Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER June 4, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:04 p.m., Tuesday, June 4, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Key. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. The Chair will recognize Commissioner Shepard for the purpose of presenting a resolution. RESOLUTION: Trinity on the Hill United Methodist Church Youth Group Mr. Shepard: To Reverend Key and the members of the Love Unlimited Youth Choir, you’re going forth in two days to the United Kingdom certainly as ambassadors of Jesus Christ, as well, ambassadors of Trinity-on-the-Hill, your homes, and Augusta, Georgia. And when you enter the city of Gothming on Sunday night, you will see a large sign that says, linking friendship with Georgia, USA. And one of the communities that this town in England, which is the birthplace and home of Edward -- General Oglethorpe, is Gothming. And I want to present and read this resolution into the Record that is going to speak to the people of Gothming. This is a resolution of the Mayor and the City Commission of Augusta, Georgia. Whereas the City of Augusta is proud to present the Love Unlimited Choir of Trinity-on-the-Hill United Methodist Church, with the United States flag, Georgia flag, and City of Augusta flag to serve as a token of our amity to Gothming, England. Gothming is the hometown of our first governor, James Oglethorpe. And, whereas our County Commissioners have delegated them to represent our city as ambassadors and to offer our gift as a sign of goodwill towards one another. And whereas the Love Unlimited choir is to be commended for the dedication of their time, energy, and love to the people of England. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Augusta Richmond County Commission that the United States flag, the Georgia flag, and the City of Augusta flag be presented to the Love Unlimited Choir of Trinity-on-the-Hill United Methodist Church so they may be given to Gothming, England. This resolution signed by the Mayor and all the Commissioners of Augusta Richmond County, Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? 1 Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] City of Augusta, the State of Georgia, [inaudible]. Mr. Key: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Now, I think you have a little selection for us to leave us with a smile, and send yourself on your way. Mr. Key: This group represents only a much larger group of 86 that will be traveling this Thursday. These are the Girls’ Ensemble and the Boys’ Ensemble combined, and we want to sing a spiritual for you called Shut the Door, Keep Out the Devil. I don’t know if [inaudible] Council meeting, but [inaudible]. (Love Unlimited sings.) (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Thank you for that performance. What a great send-off. Travel safely and come back to us with some great memories. While the th Youth Choir is filing out, I’ll just make not for the record that the 266 anniversary of the founding of Augusta by James Oglethorpe of Gothming, England, is on June 14, next week. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda today, please? Ms. Bonner: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we do, as printed on our addendum agenda, and the Attorney may have – ADDENDUM AGENDA: ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Request approval for the immediate purchase of One Aerial Fire Truck, amending the approval of Agenda Item 27, February 20, 2002. (Requested by the Administrator) 2. Approve appointment of Robert L. Moore to the General Aviation Commission at Daniel Field for District 3. (Requested by Commission Shepard) 3. Approve appointment of Peter R. Shirley to the Human Relations Commission for District 3. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding these items to the agenda today? None is heard, so we will add these items. Mr. Wall, did you want to be recognized? Mr. Wall: I’d like to delete item 16. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall has asked that item number 16 be deleted. Is there any objection to deleting item number 16? None is heard, so item number 16 will be deleted. Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead with our recognition, presentations, and delegations. 2 RECOGNITION: Congratulations to Commissioner Willie H. Mays, III – recipient of "Certificate of Recognition" for completing the nationally recognized County Commissioners Training Program during the April ACCG Annual Conference (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you like to make some brief remarks? (Laughter) Mr. Mays: As they say in court, you opened that door. No, just thanks to my colleagues. One thing they’ve all been teasing me about is the fact that, I guess, out of seniority, they said, well, how many of those programs now have you been through? But one of the things that happened was that I guess I’ve been around so long in this courthouse, I predated the whole education program in the process. And when they started this, at the time, I was chairing a sitting committee of the County Commissioners Association. And so I continued to serve in both associations, the city one and the county one, and taking educational programs of my choice. And so I’ve probably built up enough items to, Mr. Mayor, maybe go through two or three different times. So it just proves, sometimes, they say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. If you got a trainable old dog, and you’re wiling to do it, I guess you can. So thank you so much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Mays. Next item, Madame Clerk? PRESENTATIONS: Georgia State Games Commission RE: Countdown to the Georgia Games Championships to be held in Augusta July 12-21, 2002 Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in 38 days, a very important event comes back to Augusta, Georgia. The Georgia Games Championships comes back to Augusta July 12 through 21, which marks the second time it’s been held outside of Atlanta. And guess what? Augusta, Georgia is the only other city to host the Georgia Games Championships. It’s coming right back here. Everyone looks so nice. I meant to tell Jim Wall, I’ve never seen him in anything but a suit before, so it must the only golf shirt you got now, Jim. (Laughter) You have a little packet of information in front of you, just detailing some of the information about what’s going to be going on in that nine-day period, but to give you a little more information about what’s going to be going on and for a special presentation, I’d like to call on our partner in putting these Championships on, the Executive Director of the Greater Augusta Sports Council, Ms. Tammy Stout. Ms. Stout: Thank you, Tom. Good afternoon, everyone. I think you need to make this your new uniform until July 21. On behalf of the Sports Council and our wonderful volunteer Board of Directors, and the sum 2500-plus volunteers that will be 3 managing this amazing sports festival, I thank you for your support. We’re at crunch time. I think we’ve actually received a couple of volunteer forms from many of you, and if not, you have one in the packet before you, so take a look at that. The Georgia Games Championship is an amazing event. It’s truly Olympic in style. You will hear that a lot over the next six weeks of heavy promotions. There are some wonderful elements with the statewide torch run, opening ceremonies, and just wonderful athletic events and thst competitions throughout the 12 through the 21. We are heavy at work, and have been at work for more than a year now in planning this sports festival, and we’re real excited. It’s just around the corner. The torch will arrive in Augusta on Thursday evening, the th 11 of July. And that will kick off a great celebration for the rest of that week. Friday night is probably the jewel in the crown of the Championships with opening ceremonies. And we announced to the media last week that our headline entertainer for that evening will be Edwin McCain, a national recording artist, and it’s a wonderful display of local talent, dance groups, performance groups, musical groups, that the Arts Council is putting in many hours and helping us coordinate. And there’s a lot of wonderful things going on that evening, with an expo of interactive booths and different types of things. Everything will kick off that evening at 5:30, so we hope to see many of you there. And then we’ll st have events and competitions, from that evening, all the way through the 21. A lot of things going on. We are hosting events in five different counties right now, and just a lot of different sports venues. To tell you a little bit more and to make quick presentation is my counterpart in Atlanta, and that’s Eric Pilfer, who is the Executive Director of the Georgia State Games Commission. Mr. Pilfer: Thank you, Tammy. I appreciate given a few minutes here. As Tammy has done a very nice job on the overview of everything. We are having just over 35 days the Championships will be here, and, actually, I’d like to bring Mayor Young down now to give a presentation, but for everyone to really understand how large this is. This is larger in magnitude than the Summer Olympics, that is how large, and it’s all being held in one area. And as one presentation, we would like to present Mr. Mayor Young and to the Commissioners -- Mr. Mayor: We look forward to having you here. Mr. Pilfer: I’m glad to be here. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all very much. We look forward to a successful games. I started today a sign-up sheet going around the table here to see if I could get some Commissioners to sign up with me for a synchronized swimming team. It’ll give you something to think about for the games. (Laughter) Next item, please, on the floor? C. TONYA, Inc. Mr. R.J. Stidham RE: "Kick-Off" of the Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments Study 4 Mr. Stidham: Good afternoon. Mr. Mayor: Afternoon. Mr. Stidham: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Commissioners, let me first express to you all how honored I am to be talking to you all today and inform you that, at your direction, and on your behalf, we are commencing an analysis of impediments to equal housing choice in Augusta and Richmond County, which will last about three months. The analysis of impediments to equal housing choice is a study of the housing markets here, public, private, and non-profit, to determine whether or not there are impediments to the exercise of equal housing choice that exist in the Augusta housing market. Now, you all had this kind of study conducted in 1996. This one will be more comprehensive. It will be more participatory. We will be talking to realtors, we’ll be talking to everyone in the private housing market, we’ll be talking to the Public Housing Authority, and we’ll be working with your Housing Department here, and Planning Department. Of course, we’ll be working with you as Commissioners and your representatives. What we’ll do is present you all a draft about the end of August to give you all an idea of what our findings have been. Following that draft, and hopefully, you all will participate in improving that draft, then we’ll present to you the final report around the end of August. I hope you all invite me back to present that final report to you. And I’m offering at this point to you members of the Commission in the next 30 days, to actually present you all with a workshop on this process and give you all an idea of what this document represents. So you won’t have to commit now, but I’m hoping that someone will get in touch with me to let me know when, in the next 30 days, you will be available so that we can give lots of information and education regarding what the analysis of impediments process is. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Stidham, for being with us today. This is an important piece of work in our efforts to ensure that people have equal opportunity housing in Augusta Richmond County, and we’ve been negotiating with HUD for a couple of years on a Fair Housing ordinance, and we feel that this research that TONYA, Inc. will be doing is going to give us a good foundation from which to develop an ordinance that would put some teeth in the process here in Augusta. Mr. Stidham: And we can assist you in the development of that ordinance. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Stidham: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? DELEGATION: Mr. Brian Green Re: Infrastructure procedures and employees morale. 5 Mr. Green: Afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commission Board, citizens. May name is Brian Green of Concerned Citizens of Augusta. Gentlemen, I’m here to talk to you today about a few concerns, and I hope that you will not only consider these concerns, maybe that you will address them, and maybe later on also, we can get together an discuss these things in detail, more detail. The first issue, listed infrastructure. These things are related to infrastructure, or inner workings of the city on how we’re dealing with issues. I came here once before with this Board and mentioned something about the train traffic congestion and all, and I know my idea wasn’t the best, but I think it was a start. There is some improvement scheduled, or whatever, I think that you need to publicize that so we can see that some progress is being made in the direction of train traffic congestion. th Also, if you look at the 5 Street train tracks and Phinizy Road train tracks, I think those need to be addressed a little bit more sooner than others. I was driving down Phinizy Road the other day, and it’s like a trench out there. It’s -- those two situations, as well as th the train track over here on 5 Street, that need to be addressed a little sooner than others. There just to the point now, I can see a lot of tire damage, or damage to vehicles driving over these things, and hopefully you’ll look into those. Also, gentlemen, as far as downtown traffic flow is concerned, at no time can I deliver a package anywhere on Broad Street or in Augusta and park my vehicle in the middle of the street while I’m delivering that package. I think that this Commission needs to address the issue of delivery vehicles parking their vehicles in the middle of the road to deliver a package. One thing that you can possibly look at doing is revamping the parking spaces down there or developing and establishing loading and unloading zones. Bet most of you are familiar with that. But when you start talking about downtown traffic on those sort of things, you need to really look into it. Now you go from having traffic congestion in general and two lanes that you’re fighting through, Mr. Mayor, down to one lane, because someone’s parked in the middle of the road, delivering packages. Mr. Pro Tem, how many more minutes? I forgot to set my watch. Mr. Mayor: You have five minutes. The Chair will tell you when your five minutes are up. Mr. Green: Okay. Next thing is crime. Most people in here are aware that we’ve had a string of crimes in the area of armed robberies, home invasions, and even some th drug busts. I’m going to mention a few areas, such as 9 Street, which I believe has a th heavy drug traffic flow down there. 9 Street, in particular, the area between Laney Walker Boulevard and Walton Way. I think that area needs to be addressed. I think there is a degree of prostitution on Broad Street at the southern end that this Commission needs to address with the Sheriff. I believe also that this Commission may see fit to get with the Augusta Housing Authority and take a lot at what’s going on in Underwood Homes. We’re seeing an increase of events going on down there, such as violent acts. There have been a couple of homicides and all that, and you do have some good people down there, Commissioners. The point I’m trying to make is that’s just an area, to me, a time bomb waiting to explode, and I really think this Commission would do well to put some focus down there. You have people flying through that area at high speeds, and what I’ve been told by the Sheriff’s Department is they’re not registered with the radar, to legally run radar in that area. But I just think that this area needs some focus, and also 6 the trashiness. We had a couple of events over there, and a week later, as far as cleanup was concerned, and a week later it was back the same. At the same time, you’re focusing on crime and other disorderly events, I think you can focus on the type of tenant activity over there, as well. If you going to live there, you understand that you have financial situations, but you’re expected to be responsible as a tenant. Mr. Mayor: You have 30 seconds left. Mr. Green: The last thing is this. I’d really look, really appreciate it if we did something about employee morale in terms of unifying benefits for county employees, performance based pay, and I think it’s a good time for us to [inaudible] somebody here in Richmond County out of 187,000 people that could one day occupy one of these upper level management jobs. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. We’ll move along, since we have some people here on these items. Let’s take number 35. I understand, Commissioner Cheek, we have quite a delegation here. Number 35. 35. Discuss Revitalization of Rocky Creek Area Commercial Property Holdings. (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek) Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have Jewett Tucker here, and he’s going to speak on an item that’s near and dear to many people’s hearts in Augusta, what we like the corner of Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge Road, or the Rocky Creek Commons area. Mr. Mayor: If you’d be kind enough to give us your name and address for the record, please? Mr. Tucker: Yes, sir. I’m Jewett Tucker. I’m from Athens, Georgia. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to come before the Commissioners here today, and I have had the opportunity over the last month or so to meet with Andy Cheek, Reverend Williams, Reverend Hankerson, and with Tommy Boyles to have discussions about the possibility of a revitalization of the Regency Mall property at Gordon Highway and U. S. 1. Obviously, I assume there’s nobody in this room that’s not very familiar with that property, and one of the things that came to mind, my group bought the Ward’s Department Store and after purchasing Ward’s Department Store, I made a joint venture agreement with the owners of the Mall, and we have also purchased, have under contract to purchase, the Dillard’s store at the mall, and our intentions initially were to put in -- simply go in, when we bought the Ward’s store, and put in a neighborhood shopping center. And we still have that in mind to do. We’ve got a couple of big tenants that are interested in located there, and over the next 60 to 90 days, I’m sure we’ll have some confirmation and contracts to that effect. At the meeting with these Commissioners, I found out that there was a possible need for some County consolidation of office spaces, or some various departments of the County that might have an interest in locating in the parts of the Regency Mall, and so I have actually come here today to let the Council or 7 the Commission know that the opportunity of that revitalization of that property is certainly very viable today, and I think before there’s been some concern that it might prevent any different ownerships or splinter the various ownerships, but it -- that is not a problem, as of today. The consensus seems to be that among the people I’ve talked with here in the city, that obviously, one of the benefits to that area besides revitalizing the mall there, would also be the possibility and the flexibility of consolidating some county offices in that space. There’s approximately 800,000 square feet in that facility. Obviously, county, or city governments, don’t need that kind of space, but the opportunity now to take the lead in helping that revitalization take place along with the revitalization being furthered by the shopping center on the U. S. 1 corner there, is a great time for all that to kind of take place. I’ve been in Augusta for years, coming in and out, and when I got here involved with Ward’s Store, I did not realize at the time, but I’ve been made quite aware that that property is in the central part of the entire county. The economics of the opportunity for the county to locate some offices there is, quite frankly, there are a number of different ways that could take place. I’ve listened to the suggestions that the county might like to own space, listened to suggestions that the county might like to lease space, and do their own finishing work to convert some of the space to offices, as well as having us do some improvements ourselves, redo the improvements, and the county can do a lease with us, providing the county with the opportunity to buy the property in the future. So the economics of it are open for discussion. There is -- the one thing that is for sure, based on what preliminary work that I’ve been able to do to ascertain the amount of space that’s needed, and the rent rolls that are being paid currently by some of the departments, it would certainly be a lot cheaper alternative if the county would utilize some of this revitalization process at Regency. I guess you know your constituents in the county, it’s always great to have all things, put it all into one spot, if possible, where you’ve got [inaudible], various activities all around in the county, located a good number of your offices there, and then I think that would be a good use. But without getting any further into the specific details as to how that might go, I know that y’all have looked at this issue before, and I simply am here today to let you know that the opportunity to put together at this time is available. And I certainly appreciate you time, and would like to come back if there’s an interest from the Council, or do y’all have a genuine interest in seeing that there be some further discussion about this, then I’m more than willing to cooperate in any way that I can to provide that opportunity. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We have a space study subcommittee that’s chaired by Commissioner Williams, and I would refer you to Mr. Williams or his subcommittee, which I think would be the appropriate venue for you to continue you discussions with the city. Mr. Kuhlke has a group that’s working on the renovation of this building for the Judicial Center, and Commissioner Williams is working on the administrative space. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in discussion about this particular issue, I’ve followed many years prior to my political involvement. This is an opportunity to do many positive things, not only for that area, but for the city. Various figures you look at, we lease somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million dollars’ worth of space a year from 8 various parties. We’re spread out all over the world. We can consolidate those agencies from this building here into one facility. That impact is about 175 people or so, which would not be that great a detriment to the downtown area, so we would not be creating -- solving a problem to create another problem. We can consolidate our judicial efforts in this building and renovate it as we planned to do. I understand that there’s fiber already in place out that way, which is needed for our new traffic center. We have ample parking space for the Public Works and Utilities facility that we want to place out there, and we can secure that area. The opportunities are enormous, and it would be a chance for us, depending on the interface between Commissioner Williams’ committee, and so forth, and this Commission, for us to resolve an issue that’s been kicked around for years. That is, the renovation of this building, the relocation and construction of, or renovation and relocation of, many of our satellite facilities in one area. Just a tremendous amount of good that can be done, not least of which is to provide consistent with the Rocky Creek master plan, the city’s involvement in a project that would help us revitalize an entire several square mile area of the city. It’s centrally located. We would not have the problems that we’ve had in the past with multiple ownership and so forth, but I seriously urge this city to consider becoming part of this plan. This is a solution. I don’t see any of the problems being created that we’ve in the past. And, frankly, I think that it would be a lot cheaper and something that we can afford, versus something we can’t afford and dream for for the next ten years. But I guess this will be passed on to Commissioner Williams’ subcommittee and he’ll come back with a recommendation? Mr. Mayor: I would assume that would be the protocol in this case, since the Commission has set up a committee to specifically pursue this. Mr. Williams: And, Mr. Mayor, we have talked, and we will continue to talk. We met with him, like he said, Commissioner Hankerson and Boyles, and Commissioner Cheek and myself, and we’ll continue to do that and see what we can arrive at. Then we’ll bring a recommendation back to the full body. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Tucker: That sounds great. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. All right, Madame Clerk, I see the Sheriff is back with us again, so let’s go ahead and take up item 31 so he can get back to homeland security. PUBLIC SERVICES: 31. Hearing to discuss the possible revocation, suspension or probation of the alcohol license held by John C. Melton II for the Red Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way for the following violations: failure to maintain an orderly place and operating after hours. District 1. Super District 9. 9 Mr. Mayor: We had a discussion of this in committee. Let me ask the Sheriff’s Department to come up and restate the issues here for those who were not in the committee meeting, and then we’ll proceed. Mr. Smith: Thank you. The issues were never discussed in the committee meeting. It was just decided to bring it before the Commission. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Smith: Right, and I’ve updated that. Commissioner Cheek had asked that I do a comparison of other bars, and I’ve done that. So what I’ve provided -- the top page is for the Red Lion Pub. And then behind that, I’ve also taken other bars that are in the same general area, roughly the same size, and listed the problems that we’ve had at those other bars, in comparison with the Red Lion Pub. Now, in fairness to the Red Lion Pub, some of the problems that they’re having in terms of numbers are not that severe. What we’re concerned about, anything that’s listed as a warning, or a ticket or a citation that was issued, those are our concerns, because those are actually problems that we have had with Mr. Melton and some of his dealings, as well the Red Lion specifically, that we’re dealing with today. And our point is, we’ve had several problems with Mr. Melton. If you’ll look on the Red Lion Pub sheet, liquor at Rhythm and Blues, what actually occurred there was that Mr. Melton had purchased liquor for the Rhythm and Blue Exchange, which is his bar on Broad Street, purchased it through Surrey Tavern, which is in violation of both state law and county ordinance, and then transported it, again violating another law, transported it to the Rhythm and Blues Exchange to open up that night. What the ordinance and state law dictates is that each alcohol licensed establishment has to have a separate account with the distributors, and all those purchases have to be made through the distributor to each individual licensed establishment. So, in other words, if Mr. Melton owns three establishments, cannot buy all his liquor through one establishment, and then transport it himself to the different establishments. You have to have a separate account for each one of your bars. Mr. Mayor: Let’s do this, if we may. The reason it’s on the agenda, for having this item before us, for violations for one, failure to maintain an orderly place, and two, operating after hours. Let’s deal with those. If you want to discuss the other thing -- but let’s talk about what’s on the agenda here today. Mr. Smith: Well what happened -- on the failure to maintain order, that was Master’s Week, Wednesday of Master’s Week, where the Red Lion Pub was having an outdoor concert and party. That is in violation of state law. You cannot have people outside in the parking lots, drinking. It’s just flat against county ordinance. Now, had Mr. Melton come to us, there are certain ways that you can try to make that work, and one bar in town did that, did just that, and it was inspected by the Sheriff’s Office, it was inspected by the Georgia Department of Revenue, as well as Licensing and Inspections. So they were able to do that. Mr. Melton met none of the requirements that you would need to have in order to have that party. Now, when I went down to the Red Lion Pub that day, I spoke with one of the owners of the Red Lion, one of Mr. Melton’s partners, 10 and that would be Thomas Kahn. Thomas Kahn told me that everything had been cleared through Mr. Melton, and Mr. Melton said everything had been taken care of, don’t worry about it, have the party. When I spoke with Mr. Melton, he stated that he had no knowledge of the party and had no idea what Mr. Kahn was doing, and that’s why they both were cited, because, if you talk to one, he blames the other, and vice versa, so I th decided both of them. And then the other citation I issued was on the 8 of May, at three o’clock a.m. The bars are supposed to be closed, with no employees, no patrons, no body inside. And, as of 3:40 a.m., myself and investigator Richard Elam, my partner, were in the parking lot, and they were still inside the building. The special duty deputy was actually outside at three o’clock, trying to clear the lot. He went inside, I’m assuming, to be paid, and left at approximately 3:15, and as of 3:40, the employees, as well as Mr. Kahn, we still inside. We left at 3:40, and then went back a day or two later. Matter of fact, I think it was that Friday we issued the citation to Mr. Kahn. These are the reasons we’re here. Mr. Mayor: Have these citations been processed in court? Mr. Smith: They have been -- Mr. Melton has pled not guilty, and they are coming up for trial. In fact, I was served with subpoenas for the trial date today. The reason the tickets were issued is because all of the previous warnings, we felt like had gone unheeded. Basically, what I try to do is talk to the bar owners, try to talk with them, try to get them on our side, try to get them to comply with the ordinances. We tell them what they’re doing wrong. We give them the verbal warnings. When the verbal warnings don’t work, then we issue the citations. Then when the citations don’t appear to be working, then of course we bring them to the Commission for action. We are asking that, for the Red Lion Pub only, we’re asking that that particular alcohol license be put on probation. Again, we feel like, obviously the Commission has that decision to make, as to whether or not to put anybody on probation. It does have a profound effect on those people. We have brought one previous club to this body for action, and action was taken, and we have had a drastic improvement in that particular lounge. So, again, this is just another way -- we’re asking for your support to get across to Mr. Melton and to the Red Lion Pub that they just need to get in compliance with the regulations and the ordinances. Mr. Mayor: Sheriff, did you want to speak to this [inaudible]? Mr. Strength: It won’t take but a second. No need for me to go over everything Sgt. Smith has. I had known Chip Melton for many, many years. He is a good friend of mine. He knows the position I’m going to take, and it’s just right and wrong with me. On the overtime with the hours, it was not him. It was one of his managers. I’ll say that in his defense. He is the licensee; therefore we had to charge him. The only thing we’re here for is right and wrong. Was he there? Was he not? And that was the ordinance. And that’s the only reason we are here today on that particular one. I have talked to him several times. He has been down to my office several times. I think he wants to do the right thing, and I think he is now headed in that direction, but we also have an obligation to this community, and that is to uphold the law, and uphold the ordinances. And an 11 ordinance was violated, and that’s the only reason we’re here, and I’ll say it one more time, was he in there? Was he not in there? Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: All right. We’re going to call Mr. Melton up. Do the Commissioners have any questions for the Sheriff or the Deputy? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: I yield to my senior -- Mr. Kuhlke: Greg, I want to ask you, you said something about during the Master’s, there was a violation. Where was that violation? Mr. Smith: The violation was at the Red Lion Pub. Mr. Kuhlke: During the Master’s? Mr. Smith: That was Wednesday of Master’s Week. They had an outdoor party. They had a band in the parking lot. They had people outside drinking. Actually, the party was in the parking lot, which is a violation. There were no fences constructed, nothing to limit access to people that would have been underage. All that would have been required in order to do that. Mr. Kuhlke: Isn’t there a lot of places in Augusta that do that that week? Mr. Smith: I’m only aware of two that actually had an outdoor party. Mr. Kuhlke: Which ones got permission? Mr. Smith: That was Last Call. What they did was they rented fencing, they had the fencing attached to the building, they limited access, they had ten deputies working, there was only one point of entry into the end of the club, and that was through a gate in the fence that had been constructed just for that particular date. That was inspected by the Sheriff’s Office. It was inspected by the Georgia Department of Revenue, and the Licensing and Inspection people before we actually told them that they could do that. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, just for your information, there are a lot of places that do it during the Master’s. I mean, if you move around a little bit, then you go to a lot of places where people are outside, they’re drinking, playing some games, things like that. Mr. Smith: I am aware of those, yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. 12 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really don’t know where to start at, because I’m really kind of disappointed in all these things I’m hearing, but now we coming forward with a case as we got with Mr. Melton here. I have not ever been in his business place. [inaudible], but I really don’t know anything about it, but I do know that every city I’ve ever been in, and I’m thinking about Savannah, Georgia now, that we refer to in a lot of incidents. When there’s something going on, especially the Master’s, Bill, and what you said, that people all over this town take this time, this whole time changes everything, from traffic even to babysitting, even hotels, and I’ve got a problem. I’ve got taxicab people calling me, talking about how one side of this community can raise their fares when it comes to the Master’s, but the taxi side can’t. And that’s our problem. We always find a way to say we can’t, rather than do what’s right. And if you break the law, and, Mr. Sheriff, I told you this before, if you break the law, your job is to arrest people breaking the law. And no ifs, ands, or buts. If they are there, then they ought to be arrested. And we do our jobs. But I just can’t understand how we can sit here and point fingers at somebody who didn’t do something when we look around our left or right shoulders and we see this done all the time. And it just certain people, it look like that we’re doing it. I don’t understand it. We got and ordinance, we got a rule, we got the law, we ought to go by this law. And I don’t think our Sheriff’s Department is doing that. Mr. Mayor: Did you have some questions for -- Mr. Williams: I had a statement, and, Mr. Kuhlke asked the same questions, cause I want to know about the Master’s time, and that’s the time when we get relaxed on a lot of things. We sit here and act as if that was something special. I think that’s wrong. I think we’re doing something that we’re going to regret in the end, and I feel like the Sheriff’s Department have not addressed those issues that he should address. All these warnings, all these other things, that we was talking about here, and their licenses, and how many licenses a person had and when they brought them -- the issue you brought up, Mr. Mayor, about what’s on the agenda, and that’s what we’re talking about. But I just think this city sits back and say what we can’t do and what we don’t have, because we don’t try to. We rather try to find a way not to do it rather than do what the law has said for us to do. Mr. Strength: Our position, Mr. Williams, let me explain, is we don’t get to say, well, we want to enforce these laws and not these laws. We’ve got to enforce the laws, whether we like them, whether we don’t like them. And one of the things, of course you did not bring it up, one of the items we’re discussing here, is being in there 40 minutes after the time it should be closed. You see, everybody’s staying in there. We’re not familiar with -- we check clubs every night. It’s costing us a lot of money to go out there and check clubs. Every single night. And that was not addressed here. But we don’t get to make the decision, well, Master’s Week, we can break the law, but the week before we cannot. We have to go by the law. That’s what we’re going to do. You, as a Commissioner or Commissioners, you can come up with these ordinances, that’s what 13 we’re going to enforce. If you say they can be in there until six o’clock in the morning, getting drunk, that’s what we’re going to enforce, but we don’t get to say, we’re going to enforce on these days, we’re not going to get enforced on these days. Mr. Williams: Mr. Sheriff, I understand what you’re saying, but let me go back to what you said about the Master’s. And you’ve probably been in this town, probably, as long as I have, if not longer. And you seen it during the Master’s. I’m not a police officer, and I see it. So I’m sure, and what you said it true. We ought to go by the ordinances that we got on the books, but we have not been doing that. Bill brought up a good point about Master’s Week, and we get relaxed in this town. You are the Sheriff. You ought to know that more than anybody else knows that. And we have not done everybody the same way. That’s all I’m saying. Mr. Strength: Well, I contradict that absolutely. We’re doing everybody the same way. Certain people, if you come down there, and you meet certain specifications, absolutely, you can have outside parties, and we do have them. Chip Melton could have had outside party, no problem, legally, by coming down and doing the right things. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s hear from Mr. Melton, now, if we may. Chip, you representing yourself today? Mr. Melton: I am. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Melton: Actually, I rally don’t have a lot to say, besides I do recognize one, the tickets that were written -- one ticket was written to me, two tickets were written to my managing partner. The failure to maintain an orderly place, I have pled not guilty to it, we have not been to court to actually have a final say-so on it. But we were really in the gray actually about the failure to maintain an orderly place. We did not sell any liquor, beer, any type of alcohol, outside of that building. I do know that Last Call, who had a special license for that same day, the license also was in line with the State of Georgia, with [inaudible], so they could see liquor outside. I do know that a special is required for that. Had my manager informed me that we were having an outdoor party, be it selling liquor outside or not, we did not sell liquor outside. I would have surely gotten with Licensing Inspection or the Sheriff’s Department, whichever guidance would have been the right way to go, and found out what we needed to do. I was not aware of that. So, it was, you know, I understand the after hours, that they did stay in past the three o’clock period. Like the Sheriff said, there’s right or wrong, they were wrong. And I apologize for them. They can’t be here today. Other than that, again, the only question I have is the failure to maintain an orderly place. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do you have any witnesses that you want to present? Mr. Melton: No, sir. 14 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Melton? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think Commissioner Williams is right. We’ve got laws and ordinances that have to be enforced, and we have an ordinance that we established several years ago that establishes a four-step procedure in violations of our alcohol ordinances. And the first step of that procedure is a one-year probation. Whereas I might think a probation is probably too lax, it is our ordinance, it is our procedure. And we’ve followed this in the past, and, Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that in this instance, based on the request of the Sheriff’s Department, that we place the Red Lion Pub on probation for one year as a result of the Sheriff’s report. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Okay, there is no second heard. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I guess we had information that we were checking clubs every night, and I’ve seen, basically, three nights that are shown here in the general list of things. 