Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS November 19, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, November 19, 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 Rev. Gerald Varner. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk: RECOGNITION: Employee of the Month Award October’s Employee of the month Ms. Judy Blackstone, Risk Management The Clerk: Along with the department directors, if they’d like, please join the Mayor here at the podium. The Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Ms. Judy Blackstone with Risk Management as October Employee of the Month. Ms. Blackstone has worked for the City of Augusta for over 11 years. Ms. Blackstone is employed as the workers compensation coordinator. She was nominated by Ms. Catherine Worley with Roads & Bridges, who gave the following reasons for her nomination. Judy is an exceptional employee and she truly cares about the injured employees. She makes certain that they receive the care they need. She even sends cards to those who are out for an extended period, not paid for with government funds. She calls to see how they’re doing. The committee felt that based on Ms. Worley’s recommendation and Ms. Blackstone’s attributes, she should be awarded the Employee of the Month. Ms. Worley further states that Judy is very helpful when it comes to helping others when they’re in need of workers compensation. She is very reliable. She goes that extra mile that is needed when someone is in need of emergency. For example, we, Roads & Bridges, had an employee that was injured on the job very seriously. She went out of her way to make sure that he and his family were taken care of. She went that extra mile for him, as she does for everyone else in Augusta Richmond County. She is a great asset to have in Risk Management and for Augusta Richmond County. Congratulations, Judy. You’re making a difference in the City of Augusta. (A round of applause is given.) 1 Mr. Mayor: We extend our congratulations to Judy. She’s exactly what we are looking for in all of our public employees. The Employee of the Month Committee has decided to give some additional recognition to those who are selected, and we have two plaques. One will be in the lobby, the entryway into the Municipal Building. I’ll show it to the Commissioners. It will have a photograph of the employee. And the other one will hang in the hallway outside these chambers as additional recognition for the job well done. Judy, congratulations. (A round of applause is given.) The Clerk: PRESENTATION: Citizen Advisory Group and Technical Committee RE: Watershed Assessment Project. The Clerk: Mr. Max Hicks. Mr. Hicks: Mayor and members of the Commission, you perhaps remember some months back each of you was asked to nominate or suggest a person to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Group that would be working with Parsons Environmental Science to complete our watershed assessment. The watershed assessment is indeed an assessment of the health of our streams in our entire area that would be served by expanding water and sewer systems. That project is nearing completion, and we thought it would be very appropriate if you could have a presentation today that would bring you up-to-date on what has been prepared. This will, of course, be a thumbnail sketch of what has been prepared, but I think the small handout -- has each of the Commissioners gotten their summary, executive summary? So in order to present this watershed assessment project findings, Ms. Teresa Crisp, who is the program and project manager for Parsons Environmental Services, will now make that presentation. Ms. Crisp: Thank you. Today the people who will be presenting to you are members of the TAG and CAG that you appointed. We worked on this presentation with Homebuilders Association, the Neighborhood Alliance, the Planning Commission, the CSRA, and the Augusta staff, so I’m just hear to flip through the things and answer any questions. First, we will talk about the approach to the project quickly, and Steve Willard from Fort Gordon will present that. Mr. Willard: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you. I’m going to give you a quick down and dirty look at the scope and some of the things that we did and how we incorporated the total community into it and [inaudible] on the different councils for the opportunity to work together, because it was a full partnership of industry, of the local community and individuals. This particular study is done because of requirements from regulations, the Safe Drinking Water Act and pollution that we place into the water. We looked into different components in the particular study. We used the public. We invited 2 the public to come in to give us their interpretation of the issues that were out there. We collected data on the different problems that were identified, and meetings were held by the different teams to look into what the real problem was. We looked at the biology of the streams, the chemical make-up of the water that’s in the streams, and we looked at alternatives that were provided by Parsons and by the team that would be effective and would be efficient and still not burden the individuals in the county. Here you’ll see some of our PR, for lack of a better term, but it was also educational where we have provided through the local paper and through schools and through demonstrations at the schools some education for the kids. The TAG and the PAG met several times. We had large numbers of people that came, and we looked at what was presented, the data that was provided, and then we provided reports back to you and to prepare for this particular recommendation. In part of it, we have set up water monitoring stations. This one that you see in the picture is Rae’s Creek. There’s a station right above the bridge. It collects data. It pulls several samples during the year and then it will be left in place to provide historic data so that we can purify the system that we are setting up. Ms. Crisp: Next is [inaudible] present on [inaudible]. Mr. Speaker: When we looked at the quality of our streams, we assessed it in two different ways. The first way was we looked at the biological quality of the streams, and you’ll see -- and this map is actually in your handout, you can see a little better. But you’ll notice for each of the streams, we’ll have like for Spirit Creek and Rae’s Creek and Butler Creek and Rocky Creek, there are three symbols up there. And there’s a symbol that obviously represents the health of the fish population in that stream. There is a health of the habitat in that stream, and then health of the [inaudible] and [inaudible] in that stream. And the green color indicates excellent quality. The blue is good quality, and the yellow is a fair quality. And you’ll notice that in our streams that most everything has good to excellent to fair, with the exception of fish in the Rocky Creek, and that actually shows up as poor. So that’s an issue that we’ll look at as we go through this. The second way we looked at it is chemical analyses, and we looked at chemical results on a lot of different things for the streams. The three things that showed up as some areas of concern were the fecal [inaudible] bacteria, the total phosphorus, and total suspended solids. And again, you can see the colors that indicate that quality of the streams in these different areas. Just about everywhere that we sampled for fecal [inaudible], there were some issues, some concerns about the levels we were seeing. The total phosphorus was good in just about all areas. We did find some high levels in Spirit Creek and suspended solids obviously were a little higher in more developed areas where there is more runoff. This slide just summarizes what I just said. We do have high fecal countywide. We had some high levels of total phosphorus in Spirit Creek and suspended solids in the developed areas. We didn’t identify any other concerns in our streams. We did monitor for a lot of different parameters. No metal problems. No heavy metals in any of the streams. Two things that were of interest on Butler Creek, that we found no problem with dissolved oxygen and no problem with [inaudible], and that’s important because EPA has listed Butler Creek as an impaired stream and two of the things they listed were dissolved oxygen and [inaudible], and our data indicates that that’s not necessarily the case. And that’s also been confirmed by EPD just this year, so we’re 3 actually hope to be able to eliminate those problems, eliminate those from the list the EPA has. Also, you’ll notice that Rocky Creek is on the list for fecal [inaudible] and for toxicity. There is an ongoing remediation process in the Rocky Creek area that is anticipated will help relieve that situation. Again, we’re going to work with EPD to try to have Butler Creek de-listed for dissolved oxygen and [inaudible]. We feel very good about that. We feel like that we’ll be able to accomplish that. Ms. Crisp: [inaudible] Youngblood with the Greater Augusta [inaudible] Association is going to present about the recommendations that we made. And we made these recommendations [inaudible] citizens that you appointed. Mr. Youngblood: First of all, I’d like to thank this City and the Mayor and the Commissioners for supporting this program. It’s been over two years of research and hard work by this committee. There are a lot of us, just a few representatives to give presentation. But overall, our people were really impressed with the overall quality that we have here in the Augusta area. But to keep it at that level, first of all, is the awareness. The fecal [inaudible] was one of the bigger problems, so to continue the monitoring, to improve the sanitary sewer system, to [inaudible] key areas, sewer areas, extend the service area if and when finances allow, meter sewer lines in dry and wet weather, develop a model of the system, rehab leaky sewer lines, set and maintain maintenance. Again, that’s [inaudible] people that have them. Educate about pet waste. Investigate potential bacterial sources. [inaudible] grants. Public education is a big thing. They’ve already been involved with the schools and the children educating the parents. Partnership to get the message out. Brochures geared toward proper fertilization at lawn and garden stores, as people buy for the spring and put [inaudible] the winter. Target mail outs for septic tank maintenance to areas that we know are on septic tanks. Focus education on the school system. New development to educate the small developers on the state requirement for erosion control and soil erosion measures that will help improve these streams. Improve county inspection programs. Extend sewer service areas. Coordinate with Fort Gordon on Spirit Creek. Coordinate with EPD regarding removal of streams from the 303D list. We have some there that don’t belong there. Continue with the Greenspace program which we’re backing wholeheartedly. Develop concentration subdivisions which the City is stepping forward and doing or allowing the opportunity to do it. Stream bank restoration in key problem areas. Adopt and implement the Georgia Stormwater Manual. The big green book. Thank you. Ms. Crisp: [inaudible] end of the summary [inaudible] and this is a summary of some of the things we believe Augusta already has in place, that you are already implementing to improve the water quality. Mr. Speaker: Thanks, Teresa. Implementation of these recommendations is a key to improving the conditions at some of the impaired streams that you’ve heard about, and to ensure that we have improved water quality for the future generations in the community. The water assessment includes specific tools, many of which we as a community are already implementing. These include improving the sanitary sewer system through our bond projects and programs, educating the community, and 4 communicating with them about water quality issues and ways to prevent pollution, adopting appropriate guidelines for reducing the effects of stormwater generated by new development, permanently protecting lands along rivers and creeks and in flood-prone areas in our community Greenspace program, pretreating our industrial waste before it gets to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and possibly most significantly, providing for continued community involvement. The water assessment plan makes a specific recommendation for establishing a watershed roundtable, which would bring together stakeholders from throughout the community on a regular basis to keep this program going, to keep these projects being implemented and coordinating the activities of all the stakeholders in the community who have an interest and a desire to help improve water quality and maintain it for the future of our community. I think the implementation measures, I think everybody who has participated, the implementation measures represent a substantial commitment by the City, by the taxpayers, and by all of us in the community who have a desire to improve the water quality. Ms. Crisp: [inaudible] if there are questions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for that update. This is some serious work that is being done by cities all across this country right now. As we are learning more and more, we’ve got to protect our watersheds if we want to have a reliable, clean source of water for drinking. Are there any questions? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir. All of our analyses were done, were they independently verified and defensible? Ms. Crisp: [inaudible] We did a lot of monitoring and modeling and Parsons has a quality assurance program through our company that we definitely went through to make sure that the results were valid. Does that answer your question? Mr. Cheek: Yes, that answers my question. As long as we have a defensible position. Ms. Crisp: We definitely do. And also, to reiterate what Allen said, we were, we were seeing the [inaudible] and dissolved oxygen in Butler Creek was not a problem. And EPD was monitoring at the same time. Their result showed the same thing ours said. Mr. Cheek: Is the [inaudible] thought to be a byproduct of manufactured goods or naturally occurring mineral in this area? Ms. Crisp: We were suspecting a byproduct, but we never saw any problem with [inaudible]. Based on my discussions with EPD, when they listed it on the 303D list they had one hit. And we believe that they were not using clean sampling techniques, and so we believe that now the sampling techniques are better and would show that there is not a problem. 