Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-2002 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JULY 29, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 11:45 a.m., Monday, July 29, 2002, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor; Hons. Kuhlke and Mays, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was presented by the Rev. Williams. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk? The Clerk: 1. Discuss the site selection for Public Works/Augusta Utilities Complex and the relocation of non-judicial employees in the Municipal Building. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand this was taken up at the last meeting, and there was no recommendations coming out of the Engineering Services Committee of the location was supposed to be. A called meeting was asked, and since Andy, you are the Chairman of the Engineering Services Committee, I’m going to ask you to open up the meeting. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We have had this -- this issue of locating the Public Works and Utilities facilities has been a portion of the issues facing this city. We have been dealing with the Judicial Center and its potential building here, the renovations of this facility, we have several facilities scattered about the city, we’re going to have a need for a considerable amount of space to put people in offices in order to conduct these projects that will be done on this building and the Judicial Center in the future. We lease a lot of space throughout the city. That’s why I asked that we put on this called meeting today not only discussion about the location of the Public Works and Utilities buildings, but address the issue of where we’re going to put the rest of the administrative staff, the non-judicial portions of our government during that construction and potentially after that. We have had a very good report given to us from Rev. Williams’ committee on the campus concept, and they came up with three sites to be recommended. You have the Sibley Road site, the Bayvale site, and then the Regency Mall site. The Bayvale Park site and the Regency Mall site were pretty close competitors. There were some issues dealing with some of the tabulations and so forth. I 1 think that knowing today’s information would have made the Regency Mall site the site of preference, but we have Mr. Acree -- I don’t have my glasses on -- Rick, can you kind of lead us into the study and kind of talk us through that? Are you prepared with that kind of information for us? Mr. Acree: What specific information would you like, Commissioner? Mr. Cheek: I guess from a staff perspective, your evaluation of the different sites and I guess pluses and minuses and any of staff, Teresa or Max, anybody else that wants to give us some information on the site. We’d like to talk about -- Mr. Acree: When the Public Works and Utilities first entered into discussions regarding this project, we made a determination based on our operations and the square footage needed the size of the site, the approximate size of the site we had to have. We then looked at contiguous parcels of land that would meet those needs, and we went through some studies of the properties available in the southern part of the county and came up with the three sites that -- actually we came up with raw land sites, pursuing a campus concept that would allow for an immediate construction of the Pubic Works building, which is to house the traffic control center that is tied to a DOT grant to fund construction of that portion of the building as well as equip it. There are also some additional funds available through DOT for construction of that traffic control center that are contingent upon us moving forward with this project. The two raw land sites that came to the front were the Bayvale site, which there is an existing recreation facility on that site, and the site off of Sibley Road, which is property adjacent to the Health Department. At the instruction of the Commission, we also had the consultant look at the Montgomery Ward building at the former Regency Mall site. Our consultant did the evaluation on three sites, and per their weighting on the different aspects of the sites, if you’ll turn to page 41 of your handout there is a site design analysis matrix that takes the weight assigned to each of those categories as well the score for each of the individual sites, and kind of comes up with a relative ranking on how well each of those sites meets the stated needs of different departments. We approached the campus concept because it would allow, as I stated, for the immediate needs for Public Works and Augusta Utilities, because the fragmentation that we’re experiencing in those departments and would also allow for future growth for whatever departments the Commission would chose to co- locate on that particular site. Mr. Cheek: We also have with us a representative from the mall property. The thing, gentlemen, that I wanted to draw your attention to on page 41, if you look at acreage, for instance, you look at the Bayvale and the Sibley site, you see the weight, the adjusted value at 20, and then the adjusted value for the mall at 2. I don’t think that we took into account the total amount of acreage available based on a single owner owning the properties. And if you go through here, there are several other weighting issues that skew the results in a manner. It would be nice to build new property, but if we can accommodate the same space needs in an area for less money, I think that’s something we should definitely look at. 2 Mr. Acree: When we were given the task of evaluating the mall site, we were not specifically, we were not instructed to do anything other than evaluate the Montgomery Ward building and the contiguous property. With those parameters, the property that is directly tied to Montgomery Ward, there is a concern because at that time there were different owners of all three owners and we were not in a position where we knew what the restrictions were on development because with the Utilities Department goes things -- there are associated activities with regard to warehouse space and space for equipment and repairs that would not necessarily be conducive to other operations that the -- I don’t recall off the top of my head which organization did the study for that property, but they had called for some mixed use on there and we were not certain that that particular activity would go well with what is planned or is proposed for that particular piece of property. Mr. Cheek: I want to remind everybody, too, one of the things that is -- time constraints that are upon us is the fact that we have got to locate and have a plan for locating our traffic center or we’re going to lose our funding for that. That’s correct, isn’t it? Mr. Acree: That is correct. Mr. Cheek: We need to come up with a decision on this, path forward on it today or certainly within the next couple of days. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Cheek, I would like to hear from -- we’ve got department heads here, Public Works and Utilities. These are the people who are going to be involved with this, and I would like to hear from them. I don’t know the purpose of this meeting. I was just over -- having a called meeting. I don’t know if this is just information or not or where we are going with this. But I do understand and I have been hearing this, and I’m not on any of those committees so I’m not privileged to all the information, but I have been hearing that, you know, it is a necessity as you spoke of, unless we just want the DOT to take the money back, and I don’t even know right now how much money that is, but maybe we could find out in a few minutes. But I do know we need to make a decision, but I think we ought to hear from those people who are going to be directly involved also, since we’re gathering information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Why don’t you ask if Ms. Smith can come up and give us some of her ideas of where we need to go. Ms. Smith: Good afternoon. Let me just start by saying that one of the things that really sparked moving forward with this initiative is the fact that the Public Works Department actually has employees located in about five different areas throughout the city. While this will not pull all employees into the same location, it will allow an 3 opportunity for those employees that have administrative functions, as well as that interact on a regular basis, to be in the same location. The Georgia Department of Transportation has in their strategic plan for traffic control a proposal for a traffic control center to come to the city of Augusta as a regional transportation management center. In that proposal, there is a million dollars that is identified to fund a traffic control center. Those funds have actually been in the plan and have been available for the past four years. I have no information as to why it is that no action has moved forward on putting a traffic control center in place up to this point. However, one of the things that has happened is the Georgia Department of Transportation has basically indicated that if the city of Augusta is not interested in those funds, then they would certainly be willing to either utilize them on other projects or to consider relocating the traffic control center to somewhere other than the city of Augusta. This is what prompted our moving forward with and trying to, I guess, get the biggest bang for the buck by consolidating the