The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-07-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER May 7, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, May 7, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Ulmer Bridges, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was presented by the Rev. Atwood. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECOGNITIONS: PROCLAMATIONS: Re: International Awareness Day (Requested by Commissioner Colclough) Ms. Eunice W. Jordon Ms. Vickie Howard The Clerk: In recognition of the International Awareness Day, Whereas, fibromyalgia syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivities and Gulf War syndrome are conditions that need to be made aware of; and Whereas, these conditions are characterized by overwhelming fatigue, severe muscle pain, concentration problems, sleep disorders, headaches and other persistent symptoms; and Whereas, in order to shed light on this growing health threat, May 12 has been designated as International Awareness Day; and Whereas, individuals battling to survive these illnesses and the people who care about them are urged to voice their concerns on May 12 and the two weeks preceding to it; and Whereas, the Fibromyalgia Network [inaudible] the originators of the May 12 Awareness Day concept and other organizations in their efforts to vocalize concerns about inadequate treatment and lack of research; Now, therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta do hereby proclaim May 12 as International Awareness Day throughout Augusta and encourage all citizens to observe this day and to increase awareness and understanding of such health conditions. 1 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Speaker: I’d just like to say we appreciate the Mayor allowing us to come today and presenting us with this proclamation. As we stand here today, we look like four very healthy individuals, but we are individuals who had to give up our careers, our roles as spouses and mothers and other things in our community, as community workers, because of what we now have is fibromyalgia chronic pain. It’s a very disabilitating syndrome or disease, but it leaves us with pain all the time. And though we may smile, we are in pain most of the time. I would say for most of us, all of the time. But we have vowed to be a voice in the community, to let everyone in the community know, especially those who have chronic pain, that you are not alone, that we are here for you. So we have two support groups that we’ll be glad to tell you about, that we sponsor in the Augusta area. Thank you again, Mayor, for having us. We appreciate it very much. God bless. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Re: Drinking Water Week (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. Max Hicks Augusta Utilities Department The Clerk: Mr. Max Hicks, in recognition of Drinking Water Week. Whereas, water is one of the most basic and essential needs of all people, and our health, comfort and standard of life depend on the abundant and safe supply of water; and Whereas, water greatly influences our everyday lives through its use in public health, economic development, power production, agriculture, recreation and business and industry; and Whereas, many dedicated men and women make significant contributions in developing, operating and maintaining our public water system; and Whereas, Drinking Water Week offers an excellent opportunity to share information on the quality, quantity and importance of one of earth’s most precious resources; Now, therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim the week of May 5-11, 2002 as Drinking Water Week in Augusta in support of efforts to maintain clean and healthy drinking water for all citizens. In witness whereof, I have th unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 29 day of April, 2002. Mr. Hicks: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) 2 Mr. Hicks: Mayor, we appreciate the interest. Any one of you who would like to come visit us at the filter plant, come and see the water being made ready for you to drink. You’re invited to come. Also, you notice that the awareness has been enlarged somewhat this year. We talk about being sure that the streams are being kept clean and that we make every effort to preserve the water that’s flowing to our communities, as well as preserving the water as we drink it. So we appreciate the interest of each one you. Come visit us when you get a chance. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Just a comment. Mr. Hicks, for many years you suffered from the problems we had with our city’s water system. You took a lot of flak from the elected officials. I’m very proud to say that all of our bond projects are steaming along, on budget, on schedule, the water -- though we’ve stepped back from the brink -- our water system is improving daily. We are providing a quality service to the city of Augusta, and that has all happened under your leadership. And it just goes to show what can be done by a good man who is given the tools to do his job. Mr. Hicks: Let me say we are a team, and I appreciate every Commissioner, and also the press. [inaudible] Now there was a rant that wasn’t quite so complimentary. (Laughter) (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, and Commissioner Shepard. The Clerk: Yes, sir, we now have recognitions, certificates of appreciation. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Brad Owens, Animal Control Mr. David Bell, Augusta Richmond County Coliseum Authority Ms. Jewel Childress, Augusta Richmond County Zoning Appeals Board The Clerk: Would you please come forward and join Commissioner Shepard at the podium? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we all have our appointees that are on the various boards and commissions that we as a Commission as a whole and as individual Commissioners appoint. And these individuals elected for various reasons not to return to public service, and I think it’s time that we pause and celebrate and recognize their contributions to public service and the Augusta community. These are both folks that chose to return and I’m going to recognize them in turn, and if they want to say something when we conclude, that’s fine. But I promised them they didn’t have to. First of all, Sgt. Owens -- you know Brad has been here as a spokesman 3 rd for various matters and he’s served as the 3 District representative for four years on the Animal Control Board. Now he’s going into obviously a different kind of public service. He’s been activated and called to active duty and he will be joining the United States forces in the Middle East in the next few weeks. One week. So we want to thank Brad for his service to this community, and I know that we all think -- our hopes and prayers for his service there and his safe return go with him as he departs our community to serve our country. So we recognize Brad Owens. Jewel Childress has been an appointee from rdrd the 3 District for longer than I have been the Commissioner from the 3 District, and she is completing 18 years -- that’s right -- 18 years on the Board of Zoning Appeals, rd representing lastly the 3 District, and she finally accepted the responsibility and the leadership role on the Board of Zoning Appeals as its chairperson for the past two years. I don’t know [inaudible] Jewel has the encyclopedic knowledge of the ins and outs of the zoning Code, perhaps Mr. Patty would be in that category, but certainly I don’t think there is a lay person that has the knowledge that Jewel has brought to the board and has been institutional memory down there for a lot of cases and has mentored many of the members of that board. So if you would please join me in giving a hearty thank you to both of these servants of appointed public service here in Augusta Richmond County. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Shepard: Brad, we wish you well. Would you like to say something, either you or Jewel? Okay. Jewel? Ms. Childress: No, I’m not going to say anything. I think my board over there is probably taking bets as to whether I’d say anything and they would have won. First, I want to tell you that you have a very good planning staff, and I’m sure that most of you know it that work and are elected here on the Commission. But George Patty and then the liaison we had, Bob Austin, and the secretary over there, Sadie, really fills in a lot, too, doesn’t she, Bob, for whatever needs. They have been excellent and they’ve certainly been most cooperative to me over the years. And the board, two of the members of the board are here today, Mr. Ford and then the new Chairman, Bud Dent. That was a surprise to me. I think they’re the two that are here from my board, and I do appreciate you taking time. I asked Bud if he was going to bill the Commission for the time he left as an attorney from his office. But I do appreciate so much. Bill me, I should say, I guess. And I look around at the people on the Commission and I see faces that I’ve seen over the years and so many things we’ve worked together for the community. I do want to say thank you to them, too, because the Board of Zoning Appeals, they have supported, and it’s important that they do because the look of the city really depends a lot on a board like the Board of Zoning Appeals, as to what you can build, where you can build it, how close to the line, how much density you can have. So the look of the city, this board really is concerned with. So I thank each one of you on the board. I see all these familiar faces that have helped us over the years. I thank you so much. And I’m not doing anything as dramatic as Brad, going to the Middle East. I’ll still be around, but just not at the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you. Mr. Shepard: You’re welcome, Jewel. Thank you again for your service. 4 Ms. Childress: You’re very welcome. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, the Delegations are next. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS: Ms. Natalie A. Brodie Augusta State University Re: Commission’s endorsement of a scholarship endowment fund Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Brodie here? Perhaps she’s running late. The Clerk: En route. Mr. Mayor: We’ll come back to that. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we could, we have some people here for item 47. If we could go ahead and take that one up next. The Clerk: 47. Z-02-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions: 1) that the development and use of the property be for senior citizen housing only; 2) that the site plan match the concept plan presented with this petition; 3) that an emergency entrance to Summerchase be maintained; a petition by Ryan Brashear, on behalf of Dorothy Baker, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-31 (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3146½ Wrightsboro Road and contains 5.38 acres. (Tax map 42-4 parcel 14) DISTRICT 5 (Postpone from the April 16 meeting) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? 5 Mr. Hankerson : Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We met with Walton Rehab. We also met with the community. And we looked at the design. But still yet, we couldn’t come So I make a motion that we deny this request for the senior citizen to a consensus. complex to be built near Valley Park and Summerchase. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been seconded to deny this petition. Would the petitioner like to be heard today? Is there any new information? Ms. Miller: Yes. Mr. Mayor: I would ask, if you would, just restrict your comments today to new information, cause we’ve already had a thorough discussion on many of the issues, so, if you’d like to add something to the record today, please come forward, if you would, please. Again, give us your name and address for the record. Ms. Miller: Okay. Beth Miller -- Mr. Mayor: Hold the microphone down and speak into it. Ms. Miller: Beth Miller. 1119 Russell Street, Augusta, Georgia 30904. Basically, just to point out that we have searched and we have searched and we have searched for an alternate location, and we have been able -- unable to find anything that would suffice, and that by denying [inaudible] zoning will be denying Richmond County another potential 2.3-million plus dollars that can come into our community that can build housing that is desperately needed. There’s already waiting lists that are there now, and denying this is not addressing the current need we have, plus it’s also not addressing the needs that we have in the future. But, and part of the handout, I think the second handout, shows you the funding that we have brought in for the other projects that we have had funded in the past, and this project is needed and the only alternative that we have been able to find is putting it in the middle of a light industrial site, which, you know as well as I do, that that’s not appropriate for a senior community. We believe that we have addressed the concerns that the community had. They, I think, maybe didn’t believe us, but from, you know, our perspective, there’s not really a lot of traffic from a senior community. And I think it would be an addition to their community. So that is my appeal, is that, I think Richmond County needs this, and the more years we wait until we can’t provide such for our community, the further behind we’ll be. Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any of the objectors here that would like to be heard? If you have new information for us. We don’t want to go back over the ground we’ve thoroughly plowed before. Give us your name and address for the record, please. Ms. Jenkins: My name is Janice Jenkins. I live at 1919 Rock Springs Drive, in Valley Park Estates. As Mr. Hankerson has already stated, that the residents met on April th the 30, and many questions were pointed out, asked of Walton Rehab. We asked about 6 property values, we asked about, have they assessed other property locations. The questions were asked, have you assessed other ways to come into the senior citizen complex without coming in and uprooting our neighborhood. The answers were not given to us. And on behalf of the Valley Park Neighborhood Association, the residents were not all informed of the rezoning meeting that occurred prior to this meeting. Many churches, I can say, as well as my own church, which is Beulah Grove Baptist Church, are stepping in at this time and building senior citizen housing for senior citizens. I don’t feel like Valley Park Estates is the only land in Augusta that Walton Rehab can choose from. If you search the history, there are many other areas that Walton Rehab has done this in the past, and it has not been voted on, or passed, should I say. For example, Kingston. Walton Rehab and their representatives were there to answer questions for many confused residents because, when the rezoning flyer that they said they passed out came out, it was addressing location 3146 ½ Wrightsboro Road. When the truth came out, it was that the entrance to their senior citizen housing would be coming right through Ashford Drive, which is currently occupied by residents. It is a dead end street and used by many of our youth as a gathering and playing ground. We were not informed, in the beginning, that this was the property that was going to be affected, per se. So, many th people were confused. There were 32 people that voted at this meeting on April 30. 29 residents voted against having Walton Rehab come into our community through Ashford Drive. There were three people that were for it because they were confused about what the actual repercussion would be. I understand that Augusta, Georgia is a growing city. We need revenue. I’m from a health care background myself. I do not dislike senior citizens. I have a 93-year-old grandfather and a 72-year-old mother. We were made to look like we didn’t want senior citizens at all. What we’re asking is that you do not pass this rezoning issue simply because we want to keep the integrity of our neighborhood up. There are 230 residents there. We have 135 names on this petition that says, we do not want this in our neighborhood. I ask that you consider all of our recommendations, and thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Do the Commissioners have any questions for any of the witnesses, or any comments? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Just a question, Mr. Mayor, and I probably ought to direct this to Mr. George Patty. I remember years ago, this was the Baker place, and Tom Baker and his family that lived there. They also had a driveway and a mailbox on Wrightsboro Road. Did that driveway and access disappear when all the other development was done? Mr. Patty: Well, what happened was that Baker estate was actually split, and the remainder of the property, I believe, went to Bowles Construction [inaudible], and, you know, there are 75,000 parcels in this county, and what happened was, the residual part of the property that’s now in consideration retained the Wrightsboro Road address. It just wasn’t called it. And so, even though there is a Wrightsboro address, the portion of the property that had access to Wrightsboro Road is, you know, is now gone. It’s no longer part of this request. There’s no, the Planning Commission heard this first in March, and we postponed acting on it until April to give the opportunity to the petitioner to find other access, because we recognize that most of the problem, not all of the problem, but most 7 of the problem with this request was the access issue. Now they were simply unable to find any hope that the access be anywhere else, so -- Mr. Boyles: So this property’s basically landlocked? Mr. Patty: Well, no, it’s got frontage on this sub out street, public street, off of Valley Park East. So it’s got access. But it’s of course access through the subdivision. Mr. Boyles: Through a residential neighborhood? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Okay, we have a motion on the floor to deny the petition. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, next item, if we could take up item number 50. The Clerk: 50. Approve 2 one-year extensions of contract between Augusta and CSRA Waste, Inc. and assignment of contract to Advanced Disposal Services Augusta, LLC, contingent upon: (a) Dismissal of pending bankruptcy action filed by CSRA Waste, inc. or court approval of sale to Advanced Disposal Services; (b) Closing of sale of CSRA Waste to Advanced Disposal; (c) Extension of subcontracts with Metropolitan Waste, Inc., Berry Smith Sanitation, Hester’s Sanitation, and A-1 Sanitation, Inc. for such additional 2 years; (d) Approval of the final sales contract between CSRA Waste and Advanced Disposal Services by the City Attorney and Administrator. Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Wall, you told me that this also included the settlement that’s due the City, and I don’t see that in here. Mr. Wall: It is part of the asset purchase agreement, and is a condition of the sale. Mr. Mayor: Do we need to record that with these other stipulations? Mr. Wall: The assignment of the contract basically is conditioned upon the sale of the assets, so that’s part of it. I mean, it would all be accomplished [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any discussion? There’s a motion to approve. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. 8 Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Where’s the Sheriff? I saw the Sheriff on patrol in hallway. I think he’s probably on number 51, if we could move to item number 51. Sheriff, you’re here for item 51? Item number 51? Mr. Strength: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: That’s on the ordinance for the -- Mr. Strength: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, we can go on and take that up. The Clerk: 51. Consider approval of Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2-14 so as to extend the time to vacate premised of holders of on-premises consumption of beer, wine, and liquor premises until 3:30 a.m., with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays (First Reading). Mr. Mayor: All right, we need a motion and a second. Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. All right. Sheriff, did you want to be heard again, or you change your position or anything? Mr. Strength: Thank you very much. I won’t take a lot of time, gentlemen. I have not changed my position, and I’m hoping, before we have a second reading that some of our Commissioners have changed theirs. Extending bar hours is not going to be in the best benefit of Richmond County. And if you’re not thinking of the Sheriff’s Office, and all the extra stuff we’re going to have to do, please think of the citizens of this community, where we decide to keep bars open an extra 30 minutes, and extra hour, or whatever it is for cleaning. You cannot clean in 30 minutes. It’s three to five hours to clean, and that’s why they come in the next morning. What we’re going to have is selling of alcohol, even though the ordinance says, no, you cannot sell alcohol. They’re going to be in there, selling alcohol, drinking alcohol, being out later, having more accidents, and I’m going to be getting calls from all the neighbors around these establishments, that people out in the parking lot 30 minutes or and hour later now, breaking beer bottles and raising Cain. I don’t see anywhere this is going to benefit the community, and I implore 9 that you think about it one more time before you make the final decision on extending these bar hours. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Sheriff. Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say, Sheriff Strength, if folks are out there breaking the law, I’ll be fully supportive of making sure that we close them down or lock them up. I do believe, however, that people that own businesses ought to be allowed certain times to make payroll and do other things. In our discussion on this motion, we did, I did mention that the Attorney would work with you to discuss whether people would be in the establishment or out of the establishment. It’s my intention not to worsen a problem, but to allow business owners that obey the law time to, at least prepare things and leave that afternoon or that evening. Mr. Strength: Well, I assure you we will be bringing them down before you to see what action you want to take, cause if there’s a violation, of course, you know, we have to do our job, we’re going to do our job. Mr. Cheek: Oh, we’re going help you do your job. And if they don’t want to obey the law, we’ll take them and put them out of business. Mr. Strength: Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if my recollection serves me, this was brought to us originally as a revenue raising idea, and now it is not a revenue raising idea. Is that not the status of this ordinance? They’ll be no new -- because we’re only extending the hours of operation and not the hours of sale, there’ll be no more taxable sales than there are in the current scheme? Is that a yes nod, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: No more legal sales, that’s correct. Mr. Shepard: We are not amending the budget for this ordinance? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, you know, I sit here, and I’m all for private business. I’m in business, myself. But when a man comes up and speaks to us who represents over 40 percent of our budget, and if this thing goes south on us, then I know what the Sheriff is going do. He’s going to say, we passed this ordinance, now give me some more people to take care of the job, and the budget’s going to go up. And it’s my recollection that the people that have experienced this in other cities have found that it was not an advantage to the community to extend these hours. So I would encourage my 10 colleagues to accept the recommendation of the Sheriff and that we deny, or don’t vote in a positive way for this amendment. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of Commissioner Cheek, and I look around, and I think about other cities, and we talk about revenue, and we don’t have -- we have not raised taxes, and ain’t nobody want to talk about the fact of raising taxes. But we won’t do nothing progressive to get revenue into this city. If you break a law in Augusta or anywhere, you ought to be penalized for that law you break. And I don’t see how, all over the world, except Augusta, is doing something that’s getting progressive, but we can’t do it. Now, if there’s a different law in another city or in another state that we’re not, they we have not adopted, then we may need to look at that law. But every city I’ve been in, of any size, have started to get aggressive about their thinking. But we are closed our minds. We got more officers in this city, we got better equipment in this city, than probably any city in Georgia. But we can’t even talk about extending the hours for the club owners. I mean, I support it for Mr. Cheek, and I told him, I said, you ought to go for two hours, Andy. But we can’t even look at one hour. Something is wrong. If we got law and we got law enforcement people, and then I hear Bill hear, well, if we do that and it goes sour then we going to come back and ask for more people, something wrong. Something wrong, and I don’t know where to look for the problem there, but there is a problem when all the equipment and all the resources and all the technology that we have gotten and we’re worried about people drinking. People drinking seven days a week, 24 hours a day, somewhere. And I’m not supporting drinking, but I’m not going to be so idiotic to sit here and think that we just going to get the good groove to make Augusta move. Augusta never move until we get open-minded. About everything. Not just about this issue. About everything. And we’re sitting here on our hands, talking like we don’t know what’s going on. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have anything else. I’m in support, Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? We have a motion on the floor to approve this on first reading. All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Hankerson: I have a question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Hankerson: I’m listening to the discussion. We’re voting on extending the hours for cleanup, not the sales of alcohol, right? I want to make it known I’m not voting for the extending the sales of alcohol. But cleanup time, housekeeping time, we don’t want to get those issues confused. I would not support extending alcohol sales, but housekeeping I don’t have a problem with it. And I think that if anyone is caught during 11 this time selling, and they come before us, and I won’t have no mercy on them, if they get caught selling and the cleanup time, during the cleanup time they’ll selling alcohol, then I’m in favor of whatever come up to suspend their license or revoke them or whatever. So the bar owners or whoever need to know that this is housekeeping time, cause I’m not going to support the sales of alcohol. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, the ordinance does not specify housekeeping, does it? You could be extending the consumption time, couldn’t you? Mr. Wall: Well -- Mr. Mayor: Stop the sales, but the consumption time. Mr. Wall: The consumption time -- it’s the time by which the premises have to be vacant of all people. Both patrons, customers, as well as employees. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, and I concur with Rev. Hankerson. I’m not voting to extend sales. But there’s not a restaurant, club, or anywhere else that doesn’t hand out plastic cups at the door under the eyes of officers on special, who allow them to walk to their vehicles or whatever else. I mean, let’s not pretend that this is going to increase consumption. After bars are closing now, people walk out in many locations with plastic cup in hand, with alcoholic beverages. Let’s not be hypocritical about this thing. We are trying to enhance our businesses’ ability to do their job well, and I would hate to shuffle 30 or 40 thousand dollars’ worth of bills, to try to account for that, and do all that and get out. We have restaurants in this city, and again, let’s not be hypocrites. We have restaurants in this city within almost a stone’s throw from this building who have people that live in an establishment where alcohol is served. The restaurants can stay open after the alcohol sales hours have transpired, and, yeah, they can buy a pitcher and sit there a drink it, but the truth is, once alcohol sales is concluded, if we work as partners with these owners, not tolerating law breakers, with our people on special helping people police these activities, just as we did with club tinted windows in some other establishments, we let them know on firms terms that we will not tolerate misbehavior in the parking lots, breaking bottles, cussing, fighting. We can have a better city across the board. But if we defeat this and say we’re doing something to improve things, we’re maintaining the status quo. What we need in the city of Augusta is what this hospitality resource panel will bring is a partnership between industry, government, and other businesses to work together for the common good of the city. And, yes, in the future, it will generate revenue. It will enhance our quality of life. And, yes, we can reduce DUIs. According to national statistics, DUIs have been on the decline because of the law enforcement efforts, not only our Sheriff has made, but other cities in other localities have made. All we have to do is stay the course. You have to be responsible. And, as a government, we expect our citizens to be responsible, whether they drink, or they don’t. This is an opportunity for us to work together as a team, and I hope that we won’t let the skies falling mentality that clouds every progressive effort we make stop this. 12 Mr. Mayor: Anything further, gentlemen? We have a motion on the floor to approve the ordinance on first reading. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. Boyles vote No. Mr. Hankerson abstains. Motion fails 5-3-1. Mr. Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk. We can go back to our consent agenda now. Let’s take that up. We’re going to do the consent agenda next. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 46A. That’s 1 through 46A. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen. What’s your desire with respect to pulling any of the specific items? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to pull item number 17. Mr. Mayor: Number 17, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Beard: 22, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: 22, Mr. Beard. Okay. Mr. Beard: And 23. Mr. Mayor: And 23. Okay. Any others? Mr. Wall, you want to pull an item? Mr. Wall: Request that one be pulled. Mr. Mayor: Which item is that? Mr. Wall: Number 38. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go ahead and pull that for discussion. 13 Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, 42. Mr. Mayor: 42, Mr. Hankerson. Any others? PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Motion to approve a request by Jose L. Lopez for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club El Tucanazo #2 located at 1511 North Leg Rd. There will be a dance hall. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 2. Motion to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between Augusta housing Authority Recreation and Parks Department for Summer Youth Recreation program offered to public housing residents. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 3. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 for $14,974 to Continental Construction for the McBean Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 4. Motion to approve a request by Leesa A. Gray for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Leesa Gray Massage located at 2803 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 5. Motion to approve a request by Pete Chiles for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with St. Joseph HHC Lifeline located at 2260 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 6. Motion to approve a request by Meredith Peacock for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Aqua Spa located at 3637 Walton Way Extension. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 7. Motion to approve a request by Gena Morris for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Gena Morris massage located at 3637 Walton Way Extension. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 8. Motion to approve a request by Jayne D. Rizner for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Jayne’s Therapeutic Massage located at 3540 Wheeler Rd, Ste 203. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 9. Motion to approve a request by Judy Tyler for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Garden City Bar & Grill located at 1124 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 10. Motion to approve a request by Satish K. Kalra for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Bombay Central located at 3112 Washington Rd. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 14 11. Motion to approve a request by Carol A. Diehl for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fox’s Lair located at 349 Telfair St. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 12. Motion to approve a request by William E. Oates for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Cary Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Triangle Food Mart located at 3539 Wheeler Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 13. Motion to approve a request by Kwang Han for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sam’s IGA, Inc. located at 209 Old Savannah Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 14. Motion to approve a request by Joseph T. Blas for a retail package Beer $ Wine license to be used in connection with Mom & Pop’s Grocery located at 2025 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) 15. Motion to approve the Augusta Regional Airport to enter into contract with the Department of Defense for a term of three (3 years for the fuel sales to all federal agencies holding approved AvCard credit card. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 29, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 16. 16. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Mini Theatre, Inc. regarding the sale of the MLK property and the purchase of other property. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) 17. Deleted from the consent agenda. 18. Motion to approve allocation for façade grant for 512 Reynolds Street in the amount of $16,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) 19. Motion to approve the award of $20,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to Light of the World Neighborhood & Economic Development Corporation for Park Improvements in the Aragon Park Neighborhood. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) 20. Motion to approve award of contract to TONYA, Inc. in the amount of $37,993 to perform the update of the 1995 Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments Study. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) 21. Motion to approve retirement of Helen Waldron under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) 22. Deleted from the consent agenda. 23. Deleted from the consent agenda. PUBLIC SAFETY: 24. Motion to approve Indigent Defense Grant for 2003 funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) FINANCE: 15 25. Motion to approve the adoption date of November 19, 2002 (second meeting in November) for the 2003 Budget. (Approved by Finance Committee April 29, 2002) 26. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from Stoney Medical, Dental & Pharmaceutical Society for City financial support to help achieve their 2002 goal to raise $175,000. (Approved by Finance Committee April 29, 2002) 27. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from Project Success of Augusta th for City sponsorship of their 9 Anniversary Luncheon Celebration. (Approved by Finance Committee April 29, 2002) 28. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Administrator regarding the restoration of $120,000 budget cut to the Department of Family and Children Services as follows: $40,000 from Child Abuse/Safe Homes programs; $80,000 from contingency. (Approved by Finance Committee April 29, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 29. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcel 103, which is owned by Les Agner, for a right-of-way in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 312.5 square feet, more of less, of right-of-way. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 30. Motion to authorize condemnation of Tax Map 110-4, Parcel 138, which is owned by Stephen H. Steinberg, for 696.38 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way in connection with the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 31. Motion to approve an Option of Right-of-Way between New Horizon Church of Augusta, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for a purchase price of $5,692.00 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 32. Motion to approve additional 15 foot easement parallel and contiguous to existing right-of-way crossing a potion of the landfill property and to accept preconstruction damage release in the amount of $300.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 33. Motion to approve Pipeline Crossing Agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc. for 42” raw water line. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 34. Motion to approve award of contract to Beam’s Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. in the amount of $684,762.36 for construction of the Tobacco Road 16” Water Main. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-5425110/80110106- 5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 35. Motion to approve award of contract to W. A. Barnett Construction in the amount of $148,109.15 for construction of Avondale Heights Sanitary Sewer. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-5425210/80150115-5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 36. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction in the amount of $382,670.10 for construction of the Kemp Drive Sanitary Sewer based on the preliminary evaluation of bids received. (Funded by Account Number 509043420- 16 5425210/80150040-5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 37. Motion to approve reimbursement of $20,467.50 to Chaplin Company, 1401 Main Street, Suite 115, Columbia, SC 29211 for water main installation upgrade. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 38. Deleted from the consent agenda. 39. Motion to approve a Professional Services Agreement with BMS Enterprises in an amount not to exceed $35,000.00 to provide program management to the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works and Engineering Department. Funding for this agreement is from unused salaries in this program as a result of this position being vacant. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 40. Motion to approve a Supplemental Agreement with CH2Mhill in an amount not to exceed $107,224.00 to provide program and project management support to the One Percent Sales Tax Program in the Public Works and Engineering Department. Funding for this agreement is from unused salaries in this program as a result of these positions being vacant. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 41. Motion to approve contract to purchase 25.6 acres for the Butler Creek Greenbelt and expenditure of Greenspace funds for said purpose. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) 42. Deleted from the consent agenda. PETETIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 43. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held April 16, 2002. 44. Deleted from the consent agenda. APPOINTMENTS: 45. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. J. W. Solum to the Zoning Appeals Board representing District 6. 46. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Dietrich Oellerich, Jr. to the Canal Authority representing District 8. 46A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Chris Cunningham to the Augusta Aviation Commission and the reappointment of Mr. N. Staten Bitting, Jr., to the Augusta-Richmond County Library Board representing District 7. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, did we add 43 to the consent agenda? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sure, we sure may. Mr. Shepard: And 46A? Mr. Mayor: 46A. Add those to the consent agenda? 17 Mr. Speaker: They’re already on. Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. Mr. Beard: Which ones? Mr. Shepard: They’re already on. I was [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 17, 22, 23, 38 and 42. Are there any others you’d like to pull? Mr. Speaker: Like to pull 44. Mr. Mayor: Pull number 44. Okay, all in favor of the consent agenda, then please vote aye. Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion. Motion carries 9-0. [Item 10] Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I vote No on Sunday sales. Mr. Mayor: All right, first item, Madame Clerk, is item number 17. The Clerk: 17. Motion to approve the salary reclassification plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I had a conversation with a number of people since this action was taken, and I think there is some confusion on the part of some And I’d like to employees. I think there is confusion on the part of some of the public. make a motion that this pulled from the agenda and that it be sent to our work session this Thursday and that that work session consist of only this particular item for clarification on some questions that have been raised. In the meantime, I’d also like to include that we ask every Commissioner that has had some feedback on the plan that was approved in committee, that they submit those to the Administrator or Assistant Administrator so that they can be prepared for the work session on Thursday. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Is there any objection to sending this to our work session on Thursday? None heard, so there is unanimous support of that motion, Madame Clerk. 18 Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Our next item is number 22. The Clerk: 22. Motion to approve subject to approval by the Administrator and Attorney: (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 29, 2002) (1) Lease Agreement between Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation and Augusta for 4,000 square feet for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department for a rental term of three (3) years at a rental rate of $15.00 per square foot with the 3% annual increase for each year of the lease. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, maybe I missed something along the way last week, but it was my understanding prior to this that our fire service would also be housed in the Laney-Walker area where this building is being constructed, and I would like to know at this time why that is not on this particular item, including the fire service. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you respond to that, please? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Beard is correct. It was originally submitted as including the Fire Department. But after Chief Gillespie’s review and our discussions, it was determined that this was not appropriate for even temporarily placing the fire headquarters, and we asked that it be deleted from the lease. The alternative space, which will save additional funds until a new headquarters is built, will be in the Hatcher building, so we are requesting that that be deleted. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: First of all, you know, I think that decision had been made prior to anyone coming on board at that time, and you know, it was going to enhance the area out there. We thought that these agencies could go out there. This has been talked about for a long time. And personally, I don’t see any reason why we can’t go along with that at this point. We had made overtures to the people who are involved in this, that this is what we are going to do. And I think it’s kind of wrong for us to back out at this particular time and say that we can’t do this at this particular time. This was only for a th period of time anyway. But we’ve done it in the past, we’ve done it on 10 Street, it can help revitalize an area down there. We need to do this in the Laney-Walker area. Those people are counting on that to participate in this venture. We have made verbal I’m agreements to that effect. We have worked with ANIC out there to do this, and going to make a motion at this time that we include the Fire Department out there as originally scheduled. 19 Mr. Williams: Second that. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and second. That would be to adopt item 22 as captioned and include the Fire administrative staff. Mr. Wall: Well, as originally submitted, and this is what was negotiated with ANIC, it would be 2,000 square feet for a rental term of one year at a rental rate of $15.00 per square foot, but there was an option because it was temporary housing. So that’s the way the agenda item was originally worded. [inaudible] ANIC. Mr. Beard: Well, I think ANIC agreed to that, and I think we ought to follow through on what we agreed to. And not a last minute change. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to hear from Chief Gillespie [inaudible] for the reasoning, you know, for them feeling that we should change this from this location. Is there, I mean, there may be a legitimate reason why. Mr. Gillespie: Certainly. Al Gillespie, Chief of Augusta Fire Department. Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I understand, and we in the Fire Department understand, the need for a presence in the Laney Walker area. Our concerns had to do with timing, for one. Certainly, we feel like we need to do something sooner than having the building, starting a building, to work, and then moving again. So we’re looking at a couple of other options, moving into an existing structure, to move us, move our administration out of the current location to save some money for our taxpayers. Secondly, the size of the area there would be insufficient for us to move our entire command staff there. Mr. Williams: You’re saying that the square footage is not going be enough? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Gillespie: That was part of our concern. That’s correct. The square footage and the parking availability. Mr. Wall: On the square footage, that is what I was told to negotiate, so that’s the reason it’s 2000 square feet. In mean, they wanted to lease more space, so that can be worked out, if there’s a desire for additional space. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Williams, that’s one of the reasons. The other is that occupancy wouldn’t be until December, and, even though they may pick up the difference between what we’re currently paying and what we would have to pay as of October 1, it’s still twice as much as they could pay if they move out earlier. Currently, we’re paying about $30 a square foot. They’re looking to move out of their current facilities sooner, if possible, than September into cheaper quarters, which would save money. If they stay until December, they still would be paying the $30 a square foot, and 20 ANIC would have to pay the difference between the $40 a square foot we’d have to pay and the $30. So they’re still losing money. We’re trying to avoid that cost. Mr. Mayor: When is the Fire Administration building program to be completed? Mr. Gillespie: We met with the neighborhood in the area by the airport last week. We’re hoping to have funds available within the next two years [inaudible] to begin that process. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see. Mr. Kuhlke, you want to speak to this one? Mr. Kuhlke: No. You asked my question. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Two years? Mr. Gillespie: Yes. That’s what we’re hoping for, within two years to have the funding available. Mr. Mayor: Have the funding available or have the [inaudible]? Mr. Gillespie: Have the funding available to start that process. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further? Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, then, George, we’re only about a few months, and what you’re - - in reference to what you were saying, right? Mr. Kolb: On that -- Mr. Beard: The time moving in between, if we’re talking about going to -- Mr. Kolb: Well, if possible we’re going to try and get out before September. Mr. Beard: Okay. And when will ANIC will have that building ready? Mr. Kolb: They’re building will not be ready, at the earliest, December. Mr. Beard: Okay. That’s what I’m talking about. We’re only talking about a few months. What is the difference, if we’re trying to enhance an area, what is the difference th with a few months involved, and all of this, when we did it on 10 Street for years? But we won’t debate that. Just the statement that is being made and we have the motion on the floor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? 21 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like, before we vote on anything, to maybe back up just a second because, and maybe I’m the only one that’s unclear on the amount of space that’s actually needed. Could I get that, for starters, number one? And I’m hearing, because I think, in all fairness to Chief Gillespie, he’s walking into a situation that’s basically has been preplanned to a certain extent. And I think that, out of fairness, in terms of if it’s not going to be adequate, in terms of the spacing. I’m just dealing with the spacing, right now. If that’s not enough, maybe what I’d like to hear from Mr. Cooks at this point. He’s sitting here, as to how much would be available, because, naturally, if this is not going to be adequate, which questioned by the Chief, but particularly, I assume that, if I’m going move in, and I need x number of, you know, square feet, and this is not going to be there, then obviously that person is going to looking for somewhere else. Whether it’s the Hatcher Building or not. But I think that ought to first be cleared out, in terms of on the spacing, because in fairness to him, whatever amount was allotted to talk to ANIC about in the first place, should have been done professionally in terms of how much space would be needed anyway. So I’d like to get on the floor, whether from Mr. Cooks, Mr. Kolb, how much is going to be needed, and how much did you all talk about in the very beginning? Because this shouldn’t have gone on in terms of a verbal conversation, back and forth, that this is where this was going to go, and then, all of a sudden, that be a no-no, starting with the square footage. So I think we need to hear a clarification on square footage because if theirs is some available that wasn’t talked about, then let’s talk about it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, Chief, could you respond to the Commissioner how much square footage is, what do you need? Mr. Gillespie: Certainly. I can help address that issue. If you recall the other evening when we were out at the neighborhood association by the airport, they were talking about a 10,000 square foot building combined with a community center, where the Fire Administration would take almost 8,000 square feet of that. That’s really the ultimate, which is what we would prepare for. We are currently in a space, if I recall, and I’m working off of memory here, and short term memory, I guess you would say, and about 4.5 to 5000 square feet with our Fire Administration. What our intent to do is to combine --is that correct? Mr. Speaker: I think so. Mr. Gillespie: Okay, thank you. 2000? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Gillespie: And I may be wrong, like I said. I’m working on memory. But our intent is to combine the administrative offices, prevention, and education into the same area. Mr. Mayor: That’s your long term? 22 Mr. Gillespie: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Your immediate intent is to relocate what you have in the Riverfront Center into temporary quarters, until your Administration building is completed? Mr. Gillespie: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: All right. Here’s the question, is, how much square footage are using now in the Riverfront Center? Do you know that, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Gillespie: I do not. Mr. Russell: 2000. Mr. Gillespie: 2000? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell says 2000 feet, Mr. Mays. I think that’s the answer Mr. Mays was looking for. And Mr. Wall indicated that he negotiated for 2000 feet in the lease agreement. Is that correct, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: That is what I was told that we needed. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Yes? Mr. Beard: We have Mr. Cooks there, and I’d just like to follow in what Mr. Mays has said. I would like to know, in the negotiation, did y’all come to a conclusion th on this could house the present administrative that’s on 10 Street? Mr. Mayor: Robert, if you’d give us your name and address for the record, please? Thank you. Mr. Cooks: Robert Cooks. 2065 Heckle Street. When this originally started, the assumption was that the Fire Administration and Housing and Development would be tenants. Were proposed to be tenants in the building. The space needs analysis was done by the city and provided to us. Now, our assumptions on our building design included the square footage for both offices, which includes the 2000 square feet plus the 4000. The building is actually 17,000 square feet, so more square footage is available if you want it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Now, Mr. Mays had the floor. Let’s go back to Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: That’s what I was trying to get out, because I think you had one situation in terms of being fair to the Chief, and the Chief is trying to answer because he’s been presented with a situation of what’s long-term there and we had a good meeting over there the other night, you know, with the residents [inaudible]. But I think there was 23 some things that were unclear to a point of what actually was going to be taking place now, whether you needed 8,000 to 10,000 square feet right now and to do that, or whether you needed 2,000, whether you needed 4,000, and that’s what I was trying to get out here on the table right now. The problem that I think it poses, Mr. Mayor, is that we can, we can do whatever we decide to do. How much are you planning to rent, George, in the Hatcher building? In this [inaudible]. Let’s just say you’re not going to Laney- Walker to the new building, and you’re going to rent there in the Hatcher building. How much are you going to rent in the Hatcher building then? Mr. Kolb: It was my understanding we were going to just move the offices from the Riverwalk Conference -- Mr. Mayor: Riverfront Center. Mr. Kolb: Yes. Anyway, from that office building to the Hatcher building. And that was 2,000 square feet. That was my understanding. Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, Mr. Mayor, and I guess maybe the question again, the unasked question, is that if we are still -- the question about the need for a certain amount of square footage right now become a moot question, if you’re talking about 2,000 now where you are, 2,000 wherever you go, and 8,000 to 10,000 when we do build in the Highland Avenue facility area, because if you’re going to rent 2,000 across the street, whether it’s the 2,000 you’ve been talking about for the last year in terms of trying to enhance that area and what you were doing -- now I realize that’s why pencils have erasers on the other end. It’s America and folk change their minds. But I think we’re putting the Chief in a little bit of an unfair position from the standpoint I don’t know what way Mr. Administrator this was posed, but if you’re talking only about rental space, on where he is right now versus rental space where he going, then to me the lack of space is not a condition that we ought to be talking about. I think you ought to move to the second [inaudible], Mr. Mayor. If you’re talking about money and what’s worked out in there, that really should be the only thing that we’re talking about, because wherever we move, if we are moving to Regency Mall, you still only talking about at this time 2,000 square feet. So I think that’s a little bit unfair to put him in that predicament and have to deal with that, and I think really the parties that have been negotiating this and put it together ought to be the ones who are talking because they know more about it in terms of where this was going. But I don’t want to put [inaudible] something that’s going to, say, be substandard, something that’s going to put them there in a situation where they cannot operate professionally at all, would never do that. [inaudible] what he needs to do. But I think if you’re talking about 2,000 square feet and only 2,000 square feet, then the reasons why, Chief, that that was put on the table from the very beginning. And probably if we go back a decade and some of us have had our druthers, we would not have been paying the money that we were paying over there on the river to house either Housing and Neighborhood Development or the Fire Department headquarters. But it was done to enhance a project that was there, and where you’re moving to on a proposed building on Laney-Walker, if that was to go through, it would still be far cheaper than 24 what we’re paying right now. That’s [inaudible] came up, to even get there and talk about it from the beginning. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Wait a minute. Mr. Kuhlke has asked to have the floor, so let’s hear from Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: I forgot what I was going to ask. (Laughter) Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I was kidding. It seems to me, Al, this one to you, that you are three years, roughly, away before you move into a command center. Mr. Gillespie: That is correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Two years before you start, maybe a year to complete it. Mr. Gillespie: That is correct. Mr. Kuhlke: So what would be wrong with doing what Mr. Beard is saying, is to lease 6,000 square foot from Robert over there, move it down there for three years, and then move into the command center? Mr. Gillespie: And I don’t have a particular problem with that issue. I guess what has been -- I think I’m starting this [inaudible]. I see it as part of the confusion. We did look at and have looked at the Hatcher building as a particular option for this, which is going to cost us money in the continuing process of this. What our ultimate conclusion was, was that was not going to be conducive for us also because of the amount of cost that it would take for us to move into that building. What our intent now is to move back to the Station 3, or the headquarters station off of Reynolds Avenue, move us over there as a temporary space, which is not going to cost us any more money than we’re already spending, except for a couple of minor adjustments within the building itself. So our intent is to save the money there by moving back into that space in the interim. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I guess I need to ask, is it critical that we approve this today? I’d like to review it and bring it back. Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Cooks is trying to get a signed agreement with us so he can go to the bank; is that not correct? Mr. Cooks: That’s exactly right. 25 Mr. Beard: I don’t see why this should be held up, George. We’re dealing with the same thing. We’re dealing with numbers. The numbers are there, and with all due respect, I understand the Chief is just coming in, but this is a decision that has been made over a period of time, and I’m sure the Chief ought to be able to make the adjustments, necessary adjustments, the work has already been done, and let’s move ahead, and I’m going to call for the question. Mr. Mayor: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Beard, but Mr. Williams has been trying to get the floor’s attention. Mr. Williams: I just want to make one comment, Mr. Mayor, and that is, being Chairman of Public Safety, and I understand the Administrator is at liberty to do some things, but those changes that are being made on a issue such as this one, that we put some things together to try to bring some revenue, bring some life back to that area, should have been brought to us, should have been mentioned at least in Public Safety meeting. But the Chief said that they got an option to go back to the old Number 3 on Reynolds Street. That’s not what we agreed. That’s not what this board decided to do. And I think if we going to make some changes, then we ought to be in on those changes when they are made, at least prospective changes, changes that we like to make. But I just think that Mr. Cooks is here, he wants to get this going, we know how that area need reviving, we know that it could be a good thing for the community, for the time they going to be there. They are not going to be there permanently, but just for the time they going to be there, that’s going to bring some life, that’s going to bring some signs of growth in there. This city got to grow as a whole, not just one side. So Mr. Beard has already called for the question, I’m ready to vote, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll go ahead and vote on the motion from Mr. Beard. That would be to approve the captioned item in the book with the addition of the 2,000 square feet for the Fire Department. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Mr. Mayor: What question is that, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: My question is, if I heard Mr. Gillespie correctly, and certainly we want to support Robert in his efforts down there, but if he says that we have the space available on Reynolds Street, it doesn’t make sense to me for us to spend money when we don’t need to. Mr. Mayor: Well, did you want to make a substitute motion? Mr. Kuhlke: And I’d like to make a substitute motion that we accept the recommendation that came out of committee. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? 26 Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion. Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion on that motion? Okay, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays, then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I tell you what, what we bringing the salaries back to the workshop, and I don’t mean any disrespect to Mr. Kolb, but we need to give the Fire Chief money than anybody else, and I’m going to tell you why. It may be a little bit of sarcasm when I say this, but it’s real strange -- and I’m glad that you found the space that you’re putting them over there and that will work on Reynolds Street, but for us to stay or for the Department to stay, cause I hadn’t met him [inaudible], but to be over on the river for over a decade or near a decade and to spend the money that was spent over in there, at the rate that it was spent, and if we had room after as many fire chiefs as we done had, as many Administrators as we’ve had, several Mayors that we’ve had, then I tell you what, somebody need to go down on the third floor and present themselves to whoever put forth that idea to spend that much money over there on the river in the very beginning. Because then somebody is wasting a whole lot for a long period of time to pay it out. And that’s no disrespect, Chief, but if you’ve discovered that’s down there to a point of why the Fire Department from the old city of Augusta moved down there in the very beginning, then somebody needs to answer for that. I have a real problem if all this discussion has come up to a point of where we are. If it’s [inaudible] to be over there, there’s enough room to be there, to live for the next three years, then if y’all got that much room over there, then maybe we don’t need to think about building another 10,000 square feet on there, gentlemen. [inaudible] whole lot real quickly in this last week or so, and it’s just amazing how folk and their terminology changes when locations change and what you may be dealing with on one project that helps a community, and maybe depending on who the benefactors are and who rents and who then does not now rent. So it’s just a comment I’m making to a point that after all this time, that I think if that’s been discovered, then George, if y’all have never found this out, then you need to get the Chief involved in far more things and everybody needs to get out of it. But I think you need to fully involve him totally in how all this has come about. But if they’re comfortable over in there, if that’s going to work and going to push them over there for the next two to three years, then I probably may not fight him going over there. But we need to go through with an inventory maybe on everything we’ve been doing to do it. But it’s real strange, just real strange, gentlemen, how all of a sudden, after all that has come to an end, and we’ve spend a gazillion down there on the river, that all of sudden now you had this space there on Reynolds Street to do it all the time. And I guess like old folk say, somebody lied. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Maybe the new Fire Chief can keep us from building a Judicial Center. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? 27 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I was ready to vote, but Mr. Mays brought another comment that brought a question to my mind. And that is if we, if we found that space, we might not need to vote on Mr. Beard’s motion, but we may not need to build the facility at May Park, I’m sorry, at the Highland Avenue Park, either. Because if we got that much room and there was a staff and a switchboard at the old fire station on Reynolds Street -- there was a switchboard and supply room and a bunch other equipment that the Chief had and the Chief’s secretary, and along with the Battalion Chief, I’m sorry, the Assistant Chief’s office, so we may not have to spend the money to build the Highland Avenue facility. Maybe we need to all go over there and take a look and see what’s there, because -- Mr. Mays, I appreciate that. That conversation, I thought about that. When they moved off of Broad Street, there was the Chief, the Assistant Chief, and the secretary, and his secretary there. So we may have saved the city a bunch of money. We may be able to not, to look at those plans, Chief, and cut the administrative part of that off. And move that facility from the river over on Reynolds Street, right there where the Fire Department will actually be operating out of. But those are my comments, Mr. Mayor. We don’t have to vote, as far as I’m concerned, on the other issue. We just need to take somebody over there and look and see how much space over there. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, and then Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I don’t see how we’re going to be able to resolve this on the floor. I think we’ve got four or five different trains of thought going right now. I know there’s two motions on the floor so we can’t do anything about that right now, but I would like to see us send this back to Public Safety and let somebody start over and see where do we go from here, because I just don’t see any resolution to it right now on this floor, and bring it back two weeks from today. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thought you’d forgotten me from earlier. Mr. Mayor: I had forgotten you, and I’m sorry. Mr. Cheek: That’s okay. It happens to the best of us. If indeed we do have the room on Reynolds Street, which I give the Chief credit, he’s been able to find. On behalf of the taxpayers of Augusta Richmond County, it’s irresponsible the act that we took by locating people in that office to begin with and spending all that money. But again, it’s like “As the World Turns,” it’s okay when you do it in certain locations for certain interest groups, and it’s not okay when you do it in other locations. And it’s amazing to me that Augusta has been operating for this probably for a hundred years, and I think it’s high time it stopped. If there is adequate space there, then we don’t need to be building additional facilities, whether it’s a Judicial Center, an office for the administrative staff of the Fire Department or anything else. We need to be about saving money wherever we can, and certainly located in that Riverfront Center was one of the biggest wastes of 28 taxpayers’ dollars from the beginning, and whoever was responsible for that needs to be recognized for their contribution to the drain on Augusta’s budget. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have heard several discussions on it, and I’m a little bit lost and confused on some things. We just had a community meeting about an administrative building, and the Chief just came on board. I think at this time the best thing for us to do -- I make a motion that we table this for further discussion. Mr. Shepard: I second that motion. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to table, and that means we can bring it back up before the end of this meeting. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: If you don’t revisit it, it just dies at the end of the meeting. Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. There’s a motion to table debatable, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Motion to table debatable? Mr. Mayor: The Chair needs a ruling on that. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] It’s not debatable. Mr. Mayor: It’s not debatable, so we can go ahead and move with the vote to table, and it’s been seconded. All in favor of tabling this item, then please vote aye. (Vote on motion to table) Mr. Cheek, Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion fails 5-4. Mr. Mayor: So we will continue discussion on the substitute motion. Mr. Colclough, you wish to be heard on that? Mr. Colclough: We’ve been talking about this issue for some time, and we came to resolution on what was going to happen. And all of a sudden, in midstream we’ll change horse. Either we follow the recommendations that [inaudible] in committee or we deal with this issue to get it off the floor. We’re sitting here talking about [inaudible] 29 back and forth, it’s not going anywhere. You made a decision in committee, brought it to the floor, and brought it here. [inaudible] back and forth with it? [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m in agreement with the Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Mayor, that we ought to decide on this today. I can’t understand all this, all of a sudden we are confused. We’ve been talking about this for over a year. I mean decisions have been made. So we either do it or we don’t do it. We don’t have to send it back to a committee. What are we sending it back to committee for? We know what’s out there. We know we are going to enhance an area, okay, by putting the Fire people out there. This has been decided over a period of time. It’s been talked about. We are at the point of just drawing up a contract. So what is so confusing about that? And then people come in and say well, we want to change it at the last minute. Well, that may be good, but what are we going for? We just proved to you that they have the space out there that can house the administrative part of our Fire Department. What is so confusing about that? I just don’t see the confusion. I think we just want to prolong something cause we don’t want to go along with it, and you know, I’m not going into the whole history of this thing, but everybody up here knows the history of that, so we don’t have to talk about that. Because you know the history of that. So I think we ought to -- to me, we ought to vote these motions up or down. And if we can’t do that, then we ought to go on with the motion, because these people out there in the Laney-Walker area, ANIC, they are waiting on this. They’ve been waiting on it for some time. So either we need to -- if we can’t decide on the Fire part of it today, we ought to just go on with the other and let them have it. But I think they deserve something out there. They deserve to know what’s going to happen out there. And we ought to be men enough up here to make a decision today, and that’s all I can say. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the reason -- this is based on my recollection of events -- but the reason we occupied the Riverfront Center to begin with was to ensure full or near- full occupancy, which was to provide some type of an economic support for that new structure. This city has a long history of providing economic support to downtown and Laney-Walker and many other areas of this city. It would be consistent, then, if we are trying to improve areas that ANIC is working in, and that we support those efforts. Again, I will repeat what I’ve said many times in the past. We don’t need to isolate support to just one area. If we’re about economic development using government personnel as a place-filler in these offices and so forth, we need to use that in areas that are in need, certainly as a reward for the excellent record that ANIC has had -- we need to follow through with what we told them we would do in the first place, and that is by locating our offices there. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? 30 Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I apologize for getting confused on something that was discussed before I was even a Commissioner. That’s the only thing I’m saying. I was confused about the matter. So I’m ready to vote. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, it is easy to get confused here sometimes. All right, let’s go ahead and vote on the substitute motion. That’s from Mr. Kuhlke, and that’s to approve the item that’s in the agenda book captioned number 22. That’s the committee recommendation. All in favor of that item, please vote aye. The substitute motion which is the committee recommendation, which is item number 22 as it’s captioned in your book. That’s the substitute motion from Mr. Kuhlke. Just HND. No Fire Department. The Clerk: HND. No Fire Department. Just HND space. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion fails 3-5-1. Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us back to the original motion. Any further discussion on the original motion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. During the course of when this thing first -- and I’m going to vote for the motion that’s on the floor. I raised those issues for a point of record, that I raised, and I know they will be so noted. But my question at this point is -- I got my left eye following what’s going on in front of me at the stand, while the discussion was going on. I got my right eye following down in the well down in there, Mr. Mayor. And why I can go ahead, and with a good conscience go ahead and vote for this in the whole package in the way it was intended to go in the very beginning, is that I voted a few minutes ago to table only for the purpose that I thought there needed to be some clarification, quite frankly, that the Administrator to give back to us or the Administrator giving to the Chief in this matter, because if [inaudible] feels the issue out here about the square footage from the very beginning, and if I’m looking out my left eye, the Chief honestly making his statement, which I know he was doing. But I’m looking at the Administrator and y’all down in the well shaking off the fact that this won’t work in terms of going over to deal with this on Reynolds Street, and I’m not hearing that in terms of anybody speaking up. And if he hadn’t been brought up until the other day to shake it off, then Lee, I’m going to go ahead and support your motion that’s out there, to do what had been talked about. Because I think in all fairness, if there was going to be a total change in it, if it would not work, if this was something that was going to cripple and that we should have known about it or it’s like a marriage, speak now or forever hold you peace. If it’s something that won’t work, then the Administrator needs to be talking about that out here right now. Not to a point in terms of where I’m trying to follow body language or [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, I’m through with it and I’m going to vote for the motion that’s out there. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the Administrator. 31 Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we are willing to go along with the ANIC proposal. However, there is a need for some additional square feet for the , so we would like the Fire Department in that building. There is a capacity problem flexibility to negotiate for additional square foot as necessary up to 4,500 square feet. If we can’t get that, we still will move forward. We would like to have that flexibility. Mr. Mayor: And that’s 4,500 for the Fire Department? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: In addition to the 4,000 for HND? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Make sure we have it [inaudible]. Mr. Beard: I can amend that, Mr. Mayor, to that effect, and give them that flexibility. I don’t mind including that in the motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the language from the Administrator? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I need more clarification on it before I accept that. First of all, Mr. Mays asked the question earlier how much did we need, and how much do we have now, how much would we need? And all that been said, 2,000 square foot. I don’t understand and maybe we going to put a fire station there or something else. Where is the other footage come from? What else is coming on that I don’t know about as a member of the Public Safety Committee? What else we going to need this space for? I’m tired of voting on stuff that get passed up here that I don’t even know myself, and I know the taxpayers don’t know. So what else is the other additional space going to be needed for? Mr. Kolb: Well, as the Chief indicated before, he was assessing to consolidate some other administrative offices, and I’m assuming that that is what he is trying to do with the 4,500 square feet. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s not assume, Mr. Kolb. Let’s ask him what he wants to do. Let’s try to answer the Commissioner’s question. Mr. Gillespie: Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate that again. Certainly we have maintained our administrative offices in the riverfront building. What we haven’t had there is room for supplies, room for the conference area that we may have, our parking space are still over at the fire station, and I appreciate the concerns that have all been addressed. I think they’re all valid concerns, and I understand the need for being involved in the neighborhood. I think that is important, too. Don’t get me wrong on this 32 issue. The -- Commissioner Williams’ suggestion that do we have the space, can we make it work, coming over and take a look at it? I would invite all of you to come over and look at that particular building. What I would say is we would make a severe inconvenience on our people over there for a time, but I thought it was worth the effort to save the money. No question about it, it would be a squeeze, we’d have to tough it out for a couple of years, but I thought it was worth the effort. Mr. Mayor: Chief, the question from Commissioner Williams was what else are you taking over to the building that requires you to use twice as much square footage as you’re using now in the Riverfront Center? Mr. Gillespie: I think the announcement was up a little more than twice. That way we can also consider whether we are going to bring public education and our -- excuse me, public education and spokespeople to that area, also. They are currently in Station 3, Reynolds building also. Mr. Williams: Chief, you mentioned about storage area, and Commissioner Mays brought a fact to the table that we got storage area, places over there on Reynolds Street. But this is a temporary location that we know is going to be temporary. So you wouldn’t want to put all your eggs in this basket right here, I mean I wouldn’t assume, I mean you would want to -- right now you’re trying to get by until you can move back to either Reynolds Street, which I’m going to push for, or either in the new facility that we talked about over in Highland Park. So you wouldn’t you need all of that right now, would you? I mean I can understand you needing additional space, but you wouldn’t need the entire 4,500 feet; right? Mr. Gillespie: I don’t know that for a fact right now. I guess that’s the point, is we want to be able to look at the option of that. And you’re right, this is a temporary option for us. And certainly, I don’t think that the Reynolds Street station is the long- term answer to this thing, as we stated when we met with the community the other day out by the airport. Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s all, Mr. Mayor. I’m ready to call the question. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, Mr. Shepard had indicated he wanted to speak. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Looking back to the minutes of the committee, this was an add-on item and it came forward with the ANIC building to be allocated space to the Fire Department and HND. And then Mr. Wall says it’s here on the lease agreement with ANIC for the relocation of Housing and Neighborhood Development. We need to get approval of this and they can move forward with the construction of the office building. That’s the financing argument. Andy, you asked is the Fire Department not moving? Mr. Kolb says the Fire Department is looking to move temporarily to less expensive quarters than the Hatcher building. Then the committee moved to approve with the comment of the Attorney and the Administrator, seconded, and passed unanimously. Now shouldn’t we try to save the money by allocating part of this 33 headquarters facility in ANIC and part in Reynolds Street? I mean this -- is this where we’re going now or to quote Mr. Zetterberg, my predecessor in this seat, I am confused. So help me out. We had unanimous vote there just a week ago, now here we are with an entirely different scheme. I’m told we’re voting for it, and I know my memory is failing. I don’t remember voting for it. Perhaps I just wasn’t in on the deal. But what I’m trying to say, can we not go partly to Reynolds Street and partly to ANIC headquarters? Would that not work and save some money? Mr. Gillespie: Absolutely. We can do whatever it takes. Believe me. And we will work with the community, we will work with the neighborhood association. We will work with the other groups within the government to make this thing happen. All I’m doing is bringing you the options, and the reason I came in on the tail end of this is this just happened to be a timing issue for me. Not to confuse the issue, and that was certainly not the intent at all, nor to overstep our bounds. Certainly I believe with Commissioner Williams that things like this do need to go through the Public Safety, and we did have a representative that talked of this issue at the last Public Safety. Mr. Shepard: But with the amendment not being allowed by the objection of Commissioner Williams, then we would not have the flexibility in the current motion to do that; is that correct? Mr. Gillespie: [inaudible] Parliamentarian. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams cannot block an amendment to a motion. We can vote on it and the majority of the body would amend the motion. Mr. Shepard: But I thought when you asked for unanimous consent to the amendment, we didn’t have it. Mr. Mayor: I asked if there was any objection. There was objection expressed, so I was going to call for a vote on the amendment, and I haven’t been allowed to do that yet because the debate’s continuing. Mr. Shepard: So we would have to, Mr. Mayor, we would have to amend the motion in order to utilize the Reynolds Street and ANIC office building? Mr. Mayor: We would have to amend the motion to get the flexibility that the Administrator asked for to increase the amount of square footage in the ANIC building. You would need to amend the motion to use space at Reynolds Street. That’s not an issue here. Mr. Kolb: If I can, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? 34 Mr. Kolb: To clarify, currently we are using -- the Fire Department is using 2,000 square feet in the Riverwalk building. We have for sure 2,000 square feet in the ANIC building. But there is a desire to have an additional 2,500 square feet. What we’d like to the flexibility to do is to get as much of that 2,500 square feet as possible to consolidate some of the other administrative functions or whatever if possible in the ANIC building. Mr. Shepard: And how much are you going to use, if any, in the Reynolds Street building? Mr. Kolb: None. Zero. We would be out of the Reynolds Street building when the ANIC building is ready. Mr. Gillespie: Are you referring to the River Street? Mr. Kolb: Riverwalk conference building. Mr. Gillespie: Reynolds Street. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. Mr. Shepard has the floor. Mr. Shepard: Well, I don’t know that it’s clarified one bit, Mr. Williams. I’ll just vote no on everything. Mr. Kolb: Reynolds Street. Mr. Mayor: We had a motion, we had an amendment to the motion and I need to poll the Commission again. Is there any objection to amending the motion to be consistent with the request from the Administrator to negotiate for up to 4,500 square feet for the Fire Department? Any objection to that? Mr. Williams: No objection, Mr. Mayor. I got my clarification. I had one question, and the question was I had not got an answer to it, and that’s what they going to be used for and nobody been able to tell me yet. They need to space but they don’t know what they going to need it for. Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, the motion will be amended as stated by the Administrator. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Mr. Beard: Can we hear from Mr. Cooks? He had something that he needed to say. Mr. Mayor: You want to add something to this, Robert? 35 Mr. Cooks: The intent of the design of the building included the 2,000 square feet from the Fire Department. In addition to that, we have a community room which is probably about 1,200 square feet. I’m currently in negotiation with a financial institution to lease a portion of the first floor to bring banking services to the community. If I expand the square footage for the Fire Department, it will jeopardize my lease with the financial institution. I can expand and eliminate the community room, but I think those are needed. I would like to negotiate the expansion of space with the intent that the Fire Department will be in the building as much as possible. So in other words, if they need 3,000 or 3,500, all the specifications I received on the space needs told me 2,000 square feet. The assumption I’ve been operating on for 12 months. Okay. That’s where I am right now. I can’t build a building until I get the leases in place to make it happen. Mr. Mayor: Well, I think the intent of the motion would be that we would try to negotiate additional square footage over and above the 2,000 with you, Robert, consistent with what you have available. Mr. Beard: Right. That was the -- that’s why I accepted this, only -- it’s not a mandate, it’s something if it’s available -- if it’s not, we still got the 2,000 square feet. And it just opened -- I just wanted to get it opened and some flexibility. That was the addition. But it’s not a mandate that you have to do this. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s go ahead and move forward with the vote on the motion. This is the original motion. Does anybody need it read back? Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the motion back, the original motion back to Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, too. I just want that for the record. I mean I’m not the only dummy up here. (Laughter) The Clerk: The original motion was to approve subject to the Administrator and the Attorney the lease space for the Augusta improvement for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department for a three-year rental at $15.00 per square foot to include the Fire Administration 2,000 square feet for one year at $15.00 a square foot with an option, with flexibility given to the Administrator and the Fire Chief to negotiate up to 4,500 feet for additional space. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll go ahead and take a vote on the motion. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion with amendment) Mr. Shepard votes No. 36 Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll move along to the next item, which is item number 23, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 23. Motion to approve authorizing the Animal Control Director to promote pay grade 36 and 37 positions without Commission’s approval and change the position of Administrative Assistant I from overtime non-exempt to overtime exempt. (Approved by Administrative Service Committee April 29, 2002) Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, the only reason I -- I don’t have a problem with this except that I needed -- I was reading the back-up and I wasn’t in committee meeting, so I needed to know if [inaudible] some decrease in the grade levels and I was wondering if there would be any decrease in the finance. Mr. Speaker: No financial loss to anybody. The pay level decreases, I think, were continued for two weeks? Yeah, the pay level part was taken out and continued for two weeks, so you’ll get a chance to revisit that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in support of Animal Control as well. I got no problem with the pay grades and raising up with the Department Director. But what’s going to happen to other departments? Will this same thing happen to any other department who wants to do a pay grade or pay raise or promotion? Will everybody be under the same ruling or do they have to come back to this board? I think we -- I’ve got no problem if that’s what we are going to do, but what happens to everybody else, Fred? Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, what we’re going to be presenting Thursday at the workshop is a program in which there will be steps allowed for individuals like this that meet certifications in different department. And we’ll revisit that Thursday for some other areas. So what we’re doing here is just sort of -- this was planned prior to the initial workshop on the compensation plan that we did last week, so you’ll hear some more about that Thursday [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: So shouldn’t we put them all together and bring everybody the same time? Mr. Russell: That would be fine. We could do that, too, sir. Mr. Williams: I mean that way everybody be on the same sheet of music. 37 Mr. Russell: Right. Like I said, this was planned when we were anticipating the compensation plan being presented later on in the summer. We brought that forth earlier. That’s why this was already on the docket. If we’re going to do this Thursday, that’s fine, too. We have no problem with that. Mr. Williams: So, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we bring this back when we bring everything else back on Thursday so that we all, bring them all at the same time, and that way won’t be any confusion. Mr. Mayor: You want to refer this to the work session? Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then -- yes, Mr. Colclough? I’m sorry. Mr. Colclough: I’ve got one question to ask. Fred, are these new positions, or are these positions now occupied? Mr. Russell: The positions we’re talking about, the promotions up? Mr. Colclough: Yeah. Mr. Russell: Are occupied positions. Mr. Colclough: They’re occupied? So these are not new people coming in? Mr. Russell: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, then, to refer to the work session on Thursday, please vote aye. Mr. Hankerson votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item is item number 38. Let the Clerk read the caption and then Mr. Wall. The Clerk: 38. Motion to authorize the lease of approximately 5,500 SF in the Hatcher Building to house the Law Department, Facilities Management and additional Administrator’s staff. This also includes relocation of the Print Shop to the space currently occupied by Facilities Management in the Municipal Building Annex. The estimated cost for construction, data and communications to accomplish this move is 38 $49,000. The County Attorneyis working on the lease terms. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) Mr. Wall: The reason I requested this be pulled is to ask for some modification of that. As originally presented, the lease agreement called for occupancy of that space to begin on July 1. However, the lease agreement on the District Attorney’s floor, for the st fourth floor, was to begin on May the 1. We have not completed the additions and As a result of the changes that need to be made for the District Attorney to move in. discussions with Hatcher MAU, it was agreed, subject to the Commission’s approval to move the day for the fourth floor back to June 1 and to use the date June1 also for the Law Department, Administrator’s staff, etc. and in addition to that, in order to meet that schedule, an additional $35,041.76 from SPLOST Phase IV needs to go in order to construct bookshelves for the District Attorney’s office on the fourth floor. So I would ask that a motion be amended to include that expenditure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, will these bookshelves be such that they can be moved when the DA moves into the Judicial Center? Are we building with some portability here? I mean, that would seem to make sense, if you’re going to make that kind of investment. Mr. Wall: We can certainly direct the fabricator to do that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we need a motion to approve this with the amendment specified by the Attorney. Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Questions? Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as we look at perhaps turning this building into a Judicial Center, we’re going to have to move several other departments and so forth. I wanted to just get some clarification on the funding source for this. Is it from the renovation fund for this building? Is it from some renovation fund for the DA’s office? Exactly where is it coming from, and how does this impact potential other projects and so forth? Mr. Wall: The $35,000, if that’s the question, would come from SPLOST Phase IV, which is the Judicial Center. And the $49,000 could not come from SPLOST because that, in my opinion, is not related because it is new office space that’s for the law office. We’re not vacating anything, and it’s not related to it. That funding has been identified. Mr. Cheek: Just for clarification, then, in the future, when we start relocating other departments out of this building, the judicial funds SPLOST money would be available to accomplish those moves? 39 Mr. Wall: It’s hard to answer that question in the abstract. Mr. Cheek: Well, we’re doing it today. We going to do it the same way in the future now. Mr. Wall: If you’re relocating offices that are related to that, and freeing up space for use of this building as judicial space, yes. But, for instance, with regard to the print shop and the Facilities Maintenance, we’re moving one non-judicial function out, Mr. Acree’s office, and moving in another non-judicial function, print shop. And, in my opinion, you can’t use the SPLOST funds for that. We’re not renovating it, it has anything that will enhance the use of this building for a Judicial Center. We’re adapting it for a print shop. Mr. Cheek: But vacating premises, vacating these premises to make room for judicial functions, then those would be covered charges? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Cheek: Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item number 42, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 42. Motion to approve authorizing the Public Works Director to get actual costs associated with the installation of sidewalks on the Glenn Hills Middle School side of Glenn Hills Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 29, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson? You asked for this item be pulled? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is, this item here concerning the sidewalks that needs desperately to be constructed on Glenn Hills for the safety of our children and pedestrians. We have been discussing this issue now for several months. We’ve the had the Board of Education involved in this, and I have here that, where the recommendation for sidewalk constructions in the vicinity of schools that was sent to us by the Transportation Department, the Board of Education in the Glenn Hills area, in the south Augusta area, Barton-Chapel area. Our priorities, two, three, four, five, and six is on the list for sidewalks. And it’s a very desperate need. We’ve met with Ms. Smith. Is Ms. Smith here? Okay. It’s a desperate need for us to begin the project because children life, or is threatened there with the traffic on Glenn Hills Drive. So we 40 want to go ahead with this project and so we maybe can save the life of a child or a pedestrian. I had a friend that was killed on Glenn Hills Drive, worked two jobs, got up early one morning jogging. And a car hit him and left him dead. And I don’t want to see this happen again, and we just, I mean, it’s been July that [inaudible] I have, and we still just being in discussions about it. I think, I would hope, that we would go ahead and get the cost of this and get the project started that it would save the life of a child or pedestrian. It was said at one time that a plan was to widen Glenn Hills Road, but I think that’s probably not necessary now because of the construction that’s taken place on Glenn Hills Drive. We have a new subdivision, Truluck, is being constructed, as I speak. We have Breeze Hill. We have Glenn Hills Middles School, which is the largest, I think the largest, middle school in the school system. The attendance there is larger than some of the high schools. Also, we have a multi-million dollar church was built there on Glenn Hills Drive. We have a cemetery that on Glenn Hills Drive. We have Glenn Hills High School. I’d like to make note, too, that traffic, pedestrian traffic, has increased because of the fact that Glenn Hills Middle School is a championship basketball team school. Glenn Hills High School just won the state championship, and a lot of games are going on, and a lot of activities going on on Glenn Hills Drive. The church has a lot of community activities now, that’s started. We have people walking to and from Breeze Hill, Barton Chapel Road, the trailer, mobile home park there, and even the Super Wal-Mart. People do not have transportation. I’ve passed by during the night and seen them walking to and from work. And this is something that we need not to continue to overlook. And, as a new commissioner, my patience is really being tested. So I’d like to see us really go ahead and do something about this project of getting the sidewalks on Glenn Hills Drive. Not only Glenn Hills Drive -- I’ve stated that numbers 2, 3, 4, and 6 priority list that I have here are other concerns, also, after we do these sidewalks. So Glenn Hills, that area, is top on the priority list. And I’d like to see something done about it. Mr. Mayor: All right. You can do something about it, Mr. Hankerson, by making a motion. Mr. Hankerson: I move that the sidewalk construction -- well, first, before I make the motion, I like to hear from Ms. Smith about whether or not she has the costs planned, and then I’ll make a motion. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith? Ms. Smith: Mayor Young, Commissioners, Commissioner Hankerson, as was stated in the committee meeting, the subcommittee meeting, that we had -- it would be necessary for us to go through the formal process to get bids from the construction community as to what the cost would be associated with the installation of sidewalks along Glenn Hills Middle School. The items that you have before you that were presented in the letter back in July for the purpose of developing a capital improvement plan indicates, and that information was presented to the Commission, that approximately $536,000 would be necessary in order to complete the sidewalks for those area that were identified. When the list was sent to the school, we informed them that we had just over $200,000 in which to do work. Their priority list identified all of the areas that they had 41 on record that they were currently requesting that sidewalk be installed. However, we have informed them that we do not have adequate funds for all of those sidewalks. I believe that total came to almost $2 million. And so what we’ve done, and as we’ve been instructed by the committee, is to focus on getting these sidewalk activities put into place for the Glenn Hills Middle School, and it’s going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of two to four weeks before we have numbers that we can bring back, other than those estimates that have already been provided, which, again, are in the neighborhood of $536,000. Mr. Hankerson: Since our last meeting, where are you with this now? Has someone already been out to look at it? To give estimates on it? Ms. Smith: We had someone to go out and look at it last summer, and that’s where we came up with the estimate of $536,000. Mr. Hankerson: No. I mean, since our last committee meeting. Ms. Smith: Have I sent the same staff out to look at the costs for sidewalks for the Glenn Hills Drive area? Mr. Hankerson: At our last committee meeting, we’re looking for costs. Ms. Smith: $536,000. Mr. Hankerson: That’s what it going to cost to put one side up? Ms. Smith: It’s going to cost approximately $300,000 to put the sidewalk in on one side. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So what is going to take two to four weeks to do now? Ms. Smith: The information that we have provided to you is information from our staff, based on a standard linear footage calculation, based on the best information that we have on hand. However, we have not gotten information from any of the contractors as to what the current costs are for constructing sidewalks, more specifically, what it will cost to install sidewalks in that area. We do not have that information from the construction community. Mr. Hankerson: Is that is what it’s going to take two to four weeks to do? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, did you want to make the motion, or --? Mr. Boyles: Just a minute. Mr. Mayor? 42 Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyle? Mr. Boyles: Ms. Smith, how much money do we have right now to do that with? Ms. Smith: We have just over $200,000. Mr. Boyles: And you’re saying we probably need about $330,000, $330,000, $340,000? I get that right? Ms. Smith: Somewhere just over $300,000. Mr. Boyles: There’s not place we can identify additional funds from? Ms. Smith: What I’m giving you is a staff estimate of what it’s going to cost. Until we have numbers from the construction community, we can attempt to find $100,000 now, but if they come back and there’s an additional cost associated with it, then we have to go back and attempt to find those additional funds. We can be conducting those efforts simultaneously. Mr. Boyles: So you’re telling, we need to go ahead and get the costs estimate first? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. Mr. Boyles: And then locate the funding? Ms. Smith: Or be working on them simultaneously. Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: The motion that passed the committee was to see the actual cost of the sidewalk on one side of Glenn Hills Drive. And I think the estimate for that was about $300,000. Ms. Smith: That’s the rough estimate. Mr. Mayor: Right. And so that’s what’s been forwarded to the body today to authorize the Public Works Director to get the actual cost associated with the installation of the sidewalks on one side of Glenn Hills Drive. Okay. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: In our last meeting, we decided that we wanted one side constructed. I thought, I was under the impression, you’re saying now we have $200,000. I thought you said you had something like, it was almost twice as much. And we decided to do one side. We didn’t have enough to do two sides. The Administrator recommended [inaudible] where we have enough to do two sides, and you didn’t have 43 quite enough to do two sides, so we said one side, let’s do one side. We had enough money to one side. Am I hearing now we don’t have enough money to do the one side? Ms. Smith: We still have just over $200,000, which is the same amount that’s been on the books since [inaudible] sales tax. Mr. Mayor: You have almost enough money to do one side? Ms. Smith: Correct. Mr. Mayor: But you don’t have a firm price on doing one side? Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: You have almost enough money to do it based on an estimate? Ms. Smith: That is correct. And what we’ve requested is to go out, through our purchasing process, and come up with what an actual cost would be for this. This would allow us to also expedite the process because, if the engineering is not required, and I don’t believe it will be, other than to address whatever drainage related problems we have, we would be able to move forward with putting a contract in place. Mr. Mayor: All right. So the estimate could come back showing you have enough money to do one side. Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: But it’s not going to be as expensive as you thought. Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: That is a possibility. Likewise, it’s a possibility, it could come back and be twice as much as you thought it would be. Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, maybe I’m oversimplifying where we going from here, but one of the prime reasons that this was pushed forward, and we met several times with Board of Education trustees, and, of course, the committee that’s worked with that are the three of us on this end. And, if it’s going -- this may be oversimplifying it a little bit, but if we’ve gotten not all the money, but if we got six figures of money, and we’re talking about less than a mile sidewalk on one side, and if I’m hearing, we’re going to need, still, another two to four weeks to get actual numbers, is there a possibility that, at the same time we are searching to do that, on the utmost professional level to get this slab of 44 concrete run down less than a mile, and is there any way -- I guess, first, let me ask this question. Do we have still, I guess, from repair work or anything else we replaced, do we have equipment on hand that we have in the County contracts, whether it’s Public Works or anywhere, do we have any equipment that can actually lay down sidewalk? Ms. Smith: Actually -- Mr. Mays: And I guess what I’m trying -- we could do it ourselves to a point where, if we got, with supervision, if we got inmates building parks, if we got them dealing with, pouring concrete to deal with the total renovation of Jones Pool and everything else, on a straight slab of concrete, and we got a quarter of a million dollars, can we maybe simplify this to a point of breaking it down? And what I’m looking at, if it’s going to take two to four more weeks, Mr. Mayor, to get some information, then, at the same time we’re seeking that information on that level, can we maybe seek internally that, if we’ve got some equipment, that if we can get a price where your department in terms of overseeing where the engineer and [inaudible], deal with that, and, if we got some folk, whether they be prison labor supervised, or anybody else in terms of trying to eradicate a safety problem? With a quarter of a million dollars, it just seem like to me, that we ought to be able to in between that, if that doesn’t work -- what I’m looking at is to have more than one hole to crawl in. [inaudible] for us to be back here in four weeks talking about the same thing, because I got two freshman committee members that’s on this committee with me, and they are two very good, active, concerned freshman. And they push this old man real hard. And I’m trying to get something solved here to a point that, if you got that kind of money over in there, I don’t necessarily need to have, I don’t think, Mr. Mayor, that, you know, this isn’t a skyscraper we’re fixing to build. It’s a sidewalk. It’s less than a mile. It’s going to be just as wide. It may curve a tiny bit, but we ought to have somebody that can professionally, legitimately, pour a piece of concrete from one corner at Barton Chapel Road and Glenn Hills Drive back down past where the people are walking at. That’s all I’m trying to get to, and I think, if we can -- And like I say when I started this, maybe oversimplifying the matter, but if the engineering doesn’t come back to where we want the numbers, can maybe we do it in another way? Then we get it done. To get it worked. And I think that’s where the committee’s trying to get this thing off square one and to get it going. Am I too much oversimplifying that, gentlemen, to a point of just getting this done and getting it done right? Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: No, you’re not. You’re not. I mean, I’ve seen sidewalk all over Augusta, and it seems like this project, it seems like this is the first time that we laying sidewalks. It’s so difficult, seems to be so difficult. And I don’t see why it should be so difficult to come up with the amount of money that we have and a way to lay these I put in the form of a motion that Ms. Smith would go ahead and proceed sidewalks. with getting the estimated costs for laying the sidewalks on Glenn Hills Drive. Mr. Mayor: You want to get two prices? One for down one side and one for both sides? 45 Mr. Hankerson: I just want one. If I get one side now, it may a save a life. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. There’s a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: If the make of that motion, and [inaudible], and I want to get it done. And quickly. Can we expand that to a point that whatever numbers what she gets that she also comes back, whether it be in-house, out-house, or wherever [inaudible] to have some numbers that, if that -- and I’m looking at it hypothetically, if the engineering comes back and it’s going to cost us with the astronomical number, then she have a backup plan to go on and get this less than a mile paved and get it done? Cause I don’t want to be back here in two weeks and we back where we are. That’s what I’m trying to get us off of. We can have [inaudible]. Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. I can certainly do that. And if the Commission authorizes me to go ahead and [inaudible] the contract, I don’t have to come back at all. Authorize up to $300,000. Mr. Hankerson: Uh-uh (no). No, ma’am. We just want you to do what you normally do when you ask to lay sidewalks or other things. I know this is not the first time you’ve had to lay sidewalks, and I’m not asking you to do no more for me than you doing for anybody else, but I want you to do just what is right. Mr. Mayor: Would you like her to bring the cost information back to the committee or back to the body here? Mr. Hankerson: I want it to come back to the body. Next time it come back, I want it on the floor, to make a motion whether we going to lay these sidewalks on Glenn Hills Drive or we not going to lay it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I share Rev. Hankerson’s concern for the safety of this area, and I want to see this project go. One thing I’m concerned about is, many of us have other areas that we fought for for years to have sidewalks put in that have life safety concerns. I just would like information on if the cost of installing these sidewalks is over and above our available funds. Would there be any impact on existing planned projects that we have outlined in our Public Works menu of projects? So if you could bring that 46 information back, too. I know we have a finite amount of money, and so if we, if it costs more than what we have allocated, it’s going to come from somewhere. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: In light of what Andy just said, in support of Glenn Hills and that sidewalk, but Hankerson mentioned something about being a rookie Commissioner, and trying to get some things done and some things moving. But there’s an area that’s been forgotten about in this, probably more than Glenn Hills and everything else, and I just want us to be mindful in that. We getting aggressive, and that’s good. But we going to get aggressive again. I want you just to keep it on the table cause don’t think you -- you got an old neighborhood that’s been here all this time and been looked over. It don’t have sidewalks, don’t have even -- you got to walk in the ditch. And they talking about schools, [inaudible] name of Wilkerson Garden. And I commend him, and I think we ought to go on and do this. But we need to get aggressive and do some other things for this city where the people been suffering for so long time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, if I could just ask you about a question of procedure before we move to the vote. It just seems to me that, if you’re trying the price on doing something, then you just ought to be able to do that internally, and the staff ought to be able to get the price, and we shouldn’t need to bring that before the Commission to authorize somebody to get a price on doing something. Mr. Kolb: I agree with you one hundred percent. Mr. Mayor: It just seems to me, it delays the whole thing, drags the process out when you bring stuff to the Commission, you just wasting time that you could have spent getting the price. Mr. Kolb: I agree, and that has been happening -- I have asked -- we have put out a general policy that, when we, that the staff is authorized to go to bids and bring bids back to the Commission, but not to ask the Commission for permission to go to bids. Mr. Mayor: It just seems like that would speed up the process to get sidewalks and other things done a lot faster. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item is number 44. The Clerk: 47 44. Appoint voting delegate for the 2002 Georgia Municipal Association’s Annual Convention. Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, do you have a nomination? Mr. Boyles: I’d like to nominate Mr. Lee Beard. We move that Mr. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Okay. Any other nominations? Beard be nominated by acclimation. Is there a motion? Mr. Shepard: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any objection? None heard. Mr. Beard, congratulations. All right. Let’s see. That takes us down to item number 48. The Clerk: 48. Motion to deny a request by Bruce Gorsak for an Arcade License to be used in connection with American Gameroom located at 2834 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved denial by Commission on April 16, 2002 and approved for reconsideration at the May 7 meeting). Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is the petitioner here? The Clerk: We tried to notify him on three different occasions. We were unsuccessful, but he was at the last meeting when this was approved for reconsideration. Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, let the record show the petitioner is not here. All right. Yes, sir? Mr. Speaker: What are we going to do? We going to deny it. Or we going to debate it, or what? The Clerk: It’s already been -- Mr. Mayor: It’s already been denied. The Clerk: It was denied, and then it was approved for a reconsideration to reconsider the denial at this meeting. Mr. Wall: But the reconsideration was passed [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Do they need to vote to deny it again? Revote? 48 Mr. Wall: And it does not meet the district requirements, and I would urge the Commission to deny it. Mr. Mayor:We have a motion, then? All right. Mr. Colclough: Yes. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve received a letter from this individual, stating, and I’ll have to paraphrase, but that he had researched things and has basically found that it would be just as beneficial to him to maintain to maintain his internet café status and that was his intentions, based on what I recollect from the letter, so, he was not interested in pursuing the Arcade License. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to deny. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. That takes us to up to number 49. Mr. Wall, are the parties here? The Clerk: 49. Hearing on possible revocation or suspension of business license of Craven’s Salvage Yard. Mr. Wall: The parties are not here, and, however, they are on standby. I passed out earlier during the meeting, letters from the License and Inspection Department, and there are two different agreements, one dealing with property located at 2000 Old Savannah Road, and then there’s a second property at 2535 Mike Padgett Highway. As a result of a meeting that occurred this morning, and discussions between License and Inspections and Mr. Craven, it’s our recommendation that the Commission accept these compliance agreements as relates to both pieces of property, in lieu of going forward with the hearing. And that’s our recommendation, if the Commission desires either parties to be here, then I can call them, and they will be here before the meeting’s over. Mr. Mayor: All right. Well let me defer to Mr. Cheek. This is an item that he’s been pushing forward. Mr. Cheek, how do you want to handle it? It’s up to you. 49 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I had, I’ve marked up a little bit of what our Attorneys brought back to us. There’s just a few items of language that should be changed. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to have the parties here and let’s talk about it? Mr. Cheek: We -- the thing about this on especially the Old Savannah Road, this is an individual operating a business without a license. I’m very concerned. We had a similar scenario with Mr. Ballard and Goldberg’s, where we got a rosy song about, everything’s going to be taken care of. Mr. Wall, this would be a legally binding agreement? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I mean, we putting it in the record, and, I think, if you read the last paragraph of the second letter, where he agrees to forfeit his business license if the Mike Padgett address agrees not to contest it. Mr. Cheek: Well, the thing, though, I want -- again, we got a really good song about Goldberg, and there’s some things that [inaudible] instead of, I agree to remove any scrap tires, I think that should be all scrap tires. Also, if rezoning for this property is not approved, at the last [inaudible], I agree to remove all vehicles, there should be tires, debris, trash, and mitigate all soil contamination that is a result of operating this unlicensed business. I would feel better if we had that language in there. It’s a little more specific. There’s probably no telling the untold cost that we’ve inherited, as a result of Goldberg’s. And Goldberg’s didn’t start as the Goldberg’s we know today. It started as a, probably as a similarly run establishment. Also, on the Mike Padgett, on the Old Savannah Road property, as well, the liability for environmental impact, is that, if this business should decide to close its doors and pull up its tents and get out of town, are they liable for all environmental impacts and cleanup costs for these sites? Mr. Wall: This agreement doesn’t affect that, but, I mean, in general, as the property owner, they are responsible. And whether they got the financial wherewithal to take care of it or not, I can’t answer that. Mr. Cheek: One other thing. Lastly, the top of the page, one of these pages, it talks about June 10, 2002 for the removal of the vehicles that are stacked three high. It’s quick becoming an auto salvage yard and became a scrap metal yard some years ago. It says, if the removal process is not begun by June 10, 2002, adequate documentation is to be provided as to the reasons why removal did not begin. Completion date is September 3. I like that closure date, but I just hate -- and we talked about this on the phone, and I’ll try to get it right this time. There’s too much wiggle room in there for an excuse document to be produced as to why we didn’t get the grinder in here. I’d really like to see some contract information that that is contracted, it will be coming in. I just for the life of me -- I look at Gibbs’ when I drive in from the plant to come to meetings, and they operate a very successful salvage yard. They have a nice barrier up between the road and their facility. They rotate their stock. They inventory their property. It’s done in a very neat and orderly fashion. It doesn’t have to be, as junkyards go, completely ugly and look like something out of one of these Terminator movies. We really need to get a 50 handle on this. This is a very deep concern for the people of South Augusta, and, again, I wish we could tighten up on some of this wiggle room and some of this language to make sure that this individual’s held completely liable for the mess. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I have a question about this compliance agreement for 2535 Mike Padgett Highway. It states in the caption that the top of it -- I understand the total compliance with the conditions is required within 120 days, September 3, 2002, of today’s date. Yet you go down to the closing paragraph above the signature line, says, I understand that, should I not be in compliance with the conditions on that date, I will forfeit that I’m challenging the business license. But it doesn’t way what will be done to clean up the mess that’s on the property. Mr. Wall: Well, that is -- all we were going to do today, effectively, was to either suspend or revoke the business license. That is the penalty for failure to comply with the terms of this agreement and the time schedule and will accomplish what would be the potentially be the result of having the hearing today. The only thing that we’ve done is given him a schedule of 120 days to do certain things which is beyond what we could have demanded today. And the only thing that we could have demanded was a revocation of the business license. That would not have affected any cleanup of the property. If in fact he does not do these things, then there are various remedies that we have available to us, including the Civil Magistrate Court, which has not accomplished what we want. We have the opportunity to institute a civil action to seek a mandamus. Of course, EPD could come in and use its enforcement powers to recover the costs of cleanup, etc. So what they’re doing is effectively avoiding the potential action that this Commission may have taken today insofar as revoking the license. And I hope that responds to the question. Insofar as any -- some of the comments that Mr. Cheek made, Commissioner Cheek made, our scrap tire ordinance allows 100 tires on the property, so long as it’s within a confined container. State law is 500 tires. Our scrap tire ordinance is more restrictive than the state law. We adopted the ordinance in 1999 that reduced that number down to 100, but they have to be in a contained facility. And so, you know, he could have 100 scrap tires as long as they’re contained. Mr. Cheek: I also [inaudible] rotational language in there that says he can’t permanently store them, and we could mark tires to make sure they’re not there forever. Mr. Wall: I think that we have got a good compliance agreement. I think, to bring the parties down here and to negotiate further, we would not significantly accomplish anything. It would run the risk of having this agreement fall apart. This was negotiated primarily by Sean Hargus and Rob Sherman and Mr. Craven himself. And I did not participate in all of these deadlines, although I met initially with both his attorney and Mr. Craven. And then left Rob and Sean and Mr. Craven to negotiate this timeline. And, while I can get them down here, I urge the Commission to approve this as is. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I have another question. This is in respect to the 2000 Old Savannah Road property. From reading this, I get the impression that there will be no commercial activity at all on the 2000 Old Savannah Road property until all the work is 51 completed at 2535 Mike Padgett Highway. So, actually, there could be no commercial rd activity there until September 3, if he goes to the outside. And, but there’s no timeline for applying for the zoning? Mr. Wall: He currently has a pending zoning. Mr. Mayor: But he’s going to withdraw that. This calls for rezoning. Mr. Wall: He’s going to withdraw that, so he could not come back and get his property rezoned until he’s complied with the September 3 requirements. Mr. Mayor: So what happens to the property between now and September 3? Mr. Wall: It sits there. Mr. Mayor: It just sits there the way it is? Mr. Wall: Yes. That’s not the biggest problem. The biggest problem’s on the Mike Padgett property. Mr. Mayor: I understand what you’re saying. Mr. Wall: They’ve got cars there, and it’s not fenced as it should be, but I mean, that’s not the biggest problem. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Wall: Jim, I -- Mr. Wall: The scrapped tires are, and he agrees to remove those. Mr. Williams: Jim, I can support what you’ve got here, but I got one thing that I’d really like to see done, and that is to put a timeline or a day period, a 60 days’ period, to know what’ going on. Cause if you wait 120 days, I mean, I think, at 60 days, you want to have something reported back, either from the inspector or somebody to know that something’s being done. This has been going on for years and years and years. And I think we’re being very lenient to go along with this, but there ought to be at least a 60 day reportable time. Mr. Wall: And, actually, we already got 30 days already built in for several of the items. I mean, you got June 10 dates for certain things to begin. Again, Commissioner Cheek, insofar as the removal process, that in the --what? Sixth bullet -- Mr. Mayor: I think Commissioner Williams is asking for reports back to the Commission. 52 Mr. Wall: We’ll be glad to provide that. Mr. Williams: Yeah. From the inspector, so we’ll know if they’re still doing or not doing what we agreed to let them do. Cause if they’re not doing it, then we need to take further action here. Mr. Wall: We’ll bring a report back, whatever that first meeting is in June. Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think that the parties involved on our side have made a good effort to bring this to this point. Probably this has got enough votes to pass. Out of protest, I’m going vote against it. Mainly because, 2000 Savannah is not a problem. I mean, yet. But it’s getting to be one, and it’s going to be a breeding ground to serve as a launching pad for another bunch of mess. Now, I said this in committee, and I went along with us dealing with working with these folk. We dealt with a delay in terms of respecting the judicial process that attorneys give with each other. I had no problems with that. But now, the coming here today, and I don’t want to do anything to mess up your agreement, cause I think you got something working on Mike Padgett Highway. I think, yeah, that needs to be done. But I think there are some loops as relates to 2000 Savannah Road. That which the Mayor has already stated, but then some. One, you got a business out there that’s made itself a business without being in business. That’s number one. And they in the junk business. They know how to move junk. They know how to get junk from one place to another. They got it from out there to downtown. Now the problem I got at this point with it, is that, if you got a business that has found a way to successfully avoid the State of Georgia in court for several occasions, they going challenge your agreement. So look forward to that. They going challenge that. I just think, to a point, that the 2000 one is already out of compliance. We don’t even start talking about getting it zoned. I can get you enough troops in here to a point that -- I hope nobody crazy enough to put another junkyard on Savannah Road. To zone anything to deal with that. You got it banned in the vicinity of Oak’s Creek, where you got running water that’s going throughout there. You fixing to add some more tires and more mosquitoes to Old Savannah Road out in that area. The point being, if they already started putting something in an area where it shouldn’t be, I think something in this order ought to say to them, since they know how to professionally move junk, then start moving junk. Now, maybe that’s down in here in some of the other language where the June 10 thing start, but I don’t think it ought to start getting down to talking about 120 days. I think they need to be out there and dealing with getting that mess off Old 53 Savannah Road. I also think the second thing that needs to be done -- we need to join a closer partnership with the State on this one, and we need to ask for an immediate inspection of that property once that junk is moved off Old Savannah Road. I think that ought to be in the agreement to a point that they immediately inspect it. Two reasons. It doesn’t need to wait in order to deal with it, because if it immediately inspected it, they still have an ongoing business on Mike Padgett out there. So therefore, if you done environmental damage to New Savannah Road, you won’t be three to four years down the road talking about when you going inspect it, or when you going get to it. This is a very serious issue, to a point of where people have been damaged over years. Sometimes, we don’t find these things out until decades later. We’re spending money on changeovers in Public Works right now because we got a canal level down there that’s totally damaged. That we’re still paying the price to deal with from people who have polluted it. I think you need to send a good message over in there. 120 days, you can get a lot of junk out there in 120 days. Because if you’re not starting that day until September, to deal with that, then that gives them breeding ground to stack up more mess out there on Old Savannah Road. So I think -- he got enough out there? Mr. Wall: I agree. He’s got enough out there. Mr. Mays: Okay. I think in the order, then, he needs to start moving what he’s got. Because you’re saying you’re conditioning it on zoning. I mean, by some hook and crook, one of us could get mad with the other one down here one day, and it might pass. Which I hope it doesn’t. But the point is, if it’s out there, it’s messed up now, it need to start getting it moved. I agreed with you on the first part of you order. I think you done a good job with it. I think, for the satisfaction of them avoiding a hearing, it’s more of a convenience that we’ve extended to them, that I think when you miss the court six or seven times, it was so stated by State authorities in the committee meeting, then you basically are finding a way to try to skirt around the law in a legal way in order to do it. So out of that protest, I cannot -- I applaud you for what you put together, but I can’t do it, cause I think it need to be packing up junk on Savannah Road just as quick as you see a Sanford and Son rerun. They need to get that mess out from out there. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you like to make a substitute motion? Mr. Mays: Well, I don’t want to totally mess his agreement up, what it stands for, but I think that needs to be added to it. Or to make a new motion would just simply deal with that part of it. I don’t think the allowance ought to be 120 days of that. If the business is over there, out of business, no license, no nothing, and you’re just dumping, and you going to give 120 days to somebody and ask them to court on six or seven occasions? That’s a hell of a long -- too long anyway, to start with. So if [inaudible] will deal with the 2000 part, I think it need to be over there in a shorter period of time, something like 10 days to start moving. And I’m not being facetious when I’m saying 10 days. If you got the equipment to go get junk and pile it up where you at, if you got the equipment to go get it and drag it somewhere else, you want to have the equipment, and also we ought to make the demand that they move it from where it is now on Savannah Road. It’s not licensed to be a business. It’s out of business. Cause it doesn’t exist. So 54 why we contending with that? And I mean, people in that area have had to live up and down there, with junkyards, forever. And it’s not just that one. You got another one down the street, you’re fixing to tear it up, you’re fixing to do millions of dollars’ worth of work on the road project, mainly because junk and debris and dirt have tore up Old Savannah Road. So that’s where I am. I can’t for it. I don’t want to mess your whole agreement up, Jim, but I just think it’s a little bit, it’s a little bit too liberal for me. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. The agreement that we have, albeit not as stringent in some areas as I would like, I think the staff has put a lot of time and work into it. We’re not precluded, if we see no action, as our milestones click by, from taking additional action. Is that true, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Cheek: So, I know that staff is -- I know that they’re happy to see us make progress in this area, where we haven’t made progress in the past. If y’all will report to us and keep your eye on these guys. And to let you know that these and other public nuisances aren’t going unnoticed. Once we’re past it and moved on, there’s a couple of trailer slums owners that are not making progress we’ll be talking about in the next committee meeting, and we’ll watch Mr. Craven with equal enthusiasm. But I just urge the Commission to vote for this. It’s a step in the right direction. This is a long-term problem that we’re taking a positive action to resolve. I, too, would like to see a little more stringent language in here, but I think this will serve to give us tracking points to watch what’s going on and to possibly correct some very serious problems. So I just urge passage and call the question. Mr. Mayor: All right. A question has been called on the motion, the motion from Commissioner Cheek. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: All right. The Chair will declare a five-minute recess, and then we will come back and deal with the additional items on the agenda. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Item 51. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to reconsider item number 51. Is there a second to that motion? 55 Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Okay, discussion on the motion to reconsider? All right. We’ll go ahead and move forward with a vote. All in favor of reconsidering item number 51, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. Boyles vote No. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The item is up for reconsideration. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in that this has never been about extending the sales of alcohol, I make a motion that we approve Item 51. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve item 51. This is on first reading. Any discussion? None heard. All in favor of the motion, then, to approve item number 51 on first reading, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. Boyles vote No. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk, the next item of business is item number 52. The Clerk: 52. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Administrator regarding the appointment of Mr. David Persaud as Finance Director for Augusta Richmond County at an annual salary of $95,000. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it gives me great pleasure to bring before you our recommendation for the position of Finance Director for Augusta, Georgia. This David Persaud, is the current Finance Director for Chatham County, Georgia. He has considerable experience as the Finance Director, having been in that community in excess of 10 years, has successfully led that organization’s financial affairs for that period of time, and now is a candidate for consideration for our Augusta position. In addition to that, he has experience in Florida and in Glynn County in the finance area and has sensational credentials as it relates to his educational background, as well as having achieved various certifications in the field of municipal accounting. Therefore, I respectfully recommend that, and present to you, Mr. David Persaud, as the new Finance Director for Augusta, Georgia. 56 Mr. Mayor: Okay. You would ask that the compensation be included in the motion? Mr. Kolb: To approve the compensation of $95,000, as well That is correct. as the traditional benefits. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion to receive the recommendation from the Administrator. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: And it’s been seconded. Okay. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. As Finance Chairman, I’d like to take the opportunity to have a little dialogue with our nominee, and if he would come forward, I have a few questions that I think we should have spread upon these minutes and hear from our nominee. David, if you would come up to the podium, I would appreciate it. I had the opportunity back in the fall to interview as one of the candidates that [inaudible] had identified. I’ve had an opportunity this morning to again talk with him and appreciate him spending some time with me. He also was kind enough to furnish me with some copy of a memo that he had written back in 1991, where we talk about such arcane things that only a Finance Chairman and maybe a Finance Director would be interested in, as fund balance and contingency accounts and things like that, and I was very interested to see what Mr. Persaud had written at that time. And, do you have a copy of what --? Mr. Persaud: No, I don’t. Mr. Shepard: Could I pass out some copies up here? If you could look with me on page six, Mr. Persaud? You’d indicated in you memo that, back in 1991, the MNO for Chatham County operating budget was in excess, slightly in excess, of $55 million. You’d calculated a reserve of $2.7 million, five percent, or, if you calculated it on one month of operation, somewhat in excess of $4.6 million. You indicated, that, based on the audit of the 1990 Chatham County budget, that the MNO had an available fund balance of $5.7 million. Is that correct? Mr. Persaud: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: That’s correct? And then you indicated that there was an available reserve which was unreserved in excess of, slightly in excess of, $3 million, and the next sentence of your memorandum indicated that the above discussion should be implemented, and the issues presented to the board for their concurrence and approval. And I just, I know this is a slightly over 10-year-old document, are you still of the 57 opinion that adequate fund balance should be reserved, either in terms of a percentage of the budget or a number of operating months? Mr. Persaud: Oh, sure. Whether you’re a government or a private entity, it’s a necessity that you have established funded reserve for several reasons. The budget is only a financial plan based on projected revenues and planned expenditures. For several reasons, you can deviate from that plan for economic reasons, erosion in your tax base, inflationary factors, changes in the economy. Having those reserves in place provides stability and fiscal stability so you don’t have severe volatility and fluctuations in your budgetary plan and enables you to operate over a period of time until those financial unforeseen circumstances change. Mr. Shepard: And I think that we could tell you that we have a reserve here on the order of 60, sometimes we’ve been up to 90 days of operating expenses in our MNO. You would find that consistent with your own philosophy of responsible financial management, would you not? Mr. Persuad: Absolutely correct. In addition to that, you need to reserve for a good bond rating. You can save significant interest costs when you have excellent bond rating, which is accomplished to a sound financial planning and reserves. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Persaud, I appreciate your memo, but let me fast-forward you to 2001. I’ve indicated to my colleagues, when we were at GMA, convening in Savannah, that the news was dominated by the budget problems of the Chatham County Commission at that time. And let me ask you this. Does Chatham County, to your current understanding, have a fund balance? Mr. Persuad: Unfortunately, no, the current body does not operate with the inclusion of a reserve policy. Absent a reserve policy, we have suffered a significant budgetary fluctuation. Mr. Shepard: I’ve explained to these folks and to you and others that, there’s a time here when we had to live out of our fund balance due to the fact that the state was delayed in approving our digest, and we didn’t get the tax bills out as quickly as we had wanted to get them out, and we lived out of fund balance. In Savannah, what would have been done in that kind of -- not Savannah -- I want to distinguish it from the City Council of Savannah. What would Chatham County have done? There was a financing vehicle I don’t think we ever utilized, but what would they do? Mr. Persuad: The practical approach would be to either use a bank overdraft or interfund loan from your capital budget. The disadvantage of that is the high interest costs. If you borrow from restricted funds, then you have to pay competitive prevailing interest rates. Those are practical solutions. Mr. Shepard: You had told me about a TANS. What is that? I don’t think that’s something we really want to know about up here, but, what is it? It’s abbreviated TANS. 58 Mr. Persuad: The other alternative is the use of Tax [inaudible], simply called TANS. In the State of Georgia, you’re allowed to borrow up to 75% of your previous tax levy. That would be the next alternative solution, but, as we all know, those borrowing costs money, which is an additional demand on the treasury. Mr. Shepard: And didn’t, to my recollection, didn’t you share with us that Chatham County used that sort of financing vehicle, the TANS, from time to time? Mr. Persuad: We have in recent years depended more on TANS for cash flow and working capital purposes. Mr. Shepard: And interest cost on that was, some, I think, $400,000. Mr. Persuad: In a range of $400,000 to $600,000. Mr. Shepard: Okay. In the budget last year in Chatham County, which we were no strangers to budget cutting, and we, I think I’ve shared with you, that we cut programs, raised taxes, and partly used some fund balance because we had an excess, but the cuts that were made last year in the budget, 2001, in Chatham County, were on the order of 11.5%. What were the factors, in your opinion, that contributed to the Commissioners finding themselves in such a situation? Mr. Persuad: The absence of a reserve policy, an absence of established reserves, the County has made certain positions to keep certain positions frozen for a certain period of time. However, some reasons beyond our control, those positions were held. There were some revenue assumptions using non-recurring revenue to fund recurring expenditures. Those formulas do not work in the budget equations. Current operating, recurring expenditures, should always be funded by fixed revenues, or guaranteed revenues. When you have those revenues in place where fixed expenditures are funded by unfixed revenues or non-recurring revenues, you create a budgetary gap, a serious gap. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Persaud, the litigation with the Sheriff in Chatham County, I don’t ever want to litigate with our Sheriff, because he serves process and carries a gun, too, but, I wanted to know, for example, how the finances of that litigation were worked out? I think you alluded to the recurring versus non-recurring expense and revenue situation as far as that settlement goes. Can you give us an example in terms of that litigation, what happened there? Mr. Persuad: Well, most of the cost in the detention center are basically fixed costs, and the Sheriff sued the County Commissioners for the reduction of possibly $3 million. That gap was filled by demolishing the reserves in the catastrophic reserve, insurance reserve account. And that, again, is not a good application of using reserve money to fund non-recurring expenditures. But, due to policy decisions -- 59 Mr. Shepard: Well, I understand that. And once you utilize those non-recurring revenue sources to fund a recurring expense, my question is, for us who try to look a little down the road, though we’re accused of not looking at all down the road, what are the prospects for the ensuing year in a government that uses, you know, non-recurring revenues to fund recurring expenditures? Mr. Persuad: Well, what you actually are doing is creating greater budgetary gap. And absent any money, your financial plan and any solution to fill those gaps, you’re creating more fiscal problems. Mr. Shepard: And, as a matter of fact, Mr. Persaud, is that situation that our friends on the Commission in Chatham County may find themselves in in 2002? Mr. Persuad: Well, absent any strong solution or fixed solution to fill the budgetary gap, those problems are going to continue to repeat themselves in the future. Mr. Shepard: And I think you’ve shared with us that some feel that the fund balance should reside in the wallets and the purses of the taxpayers, and that’s maybe a good theoretical place for it to reside, but I don’t think you can get to it very handily when you have expenditure problems, when you’re in the business of government. Is that --? Mr. Persuad: Absolutely correct. You must have a reserve policy in place. And that’s one of the reasons why I drafted this policy almost 10 years ago. Mr. Shepard: And I think the mechanism for this document going forward, Mr. Persaud, was that you then turned it over to Mr. Abold, I think his name was, who was the County Manager, and then it was up for the Commissioners to do anything about it. Is that correct? Mr. Persuad: Absolutely correct. Mr. Shepard: And so, you got a very favorable, and you shared that with me, a very favorable recommendation from the County Manager, but I take it that, in light of the history that we’ve just discussed those last few minutes, the County Manager was not able to get it passed by the Commission, then, is that correct? Mr. Persuad: Absolutely correct. It’s a policy decision, and I requested approval of the governing body. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Well, I think you probably take it from the tone of my questions that I’m concerned about a Commission, wherever it is seated, that would not pay attention, like I say, the nuances of contingency accounts, to an adequate fund balance. How do you distinguish yourself from the culture that has been reported upon by the media in Savannah in Savannah that they’re lurching from crisis to crisis, 60 budgetary crisis, they don’t have a fund balance? How do you distinguish yourself from that, what I call, policy culture? Mr. Persuad: I think, as a staff member, you ought to be responsible and accountable enough to continue to remind the policymaking body that it’s necessary to have reserve policies in place. And absent those reserves, you can use my past experience to see what detriment can occur from not fiscally running the government. Mr. Shepard: And, I mean, you can understand my concern that’s generated. I’ve asked for the minutes down there. I just want you to know how much I appreciate this memorandum where you able to furnish us some tangible evidence of your support of responsible fiscal policies, because it’s something we deal with, we’re going to have to deal with it again. A budget is an annual thing. We are always dealing with it here, and we have to deal with it responsibly, and so, if you are prepared to join us in that kind of effort, then I think you’re going to have the full support of this body, to a member. I think there are, in summary, Mr. Mayor, a lot of things that I admire about Chatham County. I mean, the beaches, the seafood, the history of the seafood, the other attractions down there, the fishing of seafood, you see what this Commissioner, in this stage of life, kind of turns on, but, anyway, but I’m just concerned -- and I appreciate this memorandum because I’m concerned that management of the fund balance has not been something that has distinguished your former, or would-be former, employer, and I’m just concerned that it’s happened. And I want your pledge and cooperation that we will have a fiscally responsible fund balance policy, should you be voted in today. Mr. Persuad: That’s a good starting point. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. Kolb this. George, in the search for this position, and the criteria that were laid out in the request for people that had an interest, does Mr. Persaud meet all the criteria that you focused on in looking to fill this position? And if your answer is yes, are you absolutely sure that the information submitted was correct? And I ask that question strictly from the standpoint that I want to make sure that this Commission, when we take an action, that we’re protected. Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Kuhlke, the answer to your question is yes. Mr. Persaud meets all of the requirements, all of the skills that are necessary for successful carrying out of the duties of this position. And you asked me if I’m absolutely sure, we, as you are aware, this position came through Dick Bennett and Associates as part of their candidate pool. They have done their background checks. We have done ours, and neither of those have turned up anything of any consequence to give us any indication other than him being successful in this position. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams? 61 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Shepard has done some, asked some questions, is a good way of putting it. That concerns me as well, being a member of the Finance, but, not only that, Mr. Persaud may be the number one candidate, or the number one person that we need here, but just like Commissioner Shepard had to go through the details and the questioning and the things he went through now, I been adamant about this, that we need to have a selection process. I don’t agree with the bringing on of one person. This man, knowing nothing, had opportunities to look at his resume and some things about him, but I’m serious that, when Commissioner Shepard, who is Chairman of Finance, who have already talked with him before, but still had these other reservations. As a body, as a body of Commissioners, we still should have a selection process. We should have an opportunity to do what Commissioner Shepard have done a few minutes ago already before we got to this point. It comes to my mind, we did a nationwide search, but we went next door to Savannah, and that’s nothing negative. That’s a plus, but we’s almost in our own backyard to find a candidate. And I’m wondering, did we do all we could have done. I still think, and I can’t support this candidate for that particular reason. I think that we ought to have a selection process where there are at least three candidates brought to this governing body, that we can make a selection from. Our Administrator can make a recommendation, and we probably go with his recommendation, if we have that many. But to show this world and this city that we’re trying to be fair that, if you are qualified, that you’ll be brought to the table. But for one man to bring one person in, does not speak well. I think that we should have had at least three candidates here, at least three candidates to be brought forward to us. I keep hearing the saying about people dropped out. We been looking for a Finance person for almost two years now. And every time we get somebody, it’s dropped out. Somebody else dropped out. Then we end up with one person. Well, we still haven’t got those names. I’m not in support for that reason. I said that with our Fire Chief, it wasn’t nothing personal against him. I said that we ought to have a selection process to show that we’re being fair in this city. That if you qualified, then you be brought to the table, and we’ll make the best selection from what we got. But what we are doing now, we are not being fair. That’s our old system that’s been in this city for 200 years, where one bring one, and that’s what we end up with. And I don’t agree with that. And I’m not going to be in support of him, and that’s my only reason. I may be passing up a good candidate, but I’m not going sit here and let -- there’s an industry in this city that called this board, too, and give us a tour, carry us around the other day the complete building and showed us all the stuff they’re doing. Their base pay was $22.50 an hour. They got 389 employees. And they got 20 minorities out or 389. And that’s one-man selection process. I don’t think we’re fair. I don’t think we even think we’re fair. But I just want to get it out, Mr. Mayor. That’s all I got to say. I’m not in support for that simple reason. Had we had this process like we should have had, and then we showed this world, not just this city, that we being fair, because we do have a selection process. Our Administrator make a recommendation, but we are voted in by the people to makes choices. Not to let somebody else make choices for us, and then we suffer for the choices somebody else made. That’s all. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 62 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Based on what I’ve heard from the candidate, I don’t think we’ll ever, we’ll have a repeat of what we had two years ago, when we were told that everything was fine, and quite the opposite was true. I guess, Mr. Persaud, one of the things I wanted to pass on to you, should you be selected today, is you will be acquiring one of the finest teams of employees that we have in our city government. They have really taken a pretty serious mess and really got it back on track and operating efficiently. Should you be selected today, I urge you to take it to the next level, work with this team of people. I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a better group to work with. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess, to pick up on what Andy has just said, and maybe change the direction of this wind just a little bit. I, like everybody else that’s sitting here, all eleven of us, I think when we brought aboard the new Administrator, we probably singled out any area that we wanted a finalization of selection to be done in. It was in that office to bring whatever person that was going to provide the permanent leadership there. And I think Andy is totally correct in terms of a good, overworked, glad to see, a permanent leader coming on board, but also I think you, if approved, are going to see that you got a very hard-working group of people there. I say that from the experience of coming here, and I don’t take it gladly that I’ve been a part of it, but I’ve also been a part of casting a vote to fire [inaudible]. And I’m looking at people, particularly the ones sitting in this room that was there and around one that’s under contract and what they always do, to hold that financialship together. But still, there is to be leadership, and the direction in which that whole department is going, and that it needs to go. I even to a point have taken some criticism from the standpoint of not voting on some other positions until this position was filled. And it was a matter that financial principle to do that. And I discussed that both publicly and privately with the Administrator. I’m glad to see this nominee come forward. And when I said to change the wind a little bit, Mr. Mayor, I think that we heard the question, the comments, and I think it was good in terms of clearing the air and for the Finance Chairman to ask certain questions. But we’re getting a Finance Director. We’re not getting a Commissioner. What I’d like to say to him probably more on a friendly note, maybe, David, are there any questions that you need to ask of us in terms of having worked with people for a long time in political bodies, that may be just bullheaded enough that don’t want to follow what good finance folks say? And you don’t have to comment on that, but I think in terms of asking around, to a point I think that we found out enough situations that people can present the best programs. They can come forward with ideas. But if the people who do the voting don’t vote to support those ideas, then you can’t cut a rod and crucify those staff folk that are there. And make those recommendations, whether you the top person, or whether you’re next to the top and you say that certain things are going to occur. I think that needs to be brought out, because I don’t think that, whatever occurred there, whether you’re talking about the lawsuit, the situation where Chatham is right now, that the person you’re being asked to vote on voted to do any of those things. I think, properly, from the standpoint, if he had to do it, and I’m going to say this, because I hope your vote passes, cause I sure don’t 63 want you to have to go back home without being out of here, David, but the point being, that those were not necessarily decisions of a County Manager or of a Finance Director. So I think why we’re asking you to be committed to a point that we be fiscally sound and prudent in what we do. I think also that you should share the same concern that we make the same commitment, also, to give the same level of support to the new Director that we have tried to give to those who have held this department together in an honorable way, more than one time, and continue to do that, and I think you going to find some good people in there, and I think it’s going to be an even greater department, with you coming on board. And so I hope that the vote will be approved in terms for the nomination. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Anyone else? We have a motion on the floor that’s been seconded. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay. David, congratulations, and welcome to the organization. We look forward to having you. You are our first Director of Finance under the reorganized Finance Department. Mr. Persuad: I want to thank you very much for the confidence expressed. I have been able to work for two different County Commission Chairmen. County Commissioners in Chatham County have tremendous experience, especially in diverse leadership, and I look forward to the challenges. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: You need to come here with your tennis shoes on and hit the ground running. As they said, our staff has done a great job, but they need that leadership. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Boyles: Maybe when Mr. Kolb takes us all out for lunch because of his cell phone going off -- (Laughter) Mr. Boyles: -- we can take our new Finance Director. Maybe he’d like to introduce his wife to the group. Mr. Persuad: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: Welcome. Glad to have you. 64 Mr. Mayor: All right. Before we go into legal meeting, we’ve got two items here, or at least potentially two items. Let’s move on to item number 57. And we were all presented with a copy of a memo, and I don’t know [inaudible] that memo whether any action is required. 57. OTHER BUSINESS: Discuss the possible consolidation of the Downtown Development Authority and Main Street activities. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you going to address this? This is the item on Downtown Development Authority and Main Street. Mr. Kuhlke: I did not put this on the agenda. The Clerk: They requested that it be placed on the agenda. Mr. Mayor: They did? The Clerk: Yes. And then sent a subsequent memo saying that action will be st taken until the 21. Mr. Mayor: Yes. The Clerk: The agenda had already gone out. Mr. Mayor: So I guess this item is moot, then. So we’ll just not that there’s no action required on that item and we’ll receive the memo. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Kuhlke: I would like to ask the Clerk to make sure it’s on our next agenda. And I might need to ask Mr. Wall, does this need to go back before committee? This was putting Main Street under DDA. And if I could mention this, that we had a DDA meeting just last week, and what we’re trying to do, the DDA attorney, Byrd Warlick, is supposed to get with Mr. Wall to find out the appropriate way for us to do this. And I don’t know whether you talked to him or not. Mr. Wall: I have not. Mr. Kuhlke: So I would just -- Mr. Wall: [inaudible] I guess my only question is whether you’re going to bring stst it back on the 21. According to this memo, they’re not going to consider it until the 21, so we may not have [inaudible]. 65 Mr. Kuhlke: We may no. We may not. Because there’s got to be some coordination between you and Byrd in coming up with the instrument for us to present to the Commission. So scratch that. He’ll just get in touch with you and get it on the agenda. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I was going to just suggest that, you know, everybody be given time to really adjust this, and I think working out something appropriately. I would just like to see this maybe either come back before the committee at some time -- we’re May, now, th this would take to June. You need until -- they won’t see it until what? The 20? st Mr. Wall: 21. st Mr. Beard: 21? Okay. So I think we all need some time to digest this. I think given the proper time we can do that. And to me, I think -- I think it should go to committee. Administrative Services. Mr. Mayor: We’ll see. When they communicate back with us, we’ll see it’s put on the next Administrative Services agenda then after we receive it. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just to mention, I think anytime we can consolidate like this, it’s potentially a very good thing. The only thing I have as a concern is that we don’t gravitate these boards that are working downtown back towards board room types. We need to keep and engage those young entrepreneurs and artists that have basically revived downtown almost single-handedly. Mr. Mayor: All right. The other items we had is an addendum to the agenda. Madame Clerk, if you want to read the caption on that, and then we’ll see if we have unanimous consent to take this item up. The Clerk: Addendum Item 1. Approve Change Order Number Seven in the amount of $33,104.90 to be funded from Project Contingencies on the Augusta Common Phase IA Project. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, without getting into the substance of this, since we haven’t added it to the agenda, could you tell us why we need to add this today? What’s the urgency? Mr. Wall: The urgency is that the contractor performed this work dating back to the end of February and March and has been out-of-pocket the funds, and there is a cash flow problem that he has, and in order to keep him working so that he can meet his cash flow needs, he needs to pay for this work that’s been done some -- what’s that? -- 60 66 days or more, 60 to 75 days. There’s no question or dispute about the work. It’s all been signed off by the engineer and Public Works and if it’s approved today, hopefully we can get him a check on Friday and keep that project on track. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any objection to adding this to the agenda? None is heard. So the item will be added. So we’ll entertain a motion with respect to this item. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Do we anticipate any additional cost as a result of the damage that occurred during the windstorm the other night that we’re going to have to look out for on the horizon? Mr. Mayor: At the Common construction site? Mr. Cheek: Yes. The whole wall was torn down on the Broad Street side. I’m not sure what other damage was done. Mr. Mayor: I think that’s all just temporary construction wall. There is an issue, I think, with some storm water runoff or something over there. But that’s a separate issue. Ms. Smith: We have not yet received any information from the contractor as to what damages, if any, we would need to assist with as far as the Common Project is concerned. And for any materials or any damages to materials that had been delivered to the site, the contractor is required to be insured and those would be covered by him and they are his materials until we take over ownership of the project. Mr. Cheek: Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, just one point here. This was originally scheduled to go to th the committee on April 29. And I’m just wondering why it didn’t go through committee and then to the Commission on May 6 as indicated on the agenda item. What was the issue? Ms. Smith: It did not get processed and signed off by all of the appropriate officials in time to make the deadline to make it to the committee meeting. We were hoping to be able to work with the contractor to have it added to the next Engineering Services Committee meeting and subsequently the next [inaudible] meeting, and he contacted both myself and Mr. Wall and indicated that basically he needed to be paid. Mr. Kolb: The process is very slow. 67 Mr. Mayor: Well, it looked like it slowed down in the Administrator’s office, is th where it slowed down. Ms. Smith signed it off on the 24, but the Administrator didn’t thth sign it off until the 30. They requested it go to committee on the 29. That’s the process issue. All right, we have a motion on the floor. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to ask what the original budget was, and as a result of these change order are we going to go over budgeted amount for this project? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith? That’s in the backup. The Clerk: He wanted to know if you’re going to overrun your project. Mr. Cheek: We just got this, and I’ve been reading a lot, so I really haven’t had a chance to read. Ms. Smith: We have not yet exceeded the Commission-approved budget for this project. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I was [inaudible] the question, and with the change order of $33,000, the original contract bid was $1,577,931? I’m looking [inaudible] but the original contract, why are we coming now with the $33,000? How did that come into play? Ms. Smith: Well, what ended up happening on this particular one is when we got out and we were working out in the -- on the actual area, there were some underground obstructions and some problems that were realized with the older storm drain and water systems that we had in place out there. And we had to go in and make some repairs, as well as to make some replacement associated with those underground utilities. Mr. Wall: Let me also mention, so that it would not delay the project, the contractor went in and did the work so that the road would be back in and paved and patched before the Masters traffic, so that was also a factor. Ms. Smith: We had already opened it up. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion to approve, then please vote aye. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, that take us to item number 53. 68 53. LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss pending and threatened litigation. ?? Discuss real estate issues. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll move into our legal session. [LEGAL MEETING 5:30 - 6:15 P.M.] Mr. Mayor: We will call the meeting back to order. 54. 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 authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Colclough: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. The Mayor will sign the affidavit. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have a couple of items to be approved that you have on the agenda there? Mr. Wall: I have number 55. 55. Consider possible approval of claim against City. Mr. Wall: I would ask that you approve the settlement of the claim against Anthony Crane Rental as a result of the damage to the Riverwalk bridge. Those repairs have been completed, and authorize the Mayor to execute a release in the amount of $218,908.24. Mr. Shepard: I move we approve as recommended by the lawyer. 69 Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item? Mr. Wall: I ask that you also approve settlement of a sewer backup claim. The claim originated at 3620 Meadowlark Drive. We have already paid $2,263.32 for emergency clean up. We ask that you approve payment of an additional $15,864.73 in settlement of that claim and secure a release from the property owner residents. Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just request a copy of the document, please. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any objection to the motion? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item? 56. Approve possible sale of real estate. Mr. Wall: Under item number 56, I ask that you approve settlement of the reversionary interest in the property that we refer to as the Widows Home located at 124 Greene Street for -- to sell the reversionary interest for $15,000 contingent upon the sale being approved between the Widows Home and the Capital Development Group and securing a schedule from the Capital Development Group as far as their development or the property and that schedule meeting with our approval. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. 70 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have also asked us to reconsider item number 38 because when we approved this we did not identify a source of funding; is that correct? Mr. Wall: For the $49,000; that’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we need a motion to reconsider item number 38. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Item 38 is back on the table for discussion. Mr. Wall: And ask that you approve it as amended previously but to include $49,000 coming from contingency. A question was asked concerning the additional funding for the shelving for the bookshelves for the District Attorney’s office and I identified the source of funding for that, but I did not identify the source of funding for the $49,000. I thought that was a part of the agenda item but apparently it was not. Mr. Shepard: I move it be approved from contingency. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 71 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 May 7, 2002. Clerk of Commission 72