5 Mr. Cheek: Just to follow up with a comment. This is fine work and I really applaud the team for the effort that y’all put forth and the report. One of the things that this Commissioner intends to bring forward is what I consider to be the missing piece in our streams and trunk lines, sewer trunk lines, equation, is that when we build these trunk lines, we cover them up and walk away from them for 20 years until there is a problem. It is cheaper to maintain an open access inspection road with a bush hog than it is with a bulldozer, so I’ll be bringing forth a proposal for study to maintain those easements and keep them open and accessible for inspection, which will also provide a greenway path for people to wander along our creeks, which we will have as greenways eventually. But thank you for your work. Ms. Crisp: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Thank you very much for the presentation. Ms. Crisp: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, our delegation. The Clerk: DELEGATION: Mr. Brian Green RE: Issues and concerns regarding government services Mr. Mayor: Brian, give us your name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Mr. Green: Brian Green, 515 Center West Parkway. Mayor, Commissioner, I’m here today on something -- here today on some issues that are concerning me, and that quite frankly, I’m getting a little frustrated with because I’m not receiving an adequate response. The first of those issues is government vehicles. Use of government vehicles for non-government use. Let me give you an example. I was at a car wash about 5:30 one day. And a gentlemen was over there cleaning the car wash or whatever he was doing. I assume he worked there, whatever the case was. He had a Richmond County vehicle. I took the numbers down and made a recording of those numbers and all. Didn’t get around to reporting that particular incident but I’ve seen that one and other incidents like it. And although I did not report this incident, I can get those numbers. I can get those numbers. But the main point I’d just like to say as a citizen here is that I’d like to see our government vehicles -- that’s just one example of vehicles being used in a non- government use -- that if this gentleman has a job at the car wash, I think he should have gone home and gotten his person vehicle and driven back to the car wash, not [inaudible] Richmond County vehicle clearly outside of the working hours. That’s just another case. I’ve seen other questionable incidents. I’ve taken pictures, I’ve called the Fleet Manager on occasion of other cases. We can look at this more in depth at a later time. I just wanted to bring that to your attention as a group. The next item I’d like to talk about is 6 this neighborhood improvement that’s going on. I did a personal survey of about ten randomly selected homes in the 30901 area. And the average home value there was about $16,000, as I can recall. What I’m here today to say is that we’re building some nice looking homes in the 30901 area that I’ve been told range from $79,000 to $133,000. And I guess the point I want to make today is, is it feasible on a long term consideration for us to consider to approach neighborhood improvement in this manner? What you’re looking at is possible unfair property tax assessment, the awkward or very unlikelihood of a person having good resale value of that home. I’m no real estate expert but I just like to bring that to your attention. In other words, do you build a $79,000 or a $100,000 home next to a $6,000 home or a $20,000 home, or do you build a $45,000 to $55,000 home, something more reasonable and compatible with the other houses in that area? Just food for thought. Other things we mention -- I heard talk about the water system today, and that’s a real good point. I’ve been told by three or four different professionals th that all this area pretty much past 15 Street is considered a flood zone. I’d also like to mention that as soon as it rains, gentlemen, for five minutes, I can take you to four or five spots where that water is gathering. Marion Homes, East Boundary still, Laney Walker Boulevard, the whole bit. I don’t know all the technical aspects involved, but I’m sure we can do a little better with the system, and at the very least we can go by these systems and possibly suction them out. I understand from Public Works, I believe that have this big old hose, they can go in and suction the systems out. It’s just something basic like that we can do to help keep the flooding down and this point just came to mind when I heard this committee here just talking about the drainage and all that. I mean cause it’s not being done. And either if they can suction some of that junk out of the sewages, maybe the flooding won’t be as predominant as it is. Train tracks. I’ve gone in front of a committee, I’ve made phone calls, I even called CSX myself. We have a problem, gentlemen. I came down here before and talked about the railroad tracks. They’re bad on Broad Street, as some of you probably know. That road in front of the Civic Center and a couple of other places. They will tear your car up -- Mr. Mayor: You have 30 seconds. Mr. Green: -- on Laney Walker Boulevard as well. I suggest that this Commission consider us improving the area around the railroad tracks and just billing CSX. I think that’s the rightful thing to do. I think enough cars have been torn up about it. And I just think we need to take some action on it. And one last thing about -- well, I’ll save this for another time. Mr. Mayor: Your time is up. Mr. Green: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions from the agenda? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? 7 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: On Mr. Green’s comment that he made, I would like to respond to one comment that he did say. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead. Mr. Boyles: And that’s -- if he has the name or car number of an employee who went to a car wash, he needs to give that to Mr. Kolb or Mr. Wall, because he has practically indicted every member of this government when he makes a comment like that, because everybody is going to wonder who that person was. I think if he’s going to come in and make comments like that, he should identify who he may be talking about. I make that in the form of a comment, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Boyles. The Clerk: ADDENDUM AGENDA: DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Item 25. [Motion to approve contract with Turner Associates on behalf of The Turner Ricci Woodhurst Team for architectural services for the Judicial Center.] Item 28. [Motion to approve amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Title 4, Chapter 2, Section 74, to prohibit the outside storage of tires where water could accumulate in such stored tires.] ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Motion to approve the appointment of Christian Stracke to a term on the Tree Commission representing District 6. 2. Approve funding from Contingency for November 26, 2002 General Election Run-off in the total amount of $88,800. 3. Ratify a contract with KONE, Inc. to perform emergency repairs to Elevator #1 in the Municipal Building. The contract amount is $27,675. 4. Motion to approve renewal of Lease Agreement with Thompson Farms of Big Farm property. Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve renewal of Lease Agreement with Thompson Farms of Big Farm property. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting items 25 and 28 and adding items 1 through 4? Any objection? There is none stated, then we’ll go ahead and delete those two and add those four. 8 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any objection but I do need to get some clarification. These three, four different items that on the addendum. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to add those to the agenda so we can discuss those today, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, I’d like to discuss at least the item number 4, the lease agreement. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: I’d just like to get some clarification on that. I don’t have any problem with it, but I just like to know. Jim, I see has got his hand up. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s go ahead and add these items, then, and we can take that one up for discussion if there is no objection to add. Let’s go ahead and take up item number 4 since there has been a question. First item, Madame Clerk, let’s take up item 4 on the addendum agenda. The Clerk: Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve renewal of Lease Agreement with Thompson Farms of Big Farm property. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: The Big Farm property, the way we refer to it, is the property that lies behind the Wastewater Treatment Plant, between the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the levee. And the Thompson brothers have leased that property for a number of years. They have worked with us through the years during the period of the construction of constructed wetlands. We actually go across their property in order to use the back side in order to get all the construction vehicles in and out from there. And this is property that they farm, and we were asked to extend the lease again. The reason I’m adding it today is there are certain federal programs that they participate in that they have time deadlines, and I sent this over thinking it would get on the Engineering Services Committee but it did not, and ask that it be extended. The acreage has decreased. We will be utilizing their property again insofar the construction of the raw water line, as it goes along the levee. The routing of that probably is going to necessitate our again crossing their property, which they’ve cooperated with us in the past. Mr. Williams: So, Jim, you’re saying we’re leasing them some property or we’re leasing property? Mr. Wall: We are leasing them property. 9 Mr. Williams: Okay. How much, how much are we leasing? You said it decreased, but how much did it decrease? Mr. Wall: 113 acres of cultivatable land. Mr. Williams: And where we leasing that for? What? Mr. Wall: $15 an acre. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: No. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheeks and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek: Is this land on -- I know that you said between the levee and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This doesn’t include land between the levee and the river? Mr. Wall: It does not. Mr. Cheek: Okay. That’s owned by someone else? Mr. Wall: They actually own some of that land, but between the levee and the river they own some of it, and there are some other property owners that are involved in it. But this has nothing to do with that. Mr. Cheek: No further questions. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard had a question and then we’ll go back to Mr. Williams. Mr. Beard: I didn’t have a question, Mr. Mayor, I was just going to make a motion that we add items 1 through 4 to the consent agenda, if there are no more questions concerning it. Mr. Mayor: Well, I went ahead and added it because there was no objection. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Mayor: That’s why we’re taking up item 4 now. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: My next question, Jim, how long is that lease? Is that a year lease? 10 Mr. Wall: Three years. Mr. Williams: Three year lease? I didn’t have no problem. I just wanted to know what we was leasing and how much we was leasing it for and to whom it was being leased to. Mr. Mayor: Do you want to go ahead and make a motion with respect to that? Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Let’s, if we may, take up the consent agenda. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, move to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any items that we can add to the consent agenda from the regular agenda? Or the addendum agenda? Mr. Cheek: Item 49 can be added, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. 49. On the addendum agenda, item 1, 2, or 3, can we add any of those three to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: All three of them. Mr. Mayor: All three of them? All right. Add those three to the consent agenda. And then we’ve removed from the consent agenda already items 25 and 28. Gentlemen, we have a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I would ask that number 40 be pulled and that it be delayed until the next Commission meeting. 40. Motion to adopt Resolution to establish Special Services District for the installation of a water line on the South Atlantic Street and Shoreline Drive with 100% of the cost be assessed to the residents including Apple Homes and that it be spread on an acreage basis. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) 11 Mr. Wall: We are still doing some research concerning placing a lien against property that’s in Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to pull item number 40 and postpone it to our next meeting. Let’s go ahead and vote on that motion if we could. All in favor of delaying this item to our next meeting, please vote aye. That’s item number 40. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: With respect to our consent agenda, are there items you’d like to have pulled for discussion? Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: 44. Mr. Mayor: Number 44, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item number 8 and 17 and 18. Mr. Mayor: 8, 17, and 18 for Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: And item 33. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask Mr. Wall on moving 40, which I don’t have a problem with, are there [inaudible] represented [inaudible] meeting? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: This is the item, for the benefit of the audience, this is the item related to South Atlantic Street and Shoreline Drive. Are there any people here for that item today? There are apparently none. Thank you, Mr. Mays, for bringing that forward. Okay, are there any other items you want to pull? We have items 8, 17, 18, 33 and 44. Mr. Williams: I need to get some clarification on one other, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? 12 Mr. Williams: Item 14. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles: What number? Mr. Mayor: 14. Mr. Williams: 14. Mr. Boyles: 14. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus those items and the addition of those four items The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: You want to read those out, Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors, for our Planning petitions, would you please signify your objection once the petition is read and the location, by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z-02-74 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Angela Barnes, on behalf of Linda Jeanty, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home, per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1571 and 1573 Essie McIntyre Blvd. and containing .28 acres. (Tax Map 58-3 Parcels 24 & 25) DISTRICT 2 2. Z-02-114 – A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jennifer White, on behalf of Roy and Betty Jenkins, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2201 Windsor Spring Road and containing .31 acres. (Tax Map 121-2 Parcel 171). DISTRICT 2 3. Z-02-128 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Vernida Bowman, on behalf of Dorothy Bowman, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3531 Primrose Drive and containing .24 acres. (Tax Map 83 Parcel 221) DISTRICT 3 4. Z-02-129 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the use of the property will 13 match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by The Hinman Architectural Group, on behalf of the Augusta Korean Methodist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church, including day care services, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2641 Barton Chapel Road and containing approximately 19 acres. (Tax map 95 Parcels 11, 11.1 and 12) DISTRICT 4 5. Z-02-130 – A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Kenneth & Julia Teague requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding a paint and body shop in a B-2 (General Business) zone per Section 22-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3920 Wrightsboro Road and containing 1.20 acres. (Tax map 39 Parcel 63.04) DISTRICT 3 6. Z-02-131 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 20’ natural buffer be maintained along the southern property line; a petition by Atkins & Associates, on behalf of Ed-Wil Enterprises, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-2 (General Business) with conditions to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1219, 1221 and 1227 Flowing Wells Road and containing approximately 19 acres. (Tax Map 29 Parcels 2, 77, 2.4, 76) DISTRICT 3 7. Z-02-132 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by John Martinez requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2804 Tobacco Road and containing .93 acres. (Tax map 129 Parcel 392) DISTRICT 6 8. Z-02-133 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ray Gonzalez requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located 2066 Walnut Street and containing .17 acres. (Tax Map 87-4 Parcel 36) DISTRICT 2 9. Z-02-134 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James A. Lewis requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located where the southwest right-of-way line of Scott Street intersects with the west right-of-way line of Saybrook Drive. This property contains approximately 13.07 acres. (Tax Map 51 Parcel 38.03) DISTRICT 3 10. Z-02-135 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that only a 32 square foot sign be allowed and if the daylilly operation ceases to exist the zoning shall revert back to Zone R-1A; a petition by Charles Shaw requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3096 Lumpkin Park Drive and contains .44 acres. (Tax Map 96- 4 Parcel 56) DISTRICT 2 11. Z-02-136 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lee Neel, Blanchard and Calhoun 14 Commercial Properties, on behalf of Margaret Cordle Caughman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 2,170 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Woodlake Drive and Tobacco Road. This property contains 1.37 acres. (Part of Tax Map 141 Parcel 4.04) DISTRICT 4 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted. The Clerk: Under our Public Services portion of the agenda, for Alcohol petitions, any objectors please signify your objections by raising your hands. PUBLIC SERVICES: 13. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Thriftee Supermarket located at 232 Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 14. Motion to approve a request by Chong Suk Lee for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with EZQ Convenience Store located at 2160 MLK Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 15. Motion to approve a request by Catherine Koons for a Fortune Tellers license to be used in connection with Catherine’s located at 1625 Doug Barnard Pkwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 47, with the addition of 49, items 1, 2 and 3 from our addendum agenda, and the deletion of items 25 and 28. PLANNING: 1. Z-02-74 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Angela Barnes, on behalf of Linda Jeanty, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home, per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1571 and 1573 Essie McIntyre Blvd. and containing .28 acres. (Tax Map 58-3 Parcels 24 & 25) DISTRICT 2 2. Z-02-114 – A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jennifer White, on behalf of Roy and 15 Betty Jenkins, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2201 Windsor Spring Road and containing .31 acres. (Tax Map 121-2 Parcel 171). DISTRICT 2 3. Z-02-128 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Vernida Bowman, on behalf of Dorothy Bowman, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3531 Primrose Drive and containing .24 acres. (Tax Map 83 Parcel 221) DISTRICT 3 4. Z-02-129 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the use of the property will match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by The Hinman Architectural Group, on behalf of the Augusta Korean Methodist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church, including day care services, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2641 Barton Chapel Road and containing approximately 19 acres. (Tax map 95 Parcels 11, 11.1 and 12) DISTRICT 4 5. Z-02-130 – A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Kenneth & Julia Teague requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding a paint and body shop in a B-2 (General Business) zone per Section 22-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3920 Wrightsboro Road and containing 1.20 acres. (Tax map 39 Parcel 63.04) DISTRICT 3 6. Z-02-131 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 20’ natural buffer be maintained along the southern property line; a petition by Atkins & Associates, on behalf of Ed-Wil Enterprises, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-2 (General Business) with conditions to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1219, 1221 and 1227 Flowing Wells Road and containing approximately 19 acres. (Tax Map 29 Parcels 2, 77, 2.4, 76) DISTRICT 3 7. Z-02-132 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by John Martinez requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2804 Tobacco Road and containing .93 acres. (Tax map 129 Parcel 392) DISTRICT 6 8. Deleted from consent agenda. 9. Z-02-134 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James A. Lewis requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located where the southwest right-of-way line of Scott Street intersects with the west right-of-way line of Saybrook Drive. This property contains approximately 13.07 acres. (Tax Map 51 Parcel 38.03) DISTRICT 3 16 10. Z-02-135 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that only a 32 square foot sign be allowed and if the daylilly operation ceases to exist the zoning shall revert back to Zone R-1A; a petition by Charles Shaw requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3096 Lumpkin Park Drive and contains .44 acres. (Tax Map 96- 4 Parcel 56) DISTRICT 2 11. Z-02-136 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lee Neel, Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial Properties, on behalf of Margaret Cordle Caughman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 2,170 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Woodlake Drive and Tobacco Road. This property contains 1.37 acres. (Part of Tax Map 141 Parcel 4.04) DISTRICT 4 12. ZA-R-154 – An amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by deleting the following definitions from Section 2 (General Definitions) related to adult entertainment establishments; Bookstore, Adult; Entertainment Establishment, Adult; Regulated Use; Specified Anatomical Areas; Specified Sexual Activities; Theater, Adult. PUBLIC SERVICES: 13. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Thriftee Supermarket located at 232 Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 14. Deleted from consent agenda. 15. Motion to approve a request by Catherine Koons for a Fortune Tellers license to be used in connection with Catherine’s located at 1625 Doug Barnard Pkwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 16. Deleted from consent agenda. Motion to approve a request by Rebecca Cassellas for a Therapeutic Massage license to be used in connection with Paradise Island Day Spa located at 210-F Robert C. Daniel Pkwy. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 17. Deleted from consent agenda. 18. Deleted from consent agenda. 19. Motion to approve five-year Lease Agreement between Augusta and West Augusta Little League, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 20. Motion to authorize a letter requesting assistance from the Georgia Department of Corrections for the development of the Apple Valley Park and the construction renovations to Savannah Place Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 17 21. Motion to approve three-year agreement for Flight Dimensions International d/b/a Flight Explorer for software at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 22. Motion to approve the restoration of funding for Georgia Legal Services Program in the amount of $15,253.00 for FY 2003 from UDAG funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 11, 2002) 23. Motion to approve allocation for Façade Grant for 437 Walker Street in the amount of $15,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 11, 2002) 24. Motion to approve reclassification of the Solid Waste Manager position, Salary Grade 54, to Assistant Director – Solid Waste Division, Salary Grade 59, as recommended by HR and supported by the University of Georgia’s review of the Reclassification Study. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 11, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 25. Deleted from the agenda. 26. Motion to enter into a contract with the firms of Continental Construction Company and Parsons/H. E. Henigh Company to perform the construction of Fire Stations #8 and #12 in the respective amounts of $1,294,444 and $1,091,478. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 11, 2002). 27. Motion to approve migration to Cisco PIX firewall. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 11, 2002) 28. Deleted from the agenda. 29. Motion to approve Work Authorization #1 for the new Judicial Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 11, 2002) 30. Motion to approve replacement of Fire Department’s protective clothing. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 11, 2002) FINANCE: 31. Motion to approve replacement of Fire Department’s protective clothing. (Approved by Finance Committee November 11, 2002) 33. Deleted from consent agenda. 34. Motion to approve request to transfer/release "Fire-Knocker # 17A". (Approved by Finance Committee November 11, 2002) 35. Motion to approve expenditure for printing costs associated with absentee ballots. (Approved by Finance Committee November 11, 2002) 36. Motion to approve resolution exercising option to extend term of Public Purpose Lease with Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. for a period of one year. (Approved by Finance Committee November 11, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 18 37. Motion to abandon unopened Alley on Tax Map 72-2 between Parcel 457 & 458 and authorize conveying to adjoining property owner. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) 38. Motion to accept assignment of outdoor advertising sign lease from the Estate of L. H. Simkins. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) 40. Deleted from consent agenda. 41. Motion to authorize approval of an Easement and Encroachment Agreement between Jimmy R. Smith and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) 42. Motion to approve separating out the Green Meadows/Par Drive ditch repair from associated projects; identify funding source and let for bid. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) 43. Motion to approve reclassification of the Solid Waste Manager position, Salary Grade 54, to Assistant Director – Solid Waste Division, Salary Grade 59, as recommended by HR and supported by the University of Georgia’s review of the Reclassification Study. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002 44. Deleted from consent agenda. 45. Motion to approve the creation of a cul-de-sac at the end of Ryan Road at a cost of $3,000 using county forces and schedule project to begin January 2003. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 46. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission regular meeting held November 6, 2002 and called meeting held November 8, 2002. ATTORNEY: 47. Motion to approve an amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Title 3, Chapter 5, Section 86, to allow motorized carts use on certain roads in Augusta. (Approved by the Commission November 6, 2002- second reading) ATTORNEY: 49. Motion to approve the renewal of the exemption of the Mayor’s vehicle from the decal ordinance. Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve the appointment of Christian Stracke to a term on the Tree Commission representing District 6. Addendum Item 2. Approve funding from Contingency for November 26, 2002 General Election Run-off in the total amount of $88,800. Addendum Item 3. Ratify a contract with KONE, Inc. to perform emergency repairs to Elevator #1 in the Municipal Building. The contract amount is $27,675. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. 19 (Vote on consent agenda) Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-7, 9-13, 15-16, 19-24, 26-27, 29-33, 34-43, 45-47, 49, Addendum Items 1-3] Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll take up the items we pulled. Yes, sir? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] The Clerk: That item was pulled out. Mr. Mayor: We’re getting ready to discuss that. Madame Clerk, we’ll move ahead with the items that were pulled. We’ll start with item number 8. The Clerk: 8. Z-02-133 - A petition for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ray Gonzalez requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located 2066 Walnut Street and containing .17 acres. (Tax Map 87-4 Parcel 36) DISTRICT 2 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can you give us the background on this, please? Mr. Patty: This property consists of two lots. It’s an unusual situation and I don’t have any explanation for it. But the lot that fronts Dan Bowles is the parking lot and it’s zoned Commercial. But behind that, which lot that has frontage on Walnut Street is zoned Residential. And we couldn’t find any evidence of any zoning change in modern history. So the actual location of the building where the business is located is zoned Residential but the parking lot is zoned Commercial, and I have no explanation. The current owner of the property has been in there operating for several years. He’s had a business license during that time, according to License & Inspection, and he’s operated as a store and he testified that he had not been selling alcohol. He wants to sell alcohol, beer and wine, and in order to do that, under the Code I believe he’s got to have Commercial zoning. And that’s why he’s here today. We did not have any objectors and the prevailing thinking on the Commission was that there is not a problem with the zoning, if there’s a problem with the alcohol then let you guys deal with that at the appropriate time. So the Commission approved it and there were no objectors. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? The petitioner here? Are there any objectors? The petitioner is here? Okay. Are there any objectors here? Would you raise your hand, please, so we can get a count? The Clerk: Are you all objecting? (2 objectors noted) 20 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there anything you’d like to say about your request? Mr. Gonzales: The request [inaudible] rezone in order to where I can sell the beverages here. I’ve been running it ever since 2000 there and had not objections, no one said anything. And so I [inaudible] beer license, now they tell me that it was in the wrong zoning so I am trying to get it zoned, corrected. Mr. Mayor: Would the objectors want to be heard? All right, would you come up please and give us your name and address for the record? Speak into the microphone, if you would, so everybody can hear you. Ms. Lewis: Yes, my name is Sally Lewis and I reside at 2062 Walnut Street. Mr. Lewis: Hello, I’m Duane Lewis. I have prepared a pamphlet I’d like to share if possible. Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give those to the Clerk, she’ll distribute those for you. All right, please go ahead. Mr. Lewis: I wanted to speak on behalf of my grandparents at the moment. They stay right next to this building where previously there was a lot of noise and a lot of disturbing the peace at night where cars would come into the neighborhood with loud music and where people be walking up and down the street talking and yelling and shouting, and at night they were unable to sleep peacefully. So during the opening of the establishment many complaints were made towards the business and the police were able to come out on the weekends and disburse the crowd in order to have some peace and quiet at night. Ms. Lewis: Yes, I’d also like to add that I have lived at this particular address all my life. I was born in Hyde Park. And for many years, we have had problems with the club, even though it’s zone for one-family residential, it has always been a club where alcohol beverages has been sold. Now since -- I take care of my elderly parents now and they’re 85 and 81, and we have called numerous times on Ray’s restaurant because the noise has been exceedingly, overly, abundantly where it wakes my parents up. Plus they do block the driveway. Just in case I have to call 9-1-1, they couldn’t even get through. So we are against the rezoning period. We do not want it to be rezoned. We want it to stay the way it is. Mr. Lewis: There is another business established about half a block away from Ray’s, which was a convenience store and where they sold convenience store items. But at this location, some of the drug dealers used to hang out there and use it as a spot to sell drugs and it was a customer-driven location. And right now in Hyde Park, there are some drug dealers there and I can see where they can take advantage of any type of business or location and use it for their own bad habits. 21 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this item be pulled. Did you have something? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I received several calls from the constituents in that area. That is my District, District 2. I was on [inaudible] the Planning Board when it came through and we talked about -- and I remember telling George, he was there to get it rezoned. And the neighbors had already had a meeting that I wasn’t aware of and some of the other Board members enlightened me on it. But we, after talking to the neighbors and after seeing what has been taking place in that area for I’m going to make a motion, Mr. so long, I had second thoughts on even rezoning that. Mayor, that we deny the rezoning of the property as it is so there won’t be any more alcohol beverages sold at that particular location. I hate to see a businessman go out of business, but when you look at the constituents in that area and what’s been happening in that area and the history of that area -- that area is a area that’s been infested with some, some bad things, I’d say, for a long time. And we need to make a change, need to make a difference, and this is probably the first step we going to be able to make to do that, so I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Let me ask, if I could ask a question for clarification before we move on. I understand he wants the rezoning so that he can be entitled to sell alcoholic beverages. Is that right, Mr. Patty? And alcoholic beverages are already being sold that now? I’m a little confused. Mr. Patty: Yes, well, we’re confused, too, because the testimony from the applicant was that there were no beverages being served and had been none, and that the reason for the application was to allow him zoning, provide zoning that would allow the sale of beverages. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I have a comment. I can yield to the applicant. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Gonzales, did you want to, is there something that you wanted to say? Mr. Gonzales: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right, come up to the mike. Mr. Gonzales: What I wanted to say, the club was running when she brought here parents back. She knew the club was there before she brought them back home or wherever she brought them from. And as far as drugs, there’s no drugs been used on my, on my premises. I have never sold no beer there on the premises. But this guy here 22 should know, she should know, because her son was a big drug user. They should know where the drugs are sold. Mr. Mayor: Let’s stick to the issue of the zoning. We don’t need to get into personalities here. Mr. Gonzales: Like I say, I tried to get along with them. If the noise was loud and she called me, I would go out and have the people to cut the noise down or run them off or whatever. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] this may be to both Mr. Wall and Mr. Patty. [inaudible] motion on the floor. I’m a little bothered, though, that -- I’ve served on Planning & Zoning previously for more than one term. And one of the prerequisites I thought, unless something has changed, Jim, and you clear me up on this, even though you’re talking about two separate things today. One is an issue that’s on the table. One is an issue that’s obviously going to come. One of the rules that I think we always went by in zoning, quite frankly, that was a no-no, that you never dealt with in terms of rezoning with the idea of placing a situation so that it could be dealt with for alcohol in the same language. And [inaudible] putting that in. I mean seem as though something is changing in the rules there, Mr. Patty, that y’all are doing down there. Now if the laws are changing, and you know, you or Jim one bring me up on it, but when you had situations, particularly of a non-conforming situation, obviously there has been a club there for a long time. I think there is a reason why you have a restaurant license there now and there is not an alcohol situation was because that was when the business license was granted there, that the zoning -- you said you didn’t know why the zoning was not changed. I think it was left in that reason for the fact that if it had been advertised for that purpose -- now when a zoning sign goes up, it goes up strictly as a zoning sign, and the issue of reopening an old wound to bring back an alcohol license is not what’s there on a sign for a neighborhood to see. And I think that’s a little bit -- it may be legal in order to do that and bring it in here, but I think we are getting a little sleight of hand from the way the zoning was there. You’ve got some non-conforming issues. We’ve had some. We’ve had some historically that we, we know we have allowed, and when certain operations ceased, we did not allow them to come back. And it was not in terms of keeping the gentleman out of business because he’s been there and he’s been open and in business. But I think when you use the language to say that you’re going to change it do this, then I think are setting the government up to a point to put us in the position of putting the property there in a precedent-type state that we have to grant the alcohol license because then our language was to grant it to change the zoning in the beginning. And we’ve never done that. And the Director [inaudible] Jim, but [inaudible] no-no. We’ve never crossed those two mixtures before and today it seems as though we’re delving in another area that’s getting us slightly off ground that we do not need to be getting into, particularly where we’ve got some non-conforming [inaudible] closed up, that we’ve not allowed to go back into it, and the only thing I see that you are going to have is that when you do bring it back, you are going to end up with another fight to a point where the 23 Sheriff’s Department is probably going to object to it, so you might as well go on and deal with that issue today. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, let me clarify something, George, before you say anything, as the District representative, as member of the Planning. I suggested that day that this man had came for the rezoning, not for a license. [inaudible] this same chamber when we met, I told George, I said now he came up for rezoning. But after hearing from the community and after seeing what’s actually taking place over there, I mean I had a change of mind, change of heart on the rezoning, on changing the zoning for that reason. But he did come in, not to take any blame or put any blame on George, cause I think they did what they supposed to do. Planning was intending on turning it down. I think that was the feeling of the Planning & Zoning. But I say the man came for rezoning, but he would have to come back for a license. And until I went over, until I got these calls from the neighbors and took a first hand look at the situation, so, I want to -- George taking the hear unnecessary there because I spoke out in Planning and got to this point where it is now, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, may I respond just a minute? Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. Mr. Mays: I’m not placing the heat anywhere, Commissioner Williams. Just like I always say, when something gets to this arena and it gets on the table, then it does get to be my business in District 9, as well as in District 2. The reason why I brought that up is that I’m familiar with when the former place that was allowed not to sell, and we had a problem, it was no objection to this gentleman in terms of opening his business in the status that it is in now. What I’m saying is that it is a bad mixture for Planning & Zoning. I still say that. That’s nothing personal against George [inaudible] anybody else. But it’s still a bad mixture to mention those two in the same light, because when you do that [inaudible] to allow something to happen, then if there is a court challenge and we turn down the alcohol, we get into court and the readings of these proceedings are that you allow the zoning to take place in order for an alcohol license. That’s why I’m -- I’m going to vote with you motion but I think it ought to be turned down procedurally because when you do that, he can still keep his business as it is. You’ve got 100 hundred non-conforming businesses right in the city, and I think Mr. [inaudible] will attest to that, to a point of where you’ve got everything from factories being next door to residences and you’ve got stores that never should have been there. They are there. And nobody is bothering them. This one nobody will bother either. It needs to stay non-conforming. But we do not need to mix the language of alcohol with zoning at any time because then that sets your attorney up to have to defend you on something there that we may lose a case on. And that’s why I say I think it does need it [inaudible]. I’m not against your motion. I’m going to vote for it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 24 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to say something for the citizens of this city. Anytime a business allows parking lot parties to occur, whether they’re selling beer or not, and the neighbors have to call about the noise coming from a parking lot, they’re not being good neighbors. And that’s one of the reasons I’m going to vote in favor of this motion. Anytime you look at the nightclubs or other places where crime occurs in this city, a lot of times, you’re going to find it occurring, originating, in these parking lots where people sell beer or liquor, and allow people to congregate in the parking lots and distribute whatever goods they will, sell to minors, share with minors or whatever, it leads to -- it’s led to gunplay, it’s led to trouble all over this city, and I for one, and I think we’ve said this to several of the businesses that have come in here, is that if you can’t be a good neighbor and keep your party inside your establishment when you have a nightclub, then you’re not going to keep your license, and if don’t have a nightclub license and are having an outdoor nightclub in a neighborhood, you sure as heck ain’t going to get a license here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, on a procedural note, if the Commission turns down the petition for the rezoning today, it stays at one family residential; correct? Mr. Patty: That’s correct. The whole issue here is the rezoning to B-1 and the staff recommendation for its denial. The [inaudible] before you today. Mr. Mayor: And if it stays one family residential, will he be allowed to continue to operate his business? Mr. Patty: Well, in order for him to be a legal non-confirming business it would have to go back to [inaudible]. Now there is no proof that it is or isn’t that’s come before me, so I’m making the assumption that it is a legal non-conforming business. I don’t think we intend to go into that. If the neighbors do, then whatever happens, happens. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further questions or discussion? We have a motion to deny. All in favor of that motion, please vote yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item. Madame Clerk, wonder if we could take up 17 and 18 together. I think they’re related items. The Clerk: Yes, sir. 17. Motion to approve an ordinance amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 7-1-91 providing for an increase in the penalty for commencing work without a permit. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 18. Motion to approve an ordinance amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-1-29 providing for the registration of (building industry) contractor owned/used vehicles and the issuance of decals to be placed on said vehicles. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) 25 Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Williams, you had some questions. You want to hear from Mr. Sherman first or do you want to -- Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. If I’m not mistaken, in Public Service we talked about and asked Mr. Sherman to go back, and Commissioner Mays really adamant about going back in working out some things. And I wonder why it go to this point, if those things hadn’t been worked out. We talked about a seal of putting on those cars and that kind of thing, Rob. Did we go back and work out the crooks and crevices on those who are profession and non-professional and what the residents going do? Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. I think the recommendation was that we go ahead and proceed with this, and I guess part of the motion was that we go back to the construction advisory board, and we will meet Thursday. And we discuss and then we come back to you with a recommendation to increase the threshold limit requiring a permit from $100 to $500. And we will do that. I guess it was my understanding that we would discuss that Thursday, come back to the next committee meeting that we could get on the agenda. Mr. Williams: I was a little surprised when I saw it on the agenda because I thought that it was just the opposite, where you would go back and bring it -- I have no problem, Rob, I mean I’m in support. I think that something need to be done. Would that be any cost [inaudible] to us, the government, for these seals, these stickers that we talking about putting in these cars? Mr. Sherman: No, sir. We’re actually going to charge $1 for each decal. We’ve got some estimates already and they actually will cost us about 15 cents per decal. Mr. Williams: Now let me ask you a crazy question, and I been asking a lot of crazy questions lately. That’s not new, Rob. So let me ask you what happen when a construction worker or somebody who has a seals leaves a job at four o’clock and goes to another job that he’s doing for himself in the afternoon and he’s parked there with his seal and a man, even adjacent person that doing that kind of work ride by and see there’s a person with a seal or maybe even one of your people ride by and see that seal. How can we determine whether or not they going legitimately be working for the company they work for, then when they leave they not going to do -- cause if I was doing it, it would -- Mr. Sherman: That’s just the problem that we’re trying to stop is that someone goes and does work without having a business license, as far as decals go. The decals will have an identification number on them. They will be recorded in our office out at License & Inspection Department. If there is a question, someone notices it, they call in, they give us the decal number or the property address, and then we can determine if a permit has been issued for that property. 