Public Works staff into what would be the transportation management center. Currently there is a million dollars in that project for the transportation management center. There is $1.8 million. That was slated to be spent this year to install additional cameras and message boards in Richmond County. However, the Georgia Department of Transportation decided not to award that contract pending some information on progress on the Transportation Control Center. There is also $10.8 million that is slated to be spent on other equipment over the course of the next three years in support of the Transportation Control Center. The preliminary design or the concept work for what needs to go into a Transportation Control Center has been completed and the estimate for that is one of the numbers that’s reflected in your report, and what you will see is that number is $1.89 million or $1.98 million, but it’s approximately $2 million. And therefore we would need to move forward with a request to the Georgia Department of Transportation for an additional million dollars to fund the Transportation Control Center. Some of these funds can be utilized for the structure itself, while another percentage of the money has to be dedicated towards the equipment that goes into the building. And taking into consideration what the fiber requirements were, what the location was, and looking at what the overall needs are for the Public Works Department, we talked with Max with the Utilities Department who also had some specialized needs that I won’t elaborate on, but will share that his concern had to do with having enough space for a warehouse facility, having access or an opportunity for there to be public transportation to the facility, and some other things that we needed to take into consideration in putting, in making a reality the idea of both Public Works and Augusta Utilities locating in one general area. In reviewing the information and working with the consultant, the opinion of the Public Works Department aligns with the information provided in the report, which is that the Bayvale site would be the site that would be of the best interest and best serve the needs to the Public Works Department. As Mr. Acree stated, when we were doing the evaluation, the evaluation was done on the Montgomery Ward facility and the contiguous property that was owned at that time or represented by the Montgomery Ward’s representatives. Mr. Cheek apparently has some additional information associated with Montgomery Ward that is not reflected in the study that you have before you. However, in looking at what we believe what would be in the best interest and best serve the needs specifically for the Public Works Department, the transportation management center, and 4 the Augusta Utilities all working together in one contiguous area, that the Bayvale site is the site that is preferred. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Rev. Williams and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: I thought we were going to hear from both, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Both directors. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, just hold on a minute. Mr. Hicks, come up to the mike. Mr. Hicks: Appreciate it. As Ms. Smith stated, both departments have existing facilities that are widespread within our service area. There was a desire to pull our construction and maintenance people together, as well as our customer service folks. In trying to do that, we were indeed looking at sites that would large enough to where we could have a warehouse and a utilities equipment area and a lay-down yard that would perhaps be away from the main administrative facilities that could be constructed. We looked at various sites throughout the area. We began by looking at the mall area, looking in that area, and then went out from there because that seemed to be central to our service area. And the other two sites that we would up decided to give the most attention, Sibley and Bayvale, are within close proximity to that central location of our service area. We wanted to be sure and have a facility also that would be either on or in a situation such that a bus route could be provided through and to our facility, because if we move our customer service folks out of this building, then there’s a number of people who live close by who either walk or ride the bus to pay their water bill who would need to be able to continue to do that, to ride the bus to get to where they could pay their water and sewer bill. And so we discussed each of these locations with Mr. Johnson of the Transit Department. Now he would have his own thoughts. You might want to talk to him about that and what his ultimate thought is, but we determined that indeed at each site that we looked at, bus service could be provided. And then when Arcadis did the study of the three sites, that is Bayvale, Sibley and the mall site, or the Rocky Creek Center, the layout, the potential layouts that they came up with -- really, the one at, the Bayvale site was, so far as we were concerned, the best looking. It provided for a separate entrance for the construction and maintenance trucks. They wouldn’t be coming and out the same area as a general rule that the main public entrance would be in, or certainly the secondary public entrance. If you look at Figure 1F1, I think it’s following page 13 if you’ve got the same report that I have here, I believe you do -- it’s under the tab on Bayvale Site and it would be Figure 1F1, which follows page 13. And you’ll see that there is a service entrance that could be provided off of Milledgeville Road, and then the main public entrance would be off of McDuffie Road, fairly well accessible down Lumpkin Road from the other part of our facility. But when we looked at all of that, then we felt that the Bayvale site would be the one best suited for what we had. When we looked at the mall site, if you’ll notice the lay-down area, that’s on Figure 3E1, it’s following page 36 under the Mall tab in your study, and you notice there the lay-down area is out in front of the -- or between the building and Gordon Highway. And we had originally thought that if we did go out to that area, the best place would have been back 5 where I think the Board of Education has property now, and so that property would perhaps not be available. But anyway, with all considered, we preferred the Bayvale site when the study was completed and the layout were prepared and we looked at what had been sent to us. And certainly we could have bus traffic out to that area. We could have bus access so that people could get there if, in fact, it was the desire to move customer service operations, that is collection of monies and bills from this building and put it all entirely at that site. But that’s our thoughts so far as the facility. Our main reason for even looking at this to begin with, this being a combined facility for Utilities, Public Works, Planning and Inspection or Planning and Zoning and License and Inspection had to do with the fact that I’d hear a number of our customers come in who would complain because they had had to drive all over the county in order to get a permit, if they wanted to do a building or a mobile home or what-not. And so it just seemed to be a very good thing to have those particular departments located close by each other. It would give our customers much better service, and if in the process of doing that we could also consolidate our facilities, that is construction and maintenance and customer service and bring them all close together, then that would be really good, also. So we were looking at sites that would bring all of this together, and these sites seemed to give that and the Bayvale seemed to give the best layout, as far as that was concerned. Mr. Beard: Max, just for my understanding, are you saying that the Bayvale site can include -- would be inclusive of all the departments that you named? Mr. Hicks: That’s what we would like to have eventually, sir. Funding would have to be provided before those could move out there. I know that with Public Works, an issue was where would that funding come from, and they have the original million dollars -- Mr. Beard: I’m not talking about the funding, Max. I’m just talking about enough acreage there to house. That’s all I want to know. Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. As a subcommittee of that campus facility, we’ve been looking at -- I’m a little bit lost here and I guess that’s easy to do. But we talked at our last meeting, if I can remember correctly, that we would try and see what pricing we would come up with when we come with the Montgomery Ward or Regency Mall or Rocky Creek areas as far as what our price would be, because we was not looking to continue to rent. Maybe a lease to purchase agreement or something of that nature. But from my understanding, I thought we was going back to at least bring some numbers back today to see where we would be, and if that wasn’t feasible, then we 6 may have an alternative place to look to, such as the Bayvale area. But because of the construction there and because of the access and the parking and a lot of other features that personally I thought would be good for that area, and it being the center of the city, it wasn’t on a back road, wouldn’t have had to do any road construction, I was in favor of that location. But I’m not hearing anything about the discussion as far as what type of option. Now it wouldn’t make very much, very good sense to me to move from one rental location to move to another rental location, so I’m not even interested in that. But I’m not hearing that any negotiation was done or any communication was done to talk about pricing as what we can do with that. Now Commissioner Cheek, you might be able to help me out. Were there any discussion on that? Is that what the initiative was when we left our last meeting? Mr. Cheek: That’s one of the things that we are here to do today, is to give staff direction, a direction, and if that includes negotiating with the owners of the mall property on a per square foot price -- I think we did mention in the past that we were looking for a lease-purchase perhaps. There was some flexibility based on discussions with some of the folks involved with the mall. Them renovate, us renovate, they pay utilities, we pay utilities. But that’s what we’re here to do today, is to make a determination on where we want to go in the future and what our intentions are as a Commission. One of the things I want to point out is that if we are to build this Judicial Center, we are going to have to relocate people from this building to enable that renovation in this building and that construction to take place. My concern is that we do have the square footage available at the Regency Mall facility to house and consolidate not only the Public Works and Utilities building, but many of the other offices that will be forced to be relocated from here in that one facility. Without any additional construction or need for future funds, I believe this can be accomplished in short order without us having to move people from point A to point B to point C, as will be the case on the current course that we’re on. But Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to hear from the representative of the mall, too, to look at basically what kind of flexibility do we have, are we limited to just the Ward building or perhaps the Belk building, and all that acreage for parking there. If you’ll look on page 36 in the study, one of the things that concerns me, and I don’t know, I’m not going to read anything into this, but one of the things about appearance, if you’ll notice on the grading sheet, appearance and so forth for the mall was graded very low, as compared to the other sites. I myself had mentioned on several occasions using the rear of the mall area perhaps for the lay-down yard and the heavy equipment, but we picked the area in front of the mall with the most exposure to put the least attractive portion of these facilities in front of, so naturally that grading is going to be a lot lower than it would be if that were placed in the rear of it. Again, with this particular site, I think the Sibley Road has some flood plain areas. There’s a lot of issues with necessary road improvements with the Bayvale site. We have to have fiber and different things run. There’s a lot of things, variables here and the main thing I think we need to continue to focus on is (1) we need some space for people and we need it fairly soon, (2) we need to get the price that we can for the people of Augusta, and (3) we need to chart the course now and not continue to kick this around for another period of time. We need to basically pick where we want to go and begin negotiations, if it’s the 7 Bayvale site or the mall or the Sibley Road site, to go ahead and give staff that instruction where Ms. Smith can go back to Atlanta and say we’ve got a site and we’ve got a plan. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess this is for -- I’ve got a question concerning page 39, which is where the pricing is at. The land acquisition. Rick, I guess you’d be the one to address this. Phase I and II. Looking at about $10.5 million there. What’s the difference in Phase I and II in regards to land acquisition, and where did we get those prices from? Is that from the present owners? Mr. Acree: On Phase I, it is strictly the Utilities and Public Works Department. It doesn’t include the additional departments that the Commission may decide to locate on the site. Phase II would be Planning and Zoning, License and Inspection, any of those things. As far as land acquisition on the first two, the raw land sites, it’s a one-time acquisition cost that would be involved. You buy the entire site and build the campus as funding or desire to fund it makes it available. As far as the Regency site, the initial site was the land acquisition for the Ward building. The Ward building would be adequate for Public Works and Utilities in terms of square footage, but if you start adding the other departments on there, it may become necessary to purchase additional square footage within the mall proper or one of the other buildings on the site. Mr. Bridges: Would the additional square footage be -- I’m looking back on, I guess, page 37, at the map. You’ve got some small shops, [inaudible], in there, is that where the additional space for -- Mr. Acree: Honestly, sir, I’m not certain which of those areas they were taking that from, but in all likelihood it would have been space immediately adjacent to the Ward building, would have been either the theaters that are directly behind the Ward building or some of the shops that would be just outside the former entrance. Mr. Bridges: Okay. I guess -- I just remember, you know, four years ago they were discussing price and it was the numbers we were hearing and told about were $2.5 million or something like that, Jimmy, I mean -- and then I look at these numbers down here today and I think we see where we are, where we get when we don’t take an opportunity at the correct time. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think these are all good sites and I don’t have any trouble really with any of them. I think the main thing is we’ve got to move forward and do something. We can’t lose our monies in regard to the state funding, which brings up another question, Rick. With the money that the Utilities and Public Works is putting in and the state funding, for these grand totals I and II, how much money does that leave that we would have to fund from another source? Do you know that offhand? Ms. Smith: If -- the grand total for Phase I, if you look up a little bit further in the breakdown, you will see that there is a cost that is identified for the Augusta Utilities building and warehouse and then there is amount for Public Works and Engineering 8 building and the traffic control center. I really don’t know, Rick, whether or not -- I think that the site acquisition we had done on a pro rated basis between Public Works and Utilities, based on what the final cost for the overall facilities would be, as well as the land usage, however, as I indicated earlier for the traffic control center, we only have $1 million that has actually been committed by DOT. We will be requesting the other million. If we conclude that DOT will fund the full $2 million for the traffic control center, and Max, I guess, will be doing about 2/3 of the $1.5 million, somewhere along those lines, and his funds, I think we can consider as being available or can become available. That would leave somewhere in the neighborhood or around $3 million that would have to be made available for the Public Works and Engineering building and we have about $2.3 million that is currently available, and the other $700,000, quite honestly, we haven’t figured up yet, but in the grand scheme of things I think that we’re pretty well on our way as far as having the funding identified. Mr. Bridges: For having the funding for Phase I? Ms. Smith: For Phase I. Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right. Ms. Smith: As for Phase II, I have no information that there are any funds available to do anything with Phase II. Mr. Bridges: I understand. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think we’re hearing that basically the funding is there for Phase I, which any of these we could do and I realize the mall site is a little more expensive for Phase I than the others. But to me, that location is just a premier location. It’s got four-laned roads on either side of it, whereas these other two sites are single-lane road, two-lane roads. I think the added congestion that we’d be putting on those sites would be, would be a negative in that regard. I think we’re all moving toward centralizing at least Utilities and Public Works, and eventually bringing in License and Inspection, Zoning and other related areas where somebody can do one- stop shopping. It’s my understanding today that we’re trying to give some direction to the staff as to where we want to head on this thing, and my thinking is that the, that the mall site would be the premier location that we should work toward, and maybe the Bayvale area and the Sibley site coming in second and third. In regards to the mall site, I think what I’d like to see done is to today approve that as the premier site and Bayvale and Sibley second and third in that order, allow our staff to see what they can do in regards to purchasing the necessary property, whether it be Montgomery Ward or whether it be the Belk building. You know, I’ll leave that up to them. And if they are not able to purchase that or get a lease-purchase, and those two be the options. Like one of the Commissioners said, we’re not interested in renting anything any more. If they’re not able to do one of those two, lease to purchase or purchase, with sufficient funding, it’s got to come back to us anyway, then we would go to the second and third site. So I would make that in the form of a motion that we propose the mall site as a premier site with Bayvale being second and Sibley third, that we allow our staff to negotiate with the owners of that site to see what the best option that they can arrive at in regards to the 9 mall, bring it back to us, and we’ll vote on that at that point. I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. I know Mr. Shepard wants to go for discussion then we’ll take the vote. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard had his hand up, too. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I’ve got it written down here. Is that okay, the form of the motion, Jim? We can take discussion prior to voting. Okay, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me ask this first question to Teresa. We’ve talked about a date for the TCC money. Can we have -- somebody said it’s close. What is the date? I think you said this has been out for four years? What -- now they’re thinking about taking the money back? What is the date for this, for the TCC money, the drop-dead date? Do we know? Ms. Smith: Well, the date was June of 2002. They have not given us a new date. They did indicate that they went ahead and pushed the money out so that it is in their funding year 2003, which started in July. And we haven’t had a meeting with them or a conversation since that point, but we were able to share with them that the Commission was working towards selecting a site, after which we will be moving toward the actual design of the facility that has to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. So I don’t have a date yet. Mr. Shepard: So we really don’t have a date that they said if we don’t act by say August 31, we lose a million dollars; they haven’t said that? th Ms. Smith: The date that they said was June the 30. Mr. Shepard: I guess that means 2002, which we’re already past. We’re not talking about 2003 or future June? Ms. Smith: Correct. Mr. Shepard: So I mean if we have passed it, we’ve already passed it then, is that right? Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: Okay. And then either you or Rick, if you could speak to these questions. I noticed when I got my materials I had really no back-up on this, and I appreciate the Clerk giving me the Arcadis report, and I thought it was interesting in there 10 that they said that Regency Mall was convenient to the Bobby Dodd Expressway. I think that’s a stadium for a university that I have a rivalry with. (Laughter) Mr. Shepard: And I know they train good engineers there, they trained a member of my family there. But anyway. My other questions are what about the conditions of the improvements? I mean Marion knows I’m a fast study, but what about the asbestos, the HVAC in the Regency Mall and the obligations to the common areas? Have we gotten that far along yet? Ms. Smith: Actually there was a preliminary study that was done in conjunction with CH2MHILL that identified what some of the items are that would need to be addressed at the Montgomery Ward building prior to it being utilized again, and I believe the totals for that were somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million in improvements. Do you recall, Max, exactly what those numbers were? Mr. Hicks: I would have to look. Ms. Smith: I believe that’s the number that they were initially work with, and it dealt with things like the HVAC system and some cracks. I don’t have all the details on that, but that has been looked into and is factored into the numbers that you’re looking at. Mr. Shepard: But is it, is it discussed anywhere in here? I mean I went through this thing pretty quick. Is the condition of the building anywhere in the materials that are prepared by Arcadis? Ms. Smith: No. Because they had a copy of the CH2MHILL report. Mr. Shepard: Okay. And so -- but did they incorporate that by reference or where would I find that? The CH2MHILL report, which is -- Ms. Smith: Where would you find a copy? We would have to provide you with a copy. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Ms. Smith: If you’d like to have a copy. Mr. Shepard: Well, I mean I think we can’t -- as I understand it, two sites are raw land from which we would build new. One site is obviously improved, which you’d have to deal with some sort of renovation of that facility, would you not? I mean it -- I agree with Mr. Bridges it’s certainly a more prominent site, but you would have to deal with conditions of renovating a structure there, just like we’re having to deal with the conditions of renovating this Municipal Building for a Judicial Center; correct? 11 Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: One other thing, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I throw this out because I think that not only is the TCC on the table, money for that on the table, but we’ve had some things I did read in my packet over the weekend, was a recent letter from Augusta Tomorrow talking about the need for a new Augusta Library facility in the downtown area, and it talks about a -- we’ve talked about it from time to time, we have money in the SPLOST for the new downtown library, and I think that the idea of the library and a presence on the commons is something that we need to factor in this, into all of our equations here, and I think not only do we have to resolve the question of where Public Works and Utilities and Planning and Zoning and Transportation Control Center go, we need to come to a decision that involves the Judicial Center remaining here. I think we’ve committed to that. We are also looking, I think, to have some continued downtown presence of the Mayor’s Office, Administration, Council Chambers, and certainly Finance, which works pretty closely with that. And I know from time to time we’ve kicked around the idea that we could incorporate in a new downtown library structure the Administration, the Mayor’s Office, the Council Chamber, and Finance. I’m thinking that there is a city right up the road, Abbeville, that combines some of its municipal features with a theatre, and this would be another type of the joint use type situation. I don’t think we can address all of these needs unless we address them in combination which would include the facility of a downtown library/administration building perhaps, this Municipal Building becoming the Judicial Center, which would pretty much give a strong incentive for lawyers to remain here in downtown. We know this week that the Columbia County Judicial Center is opening, I think Wednesday is what I heard. We know as practicing attorneys, at least I do, that two of the resident Superior Court Judges in this building are moving out to Columbia County. And we are going to see the business of two Circuits no longer conducted as much as it has been from this building, not two Circuits but two counties in the legal area. But I think there will still be a strong amount of Richmond County, and by consent, probably some Columbia County work done here in these buildings if the Judges permit. And I think we just cannot ignore those two items in the preparation of this conceptual study for Regency Mall. So I would certainly offer that we study as a place to put the Municipal Building workers, the building with the library, a joint use facility, and move them there, which would include particularly our Mayor and our Council Chamber and our Administrator, because I think in every city in America, as I’ve said in several contexts, you look downtown for those type of facilities. I’m not opposed to a growth idea that would -- a growth development idea that would look to a campus concept, but I think all of this must I would make a come in combination. So if I would be permitted, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, substitute motion that the concept that we study all these sties for these Public Works and Utilities, Transportation Center also include the study of a joint use facility with the Library for the administrative and Mayor and that the Judicial Center remain at the Municipal Building. Mr. Beard: I second that. 12 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Boyles. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I guess I’m kind of happy to see that we are going to think outside of the box a little bit, and I’m happy to see that my fellow Commissioner Shepard here has given us something to consider and another phase. I think we are going to have to take this in some type combination because you have another committee who is in the process, which I’m a part of, is relocation of the administrative part of this facility while it is being renovated. And I think they are well on their way. That committee is well on its way in trying to come up with something that we all can live by, and Commissioner Shepard has voiced a very important thing here, that we possibly can look into. I also want to talk about, you know, let’s think outside the box a little bit and long-range planning. I’m an advocate of the mall and something being done there to the mall. I know we need people, tenants in that mall. My only problem is I don’t think it should be the government. We have listened to two or possibly three Directors telling us that the Bayvale site is one which we should consider. These are the people whom we depend on. These are the people whom we have to look forward to give us some type of direction. I do know the ultimate decision is going to be ours, but I think we should truly look at the long-range planning. If we can develop something immediately for Public Works and Utilities and get that started, along with this Judicial Center here, I think we would be moving in the right direction then, simply because -- long range planning. We got to the mall, the School Board has the back entrance there, as I understand, part of it. The question would be, you know, are you going to develop the whole mall? Are we going to move the whole government out there? I don’t think so, because we still talking about just using part of the mall. And I may be off base here, because as I said earlier, I’m not on those committees. But are we talking about? What are we talking about? I know most of you here Commissioners want to go to the mall, and I know the reason you want to go to the mall is because it’s empty. And you want to fill it up. And I don’t think that’s the proper reason to do it. If we got ten acres out there, we’re going to plan for that, immediately starting the two agencies that we have, then working toward bringing all the others that have been mentioned here this afternoon, bringing those out there, then somebody is going to ask me, well, where are you going to get the funding from? Okay. You’ve got to think long-range in terms of SPLOST coming up in a couple of years. Why not utilize some of that for some of the future? But you have the space out there that you can do anything you want to with. I am not sure, and I haven’t been convinced yet, that the mall offers that type of alternative to you. So I’m saying that is one reason. I cannot support and I think Commissioner Bridges’ motion is one that I can’t support simply because I can support half of it because I think we need to move forward, and I’m agreeable with him there. But I think we should go into it with the best available space. And when we start looking at the mall as number one priority, then I think that’s where our focus is going to be, and I think that’s what I object to. I think we should get all the numbers and let’s list those three, if you have to, but let’s do it on the basis of long-ranging planning and what is best for this community and the taxpayers of this community, not on something that a building is vacant and we need to fill it up. 13 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a second, I think the missing ingredient here is we haven’t heard from our representative from the mall, and I’d like to hear from him. If you’d go back to page 39, if you look at building costs, which I guess includes the renovation for the mall facility. In Phase I, for instance, it’s $2.2 million cheaper for the mall space than it is to construct new. This land acquisition, which seriously skews the Phase I total, is something that perhaps in a lease-purchase could be phased in over a period of time. And these are my concerns. This is, in fact, a good study. They were working from somewhat limited information. But again, I don’t -- it all goes back to we study, study, study, study. I agree with Commissioner Shepard, I’d like to see us keep the executive and legislative branch and certain portions or elements of the administrative staff down here as a presence in the city, but you go back to the fact that again the lowest per square foot, potential lowest per square foot cost in the most central portion of this city, in the population center of this city, is at the mall site. And again, I think if we look at this thing by creating a situation where we have a win-win situation instead of one area or one geographic location gets all the benefits from all these moves, and try to make sure that we’re meeting the interests of the people, and long- term-wise we can’t do any better than placing those facilities in the heart of the geographic and population center of this city. There is nearly a million square feet of space available in that mall right now, and has been mentioned, it’s currently unused or certainly underused. And again, I think there are only solutions to many of our needs out there versus the problems that we’ve seen that crop up in study after study, and are equally addressed and put aside just as some of the issues in this study are. But can we hear from our representative from the mall perhaps about the type of flexibility and space available? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment, Mr. Cheek. Let’s finish with the Commissioners and then we’ll have the owner of the mall come up and we have a citizen who wants to address us also. Let’s finish with the Commission. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m having a little trouble talking today. In one of our prior meetings, we had Mr. Jewett Tucker came down and he told us some of his ideas and what he was going to do with the mall, two months ago maybe. And then when we, in Engineering Services when we first received this information that we’re looking at today, a Mr. Reeves represented Mr. Tucker again and he made that comment that he could take care of all of our needs, whatever we had to have for $24 million. Turn key operation. I think Teresa Smith questioned that a couple of times, but in his first presentation he talked about turning that Montgomery Ward building into a basic shopping center, with an upscale grocery store and other things that might fit around that. Has his mind been changed? Is he doing something different? The last that I heard, the Montgomery Ward building was the only one that had been sold, and he had bought that. Now we’re talking about having to buy parking lots, the rest of the mall? Maybe the representative from the mall can answer those questions, but I’m just remembering the 14 previous conversations that we had, and I just have some questions and some doubts about some of it. But I’ll concede to that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll get to that. We’ll have him answer your questions. We have Mr. Bridges and then we have Mr. Williams. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim, I need a point of clarification, I guess here. The two motions on the floor to me doesn’t seem to be related. I mean I’m supporting both of them. Am I incorrect in that? Mr. Wall: Well, prior to voting on the substitute motion, I was going to ask for some clarification because I’m not sure if I understand what it does insofar as the selection of the Public Works. As I understood it, it was basically to continue to study the Public Works-Utilities sites and I assume to get cost estimates. But I think we need some clarification as far as what it does with regard to Public Works-Utilities. Mr. Shepard, maybe I misunderstood. Mr. Shepard: Maybe I need to clarify it? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You need to clarify it. Mr. Shepard: I thought that was something that Max had out at the wastewater treatment plant or the water treatment plant. I wanted to study in the order that was presented, the mall site and then Bayvale site, but when we did that, and to try to bring this all together, I wanted to also see that we come together with a recommendation not only with those two sites, but for a new combination downtown library and administration and a commitment to the Municipal Building as the Judicial Center. Mr. Bridges: I can incorporate that into my motion, Mr. Chairman, if the body would allow me to. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I can incorporate the substitute motion in regards to the bodies that Mr. Shepard wants to remain down here, as well as the combination in regards to the library. I can incorporate all of those into my motion if the body would allow me to do that. Mr. Shepard: Can I speak to that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Where I have some problems is evaluating the mall versus Bayvale at this time. I mean I think you’ve got to have the evaluations of both of those sites and in combination with the downtown library/administration building evaluation and the Municipal Building as the Judicial Center. I think you’ve got to have a package where we can come back with a choice on the last, on the Regency versus Bayvale. I think there is some unreadiness here as far as that goes today. But I think to go out there requires that we also have a firm commitment to this building and to a library/administration building. I just, I think we have just about 15 all the players we need at the table, but I’m trying to get a little more unity as far as some concerns addressed by Mr. Beard. And maybe I’m wrong, but that’s, that’s what I’m hearing here today, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: I’m still trying to get a clarification. The substitute motion, though, if that substitute motion includes -- I mean it sounds like it includes my motion as well these other things. Mr. Shepard: That was the intent, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: It does? Mr. Wall: Well, Mr. Bridges’ motion was to negotiate specifically for the Montgomery Ward and/or the Belk building. And get the numbers insofar as purchase or lease-purchase and bring that back to the Commission. Whereas, Mr. Shepard, your motion, as I understand it, is to look at both the Bayvale site and the mall site, I assume as far as costs are concerned -- Mr. Shepard: That’s right. Mr. Wall: -- what type of financial arrangements, as well as the joint facility for the library and the administration building. Mr. Shepard: That’s correct, Jim. Mr. Wall: I think that’s the difference, is your specifically identifies a site, whereas his says evaluate two sites. Mr. Bridges: Okay. So then