The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-15-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETNG COMMISSION CHAMBER January 15, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday, January 15, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Beard, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Cheek and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Maxwell. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions from the agenda today? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Before we get started, Commissioner Cheek will not be in attendance today; he’s out with the flu. Commissioner Shepard had a little accident; he . broke his ankle so he won’t be with us today as well ADDENDUM AGENDA: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA: Item 27. Resolution in support of an increase in the monthly 911 charge as proposed by the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Emergency Association. Item 36. Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to consider changing the enabling legislation of Augusta, Georgia, as recommended in the reports of the Special Grand Jury and the Charter Committee. Item 37. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to establish a State Veterans Cemetery in the Augusta area. Item 38. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to change the funding allocation on motor fuel products to provide one percent of the three percent to the Local Assistance Road Program (LARP). Item 40. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to change the Rail Transit Plan to include Augusta as a top priority for Amtrak rail passenger service and funding. 1 Item 42. resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to require Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN#) to be included in all real estate deeds. Item 43. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to impose additional surcharges on fines imposed by courts. Item 44. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to increase filing fees in civil cases in the courts of this state. Item 45. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to seek funding for Department of Revenue to support statewide WinGap Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal. Item 46. Resolution in support of legislation for an additional one percent sales tax on motor fuels for road projects and public transportation of consolidated governments . DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Item 39. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to extend the homestead option sales tax statewide. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to amend O.C.G.A. Section 48-13-51 so as to authorize an additional one percent tax on public accommodations for the purpose of promotion of tourism, conventions and trade shows. 2. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to seek funding for state supplements of appraisal staff salaries. 3. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to change the deadline for filing property returns from April 1 to February 1. 4. Discussion of 2002 Budget. (Requested by Commissioner Boyles) 5. New Ownership: A.N. 02-02: A request by John C. Melton II for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Red Lion pub located at 1936 Walton Way. District 2. Super District 9. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke) The Clerk: As far as our consent agenda, it’s as listed. There is one additional item that is not listed on the printed agenda; it’s a request from our Attorney to approve office lease agreement between Management Analysis and Utilization, Inc. for 10,000 square feet for a three-year term, with a one-year option to renew, beginning on March 1, at an annual rental of $115,000.00. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this item to the agenda today? 2 The Clerk: Along with the others. Mr. Boyles: Did you get mine, Madame Clerk? The one I had called about yesterday? The Clerk: Is it not on our printed agenda? Mr. Boyles: I think I called after the printed agenda came out. The Clerk: Yes, sir, it’s on there. It’s item 4. Discuss the 2002 budget. Mr. Mayor: Has everybody found the additions and deletions to the agenda which is on the back of the revisions to Commission agenda sheet? Everybody found that? The Clerk: The addendum agenda consists of additional information for those resolutions that did not have backup in our agenda book. That’s the first page. The second page consists of the deletion, which is item 39, at the request of the Attorney, to delete item 39 on the regular agenda. Additions to the agenda, items 1 through 5 as printed. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: You don’t have additional consent for adding these items to the agenda. Mr. Mayor: All right, which items? All of these items? Mr. Beard: Well, I haven’t had a chance to look at all of them, but a couple on here, I’m sure. And I think I would need additional time to do that. Except for what the Attorney is asking for. Mr. Mayor: So the District Attorney’s office? The lease for the D.A’s office? Mr. Beard: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So you don’t object to that one? Mr. Beard: I don’t object to that one. I’m going to object to all the others. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do you object to the deletion from the agenda? Mr. Beard: I don’t object to that. 3 Mr. Mayor: Are there any objections to any of these other items? So we do not have unanimous consent to add to the agenda items 1 through 5 on the addendum agenda. We do have unanimous consent to add the item that Mr. Wall has brought forth with respect to the D.A.’s office. Thank you gentlemen. Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with our recognition and delegation. RECOGNITION: Ms. Annie W. McCray 30 Years of Service Augusta-Richmond County Library The Clerk: Yes, sir, we would like to ask Ms. Annie W. McCray. Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Ms. McCray is being recognized today for 30 years of outstanding dedication and commitment to the Augusta-Richmond County Library. This was brought to the attention by Commissioner Andy Cheek who is unable to be with us today, for Ms. McCray’s dedication and commitment. She has served under four directors under her 30-year tenure with the library, and he thought it was worthy of recognition. Mr. Mayor: Ms. McCray, we’re very proud of you (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Ms. McCray wanted to remind me that this is not her retirement. She’s going to be at the library for a long time. (Laughter) DELEGATION: Mr. Stanley Hawes, President Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association RE: Closing of Dyess Park Community Center The Clerk: Under our delegation, Mr. Stanley Hawes, the president of the Laney- Walker Neighborhood Association, regarding the closing of the Dyess Park Community Center. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Hawes. Under the rules of the Commission, you have five minutes, so please go ahead. Mr. Hawes: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and distinguished Commissioners. What I would like to do is to come to y’all, not just as speaking for myself but as a messengers for the community of Laney-Walker and the surrounding areas to which Dyess Park has served. There has already been conflicting reports in the street that Dyess Park got closed and then you hear reports about maybe it will open, we have this 30-day moratorium. So I would like to hopefully take this time to come to y’all to at least shed 4 some light on what Dyess Park serves as in our community. It’s not just a park where you come and play baseball. It’s not just a park where you come and the kids can swing on the little games outside. Inside Dyess Park there is more or less in my community of Laney-Walker, has always served, since it’s been there, as a safe haven for kids to come in unobstructed, to be able to learn and grow in a structured environment, that which a lot of them don’t find at home. Some kids down there don’t have computers. We have computers at the park that can be used free. I went in and I played -- I like to go in and play a game of chess and I looked around and I saw the name of a kid, and I used that kid’s password because I know that kid is one of my first cousin’s kids. And he gave me the password to be able to get in because I forgot mine. This kid is about eight years old. If a setting like a park is not there, he would not have a chance to be able to learn different programs on computers, which he might be able to get in school, and he might not, to some degree. But it gives him the opportunity to be in that environment of positive setting. The structure part of it, which he’s under the control by park representatives, that can show him the right direction. I know a kid that’s three blocks away from me that’s in an area where there’s drugs being sold. That kid’s mother, I would hate to say, is a drug addict. Recover sometimes, sometimes she gets back on the street. At that kid’s home, that’s no real sanctuary of learning and growth, like people from other communities that’s unlike our community, cause it’s a low, moderate income level community. People like that that don’t have a chance, kids that’s growing up, I think it’s our responsibility, our responsibility to keep a park like Dyess Park open, because it don’t enjoy all the luxuries of the big mega-parks that we have. But it serves its purpose in its own right. It don’t make money like some parks. That’s in part because some of the funds have been cut through the years to the point of where it can only function, the doors can only be open. Some of the kids use antiquated computers. Anything that got 166 wrote on it, I don’t need in my house. But those kids come in, they use it with delight because they don’t have it at home. It’s just like Christmas coming in. They got games that they play that ordinarily they don’t have at home. I look at that. I can afford for my family, for my son, but in my community it’s still the same. It’s an underserved community. If this park goes and leaves, what we will be doing -- the Sheriff was here at the last meeting. I think he alluded to the term that if you did a certain thing, it was a certain thing on the agenda, he said well, I might have to build another pod. When you close down something like a recreation center in an area like Laney-Walker, what you basically are doing is setting the stage to build pods a few years down the road. Because these kids will be on the street, they will go basically for the things that are out there on the street, the drug dealers that know how to manipulate kids. We still have it down there. And that sanctuary, that setting, in the proper setting, those kids feel free and comfortable to come in and to keep learning like they do at school. I only ask of you to really consider the fact that Dyess Park needs to stay open for those kids and also for the underserved senior citizens in our community. We would be willing ourselves to even just to work with helping even get more programs back at Dyess Park. Maybe we can help find some funding to help get those programs going. But we need that park open, at least for the year, and maybe we can get with Mr. Beck and help decide on what to do in the future with that park. We served last meeting the names of petitioners who really felt like they would be open, there were some people in there who felt like they could provide some help if needed, and I know my time is just about to run out on me. But if you would just please, just allow me 5 to give the last names of the petitioners that was in there, which would bring out count up to about 1,000 petitioners that really felt like Dyess Park Center should have been open. And I mention the word center so everybody will know we’re talking about the center. And I appreciate your time and hopefully we’ll be able to see y’all out in the park to help promote it. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hawes. If you’ll give those to the Clerk, please. The Chair will recognize Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: First, Mr. Mayor, let me thank my neighborhood association president, Mr. Hawes, for coming. I want to thank him for being here two weeks ago and presenting the first petition on behalf of Dyess Park. Let me say this. I don’t usually go out on too many gambles unless I think I can win. That’s how I usually play. And I take very seriously the job the people have entrusted, and I’m sure all of us do. But I want to assure those persons, number one, that not only are here about the support of Dyess Park, but also in terms of support of our seniors and their nutrition centers. One of the reasons -- and I want to thank Commissioner Hankerson on the Administrative Services Commission last week for placing that part of it on. But I combined those two items, Mr. Mayor, because they are probably persons that are not only concerned in reference to -- and I’ve talked to the Administrator about this -- not only concerned about the Dyess Park situation, but as well as the nutrition centers and the importance of them, not just in one area but throughout this community, and the people that they serve. I’m going to say this, in going out on that particular limb, I know we’ve got a budget workshop on Thursday, but I think there is high sentiment in the community, and at least in terms of the feedback that many of us have gotten, people are concerned that we look at the different services. And I made this statement when I opened last week about hoping not to render this city dysfunctional. It was one of the reasons that I placed on the agenda, and I was glad that the majority of this Commission supported it, in terms of supporting that 30-day cooling off period for us to be able to go through, really seriously look at the impact that this budget was going to have on people. And I think we are working through that period, and I’m going to even go on the limb, President Hawes, and predict that we’re going to be able to restore that situation in Dyess Park, we’re going to be able to get those funds that are needed in there to deal with those seniors, and it’s not going to have to go back into the general fund on a tax millage increase. We’re just simply going to go through and do what we probably should have done in the very beginning. And I know my colleagues made a very good and prudent decision where they were, but we needed some more time. And sometimes when you do things in haste, you have to go back and you have to really look at it. And so we’re doing that right now. I think that on the proposal that will take place on Thursday, there will be different ideas that come out of this Commission, but Dyess Park is very close to me. I joked the other day, and those of you that know me know I don’t joke about anything that is in reference to Carrie Mays. I had a conversation with Pop Newman and I remember that park very dearly. In fact, [inaudible] I remember the lumber yard being there. And I remember the bond issue, Mr. Mayor, that Pop Newman was trying to get passed and he needed her support 6 in order to do it. One of the reasons that that part was there, and the funding to be able to tear down and put it there was because of the city’s commitment in order to make that a viable place and to remove that eyesore. It not only needs to be there in terms of its geographical place, but it needs to have organized and supervised recreation that’s there. There is a very distinct purpose for it being there. We made a commitment to deal with public safety, and I think that’s good. But if you talk about an unbalanced situation, if we’re going to put at the top of the agenda our needs for jails -- and certainly we need to put at the top of our agenda to deal with those items that protect our children, that care for our seniors, and will do those things we have to do sometimes under the gun of the law for bad folks. It’s time that we do what’s right for good folks. And I think we’ve got the time in order to get this done. I know where my commitment is going to be. And I think I can at least say for the majority of this Commission that we are going to restore those items and that that is going to be done and it’s going to be done hopefully by the close of the business day of the first meeting in February. I think we do have an item later on to deal with the seniors. I’m not bent on particularly what box of money it comes out of, I just want to make sure it gets done, and I think that the majority of the Commission is going to do what is right. Sometimes I’ve said, many times you can make the right decision, and the right decision doesn’t always have to be right. Things surround decisions. But if you just simply do what’s right. And this is the right thing that we must do. And so I just wanted to cover, Mr. Mayor, both of those items, particularly because I know there are persons not just about their park, but that are concerned about our nutrition sites and those programs which affect our seniors across this community. So I just want the record to speak that the Dyess Park issue for its funding source is not on there today but it is within this period that we’re dealing with, this 30-day reorganization, of getting those items which, quite frankly, will get us functional and do those things for people that will get done. And I’m going to go a little bit further in my gamble that in order to get it done, you know each of us by face and by name, so I’m going to hustle a th little bit. I’m going to do a little 9 Street hustling. You know who’s here. Take a good look at us. Call us. Phone us. Say what is important to you, and when the time we vote in February, to deal with that package, and say what you really want. We’re the same ones who asked you to vote for sales tax. We’re the same ones who asked you to come out and to help us to build new fire stations, to be able to put senior centers in place, to be able to put those buildings. I think it’s counter-productive at this point in time to think even foolishly about closing the very things that you placed such a great part in and helping to open and to keep in place. That can be done. It can be done still with the prudency of keeping the budget intact, and while I know we’ve got to do some things to deal with public safety, a little bit of fine tuning, a little bit of gut wrenching to turn those things around, a little bit of time, and of putting good folks first, we’re going to be able to get that done. But don’t leave us out of the process. Everybody in here, and I know some phone number almost by heart, but there’s 10 folks up here, 11 with the Mayor. Give us a call. If you’re not old-fashioned like me and you’ve got email, then email us and deal with it. But come that first meeting in February, we’re going to replace those things. That’s what this 30-day period is about, and we’re going to get that done. And we’re going to get that done. I know the President said the other day some things weren’t going to happen but over his dead body. Now I do that for a living. 7 (Laughter) Mr. Mays: I’m not planning on leaving anytime soon. I’m not planning to, but it may just happen. I just hope I’m ready. I hope to be around over my live body. But we need your support. Talk to us about that, and I think we’ve got the general support from the majority of this Commission to get those things done and to keep them intact as they are. We thank you for coming. And that’s going to get done in February. And it’s going to be with my live body. (Laughter) (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Madame Clerk, if we may, move along with our consent agenda. And what we’d like to try to do is add to the consent agenda, if we can, items number 21, 22, and the resolutions 23 through 49, plus the D.A.’s lease. If we could add all those to the consent agenda, if we’ve got a consensus to do that. Mr. Williams: No, sir, Mr. Mayor, you don’t have a consensus to add the rest of these in the regular agenda, you’re saying from 23 to what? Mr. Mayor: Yeah, those resolutions. But you could pull, we can pull from it to discuss individual ones, but rather than vote on each one separately we could just vote on that as part of the consent agenda and deal with those ones you wanted to discuss individually. Mr. Williams: Okay, okay. Mr. Mayor: Just like we do regular consent agenda. Mr. Williams: I’m with you. I’m with you. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to discuss item 46. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s see if we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, including in that items 21, 22, 23 through 49, plus the D.A.’s lease Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Or do you want to discuss the D.A.’s lease separately? Mr. Beard: We can include that in there. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard, you made a motion? Mr. Beard: I move that we accept that consent agenda. 8 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: And there’s a second. Mr. Boyles, you wanted to pull which item? Mr. Boyles: I wanted to pull item 46. Mr. Mayor: Number 46 for Mr. Boyles, okay. Mr. Boyles: And I think we have a delegation here that wants to hear item 2. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’re going to have Ms. Bonner go through the zoning issues here in just a moment. Mr. Colclough: Pull number 47. Mr. Mayor: Number 47 for the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would like to pull 25, 30, 33, 34 and 36. Mr. Mayor: Okay, that’s 25, 30, 33, 34 and 36. Mr. Bridges: Number 23, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Number 23 for Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams: I’d like to get some clarification on number 11, too, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Number 11 for Mr. Williams. Any others? Mr. Kuhlke: Number 1. Mr. Mayor: Number 1 for Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: I need to ask a question. Is that the one that Mann Memorial Church, or is that 2? The Clerk: George, Mr. Patty? Is number 1 Mann Memorial Church? Mr. Patty: That’s 2. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, has 27 been pulled already? Mr. Mayor: No, sir, 27 has not been pulled. Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull it, 27. 9 Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyles: Number 2. Mr. Mayor: You wanted to pull number 2, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Hankerson: I’ll speak to number 2. That’s in District 5. Mr. Mayor: Any other items? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: If we could, insofar as item number 16 on the minutes, I would like to note one clarification, either pull it now or note the clarification. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and pull it if we could. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Mayor: I want to get to the delegations we have out here in the audience as quickly as we can. Which item is that, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: 16. Mr. Mayor: 16? Okay. Let’s see if we have any folks here for these items that have not been pulled so we can add those to the list of pulled items. The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to any of the planning petitions, if there are any objectors would you please let us know by raising your hand as I call the petition and the location. PLANNING: 1. Z-02-02 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Bussey, on behalf of William W. Moore, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located at 3517 Milledgeville Road and contains 4.63 acres (Tax Map 68 Parcels 38 & 39). DISTRICT 3 2. Already been pulled from the consent agenda. Z-02-03 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 50’ undisturbed natural buffer be maintained along the rear property line and 50’ of 6’ solid board fence be constructed on the west property line just south of the undisturbed natural 10 buffer; a petition by Reverend Reather Kennedy, on behalf of Diane Graham Lamb, et al., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and day care activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on 2711 and 2713 Milledgeville Road and containing 1.31 acres (Tax Map 71-3, Parcels 008 & 007). DISTRICT 5 3. Z-02-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tillman Wilson, on behalf of Williams Memorial CME Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing an existing church into zoning conformance including a day care service per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning th Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on 1630 15. Street and containing 2.32 acres (Tax Map 58-4 Parcels 33, 34 & 35 and Tax Map 58-2 Parcel 156). DISTRICT 5 4. Z-02-05 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnathon Gore, on behalf of Nixon Trust, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on 3736 Mike Padgett Highway and containing 2.5 acres (part of Tax Map 158 Parcel 6.07). DISTRICT 8 5. Z-02-06 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Leonard Mole, on behalf of Hunt Headly, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) on property located on 2815 Deans Bridge Road and containing .57 acres (Tax Map 85-4 Parcel 59). DISTRICT 5 6. Z-02-07 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Trent O’Neill, on behalf of Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Co., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on five (5) parcels containing a total of .39 acres Beginning at a point located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bennett Lane and D’Antignac Street (Tax Map 46-4 Parcels 239, 240, 248, 249, 250). DISTRICT 1 7. Z-02-08 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James A. Warren requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on 2427 and 2429 Turkey Trail Drive and containing 1.04 acres (Tax Map 166 Parcels 167 & 168). DISTRICT 6 8. Z-02-09 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Shah requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2182 Gordon Highway and containing 1.81 acres (Tax Map 68 Parcel 22.2). DISTRICT 3 11 The Clerk: Under public services, there is a petition: PUBLIC SERVICES: 10. Motion to approve a request by Brenda Palmer for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Alex’s Restaurant & Sports Bar located at 3160 Wrightsboro Rd. There will be Sunday sales. DISTRICT 5, SUPER DISTRICT 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 7, 2002) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning petitions and alcohol petitions? Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here for any of those zoning issues? Please raise your hand so we can pull your item out so we can talk about it. I think some of you are here for item number 2. Any other items or the alcohol license? None are noted. Mr. Mays: You’ve got -- this is on the regular agenda [inaudible] in terms of [inaudible]. The Clerk: Nutrition center. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s on the regular agenda. PLANNING: 1. Z-02-02 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Bussey, on behalf of William W. Moore, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located at 3517 Milledgeville Road and contains 4.63 acres (Tax Map 68 Parcels 38 & 39). DISTRICT 3 2. Deleted from consent agenda. 3. Z-02-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tillman Wilson, on behalf of Williams Memorial CME Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing an existing church into zoning conformance including a day care service per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning th Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on 1630 15. Street and containing 2.32 acres (Tax Map 58-4 Parcels 33, 34 & 35 and Tax Map 58-2 Parcel 156). DISTRICT 5 4. Z-02-05 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnathon Gore, on behalf of Nixon Trust, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on 3736 Mike Padgett Highway and containing 2.5 acres (part of Tax Map 158 Parcel 6.07). DISTRICT 8 12 5. Z-02-06 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Leonard Mole, on behalf of Hunt Headly, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) on property located on 2815 Deans Bridge Road and containing .57 acres (Tax Map 85-4 Parcel 59). DISTRICT 5 6. Z-02-07 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Trent O’Neill, on behalf of Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Co., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on five (5) parcels containing a total of .39 acres Beginning at a point located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bennett Lane and D’Antignac Street (Tax Map 46-4 Parcels 239, 240, 248, 249, 250). DISTRICT 1 7. Z-02-08 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James A. Warren requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on 2427 and 2429 Turkey Trail Drive and containing 1.04 acres (Tax Map 166 Parcels 167 & 168). DISTRICT 6 8. Z-02-09 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Shah requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2182 Gordon Highway and containing 1.81 acres (Tax Map 68 Parcel 22.2). DISTRICT 3 9. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL – CAMBRIDGE SECTION THREE-B – S-606- B – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a request by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for Cambridge, Section Three-B. This development is located on Warwick Place, east of the Manchester Drive right-of-way and contains 17 lots. PUBLIC SERVICES: 10. Motion to approve a request by Brenda Palmer for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Alex’s Restaurant & Sports Bar located at 3160 Wrightsboro Rd. There will be Sunday sales. DISTRICT 5, SUPER DISTRICT 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 7, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 11. Deleted from consent agenda. FINANCE: 12. Motion to approve a policy that all city surplus vehicles be auctioned off with the exception of requests from entities (governmental/academia) inside Richmond County. (Approved by Finance Committee January 7, 2002) 13 ENGINEERING SERVICES: 13. Motion to authorize City Attorney to amend the lease agreement for the Augusta Utilities Department with Development Associates, Inc. to add 334 square feet of usable office space to current lease agreement at the current rate. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 7, 2002) 14. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Bobby Jones Business Park, Phase II-B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 7, 2002) 15. Motion to approve Revised State-Aid County Contract Priority List. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 7, 2002) PETITION & COMMUNICATIONS: 16. Deleted from consent agenda. APPOINTMENT: 17. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Benjamin Small, Jr., to the Augusta-Richmond County Personnel Board representing District 5. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 21. Motion to approve pass-through Emergency Fund grant award in the amount of $5,000 to the Boy Scouts Reach Program. 22. Motion to approve setting the following qualifying fees for 2002: ?? State Court Judge $ 3,004.47 ?? Mayor, City of Augusta $ 1,950.00 ?? Board of Education $ 100.00 Addendum Item: Motion to approve Office Lease Agreement between Management Analysis and Utilization, Inc. and Augusta, Georgia for 10,000 square feet for a three year term, with two one year options to renew, beginning March 1, 2002, at an annual rental of $115,000.00 ($11.50 per square foot). ATTORNEY: 23. Deleted from consent agenda. 24. Motion to an ordinance to amend county Code Section 2-2-32(e)(iii) so as to provide for use of the hotel and motel tax; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other purposes. 25. Deleted from consent agenda. 26. Motion to approve an ordinance amending Augusta Richmond County, Title 7, Chapter 2, by adding new sections to establish procedures for abatement of unsafe and unhealthy premises pursuant to state law. 27. Deleted from consent agenda. 14 28. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to seek funding for improvements for security, fire protection, automation, and structural improvements of the Augusta Library facilities. 29. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend Official Code of Georgia §16-11-127.1 to include parking lots of public buildings in the definition as to public gatherings. 30. Deleted from consent agenda. 31. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support Legislation to permit the sale of license plates to fund sterilization programs for dogs and cats. 32. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to require a 30-day waiting period before issuing a Georgia driver’s license to a non-United States citizen. 33. Deleted from consent agenda. 34. Deleted from consent agenda. 35. Deleted from consent agenda. 36. Deleted from consent agenda. 37. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to establish a State Veterans Cemetery in the Augusta area. 38. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to provide one percent of the three percent sales tax on motor vehicle fuel to the LARP Program in the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) budget. 39. Deleted from consent agenda. 40. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to change the rail transit plan to include Augusta as a top priority for rail passenger service and funding. 41. Deleted from consent agenda. 42. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to require parcel identification numbers (PIN) to be included in all real estate deeds. 43. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to impose additional surcharges on fines imposed by Courts. 44. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to increase filing fees in civil cases in the Courts of this state. 45. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to seek funding for Department of Revenue to support statewide WINGAP Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal. 46. Deleted from consent agenda. 47. Deleted from consent agenda. 48. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to declare any tenant’s personal property remaining on rental premises as abandoned property upon eviction. 15 49. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to provide tax credits when land or conservation easements are donated to charitable organization. Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen, we’ve had a motion to approve the consent agenda, adding a number of items and pulling items 2, 11, 16, 23, 25, 30, 27, 33, 34, 36, 46 and 47. Did we miss any? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, would you read the last part again, 33 down? Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, we have 33, 34, 36, 46 and 47. So we’ll call the question on the motion to approve. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I missed one. Can we take 35 out? Mr. Mayor: 35? Yes, we can pull that. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] 41. The Clerk: 35 and 41? Mr. Mayor: Yes, we’ll pull those. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Could the record show that I vote no on Sunday sales and also no on item 29, please. Mr. Colclough: Likewise on Sunday sales. Mr. Bridges votes No. Motion caries 7-1. [Item 29] Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion. [Item 10] Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 26, 28-29, 31-32, 37-38, 40- 45, 48-49] The Clerk: 16 2. Z-02-03 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 50’ undisturbed natural buffer be maintained along the rear property line and 50’ of 6’ solid board fence be constructed on the west property line just south of the undisturbed natural buffer; a petition by Reverend Reather Kennedy, on behalf of Diane Graham Lamb, et al., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and day care activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on 2711 and 2713 Milledgeville Road and containing 1.31 acres (Tax Map 71-3, Parcels 008 & 007). DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Do we have some objectors here for this? If you’d raise your hands so the Clerk can get a count, please. (11 citizens present with concerns about granting the special exception) Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Williams: I don’t think they’re objectors. They’ve got some concerns and want a voice but I don’t think they’re objecting. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’re going to hear from Mr. Patty and then we’ll hear from the neighborhood. Mr. Patty, give us the background on this. Mr. Patty: This property is just west of Mann Memorial Church on Milledgeville Road. The petitioner wants to buy the property, if the special exception is granted, and establish a church in an existing building on the property. Actually two buildings on the property. And these buildings are small. They want to convert one of these buildings, as I said, into a church. They want, because of the size of the congregation, they don’t want to add on to the building, they want to use the existing yard area for parking and they don’t want to make any improvements at this time. They would not be required to do a site plan under the provisions of the zoning ordinance if they didn’t make any improvements to the building, although we would have some discretion as far as making them pave parking, making them improve the entrance, ingress and egress to the property. Those would be decisions to be made by the County Engineer and the Traffic Engineer if the application is successful. It doesn’t appear that the petition as presented would create much impact on adjoining property owners. It shouldn’t affect flow water from the property. No objectors were at the Planning Commission meeting. These issues weren’t discussed, but it’s my feeling that a special exception would not impact other properties at this time. But if they wanted to make improvements in the future, then they would have to do a site plan, they would have to get engineering done, they would have to deal with those issues. But from what they’ve presented to us, it doesn’t appear to be a lot of impact. 17 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, has the church already purchased the property or is there a contract subject to zoning? Mr. Patty: I believe the contract is subject to, but they will have to speak to that. Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone here from the church? Go ahead. Ms. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, I am Rev. Reather Kennedy. I am the pastor of New Zealand Baptist Church, and we are trying to purchase that property, but it depends upon the zoning. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there anything you wanted to say about your application before we hear from the neighbors? Ms. Kennedy: No, I think I’d like to see what the objections are first. Mr. Mayor: Very good. If you’ll return to your seat, we’ll see if any of them would like to speak. Monroe, did you want to speak? Mr. Wade: Yes. Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Wade: I’m Monroe Wade. I’m a member of Mann Memorial Church. Have been a member for over 50 years. Our main concerns are what effect it’s going to have on us. We are not petitioning for the church not being used next door to us, but there are several items that come up that we would like to have cleared up. One thing, we wonder why a fence wasn’t proposed to be put between our property and a commercial property on the other side. Also, the water drainage problem which we have had years back -- after Milledgeville Road was reconstructed, the storm pipe is not sufficient to take off the water. The county came in and rerouted some water off of our property. Before that was done, our church had been flooded several times, ruining furniture, carpet, such as that. The reason of this was when the state highway department widened the intersection, the engineers and the inspector allowed them to raise the storm pipe and reduce the size, rather than going to the expense of lowering the water line in order to put in a large enough pipe to take care of the runoff water. And also, the property up front of the one adjoining us that is being petitioned to be rezoned is lower than the existing storm pipe, and if anything is done, they’re going to put water on us. We also would like to have a fence put between us and them because of if they use their property for day care and children from their property get on our property and get hurt, then we are liable. We have a day care center in our church, with the playground. It’s fenced, it’s supervised and taken care of. And when you have other children that’s not members trying to take and work on your property, you are liable for them just like the deal with the swimming pools. Most of you know what that deal is. Somebody gets hurt, you are liable. And as far as -- another issue was that the sign that was posted for rezoning, some way or another it got put down, took down, blown down, however it got done, then it was posted inside 18 the building behind dirty windows and we were not aware of it. So I feel like that if this body approves it, then you are approving it under protest. But you could also -- I don’t know how your structure is as far as extending the time for zoning and let us go back and petition it not be or get some other questions about it, then answer for us, then we’d be glad to go along with it. It’s not petitioning that we don’t want it done. It’s petitioning that we want to know what is going to be done and how it will affect us. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Would anyone else from the group like to speak? Pastor, did you want to respond now? Ms. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m not sure how much responding I can do, but let me try. First of all, the effects of New Zealand being next to Mann Memorial should be all positive, rather than negative. I think that Mann Memorial may be a little afraid or something that we’re going to try to pull their members away. That is not our purpose at all. Our purpose is to glorify God. Two churches should be able to build next to one another if the need arises without citing each other. We do not have a purpose of going in there to destroy anything that belongs to Mann Memorial Church. We have already agreed to put in the fence that the Commission has asked us to put in. As far as the water problem, we are not doing anything to the land at this moment. We do understand that should we decide to pave or should we have to pave, that we will have to put in a water retention pond, which of course will protect their property as well as our property. We have been told that as long as we stick to the original footprint of the building, that there would be no problem with us doing the interior of the building, which is what we plan on doing. As far as the daycare center is concerned, that is something that is in the future. We do not have a plan to start a daycare center right away. The reason that we put it on the agenda and included in this rezoning is so that we would not have to come back to the Commission two years down the road and pay more money to have it rezoned for a daycare center. As far as the rezoning sign, of course New Zealand has nothing to do with that sign. We don’t put the sign up. We did go out there, the sign was down. As a matter of face, Jim Reeves, who has been working with New Zealand Baptist Church, he did contact Mr. Austin, I believe it was, one time to find out why the sign was not posted. And Mr. Austin told him that it had been posted. So we have no idea why the sign was down. We have not been trying to hide the fact that we have been planning on coming on there. We would like to go in there as brother-to-brother and sister-to sister, rather than go in there as opponents. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen on the Commission, do you have any questions or comments? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor, if you don’t mind, I know in the past it seems to me that there’s just some need for some clarification. I know in the past what we’ve done is deferred any action and asked the petitioner and the Mann Memorial people maybe to get together and make sure that the conditions that are set forth in the agenda item will satisfy both parties. And so I’d like to make a motion that we defer any action on this and maybe ask -- ask both parties to get together with Mr. Patty and see if you can satisfy what your concerns are and put it on our next agenda. 19 Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Bridges: Second it. Mr. Mayor: There is a second. All right. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I received a call, too, from a member of Mann Memorial, and to me the concerns were not to object to the church coming, but the concerns were to make sure that these concerns that was mentioned by the gentleman and by the caller, the member that called me, the grading, the playground, and the parking lot, make sure that it be incorporated in the development plan. So I so no need to stall the I think that if we can make sure that these concerns are church from going forward. incorporated in the development plan, and I move that the petition be passed. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor, with further comment, if I may. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask for a clarification from Rev. Hankerson. Are you moving it be approved as stated in the caption on the agenda? Mr. Hankerson: I move that it be passed with the concerns about the grading, the playground liability, the parking, those things be included in the development plan. If they agree to do that, and I think I’m hearing the pastor saying that those things that they are willing to cooperate with need to be done, and I think if that’s done, there’s no need to stall the church. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Williams, you wanted to speak? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to bring two issues out on the thing. The pastor said that the daycare issue was an issue in the future. I think Mr. Patty may be able to help us out, as if we can incorporate those concerns that they have in the approval of this plan, that it would be in writing that they would adhere to the laws of this Augusta Richmond County that they will do the infrastructure, do the things they need to do by law to make that a livable situation for both parties. And I hear the pastor agreeing to that and I think that is what the church is inquiring of, to not know what happen after they get in that situation. So I think if Mr. Patty, who may be able to get with us, I mean, Mr. Patty, if you’d come to the podium for a minute, please. Can these things be incorporated now or do we have to go back and meet? And I understand what Commissioner Kuhlke is saying, too, but do we have to do that and delay in coming back again or can we incorporate those things that are for the improvement, for the parking and the fence for the daycare and all that kind of stuff, can that be incorporated? Mr. Patty: Well, what I tried to explain earlier is what they’re proposing to do is basically nothing. Use the existing house just like it is, not make any improvements for 20 parking. If in the future, you know, they need to expand or they need to build a new building or anything, they’d have to come back with a fully-engineered site plan and prove that they can meet all the county’s rules and regulations. But what they’re proposing to do right now is to utilize one of these small houses for their small congregation, and except for leaving a 50’ feet buffer on the back, because they back up to residential property, they would not do anything other than use the existing house. Mr. Williams: So if I’m hearing you right, George, then if this is approved they won’t be able to do any improvements unless they get a site plan; is that right? Mr. Patty: That is correct. Mr. Williams: And the site plan will be governed by this Augusta Richmond County -- Mr. Patty: By its rules and regulations. But if they -- they could, if it’s approved, continue to use the house just like it is with no improvements, indefinitely. That’s the issue. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, the daycare portion of it, is that enclosed? Mr. Patty: Mr. Bridges, we have so many churches in Augusta Richmond County that have day cares that we have started telling churches when they come to us to just include that language in the special exception request and you won’t have to come back if you want to establish a daycare in two years, and I think that’s what the pastor suggested is the situation for them. They don’t have any immediate plan to do a daycare. And frankly, on a small structure like that, I don’t see how you could do a daycare and a church. But we have started telling all churches when they come to us to go ahead and include that in the language on the special exception so you don’t have to come back in two years. Most of these day cares are -- Mr. Bridges: But what are you including here in the language here, George, on approval for a daycare? From what I’ve heard, the main complaint I heard from this gentleman here is a liability issue. The drainage and that kind of issue the county can address outside of the discussion here. But was the liability issue. That liability issue I would think would be resolved if the daycare is enclosed, just as Mann Memorial has theirs done. But what you’re telling me, you just put the daycare in there so they could do it later on; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Patty: I would think to get the ox out of the ditch if you want to, just leave the language about the daycare out, approve it special exception for a church, and if in the 21 future they want to do daycare let them come back, and then that would resolve that part of the problem. Mr. Bridges: Would the maker of the last motion accept that as part of the motion, that language of the daycare be taken out at this time? Would the church object to that? Ms. Kennedy: What I might say, and what I have said in the past, is that we have no intention of opening up a daycare at this point, but I think that you are penalizing New Zealand. You have not penalized Mann. If it comes down to it, you have penalized us in a lot of ways. You have made us put a 50’ buffer behind our property. You’ve taken 50 feet of our land. Mann land connects to residential property. You did not make Mann do that. Okay, we have agreed to do everything that the Commission has asked us to do. And you still are not satisfied. What else do you want us to do? Mr. Bridges: Well, you know, what I’m hearing in the objection from Mann Memorial, the delegation here from them, is a liability issue, and I think that would address it. But if that’s not going to address it in the motion, then I think Mr. Kuhlke’s motion is the reasonable way to go, which we’ve done in the past, and that is that the two parties get together and discuss their issues out and come back to the Commission. Ms. Kennedy: May I ask you to delete that part from the petition, rather than having us come back? Because the owner has another offer for the land, and they need an answer. And I’m not going to buy the land if it’s not rezoned. So that’s why I ask you to delete it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough had his hand up and then Rev. Hankerson. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’ve sat on Planning & Zoning for a number of years. Most of these churches who come in -- this is no different from any other application that we have approved over in Planning & Zoning, here at this Commission, and I don’t see a reason why this application can’t be approved as written in this agenda book. We do it all the time. Rather than putting special stipulations on the church. I mean what I read here is no different from what we’ve done on all the past applications for churches and daycare centers. The lady said that she’s not going to put a daycare center there right now. I think that should satisfy everybody. And I’m going to support the motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Hankerson: That’s fine. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say that I’m going to vote for Mr. Hankerson’s motion, simply from this standpoint, is that some of the concerns that Mann has is if they move forward and they decide to develop the property, they are going to 22 have to comply with all of the ordinances that we have in the county, and if I read this correctly, Mr. Patty, it shows a 6’ high solid-board fence on the west property line. Is that between Mann and the church? Mr. Patty: No, it’s on the other side. Mr. Kuhlke: It’s on the other side? Mr. Patty: Yes. Because that’s residential property on the rear, the other side. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor, a substitute motion to approve the special exception. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item we want to go to is number 18. I understand we have a number of people here interested in that item, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 18. Motion to approve the allocation of UDAG funds to fund Senior Citizens Nutritional Program for 2002. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you have an update on this? Mr. Kolb: Yes. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at your last meeting you asked us to prepare a budget amendment to transfer UDAG funds into the general fund to fund the senior nutrition program. If at all possible, I would like to postpone discussion of this particular item until Thursday at 4 o’clock, if not at all, to delete the item because we have found another alternative to financing this particular program and other programs. As we went through to true up the budget amendment or the budget that was passed on December 27, we discovered that there were some double counting, there were some funds left in the budget to pay for a particular COPS note that had not been deleted, and as we trued it up, we trued up some additional monies. So Thursday, we would like to discuss where those monies should be placed, and this would be part of that recommendation. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, if action were not taken on this today, would the program be in jeopardy before the Commission could make a decision to put other funding toward this? 23 Mr. Kolb: No. Because you have placed a 30-day moratorium on cutting any services from the budget, and therefore during that discussion we can figure out how to finance that 30-day period if we have to. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Hankerson, then Mr. Mays. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard what the Administrator said, but first of all I want to apologize for the citizens of Augusta for what we put them through for the last past two or three weeks, people thinking that they are going to lose their jobs, senior citizens now concerned about this nutritional program. First of all, I want you to know that these senior citizens that attend the nutritional program -- this program is not just to hand out meals, it’s about care, it’s about observation, it’s about relationship, it’s about hope, it’s about jobs, it’s about [inaudible], as one time that the Master said that He comes and sits at the table that they may have a relationship to give each other hope. A lot of these senior citizens have no other alternative. This is their friends. This is where friends meet. I visit the senior citizens and we have some very good senior citizens programs across the city of Augusta. Now I wanted to find some sources to fund this. I asked and searched and researched. Unfortunately I couldn’t find that million dollars, but that million dollars came up a little bit too late. And I want to today, that these senior citizens leave here today knowing that the nutritional program will be funded. And I think that it can still come from the UDAG money, and if we want to use this $960,000 to reimburse the $85,000 for the nutritional program, that’s fine. But I think these senior citizens today should go knowing that they still have a program. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Hankerson: I want to put in a form of a motion that we would use the funds from UDAG to fund the Nutritional Program. Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’m not on that Administrative Services Committee and I said earlier when I made the statement that I thank my new colleague for placing in on the committee that he’s on. And at the time, as he so stated, those new-found monies were not there. But being one of these old relics around here, I’d like to kind of get two shots at the same deal, cause if you miss once then you get a chance to get it again. The reason why that this was done in that particular committee was because on the public services side of Housing & Neighborhood Development, I think we were out of the percentage of money that we could spend on public services. However, the County Attorney ruled on that particular day in committee that this was an eligible source, that we could use it. And while I think it’s good that we may can discuss this, I think it’s a lot easier to solve the problem on the nutrition side today out of a found source. There will be nothing illegal about reimbursing the particular source over in UDAG, if the Commission so decides to do that, and then we’re right back at it. But the thing that we 24 get solved is that we cure one of the negative momentum rollers that this whole process has caused. This will get this behind us, at least on this episode part. And so while I think that it’s good that that money is found, I back up a little bit because if we’d not put the brakes on, if we’d not been in a 30-day moratorium mode, then we might not be th looking to find any money at all. It may not have turned up until Easter, the 4 of July, Labor Day, or in the next budget. So I think while that’s good that that came, and I thank God for it, that I think that we have a legitimate funding source again that does not go back into a taxing mechanism. I think that the new-found money can be placed again. As Rev. Hankerson said, back into that to reimburse that fund, I think these folk are here today, they will not necessarily be back during out budget workshop, they may not be back in February, the first meeting, because I think we do have some other issues to settle in Recreation & Parks and I know as a new chairman, you all have handed me that, I’ve accepted that responsibility, and I’m certainly going to be fighting for that department because we’ve got other issues that we got to get done in there. But the nutrition part of it, which came out of Administrative Services with no recommendation, but was placed on there to be put on this agenda today, I think it goes a long way towards solving that, I think it restores the confidence and a part that if we have a legitimate source in order to do it, then we need to go in, like the Nike commercial, just do it. It’s there, it’s legitimate, we’re not dealing with any millage rates, we’re dealing with a source of funds that’s there. And I remind you, as I reminded those in committee the other day, it’s in that department primarily because we have a department where we have a community that has a very high percentage of low-to-moderate income people, and I know the history of UDAG, I don’t have to be reminded of it. I sat right in one of those chairs inside the rail when we passed the first one in this city during the McIntyre administration. So I’m very much aware of what UDAG was intended for. But I’m also reminded that there is a legal way, and there are no restrictions on what we are doing today. Mr. Wall has already ruled on that. It is reprogrammed money out of that department. We need to go ahead on, pass this item today, get this behind us, and then we deal with the rest of it during the budget workshop and then we deal with those other things that come out of budget workshop on the first meeting of February. I hope the Commission will support Rev. Hankerson’s motion. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to say that I support the nutritional program. However, I feel like that there is a procedure that we need to go through. I think the funds that are being allocated to keep that program alive for this year are temporary funds, and I think we need to be on a more permanent basis as far as looking at a lot of programs within this county. I think there are a lot of issues we need to look at when we go through the workshop, and so today I’m not going to support that motion, for that reason, because I think there are other items that we need to take into consideration Thursday when we get together. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges? 25 Mr. Bridges: Jim, I know there are certain requirements for UDAG and I think this was done before, or something very similar before. Is this legal or is there any legal question of what we’re doing? Mr. Wall: As long as these are reprogrammed funds, that flow through again, then they lose the restrictions that they come in there with. My understanding is these are reprogrammed funds that they are utilizing. Mr. Bridges: Are we bypassing the Citizens Review Board in approving this? I mean is this a matter that needs to come before them? Mr. Wall: I don’t think that comes within their area of responsibility. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Ms. Williams: May I say something? Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, ma’am. The Commissioners are talking. Mr. Bridges: Well, that’s fine if Ms. Williams wants to speak. Ms. Williams: I do. Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for record. Ms. Williams: My name is Irma Laurie Williams. I’m Ulmer’s appointee to the Housing & Neighborhood. I have no objections to anything being used for the nutrition sites or anything. Mr. Mayor: Are you speaking on behalf of the board? Ms. Williams: No, for myself. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Williams: My objection is that since we have -- we do not have a head of Housing & Neighborhood anymore, our office -- we have all been bypassed. We’ve not had a meeting at all. But personally I am in favor of this, but I do think all of y’all have appointed somebody to that board, and it should not be ignore, and we should at least be there to send our advice over, our opinions over. We all have supported everything for seniors. We love the seniors. We are still seniors, too. But I still don’t think that we should be overlooked. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Williams. 26 Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple of things that I need to say, I guess. I’m going to support the motion that was made by Commissioner Hankerson. And I’m sorry I was not present at the Administrative Services Committee, which I chair, at this particular point. I think there are many things to be considered, and my support of this motion at this time to do this would be based on the fact of the emotional turmoil that we have created in the last couple of weeks in dealing with the budget. I don’t think -- many of our seniors have called me in the process wanting to know what is going to happen to them as far as the nutritional program was concerned. We were not able to give them definitive answers, simply because it is a hard time, and at the time of the passing of the budget we thought it was necessary to do that, and this was one of the cuts because everybody was taking cuts. At the time, I think that in doing the moratorium, the 30-day moratorium, and at the last meeting I attended, we came up with the idea of doing some things that would be sure that our citizens, and especially our senior citizens, could be tentative and agree to the point that they would be taken care of if we could find the money. The money was found and we appropriated that. It would be good to sit here and say that maybe we ought to wait until after Thursday, but we have a lot of things that we need to deal with on Thursday. Sure, this would be one of them. But I think that if we have the money, if we’ve found the funding for this, let’s use it. If it has to be replaced, let’s replace it. And we can do that. But we’ve taken a lot of flack from entities in our community in the last few days, and the last weeks, I should say, about funding. So now we come up with funding and I’m sure that this is no criticism on our Finance Department because I think they are doing a good job. But, you know, to come out and find a million dollars, maybe that’s something we should look at. People just don’t find a million dollars every day. So now what’s going to happen if we lose that million dollars? This will ensure everybody here today that it will be funded. I think our seniors will be able to leave here knowing with the satisfaction that they are going to continue their program and that’s why I am going to support this motion at this particular time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then back to Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Beard. And what Mr. Bridges said about the advisory board being a part of this government, and it is. It’s those people that we appointed there and I appreciate the comments that Ms. Williams, I think, made. But the buck stop with us. I mean our appointees on those boards are people who we appoint there to listen. They don’t make the decision on what we do or don’t do. And we’ve been misled a lot of time. We have brought from our previous director that the advisory board didn’t agree or didn’t advise. He or she only takes them the things that he thinks that should be passed or should be done, but we -- the buck stop with us. This money that we’ve found, that’s great. I’ve got a lot of questions and I’ll wait till Thursday about that. But I think we need to go and support this now and to go ahead and get that done and we know that much is done. We’ve got a lot of people thinking they were going to lose their jobs. We got centers threatened to be closed. I mean it’s a terrible time, not just for Augusta but for this entire world. And we don’t need to be playing with people’s livelihood. We don’t need to be playing with people’s resources. We don’t need to be playing with our seniors the way we been doing. And I think we ought to be more 27 careful of the way we make decisions and do things as a governing body. But I’m in support of this decision 100% and can’t wait till Thursday to get to the budget workshop. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, what is the 30-day moratorium we’ve got on? When does that go through? What I’m asking is, if we need to look at this Thursday during the budget thing and decide then -- I mean we could come back and decide then, we’d either go with UDAG or find another funding source -- would we have time to do it without any cuts to the senior program? When does the 30-day end? Mr. Kolb: I can’t give you the exact date, but any action that you would be required to do, unless you extended the 30 days, would be the first meeting in February. Therefore, a 30-day period through the first of February, there should be no financial impact. Mr. Bridges: And that’s what I was thinking, it would be the first meeting in th February, which is the 5, and I didn’t think the 30 days went through that time, and my concern was if we take it back, I mean we’re interfering with it at that point. But then again, I’m not sure if UDAG is going to be a permanent source if these are re-allocated, reprogrammed funds, there may not be enough reprogrammed funds in UDAG to completely fund the program, then you’re out of a funding source. Mr. Kolb: UDAG is limited. There is -- I can’t tell you the exact amount, but it is a temporary source of funding and it will be gone quickly, if we continue to dip into it. Mr. Bridges: Okay. My -- Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that of all the social programs that we deal with as a government, and I’m not necessarily an advocate of the government or the taxpayer funding social programs, I think the one to the seniors is the last one that one that I would want to see done away with. I think it’s a good program. And I’m not sure how I’m going to vote on what’s on the floor right now. Probably going to vote for it just cause I don’t want to see these people show up Thursday. (Laughter) Mr. Bridges: But I think there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account when you’re discussing funding a program like this. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can clear up one item, one or two items for Mr. Bridges. Let me say this before I clear one thing for my colleague. And this is to his appointee, Ms. Williams. Let me say this. Ms. Gordon is my appointee on the board, whom respect very highly, as I do the board, and I think she’d be the first to tell you I don’t try and control how her vote goes, don’t call her about things. We need to be abreast of something and vice versa with me, but this was one of those emergency 28 situations where I was searching for a funding source. When Rev. Hankerson brought this to that committee last week, those of you that may not have been in attendance on that committee understand the fact that what he asked for was the money to come out of HND. We were over that amount percentage that can be used for public services. I was on a search and find mission. The million dollars had not popped up at that point. We were trying to find a legitimate source and a source that we would not have to deal with a tax increase in order to do this program. I did my homework in reference to how much money we had left in UDAG. I did my legal homework, and I say this to my colleague Mr. Bridges -- I’ve been through three governments now and totaling nearly 22 years. I would never bring to you as a colleague or to this Commission or to anybody I’ve ever been on, an item that would be illegal or improper. I’m going to ask the Attorney in reference to it, even though Jim and I may argue about a point, but to a point I’m going to clarify when it comes to money whether or not that’s a legal and legitimate source that can be used. The amount of money that was in there was $350,000. There was $100,000 that had been previously committed for two items. I did not want to wreck anybody else’s program. They had cleared some through you for two different items, I believe, to the total of $100,000. That will not be touched. That left us a quarter of a million dollars in order to be able to work out of. We only needed $85,000 out of the quarter million. Again, reminding you of the fact that the million was not even on the table at that point. We were trying to do two things. One, restore the program and restore confidence to a point that we weren’t going to create havoc in the seniors program. And find a legal and legitimate source of which we got the numbers correct that was in there, we also got the amount that was correct in there. I think it’s a lot easier if you’re going to replace some money or reimburse the money, even to that department, is that we cure this problem, which is legit and legal, out of that source, and then if the Administrator or other Commissioners have a vote that takes place, to reimburse that area for $85,000, do it at that time. Third at last thing, Mr. Mayor, this was not done to find a source for the seniors program as a permanent source out of UDAG. This was mainly for a source of need in an emergency situation of which this program basically was going to be left high and dry. We can say what we want to put into volunteer programs, somebody else picking it up and doing, but we were not privy to those type of options. It was going to be get something done or leave it alone. And my intentions for the whole 30-day period were not to make the motion to just come back with a shotgun type approach the first meeting in February and go with an all or nothing thing. My intentions during that 30 days were not to just sit still. They were to get some of these things resolved and done. That’s why we made that move, and it was in no way to disrespect a recommending body that was in there, but at some point you have to make certain decisions. And when it affects a program of this type that crosses every geographical line, every color line, every part from the end of Burke County, Jefferson County, Columbia County and back to the river, I did not think we had the time to spare, to get it over into a recommending body, move for you all to meet, bring it back to us, get back into February, and then we may be technically out of time. Because legally we were going to make the decision anyway, so it was not out of disrespect, it was out of need and that’s where we had to go. Ms. Williams: May I respond and then I’ll quit. 29 Mr. Mayor: No, ma’am. Let’s hear from Rev. Hankerson. This is not a public hearing. Mr. Hankerson: I think that’s sort of the matter, because we could keep going on and letting other people get up and respond to them, and then I’d have to call the senior citizens to respond, too. So I think we need to go on with the question. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called on Rev. Hankerson’s motion to fund the Senior Citizen Nutritional Program for 2002 out of UDAG funds. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke votes No. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: So the motion is approved and the funding is there. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: You all are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. Y’all are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, or we’ll give you a few moments to move out of chambers. (Brief pause in proceedings) Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with the order of the day. I think number 11 is the next item. Come back to order. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY: 11. Motion to approve selection of Bradshaw Consulting Services, Inc. (BCS) as the vendor for enhancement of Augusta’s internet mapping capability in 2002, pending completion of final contract. (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 7, 2002) Mr. Williams: Yes, Madame Clerk. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just need some clarification, and I asked this question in Public Safety about the [inaudible] completion of the final contract. I would like to have this brought back to the Commission as it’s done so we’ll stay on track as to what we are doing. Pending could be any time. I’d just like it to be brought back to us to let us know when that was completed so this year we won’t get pushed against the wall like we always do. That’s my only concern, Mr. Mayor. 30 Mr. Blanchard: I can speak to that. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Blanchard: Mike Blanchard with the Information Technology Department. It is our intention to go ahead and get a contract with Bradshaw Consulting Service signed within the next 30 days so they can go ahead and start work. This is something I wanted to get cleared up and out to the public as soon as possible so it’s one of my priorities. Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: When you get the contract completed, if you would report back to the Commission that that’s been accomplished, I think that’s what Mr. Williams was addressing. Mr. Blanchard: Be happy to. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do we have a motion? Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Beard: This is item 23? Mr. Mayor: No, this is item number 11. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item, I believe, is number 16. Mr. Wall, you wanted -- something with the minutes. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 16. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held January 2, 2002. Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. On page two of the minutes regarding assignment of ex officio members to the various boards, insofar as the appointment to the Metro Augusta Convention & Visitors Bureau, I just wanted to clarify that the membership of the CVB insofar as the selection of the Commissioners, they make with thth one from the 9 District and one from the 10 District. There is a committee that reviews the funding allocation where the Commission has two representatives, which are the two members of the CVB, as well as the Mayor Pro Tem. Since Mr. Colclough is the Mayor Pro Tem, I think the intent of this, and what I would recommend, is that this be clarified 31 so that Mr. Mays serves on that committee insofar as the funding so that the Commission has three representatives on the funding of that. But the actual members of the CVB would be Mr. Kuhlke, who has one further remaining under his tenure -- it’s a two-year selection by the CVB -- and then Mr. Colclough’s term has just been extended by them, which will run through 2003. I hope -- I’ve tried to clear that up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? thth Mr. Bridges: So that means of the 9 and the 10 District which sits on the CVB itself, that would be Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Colclough? Mr. Wall: Correct. On the funding committee, it would be -- since Mr. Colclough would be on the funding committee by virtue of his being the Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Mays would be on that committee. Mr. Mayor: Does that make sense? We’re trying to clarify the minutes so I hope you understand. Mr. Wall: Well, since I’ve relied on his legal opinion so much otherwise, I’m going to rely on it today. Just kidding. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to clarifying the minutes to state what has been clarified by the Attorney? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Is that -- is the CVB in agreement with that? Because it sounds like to me the simple way to do it would be Willie and Bill be the representatives, then Richard as Mayor Pro Tem be on the -- of course, that wasn’t the motion that day. Mr. Wall: Well, Mr. Colclough -- you’re talking about on the funding committee? Mr. Bridges: Yeah. By virtue of being Mayor Pro Tem, he’d be on it anyway. Mr. Wall: That’s correct. But he is also a member of this CVB. Mr. Bridges: It would be the same three on the funding committee anyway then? Mr. Wall: That’s right. And that’s the only thing I’m trying to accomplish. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Wall: Which seat they occupy I don’t think really matters. Mr. Mayor: All right. So we need a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Williams: So moved. 32 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: As clarified by the Attorney. Is there any objection? None heard. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The vote is unanimous on that item, Madame Clerk. The next item is number 23. The Clerk: Number 23? We haven’t done 19 or 20. Mr. Mayor: 19 and 20. The Clerk: On the regular agenda. Mr. Mayor: No, we’re on the consent agenda. We’re on the consent agenda. Item 23. The Clerk: Item 23. Mr. Mayor: You’re ahead of us today, Madame Clerk. Mr. Bridges: No, we’re in the regular agenda. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. The Chair stands corrected. Let’s back up then, if we could. Let’s take care of number 20. Number 19 and number 20. I’m sorry. The Clerk: 19. Appoint member of the Commission to serve on the Richmond County Medical Society Project Access, Inc. Board. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I recommend Mr. Boyles to sit on that seat. Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Boyles. Any other nominations? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, is this the committee for the indigent care? Mr. Mayor: Yes, it is. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Shepard was involved in getting that. Would he -- I put his name in nomination for that position as well. I think either gentleman would be great for 33 it, but he’s got more -- and he’s not here today. We can put him in there without his permission. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I was just going to comment that the letter that I saw, and I’m certainly not lobbying for that job, but the letter that I saw was a resignation letter from my predecessor, and some earlier conversation with Mr. Shepard at that time, his appointment will continue over. I think there may be two of us, or maybe two Commissioners on that. I can only go by what I saw on the letter, and again, I’m not certainly not lobbying for the job, but it was my predecessor that was involved. Mr. Bridges: With that light, I’d pull Mr. Shepard’s name. I’m sure he’s got plenty to do anyway. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Mr. Boyles’ appointment then to the Medical Society Access Board please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: All right, now item number 20. The Clerk: 20. Consider the reappointments of Mr. Charles Lamback and Mr. John Cheatham to the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia. Mr. Beard: So move. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough: I have to abstain. I work there. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Colclough: That’s my place of employment. Mr. Colclough abstains. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll move to item number 23. 34 The Clerk: 23. Motion to approve an ordinance to amend the Augusta-Richmond County Code by amending Section 6-2-14 so as to extend the hours of sale for alcoholic beverages (on-premises and off-premises); to provide severability; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other lawful purposes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Jim, is this the same thing that we discussed last week in which the Sheriff said that would be a very bad idea? Mr. Wall: It is. And maybe I shouldn’t have even put it on the agenda. He called me and asked me why it was on the agenda because it did not get a second the last time. But for some reason I thought I was supposed to bring it back in ordinance form. But this would carry the hours into the wee hours of the morning to 4:30, and that is the one the Sheriff was opposed to; correct. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, given that information from the Sheriff and whatnot, I’d recommend that we do not recommend this to the Delegation. Mr. Mayor: You want to just receive it as information? Mr. Wall: This is an ordinance. This is for y’all to do. Mr. Bridges: Oh, I see. Yeah, I’ll make a motion that we receive this as information, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams and then Mr. Colclough. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I probably talk about this every week about not dealing with this situation as far as drinking extended hours. I’m not here for it. But the Administrator and I think our Attorney were talking about getting some revenues in. We don’t want to raise taxes and nobody wants to hear that song. But is this not something that’s supposed to bring some additional funds into the city for us to be able to operate on? Unless we going to find some more money now. We been doing pretty good. And if we going to keep finding money, we don’t have to do anything. But if we ain’t going to find none, somebody need to tell me how we going to raise some revenues and get some monies in this city. 35 Mr. Wall: I think what the Sheriff has said and what I have been saying is I think it’s going to cost money to do this. Mr. Williams: Well, the Sheriff gets paid to do a job, Mr. Attorney. He’s not here and I don’t want to address that issue with him. But I’m thinking that if we are going to do some things and people talk about growth, I got enough sense to know that growth come in all shapes and sizes. You not just going to get the good growth when it comes to a city growing. Now if you going to be a city, you going to be prepared to handle things that’s going to come about. And this is one of the things that’s going to come about. But I just want some more conversation on it. I don’t think we need to just accept it as information and not hear why we’re doing it or why even put it on the table. How much money would this generate? What good would this do? I mean we just gave the Sheriff additional men and talked about increasing his staff and stuff, so let’s look at this thing broadly and see what we talking about here. Is this supposed to bring money into the city, Jim? This supposed to extend the hours to bring in money or just extending hours to be extending hours? What purpose was this for? Mr. Wall: Well, Mr. Melton, who is one of the businessmen who recommended it, indicated that he thought that it would bring in extra revenue because of the excise tax that would be generated from the sale of alcohol. There are some individuals, because of shift work or whatever, perhaps could not go to a lounge or whatever, a bar, except during those hours. And so that was the recommendation that he had made. So it is a proposal by a businessman that he thinks will generate additional revenue. I don’t know whether Mr. Walker is here or not, but I talked with him. He indicated to me he did not think it was going to raise revenue. I still believe that it’s going to cost to administer this. Mr. Williams: Have we got any points of view from anybody else beside the businessman who brought this to us? Have we talked to anybody else about it? You say Mr. Walker don’t feel like -- Mr. Wall: I’ve talked to the Sheriff’s Department, I have talked to License & Inspection people, and that’s the only ones I’ve talked to. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb I think is trying to answer your question, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’ve looked for a method or a methodology in which we could project how much this would cost, and there is none. We cannot determine how many people would stay the additional time after 2:30. And we’re talking about two additional hours. Would they stay the two additional hours, would they stay an additional hour, an additional half hour, how much additional drinks would they buy? That is impossible for us to determine and come up with a methodology except through experience. It’s, you know, a toss of a coin. On the one hand, the number of hours could increase revenue, but would it increase revenue enough to cover the 36 additional cost of manpower to enforce it? We don’t know at this point in time. So it really is up to the Commission as to how you want to dispose of this item. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to close but nobody said anything to either be for or against. I mean you’re talking about information. I mean I haven’t heard one side say -- the Administrator said you can’t determine whether or not it’s going to beneficial or not. It may cost us more to do it. It may be at a point of -- it may bring some revenue in. But nobody has did any homework on it to find out what need to be done. I’m open for suggestions and I need to hear something from somebody. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, this is something we’re talking about bringing in extra revenue, and people are afraid that it’s going to cost more than it’s worth. Why not do it a trial basis? Why not give it 12 months? If it doesn’t work in 12 months, if it doesn’t six months, we can just abolish the program. I know in other cities and bars -- and if this is mainly for restaurants and taverns I can kind of support it. But if it’s for liquor stores in the community, that’s a different story. But in other cities, people go out to dinner late at night and they may want to have a glass of wine or they want to stay in the bar if there’s a game on, they want to have some drinks. But we can do it on a trial basis, set some specific guidelines, and if it doesn’t work, you know, we can always go back and abolish the program. But at least we need to look at giving it a chance if we can bring in some extra revenue with it. I mean I don’t think people right now -- I don’t think the cops is running to every bar in town because people are drinking and fighting, unless the crime rate is up and nobody has published it in the newspaper. But at least we need to give this thing a chance to work on a trial basis, and if it doesn’t work in six months, we go back and we kick it out the door. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? You had your hand up? Mr. Beard: Well, I think they’re talking about two things here. From the backup material, we’re talking about retail package stores, I believe, if I recall correctly, staying open till one o’clock. I do agree with -- I think we just don’t have enough information here today to really act on this, and to me I would think that either we do it on a trial basis as been suggested or get a little more information and bring it back. I think it’s one of those things that we can bring back. If Mr. Melton has something to enlighten all of us on, I would really like to hear from him. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, and then I think Mr. Williams wanted to speak again. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear Mr. Melton, too. But first of all, I think we should look at the possibility of maybe taking someone from our License Department and maybe someone from the business community, as Mr. Melton is, maybe a Commissioner, maybe somebody from CVB or other interest with the Chamber, and take a full committee to look at this. Mr. Bridges’ motion was to receive it as information, 37 and I think we could add to that to look at it through a committee system to see and get full information as Mr. Beard has requested. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Tommy, I agree with what you just said. I think that also Mr. Beard brought in the fact that we’re talking about a lot of different entities and we need to focus on a food-service type situation with announced hours rather than just any facility. But you know, when I look at growth in any city, I mean I understand that growth come in all shapes and sizes, and you can sit up here and say everybody is going to church and everybody’s doing what’s right. That’s a lie. They are not doing that. And we need to try to get them to do that. But if we going to have a extended city, if we going to be the great city that we expect to be, we expect to have all the entities and all things coming about, we ought to be ready for those things as well. But I’ve got no problem in getting a group to look at it, Mr. Mayor, and maybe if we can narrow it down to the restaurant-type facilities where there will be food served and not just alcohol served. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, the Clerk of Commission just pointed out that this was handled last time by passing it back to the Finance Committee for consideration. There was a motion at that time to even do it on a trial basis. So given that, I think -- and it’s in the minutes in that regard -- given that, I think we’ve got to let the process work and we just need to receive this as information today and let the Finance Committee handle, since apparently from the minutes -- that is the action minutes -- it was passed back to the Finance Committee. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: In lieu of what Commissioner Bridges has said, I’m not clear on that. Are we saying that we are passing this back to the Finance Committee, was it supposed to go back to the Finance Committee? I’d like some clarification, because I’d like to make a substitute motion. The Clerk: As I recollect from the last meeting, when the motion was put forward by Commissioner Cheek to do this on a trial basis, it died for a lack of a second. Mr. Shepard said in light of the fact that it died from a lack of a second, he’d like to make the motion that it be forwarded to the second meeting of the Finance Committee and that the Administrator come back with some data on the possibility of doing this, and that time it would be brought back to the Commission for consideration. The verbatim minutes -- these are action minutes that are in your book today. Mr. Beard:and I’d like to make a substitute Well, we can still make a motion, motion at this time that it can -- I don’t mind it going back to the Finance Committee but I’d also like to add to it that that committee that I think Commissioner Boyles suggested, 38 that a committee be formed to look into this, because I think even if it goes back to the Finance Committee you’re going to have to have somebody, and not the Finance Committee, to really study this, and I think if you involve someone from the business community like Mr. Melton who brought the suggestion forward, a Commissioner, and others, I just suggest in my substitute motion that if it’s going back to the Finance , my motion would be go back to the Finance Committee and have them Committee appoint a committee to do the research on this and then bring it back to the body . Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Beard. Mr. Mayor: Second, okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. And this will be at Finance next Thursday? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: It will be next Thursday, Chip. They’ll take it up. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 25. 25. Motion to approve an ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code by adding a new article and section to establish findings that dwellings, building or structures exist in Augusta of a negative condition or character as described in O.C.G.A. §41-2-7. Mr. Wall: 25 and 26 are both a part of the new Georgia statutory scheme to facilitate dealing with abandoned dwellings and unsafe and overgrown lots and buildings, and this is what I refer to as an in realm foreclosure proceeding which expedites. Current law allows someone who has been cited to tear down a house, it gives them three years to pay for the demolition charges, and it is a three or a four year period before you are able to gain possession of that property, put it back in the hands of someone who wants to develop the property. There is also a problem with title to that property by any prospective purchaser. The new statutory procedure would authorize the filing of an in realm proceeding against the property owner, which basically is against the property as opposed to against the person. And you then would be able to get clear title to the property in somewhere in the 90-day to 120-day time period. The first ordinance says that there is a necessity for adopting the process. Item number 26 is the actual adoption of the process itself. And so we’re recommending that we do this. I think it will be instrumental in being utilized to clean up neighborhoods, to get title, and to facilitate the work of the Land Bank Authority. Mr. Mayor: And this is the demo lien bill that we asked the Legislature to approve for us? 39 Mr. Wall: It is. Mr. Mayor: And we’ve already approved item 26 in the consent agenda. Gentlemen, item 25, your pleasure? Mr. Boyles: I move for approval. Mr. Williams: Jim, I need just a little more information. Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Now, Mr. Williams, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, can you give me just a little more information? On this you’re saying -- cause I’ve got a serious problem with the stuff we’re speaking about here. But what are the time frames now on -- if we did 25, you’re saying that -- we’ve already approved 26? Mr. Wall: We’ve already approved 26. But 25 is basically saying, it is an ordinance that find that there are the existence of nuisances in Augusta that need to be addressed by the in realm nuisance abatement process, which is item number 26. And so 25 just says we have houses, we have lots that are unsafe for residents in the area and unsafe for the community, and therefore the city needs to adopt a nuisance abatement process, which you have done by virtue of item number 26. Mr. Williams: The time frames? Mr. Wall: Well, once the petition is filed, it depends a lot upon whether -- it’s got service by publication and other things so that these absentee land owners, you don’t have to track them down. You file a petition, you’ve got to wait for 30 days to get an answer, then you’ve got to get a court hearing, then there is a 30-day appeal time. So basically from the time that the action is filed, hopefully within 120 days you’ve got title to that property that you can do something with it. Mr. Williams: Okay. I got no problem with that. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion that’s been seconded. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Wall: I didn’t ask for this, maybe I should in both 25 and 26, whether you want to waive the second reading and go ahead and adopt them. 40 Mr. Mayor: We can entertain a motion to waive the second reading on items 25 and 26. Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor then of waiving the second reading on items 25 and 26, vote aye. It has to be unanimous, doesn’t it? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: It has to be unanimous vote of those present in order for us to waive the second reading. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 27. 27. Resolution in support of an increase in the monthly 911 charge as proposed by the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia and the Georgia Emergency Management Association. Mr. Wall: The ACCG has indicated that they’re going to support increasing the 911 fees from $1.50 per public safety answering point, PSAP to $2.00 per charge. And a lot of communities, Augusta included, because of the increase in the number of calls into the 911 center because of the increase workload, the current rate that is capped at $1.50 is not providing enough revenues to cover all of the expenses in a 911 center. And so this would simply authorize a local governing body to go up to $2.00. As you recall, each year the -- you have to review the revenues and expenses of 911, you have to determine whether or not there is an excess of funds that are being accumulated in the 911 fund, and you as a Commission adopt a resolution in April of each year establishing the rate. Currently, you cannot exceed $1.50. For the last several years it has been at the $1.50. This would simply give the local governing bodies additional flexibility to go up to $2.00 in the event that the revenue is needed. Again, it’s not something that you can use 911 fees for anything other than is authorized by the 911, which is the operation of the 911 center, and you’re prohibited by law from accumulating excess funds within the 911 fund. I’m recommending support of it. I think our 911 center is being pushed to its limit insofar as the current rate of $1.50 for regular land line phones and $1.00 for cell phones. This $2.00 would be both for the wireless 911, as well as the -- well, actually y’all have increased the wireless up to $1.50, but it would be an increase for both the wireless and the land line. Mr. Williams: Jim, I pulled this. Mr. Mayor, if I can, I’d like to know for my own clarification -- I heard what you said about we can do it and why it’s being done, but I haven’t heard the need for 911. I mean are we spending this money in 911 in the 41 fire service or some other entity that we need for this increase to come about? I mean our 911 service is in trouble with what that we need to raise the other 50 cents on it? Mr. Wall: Well, the 911 budget is limited by law as far as what it can be spent for. So currently, the dispatching, the communications system is the only thing basically -- I mean there are some other odds and ends that can be paid for under 911. Training is something that can be paid for with 911 fees. I think -- I’ve heard Phil Wasson tell George and myself in the several meetings that we’ve had that his budget is pushed, and he needs additional funding there. Not only does Augusta need it, a lot of these smaller communities are in dire need of it, as well, and that’s the reason that the ACCG is supporting the legislation to increase it. So we may not be the immediate recipients of the benefit of this in going to the $2.00. As I say, we would have to come back and demonstrate that there was a need to go from $1.50 to $2.00. But the reason that we increased from the $1.00 to the $1.50 on the wireless 911 fee recently was because we needed that revenue to operate the 911 center. Mr. Williams: And I hear what you’re saying. Maybe Phil can come out and he can come and tell me, you know, tell us something why we are needing of this additional money. And I’m support, but I need to know, I need to hear something else besides we can do it and it can benefit us and we are spending this money in other areas. I need to hear from Phil. Can you help me out? Mr. Wasson: Sure. Commissioner, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, our budget -- we are within budget as it stands now. Costs keep going up but we’re pretty much maxed out and we want to be looking at possible funding issues in the near future. As part of our effort to do some positive things, both here locally and statewide, we urged the support of this, not just for Augusta. We are asking that Augusta, the second largest city, support it for the state also. 80% of the state has got 911. 20% does not. You go to some of the counties in the state and dial 911 and you’re not going to get anybody. And it’s because they can’t afford it. And so it’s not just for the city of Augusta, although it is an issue that we may in the near future need to be looking at as a 911 center and you as a governing body. But the real issue at this point is, is that the ability to go anywhere in Georgia needs to be supported and be able to dial 911, and that’s one of the primary focuses we have for supporting this as a 911 center in the second-largest city in the state. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I just wanted to ask the question. If we voted to implement this, do we go up with that fee on a incremental -- I mean we don’t have to go 50 cents the first year, do we? So I mean you can go up to that range? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. And it takes state legislation to change, to raise the cap. Again, in the resolution that is adopted annually in April of each year, that’s when you establish the rate for the 911 fees. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Boyles? 42 Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Attorney, could any of this ever be used for the ambulance service, or is it not? Mr. Wall: Not the -- only the dispatch of the ambulance service. Any of the emergency dispatch and the certification and the dispatching of the ambulance could be. Mr. Mayor: We need a motion, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to approve. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Second? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 30. The Clerk: 30. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to modify O.C.G.A. Section 31-11-3 to allow local government greater control in the administration of the Emergency Medical Services Council (EMSC) Program. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this one be pulled. Mr. Beard: I think I just needed an explanation on this. Maybe from the Attorney as to what does this actually mean. I tried to read the backup, I don’t get an understanding. It doesn’t make much sense even putting this on. Mr. Wall: Well, we’re trying to avoid the problem that we experienced last fall, as well as the experience that Columbia County had. That is, this governing body ought to be able to decide who the ambulance provider is going to be, rather than having to petition to the EMS Council, have them open up the zoning, submit qualifications to the EMS Council; once they approve somebody, then that’s who you can contract with. And in my mind, that’s the opposite of the way it should be. If we are going to subsidize the ambulance service through a contract and have to pay part of the cost, then you as the governing body ought to have the right, within certain limits obviously, to determine who 43 that provider should be. And this is asking the state to look at that process, to allow the local governing bodies to have more voice in the selection of the EMS provider, and not have the backward system, that I call it, of going to the EMS Council first. Mr. Beard: I just needed an explanation, and I move for approval of this. Mr. Colclough: I’ve got a question, Mr. Mayor, before you do that. In the backup information, Mr. Wall, it says whereas the local governing authority should have greater control [inaudible] administration of local emergency medical services program and be allowed to decide subject, subject to the EMS Council. What you saying and what this is saying is two things. It says that we should have the authority to decide which ambulance service provides service to the city, but the backup information says if we do have that authority, then we still have to go the EMS Council for approval. Am I correct? Mr. Wall: I did include the subject to the EMS Council’s approval because I don’t think that you’re going to abolish the state system and oversight of ambulance service in the state. And the EMS Council is the one who is charged with the responsibility of being sure that the provision of emergency medical services is regulated, is adequate, and that they are properly licensed, properly equipped, properly set up to provide it. And I think that while you as the governing body, as a part of the RFQ, have the ability to review the qualifications, etc., I also think it’s important not to abolish the EMS Council but to involve them and have them exercise oversight responsibility but not be the one that you’ve got to go to first before you can contract. Mr. Colclough: So this would give us the ability to say which provider we seek, we just make sure with them that the provider that we seek is licensed and qualified? Mr. Wall: Qualified and operates properly, yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion on the floor. Any questions? Mr. Boyles: I second it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor and second. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Bridges: It’s a motion for approval? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion for approval. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard made the motion, Mr. Boyles seconded it. What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk. 44 The Clerk: 33. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to make provisions for a “Homeland Security” exemption in the Open Meetings Act. 34. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to make provisions for a “Homeland Security” exemption in the Open Records Act. Mr. Wall: The intent of this is that when there is a need to discuss, for instance, security measures that need to be taken in this building, or in any building, I believe that that is something that should be kept confidential and it should be something that is not broadcast so that those who may be planning some type of terrorist act have available information concerning where the security cameras are, how many security people there are, what kind of security measures are in place, etc. You as the governing body are the ones that have to fund those type of security systems. This would exempt both the meetings where that is discussed so that you could go into executive session for the purpose of discussing security measures, as well as the records that might be generated by any of the members of the government related to that security would be protected from disclosure. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I asked that 33 and 34 be included, about the same thing. My only point here, Jim, is that I hope that we are on legal, sound grounds when we’re doing this, and I’m sure being the attorney that you are that you’ve researched this and made sure we’re on legal grounds here. I have a little problem about -- I don’t have a problem with homeland security because I think that we all know it’s necessary. But I think sometimes we can kind of go overboard with this, and in some places I think we’ve gone overboard with this and all in the name of homeland security. I think we have to be careful that we don’t go overboard, and I’m just kind of skeptical of both of these resolutions. I think that there is a need for some type security. I think that there is a need wherein we need to go into sessions and not let everybody know what we’re doing. But I just want to make sure that we are on safe grounds here when we approve item 33 and item 34. You know, you’re the Attorney, so you are making the call here. The legality of this. But I’m sure some of the people in the media maybe would disagree with you a little bit. Mr. Wall: Well, again, all this is doing is asking the Legislature to authorize that as an exception. So we currently, you know, it’s arguable whether or not we can go into a closed session. You recall that we did in fact go into one closed session shortly after the September 11 terrorist acts. And that was done without explicit language as an exemption. I think it was authorized, but I think it puts those who have to make that call in a very tough position to make that call. I think clearing up the legislation to provide a specific exception will eliminate any doubt. I agree with you that it should not be abused, it should not be used as an excuse to go into a closed session to talk about things that are marginally related to security. 45 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m some like Mr. Beard. You know, we talk about homeland security and we’ve been living in trying times for a long time. September 11 just brought us to another level. But we got an Open Meetings Act and we’ve got an Open Records Act and that’s to include the citizens of Augusta Richmond County. If there is a effort and if there is an attack on this body or whatever, even if we went in closed session and done it, I mean I think that if we got a mindset to do something as that, that going into closed session is not going to prevent that, Jim. I mean I don’t think there is no way around to prevent that. I think we can be as cautious as we know how to be, but I think we can get so scared we can’t come out of doors. And I see that every day. In my neighborhood, I see people got bars on their doors, they lock themselves in and get trapped because they are afraid of the outside. I mean fear is everywhere. But I don’t think we can cover enough to get this straight to get to the point where we don’t trust our neighbors and don’t know what’s going to happen. Our Open Records Meeting and Open Records Act for the general public, I don’t we can talk about anything on homeland security that we going to be able to deter somebody else or stop somebody from doing. You know yourself how technology is so advanced now. These cell phones that we sit here and talk on, everything you say is broadcast over the airways. Everything you do, from interception, from cable station, I can’t see how we can get around it. We can do all this and I don’t have a problem with sending it to the state. But I think we have more on our plate than we really ought to have and the things we need to have on there, we’re not sending them. But I can’t see how we can get [inaudible] security system. This ain’t just started. It may have just hit some people but it’s been here for a long time. Lot of people been dealing with homeland security. Lot of people been dealing with drive-by shootings and breaking into homes and murders and those kinds of things. I just think we all going to have to start pull together more. I just think we’re going too far with what we’re trying to do there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Jim, is this a state issue or this just an issue that pertains to Richmond County? Mr. Wall: State issue. All these resolutions are state issues. Mr. Boyles: State issues? Well, it would be subject to legislative council when it gets to the floor? Mr. Wall: Oh, absolutely. Mr. Boyles: Of the General Assembly; correct? Mr. Wall: Correct. 46 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chair, I asked for these two items to be put on the list, and I do share the concerns for abuse of laws that relate to open records and open meetings. I’m very reluctant to close a meeting or to keep a record from being made public. But in this case, we do not have the authority under state law, in my opinion, to go into an executive session to hear a specific briefing, to have a specific discussion on matters that relate to specific security items. And there are things that we may want to talk about or have presented to us, such as the placement of security cameras, where guards might be stationed, the type of equipment we might want to buy, those type things, which really serve no purpose to be in the public domain, and indeed if that information got into the hands of people who would do us ill will, it would be very detrimental. And so what I was simply seeking here was an exemption, that the state allow the exemption to be included so that when were talking about those specific security issues that needed to be kept just within the body, that we would have the authority to do that without any question or any doubt. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a very disturbing piece in the newspaper today, which I don’t read that often, where the United States government is planning on pulling down the fighter aircraft cover over this country, cutting back on patrols. I think we’ve got -- September 11 was a great shock to us. Prior to, I can remember when we had fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft coverage over this country 24/7. And then people started complaining about the cost of that coverage, and they pulled down the bombers and they pulled down the fighter aircraft. Now on September 11, they put them back up and now they’re complaining again about the cost of coverage over this country. I think there is a point in time where we do need to have some quiet time in some place where we can discuss security and not have it broadcast all over the media. Number one, I’m glad I got out of the military when I did because [inaudible] fighting at. That’s all I have. Any other questions or concerns? What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Do we have a motion and second? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion and second? Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Please vote your convictions. All in favor of the motion, please signify by voting. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: And that was 33 and 34? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. 47 Mr. Mayor: Next item we have is number 35, and I believe a companion item to that is 41; is that correct? 35. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to allow Special Purpose Local Options sales Tax funding to be utilized for public safety departments. 41. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to allow consolidated governments to use Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SLPOST) funds for operation of public improvements. Mr. Wall: If you will, Mr. Mays, anticipating perhaps why you had this pulled, if you -- at the time the caption was sent over to the Clerk in order to get in the agenda book, that was done from the legislative list. However, if you will note that -- I say it was -- in the resolution itself it covers both public safety and other public services so that it is broader than just being limited to public safety issues. And I know when we met with the Legislative Delegation that was the point that you made, that consolidated governments had the opportunity to use SPLOST funding for -- should be allowed to get legislative approval to use SPLOST funding for ways that didn’t affect other governments so as to draw opposition. And so hopefully the resolution is broad enough to encompass what you wanted, which was under 41, and 35 and 41 go together for that reason. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked that these be pulled. Did you have -- Mr. Beard: Which one? Mr. Mayor: 35 and 41. You asked for those to be pulled. Mr. Beard: I thought Mr. Mays asked for them. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I had written it down by your name. Mr. Mays, did you want them pulled? Mr. Mays: Yes, I asked for them. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. Mr. Mays: That’s okay. I’m satisfied with Jim’s explanation. In fact, [inaudible] both sides of it. That [inaudible] at the Legislative Delegation meeting and I have no problems with it, with 35 in terms of [inaudible]. In fact, it may be better if both of them do go because it gives them some different options. I wanted to make sure that we were not just limited. While I know that’s a large portion of our budget, in fact the largest single thing that we’ve got, and we’re looking at other options to deal with it, as opposed to doing property tax. However, there were certain items such as transportation, things that we’ve got hung up on, particularly -- and I know we’re making progress with 48 indigent care. One of the reason why I wanted some other options in there was because I knew if we were going to deal with consolidated governments, it was going to have to be something that other governments other than ourselves, that Athens-Clarke and Columbus-Muskogee were going to have to be able to buy into. And so I wanted to make it broad enough that it might cover some of the issues. Whereas in those two particular communities, while I’m sure public safety hits them hard, Columbus, for example, still has three mill property tax dedication to the hospital authority there, which they have to pay. And they would love, I’m sure, to have some relief in terms of being able to do that. So I wanted it to make sure that even if public safety was our first interest, that if somebody else’s was, say, another item, that it wouldn’t cut their enthusiasm for supporting such type of legislation. Because it would be something broad enough that it might protect both them and us. So I’m not knocking 35. I think it needs to be there. But I just wanted to make sure 41 was there so that it gave the option of the broader opportunity. So I’m clear with it. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to approve these two items? Mr. Beard: I so move that those items be approved. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: And the next item is number 36. 36. Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation for consideration of changes in legislation of the Augusta Charter as provided in the reports of the Special Grand Jury and the Charter Committee. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this one be pulled because although I may agree to some parts of the Special Grand Jury recommendations and part of the Charter Committee recommendations, I do not agree to all of those. I thought it best that I -- I cannot support and will not support a blanket recommendation coming from those groups. I’m going to make a motion that we do not consider item 36 at this time. Mr. Williams: I second that motion. Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion? Mr. Kuhlke? 49 Mr. Kuhlke: That we submit this to the Legislative Delegation, because I think it’s pertinent information. It’s information that is provided by one, an appointed committee, and the other -- well, both appointed, but outside of this Commission. I think there are some good objective things in both reports, and I think consideration should be given to them. So I’d like to make a motion, a substitute motion that this be passed on to the Delegation. Mr. Bridges: Second it. Mr. Mayor: That’s been seconded. Further discussion? Okay, we’ll vote then on the substitute -- yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, while I agree, too, that there may be some good information in it, and I guess I’ve probably had as much or more conversation on this as anybody else, I think realistically number one, there is going to be a bill introduced in the Legislative by Rep. Burmeister that’s going to deal with this. I have no problem with that. That’s her constitutional right and right as a Legislator in order to do that. I think there is a lot of information that’s in there that I stated in the very beginning while I respect the process of the Grand Jury most highly as an elected official, in three different governments now, and I’ve had the opportunity of working with grand juries. That while I respect the process, I don’t necessarily as an American citizen have to agree with every point that’s made. Because I think there are some very opinionated things that are in that information. And I think when the government, the local government passes this in resolution form, sanctions it as such as though we make a blanket endorsement, not only of support information that’s in there, but that we are doing this in terms of supporting, quite frankly, where we know it’s going to deal with a bill to be introduced in the Legislature. I think you have some very clouded information that’s going there. For instance, there are a lot of things that are contained there that deal, quite frankly, with the Voting Rights Act and the structure in terms of changing this particular government and its makeup. There are a lot of things in there that quite frankly are very opinionated. I think nothing else, we went through a very divisive period over this whole issue, and I think quite frankly we are cutting into one all over again. I think the bill itself serves to a point that the Legislature will either vote it up or down, in terms of dealing with this. And that’s where the real crux of this whole matter lies, in terms of whether or not this particular bill passes. And so I just have a problem with us sanctioning all that is in there, th because it’s not like you go through and say well, I want the 10 line of the second paragraph out, I want another part of it in, I want this out. We’re saying we are taking the whole situation of findings there, submitting that as a sanctioning from this body, and sending that there. Even the two groups that are named had conflicting opinions in terms of some things that they were doing. Grand Jury versus Charter Committee. There were some things in there that were looked at that probably are going to be introduced in the bill in the Legislature that deals with a fundamental right of voting, that every governmental body in this country deals with, the United States Congress, the Georgia Legislature, Legislatures in America, and commissions and city councils across this country, in terms of those rules. I have a problem that we submit something that is suggestive in terms of somebody doing something for this body, that the Legislature does 50 not have a provision for dealing with for itself. They vote to abstain, they vote present, they are not there on some occasions. So I think a lot is being attached to the particular bill. And I think it ought to be, quite frankly, fought out, Mr. Mayor, on their particular turf. I don’t always agree necessarily with whatever rules that we may have to be governed by, but we do have rules. I just learn what they are and how to play. I have some folk that object to that. But there’s a political process in which you deal with that. It’s called an election. There is a place in time to deal with changes, and it’s at the ballot box. And I think that when people want to deal with changes should not be orchestrated as such by what’s opinionated and sat down for people to make an opinion, and then we turn around and we sanction it. The bill will be introduced, the Legislative Delegation will address it, and it will be voted up or down. I think that’s going to be done, that ought to be sufficient, and I said that day when we got through with the Legislative Delegation we have a ton of things that we need to move forward with in this community. There are plenty of things in terms of our revenue, the flexibility of taxes, being able to do certain things that would help us to cure this community. There are certain things, Mr. Mayor, quite frankly, that are even written into the job description that apply to your office. You know what the rules are that regard it. They haven’t changed since the government was consolidated. And while I think I have no problem -- that’s your constitutional right, it’s your right as a person, it’s your right as a citizen, to campaign or to solicit or to engage in any form of activity that would help to support any changes, whether they be in your office or anywhere else, but I think this particular issue has been that volatile, has been that divisive that we need to allow, without the injection of material in here that has constantly been very opinionated, and I think I have to refer to it because if I’m referred to something either directly or indirectly in a Grand Jury report as being a target, I guess quite frankly, of one of those, you know, three per se, and let’s get to the real meat of it. You know, that’s what a lot of that is about. But if I’m referred to in a report, of which I was never asked to come forward, and to deal with -- I don’t think any one of the three of us was even asked to come forward and to appear before the same Grand Jury report that’s submitted. I think it’s a disservice to the colleagues on this Commission for that to be done, for it to be submitted in a package that this government would move forward with. And I’m saying that just as a matter of business. I’m not being argumentative with it. But I think if the bill’s going to be introduced, let the bill fly, let it pass or survive on its own merits. But I think to get in here and put this in here, I think further divides us in terms of those things that we could be doing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, in response to what Mr. Mays is saying, you know, there are some things obviously that I don’t agree with that came out, particularly with the Grand Jury, but if I read this correctly it states for the Delegation’s consideration. It’s not saying that -- it’s just providing them some background information. And frankly, you know, this information -- I think a lot of work was put into it, particularly with the Charter Commission, or Committee, and the Grand Jury has put a lot of time into it. So to deprive the Delegation of that background information on whatever they do up there, I think it ought to be provided to them. 51 Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I yield to Mr. Boyles. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, as a freshman Commissioner I have not seen the reports. Mr. Wall: [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: Today? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think anybody is depriving the Delegation of anything. I think they are very astute people. There are public documents. Anything that they want, if they deem it necessary, that it be a part of them having to make a decision in their process, they can get it because it’s public information, these are public documents. I think my objection is, is the fact that it’s being included and being put in the form of a resolution to be sent forth on behalf as an official document of this city, stating that we want that done, and we’re using our backing and the backing of this Commission to put that in as leverage in terms of a position for this city. I think the people who are introducing the bill or the person who is introducing it will come with her own ammunition in terms of what she wants to do. And quite frankly, I’ve heard a lot about it on that particular day that I objected to because I heard so much about the bill being introduced, in fact it even got confused within the comments as to why some of us were not at the meeting the next day that the Chamber had, and I found it very funny because the same Legislator was making all the comments about introducing the bill, was not even in the meeting at the Laney Museum when we met, which was the official meeting that we were to be at. So I think she’s a very smart young lady. She has the power to get any information that she does. I think what should not lend credibility to it is for it to be a part of our documentation and a resolution passed from this city as an official document. Whatever needs to be submitted in terms of public information and to share with another governmental body needs to be done by the maker and the author of the bill. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I really think -- and after I finish I’m probably going to go on and call for the question. I think it’s little asinine to say that we got to provide them with information in reference to what took place here. We have public information. Everybody in Atlanta, every Delegation member knows what happened with the Charter 52 Commission, they know what happened with the Grand Jury Commission, they have all the information that they need to make a decision. But I must remind my colleagues that once we put our -- if we vote this today, that we are going to approve this, this means that every line and every item, every word in that Grand Jury report you are saying to the Delegation and to the City that you are accepting this. And I refuse to be a part of accepting everything the Charter Committee said and everything that the Grand Jury reported. And I don’t think we can sit here as a group and say we accept that. In one breath we’re saying we don’t approve of everything they said, the other saying that we’re going to send this message up there to our Delegation saying that we approve those two items. And I just don’t see how you can do that, and I call for the question at this point. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. We have a substitute motion from Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke’s substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Boyles and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion fails 2-4-2. Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, let the record note that my abstention, since I’ve been counted with so many of them, is that is a conflict. It conflicts with the thinking of the constituents that I represent. That’s my conflict and I have a right to vote in that manner, since that’s going to be [inaudible]. And that they can read for the public record, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. The Clerk: Mr. Mays, are you voting on this one? Mr. Mays: What is the original motion? The Clerk: The original motion was to disapprove. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion fails 5-2-1. Mr. Mayor: So that’s a no action item. The Clerk: Yes. 53 Mr. Boyles: Let my vote be known that I have not read the document. Mr. Mayor: We’ll include that in the record. All right, item number 46. The Clerk: 46. Resolution in support of legislation for an additional one percent sales tax on motor vehicles for road projects and public transportation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you asked about this one. Mr. Boyles: Just a little bit concerned, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for letting me do that. I was just a little bit concerned about the -- we’re talking about additional -- I’m trying to find my item, I lost my agenda place when we switched. 46. I’m just concerned about now we’re paying 7% on the price of new cars or any car, and we want to add another 1% to that? Just a little bit kind of [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: This was a request that was made by Commissioner Jerry Brigham and to add 1% sales tax on motor fuel projects, and that was a request that he made to the Legislative Delegation and I was asked to put it in a resolution form for the purpose of generating, finding another source of revenue. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Boyles has the floor and then Mr. Kolb had his hand up. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Attorney, you said motor fuel projects. This says sales tax on motor vehicles. Mr. Wall: That is an error. The actual resolution says motor fuel sales. Mr. Boyles: Motor fuel sales? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Sales tax on motor fuels, not motor vehicles? Mr. Wall: Motor fuels, that’s correct. I caught that when I was doing the resolution and that was an error. You’ll notice on the agenda, on the addendum, it’s correctly captioned. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, with respect to this particular resolution, there is an article in the Georgia Governing, I believe, the GMA 54 publication, that talks about this particular tax. I’m not it was the intent of the person who recommended the additional 1% sales tax, but the article in essence says as follows: there is a 3% sales tax on motor fuel, a sales tax on motor fuel, and 2% of that is delegation to LARP for road improvements, and 1% goes into the state general fund. What the GMA is proposing, and they have been for years, is to take that 1% that is dedicated to the general fund, and actually put it on LARP so that it would be a full 3% sales tax. So that is, if it is not the intent of this resolution to say that, because I believe this is an additional 1%, but if the intent is to divert that 1% to the LARP program, we would recommend that, and it would be consistent with our association’s legislative policy. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we had some hands up over here. Mr. Mays, did you want to speak to this? Mr. Mays: It was more in line with what Mr. Kolb was talking about in reference what actually both -- and particularly the county association -- has long supported in terms of the motor fuel tax. And I kind of jokingly said when it came up that was one of those things that the Legislature itself, probably in terms of knowing that it’s one of, if not the lowest one, that’s in the country. But it’s one that for a long time nobody -- neither party under the gold dome wanted to get off the ground. So it probably might be safer to just do it in conjunction with what our relative associations have already supported, and that would pretty much cover it because both associations, GMA and particularly ACCG, have gone on record with that for some time, particularly for alternative means of transportation. But it’s just one that, quite frankly, never really introduced or seen its way the last two or three governors [inaudible] that they’re going to deal with it. But it’s just one that -- I think that would [inaudible] cover it [inaudible] in terms of support the association position. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]. We need a motion, don’t we? Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Does that motion include the scenarios outlined by the Administrator, consistent with GMA position? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 47. 55 47. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to permit the use of Georgia Greenspace Trust funds to administration of local Greenspace Programs. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, item 47 is mine. I asked it be pulled. I am a little skeptical of using this Greenspace money for administration purposes. Right now we have a pretty good program going where we could purchase [inaudible] Greenspace with the monies that is allocated, but I think once we start dipping into that pot and using it as salaries, I think we are going to find out that we are not going to have the kind of monies that we need to go and purchase the easements and properties we need for Greenspace. Once you start in there with that administrative cost, it’s going to be dipping and dipping and dipping, and before you know it we’re not going to have any money to purchase the Greenspace projects parcels that we need, and I would like to make a motion that we not pass this. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Bridges: Second it. Mr. Mayor: All right, it’s been seconded. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I understand what you’re saying. However, this is limited to 5%. Only 5% of the money could go to that. That’s the suggested change, and I do think that some of the cost should come out of the Greenspace program. If you’re not comfortable with 5%, I think any help would be welcome to those that are having to administer the program, because it is an additional workload that is required, and if you’re not comfortable with the 5%, I would suggest perhaps some other percentage, but I think rather than having the general fund support the program, it ought to stand on its own. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: One of the things that usually happens, Mr. Wall, I mean we put 5% now, another year down the line we need another 5% because that 5% is not enough money to cover the salaries of this person doing all this work, and then another year, it’s another 10% and we wind up where we would be at 50% and then we’ve just got somebody looking at property and hoping somebody would donate it, but we don’t have any money because we’re paying it out in administrative costs, salaries and equipment and all this other stuff. I think this project was set up to preserve the Greenspace in Georgia, and I think if it was meant that we could not provide the services that we need for our portion of it, we shouldn’t have got into it. I just think that once you start dipping in that money for salaries and other administrative costs, we are going to wind up with 56 nothing, we just wind up with a high-paid administrator running around through the county looking for property, just looking at property hoping somebody can donate it. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I just wanted to ask Mr. Kolb. Don’t we fund the Greenspace program about $50,000 a year? Mr. Kolb: Roughly. Mr. Kuhlke: And if we impose this 5%, could we reduce our contribution by the amount that they, that that brings in? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Colclough is right -- Kuhlke is right. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] the first time. (Laughter) Mr. Colclough: It’s not Freudian slip. You were right the first time. (Laughter) Mr. Kolb: I respectfully submit that I think it’s around $55,000 is paid out of the general fund, and the monies that would come out of the Greenspace would reduce that contribution from the general fund to the Greenspace program. And I might add, just as any other budget situation, ultimately the control of where money goes rests with the Commission. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I mean if we saw that we could not afford this program, then why do we ask our folks use all of the time and effort to put together the proposals, which ours was the first one that passed. And now we’re saying we can no longer afford that. If we can’t afford $55,000 out of the general fund to pay somebody to administer this program, we have to dip in and get 5% of this cost of this Greenspace money to pay an administrator, I mean that’s foolish. Mr. Kolb: I might just point out to you $55,000 was a partial year payment. It was more than that for a full year, and the Commission chose just to send $55,000 because there is no other funds available. Mr. Colclough: We could have kept it in house. 57 Mr. Kolb: Cost more. Mr. Mayor: I think we have a motion on the floor? The Clerk: Yes, sir. For disapproval. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion fails 5-3. Mr. Mayor: That should take us up to item number 51. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Beard: It has been brought to my attention -- I would like to withdraw my objections to item 5 on the addition to the agenda. And my reason for doing that is because I’ve been informed that this facility would have to close unless something is done today, and there will be a number of employees out work until -- if we have to wait and bring this back in two weeks. And I’m going to withdraw my objections to that item 5 being placed on the agenda. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Bridges: What is item 5, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: That’s the alcohol license for the Red Lion Pub. Mr. Beard: Number 5 on the agenda. This place will, as I understand it, have to close because of this. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this item to the agenda? None heard. So we’ll take up the item. Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the caption. The Clerk: Addendum Item 5. New Ownership: A.N. 02-02: A request by John C. Melton II for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Red Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way. District 2. Super District 9. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke) Mr. Colclough: I so move. 58 Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke: Any objectors? Mr. Mayor: Any objectors here today? All right. Mr. Kuhlke: Is the Sheriff’s Department okay? Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: All the favor, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Bridges: Got a question. Why is this coming through this procedure? Why doesn’t this go through the committee and everything like that? How was this overlooked? Mr. Sherman: It missed the deadline and Mr. Melton requested that it be placed on the agenda today. Mr. Bridges: I mean I don’t understand that. How did it miss the deadline? What was going on? Has the business opened or what’s happened? Mr. Sherman: Well, he was getting his contract arranged and he just didn’t get the documentation that we needed to process, to get it on the committee agenda. He didn’t meet the agenda deadline. Mr. Bridges: So this is a new business? Mr. Mayor: New owner. Mr. Sherman: It’s a new owner. Mr. Mayor: New owner. Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] 59 Mr. Bridges: So it’s a new owner. Is the business still operating? What I’m asking is how can you have the employees going to lose jobs if you haven’t opened up yet? Mr. Sherman: The business should not be open at this time. Mr. Bridges: And I guess -- and that’s what I’m asking. How can you have employees losing their jobs if the business is not opened? Mr. Kuhlke: Ulmer, I won’t speak for him, but I will tell you what he told me. If he doesn’t get the license, then he has to wait to go through the process. And so he’s got to lay his people off for roughly a week or so. Then he’s got to get started back up, which may be another couple of weeks. So you’ve got a period of time, about three weeks in there, where you’ve got a void. Mr. Bridges: But what I’m asking, the business is not opened; right? Mr. Melton: Correct. But right now I have employees already employee. I mean -- what’s happening is these people who have been getting this business ready to go have quit other jobs to work for me and now in the remodeling and construction phase, you know, we were expecting to have our license sooner, but because the change of ownership and partially my fault because of not expediting the paperwork quick enough, I am now not operating. We are serving no alcohol, and so if this continues then it would be at the soonest the next meeting that y’all could approve this license, and it has been expedited through licensing and through the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Bridges: I guess the problem I have with it -- I’m not necessarily saying I’m going to vote against it, and Mr. Williams has mentioned this before. We wait till things come right to the dead end, they come up here on the floor, they bypass the normal procedure, and then we have to make deadline decisions. I guess I’m just frustrated as well. That’s all I’ve got to say, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: The application shows a date of December 5 on here. There should have been plenty of time to get it to us. Mr. Melton: That’s when I did have the application process done. Mr. Mayor: December 5, that’s been about six weeks ago. Mr. Sherman: Well, that’s when the application was probably submitted, but he was having trouble with his contract, and they couldn’t give us the proper documentation of who was going to be the partners in the business, so we couldn’t process it until we got ndrd that. We received that on probably the 2 or 3 of January. The application was due December [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: And if this is approved today, you’d be able to open when? 60 Mr. Melton: Technical tomorrow. Mr. Mayor: And you could get a state license that quick, too? Mr. Melton: That would be up to [inaudible]. Mr. Sherman: We would not issue the license today, so he couldn’t open [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor, and we had started to vote. I asked the Clerk to clear the board since the discussion came back up. So if you’ll please vote on this motion to approve. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Is this for Sunday sales, too? Okay. [inaudible] Mr. Colclough. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Want to perfect the record. 50. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall, item number 51. 51. LEGAL MEETING. ?? Discuss pending and potential litigation. Mr. Wall: Ask for a legal meeting to discuss pending and potential litigation. Mr. Mayor: Need a motion to go into executive session. Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Mayor: Second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll move into executive session. [LEGAL MEETING 4:45 - 5:30 p.m.] 61 52. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: We’ll entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Any other business to come before the Commission? We’re adjourned 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 January 15, 2002. Clerk of Commission 62