26 Mr. Williams: I wasn’t trying to hold up the items on the agenda, Rob, I just wanted some clarification cause I thought we was going to get all that put in at the same time and do it. But I’ve got no problem with it. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Anything further? Do we have any comments or questions? We have a motion to approve these two items, 17 and 18. All in favor, please vote yes. Madame Clerk, if the minutes could reflect we voted on these separately. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Let the record note I vote yes on 18. I abstain in 17 and the record will reflect my only objection is I do have a problem that when we draw up a ordinance, if we are going to go back in two weeks and change the ordinance and amend it, that the ordinance should be brought forth, all the language in at the same time, not go back and change it. I just think the ordinances should be in the form they are going to be in, and it’s just a matter of personal protest that I vote for it in that way. Because that’s how things get loose and get lost in county government, when we are going to go back and we going to change it. It’s a recommendation, I felt Commissioner Kuhlke had [inaudible] in committee, but that ought to be in the ordinance. It’s not in the ordinance so we are going to go back and do it, so when you go back and do it I’ll vote for it when you go back and do it. (Vote on item 17) Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 9-1. (Vote on item 18) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All right. Mr. Sherman, thank you. Let’s back up and take item 14, Madame Clerk. I’m sorry, I overlooked it. The Clerk: 14. Motion to approve a request by Chong Suk Lee for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with EZQ Convenience Store located at 2160 MLK Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 11, 2002) Mr. Sherman: This is a request for a beer and wine license to be used in connection with a convenience store. The License Department and the Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the application and it meets the requirements. We recommend that it be approved. To locate the property for you better, this is at the corner th of 15 Street at MLK. I was told it was formerly where the 2160 night club was. 27 Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any objectors to this license? Okay, Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled. Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is another one in District 2 and I’d like to support it. I’ve got some calls from the Turpin Hills Neighborhood Association about this one as well. We turned down a license before for alcohol at this same address, then it came back to us, and someone wanted to use, make a car lot there, and we approved the car lot, with stipulations, George, you might be able to help me, if it ever reverted from the car lot it would go back to the present zoning. Then we approved the convenience store and now here we are approving, almost to approve the alcoholic beverages. That old 2160 you mentioned, Rob, has got a stigma that sticks in the city of Augusta for a long time. It had a bad record for many years. It’s across the street from another establishment now that’s selling alcohol. I’m thinking that we are adding more fuel to the fire here if we do this. I can’t support it. I’m looking at what has happened and how this come about. When this business, this business been approached three different times that I know of to get alcohol on their premises. And they started off with the convenience store, or the restaurant I think it was. Then they went on to the car lot. Now here we are coming back. And that’s another way of back-dooring it, I think, to come back, to do I’m going to make a motion that we deny this petition, the alcohol what we doing. license. There are other ways to make money in District 2 besides alcohol. Everybody in District 2 don’t drink. And I just think that it’s one more we ought to turn down. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to deny. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: Second that. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Would the petitioner like to speak? Is the petitioner here? Would you like to be heard today? Is there somebody who would like to speak on her behalf? Ms. Parks: Yes, I would. Mr. Mayor: If you would come up to microphone, please. If you’ll give us your name and address for the record, please. Ms. Parks: Margaret Parks, ?? Essie McIntyre Boulevard. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, address the Commission. Ms. Parks: I work for her and they were trying to get [inaudible]. And she was thinking that [inaudible]. She didn’t know she was going to be denied. She was trying to figure out why was she denied. Mr. Mayor: Well, I think the Commissioner has explained why he’s opposed to this license. Does she not understand? 28 Ms. Speaker: I understand. Mr. Mayor: Do you understand what the Commissioner, the reason the Commissioner gave? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Would you like to respond to any specific concerns? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] beer [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: You trying to save them some transportation back and forth, they could do it all in one place? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: I really understand and I really would like to support that, but I’m certainly thinking we got enough in District 2, and I hope that your business will be able to grow and prosper without the sale of alcohol. [inaudible] on Saturday night, and Mr. Mayor, we’re getting a little off, but there’s a small business -- Rob Sherman, you can th listen to me carefully -- you can’t go down 15 Street, cars on both sides of the road. And it’s less than a stone’s throw away from your establishment. We just got too much in that area. I hope the food sales will continue to grow for you, but I can’t support it and I hope you understand that. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other comments or questions? We have a motion to deny. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Am I understanding this location, is this down from Josey High School? I mean -- Mr. Sherman: It is down, but it’s probably a quarter of a mile, half a mile maybe. Mr. Bridges: Is this something that school children, is this a location school children would congregate on their travels from school, this location? thth Mr. Sherman: Well, it is a corner and on one end of 15 Street you do -- 15 th Avenue, you have a grammar school. At the other end of 15 Street, midway between MLK and Wrightsboro Road you have a high school. 29 Mr. Bridges: And aren’t there some churches just shortly down from there, too, as well? Some small churches? Mr. Sherman: The churches in the vicinity, but not within the -- Mr. Bridges: 100 yard limit? Mr. Sherman: Right. Mr. Bridges: I understand. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion to deny this application, please vote yes. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 33. The Clerk: 33. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Articulated Boom Mowers for the Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Jenkins Tractor Company of Augusta, Georgia for $54,204.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02- 109A). (Approved by Finance Committee November 11, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ron, I need some insight on $54,204.00 each for boom mowers. I mean -- th Mr. Speaker: Actually this is a rebid of a previous approval. On the 16 of July, you had approved the acquisition of these same tractors. By the time we submitted a purchase order after the approval in July, the pricing of all the manufacturers had been pulled back. We lost the tractors. So we were never able to purchase that. We were not aware of the cut-off dates, so it was a surprise to us. We had to re-advertise for this again a second time. When it came back, the original bid, the original approval was for $47,782.00. That was 16 July you approved each tractor at $47,782.00. When they pulled the pricing back and we went out for rebidding, the difference between the lost cost and this cost is a difference -- they increased the price by low bidder, and it was a different low bidder, by the way, of $6,442.00 per unit. So there was a significant increase in the cost of the tractor when we lost the pricing. Mr. Williams: So the boom mower actually industrial tractors we’re buying for $54,204.00? 30 Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. This is a specialized piece of equipment. It’s got the side arm. I call it a side arm mower. And they are really a specialized piece of equipment. They’re very versatile in that they can cut on ditches, ditch slopes, on the other side of the guard railing along highways and so forth, and we have miles and miles and miles of that type of work. You can’t do it with a bush hog. You usually follow it up with a work team crew, with line trimmers, particularly as it applies to the roadway railings and so forth. Mr. Williams: But Ron, you know, if I have to question those cars, those Crowns, I was going to question this boom mower? You knew right, okay? Mr. Crowden: I appreciate that. Mr. Williams: Okay. I just -- a tractor sounds a little bit better. That’s real expensive, but when you said boom mower it really got my attention. I wanted to know a little bit more. Mr. Crowden: It’s an expensive piece of equipment and there’s a lot of stress placed on that arm. So the arm, we just replaced two arms on tractors. The tractors will outlast the arms, and we’ll replace the arms at $7,000-9,000 after about five years and take it another five years. But it’s a very good tractor. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: They are to cut the grass in District 2, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: We need it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. A question for our Administrator and our Fleet Manager. Have adequate administrative steps been taken to make sure that we don’t have this type of thing occurring again when we’re buying stuff as far as our deadlines and different things? It’s about a $14,000 slip. You know, it cost us $14,000. Mr. Crowden: In a lot of cases, when know on automobile manufacturers and so forth where you have, you do a lot of quantity buying, we do know the cut-off dates on that. But on construction equipment, it’s -- we don’t have that much -- the information flow is not that good from the manufacturer. This is, this was pricing from the manufacturer, not the local vendor. So the local vendor, he wants to sell that product, but when the manufacturer pulls the price it kind of pulls the rug under him, too. Mr. Cheek: I was just wondering if we added a line that said close-out date or [inaudible] date or whatever. 31 Mr. Crowden: That’s probably a good suggestion. See if Mr. Wall can, at the time of bid, see if we can get guaranteed pricing, but I don’t know. Cause you’re dealing with a local vendor versus a manufacturer pulling out, so it’s the local vendor would take the loss in that case. Mr. Cheek: That sounds to me like y’all are already looking at process improvements wherever you can find them. I just -- it seemed incumbent upon me to at least ask the question are we looking for those [inaudible]. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We need a motion to approve. Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor the motion then please vote yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 44. The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, if I could, please, on item 31, I’d like to enter into the record the dollar amount associated with the replacement of the Fire Department’s protective clothing. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? The Clerk: That should be $164,970. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Clerk: 44. Motion to approve extension of the Supplemental Agreement with CH2Mhill in an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 to provide program and project management support to the One Percent Sales Tax program in the Public Works and Engineering Department. Funding for this agreement is from unused salaries in this program as a result of positions being vacant. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002) Mr. Cheek: I’m going to move to approve that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve with a second. Mr. Hankerson, you asked this be pulled? 32 Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I was just concerned about this particular supplemental agreement. Even though it’s coming from unused salaries. I just -- for this position to be filled, where are we now? Ms. Smith, would you [inaudible], please? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, we actually have advertised this position when it was vacated back in February. We got applications in and I believe it was June or July we reviewed those application. We had interviews and actually found that there was no one with adequate project or program management experience to fill the position. Once the salary grades were revised, we have readvertised the position. I worked with Human Resources yesterday. We have five application, additional applications that have come in. The -- two were from a mechanical engineer. One was from an electrical engineer. And the other person had no engineering background at all. And therefore, of the th applications that we received as of close of business on the 15, we do not have any qualified applicants for which to fill the position. Because we had had CH2Mhill coming in and assisting with the program, as I had committed earlier in the year, that we had somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 million worth of projects that we were attempting to get underway, we had Ch2Mhill to come and we felt that it would be imperative in order for us to continue with the programs, that we continue with that support at this time. Mr. Hankerson: What are your suggestions? You’ve readvertised it and still you do not have qualified people assume interest in the position, so are we going to continue to contract this job out, a supplement agreement, rather, this $45,000? And also I see on the regular agenda for another $100,000 that we discussed last meeting, and this is $145,000 we are paying for salaries. What plan? Are we planning on advertising in a different manner? Ms. Smith: Actually, again, working with the Human Resources Director, we’ve had some conversations with respect to some of the engineering positions as to different avenues for which we need to work to try and get information out to prospective applicants on those positions. This is one that I think that the salary range is probably appropriate. We simply need to look into some other avenues for attracting people. For the traffic engineering position, we have had quite a bit of discussion about that particular position, taking into consideration that we’ve recently approved for the traffic control center, to move forward with being constructed. Brenda and I have discussed and briefly with Mr. Kolb, revising the job description to incorporate the duties for running the traffic control center. We think that that will make this a much more attractive position and request that the salary be adjusted accordingly so that we are able to be more competitive with the neighboring cities that are also looking for traffic engineers. Mr. Hankerson: On this project management, you all haven’t considered revising the qualifications? It seems like if you are saying the salary is not a