The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-20-2001 Regular Meeting (2) REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER November 20, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, November 20, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by Rev. Wright. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH: Ms. Elizabeth Kinsey Clerk of Superior Court RECOGNITION: Wastewater Treatment Staff Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda today? The Clerk: Yes, sir, we have a request to add one item. ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Select a voting delegate for the NLC Conference. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this item? None heard, so we will add that item to the agenda. Let’s move along then with our consent agenda. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 52. That’s items 1 though 52. If there any objectors to the planning petitions or the alcohol license petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hands? That’s all objectors to the consent planning petitions or the alcohol petitions, would you please signify your objections by raising your hand? 1. Z-01-69 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by T. M. Nickles, on behalf of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special Exception for the 1 purpose of establishing a cemetery for burial of ashes of cremated persons per Section 26-1 (m) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 2261 Walton Way. (Tax Map 34-4, Parcel 79 and 80) and contains approximately 4.5 acres. 2. Z-01-73 – A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by C. Ralph Kitchens, on behalf of Robert P. Thomas, requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3883 Wrightsboro Road (Tax Map 39 Parcel 28) and contains approximately 3 acres. The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: On the alcohol petitions: 7. Motion to approve a request by the License & Inspections Department to renew all the Alcohol Beverage Licenses, Sunday Sales, Wholesale Dealers & Adult Entertainment in Augusta Richmond County for the year 2002 with the exception of Top of the Hill Lounge. District 1 thru 8. Super District 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 8. Motion to approve a request by Carl F. Cain for a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Smith-Bell Petroleum located at 3020 Tobacco Road in accordancewith conditions Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 9. Motion to approve the suspension of the Alcohol License until all taxes are paid and after which six-month probation for Henry McLendon for Goodfellas Food & Spirits (Henry’s) locatedat 3328 Washington Rd. for the following violation: failure to pay excise taxes. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 10. Motion to approve the revocation of the Alcohol Beverage License held by Charlie Sturgis for Top of the Hill Lounge located at 2306 Gordon Highway for the following violation: failure to pay excise taxes. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions? Mr. Mayor: Which item? Mr. Speaker: Number eight. Mr. Mayor: Number eight, thank you. The Clerk: That’s it, Mr. Mayor, for the alcohol and planning petitions. 2 Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve with a second. We will pull out item 8. We had a communication from Mr. Sonny Pittman; you’d like to speak to item number 12? Sonny, is that right? Okay. So we’ll pull out item 12. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Item 7, please. Mr. Mayor: Item 7? Okay. Mr. Williams: Item 51, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: 51, Mr. Williams. Mr. Kuhlke, did I hear you? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. Item 45 and -- Mr. Mayor: 45 and -- Mr. Kuhlke: Just a minute. Mr. J. Brigham: Item 10? Mr. Mayor: Number 10? Mr. Kuhlke: No. Are you pulling 10? Mr. Wall: I’m pulling 10. Well, Mr. Brigham is. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you had item number 45? Any other items? Mr. Mays, do you have an item you wanted to pull? Mr. Mays: I think they probably want to get an explanation probably on 9 and 10. Mr. Mayor: 9 and 10? Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any others? PLANNING: 3 1. Z-01-69 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by T. M. Nickles, on behalf of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cemetery for burial of ashes of cremated persons per Section 26-1 (m) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 2261 Walton Way. (Tax Map 34-4, Parcel 79 and 80) and contains approximately 4.5 acres. 2. Z-01-73 – A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by C. Ralph Kitchens, on behalf of Robert P. Thomas, requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3883 Wrightsboro Road (Tax Map 39 Parcel 28) and contains approximately 3 acres. 3. AMENDMENT ZA-R-147– A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of Augusta-Richmond County, Section 8- 4, accessory buildings in single-family residential zones. 4. ST. GEORGES TOWNHOUSES, PHASE ONE, SECTION FOUR – S-625 – FINAL PLAT – A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, on behalf of ATC Development Co., requesting final plat approval for St. Georges Townhouses, Phase One, Section Four. This development is located on Marks Drive, east of Abba Drive. PUBLIC SERVICES: 5. Motion to approve the low bid meeting specifications for material and installation of sports flooring for the Blythe Area Recreation Center to Southern Surfaces & Equipment for $26,427.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 6. Motion to approve the firm of PRAD Group, Inc. for $28,760.00 for design services and contract administration for the Savannah Place Park Gymnasium. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 7. Deleted from consent agenda. 8. Deleted from consent agenda. 9. Deleted from consent agenda. 10. Deleted from consent agenda. 11. Motion to approve award of parking management contract at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field for a three-year period to Republic/Payne Parking, as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 12. Deleted from consent agenda. 13. Motion to approve the conveyance of façade easement to owner and cancel Security Deed on property located at 921-927 Laney-Walker Boulevard to 4 facilitate the purchase of property by ANIC for new office facility. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 13, 2001) 14. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $20,000 in Community DevelopmentBlock Grant funds for Neighborhood Beautification Projects in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood and other targeted low-income areas. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 13, 2001) PUBLIC SAFETY: 15. Motion to accept contract with Southern LINC regarding the implementation of E911 Phase I Wireless Service. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 13, 2001) 16. Motion to approve the quotation from New World for software agreement for 28 new Mobile Data Units to be added to the existing Mobile Data System for the Sheriff’s Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 13, 2001) 17. Motion to approve the termination of the current contracts with ChequePointe Software and RAN Services and approve entering into contracts with Cornerstone Logic, Inc. for FBO Manager software, related hardware, and services. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 13, 2001) 18. Motion to approve the lease agreement between the Unitarian Universalist Church of Augusta and Augusta Richmond County Commission for property located adjacent to Fire Station #9, consisting of 0.16 acre. This lease agreement will begin January 1, 2002. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 13, 2001) FINANCE: 19. Motion to approve refunding 1999 taxes paid in error in the amount of $20.35 to Groves Suites on business account no. 1342782. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 20. Motion to approve the abatement balance of 2001 taxes on property known as 3103 Chelsea Drive. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 21. Motion to abate ad valorem taxes for 2001 for Augusta Boxing Club property at 1929 Walton Way. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 22. Motion to approve allowing the Coroner of Jefferson County, Georgia to purchase one surplus Crown Victoria from the Augusta Commission through the auction process at the minimum amount of $2,500 subject to the appraisal of the Fleet Manager. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 23. Motion to abate tax balance for 2001 for Map 18-3, Parcel 121 (Bryan H. and Gloria G. Boltz). (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 24. Motion to abate taxes for 2001 on property known as Map 34-1, Parcel 311. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 25. Motion to abate balance of 2001 taxes on Map 37-3, Parcel 106. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 5 26. Motion to abate balance of 2001 taxes, Map 6, Parcel 15, Richard N. Ransom, Jr. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 27. Motion to abate taxes on the following: Map 70-4, Parcel 12; Map 70-4, Parcel 69; Map 87-3, Parcel 177. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 28. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the Imperial Theater, Inc. in the amount of $150,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 29. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 15,000 GVW Fire Rescue Truck for the Augusta Regional Airport from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $42,662.96 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-119). (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) 30. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the East Central Georgia Regional Library in the amounts set forth, and for the projects listed: (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2001) Materials for new facilities: $100,000.00 for the calendar year 2001 $100,000.00 for the calendar year 2002 $200,000.00 for the calendar year 2003 $200,000.00 for the calendar year 2004 $400,000.00 for the calendar year 2005 South Augusta Branch: $1,625,000.00 for the calendar year 2002 Main Branch: $1,500,000.00 for the calendar year 2002 $1,000,000.00 for the calendar year 2004 $4,875,000.00 for the calendar year 2005 ENGINEERING SERVICES: 31. Motion to approve condemnation against Janelle Watson, W. Mikell Watson, and Patricia W. Warren as Trustees under the LWT of James M. Watson, as owners, and Augusta Georgia, for the following captioned located at 3139 Peach Orchard Road: 887 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 885 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 32. Motion to approve condemnation against W. Mikell Watson, Patricia W. Warren and L. B. Folley, Jr. for the captioned property located at 3139 Peach Orchard Road: 724 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 548 square feet, more or less of temporary construction easement (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 33. Motion to authorize condemnation against property identified as Tax Map 18, Parcel 3.1. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 6 34. Motion to approve condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 98-2, Parcel 105, which is owned by Thomas Mangelly and LaRue Mangelly, for right-of-way on the Bungalow Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 35. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $13,568 to provide the design for a chlorine injection system for the Greenland Elevated Storage Tank Site. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 36. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $39,470 to provide an economic evaluation of the final three options for the Central Connector Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 37. Motion to approve proposed list of streets for resurfacing by County forces (CF01A) to be forwarded to Georgia Department of Transportation for approval to utilize asphalt from their asphalt plant located in Augusta Richmond County. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 38. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 54, which is owned by Gwendolyn B. Bussey and Dion L. Booker, for a right-of- way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 343.20 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 837.01 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 39. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 52, which is owned by Jean B. Stout and John B. Stout, for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 648.19 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 370.50 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 143, which is owned by Theron F. Parks and Jean Hernandez, for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 313.78 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 1,300.91 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 44, which is owned by AOF/Augusta Affordable Housing Corporation, for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 42. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 98-2, Parcel 23, which is owned by Pak Kwan Chan, Siu Pik Cheng and Pui Yin Chan, for right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 43. Motion to approve condemnation against Daniel F. Hollingsworth for the captioned property located at 3123 Peach Orchard Road: 5’ wide, 500 square feet, temporary construction easement located adjacent toan existing 7 permanent easement on the subject land. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 44. Motion to approve condemnation against Dr. David B. Avery for the captioned properties located at 3041 Peach Orchard Road and 3039 Peach Orchard Road: a permanent 20’ wide, 2,999 square feet utility easement located at 3041 Peach Orchard Road and a temporary 20’ wide, 683 square feet utility easement located adjacent to the permanent easement; and a permanent 20’ wide, 1,360 square feet utility easement located at 3039 Peach Orchard Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 45. Motion to approve a project for construction of new office space for the Public Works and Engineering Department in conjunction with construction of the new building for the Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 46. Motion to approve Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation on the construction of Transportation Control Center Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 47. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Ok Cha Kervin, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $12,346.00: 2,660.08 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 630.79 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) 48. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 107, Parcel 832.2, which is owned by Meridian Trust Company, for a temporary construction easement in connection with the Barton Chapel Road Improvement Project, Phase II, more particularly described as 4394.88 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 49. Motion to approve the regular minutes of the Commission meeting held Wednesday, November 7 and the Special Called meeting held Tuesday, November 13, 2001. APPOINTMENT: 50. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Scott Levine to the Riverfront Development Committee representing District 6. ATTORNEY: 51. Deleted from consent agenda. 52. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta Richmond County Code Section 3-5-86 so as to permit motorized carts on certain designated streets under the conditions set forth, and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission November 17, 2001 – second reading) 8 Mr. Mayor: Any others? We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 45, and 51. Are there any other items? All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Since we have a large group of people here for item 8, let’s go ahead and take that one up, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 8. Motion to approve a request by Carl F. Cain for a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Smith-Bell Petroleum located at 3020 Tobacco Road in accordance with conditions Tobacco Rd. District 4. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) (16 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Stewart, you want to tell us about this? Mr. Walker: This meets all the requirements of License & Inspection Department and has been approved by the Sheriff’s Department. We recommended approval in Committee and it was approved. Mr. Mayor: All right. And we have some objectors to this. Is there a spokesman for the group or some of you who would like to speak? Yes, sir, if you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Turko: My name is Jim Turko. I reside at 4680 Rollins Road, Augusta, Georgia 30906. And I’m representing Friendship United Methodist Church as an organization. We’re opposed to the liquor license. I’ll be brief here, but the church was originally built in 1864 and served the community there. It was rebuilt in 1914. The present structure has been built in 1906, but since that time in 1864 we’ve been outreaching the nurturing the community there, raising children there. In fact, in our church we have members here that have five generations of family in that church, where no alcohol has been served. Now the location of our church kind of looks down on the convenience store across the street, and it’s true by the letter of the law, door to door they are more than 300 feet apart, but the actual properties are not that far apart. Just the width of Tobacco Road. But we don’t want to unduly influence any of our children or members of our church with drinking. There is also a community center, I believe, in the subdivision right behind there that would probably adversely be affected, too. That’s what I have to say. And as Christians, we just oppose it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Any others who would like to speak? Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come forward and give us your name and address for the record, please. 9 Ms. Braswell: My name is Patricia Braswell. I reside at 2148 Greene Street, Augusta 30904. I am a member of Friendship United Methodist Church, and as a member and working with children and teens in the church, I, too, along with other church members, oppose the liquor license. We don’t oppose the store as such because it would certainly be an asset to us with teen activities and things of that nature that we would need Cokes and ice and things of that nature for. But as far as the liquor license, I think it would be putting an influence on our children and our teenagers as they see people going in and out on Sunday, especially, buying liquor and other things that they just don’t need to see. And I think it would also add a lot of traffic to Tobacco Road that we don’t need across from the church. Again, as a church member and having children of my own, I’m definitely opposed to it. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any others? Is the petitioner here? Mr. Cain: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to come up and be heard? Mr. Cain: If I could, just a second. Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, you may. You are Mr. Cain? Mr. Cain: I am, sir. I guess the first thing, I just want to take a minute or two and I’m probably going to say some things to you Commissioners that you’re already quite aware of. I’d also like to say to the church that I’m very sensitive to what you’re saying. I have children and grandchildren, too. I am also a Christian; okay? There are a couple of things I’d like to -- misconceptions that I think that involve the church. First of all, obviously we’re not applying for a liquor license; we’re applying for beer and wine. Secondly, there would be no beer or wine sold on Sunday. I understand that’s a requirement here in Augusta, and if it wasn’t a requirement we still would not do that on Sunday, because in deference to the church. Some folks seem to think that a convenience store is not a substantial investment. I’d just like to point out a few things. First of all, the building, equipment, property represents a $1.2 million initial investment. We pay a payroll in excess of $2,000 per week to store personnel who work at that store. We have seven employees. Of course, as any business, we pay taxes to all levels of government -- state, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Federal excise and all that. The other thing I wanted to point out -- I think that the previous owners may have left -- the previously operators, actually, may have left a bad taste in people’s mouth. They did not just close its door when the Stop & Shop people left; they walked away from stores in three states, South Carolina, Tennessee, as well as those in Georgia. However, this was the only store that did not sell beer and wine. Smith-Bell took this store over in April, approximately seven months ago. We did not immediately apply for a beer and wine license, and there were several reasons for that. One, we wanted to find out what the community wanted, and we wanted to talk to community leaders to see what was going on there. That was number one. Number two, we wanted to be able to let the community know that we were 10 going to be responsible operators, whether there was beer and wine there or not. A convenience store can create problems for a community if it’s not operated responsibly. It becomes a focal point for activity other than what is desirable in a community, so you have to be a responsible operator to keep that from happening. And a third thing we wanted to find out for ourselves is could we in fact operate that convenience store without a beer and wine license, without selling beer and wine, and operate it profitably. Now we’ve listened to the community, and I think we’ve listened intently, and I think that we have either implemented all of the recommendations that was put before us or are in the process of implementing those recommendations. We have agreed to stipulations. Smith-Bell is a tenant with a long-term lease on that store, but with the ability to purchase that store, and if we purchase that store we would be willing to put those stipulations I think that the community would like in there to make sure that these things occur on a long-term basis. So we have done that. Unfortunately in the approximately seven months we’ve run the store, we have not had a break-even. Now I could quote statistics from the National Association of Convenience Stores about what beer and wine does to a convenience store, but simply put, without beer and wine we lose those potential sales, but the loss of those sales also impacts other categories such as bread, gas, chips, milk, cigarettes, candy, etc. People simply go to where they buy their beer and wine and get all these other things. All business units must ultimately stand alone and not only pay for themselves but show an acceptable profit. All of us know that as businessmen. If a unit does not pay for itself, the rapid demise of that business is inevitable. If we must close the store because we cannot make it a profitable operation, the community will lose a clean, attractive store that offers very competitive prices in that community. And for a while, at least, that store will be vacant while another operator in another type of business can be found, if one can be found. Not to mention the seven people that would lose their jobs. I do hope that you will grant us an application. If you do, I assure you that we will continue to be sensitive to the needs of the community and we will work with the church to try to help them with what they have objections to. That’s all I have, gentlemen. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions? Comments? What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is improperly listed as District 4. This is actually in District 6. And having spoken numerous times with the neighborhoods in those areas, Sand Ridge, members of the church, there was an expressed concern last year when we went through this particular business about loitering and other things that may have occurred. Those things have not happened, and a lot of that’s attributed to not having that beer and wine license at that establishment. We have been passed out a map here by our Attorney and it shows you the high density of homes in that area. We have a major cloverleaf going in, very little in the way of road work that will be done from about the point of this store down past Sand Ridge. There’s a lot of reasons that I think we should continue to deny this particular license, the main reason being that the neighborhood around there who supports our community center and operates it, the streets where children still play and walk to and from the community center and to each other’s homes, are all in very good staid right now. That’s what we need to preserve, so I make a motion at this point in time that we deny this license. 11 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to deny that has been seconded. Discussion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think there is a gentleman from the neighborhood association that wants to speak. Mr. Mayor: All right, sir, if you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Sikes: Sammy Sikes, 3839 Crest Drive, Hephzibah. I spoke at the Public Service Committee meeting and normally we in the church agree on about one percent of the things and we initially opposed this beer and wine license request by that store. Now one of the reasons why we opposed it was some of the reasons that Commissioner Cheek just mentioned. And we asked those store owners to address those issues. And one of those issues included installing a fence, additional lighting, loitering, and the conditions of putting those requirements on to any subsequent owners and also those same conditions with this beer and wine request, and the owners subsequently submitted to those voluntarily, which made it part of the application. So with that in mind, as far as the actual beer and wine itself goes, we don’t object to that as long as those conditions are me. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Beard, did you have your hand up? Mr. Beard: I just wondered -- and maybe I didn’t hear. Stewart, did they meet all the requirements? Mr. Walker: Yes, sir, they did. Mr. Beard: Okay. That’s all. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, who hasn’t spoken yet? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Mr. Cheek, I don’t think a lot has changed in the year’s time for the reasons that we denied this license previously. Obviously the church is still in opposition to it. We do have that discretion in our ordinance to consider things like proximity to churches, proximity to school. There’s a new school being built just across Highway 1 at Fort Gordon, so you’re going to have a school near you after that’s completed. As you can tell from this map that was passed out earlier, we’re not denying anybody the right to buy alcohol from anywhere in the vicinity should they desire to do so. There are already several locations up and down Tobacco Road, in fact on either of this one, that you can buy beer and wine or alcohol, so we’re not denying anybody that. And I would propose those reasons for denying this license once again. 12 Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And the follow up on what Commissioner Bridges said, you can drive, literally drive probably no more than several hundred yards, a couple of hundred yard on Tobacco Road and you can find an establishment selling beer and wine. The thing that we don’t have -- we have plenty of convenience store development. What we don’t have out there is the nice restaurants and other stores that people have asked so much for. This is a step in the wrong direction, and due to the fact that there’s already a dozen or so businesses located on Tobacco Road that sell beer and wine, I don’t think this is something that’s of benefit to the community as much as it is a profit-making tool. So I urge my colleagues to consider denying this. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make the motion that we approve this license as it was approved by Committee with all stipulations attached. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve with the stipulations. Any further discussion? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’m not sure he went over all the stipulations that he pointed out in the Public Service meeting, and you might want to do that. Mr. Mayor: Are those contained in the back-up information? Well, Stewart, do you have the stipulations? Mr. Walker: No, sir, I do not. The Clerk: They’re in your back-up. Mr. Mayor: All right. The Clerk: You want me to read them into the record? Mr. Mayor: If you would, Madame Clerk, read those into the record. 13 The Clerk: This is a retail wine license request, reference Carl F. Cain, request for beer and wine license in connection with Smith-Bell Petroleum located at 3020 Tobacco Road. The following conditions are requested pursuant to a license being issues: Install and maintain two additional street pole lights of high intensity. Do not conduct or allow an activity that may attract potential acts of disorderly conduct or noise violation, such as block parties, auto detailing, concerts, etc. Car washes and other family oriented events aren’t an issue. Vigorously enforce a no loitering policy and do not allow individuals to conduct personal business on the premises. Install and maintain a 6-foot fence around the policy. This fence will enclose the New Karleen Rd. side of the start at the property including the side parking lot. Additionally this fence will extend out on the opposite side an appropriate number of feet to prevent loitering. Additionally, it is requested that these conditions be imposed as a site requirement and transferred to any future owners. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I just -- that’s part of your motion? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: I just wanted to make it part of the record. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the substitute motion to grant the license with those stipulations, please vote aye. And while they’re voting, let me welcome Commissioner-Elect Tommy Boyles to the table up here. (Vote on substitute motion with stipulations) Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. Mays not voting. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. Mayor: So the license has been approved. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. That will take us back to -- let’s go back to item number 7. Mr. Cheek asked for that one to be pulled. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we do item number 9 [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, at the request of Commissioner Brigham, let’s take up items 9 and 10, and then we’ll go back to item 7. 14 The Clerk: I beg your pardon, sir? Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up items 9 and 10 at the request of Commissioner Jerry Brigham, and then we’ll go back to item 7. The Clerk: 9. Motion to approve the suspension of the Alcohol License until all taxes are paid and after which six-month probation for Henry McLendon for Goodfellas Food & Spirits (Henry’s) located at 3328 Washington Rd. for the following violation: failure to pay excise taxes. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) 10. Motion to approve the revocation of the Alcohol Beverage License held by Charlie Sturgis for Top of the Hill Lounge located at 2306 Gordon Highway for the following violation: failure to pay excise taxes. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Brigham, you wanted some discussion on this? Mr. J. Brigham: I think License has some information about 10. I’m not sure about 9. Mr. Walker: Number 9, Mr. McLendon has not finished paying the taxes, so if it passes today his license would be suspended until they paid. He still owes April and all the penalties. The only recommendation I would make was that according to y’all policies before, the first offense on alcohol has been one year probation, not six months, and I would recommendation we do one year probation on them and recommend on that one, what you pass that with a one year probation instead of six months. On number 10, Mr. Sturgis, Top of the Hill, has paid all his taxes up to date, plus penalty, interest and everything as of today. He paid some last week, finished up today. We recommend that you approve his license for 2002 and put him on probation for 12 months. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you had indicated you wanted to be heard on one or both of these items, 9 and 10? Mr. Wall: Number 10. I think that -- Mr. Walker: Mr. [inaudible] can tell you [inaudible] Mr. Berry: We’re going to withdraw the complaint on that one. Everything was worked out regarding the [inaudible] taken out. We’re going to withdraw the complaint [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: You’re withdrawing your complaint on item 10? 15 Mr. Berry: Yes, sir. Mr. J. Brigham: If a motion is in order, I’m going to make a motion that we on Item #9 suspend the license until all taxes are paid, and once they are paid, that they are placed on a 12-month probation. I think that’s the only change in that as to what’s [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. You want to go ahead and do item 10, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham? On Item 10, I would make a motion that we place them on a 12-month probation for failure to pay excise taxes. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: We’re going to do that in item 7. Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. Mr. Mayor: So we have a second to the motion. Any discussion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Jim, I guess four years ago we did an ordinance in which there is step we went through for these people that violated alcohol license or didn’t pay the taxes, and that type of thing. Is this consistent with that ordinance? I think there were like four steps before we actually just closed the doors. Mr. Wall: Well --- Mr. Bridges: Mr. Walker is saying it is. Mr. Walker: This is -- that’s why I changed from six months to 12 months probation. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Walker: The first step was 12 months probation. I looked it back up in the office. Mr. Bridges: Okay. That answers it. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments? So the motion is to approve items 9 and 10. Number 9, that would be a suspension until the taxes are paid, followed by a 12-month probation. Then item 10 would be 12 months probation. All in favor of the motion on items 9 and 10, please vote aye. 16 Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: All right. Now we’ll go back to item number 7. The Clerk: 7. Motion to approve a request by the License & Inspections Department to renew all the Alcohol Beverage Licenses, Sunday Sales, Wholesale Dealers & Adult Entertainment in Augusta Richmond County for the year 2002 with the exception of Top of the Hill Lounge. District 1 thru 8. Super District 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked this item be pulled. Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with passing these through on a blanket because most of them obey the law and don’t cause problems, but there are several within this city that there are repeated histories of fights and DUIs and things, and I would hope that in the future we could use this particular time of the year to remind them that they need to tighten up and maybe get a status report on the problem ones, like we had Tinted Windows this last year, had some problems, and we agreed to work with them. That we get a status report on how they have done as to our instructions and have that accompany this blanket perhaps next year. Mr. Mayor: Thank you so. So we’ll entertain a motion, and I would guess we would exclude the exception of Top of the Hill Lounge? Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Was there a motion? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard moves with the exception of -- Mr. Beard: Of the Top of the Hill Lounge. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second from Mr. Henry Brigham. Mr. Shepard, you seconded? Mr. Shepard: It doesn’t matter. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? 17 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification there. Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Williams: If I can, and you’re saying exception of Top of the Hill, that means they are not under -- Mr. Mayor: No, they’re included in that. Because we put them on 12 months’ probation. Mr. Williams: I just wanted to make sure we are clear. Mr. Mayor: We took that out. Mr. Williams: Okay, we took that out. All right, sir. Mr. Mayor: So he’s treated like everybody else. Mr. Williams: That’s all I’m asking. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I am going to vote no against Sunday sales. Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that. Anyone else? Mr. Bridges: Same here, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m not voting for any alcohol license with adult entertainment in violation of our ordinance. Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that. Anyone else? Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on all requests for Sunday sales. Mr. J. Brigham votes No on all requests for Adult Entertainment. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 12. The Clerk: 12. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1793 18 Martin Luther King Boulevard, 1033 Brayton Street, 1102-1120 Columbus nd Lane (District 2, Super District 9) and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 13, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, do you want to brief us on this? And I think Mr. Pittman wants to be heard. Mr. Sherman: This is just a continuation of our program to demolish the unsafe and inhabitable structures. This is -- I believe it’s indicating four addresses, but it’s actually six properties. It has been approved by the historical -- three location, six properties. Mr. H. Brigham: I move for approval. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. H. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that. Mr. Pittman? Mr. Pittman: I just wanted, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, to point out the fact that the Historic Preservation Commission respectfully asks that any properties in the Historic Districts that are slated or requested for demolition come before our Commission, and not go through the Administrative Services Committee so that we have no opportunity to challenge such demolitions. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Pittman. Anyone else want to be heard? Motion to approval. All in favor of the motion please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Next is number 45. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to defer to Commissioner Shepard on this. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s read the caption on this. The Clerk: 45. Motion to approve a project for construction of new office space for the Public Works and Engineering Department in conjunction with construction of the new building for the Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Shepard? 19 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I needed a little additional help on where all the money is coming from. And maybe Max and Teresa could help us out here, if they’re here, or George. Let me tell you the line item that I question. We have a current, I guess, Augusta utilities bond which we passed in 2000 which would be source of $1.5 million. Then we have a future 2000 bond. Well, we can’t have a future 2000 bond. My basic question is do we have all the money for this project, or will future bond issue be required to contribute to this project? Mr. Hicks: Insofar as the construction of the Utilities Department facilities, I don’t think the $1.5 million would pay for all that we’d like to do under that campus concept, but it would definitely be able to buy some land, get the architectural work or engineering work done, and then we were -- depending on how much it would then cost, depending on the site and the concept that was developed, we would have additional funds in a future bond issue. We had anticipated in the 2002 bond issue. But you’re right about that 2000 bond issue has to stand on its own, and we just put enough money in there to get started with it, and then we’d have to proceed from there. I don’t know about Ms. Smith’s funds. Public Works. Mr. Shepard: Right. But I mean, my point was you’re hoping to have us include in a future issue at least $4.1 million in this? Mr. Hicks: Yes. Mr. Shepard: Is this more of a conceptual thing today -- Mr. Hicks: It is. Mr. Shepard: Down payment type thing or what are we doing, Max? Mr. Hicks: It is. The main reason for wanting to bring this forward was so that the Commission would agree in concept to having a campus-type facility development on which there would be located Public Works, Utilities, and then we’d really like for License & Inspection and Planning & Zoning to be a part of it as they could so that people in our county who needed to get a building permit or needed to do some things would just have one cluster of buildings to go rather than having to drive from Marvin Griffin Road to Central Avenue or Peach Orchard Road or Bay Street or the Municipal Building, but rather to have us in an area. Mr. Shepard: And location, if I could follow up with one last question -- location would be determined based on a future recommendation, I take it, Max? Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. This today would just be an approval in concept. We wanted to make sure that that was all right with the Commission and that the Commission felt good about the concept of having a campus-type facility. Now whether it could ever be a reality [inaudible], Commissioner Williams will want to address that. I’ll just hush on that and let him -- 20 Mr. Mayor: Max, let me ask you a question. With respect to the $1.5 million out of the current bond, if this concept is approved today, does that authorize you to go ahead and begin the engineering work and design work on the facility with the $1.5 million you already have? Mr. Hicks: It would approve the concept. We would then have to move forward with an engineer/architect. Mr. Mayor: So some things will happen based on the vote today? Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And then we’d have to come back to the Commission, of course, to approve. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Bridges appointed me Chairman of a Subcommittee for this concept, for this campus-type setup. And what we tried to do was to not procrastinate as we have done in a lot of other situations and try to get those things in place to go ahead and start to moving forward, and we thought bringing this concept to the Commission to let them know what we are trying to do and what we want to do, we are renting spaces, we got different entities in our government spread out all over the city, we talked about the campus concept and we thought once we brought this to this group, we could go from then and do the step so we wouldn’t be spinning our wheels sort of. But to bring you up-to-day and to bring you aware of what we’ve been doing, we’ve been meeting trying to decide on a location. We have not narrowed down a site yet. But those are the things that we are working on and we think that if we can get this part passed and this part through, then we’ll be able to go to the next step or the next phase and that way we won’t be just sitting here talking about what we need to do and we be doing something as we progress. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as the other Commissioner on that committee, I’d like to follow along with what Commissioner William said and add that there’s a half million dollars of state money for a traffic center that will provide the equipment in this construction. There are also monies available from the state to do construction work, should we get to that point. We have also looked at an auxiliary 911 center perhaps being located at this site, and several other smaller offices that would help us bring a lot of things together under one roof and share some costs in building maintenance and security and so forth. I just want to make sure for my purposes, now we discussed the inclusion of, with several other sites, the potential renovation and utilization of the Ward’s building at the Regency Mall complex. Now that does not eliminate this with this language does it? Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham and then Mr. Beard. 21 Mr. H. Brigham: I was noticing that we had in the backup 22,000 Public Works and 20,000 for Utilities and another 20,000 for [inaudible] operations. And I think you mentioned some other possibilities a few minutes ago. Do you have any idea how much space that would be? Mr. Hicks: No, sir. If you’re talking about the warehouse-type facility, not only warehouse but also if we could, there was a desire expressed that we could have some Fleet Maintenance facilities in that vicinity also, because probably outside of the Sheriff’s Department and the Fire Department, probably Public Works and Utilities have more trucks than any other group, so it would seem to be a good thing to have in that same vicinity. We don’t know what that would cost right at this time. It would not be an essential part of it, but it’s just something to think about. Mr. H. Brigham: But you have no objections of other agencies coming in and carrying some of their weight, if not all of it? Mr. Hicks: No, sir. In other words, we would, as far as the last cost and everything goes, we would anticipate that everyone would be able to pay a fair share of it. But no, we think that the citizens would be better served, frankly, to have as much of it together as we could. Mr. H. Brigham: I think Mr. Williams said that there was a possible time table. Do you have any idea what kind of time table we’d be talking about? Two years, three years? Mr. Hicks: The real pressing issue is that building the Department of Transportation has some money -- is Teresa in? She could probably comment. Okay, George could comment on that. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have a letter from GDOT advising us that we would lose the grant by June 30, July 1 of next year if we don’t undertake preliminary design and have those -- all items -- site selection, preliminary plans drawn, etc., by that time. We could lose the grant. So we are moving forward because we do have the funding in place for both Public Works and Utilities. Now it is our intent to locate a site that could potentially include other facilities that are either not yet planned or financed at this point in time. But we can go forward with these two buildings funding is in place and since a leg of that funding formula is in jeopardy at this time. Mr. H. Brigham: Can we make that time table? Mr. Kolb: We can make that time table if we start immediately, which we have done. We’ve been instructed by the subcommittee to move forward and bring this concept to the Commission for authorization to go forward. 22 Mr. H. Brigham: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, first of all, I really don’t have any strong objections to the concept, but it just appears to me from what I’ve heard here is a lot of fragmentation, and I think -- I’ve heard from different people and it appears to me, and maybe that’s just my slow thinking, that everybody is coming up with something just a little different touch to all of this, and I think maybe before we really proceed with this, we should get something more definitive. Now if I haven’t heard that, maybe it’s my fault because I wasn’t in on the Engineering Services Committee meeting. But from what I’m hearing here today, it’s a little frightening. The funding source, the locations, we’ve got several. We’re talking about -- I heard the other day in one of the meetings we’re talking about something for the DA. So where are we going in this direction? To me it should be a little more definitive as to which direction we’re going, where we’re going with that. And I keep hearing one person saying that we have the funding for this and the others saying we have a leg of it. And I just don’t know. I have a lot of questions about this. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, did you want to be heard? I saw you approach the podium just a moment ago. Ms. Smith: Well, the thing that I’d like to attempt to clarify on this is that the purpose for the agenda item is to provide us with approval from the Commission to move forward with developing the concept, to look at the pros and cons associated with a campus concept, or to look at the feasibility of other sites and other alternatives. Currently the Public Works Department does not have authorization to spend any money or to take any action to pull together anything to propose to you. And that is the primary purpose of the agenda item and what it is that we are trying to move forward with with this particular item. There are funding sources identified in the agenda item for both Public Works and for Utilities. I believe Mr. Hicks’ funds are in his -- some of it are in the initial bonds, others will come with later bonds. The Public Works funds are identified in Phase III of the sales tax for administration space, and then we’ve got the $1 million Georgia Department of Transportation has indicated is available for the traffic control center. What becomes critical on this is if we do not move forward with this project and we are deciding to put the traffic control center in with a Public Works administration, the Department of Transportation has basically indicated that if we are not prepared to use the $1 million that they have set aside for the TTC Center, that they will be looking into other avenues for utilizing these funds, and so it is important for us to give them some indication and information that demonstrates that we are interested in holding on the $1 million, as well as the regional transportation control center they’re interested in funding. If we do the transportation control center separate from this and move forward with that project, the matching costs associated with it is approximately $775,000. If we do it in conjunction with this facility, regardless of where the facility is located, we can use the match as the real estate, wherever it may be, and then the design costs associated with it as our match for the $1 million we’re going to get from the Georgia Department of Transportation. 23 Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think this is a good measure. I think our staff and subcommittee has done a good job in bringing this to us. This is a concept. We’re approving this in concept. A secondary purpose of this is to tie, I guess you would say tie the Georgia Department of Transportation dollars to assist us in this project, and I think it would be a good, smart business move and government move on our part to do that. We’re purchasing no property with this move, we’re hiring no architect or firm to build any kind of building or design any kind of concept with this motion. That will come later. That will come before the Commission for discussion and So with that, Mr. Mayor, I’d the motion that we approve approval or disapproval. the motion as stated. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the chairman of this committee, I understand what Mr. Beard was saying, but I want to reiterate we’re not a town as we think of anymore. This is a city. This is the second largest city in the state of Georgia. We are in the age of 2002 almost now and we need to come out of the woods and come to the lights of the city. There is a lot of things that’s going happen, not with your traffic control and Public Works and Utilities, but we need to start to plan, and as the chairman of this committee I reassured the committee that the Commission wouldn’t have any problem accepting this concept in order for us to get off first base, because we spend a lot of time talking and there’s a lot of other things we been talking and talking and talking about, but we have not done anything. And I certainly hope that the Commission would understand we’re not trying to pull anything over on anybody, we’re not trying to get any money from any other source that it shouldn’t be gotten from. This is time for us to go ahead and move on something and progressive rather than sit back and watch everybody else progress. So I understand those concerns from those people who may have some concerns, but this is a legitimate, good effort for this city to be the second-largest city that it’s supposed to be and act like it. So let us accept this concept, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. Are we ready to vote? Or do you want to keep talking? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Is the maker of the motion asking for us to approve -- you didn’t put it in the motion, Ulmer, that we’re approving it in concept. Is it? Mr. Bridges: I’ll accept that as part of the motion. Mr. Shepard: I think that’s appropriate. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. All right. Mr. Cheek? 24 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is the logical progression in the process of site selection and building. We have sent to scope out, we’ve taken the information from the staff, we’ve listened to what their input in and the many reams of data that they have. We’ve put our two cents’ worth in. Initially the scope should be broad. That way we can narrow down what we can afford and can’t afford. The next step for us is to look at site location and some other developmental tools before we make the final decision. But this is quite a natural step in the progression of things and it’s been well thought out. The problem that we have when we have a narrow scope and a full purpose to begin with is we have change orders because that scope changes when we get toward the end of the project. And so now we’ve included as broad a scope as possible to get all the information and be able to look where savings are and are not, and I just encourage folks to support this. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, I want to say, Mr. Mayor, is that as I said at the beginning I have no problem with the concept, but I did hear in someone’s conversation that there would be some funding for the design and you were moving forward with that. I think I did hear that, and this was basically my objection to that. And I don’t care what size city we are, we still have to have funding, we have to have a funding source, and we have to know where we are going. Those are my comments and I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called on the motion to approve the concept. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: All right. The next item is item number 51. The Clerk: 51. Motion to approve an Ordinance requiring decals to be affixed to certain motor vehicles owned or leased by Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Commission November 17, 2001 - second reading) Mr. Mayor: All right, this is the second reading of that motion. Commissioner Williams, you asked it be pulled. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wanted some clarification on that word “certain.” We did specify that the law enforcement and I think inspectors in that realm would not be sealed but everything else would be sealed except for these exceptions we voted for, for the Mayor’s car; is that right? I just want to get a clarification on that. Ms. Flournoy: [inaudible] 25 Mr. Williams: Okay, I just wanted a clarification for that word “certain” though to be -- Ms. Flournoy: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, it says in the backup any vehicle used for law enforcement or prosecution purposes and any vehicle assigned for the transportation of the Mayor. Those are the only exceptions. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve a second. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, does the Coroner’s vehicle, I’ll ask the Attorney or the author of the ordinance -- does the Coroner’s vehicle or is the Coroner’s vehicle considered one for law enforcement purposes? I know he’d come in there and asked that that be exempted. He is an elected official. Mr. Wall: I would think that it would be included in there. I would hope that it would be. I’m not sure if the statute is that -- Mr. Shepard: Specific. Mr. Wall: Specific. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible], do you know? Ms. Flournoy: I was agreeing, that is my position it’s there for law enforcement purposes. Mr. Shepard: As was the Warden of RCCI, that’s clearly law enforcement. Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Wall: The Warden definitely is, and I think the Coroner would fall in that same category. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion or any questions? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? 26 Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I would just going to lighten it up a little bit since I think he’s the only one that arrest the Sheriff. Mr. Shepard: I appreciate that, Mr. Mays. I think you’re absolutely right. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the ordinance then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us over to our regular agenda. Do we have any groups of people who are here on behalf of any of these zoning issues today? We could take any of those up first. Yes, which item is that? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and take that one up then. The Clerk: 55. Z-01-35 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with three conditions, 1) the development will not exceed the 57 units shown on the original site plan, 2) all units will be located outside of the 100 year flood plain, 3) all units will be constructed for sale, not lease; a petition from TCA, LLC, on behalf of Frederick F. Kennedy, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located on a point located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a distance of 302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s Creek intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road. (Approximately 14.6 acres) DISTRICT 7 (Postponed from the July 3 and September 4, Commission meetings) (Objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with this? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we hear from the petitioner? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we certainly can. Give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Belangia: Woody Belangia, 4269 Colony Square. Mr. Mayor: Okay. 27 Mr. Belangia: What I’m requesting here, and this is a slight change from what you see there, is we’ve done some engineering work and we’ve determined really only 30 units can go on the property, so this would be 30 [inaudible] 57 units. First I’ll describe the property and then I’ll go through with how I think it’s consistent with zoning, then I’ll describe the engineering issues involved and finally why I think it’s a good deal for Augusta Richmond County. First of all, the property, what we’re proposing are 30 fee simple town homes on four, a little over four of those 14 acres you see there. They would be almost invisible from the road by the time the landscape develops in a few years, and they’re nice two-bedroom, two-bath homes. As far as the planning issues, the Planning Commission has unanimously voted to approve this the first couple of times it came up and they’re sticking by that. It’s consisting with the zoning in the area. It’s directly across the street from a multi-family apartment complex. Its immediate neighbor to the left as you’re facing out to the street is a nursing home, and its closest neighbor to the right is a service station. I think my prior objectors are Briarcliff Subdivision, and the development from -- 28 of the 30 units are completed occluded by the nursing home buildings from Briarcliff Subdivision. The remaining two units are separated by 700 feet of vegetative barrier. It won’t be seen from Briarcliff Subdivision whatsoever. Regarding the engineering questions, I was asked the last time to gather more information concerning the engineering, to meet with the City Engineer. This I have done. We have taken extensive topographic study of the land. We’ve determined that we have less developable land than we thought before, and that accounts for the thirty [inaudible] units. We’re proposing nothing within the 100 year flood plan per regulation. Secondly, we’ll have no finished floor that’s more than 32 inches -- less than 32 inches above the floor plain, which is about the height of this rail, which will give you some idea. We’ve talked to the Traffic Engineer. He’s agreed that Boy Scout Road -- the traffic will be a minimal impact on Boy Scout Road. Visibility from the project is excellent, and I’m confident it’s a development property. We’re requesting a down zoning from professional to multi-family residential. Four months ago, it was possible to build multi- family on professional. It’s only recently that the rules have been changed where you have to actually request the change of zoning. We submitted the plans actually before that change went into effect. Now let me talk about why I think it’s a good deal for Augusta. First of all, we have 30 increased property tax homes. It’s a boon to a housing start. Any housing start is a boon to a sluggish economy, and we’re certainly in that now. And lastly, we’re prepared to donate by stipulation or otherwise up to 50% of the 14 acres to the city of Augusta as part of the green belt program and for flood control area. To give you some sort of idea of the neighborhood makeup and the sort of community, I’ve invited Mike Vandiver, who is one of our agents who has sold more of these than I’ve built. Mr. Vandiver: How are you doing? I’m Mike Vandiver, 301 Twin Pines Drive, Augusta, Georgia. I’ve represented ATC in a site off of Wheeler Road. We’re doing the same type of project there now that we’re proposing at this site. They do a very nice entrance going into the development, and entrance that you normally would expect to find in a price range that’s twice or three times what we’re being here. They budget for a lot of extra and a variety of landscaping on the site. We sell primarily -- our clients are 28 40% retirement age couples that sell more expensive properties and scale down and buy these town homes. We get maybe 35% to 40% single adults that are predominantly ladies that buy, young mothers with children and young professional ladies. And we get may 20% to 25% of first time home buyers that are married couples. It’s a good product and it’s a product that we need and continue to need in this area. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Is your project on Wheeler Road adjacent to the flood plain? Mr. Vandiver: We’ve got some flood plain near us in Wheeler Road. Mr. Mayor: Is it adjacent to it? Like this would be? It’s not? Mr. Vandiver: I don’t think it is. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from some of the neighbors that want to speak. I know we’ve got your comments on the record, but if you want to restate those and refresh our memories. Mr. Cruse: Sam Cruse, 2710 Kipling Court. When we left the last time, when the issue came before the Commission, Mr. Belangia was outside, and Mr. Krouse, who is on the Planning Commission, and Mr. Krouse made the comment to me, he said, what would you rather have, professional or residential? Well, in our community, and I still don’t understand why Mr. Krouse asked me that question, but in our community the issue is professional people leave at 5 p.m. Now I know where that community is off Wheeler Road. In fact, I talked to Sheriff Strength about it because he lives in Hillcreek, and Hillcreek opposed that. And it went ahead and went in. We realize that. But the issue is when after I talked to him, I went and rode through those areas, those little town homes. You can barely get down the street because there are at least and sometimes three vehicles per residence. And if you want to go out there and count them yourselves before you vote on it, you’re welcome to. But you can count them and they’re there. This is a skinny, little area between Rae’s Creek and that nursing home. Traffic does occur coming out of the apartment complex. It’s already multi-family. If there’s a need for multi-family in the area, the apartments are there. There are condominiums right there behind those apartments. And as far as Briarcliff, 21 houses. Very settled. 