4/26, 3/18, and 1/11 of ’02. And then I go back to here, and I see a listing of various establishments, some of our larger clubs, Coconut’s is one of them, is mentioned, but I notice that some of the other clubs are not mentioned. So is that to say that these are the only clubs that have problems with them? Mr. Strength: When we say we check them every night -- that’s what the Uniform Division has to do up to 2:30. Vice guys cannot be out every single night. They have certain nights out, but our Uniform Division goes by clubs, checks who’s in there, who’s not. That’s what we’re referring to as being checked every night. Mr. Cheek: But I see the list, and there’s vehicle damage, assaults, theft, different things, stolen cars, a lot of things that we’re attributing to some of these establishments that share, like Broad Street or Surrey Center, for instance. They share a multiple parking lot or parking facility. How do we attribute these instances to any one -- Mr. Strength: I’m going to have to let Sgt. Smith, who did this for us -- I’m not familiar -- I didn’t even see what you have in your hand. Mr. Smith: That information was provided at your request from the earlier committee meeting, and basically, what we do is, we have a crime analysis investigator, who does all the computerized prime analysis. I give him the addresses of those particular clubs, which are, with the exception of Coconut’s, which is much larger, but the others are basically the same size as the Red Lion. I give him the addresses, he pulls up in the computer a list of every case number, call report, that’s attributable to that particular address. Then what I actually have to do in order to prepare that, is go through each individual case number, pull it up on the computer, read the report, to determine whether that particular call actually could be attributed to that location. Some of them are 15 not. Some of them could be something that happened a block down, but they happened to be at that address when they called the police. The only way to determine that is to read each individual report. So the one’s I provided to you are the clubs that are, in comparison to Red Lion, roughly the same, and those are the reports that are attributable directly to those individual clubs. Mr. Cheek: Now is that that the people who stole the vehicles or committed the assaults came from those establishments, or the people who had this act inflicted upon them came from those establishments? We’ve got, for instance, Coconut’s and Surrey Tavern side by side. We’ve got Blue Sky Kitchen and Nacho Mama’s and Soul Bar all there together, and they all have alcoholic beverages. How can we attribute, for instance, something to the Soul Bar, perhaps -- I guess my question is, how do we attribute to an establishment, unless we have a definite -- Mr. Smith: It’s based on what the complainant told the reporting deputy at the time of the report being filed. Mr. Cheek: But is that, I saw somebody come from these establishments, or I was in? Mr. Smith: No, that is the complainant themselves saying, I was at such-an-such location, and while I was in there, my car was stolen. It was parked directly in front. It may be, like assault, for instance, basically a fight. Most of those reports were done by special duty officers who broke the fights up, made the people leave. Sometimes make arrests. Sometimes they just ask them to leave, depending on the severity of it, but it’s all based on the report that’s done by the deputy based on the information provided to them by the complainants themselves. Mr. Cheek: Based on what you’re saying, then, someone says they were in a location, and that report might read that they were in an establishment and write that complaint, and then that establishment is getting somewhat of a black eye for something they may have not had anything to do with. You know, and I want to give credit where credit is due. If there’s assaults within a place -- I notice there’s one establishment here has a bunch of thefts and assaults, it looks like. Some of these of these larger establishments are not even listed. I’d be interested to see, you know, some of their statistical information. My concern is that we are being fair, that we are not attributing things to people they have no control over. Because Broad Street, you have people walking up and down Broad Street that may be at many different establishments, that could cause trouble in front of an establishment, and we don’t need to give them a black eye if they don’t deserve it. I’m going to make a motion that for the Red Lion Pub that we go with a six-month probation. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion for a six-month probation that’s been seconded. Mayor Pro Tem Colclough asked for the floor, followed by Commissioner Kuhlke. 16 Mr. Colclough: Mr. Smith, in comparison to the other clubs that you gave us the list, like [inaudible], or whatever it is, there are a bunch of assaults? R&B has unauthorized alcohol, assaults, stolen cars, [inaudible], side street assault, [inaudible], a rap sheet here as long as my arm. Joe’s Underground has a few. Soul Bar, and on and on. Have these folks been also cited, has been brought before us for revocation, or suspension, or [inaudible]? Mr. Smith: No, and in reality, for a bar, an alcohol establishment, a nightclub would only have five or six incidents in a six-month period, is actually pretty good. Mr. Colclough: So these are just listing here. They could be over a long period of time? Mr. Smith: The dates for the comparison that I asked for was from December 20, 2001 to present. So these are the only problems, or the only reports we have on file for the previous six months with any of these locations. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] you got December, January, February, March, April, in succession. That’s Time -- Mr. Smith: Time PieceZ. They just spell it a little different. Mr. Colclough: Time PieceZ, there’s a bunch of assaults and thefts. And January through April, these guys got a lot of selling unauthorized alcohol, saw a stolen car, [inaudible], have they been brought to us? Mr. Smith: On the unauthorized alcohol, they were given a warning. Basically, essentially what they were doing was just trying to make something a little more convenient for themselves. They weren’t really -- they were violating the law, but they weren’t trying to circumvent the law. They had all their licenses that they needed to have. It was just a matter of convenience. They took a shortcut. They were given a warning on that one. Essentially, we try to handle these things without having to write citations. We try to warn them, we try to talk to them and get them in compliance. When we have a particular establishment that does not want to start complying with the ordinances after we’ve talked to them, then we issue the citations to them. Our role is -- all we want is compliance. We’re not trying to put people out of business. We just want them to comply with the law, and in fact, like in particular, we did a club check one night, and the Red Lion Pub and the Surrey Tavern, they were walking out at 3:04. Well, technically, that’s a violation, but we’re thrilled. If you’re walking out the door, locking up, at 3:04, we’re thrilled. And, in fact, I went by and spoke with Mr. Melton and thanked him for his effort at that particular time. So I don’t think we’re being unreasonable at all. We’re just trying to get compliance and trying to eliminate some of the more flagrant violations, and if we can get that done, then, you know, we’re pretty happy with that. 17 Mr. Colclough: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Chip, you said you broke the rule, and, when you break the rule, you get punished a little bit, but I respect the Sheriff’s Department, the job they do, and I think you ought to get some punishment. But you’re just starting up in business, you’re a good boy, and I see your mama standing over there, and she’s concerned about you, and I’m concerned about you, don’t want you to get in trouble. I’m going to offer a substitute motion that we put the Red Lion Pub on probation for ninety days. Mr. Colclough: I second it. Mr. Kuhlke: But I want to let you know that I think all of my colleagues sitting up here, if things continue as they have, if you get in trouble, you’re going to be in trouble next time, so I’d like to offer that in the form of a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded for 90-day probation. Further discussion? Mr. Boyles and Mr. Mays. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the 90-days, didn’t we just have an incident out in south Augusta that we looked at something for 90 days? So this is not something to by saying 90 days? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think one of the reasons that the first motion that was out there died in the lack of a second was -- two things. One, the length of time of the suspension for doing something we’re not saying in this process is, and I just want to be, to be clear on this, because, you know, I’ve been on the brunt end of that criticism even for increasing the size of the Sheriff’s Department. I think it was a good thing to do. We needed the support level there. And I’m not going back on that, but what’s a little confusing is that, when we have these, and I know we’re supposed to set policy, but in cases of license suspension, probation, or where we’re asked to do something, and there are pending court cases running parallel to what’s being brought before us at the same time, and I’m glad the suspension is short. I can deal with that. But this is something that we may want to think of in the future, Mr. Mayor. If we going to have people where an item is being contested, because, quite frankly, maybe it’s just the written portion of the terminology. It just to be where I make the old argument on the old City Council, where we get employees before us, I’m always real uncomfortable about the vagueness of a charge. Now, if it relates to an item in which we’ve gotten to this, but if I were facing it just on the fact of conduct, I kind of -- and I think we’ve gotten to that, but when you say, kind of used to get city employees, and you say, well, conduct unbecoming of an employee, you know, of what? You know, did he cuss a supervisor out? [inaudible], or was the situation that was terrible, unruly employee? And those are the kinds of things 18 you have to dig into. Now, I think, if you got one that says that it’s uncontrollable, then I want to know what the uncontrollable factor is. It’s why I’m glad we didn’t have the hearing the other day, and I think it’s fair for both sides, to be here and to get clear and to get to the bottom of it. But I think where you got cases where you’re going to court, and you got challenges there, and particularly when you’ve got those that makes this situation, is not -- and I’m going to go for the short probation, but the hypothetically thing, and I don’t know if you want answer this, Jim, leave it to the judge, and we sit here in a position where, at times, we don’t have the experience that people sit on a bench are going to have in terms of ruling a judicial case. And what happens, hypothetically, if you turn around and you take somebody’s license, say, and they go to court, and they’re found not guilty? I think maybe this procedure maybe needs to be looked at, and that if we’re going to handle it through the Commission, let, as we’ve done in other cases, where there is a court charge, let it run the case of it, and if you want to deal with one, or where you’re keeping that business or such under surveillance, then you do that, but you let it run its course, because I don’t know if that’s the correct signal, even to say to the judiciary, that you made a decision by the Commission to say, okay, we’re taking this person’s license. Well then, that puts them in a position when they go to court to say then, well, I’m wondering already, being punished or penalized, maybe the court needs to act accordingly to what the Commission has done. So I’m just throwing that out there, to a point that I think that you’ve got satisfied parties on this one, and it’s a shorter probationary period, but it could be in a situation where you’re asked to come here with revocation, and you’ve got one going to court, and certain things get on the cross- examination in a court, and you find that party not guilty, then you open yourself up to a situation of where you might end up buying a business, or you damage a person that’s there. So I think that’s something we may need to seriously look at, to a point that, if there going to be challenged court cases running parallel, as we’ve done in other instances, we’ve had other things that have come before us previously, and we said, okay, fine, if it’s in court, it reaches a certain decision, we are then going to wait [inaudible] to the rule of that court, then we will make a decision accordingly. But in this case, we are making one ahead of time, then it’s still going to court. And, in all probability, if a person saying, fine, okay, I’m wrong, everybody’s in agreement. But then you could have those very well where they’ve been reversed, and I just want to throw that out there to a point that, maybe something we need to think about in terms of our rulings, whether we want to hear these in that order, where there’s a challenged case. That’s the only comment I wanted to make. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a substitute motion on the floor. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First point, Mr. Mayor, the original motion that didn’t get the second was not a one-year suspension. It was a one-year probation, which is -- there’s a big difference in that. But, you know, and since we’ve had this ordinance that started out as the first of a four-part step to try to get these businesses in line, the one-year probation was the first step, and we’d enforced that in previous years. This year, this may be the second time that we’ve liberalized that down to 90 days. If it’s the consensus of the Commission that we want to liberalize that first step, then I would 19 rather see a changing of the ordinance, rather than on an individual, so that everybody knows where we stand and what’s consistent, as opposed to individuals or individual businesses coming up and us [inaudible] judgment, liberalizing that probationary period. So I support the original motion that was made to six months because I think you do need to do something, in this regard. I think a message needs to be sent. I’m afraid we may be sending the wrong message when we show the appearance of placing the Sheriff’s Department on trial for claiming of unequal enforcement of the law and then we don’t enforce our own ordinance. I think that might send the wrong message out to the public, as well as to those we’re trying to bring back in line and bring correction to their method of conduct. So I’m going to support the original motion that’s place on the floor by Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. We have a substitute motion on the floor, which would be 90 days’ probation. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Bridges votes No. Mr. Shepard abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could indicate on the record that I have a matter in the office relating to the petitioner, to the subject of the action, and I was advised by counsel, I should abstain. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. We have a delegation here from the Downtown Development Authority. I see Mr. Lloyd, so Madame Clerk, if we could take up item 34? 34. Discussion communication regarding the Downtown Development Authority and Main Street proposed partnership. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lloyd? Mr. Lloyd: Good afternoon. [inaudible] initiation of the possibility of Downtown Development Authority and Main Street Augusta actually becoming one organization. And then that organization be named Downtown Development Authority, which then would be treated as a true authority, as other authorities of the Augusta Richmond County Commission are. From discussion with Main Street, the two organizations did get together and actually, are coming to the Commission today to request that Downtown Development Authority and Main Street Augusta become one organization, Downtown Development Authority being the lead organization, and Main Street Augusta being the 20 subsidiary organization, and then being treated as a true authority, maintaining its revenue source of the Augusta Richmond County Commission. That is [inaudible] proposal. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: If I could -- I was in the meeting that Mr. Lloyd called, and I think there was a strong consensus on the part of Main Street. At this point, after we came up with a memorandum of agreement for this to happen, so I would encourage my colleagues to accept Mr. Lloyd’s report and take necessary action to do that, to do what he’s asking. Mr. Mayor: Jim, do we need to do this by ordinance, or how is this accomplished? Mr. Wall: No, it’s not by ordinance. The Commission, as part of the organizational structure -- what you’re in essence doing is changing that organizational chart. The Main Street Augusta formerly was a city department. When the Main Street director left, it was combined -- a shared position is the executive director of Main Street and with the DDA. Now basically, you would be placing Main Street subordinate to the DDA, and the DDA would be responsible for the Main Street’s programs, so it’s a change in the organizational structure, and it would not require an ordinance. Mr. Mayor: All right. Did you want to make a motion, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion, and, Jim, correct me if I get off-base here, that the Downtown Development Authority become the arm of the city. How’s that, an independent authority? Mr. Wall: Well, you don’t need -- the Downtown Development Authority assume responsibility for the Main Street Program and Main Street report to the DDA rather than the Augusta Commission. Mr. Kuhlke: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Discussion, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Jim, this came before us before, and to tell you the truth, I don’t remember the issues surrounding it. Apparently, there was some legal or financial problem with. Has that been resolved at this point? Mr. Wall: Well, you talking about within the last month or two? 21 Mr. Bridges: Yeah, there’s been a couple of months, I think, since this issue came before us. Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t remember. It was placed on the agenda, and I don’t think that there was any backup information as to the -- how it was going to be structured. And I think the Commission was concerned that both the Main Street board, as well as the Development Authority board, formally approved of the concept that Main Street would be subordinate to the DDA. I think it also came up in the context of concern over the salary for the executive director. I mean, that was how it came to the Commission at one point. Now, I don’t remember -- Mr. Bridges: That salary will not be changed in this regard; is that right, with this motion? Mr. Wall: That motion will not change the salary, but the salary -- the executive director will now be the executive director reporting to the Development Authority, and so the Development Authority, as any authority, has the power to set compensation of its employees. Mr. Bridges: But this motion -- you don’t think it -- there’s any problem with this motion at this point then, or any of the previous problems that were discussed? Mr. Wall: No, there’s no problem -- Mr. Bridges: I just couldn’t remember. I really couldn’t remember what the issues were, but I remember there was something there. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, Commissioner Bridges sparked something here, and he said that -- and you said that when these two entities combine, that DDA has the authority to what? Say that again. Mr. Wall: The DDA already is an independent authority. So it can function as it has the resources to do. Mr. Williams: But they can do that now, though, right? Mr. Wall: They can do that now. The distinction is that Mr. Naylor, as the executive director, has two bosses. 50% of his time, theoretically, is devoted to being the executive director of the Development Authority. 50% of his time is devoted to being the executive director of the Man Street program. And that’s the way it was set up. And let me back up a little bit, to years ago, perhaps before you, in particular, Commissioner Williams, you may not have been on the Commission when the decision was made, nor some of the others of you. Main Street director was a city employee, prior to whenever 22 that action was taken. And in the process -- and the Development Authority had no executive director. And the Commission, at that point in time, wanted the Development Authority to be more active in the development of downtown, the revitalization of downtown. And so the decision was made, rather than replacing the Main Street director on the city payroll, that it would become a shared position, that the individual that was hired would report both to the Development Authority and to Main Street. And that’s the way the program was set up, and the last Commission action approved that. So, when the question came up about the salary for the executive director, my opinion is, since it is a shared position, and since Main Street is still under the supervision of the Augusta Commission, that salary had to be approved by the Commission. Now, the effect of this action, if approved, is that Main Street, rather than being a function of the city, will become a function of the Development Authority. And the Development Authority would be just like the Coliseum Authority. I mean, the Coliseum Authority does not ask you what they pay their manager. They don’t ask you whether or not they should have a contract to run the Civic Center, or whether they, you know, hire their own personnel. The same thing would be true for the Development Authority. They’d be independent. Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem with the combining, but I do have a problem with the combining, and then the authority goes with that to change that pay. That’s something that was in this pay raise that we talked about for other employees. I can’t support that. I mean, I’m not against the combining. I think that may be a good effort, but we combining those two, which is going to end up being another way of doing something that we had not got to yet. And I think this board need to take responsibility of doing what it’s supposed to do. And for that reason alone, I can’t support it. I understand the combining. You made it plain. And you made us know how it would go about. I can’t support it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. Does anybody need the motion read back to them. Mr. Boyles: I would, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles has asked for the motion to be read, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: The motion was to -- that DDA, the Downtown Development Authority resumes responsibility for the Main Street activities. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion carries 7-3. PUBLIC SERVICES: 23 1. Motion to approve amending contract with Beam Pavement Maintenance Company to overlay a section of the ramp. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) 2. Motion to approve amending contract with Wall Asphalt Services to apply PDC sealer rejuvenator to runway shoulders. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) 3. Motion to approve amending current lease with NVA, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) 4. Motion to approve a request by Francois Savoy for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with A+ Stress Reduction located at 1700 North Leg Court. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) 5. Motion to approve a request by James Smith for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Jim Smith LMT located at 3637 Walton Way Ext. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) 6. Motion to approve a request by Eric C. Kinlaw for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The Bee’s th Knees located at 211 10 Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 7. Motion to approve the retirement of John A. Brown under the 1949 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2002) 8. Deleted from consent agenda. 9. Deleted from consent agenda. 10. Motion to approve addendum to Lease Agreement between Augusta Riverfront Limited Partnership and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2002) 11. Motion to approve the development of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Augusta-Richmond County Government. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 12. Motion to approve purchase of existing leased computer system to maintain legacy applications and serve as a future test environment. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 28, 2002) 13. Motion to approve addendum to Lease Agreement between Augusta Riverfront Limited Partnership and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 28, 2002) FINANCE: 14. Motion to approve the abatement of penalty charge on 2001 Account for Map 123, Parcel 7 (Ralph A. Ireland, III). (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2002) 24 15. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Trailer Mounted Six-Inch Pump for the Augusta Utilities Department - Construction Division from Godwin Pump Company of Charleston, South Carolina for $21,869.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-080). (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2002 16. Deleted from consent agenda. Motion to approve release of tax lien on all real property of Richmond Recycling, Inc. in order to facilitate sale of property. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2002 ENGINEERING SERVICES: 17. Motion to approve award of contract to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $349,384.25 for the construction of the Pineview Sanitary Sewer Extension. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 18. Motion to approve a proposal from Gannett Fleming in the amount of $19,580 to provide engineering services during construction of the 16-inch diameter water main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 19. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Kinsey and Walton Funeral Home, Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $11,981.00: 8,945 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 10,395 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 20. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcel 114, between Joseph E. Smith and Leonard Berger, owners, and Augusta, Georgia in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 21. Motion to approve Change Order No. 3 (Final) to Skinner Road Sewer project’s construction contract. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 22. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to the Mike Padgett Highway Sanitary Sewer System Extension project’s construction contract in the amount of a deduction of $100,764.13. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 23. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $34,965.00 for the design associated with adding Town and Country Park Sewer to the Fairington Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 24. Motion to approve a proposal from Jordan, Jones & Goulding in the amount of $328,800.00 to provide professional services for the Augusta Utilities Department to design sanitary sewer and water lines associated with the Windsor Spring Road Phases IV and V projects, authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to negotiate a contract based on the proposal, and also authorize the transfer of funds from the Wrightsboro Road Widening Project in the amount of $328,800 to cover the associated design cost. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 25. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcel 61, which is owned by Michael D. Tomberlin, for a right-of-way and a temporary 25 construction easement in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 117 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 2,067 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 26. Motion to approve contract to purchase fifty (50) acres for Butler Creek Greenbelt and expenditure of Greenspace funds for said purpose. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) 27. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Sewer Collection Subcommittee to award the contract for the Find & Fix Pilot Project Spirit Creek Interceptor Rehabilitation Project to Insituform Technologies, Inc. based on proposals received on May 9, 2002 and evaluated by the subcommittee. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2002) ATTORNEY: 28. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to amend section 2-4-21 by extending the boundaries of the "Rocky Creek Enterprise Zone"; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission May 21, 2002- second reading) 29. Deleted from the consent agenda. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 30. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on May 21, 2002. Addendum Item 1. Request approval for the immediate purchase of One Aerial Fire Truck, amending the approval of Agenda Item 27, February 20, 2002. (Requested by the Administrator) Addendum Item 2. Approve appointment of Robert L. Moore to the General Aviation Commission at Daniel Field for District 3. (Requested by Commission Shepard) Addendum Item 3. Approve appointment of Peter R. Shirley to the Human Relations Commission for District 3. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: That will take us to our consent agenda, and before we get into that, Mr. Kolb, I’d like to call on you, if I may, to introduce our newest department head. Is he still in the audience? Yeah, there he is, back there. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it gives me great pleasure to introduce our new Finance Director, Mr. David Persaud, who started yesterday, officially, with Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Persaud. (A round of applause is given.) 26 Mr. Mayor: He brought a big bag of money with him, too, didn’t he? All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and take up the consent agenda. Are there any that you need to read individually? The Clerk: Yes, sir. We have some alcohol petitions. Item 6 is a request for an on-premise consumption liquor, beer, and wine license to be used in connection with Bee th Knees, located at 211 10 Street. There will be a dance hall. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to this item? Any objectors? All right. None are noted. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 30. It has been the tradition of the Commission to include Commission appointments in the consent agenda, which is on our addendum agenda, items 2 and 3. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding number 1 on the addendum to the consent agenda, the purchase of the Aerial truck? Any objection to that? All right. We’ll add that to the consent agenda, too. The Clerk: Items 1 through 30, and items 1, 2, and 3 on the addendum agenda. Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, would you care to pull any items for further discussion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Number 29. Mr. Mayor: Number 29 for Mr. Bridges. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: That covers mine, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: No, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to pass on that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Item 9. 27 Mr. Mayor: Number 9 for Mr. Boyles. And Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Item 8. Mr. Mayor: Item 8 for Mr. Hankerson. Okay. Any others? We have 8, 9, and 29. All right. So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 8, 9, and 29, and the consent agenda includes items 1 through 3 on the addendum agenda. All in favor, then, please vote aye. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion carries 9-0. [Item 20] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-7, 10-15, 17-19, 21-28, 30, Addendum Items 1-3] Mr. Mayor: We have a delegation here with item number 9, so let's take that one up first. Madame Clerk, if you’d read the caption? 9. Motion to approve disposing of the DeLaigle House property through the Land Bank Authority and allow them to contract through the revolving fund of Historic Augusta and market said property for restoration purposes. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be put back, or brought back up because there is a document they’d like to present back to us on item 9. Mr. Mayor: If you’d give us your name and address for the record, please? Mr. DeLaigle: I’m Alan DeLaigle, from Waynesboro, Georgia. And, Mr. Mayor, distinguished Commissioners, we, as members of the DeLaigle family, are here to thank you for your support of the initiative to save the old DeLaigle at 551 Greene Street, which y’all are all familiar with. It’s right across the street from the building here. The motion to approve disposal of the DeLaigle house through the Land Bank Authority and allow them to contract with the revolving fund of the Historic Augusta and market set said property for the purpose of restoring it. We trust that you and the Commissioners support number 9, and if it’s approved, let us all work together to bring this old building back to pride. Thank you and -- Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. DeLaigle. Sonny, did you want to say something? Mr. Pittman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Identify yourself for the record, please. 28 Mr. Pittman: Sonny Pittman, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission. I’d like to thank all the members of the Commission for the plan that you put forth, Mr. Mayor, for supporting that plan. On behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission, I’d like to mention, there’s two important items in this proposal. One, we do it without any public funds, save, perhaps, the expense of a side grant, or state or federal tax incentives. And, two, we put this property -- we rehabilitate this piece of historic property and put it back on the tax books. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Pittman. We need a motion with respect to this item. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Knowing the history, recent history, of this facility, or of this house, and the need for preventative maintenance on the roof and other things, are there plans underway to kind of put it into, I guess, a safe mode until we can begin renovation to prevent further damage? Mr. Pittman: I don’t see how we can do that, Mr. Mayor, until we clear the building of its present -- Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding that -- I spoke to the DA last week, and he indicated that he’d be out by July, probably, and I think we can move ahead with marketing the property just as soon as he’s out. Get it into private hands and let them commence with that work. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my concern, and I’m vaguely familiar with -- I’ve been in the building -- whether we have plaster walls and ceilings and different things like that to deal with. Six months or a year with a continuous leaky roof in a vacant facility can be a major problem, and my question is, after we vacate the property, are we going to take steps necessary to at least keep the rain out until we can get it sold and underway? Mr. Mayor: I think, Mr. Cheek, there’s some people going over there to do something to the roof right after this meeting, as soon as we dispose of this item. Give us your name and address again, for the record. Mr. DeLaigle: I’m Jack DeLaigle. I live in Marietta, Georgia. And the leaky roof -- this morning we swept it off, and we found a few little cracks, but there’s nothing major. I’ll redo the roof to where it will not leak, and you can decide how to dispose of it, and it won’t cost anybody anything. Is that fair enough? 29 Mr. Cheek: That sounds good. I’d just like to see a plan in place. It is interesting that, you know, you found nothing major, and those fellows have been fighting water leakage for years now, so, I’d just like to see it taken care of, and restored to its original beauty. Mr. DeLaigle: I’ve been in the remodeling business for 60 years, and that’s the simplest roof I’ve got on to repair. It’ll take about three hours, and you won’t see any more leaks. Mr. Cheek: Maybe we need to get you working for the City. (Laughter.) Mr. DeLaigle: I’m kind of expensive. (Laughter.) Mr. Cheek: Well, doing it once is a lot better -- Mr. DeLaigle: I do hope that every one of you will see that this house remains standing, because it does have sufficient historical value to be saved. Make the city of Augusta proud. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Y’all can get to work on the roof now. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: All right. Item number 8. Mr. Hankerson? 8. Motion to approve updating the Fleet Management, Operations and Maintenance policy regarding automobiles and allowances to correspond with the action adopted by the Augusta Commission on July 2, 1997. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason I wanted to pull this item 8 is because of the fact that, to my understanding, if we approve the updating of this fleet management operation maintenance policy, that the allowances that’s already been given will be rescinded. I’ve said in the past, in the committee meetings, that I strongly disagree with that, that I don’t think that our employees should be punished for a misinterpretation of the policies. And I also said that the person I think we need to look at, that violate our other policy. Since that time, and receiving copies of all the policies that are available on car allowances, fleet management operations, and also the employees’ handbook, it supports, to my knowledge, it support the decision that the 30 Administrator to do the authority to do what he did. I understand that the minutes reflects 1997, that it was changed. But the problem there is that it was changed, but it was not updated into the policy manual, and to me, that’s like -- I said this to Mr. Wall, and some things we disagreed, and finally agreed on, that logically thinking -- and I said this to th him, that that’s like the 10 Commandment been amended when the disciples had a meeting, and they didn’t write it in the Bible. And we still responsible for it. I don’t think that someone should be held responsible for a policy, if you have a policy manual before you, and that’s what you go by. So I think that we are finding that there’s a lot of work to do, that we need to go back to the basics, and we need to make sure that all the policies are updated, so whether that was this done intentionally, or whether it was done in error, that’s not the question that I’m addressing now, but I see that it is a serious problem. I don’t think that this city should have the reputation of signing an agreement with employee or potential employee or new employee, our Finance Director, or sign an agreement that a certain amount that he would receive, and then we renege on it. I think, out of good faith, that we should keep our word. We don’t want to get that reputation, and I don’t we could afford to get that kind of reputation. Two other individuals were included in this. So I just think that we should correct out mistakes by updating the policy, but not rescinding the allowances. So what I’d like to is put into a motion that the Finance Director’s allowance that was given to him would be considered as salary and the other two individuals, since transportation is needed for Public Works Director, we know that transportation is needed, and also with the Deputy Administrator, they are needing this transportation, so other directors are now receiving their allowances for this, so I move that we should include them and let the allowances continue as is. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if the -- and I’ve talked in a bunch of different [inaudible] on this one, and I probably, [inaudible] and talking with the Attorney on it as well. Let me just ask, maybe, if the maker of the motion and the person seconding it, and what I’m getting to, I don’t want to -- and I agree with what Commissioner Hankerson has said in the address part of it. But I want to make sure that we’re not opening a situation as to where, in cases where we have taken, that we get into that argument of other persons who will make the argument about the salary rollover [inaudible] salary. If we would simply do three things, if we could improve the process, and I agree with you, Bobby, and get it written and get it published as to the way it’s to be. The second thing is to take the persons that are in question in those positions, and thank God it’s a small number you’re dealing with, but allow the part that has somewhat called to confusion as to whether or not the discretionary position in there, that the Administrator can take, by justifying the position for those allowances. To allow that to be brought into the issue and approved by the Commission, so that the allowances then would be valid, and you would not roll them and to put them into salary, jeopardizing the possibility of other folks coming at you. I think it cures two things. I think it finally gets the policy the way it needs to go. I think it gets us to a point where it doesn’t open up a door to anything else, and the discretionary portion, which seems to be the argument inside, to say, were the 31 Administrator would come in and to recommend that, just recognize that portion of it, and approve it. If you need -- if your letter’s not in place, then let’s produce one and then approve it. Then I think you’re not opening it up. I think you’ve done that under the justification. Then under the policy, if you want to do away with the discretionary mode, or, since it’s not in the policy, if you want to shut that door then forever, then do it, and then publish the policy as is. And I think that would correct that mode on both sides of it. We could hopefully end this argument, because, quite frankly, with all the laws we got and no more money, I’m about ready and I want to see us keep the finance the way we th got, but I think we in a mode that we need to be getting ready by the 4 of July to start talking about the budget for next year. I hope we can put cars to rest, to a point, and deal with some bigger fish that we got to fry. And I think that gets us there. It doesn’t get us to any violation, and I think if they accept that as and amendment, put it on, I know one vote that you could pick up to do it. But I think it’ll satisfy both sides of it. Those arguing about the policy get the policy in place, and then you’re not harming yourself in putting -- and have I stated anything illegal, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: No. Mr. Mays: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays has offered an amendment to the motion. Is there any objection to amending the motion as stated by Mr. Mays? Mr. Beard: I didn’t quite understand what he was saying. Mr. Mayor: Well, I didn’t either. Mr. Beard: And, Mr. Mays, just let me say one thing. I agree with what he started off with, by keeping this intact, and I think it needs to be intact. I also agree with -- I think I heard him say was, you, know, if we’ve got a problem, let’s do it after this, but we need to settle number 8 here now and get that over with. Because I think, in the make of the first motion, that there’s just too many loopholes in there to say, we’re going to deal with one person, but we’re going to let the other two go. The cars that we took a couple of years ago, we not going to go back to those people and say, can they have their allowance back. So I think it’s a little ambiguous on what we’re saying. So why not deal with what you have here? And I think I’m going to make a substitute motion that we approve the item as listed on the agenda here and move forward. Anything else we have to deal with, I think we need to deal with it down the line. I don’t know if that was part of what Mr. Mays said