Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER February 20, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, February 20, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Kennedy The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Please be seated. Madame Clerk, I think we have two presentation under recognitions. The Clerk: Yes, we do. RECOGNITIONS: January’s Employee of Month Mr. Walter L. Hurley Facilities Maintenance Building and Grounds The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’d like to recognize our Employee of the Month. Mr. Walter L. Hurley, would you please come forward and join the Mayor at the podium? Mr. Hurley is with our Facilities Maintenance Buildings and Grounds. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Employee of the Month selection committee has selected Mr. Walter L. Hurley with Facilities Maintenance Building and Grounds as January Employee of the Month. Mr. Hurley has worked with the city of Augusta for over 19 years. Mr. Hurley is employed as a Maintenance Worker I. He was nominated by his supervisor, Mr. Claude Andrews, who gave the following reasons for his nomination: Mr. Hurley has been a vital part in the upgrading of our office lighting within the Municipal Building. He was also instrumental in the outside appearance of the Christmas decorations and lights and taking part in the making of a 16’ lighted wreath. Mr. Hurley, through determination, maintained an in-ground sprinkler system for the Municipal Building for to its peak efficient capabilities. His work allows for more concentrated watering of areas to conserve water and reduce water runoff. The Committee felt that based on Mr. Andrews’ recommendation and Mr. Hurley’s attributes he should be awarded Employee of the Month. Mr. Andrews further stated that Walter is a very energetic, conscientious, dedicated employee that exemplifies what the ideal employee should be. His attitude and willingness to help to assist the citizens and fellow employees of Augusta Richmond County is exceptional and should be commended. 1 Walter is willing to take on new responsibilities without complaint or hesitation, seeing them as an opportunity, not [inaudible]. Congratulations, Mr. Hurley, January Employee of the Month. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment. Some time ago when I was Recreation Director, Mr. Hurley worked out there in Recreation with us, and I believe some years ago he was Employee of the Month before. I’m glad to see he’s still doing the same great job he was doing years ago. The Clerk: U.S. Department of Commerce The National Weather Service Re: StormReady Certification for Augusta-Richmond County The Clerk: Mr. Dlugolenski? Mr. Dlugolenski: I’d like to introduce Mr. Steve Naglick from the Columbia, South Carolina National Weather Service, and he’s going to make a presentation to Mayor Bob Young. Mr. Naglick: Thank you for having me here. The reason I’m here is to do what we call a StormReady presentation to the county of Richmond. StormReady is a national program that began in the summer of 2000 when we had the devastating tornadoes out the Midwest. It’s a voluntary program for the communities and counties to become involved in to help them become very pro-active in dealing with the various kinds of weather that we have in the area. Obviously, Augusta gets its fair share of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms and flash floodings at time, so we’d like to have the communities form partnerships, and these partnerships have been formed between the county emergency managers, the state emergency management agency, and the Association of Emergency Managers as well, and the National Weather Service. And these partnerships are very vital in ensuring the ongoing success of the StormReady program. What does it mean for you? First of all, citizens of the county of Richmond can rest assured that they have the best possible program in place in dealing with severe weather. This is in terms of communications not only to the public, but to the schools and to other various agencies that are employed by the county. It also ensures that the county is going to deal with the aftermath of severe weather and disasters as well. I think one of the best benefits, though, is that you as a county can promote through the Chamber of Commerce that you are a StormReady county, and when businesses look at coming into the county, you can advertise it and say look, natural disasters occur everywhere but we’re one of the best counties around here that are prepared to deal with them. StormReady doesn’t mean that you’re storm proof. Mother Nature still unleashes her fury on the Augusta area and we’re still going to get our fair share. But Mr. Dave Dlugolenski and his staff have done an excellent job in preparing Richmond County to become StormReady, so it’s with great 2 pleasure that on behalf of the StormReady advisory board of the National Weather Service I present the Mayor with the StormReady plaque. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for the recognition for the community, and we’ll be sure to put some signs up at the city limits and elsewhere notifying people that they are coming into a StormReady community. You do have those? You brought some with you? Good, we’ll go ahead and get those up. Thank you very much, and Dave, I want to commend you for the hard work you’ve done through Emergency Management and working with the other departments in local government and community organizations to help us get this designation. It means a lot to the community and to the future and security of the people who live here. Thank you. Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead with the consent agenda, unless we have a delegation here for some item on the regular agenda. I’m not familiar with whether anybody is here for these items on that agenda. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 50. That’s 1 through 50. If there are any objectors to the Planning Commission petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? That’s any objectors to our Planning Commission items. PLANNING: 1. Z-02-10 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve petition by Reverend Martin, on behalf of Antioch Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church including a day care per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1454 Florence Street, 1280 Augusta Avenue, 1304 Augusta Avenue and 1449 Florence Street. (Tax map 46-3 Parcels 336, 337, 437, 438) 2. Z-02-11 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a through driveway be constructed from Bungalow Road to Ivey Road; a petition by Vivian D. Wright requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2155 Bungalow Road. (Tax map 86-3 Parcel 102) 3. Z-02-13 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a parking configuration which provides for a driveway with forward entry onto Old Savannah Road must be approved and implemented; a petition by Karen Jones, on behalf of Quock Gay Loo, requesting a change of zone from Zone LI (Light Industry) with conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) 3 affecting property located at 1944 Old Savannah Road. (Tax map 72-4 Parcel 277) 4. Z-02-14 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that the site plan match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial Corp., on behalf of Leonard P. Mays family, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and R-1A (One- family Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1213 Augusta West Parkway. (Tax map 30, part of parcel 56) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions? No objectors noted. For our alcohol petitions, if there are any objectors, please signify your objections by raising your hand? 9. Motion to approve a request by Gregory Tennin for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Mr. K’s Party Center located at 1061 Stevens Creek Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 10. Motion to deny a request by James Bowdon for a consumption on premise Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Hide Away located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 11. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #5 located at 902 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 12. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #6 located at 1502 Central Avenue. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 13. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #7 located at 2078 Old Savannah Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? No objectors noted, Mr. Mayor, for the planning or the alcohol petitions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Would you like to pull any items? 4 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull 16, please. Mr. Mayor: 16. Mr. Colclough: I’d like to pull number 2, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, number 2 for Mr. Colclough. Mr. Bridges: Number 20, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Number 20 for Mr. Bridges. Any others? PLANNING: 1. Z-02-10 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve petition by Reverend Martin, on behalf of Antioch Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church including a day care per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1454 Florence Street, 1280 Augusta Avenue, 1304 Augusta Avenue and 1449 Florence Street. (Tax map 46-3 Parcels 336, 337, 437, 438) 2. Deleted from consent agenda 3. Z-02-13 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a parking configuration which provides for a driveway with forward entry onto Old Savannah Road must be approved and implemented; a petition by Karen Jones, on behalf of Quock Gay Loo, requesting a change of zone from Zone LI (Light Industry) with conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1944 Old Savannah Road. (Tax map 72-4 Parcel 277) 4. Z-02-14 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that the site plan match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial Corp., on behalf of Leonard P. Mays family, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and R-1A (One- family Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1213 Augusta West Parkway. (Tax map 30, part of parcel 56) 5. FINAL PLAT – RIVERWEST COMMERCIAL PARK – S-614 – A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of Pilot Corporation, requesting final plat approval for Riverwest Commercial Park. This commercial subdivision is located on Riverwatch Parkway, West of Gun Club Road and contains 7 lots. (Reviewing agents approval 2/4/02) PUBLIC SERVICES: 5 6. Motion to enter into real estate sales contract with the Estate of Janie Johnson Hampton to acquire property located at 2138 Grand Boulevard for $44,000.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 7. Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 8. Motion to approve a request by Sandra M. Maule for a massage therapist license to be used in connection with Walton Pain Center at Walton Rehabilitation Hospital located at 1355 Independence Dr. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 9. Motion to approve a request by Gregory Tennin for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Mr. K’s Party Center located at 1061 Stevens Creek Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 10. Motion to deny a request by James Bowdon for a consumption on premise Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Hide Away located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 11. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #5 located at 902 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 12. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #6 located at 1502 Central Avenue. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 13. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #7 located at 2078 Old Savannah Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 2119 Grand Boulevard, (District 2, Super District 9); Old Town Neighborhood: 246 Walker Street, 340 Walker Street, (District 1, Super District 9); West End Neighborhood: 1840 Crescent Lane, (District 1, Super District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood: 2504 Kensington Drive W., (District 4, Super District 9); Belair Neighborhood: 3916 Belair Road, (District 3, Super District 10); South Richmond Neighborhood: 4002 Pinnacle Way, (District 6, nd Super District 10); and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) 15. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with Midwest Employers Casualty Company (an A rated insurer). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) 16. Deleted from consent agenda. 6 17. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 18. Motion to approve a request for of Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) application for Richmond County Juvenile Court and The Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC). (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 11, 2002) 19. Motion to disapprove a request for waiver of fire regulation requirement that a fire hydrant must be located within 500 feet of commercial structure, as it relates to a proposed location for a drop off laundry at the corner of Robinson Avenue and Gordon Highway. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 11, 2002) FINANCE: 20. Deleted from consent agenda. 21. Motion to approve the annual appropriation requirement for participation in the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) Lease Pool (Series 1990). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 22. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Aerial Fire Trucks for the Augusta Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment Company of Bessemer, Alabama for $649,500.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-047). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 23. Motion to approve the acquisition contract of Eleven (11) Pumper Fire Trucks for the Augusta Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment Company of Bessemer, Alabama for the amount of $3,484,000.00 to be paid over a 48 month period beginning in 2002 through 2005 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-048). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 24. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the City Council of Augusta 1949 Retirement Plan. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 25. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the 1977 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 26. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the 1945 Richmond County Employees’ Pension Fund Act. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 27. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 60 Foot Bucket Truck for the Augusta Regional Airport from Mays International Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $113,993.12 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-059) (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 28. Motion to disapprove a 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 7 accommodations for the purpose of promotion of tourism, conventions and trade shows. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 29. Motion to approve a request from the Historic Preservation Commission to approve submission of a FY 2002 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant application to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to finance a survey of historic properties in the Pinched Gut Historic District (Old Towne neighborhood). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 30. Motion to approve the expenditure of funds for the development of conceptual drawings for sidewalks improvements along Glenn Hills Drive in conjunction with the proposed widening from Sidewalk Improvement Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 31. Motion to approve creating a Suburban Services Street Lighting District for Arterial and Interstate streetlights to be funded from the General Fund. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 32. Motion to approve condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 168, Parcel 17.08, which is owned by Robert Hannah, for easement on the Basswood Drive Sanitation Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 33. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between The William E. Hollingsworth, Jr. Family, L.P., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $1,153.00: 312.5 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 472.4 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 53, which is owned by Cynthia S. Taylor, for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 641.25 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 740.94 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 126, which is owned by the Estate of Fannie Mae Youngblood, for right-of-way on the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 36. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 44.01, which is owned by Augusta Praise Tabernacle Church, Inc., for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 511.72 square feet, more or less, of right-of- way; 522.05 square feet, more or less, of permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement; and 1,336.62 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 8 37. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental Encroachment Agreement Nos. 30629 and 30643 (Bath-DumJon 230/46kv Transmission Line Right-of-Way. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 38. Motion to approve reconciliation of the first term of the operating agreement with Operations Management International (OMI). The first contract term period was from July 20, 1999 through December 31, 2000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 39. Motion to approve the acceptance of the Deed of Dedication of sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for 758 Tripps Court, Robert W. Hawes. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 40. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to purchase the Trimble 5603 Total Robotic Station surveying equipment from Duncan-Parnell, Inc. in the amount of $26,570. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 41. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to purchase the Trimble 5700 Survey Grade Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) mapping equipment from Duncan-Parnell, Inc. in the amount of $42,993. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 42. Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 43. Motion to approve continuing with the current Bond Underwriter for one year and request RFP’s for the subsequent year. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 44. Motion to approve award the design contract for the proposed new facilities for the Department of Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities to Arcadis G&M, Inc. Services are to include evaluation of three potential sites as well as project design. Total fees are not to exceed $518,365. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 45. Motion to approve "Best Bid" lease proposal of a new postage machine from Pitney Bowes for the ARC Print Shop. The lease term is for 66 months at $932 per month or $11,184 annually. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 46. Motion to approve 2002 LARP Supplemental Program List. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 47. Motion to approve payments to: Thomas Brothers Hydro, Inc. in the amount of $52,684.14, Master Fabricators Maxim in the amount of $12,297.00, and Maxim Crane Works in the amount of $11,730.00 for the repairs of Turbine #4 at the Raw Water Pumping Station. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 48. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February 5, 2002 and the called meeting held February 11, 2002. 9 APPOINTMENT: 49. Motion to approve the re-appointment of Mr. Brad Kyzer, Jr. to the Augusta Aviation Commission representing District 8. ATTORNEY: 50. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-4-20 to extend the boundaries of the Laney-Walker Enterprise Zone. (Approved by the Commission February 5 – second reading) Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 2, 16 and 20. All in favor of the consent agenda please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion carries 8-1. [Item 26] Mr. Beard out. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 8-1. [Item 50] Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 3-15, 17-25, 27-49] Mr. Mays: If you would so note, as in the last Commission meeting, on item number 50, [inaudible] that particular I abstain [inaudible] conflict. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ll have to abstain because of conflict of interest on items 16 and 20. Mr. Mayor: So noted. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go to item 2. 2. Z-02-11 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a through driveway be constructed from Bungalow Road to Ivey Road; a petition by Vivian D. Wright requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 2155 Bungalow Road. (Tax map 86- 3 Parcel 102) Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I asked to pull this. I just needed to know from Planning and Zoning or Engineering or someone, cutting a driveway from one street to another street, does that constitute a road? How can you classify it as a driveway? 10 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: This property sits in the triangle created by the intersection of Ivy ’ Road and Bungalow Road. And its a house and these type uses are really glorified day care -- I mean glorified baby sitting service and they can only keep six children in the house. The problem we saw with it was right now the way the lot and property is configured, anybody that comes in there is backing into Bungalow Road, and by creating a driveway through Bungalow Road into Ivy, then that would allow people to drive through and not back into Bungalow Road. We saw that as a problem because of the volume of traffic and speed of operation on Bungalow Road. Mr. Colclough: Who is going to pay for constructing this? ’ Mr. Patty: The applicant. The applicant. And theyre agreeable to it. I think ’ theyre here. At the Planning Commission meeting there were agreeable to do this. Mr. Colclough: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams? ’ Mr. Williams: Just want to add, Mr. Colclough, thats Bungalow Road and ’ theres several -- George, you might be able to help me out -- but there are several others there in that same area because of the way the houses set up that way with a triangle driveway that they will do themselves. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion? Mr. Williams: A motion to approve. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Seconded. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 16. 16. Motion to approve 2002 cost-of-living increases for retirees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you asked that be pulled. 11 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask a question about that. Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Shepard: The indication in the backup is that the financial impact of the cost of living raise is $46,131. What my question was, I don’t think the financial consultants for any of the pension acts that have been consulted on this, but isn’t there some additional monies that come out of the 1977 fund that has to come from the general fund in addition to this $46,000? Donna or anybody speak to that? The pension consultants seem to think that there will be some additional costs here. Have we looked at that? Mr. Wall: There will some costs that have to come out of the ’77 Pension Plan for health care. I don’t know whether that’s what they’re referring to or now. Mr. Shepard: Well, won’t that have to be subsidized by the general fund? Mr. Wall: I can’t answer that. Well, health care has to be paid out of the general fund. It cannot come from the pension fund. Mr. Shepard: So doesn’t the financial impact have more than just $46,000 to the general fund here? Do we know? Mr. Mayor: Would this be the impact over and above what was already budgeted? Mr. Shepard: I’m wondering if the impact has not been understated here. That’s why I’m seeking clarification for it. Maybe we can get Donna to look it up and come back to it. Mr. Kolb: Okay, from what I’m hearing and Ms. Williams can take the podium, but apparently any unfounded liabilities or anything owed to the pension plan would come out of the Urban Services fund. And so it would not have direct impact on the general fund. Mr. Shepard: Donna, does this include the 1977, the costs associated with the ’77 -- it’s $46,000 for all funds, but includes the ’77 fund? It’s not going to have to look to the general fund of the city budget to get more money for this? Ms. Williams: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: Okay, thank you. I move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Bridges? 12 Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In regards to the cost of living, of course we’re giving them a percent and a half, and I think we do that every year, but I mean that’s a pitiful amount to give anybody that this is their sole source of income or one of their primary sources at the age of some of these people. And it’s been about three or four years before we’ve increased that amount to any sizeable -- you know, we’ve upped the amount that we’re giving the retirees to any sizeable amount. I think it’s like $100 about four years ago. Have we done any kind of actuarial studies, George, or when will we do a study that would tell us whether we can do that again without having to go into the general fund? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has indicated he can answer that. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Shepard: I just happen to know because I asked the same question, not in the way you did, but I think they do that every two years, and currently the last actuarial study was done in 2000. One is pending now. 2002. We’re having a Pension, if you’re that interested -- and I commend your interest -- we’re having Pension Committee tomorrow at four o’clock. Mr. Bridges: When that actuarial study is done, I wish we’d consider increasing to these retirees because it’s been a long time since we’ve done anything that would really benefit them other than the cost-of-living increases that we’ve given them. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Anything further? We have a motion to approve. It’s been seconded. All in favor of the motion please vote aye. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 20. 20. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty and interest on Tax Account #2036831 for 2000 Tax Year. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) Mr. Mayor: That’s Commissioner Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I pulled this because I noticed that we’re abating the penalty and the interest on this and in the past six years I’ve been here, we’ve been very consistent in those where we did make an error and the people did not know of their bill and therefore didn’t pay the bill, we did abate the penalty but not the interest because they had use of the money during that time. I was just wondering if this was different from anything else we’ve done in the past, Jim? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] 13 Mr. Bridges: Then I would make the motion that we abate the penalty and the interest to be consistent -- abate the interest and not the interest to be consistent with our past practice. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of that motion vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll move along to the regular agenda. Item number 51. Two of the items on the regular agenda, there is additional backup information that was provided to you at your desk. Items 58 and 59. Madame Clerk? The Clerk: PLANNING: 51. Z-02-01 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to deny a petition by Rory and Myra Calhoun requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a private club and recreational facility per Section 26-1 (i) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 5149 Westbrook Road and containing approximately 26 acres. (Tax Map 353 Parcels 05.17 & 5.18) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Would you give us background on this, please? Mr. Patty: The ordinance provides for people to do certain things by special exception, as you know. One of those things is have private clubs and recreational facilities. The petitioner on this one had a fairly large tract in a rural area, the McBean area, and wanted to conduct paint ball and other recreational activities on the property on a limited schedule, catering mainly to military and church groups. Had a lot of debate on this. We heard it once, postponed it so that there could be a meeting of the minds. That occurred. There seemed to be some consensus that with stipulations it would be acceptable in the area, but at the meeting, some of the neighbors continued to object to it because of the potential impact of noise and various other impacts it might have and the effect on property values and the fact that it actually introduces a business into the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted, I believe unanimously, to recommend denial. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. Calhoun: Yes, I am. 14 Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any objectors here? Okay, none are noted, Madame Clerk. If you would give us your name and address for the record and tell us what you’d like. Mr. Calhoun: My name is Rory Calhoun, 5149 Westbrook Road. Ms. Calhoun: I’m Myra Calhoun. What we plan on doing, if we can get this, is gear it strictly towards the military. We have a lot of young men and a lot of young women out there that come into the base straight out of basic training and they’re not allowed off post. We worked through the Chaplain’s office a few times to allow them to come out, and this gets them off post, away from some of the structure and the regulations that they do have out there. Where we have [inaudible] at, this closest neighbor is a quarter of a mile away. Her name is June Lowe. She’s the property owner. We’ve discussed this with her. She says she has no problems with it. We own 26, almost 27 acres out there, in two tracts. We plan on using the back tract only and only doing it on the weekends, or according to the military schedule, preferably a Saturday. Occasionally they would have a Monday training holiday that they would want to come out and do something with. But it’s a private club for the simple reason that it’s not going to be open to the public. We also live on this property. We plan on building a new home out there, so we can’t just have anyone that wants to come in. The reason we’re doing it with the military is so that we do have that control and that accountability with them. As far as the noise in concerned, very honestly, we have a personal sawmill that we run sometimes to cut wood and that thing makes a whole lot more noise than the paintball. But we also have basketball, baseball and volleyball, whatever. Mr. Mayor: Do you anticipate that at some point you’ll come before us and request an alcohol license? Ms. Calhoun: No, sir. Mr. Calhoun: No, sir. Ms. Calhoun: There will be no alcohol. Mr. Calhoun: No way, shape or form. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Calhoun, how do you anticipate getting raw recruits off base when they’re in basic training and the military is saying that these people have to be on post for a certain number of weeks before they can earn a pass? Mr. Calhoun: Well, having taught at Fort Gordon for the last eight years, I have come in contact with the military quite often. Teaching at Fort Gordon has allowed me to make several contacts at Fort Gordon. They have buses. They bus them out. The Chaplain’s office, the drill sergeant is usually with them so they maintain control over 15 them. There are times that taxi cabs would bring them out. They make special arrangements for the taxi clubs not to charge them an exorbitant amount. I think five bucks apiece was the nominal fee to bring them and come and get them and take them back. They do have passes, 24 or 48 hours. They have four-day passes that they’re allowed to go on, and they can do this during that time. Mr. Colclough: These are raw recruits you’re talking about? Mr. Calhoun: Yes. Yes, they are. They’re Phase IV and Phase V. Mr. Colclough: Times have changed. I must have been out too long. (Laughter) Mr. Calhoun: You and I both, sir. Ms. Calhoun: Let me clarify that. The ones that come with the Chaplains are the ones that are fresh out of basic. The ones that come in the taxis, they’re the ones that are allowed to go out. Mr. Colclough: Yes. Ms. Calhoun: But we still maintain the control. Mr. Colclough: What reason would the Chaplain have to bring a group of men off post? I’m just asking a question. Mr. Calhoun: These young ladies and young men that just want to come out and just have a good time and everything. Mr. Colclough: These are folks that don’t qualify for regular passes? Mr. Calhoun: Well, they do it under the Chaplain’s guidelines as a recreational sport for them. They can go up to Clark Hill, go water skiing or go to the movies or whatever. This is just another outlet for the soldiers to do that. Mr. Colclough: I’ve been out a long time. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, first, is this a conflicting land use with the comprehensive plan? 16 Mr. Patty: Well, it certainly could be. The special exception does not change the zoning. It gives certain rights and privileges in addition to the rights and privileges of zoning. You could argue that anything other than a sparsely-development -- you know, sparse development in a rural area like this is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. If this use were controlled, it would probably not cause a lot of impact. If it were not controlled, it could obviously be a nightmare and a nuisance and a problem for the county, as well as the residents. I don’t think there is a direct answer to your question. Mr. Bridges: What about the opposition? How many people were opposed to this when it was presented at the meeting? What were the arguments? Mr. Patty: We had one neighbor who was very much opposed to it, and we had a lady who represented her elderly mother who lived adjacent to the property who was also opposed to it. Mr. Calhoun: There were like nine that were there at that meeting that night on st the 31 of January. Mr. Bridges: In regards to coming to a meeting of the minds, what happened there? Were there certain stipulations that you, George, were thinking about placing on this to maintain some of the integrity of the neighborhood and they couldn’t reach an agreement? Mr. Patty: We met in my office. I guess we had 20 residents, plus or minus, in my office on Friday afternoon and talked about conditions such as limiting the how many days per month, hours of operation, no alcohol, no smoking, no cussing, you know, stuff like that. And there seemed to be agreement at that time that with those conditions it would be acceptable. But that wasn’t the case when the public hearing was held. Mr. Bridges: You said the meeting you held in your office there were 20 people there? Mr. Patty: Yes. Mr. Bridges: And they were opposed to it or they did reach an agreement? Mr. Patty: At that time, nobody expressed opposition to the approval of the thing with conditions. Mr. Bridges: But it happened at the meeting -- were the people who opposed at the meeting not at the one at your office? Mr. Patty: Actually they were both at the meeting and my office. Mr. Bridges: And they didn’t oppose it at that time? 17 Mr. Patty: Well, one lady, the lady represented her mother, you know, was clearly not, you know, in favor of it. But she didn’t voice any direct opposition at the time in my office. Mr. Calhoun: Her biggest concern was that her mother was that her mother was 94 years old and this was going to disturb her. I’m approximately one-half mile from her house. There is no way that you can hear the activities going on. No way. [inaudible] I don’t get it. I really don’t. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Being on the Planning Committee, being on that board, I was asked. I have a problem with the private aspect of it, being a private club. I think the couple said that this private club would be for the military and I asked the question what if the Marine wanted to come, what if the Navy wanted to come. When you say private, when you put that stigma private on there, that’s saying you can limit it to who you want to. If you going to open a business up, open a recreation facility up, then it should be open to the public. Those were my points at that time, and I’m still not -- I haven’t heard anything yet that changed my mind about the private part of the club. Once this is granted, once you receive the zoning, then there is no telling what would take place, and we don’t any way of supervising. But if we approve a private club for what you had mentioned, you can let in those private first class and those only, I guess, and I don’t know, but I’ve got a serious problem when you ask for zoning for a private facility. Mr. Calhoun: Well, I don’t think this would be any different than the Pea Patch out of Highway 1. Mr. Williams: Well, the Pea Patch is not here before us now. Mr. Calhoun: I understand that, but it’s the same different. Ms. Calhoun: [inaudible] Mr. Calhoun: I wish it could be otherwise, but that was one of the things I think Mr. Patty agreed with, that the neighbors were complaining about. Ms. Calhoun: They didn’t want the traffic. Mr. Calhoun: So this is the only opportunity we have, by doing it as a private club, to allow the military and church groups to come out. Ms. Calhoun: I’m not going to open my front door or my front driveway for anybody, any Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to come in on my property. I’ve got almost 27 acres out there. I’ve got kids out there. I’ve got all their toys, their four-wheelers and everything else, including tools. I’m not going to just let anybody -- that’s why we went 18 with the military. That was their request when my husband worked out there, that these young people would come in, of the military, they’d say, you know, we’d love to do this but we don’t have anywhere to do and we can’t do it on Fort Gordon because of the EPA regulations. They wouldn’t allow anything along that way. So what are we trying to do? We’re trying to keep them out of the nightclubs. We’re trying to keep them out of the jails. We’re trying to keep them just out of trouble. When they’re out there, our kids are out there with them. They’re not drinking, and they’re not, you know, smoking just all over the place. This is out in the middle of a pasture. It’s very rural out there where we want to do this. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d have to revert to somebody who has been in the military. I went by the Salvation Army several times but I never been in the military, so I can’t answer those things you’re talking about, but I’m sure that Fort Gordon should have some type of facility for those privates, for those people that come in on that base to do those things, some activities. Now if they been excluded and have to go off the campus, then some of you military people may have to [inaudible]. But I’m going to go ahead, Mr. Mayor, if I will, a motion that we go ahead and take the advice of the Planning board and deny this application. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from Commissioner Williams to deny the application. Is there a second to that motion? The motion dies for lack of a second. The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek, who has his hand up. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to concur with the folks here. Playing paintball is not that noisy, in fact, it’s a lot of fun. An occasional scream from somebody getting an impact in the wrong place. But can we put a one-year probationary period on this or is that within the rules? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? We’ll ask our legal department. Mr. Cheek: I guess if we have concurrence from these folks to pass this with the stipulations and then have a one-year review of it, and we have concurrence from them, that sounds to me like it would be within the law. Mr. Wall: The only thing I think you could do, I don’t think you can put a time limit on the special stipulation, but they would have to have a business license and I think in the event that there were problems insofar as the operation of it, you could reconsider the business license when it comes up for renewal at the end of the year. Mr. Cheek: Okay. I’m going to make a motion that we approve this with the stipulations. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion to approve? 19 Mr. Bridges: I’ll second that if the maker of the motion would -- and George, maybe we need you in on this -- what were the days that this would be in operation? Would it be just Saturday that was agreed on at your -- Mr. Calhoun: Two days a week. Mr. Bridges: Friday and Saturday. Mr. Calhoun: Yes. Mr. Bridges: And strictly for active military? Ms. Calhoun: It’s for the military and church groups. Mr. Bridges: And no alcohol or anything like that? Ms. Calhoun: No, sir. Mr. Bridges: One other thing. If the property is ever sold -- Jim, can we do this, if the property is ever sold or exchanged or inherited, that this special exemption would return to its original purpose? Mr. Wall: Absolutely. Mr. Calhoun: We had already agreed to that. Ms. Calhoun: Yes, we understood that. Mr. Patty: And no recreational activities after sunset. Ms. Calhoun: Yes, it was only going to be during the daylight hours. Nothing after, you know. Mr. Bridges: Considering all those, would the maker of the motion accept those? Mr. Cheek: Absolutely. Mr. Bridges: And I’ll second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None heard. Mr. Hankerson: I’ve got a question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Colclough. 20 Mr. Hankerson: I hear the religious aspect into this and the two days a week. Is there any profit in there? Mr. Calhoun: Yes, there is. Ms. Calhoun: After everything is paid off, it might be. Mr. Calhoun: After it’s paid off. Ms. Calhoun: It’s not really to go into for a profitable business. We are doing fine without this. This is just something for -- it’s mainly our son’s. Our oldest son got us into it. Mr. Hankerson: What will you be selling? What will you be selling? Ms. Calhoun: Paintballs. Mr. Hankerson: Pardon? Mr. Calhoun: The paintballs. And the guns. Ms. Calhoun: Supplying that. Mr. Hankerson: I heard you mention about the Chaplain will be coming out and the church groups and the military groups. Can I see your mission statement? Ms. Calhoun: We don’t have that with us. Mr. Calhoun: We [inaudible]. Mr. Hankerson: Do you have one prepared? Mr. Calhoun: No, we don’t. Mr. Hankerson: Religious aspects, you’re going to church groups and this sort of sounds like a ministry, but the first thing you start with a mission statement. I think that when we make a decision on passing something like this, with religion and military, private, we have ministries come but the first thing they have is a mission statement so we can look in your mission statement and see your goals and your objectives and what you’re going to do. Mr. Calhoun: Well, I was not aware you needed something like that, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: I only ask because you brought the church in it and the Chaplain in it. And if you’re doing that, the Chaplain is not present, it seems that you, first of all if 21 you’re doing something of that nature, and it kind of sounds like you’re going as a ministry, then it seems like you already begin with a mission statement. Ms. Calhoun: It is not supposed to be as a ministry, unless you consider taking young people off of the street. We have a 14-year-old son, and him, as well as a lot of his friends, are out there. They have four-wheelers, they bring their dirt bikes, and they go riding on our property, and this is something else for them to do. We kept them off the streets, you know, every one of them. It’s just something that got started that way, and then like I said, when my husband worked out there and the young soldiers would come in, you know, we don’t have any place to do this. I’ve got this and I’ve got that and I would love to have some place but I can’t. And the reason that the gun rental has to be there is because they are unable to bring any kind weapon, even a paintball gun, on Fort Gordon. They cannot have it on the post. So that has to be there in some way for them to have that. But it’s a fun thing, that’s all. It’s just for recreation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson asked about how you generate revenue. Do you also charge dues for being a member? Ms. Calhoun: No, sir. Mr. Calhoun: Well, from the private aspect we probably could, be anywhere from 50 cents on up. We just include that in the $25 rental to [inaudible] the soldiers. Mr. Mayor: Are there any further questions? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I don’t have a problem. I just wanted to ask a question on the amount of acreage. 26 acres. Are you planning to immediately use all 26 acres? Mr. Calhoun: No. Mr. Mays: Are you going to restrict to a certain amount? Mr. Calhoun: It’s only 18 acres on the back side that we had shown Mr. Patty. That’s what we had planned on using. Mr. Mays: You will be [inaudible]? Mr. Calhoun: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Is that is, Mr. Mays? Okay. Anyone else? We have a motion to approve this with the stipulations that were enumerated in the second. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 22 Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Calhoun: Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Mayor: Next item, please. Number 52. The Clerk: 52. Z-02-12 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to deny a petition by Rosa Butler requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family personal care home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located on 1704 Bransford Avenue. (Tax map 45-1 Parcel 200 ) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Would you give us the background, please? Mr. Patty: Typical request for a personal care home. It’s a relatively small house around Lamar School. Have objection from the neighborhood. Objection was it was not residential use and the traffic and typical adverse impacts. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today to this zoning? Okay, none are noted. Is Ms. Butler here? Ms. Rosa Butler, the petitioner? She is not here. Is she? Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval we comply with the request from zoning. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission. Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: No, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item number 53? The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 23 53. Discuss the acquisition of property for the Greenspace Program. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee.) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Whose item is this? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, this is my item. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I had a request from one of the residents of the Seventh District that we look at some property of his along Rae’s Creek and possibly consider placing it into the Greenspace Program. Not being totally familiar with that program, I need to rely either on the Attorney. Brought it to committee. You see it had no recommendation coming out. So I either need someone from the Greenspace, the organization that was set up to handle Greenspace funds, or some advice from the Attorney. And I think Mr. Davison and his attorney may be here. They were earlier. Mr. Wall: I saw Mr. Jimmy Davison earlier. This is property that had previously been discussed by the Commission insofar as the possible acquisition of this property. We had it appraised and based upon discussion with the Commission, I had previously extended an offer, but it was less than the amount that Mr. Davison wanted for the property. We submitted it to Deke Copenhaver insofar as their review and recommendation as to whether or not this property should be purchased as a part of the Greenspace Program. It was his recommendation that the money not be used for the purpose of acquiring that property, and there were several reasons. One is that it only met four of the nine criteria insofar as Greenspace funding. Also, the Commission has previously identified the Rocky Creek basin as being the focus of the initial funding for Greenspace acquisition, and to acquire those properties. Also, you were paying fair market -- being requested to pay fair market value for the property when you’ve got a limited amount of funding, and we obviously are not in a position to maximize the Greenspace funding if we go out and acquire properties. The goal is to use those monies as incentives for people to place restrictive covenants on the property or to acquire properties that perhaps could not be used for other purposes. This would represent roughly I think ¼ of the total funds that were available for the first year of the Greenspace and obviously we’ve gotten a grant for the second year, but it was the recommendation of the Southeastern Land Trust not to acquire the property as part of the Greenspace Program, and that’s our recommendation, that it not be purchased with Greenspace monies. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this property, I have to concur with the Attorney and with the land bank. This would be a way to drain the account and not get a lot of property. However, I would like to see us have a report back from Deke on the Greenspace initiative to see where we’re at. It’s my understanding we’ve only acquired two properties and we’re over a year into this program, and for us to take Butler Creek 24 and complete that program, as this Commission voted to do. We’re going to have to be a little more aggressive than that. So anyway, I’d like to request at this time a report back from the folks in our Greenspace Program back to the Public Services Committee for the next committee meeting, if possible. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you see that that is accomplished? Okay. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, would it be possible to hear from the property owner? Mr. Mayor: It would be possible. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: What I was going to ask, Mr. Mayor, and I don’t have any problem with what Mr. Boyles suggested. I asked this at the committee meeting when we were doing it, and I concur with where we should be headed on the Greenspace Program in terms of trying to maximize the funds that are there because they are limited. But I asked that they also, as with any plans, either with Utilities or Public Works or a combination of those two areas, of any future aspects or plans, and this particular property and related to the amount of funding that we’ve got in that area. I know we’ve historically used this particular piece of property basically for storing equipment, even though the property didn’t belong to us, but we parked all our equipment on it as though it did, and made it a basic resting ground and used it because we couldn’t put it in folks’ driveways or in their front yards, so that’s how we used it. But we’ve got flooding that still occurs at time, coming down Rae’s Creek, whatever side of [inaudible] Road you want to make of it, where it comes eastward and down the hill where it becomes a collective body in those neighborhoods there for that water to go. And while it may not be a prudent act to do it through Greenspace, before the property maybe changes hands or gets into another situation whereby possibly, and I know we don’t have any control of that, into a different hand of ownership, that we may not get for a particular price, I would like to know if we’ve got some plans to be able to deal with it. Because what I hate to see us do is to walk away from it and it still be sitting out there and then we come back a year or so later and somebody comes up with the smart suggestion that we got to end up now acquiring this piece of property and we end up having to buy it at three to four times of what we might be faced with it now. And that’s why I put the question out there, to a point that either one of these departments or do they collectively have something in mind, because this has been a focal point of where that water runs, and it’s where a lot of folk, to a point that when it starts running in, they start turning on their lights and getting on their front porch and trying to find a way to get out of there in a light to heavy rainfall. So I just think we [inaudible] before we totally walk away from it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I see the property owner and his attorney here. I’d like to hear from this. I know it’s a very prominently visible piece of property there on Berckman Road and Ingleside. If I could yield my time to the property owner and his attorney, Mr. Long. 25 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, if you speak for the property owner, give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Long: I’m Jack Long. I’m a lawyer in Augusta. I practice at 453 Greene Street, right across the street. I’m here with Mr. Jimmy Davison, the property owner. With all the budgetary concerns we have, this is one of the few areas that is clearly state money. And so far we haven’t used [inaudible], it’s not being used, we have no acquired no property, hopefully [inaudible]. With the additional grant this year, it will be a tremendous sum of money and it’s not being used so far. And what’s going to happen is you’re not going to get it in the future if that continues. This particular piece of property ? is in a section of Richmond County, we’ve got the Masters coming up in a couple of weeks, I think Mr. Mays is correct that the county for all practical purposes used for the [inaudible]. They went to the expense of having an appraisal, they came up with a value we didn’t agree to. But we are willing to agree with the value, which is the fair market value, to buy this property, and I believe it does meet more than four of the criteria for Greenspace. I think Mr. Davison has already told y’all about that. It could be a beautiful park to welcome people into Augusta, beautify that area. I think [inaudible], I think we work 51 weeks a year and play one week and we get on national news and so we are a great community for this. This is in an area that is not being considered in other areas like the Butler Creek area and the Rae’s Creek area. The fair market value, I think it would be beneficial for the county, and it would not affect the local budgetary matters at all. It would just be using Greenspace money for what it was intended for, and that is to acquire Greenspace like this in another section of the county. So I would ask y’all to consider voting to buy the property at the fair market value as determined by the county’s appraisal. Otherwise, [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Just a follow-up question to Mr. Long and perhaps Mr. Wall. I’ve always understood it was an authorized expenditure for Greenspace if it met just one of the criteria. I mean you don’t have to meet more than one, I mean there’s been some talk about it not meeting but, you know, one or more. But as long as it meets one of the authorized criteria, and Mr. Long, you said you think it meets more than one. What criteria do you think it meets? Mr. Long: I think I meets the criteria of flood protection, wetlands protection, reduction of erosion protection [inaudible] area, protection of buffers and other areas from marshes that are right in the Rae’s Creek area, shade protection, it’s right on the route to the Augusta National that most of our guests will be using, it protects all sorts of resources. If anybody as read Mr. White’s little booklet on Rae’s Creek, and of course Rae’s Creek eventually goes into the lake and it could be used for parks and things like that. So I think you are right, Mr. Shepard, only one criteria is required. We think we meet much more than one. The problem is we’re not using the Greenspace funds. They are not being spent to acquire property. And I know people want to give property and tithe property. You can always do that. But the purpose of the money is to buy property. And I would suggest now if you’re going [inaudible] and you want to help make Augusta 26 -- help beautify Augusta for the National, this would be the first spot and this would be the time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, has your client considered granting us a conservation easement on that property? Has that been discussed? Mr. Long: Mr. Mayor, my client is broke. He doesn’t have the ability [inaudible] lien on the property, and that’s why the offers they’ve offered won’t pay the lien off. So no [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: So you’re trying to recover enough to [inaudible]? Mr. Long: [inaudible]. That’s not going to take care of his mother, who has a lien on the property. Mr. Mayor: So what you’re trying to do is recover enough to pay off the lien? Mr. Long: Sir, we’re trying to sell the property for the fair market value. Mr. Wall mentioned they’ve offered something substantially lower than fair market value [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, you know the property is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay, and nobody has bought it yet, and apparently there has been one figure discussed from our side, which we consider to be a bona fide offer. But it’s been rejected by you. Mr. Long: Mr. Mayor, Richmond County hired an MAI appraiser. Y’all came up with the opinion as to the value. Y’all paid the appraiser. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Long: Now if you don’t want to pay fair market value for property, don’t spend county resources hiring an appraiser and then saying we’re not going to -- that’s [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason we targeted Butler Creek initially was for what we are addressing now, is a situation where we would have had a melee of people coming in with property all over the place to buy with no real program. The intent of this is to acquire Greenspace along the creek basins to prohibit construction in those areas. The Berckman Road property that y’all are here representing to me meets the criteria as far as its potential developmental property that we don’t want developed, it provides additional Greenspace in an area where there is a high density of houses and not much public Greenspace. But again, until we see that the system is working properly and indeed, if we’ve only acquired two properties since we’ve initiated this at a cost of 27 $57,000 or so a year administrative cost, then it may be time to bring it in-house or look at another person to take care of it. But the bottom line is if we go out and spend fair market value on this and don’t come up with some type of contributory donation as a part of that, then we risk setting a precedent that would have us spending a lot of money on a little land, and that’s certainly not what we want to do at this time. For this Commissioner, I would like to wait and see what kind of performance review we get from our Greenspace program, and if it’s not up to snuff we may make some adjustments at that time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, can we discuss the money, how much money we’re offering for this? Or is that something better in legal meeting? Mr. Wall: I think it was discussed in the committee meeting, to be frank with you. Mr. Bridges: How many acres and what kind of money are we talking about here? Mr. Wall: If I -- I didn’t bring the appraisal with me, but it was -- Mr. Long: It was 4.3 acres. 4.89 acres. The appraiser said there were three building -- four building lots and he said $30,000 a lot and came up with $120,000. We are willing to [inaudible] -- I mean our proposal was the whole shooting match, not just building lots. Everything for what the appraised value was, $120,000. Mr. Bridges: So we’re talking $120,000 for a little less than five acres? Mr. Long: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: So if we’ve got $600,000 in the Greenspace program, it’s like Commissioner Cheek was saying, we’re talking about less than 25 acres total that we could put in the Greenspace program which is just really not -- I mean we’re not moving forward with the program, that’s not the purpose of the program, and as much as I’d like to help Jimmy out, I don’t think for the program -- for where you’re trying to get the money from for the purposes of the Greenspace program, I don’t think it’s proper to spend that kind of taxpayer dollars for property that -- and with the Greenspace, we’re actually requesting people donate the property, or at least buy some very cheap, well watered land, and not pay builder or developer costs for it. I think that’s the purpose of the program, and we’ve only got a limited amount of money. For the life of me, I’d love -- I’ve talked to Jimmy about this and would love to help him out with it, but I can’t, I can’t see doing that in this case without the recommendation of Deke Copenhaver and the Greenspace program. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb asked to be recognized. 28 Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Cheek has asked for, Mr. Mays has asked for a report at your next Public Service Committee meeting. At that time, I will ask for the Greenspace administrators to make a recommendation on this program and give you a full briefing on where we are with our purchase of land and where we plan to go with it. I think it will become clear to you as to what the road map should be and is for the continuation of this program. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, and I know we recognize the property owner and we are still on, as we should be because the source being Greenspace, but I asked the question a few minutes ago, and I’m not trying to change the course of direction, I just was trying to maybe give us more than one way to go in this whole deal. Greenspace is on the table right now because that’s the source of funding. But I asked whether or not there would be, either from Utilities or Public Works or a combination of, I asked it in committee, I’m still asking the say question, and maybe, just very briefly, if we could find out something in reference to those plans, or if there is no plan, let’s get it on record and say there is no plan. But what I’m trying to get established is the fact that if this piece of property is sitting there and water jumps totally over it and into other areas, we’re talking about two Super Districts that come together, it’s also the point where District 7 and District 1 come together. And you’ve got a point that’s in there where I guess folk are not responsible for what the value, of where the property is. What I’m looking at is if there is a way that maybe -- and I agree with the [inaudible] that that’s not argument there. But if there is something that needs to be done out of Utilities or Public Works in terms of relieving that flooding and to add to where we’ve already spent in terms of millions of dollars of dealing with Rae’s Creek, to get down Berckman Road, near this piece of property that we’re talking about, and that still being a bottleneck, if there is a usage down the line for it, I’m just trying to establish the fact that it may be more prudent if we have to look at doing work on it or if we have to look at buying it. Is maybe now the proper time to maybe deal with it, even if you have to use Greenspace money and reimburse it from Utilities, if Utilities has to use it or Public Works has to. If there is no program, then state so. But I’d like really to have one of the folk to answer that, and if there is nothing there, then tell me there is nothing there. But I’d like to get that on record because it would give a lot of folk who live in that area, on both sides of Berckman Road, some type of answer. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, can you answer the Commissioner’s question? Mr. Hicks: Insofar as Utilities is concerned, we have water lines and sewer lines. I know the water lines go across the property in question. I think the sewer lines might be on the opposite side of the road. But we have easements that we have already purchased in years past for the 42” water line, the 18” water line, and the 36” water line. All three of those go across that property. We have easements already for that. We have no new easements through there. 29 Mr. Mays: Let me ask this, Mr. Hicks. From a lay standpoint, being green with this. At times when that area of that creek rises and where that elevation of that property is, where it even becomes even with that property or overruns that property, is there anything that we plan to do? Because that area has been dredged so much, that creek has been widened so much, to a point that you are now down in there with any little rain, with all the money that we are spending up above there, I’m just trying to get to a point that, you know, is there something that we can do reasonably with the property at some point, other than just watch it flood? I mean what I’m looking at, is there a possibility that we [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Let’s get Ms. Smith to answer that. Ms. Smith, can you answer that? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] what we may do with it. Ms. Smith: We have, over the course of the last several years, had dialog and taken a look at this particular piece of property, and based on where it is, we’ve analyzed potential uses for flood control and potential opportunities for a detention or retention pond to try to hold some of the water that’s moving down Rae’s Creek, and have not been able to identify from a hydraulic standpoint a use for that particular piece of property to accomplish that end goal. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Kolb is going to have the Greenspace people come back to next committee meeting, and rather than just voting this down, I’d like to make a motion that we postpone any action on this particular item and put it back on the agenda in two weeks after we’ve gotten a report from the Greenspace. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion has been seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion to postpone for two weeks, please vote with your green light. Mr. Colclough votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: All right, next item, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, the next item was item 43 that was approved in our consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: Is that item 54? The Clerk: Yes, sir. 30 FINANCE COMMITTEE: 54. Motion to approve authorization to solicit an Investment Manager for the anticipated 2002 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond issue through Requests for Proposals from qualified municipal bond underwriters to serve as Sole or Senior Manager for the proposed Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. (No Recommendation from Finance Committee) Mr. Mayor: Is that on here twice? The Clerk: Yes, sir. One was [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: We’ve already approved it then? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item number 55. The Clerk: APPOINTMENT: 55. Appoint a member of the Augusta Commission to fill the seat vacated by former Commissioner Henry Brigham on the CSRA Regional Development Center’s Board of Directors. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Commissioner Lee Beard said he would serve in that position. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor -- is there any objection? The vote is unanimous. Record unanimous vote. Mr. Beard, your first meeting is Monday night. Thank you. [Mr. Beard is appointed by acclamation] Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 56. The Clerk: PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 56. Consider requests for a "Letter of Consent" from the following organizations to be direct recipients of grant funds from the Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council: a. Life In the River Outreach Program b. Share Care Service & Association, Inc. 31 c. MACH Academy of Tennis & Chess, Inc. d. MCG Research Institute e. Sparkettes Youth Center, Inc. f. Boys & Girls Club Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Boyles: I move for approval. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard. Unanimous vote. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Item number 57. The Clerk: 57. Consider request from the Boys & Girls Club that the Augusta Commission consent to be the pass through agency for a State of Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council Title V Prevention Comprehensive Youth Development Program grant application for FY 2002 . Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? None heard. Record that as unanimous. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The Mayor Pro Tem has asked that his item be further down on the agenda, so we’ll go to item number 59. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 59. Consider amendments to the 2002 Budget. (Requested by Commissioner Willie Mays) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess that 59 does resemble me. I asked for this to be placed back on because on the last meeting that we had of dealing with the budget, I think 32 we took probably maybe four different votes. The closest one of the came to passing on that day was with a 5-5 tie. Which left us in a situation whereby we reverted back to the th 27, and I think we’ve had a ton of discussions on this budget thing, and I think there are those of us who feel that in this spirit of compromise -- it’s give and take when you get to budgets anyway. Any one that we walk away from, to operate this year, is not going to be pleasing to everybody. I think that’s very well understood. But I think it should be able to exercise as much as we can get out of it in terms of keeping the service levels as they are and working out the numbers that we’ve got. I’m not close minded to any amendments to a motion that I might make, and so therefore I’m going to make the same motion that I made at the last meeting, which I believe we had items that were under at the time Column 1 and Column 3, and that we approve the items that are there in Column 3, and with the exception of the amount that is under the increased fees for Richmond County persons in Recreation and Parks, which I’ve had -- I’ve had good talks with the Administrator in reference to this. It’s a small item in terms of the number where we have in our budget. He feels we can absorb it in dealing with it in some concern, that if we were going to do it, we needed to do it on out-of-county and out-of-state people in terms of being able to deal with that much of an increase. And I’d like to make that same motion that I made then to be approved. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Mays has made a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Mays: Without the Recreation increase being in there, and that’s the budget that would restore those particular cuts that were made in reference to the job layoffs, as well as to the Print Shop and other items we had in there. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second to that motion. Discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d like to -- well, first of all, I’d like to call your attention to several articles that I have sort of brought into A Tale of Two Cities and it’s one that I don’t want us to follow and I raise the red flag, as I have every budget meeting that we’ve had. There is a series of articles on your desk today, fellow Commissioners and Mr. Mayor, that talks about the Chatham County process in the year 2001. If you thought our budget was a difficult one to arrive at, I submit to you that the Savannah experience is no one to emulate. The first article is from March 15, 2001, which indicated that the Chatham County -- this is from the Savannah Morning News -- indicates that the county credit rating there in Chatham County was in danger, that it had been downgraded largely because of the lack of an adequate fund balance policy. And they had been told for about ten years that they needed to stop the trend that was in evidence in Chatham County, which was the continual resort to fund balance. That impaired their credit in the credit markets. I don’t want that to happen to Augusta Richmond County. Then the next article I have, which I am not going to read to you because it’s too voluminous, it’s there. I commend to you. It’s June 16, 2001. I happened to see it because that was when we 33 were in Savannah for the GMA Conference. I saw it then and copied it. But on page four of the materials, I wanted to lift up some things that I think Commissioner Cheek has been saying. That when you have all these projects and don’t have enough recurring revenue to come in for maintenance and service, you are buying yourself a problem. It further said that for ten years the county had to rely on its fund balance, which is usually a cushion for emergencies to balance the budget. And here again, it repeated the -- it repeated the problem that the credit rating had been downgraded. The next article was that they did compromise on the budget but there was 11.5% in cuts. Some of those cuts fell on elected officials. And the last article indicates that really the Sheriff and the Commissioners there went to Court, with the taxpayers paying both sides of the legal fees, and really I couldn’t tell who won, but I think this pretty much established a rule that these elected officials that we fund are going to expect, as a result of this Chatham County litigation, a reasonable amount of funding. And I don’t want to go through that process here. I suggested in one of the other budget workshops I think that we aggressively this year look for an orderly sale of surplus property in order to restore money to the fund balance. We have relied on it on a couple of years. The budget that we passed in December and the Column 3 budget rely on fund balance. We’re going down on fund balance, and I think if we don’t include it in the motion today, that the Mayor and Administrator be charged with the duty of finding properties to sell and restore our fund balance. You’ll see that motion placed by this Chairman on his Finance agenda next week. Further, I think we need to adopt a fund balance policy. If you look through the materials from Savannah, they suggest that a three-month cushion be maintained. I think we are down below that. I think Commissioner Bridges did some work on this and I think we are down to about 60 days, which is a lot better than Savannah, being at no fund balance. But still, I think we are starting down the slippery slope with these budgets if we don’t address two items, and that’s an adequate funding of Contingency, and restoration of the fund balance so that we have a cushion. I remind you historically, those Commissioners who have a shorter tenure than I on the board, and I don’t have that long a tenure, but I remember that I think two years ago, in 2000, when the State did not promptly approve our digest, we had a delay in the tax bills being sent out. We therefore had a delay in the ad valorem tax revenue coming in. We therefore had to use fund balance during that time to pay the bills as they came in. And as the bills came in, they matured. When you don’t have that fund balance, when you don’t have that savings account, you get in trouble. And I just commend the A Tale of Two Cities, so to speak, the tale of two counties, to you. That’s something I don’t want to go down. And I’ve always thought that Column 1 was superior to Column 3 because it restored -- it takes the $965,000 and it does not spend it as we have, but it restores fund balance -- I’m sorry, it restores Contingency to an adequate level. The Contingency account, as I presently understand it, is less than $40,000. The Contingency expenditures from last year’s Contingency fund, which did not exceed the Contingency fund balance or the Contingency fund account, was over $400,000. So I think based on history, we are below, we are below the amount we spent last year for Contingency. So what I’d like to hear in terms of this new amended motion is how is Contingency addressed, because it certainly has not been addressed adequately in the previous Column 3 budget proposals that I’m familiar with and therefore I’d like to hear more about that. If Mr. Mays or the Administrator or anybody can enlighten me, I’d certainly like to hear about it because we, 34 frankly, need more money in Contingency, and that’s this Commissioner’s prime concern with this Column 3 right now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you respond to that, please? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in response to Mr. Shepard’s concerns, first of all, I guess I need to give a definition of contingency and fund balance. First, the contingency is an appropriation in the budget for emergencies that could come up during the year. A department runs short of money or runs into unexpected expense. That’s really our first -- the first place we would go to try and help that particular department out. The second, fund balance, refers to monies that have accumulated over the years that have been set aside in an account which shows up on a balance sheet and not necessarily within a budget. Mr. Shepard is correct, there is about 60 to 62 days of fund balance in the general account that appears on our balance sheet. We will be appropriating -- or we have appropriated, recommend appropriating which brought it down to the 60 days to balance the budget, about $1.6 million. Now in terms of your specific concern, it is our intent, and we always have managed this way, that we use the monies that have been appropriated to the budget from fund balance at the year end. We don’t just actually pull it out. You just authorize us. If we need to use it, we will use it in order to balance the budget. But we don’t pull out of fund balance until the end of the year to make sure that revenues and expenses balance. We are committed to do the same technique this year. And in addition to that, at or at midyear or just beyond it, we will take another look at our revenues and expenses, and if there appears to be improvements in revenues, and a decrease in expenses that is sufficient enough to warrant coming back to the Commission for an amendment, we will make that amendment to put those excesses into the Contingency account within the budget. So that would not necessarily impact your budget. But we would take any overages or underages that we have that we can spare and we will begin to build the Contingency within the budget. So those two techniques for managing the budget we will implement and use during the fiscal year. Mr. Shepard: My question -- Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: My question is, has the Contingency account in Commissioner’s Mays motion been increased from the time we were here last and had a special session on the budget? Mr. Kolb: There has been no increase in revenue, nor decrease in expenses in order for us to do that. So the answer is no. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, let me ask you one other question and then we’ll go down here to Commissioner Beard. You have not presented the capital budget to us yet? 35 Mr. Kolb: No, we have not. Mr. Mayor: Does the capital budget request funding from the fund balance? Mr. Kolb: No, it does not. Mr. Mayor: It doesn’t? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kolb: If I can say just one other thing Commissioner Shepard brought up. You talked about selling surplus properties. We do that routinely. However, we have set up a meeting with the Tax Commissioner and all the other appropriate agencies that are involved in the sale of property to discuss which properties could be actually put on the market or could we acquire to try and market those in the future. However, I do not see a significant amount of revenues raised at this point from our surplus that would have a significant impact, either on fund balance or your Contingency. But we will be pursing your suggestion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I guess this would be for the Administrator, more or less, because this would kind of help me out on my point further down the line. First of all, I think we are all as interested in Contingency as Commissioner Shepard is. I think all Commissioners up here are interested in Contingency and building that because we know it’s necessary. And we know it’s not only a local problem but it’s a national problem and it’s a time that we are going through at this time and we know we must do something to leverage that. So my question to you, George, is that how do we do this? If we separate the salary adjustment that you have in the budget and those, that, it’s included in the budget, and if we save some of those funds, where can that -- can that go into Contingency? I think the point would be here, what I’m trying to get at, is that we are having some big salary adjustments here, and I think that we really need to look at that, and I think -- I understand from the point of public service, public safety that that is necessary. So why couldn’t we accept Column 3 here which, I think that was the one that Commissioner Mays talked about -- why couldn’t we accept Column 3 here and satisfy everybody with just only doing the public service -- safety -- and then adding to that the other? Because I think everything is giving up something. I mean we have to give up something. We talk about the salaries, the increase in salaries, but to me it would be better to have a job and make sure of that than to have all these cuts that we are going to have, having some people lose their jobs, cuts in other places, and when we could have both. You know, people could continue to work. But either delay that to another time, the remainder of those people who are outside of public safety, delaying that so that those funds could go into Contingency, that would satisfy I think both sides of the Commission who, those who want to continue to save those jobs and not do -- and continue with Column 3. And also those who want Column 1, where we would have to do a lot of cuts. So I don’t know where we are with that motion, and I would rather give my other Commissioners a chance to address this, but I would like to come back at some time and maybe make a substitute motion to that point. 36 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Kolb, I want to follow up with you on a question I just asked you about the capital budget. You presented us a letter on December 18, revised on December 19, and under capital outlay you say you’re recommending from current revenue $3 million, appropriation from fund balance $3 million, for a total of $6.45 million. Mr. Kolb: That’s in a separate account. That is not in the general fund. Well, it may in a general fund. Mr. Mayor: It’s fund balance; right? Mr. Kolb: There are several funds, and several of those funds have fund balances. For example, you have utilities enterprise funds that have fund balance in them. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Kolb: So each fund has a fund balance. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Kolb: Your capital outlay fund, which is a separate millage, .87, has a fund balance in it of approximately $3 million, which is being appropriated. That is not included in what you’re considering today. And it’s not included in the -- Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Speaker: Not included in the [inaudible]. Mr. Kolb: Correct. Mr. Mayor: I understand that, but my question was whether we’re going to go back to fund balance and take some more out later when we look at the capital budget. Mr. Kolb: Not in the general fund, no. There is $3 million in the capital outlay fund that we’re recommending be appropriated to the capital outlay fund. And that’s already been done. You’ve already adopted those budgets. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, George. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll have to forego echoing a lot of what Commissioner Shepard said in that some of the things that we need to do are short-term fixes at the best, like selling off property or taking money form our savings accounts. They are, in the words of an instructor from the Carl Vinson Institute who taught government finance, a formula for disaster if you rely on that to solve your problems. 37 And herein that lays my contention with the budget now and future budgets. Since I’ve been here, we’ve had a million dollar surprise every year that we lose due to some recalculation or grant that seems to pop up only at budget time. Have we identified other places where we could see cuts? I haven’t heard of that. We hear about efficiency in government and productivity within government, yet we cut the training programs for quality, cut the budgets for those drastically, if not totally. Those are the things that will turn around and make this government, which has seen declining head count except in the public safety areas and the judiciary since consolidation, will help those become more efficient and deliver more goods and services to the public for the same amount of dollars. Is that in place? Is that in place? Do we have definitions of what we expect for efficiency out of this government? Or productivity? Or quality? We’re not there yet, but yet we cut the programs that are going to get us where we need to be. We cut the money for our safety programs, which in essence, if we cut it by 2/3 could save us half a million dollars a year. But we cut the funding to support the program. We’re being penny-wise and pound-foolish. I don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. This budget is a band-aid for this year, but I cannot go back to my constituents and tell them that we’ve solved this problem and moved on to solve the problems in good conscience. We are going to revisit this and revisit this until we establish a financial plan, look at the total number of personnel we have, the work they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and what we expect out of them, and that comes with a total quality program. We’ll never get there until we start investing in our employees. It saddens me to see that we continue to allow people to throw up terms like we want a leaner, more efficient government. Well, what do you mean by lean? What do you mean by more efficient? Those definitions have never been supplied, and efficiency for the Utilities Department is different than the efficiency for the Public Works Department. We’ve got to develop these plans and put them in place, lest we continue repeating history year after year. I will not be a party to that. I will help be a solution to that, but I will not be a party to it and I do not support this budget. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I yield to Mr. Mays down there. Mr. Mayor, you was looking to the right and he was on the left waving. I do have a couple of comments but I yield to Mr. Mays. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the reason why I put my hand back up, Mr. Shepard had asked a couple of questions. Mr. Kolb answered part of it and I wanted to try and answer Steve a little bit. First of all, I say I share my old friend’s concern in reference to where you are going. Personally speaking, I’d rather have seven figures of money over in that Contingency, if it wasn’t but a $1,000,001. That’s what I’d rather have. We are probably not going to get it. We’re not going to get it out of either column. I would like to say that when we looked at what we took out last year in terms of the $400,000 I there has to be truth not only when you say -- when you borrow money, truth in lending, but also truth in reporting. Let’s get it a little bit clear. The $400,000 out of 2001 because we approved the budget basically last year, and I get back to my younger colleague, what 38 Andy is saying in terms of you took a band-aid last year, you’re dealing with a piece of gauze this year. And that’s all that we are doing. One of the few times in my life I’m probably make a motion that I do not like. But I’m faced with the lesser of two evils, and that’s why this one is on the floor. We are going to have to move with something. We are out of moratoriums. We’ve come back. We’ve put a letter out. We’ve extended it. We are into the second month of this year. Departments have to function, they are going to have to function with something. People have to have some direction. I don’t like it either, but the choice of it is we deal with the one that’s on the floor and maybe deal with some amendments to it. I’m open to the point that anything that we sell, any other surplus money, any other windfalls, of committing all of that in that motion to put it over into Contingency. And to deal with even special accounts to deal with that. I have no problem in doing it. But we took $400,000 out gentlemen. Honestly, if you remember, we cut the budget last year on vital departments in this city. They came back, and we had constitutional officers mainly who lined up and were out of money. They could not function and could not run their offices. We had to restore them. They did not do like -- and Steve, I’m glad they didn’t do like they did in Savannah, stand in line to go to court - - but there was a winner in Savannah, and I had lunch with Joe Murray Rivers, our fellow Commissioner from Chatham County. There was a [inaudible] winner down there, and his name was St. Lawrence. Sheriff St. Lawrence. He won real big, and the judge told them what they were going to do and they restored every penny of the Sheriff’s money. So that we don’t necessarily have to be crazy in terms to understand the point that when you’ve got that many that you are responsible for, not only meaning that you have one, you’re going to have others, and if they run out, I’d rather fund them now rather than dealing with drastic cuts and having them maybe even to the point of sarcastically coming back and being here in September and October saying that they can’t do it, as opposed to working with us now and put it in. The other option, and I’ll be quiet, is the fact that it leaves us still of returning to those cut levels of where we get back into there, those people services, we close certain neighborhood parks, do we abandon certain services, do we deal with those things which turn up then in a negative? We then have an application for how we deal with it. The workshop was the most exciting example I have ever seen. It looked good on paper. But when we found out that it affected everything from the Tax Commissioner’s office, Tax Assessor’s office, Sheriff, Marshal’s office, and others that we had not planned efficiently to deal with, whether it be postage or whether it be courier service, we still have to back those in and deal with them. So that’s the only reason I got that one out there. And again, it may not pass today. But I’m in a good, compromising mood, and hopefully we can get it done without [inaudible] damage. My final question, Mr. Mayor, would be to Mr. Kolb, and I think some of my Commissioners are searching to find this out. We had talked earlier, and you mentioned, Steve, about increasing the Contingency. We had talked some amongst ourselves in references to -- and particular the new Commissioners -- of how we could possibly deal with partial restoration even now out of Column 3 in dealing with some of the Contingency that was in there. The question to the Administrator was if we do that, do we have any monies that we can move in order to satisfy that question of the Contingency or does that still put us partially back in the line of fire of dealing with those cuts? And I’ll let him answer that. But that’s the question I posed to him and I’ll let him publicly answer as to what that answer is to a point that if we say take -- maybe you want another 39 half million, if we take $250,000 from it we still are going to have to go back to these cuts. And I’ll let him answer that. And I’m through, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if I understand Commissioner Mays’ question, the $955,000 that we used to restore the cuts in Column 1, if we were to take part of those monies and put them in Contingency, Commissioner Mays is correct. We would have to increase or reinstitute the cuts that were made in Column 1 to the extent of the amount of money that you take out of that $955,000. Am I answering the question? There would be additional cuts. If you take Column 3 and reduce the number of dollars or increase the amount of Contingency in that particular recommendation. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Boyles. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I might be off base here, but I see our State making cuts, I see other communities making cuts, I see companies making cuts in these times. I was in Arizona last week and visited two cities, and the newspaper in both of those cities, they’re making cuts. Everybody is having a tough time right now. I think I need to remind my colleagues that we approved going out and trying to hire an architect for a new judicial center which is going to be right here. When that comes on board, you’re looking at about a million dollars a year increase in operating expense for that one facility. When that happens, we’ve got to go out and find administrative office space for this government. That’s going to increase your budget automatically. And if we don’t start getting a handle on the budget in this community, and I know it’s going to be tough, but if we don’t start getting a handle on it right now, it’s going to run out of control in about two years. We spent $1.7 million I think last year in fund balance, $1.6 million in fund balance, and I hear the Administrator saying we are going to wait until the end of the year to see if we’ve got to spend that. And I hope that comes true. But in my six years of sitting up here, once you establish your budget very seldom do you come in under that budget. And it took that $1.6 million out of fund balance this year to balance the budget on paper. So -- and I hear what Mr. Beard is saying, and that may be an approach. I don’t want to see anybody fired if we need those people. But is somebody willing to keep a job and give up a raise this year, or do we have to take more drastic steps? So I think Mr. Beard may have an idea that may help us get through this year, but looking in the future we’ve got some real problems we are going to have to deal with. Thank. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was looking at the January 30 proposal that was given to us, Column 1, Column 2, with the moratorium, Column 3, and I think this involved a portion -- I’m also looking at the one that the Finance Chairman gave us last meeting on February 11, and it concerned the $965,000 from retirement of the ’93 COPS debt. We had put back $85,000 from UDAG money. We have put $125,000 of that $965,000 in for Riverwalk maintenance, and I think we put $15,000 for the boxing bid. That left us a total of $825,000 that I think this Commission split 50-50 or 5-5 to do 40 nothing with. I’d like to offer a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to offer a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay, excuse me. Mr. Boyles: Because of the split on the Commission on February 11, I’d like to just simply propose that we take, of that $825,000 that was left over from the COPS debt, that we take $425,000 of that money and put it into the Contingency fund and that we take the remaining $400,000 to restore the majority of the cuts that were made in Column 1, and by doing that I think that both Recreation and Public Works had taken the highest impact of the hits, and I think they’ve been able to probably come back and put half of that back in by using positions that were vacant, and maybe with this additional $400,000, and I’ll let the Administrator’s staff work that out, that that way they might be able to save the portions that are out there that we need, because the people that are being cut are the first lines of sight when you come to this city. And I think those are necessary. I think if we’re going to cut somewhere, we’re cutting in the wrong place. And I think between now, and if we go to public hearings in the summer, I think we’ll have time to address those particular items. So I’d like to make a substitute motion that we split the $825,000. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I think that the Commission was making -- you know, we all looking for ways to maneuver here to get the best out of something. But it’s my contention that -- I believe we’re having a workshop tomorrow -- am I correct in that? We’re having a workshop tomorrow. Now since we don’t know exactly what this $425,000 is going to entail, why don’t we put two or three things on the table and see where we are going with this. If it’s this proposal, there was a proposal which I made which I didn’t do a substitute motion on that because I wanted to have my fellow Commissioners have some discussion on it before coming up with a substitute motion. But if staff could possibly look at and give us some figures tomorrow, what the proposals today would be like in terms of actually saving, and I think we all wanted to go -- I don’t have a problem with it going into Contingency, because that’s where I would want it to go, Tommy, also. But I think if they could more definitively define this on tomorrow, if they could, by the time we have this. And if the Administrator and staff would look at that, I think that would be the better way to go than to just vote today on something like that. Mr. Boyles: Just as a point, a work session would not be a voting session, would it? Mr. Mayor: No, it’s not. 41 Mr. Boyles: So we need to get this off -- as my friend George Patty always says, let’s get the ox out of the ditch and get us off the center. I think we need to do something today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, are you ready to speak now? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I almost forgot what I was going to say. I yield to Commissioner Mays, I had to yield to everybody else. But I do like the motion Commissioner Mays made on Column 3 and I can attest to what Commissioner Boyles has just said, too, in some things. But I’m kind of unsure or uncertain about what that would do, and if I voted on that today I don’t know what cuts that would make. I don’t know what that would save, where that would be. If I voted today and we done that it come to a [inaudible] closing down recreation centers, shedding jobs or laying off, I need to know those things up front before I could vote on that. I understand, Tommy, about getting the ox out of the ditch, but to get him out you ought to know where you’re putting him at. You ought to not just leave him and he get back in the ditch. So I can’t support -- Mr. Boyles: I reserve response. Mr. Williams: I can’t support that substitute motion. I would like to have the work session and I would like to see what those monies would due, and if it’s going to come. And it’s a rough time. Rough time meaning, Commissioner Kuhlke said earlier, I think a lot of cities dealing with what we’re dealing with now. Money is tight. But I’d think a person would rather have a job to continue his livelihood, to take care of his family or her family rather than to get a raise right now or to spend some money on areas that are just not necessary, it’s not feasible to do right now. So if I were going to support a motion I would support Commissioner Mays’ motion with Column 3 cause I know exactly what that is. The other motion sounds good but it doesn’t have me any insight on where we would be so I can’t support that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We’ve got two opportunities with this budget, depending on which way we decide to go. We’ve got an opportunity to do basically what we have done in the past, which is do less with less, or we can do more with less. I challenge all of you, my colleagues, that we try to implement some of these programs that were cut budget-wise and support our staff in their efforts to bring these things into fruition. I do want to point out, though, that when times weren’t so tough, we didn’t have maintenance budgets in place for Riverwalk and many of our other facilities. We did not have training programs in place for our employees. And I can go on and on with the things that we should have done differently when we had more prosperous times. The truth is we either change or we continue the same pattern. And gentlemen, I’m here to tell you, I’m pretty disgusted with this pattern. It’s not the way I work. And I’d like to see this government do a little bit better. But it won’t happen unless we back it up not only with words, but with actions. And in the course of this coming year, we can vote this budget in and we can work to implement the training programs and other things that we can and we’ll be a lot better off, whether we’re able to implement all of them or not. But our staff needs our support to make these things happen, and it’s time to demand 42 more with less. It’s something that a lot of people have to do. I know of 13,000 that are having to do it every day, and so I just urge you to support trying to make these things happen. And that way, if we come up in the fall and have to talk to our citizens we can tell them yeah, we spent this money but we also did these things we didn’t have money to do. And that will help strengthen our case. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me just -- I’ll wait till Jim finishes, I need to ask him something. And maybe what Lee is asking about in there. What I was going to ask, and I guess what Tommy and I have been talking about and we don’t mind sharing this with the general public. We purposefully have got two motions out there to a point because we want to try and be able, if we can, to combine them, and some of the Commissioners know that if we could possibly know where those cuts are and how we can stretch that mileage out there, that’s why mine doesn’t contain it and the one he has does contain it. We’re trying to search to get something done. If we do want what Lee is suggesting in terms of where Commissioners will see those particular cuts, where do we stand, Mr. [inaudible], technically on the point, since we’ve got media here and we’re talking about a time frame of being back here tomorrow, that if we dealt with in terms of the terminology of work session to an actual voting meeting, that if there are Commissioners who want to really see where those cuts are and where they are going to go, I think that might clear [inaudible] well and it might even help some if we can get the Contingency monies in there, a compromise on that side of being able to vote for that motion or just able to make one motion with all of it included. I would like to reserve the th fact that if those things still revert back to some of the cuts that are there on the 27 of December, I would not be able to support that in that particular motion. But I think it at least boils us down to whatever band-aid we are using. I think we can agree on one thing, that the budget session, quite frankly, is basically going to have to almost start April Fools’ Day. April 1 in the spring. With the toughness we are going to have to deal with for next year and the following year. And I agree totally with Bill that we are going to start and going to have to start very early determining what we are going to be doing for next year. This cannot be a fall event period. This will have to be dealt with starting in the early spring, going through summer, to department heads and hammering out and making real tough decisions in terms of what is going to happen to us financially as we go along. But I just wanted to ask that question. We are trying, we can, in the spirit of compromise to get at least something that ¾ of this Commission can live with, and that’s not going to be perfect any way you do it. But it’s something that can work us [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: I think you’ve got two options. One is you can, rather than adjourn the meeting today you could simply recess the meeting and reconvene concurrently with the work session tomorrow and you could take the matter up then. If you do adjourn the meeting today, then you could have a special called meeting tomorrow. There is a little bit of a time issue insofar as calling a special called meeting, but the press is here and I think the public would be notified and I think the work session is at 2 ‘clock, so you’re not fully complying with the 24 hours, but I think the press is here and would be notified. 43 But again, you could simply recess the meeting and reconvene tomorrow at 2 o’clock and not have that problem. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] still searching to try and do something because something is going to have to be done. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got two motions on the floor. Let’s try to dispose of those and see where we are. Let’s do that. We have a substitute motion from Commissioner Boyles. Does anybody need the motion read back to them? All in favor of the substitute motion then please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion fails 3-7. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion from Commissioner Mays. Does anybody need that motion restated? All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Mayor votes No. Motion fails 5-6. Mr. Mayor: Is there another motion with respect to the budget? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’ll make a motion that we do not adjourn today and that it be placed on for tomorrow and begin back in the spirit of compromise which I was asking before you started to continue the two motions that I think we may be able to work out something that three-fourths of us will vote on tomorrow and that it be put on as a voting session as opposed to a work session. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of that motion then please vote aye. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. ’ Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next item on the agenda. What well do is roll items number 60 and 63 together. 44 60. Discuss the status of the appointment of the Fire Chief. (Requested by Commissioner Beard) 63. Reconsideration of the recommendation of the Administrator for the appointment of the Fire Chief. (Requested by the Administrator) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and Mr. Kolb? ’ Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, the only reason I had number 60 included in todays session was that it appeared the last time we discussed this that the Administrator was not aware that he was suppose to bring us a Fire Chief, and the reason I had it on today was to just ensure that the Administrator realized that there would have been a motion that he bring forth a Fire Chief, but it appears that in item -- Mr. Mayor: 63? Mr. Beard: -- 63, that he has brought it forth. So we can roll that over to him. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have been asked to resubmit my recommendation regarding the appointment of Fire Chief. At this time, it gives me great pleasure to resubmit the name of Al Gillespie, Fire Chief of Yakima, Washington, for your consideration as the next Fire Chief of Augusta, Georgia. After several conversations with Mr. Gillespie and various members of the Commission, we have reached an agreement on a compensation package for the new Fire Chief. I am proposing that he be paid a starting salary of $92,000. In addition to that, there would be a $4,000 payment into his deferred compensation program. Now that represents about $2,000 more than you would pay in your normal compensation program. This would be paid to the ICMA Retirement Corporation rather than through your ’98 pension plan. All other packages of his contract would be the normal kinds of benefits that we offer to all of our employees and the Fire Chief at the executive level. Therefore I would respectfully submit Mr. Gillespie for your consideration for appointment as Augusta’s next Fire Chief. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of our Administrator for this infinitely qualified candidate for the Augusta area subject to salary and fee negotiations to be conducted by our Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? 45 Mr. Hankerson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second. All right. Discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, maybe I don’t hear right or read right. But in the back- up material that was just handed out, it has annual salary, George, of $92,000. My copy says $2,000 to a deferred benefit package. I thought I heard you say $4,000. Which is it? Mr. Kolb: Actually, that’s a typo. It should be $4,000 but in actuality what it represents is an additional $2,000 which you would normally pay. Mr. Shepard: Am I the only one in the room that doesn’t understand that? Mr. Kolb: If I can explain. Mr. Shepard: I would appreciate it. Mr. Kolb: In the ’98 pension plan, the employee contributes 4% of his salary to that plan. You match it with 2%. Now I’m rounding numbers at the present time. Four percent of $100,000 is $4,000. Half of that would be $2,000 which would be your portion. What I’m saying is that you would, in addition to that $2,000, you would add another $2,000 to it and pay that into the ICMA Retirement Corporation. Mr. Shepard: So we would normally match $2,000; and this is an additional $2,000? Mr. Kolb: Correct. Assuming the salary, it would be $4,000 -- it would be about $2,000 that you would match normally, because the salary is only $92,000. But if it were $100,000 at 2%, you would contribute to the ’98 Plan about 2,000. Mr. Shepard: And I take it we would have to have a contract, Jim, to differentiate this employee from the others in that regard? Mr. Wall: There has been discussion concerning having some type of contract, and I think if there is a contract, it still needs to be an “at will” contract, and that would take care of allowing that compensation into the ICMA Plan. But we would not change from being an employee “at will.” Now let me ask the Administrator one thing before I comment. And it also would be -- I understand that there is a proposal to have six months’ severance in there, so that would be part of the contract as well. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Beard had his hand up and then we’ll come back. 46 Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I, too, think that Mr. Gillespie is qualified and would probably make us a very good fire chief here in Richmond County. The only problem I have with this is the financial problem. We just finished talking about, and I just suggested that we have no raises and that our fellow employees go without a raise. I look at the salary scale of Columbus. Their Fire Chief is $72,000. Aiken is $66,000. Macon is $74,000. I look at the salary of our last Fire Chiefs. Chief Mack, $85,000. Few, $80,000. And with all the ramifications we’re having and we just discussed for over an hour the financial situation in this city, how can we come up with $92,000 for a fire chief? Now I would glad to have Mr. Gillespie here if the Administrator could work out something comparable with the range of what we’ve had in the past. Mr. Mayor: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. I have negotiated this with the Fire Chief. I believe that it is a reasonable salary that he has asked for. If you look at comparable communities of our size, with our size Fire Department and number of stations that are managed, etc., I believe that it is an appropriate compensation. Mr. Gillespie is looking at either taking a lateral move or a slight cut from his current position in Yakima, Washington, which I might add is smaller than Augusta. So I believe it’s appropriate and reasonable to offer this. I don’t think it’s excessive. And in fact, I think that it is a reasonable number. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me suggest to you, too, to also start looking to the left and the right. I tell you, I’ve been down here a long time trying to get in here. I don’t like to follow behind senior Mr. Beard. What I need to say on this, we’re talking about the salary. First of all, I’d like to thank my colleagues for the nine promised votes, and I do realize that at that time we did not have the issue of salary involved. We were willing as a team, that we saw the need that it’s time to bring a Fire Chief on board, that we could put this issue behind us. We was unsuccessful today of putting the budget behind us, so now the Fire Chief on the agenda. And I hope that I would still have the support of ten Commissioners, nine other Commissioners to put this issue behind us that we can work on more important things. First of all, I served as a mediator between Al Gillespie and the Administrator on this past weekend. I spent Sunday night on the phone first talking to him at nine o’clock, trying to negotiate, because that $98,000 that I heard from the media had me spinning around in circles. I knew I had a problem when I heard $98,000. So when I spoke to him on the phone at nine o’clock, he told me he’d call me back in three hours, which would have been 12 o’clock. He called me at five minutes to 12 and we talked. And from $98,000 we talked to $94,000 by 12:30. So we continued, as I talked to the Administrator on yesterday, we continued and continued. And I know that from my conversations with some of my colleagues that the cost here, the price would be a problem. Mr. Kolb finally talked to him some more, we got him to $92,000, where we are now, what he’s presenting. I’d just like to say this. Statistics have been given. Columbia, South Carolina is only 1 hour or 45 minutes away from us. They are paying their fire chief $95,000. The salary range that we are talking about today is between $67,000 to $102,468. That’s the salary range for 47 Fire Chief. If this would have happened several months ago, maybe we wouldn’t have been at this amount. I don’t know. But one thing that I do know, as long as we wait, the higher it’s going to be. The more it’s going to take to get somebody. I received some statistics, I think it was from you, Mr. Mayor, or Mr. Kolb, back some time ago, that you had checked with some other areas, and it was in the 90’s then. We need, at this time we need to settle this matter to get this Fire Chief on board. I think the price, the cost that we have is very good. And it was already budgeted for a Fire Chief. I hope that today my colleagues would be willing to put this behind us, that we can go ahead and do this. We’re talking about inequities in salaries. That was mentioned in our budget workshop. We realize that there are some inequities, but right now Mr. Gillespie negotiated his contract. In the future, I’m quite sure if we want professional people to come to Augusta, Georgia, if we want qualified people, whether they are here in the city or whether they are out of state, we are going to have to look at the costs. I’ve had calls and meetings and conversations about the engineers, that their salary is low. I think it’s time, it’s time for a new beginning. It’s a time for us to look at what we’re doing if we’re going to increase the salaries to attract people to come in, to have the qualified people for this city, to be the five star city that we’re talking about we want it to be, then we need to do everything possible to get there. So I hope that my colleague would support this motion today. A lot of time has been put into it. I just wanted to say that. I think this is the best time to do it and I put it on the table and wait later on. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, sir. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I differ from Rev. Hankerson on the opposite end of here. Regardless of what you have heard or what the daily news have said, I haven’t been opposed the Fire Chief itself. I always stood my ground and talked about the process. But I can’t sit here and honestly say that I am going to vote -- and he th talked about having nine and y’all need to know who the 10 one was, that was me. Because I feel like even with the salary negotiating and all the stuff that been said, negotiating a salary, you going to bring a man in here for the Fire Chief who is going to be making more than his supervisor going to be making. And that’s going to create a snowball effect from just that point. I can’t see how we can sit here and talk about cutting people off and laying off jobs and having people to walk the streets because they are not employed and then to turn around and say we going to pay this kind of amount, this figure. I’m pretty sure this man may be well worth the money. He may be well qualified. But we got to look at our own purse string and see what we have to work with. And if we going to have the money to give him the money, then we ought to have a finder’s fee for somebody to find some more money, to get some more people. Because there is going to be a snowball effect of other people in departments and department heads that need to be paid equally as well. So I’ve got a very serious problem. My first problem is we’re talking about negotiating a contract. And when you negotiate a contract there’s other stuff that is going to be in that contract that myself as a Commissioner have not heard. And that’s going to change the scope of the price right there. So I’m not going to get that ox out of the ditch, Tommy, I’m going to leave him right there because I don’t know what baggage he’s bringing out of the ditch when he comes. So before I vote on a contract that has been not been negotiated and I don’t know all the ramifications of 48 the prices involved, I’m certainly not going to be in support. That’s my only reason. I came to the terms that the Administrator brought this person, we need a person, if a person want to come to this vicinity -- I don’t know how many fire stations he been over, what kind of department he’s ran before, all of that is in the hands of the Administrator. So whether I want to trust him or not, I have to trust him because he’s got all that information. I have not had those conversations. But to give somebody $92,000 plus the perks that he talked about, I’m just not in support. That’s all I got to say, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll hear from Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb, did Mr. Gillespie negotiate a contract in Yakima in January; is that correct? Mr. Kolb: I’m sorry, I didn’t -- Mr. Colclough: Did he renegotiate his present contract in January in Yakima? Mr. Kolb: I have no knowledge that he even has a contract in Yakima. I don’t know if he does or not. He did get an increase in pay, cost-of-living. Mr. Colclough: So is he making about ninety-some-thousand right now? Mr. Kolb: Yes, he is. Mr. Colclough: So he wants to leave a ninety-some-thousand job that he’s already secure in and come here for another ninety-some-thousand? I can’t understand a man leaving a ninety-some-thousand-dollar job and coming here to the same pay. Is there any reason why he needs to come? I like Mr. Gillespie, cause I interviewed him and sat down with him about 20 minutes. I think he’s a fine gentleman. But if you are already making $90,000 in one place and you just do a lateral move, there has to be some other rationale or reason for that. Mr. Kolb: Well, I cannot speak for Chief Gillespie. Mr. Colclough: It was just a question, that’s all. Mr. Kolb: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Kolb -- if I could speak, Mr. Mayor? I spoke with him the last time he was here and I think one of the reasons he has an interest is his wife is in the medical profession and she has to commute about 75 or 100 miles a day out there, and if she -- there is a position available to her here which would eliminate that, and I think that’s one reason. Mr. Colclough: Is she a physician? 49 Mr. Kuhlke: She’s not a physician. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor to confirm the Administrator’s recommendation. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I just [inaudible] some clarification on the motion, because the motion as so put on the floor, is it to deal with the recommendation of the Chief and the Administrator deal with the negotiations, or is it to deal with the figures that are present? Because if the figures are present, then the negotiations are over. It would be -- I think the motion should be what the Administrator has already negotiated, and in terms of the package, and you know, I think in the essence of full disclosure, in terms of so that we don’t get down the road we’ve been down before, and I won’t put this pressure on the Administrator there, but I think we need to disclose in terms of when you’re talking about fringes, deal with everything in an open manner of the fringes as far as -- and it’s not fringes because they are necessary things. But to deal with the moving costs, which I believe is going to be about another $10,000 in the package. And if Mr. Wall would spell that out as to whether or not it is to be itemized, whether it is to be refunded, or be kept as part of salary. Cause I think you are really looking at in true essence in terms of money, at least for the first year. It goes back to the salary afterward. But up front you’re looking at about $106,000. Now I think -- and I don’t have a problem with that, as long as what we are going to spend is put out here in the open market for absorption in terms of it’s spread across the minutes. And that everybody understands that. And I say that for the benefit, particularly of some of the newcomers, so that we don’t get caught up in the thing of where when you get into a moving expense thing later, as we did two Chiefs ago, that we get totally criticized when that was put in in lieu of salary. And we wind up in terms of having to answer to the Grand Jury and everybody else in terms of where you’re dealing with moving expenses. So if it’s going to be money spent, then money spent ought to be publicly disclosed, and it ought to say what the total package is, what it’s going for, and for how much. I think that needs to be done. And that’s just my personal thing on it. I’ve been the same place I’ve been on this the whole time. I think he’s a good nominee. I also think that in terms of these salaries, whether it’s with the Fire Chief and some other folk, that people that you recruit, that you are going to have to pay some money to get them. But I also still have not heard, and I’m not blaming anybody other than us collectively, so I guess I am placing blame, to a point that we still need to deal with, out of HR -- Mr. Mayor, if I don’t get it on the record now I am going to have to some kind of way -- that we go through this about inequities, and it seems as though we get into negotiating about what we can get people for and what it’s going to take to get them. But we need to make the same move down the line so that -- and I think this Administrator is trying to do that -- but we got caught in a box to where if you personally work for Richmond County, you got stuck in the deal that you can be side-by-side with somebody else or way across America, and you got penalized for working here. If you got promoted, you weren’t going to get the same thing. That still has not been dealt with in this town. Now fundamentally, fundamentally, I’m not going to vote against Mr. Gillespie. But I have a real problem when we start in terms of hiring and we start questioning about on one hand still whether we close centers, we close parks, what we are referring back to an old budget, and we’re talking about hiring in here 50 today and going up and dealing with $100,000, and we’ve still not yet decided if we are going to deal with a budget we passed in December or a budget that we might pass tomorrow or we revert back to the other. I just still think, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? We say this is necessary. I think what we just dealt with was far more necessary. Because that deals with everybody. This deals with one person, one department. The other dealt with 2,700 folk that we still have not brought [inaudible], and I cannot fundamentally deal with that until [inaudible] the budget. [inaudible] enough votes to get it done, but [inaudible] support it, but I also thought we were going to negotiate in the realm of where we had been. We’ve gone now from dealing where we started being a little bit over $70,000, three sheets down the road, we are almost $28,000 from that. And I can remember being the one that got beat up everywhere. Some of you remember it. Some of you reported on it. To a point that when we tried to raise the budget. And you know this is about [inaudible]. [inaudible] all around town [inaudible] get the Chief, make sure you don’t get the other one you had back here. That ain’t going to happen no way. So you can kill that [inaudible]. But to a point we’ve been down that road and we got beat to death with it, and I think to a point now it’s so strange and I admire my new colleague for wanting to push this forward, but some things, how memories get short and when folk couldn’t get past $72,000 and $70,000, and now they are willing to give up the whole [inaudible], Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Williams: Substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Substitute motion. Mr. Williams: My substitute motion is that we waive the educational requirements for the Fire Chief of Augusta Richmond County and that we allow the four top chiefs in Augusta Richmond County now to be looked at and be evaluated for the Fire Chief of Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it for discussion. Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded by Mr. Colclough. All right, who wants to discuss it? Mr. Boyles: I do, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? 51 Mr. Boyles: As a point of clarification, is that germane to the original motion? Mr. Mayor: Yes, we’re talking about the appointment of the Fire Chief, so that would be. That would be an acceptable motion. Any further discussion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to speak to the original motion, if I could. In regards to the $92,000 that has been negotiated, and of course the benefits, under a different time and a different set of circumstances, I would argue against that. But considering the fact that we went out for in-house attorney and we got zero applicants, considering the fact that we went out for the last row of financial -- the Finance Director - - and my understanding is zero applicants or zero qualified applicants anyway -- and I just, from what we’re hearing from the people that are doing the recruiting, that anytime you do these searches nationwide obviously people are going to pull up the newspaper on the internet and this type of thing, and we’re getting a reputation out there of not being able to do various thing, including a Fire Chief. And I just don’t think we hold a lot of cards in this regard, and I think Mr. Gillespie is a fine prospect for a Fire Chief for this city. I think he would do an excellent job. And I think after 9-11 we need a Fire Chief. Other than a Sheriff, we need a Fire Chief. And I think we need -- the staff of the Fire Department and the men and women there need a permanent leader that they know is going to be there and not have to be under the mental burden of wondering who is going to be final pick and everything that is associated with questioning the leadership there. So I’m going to support the original motion, and I commend Commissioner Hankerson for his efforts and his initiation in this process. I think it shows leadership and I’m ready to pick a Fire Chief and move on. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the current policy for department heads for advertising nationally is a double-edge sword. If we are going to advertise nationally, we are going to have a bigger talent base to draw from. But we’re going to also have to pay market rates for these people. And unless we’re willing to do that, we need to just quit fooling ourselves and basically just recruit from our area where the standard of living is something everybody is used to and the wages are not as high as in these bigger cities. But if we’re going to recruit and get the best from all over the country, we are going to have to pay the rates to go with it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to stick to my guns of what I said before but I just hope for the sake of this community that when we get a Fire Chief, whether it be this one that we’ve got on the table today or any other, that our Fire Department function at a much greater rate of operation than it is now. If there are some problems, I don’t know anything about them. But I certainly hope that all the hype and the noise that been about the Fire Chief and that when we do select one that it’s going to raise our Fire Department to a level that we all as citizens of Augusta can really see. We have put a lot of work, a lot of effort, a lot of this heart in the point of a Fire Chief. Other 52 areas, in Finance and other things that we have not even thought about, we have not been concerned. Before 3 or 4 years ago, half of the citizens of Richmond County didn’t know who the Fire Chief was. But now it’s a big issue, and I certainly hope that today, whether we get this one or not, that we do get one, and I hope you bring this city into another level as far as the Fire Department. And Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a roll call vote, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: On your substitute motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, on both of them, please. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say, speak to both motions and clarify both. I’m one of those persons who at the very beginning of this consolidated government thought that we should have a level of competency in our department heads and I was one of those who suggested that we use the educational requirement. I’m still sticking with that. So I will probably be voting no on the substitute motion. I probably will be voting no on the $92,000. And it’s not on Mr. Gillespie but on the $92,000, because if we had such a problem getting, you know, up to $85,000 for Mr. Mack, I’m sure that I could go with the lower 80’s, $87,000, $89,000. But $92,000 is just a little much in that we are going to ask people on tomorrow -- I’m going to be asking people to forego their raise and let’s cut that out. How can I then vote to bring in someone for $92,000? In another two or three weeks, we are going to be upping salaries of people who are coming in. We have to put some level on this. I know we need to get competent people, but I do think we can get competent people at a lesser rate. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and move the question on the substitute motion. Mr. Williams has asked for a roll call vote. Madame Clerk, would you call the roll, please? The Clerk: Yes, sir. (Roll call on substitute motion) Mr. Beard: No. Mr. Boyles: No. Mr. Bridges: No. Mr. Cheek: No Mr. Colclough: No Mr. Hankerson: No Mr. Kuhlke: No. Mr. Mays: No Mr. Shepard: No. Mr. Williams: Yes Motion fails 1-9. 53 Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll call the question on the original motion. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could we have the original motion read, please? Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? The Clerk: It was to accept a recommendation of the Administrator, subject to the salary negotiations. Mr. Bridges: Clarify that a little bit for me. Mr. Mayor: I think the salary has already been negotiated. It’s the recommendation of the Administrator. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Cheek: If it’s negotiated, then that part of it is already done. Mr. Williams: But Mr. Mayor, there is other perks in there, too, as well, to be negotiated; is that right, Jim? There’s other parts of that contract that has not been negotiated as yet; we don’t have all the numbers on the table? Mr. Wall: Well, as I understand it, the numbers are now on the table. They’ve been talked about. Apparently there has been talk with Mr. Gillespie about a six month severance, there has been discussion concerning the $4,000, and $10,000 moving expenses. Mr. Williams: And what’s that total? Mr. Wall: $106,000. During the first year it would be $106,000 cause you’re adding in the $10,000 moving expenses. Mr. Mayor: It would be up to $10,000. Might not necessary spend $10,000. Mr. Wall: I’m sorry? Mr. Mayor: Up to $10,000. He might only spend $8,000. Mr. Wall: Correct. Mr. Mayor: Get two men and a truck to come out here. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? 54 Mr. Boyles: The moving expenses, is that something the Commission has done before? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s consistent with our [inaudible]. All right, we’ll move the question on the original motion. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I think the only thing that needs to be put in that motion. Let me ask - - it was said it may be $10,000, it may not be $10,000. But I think in terms of so that you keep yourself clear, it ought to be, you ought to define what you do give the gentleman so that he’s clear on whether or not he’s got to bring you some back, whether he’s got to deal with an itemized bill or whatever the case may be. And I can live with whatever you give him. But I think you ought to know what you give. Because we’ve asked folk to move and he get the whole expense and he did that in Public Works and the guy left and we didn’t get none of the money back, and he didn’t stay either. Mr. Mayor: So you’re talking about reimbursing? Mr. Kolb: That’s pro rated over the three years of his contract. Mr. Mays: On the moving expense? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Wall: In the event that he were to leave within the first three years, then he pays back a portion of the relocation expenses. Mr. Mays: Now let me ask this question for clarification to put out, because you’re talking about negotiations in terms of salary, are you talking about negotiations in terms of contract? Now you’re getting into another area that you’re opening for department heads and I can live with that either way, too. But now where are you going with this in terms of -- and I know you’ve done it with the two Administrators we’ve had -- but we negotiate a salary for a department head, is a salary that’s there and based out of the structure line where you’ve got it budgeted. Now you’re fixing to open the door where you start giving contracts for department heads. Some cities do. But I think you put that on -- that needs to be out here, in the air, cause you got other folk here that work for you. And you’re putting a severance package in a contract for a department head. Now, you know, so I mean are you fixing to start drawing them up for everybody that works for you or are you going to start dealing with this one on a contract? Y’all ought to say that out there because that’s what clear. [inaudible] you got staff in here, you got folk that work for you that’s sitting in the room. You can put that out there to a point that if you start on contracts, whether you are going to have one person on contract or the new ones you are going to hire, if they come from out of town, you are going to put them on 55 contract, and that’s a big difference in terms of contract employees and those who work as department heads at will, whether the Administrator has got the power to deal with them or whether the Commission has the power to deal with them. I just think there needs to be an air of clarity of where you are going, cause this is a different situation of where you have been [inaudible] severance pay. That has not been done, Mr. Mayor, and I beg to differ that if you are going to deal with something different, don’t let it be picked up down the road in terms of where you’re going. Spell it out. Spell it out. Mr. Mayor: We’ll see where the Commission is headed. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by Mr. Kuhlke. There has been adequate discussion and debate of this. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] public opinion [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: We have a roll call vote by request of Commissioner Williams. Go ahead, Madame Clerk. (Roll call vote on original motion) Mr. Beard: No Mr. Boyles: Yes Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. Cheek: Yes Mr. Colclough: Present Mr. Hankerson: Yes Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Williams: No Motion carries 6-2-2. Mr. Mayor: Item 61, we need to continue that discussion in legal, so we’ll move that to our legal agenda. 61. Consider termination of contract with CSRA Waste. (No Action by the Commission in the February 5 meeting). (Requested by Mayor Bob Young) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard has asked that he be allowed to add to the agenda today the report from the Law Study Committee. Addendum Item: Mr. Beard requested that the report from the Law Department Study Committee be added to the agenda. 56 Mr. Mayor: They have a report and they need some action on that report. I was going to ask if there was any objection. Mr. Beard, do you want to speak to that? Mr. Beard: Yes, before you ask if there is objection, I take full responsibility of not getting this on. It was Thursday and I guess most of my colleague were thinking about going to Atlanta and I kind of forgot about it, too. And we didn’t get it to The Clerk. And I wish you would consider this because I think it would give us an So I hope that you would opportunity to move. We need to move forward on that. consider this without objection. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding the report from the Law Study Committee? None heard, so we’ll go ahead and add that item. Mr. Beard, I’ll turn the floor over to you for discussion. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was kind of my proposal. We have gone around the roses for quite some time with trying to secure a primary counsel. We have gotten some applications in, and I will disagree with some people who said that we didn’t get good applicants, because I think we did. At one point in time, we received those applicants in. But after considerable discussion over the past year in reference to securing a primary counsel, we’ve come to the conclusion, and I proposed to the committee that we hire our counsel, staff counsel, that the Commissioners hire staff counsel, and hiring two of those. It’s kind of like growing your own. We have worked with our Attorney, Attorney Wall, and I think he was in agreement with most of this, with my proposal. The only little twist we had was who was going to do the hiring of the staff attorneys. And I think that was a very minor point that we all can overcome with that. But I think with the supervision that Mr. Wall will be able to expend and the personal knowledge that he has of this county, it would be well for us to go on and hire two staff attorneys. I think the proposal would be that Mr. Wall hire these attorneys and supervise those two staff attorneys that would be coming on board. I have a little problem with that, but I don’t know exactly how I’m going to go on that. But I’ll leave it to the Commission for discussion. And that’s basically our proposal, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Does a committee report need a second, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that report? Mr. Williams: I second that. Mr. Mayor: Do we need to identify a source of funding? Mr. Wall: Funding will come primarily from the Law Department budget and the city budget and that is expected to pay for -- Mr. Mays is going to pick up on this again -- 57 one-half of the salary. One person is to be assigned to the land bank to supervise and run that. So 50% of that individual’s salary would come from CDBG funding. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I think that’s it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’ll ask my Chairman of the Law Study Committee or Jim, whether y’all can clarify this. We presently have one staff attorney. This motion contemplates the Commission will hire a second staff attorney; is that correct? Mr. Beard: We will be hiring two. Mr. Shepard: Two more? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Shepard: So we’ll have a total of three? Mr. Beard: Three staff attorneys. Mr. Shepard: And do I understand that the motion is that the City Attorney, which is Mr. Wall, will hire these individuals? They work for the Commission but he will hire them? Mr. Beard: He will hire them subject -- okay, that was the -- he would hire them, I think that’s what came out of committee. Mr. Shepard: That’s the way I understood it. Mr. Beard: We came out of committee with that. I objected to that coming out of committee that way, but I think it was left kind of open. Mr. Shepard: Just to keep it simple for Steve, we’re going to have three staff attorneys, one of whom is already on board, and two new ones, and the City Attorney is going to hire them? Obviously one his already hired. Mr. Mayor: And supervise. Mr. Shepard: And supervise. But they’re going to be Commission employees. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? 58 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Commissioner Beard said, it came out of committee kind of open and I’m not too clear yet on that. I’ve got no problem with Jim finding those people and acquiring them, but I think they ought to be ratified by the Commission. They are going to be working, like Steve said, for the City of Augusta and I think we ought to have that ratification rather than just leave it up to Jim to go out and find those people and hire those people with no ratification from us. I very much disagree with that part. We are getting back to the same old situation we had before. It came out of committee kind of up in the air. That was something Jim was opposed to. And I don’t blame him, I don’t fault him for that. That’s his prerogative, but I’m opposed to it as well. I don’t think that we ought to have the employees that are going to be working for the government, that Jim may be able to select and bring to us, but it ought to be ratified by the Commission. I don’t know if I need to make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: If you’d like that to happen, you need to make it in the form of a motion, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I will so move that Mr. Wall to be able to go out and find those two persons and bring them in but those two be ratified by the Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges: Is that a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: That’s a substitute motion, that’s correct. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. After going through all the budget process and hearing all that, do we have enough work for three staff attorneys, plus our firm? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. The goal is simply this: there is, number one, recognize that one of the attorneys is going to be devoted -- half of his time is going to be devoted to the Land Bank Authority work. That’s a project that has been talked about for several years. It has never had anyone who had as their primary responsibility dealing with the Land Bank Authority, someone who could put together that project and make it happen. With the [inaudible] foreclosure process that has now been passed by the General Assembly, with our starting that process, there is a need to have somebody to run that department. But that’s not a full time job. And so my thought process was get someone who has real estate experience, get someone who knows how to put deals together, get someone who knows HND rules and regulations, and at least half of that time would be devoted to that. The other 50% of the time, there are a lot of real estate matters that are taken care of for the county. I think that those can be brought in house. There still will be some condemnation work that goes to trial that I think our firm is going to be involved in. So you are going to have savings insofar as work that is currently being outsourced to my office. The additional staff attorney, there is a need for the contract work, the research 59 work, dealing with the day-to-day affairs. I expect that attorney would be someone who is less experienced than the one who works in the Land Bank. But I think that attorney can work and develop a knowledge of the municipal law, etc. Will they busy? Yes, they’ll stay busy. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go down here to Mr. Cheek and then over to Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek: Now this person that will specialize and work with the Land Bank, will they also do -- what I’m hearing you say is they will do land acquisition, oversee land acquisition for us, so this will be a chance for us to eliminate the redundancy in the several departments and bring land acquisition under one house? Mr. Wall: That’s a separate decision. Right now -- I don’t know that that necessarily has to follow. I think Public Works having their land acquisition, they have people who are trained in the Public Works arena. You have Utilities Department, people who are trained with those. You are dealing with different types of acquisitions in a lot of instances. I think the expertise is there. They would work with the land acquisition person, so they would be -- I mean that’s what happens currently. Rather than contacting my office for direction insofar as issues that may come up, this staff attorney would handle that. The routine acquisitions, the routine condemnations, those things would be coordinated through that individual. I don’t anticipate that that person would go out and condemn, you know, a $250,000 piece of property. Not initially. Not unless they come with some experience that I’m not expected them to have. I think that still is probably going to be done through my office. We’ve got years of experience insofar as condemning property and the trial work, and I don’t anticipate that you are going to get someone who has that kind of experience. I may be wrong. But that’s the way I see is operating. Mr. Cheek: I would certainly like to see us evolve to a situation where we have land acquisition in one house. I think we can eliminate some of that redundancy and duplication of staff that we have in different facilities. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Mays: This situation in terms of the [inaudible] search and the debate about whether to deal with a full scale law department versus in house lawyer situation has been going on for some time. And we’ve had it [inaudible], and I made statement in committee the other day that Jim Wall and I, we probably argue with each other and we probably get together and fight the rest of y’all more than anybody else does, but it’s always about issues, there is nothing person. We don’t hold anything back in terms of that. I think that this situation, in this delicate realm that we’re in not only with the budget year but a lot of crucial decisions we have, I made the motion at the first meeting in January to rehire Mr. Wall in terms of being our Attorney. That motion was unanimously supported, and I thank the Commission for doing that. I’m sure he does. He gets paid, so he thanks you more than I do. But on a serious note, even though this is not a law department, a certain hybrid situation has been created, whereas Jim is working 60 as chief counsel and these other staff people that are now. I regarded where we boil down to this point where we’re at a situation that is almost unlike -- just like, rather, any other department to a point of persons being able to pick their assistant, their number two person, their number three person, and to be able to work with them and to get them in here to do that. I think we’re at a very critical point, and the question was asked on two things. One, in this search, are you bringing somebody in, because supervision was a question at one time in terms of who would have that authority. And do you deal with that in terms of where you get to the unknown, and particularly with what we were looking at in terms of that applicant, or do you deal with the person who you’ve got in charge, quite frankly, of being in charge? I think we cleared that up in terms of supervision to get it there. Then the question came up in reference to who hires. And I made the statement there and I’m going to make it here today. That if these are staff people, they are attorneys, they are professional people, but they will be doing work, that if it’s going to be under the direction of the Attorney that you have, then I think just like whether it’s Teresa Smith picking her people, whether it’s Max Hicks picking his people, or other department heads picking their folk who are in there, then I think if you are going to deal in this hybrid situation, then we need to allow the Attorney in this situation to be able to hire folk, bring them back, and be responsible for them. If he can’t do the job that they deal with, then we don’t deal with staffers, we deal with the Attorney. He’s in charge of that. He’s picked them. If something falls out in legal, then we certainly are not going to run and grill somebody off the fact that they’ve been here for five days. We’re going to get [inaudible] in terms of grilling the one who is in charge. And that’s the way that I looked at it. That’s why I made the motion I made in committee. I know that that was kind of up in the air. I agree with my committee members. But I always say I don’t look at how folk debate things, I look at how they vote. And technically speaking, we came out of committee with a unanimous vote. I know we probably got out of there and adjourned and jokingly said we weren’t going to reopen it so folk could re- vote. But it came out unanimous. And I know that’s not going to be unanimous today, but I would urge the Commission to support the committee’s written recommendation that we leave this in the way that it is, and that’s the way that it came out of committee in reference to this. The Attorney dealing with the supervision and the Attorney dealing with the hiring of those staff persons that he’s going to place in. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, over the course of the, I guess, year or so that we’ve been working with the in house law office or the possibility of it, we’ve seen the numbers where that is more expensive than hiring an outside firm to do all of our legal work. We’ve all looked at that and we know that that’s the more expensive way to go, yet the Bill seemed to ask for an in house, so that’s what we tried to give them. That hasn’t worked out. Yet it seems we’re trying to -- the committee, and maybe somebody on the committee can answer this or Jim or George -- it seems what the committee’s recommendation is to do a sort of small scale in house attorneys. In other words, we’re going to be hiring the people, we’re going to be paying for their compensation, benefits, insurance, all of that. I’m just wondering if it wouldn’t be better if we just do as we’ve done in the past, previous to all this, looking at the in house 61 attorney, negotiate with Jim or any firm, really, in this case, Jim’s firm, let him worry about hiring the employees for staff to handle the work load that we give him, and let him handle the insurance, benefits and all that that’s involved there. I think that would be a cheaper method and I’m just wondering if that was a consideration, if that, George, might be a cheaper issue. Or Jim, if you had an issue with handling it that way. Mr. Beard: Mr. Bridges, I think the whole point here was that in the way that we are going, we are creating a situation wherein what the Bill called for, and I think eventually we are getting there, and I think the consensus of the committee that eventually these staff attorneys would become primary attorneys and at one point, maybe a couple of years down the road, we will have our own staff people here. Jim is not going to be with us always. But if we hire these people, and they come on board as county employees, then they will be with us and they will take that position and eventually it will evolve to that, what the Bill has called for. Because this is why we went into this. We went a number of years without -- really violated the contents of the Bill. Cause we saw a method where it could be inclusive and we can follow the dictates of that Bill in this way. We were looking for a primary attorney and I think we understood that eventually it would be [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: So the purpose is to get it to the point of an in house attorney? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I haven’t said anything, but I think long ago when we first started this debate, we recognized we had a very experienced counsel who has been president of the County Attorneys section this past year and has been recognized statewide as an authority in municipal and county law. We want to preserve that asset. There was a Bill -- we can dispute whether we were in compliance or out of compliance with the Bill, and I’m not going to go there, but where we did go a few years ago was we looked a hybrid operation, and I think this is what, as Mr. Beard has explained, the committee action, that is what we have. And I think this is what we should support today, and I plan to vote for it. Mr. Mayor: We have two motions on the floor. A substitute motion from Commissioner Williams which would authorize the hiring of two staff attorneys subject to confirmation of their employment by the Commission. We’ll vote on the substitute motion first. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard , Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion fails 2-8. 62 Mr. Mayor: We’ll clear the board, and that takes us to the original motion. That takes us back to the original motion to follow the committee report. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Williams votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Wall: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 62. 62. Discuss Action Plan for the City. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson wanted to discuss the action plan for the city. Commissioner? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. As a new Commissioner, and some of the things I observe, I feel that it’s very important for us to know where we’re going and to have a plan of where we’re going. As servants and trustees of city government, we have an awesome responsibility, a responsibility to serve our constituents and the people of Augusta. I’m inclined to believe that our expertise and our talent and time can be better utilized -- and we will have a better operation of government -- by adopting the following, and to do this, I suggest a simple question to you, Mr. Mayor, and to the Administrator, where are we going? What are we going to do next? What are your plans for the City? Where do you want us take you? What do you I’d like to make this in the form of a motion, that want us to support? So in doing this, the Mayor and the Administrator present to the Commission a five- to ten-year plan of action within the next thirty days which would include your vision, your goals and objectives, and that way we as Commissioners can better support you and better serve the City knowing where we’re going. Mr. Boyles: Second that motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to comment on something I’ve heard from our Administrator and it came out of staff retreats, I believe. The first thing, and I may be letting part of the vision out of the bag, but basically a statement that we want to make Augusta the city of first choice. And I think that’s something that Augusta lacks right now. We have many, many competent groups and qualified people and lots of talent and resources in this area, but we don’t have a common vision for this city. Where do we want to be in five or ten years? And so this is very timely, and I think that ought to be to make Augusta the city of first choice for the Southeast. That whenever people think of locating, moving, retiring, that Augusta is the first city they think about. And it’s a hard 63 job, it’s a long road, but I think it’s a task we should take on ourselves. I support this measure. Mr. Mayor: I would suggest that if you want something of this magnitude done within 30 days, I think it’s important that the Commission has input in this process, too, and I would ask -- Mr. Cheek: I volunteer. Mr. Mayor: Well, I would just ask each Commissioner who is sitting here today to submit what you see as your goals, your vision and your desire for this community for the next five to ten years. If you’d submit that in writing to my office or Mr. Kolb’s office in the next seven days, that would be a help to us so that a city vision includes input from the various Commissioners here. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Mayor: The reason for this, we want the Mayor and the Administrator to take the lead, and in the work sessions then we’re going to work with what you already have. We won’t be redundant. Maybe some of our ideas are yours already, but we won’t be redundant in the work sessions. We’ve given you all the opportunity to take the lead where you see the City, where you want to go in the five or ten years. And then when you present that, then in our work sessions, we will be working on that to make that possible and also, especially supporting some of those things, and we will all be working in one direction. Mr. Mayor: Well, the only reason I made the suggestion was we can eliminate a lot of conversation on the back end with a little bit more input on the front end. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may interject. I kind of think we have the cart in front of the horse. It’s the Mayor and the Commission who should be setting the pace and the direction on where you want this organization to go. I would submit to you that you probably need to have this work shop so that you can discuss various aspects of it, and develop the vision, the value statements, the Commission statements, and determine what goals and direction you want this administration to pursue. Perhaps in the next 30 days, what you could do is lay out an outline or a timetable of how you want this process to take place. But I’m not sure the Mayor and I can appropriately sit down, especially the Administrator who is charged with carrying out your plan and your direction, if we can appropriately come up with a five- to ten-year action plan that would acceptable to everyone on the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? 