problem, but it seems that something must be wrong that we can’t get anybody or the qualifications are maybe revised on this one, too? 33 Ms. Smith: Well, I would certainly agree with you. However, I didn’t get the impression that you were looking at revising the entire salary structure within Public Works, as the pre-construction position reports to an assistant director who reports to a director. What we would end up with is a salary compression. Mr. Hankerson: I’m not asking or suggesting to revise, but I just have a problem with seeing that we go into agreement with one of our companies here that we are working with and for $45,000, and another one for $100,000 on positions. That’s $145,000. And it seems though to me we are not using the money wisely or something that we are not doing that we need to do. Ms. Smith: Commissioner Hankerson, I would actually say in hindsight that probably back in the February, March or April time frame of the year when the salary reclassification was being presented for the entire government, that I probably should have stepped out and requested that you consider Public Works as an individual entity, to have those salary grades revised. However, because it was being presented for the entire government, I did not do that at that time. Mr. Hankerson: But it’s not a salary problem with 44 now, is it? Or is it? Ms. Smith: I don’t think that there’s a salary problem. The information that we have on comparable type positions don’t indicate that that is what the problem is. Mr. Hankerson: Cause you said the ones that you interviewed, they just didn’t qualify? Ms. Smith: I mean earlier in the year, when we advertised at the lower salary, that is correct. They did not meet the qualifications. We have some engineers with what I perceive as being impressive amounts of experience that have applied in this package, it’s just that they are mechanical based engineers or electrical based engineers. They don’t have a civil background and haven’t done the type of work that we are looking for in this position, which is primarily road way and drainage. Mr. Hankerson: How long is this agreement? The one in 44? Ms. Smith: It’s for three or four months. Mr. Hankerson: Four months? Four months agreement? Ms. Smith: I think that’s what it is, sir. Mr. Hankerson: And then what’s going to happen after four months and paying $45,000 for months? What’s going to happen after that if you have not filled this position? 34 Ms. Smith: You mean what is my plan of what to do about the position if we’re not able to attract anybody and hire somebody within that four month period? Mr. Hankerson: Right. We going to continue paying $45,000 for four months of work where we can, the possibility, somebody has to be out there for this particular position, $45,000 for four months, and the salary range for that particular position is 53 entry level [inaudible] a year, and we’re paying $45,000 for four months? Ms. Smith: I would certainly be open to bringing back to the Commission to increase these salary grades for the pre-construction engineer to a pay grade of 59, to increasing the assistant director positions to a pay grade of 59 or 61, whatever is appropriate, and the Public Works Director position to a pay grade of 65 or whatever the next step is, if that is what is requested of me by the Commission. Mr. Hankerson: But you’re saying increasing grades, but you have a minimum range to a mid-point range that you can’t hire in, so I mean $45,000 or $47,000, that’s the entry-level, right? So if it’s a salary problem, you’re interviewing somebody, a salary problem, are you saying the 53 entry level salary does not attract people? Ms. Smith: I haven’t indicated that. That there is a salary problem with that particular position. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Hankerson: I thought she was saying that if you need to come back and increase the grades and so forth that you do that. Ms. Smith: And I will, if that is what you’re -- Mr. Hankerson: I’m not saying, I asked you, I thought it wasn’t a salary problem, so increasing the grades is not solving the problem. You still have a grade that you can work in, 53 entry level, all the way up to the top level of 53. Ms. Smith: I agree. Mr. Hankerson: So I mean it’s not necessarily that you have to request to change the grade on it. Ms. Smith: I agree. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you wanted to add to the discussion? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. I think what Ms. Smith is trying to say, that we find when we are competing for or trying to fill the position, that if there has to be a salary 35 adjustment it’s going to have to be an upward ripple effect. Whether what class grade change is warranted or not, we only have authority to go 10% above the minimum. If we can fill the position within the grade and not come too close to the maximum salary, we’ll come back and ask for that permission. But it could have an upward impact in terms of compression that we have to ask for the positions to be filled. I am not opposed, that if we don’t fill the position, that we would come back to the Commission and ask that this contract be extended. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Smith, before you sit down and get relaxed, I need a couple of answers. How much, what was the price of the amount of the project you said we have pending? You just mentioned earlier to Commissioner Hankerson. What was that amount? Ms. Smith: The projects that we are attempting to move forward with implementing? Mr. Williams: Right. Ms. Smith: We were targeting implementing in the neighborhood of $15 million of pre-construction and construction work in our one percent program this year. Mr. Williams: Okay. Now $15 million. Very, very, very important. I mean I don’t understand why we don’t have somebody in this position and we talking about people with the level of experience they may not have. How do other firms get an experienced person? Ms. Smith: I’m not sure that other firms in this area are actually attracting those people. Mr. Williams: I don’t care, it don’t make no difference about the area now. How do other firms, how do business people get experienced people? Ms. Smith: Well, to my knowledge the avenues that they use is to advertise and to get the information out as to what the position requirements are and depending on the specific business they may or may not include information on what the salaries are. Mr. Williams: Okay. So that’s the way they get experienced people. I’m asking you a question and I guess I need to talk to Human Resource, somebody from that department here. Why hadn’t we done those things? I mean -- Ms. Smith: Actually, those are the things that we are doing. Advertising. I mean I can’t tell you why it’s not working, I can tell you that’s what we’re doing. 36 Mr. Williams: Well, well, we’re not doing the same things that other business -- this government is a business, it’s about the people of Augusta, that taxpayers of Augusta. It is their business. We are supposed to be handling the business for the people. So my question to you is, Ms. Pelaez, since you’re there and you’re the head of HR, I’d like to know from you, Ms. Pelaez, I’d like to know from you are we doing the same thing that other businesses do to attract people to this government to work? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m -- Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, please. Mr. Williams has asked a question of Ms. Pelaez. Let her respond and then Mr. Kolb, I’ll recognize you. Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, we are. Actually, the initial process that we’ve used has been going out through engineering publications, the internet web sites, things of that nature. Mr. Williams: So we’re doing the same things that the private entity does to attract people? Ms. Pelaez: Let me -- Mr. Williams: If we are, and then why hadn’t we attracted somebody for this job? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Williams: I need, Mr. Mayor, I need to get an answer from Ms. Pelaez. I don’t mind Mr. Kolb speaking, but I’m trying to get some answers from HR right now. Ms. Pelaez, can you tell me if we’re doing the same thing, and I have no problem, in fact I do have a problem. If we going to spend $45,000 for four months and then we spend another $45,000 for another four months, that’s eight months. And then another $45,000. We could have hired somebody. Somewhere. Ms. Pelaez: If I may. Mr. Williams: Okay. Ms. Pelaez: The things that are -- I can tell you what we are doing that they do and what we’re not doing. I think that would give you a better picture. What we’re not doing is we don’t have the ability to pay sign-on bonuses and use head hunter companies to attract the new engineers that are coming, that are out in the market. Mr. Williams: If we paying $45,000 for four months, we got the money to pay sign-up bonus. We just, we just, if we do this twice, we done done the sign-up bonus and, and the, over the salary cap and everything else. If we keep doing this. 37 Ms. Pelaez: Well, if we’re authorized to do sign-on bonuses, we can indeed put that in the advertisement. That would be a good incentive for someone to apply. Mr. Williams: Well, wouldn’t it be feasible, though, to come back and say this is what we need to do and put it strongly on the table like we did everything else, rather than keep going backwards and spending money on, on part time people that don’t work for this government? Wouldn’t it be feasible to come with that from your department now? Wouldn’t it be better for you to come to this Commission, to this body and said we have been trying for a year, two years, three years, four years, five years or whatever amount of time it is and this is what we need to do to get somebody? We keep spending money with other firms that we really don’t have, and then when we come to paying employees in the government that’s doing the work, like the engineer we talking about, we can’t seem to find nobody. Does that make good sense? Ms. Pelaez: Yes and no. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I, I, need to talk to the Finance person now. Is David here? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Kolb wanted to respond. I’m going to give him the opportunity and then you can talk with the Finance Director. Mr. Kolb: I can appreciate what you’re saying in terms of recruiting, but I think one thing that you have to realize is that we are a public sector organization, and there are various constraints placed on us by being a public sector organization that are not, not present in the private sector. For example, I mean they can afford to travel to colleges and recruit employees and are not require that competition be opened up and applications be accepted. They have much more flexibility than we do in the public sector. Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, what does Athens Clarke do for a person? What does Columbus Muscogee does for the same type person? I mean I don’t think they got more advantage than we have, and if they have we need to go travel to them and see what they are doing, since we can’t use a private sector. But other cities of comparable size have the same type situation we do and they got somebody. But we, we are paying a firm to do it. Mr. Kolb: Well, you know, and this is a broad brush approach. But that’s why we’re to you right now, trying to make our salaries, our jobs more attractive to potential applicants, where they would want to come to Augusta. So the reclassification that you’re going to be talking about early on is very much related to that. We have to make ourselves attractive within the marketplace, and I don’t believe we are. Mr. Williams: But you’re talking about the reclassification of the people that is already here. I’m talking about a brand new person who is not here. I’m not worried about the folks who are here now. I’m talking about a $15 million project that we got on 38 board that we going to be forward with that we need somebody in that position. But we talking about lumping everybody together to bring in one other person. Or maybe two other people. Now I understand the reclassification and I said before I’m in support of those things that we can afford to pay. But you’ve got a department such as Public Works that it’s in the position it’s in, and we let it suffer, then we ain’t doing our jobs, and that’s just not in your department, that’s the Commission as well. We are not doing our job if the Public Works have not got the sufficient people that they need to do their job, then we’re not doing our job. We talking about salary reclassification for everybody else. Everybody else got their hand in the pot already, Mr. Kolb, and I’m not satisfied with the hands that’s in there. But I need to talk to the Finance Director now and I need to get some information brought back to this board. Mr. Kolb: If I can finish. The compensation schedule, the reclassification not only impacts employees here, which is important because you want to retain them and not get in a position where we’re trying to attract new ones, but it also is what we use to attract new employees coming to this organization. Mr. Williams: I agree with you, we need to attract some new employees. That’s what we’re talking about now and I agree that some of these employees need to be raised, and we, we, we don’t want to get into employees just yet. We’ll get that in a minute. But – Mr. Mayor: Let’s try – the item on the agenda is item 44 and let’s stick to the merits of the item. [inaudible] Mr. Williams: I, I, yes, sir, I need to talk to the Finance Director. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough has been waiting over here patiently to respond, too. Mr. Persaud, if you would respond to the Commissioner’s question. Mr. Williams: Mr. Persaud, can, can you either tell me or can you get back to me the amount of money we are spending already on part time positions with, not only CH2Mhill but any other company in this government? Mr. Persaud: I will need to research that for you. Mr. Williams: Okay, can you research that and get back to, to, to, to me on the amount of money that we already spend in the last three years, would be good. Mr. Persaud: Sure. I’ll do that. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Colclough, and then Mr. Cheek. 39 Mr. Colclough: Ms. Pelaez, in looking for an engineer, are y’all going to the engineering professional organizations and advertising through the professional publications of engineering? Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, we are. Actually what we are experiencing is actually what other governments are experiencing and private companies at the same time. They is a competition for engineers, not only engineers, but information technology personnel as well. The markets right now for those individuals are great and we don’t have the level of funds to compete. Mr. Colclough: So you’re not getting any response back from the professional organizations, the [inaudible] and all these other folks? [inaudible] Ms. Pelaez: The response that we’re getting are the responses of people that don’t need meet the qualifications. They have, for instance, electrical engineer and the position is civil, so we’re getting response but it’s not fort hat particular position. Mr. Colclough: I heard that, but when your ads go out do you specify what the qualifications that you’re looking for? Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. Very, very much so. Very specific. We’ve looked at not just having the overall bachelors degree requirement and/or sufficient years of experience and list what type of experience we’re looking for. The next step that we’re going to have to go to, other than just relying on professional journals and internet web sites, we need to contact other Public Works Directors and other people in public work association agencies and send them a packet that would include other benefits that we have, as well as some information on the Augusta area, do a type of head hunter search ourselves, and try to see if they’re not interested, to pass on to someone else that is interested. That’s the next alternative. Mr. Colclough: Why not do what they do to us? Why not rob them? Ms. Pelaez: When you rob someone, you’ve got to have a reason for them to come over. Mr. Colclough: We do have a reason. We have [inaudible]. Ms. Pelaez: We don’t. We don’t have the money. Mr. Colclough: Do we pay so low that we can’t attract a professional engineer to come over? Ms. Pelaez: Well, let me give you an example where our top of the range is right now. That’s where they’re beginning. So even if we move it, there’s also sign-on bonuses, and then they know every year at the end of the year they’re going to get another sign-on bonus. 40 Mr. Colclough: That’s in the private sector now. Ms. Pelaez: But that’s our market. Mr. Colclough: If you’re coming to work for government, I think what you had as a packet – those people that comes to work in government looks for the security of the job. Now you can [inaudible] engineer and you can pay [inaudible] somebody a lot of money. But if you look at that [inaudible] and you [inaudible], that is a heck of a bonus right there. Ms. Pelaez: I agree that the medical package may be, but – Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] dollar amount [inaudible]. Ms. Pelaez: I don’t want to kind of get into that, but yes, on one hand you have the medical, but then you have the [inaudible] of bringing it down. So – Mr. Colclough: I think we need to try it. If you don’t have the money to pay these people $90,000 or $100,000, I mean I think if you add the medical package to that whole bonus, I think the person might end up getting $100,000 anyway. Rather than looking at paying a person a salary of $90,000 and then having to tack on that medical package, which will boost that pay up anyway. But if a person was really truly like a family man coming in here, looking for a job with stability and you offer [inaudible] to that person and that retirement piece to that person, I think that would kind of sway my feeling. [inaudible] money, you got to take kids to the doctor and that money comes out of your pocket, that whole medical bill comes out of your pocket, that’s even lowering your salary right there. But if you got something to augment that, that’s [inaudible]. Ms. Pelaez: Right. And that’s where we are right now. Mr. Colclough: I would sell them the package rather that the salary. Ms. Pelaez: That’s correct. You’re absolutely right. We do need to market the other benefits that we have, but in a line ad item or display item, we don’t get to market that as well, that’s why we’re going to send it out [inaudible]. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] offer in terms of stability [inaudible]. Ms. Pelaez: And that’s where we are now. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]. Ms. Pelaez: I agree. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 41 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to support this, and I view this as a stop gap measure to keep projects, much-needed projects rolling along in Public Works. It is true that we have – it is true that we have a lot of work going on, a lot of work pending, that we need to continue to push through. We need staff, several engineers, in favor of moving them to our Utilities Department and have not been able fill those positions to date. What I’m hearing is that we are trying a lot of things, but we should take a lesson from the Japanese who would oftentimes take our products, look at them, and copy them and then improve upon them. If we had head hunters in here to hire our Administrator and some of our other key staff positions, why couldn’t we duplicate their efforts and then tailor them specifically to Augusta’s needs and then go out with a first strike effort better than the head hunters, rather than trying things [inaudible]? It is true that we are seeing industry lay off people and hire engineers. That is a national consistent problem of attracting and keeping engineers across this country. We cannot continue, though, to leave these positions unfilled and continue to try different things. We take trips to conferences. I don’t see why we couldn’t take a trip to a college campus for career day for people graduating, to fill some of the lower positions. I mean there are things we can do. I keep hearing can’t and can’t. It’s time to be creative and it doesn’t need to take a year. I want to surround our Public Works Director with staff that are city employees to enable her to completely follow through with and get the work through like it needs to be done. This current measure is the best way to do that at this point in time, but the fact remains still in this whole city in filling positions, why do we have to try so many different things? Why don’t we take examples from the professionals that do that, get the cream off the top, and then replicate that in our efforts with tailoring it specifically to how Augusta can best be a wonderful place for somebody to come work and live? And it should not take guessing and trying this and that. This board has asked over and over again what do you need from us to help make it happen, and we try one thing this month and one thing next month, and it’s just time out for that. But I make a motion that we approve this. Mr. Mayor: There is already a motion. Mr. Cheek: Okay. I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called. The Chair rules there has been adequate debate on the item, item number 44. Motion to approve. All in favor, please vote yes. Mr. Hankerson votes No. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Item number 48, Madame Clerk. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 42 48. Motion to approve a Supplemental Agreement with CH2Mhill in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to provide program and project management support to the Traffic Engineering section of the Public Works and Engineering Department. Funding for this agreement is from unused salaries in this program resulting from position vacancies. (Requested by Commissioner Mays) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002, No action vote by the Commission November 6, 2002) Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve 48. It’s been seconded. We can probably echo a lot of the comments that were just made, but the Chair has one question on this, Mr. Kolb. It’s a six month contract for $100,000 and it just seems to me that we could hire a full-time engineer for $100,000. I can understand the previous item, but this one really defies logic, to pay $200,000 for a traffic engineer for 12 months. That’s what it equates to. And to me, this is absurd. Mr. Kolb: Well, we agree with you, but at our current salary structure, [inaudible], we cannot attract someone. In fact we just added grades and we’re finding out we’re still behind. I think Ms. Smith pointed out to you that we will be back to you to increase it again because we’re adding the traffic control center, which we hope will make it more attractive, but also when we went out to the market and looked as salaries of those competing for the job, we can’t touch it. So we’re coming back again. Mr. Mayor: What is, what is the salary? What’s an acceptable salary for this position? I’m just curious, looking at it in the context of $200,000 for 12 months. Ms. Smith: Actually, and I apologize [inaudible], this particular position, this particular contract is not for a single person. If you’ll recall – Mr. Mayor: It’s for a project manager. I read the backup. Project manager. Ms. Smith: The – this particular contract is for project management and they will be providing a project manager. However, there are several programs, and this is what I presented in the previous meeting, there are several programs that this Commission had requested be done within the traffic engineering group, and this proposal would provide multiple staff members within this organization for those types of initiatives to be carried forward. So it’s not a single person. It’s tasks to be done, whether it be done by a single person or by multiple people, and that was the purpose for the list of activities that are included in the backup. Those are the kind of things that we’re going to try and get done, but they’re not all things that will be done by one person showing up one day at a time. Relative to the salary, in looking at Greenville, Savannah, and there was one other area in this general area also looking for a traffic engineer, and those traffic engineering positions are starting in the neighborhood of $60,000 to $66,000 a year. Now the duties 43 are not all necessarily the same, but as far as attracting an employee, that was the entry salaries are or what they’re indicating are the salaries that they’re working with for those positions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it must be something about the person chairing this particular item really gets their attention. I had your job two weeks ago and I, I raised the same question. As you notice, I was very conspicuously quiet during item 44 because – and I’m not going to say what I said two weeks ago because it’s a matter of record and it can be referred to. I voted for 44, and I’m going to vote for 48 providing – and I need to ask a question, Mr. Mayor, first. I realize what the caption is in the book and that’s what the motion was prior to, but the motion that failed last week, I believe that after discussion we had, because those of us who supported it were highly critical in terms of wanting to get this to an end, some kind of way, and of doing it. And I think what was tied into that motion that there was a deadline set also with almost a perspective range of dealing with getting a traffic engineer hired and I’m wondering if that can, if that amendment can still be tied as whatever we put – because even though that motion failed, but it was not just to go ahead with the contract. I think they’re looking in there right now, Mr. Mayor, so I – The Clerk: [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: Well, even though it failed, I think after lengthy discussion there were some things added in with an amendment or two that dealt with a time line for HR, Public Works, and Mr. Kolb and those to have us a presentation on a traffic engineer. I brought forth the same comment, Mr. Mayor, about going to stealing somebody’s talent. And to a point, you know, if that’s what needed to be done. But also in this, and I shut up on 44, but I’m going to say it on 45 (sic), I have said this, we’ve had a lot of work shops, but until the county does something very fundamental and specific, this is going to be a problem. And let me preface this by saying I think we’ve got a top notch firm doing the work. That’s no reflection in terms of what they are doing at all. I expressed that at the last meeting. But there are several things I think the Administrator needs to and is going to have to do, not only related to Public Works, but probably primarily related to Public Works. If we are going to continuously, and I’m glad you, you, you brought it out, because we’ve heard the talk about what’s to be privatized, what’s to be done under servicing. Georgia law gives us this leverage in terms of servicing. But there are several problems that are in here that we need to have a frank, heart-to-heart work shop, led by the Administrator, probably in the place of some of the other things we have either had or we’re having, and get to talk about where we are going to go with contractual services. One problem that I’ve got in the situation is this: if we’re going to deal with massive contractual services, particularly over in Public Works, then I think we need to deal with who does what, what is the marketplace for firms that are out there. Because one thing that you’re getting, you’re getting some criticism from the standpoint that every contractual agreement you’ve got is basically, number one, with the same firm, even though it’s a good firm. So if you’re going to talk about privatization or semi- 44 privatization, then you need to have a full scale work shop and then talk about it. We don’t need to keep backing into these situations to where our back is against the wall. And you mentioned about you pro rated out $100,000 for six months. Hypothetically, you could do that at $200,000. That was brought out. Ms. Smith was saying they get other services for it. What we’re getting other services for it, then I think the Administrator needs to clearly put this on the table and talk about it so that the firm is not drug into a negative way, that the department continues to function. I’m going to vote for it because mainly they don’t have anybody doing the work that they have on our payroll. But to constantly do this, this is why the amendment, Mr. Mayor, was put in there, to get them to some type of deadline about hiring somebody. The other problem I have with it is that we are going to get into a serious case budget wise on some real – and I’m not talking about just a Halloween trick – they are going to get into some serious numbers in this city that make voodoo economics look like a joke. Because each time that we are dealing with not putting in the job situation and we are constantly extending, this is coming out of Public Works’ budget. So we are not getting a true picture of what is going to actually happen to Public Works over a period of time. You are going to have a budget that is diminishing over in there in unnatural, unrealistic terms. And then we wake up one day and [inaudible] and I’m signaling that sound or crying in the wilderness because when you, when you, you are going to come in here one day – I mentioned about land fill. Solid waste department out there. You’ve got a situation, two folk over in there [inaudible]. Now the question I ask, I’m going to be bold enough to go on and say it, Mr. Mayor, in just a way of some type of de facto means of the Administrator getting us into a situation of where if we can’t or not going to raise a tax to get us into a situation with these salaries, that we just keep constantly, little piece meal contracting, piece meal contracting, and then all of a sudden one day, unlike Chicken Little, the sky is falling. Our back is against the wall, and then we are going to look at having to deal with privatizing some large entities that we are not seriously talking about. And it’s not a personal attack, it’s not a personal thing, it’s just about business. And if we going to talk about it, bring it into this arena, seriously talk about it, let the Public Works Director and the Administrator present what is going to be going on. I don’t think it’s a knock on the firm, but I do think that it needs to be dealt with and the Commission has to make a decision as to finally doing it. But I think to a point if you keep putting it in an either/or situation of where salaries are pushed up in a certain range, and we keep saying we can’t hire, we can’t get. Now we’ve lost some people, and I said the other week folk come and steal our folk, we need to start stealing some other folk from the. That’s done in this game all the time. And if we going to do it, then let’s honestly talk about what we are going to deal with a contractor. Let’s don’t come in and we got this little deal on the table this month, this little deal on the table the next month, and before you know it, we are going to be in to EPD, EPA violations with the land fill. That’s going to look at us. We’ve