the substitute motion really continues -- it continues to study on, I guess, in regards to where we locate the site. You know, I’m kind of like Andy, you know, we’ve done this study and I think now our people need some direction as to which way we want to go, and I think we need to do that. I’d like to incorporate the substitute motion in with mine but I think, you know, we need to decide and we need to move on which direction are we headed, and I think we need to be specific with that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I thought about a sermon I preached, Isaiah 40, talked about chickens or eagles. And I’m thinking here this afternoon I’d like to know what are we doing? Are we chickens or eagles? I mean they both have feathers, but we need to make some moves and get aggressive in doing some things. When you talk about the Regency Mall or the Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge Road location, I can see a lot of other things coming the future, in the years to come in that facility. We looking at it and I think we’re looking at just that building and I change that location from saying the word the mall cause folk look at the entire mall when you hear that. But I can see the future growth as adding to that building, a structure 16 on top of that structure and on top of that structure or even on the side of it, but we need to get off center, and that’s what I’ve tried to do in the committee meeting, is to get off center and at least get some numbers and some figures back so we’ll know whether it’s feasible to continue or not. I mean we can be chicken and see on the roof but we would never fly no higher than the hen house if you going to be a chicken. But if you going to be an eagle, you’re going to have to get in the wind and start to do some things. And I can see some growth coming in that area, not taking anything away from downtown -- I understand Mr. Shepard motion that we need to continue the Mayor and the Administrator, those things are still yet to come. We’re talking about now losing some money that we done passed the date on already because we been dragging our feet -- no, we ain’t been dragging our feet, we been sitting on the hen house, looking at the corn on the ground. And we need to start to fly, we need to do some things. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, I think we have made considerable progress here this afternoon, although it’s taken a little time. I think we all are under the impression that we have to move expediently here to do this. I think Commissioner, we can do two things. I think in accepting Commissioner Shepard’s motion, I think we do move off center. I think when we hear the representative from the mall, that would be moving us off center also. So I think we need to hear those things here today and let’s move forward. The only problem I really have with what Commissioner Bridges keeps saying is that he’s putting the mall first and then go to the other sites. But I think if we do what Commissioner Shepard is asking us to do, is look at both sites and give weight to that, and we are not talking -- we should be about -- I would like to see him put a time line on that when they can get back with us so we can move forward on it and make a selection. But I think our next thing would be to make a selection. We can’t do that this afternoon because we don’t have all the information here. We don’t know what part of the mall they’re talking about, whether they’re talking about one building out there or two parts of the mall. We do know what we’re talking about at the Bayvale site. So I think we’ve made progress here and we’re ready to move forward. I would just like to see a time line put on this thing as to when it’s going to be brought back to us, as soon as possible, and also giving those two sites out there equal weight in when we look at them so that we could get all of the information there and also tying in the Judicial Center and remaining government, the administrative part, downtown. I think we do that, we have consolidated everything here. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have some questions. I’m not clear exactly what we want to do today. We have created some progress and dialog, but that’s about as far as I got. We are going to decide -- I thought we were going to decide whether or not -- where would Public Works go --- Bayvale Road, the mall, or Sibley site. And then the next thing was to decide where we were going to place the non- Judicial employees. That’s two separate issues to me, and I think they should be addressed separately. The idea of the government complex, that’s what I saw Steve was 17 talking about. I think that’s something -- altogether that’s another issue that we hadn’t discussed, that I think we should do that later. One of my questions is in the Judicial Center, when we determined that we were going to renovate this building and we came up with the cost, but I don’t think the cost was factored in of relocating the employees. That’s another cost, because now we’re talking about where are we going to place these employees. That’s something need to be addressed. The parking facility, even down here for the Judicial Center, that’s extra cost. So the cost of this center is going to be the amount that has already been announced or we add that to it? I mean all of this is cost, so I think that if we are going to determine another building or what is going in Regency Mall, that area? Are we talking about just Public Works? Are we talking about the other offices? I’m not quite sure on that, whether we’re just talking about Public Works. Another thing I want to mention, I think that we need to consider, too, the Bayvale site we’re talking about -- I know that’s close to my area, residential area. We need to also consider the zoning. That’s a residential area now, understand, and whether or not we’re going to have problems with rezoning or coming in and bringing that type of facility on Bayvale Road, with that small, two-lane road in that area, with all the big, huge utility vehicles that’s going to be going in that area, whether the residents or the community will accept that. So that’s something else that we need to consider, too. So maybe we need to just think about the mall site or the Bayvale site, to vote on that, but it’s getting kind of confusing when we are adding in the library and all of that. I didn’t think we came here today to discuss the library. I know we do need a new building and I really like the idea of -- I’ll call it a government complex. I think that where we have all these offices in that area. But I’d like to know what is going in Regency Mall, lease-to-own, cost of the lease- to-own, and are we buying something there? I want somebody to answer those questions before I’d be in a position to really support any of it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Bridges’ motion does something that I really believe and feel strongly that we need to do. It takes us off of the study process and puts us on a course of fact finding and cost dollars per square foot and so forth. I’ve been to the Bayvale site, I’ve been to the Sibley site, and again we are taking an opportunity to buy property that is not as centrally located by a couple of miles, either in the population center or the geographic center of the city, over something that is in the population center and the geographic center, which is the mall area. The use of the mall, a mixed use concept of government and private partnership, is consistent with the Greater Augusta Progress study that was done. The amount of square footage available in the Ward or Belk building is consistent with what is needed currently for the Utilities and Public Works office space. These sites are ADA accessible. They are already -- they have the necessary site preparation. Detractors in the study that we have here were facts that the hedges needed to be trimmed and paint needed to be put here and there, that some of the parking lots needed to be paved. All of those things are much cheaper than building from scratch. Here, too, I think we have a commitment from this Commission to keep certain elements of the government downtown, but the fact of the matter is the longer we study, the more we delay the progress we need to make on the Judicial Center and these other projects. Again, I’ll go back to the many, many studies, 18 and I think there are three or four to date now on the mall versus build and H.L. Green’s and wherever else we look at. It all comes back to the mall, irregardless of some of the negative factors that are used to, I think, discount the value of the mall. The mall comes in very close to, if not above, all the others, and again if you look at the cost, this government is in a tight for money. If you go back to page 39, the building costs were $2,200,000 cheaper plus or minus a little bit to renovate that facility than it would be to build new. Neither of the roads, Milledgeville Road or Old McDuffie Road at the Bayvale site are four lanes. Gordon Highway and Highway 1 are eight lanes at those points in front of the mall. It’s at the geographic center of the city, which makes it equally convenient to everyone across the city. It’s in the population center which means you have as many people on the left side of the mall as you do on the right generally. We can study, study, study, study, study all day long, but the bottom line comes down to the mall is an ideal site for this government, both currently to meet our existing needs for Public Works and Utilities; long term there is space available for us to incorporate other departments there. Too, it’s centrally located, the cost is reasonable, and on top of it all, and I’m going to throw this in, we have contributed millions and millions and millions of dollars to downtown and other areas. When you allow buildings to go empty for very long, you get blight. This area has been limping along with no help from the government probably forever. It’s time now that reinvest in this area, not only to show the people that are coming in to develop the mall, that we are serious about this geographic area, but also that we are willing to be equal partners and participants in the success story that Regency Mall or Rocky Creek Commons or whatever you want to call could become. We can study until the cows come home, but the fact again is the lowest per dollar square foot and the most convenient place in this city for everybody that lives here is the mall site. I’ve been to Bayvale. I’ve been to Sibley. They’re not as convenient. And the figures here, you can adjust figures how you want to. I think the total cost eventually, especially if we buy one of these sites and decide to locate other offices from this government in either one of those, is we reduce the convenience and we have a higher cost than we’ll get if we put it in the most convenient place, which is at the mall site. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, let’s hear from the mall owner and then from Mr. Jimmy Smith. Mr. Axler: My name is Mark Axler. We purchased the mall three weeks ago. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on a minute. Is that mike working? The Clerk: Yes, sir. He just needs to pull it up. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can you pull that mike up closer to you? Mr. Axler: My name is Mark Axler. We purchased the mall three weeks. The Clerk: Can we have your address, Mr. Axler? 19 Mr. Axler: 1193 Neck Road, Jacksonville, Florida. When you were addressing about Mr. Tucker, Mr. Tucker owns the Montgomery Ward. We own the balance of the mall, which is 68 acres, and approximately 700,000 square feet. Something that Mr. Beard said, our forte for the last 40 years is taking empty malls and redoing them. That’s our forte. So we don’t expect the City to come in and do our work. We didn’t know about this until the last couple of weeks, but we are willing to work with the City. If their idea is to lease-purchase, we would be glad to sit down with them and explore those areas. We like the Regency area. We see good things happening in the Regency area. It’s our job to fill the mall. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles, you had some questions that you wanted to ask of the owner of the mall. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I didn’t realize that three weeks ago it changed hands again. And you’re thinking -- you’re thinking that it can be redeveloped and rebuilt without government assistance? Mr. Axler: We, as purchasers, would not put our money up and think that there was a possibility that the government would come in and want office space. During the negotiation on the property, that was one of the things that was brought up by the owner, that the government was looking. We pay no attention to that because we had to have an idea in our mind of what we wanted to do and proceed. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pull the mike up, sir. We can’t hear. Half of us old and deaf. (Laughter) Mr. Axler: I’m old and speak softly. Mr. Boyles: Does that put a different light on our discussions here today, or does it? Mr. Axler: We are willing to work -- when we found out that this was a possibility, that’s why I came down to Augusta to try and find out what the feeling of the government was and what we could do to participate in a positive way for the people of Augusta. Because I don’t know if you’re familiar with, but there are certain centers in Palm Beach, what they did was they took an old shopping area and turned it into a city center. It has retail space, it has government facilities, it has apartments, it has shopping. Mr. Boyles: I think the long-term goal of everyone up here, everyone probably in the city is [inaudible] something to revitalize Regency Mall, to put that area back into a thriving economic area, on that end of the county, that section of the county. I know we talked about it from 1993 on. But this is kind of a surprise to me after going through this that we have new owners out there, and I had been talking with Mr. Tucker. 20 Mr. Axler: Well, I happened to read the article when we were going through the negotiations that Mr. Tucker had said that he had control of the whole mall, and we were in the process of buying it at that time. We put our money where our mouth is, you know, that we believe in Regency. Mr. Boyles: Well, thank you very much for your information. I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I have a question to ask you. I heard you mention that -- and welcome to Augusta -- that you are a mall developer, that you worked in areas where you see what we have in Regency Mall and been able to develop that. I like what you said when you said that you wouldn’t put your money somewhere that you didn’t see some potentials. I know that’s a smart investor. What you heard today, I know some of it apparently is sort of surprising or you didn’t get everything or all the information about what the government’s plans are. What you heard today, does this enhance your ideas as a developer or what you saw for Augusta, how can we enhance that or what we are doing today would not enhance what your ideas were? Could you speak to that? Mr. Axler: If you’re going to buy a project like the Regency Mall, I think you have to have a wide open agenda of what you see it for. I mean there’s so many different things that you can look at the Regency area and say this can happen, this can happen. I’m a positive thinking person. I think that whatever you want to happen, we’re going to sit down and try and make it happen if it’s a positive thing for us and for the people of Augusta. So I think, I think that it’s a positive agenda that you have, and I think that the Regency Mall -- you know, I’m not here to sell you on Regency Mall, cause I’m sold on Regency Mall. I think it’s a great central location. When I came in yesterday to Augusta, I drove -- I’m trying to find my way in Augusta, and I drove down the street and I ended up coming down a side road of Regency Mall and I said, you know, it’s more centrally located than I thought it was. So I think it has a lot of positives. But at the same time, I am looking at -- we develop malls where we’re almost completely vacant. So this is not a new thing for us. In fact, we had one more tenant at the mall than we thought we had, and that was the police, which ended up being a good thing for security purposes. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Axler: But we’re very happy with the situation, and if we can do something to make it work for the city at the same time it ends up working for ourselves, I think we’ll both be happy [inaudible]. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think this kind of solidifies what we just talked about in Commissioner Shepard’s motion. And I think he may be ready to move forward 21 on getting his motion on the floor, because with this new revelation here that we have, I think then we can -- we will have everything on the table, we could consider the two factors there, and the third one, which he has included, and those two factors would be Bayvale or the mall, depending on which is more feasible to the citizens of this county. And I think we are able to move at that -- move off-center here today, and again, I repeat, I think we’ve made considerable progress here this afternoon. And we’re not talking about study, study, study, and I hope Steve will incorporate in his motion that the staff or whoever you are going to appoint to work on this bring back, possibly at the second meeting in August, so that we can vote then and get this out of the way on one of those places that will be presented. Also incorporating the downtown area, and we would have solidified that. We won’t have to go back over this any more. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, could you just hold up for a second and let me recognize -- Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I need to ask -- if Ms. Smith don’t mind -- I need to ask the mall owner a question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Axler, is that your name? I’m sorry. Mr. Axler: Yes. Mr. Williams: Okay. Commissioner Williams, District 2, live probably a block or two from the mall in that area. But tell me something. You purchased the mall and you said that as a businessman you saw some interest there or something that would be of some importance to you. What you planning to do with the mall, if the government was not planning to do anything? What’s your plan for the mall? Mr. Axler: Definitely we’re going to sell it. That’s what we do. I can show you other areas where we’ve gone into and like I said, our forte is walking in -- we had one more tenant at the mall than we expected. Mr. Williams: I just thought maybe you could, as a City maybe share with us some of the things that you plan to do. Because the reason, as a Commissioner, I’m looking at the mall because first of all it’s unoccupied, secondly, it’s the central location. Had that mall been occupied, I wouldn’t be trying to negotiate with anybody that’s there to get that facility because we want to move there. But because it is not occupied, because it been sitting there for a long time, I thought it would be a good venture and a central location for this city. But we got a businessman such as yourself who has purchased this building in the last two weeks, I’ve got two calls from two different owners. I don’t -- and it has not been the last two weeks, evidently it was not you, but one of the gentlemen explained to me that he and Mr. Tucker owned the mall together and since they owned the mall together they was at liberty now to negotiate with anybody they wanted to, to put whatever they wanted to there. Before that, it was two, it was three 22 or four different owners and they wasn’t at liberty to talk with anybody about a negotiation. But since it done changed hands again, and I’m thinking for the third time, I thought maybe there was some retail or some outlet or something that you have in the back of your mind that you was going to do in that area that we may have to Bayvale or the other site in order to do something. Because if that supposed to be a growing area and we just did enterprise zone with our Mayor and the Commission here to help that area to become prosperous and progress because it is standing still there and not moving. But if you don’t have any plan you would be willing to share with us, I understand that, we’ll let Mr. Smith speak. But I’m in favor because the mall is empty, the building -- the location is not doing anything now, and because we need a place to go, and I thought that would be, you know, a fix-all for everybody. Mr. Axler: Basically it shows you that a lot of people talk through their hat. Everybody owns -- I’ve heard those stories, I read the newspaper article that Mr. Tucker owned the mall. The fact is we do own the mall. We’ve thought about a lot of things. Retail space, condominium office space, apartment space. The fact that the municipality has thought about possibly using it as a central location perked our interest because of these other things. We think that all of this works together. So it’s a positive as far as we’re concerned. Mr. Williams: Mr. Tucker came in, Mr. Axler, and like yourself he came in and addressed us and told us some of the things that he would like to do and he stated he owned the mall. And I’m not doubting you now, I’m just telling you that he came in and stated the same thing, that he had plans and what he could do. And he also told me that they had just purchased not only this Montgomery Ward but I think two others, if I’m not mistaken. Mr. Axler: He has an option on the Montgomery Ward in Jacksonville. Mr. Williams: Okay. From what he had told me, he had purchased this Montgomery Ward and I think two others, and he said that it would be for sale, but he said it wouldn’t be cheap. Those were his words. Mr. Axler: He’s called me twice in the last week to sell me the Montgomery Ward. We are just in two different thought processes. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I’m just sharing with you some of the conversation that I had over the phone and in person here with Mr. Tucker and one other gentleman. I don’t remember his name. But Mr. Chairman, Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to hear from Mr. Jimmy Smith so we can maybe proceed, cause we got people out in the hall waiting on the committee to get started. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. I speak for the Pride & Progress Committee of Richmond County, and everything has been said, I 23 think, but I’d like to say a couple of things. Going back to when we could bought the mall for $2.5 million, it seemed like that politics overruled common sense. And I just urge you not to allow that to happen again, please. It is a central location. It’s a very depressed area and you voted for an enterprise zone there several months, and economic development -- I can’t tell you how much it would do for our area out there if something happened in that mall. Recently the Board of Education voted to buy a building downtown and lease parking space behind it, and they never even considered the people, the taxpayer that’s going to come out and go into that building. Where are they going to park? At Regency Mall, I don’t think that can happen with 55 acres of paved, lighted parking out there. All that’s pretty well covered. And Mr. Shepard, the trains, we don’t have any trains out there. (Laughter) Mr. Smith: And we’ve got five entrances to Regency Mall. Like has already been mentioned, the amount of highway, Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge Road, eight lanes of traffic. So I just ask you to please consider the people and what might happen in the area out there if something did come up from the government at Regency Mall. Thank you. Mr. Beard: I call for the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The question has been called. We have a motion and a substitute motion. Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Chairman. I understood that there was going to be a change in the substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. Is that correct? Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. Just a moment. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] I would like to clarify the substitute motion by an amendment thereto with the consent of the body and that amendment, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, would be that the word study not mean study, study, study, but the studies that we direct the staff would be done and would include negotiations with the mall owners, Regency Mall owners to develop square foot costs for occupancy and lease purchase arrangements as part of that study effort and that all these recommendations of these various alternatives be back to this Commission from the 24 staff by the second meeting in August of this year, 2002, so that we could vote on this entire package. Mr. Beard: I accept that. Second. Mr. Shepard: You’re the seconder. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard was my seconder and he accepted that, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Are we ready to vote on the substitute motion? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I just wanted, I guess a point of information. When we met on the st 21 in committee, in June, Ms. Smith was telling us some sort of decision had to be made before the first of August, and that’s why we agreed to meet basically into a work session, and then we were told that we needed to go into a formal session so we could st vote. I’m still wondering about that date of August 1, because it’s in my notes and it st came up during the meeting of June 21. Are we going to lose money from the State by not -- by going to the last meeting in August? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Smith, I think there was no definite date, is there? Go ahead. Ms. Smith: The Georgia Department of Transportation has a quarterly meeting for which they reassign and reallocate and redistribute the funds for the various projects. The meeting typically is held in the summer. In the past it has been held. We have had a meeting in July. The meeting this time was not held in July and was projected -- we had anticipated it was going to be held in August. I have not gotten a notice of that meeting. However, it would be at that point that we would need to be able to tell the Georgia Department of Transportation what path forward we have for the TCC Center since we indeed did not have approval for a site in June. So I don’t have a specific date from them. I have not received a notice. The July meeting wasn’t held. It was anticipated that the meeting would be held in August, but I don’t have a date for that meeting. st Mr. Boyles: In committee, we did talk about August 1 as the date, as your drop- dead date? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. Beginning of August, yes. This is the head of the Urban Design. Atlanta comes down to Tennille is basically what happens, and they review the projects that are in the District. Our local member of the State Board wants to know when we’re going to move on with the TCC, and it was based upon his recommendation 25 that the $1.8 million project was put on hold. I mean he could help us, he could certainly help us to secure the funds, but -- Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Ms. Smith: We can certainly ask. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If there is no further questions, it’s time to vote on the substitute motion. Anybody need the substitute motion read, reread for them? Could you reread the substitute motion, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: The substitute motion was to continue the concept study of the Public Works/Augusta Utilities building along with a joint facility for administration and the new library and to allow, authorize staff to negotiate a mall per square footage cost and to come back with a recommendation, along with mall site, Bayvale site, at the second meeting in August. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there anything further? Is there any further business to come before this committee? Mr. Beard: I move we adjourn. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Move to adjourn. The meeting is now 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 Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on July 29, 2002. Clerk of Commission 26