64 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I applaud Commissioner Hankerson for trying to focus our energies up here and our vision. I think some of us have different visions. Four years ago, Bobby, I had a vision that maybe we could get the trains down Sixth Street a little faster and brought that part of the action plan that this Commissioner has. A current vision, and I think the Commission should be included in this process, I think we should have more than 30 days. We’ve already formed a working group as a result of the Railway Trains and Traffic Study Committee to study what possibilities exist again for removing that track from Sixth Street. I may be, to belabor the announcement, I may be a one-railway-track mind, but it’s a problem that’s been alluded to as one of the most severe by one of the biggest executives in Augusta that holds back downtown Augusta from growth and development. And that was Mr. Billy Morris at the Leadership Augusta conference before Christmas. And I think we’ve all committed to a better airport. The Mayor has taken the lead and I support him in the Amtrak initiative. I think we all bring things to the table. So I don’t want you to exclude the Commissioners because quite frankly, you can’t practically exclude these Commissioners because if those items that I just enumerated, that I have interest in, don’t get on it, I’m going to put them on anyway. And you talk about these five- to ten-year plans, you know, we’re both -- me four years ago and you a few months ago are testaments that sometimes there are management changes up here, and we have visions and we have different Commissioners in the slot from time to time. So politically, we have a turnover on this board, but I commend you because I think we should have a vision, but I think the Commissioners should be part of that vision. And it’s not like we have never gathered together to plan our future. I can remember shortly after Mr. Kolb came on, I think it was in August, that we met at the Civic Center. We had a strategic plan. It was led by -- and of course, I understand you weren’t on here at that time -- I mean that’s just a fact. But we had the guidance of a facilitator, if that’s the correct word. I’m always uncomfortable with that, but I think it was somebody from OMI who was -- Mr. Speaker: CH2MHILL. Mr. Shepard: Well, their sister company. CH2MHILL, but they provided us a focus of strategic planning, and we had a two-day session on it. I don’t oppose having that sort of -- for the new Commissioners to have that kind of process repeat itself, perhaps on an annual basis, but I guess my point is we’re not starting from a blank slate here, and there are platforms that got us all here, which I don’t think we will abandon, but we will certainly want to talk about and dialog about. So I think in light of the fact that we’ve had strategic planning in the past, what I’d like to see in a motion is coordinate toward not re-inventing the wheel, but certainly going back to where we were in the process that CH2MHILL facilitated and that we have these sessions, but I don’t know that we can have a 30-day. I think maybe we should approve this in concept, but we can’t do it in 30 days and I think the Commission should be part of it. So I would appreciate it if you would amend your motion to that effect. Mr. Hankerson: I don’t think you’re quite understanding, Steve, what I am saying. The Commission is going to be inclusive in this process. But I think what I asked is a simple question. If we are working and we are discussing things every day, and we 65 are hearing every day that this city is not going anywhere, we’re not doing anything, then that’s why I think that for the Administrator, what he is doing -- and I’ve heard since January, if I had to do what I just asked him to do, or some of the things he can just write down, this is what I’d like to see. I already know that. Like for the Mayor to write down what he likes to see done, what’s the plan, what’s the vision, what you want to get done in the next five to ten years. Then we will add to that. Not we’ll be excluded from that, but at least we know that we are all going in the right direction. Or the same direction, on the same page. I know that you say that some things have already been -- you’ve been working on, but do you have any on paper? Do we have a plan that you could present to anyone and say this is what we’re going to do in the next 30 days? We know what we are planning to do tomorrow, but beyond that, we bring issues. But that’s the whole concept of it, not that we be excluded. Mr. Shepard: If I could speak to that, Mr. Mayor. I mean certain action plans are already ongoing as a result of significant votes of this Commission and I think, too, that we committed to expand the water system for the first time -- well, not for the first time, but in my tenure here in 2000 and we committed to come back and revisit that in 2002. That’s something that’s set in motion already, which I’m sure we’ll take up later in the year. We passed the five-year SPLOST in 2000. 2000 was, if you’ll pardon the expression, was a heavy-lifting year. And we are in a five-year program for SPLOST. So there are a lot of things set in motion which, you know, need to be -- not to sound like a broken record, but we’re not writing on a blank slate here. We’re carrying on where other decisions have been made that we are going to have to carry out as, certainly as you point out correctly, as trustees of this government. But those SPLOST expenditures, we spent countless seems like hours in negotiating what priority list and what funding year particular projects would come into SPLOST. And that’s been settled and it’s going to happen because SPLOST in coming in. And probably the most significant thing that this Commission that we have just been elected to, the odd seats will have one more opportunity to cast votes on what the future SPLOST will be for the next five years. And that’s certainly a vision of where we go. But I think that this -- I think it’s a good idea, Mr. Hankerson, but I think probably that we have a lot of players and a lot of existent things going on that we need to coordinate with this simple statement. I mean I think it’s a worthy statement, but there’s a lot that we have set in motion as Commissioners and that other Commissioners and Mayors that have sat before us in the short history of this government. I mean this is not the first SPLOST we’ve done, it’s not the first time we’ve expanded the water system. That’s just all part of it, is my point. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: To pick up on what Commissioner Hankerson is saying, most organizations do have action plans, have short-term plans and they have long-term plans. You’re talking about SPLOST [inaudible] funds, and I think if you look at a short-term plan, which is a five-year plan, it spells out where you want to be at in five years. Look at a ten-year plan, Mr. Shepard, it spells out where the organization should be within ten years. This SPLOST is every five years. I think we’re going to renew that. I think we need a short-term and a long-term action plan so that we can follow a road map, so to 66 speak. Where we want to be in five years. And five years would be a midpoint. Ten- year plan, your ten-year plan would not be an endpoint, but a point where you start preparing for another short-term and long-term plan. And it’s an action plan. We can look at your action, how much sewer you’re going to put in, you [inaudible] sewer pockets and such things as those matters. And I think any organization, I think the Administrator knows any organization has action plans. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I had the opportunity, not just over our recent out-of-town trips, but I guess both of our new Commissioners to my left, my traveling buddies at basketball games, lunch partners, dinner partners as well, along with that other bachelor down there on the end down there, where we have to end up eating a lot. But one of the things that this motion does, and I encourage them and I think it’s ironic the one made the motion and one seconded it, that I don’t think it’s in any way to think about being exclusive of what the Commission thinks, and I explained this to them, particularly about, quite frankly, as being the last Mayor Pro Tem, with Richard coming on, your relationship and mine, in terms of where things that you share on a regular basis in terms of doing that, which many times the general public may not necessarily know per se. And I think with the possibilities looming, and we don’t know what it’s going to look like and I don’t really think it’s important in terms of what kind of government per se you have, it’s what kind of government do we become is more important. I think that the Commission as a whole, and particularly from the newcomers’ standpoint, because I’ve been a newcomer and I know the first time you come on board you get all the questions and the barrage and everything else. The two Commissioners from very different constituencies but both saying the same thing, that they want to be able to see the city be able to move hopefully in one fashion. I think that if we are looking to do that, we probably, in terms of where this motion goes, more so to the heart of being able to get not only the things say you would like to get passed, particularly as a Mayor -- I don’t think that those things that you shared with us really had any difficulty in moving anywhere and I think you’ve been very liberal in sharing them, but I think they’d like to maybe see in terms of their reluctance that the general public may see, that there is a certainly amount of confusion that we can get past and can deal with that if this is where the central head of this government wants to go, if this is the Mayor of this city, his vision, if this is his outlook, these are the plans and his priorities of being 1 through 10, and I think you are correct in wanting to have the input -- but I also think the bigger picture is that they want to be able to see us move on those issues so that, quite frankly, that there are a lot of things that come to the table other than just reactionary issues and those things which come up through a committee vote, but those things that we can move forward on on a regular basis in terms of the fact of seeing that there are things that are being promoted and that we are behind the Mayor and those issue we’re doing. Now everything is not going to work in a unanimous fashion, but I think those things, quite frankly, that -- and I’ll say this personally, that you wanted, every now and then you and me together got beat up on some of them. The Commission [inaudible]. But I think that when you move, the more things that you have that are going on, and I think that’s an instance where this motion carries us in terms of that plan of being able to [inaudible] 67 your being out in front as the Mayor, the person who runs the day-to-day operations of the city, and George Kolb, in terms of what he wants to do, and through those coordination, you all [inaudible] and in terms of where y’all get together and in terms of what you’re doing, disseminate that, and it feeds off of us, whether it’s a formal fashion or whether it’s informal. Whether we’re at lunch or at Commission meeting, a committee meeting, or just coming into your office or his and sharing different things. I think that’s the essence of where we are trying to go, not in terms of putting the Commission on a back burner, per se. But of trying to really elevate and put out front those things particularly that you want to see on a front burner for this city, and as I shared with them, I think you have tried to, when you had those serious issues, and probably I’ve been able to share [inaudible] other Commissioners because the position that I was in. But I thought that that was a good working relationship in terms of being able to do that, but I think it can be fostered even better maybe by what they are trying to see in this. Maybe the time frame might have to be adjusted a little. It might need a little bit more time in terms of doing it, but I think in essence of [inaudible], they’re on the right track in wanting to do that, and I think it would do all of us good in terms of moving in that fashion. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Motion on the floor has been seconded. Call the question. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 58. 58. Consider Ordinance amending the process for appointment of Administrator and clarifying his duties. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Colclough) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I put out an addendum, which I would like to have postponed, and I would just like to deal with the item that is in the book, and that is to deal with the duties of the Administrator. What I am proposing to do is place the Administrator under the direct supervision of the Mayor. What this will do is kind of alleviate him having to answer to ten people and only have to answer to one person. I think it’s very confusion, and I know if I was in his spot, if I had to answer to ten people, I would be kind of confused. I think by him being under your direct supervision, I think that he can bring everything to us that he needs to do, and I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So what -- I don’t understand the motion, Mr. Colclough. Are you presenting this ordinance that’s in here? 68 Mr. Colclough: This is the ordinance and this spells out -- Mr. Mayor: And this is the original draft of it; not the one that is presented today? Mr. Colclough: No. This is the original draft [inaudible] on the floor and I’m asking to postpone the one that was put out today. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I read through the ordinance and I compliment the Mayor Pro Tem in getting something on the floor. However, I don’t see where this improves the situation that we’ve got on this Commission at all. I would, you know, you’re taking the Administrator and putting him under the weakest person in this government, who is the Mayor at this point, and there are just some fundamental things that I have a problem with. Just a minute ago we authorized the Attorney to hire two staff attorneys and to supervise those staff attorneys. This past week I got a letter from a disgruntled employee who had been terminated in this government by a department head. And we’ve got an Administrator who is given a number of jobs to take care of, a lot of people to supervise, but he doesn’t have the authority to hire and fire the people that are going to be working under him. And I can embrace what Mr. Colclough is trying to do, but I’d like to make a substitute motion, and I can’t remember which section it is, but in the duties in regards to hiring and firing -- Mr. Colclough: Page 5. Mr. Kuhlke: -- page 5 -- Jim, I don’t know what all these legal numbers are, but anyway, in the duty part of it I’d like to make a substitute motion that we embrace Mr. Colclough’s ordinance but that we change that particular section whereby we authorize the Administrator to hire and fire without a ratification of the Commission. That’s it. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: Substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke: Unless I’ve got to do something technically, Jim. Mr. Wall: I assume that you’re still carving out the Clerk and -- Mr. Kuhlke: I am. The Clerk and the Attorney, EEO office and Internal Auditor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think history teaches us, recent history, that in order for these things to be successful you need to include the people that are both 69 affected and basically voting participants in any change to our consolidation Bill. I wish I had been a little faster and I could have perhaps offered a substitute, or now a substitute substitute motion that we get this in committee and include part of the Legislative Delegation, or all of them if they’re interested, and us and get around the table and look at the things that are right and look at the things that are wrong within this government and work to improve them. There is a lot of good in many of the different Bills that are out on the table this election year. All of us have experienced both the good and the bad with the consolidation Bill and I think we would all be better off if we did our discussion on the lead in with the Legislative Delegation, include them in the process, try to pick the best parts of each one of these presentments that are coming out in Atlanta and from here, and put it together in something that we can all or most of us agree with. That way, when it goes to Atlanta, it will be something that has our input but then the Legislative Delegation can agree on and work towards. I think we can come up with anything we want to down here, but unless we have their buy-in into it, we’re just spinning our wheels. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to support the substitute motion. I think it addresses one of the two big issues that we have before us today and has been talked about in the press, at the Chamber and even got the Legislative Delegation’s interest, and that is one issue being the hire and fire authority of the Administrator and the second issue is giving the Mayor some sort of power, be that vote, veto or whatever. I don’t think the original motion addresses either issue. I can certainly appreciate the effort put forth of bringing this before the Commission, but what concerns me with the original is if we pass it, I see that we’ve really done nothing to address the issues, the two issues that I mentioned, and as Mr. Kuhlke pointed out, we have basically demoted the Administrator by moving him from a strong body, the Commission, to a weaker body, which is the Mayor. And I think that this would be viewed in the public’s eye as us realizing that we need to do something. We’re all getting public pressure to address these two issues, and it may be viewed as if we pass this, we could say hey, we’ve done something, when in actuality we’ve done nothing to address the real issues that are before us. I think the substitute motion does that, at least it addresses the issues of the hire and fire of the Administrator, and I don’t have any problem with him being moved to report to the Mayor. And as a second topic, Mr. Mayor, from what I’m seeing coming out of the Legislative Delegation, I like what I’m reading and hearing and the Bills I’m seeing. I think they address the issues, each of those Bills address the issues that we’re going to have to address to move this government forward. I don’t think that either of the two motions on the floor are, to me, come up to what, to what I’m seeing come out of the Legislative Delegation, which I think is doing a better job of addressing these issues, and I think I’m going to like what comes out of there better than what I like on either one on the floor today. But I will support the substitute motion. I think it addresses the issue. It moves us forward. It at least gives the Administrator the authority to manage his personnel with the authority and the power that he needs to do that in an effective manner, and I’m going to support the substitute motion. 70 Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you, Mr. Bridges. Let me make a couple of comments, if I may, since I’m mentioned in here a few times. Number one, Mr. Colclough, I appreciate what you’ve done, the work you’ve put into this and I thank you for giving some attention to this, because you all will recall when we met with the Legislative Delegation last fall there was no interest at all on the part of the Commission to changing anything about the arrangement of this government. Times have changed and I think the attitude of the public changed, has changed, the attitude of the Delegation and some members of this Commission has also changed. The appropriate venue, in my view, is the State Legislature for making these changes. And I think we’ve just seen a perfect example of why the Legislative body, using the authority of state law to make a much more permanent change is more appropriate. We were given in our agenda books an ordinance, which we looked over this past weekend, and then when we came into chambers today we were given a different version which did different things, and now here we are in the debate and the original motion was to disregard what had changed and go back to the original thing. And that shows the fallacy of using a local ordinance to address these most important issues, that these things can be changed simply by casting six votes on this Commission at any time the Commissioners get mad with the Administrator, get mad with the Mayor, we just change the law back, and we’re right back where we were and we haven’t accomplished anything. And I see three critical elements in this whole debate that’s raging about this government. Number one, I think there is an issue with voting, how the voting is done. Majority voting seems to be a consensus, at least among some of the people in the House Delegation. And that, in my view, is appropriate. The other is the authority of the Administrator to hire and fire the employees of this government. The department heads. And I think that’s appropriate. And also the check and balance that must exist between the Mayor and the Commission, so that we can have true consensus building within the body up here. And to me, these are the three key elements. Unless you have a statute that addresses these three elements, it’s going to fail. It’s like a stool that needs three legs to stand. You pull a leg away, and the stool will collapse. While I appreciate the effort that has been forth, it would be my suggestion that what we do is take both of these proposed ordinances we have here and let’s send them up to the Legislative Delegation and show them how the Commission feels here and say please include this in your deliberation in Atlanta. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I disagree. I don’t see the Mayor’s Office as being a weak position. I see the Mayor as being chief executive officer of this city and I think that -- I don’t know -- if I was in a position where I had to answer to ten people, I would rather answer to one person rather than ten. At least I could keep my head on straight and I don’t have to go through all that other stuff. But I thought that we could at least get something started where we could kind of do some consensus building, and by having the Administrator placed under the Mayor’s Office, in the direct supervision, it would be a start to doing something in getting us together. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think we are still as a group, and in a true democracy everybody has the right of opinion and we all try and respect that. Different opinions will 71 be there. But I think one thing is very obvious, that a Bill of some sort, and I don’t know who the author of it will be -- currently there are probably three Bills with three different authors. It may turn out to be four. Compromises may be made on those. So quite frankly, I think, and I agree somewhat with the Mayor that we are dealing partially with the spirit of the unknown. Now would I would rather do to a point in this, not knowing what Bill is going to come out, what it’s going to contain, but whatever one that’s voted on, quite frankly, is going to supersede anything that we do as a Commission, and I’m going to make the following motion, and if it gets a second, this will give y’all all a way out cause it’s real legal. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, we already have two motions on the floor. Mr. Mays: I’m going to make a motion that we table this item -- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays: --and wait until the Legislative Delegation gets a bill out from the Legislature and passed and that we follow the dictates of that bill. We can [inaudible], do anything we want to in presenting evidence to them about what we want in it. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table that’s been seconded and a motion to table takes precedence, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Is it debatable? Mr. Wall: Motion to postpone in essence , rather than motion to table, and that is debatable. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there discussion on the motion to table? We’re not talking about the merits of the ordinance now, we’re talking about whether to postpone it or not. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I feel like I’ve offered a solution to this -- we -- Mr. Mays: [inaudible] time frame it. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Cheek has the floor. Mr. Mays: I’m sorry. 72 Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. We have -- let’s not fool ourselves. We only have the power to suggest in this situation, and send paper to Atlanta to be shuffled through the normal paper channels is not going to get the things that we feel need to be addressed, addressed. We need to put together, all of us or part of us, and get with the Legislative Delegation, meeting face-to-face and talk this thing through, rather than deferring it to the normal bureaucratic channels or else we are going to get what they want us to have in Atlanta, and quite frankly, some of the language like eliminating the Human Relations Commission is pretty stupid, in my opinion. And if we don’t do anything else today, we need to come out with a resolution in support of the Human Relations Commission and their mission to this city. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m going to support the motion to postpone this. I think we are premature in our deliberations here today because this will be decided in Atlanta, and let’s let it be decided in Atlanta and we move on from there. But to sit here and debate this is a little premature. There is no need for us to debate that at this point in time. There may be time when we have to do this after the next week or so, but I don’t see doing it now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make a few comments, and one was that you know we are talking about changing things we are going to be doing, and the first thing I see, if we change that, we give the power to the Administrator to hire and fire we gone from an administrative style of government to a management style, and we need to say that and not beat around the bush and say we got administrative, cause if we change that level of authority, we gone from an administrative style to a management style. That’s been something we been debating for quite some time and we asked those questions early on before our previous Administrator got here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I remind you the motion is to postpone action on this and that’s what we’re discussion. Mr. Williams: I understand that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke: I call the question. Mr. Williams: And you recognized me before and you didn’t come to me, but you recognized me before that motion was made. I had a comment then. Mr. Mayor: The rules changed when the motion was made. Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand. I’m going to say what I’ve got say. 73 Mr. Mayor: If the motion is defeated, I’ll let you talk all about the substance of it. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, anyway, Mr. Mayor, the Legislature is going to do something and Mr. Beard just quoted the same thing, we need to wait and see what the Legislature is going to do, whether it come 1, 2 or 3, and whatever they send out for us and we have to follow that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke has called the question on the motion to postpone. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Again, I want to thank Mr. Colclough for his initiative and leadership on this. Thank you, Richard. Mr. Wall, you have anything for legal session? Remember, we’re going to take up item number 61. 64. LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss Real Estate matter ?? Update on litigation matters Mr. Wall: I have real estate matters I need to discuss, as well as an update on pending litigation and give a little bit of advice. Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purpose as stated by the Attorney. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 65. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. 74 Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek for the purpose of adding and approving an item. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to add and approve the purchase of property on Willis Foreman Road for the purposes of a fire station. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? Any objection? None heard. Passes unanimously. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Entertain a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned without objection. Mr. Wall: No, not adjourned. Recessed. Mr. Mayor: Oh, that’s right. We are recessed. We’re recessed. [Meeting Recesses until February 21, 2002] 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 February 20, 2002. Clerk of Commission 75 INVOCATION: Reverend Reather Kennedy Pastor New Zealand Baptist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. RECOGNITIONS: January’s Employee of Month Mr. Walter L. Hurley Facilities Maintenance Building and Grounds U.S. Department of Commerce The National Weather Service Re: StormReady Certification for Augusta-Richmond County Mr. Shepard: I move approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. PLANNING: 1. Z-02-10 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve petition by Reverend Martin, on behalf of Antioch Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church including a day care per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1454 Florence Street, 1280 Augusta Avenue, 1304 Augusta Avenue and 1449 Florence Street. (Tax map 46-3 Parcels 336, 337, 437, 438) 2. Deleted from consent agenda 3. Z-02-13 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a parking configuration which provides for a driveway with forward entry onto Old Savannah Road must be approved and implemented; a petition by Karen Jones, on behalf of Quock Gay Loo, requesting a change of zone from Zone LI (Light Industry) with conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1944 Old Savannah Road. (Tax map 72-4 Parcel 277) 4. Z-02-14 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that the site plan match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial Corp., on behalf of Leonard P. Mays family, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and R-1A (One-family Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1213 Augusta West Parkway. (Tax map 30, part of parcel 56) 5. FINAL PLAT – RIVERWEST COMMERCIAL PARK – S-614 – A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of Pilot Corporation, requesting final plat approval for Riverwest Commercial Park. This commercial subdivision is located on Riverwatch Parkway, West of Gun Club Road and contains 7 lots. (Reviewing agents approval 2/4/02) PUBLIC SERVICES: 6. Motion to enter into real estate sales contract with the Estate of Janie Johnson Hampton to acquire property located at 2138 Grand Boulevard for $44,000.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 7. Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 8. Motion to approve a request by Sandra M. Maule for a massage therapist license to be used in connection with Walton Pain Center at Walton Rehabilitation Hospital located at 1355 Independence Dr. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 9. Motion to approve a request by Gregory Tennin for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Mr. K’s Party Center located at 1061 Stevens Creek Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 10. Motion to deny a request by James Bowdon for a consumption on premise Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Hide Away located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 11. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #5 located at 902 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 12. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #6 located at 1502 Central Avenue. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) 13. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #7 located at 2078 Old Savannah Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 2119 Grand Boulevard, (District 2, Super District 9); Old Town Neighborhood: 246 Walker Street, 340 Walker Street, (District 1, Super District 9); West End Neighborhood: 1840 Crescent Lane, (District 1, Super District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood: 2504 Kensington Drive W., (District 4, Super District 9); Belair Neighborhood: 3916 Belair Road, (District 3, Super District 10); South Richmond Neighborhood: 4002 Pinnacle nd Way, (District 6, Super District 10); and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) 15. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with Midwest Employers Casualty Company (an A rated insurer). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) 16. Deleted from consent agenda. 17. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 18. Motion to approve a request for of Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) application for Richmond County Juvenile Court and The Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC). (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 11, 2002) 19. Motion to disapprove a request for waiver of fire regulation requirement that a fire hydrant must be located within 500 feet of commercial structure, as it relates to a proposed location for a drop off laundry at the corner of Robinson Avenue and Gordon Highway. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 11, 2002) FINANCE: 20. Deleted from consent agenda. 21. Motion to approve the annual appropriation requirement for participation in the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) Lease Pool (Series 1990). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 22. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Aerial Fire Trucks for the Augusta Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment Company of Bessemer, Alabama for $649,500.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-047). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 23. Motion to approve the acquisition contract of Eleven (11) Pumper Fire Trucks for the Augusta Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment Company of Bessemer, Alabama for the amount of $3,484,000.00 to be paid over a 48 month period beginning in 2002 through 2005 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-048). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 24. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the City Council of Augusta 1949 Retirement Plan. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 25. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the 1977 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 26. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending and restating the 1945 Richmond County Employees’ Pension Fund Act. (Approved by the Commission February 5, 2002 – second reading) 27. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 60 Foot Bucket Truck for the Augusta Regional Airport from Mays International Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $113,993.12 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-059) (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 28. Motion to disapprove a 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. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) 29. Motion to approve a request from the Historic Preservation Commission to approve submission of a FY 2002 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant application to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to finance a survey of historic properties in the Pinched Gut Historic District (Old Towne neighborhood). (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 30. Motion to approve the expenditure of funds for the development of conceptual drawings for sidewalks improvements along Glenn Hills Drive in conjunction with the proposed widening from Sidewalk Improvement Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 31. Motion to approve creating a Suburban Services Street Lighting District for Arterial and Interstate streetlights to be funded from the General Fund. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 32. Motion to approve condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 168, Parcel 17.08, which is owned by Robert Hannah, for easement on the Basswood Drive Sanitation Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 33. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between The William E. Hollingsworth, Jr. Family, L.P., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $1,153.00: 312.5 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 472.4 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 53, which is owned by Cynthia S. Taylor, for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 641.25 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 740.94 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 126, which is owned by the Estate of Fannie Mae Youngblood, for right-of-way on the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 36. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 44.01, which is owned by Augusta Praise Tabernacle Church, Inc., for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 511.72 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way; 522.05 square feet, more or less, of permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement; and 1,336.62 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 37. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental Encroachment Agreement Nos. 30629 and 30643 (Bath-DumJon 230/46kv Transmission Line Right-of-Way. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 38. Motion to approve reconciliation of the first term of the operating agreement with Operations Management International (OMI). The first contract term period was from July 20, 1999 through December 31, 2000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 39. Motion to approve the acceptance of the Deed of Dedication of sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for 758 Tripps Court, Robert W. Hawes. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 40. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to purchase the Trimble 5603 Total Robotic Station surveying equipment from Duncan-Parnell, Inc. in the amount of $26,570. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 41. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to purchase the Trimble 5700 Survey Grade Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) mapping equipment from Duncan-Parnell, Inc. in the amount of $42,993. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 42. Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the U.S. Department of Transportation Unified Certification Program. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 43. Motion to approve continuing with the current Bond Underwriter for one year and request RFP’s for the subsequent year. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 44. Motion to approve award the design contract for the proposed new facilities for the Department of Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities to Arcadis G&M, Inc. Services are to include evaluation of three potential sites as well as project design. Total fees are not to exceed $518,365. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 45. Motion to approve "Best Bid" lease proposal of a new postage machine from Pitney Bowes for the ARC Print Shop. The lease term is for 66 months at $932 per month or $11,184 annually. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 46. Motion to approve 2002 LARP Supplemental Program List. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) 47. Motion to approve payments to: Thomas Brothers Hydro, Inc. in the amount of $52,684.14, Master Fabricators Maxim in the amount of $12,297.00, and Maxim Crane Works in the amount of $11,730.00 for the repairs of Turbine #4 at the Raw Water Pumping Station. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2002) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 48. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February 5, 2002 and the called meeting held February 11, 2002. APPOINTMENT: 49. Motion to approve the re-appointment of Mr. Brad Kyzer, Jr. to the Augusta Aviation Commission representing District 8. ATTORNEY: 50. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-4-20 to extend the boundaries of the Laney-Walker Enterprise Zone. (Approved by the Commission February 5 – second reading) Mr. Beard out. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion carries 8-1. [Item 26] Mr. Beard out. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 8-1. [Item 50] Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 3-15, 17-25, 27-49] 2. Z-02-11 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that a through driveway be constructed from Bungalow Road to Ivey Road; a petition by Vivian D. Wright requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2155 Bungalow Road. (Tax map 86-3 Parcel 102) Mr. Williams: A motion to approve. Mr. Colclough: Second. Motion carries 10-0. 16. Motion to approve 2002 cost-of-living increases for retirees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 11, 2002) Mr. Shepard: I move approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion carries 9-1. 20. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty and interest on Tax Account #2036831 for 2000 Tax Year. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2002) Mr. Bridges: I make the motion that we abate the penalty and not the interest to be consistent with our past practice. Mr. Shepard: Second. Motion carries 10-0. PLANNING: 51. Z-02-01 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to deny a petition by Rory and Myra Calhoun requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a private club and recreational facility per Section 26-1 (i) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 5149 Westbrook Road and containing approximately 26 acres. (Tax Map 353 Parcels 05.17 & 5.18) Mr. Williams: I move that we deny this application. Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion that we approve this with the stipulations. Mr. Bridges: I’ll second that if the maker of the motion -- and George, maybe we need you in on this -- what were the days that this would be in operation? Would it be just Saturday? Mr. Calhoun: Two days a week, Friday and Saturday. Ms. Calhoun: For the military and church groups, and there would be no alcohol. Mr. Bridges: If the property is ever sold, exchanged or inherited, that this special exemption would return to its original purposes. Mr. Patty: And no recreational activities after sunset. Mr. Bridges: Considering all those, would the maker of the motion accept those? Mr. Cheek: Absolutely. Mr. Bridges: And I’ll second. Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion carries 7-3. 52. Z-02-12 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission decision to deny a petition by Rosa Butler requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family personal care home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on 1704 Bransford Avenue. (Tax map 45-1 Parcel 200) Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval we comply with the request from zoning. Mr. Cheek: Second. Motion carries 10-0. PUBLIC SERVICES: 53. Discuss the acquisition of property for the Greenspace Program. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee.) Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we postpone any action on this particular item and put it back on the agenda in two weeks after we’ve gotten a report from the Greenspace. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Colclough votes No. Motion carries 9-1. FINANCE COMMITTEE: 54. Motion to approve authorization to solicit an Investment Manager for the anticipated 2002 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond issue through Requests for Proposals from qualified municipal bond underwriters to serve as Sole or Senior Manager for the proposed Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. (No Recommendation from Finance Committee) The Clerk: This was Item 43 that was approved in our consent agenda. APPOINTMENT: 55. Appoint a member of the Augusta Commission to fill the seat vacated by former Commissioner Henry Brigham on the CSRA Regional Development Center’s Board of Directors. Mr. Colclough: Commissioner Lee Beard said he would serve in that position. [Mr. Beard is appointed by acclamation] PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 56. Consider requests for a "Letter of Consent" from the following organizations to be direct recipients of grant funds from the Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council: a. Life In the River Outreach Program b. Share Care Service & Association, Inc. c. MACH Academy of Tennis & Chess, Inc. d. MCG Research Institute e. Sparkettes Youth Center, Inc. f. Boys & Girls Club Mr. Boyles: I move for approval. Mr. Mays: Second. Motion carries 10-0. 57. Consider request from the Boys & Girls Club that the Augusta Commission consent to be the pass through agency for a State of Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council Title V Prevention Comprehensive Youth Development Program grant application for FY 2002. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Motion carries 10-0. OTHER BUSINESS: 59. Consider amendments to the 2002 Budget. (Requested by Commissioner Willie Mays) Mr. Mays: I’m going to make the motion that we approve the items in Column 3 with the exception of the amount that went under the increased fees for Richmond County persons in Recreation and Parks which I had good talks with the Administrator in reference to this. It’s a small item in terms of the number where we have in our budget that he feels we can absorb in dealing with it. There was some concern that if we were going to do it, we needed to do it on out-of-County and out-of-state people in terms of being able to deal with that much of a fee increase. And I’d like to make that same motion that I made then to be approved without the Recreation increases being in there and that budget would restore those particular cuts that were made in reference to the job layoffs as well as to the Print Shop and other items that we had in there. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it. Mr. Boyles: I’d like to offer a substitute motion because of the split on the Commission on February 11 to take, of the $825,000 that was left over from the COPS debt, that we take $425,000 of that money and put it into the Contingency fund and that we take the remaining $400,000 to restore the majority of the cuts that were made in Column 1 and by doing that, I think that both Recreation and Public Works had taken the highest impact of the hits, and I think they’ve been able to probably come back and put half of that back in by using positions that were vacant and maybe with this additional $400,000, and I’ll let the Administrator’s staff work that out, that that way they might be able to save the portions that are out there that we need because the people that are being cut are the first lines of sight when you come to this city. And I think those are necessary. I think if we’re going to cut somewhere, we’re cutting in the wrong place. And I think between now, and if we go to public hearings in the summer, I think we’ll have time to address those particular items. So I’d like to make a substitute motion that we split the $825,000. Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion fails 3-7. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Mayor votes No. Motion fails 5-6. Mr. Mays: I’ll make a motion that we do not adjourn today and that it be placed on for tomorrow and begin back in the spirit of compromise which I was asking before you started to continue the two motions that I think we may be able to work out something that three fourths of us will vote on tomorrow and that it be put on as a voting session as opposed to a work session. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. 60. Discuss the status of the appointment of the Fire Chief. (Requested by Commissioner Beard) 63. Reconsideration of the recommendation of the Administrator for the appointment of the Fire Chief. (Requested by the Administrator) Mr. Kolb: I am resubmitting the name of All Gillespie, Fire Chief of Yakima, Washington, for your consideration as the next Fire Chief of Augusta, Georgia. We have reached an agreement on a compensation package, and I am proposing that he be paid a starting salary of $92,000. In addition to that, there would be a $4,000 payment into his deferred compensation program. That represents about $2,000 more than you would pay in your normal compensation program. This would be paid to the ICMA Retirement Corporation rather than through your ’98 pension plan. Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of our Administrator for this infinitely qualified candidate for the Augusta area subject to salary and fee negotiations to be conducted by our Administrator. Mr. Hankerson: Second. Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion that we waive the educational requirements for the Fire Chief of Augusta Richmond County and that we allow the four top chiefs in Augusta Richmond County now to be looked at and be evaluated for the Fire Chief of Augusta. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it for discussion. (Roll call on substitute motion) Mr. Beard: No. Mr. Boyles: No. Mr. Bridges: No. Mr. Cheek: No Mr. Colclough: No Mr. Hankerson: No Mr. Kuhlke: No. Mr. Mays: No Mr. Shepard: No. Mr. Williams: Yes Motion fails 1-9. (Roll call vote on original motion) Mr. Beard: No Mr. Boyles: Yes Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. Cheek: Yes Mr. Colclough: Present Mr. Hankerson: Yes Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Williams: No Motion carries 6-2-2. 61. Consider termination of contract with CSRA Waste. (No Action by the Commission in the February 5 meeting). (Requested by Mayor Bob Young) Addendum Item: Mr. Beard requested that the report from the Law Department Study Committee be added to the agenda. Mr. Williams: I second that. Mr. Williams: I move that Mr. Wall be authorized to find those two persons and bringing them in but those two be ratified by the Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard , Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion fails 2-8. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Williams votes No. Motion caries 9-1. 62. Discuss Action Plan for the City. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson) Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion that the Mayor and the Administrator present to the Commission a five- to ten-year plan of action within the next thirty days which would include your vision, your goals and objectives, and that way we as Commissioners can better support you and better serve the City knowing where we’re going. Mr. Boyles: Second that motion. Motion carries 10-0. 58. Consider Ordinance amending the process for appointment of Administrator and clarifying his duties. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Colclough) Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we approve this ordinance which places the Administrator under the direct supervision of the Mayor. Mr. Mays: I’ll second it for discussion. Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we embrace Mr. Colclough’s ordinance but that we change that particular section whereby we authorize the Administrator to hire and fire without a ratification of the Commission. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mays: I’m going to make a motion that we postpone this item and wait until the Legislative Delegation gets a bill out from the Legislature and passed and that we follow the dictates of that bill. Mr. Beard: Second. Motion carries 10-0. 64.LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss Real Estate matter ?? Update on litigation matters Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purpose as stated by the Attorney. Mr. Cheek: Second. Motion carries 10-0. 65. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion to add and approve the purchase of property on Willis Foreman Road for the purposes of a fire station. Mr. Beard: Second. Motion carries 10-0. [Meeting Recesses until February 21, 2002] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission