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, all of us have enjoyed the many hours of viewing pleasure on C-SPAN. I would hope that we would come back with the possibility of a fixed camera with a wide-angle lens that just shows the entire body with an audio feed. We can offset the cost of cable companies by not having them have to staff it permanently and just allow them to come in and set something up and pick the feed up for a minimal cost, but at least we ought to make the effort to have the feed available for the public to see the rest of the story down here. Mr. Mayor: Actually you could just stream the video on our website and you wouldn’t have to pay the cable company anything. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: The franchise agreement also has some provisions in there, too [inaudible]. Mr. Hornsby: I also understand, Mr. Mayor, if we stream the video here, we don’t really have the equipment to do the streaming. We’d have to purchase that. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I may. In District 2, I got to speak with my folks. We don’t have fax machines in District 2 so we sure don’t have the internet for that luxury. But some of us do have cable and if we can work on that, that factor would be greatly appreciated. I think Mr. Wall brought out a good point that our contract lays out some guidelines for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. I think it’s a good suggestion. We don’t need to beat that horse to death. Let’s move on. It’s only conceptual, look into it. Mr. Mayor: It’s time to count the oats. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 50 Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: 42. Discuss attorney’s authorization to work on project(s). (Requested by Commissioners Andy Cheek and Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Mr. Cheek went first last time. Mr. Cheek: I yield to Rev. Williams. Mr. Williams: I thank my colleague for allowing me to go first this time. What -- the reason that we came up with asking this to be put on the agenda, we talked about in our earlier meeting at one o’clock. There is no direction with our Attorney. We got a staff attorney on board now. But there is no direction that I can see with Mr. Wall and I think that we need to get some direction through the Assistant Administrator or the Administrator. The way it’s structured now is that any Commissioner, any Department Head, or in fact anyone from this government can call Mr. Wall to request a project, anything for that matter, and we are being billed at City expense. I’ve got a bill here that I had pulled from the month of January and it’s some $24,000 -- I don’t have it in front of me and while Mr. Cheek be talking I guess I could find it, but we need to get some direction as to who authorize the Attorney to proceed or to go through, rather than just any department head or any member oft his body calls Jim at his office or wherever he may be. If the Clerk call, if I call, if any of the Commissioners, the Mayor, any department head call, and some who are not department head have called, and we as the city are being billed because of that. And I think we need some direction. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be as brief as possible. My concerns in wanting this listed is that I have not seen a transition plan for implementing the services of our staff attorney or bringing our senior staff attorney in. I guess I wanted to find out where we are with the hiring process for the senior staff attorney. Where we are, for instance, with allowing the staff attorney to become involved with land acquisition functions. Basically I’d just like to see a plan to see the full utilization of our staff attorney in the day-to-day functions, any plan that would entail perhaps at the end of the second year when Mr. Wall is going to be going back into private practice, that we have the ability for our senior staff person to come in and run the legal services and Mr. Wall be able to provide consulting -- in other words, Mr. Mayor, to take the training wheels off our Legal Department before they are asked to do the day-to-day functions. But is there a plan? Do we have one? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can you respond to that? 51 Mr. Wall: Insofar as a plan for the staff attorney, I have tried to give her a diverse type of projects, tried to involve her in the meeting, tried to involve her in some of the ongoing issues, such as the ambulance, such as some other things that are going on, so that she will have the background information. I have not involved her in property acquisitions because right now I think that the area that she can be of biggest benefit and learn the most is to be involved in some of the day-to-day issues, some of the contracts, some of the personnel issues, etc., that will give her the familiarity with municipal law and municipal government. The land acquisition is something that can come later, and I meet with her practically on a daily basis. We have a planned meeting every morning. It doesn’t always occur because either a conflict with her schedule or my schedule. But I’m trying to give her as wide a range of exposure as I can. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Wall, I’d like to offer you the same opportunity I have all of our other department heads. I’d like to see schedules and milestones for things. Can you please come up with a schedule that would entail the turnover of certain responsibilities and a transition plan for us, if you will? Mr. Wall: That’s going to be difficult to do because I’m not sure -- one of the things that was taken away from me was the planning of the law office. The goal was at such time as the Senior Attorney was hired, that the organization of the Law Department would be up to that individual. And so what I have tried to do is not confine this individual to a limited area, but to give broad experience and I don’t know that until we are further down the road that it’s practical for me to make that decision. Mr. Cheek: So you are working within the parameters that we gave you? It sounds to me like we need to do what we need to do to prepare, if we’re not going to allow you to do it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if you could respond to Commissioner Williams’ inquiry concerning who authorizes the solicitation of legal advice from the Attorney. Who is authorized to do that? Mr. Wall: That varies from department to department. Some departments I have found require that it goes through the Department Director and the Department Director will contact me directly. Other departments apparently allow the flexibility with some of the subordinate staff to call me directly. I get calls from individuals. But typically that is with a preface that such-and-such who is my Director asked me to give you a call, and this is the issue. And then Commissioners call. All the various management people, they call from time to time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess what we need to do is set some kind of direction. I did find my document here from January and I think from telephone conversation from Commissioners to Department Heads to non-Department Heads, at a rate of $100 an hour, we have spent some $24,063 in just the month of January. And I 52 think a lot of that could be cut down, cut back if we streamline or made Department Heads report to -- if there is any issue, once we find that somebody, and I guess once we get our Administrator in, that that person could be that person to determine. But when everybody has got the option to call and involve Mr. Wall, I mean I wouldn’t turn down your calls, I wouldn’t tell you to go call your supervisor and find out if it’s okay, I’m going to take whatever call come in. Like I said, from Commissioners to non- Department Heads, have the ability to call our Attorney and he’s able to work on projects and to address issues, that’s [inaudible] this government. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we haven’t gone totally out of business in the DOR Committee, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and myself, and I almost thought we were today, but it seems like to me that certainly open access from the Mayor and the Commission and senior Department Heads are vital. I mean they’re making day-to-day decisions that have been guided legally and I certainly know that there are things that I want to see done here sometimes require the advice of counsel, it has to be -- you have an idea and the question is it may be a good idea but another question is is it legal? So I don’t want us to do anything that impairs the advice giving function of counsel because the more advice you have from a lawyer, hopefully the more effect you’ll have in decreasing claims and litigation. Sometimes Jim or any other lawyer can advise a client to avoid a course or action or pursue a course of action and result in less liability to that client or potential liability of that client. So I think we can talk about total quality, we talk about being pro-active, and I think we have to be that way with our legal advice. We want to avoid litigation. We want to avoid court. And the only way I know to do that is to ask the lawyer questions as we go along. And I want to say to Jim’s credit, it appears to me that he’s mentoring our new staff attorney. She’s sitting here in front of me today, and I can share with you 20 years ago that when I was assistant to Sam Maguire, the City Attorney, I was asked to come and sit where Mr. Wall sits with no preparation, and I’m glad that we had senior experienced Mayor and Council at that time to guide us through. That may have been Mr. Mays helping me at that time, I don’t remember. He’s been around about as long as I have. But one thing the legal profession has come to in the last few years is a concept of mentoring. We’ve had young lawyers who come out of law school and we find -- Jim, correct me if I’m wrong -- that that’s only part of your education. What you need is some hands-on work while you’re in the guidance of a senior attorney. And Mr. Wall, I’m not reflecting on your age, but I think you qualify as senior attorney now, I think I probably would too, based on my baldness, but I’m quite frankly glad to see that Mr. Wall just didn’t throw the staff counsel to the wolves, that he’s trying to bring her along in a way that gives her a diverse amount of experiences, so I think we should commend him for that. But I’m not going to support anything that cuts off our access to counsel. I think there’s no real back-up on this today and I really didn’t know what we were going to talk about. I think if we want to talk about it further in DOR, that’s the place to do it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 53 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The goal in this discussion is not to limit access to counsel. The goal is to develop a transition plan that is prepared with a schedule of dates and in black and white where we can make sure we are performing during that transition as we should over a period of time, and that is to me the best and most logical approach to take. We have got to get all of our employees, including ourselves, used to at some point in time calling our Staff Attorney, and if don’t have a transition plan, when will that day be? Mr. Mayor: Do we need to get the Legal Department Committee back into action to work with Mr. Wall in developing that transition plan? Mr. Beard, do you have some thoughts on that? You chaired that committee. Mr. Beard: Really, I do think with all due respect, Jim has done a good job of providing good advice to all of us, but I think what possibly Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Williams are referring to, we need some structure there and I don’t see any problem with some structure and to knowing where we’re going. I know I do, I have experience in situations that I’ve worked in before where everybody could not pick up the phone or any employee could not pick up the phone and call the legal representation of that particular firm, and I think that’s where they are going, and I know that Commissioners need this opportunity and also possibly heads of departments. But where do you go beyond that? And there is indication that you have people, just regular employees are able to contact the Attorney. And with 2700 people, that get to be quite much. And I think they are talking about structure more than anything else and I don’t have a problem with that. And if it’s necessary for that committee to go back into some type of session to help determine that structure, I don’t mind it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, would that be appropriate in your view? Send to that committee? Mr. Williams: I would welcome that. I think that would be good. Mr. Mayor: All right. You want to do that with a motion? Mr. Williams: I make it in the form of a motion. Mr. Mayor: Second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes. 54 Mr. J. Brigham: I personally am not going to adhere to anybody’s directing me who I’ve got to talk to about [inaudible] this government. I think I’m fully capable of making that decision. I think any Commissioner up here is capable of making that decision. I’m not going to be instructed who I’ve got to talk to [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: I don’t think that was the point. My point was -- Mr. J. Brigham: That’s what I heard, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Say excluded department heads and Commissioners. I don’t think anybody -- I didn’t think theirs was anything in reference to department heads and Commissioners and instruct them from talking to the Attorney. Evidently you’re not listening because that’s not what I said. I said that any person within the government structure, 2700 employees, should not be able to pick up the phone and I have problems with them picking up the phone, calling the Attorney. But that wasn’t in reference to Commissioners, because I think [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Hornsby: Yes. The thing that I’m concerned about in that is that some of the departments, they run on a tight thing there and some people who are in the field, it’s necessary for them, I think, and I think those department directors ought to at least have discretion to give them permission rather than stopping them in the middle of something else to go, and some of the require legal advice or [inaudible] and I think that at least you ought to give the directors the responsibility to be able to indicate that certain employees in his department or whoever can go and call the lawyer when he needs legal advice. Mr. Mayor: We’re getting into discussion that the committee will take up if the motion passes. So let’s go ahead and vote on the motion and then we can -- I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand up. Mr. Colclough: Why do we have supervisors and department heads if they have to go direct to the Attorney? Where I work at, even though I’m a manager, if I have a problem I have to resolve, I call the person I report to, not the hospital attorney. Mr. Hornsby: What I’m thinking about is if [inaudible], I think the employee for instance is doing property acquisition has a problem or sees something that is legal in nature which they’ve been out there doing, they ought to at least I think be able to do it. I would also expect them to give reports to their department director, supervisor, on up the line like that. But I think that sometimes it’s necessary, I think to go in and get a decision right then. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to refer this to committee. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard votes No. 55 Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Item 43. 43. Discuss personnel matters. (Requested by Commission Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a personnel matter to discuss, or did you want to move this to legal meeting? Mr. Williams: I need to talk about some matters in personnel, just not a particular place. I need to find out, I don’t know if Ms. Pelaez is here or not. Mr. Mayor: My question is did you want to do it out here or -- Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On the floor. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: And my reason for putting this on, Mr. Mayor, we’ve got an Attorney, we’ve got Finance Director, we’ve got IT person, we’ve got a Fleet Management person. I need to know where we are with those positions. Some of those positions been open for a long time. I don’t understand why we have not filled some of those and some of those I guess will just take some time. But where are we with those positions, Ms. Pelaez? Ms. Pelaez: Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Hornsby: I can answer some of them. IT, as far as IT goes, I think that’s one you asked about. IT has been advertised. It has been -- the search has been narrowed down. The schedule has been set for the interviews. The schedule is going up sometime th -- the 20 or something like that. Mr. Williams: How long has that position been open, Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Hornsby: It’s been open since last year. Mr. Williams: I mean you’re our Administrator. In that position, you should know that information. How long has that position been open? Mr. Hornsby: Since November 30. Mr. Williams: November 30, okay. Go to the next one. Mr. Hornsby: All right. Fleet Management, on the issue of Fleet Management, that issue was back before you all and was just decided as far as what you want to do. It’s coming in now, as far as what you want as far as the grade. The ball’s going to be in 56 your court. I think I got the agenda item. The grade, we know nothing about that grade you want to advertise that individual for. That was part of your finance reorganization. The Finance Director, I think -- it’s advertised now. For 90 days. Mr. Williams: How long has that position been open? Mr. Hornsby: The question was also before you all, if I’m not mistaken, that whether you wanted to utilize a private individual that you all -- a headhunter to look for it or just whatever. That issue, I think, is out and also that was a part of your reorganization. Mr. Williams: How long was, has that position been posted? I mean be out, Mr. Hornsby? Ms. Pelaez: The position has been vacant since January 1, however there were some issues regarding the consultant and what they felt that position should be doing and the grade of that particular position, so we have to make sure that we’re at the right grade and the right salary range before you put something out in the newspaper. And this Commission just on its last meeting finally approve a Grade 61 with a current salary range, so it is out being posted for a period of 90 days. Mr. Williams: And our Attorney? Mr. Hornsby: I don’t know that. Ms. Pelaez: The position has been posted. There are actually about five applications for that position. We could distribute those applications to you to see if you wanted to go back out. It’s my opinion that perhaps we should. Mr. Williams: And my reason for putting this on because these are critical positions and we need to get filled and nothing had been done, nothing has been said about those positions. We just like keep going from week to week to week. I think if there is something we need to do as a body of Commissioners, if we need to change those grades, those things that we need to do, we need to hear those things. We need to see those things so we can go ahead and move. We don’t need to sit and wait and just procrastinate. And I think that’s what we been doing. And I think that’s why we are not progressing like we need to progress and that’s why I had this added, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Let’s take up the addendum item and then we’ll take a recess and take care of SPLOST and our legal meeting. Addendum Item 1 Mr. Mayor: The addendum item that I’ve brought to you today, I’m sorry to get it to you at the last minute, but I only got this information put together late Friday. We have an opportunity to apply for a grant from the Economic Development Administration 57 to do the first ever comprehensive economic development strategy for Augusta Richmond County. And if you’re familiar at all with some of the numbers of the local economy, you know that we need to give some attention to economic development. Our share of the grant, our match would be in-kind services so there would be no cash outlay on the part of the City. I’ve talked with the people at the Chamber of Commerce about it. They are very supportive of our effort to do this, and the strategy would include all existing agencies involved in economic development. It would be a partnership and nobody would be excluded or put out of business. So I would ask your approval to allow the Mayor to apply for this grant. Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Any questions? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will declare a five minute recess. We’ll come back and take up the SPLOST and the Legal session. (A brief recess is taken.) Clerk: 44. Consider approval of the Phase IV Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Priority List. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You can make the motion. Mr. J. Brigham: I move we approve it as presented from the last meeting. Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that motion, Mr. Mayor, to start the discussion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second to approve as last time. And since some memories have gone from the last time we had a discussion phase, so I’m going to recognize Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams, but unless you want to go ahead and let Mr. Hornsby get those others options that are out there because I think in reality that’s what we are going to have to do, cause a lot has changed since last time. But I recognize you in that order. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m satisfied with the sales tax menu that we have before us. Something that we did talk about on numerous occasions th was this under the Fire Department’s category. We have a situation, for about the 5 58 time I’ll restate this. We have a situation in south Richmond County where residents are about to experience a quadrupling of their insurance rates, their fire insurance rates, because of the distance they live from fire stations. I just request that we look at the construction of Stations 7 and 12 in years 1 and 2 and move a couple of these stations -- well, I’ll give you a good example. For instance, Wrightsboro Road we still have design and property acquisition and so forth pending and that project is nowhere near being ready to start. Also combining Station 1 and 19, where that would be very nice to do in the first year, we have stations that have no coverage and this is an area where you have two stations and so what I’m asking you to do is to consider moving Wrightsboro Road to year 3 and bringing Hephzibah-McBean, the Station 12 up to year 2. And move, combining station 1 and 19 to year 3 and moving the Willis Foreman Road station up to year 1. That would keep it balanced. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You finished on that, Andy? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me -- I recognized Commissioner Williams. Before I do that, Commissioner Williams if you could hold off for just a second. Is your question at this time related to those fire stations? Because if not, what I need to do is to get the Chief to respond to that, then recognize you if it’s on a different matter. Mr. Williams: It’s on a different matter, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. If I could. Chief Mack, would you bring us up there? Cause I know we’ve got the option numbers there, but I think we may need to get some clarification from you on where some of that is. Chief Mack: [inaudible] Wrightsboro Road because that station [inaudible]. If you’re going [inaudible] out there for another three years, [inaudible] substitute [inaudible] station house [inaudible] We don’t know [inaudible]. Other than that, [inaudible], order is as far as balancing [inaudible]. [inaudible] flexible. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: While we’re still on public safety, Commissioner Jerry Brigham had his hand up first and I’m going to recognize Commissioner Beard since we’re on [inaudible] now. Mr. J. Brigham: In addition to the Wrightsboro Road [inaudible], problems with [inaudible] Willis Foreman Road [inaudible] combine stations 1 and 19, we’re not going to [inaudible] at that new station or are we going to transfer staff and have them work out of one unit [inaudible]? Chief Mack: [inaudible] Willis Foreman Road area first, then we will probably have to move 19 out of its quarters and then basically increase the [inaudible] sitting on [inaudible]. So I mean if Willis Foreman gets built, we can move [inaudible]. 59 Mr. J. Brigham: You wouldn’t have a problem with [inaudible] existing [inaudible] to do that? Chief Mack: [inaudible] moving personnel [inaudible] Sand Bar Ferry and basically closing that station prematurely [inaudible] existing station wherever it’s built. Mr. J. Brigham: Well, my concern is [inaudible] agree with you [inaudible] already have a station at before we start moving [inaudible]. Chief Mack: [inaudible] closing 19 early, since 19 is sitting on top of 1 basically [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this, Chief, before you go any further. If we going to be on public safety, particularly fire, for a few minutes, are there any Commissioners need for those just station house projects to be put back up there on the board while we’re talking about this? Because we are getting into a conversation where we are moving a lot of stations and I want to make sure everybody understands, and I think, Mr. Hornsby, we may need to roll those stations back. Because when we start talking about station option, you’re talking about new options, we start talking about actual stations, you’re talking about a different thing. And that could lead to some confusion as to what’s there. So that everybody is on the same page there. It’s up there now. Okay. I recognize Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, y’all completely confused me because I thought the last time we kind of had these fire stations situated and where they were going, and I understood that and it took me a long time to understand that, and now you’re going to put something in front of my face this afternoon and tell me to understand some more changes. I don’t operate that fast. I’m slow. So now I thought the Chief had, the last time we talked about this, that we had kind of settled on that , some type of consensus. I don’t know whether we voted on it or not but there was some kind of consensus that we were going to build two fire stations and that’s what I understood and one was in the lower part of the City and the other was out on the south side of the City. And I thought that was his recommendation at that time and maybe he can correct me if I’m wrong. But now I just don’t quite understand where we are going now, and somebody needs to enlighten me, because a lot of times I get numbers confused. When we talk about Station 19 and moving Station 19 and Station 1, I do know where that is, but the numbers confuse me, so I’m kind of at a loss. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Did you want to respond now on that Chief? Chief Mack: Basically I was just going along with Mr. Cheek and his recommendation [inaudible] said close Wrightsboro Road and move that back till 2003. My objection to that is the simple fact that those [inaudible] in place [inaudible] minimum of two years and [inaudible] extending that another three years. 60 Mr. Beard: So with this option, what are we doing? I mean where are we -- and I’m just looking at this now. Mr. Hornsby: That’s Option Five on that list. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you could hold for just a second, Mr. Beard. Mr. Mayor, when we opened up, since the first discussion started off on public safety, there was some movement in the Fire Station, I asked Mr. Hornsby to go ahead and roll that back to the fire station part of it. So it started off a little confusing, but since it got confusing, I’m going to give you your job back. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you did a great job. You go right ahead. Please go right ahead. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Beard. Mr. Henry Brigham was next and we’re still on five. If not, Mr. Williams. We were trying to get through this category. Mr. Beard: I just want to know what we’re talking about here now. I still don’t. I am just a little off. What are we saying in reference to the eastern part of the City? Chief Mack: [inaudible] south Augusta at Willis Foreman, could I possible cover [inaudible] existing personnel and apparatus, I believe that’s what Mr. Jerry Brigham asked me. I said I could do that by [inaudible] number 19, which is at Sand Bar Ferry, and then opening up Willis Foreman if that’s [inaudible] personnel, apparatus and equipment by [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: Okay. So to make this a little more simpler to me, what stations are we talking about building? I’m not including Wrightsboro Road. I’m talking about the one out there at Willis Foreman and the one -- that was my understanding. The one at Willis Foreman out there somewhere in that area, and then there’s one in the eastern part of the -- Chief Mack: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: Yes, East Boundary. Now are we changing from that on this? Chief Mack: [inaudible] I don’t know how he changed [inaudible] what is up there right now is the last process that we put out there, and what that says is that Station 1 at East Boundary is scheduled for this year and Station 19 which would end up at Old Waynesboro and Brown was scheduled for this year. They were the two that -- Mr. Beard: That was my understanding with the way we left it last time. So I’m asking now what are the differences here now? 61 Chief Mack: Mr. Cheek [inaudible] Willis Foreman. Mr. Brigham said [inaudible] can I cover them? I said I could cover it by closing 19 on Sand Bar Ferry, [inaudible] East Boundary [inaudible]. That’s what I said. Mr. Beard: But we are supposed to build two stations [inaudible], right? Chief Mack: Correct. Mr. Beard: Okay. And that’s all I’m trying to find out where would those stations be built. Chief Mack: [inaudible] either Number One or [inaudible] Brown or one at East Boundary. One of the two will have to change. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, may I get into this for just a few minutes? Maybe I can put a little light on it cause I think I understand what the Chief’s saying. And if I’m not mistaken, Chief, you are saying that No. 1 where it presently is would cover 19 down there right now? Chief Mack: Correct. Mr. Williams: In other words, No. 1 at May Park would be running from where it is now, covering East Boundary and everything else. Chief Mack: Correct. Mr. Williams: You can move 19 out to the location that they’re talking about. They can build that station out there and take the manpower. Chief Mack: Correct. Mr. Williams: Does that make anything any clearer, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: A little bit, Mr. Williams, but I’m still wondering if we’re going to build two stations. If we’re going to build two stations in 01, where are the locations? Chief Mack: Right now I can say there are three stations that are on the table. I am open to suggestions as to which two they will be. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Henry? Mr. H. Brigham: Chief, maybe you’ve straightened Mr. Beard out, but I see up there in our District you’ve blocked it out completely with that red pencil. What’s that mean? You blocked it out in Eight. It’s completely blocked out. Or is that completely blocked out? 62 Chief Mack: [inaudible] it’s there [inaudible]. Mr. H. Brigham: So it is there? Chief Mack: Yes, sir. Mr. H. Brigham: I can go to sleep on that tonight? Chief Mack: For right now you can go to sleep on it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: What I was going to say, if we’re getting into and I don’t have a problem -- I talked with Mr. Cheek particularly on one of the deep south stations that I think we need to make an adjustment in, but I think maybe if we’re going to get into -- and I’m like Lee, now, if we could [inaudible] shifting from somewhere that’s past that, we still are talking about the same amount of money. It’s just a matter of where we can get clear on where these stations are going. Do we need to maybe move this to the end and move to rest of this? This is a discussion about where something is going to go. It doesn’t change the money. But I think we start if we start switching these stations around, Chief, one of the things that’s come out and it came out in the public hearings, is the fact that we are going to ultimately depend on you and your staff to a point of critiquing even where [inaudible], and I think it’s a good thing, to look at the adjustments, but I think we still need to be mindful that within a lot of neighborhoods, and particularly I think Lee, you can attest to this on the eastern side, there was pretty much of an agreement that not only with residents on the deep eastern side, but with the chemical companies and businesses on that end, that the agreement to give up 19, and I think they all agreed that the end of the county was not the best place for it, but I’m just wondering about that premature closing and to a point of getting one to cover the rest of that down there without them not knowing anything about it. [inaudible] repeat what I was talking about down on the end down there. What I’m saying is there has been PR discussions about all these departments. PR is not what’s going to do it. It’s going to have to depend on the professionals to do it. But I think if we are getting into a lot of massive switching, it doesn’t tell you the numbers [inaudible] and we still got the same pot. It’s just a matter where some of them are going to go in different years, who is going to go first. And I agree that some are positioned where maybe they didn’t have coverage and needed to be, and I even spoke to Mr. Brigham about it and the fact that where at least we had the two stations there in District Two. They were not new, but they were there. And you were looking at putting one out there. But then if you’re talking about one in terms of closing it or doing a shift, there was quite an uproar before you got here on that eastern end, particularly from chemical manufacturers and those people in the industrial side of the county as to what the agreement was going to be placed in term of the timing of that station on that eastern end and of getting it located on Broad Street, and I think that’s Mr. Beard’s concern to a point on that part of it. Now I got Henry’s problem and I got Lee’s 63 problem. And I’m concerned about Andy’s problem and Jerry’s problem. So I’m saying if got [inaudible] switching about these fire departments, maybe we need to get through the money part about [inaudible] and then deal with this [inaudible] somewhat of a separate nature before we leave here. Because I think there needs to be some clarity about a finalization of what stations are going to be where and on what time basis. Because this may be kind of the second half change. And I can live with changing. I just need to know where it’s going to be. Chief Mack: [inaudible] to give you another option [inaudible]. The option is the aerial trucks, being at $1.3 million. Take that $1.3 million and put in a third station the first year and then [inaudible] which one you can move, but I can give you three stations out of [inaudible] roughly a year [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: From this Commissioner’s perspective, whatever gets you to the most coverage, serve the most folk, and I’m not really concerned about where there’s a vote at. I just brought that up to the point where you’ve got some particular concerns where some agreements, and we can deal with one, but I do think any closing of 19 before you deal with the new one on the eastern end, that there maybe needs to be at least some communication with some of the entities there to cover the mixture there of what you’ve got on that end down there. Let somebody know if that’s not going to be done. Chief Mack: [inaudible] one and 19 existing, take the $1.3 million [inaudible] Willis Foreman. [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: What I’m trying to achieve is a very simple concept. We’ve got people that have the burden of having two fire stations within three or four miles of their homes. I’ve got 5000 homes with no fire stations within five miles of their home. And all I’m trying to do is get some coverage for these folks and balancing this thing out and having them built in the first year versus the third year. I guess simply it’s going to come down to if the areas that are burdened with having two fire stations can put up with having their two fire stations or closing one of them and allowing us to build a fire station in an area where there are none. And moving these figures around, I don’t care where we get the money from. As long as we legally do it and we can build a station out there sooner, that’s what I want to see done. If it’s aerial trucks or moving the stations around, that doesn’t matter as long as we can get it done. And by the way, this is not the first time. I’ve argued this about three sales tax meetings and asked for the changes to be made, and the changes haven’t been made and I leave in the meeting believing that they have been made and they’re not made next time. These things here, the figures seem to change every 30 seconds, and Lord, how does anybody keep up with it? Mr. Williams: Amen to that. Mr. J. Brigham: Chief? Chief Mack: Sir? 64 Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] we’ve got existing personnel [inaudible] apparatus [inaudible]. Chief Mack: [inaudible] Mr. J. Brigham: I know. But what I’m saying is -- and I’m very appreciative of what [inaudible] but also I understand where the dollars are and what you’re offering on the aerial on year 1 and year 2 [inaudible] year 3, so if we’re going to move stations in year 3 up to year 1, we’ve got move something back from year 2 to year 3 and we’ve got move aerials back to year 2 the way it’s on that chart. So I’m thinking [inaudible], not 1, 2 and 3. You’re the chief, I’m not. I’m going to follow your recommendation, but I honestly think you need to build stations where you’ve got men already stationed there if they’re living in temporary quarters. That’s my personal thoughts. And I don’t even represent that area. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, who is handling it? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve got the floor. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Chief, with the fire station in the trailer now, would it not be a option to move that trailer to Willis Foreman Road? I’m trying to get this passed so I can get to what I need to talk about. Y’all are holding me up. Would it not be feasible to take the trailer and set it up at Willis Foreman Road and put up a temporary situation out there for a while? Is it not feasible to move some men around? Those men who been in there in that trailer for some year or two years, could it not be feasible to transfer some drivers and some captains and some privates to let somebody else share that burden, rather than keep them same people in that same position? I mean it seem to be a simple solution if we, you know, we need to get past this. We got the money for the fire station. It’s going somewhere. And I think that could be worked out. Can I offer that as a suggestion? Can we do some of those things? Chief Mack: Absolutely can do some of those things. [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: I’m going to objection. And I’m sure Mr. Kuhlke would object if he were here, but he ain’t. But I mean, Jerry has been making the argument, and I think he’s right on about that. But the only way you can do a third station looks like to me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is the aerials and that will put the three stations up front. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You know, I commented again that I think we are dependent on the Chief and his staff in terms of where all of this goes, and if there is something that needs to be cleared or passed today, the numbers aren’t going to change. And I’m just wondering to a point do we need to stay here on this item until we finish it or do we need to try and go on and this be an approved part of where the numbers are, because there will not be another dollar add-on in this bracket as far as the stations are the concerned. And maybe if some Commissioners want to see that where they are located and how, I think we need to be a little open about that. The only 65 comment I made on that eastern end was the fact, not an objection about the [inaudible], I just think there needs to be some conversation inasmuch as you’ve got a very serious mixed area down there of chemical plants and [inaudible] there that’s been set with those folks and EMA [inaudible] that if there is going to be a closing, that should at least be discussed in that process and that they know about it. Because we talked earlier some time ago about closing that station. That came up and everybody was satisfied with that formula of moving to the Broad Street deal. And that they remain in place until that be done. And I wouldn’t even say that if it was just homes, but that is a situation down there on that end that is different from a lot of places, because you’ve got a mix there. You’ve got even a land use plan with planning that actually calls for no more residential units, even though the old county went against that and did it, that we were not supposed to build anything else past East Boundary that resembled a house at all, but we’ve got it down there and in the midst of all that other stuff there. But I agree, those people who don’t have the protection, I think there ought to be a way that we skip those years to do that, and I’m amenable [inaudible], but I just think there needs to be some conversation if you’re going to abandon that totally and you’ve got chemical stuff on that end. Somebody needs to know about it [inaudible]. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker: The lease payoffs. Can some of that be deferred to a later year? Mr. Speaker: There are existing leases [inaudible] The other option may be [inaudible] Willis Foreman in addition to [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Well, the last proposal where we were, and the shift was made on the Willis Foreman station, and we shifted back on the Highland Park area and I got [inaudible] reduced to a point where [inaudible]. I think we pretty much, Chief, have gotten adjusted to that change. Are we into another phase past that one? I guess I’m like Andy, when we change from a week or two it does get into a confusing phase. I think everybody was in agreement that where we had coverage, had two stations on Central Avenue, to a point that that was helping folk on the south side that had none, that we could wait and we could deal with that, but I think if we’re going at this meeting and we’re shifting one or two more, then I think that’s what is getting us off center off because we’re moving a lot now and we’re pushing you to make some decisions while you are standing there and I don’t know if that’s quite fair or not. You are the man that’s on the spot. Steve, and then Andy. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor, to answer your question on the existing leases, when we were going through this one of the times, I looked right into that issue and my recollection -- and correct me if I’m wrong, Walter -- we were capitalizing some operating expenses and taking the pressure off the fire district, which is almost at the tax cap. So if we capitalize out those leases, we keep him in 66 business longer as the MNO. We’ve got to do that for the MNO expense in the fire district, so I think that is why we decided to leave it alone. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m going to go back to Wrightsboro Road separately and apart from citing and changing up these locations. We don’t have to drive very far, drive down to Martin Luther King and look at the citing of that particular station and how they have to drive just about into the curb to make the turn to go out into the road. I think what we need to do is wait until the plans are finalized and we have appropriate land that allows proper access to Wrightsboro Road before we go committing to a station. Now here again, those poor guys are in a trailer and I feel for them, but at least the residents in that area can have some reasonable response time. I’ve got 5000 homes and trailers plus, and that’s my District and Commissioner’s Colclough’s Districts that have nothing. Nothing. And we could talk about the pain and suffering of those poor people, but if there’s a loss of life in our area because we’ve built in an area that already had a fire station that ignored an area that didn’t, then that blood is on our hands. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m just wondering what we want to do tonight. Are we going to pass this thing as a whole or we going to go through the individual sections? And too, Jim, isn’t it possible to pass thing that as a whole as it is and come back later and move these stations around or these dollars around by vote of Commission? Mr. Wall: Well, yes. You can come back and change the priorities. And I, too, question how we are going to make these individual decisions, if we vote one way or the other on some of these, and I was sitting here wondering whether or not to recommend that you simply insofar as far as public safety concerned approved the $5,300,000 during the year 2001 and basically the bottom line, but I’m not sure that gets the fire chief where he wants to be, because he still is left with indecision about how to move forward with building stations. I’m not sure whether that gets us where either the Commission or the department heads need to be. Mr. Bridges: I’m like Commissioner Cheek, I’m concerned about the coverage we’ve got on the south end of the county. I’m still going to be concerned about it even we building these two out there. We’re still going to have some dead spots out there that are five miles away from the station. But I mean we’ve been talking about this and talking about this SPLOST now for several meetings. I’m ready to go ahead and move on it and approve it and let the Chief come, you know, if he’s comfortable with what we’ve got here and he thinks that will do what he needs to do, I will trust his judgment. But I think we can move on with it and approve it and the few changes we’ve got to make, we can do that at another time when all we’re doing is taking up those changes and 67 maybe have a clearer head about it and a better understanding of it and maybe more time to talk about it. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Colclough: If the Chief is willing to give up an aerial for a couple of years to be able to put up a third fire station, why can’t we just go ahead and do that? Approve that concept if he says he’s willing to give up an aerial, push the aerial back, and be able to build that third fire station. Is that correct, Chief? Chief Mack: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: Will $1.3 million build a station? Chief Mack: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: Can we swap the $1.3 million for the $1.5 million? Chief Mack: [inaudible] for the aerials [inaudible] Mr. Colclough: I’m saying that if we do it, we do have to build that third fire station somewhere. If he’s willing to give up, push his aerials back, use that $1.3 million to build the fire station and kind of wait on his aerials, that may help us put that third fire station where there’s a huge gap. Mr. Speaker: It’s possible you could build one for $1.3 million. We don’t have plans, so it is hard for me to put a number on it. What I’m saying is that if all you have is $1.3 million in year 1, it’s the aerial trucks. And you have $1.5 million in year 2 that is for construction of another station. Take $1.3 million out of that station, put it in the first year under another station, $200,000 under year 2 with the aerial trucks, you still got $1.3 million taken out of the first year, putting it in the second year regardless. You’re not going to spend that $1.3 million in year one. Spend it between two years. Leave the $1.5 million as the cost of the station, but split it between two years because there is no way to spend all that $1.5 million in the first year. At this point, we’re 60 days -- Mr. Colclough: That would still give us three fire stations. Mr. Speaker: It would still give you three fire stations. Mr. Colclough: That’s fine. Mr. Speaker: You can get planning underway and get the bid process going and get the [inaudible] the end of this year and then finish construction in 2002. 68 Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] eastern end out there where Andy’s talking about. Right? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: The only problem I have with it, and we may be able to separate the land costs and the design costs, but under our accounting system we can’t divide the construction costs, because once you let that contract, you encumber all the funds. And so the funds have to be available during that budget year in order for you to encumber them. So yes, from a cash flow standpoint what Rick says is true, but from an accounting standpoint, you’ve got to have the money available at the time the contract is awarded so that you can encumber those funds. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: But he is saying that you can split the money. You’ve not going to spend all the money in the first year in the first place. The second year you will have the total cash flow to complete the project; right? Mr. Speaker: I think with three stations under construction that you should be able to split the money in a manner that say you delay the start of construction for two months. You’re going to be at least two months before you get the proposals back from the architects at this point in time. 30 days to decide. You’re going to be June before you make and architect selection. It’s going to take them six months to design it. You’re not going to have the bids back before the end of the year, so you’re not going to start construction on any of these stations at the earliest by December, so arguing about the first year, who gets it the first year, you’re not going to start construction until year 2 anyway. Mr. Colclough: What I’m concerned about is the three stations, building the first year or the second year, covering that dead spot out there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Still on fire stations? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re still on fire stations. Mr. Williams: I ain’t got nothing to say. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim, let me ask this. Wouldn’t it also be prudent to throw into the equation where we already -- and I’m not saying this because this one is over there in One, but I’m thinking about trying to get the Chief another option in there that will actually do two things. It will free him up some personnel at one station, and at the 69 same time, do a moving which actually eliminates a station. And what I’m getting at, don’t we already own the situation at East Boundary and Broad? Isn’t that totally completed? We don’t have to buy anything over there. So it’s sitting there ready. It’s got every utility running to it. It’s right on the corner waiting for something to be done. What I’m looking at is that in the shift from the first year over to the third year with that one, you’re actually leaving a piece of property that you’ve purchased and that you’ve got ready to go. What I’m looking at, you can help the south side from the standpoint that land’s ready down there. It’s already ready. When that building is built, it means you going to close May Park and you can move personnel from your other one as well. They going to be in one station. And it’s bought. There’s nothing to be done there. Ain’t nobody to condemn, ain’t no right-of-way, it’s ready to go. That’s my concern. And I’m not saying it because it’s where Lee and I are, but it’s ready to go. It’s nothing to be decided on that one. And to put it off on land bought to get from 1 to 3, it seems like we can cure some other problems by getting that one fast tracked because it’s ready to go. There’s nothing to wait on. And it gives you a quick out on the personnel on 19 and it gives you a way to get those moved out of 1 and however you’re going to configure personnel by those two places. Because we be out of the fire business on the lower end of town and we be out of the fire business at May Park, and we be in the new fire station at East Boundary. And it’s ready to go. There’s nothing there to be done. That’s my only thing about moving from 1 to 3. I just think we are sitting on something that is ready to go while we may be waiting on something to be bought. Whether we put in something temporary in there until we can get land on some others or not, but that one is ready. Jim? Mr. Wall: The problem that we’re running into is we can make years 1 and 2 work along the lines of what you’re talking about, but look at where we are. We’ve got $31.6 million in year 1, $32.2 million in year 2, and then $26 million. We’ve got to find something that will go in year 3. So if we’re moving everything to the front and that’s where we’re having a problem. And I had moved the aerials to year 3 and the Chief didn’t like that. Now if we could do this. Can we start the design of #12 during year 2 and maybe put $500,000 in year 2 and $1 million in year 3? Or the Highland Avenue? Either one of those two. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] move Wrightsboro Road back to year 3? [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: Yeah, I did. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Cause I think whatever gets him some simultaneous movement in more than one place at the same time would be to everybody’s benefit. Some things in there you can probably do would affect another one. Mr. Wall: The design and [inaudible] 70 Mr. Speaker: I think on a number of them we already own some of the property that we’re planning to build on. The design figure, about eight percent. Now one thing, please consider under the design of these stations, with conversations I’ve had with the Fire Department, it is our intent to try and do these as a single type design where we’re building the same station with one or two additional bays and maybe have the provision to expand as manpower may be necessary for wider coverage, but we’re not looking at extensive design fees on the later year projects, because we hope to be reusing the same design on site adaptation. But typically I think you figure eight percent on the design. You probably should be close to what the design fee should be. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim, you asked that question about those numbers, or Rick just then. With the ownership where we are already give us some flexibility, you think, Rick, in -- just a minute ago we were jockeying with $1.3 million versus the $1.5 million. If in the places where we own, and if all of that was ready, could we not maybe go since we’re trying to do them on the same design frame, if there is nothing to acquire in some places, can maybe we do those at a lesser number and have something to shift somewhere else to go in and to fast track that? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Certainly if you already have the property that cost should not be part of the construction cost that is estimated by the Fire Department. Keep in mind also, though, that regardless of where you put these, even on property that we currently own, realistically construction wouldn’t start on any of those until 2002 anyway, even if we started design this year. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But where we own, we possibly could deal with something that’s lower in some of those cases than the $1.5 million then? I was just searching for where maybe we might be able to pick up on maybe one or two projects where you had $200,000 to $300,000 in there, just estimating, that you pick that up and you add it to something else. Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, you can but it’s hard for me to sit here right now and tell you which of those [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim? Mr. Wall: What I’ve done, I’ve left the $1.5 million in year 2 insofar as Wrightsboro Road. Insofar as Highland Avenue, realizing that design would begin in year 2. And putting the balance of the construction cost into year 3, so you can start that project next year. The same thing insofar as the Hephzibah-McBean Road station 12, again begin the design in year 2 with construction where you bid it and January 1 be ready to go. And that gets us -- that keeps you within the workable numbers. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So those new numbers actually add something on? That is not a pull out from where we got up there? Say for instance on the 7 Willis Foreman going in, that’s not a pull back? Andy? 71 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Mays. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My concern, and I know this is a different way to beat the same horse, but if we leave it where it’s at, the rates go up, we’re talking probably $1000 or $1500 over three or four years, which will be the actual construction start time left in its present location. Again, I don’t have any ownership in how we arrange it. We just need to get some relief to people who do not have fire service close enough to help them keep their rates at a reasonable level. So if it’s aerials, if it’s land acquisition and design this year and building next year, if we can just get some relief in areas or places where people do not have fire coverage and their rates are going to triple or quadruple. Mr. Wall: Can everyone live with what’s on the screen now? This is $1.5 million for Wrightsboro Road, year two which is where it was. The Highland Avenue I’ve move all of it back to the year two, aerials are in year three. I’m sorry, year two. We’ve moved Willis Foreman from year 2003 to year one, realizing that we’re not going to spend all that money in year one, this year. Hephzibah-McBean, put the design in land acquisition -- I keep saying that. Just design. And then with construction in 03. We have bumped those numbers, but from a cash flow standpoint, I don’t think most of the cash is going to hit until year three because of the [inaudible]. I mean I think that’s very doable. Chief Mack: Another [inaudible], Mr. Mays, is that if [inaudible] next year, it will offset [inaudible] Mr. Wall: Does that meet with everyone’s approval? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Chief, better look out. The Attorney trying to mess with your job. Mr. Bridges: Do you need a motion, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ll ask the lawyer who just came up with this crafty solution. Can we just accept that as an amendment to the motion? Is that what you’re suggesting, Jim? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Shepard: With the body, we’d all have to consent; right? Mr. Wall: To this one section, yes. Mr. Shepard: Yes. I mean that’s -- Mr. Wall: [inaudible] to the existing motion [inaudible]. 72 Mr. Shepard: The maker would have to make it and we’d all have to consent to it because it belongs to the body now; right? Mr. Wall: Correct. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What happens, we got a motion and a second that’s been there for a long time on the floor and we started in this area because that’s where most of the questions were. And so I think we need to clear that up to a point of at least [inaudible]. Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll amend the motion to accept these amendments to the Fire section. Mr. Shepard: So will the seconder. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any objections to that on the fire station? That’s as far as we’ve gone. We got -- Commissioner Williams has got some sections in there. We want to get fire out of the way first. Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just in case we have the moving or ever-altering numbers, that is the way it is going to appear tomorrow; right? And from now on? I mean for all intents and purposes it’s done it’s pencil right now but it’s going to be just as well carved in stone; right? Mr. Wall: Once y’all vote on it, yes. Mr. Cheek: All right. Okay. I have no problems. I’m ready to go. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m hearing no dissenters in that section. So that’s the way the fire stations, public safety and fire will remain. Okay. Now I guess we go back because we’ve got two to three items or questions that are here, even though there is a motion on the floor to deal with the whole package. We’re back to the discussion on [inaudible] that’s been settled. Now where are we, the next section, Mr. Hornsby? I think Commissioner Williams probably is going to have the first question on that one. Mr. Hornsby: All right. Talk about [inaudible] if you look at the sheet that I gave you that’s entitled Options Sheet, and some of you may have the wrong one because we added additional options in there. Option one and option two, those are issues that [inaudible] what you’ve got on the list as far as the Recreation Department and Option One is the one that changed as a result of your asking that we go back and [inaudible] and whether that could be changed or [inaudible]. And [inaudible] you see add down there. Remember that. Add, you don’t subtract. But that will change from the spread out $750,000 [inaudible] to the one in year 2 of $166,000 is what the committee recommended and year 3 of $1,434,000 in addition. On the second issue that [inaudible] it was the additions of additional items in [inaudible]. Those items are Jones Pool, Doughtery Park and Apple Valley. [inaudible] what to deduct those things from. I will 73 not have the ability to deduct anything from the golf course as suggested if Option 1 passes. That’s why it’s being put in this format. If you would just [inaudible] those options [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We got enough paperwork here that we could have at least probably made a down payment on a land acquisition for one of those fire stations and I hear even changed again. I’m like Mr. Cheek with his comments. I asked the Assistant Administrator not once, not twice, but I know at least three times to add those same things that he got in Option 2 into this list, and what we had spoke about, and I say again he was directed by this body to add them to that list. I called him in his office. I talked to him after the meeting. He wrote it down during the meeting. And I’m really disappointed with his performance as what is brought to us now. It’s not up to the Administrator or to any department head to decide whether they will go. It’s up to this governing body for us to vote on. He couldn’t understand, he said, how it would balance out if you subtract $400,000 from $750,000 you ought to get a balance of $350,000. If th that 9 Street math you used to do, Mr. Mays, is still working. I don’t agree with how he proposed to do this. I am going to make a motion that we deduct it, the $400,00 goes three places that we named, out of the Golf Course, $750,000 that we were going to do in year 2002 -- I’m sorry, 2001, and add those three places or parks, into this Recreation and Parks Department. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before you answer that, Mr. Hornsby, well, number one I think the way we are going with the general motion that’s on the floor -- I’ll wait on Jim. Jim, we’ve got a general motion that is on the floor and what we kind of gentlemanly decided to do was since it looked like we got two or three sections we are going through, is that we amend the sections that are there per se and it be added to a motion if that is, if that is accepted or if there is no dissention within there. What I think we need to do, Commissioner, is to hear from other Commissioners in that section of Rec, come back to that, and then if we’re going to add or take away anything that’s in that portion, then I think we need to maybe do it at that time. Cause there is one that’s on the floor and I think what we’re going to do, if we turn around and put a substitute motion on the floor while we still may have another section or some other questions to go through, I’m just trying to simplify what we’ve got. Mr. Wall: Technically there is a main motion on the floor which is to adopt a list with modifications as to the Fire Department. This is essence would be a substitute motion as to one section only. And y’all may want to rethink the process and maybe you want to vote on each section separately. I don’t know. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t think we have that many sections we are really going to be going through. How many questions do we have? I think it’s probably just -- there may be one other but this is probably going to -- maybe one more. Mr. Hornsby: Probably one more. I think that one is okay. 74 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s there. So I mean what I’d kind of like to do -- Mr. Wall: Treat it as a motion to amend the existing motion and that would be to amend the list. That would be the best way. Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: Okay. I can do that. Mr. Wall: I will again point out, as I have in the past, that these projects were not on the capital improvement plan that’s part of the resolution and you are taking funding away from projects that were included in the capital improvement list that was voted on and adding projects. And I will again suggest that as to two of these, Jones Pool and Doughtery Park, those are Phase III projects. There is money in Phase III and those two can be addressed as part of Phase III as a separate issue. There are a lot of projects that were not included on the list and if we start adding projects, I don’t know where it’s going to end. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, and then Commissioner Jerry Brigham. Mr. Williams: Thank you. I understand what Mr. Wall has said, but I’ve got a copy of the resolution here and I still, if anybody need to see this list, it does not specify project, it refer to, and five years ago when the aquatic center was not on the list, we added the aquatic center to it. Mr. Wall: The aquatic center was on the list. Mr. Williams: When the sales tax, when the list was approved, it was not on there. Mr. Wall: I disagree with that. Mr. Williams: Well, I understand. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: I understand, Jim. I want to see a copy of that. It was added on to the list. This does not specify. It refers to. And I don’t understand how we can even think that we can take $750,000 in the year 2001 and then $800,000 in year 2002 to pay off the golf course, which is making money. It ought to be standing on its own now. I remember Commissioner Kuhlke said we as a board decide to do that so we can make money, but this City ain’t in the business of making money. We trying to better the lives 75 of the citizens of this community, and I don’t think taking $400,000 out of the $750,000 for year 2002 is any way wrong. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jerry? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] there is a motion and a second in the section involving Recreation to do an amendment and we’re going to the discussion part of that. I recognize Commissioner Jerry Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we, all ten of us sit up here, we’re big men and we all decided what was going to be on this list months ago. Why are we at this late date adding new projects? If one Commissioner can add new projects, then all Commissioners can add new projects. That is the way it should be. We presented this list to the public and we should stand with this list. I don’t have problem changing dollars in this list, but until we complete the projects that we have already approved by the voters, we shouldn’t be adding new projects to this sales tax funding. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays, I’m agree with Mr. Brigham that if he wants to add, that’s fine with me. But I’m not going to sit here and allow $800,000 in one year and $700,000 in another year to go to one small segment of this city where there’s a limited amount of people that’s going to benefit when there is other areas in this county and this city where people have not benefited at all. So if you want to add, another Commissioner want to add, that’s fine with me, too. I can support that. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I was on this Commission when we voted to do those [inaudible]. It was also the intention of this Commission at that time, it was to pay those [inaudible] off and give that money to the Recreation Department as a way of reducing their operating budget. And now what we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to pay those [inaudible] more dollars to expand the operation and we still haven’t reduced the operating budget. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Shepard and Commissioner Henry Brigham, did you want have any discussion during this part? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, let me just point out here that we talking about not taking the money from the golf course. I think it’s only fair to kind of share this thing here. We talking about $350,000 in the year 2001 and still $800,000 in year 2002, along with whatever money is being brought in by that entity right now. I have no way of knowing whether it’s even high or low, but whatever money they are bringing in, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do that project, I’m simply adding a small fraction of the people of this City use that facility, that everybody’s tax dollars going in, and I think we need to put some of that in some of the other areas that don’t have anything at all going for it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? 76 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. I think we’ve all had to give up some projects that were personal to our districts, and the irony of that is that come the end of this year, these districts that we all serve now, the eight that are District Commissioners, and even you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and Mr. Kuhlke who serve the Super Districts, those Districts are going to maybe look a lot different than they do today. And I think we’ve had to give up some projects. We did put these projects before the people and I think we, to use your words, Mr. Williams, we are accountable to the people not to tinker with this list. We categorized them, we limited our tinkering, and we didn’t get these in. I didn’t get some projects in, but I’m living with that. And I think we’ve just got to live with that and get this passed. I mean two of these three, Mr. Wall said are going to be funded in Phase III and I can tell you that some that I dropped are not going to be funded in Phase III and not going to be funded in Phase IV, and I don’t know, I may not be here with V comes along, depending on how the five years that we’re voting, there will probably be another Commission prioritizing it. We voted in one year and the next time it will come up will be another five years and we are in four year terms. I just don’t see how we can vary the list that we put forth before the voters and that’s my problem with it, because if you do it, then everybody is going to ask the other nine of us why we didn’t do it, and I just think that we have real problems with that because these projects were not in the list and really we’re boiling down only to one, the Apple Valley project. And that’s -- I just don’t see how we can hold the whole list up for one project. Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Shepard, and with your road project and other stuff in your District. I mean that’s fine. This is not really a District thing. This is -- you’re talking about accountability. Now I see we’re speaking out for accountability when we want to change some things that going to benefit a majority of the people. But I’m not going to sit here and let the small amount rule the large amount of this government of this city. The people in this city are open-minded enough to know that a golf course is fine. I’m not saying that we should not give them any money. I’m simply saying when the list was made up, when I asked the question who made the cuts on the list, Mr. Oliver and I believe Mr. Beck maybe. I don’t know who was on that list cutting, but I asked that question sitting in Mr. Mays’ chair, who made the cuts? Some projects didn’t make the list and my question was then who said they didn’t make the list? As a Commissioner nobody gave me an opportunity to say who made the list or who didn’t make the list. And I still hold to that right now. I still say that it is not fair to take $750,000 and $800,000 next year to pay on a golf course when we can take some of that money and put in some of those other areas that don’t have anything. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentleman, my boss needs to be recognized right now. The Mayor was talking a minute ago, and I’m going to let him explain that part of it. I think Commissioner Williams, we’ve got an answer this Commission can be more than willing to help on some of what you’re talking about, but before he says this, let me say this in a lighter moment. Hope we can laugh about it. The sitting Commissioners in their Districts had certain projects they wanted to do and they tried to set a course. Steve is right that everybody, what everybody wanted didn’t get on the list and that’s true up and down the line. But the single-member Districts I think to a point where some things that 77 you want to do in District 2, and I also represent District 2, that it’s a revelation and maybe that’s why there was a change in District 2. You’ve inherited District 2. That’s the bad part in reference to where some things were set, quite frankly, or not set by your predecessor. But the point is we have a formula that has been voted on and has to remain in place. But I think we’ve got a funding source not just in one place, and I am going to let the Mayor elaborate on that, in two places that I think we can get part of it cured and then even to a point of moving to some [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, go ahead and comment, please. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, thank you. Let me just say, Mr. Williams, that I am sensitive to the needs of the people in your District because they’re also in my District. Everybody’s District is in my District. And one of the things that I think we overlook is the use of alternate funding for some of these projects. Now earlier we were talking about the senior citizens project in 30901. And I asked Mr. Mack, I said Mr. Mack, do you have $400,000 in community development funds in this year’s budget that you can reprogram. And he said yes. Now certainly the Jones Pool and Doughtery Park are in areas that benefit low- and moderate-income people. And we should be able to pay for those right now out of Community Development Block Grant money. I don’t know about the eligibility of Apple Valley. I don’t think that will meet the test. But I would submit there are probably some other Recreation projects that are on the list that benefit low- and moderate-income people that we can shift the funding from sales tax over to Community Development Block Grant which the federal government says we’re not spending fast enough, and we’ve got like almost two-and-a-half years of unspent funding available there, and we can go ahead and move your projects forward faster and then fall back on these sales tax projects that were on the original list and approved by the voters and go ahead in that way. Now I see Mr. Beck nodding his head. Am I talking a space program here or is this a reality? Can we do this? Mr. Beck: No space program at all. I think this is a reality. As a matter of fact, keep in mind that these are 22 projects on a list of 45. 22 projects were approved by the citizens committee that went to you and then to the voters. We had a major list. Several of those projects that did not make the list are going to be applied for through the CDBG program and the Land and Water Conservation Program through the federal government looks like is going to have some funding again this year, and there’s an application period not only for this year but next year. So there are some other funding mechanisms that we can go after and try to get the support of our legislators to do so. Mr. Mayor: But I think the point is, Commissioner Williams, that there is money now available to do some of these projects, if not all of them. The other issue the COPS for golf course. Now the COPS are nothing more than a back-door tax increase. And we need to get read of those COPS just as quickly as we can to reduce the tax burden on the people in this city. So having said that, I’ll give the floor back to the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? 78 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I understand, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate what you’re saying. You know the problem we’ve been having in Housing and Neighborhood Development. I don’t want to get on that horse, but if those were some funds, if those are some things that’s available through Mr. Beck and through Mr. Mack or whoever, a lot of those things should have been done not just now but even last year. But to sit here and say that it’s going to happen through that department that has not done what I think is a great job, I’m going to be fooling myself, and I’m not going to sit here and go along with that. I appreciate the suggestions and I’m open for that, but as a Commissioner and going to sit here and allow that much money to go for the golf course to pay off the tax, I mean the COPS, I don’t see that, Mr. Mayor. And I know they don’t, you’re not going to understand this but I feel strongly that that is just not fair to this community to have that much money going in that area to pay off a project that only a few people benefit from. And I still say that we need to take those funds from that year 2001 and put them in year 2001 for those places we got on that list. I had never even had the participation from even adding them on there to try to get this passed. We been [inaudible] with this thing for how long now? For months. And it don’t make sense. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I do understand the frustration that Commissioner Williams is really going through, because I think all of us have gone down that road where it’s been [inaudible] and neglect in certain areas. I think he has some valid concerns in reference to even how the list was made up. I don’t disagree with that, with what he’s saying because I think there were some things that were done that maybe shouldn’t have been done or it was depending on the political process in getting things on the list. However, I feel that if there is a way, and I think the important thing here is getting Jones Pool, Doughtery Park and Apple Valley, getting them where they need to be. Now I mean if it takes a motion by the group to make sure that what has been stated here is going to proceed, I don’t have a problem with utilizing funds from HN [inaudible] to do part of this. I do understand from Jim that we have $150,000 that we can use the first stage of this. Mr. Wall: Phase III. Mr. Beard: Out of Phase III rather. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: And it we can do that and get going there, I think that’s -- I think the main point should be here, is to get it done. Wherever the funds are coming from. But to get it done. And I think that we need to get it on record that this is going to happen and the Apple Valley, the $250,000 there that I see going to come out of -- we need to be assured that these things are going to happen and they are going to come out of Housing & Neighborhood Development and do that. I think we -- Mr. Wall: I don’t think we can assure you that it’s going to come out of Housing & Neighborhood Development. I cannot. Once -- I don’t know. The Mayor said he doesn’t know that Apple Valley is going to qualify. I don’t know whether it will or not. 79 Mr. Beard: Well. Mr. Wall: Jones and Doughtery are Phase III projects and there is money there. Now I don’t know that they can be funded out of Housing & Neighborhood Development because they were on the sales tax list and if there is other funding available, I’m not sure that they qualify under the federal rules. I don’t know that. I am just saying that there is a question. But I -- Mr. Beard: But I do think we should assure Commissioner Williams that these things will happen and they can happen and we should have some funding source, because I do understand his frustration and I think we ought to come up with some funding source for the $400,000. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim, why couldn’t we -- and you touched on this -- why couldn’t you delete Jones Poole and Doughtery Park from the Phase III, put them in HND, and then take -- you’re only $100,000 short, doing Apple Valley under the SPLOST Phase III if you did that. Is that?-- Mr. Wall: Because it wasn’t on the list. Mr. Beard: Apple Valley was not on the list? Mr. Wall: Apple Valley was not on the list. Doughtery and Jones were on the Phase III and can be funded at least under one source, possibly under two sources, and those can be done. Mr. Beard: Well, then, in other words, Mr. Mack would have to determine if Apple Valley qualified for -- it really should. I mean I would think it should. But I know Mr. Williams wants that verification that it can. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, I think you brought a point to get us to. There are some things in there. Steve just mentioned something a minute ago about the list. Obviously and while each of the single-member Districts I agree in the whole sales tax program have probably had to give up something maybe that each of you didn’t want to give up. I know in District 9 that with three of those folk that make up three of those Districts prior to Commissioner Williams’ coming on, we were able to work jointly on where we did a lot of things. And I think probably that may be evident to a point of what you may be scuffling with in District 2. And so you’ve got somewhat of a [inaudible] there. I think we can, Jim, find a way to work [inaudible] a point, like Steve was saying, where we reduce and deal with Apple Valley. I think you can deal with [inaudible] Housing and Neighborhood Development that parallels -- this doesn’t include Apple Valley in that [inaudible] but I think in talking about the shift of it, I think you’ve got a point of that that can shifted out to Housing and Neighborhood Development and Mr. 80 Mack reprogram, Mr. Mayor, how we would do the payback to HUD. We shifted six figure sales tax projects that were on the sales tax list [inaudible] District 2 was an original sales tax project. But it went over to Housing & Neighborhood Development because we used that money to immediately repay HUD and then we had to have a source to get that back on to sales tax. So that has been a precedent of that shifting with a smaller amount of money that’s already been done. So I think we’ve got a way to cure that, both directly and indirectly, of getting that one done. I think that it frees up the [inaudible] and I think this is where Steve is not so much dwelling on whether it’s a new project, I think that if you can find a way where you’ve got two resources, one out of Mr. Beck’s Phase III and then part of it to a point or all of it out of HND. It does then give you an avenue, even though it may be new. It’s not one where you’ve abused in that in that particular area, because you’ve used two alternative sources to deal with the projects. And I know you got to wangle some with the third one there. That one may be the one where you have to make work, but I think it came with some legal creativity make it work over there. And I think you’ve got, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner here who are on those two committees. It’s going to have to be probably [inaudible] Public Services with Chairman Colclough, and part on the other side of it with Commissioner Brigham. But I think there is an alternative way, not necessarily at the same time, that we can move into working with what you’re trying to get done here. And also I think on the third one, it may create some incentive that if we can maybe get a little private help, and we’ve talked about it, on part of it in Apple Valley, on some corporate side of it, it will then make a better sale that we bring before this Commission. I think if [inaudible] enough of that, it narrows the number down off that $250,000 to where it’s a point that you’ve got more than one hole to get something out of. And you’ve got more than one source. You end up with really three in there and so you deal with three small projects. And I think there are Commissioners here in Districts 9 and 10 [inaudible] to do that. That’s probably going to be a lot easier than trying to fight over this one [inaudible]. Anybody else got any questions on this subject? [inaudible] Mr. Beard: I don’t know, maybe Jim can help me out here a little bit. We would like to get at least $150,000 into some type of commitment form, and I think if we can possibly do that and -- Mr. Wall: My recommendation would be to -- that Mr. Williams revise his motion which would be not to amend the Phase IV list as this section, but to amend the motion to provide that Jones Pool and Doughtery Park be funded from Phase III up to $150,000. Mr. Speaker: Say it again, Jim. Mr. Wall: That Jones Pool and Doughtery Park be funded out of Phase III up to $150,000. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim, let me just ask you something in that process. Could you not maybe have that in there, but maybe could you get a little more flexibility out of that to a point of maybe putting the projects up for alternative funding source, then you’re 81 not limited to Phase III, nor are you limited to Housing & Neighborhood Development. It may be that you can do a better project with a combo of both funds that might be there, taking some from one place, some from another, and then with a shift in there, if we get a little private help, to a point of maybe even getting over into the other one. I mean that would [inaudible] the project. If they don’t fall, you can prioritize them to a point of where you do Jones, you do Doughtery, and maybe Apple Valley be your third priority in there, but you still don’t leave it off the list. Mr. Wall: I agree. I was trying to [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was trying to get it a little deeper. Mr. Wall: Phase III or other funding. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Wait a minute. If you listed alternative source, you can list Apple Valley because to a point you may not have to dip into sales tax. It may be where you dip into one place to get two of them and another one and another one. You know we’ve got the [inaudible] the board, they can redefine their line in terms of where income or where projects [inaudible]. I think we just sat here and said well that doesn’t qualify but we don’t necessarily know that. I mean you may re-examine what’s in Apple Valley and you may find that you may have a different mixture of where ownership is versus where you may have some other incomes in there. So it may possibly be that we are ruling out something that we don’t know where it is. We are leaving it [inaudible] alternative source. If it doesn’t qualify federally, you can’t use it anyway. It’s automatically out. Mr. Wall: And I agree with you. But that needs to come back as a separate motion, because right now we are pledging funding, and the only funding that we have available that we know of right now is Phase III, and Jones and Doughtery were qualified for Phase III and we can fund those on alternative funding sources, may be HND, but right now we do not have a funding source for Apple Valley. We think that it may qualify but we don’t know that, and that needs to be explored and brought back. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this question, Jim. You’ve got Savannah Place on the list for $200,000. Now if Savannah Place $200,000 qualified for HND, then could the $200,000 for Savannah Place that’s in the SPLOST be used at Apple Valley? Mr. Wall: It can, but it needs to be added as a project. There is flexibility in the resolution that allows you to add other projects after all of the projects that were voted on are funded. So that could be brought back at a later time and the list can be amended like someone had suggested. I mean this list is not forever written in stone. And as there is recapture money, as there is excess collections, as there are other funding sources identified in some of the projects so that they’re not needed, then you’ve got a recapture of money and that money can be reprogrammed for these new projects. It’s just that today it’s not the day to do that. We need to adopt funding of the list that was part of the capital improvement program. 82 Mr. Beard: But once we adopt that, Jim, can’t we come back today and add that so that we would be all clear today on that? And not wait till a later time? Mr. Wall: Yes. [inaudible] Housing and Neighborhood? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Wall: HND, if it’s available. Apple Valley? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Wall: That if it qualifies that it be funded as a project? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Beard: If you get consent to add that, yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim, where you were before, with the exception of one [inaudible], can we just to a point, cause these projects obviously are going to have to come back and be looked at in a different manner. The only reason I’m saying not excluding any funds, I think when you search for funding, you’re not commitment funding because if it doesn’t qualify you can’t spend it. What I’m looking at is there may be a source that doesn’t tie you to your sales tax that you can deal with Apple Valley out of. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] motion [inaudible] that the Phase IV list as amended for fire protection be approved with the direction that funding sources be sought for Jones Pool, Doughtery Park and Apple Valley to include Phase III [inaudible] or any other available funding. Mr. Williams: I can live with that. Mr. Colclough: I would second the motion. Mr. Shepard: Call the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objections I hear. Is there another section? You said there was another question, Mr. Hornsby? Mr. Shepard: I called the question, Mr. Pro Tem. Mr. Hornsby: No, sir. The only other question was [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign of voting. Any opposed, the same. 83 Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one thing. We did just pass and approve this entire SPLOST list, did we not? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct. Mr. Bridges: I didn’t want to ask before the vote. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair certainly appreciate that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. You did a wonderful job. I’ll let you do this more often. Mr. Hornsby and Mr. Beck, I think you heard some direction today with respect to three specific projects and I would encourage you to begin as soon as possible to work on funding for those projects and have a report back to the Commission and to Mr. Williams. 39. Legal Meeting: ?? Discuss claim of Trex Bolick. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) ?? Discuss Real Estate matter. ?? Discuss potential and pending litigation matters. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair will entertain a motion that we go into Legal session. Mr. Mayor: And discuss the Administrator search. Mr. Wall: And also for personnel matters. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 41. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. 84 Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. H. Brigham: So moved. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. I’ll sign. Do we have any items we need to add to the agenda? 41. Motion to approve settlement of claims. Mr. Wall: I would ask that two be added to the agenda. One is to approve settlement of the Susan Hancock claim by payment of the sum of $13,940.79 and the second is to add as an agenda item a motion to approve an agreement with the McLeods for settlement of claims for sediment deposits in pond by payment of $100,000 and securing a covenant to run with the land, waiving and releasing any claim now or in the future for any damage to the pond as a result of the maintenance of Camp Angehele Road. Mr. Mayor: Would there be any objection among the body to entertain a motion to add and approve these items? I will entertain such a motion. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 6-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on March 6, 2001. Clerk of Commission