21 years old. Some of the residents have been there since it started. We contend, number one, we don’t want anything there but we know that’s not practical. The practical thing is if you’re going to develop it, develop it professionally. Because like I said, I’ve seen what happened on Wheeler Road. I saw what happened after Hillcreek opposed it. But I also see what those communities look like. I took exceptions -- if there is one little old lady in a house, how one little old lady can have two to three cars. So our position, and of course some of the members of the community met with Mr. Belangia Wednesday night in his office. I was teaching at church. But there was consideration about donating some property to the city. One, has the city agreed to take that property, if it’s in the flood plain? This is still in that area of Rae’s Creek. It’s still a problem, we still contend it’s going to be a problem, it’s still going to pour traffic in Boy Scout. And if there’s not a traffic problem already, then I must be on the wrong time at 7:30 when I leave the house. 29 Someone else from our neighborhood -- there are a total of four of us out or 21 here, but someone may have something else to say about that meeting with Mr. Belangia on Wednesday night. Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone else from the neighborhood who would like to be heard? Give us your name and address for the record, please. Ms. Bowden: I’m Gloria Bowden, 2719 Kipling Drive. I was present at that meeting, and Mr. Belangia presented the copy of the plan that he proposes to build. And we had question there as to what price range are we going here? And he said oh, $60,000. And we said now wait a minute. You’re a neighborhood that’s far above $60,000. We don’t care who builds them or moves in there, if they are retirees or single people. We’ve got to think about our own development. And of course I realize he’s out to make money and that’s the reason he’s in business. But we also have to think about our own property. We don’t want it to be going downhill, either. And I’m sorry, but I disapprove and disagree with his idea of building close to Rae’s Creek, whether it be him or anyone else. There should be some real deep thought by all of you about messing on Rae’s Creek. We can’t continue as taxpayers to pay for things that are flooded on Rae’s Creek. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Anyone else wish to be heard? Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood with Mr. Belangia, and I also went and met with Ms. Smith with Mr. Belangia. These people are my neighbors over there. We’ve got a situation very similar, Andy, almost close to what we did out in your area in where we denied a rezoning and the people went to court and the city ended up having to pay I think $140,000 to buy a piece of property. We’re pretty close to the same situation right now. Something is going to happen on that piece of property at some point. I respect what the neighborhood is talking about, but I can’t in good conscience not support development in the west Augusta area that’s going to have a positive economic impact on this community. And with that said, I am going to move that we approve the rezoning of the property. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? The motion dies for lack of second. Anyone else like to be heard? Mr. Mays, are you poised to speak or are you stretching? Mr. Mays: I was going to yield to Commissioner Brigham on my left, if he wanted to go. I don’t know [inaudible] any motion, but one, I was going to ask Engineering -- and Mr. Kuhlke said he met with Mr. Belangia and Ms. Smith -- and one of the reasons that it got to Engineering was because we had turned it down on those previous occasion, and we were looking to Engineering to give us an answer. I think you have to have a balance of where you’re trying to be sympathetic to the person who wants to do economic development and come to you as the petitioner, but I think not only do you have to listen to in this particular case, it’s not where it’s just the neighborhood, but on one side of it, even if you’re talking about litigation, what you may have in litigation 30 versus what you may have in terms of the potential to keep spending money on the add- ons in that particular area. And maybe before we move, we should hear from Engineering in terms of where we are on this, because of two factors. One, we’re down from 57 to 30. Now had we relied on the first proposal that came to us very early on, and maybe I was thinking a little bit better on July 3 because I didn’t turn 52 until July 11, but if we had moved on at that particular time and I’m hearing now that we basically had half the property that in this stage now could not have been developed -- had we not pushed and delayed, then we would have been in a situation of which we would have gone on and then we would have been the recipients in terms of whatever catastrophes happened to add on to that, to add on to that part of Rae’s Creek, which in turn sits in an area which drifts further eastward of coming down this way that does affect even more than just the neighbors who are in that particular area. So I don’t know whether Engineering has anything to add to this at this point, but even the coming back, this is a change from the point of where we are, and I think that’s a positive change in one aspect, but then it’s a total change that’s a little bit disturbing to a point that I’m still concerned about the two factors -- one that Zoning was moving on even though they may have done this twice. But I ask even in this [inaudible] where you’ve got this many changes and the property that’s there, and Mr. Wall, [inaudible] when I asked the question about when do we get into the business of [inaudible] Zoning deciding how properties are to be handled. Whether they’re to be sold or whether they’re to be leased. Because I didn’t know that this [inaudible] zoning issue, but there was something in the zoning stipulation about a particular plan when you went to a type property where you can do that. But I would think that this whole mix changes all to a point, because we were still there at that time on getting in from Engineering and dealing with 57 properties. Now I’m hearing a half of it. And I would hope that the property we weigh and any ultimate decision would not totally rest on -- and I know we need Greenspace property bit I also think we have to weigh in the balance of receiving property, Mr. Mayor. What we also take in, that that’s one good side of receiving. But then, like any balance sheet, that’s an asset that we get some property, we can [inaudible]. But what’s on the liability side do we inherit as well in terms of taking care of what has been developed? So I don’t really think we are clear to a point on where we can with this at this time. Now I agree and think that the gentleman has the right and I think it’s good to have backed up and done something different. But I think you’re at a point where they may need to really meet again and work something in here, because it has a current zoning that something can be done, but I think on the other hand if it’s going to be professional, if it stays that way, then you may want to take the [inaudible] what happens with the professional and what goes with that particular traffic count, because that could be a wide range of things that may happen from architects that takes on two or three appointments or four per day, or an office that generates a lot of traffic in dealing with professional. So I really think it probably needs to go, Mr. Mayor, back to where they can have some public discussion, [inaudible] plan that comes before us maybe than what’s here today, unless the petitioner or somebody is willing to present something else, since the motion has died without a second. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Commissioner Jerry Brigham and then Commissioner Shepard. 31 Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some concerns about the location of this property. I think I made that very plain the other time. This is the most restrictive zoning that we’ve done on any piece of property since I’ve been here. Tell the guy that he’s going to build 32 feet, 32 inches above the 100 year flood plain. Our zoning ordinance doesn’t even do that. He’s agreed to that. The thing that I’m concerned about is if we don’t approve this housing, we’re going to get professional. If we get professional, it will encroach into the 100 year flood plain with parking lot. I don’t like that choice. I don’t like the choice I’m presented with. The only thing I can say is at least the plan I’m presented with presents everything outside of the 100 year flood plain including the retention. But I still have reservations about this particular location due to the fact that it’s on Rae’s Creek and due to the fact that it has been highly impacted by flooding in the past. To be honest with you, I had not planned on making any comments one way or the other today because I wanted to get the feel of the rest of the Commission. I believe Mr. Kuhlke’s motion was an appropriate motion based on what development could take place on this property in the long run. I think it’s the most restrictive motion that we can make. If we allow it go forward, I think that we pay the price in allowing Professional zoning to stand. I think it’s worse on the overall taxpayers because I think the flooding implications are deeper. I’m really at a loss of what to recommend to my colleagues that sit up here. This is the most tough one that I’ve ever had to deal with in rezoning. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, my question would be to Mr. Wall have you looked at the donation that is proposed in this petition to see if we could accept it for the Greenspace program? I mean have you seen a plat of it? It’s not in the backup is my point. Mr. Wall: I’ve not seen a plat of it. Mr. Belangia: I can speak to that if you’d like. Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Wall finish. Mr. Belangia: Okay. Mr. Shepard: I mean, I think part of this that’s important to me is whether we can get the property in the Greenspace program, whether it meets the criteria and could we accept the donation? I mean I don’t think that that’s fully flushed out at this point. Or is it? Mr. Wall: Well, I mean I would prefer that it go through the normal process, which would be go through George Patty’s office and Deke Copenhaver, who would review it. I have not seen the plan, not sure what property. 32 Mr. Shepard: I was thinking kind of out loud if we continue it here in the body until the next meeting, would that process not have a chance to take place? You’re saying yes and the petitioner is saying no. Help me out here. Mr. Belangia: I’m saying no from the standpoint that we don’t own the land. This zoning is a contingency of us buying the property. Now I’ve talked to Mr. Copenhaver and I’ve talked to Mr. Patty just preliminary that we’d be interested in doing this. Whether we can proceed, whether we can do it or whether the city can do it, I guess that’s something the city has to decide. You have the option, I’m giving you the option by stipulation or otherwise to buy that -- to not buy it but take over that property as Greenspace. If you can’t, then it’s not a plus. But otherwise it is. At this point, if we push it to another meeting, I still won’t own the property. I still can’t proceed without the zoning. Me buying the property is contingent on the zoning, and donation of the Greenspace would be contingent on me buying the property. That’s where we sort of stand right now. Mr. Shepard: May I follow up, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Jim, could we have, if we did rezone it, could we not have a stipulation that binds this contractual purchaser to donate? What if the donation provision is unenforceable, is what I’m worrying out loud about. Mr. Wall: Well, you could condition the rezoning upon the condition that he offer it for the Greenspace, and acceptance of the offer would be up to the city, and therefore if it did not meet the criteria for some reason or there were other reasons that the city chose not to accept it, I mean you could refuse it. But you couldn’t condition it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is another case of where old zoning has come back to haunt us, and I hope that at some point this Commission will get the will to go back and review all of these old zonings, some of them 20 and 30 years old, that we’ve allowed to stand while communities develop around them that are now used for equity transfer from good homes and the homeowners to these property owners that have sat on this property for so many years, used to enhance to value of the property they build. I have to concur with the neighbors, too, on the town homes. We were under threat of having some of them built 30 feet from our neighbors’ bedroom windows and we fought that as a neighborhood and were able to win that battle. The fact that was mentioned earlier about the parking problems, I don’t see any long term life for these town homes in that they’re not going to increase in value as normal properties do. They’re going to become run down. Their parking lots, as we speak, every one that I’ve been in -- I quite frankly would prefer to see Professional in that area myself, simply because it’s something that as was said earlier, you turn off the lights at the end of the day and you go home. With town homes you’ve got high density 33 development, a lot of run-off that’s going to occur, and I don’t care if we do hole it at the pre-development, there’s still additional runoff from a very large parking lot area and roof area that’s going to contribute to Rae’s Creek. But again, I’ll go back to my initial statement. When we start deciding to zone things as they’re used instead of allowing archaic zoning to exist in this city for 10, 20 and 30 years and go back and make it at least fit the development that surrounds it in that community, and do community impact reviews on this zoning, we’re going to have this problem time after time after time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. We’ve had some discussion here. Do we have another motion that somebody would like to offer? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make one. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the rezoning of this property with the condition that no more than 30 units can be built and retention be held on the property and there be no encroachment on the hundred year flood plain. Mr. Mayor: And the Greenspace? Mr. Kuhlke: And offering seven acres to the City for the Greenspace program assuming that the City can accept those seven acres. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. H. Brigham: I second it to get it the motion out for discussion. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to discuss it, Mr. Henry? Mr. H. Brigham: No, sir. Let those folks up on the Hill discuss it. Mr. Mayor: All right, any of you folks on the Hill want to discuss it, Mr. Henry says? Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor and we’ll call the question on the motion. Mr. Mays, did you want to say something? Mr. Mays: I just wanted to ask [inaudible], it might be interesting, I don’t know if Mr. Kuhlke had met with Public Works and the petitioner in response to [inaudible] in the beginning of going back in what would satisfy Engineering because of the change of zoning, and if a person from Engineering [inaudible]. Obviously there had to be some change from Engineering because we’re now going to half of the development of the property. So I’d like to hear maybe for the record now in terms of that change that got us to this point in terms of the engineering question, and then my -- I’ll just [inaudible] on that. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you respond to Commissioner Mays’ question? 34 Ms. Smith: As was previously stated, there was a meeting held to discuss the concept of what was to be developed on the property. We did have discussions at length about the correction of the information that was presented as to the location of the 100 year flood zone and addressed the issue of detention on the property that would be outside of the 100 year flood zone. At the conclusion of the meeting, the information that was presented complied with all of the requirements for development in that area. This is a zoning issue. At the point that the plans are actually ready and the engineering work has been finalized, they would be submitted through Planning & Zoning to Engineering with the hydrology calculations and all of the other detailed information prior to the site development plan being approved. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays, you may continue. Mr. Mays: Okay. I’ve heard what you’ve said on that, Ms. Smith, in terms of where our requirements are and where [inaudible], too. I realize it’s started and may still be a zoning request. But originally when we started, everything was on track that had we voted that day, it could have gone on. The Commission somewhat, no disrespect to Zoning, but the Commission put Public Works and this project together to bring us an answer back. Obviously something had to have occurred in Public Works to get us down to a point that said that half the property could not be developed. Now I don’t necessarily just think that we went in and all of a sudden there was an acquiescence to say that we’re going to go from 57 down to 30, and half of this can’t be. My problem with this is, and I respect where Public Works has gotten us to get us to this point, and that was my reason for insisting that you all get involved in it, because had we taken it on the face value and had the insistence of where I was going with Zoning, just simply went with Zoning, we would have gone with the original project. What that brings me back to the question, Mr. Mayor, if we had not put the department in with that, then what the 57 units that can only be used to deal with 30, would they have gone on anyway and then would we have put the county at liability, in peril, to continuously deal with Rae’s Creek and the unknown costs that are associated with that? That’s the point that I’m trying to make to a point where I don’t think you can finalize a decision today on any plan because something has come back different, yes it is different, yes the density is less, but I’m hoping the driving force of my colleagues is not with the donation of property, that it be within terms of what will be the basic development that can be for the overall good of this area, and in terms of our overall flooding situation period. I hope that’s our driving force and not where we are going to get donated some property. That’s where I think the common denominator should be. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Mays: I appreciate it but to a point our first priority should be within the development, secondly with what we deal with donation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, let’s hear from you. 35 Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I think that this -- and Mr. Mays was absolutely right in asking Engineering to take a look at this. But on the other hand, when you approve a rezoning and then you have to go through the process of doing the design and so forth, at that point is when Engineering comes in or Public Works comes in and looks at the design, and they’re going to make sure that they do not violate any of the rules and regulations that you have to go by. But I think this Commission, not just on this particular instance, but in other instances, we are asking developers in this community and outside of this community to come in and spend thousands of dollars prior to us rezoning a piece of property or giving it a special exception, and that’s unfair. Because they’ve got to go through that process anyway, so from the standpoint of delaying any action on this -- one way or the other, the neighbors need to know what’s going to happen, we need to get it out of the way. If this is approved today, Mr. Belangia has got to go through all the processes that every developer goes through. So I’d like to make that point. I see no need in delaying any action on this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to Mr. Kuhlke and to my friends in the development community, I remind you that every piece of property to be developed does not sit in such a controversial place, as does Rae’s Creek. And to a point that you’re going into a potential harm’s way situation, it’s been so stated by the petitioner that they will buy this property, I remind each of you that most of the people that are concerned about it already own their property and have made their investments. Secondly, the county, while we talk about the thousands that may be in the potential development cost of it, there are millions that we continue to spend with a never-ending cycle in terms of us knowing what happens at Rae’s Creek. And that’s the only point I want to make for the record on that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move ahead then. We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Cheek, do you want to be heard again? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny this. I just cannot see, I don’t have a very good feeling about the project in general. Here again, we mentioned fairness to developers and to neighbors. The fairest thing would be to go back and revert all zoning that sits for 18 months, which is what the Code says, back to its original state and make the developers come in and explain what they plan to do before they do the property. That way, it will be appropriate for the community and we won’t be having the legal threat hanging over our head well it’s zone that way and you’re not allowing him to use it that way. That’s the fairest thing to do. Now whether we have the But I political will to do it or not and make property be zoned as it’s used, we’ll see. make a substitute motion that we deny. 36 Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the substitute motion. Any further discussion on the substitute motion to deny? All in favor of that motion, then please vote aye. Mr. Shepard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other groups here for any of the other zoning issues we have? Yes, sir, which item is that? Mr. Speaker: 56. Mr. Mayor: Item number 56? Let’s take that one up, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: HISTORIC PRESERVATION: 56. Consider the appeal’s request from the Mt. Zion Baptist Church regarding the denial of their request for a Certificate of Appropriateness affecting property located at 1447 Roulette Lane. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, if you’d give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Speaker: Charles L. [inaudible], 1704 [inaudible] Road, Augusta, Georgia. I’m representing Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church. The property in question, I hoping you all have a copy of my appeal letter, but the reason why we’re here is this property sits in the middle of our existing parking lot, which is bounded on one side by a storage building which is adjoined to our education building and on the other side by an existing parking lot. And this house belongs to one of our members who has lived there for a long time, and when he was living he always said the church would get the property, so we purchased the property and our intentions were the property -- I have some pictures here if you all are interested in looking at this. The property is not livable, and I don’t think any of us would live in a building like that. And our intention is to demolish the house and in that area of that which is demolished, which will park an additional 12 cars, which will eliminate the already congested area on Lyndon Street and Wrightsboro Road with all the churches in that area. There really isn’t any parking on Roulette Lane because the street is too narrow. That is our intentions, to demolish the house, and create parking space for our existing parking area we already have. If you look at those pictures there, you can see that there is a parking lot right there already in the middle. It’s in the middle of the parking area already. Mr. Mayor: Nobody lives in the house now? Mr. Speaker: No one lives in the house now. It is empty. And it should be condemned. 37 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would hope that we would look at this. Rev. Walker and his group is trying to improve that area. I think we ought I will move that we approve it. to do it if we possibly can to get them to do it. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve. Mr. Pittman: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Pittman. I’m going to get to you as soon as I make a note here. Mr. Pittman, you have communicated to the Commissioners in writing, if you’d like to come up and speak to your objections to approving this. Mr. Pittman: I think we all agree that there are a number of properties in the Bethlehem Historic District that warrant demolition, and certainly the Historic Preservation Commission has approved a number of those demolitions. This particular piece, however, does have the possibility of being saved, and I would simply caution to the Commission that if we demolish every house in Bethlehem, we’ll have no Historic District. Personally, I went by and looked at his property. Appearance-wise, it’s not in the best of shape exterior coating, but like so many of those houses the interior is sound as far as we can tell. At the meeting in October, the applicant did not fulfill a number of the requirements necessary to request demolition from the Historic Preservation Commission. They did not, for example, submit a post-demolition plan other than to say that they wished to convert this property into a dirt parking lot to adjoin to existing parking lots. They also did not, more importantly, submit a demolition study sheet which is a very simply feasibility study that we’re using now as part of our bylaws so that applicants can have an opportunity to approach a remodeler or a builder or an architect and submit to the Historic Preservation Commission their reasoning in simple fashion, simple economic fashions as to why they think a particular piece of property should be saved. And as important, the Historic Preservation Commission has used this material from our perspective with which to recognize the need to approve the demolition of such property. So I would respectfully request that since this request was denied unanimously by the Historic Preservation Commission, that you concur in our recommendation. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pittman, let me ask you one question. What is historic about this structure at 1447 Roulette Lane? Not the neighborhood, but this particular structure; what’s historic about it? Mr. Pittman: It is listed on the Historic Study for Bethlehem as being an historic [inaudible] structure, according to the study that was done several years ago for the Bethlehem area. Now unlike -- 38 Mr. Mayor: What is historic about it? Did somebody famous live there? The architecture? What makes it an historic structure? Mr. Pittman: The original guidelines and historic requests for the preservation of the Bethlehem Historic Area at the time they were done listed a number of properties that the consultants felt needed to be saved to maintain the character and integrity of one of our National Historic Areas. In the case of Bethlehem, the area has been allowed to deteriorate. No one questions, Mr. Mayor, the need to drop some of those houses. We’re simply saying that we need to save some of them as well. Mr. Mayor: All right. And the houses on either side of this are no longer there; is that correct? Mr. Pittman: Well, what the church -- what the church -- Mr. Mayor: We’re talking about -- you talked about the character of the neighborhood. The houses on either side of this house have already been demolished; correct? Mr. Pittman: Well, at some point in time, probably so. Mr. Mayor: So whatever character was there really isn’t there because you have an isolated structure surrounded by a parking lot. Mr. Pittman: The structure is not isolated to the extent that Roulette Lane behind it -- actually it faces Roulette Lane, not Wrightsboro Road. That area is currently being redeveloped as part of the 30901 development area, so what you’re basically going to end up doing is taking down another house and creating a dirt parking lot adjacent to an area that’s going to be historically rehabilitated. I know we all disagree on what’s historic and what’s not historic. I understand that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, did you look at the demolition plan? Was there a demolition plan according to the ordinance that was [inaudible]? Mr. Wall: I didn’t attend the Historic Preservation meeting. Mr. Pittman: There was no demolition plan submitted. Mr. J. Brigham: There was no demolition plan? Mr. Pittman: Nor was there a demolition study sheet. Mr. Mayor: But you all acted on it anyway. 39 Mr. J. Brigham: That’s required by ordinance, though, isn’t it? Isn’t a demolition plan required by ordinance? Mr. Mayor: But the Commission went ahead and took action on it, because you mentioned denying it, even with the absence of that material. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Pittman: No, sir, we denied it because of that reason. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Marion Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate all the other input from the other Commissioners, but since this is my District that I try to diligently to do all I can to bring it to another level, first of all I want to do some clarification with the Historic Preservation about the Historic District of Bethlehem. I been hearing that for some two years now. And if you check the records, you’re going to find that there is not even a significant historic preservation for that area. There was an ordinance written at one time, I think when Mayor DeVaney was here, but that is as far as it ever went, as being an ordinance. And besides that, the people in that area do not want to hold on to that kind of history. I understand that the preservation says that it has some historic value. But the church owns both pieces of property on both sides of this building. I stopped by yesterday afternoon and got out of my car and walked around this house. You can touch the house and the fence from the time you start on the right side to the back to the next side all the way to the front. There is no land, there is no significant value, no one would live in this home even if you put $100,000 in it. And I don’t understand why the Historic Preservation would even want to save this if the community, if the owners don’t want it saved. The development that’s going across the street from the 30906, I believe, is building all around. The church has come and asked to have it torn down because they going to pay the expense, they going to bear the burden. They’re not asking the city or even private sector to do it. They want to do it themselves. And I can’t see why we want to leave that kind of stuff in an area where people want to grow, where people want to do something different. Had it been alive and well, had people been still living there and things going on, but that’s a dead area. And what’s dead ought to be buried. And it’s time now to put some life back there. And we need to do what is necessary, and I’m asking this Commission to go ahead and grant this request, that they can go ahead and continue their parking lot. They’ve got to park around a house that’s fallen in. And you know when a house sits there, no one living in it, it’s going down faster than it would any other way. There’s rodents and everything else around this church, there’s all kind of debris, for [inaudible] to go in, for crime and everything else to take place. This is not historic preservation to me. I live in that area, I want to see a difference in that area, I appreciate the Historic Preservation on what they do, but I think they stepping across the line there. I think you’re really stepping out of your league as far as telling the community who wants to grow, who wants to change. We can’t keep the same here. We got to have some new history now. That stuff is old. That stuff is gone. That whole area needs reviving. And Mr. Pittman, I hope you don’t think it’s personal, but I am sick and 40 tired of looking at that kind of stuff. You don’t find it anywhere else but District 2. And we need to change that. We need to do something better. We ought to be glad that the people in the area want to see some difference. And I’m supporting it and asking these Commissioners please, sir, let’s do what is right and give this church the opportunity to grow and expand their parking area so we can save more souls. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to approve the demolition of this structure. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then please vote aye. Mr. J. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let us go back to agenda item 3, Madame Clerk. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, you have another zoning matter. Mr. Mayor: We do? Which item is that? Mr. Speaker: 54. Mr. Mayor: 54? All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll take item 54. The Clerk: 54. Z-01-71 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Meybohm Commercial Properties, on behalf of Fountain Gate Worship Church, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 1911 Lumpkin Road (Tax Map 110-2 Parcel 26) and contains 1.46 acres. Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Patty here? George, could you explain why you recommended denial of this and then we’ll hear from Mr. Caddell. Mr. Patty: Yes. This is tract that is located on a ditch or a creek, I guess you’d call it a ditch, that’s adjacent to the park just east of Bernie Ward Library. It’s been undeveloped for some time. The church that was going to build in there never did. It backs up to several houses in a subdivision. The request is for Light Industrial zoning for a paint and body shop. And comprehensive plan strongly suggests that we not spot zone for industry and we feel that this is not the right place for it. There are some commercial uses in the area, but there are no industrial uses, and we just think it would be a big mistake [inaudible]. 41 Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Are there some people here objecting to this? Okay, we have some people here in favor of this? Would you raise your hands so the Clerk or Mr. Wall can get a count. The Clerk’s not there. We have three hands up. (3 supporters noted) Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Caddell, you’re representing the Petitioner? Mr. Caddell: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Caddell: My name is Dennis Caddell with Meybohm. 3021 Lonsdale Drive, Augusta 30906. I have a pencil sketch here of the project that’s planned to be put on the project. We are asking for Light Industry zoning. Possibly what the gentleman’s going to do could be done in the B-2 zoning. It’s a paint and body shop but it does not have a wrecker, is not pulling in wrecked cars. He does bumper benders and fender benders and does some work for E-Z-GO on the carts. Everything is done inside the building. There would be no outside storage. He would be receptive to privacy fencing to separate the neighborhood, some landscaping. This property has been undeveloped for I know since ’62 I’ve been in this town and it’s not been developed. The church purchased it and filled some area to build and discovered it was not enough land to do what they wanted to do on it. So they have moved on Peach Orchard Road, the old Winn-Dixie Shopping Center that closed, and they renovated that building tremendously, and they need to sell this piece of property and [inaudible] Paint Shop here, Johnny with the shop is here, and he can answer any questions about what he plans to do there. Mr. Frazier, Rev. Frazier with Fountain Gate Church is here, and he’d be glad to answer any questions. But I requested Light Industry across the street from this, where Augusta Scales was originally developed. Next door to this property is [inaudible] Sign Company, outdoor sign company that does work. So this piece of property, with what this gentleman wants to do would be an added to the community, it would not be deterring anything from the community. If I might, I would like to -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, was is the property, what does it back up to? Mr. Patty: There is a subdivision. There’s a whole system of streets back in there. A subdivision. Mr. Mayor: Is there a buffer there between the rear property line and the -- Mr. Patty: No, sir. These lots meet and back up directly to the property. Mr. Mayor: To the residential? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. 42 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Gentlemen? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a question for Mr. Patty, I guess. Or Mr. Caddell. Is this the property adjacent to the Fleming Rec Center? Mr. Caddell: Divides Fleming [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Tributary to Rocky Creek? Mr. Caddell: Yes, going in there. That divides that. Mr. Cheek: I guess my question is now that area was pretty low and swampy years ago. How did they go in and fill that in under the development requirement? I guess that’s for one of our engineers, but they’ve put in probably five feet of dirt in some areas. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] got permission to do that from the county. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Frazier, would you come to podium and you can answer the Commissioner’s question, please. Give us your name and address for the record, please, sir. Mr. Frazier: Dr. Jerry Frazier, 2206 Glendale Road, Augusta, Georgia. When we initially bought the property, we came for zoning. We had anticipated building an 8500 square foot facility on it. This Honorable Commission gave us to zoning and we had the site plans done. They told us exactly what we had to do to fill in the property, and in obedience we followed the state and federal regulations and we’ve maintained all of the codes concerning 100 years flood plains, etc. They told us we had to bring it up with a certain amount of clean fill dirt, etc., so we’ve done all that and made the property where it’s developable. And actually we were sitting on the plans to build, but just because of growth after five years it was much more suitable for us to buy what we bought, which was 30,000 square feet, instead of building the 8500 and we just let the property sit there. We’ve maintained it, kept it clean, kept up silt barriers according to all of the statutes and everything that you’ve requested of us. Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question? Mr. Cheek: It does. I just -- we’re building and developing and this is something that occurred in the past, and I know we have past ordinances to say you don’t fill and built on top of it in the same manner, build in flood plain areas and all. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, have any other questions or comments? We have a motion. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have got a couple of comments. 43 Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: First of all, I’d like to ask George, have we got Light Industrial across the street? Is that what this map is showing, that we already have Light Industrial across the street? Mr. Patty: There was some Light Industrial zoning done sort of across the street from this back years ago, and I think -- I disagree with Mr. Cheek on his discussion of the 18-month rule, I do agree with him that this zoning is incorrect, that the land use over there is Commercial and that’s one that I think I’ll be coming back to you to revert in the next few months. But to answer your question, yes, there is Light Industrial over across from it. Mr. Williams: Any petitioners against this, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: There are no objectors. Mr. Williams: No objectors; okay. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough: Mr. Colclough: I’m going to make a motion that we approve the zoning. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve the zoning from Mr. Colclough. Is there a second to that? Mr. Mays: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: All right. A second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, then please vote aye. Mr. Shepard votes No. Mr. Bridges abstains. Mr. H. Brigham out. Motion carries 7-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, would you like to record a vote? Mr. Bridges: Based on the advice of the Attorney, I’ll abstain on this one, Mr. Mayor. 44 Mr. Mayor: Thank you. So the rezoning is approved. The Chair is going to declare a five minute recess. Take our two-hour stretching break and we’ll be right back. [RECESS] (Audiotape not functioning; begin transcript from videotape here) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, you tried to keep a secret from everyone today. By these present, let it be known that Ms. Lena Bonner is celebrating her birthday. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] serve as inspiration for us all. On this special day I wish you a happy birthday. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, let’s move ahead with the order of the day. I think we’re at item 53. The Clerk: PLANNING: 53. Z-01-70 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Goshen Realty, on behalf of Sharon and John Harley, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 4757 Mike Padgett Highway (Tax Map 302 Parcel 08) and contains .41 acres. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, could you [inaudible]? Mr. Patty: This is a small property, a small house. It doesn’t look like it’s been lived in for a long time. It’s immediately across from the entrance to the new industrial park on Highway 56. There is commercial zoning in the area. As a matter of the property between this property and Clark Road, the distance of some 900 feet, are all commercial [inaudible]. The staff felt that zoning the property with some stipulations would be appropriate. What they want to do is put up a lawn mower repair business on the property. I made the comment in the meeting that, you know, while we, you know the zoning pattern is there to support it, that the industrial zoning across from it, it’s not an appropriate place for residential use, you know, given the nature of the structure and the land use across from it and the zoning pattern. I hate to think of the mess that might be made on this property by some sort of a lawn mower repair business. It’s a very small house. There is a very small shed in the back. And everything else is open. We just, you know, face the dilemma, you know -- the zoning pattern and land use pattern may support it, but then, you know, what the aesthetics of this might be. The long run implications are bad and we, staff recommended it be approved with some fencing and that sort of thing, and the Commission felt that it was just bad for the community and they recommended denial. 45 Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Were there any objectors, Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think the petitioner is here but I did get the opportunity to ride with the representative from Goshen Realty, and I looked at this property. It is directly across from the entrance of the corporate park, which is zoned heavy industrial. That, and the stipulations that George gave, the owner will agree to. I don’t know what happened during the Zoning Commission meeting, but there is already a privacy fence up that blocks the view from where the work would be going on from the highway. There is already one up. It needs some repair to it, but it would be functional. It’s already up. The people are agreeing that they’ll maintain the privacy fence. All of the items worked on, the lawn mower and what not, will be behind that fence at the end I would like to make the motion that we approve this with those of the day, and stipulations concerning the fence and the items being behind the fence at the end of the day. This is the same stipulations we put up on a lawn mower repair business at the So I’d like to corner of McElmurray and Highway 25 and that’s working real well there. make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Williams: Second to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, do you have a copy of those stipulations that we can enter into the record? Mr. Patty: No, sir. They were just verbally made at the meeting. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Patty: All repair work and storage of materials would have to be either in the building or behind a six foot stockade-type fence that would obscure the view from Highway 56. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other stipulations? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, motion and second, I’d like to ask the maker of the motion if he would add one thing, though, and that is that some type of shrubbery or some type of greenery be put around. Not a lot, but something kind of beautification in that respect. A tree or something, not just to have a fence there and to have it -- something to kind of add to it. 46 Mr. Bridges: That may be taken care of in the tree ordinance, George. I don’t know. I don’t have any trouble with adding that. In fact, they are going to have to cut shrubbery to actually clean the property up. I would add that to the motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that to the motion? All right, none heard. Madame Clerk, if you’ll make note of the stipulations. Any further discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 57. The Clerk: ENGEEERING SERVICES: 57. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify consulting engineers of the selection results and proceed with negotiations to contract for engineering services on the Highland Avenue Plant Upgrade Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001 – No action vote Commission meeting November 7, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, this was carried over from our last meeting. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, the committee met and we -- the committee chose a company to do this work. I understand that there were questions concerning the way the I will make the process went. We are committed to you [inaudible] and [inaudible] and motion that we go ahead and approve this item as recommended by the Committee. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In Engineering Services, we did talk about this and this was deferred, but the process that we used to allow this engineer, this firm to do this work, was [inaudible]. I did [inaudible] we cause asked for [inaudible] to look at how the grading was done. But when we spend as much money as we spending on these firms, for these businesses to come in and do work, we need to have a better system than what we’ve been having. I got a lot of questions I could ask and I’ve got a lot of [inaudible] I could add in to this, but I’m not going to go into that. I’m not going to vote against the motion but I do think we need to look at our criteria for selecting these firms. We’ve got a management [inaudible] that’s helping us out and I think human nature plays a great factor in that. And also we need to have -- we talk about diversity, 47 we’re talking about having minority participation, but we need to talk about local participation, we need to find out how much local businesses are being used in these projects. When you talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, we need to know that every [inaudible], every way that can be used in the city of Augusta, those firms that either in town or out of town ought to continue to use those type businesses. Anything we can think of, from shoe shine to engineering, I mean somebody in this town can do it. A lot of time we give those contracts out and we use other outside areas. We need to look at Augusta and grow. We need to spend that money in Augusta. It’s going to generate revenue and money for us, so we need to put something in place, maybe not now but we need to have something in place, to know that we are using all we can in the CSRA. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have been listening to the discussion and we hear what you are saying, and we will probably be returning to you with some change in the process [inaudible] our vendors, consultants, other engineering firms. If you have some suggestions for other areas that you would like for us to take a look at while we’re doing this, we’ll be more than happy to look at it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, on this particular item there was some discussion, and I realize this doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with what’s in the agenda book. But there is an awful lot of concern with the closing of Highland Avenue -- Central Avenue from Highland Avenue to -- I forgot the name of the road. Mr. Kolb: Iris. Mr. Kuhlke: Iris Street. And I’d like to have some assurance from Utilities or Mr. Goins that as we go through this process that they will make every effort to have as little disruption as possible during the construction process, look at alternatives rather than thinking of closing Central Avenue, and that appropriate public hearings will be held as we go through the engineering process. Mr. Goins: Mr. Kuhlke, as was approved in the last Commission meeting, the Commission approved the process. That process will include looking at alternatives for closing the street. At one end of the spectrum is leaving the street as it is, open to all public access and pass through the water works plant; the other end is the closing of the street. So we’re looking at every opportunity in between those two extremes to take into account the needs of the public and the needs of the campus, the Water Works campus. And that will go through a process that will include public input. Again, we brought that to your attention early on, very first thing, so that we wouldn’t be making assumptions or plan that we could close the street or make a change in the street without at least the knowledge and input of the Commission and the public at large. 48 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke, let me share this with you and the other members of the board, that [inaudible], I had a chance to talk to them since the last meeting and they indicated that a public advisory process would be consistent with how they would approach the work. I think that that’s reassuring. (Videotape goes to commercial) Motion carries 10-0. 58. Motion to approve to add on-call personnel for the groundwater system to the rotational drive home list. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2001) Mr. Williams: I move that we deny it. Mr. Cheek: Second. (Videotape begins here after commercial) Mr. Bridges: …allow this practice to be done. And it makes sense. You don’t want your person on call getting called, having to hop in his personal car, go down the plant, get the city vehicle, and the go to wherever he’s got to go, assuming that location could possibly be somewhere different from where he picked the city vehicle up. I think it’s reasonable, I think it’s prudent to expect the person on call to be able to respond quickly to whatever the issue may be. Hopefully he’ll never have to use it. I mean that’s what we really want, but I think the issue and the concept here is practiced by industry and business throughout the CSRA. It’s a good one and it’s one we need to support, and I’ll make the motion we approve it. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion to approve it. Is there a second to the substitute motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, how many people are we talking about? Is it one, two, three? How many? Mr. Goins: There are two employees that are on call. They rotate weeks. These are both senior operators and you have senior or less -- they’re all qualified but less senior operators on the night shift, and they call these senior operators back to fix something when an alarm goes off or whatever. They call these people back. And there are numerous locations, as you can see from the list, that these operator mechanics go to. 49 It may Plant One, Plant Two, Plant Three, any number of the well sites. The operator on the evening shift, they rotate locations, so as they come upon a situation where they need assistance, that’s when they call the on-call employee. Mr. Cheek: But we do have personnel shifts at night? Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: And they answer the alarms and then call someone in? Mr. Goins: The dispatchers -- they either call the person directly on call or through the dispatcher through the radio system. Mr. Cheek: So we are working someone on shift who cannot answer an alarm and calling someone in to come take care of it? Mr. Goins: The person that comes in is a mechanic. The person that is the operator -- I used the scenario of an alarm, but the alarm might indicate that a pump had failed. Mr. Check: That’s not likely something you’re going to fix from the back of your truck in a few minutes either, is it? Mr. Goins: Well, he may or may not be able to fix it from the back of a truck, but the point is that he is on call, and he can assess what the situation may be. He may have to change out the pump, he may have to unstop a feed line for chemicals. We don’t know what the situation is. We did provide a list of what he had done. I asked the mechanic that was on call to provide me a list of what he had done since the previous on-call list had been established. And I’ve provided that as back-up information. Mr. Cheek: My concern is that sure, we do have companies that send their employees home with vehicles, but I’m curious to compare the call back frequency of say someone that works on red lights to someone who may come in eight times a year, split that in half, four times a year, to reset a pump or clean the line, which I think would probably, if you’re working with caustics or anything of any kind of chemical nature, you should have a back-up person there with you. I don’t think I’ve seen an eye wash stations or anything like in some of these facilities. The bottom line on all this for me is that here again we need to consider is it cost effective to send the car home 365 days a year, to pay for the gas, the insurance, and the wear and tear versus having our on-call person or our shift person, which should be able to be trained to acknowledge alarms and do rudimentary trouble shooting on these systems, and you know, here again we’re going back to the same way it’s always been done. Our shift people ought to be able to manage the system without calling people in. I’m opposed to this. Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else care to be heard? Commissioner Williams? 50 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask Drew two questions. The first question is that when this person is on call, he’s on call 24 hours, in other words; is that right? Mr. Goins: He works a day shift and then he’s on call. Mr. Williams: For 16 hours then? Anytime after he gets off. So that means he’s got to have a pager or cell phone with him; right? Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: That means he won’t be -- he’s not required to stay at home for that 16 hours; he may be downtown, he may be at Clark Hill, he may be on the golf course, you know, if he a golfer. Mr. Goins: He has the ability to be a places other than just hope. Mr. Williams: So does that mean he would have to take this vehicle, if he’s on call he would have to have this vehicle if he’s at the lake, or he’s on the golf course, if he’s -- Mr. Goins: I don’t know if that would include going to the lake. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m theorizing -- Mr. Goins: [inaudible] that he’s required to stay within so that he respond in an appropriate manner. Mr. Williams: Okay. We’ll drop the lake off. We’ll take the Cabbage Patch up there, we’ll take the golf course. Maybe he can’t go to the lake, but he may be at the golf course with this vehicle cause he’s on call. Now I mean, let’s let it stand for what it is. If he’s on call, he’s got to have the vehicle with him when he’s on call. If he’s at the golf course and he’s got to go, unless he’s got to go home and get the truck and then come back. I just made my point, Mr. Goins, and that is that if we do that, we can’t hold that person responsible for staying at the house for 16 hours once he gets off his tour of duty, and if he’s on call he’s got to come back, he may be on the other side of town, he may have to come back home to get the truck, and then he got to drive in the truck to the area that’s having trouble. Or he got to have his vehicle with him. I’m opposed to that. I think we are creating something that we are not going to tolerate down the road. We are talking about cutting our budget, we’re talking about saving money and doing some things. This is another savings for us. I can’t support that. Not one bit. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a substitute motion on the floor to approve the addition of the person on call to drive the vehicle home. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. Mr. Goins, is it the recommendation of the staff that this person be allowed to take the vehicle home when on call? 51 Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will vote aye based on the recommendation of the staff. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Mayor votes Yes. Motion carries 6-5. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just want to remind the [inaudible] that it was the recommendation of staff that all administrators drive cars home, too. Mr. Mayor: That’s not the issue before us. [inaudible] Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, hold it, hold it now. I want to change my vote, then. Mr. Cheek: Order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: I want to change my vote. Mr. Mayor: The vote has been recorded. You can’t change your vote. You can ask for reconsideration if you’d like to. Mr. Williams: Then I’d like to have reconsideration, please. Mr. Mayor: All right. There’s been a motion for reconsideration. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of reconsidering item number 58, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion fails 5-4-1. Mr. Bridges: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? 52 Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Let the Chair make the announcement. The motion for reconsideration has failed. Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: The motion for reconsider [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: We’ll continue on with the order of the day and item number 59. Mr. Cheek: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Why is sometimes we allow people to change their votes after they have been out of the room or vote when they come back in and then we don’t allow someone to change their vote? Mr. Mayor: Once the Clerk has published the vote, then that’s it, the vote’s over once you publish them. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] before and changed before. I’d guess I’d like to see a little consistency here, we do it one way or the other. Mr. Mayor: Move along with the order of the day, Madame Clerk. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification here, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Williams: If I can pull the record, if I can show you where the vote had been changed out here, can we change the vote as well? Mr. Mayor: We’ll discuss that at the appropriate time. Mr. Williams: Well, when is the appropriate time, Mr. Mayor? Let me know now. Mr. Mayor: We’re moving along with the order of the day on this agenda. Mr. Williams: Well, when is the appropriate time, Mr. Mayor? You need to let me know. I’m not going to walk out of this room and you tell me next week the appropriate time. I need to know when the appropriate time is because we done it before. Mr. Mayor: I’ll discuss it with you after the meeting. 53 Mr. Williams: The appropriate time is after the meeting? Mr. Mayor: The appropriate time is after the meeting. Let’s move along, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 59. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Deputy Administrator regarding the renewal of the contract with Lobbyist Jean McRae at a cost of $12,500 plus out of pocket expenses. (Requested by Commissioner U. Bridges) Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to go along with this. I don’t approve of it, but since it looks like every time we have a meeting it is being brought back, so I guess you have to understand sometimes when you left things go, and I guess it’s time. I still don’t see the need for it. I think we are just throwing away $12,000 but feel that somebody wants it awfully bad. So I’m not in the mood today to defend that, I guess. Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Item number 60. The Clerk: 60. Discuss the status of the positions of Finance Director and General Counsel. (Requested by Commissioner M. Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Ms. Bonner, for adding it to the agenda for us. We at the end of the year where we talking about our budget and where our budget need to be. I’d like to hear from our Administrator or from our Attorney or from the Mayor or from somebody to let us know where we are with our Finance Director and the General Counsel position that we been searching for and been dealing with for almost two years now. 54 Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, the Finance Director is being recruited through the Administrator’s office, and the General Counsel is being recruited through Human Resources, with Mr. Beard’s committee. Mr. Kolb, if you could speak to the Finance Director, and Commissioner Beard, if you could give us an update on Counsel. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Finance Director position status is we [inaudible] first of next month [inaudible]. After that, we will [inaudible]. We will be interviewing potential candidates the beginning of next month and shortly thereafter, if those candidates meet with our approval, then we will submit our recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Do you have any questions about that, Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have a question, I have a couple of comments. First of all, is that we’ve been , you know, we’ve been putting this wagon before the horse for a long time here and we haven’t been getting anywhere. We won’t ever get anywhere like that. I’m thinking about we’re talking about our fire chief, and we do need a fire chief, but our Finance Director would be more important to me. Our Fire Department seem to be operating, seem to be surviving, seem to be getting along pretty good. In fact, doing quite well, I think. Mr. Mayor: We’re going to talk about that later. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, and I’m making a point if you would just bear with me for a few minutes. I think our fire department is getting along as well as possible at this present time, but our Finance -- we talking about our budget hearings, we been procrastinating with this situation for a long, long time. We’ve got too much money, we’ve got too many entities that’s doing things that we have not focused on doing that we need to do with our Finance Director. And I told you I was going to be frank and to our Administrator, who some of us wanted to come in and give him the authority for hiring and firing. I disagree. He have not shown me the [inaudible] that we need to have to be able to do those things. This is the time and season when we are at -- a national tragedy has struck this nation and the economy is down. If we can’t find a finance person now, we can’t find a competent person now, we would never find one when the economy’s good. Now I don’t know, maybe we’re not paying money, maybe we’re paying food stamps or something. Maybe we not giving people the type of currency that they need to operate on. Something is wrong. And I’m holding this Commission -- this Commission is where the problem is and not with the rest of us, with all of us. We need to put our foot down. We need to let our Administrator know that we’re in charge of this city, we are directed to guide and lead the government of this city. And somebody need to come to the plate and do something, and somebody need to do something quick. [inaudible] anything. [inaudible] , Mr. Mayor. We need to have some evidence, we need to see some action, we need to see something done. [inaudible] to go out and recruit someone. And that we paying a department and we’re paying a head hunter [inaudible] to go out and bring us somebody, then we need to hold 55 that [inaudible] responsible. We still don’t have no accountability. Not even from the bottom to the top, and I’m just really disappointed. Mr. Cheek: Me, too. Real disappointed. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kolb, you want to respond to that? Mr. Kolb: I can respond to that. The Finance Director has been a very difficult recruitment. I don’t believe that -- we’ve advertised three different times for this position, and out of that, those three times I don’t think we got more than 15 to 20 total applicants for all three. It’s a very difficult position to hire for or to recruit for, and you want to make sure that the person that you select is an appropriate match for the job that he’s going to be doing. I have kept the Commission advised each and every time that we have been outbid. We have kept you informed of the status of the Finance Director recruitment. Now incidentally, it has run parallel with the Fire Chief and other recruitments that we have been making all year long, and I think that we are making progress and we are keeping you up-to-date as to situations as we run into them. Mr. Mayor: With respect to the other half of the agenda item, Mr. Beard, can you give us an update on the search for the General Counsel, please? Mr. Beard: I don’t think I can, Mr. Mayor. I defer that to our staff, simply because I [inaudible] agree with Mr. Williams on this accountability aspect of it, and I think Ms. Pelaez, if she’s in the audience here, if George want to do it, either one. We’ve had the [inaudible], the committee has turned this over to them for selection process, and I have not heard from them. Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Pelaez here? Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: I’ll try to respond. Mr. Mayor, the committee directed Mr. Wall, Ms. Byrd-Pelaez and myself to seek proposals from the various hiring consultants, recruiting consultants for attorneys, which we did, and we submitted back to the committee a list of those firms and their proposals. And we’re sending out a memo -- let me back. We sent out and it came back to us that we should select one of the three firms that we had solicited. That memo has gone out or will go out -- it went out yesterday. And as I recall, you are preparing to call a meeting next week of the attorney selection committee. There has been progress on that, too. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I have in my hand the minutes of August 21, 2001, when I myself made a motion that the Administrator and the Human Resource Director and the Attorney to get together, and I think on yesterday this other memo was in my box, on November 19. It just been put in. And -- Mr. Mayor: What is that other memo? 56 Mr. Williams: The other memo is about them going out now for selection process. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: But from August 21 up until now, Mr. Mayor. And I think we ought to be ashamed as Commissioners. We ought to be ashamed to even being the Mayor of this city to direct and to give out instructions for the government to operate and do some things and we sit back and let nothing happen. And we ask like we don’t care. We ask like we are not responsible. People are holding us responsible. But we are accountable for the people who elected us to do what is right. And we can’t sit here and act like we don’t see it because we do. And Andy is the meanest one, and I’m the twin brother, so we’re the meanest two up here and y’all acting like y’all just got here yesterday. Something wrong. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Williams, let me just state that this Commission has established itself to work through the committee system and we have committees and chairmen and subcommittees that are formed from time to time to provide oversight and monitor these practices. Mr. Williams: We don’t hold the committees -- we don’t hold the committees to their job, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, but if we don’t hold those committees to that job, then they’re no good, no better than we are, and we’re no better than they are. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’d be happy to enlighten Mr. Williams on the Finance Director recruitment process. I know Mr. Kolb has been through one full cycle of that and has kept this chairman apprised of that previous cycle, and I understand another cycle is going to be next month. The first cycle of interviews of candidates obtained from the head hunter, some dropped out, some were unacceptable, but the cycle, Mr. Williams, for your information, is continuing and I think if you remember the last Finance meeting that the auditor came forward and basically gave us a much better report on our status this year with the finances than we were a year ago. And so the recruitment process as to that one office is definitely active. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move along now to item number 61. Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] before we move along. I heard the two persons [inaudible] committee on item 60 and I think we all wanting to, because we were all here last year, 57 we want to make this a little easier [inaudible] hopefully this year than we went through last year. I’d like to first just say for the record, number one, we’ve got some strong people that were left in the Finance Department. [inaudible] folk leaving in and out, termination, and that kind of thing, we were left with good people down there, some that I’ve work with for a long time. But I’m at the point, I don’t want to wear them out. I think we need to make some serious decisions to a point do we regroup around what we have, is there going to be a different structure, because I think the thing needs to get serious in Finance, maybe on a different road. Now I agree with Steve. Steve has been, in terms of that chairman and in terms of working with the Administrator on this, but let’s look maybe at different angle, if we might. If we are constantly getting names and if we’re constantly turning people down, do we need to come back to the table and say if this is going to be the key point person other than the Administrator in this government and the Mayor -- Mayor on the elected side and [inaudible] setting the policy and the people who run the [inaudible], George running the day-to-day, but the person who is going to be in charge of where the money is, how it functions, knowing what’s there, this is something that we made a declaration on this time last year. We are now at this time this year [inaudible]. If it means a different scope than we need to approach on Finance, then we need to [inaudible] tired of is the point we just going to constantly, you know, the head hunting group is supposed to know what we’re looking for. You know, are we telling them what we’re really looking for? They can’t find. Is it a matter of money? Is it a matter of something else? Is it a matter of the way we act, the way we look? Something needs to be seriously talked about in that vein. Whether you deal with that person at the top in terms of reorganizing that or whether you’re instructing the people that you’ve got, before you’ve totally worked them to death down there, something needs to be -- and the reason why they’ve done a good job is because they [inaudible] all the time. There were folk in some places that we brought in, and I think [inaudible] . But how are we to express that now if we are approaching that on another month, if the next batch doesn’t turn out the way we want them to be, are we going to another batch, are we just going to be pumping continuously [inaudible] that [inaudible]? Now the same group that fought the Administrator, the same group that [inaudible] Finance Director. We hired George and I thought we did a pretty good job. But to a point are they bringing all, everybody back, you know, that’s that bad? Do we need to jack them up [inaudible]? Do we need to jack ourselves up? Do we need to look at the job requirements that we are requiring and say do we want to deal with something different? Do we want to deal with something else that’s not there? What then is the problem? Because we have been without that slot, dealing with for a long time. And some things [inaudible], Mr. Mayor. They are [inaudible]. They are running [inaudible]. What I see on here today to a point where we are considering a Deputy Administrator. I see where we are considering dealing with a Fire Chief. And we still are to a point where next week or next month we may still be looking for a Finance Director. I may be [inaudible], either we need to address [inaudible] and what direction we’re going to go with it, because I think to a point if we are going to fill all these other things, I think we need to go [inaudible], we need to deal with the positions [inaudible], but in terms of [inaudible] all these different things and still don’t have what we went through with last year of [inaudible], we do not have that, then collectively we need to get back together, we need to [inaudible] the Finance Director with some help in terms of some input there because we can’t just keep 58 interviewing and interviewing and throwing out and throwing out. That’s just not going to get it. And at some point, one either needs to be named or you need to make the decision that you don’t need one, don’t want one, and then you need to turn around and [inaudible] they need some physical bodies. At some point, they say they are overworked, which they probably are and to a point under-compensated and [inaudible] over there. That’s one that I think needs to be at the top of the Administrator’s priority list. I have said so publicly, I have said to him privately, that I thought two things need to be done in terms of employees. [inaudible] in terms of reorganization and the money we’ve got and of dealing with a Finance Director/Comptroller/Financial Guru/Money Man/Money Woman, whatever you want to call it, but at some point we need to move off zero of these continuous interview processes that are not getting us anybody in here. And that’s just the way I’m looking at it, Mr. Mayor. I may be wrong. But I [inaudible] to a point of [inaudible] scratching our heads to deal with what we going do with the budget? [inaudible] process [inaudible] we need to deal with [inaudible], we need to deal George’s assistant, I want to see us move somewhere in terms of dealing with Finance. And that was a general, unwritten consensus of this entire Commission, all ten of us, from District to District that that be done. And we [inaudible] and if we need to [inaudible] and [inaudible] the Administrator to push that process along, [inaudible]. [inaudible] and we’re not finding anybody, then maybe we need to make a decision then what are we looking for, what do we really want. And I think collectively we are going to have to make that decision [inaudible], too. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kolb, final word and then we’ll move along to the next item. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I understand what Commissioner Mays is saying. However, let me assure you that a Finance Director is also my top priority. The process is taking longer than it normally would because of the [inaudible] that we’ve been able to attract to Augusta. Even though we have looked at many resumes, we’ve only interviewed maybe two people. One of them backed out. One was not [inaudible] what we felt was a good match for the organization. At that time we asked the head hunter to go back and bring some more people. And that’s exactly what’s happened. But rest assured, we are moving, we are not dragging our feet on this. No one understands or recognizes more than I that a Finance Director is important to this organization. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead. The Clerk: ATTORNEY: 61. Motion to approve Resolution for a Partial Redemption of the Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. Certificates of Participation issued in connection with improvements to the Augusta Golf Course. Mr. Kuhlke: I move for approval. 59 Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges votes No. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we take 61 and 62 together? Excuse me, 62 and 63. Mr. Mayor: That will be fine if there is no objection. 62. Motion to approve the acceptance of approximately 36 acres in Walton Acres, Phase III, to be donated by Southern Specialty Development Corporation and made subject to Restrictive Covenants for the Greenspace Program. 63. Motion to approve the placement of the following properties into the Greenspace Program and authorize the recording of Restrictive Covenants on same: Island A (5.56 acres) Island B (16.19 acres) Island C (5.90 acres) Island D (1.54 acres) Island E (1.26 acres) Island F (2.31 acres) Island G (1.40 acres) Island H (2.13 acres) Island I (0.85 acres) Island J (6.61 acres) Mr. Wall: One comment on 62. It’s not included here but apparently the request was made that we waive the taxes for year 2001 on the donation of the 36 acre in item number 62. And that’s been reasonable. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to item 62 and 63? Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve those with the conditions mentioned by the Attorney. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Kuhlke? 60 Mr. Kuhlke: Just one point, Mr. Mayor. Looking at the back-up, Jim, the write- up of the letter and the plat don’t -- you might -- they don’t match. Mr. Speaker: The 4.5 is a typographical error. That should be 4.05. The total acreage is correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? All in favor of the motion to approve items 62 and 63, please vote aye. (Item 62) Motion carries 10-0. (Item 63) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item number 64. The Clerk: 64. Consider continued employment of Keven Mack. Mr. Mayor, do you have a recommendation for this body? Mr. Kolb: I defer to Mr. Wall. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I would recommend that prior to their being any debate on this that we take this up in legal session. I would ask you to postpone it until legal session. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll defer it to the legal meeting. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll take up item number 65. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR: 61 65. Consider the recommendation of the Administrator regarding the appointment of Fire Chief. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. It gives me great pleasure to submit for consideration and recommendation Mr. Al Gillespie as the next Fire Chief of Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Gillespie is currently the fire chief of Yakima, Washington. He’s responsible for fire and rescue services of that city. Prior to his employment in 1998 to his current position, he was the Battalion Chief of [inaudible] County, Washington, Fire District Number 6. Chief Gillespie has a distinguished career in fire fighting and has successfully demonstrated progressive responsibility in management and leadership positions for the past 15 years. He has 24 total years in the fire service. Mr. Gillespie is well suited for the position in Augusta. The fire department in Augusta faces many challenges, and Mr. Gillespie is prepared for those challenges. Some of the challenges that he will be faced with managing include [inaudible] the Augusta Fire Department to providing first responder services, building new fire stations, and updating several existing fire stations. Mr. Gillespie is prepared to manage the $15 million+ budget that operates the fire department and the major capital expenditures required for the department’s infrastructure. Mr. Gillespie has negotiated or assisted in negotiations of labor contracts and has built coalitions and relationships that have benefited the fire service in the community that he has served. He is well respected among his peers, among fire fighters, other fire personnel, and the administrative and political leadership who have worked with him. I have no hesitation is recommending Mr. Gillespie to the Fire Chief position and I respectfully request the Commission to concur in that recommendation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, thank you for bringing that recommendation to us. Let me ask you one question before I open it up for the floor. Is there going to be an issue to your knowledge of compensation with respect to this candidate? Mr. Kolb: I guess that should be deferred to the Commission. I don’t believe so because I believe it was in the range. He has accepted a total package of $98,000. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kolb: And I think that we can negotiate within those parameters. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Sort of being consistent with Mr. Williams’ statements about us not moving on. We have the opportunity now to fill a very important position in this government, I’d like to move that we allow the Administrator to move forward with the filling of this position. Mr. Bridges: Second. 62 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb, two questions. What kind of budget does Mr. Gillespie manage now and what kind of community coalition relationships has he formed? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Gillespie operates now a combined budget of about $8 million per year. The size of the city that he has serviced is 72,000 currently in Yakima, Washington. That territory covered about 20 square miles. In Clark County, the population of the community was about 60,000 persons, and there was 40-square mile coverage. Mr. Colclough: What kind of budget did he have? Mr. Kolb: It doesn’t talk about his budget in Clark County. With respect to the community coalitions, there is a Yakima County Fire Chiefs Association, he was [inaudible] director for the Executive Fire Officers. He was a member of Downtown Yakima Rotary Club. Board of Directors. Boy Scouts activities chairman. He participated in Habitat for Humanity. Member of the Western Association of Fire Chiefs. Served on the Red Cross Board of Directors and was Chairman of the Service Delivery Committee. He was on the Board of Directors for the Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs. And the list goes on and on. In addition, he participated -- there was a forest fire where some fire fighters were killed in Washington state, and he was very much active in participating with the families that were involved in that particular tragedy [inaudible] and organizing relief efforts on their behalf. Mr. Colclough: I think number one, Mr. Kolb, there is a great disparity between coalitions, community coalitions [inaudible]. I think he needs to know what a community coalition is. And to me by participating in those organizations, it’s not community coalition. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the Administrator’s efforts. However, I’m a little confused because when it comes to a department head -- and you may have to correct me -- when it comes to a department head and hiring the person for department head, I think it takes the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Administrator to do that. And then narrow it down to three people. I have not seen, I have not talked to, and I wouldn’t have talked over the telephone. If I’m going to sit here and vote for a Chief of Augusta Richmond County, I want to see who I’m voting for. I want to know something about this man and I think [inaudible]. He has interviewed him. But that is a decision that the Commissioners have to make. And I’m not going to vote for a fire chief who I think is the second choice and wasn’t the first choice in the beginning. But I can’t vote for a man I have not sat face to face with and asked some questions myself. Not that I’m an expert on the Fire Department of any nature, but I do want to have some 63 conversation, I want to know some feelings of what he’s talking about. I can’t agree because first of all, the selection process I don’t think went right. I think that we’ve got a program that tells us how to select. I think the second thing is that the Fire Department is doing rather well right now. We focusing on getting a fire chief and we need one. But I just can’t sit here and vote for man I have not seen, who was not the very first choice. If the record reflects, the first choice I think dropped out, for whatever reason. But I can’t see how we can vote as Commissioners, and it’s our decision. It’s not the Administrator’s, it’s not the Mayor’s. It’s the six votes. Not all ten. You don’t need but six to get the fire chief in or out. And we need to understand that we going to select the person that we feel the most comfortable with. We appreciate his dialog. We appreciate his pitching in and interviewing and talking and even making a recommendation. But the last process, we brought those people in. We sat in the meeting room. We had a chance to sit and talk with them. We had a reception, be able to co-mingle with them. I can’t sit here and make a selection on somebody that I have not seen and I can’t vote for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I need to clear up one perception. There was no third or second choice when I presented the names to you the first time. I indicated to you I was leaning one way or another but had not made my decision. My decision was not made until late last week. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t quite understand Mr. Williams. It sounds to me like he’s talking out of both sides of the mouth. We’ve got a chance to do something to move ahead, move from here, go to the Finance Director. We’re going to have the chance to give the Administrator some assistance so that we can get some things done here that he can’t do by himself. It’s impossible. So I don’t quite understand. You know, I don’t understand. You were beating on the Administrator a minute ago cause nothing’s been done. He’s brought something to us. Mr. Williams: I still think there’s things to be done, Mr. Kuhlke. I still think [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: And because we want to do something, I’m not going to do it because it’s wrong. I’m not going to vote for a fire chief that I have not had the opportunity to sit down and talk with. Any other department head we have selected, the Commission had an opportunity to sit and talk with them. I’m not going to vote for a pig in a blanket, and it’s as simple as that. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to call for the question. I’d like to call for a roll call vote, please. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Mr. Williams. 64 Mr. Williams: I’d like to call for the question and call for a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called with a roll call vote. Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the roll. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? I realize Commissioner Williams called for the question. Mr. Mayor: You want to have some more conversation, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Not conversation. I think the protocol [inaudible] discussion period is not [inaudible] call the question [inaudible]. I just wanted to ask a question. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays, I did not see your hand up. Is there a question you had? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, I think [inaudible] deal with different positions we’ve got. But I made a point a few minutes ago that still concerns in the order of important of where we are going with the filling of some of these positions. My question is, and it still relates to the fire department, and [inaudible], since we got three key situations on the table today, the Fired Department, the Deputy Administrator, and Finance, which will not be voted on but it’s been talked about. My question, I guess, to the Administrator, and then I’ll make a comment. Are we, are we [inaudible] in terms of Finance or any of these positions to change any of the requirements in terms of our hiring as far as whether it be job description or whether it be qualifications in terms of what’s listed [inaudible] hiring on these other positions. And particularly in terms of Finance. Mr. Kolb: At the current time, the answer is no. If at some point in time we run into a situation where we feel that the candidate is a good match for the position and the requirements are not, are not exactly matched, we may note that, but at this point in time I see no reason to change the requirements. Mr. Mays: And my reason for that is if Finance is still the number one priority, my point being that while I think the [inaudible] in terms of the resume being presented -- I won’t say person being presented cause the only thing I can go by in terms of is [inaudible] resumes and the credibility of your recommendation, which I consider [inaudible]. But I would be [inaudible] that we may change requirements in another category. That is why I personally am leading toward dealing with that Finance Director first [inaudible] Fire Department, and everybody knows in terms of whether you think that situation is not political. It is. And we have, we have in terms of qualifications and work experience [inaudible] that [inaudible] college degree has put aside [inaudible] work experience and [inaudible] that would not fall under these requirements. And yet we [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, the point that if that is going to be waived or if we are going to think we are going to waive it in the person that may handle all of our money, then I think we open ourselves up to a point, I know I would if I was [inaudible] had 20 to 25 years experience to a point I would ask the question, probably first of my attorney, [inaudible] important to waive in [inaudible], if not, in another way. That’s why I want 65 to see the orders of the [inaudible] passed that we deal with the Finance Director first. If that’s the [inaudible] our number one priority. The other point I’d like to do, and maybe I missed something, [inaudible], but that [inaudible] Commissioner Williams is talking about, we asked in terms of who was to be recommended or the number one person. And [inaudible] it or not, we had looked at in terms of anybody else. And the answer I believe that I got, and I stand to be corrected, is that the only person that had been looked at is the one that I’m going to recommend. Now my problem I have, and the reason I [inaudible] is that if number one dropped out and if [inaudible] the only one that counted, how did number two all of a sudden get to be so magnificent? You know, I have a problem to a point where [inaudible] last time. That person had dropped out, then all of a sudden we got [inaudible] and to a point where I know I got beat down in terms of support [inaudible] fire department regulations that you didn’t get [inaudible]. That’s no knock on the Administrator. He wasn’t here to do that. But we’re [inaudible]. I’m looking to be to a point of whether the dynamics are there and whether or not [inaudible] this person [inaudible] in terms of energizing that department, of being able to get this to a point, at some point in this time, that they [inaudible] in the future. Nobody is going to stay forever. I want to at some point see Augusta men and women out of our department be in that category pool and somebody that’s going to be able to raise those standards. If we going to say we’re going to get on this education kick, we have to make a commitment, Mr. Mayor, the time and money to deal with education and be able to allow off time to deal with the continuance of it. Those things need to be considered. I’m not really on a [inaudible]. But I said the other day to the Administrator [inaudible], I made the statement the Fire Department ain’t on fire. But I think to a point of sitting there [inaudible] now to January balancing $100 million. We’re in the same state we were in last year. Working to death the same [inaudible]. And giving the same directions to the same department heads to a point of giving them [inaudible] in terms of [inaudible]. It’s not to a point of what’s on the table, who that person is. I wouldn’t [inaudible], Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: Because I think that would be unfair. But I do think to a point that our priorities and circumstance are mixed up. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays. Thank you for your question. We’ve had the question called and the roll call vote has been asked for, so let’s proceed with that. Mr. Beard: Since I’m the first to vote, what’s the motion? The Clerk: To appoint Mr. Al Gillespie as Fire Chief. ROLL CALL VOTE Mr. Beard: No. Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. H. Brigham: No. Mr. J. Brigham: Yes 66 Mr. Cheek: Yes Mr. Colclough: No Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Mays: Abstain Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Williams: No Motion fails 5-4-1. Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Let the Clerk publish the vote. The Clerk: The vote is 5-4-1. Mr. Mayor: So we’ll move on to item 66. The Clerk: 66. Consider authorizing the Administrator to offer up to the midpoint of the salary range for the position of Deputy Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the paper before you would authorize the Administrator to negotiate with perspective candidates in the future for the Deputy Administrator’s position up to the midpoint of the range, which would be just shy of $80,000. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Williams: Question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, what would that be, I mean if we hire, if we go ahead with this other Deputy -- our present Deputy, Mr. Hornsby in that position, would that not put his salary in the same range? Would that not bring his salary up to the -- Mr. Kolb: Mr. Hornsby is already in the range. He is being paid a lower salary that what I would have to offer to attract a candidate to come. Mr. Williams: Okay. But the mid position, what do that do to his range since he’s in a lower range now? Mr. Kolb: He is not in a lower range. 67 Mr. Williams: Well, okay. Mr. Kolb: Same range. He’s at a lower salary in the range. Mr. Williams: What would that do to his salary? We can get some things so right. Mr. Kolb: Nothing. Mr. Williams: Nothing. That’s all the question I had. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other questions? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: When we went through this some time ago as part of the public discussion whether we back [inaudible] and dealing with it, one of the questions that came out at that time, and I’m just seeking an answer whether anything was [inaudible], it can come from Mr. Kolb, it can come from HR, it can come even from a legal opinion in terms of where we go. But [inaudible], good, bad or indifferent, if you’ve got the position [inaudible] in terms of where you’ve got a person that’s sitting and in terms of [inaudible], one of the questions being [inaudible]. Let’s really cut the chase and go straight to the point [inaudible]. One of the things we’ve dealt with in discussing in the very beginning was whether or not we’re going to deal with additional salary, because when it came out in terms of what the [inaudible] going to be making, now if we going to talk about this, then let’s talk about this. Now we’ve said what [inaudible] part of the uproar was whether you were going to bring a person in at that time at one range and then you were going to go back and you had to elevate the other person in another range. I think the Administrator maybe needs to deal with the plan to a point that whether or not we’re going to ask to come back because again, getting back to my point about [inaudible], we will be doing that, and we’re going to be talking, gentlemen, about money. Now are we going to be asked in the budget to deal with an increase on the other Deputy that’s there? Is there a plan to move that person into some other position? Deal with that? I think those are the things that the Administrator needs to discuss quite candidly with the members of this Commission. He doesn’t have to do it on this floor [inaudible] stick it out here on an agenda item in terms of what’s going to be plan for your reorganization on this end of the floor and what it’s going to cost in order to do that. And that is the real political question that [inaudible] asking, whether or not we were going to have deal with $80,000 to $90,000 for one position and another $80,000 to deal with another one and an upgrade of $20,000. It gets back to what we have to deal with in [inaudible]. I didn’t cast a present vote before. In terms of [inaudible], I think he’s obviously a good person, but I think he needs to answer some budgetary questions 68 [inaudible] reorganization before we move on to these other [inaudible] in terms of Finance. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion with respect to this item?’ Mr. Shepard: So moved, Mr. Mayor, as recommended by the Administrator. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion that we deny the Administrator’s position at this time. Since I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth I might as well not stop now and keep talking and let this be something we take up after our budget season. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to Commissioner Williams’ motion? Mr. Beard: I’ll second it for discussion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that the action taken a minute ago and whatever action takes place right now, that what we’re saying is we want to do all the hiring and we want to do all the supervising and we don’t need the Administrator. This creates a problem for me. I look to the Administrator for performance. I don’t look to the Fire Chief. I don’t look to the Assistant Administrator or any department head. If something goes wrong, I go to Mr. Kolb. And the man is sitting there trying to do a good job. He’s asked for help. I think everybody on this Commission agreed that we’re understaffed as far as the Administrator’s office goes, and now we’re denying him the opportunity to go out and hire somebody. So [inaudible] and things don’t happen, I don’t think we need to -- we don’t need to blame the Administrator. We’re the ones at fault. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. Commissioner Kuhlke is right. I’d like to respond to that. We’re the one at fault. No one had blamed the Administrator for anything. First of all, we been having administrative type government for a long time. We had a previous administrator that we didn’t look to when things we wrong. We had finance problems, we had Housing & Neighborhood problems, we had other problems, and the administrator here, we don’t look to him. And we’re not looking to the Administrator now. So I don’t think we can throw that ball in that yard. We might have to find another one to throw it in. I agree that our Administrator, he is an administrator and not a manager. The Administrator supposed to have the authority to hire and fire. That’s not the type of government we have. We have an administrative type of 69 government and that means that the ten Commissioners and the Mayor, we are the -- we can’t put this blame on someone else. We can’t put this ball in somebody’s yard. We’ve got to accept this. So I think we ought to just postpone this position at this time since our budget season is here. (Videotape goes to commercial) (Videotape picks back up here after commercial) Mr. Beard: …they’re on line with what is our thinking and what we’re trying to do, and I think this is the point here where we have not fulfilled that in this particular item, and I think that the point is that you do have -- what is going to happen with some of the other staff that has been here? And I think maybe one or two people up here may know what that’s going to be, but I don’t think the whole group up here knows what that’s going to be. And I would just advise, you know, the Administrator that maybe, you know, in bringing this back you should make sure that everybody up here knows what’s going to happen to all of the staff that he has under his jurisdiction at this point. Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called by Mr. Shepard on the motion, the substitute motion to deny the Administrator’s request. So all in favor of the substitute motion to deny his request, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain. Motion fails 2-6-2. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is the approve the Administrator’s recommendation. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain. Motion fails 5-2-3. 67. OTHER BUSINESS Addendum Item 1. Select a voting delegate for the NLC Conference. Mr. Mayor: Before we go to the legal meeting, let’s take up the addendum agenda item, which is to select a voting delegate for the National League of Cities Conference. Is there a nomination? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I nominate, not just because of his GMA status, Commissioner Henry Brigham. 70 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham is nominated. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Shepard: I move the nominations be closed. Mr. Mayor: Shall we have a motion to -- Mr. Shepard: And approve it by acclamation. Mr. Mayor: By acclamation. All in favor, raise your hand. Mr. Brigham is approved by acclamation. 68. LEGAL MEETING ?? Consider Personnel matter. ?? Consider Real Estate matters. ?? Discuss real estate matter. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: For our legal meeting, we have item number 68. I would also request we put on the agenda consultation with our Attorney on our solid waste contract with CSRA Waste. Mr. Wall, did you have some items? Mr. Wall: Real estate matters. Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Shepard, you had an item, too, right? Mr. Shepard: Same thing. Mr. Mayor: Motion to go into legal? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We’ll move into legal session. Motion carries 10-0. (Videotape ends here) [LEGAL MEETING 5:20 - 6:40 P.M.] 69. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Cheek: I so move. 71 Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. 64. Consider continued employment of Keven Mack. Mr. Cheek: I so move that he be terminated. Mr. Williams: Second. [See attached copy of letter from Mr. John Michael Brown, Attorney for Keven Mack, at end of the minutes] (Audiotape back on) Mr. Wall: …and today I received this package from Mr. Brown, which I will tender to the Clerk and ask that you make it part of their appearance in this matter. Mr. Kolb: My recommendation would conclude that the termination be effective immediately. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, could I have Mr. Kolb restate his reasons for termination? We had some audio. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: It is my recommendation that Mr. Keven Mack be terminated as Director of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department. The reason for the termination is that I have lost confidence in his ability to lead the Housing and Neighborhood Department effectively. I would also recommend that his termination be effective immediately. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that’s been seconded to concur with the recommendation of the Administrator. Any discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges votes No. Mr. H. Brigham abstains. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see -- Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? 72 Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Cheek, we want to take care of this one real estate thing, then we’ll take up your item. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, we had one item you’d like to add. Mr. Wall: I’d like to add the acquisition of 3.5 acres of land in Butler Creek Corridor for the Greenspace Program for an acquisition price of $11,500.00 Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to add and approve? Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor, then, of adding and approving this item please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Item 58. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to reconsider item number 58. Any discussion? All in favor of --- Mr. Kuhlke: Whoa, whoa, what is it? The Clerk: Item 58 is to add on-call personnel for the groundwater system to the rotational system. Mr. Mayor: We approved that earlier and we’re being asked to reconsider it. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to reconsider this item, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion carries 6-3. 73 [Item 58. Motion to approve to add on-call personnel for the groundwater system to the rotational drive home list.] Mr. Mayor: All right. So we will reconsider item number 58. Is there a motion with respect to item number 58? Mr. Cheek: A motion to deny the recommendations here listed in 58 and to not allow those cars to go home. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would clear the board after you make that notation. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before the Commission? We’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. We’ll adjourn without objection. [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 November 20, 2001. Clerk of Commission 74