or not, but that’s what I -- Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded, a substitute motion. Mr. Mays? 32 Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mays can tell you what Mr. Mays said, if you want it in a shorter version or another language. But what I was trying to do, quite frankly, was to get us out of this box about this argument of dealing with this policy. And the only reason -- and I agree with you, Lee -- if the language was not out there flowing about what was in discretion, I would say that it is totally clear. You deal with a violation of policy, and that we find a way, on another day, to deal with this. But when I’m getting different documents -- now, we can get into a game of what a person may have intended to do, or what’s on their mind, or what they are thinking. And I have my reasons, maybe, to what they might be thinking, but I can’t play into somebody’s mind as to why something’s going on. If I’m looking at documents, on one hand, that if -- let me reverse roles. If I’m hired by the city, and I’m sitting there making a decision, and I’m your Administrator, and if I’m looking at a fleet policy which is out there printed, that you got in print, that names me to be able to handle something and to do it, then, if that’s where I’m going to hang my hat, that’s what I’m going to do. Because, like Dick Gregory used to joke that, you know, United States kind of messed up when they put everything in writing. They called it the Constitution. Then everybody realized that they had rights. Now, you got something here that conflicts with what your overall policy is. You got a policy we adopted. You got one that’s not in the handbook. We got one that’s being read, which says the Administrator can do one of two different things. The only thing I was trying to do was to keep us from getting into World War III about the simplicity of a policy. The other thing that I think you do open, and I’ll say this real clearly, ain’t nobody understood it. It’s that, in the old county government, where cars and other allowances were given because they were cheaper to give than salaries, that basically was done. Everybody knew it. When you stopped that policy and you no longer continued it, there are folk out there who are making -- I said this in committee the other day, I’ll say it again -- there are folk out there who are making far less than any of these folk that you’ve got here that you’re talking about. But you stopped that process, and it was discontinued. My reason for saying finding a way under the discretionary mode, to put it in, then just completely, when you put it in the policy. You don’t allow it. Then it’s done. But when you open that door of going back and rolling it then into salary, what about the person making less than $35,000 that you took the car mode away from them? That, then they question, is if you do that on this end and make a salary out of it, then why aren’t you not doing it for me? And then they decide as a group to deal with class action against you, and to do it. And then I think you far do open that door real further. That’s not as clear as I can make it, I don’t know what is. I was trying to build a gap between two sides that want to strictly enforce the policy that’s written in one place where it’s not written in another place, where it’s got conflicting language or say something with it, and then another place where it’s if I were fighting you in court, I’d have a good leg to stand on. So I think you can establish a policy, get it written, take the discretionary parts out, and go ahead and move [inaudible] out. The three folk that you’re dealing with, make the Administrator produce under the discretion, why the folk [inaudible], and then you’ve got the problem solved. And you don’t have to argue about cars anymore. That’s what I’m trying to get to. Mr. Beard: I think we’re saying basically the same thing. 33 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understood then, then I got confused again, after listening to Mr. Mays. Let’s get plain with this thing. First of all, ignorance is no excuse for the law, is that right Mr. Kolb? I mean, I can’t help what you don’t know. You break the law, you break the law. And we’ve got to face those type things here, when the law is broke. It was in the law. Jim had it, where it counts. It should have been in a lot of other places. But if we’re going to point fingers somebody for that, let’s point a finger at ourself. We didn’t do it, regardless of who was here at that time. My thing is, if we’re going do what’s right, if we’re going to take those, take this step that Mr. Mays said, and go back to what our ordinance is read, then they was in violation. It’s as simple as that. We not asking anybody for anything back. It was wrong. It would be wrong to sit here and let the taxpayers pay that additional money out of their taxes come to this government for those persons. Everybody receive them. That’s another side that’s not there. Then, if you take it and roll it into the salaries, as has been suggested, then Mr. Mays is right again. What about the people that we took it from? They ought to be rolled back in. In fact, they ought to get money for the time they been out of it. This was a policy that this government set up through our legal department. Mr. Wall, who got it in writing, and it was in violation. And it just as plain as the nose on your face. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And, Mr. Mayor, we need to call for the question, so we can go ahead and vote. Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: All right. We still have some people who want to speak, and so we’ll give them an opportunity. Mr. Bridges, and then Mr. Cheek? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I’d like the two motions -- I’d like some understanding of both motions, Mr. Mayor, if I could get the first one and the substitute? And does the substitute reverse monies or allowances given to the three employees? Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion would, in effect, restate what the policy is that was adopted by the Commission on July 2, 1997. So it would have the effect of reversing any administrative action that was contrary to -- Mr. Bridges: Is that true, Jim? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Now with respect to the first motion, I’ll let the Clerk read that back to you, and that was amended by Mr. Mays, too. The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to approve updating the Fleet Management Operations and Maintenance policy regarding the action taken by the Commission on July 7. Thereby allowing the allowances to continue to the Finance Director, the Deputy Administrator, and the Director of Engineering. Mr. Mays’s amendment was to address the discretionary -- 34 Mr. Wall: Let me correct there. Commissioner Hankerson, I believe your motion was that, insofar as the Finance Director, it be rolled into salary. The Clerk: Salary, yes, it was rolled into salary. Mr. Wall: And the other two would continue as automobile allowances. Right. The Clerk: Allowance be given as part of the salary, and then the Deputy Director and the Director of Public Works be continued auto allowances. Commissioner Mays said the Administrator discretionary, regarding the justification for the allowances, and that it come back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Bridges: But the amendments never were accepted as part? Okay. Mr. Mayor: Now, there’s no objection to the amendments, so the Chair declared the motion amended. Mr. Bridges: No, there was objection. Mr. Mayor: Well, it was not a majority objection. There were not six people who said that they objected to it. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Well, I don’t think it was that way. Mr. Mayor: Well, we could have taken a vote on it. It was just easier to say, is there any objection, and there were not a majority objecting to amending it, then it will be amended. Mr. Bridges: There was myself, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Williams, that I know of, Mr. Mayor that objected to it, so we began discussion from that point. And I don’t remember the Chair making a ruling on it. Mr. Mayor: Well, y’all kept talking and to give me a chance -- Mr. Bridges: Jim, so that amendment is not the original motion at this point, is that the parliamentary ruling? Mr. Wall: My understanding was that it was not accepted by the makers of the motion or the body, and, absent a vote, in my opinion, it’s not part of the motion. Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right. And so, just speaking to the motions, I’m going to support the first motion because I think it’s fair and it’s right. If I was looking at that information that our Administrator had to look at in regards to the Fleet Management policy when he came here, I certainly don’t expect him to go back through the minutes and read every -- pick up on all the minutes previous to his entry into this government. 35 And if I was looking at the information that he had, I would have made the same conclusion that he had the authority as the Administrator, to give those allowances to the employees, so I don’t think that’s something -- he’s representing the City, he’s the -- when he makes these offers, basically, he’s our legal representative in those matters, and in those cases, we’ve given him that authority, and I don’t think we can go back and take them away. So I’m going to support the original motion. I think it’s fair to the employees, and I think it brings this really confusing policy up to date so that we all could read it and understand it, and I’m going to support the original motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [Inaudible] both motions in this situation is a symptom of a larger problem. We have had several instances where we as a Commission have passed and adopted policy that has not made it on the books. I would hope, and offer this in a form of an amendment to both the substitute and the motion, that we instruct staff to develop a process improvement plan for making sure that items passed by this Commission make it onto the policy books, whether that’s quarterly, monthly, or whatever, but come up with a plan to make sure that, when things are passed by this Commission on this floor, that they are actually carried through and implemented onto the laws and ordinances of this city. That is the real problem. We would not be here if that book had been updated in ’97, dealing with this issue now. And that’s really the root of the problem. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to object to any further amendment to the motions because, maybe I need to go back to the William C. Calhoun school of motion making. Maybe I need to go back to the Steven E. Shepard school of listening, but in any event, I think that, since we’ve already passed number 11 on the consent agenda, which was to approve the development of a policies and procedures manual, that that’s going to be a staff goal, and whether you call it process improvement or whatever, I think Mr. Wall indicated that we needed to have a manual that was numbered by section and subsection, so that when we do pass these amendments from time to time, we know where in the manual we are inserting it, and I hope that we’ll all get our copies of it and file a copy up here in the Commission office so that we can consult. I think we’ve developed it for the future. What I want to understand, from Mr. Wall’s ruling, was that the substitute motion has the effect of, quote, reversing the administrative action, which means that the salary offered to the -- or the car allowance offered to the Finance Director would not be given and also, the auto allowances of the Public Works Director and the Assistant Administrator would be rescinded. Do I understand that correctly? Mr. Wall: Yes. If the policy is that only the Commission has designated certain positions as being entitled to automobile allowances, and, absent Commission approval to allow that, then giving the allowances is contrary to the existing policy. So, once you are aware of the fact that something’s in violation of existing policy, you ought to stop it. 36 And, so, without approval for the automobile allowances, the substitute motion just confirms the policy as it currently stands, and so there is no authority to issue -- to have the automobile allowances for those three positions. Mr. Shepard: And the second part of my question is, the first motion, then, would, in effect, ratify those auto allowances that have been given the past two years, the past years, to the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Public Works, and convert the monies offered as auto allowance to the Finance Director to salary? Right? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m looking at page 28, and I don’t have the entire book, but I just have page 28 of our employee handbook, and it says, revised June 7, 2000. And under Section 4-A, under vehicles, the power of the Administrator, number 2 says, establishes department vehicular allowances and approves annually departmental vehicle authorizations for vehicles to be driven home. This is the third different document that I’ve received as to what the policy is. So I don’t know where we go on either motion right now. Mr. Wall: And while I understand that you’re citing that -- if you read the first paragraph at the top, it talks about the Fleet Management Operations and Maintenance policy is made part of the employee handbook by reference. And then it says the entire manual for review in the Fleet Management Department. That Fleet Management manual should have been updated after July of ’97. And it was -- the printed version was not so. I agree that there’s confusion. Mr. Boyles: This just says, revised on June 7, 2000. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard, and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I think now, at this point, it is confusing, because you can go to any point there and read whatever you want, Commissioner Boyles, on two or three different things. But the point is, and we argued this in the case we had a few minutes ago, dealing with the Sheriff’s Department, you know, that the bottom line is that on July 2, 1997, this Commission voted on the policy that we have on number 8. Now you can cut it any way you want to. I admit that an error has been made, and I’m sure that everybody in this room will agree with me that, once you make an error, and if the policy is there, then you enforce the policy. And you correct the error. What we’re asking for now is what we didn’t ask, you know, some time ago, and I’m sure that officers out there patrolling, you know, you’re asking them, and the Sheriff said he enforces all the policies. And that’s all we’re saying in this. You enforce the policy. Now, if there’s any dealing, and I agree with Commissioner Mays. We’ll deal with it at a 37 later time and maybe work it out, but we have to stop this policy. And I don’t see how Commissioners can sit here and say, we not going to enforce the policies. We going to make allowances for this. And what does this mean? Does everybody, the next person hired, we got a director coming up pretty soon. Is he going to get a car allowance? Where are we on this, and where are we going with this? And I think we have to make this decision, and then really comes down to are we going to enforce the policy, or are going to make some loopholes to get around it because a mistake was made? And I do agree that a mistake was made. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all, Commissioner Bridges brought something to my attention. He asked the question, that the Administrator can’t sit back and read all of the minutes and find out everything. And I agree. Nobody can do that, but we pay a top-quality, a top-gun lawyer to sit at his right hand every time we meet. There is no excuse for not being able to know what was in the policy when it comes to giving out taxpayers’ money. And the second thing, Mr. Commissioner Beard talked about who else is coming on, and only looks like certain people got these raises, and I’m really upset about it. We got two Assistant Administrators, we got a car that sits outside, a 2002 Crown Victoria that got less than 20,000 miles on it because it stays parked in the parking lot, probably 24-7. That car was assigned to that office for the Assistant Administrator, Mr. Hornsby, who was at that time, to be able to use at the discretion of the Administrator to transact city business. But now we’re coming up with car allowances, which is another way of giving salary increases, and that’s not right. Mr. Beard is right. We got a policy the attorney done read it back to us, he’s there every time. I called him, he’s got somebody there if he’s not there, and there’s no excuse for what has happened. We need to go ahead to vote to do what is right. Then we can work on trying to see how we going to do with increases. But we got pay raise coming up. We’re trying to deal with that. We got people at the lower level who are not making anything. And then people at the top, who’s getting car allowances and pay raises. That’s unfair. That’s totally unfair, and we need to go ahead and proceed with this and vote to do what the attorney has showed us, that is our guideline, and we need to make sure that it is updated with Commissioner Shepard said, that number 11 -- we going look at policy, and we’re going to change some things that should have been changed a long time ago. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson, and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. By no means that I condone wrongdoing, and I believe in, as a new Commissioner, what is put before me, that’s what I have as policy. As Mr. Beard said, the bottom line is, and I’ll tell you what the bottom line is, the bottom line is that it was voted on, and it was never put into policy, put into writing. So that created a problem. That’s the problem that we have. I’m not saying that people should receive illegal allowances, but I’m -- actually, my motion amends what’s already here on the agenda. I’m saying that we should have a policy, and that’s why I’m saying that we should make sure that we have a policy, that it is very clear. If I read this, I read also the Fleet Management policy, I served on the personnel board before serving 38 on this Commission, if this were to come before the personnel board, it would be kicked out. Matter of fact, we received so many cases like that, that some things that the city should have done before, and did not do it. And we could not support it, and this in one of these things here. It’s no way that this would be supported, even in court, and I said this to Jim yesterday. What is written here, we must go by what is written. I read that there was a policy that we voted on, and we changed it, but we failed because there was a lot of talking, there was no working. The working should have been, getting the policy in motion. And what I’m doing, I’m just amending our -- yes, we ought to have a policy, and if that’s what it say, [inaudible], but we made an error. We’re in error. The city’s in error by not implementing and putting this in writing. We cannot implement -- you mentioned the Sheriff, if we said today, change Telfair Street to 20 miles an hour, and, here, today, and we vote on it, and I go out there I see a 30 miles an hour sign when I leave here, the Sheriff better not give me a ticket because it says 30 miles an hour. Now, when we see the traffic engineers go out there and change it, I can’t argue with it. But this is what happened here. Don’t give me no ticket, Sheriff. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, the motion that’s in the book is the motion that I made in committee, and I voted for. After that meeting, I started thinking about it, and we have an Administrator that we give an awful lot of authority to, and he represents this city. And, you know, he was not aware of this particular action that was taken in 1997, but I think that Commissioner Hankerson’s amendment to this motion is fair and equitable. In my opinion, your word’s your bond, and there’s been some commitments made to three employees that this affects, and I’m going to support his motion. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We call the question on the substitute motion from Commissioner Beard. Would anyone like to have it read back? It is what is captioned in the book. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: The information that Commissioner Boyles read to us is not the law of the land. Actually, the policy in the item 8 is the law of the land, as we speak. Mr. Mayor: That is the advice to us of our counsel. Mr. Boyles: I’m just concerned with the dates. I realize it may not be the law of the land, Mr. Cheek, but I realize there are two conflicting dates here. Mr. Mayor: We are going to vote on the substitute motion. The substitute motion is what’s stated in the caption in the agenda book. And that is the date that is included in the substitute motion. It doesn’t matter what other dates are. This is the date that’s in the motion. Mr. Williams: Can we have a roll call vote? 39 Mr. Mayor: We can do that. There’s been a request for a roll call vote. Madame Clerk? On the substitute motion, which is the caption that is in the book. The Clerk: The original motion was to update to allow the Finance Director’s car allowance to be part of his salary and the Deputy Administrator and the Director of Public Works be continued the auto allowance. Mr. Mayor: We’re voting on the substitute motion. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: That’s not the substitute motion. The Clerk: No, sir, that’s the original. Mr. Williams: That’s the original motion. The Clerk: I gave you original motion. The substitute motion is the item 8 as printed in the book updating the fleet management operations and maintenance policies as adopted by the Commission on July 7. Roll Call Vote (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard: Yes Mr. Boyles: No Mr. Bridges: No Mr. Cheek: No Mr. Colclough: Yes Mr. Hankerson: No Mr. Kuhlke: No Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: No Mr. Williams: Present Motion fails 2-6-2 Mr. Mayor: The motion fails. The Clerk: Fails. Mr. Mayor: Fails. The Clerk: 2-6-2. Okay, the original motion. 40 Mr. Mayor: Does anybody need a clarification on the original motion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays: I guess I’m just a little bit confused. The Parliamentarian has already ruled that amendment out of order. The Chair said it was in, the Parliamentarian said it was out. So it’s out. But just a point of clarification on all this. Might I just ask out of curiosity, since we’re saying about so much confusion, whose responsibility is it with what goes into the minutes to become law, then whose responsibility is it in this government of ?? people to make sure that the law becomes the law? Now where does that responsibility lie? And my point for making that is that the Parliamentarian is the Attorney and you ruling my amendment out of order, then I guess I’m asking you, then, whose responsibility is this to end all this confusion about what should have been in and what should have been out. Mr. Wall: Well, in my opinion, the Administrator is ultimately responsible for the policies and procedures. And so when the policy was amended effectively in July of ’97, that should have been updated in the Fleet Management policy. Now as a practical matter, even though the Administrator is responsible is that, that’s delegated down to the department head who is responsible for the overall operation of the vehicles, and so the Fleet Manager at that time should have updated that document, in my opinion. But the ultimate responsibility goes back to the Administrator who was in place at that time, to be sure that the information is put in a form that is available to be used in departments. Mr. Mays: We’re talking about ’97; am I correct? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mays: And if we revised in 2000, we’ve had two revisions, two Human Resources Directors, ?? Administrator, and one lawyer, somebody ought to been done got it into law. Because I mean if we going to make the ruling, I guess what I’m looking at is where we going to get a conflict of what is law or what shouldn’t be law, and you know, this is the kind of very awkward position I think to a point I ask this question in terms of what was a violation some time ago, Mr. Mayor, in terms of what’s to be interpreted. And I agree with Steve, I think item 11 is going to get us to that ??. But we need to get us into a position when we do do that -- and I’m going to shut up on this one, Mr. Mayor -- there needs to be a time limit of what’s voted on, and it either needs to become law or not become law, at a certain date automatically and the places that it needs to be spread across the records, be it in policy manuals or anywhere else, that should be law. We cannot research every stack of minutes verbatim to determine law and should not have to. If a person dies, a new person comes in, they read what’s in documentation. Now somebody on board -- we weren’t in between everything -- but somebody ought to made sure to a point that it got from one place to another. I’ve had my disagreements and 41 agreements with the Administrator, but what is in place and on record in writing should be abided by, and that’s why to a point I’m not going to vote for the other motion either cause I think you’re getting into crazy trouble, and the lawyer knows where I’m coming from, if you throw something into a salary. I think the discretionary place is the place to handle it so therefore you are going to get two abstentions. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and -- Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and vote on the original motion then. All in -- Mr. Beard: Roll call. Mr. Mayor: Roll call on the original motion, Madame Clerk. Roll Call Vote (Vote on original motion) Mr. Beard: No Mr. Boyles: Yes Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. Cheek: No Mr. Colclough: No Mr. Hankerson: Yes Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Williams: Present Motion fails 5-3-2. Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day. Mr. Mayor: All right. We move on to item number 29. 29. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2-14 so as to extend the time to vacate premises of holders of on- premises consumption of beer, wine, and liquor until 3:30 a.m., with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays (Approved by the Commission May 7, deferred from the May 21 meeting -second reading). Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard, you asked this be pulled. ’ Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And of course Im going to speak that we not approve this ordinance for the second reading, which would make it ’ become effective. One issue Id like to mention is that at the same time that the 42 subcommittee came back with a recommendation, we also --recommendation as being approved bythe Commission or the charges be given to the Administrator -- to form a hospitality committee for the downtown people and the club owners and restaurant owners to include the police and the city government as well, after the manner of Athens, Georgia, which seemed to have a very good program. Seemed to think that that program works very well for them in regards to communication between businessmen and -- ’ between businesses and the Sheriffs Department and the city. And I am hoping that when that is done here that that would alleviate a lot of the problems that we may have ’ with some trying to solve with extending hours. Second point Id like to make is that ’’’ weve -- what were doing here is we say were ending the actual sale of alcohol at a certain time and then extending clean-up hours for the bar owners for an hour after that. ’ Several points there is most of the bar owners that I talked to tell me that thats really ’ not enough time. Theyre ready to go home, go to sleep when they close up, and come back the next day and do the clean-up. An hour is not enough time to clean up most of these places apparently, and it really takes more than that. So extending that hour does very little in regards to actual clean-up. If you actually wanted to dosomething in that regard, you might just allow them to come in earlier and do some clean-up. But it ’ presents a problem for the sheriff. I think hes been very faithful in coming down and speaking to this issue in regards to law enforcement. We just had an issue before us by Mr. Melton. Mr. Melton originated the idea of extending the hours, and if you look at the time that the Sheriff brought before us for his recommendation for presenting a probation, ’’ that time of 3:40 would violate the new time thats in this ordinance. So I really dont ’ think were going to be accomplishing anything in regards to actual benefiting the bar ’ owners. I think what were going to be doing is allowing more time for congregation around these bars where the employees are still inside, partying going on on the outside, drunkenness, increased costs of deputies having to spend more time in regards to do ’ duties at night. So I dont -- I believe that the hospitality committee will solve a lot of ’ the problems that we may think we have in this regard, and I dont think the ordinance will do anything but be a negative step toward really alleviating the problems that we ’ have in regards to the Sheriffs Department and crime and disorderly conduct around ’’’ these establishments. So Id encourage my -- and Im sure theres going to be a motion to approve -- but I would encourage my fellow Commissioners to vote against this motion in the benefit and in consideration of the city of Augusta. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, will be voting against this, Mr. Mayor, and I think I want to remind everybody that the engine that was driving this train or the cars, one or the other, has been unhooked because the original emphasis for this was creative revenue raising motive, and it would let the establishments stay open longer, 43 there would be more sales, therefore there would be more revenue, there would be increased tax revenue to us without increasing taxes, and I think that the subcommittee that came out of the finance committee did a thorough job of looking at whether this would be a successful way to enhance the revenue of this city. And the examples that came back from other jurisdictions were that it would not, and now in this amended form we have no new hours for sale and we have just additional hours of operation. So there ’ are going to be no new revenue created by what we passed today, and so I justdont see ’ the point. I dont think we should pass it. It may well pass, but it will pass without my ’ vote in the affirmative. And since the Sheriff is here, Id like to delegate the balance of my time to his comments on this ordinance. Mr. Mayor: Sheriff? Mr. Strength: Thank you very much, Mr. Shepard. This is the third or fourth ’’ time, Gentlemen, that Ive been up here, and I apologize for it. But I think its important, if I had to come up a hundred times on this issue to fight something that I think is not beneficial to our community. I was elected for that. You folks were elected for that. And if we pass this additional 30 minutes ordinance where folks can stay in the ’ bar, employees, for 30 more minutes, we all know sitting here -- nobodys that naïve ’ ’ that thats the first step of extending hours to sellliquor up to three oclock, four ’’’ oclock, five oclock, six oclock in the morning. This is step one. We understand that. And that would be total bedlam out there for us. 30 minutes to clean up, and I ’ know its called cleanup, you can talk to any bar owner in town -- my friend Chip ’ Melton, hell tell you he cannot clean up his lounges in 30 minutes. Three to five hours, ’’ maybe, but not in 30 minutes. Itll lead -- 30 minutes extra out there -- its going to ’’ lead to violations. I said it, this is the fourth time Ive said it. Its going to happen. ’ Theyll cause patrons that are outside then drinking for 30 extra minutes to be out there drinking, raising [inaudible] in the parking lots, causing neighbors that live in and around ’ this area 30 more minutes of not being able to sleep. Yall are not out there at 3, 4, 5 in the morning. I, personally, today, will offer an invitation to every Commissioner. I will put you in a police car and I will you carry you in some of these bars and some of these ’’ areas at night so you will first-hand see whats going on. Weve never seen one of you out there at one of these big fights. And we appreciate that, but the invitation is welcome. You guys, wedefinitely would like to take you out there. We can open your ’’ eyes, Im pretty sure. Its going to cause us a lot of headaches. We, instead of being ’ in subdivisions, are checking these businesses that are closed. Thatll be cut back some ’ because were going to be in these bars for 30 more minutes, at least, getting them cleaned up and transporting people to jail. When you take somebody to jail, and 44 ’’’ officers tied up an hour and 22 minutes. Hes tied up. Hes not in that street. And ’ we take a lot of folks to jail. And you go down there right now, were capacity 950, ’’ were close to 1000 in our jail. I can have 2000 in a month, if we didnt let so many ’ people out just to keep the population down. This is not going to help us a bit. Dont ’’ cause us headaches. Its not positive. Mr. Cheek -- Ive never been up here that I ’ didnt hear Mr. Cheek say he wants positive stuff for this community. I endorse that 100%. He is absolutely right. This is nothing positive for our community. I cannot think ’’ of one thing. Ive asked, and you were not even here last time, so I cant hold it against you, I did not get one person to tell me how this would be positive to this community in any way. Not one time, not one thing. I passed around when I got here a letter from Miss Pricilla Hunt Bence, who is coordinator of Safe Communities. She ’’ faxed this to me yesterday, asked me to bring it up. Shes here, shes still here. I did lay it up there in front of you folks, for whatever merit you want to put to it. And I just want to make sure, for the fourth time, that I did go on record for this community, saying it will not be a positive thing for the citizens of Augusta. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, Sheriff, each time -- Sheriff Strength? Each time it has come up, I have voted no. And I intend to vote no this time. But I do have a question, and it might be a long-range question, based on my conversation with my friend Mr. Williams. At some point, we might want to start looking at some things different, to make this community grow and different types of -- do you ever foresee a ’ time that were going to look at our entire alcohol policy? Be that we move it back, be that we move it forward -- do you ever foresee anything that would ever change along those lines? Mr. Strength: I think we should always be looking at every policy, see what is best. And I would never sit up here or stand up here and say, no, I never see that in the ’ future. Absolutely, its going to be addressed many times, and possibly changed for the best. You know, so many times, Athens has been brought up. But one thing you left out ’ in how great it was in Athens and what they did -- its not been brought out one time that, after it was formed, that they had to hire an 18-man squad just for that. 18 more ’ police officers in Athens that they had to hire to handle that. Changes, absolutely. Im ’ not against change. I am against things thats not positive, absolutely. But definitely, ’ to answer your question, yeah, were going to address it again, and one day, there will be change. Personally, I think. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, sir. 45 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bence would you like to speak? I saw you getting up out of your chair. ’ Ms. Bence: Im Pricilla Bence, coordinator of Safe Communities Coalition. And there were several people here, I suppose they got weary and left, but all of the Coalition, and many of the people that I called this morning, are totally opposed. The 50 people that I was able to call would not want this extended, and, just for your information, nationally, the progression is toward a standardized 2 a.m. time, is what they are talking about, because of the problems of people going to other counties and states. ’’’ Theyve seen a lot of increase in crime when theres a difference, and when its increased. What we find in public health, and I work for the Richmond County Health Department, is that epidemiologists studying traffic injuries, is that when you change the environment, you increase the problem or decrease the problem. So if you increase the ’ environment to receive alcohol, youre automatically going to increase consumption. Unfortunately, that is the consumption of people who are problem drinkers. We have ’ found that in research, that its the problem drinkers who will drink most from 2 to 3 or ’ 4 a.m. And so what youve done is increase the alcoholism, or the problem drinking. Of course, that naturally increases crime and traffic injury and DUIs. And the unfortunate thing about crime prevention and being proactive in law enforcement is that you cannot possibly catch even a fraction, maybe one out of 400, some have estimated, DUIs. And the same thinggoes for all forms of crime, and, especially in our casework, ’ we are concerned about the speeding in Richmond County. Theres no way you can catch all thespeeders, nomatter how many citations, no many how many patrols you put on the road. I just commend the current enforcement situation, that at least the road ’’ patrols are out there, and even with the cuts that theyve had theyve kept the same number of road patrols out there, because that is decrease our crime problem, as well as the traffic crashes and injuries. We do have a problem with fatality in Richmond County. ’ I wont lie to you. We had 44 deaths last year. That was a huge increase. And probably a third to a half of those are alcohol-related. Because GBI is so far behind, we ’ dont know for a long time. But we know statistically that at least a third of those are alcohol-related. And then you can take also nearly half of suicides and homicides are alcohol-related, to estimate approximately 45 deaths every year that are alcohol-related. Those will only go up, Mayor and Commissioner, Mr. Wall, Mr. Kolb and Ms. Bonner. ’ And Im sorry to tell you that the statistics will increase. They will get much worse if we have additional time, even 30 minutes will make a difference. The American Medical Association and many other organizations, not just safe communities, are adamantly opposed to any increase in the amount of time that people have available alcohol. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Cheek? 46 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think all of us pretty know where we stand on this, and ’ Ive heard a lot of statistical information. Not having the raw data in hand, I know that the total volume of alcohol sold in this city is probably from liquor stores, that the total consumption and the amount of accidents caused in this city probably, if not equal to, ’’ theres probably a greater number of DUIs caused by people drinking on their own time and their own homes and homes of friends than there are leaving clubs. The number of people in clubs is a finite number generally, with minor fluctuations. We could kick ’ numbers around all day. Based on the list we saw earlier, we dont have problems with ’ people selling late. Based on the data we have generally from the Sheriffs Department. ’ I dont think people who obey the law now will tend to go out and break the law in the ’ future. What were trying to do is to give honest business owner an opportunity to do their bookwork and so forth. Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion for passage of the ordinance. Mr. Mayor: You’re making an original motion. There is not original motion. Mr. Cheek: All right, I make the original motion for passage. Mr. Mayor: And that’s the second reading of the ordinance. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anybody else want to speak? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, I just want to comment on what Commissioner Cheek has said. You know, when you look at this city, and this is the way I been looking at it. When you look at this city and look at this city as a thriving place to grow, place to come to, we going to happen and Commissioner Boyles asked as question about when we going to look at our policy and what we going do. Why would a business relocate here in Augusta when the same folks doing the same thing at the same time? And I’m not saying we ought to be different, but we ought to be just like. If you look around adjacent, whether it be Athens, whether it be Savannah, whether it be Columbia, South Carolina or Atlanta, which it’s done grown so much that they just don’t have any room to grow. We got a fine Sheriff’s Department here. We got a fine Sheriff. We got more police cars than any city I ever been in. You can’t go down any major city on this street and not see at least three to four police cars. Whether they on duty, off duty, they up and down our streets. I give the Sheriff that. He got them on the road. Now we talked about making some cuts and we say ?? but I guarantee you any major thoroughfare -- now I’m not talking about the side streets -- those who live on the side streets, you may have a little problem -- but any major thoroughfare you go on, from Gordon Highway to Walton Way, you going to see at least three, maybe four, police cars. So we’ve got the equipment. 47 We’ve got the Sheriff. We got the jail. If people break the law, they ought to be arrested. That’s plain as the nose on your face. Ain’t no in-between. But we sit here and act like we want to grow. When growth come to Augusta, Georgia, you might as well face it, you going to get good and bad growth. You can’t have just one. It don’t work that way. You ain’t going to get just the people that’s going to go to church, just the people that’s not going to break the law. You going to get growth, and growth come in all shapes and sizes. And we ought to be ready for it when it gets here. We ought to be ready for the medical side of it, whether it’s the lawyer side of it, whether the police officer side, or even the infrastructure as far as our city growing as far as infrastructure we been talking about. But if we going grown, we can’t stay a town. We going to have to become a city sooner or later. And if you look around at other cities, we ought to be doing the same thing that they other cities do. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to commend you for the man you brought it, the man from Charlotte, North Carolina, who told all of us as Commissioners we need to travel. They send 100 people a year to different cities just to see what’s going on in their city. And what they told us was that whatever was in that city, not next door, could be California, could be Atlanta, but whatever worked in another city would work here. If they got rules and regulations in other cities, we ought to have rules and regulations here. We can’t see here and expect to be a city when we act like a town. And what we got here now is a town. The same people that’s in position to make some money is making some money. We won’t open it up for nobody else to come. Why would anybody relocate to Augusta and bring people here to set up if we going to dictate to them what they supposed to do or they cannot do. I’m not for breaking the law. The law says we can do it. We set the policy. It start with us. We got a Sheriff here that will lock you up if you break the law. We need to set those rules in order and hold those guidelines. If Mr. Melton or anybody else break those rules, Mr. Sheriff, you shouldn’t be bringing them here, you should be taking them down to 401. That’s what the law says. But we want to sit here and act like we’re afraid to do what is right to make this city grow. Everybody looking at everybody else’s face wanting to know why we ain’t doing nothing. That’s the problem. We just standing around looking at each other’s face without doing something. And we need to do that. And I’m supporting you, Andy. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to call the question and ask for a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: We have -- the question has been called. Mr. Mays, you wanted to -- Mr. Mays: Just one question. And I asked this earlier when this whole thing first started, y’all had the hearings. One, Mr. Melton, wanted to have something to say, Mr. Mayor, and I give him my time [inaudible] but when this whole thing first started and we were going through the process with former Mayor Masell and the committee -- I didn’t attend those committee meetings. I read the minutes and I heard the discussion about it. But I’m wondering in this whole process of things, and I have talked to a few folk, but has there any [inaudible] any talks amongst the folk during this whole proceeding that own businesses, that do the operations, that run the places? And my reason for bringing that up is this. I have fought for more different causes and sued more folk than probably 48 all y’all sitting up here. Cause y’all done sued me and I done whipped y’all so that’s over with now. But the point is I believe in a fight, that you deal with a fight. Based on folk also who won’t fight. Now I’m kidding to where I’ve got a slight problem with us getting into a situation where this is being one where we tearing each other up. We are getting information back. And I’m not hearing one thing form the folk that this is affecting. We got folk up here. I chair Public Services and chaired it longer in the last 15 years than anybody else. And what I’m not hearing, and if it’s a fear factor, then folk ought to say that. If some folk -- I’ve heard some folk being threatened and they ain’t coming forward. If that’s the factor, then we ought to hear that. We ought to hear [inaudible] I would want this but I can’t do this because certain things have been threatened me about my business. If that’s out there, then let’s hear that and then let’s talk about it. But I think to a point when you fight for something, whether it’s neighborhoods, health care, whatever, I like to [inaudible] and hear folk who are interested and we’re fighting for. And I’m not hearing that and I’m not seeing that. And that’s the only one reservation that I have about this whole deal is to a point that the people affected in this manner, I’m not hearing anything, whether it’s from nightclub owners or anybody else [inaudible]. Personally speaking to a point about the hours as being in there, I mean I think they could make the Sheriff, and it’s not even been asked, but you know I heard recently, and not to say we do what folk do everywhere else, but is it, Mr. Mayor, a falsehood to state that right across the bridge we have a situation with no closing hours or closing hours? I mean that was one of the things that came up and they were saying to a point places where they had basically none, they weren’t having any fights at all. But you know, I just wanted to hear something to a point, whether it’s Mr. Melton and his group -- I feel a lot more comfortable to a point if I had business folk saying this is what’s hurting me, we need to do this, we got to stop [inaudible] or I would come down but I feel threatened, but to a point this is one that where we basically are in here now, always running [inaudible], arguing with ourselves, and I’m not hearing that from the industry that’s being affected. We fight for indigent care, I hear folk that’s being affected. I hear neighborhoods about zoning. I hear folk being affected. But I’m not hearing that in this thing. And I leave that alone, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Melton may have something. Mr. Mayor: All right. The Chair will recognize the Clerk for the purpose of the roll call vote. The question has been called by Commissioner Shepard. Madame Clerk, if you’ll start with the roll call, please. Mr. Beard: Which one are we voting on? The Clerk: To approve the second reading of this ordinance. To approve extending the hours. The motion as printed in the book. Roll Call Vote Mr. Beard: Yes Mr. Boyles: No Mr. Bridges: No Mr. Cheek: Yes 49 Mr. Colclough: Present Mr. Hankerson: No Mr. Kuhlke: No Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: No Mr. Williams: Yes Motion fails 3-5-2. Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, would be number 32. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY: 32. Consider recommendation of the Administrator, Utilities Director and Fire Chief regarding the installation of a fire hydrant for the Piedmont Landscape Project located in Bobby Jones Business Park. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you want to speak to that? You grabbed the microphone. Mr. Hicks? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I’ll let Mr. Hicks respond. Mr. Hicks: I was a little surprised to see this on the regular agenda. I thought that the motion in the Engineering Services Committee was that the Administrator, Utilities Director and Fire Chief would be appointed as a committee and that we would look into this situation and report back, I thought, to the Engineering Services Committee at their next meeting. The Clerk: Mr. Shepard asked that it be brought forward to expedite it at today’s meeting. Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. I did. I thought that was included in Mr. Beard’s motion. The Clerk: It was. Mr. Shepard: Today was the date. Mr. Hicks: I’m not ready with the recommendation. Mr. Shepard: I move we continue it to the next full meeting of the Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Boyles? 50 Mr. Boyles: Will that be to the next Engineering Services or to the full Commission? Mr. Shepard: I asked it be the full Commission today. I would ask it to come back to the full Commission. The Committee has been appointed. I’d just like them to get together to do their work and notify the property owner. They’re apparently not here, are they? I don’t see them. Mr. Hicks: I thought one of them was here earlier, because after the meeting we did in fact put the two owners in touch with Brian Richards and some of our folks, and their comment to me outside was if the total cost of installing that fire hydrant is in the neighborhood of $1,500 to $3,000, then we don’t even have a problem, we wouldn’t be here. I’d rather they be here to state that. And so they were working with Brian to see how much it costs to actually install the fire hydrant. I don’t have a report back from Brian but that was the case, it was being -- the two property owner were being dealt with in that manner, and when we left they were in touch with our folks. I didn’t ask them for the final discussion on that. Mr. Kolb: And since we were waiting for a response from Mr. Richards and the owners, we assumed that it would resolve itself, at least today. Mr. Hicks: If in fact the price would be right, the owners said they have no problem with just putting in the fire hydrant and being done with it. Mr. Shepard: Well, if the price is right -- excuse me. Well, Max, if the price is right, maybe it will resolve itself and won’t have to come back on the full agenda; isn’t that right? Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: So I’d urge the motion to just leave it on the agenda, and I leave it there, Commissioner Boyles, because the Engineering Services Committee can only recommend to this body and we just deal with it one time. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke : Mr. Mayor, I think Commissioner Shepard and Commissioner I’d like to make a motion that Cheek may have to leave before the meeting is over, and we reconsider item 8 on the consent agenda. 51 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider item 8. Is there a second? Mr. Hankerson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of reconsidering item 8, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you have the floor. Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the amendment of – the action taken by the Commission on the July 2, 2997 item along the lines that Commissioner Hankerson proposed but accepting Mr. Mays’ amendment to that motion, and I may need some -- we may all need some clarification on what that amendment was, Jim, if you can do that for us. Might be able to get a second before you do that. Mr. Boyles: I second that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Go ahead. Mr. Wall: That would be that the -- that all three of the individuals would retain the automobile allowance as existing and it would be treated as an automobile allowance rather than as part of the Finance Director being rolled into salary. And it would be based upon the recommendation of the Administrator under the discretionary provision of the previous existing policy prior to July of ’97, but that that discretion would be eliminated in the re-writing of the policy. And Mr. Mays, if I didn’t understand your motion correctly, correct me. But that’s my understanding. Mr. Mays: That basically is what in essence I was trying to deal with, that the policy, the last policy that we adopted finally gets to be a formal policy that the discretionary period is in there, did not apply to the new policy. The new policy did not have one in there. That when it’s written, it’s written without it. But this does not open the door to get back into the salary situation of those that were eliminated. This merely does not take the salaries and clarifies it so that under that discretionary period it was left out there hanging, it would still be left with the right to deal with the car allowance, and to formally do it as it’s supposed to be done. I still think that the letter needs to be submitted by the Administrator, when you ratify that, but it needs to be put on paper as a discretionary period requires the Administrator to do. That we going to recognize it as a discretionary period. It’s out there, put it in there, let him do it and approve it that way. Then that way, you’ve cured that, I think, and you’re not opening the back door to deal with whatever else you’ve eliminated by putting it in salaries. That was the only reason [inaudible] policy needs to be go ahead and implemented in the manner that it was last voted on, and none of that was in the policy in reference to the discretion period. I 52 [inaudible] extended that as a courtesy from the standpoint that if I was in his position and I was reading that in many forms, including [inaudible], out of fairness I would have thought that was the proper thing that we could do. And I think hopefully will cure all the [inaudible] of it. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’m -- that motion that Bill made, that Jim tried to clarify, are we saying that we going let those salaries remain where they are, those car allowances and just not going to do this no more? Mr. Kuhlke: Car allowances. Mr. Williams: Car allowances? What, what’s going to happen to those car allowances? Where we at, Jim? The motion that Bill just made and the amendment that Willie come up with? Mr. Wall: Let me ask one question. Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Might need to start getting these motions in writing. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: While they’re -- Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: While they’re conferring for an answer to that question, does anybody have an item they just wanted to say for the record or anything? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I do have. I should have abstained on item 20 because I do have a conflict of interest. I so noted that in the committee, and I would like to make it a part of this record today since [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Please include that in the minutes. Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further debate on reconsideration of the motion for item number 8 while we’re getting an answer to the Commissioner’s question? Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, I mean once I get an answer I may not have any more debate, but I need to know what the motion is saying. 53 Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll see if anybody else has any comments they want to say. We can take those now while we’re here. Or we can go ahead and start discussing the penalty for the cell phone interruption. Mr. Cheek: Hot dogs next week, Mr. Mayor. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: Mr. Wall, did you find out something? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Can you answer the Commissioner’s question, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: The Attorney has put another item in there and our dual partnership law firm does not necessarily agree on that at the moment, and I think we might need to discuss this one at another time. I thought that [inaudible] to a point that my feeling is that if the Administrator [inaudible] discretion point, if the discretion point is being made a moot point, then I think that’s an admission to a point that the policy is understood as it’s written. So I mean that, that, that bothers me a little bit there. I was giving benefit to the doubt that you using discretion because discretion is out there and it’s given. But then if I’m hearing that you can’t give discretion, then you know how am I deal with that? I mainly supported [inaudible], mainly wanted to make sure we’re not in a situation where this city was in a limbo situation to a point on one hand again that we opening the door on one arm of it, but then on the other hand of it, I think we got to be protective of where we offered a situation. Quite frankly, what I think is an excellent candidate, an excellent person in a position, that I know a lot of us have been pushing for that we fill for the last year-and-a-half, that of Finance Director, and I don’t want to lose that. And I’ve tried to weigh that in the whole balance. But I think it needs to be done correctly. And maybe today isn’t the day to do it correctly. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a substitute motion? Mr. Mays: Well, I’m just probably prepared that -- I know what the difference is [inaudible] both times, y’all didn’t get enough votes. If nothing changes, we won’t get nothing done today either. But I think it needs to get corrected properly because I’m hearing what I thought would have solved that problem, but if I’m hearing that that won’t work, that it cannot be done that way -- my motion was do, my amendment was to do it so that the correctness of what was written would be abided by. Now I’m going to hear that folk don’t understand what they written, but yet that’s the leg you going to stand on, then I got a problem with that. So maybe we better not do anything today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was -- Mr. Mays got an answer. I never did get an answer, but I go to my next point. If we let this situation stay like it is, we 54 going to really doing an injustice, not just to these taxpayers who are going to have to pay this money, but we going to be doing an injustice to other departments, I mean other [inaudible] in those same positions who have not been treated the same. And we been talking about fairness and doing what’s right, Mr. Mayor, as to if we going to give those allowances in that department, first of all, I don’t understand why everybody ain’t got them. There’s another can of worm we haven’t opened up yet. We went through -- Commissioner Cheek and I got a lot of criticism from the press and everybody else about the cars that we pulled in. I said it before, and that is a car that can be used at any time, if you need to transact city business, there is transportation that’s air conditioned that’s ready to be used. We have not done those things, but yet we don’t want to go by what the law says, and that is the law, and what Mr. Attorney has conveyed to us, the way it is in the book. And I can’t support doing nothing else right now till we at least understand this much. That amendment that Mr. Mays wanted to do confused me, and yet when they come up to say about allowing this as salary, allowing this as to be rolled in. Cause if we open that can of worms, trust me, we going to have some more people coming behind them that we done this to before. And that’s not right, and I can’t see why we can’t see that and go ahead and make the proper move on it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I just might make a correction. My amendment did not [inaudible] -- my amendment does not [inaudible]. My amendment was just to do the total opposite of that. My amendment was to leave it where it was based on the fact if the Administrator was using the discretionary provision to deal with the car allowance. That would still kept it separate and it would stand totally as an allowance. It was not to roll any of them over. [inaudible] of them that way. What I think we may have to end up doing, and I don’t mind saying open now I’d be prepared to do it, if we want to change the compensation package to deal with where we’re dealing with on the Finance Director coming in, I don’t have a problem in two weeks dealing with a separate vote on it or make any motion on it, to do it, and to do it at the new figure. And that will be put that to rest. Deal with arguing about what that $2,000 or $3,000 is going to be and just do that. But I think when you put [inaudible] over, you are substituting a situation that opens a lot of problems. And I would much rather deal with it brand new, going in, and I say it right here first I have no problem with that amount being in there, being changed and deal with the compensation package [inaudible]. But it’s getting into a mess here [inaudible] delay. You’re going to put a rule out here, and then you tell me then that you can’t abide by the rule, because if you are going to stand on a rule as an excuse, then if you’re saying the discretion is what I’m using, the [inaudible] may [inaudible] discretion a report to the Commission that justifies the use of the allowances. That’s what discretion says. And if the Attorney says that cannot be used, so if that can’t be used, then [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had the floor and Mr. Mays was answer the question and just took everything over there. I wasn’t finished. Mr. Mayor: That does happen. 55 (Laughter) Mr. Beard: And I have the floor now. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Mayor, I disagree, I disagree with what Mr. Mays has said because -- Mr. Beard: I have the floor. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: I disagree with what Mr. Mays has just said because if we going to turn around and vote to give it, we might as well leave it where it is. It don’t make sense. There was a move that shouldn’t have been made, then there was a move that shouldn’t have been made, and if we turn around and do this, then next week vote to put it right back in there, we might as well leave it like it is and just call it something else. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Let’s thank Mr. Kuhlke for reopening this. (Laughter) Mr. Beard: Because it’s very simple to me here that if we had gone with the motion to approve number 8, and in that motion was to work with whatever compensation, and I think that is what Commissioner Mays was talking about, at a later date, that would have simplified everything and we would have been able to move on, and whatever compensation or whatever we wanted to work out for the record there, we could have done it at some other time and we would have had this over, and that was all [inaudible], but to get back into this was another hour of discussion and it doesn’t make sense to me. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke has got a motion on the floor. Let’s go ahead and dispose of that and see where we are. Does anybody need the motion read back to them? Mr. Williams: What’s the motion, Mr. Mayor? What’s the motion? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke’s motion. The Clerk is going to read it back. Mr. Beard: I don’t think we know what it is. Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll find out. Mr. Beard: I don’t think she knows. 56 The Clerk: Well, I mean -- go ahead, Jim. The motion was to approve updating the policy and operations automobile allowances, allowing the Finance Director’s salary [sic] to be part of his salary, that the Public Works Director and the Deputy Administrator -- leave that part out? No? Keep it in. Mr. Kuhlke: You’re on track. The Clerk: Yeah, okay. Jim is shaking his head. They will continue theirs as car allowances. And to accept Mr. Mays’ discretionary. But that’s been ruled out so I don’t know where we are on that. Mr. Mayor: Do you understand it, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m going to vote no. I think we need to look at it another time. Anything I don’t understand, no. Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on Mr. Kuhlke’s motion as offered by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays out. Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion fails 1-8-1. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke, for bringing this back before us. Let’s move on to item 33 and see if we can dispose of that. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since Commissioner Shepard and I have to leave for Aiken, and I believe you do, too -- Mr. Mayor: I’ve got to leave, too. Mr. Cheek: Can we address -- okay, 36. Mr. Mayor: We’re headed very rapidly. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: 33. We need a voting delegate for the NACO meeting. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 33. Select voting delegate for the National Association of Counties Annual Conference scheduled for July 12-16, 2002 in New Orleans, LA. Mr. Mayor: Is there a nomination? 57 Mr. Beard: It depends on who is going, Mr. Mayor, wouldn’t it? Mr. Kuhlke: I nominate the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough is going. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Shepard: I move the nominations be closed. Mr. MayorThe Chair will declare Mr. : The nominations are closed. Colclough elected by acclamation . Congratulations. All right, Mr. Cheek, you had item number 36. 36. Discuss creating a Committee for the Improvement of Government and Legislative Initiatives. (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek) Mr. Cheek : Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A lot has been said this past year about this city and about the Legislative Delegation. In light of the past Legislative session, and the focus on the structure of this government and its function, and little else for this city, in light of the apparent legitimate concerns both we and the Legislative Delegation have about the effective -- effective local government and the passage of much-needed state legislation, in light of the apparent and obvious failure to effectively communicate the needs of the two bodies between us, in light of the overwhelming success we had I’d like working as a team with the Legislative Delegation during the redistricting efforts, to make a motion that we develop a committee with no less than three Commissioners and three members of the local Legislative Delegation to work together to resolve issues of local government structure and legislative initiatives in order to provide for the improved performance of both bodies in the service of the people of Augusta, that said committee meet twice a year and return a report to both full bodies at the joint meeting in the fall of each year outlining strategies for that pending legislative session, the roles and responsibilities of all players and actually agree upon those goals if possible. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Colclough: I second it. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded by Mr. Colclough. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 37. 58 The Clerk: 37. Receive report from the Administrator regarding the funding source(s) for the proposed shortage associated with the Savannah Place Park Project as discussed st in the Commission’s May 21 meeting. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you received a report from me identifying the source of funding for Savannah Place Park Project. However, there are some other issues that have entered into it with respect to the time of when SPLOST . I funding would be available, so there are other budget [inaudible] that have to be made would recommend that you receive the report and refer it to the Finance Committee for your next cycle of meetings and we can get everything. Mr. Bridges: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: What’s that going to do for Tom going ahead with our process now? I mean we looking for this [inaudible]. We at a point now, Tom, where we need to move with the architect; is that right? Mr. Kolb: Well, that depends on whether or not the SPLOST monies are moved up in the budget process. You had set -- the total amount of the project funding is stretched out to the year 2005. The project isn’t supposed to start until 2005, so you’re -- - Mr. Williams: No, no, no, no, no, no. I understand what you’re saying about the funds. We split the last two years with $52,000 apiece. But there is nothing that say the project got to wait until that time to start. I mean that’s the first I heard of that. Now what I do know, that the project is going to take a while to build so it’s not -- and we’re going into 2003 here in another six months, and hopefully by the end of this year we ought to be doing something; Tom, is that right? Mr. Beck: Commissioner Williams, I guess my only comment would be that we can’t start, we can’t move forward with a project until all the funding is in place. Mr. Williams: Okay. 59 Mr. Kolb: What we want to do at the next Finance Committee meeting is to give you -- since time is of the essence now, at the next Finance Committee meeting you can consider which projects you want to move forward and so that those projects can be funded in 2003. Mr. Williams: Okay, I was under the impression -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor, but Mr. Beck told me that we needed the $50,000, not to move any monies from 2003 to anywhere, we needed some $50,000, and Mr. Administrator, I think you told me as well that day that there may be some other funds that we may have to do -- Mr. Kolb: And we identified those funds. Mr. Williams: Okay, but I’m hearing now that we are not going to be able to do this project unless we are able to transfer some funds from one year’s sales tax money to another year. And that’s not what I was under the impression, and no one brought that out before this point, is what I’m saying. Mr. Beck: Well, again, Commissioner Williams, until -- we need that funding that is in the years 2004 and 2005 to be moved up to at least 2003 so we can start the project now so the monies will be in place to pay all the bills associated with the project in 2003. So this action does need to take place for us to be able to move forward with the project. Mr. Williams: Okay. One last thing, Tom. On that Savannah Place gym that I been saying and been speaking on a gym, saying one thing and meaning something else, it should be a gym, a multi-purpose building with a gym floor that’s going to be used for a lot of other activities. You know, I been specifying the word gym, and I think that’s threw a lot of people off. I do want to enter that into the records that this building would have gymnasium-type floor, but be a multi-purpose building that being used out there, and not just for a gym. Are all gym facilities the same as -- Mr. Beck: That holds true for any of our gymnasiums. Mr. Williams: Okay, but I -- Mr. Beck: We’ve got seven gyms and that applies to all of them. Mr. Williams: Okay. I was making reference to a gym and I think some people thought that -- they looked at just recreation and ball or something. Mr. Beard: Let me say something. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I am trying to find out where we’re going with this, because it appears that -- and I haven’t been following this too close, George, but Tom seem to be saying 60 one thing and then what I’ve heard before was that you only needed enough money to get -- the $50,000 would complete the funds that were needed to start the project. Mr. Beck: Actually it’s $85,000 that we’re short, and I think Mr. Kolb’s recommendation was to move $100,000 that he’s going to bring to you, I guess now to Finance Committee meeting. The other part of this is moving the approved SPLOST funds at Savannah Place up from years 2004 and 2005. Mr. Beard: I thought you did that some time ago when we were moving the funds around. Mr. Beck: No. We moved a good majority of the Savannah Place funds up in the SPLOST Phase IV, but the last $100,000 was kept in the final vote that you took for the SPLOST in the years 2004 and 2005. Mr. Beard: This is the first I’ve heard of this because all I have been hearing for the last month since we started on this was that you needed $50,000 to complete the funding for the project at Savannah Place. Now that’s what I’ve been hearing for the last month. Now I understand you are saying that as we identified those projects on a year- to-year basis, that that project was not identified for this particular time. Mr. Beck: The $350,000 of it was in years 2001 and 2002 at Savannah Place. There was $52,000 in 2004 and $52,000 in 2005. That’s what this Commission voted on in the SPLOST list. Mr. Beard: Okay. And that’s the funds you were looking for so that you could start the project? Mr. Beck: No. Those funds just need to be moved up in order for us to be able to start the project now. Mr. Kolb: If it’s the intent of the Commission to do that project in 2003 and 2004. I think it’s Mr. Williams’ desire to start design and move forward so we can get the some construction, which is why we’re pushing to look for -- fund the gap in the project. Mr. Williams: I was under the impression, like Commissioner Beard said, that, you know, the thing was ready to get underway, not that we had to move any funds. And I’m sure we can find a way to do that. But I never been told that we had to have all the funds upfront. We got the majority, $350,000. We’re looking for another $105,000 I think to make a grand total of $455,000. We had the $350,000 as of now; is that right, Tom? Mr. Beck: We have $350,000. And of course there’s been some expenses for the purchase of [inaudible] and a couple of other little small things. 61 Mr. Williams: And I’m thinking we needed at least another $50,000, Tom brought, and you brought some other things that maybe come in, but not to have to move this money as well. I’ve got not problem, I’ve got no problem with it as long as we get this project started. I mean this project has been -- Mr. Kolb: In order to get authority to do that, we have to move those years 2004 and 2005 into the year 2002, into ’02. If you want the project completed -- Mr. Williams: We want the project completed and the money that we’re appropriating may be more than we need. We have not yet got to the point of the cost allocation as far as everything going cost. And maybe later we decide to do with this, we doing a similar thing over to Henry Brigham’s place over here, we may have some money left over. And I keep hearing, I heard it several times, that we may not have enough. But if we can’t build a community gym-type building with $455,000 with inmate labor, then we are really doing something wrong, we’re hustling backwards is what we’re doing. So let’s look at getting those funds moved, George, if that’s what it takes to get it done. I didn’t know we needed to do that, but I’m ready to get the project rolling. Mr. Kolb: Okay, that’s why we’re referring to the Finance Committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion to that effect? Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Speaker: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second on the floor. Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: Yes, sir, go ahead. Well, we had already had one, but that’s okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We already had one? Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please signify by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-0. ATTORNEY: 40. Discuss salaries of Law Department Attorneys. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. 62 Mr. Wall: On item number 40, I’d like to introduce Sparticus Heyward, a new attorney with our office. He is a recent graduate from Texas Southern University and has started work in the Law Department this week. He is a native of Charleston, South Carolina. Charleston, South Carolina. The starting salary for attorneys in the District I would like to start Sparticus Heyward at $41,000 Attorney’s office is $41,000, and and ask that you approve that. Mr. Bridges: I so move. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Williams: Jim, that’s equal to -- Mr. Wall: The starting salary. Mr. Williams: The starting salary with Vanessa and the other person? I mean is that different? Mr. Wall: No. Vanessa makes substantially more than that. She makes about $66,000. She’s been practicing law for 12 years. Ten to 12 years. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Hankerson, you have a comment? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have a comment. I don’t have a problem voting on the salary. I did vote on the salary. But from this point on, I want to make sure that we are clear because we are going to have to be upfront and have no hidden agendas and no secrets. Are there any other car allowances or something else that we need to know about at this time? I want it to be announced in this meeting, because we are going to have to be upfront now, not have hidden agendas. Mr. Speaker: No car allowance, no [inaudible]. Mr. Hankerson: I just want to make sure because in the past -- and that’s why we are into this today, all day long, because we vote on salaries, and then the package extended later, but we never see the package. I got two packages up here now I just saw today where we voted on them in the past, so I think if we do that, my colleagues, we are going to have the problem we had before. I just want to be understood. We always, we let things slip through and then we come back and we can’t understand that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Clearly noted. Mr. Wall? 63 Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting if the people can stay. It’s not urgent, the items I have on a real estate matter. Mr. Kolb: We’ve got an emergency that just came to our attention right now. And I’d like to talk about it for a second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Wall: The item under discussion, a request that you add to the agenda to consider an award of a contract to replace the HVAC at the Community Mental Health Center. If you’ll get it added, I’ll go into the details. Basically they’re out there in a building that the county constructed in 1991 that does not have air conditioning currently and I’d like to get this added so that we can discuss it. Mr. Bridges: I move to add. Mr. Colclough: Second. I’ll second. No objection? So noted. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: In 1989 and 1990-91, there was an effort to construct buildings for the Community Mental Health Center. And under the State rules, they could not expend monies for capital expenditures. They could only spend monies for leases. So the county did a financing arrangement which basically allowed the Community Mental Health Center, which was at that time under the Board of Health, to pay rental payments that would in essence pay back the capital expenditures made by the county to construct the facilities. And that was to be repaid over a ten-year period of time. At the end of that ten years, then the Community Mental Health Center would pay what’s called maintenance in lieu of rent. That is the same arrangement that we have with the Department of Family and Children Services. And annually we enter into a maintenance in lieu of rent agreement with the Department of Family and Children Services. There was also the county funded two of the buildings, the 1945 Pension Fund funded a third building, the fourth building was funded by the Richmond County Hospital Authority, excuse me, University. By that time, Richmond County Hospital Authority had spun off, so it was one of the University non-profit corporations. The University Hospital corporation building, once it was paid off -- which it has now been paid off -- likewise reverts to the county, so that the county now is the owner now of three of the four buildings. The ’45 Pension Fund through the county is the owner of the fourth building. The maintenance -- the agreements provide, as I say, that at the end of the ten years that they would pay maintenance in lieu of rent. And it also has a provision in there that the county will be responsible for major repairs. Unfortunately, there is no specific guideline as far as what is maintenance in lieu of rent. In talking with the Attorney General’s office today over this issue, their position and the way they apply it is as follows: that if it’s the roof, the walls, -- roof, walls or floor basically, then it’s their responsibility as the State. Beyond that, plumbing, electrical, carpeting, heating and air conditioning, etc. is a maintenance responsibility. Now while I suspect that the Community Mental Health Center is going to argue about that, as a practical matter we need to get it fixed. And then we need to 64 come up with an agreement about what expenses we want to be responsible for and what What I would recommend is that you expenses they are going to be responsible for. approve awarding the contract subject to negotiations between someone from the Administrator’s office, someone from my office and Community Mental Health, and that way we don’t have to wait two weeks to bring it back, and work with them to try to get that problem corrected. Obviously it’s hot and we need to -- it’s going to be about $12,000. $10,000. $10,179. What I would hope would happen is that even if we can’t reach agreement as far as whose expenses, that we would go ahead and get it fixed and then argue about whether they reimburse us or perhaps pay for it. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Wall, question. How long is it going to take to fix it? Because you and I -- there’s about 4,000 people go through there per month, and most of them are on [inaudible] medications, which is adverse to heat. Enclosed building. Mr. Speaker: I would have to check with the contractor to find out [inaudible] unit, but we will do whatever we can to expedite it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: All that was received by our office was an estimate. There were three estimates and those three estimates were I think [inaudible] to Maintenance to check it out. They checked it out, and then the indication was that yes, the minimum amount [inaudible] fix the air conditioning. Mr. Williams: So [inaudible]. Ms. Smith: The request for bids or the request for proposals, when they went out, they did not include information as to the timing associated with getting the repairs done, nor did they identify a specific time frame to initiate the -- to initiate the repairs. A follow-up phone call or note that is on the proposal that came in -- and I don’t know who this is from, but it’s not a note that was written by Public Works -- indicates that they, the th low bidder would not be able to install this unit until June 10. Mr. Wall: Well, the difference between the low bid and the -- there are three bids. If y’all are agreeable, I would suggest that you $10,179, $10,250, and $12,244. reconsider and approve up to $12,244.50 and get one of the contractors to do it. Those buildings were not made to be in without air conditioning. 65 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It is hot. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll amend the motion if it’s accepted. Mr. Beard: I accept it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion amendment been accepted. Any discussion? All in favor of the amended motion, please signify by the sign of voting. The Mayor Pro Tem is not in that building, but I do have to visit it. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, gentlemen. 38. LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss personnel matters. ?? Discuss real estate matter. Mr. Wall: Do y’all have time to talk about a real estate matter? Mr. Beard: How long it going to take? Mr. Wall: I don’t think it will take long. Mr. Beard: I so move we go into legal session. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion been made to go into legal. Motion second. No objection? We’re now going into legal. Mr. Shepard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 7-0. [LEGAL MEETING 5:25 – 5:35 P.M.] 39. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Wall: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I’d first ask that you approve authorizing the Mayor Pro Tem to execute the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. 66 Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion? Hearing none, will sign the affidavit. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Wall: Next, I would ask that you add to the agenda a proposed exchange of property consisting of a sixty-foot portion of property approximately 300 feet in length [inaudible] in the -- for Cedarwood Drive, which was never constructed, that adjoined property owned by [inaudible], with a piece of property that is triangular in shape and located at the intersection of Damascus Road and Tindon Street. Mr. Beard: I move to add and approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by sign of voting. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 7-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 4, 2002. Clerk of Commission 67