had the little presentation, which is good. We’re talking about clean water. The Clean Water Act. It’s going to be on top of us. And then all of a sudden somebody is going to walk in one day and say hey, let’s get us a cash cow, let’s privatize water, and then what we are going to be looking at is this: we’re going to be looking at Atlanta Part II, because I want to tell you gentlemen something. Your violations, your fines, and any irregularities that you’ve got don’t go away with privatization. If you have a problem you still have to pay for them. So what the net effect of trying to sell something, give it 45 away, on a quick cash basis is not going to cure your problem. It will do a short term band aid but what you eventually pay out, you are going to have to deal with it. So if we are going to talk about it, let’s have a full scale work shop, I say, Mr. Mayor, to the Administrator, talk seriously about it, be up front, be above board with it. Let’s quit playing the games of just doing this little piece meal stuff every week, every month, and doing this. Because, number one, it, it, it may be fooling somebody, it ain’t fooling old Willie. And you need to get to a point of where this is talked about. I’m on record now, last two weeks ago was my eighth time. This is my ninth time. Now at some point we need to talk about it seriously. Because I can see it coming just as plain as I can a clean window, just done with Windex now, or kerosene the old way, Mr. Kolb, and you old folks clean it with newspaper. And we need to talk about it. And I’m not saying that it can’t be a healthy conversation. But it needs to quit being a back-door conversation. It needs to be a front-burning conversation, and it needs to be discussed, it needs to be discussed openly, and it needs to be discussed in public, and it does not need to be rammed every last minute idea where the city is up against the wall with regulations and does not have people to run Public Works. That’s what we need to do, and we need to, at some point, Mr. Mayor, and Commissioner, force the Administrator to put this on the table and let’s talk about it seriously because I am not buying this game that we can’t hire nobody over a certain period of time. I went through that for a year-and-a-half with a Finance Director till we finally got one. And we didn’t even have to go out of the state of Georgia to get one. Landed one real quick when we put a deadline on it. And that’s why we put a deadline on getting this one resolved. And if we don’t put deadlines and meet them, we will get exactly what we deserve. Nothing. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To the measure at hand, this, this, as our Public Works Director has said, brings a project management team to bear on many of our pressing traffic problems. This will help us expedite getting solutions and moving forward. It is significant cost for six months, but in light of providing more than one staff person with little or no learning curve, it is the best we can do under the current situation. I would like to ask the Clerk of Commission to add a place keeper for the next Engineering Services agenda, committee agenda, to discuss staffing needs for Public Works, and we will be discussing that at the next meeting and formulating some type of path forward from that to assist in these vacancies. But gentlemen, this is something that has been brought to us by our Director. It is something that will help us again hit the ground running with little or no learning curve, with a staff of people that are already trained. It’s something that we need to do today. It’s not, it’s not something that we all would like to do, but it is something and it is the best we can do at this point in time to help deal with thing that have frankly been waiting for a traffic engineer. So I encourage you to support this measure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We talk about this on the last time and it hadn’t changed nothing in my mind. As much resources as we have in this government, 46 in the year 2002 and almost 2003 year in the space age, I say, with all the communication that we’ve got, the people that we got working for us wouldn’t have been in private business 30 days. They were directed to do some things. Y’all heard me say it before. We tell people, we instruct people to do some things and we always come back with our backs against the wall when we can’t do it. Now we done been through this for probably a year, maybe a year-and-a-half, when, when that department first lost those people out in that department. I can’t support it. I won’t support it. Commissioner Mays brought a good point. It’s nothing against the firm. I got no problem with them. But I got a serious problem we are going to spend $100,000 for six months for a temporary type person where they going to be a team. If it ain’t our team, then we don’t know how they playing. I mean they may be doing good work, but that’s too much money. Commissioner Mays brought another point about the funds coming out of Public Works. And when those funds are used up, when we don’t have the things we should have, we done spent the money, the money’s gone. I don’t know what the under line is but I do believe there is an under line and I can’t sit here as a Commissioner and support what is being brought to us and what has been brought to us, whether it’s brought by the Public Works Director or our Administrator or anybody else. I’m not going to sit here and vote for this now. You may have the six votes here to get what you need, but I’m a firm believer that if we were about the business of this government that we could have found somebody. We done hired all kinds of folks who supposed to be highly educated and highly qualified in many areas, but there ain’t nobody been moved from one point to another one to get over in that department or any other department that’s so critical [inaudible]. But now the little stuff, we shift folks around, we put folks in here, we put folks in there to do. But this, the type money we talking about spending here now, I cannot support it, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny, that we do not approve this. I may not get a second, but I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny this and have our people to go out and try to find somebody. And all that stuff we talking about bagging up, it’s been bagged up now for a year-and-a-half, almost two years, that we’ve bagged up for another year, two years, then I don’t see it hurting nothing, but I can’t see spending this money to go out for six months when we could at least get a decent person in here for a year for that salary if we had to. But for six months, regardless of what the team, Ms. Smith, I hear you talking about the team and the team coming in. But it ain’t the home team. It ought to be a team that we got here that we can call on any time we want to call on them, and I make that in the form of a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hankerson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We do have a second on the substitute motion. Mr. Beard has asked to be recognized. Mr. Beard: Prior to the substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, I was going to ask the maker of the motion, because I voted for this the last time, but it was in reference to the time line on that, and I was just going to ask the maker of the motion, but I see you have to follow the substitute anyway. 47 Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: But prior to that – Mr. Mayor: -- that and go back to the original motion [inaudible] amend. Let’s see. Was somebody’s hand up down here? Mr. Hankerson, then we’ll come back to Mr. Cheek. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I’m going to be brief. I’m just, I keep listening – the question was asked on the previous, the $45,000, about what would happen. And I keep hearing that we’ll come back to you again if we have to. We talked about, we’re talking now about the $100,000 and are still hearing that well, we have to come back. And, and after six months, after the four months that we are talking about doubling this figure, because at the rate that we are going, I don’t believe these positions are going to be filled. I just wanted to say that our system of spending money has gotten too liberal. We’re too liberal. I’m almost persuaded to be a conservative today. (Laughter) Mr. Hankerson: I think that we need to, if we are going to continue this, bringing these back, I think that we need to make these openings or these supplemental agreements competitive. I think that that’s one thing that we need to consider. If we going to keep issuing them out, then maybe we need them to be competitive and we can get some less than that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we go to Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Cheek: And certainly I have to concur with Commissioner Hankerson [inaudible]. I mean there’s a lot of things we can do in the future if need be. I think through discussion we can get to some resolution on this, but once again, staff is coming to us with this is what we need to do to solve our problems, current problems, and we’re finding every reason not to. Same thing we do with salaries when they come and say we need 10% above salary, this range, and then we say no. If we hired somebody today with experience, it would be a one to two month learning curve. We’d still lose those two months. It’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, but this funding is coming from the salaries, from the funds that were allocated for the salaries in these positions that have not been expended year to date, which means it will not diminish the budgeted funds for these positions for the coming fiscal year; is that correct? So we are not diminishing the pie for Public Works at this point in time. What we are doing is bringing a team of qualified individuals in here to deal with problems that we have not been able to solve because a position has not been filled over the course of the year here and we have got to start addressing some of these traffic problems, like some of these areas that need red lights and stop signs, traffic calming and things our community has said. Gentlemen, we have the ability to press to action whatever we need to have happen to get these people hired. But in the meantime, there are still needs within the community. This money is not coming out of future budget. It doesn’t affect the future budget of 48 these positions. What it is doing is using funds that are in the bank right now collecting interest hopefully, that we can put [inaudible] people to work. Mr. Mayor, I just encourage people to support the original motion and not delay this further. To delay is to repeat the same things we say we’re not going to repeat. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, some clarification, please. Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Kuhlke asked to be recognized. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Smith, if this is not approved today, and I’m looking at the agreement, on page one of the agreement and page two of the agreement, what are significant things in that list of what the consultant would be doing for you is going to have a real serious impact on what needs to take place in your department? Ms. Smith: Actually, in looking at page two of the agreement, other than the, the managerial type interactions as far as working with staff, the rest of the specific deliverables simply will not be completed, because I don’t have staff on hand that can complete those activities. The most pressing of those being the requirement for the MUTCD, which as I indicated at the last meeting is a regulatory requirement that we have to implement. That one we would have to simply have staff stop doing something else so that we would move forward with doing that, but the other items are items that either through day to day work activities are things that need to be done or things that have been specifically requested by the Commission or have been brought to the attention of the Commission as being items that needed to be done. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams, you had something further, and then we’ll move on. Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask one question of Ms. Smith while you’re there. Did the team that [inaudible] put together, were there any other teams that we looked at to see how good they were in comparison? Ms. Smith: Were there any other? Mr. Williams: Yeah. I mean we looking at CH2Mhill, but – and you refer to the team. I want to know have we looked at any other teams? You talking about $100,000 but to spend that kind of money, should we not have at least – I mean we may have got that and more from some other firm. Ms. Smith: We did not go out with request for qualifications or request for proposals or do any comparisons. 49 Mr. Williams: That’s all I need to know. Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a substitute motion not to approve this agreement. Any further discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion to disapprove this, please vote yes. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Mays, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Cheek vote No. Mr. Colclough abstains. Motion fails 2-7-1. Mr. Mayor: This takes us back to the original motion. Mr. Beard, you wanted to offer an amendment to the motion? Mr. Beard: Yes, the amendment on the timeline that we discussed in the last, previous – not committee meeting but I guess it was council meeting. We put a timeline, we asked for a timeline on that. The Clerk: The amendment, you want me to read that? Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] for the record, please, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: That was to also work simultaneously not only getting that position but other positions filled that exist in Public Works and that they be done by the deadline of January 15 of 2003. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I agree with my colleague that we ought to be put a timeline on it, but I would imagine we’ve got to advertise the positions again and I don’t think you can move that quickly. Mr. Beard: I’m not so interested in January, ’03, but I do need a timeline there, But I think we need to and maybe Ms. Smith can help me out on what she needs. qualify that as to what we’re going to do. Ms. Smith, what timeline would you suggest we put on there, because I think we need one on there. Ms. Smith: Well, the timeline for most of the publications are such that you need a minimum of 60 days in order to get the information in the publication and then of course you have to give people an opportunity to respond, so we will be looking at 90 days before we can get applications. Mr. Beard: Just give me a time, give me a date [inaudible]. Mr. Kolb: March 1. If March 1 is acceptable, we’ll shoot for that date. 50 Mr. Cheek: The maker of the motion accepts that amendment. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion and putting a March 1 deadline on there to fill the positions? Okay, none heard. So we will – Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I was just counting. I think that gets us back to the 90 day mark that we were on. Mr. Mayor, I will say this in fairness to – and I was highly critical, highly critical today, but I will say this in fairness to the Administrator, I think that when we do get ready to hire, then we’ve talked – we’ve been critical about the money we’re spending on the contract, but then we’re going to have to [inaudible] person, then we are going to have to [inaudible] also to deal with paying the person. And I think that’s a fair situation on the table to deal with in talking about it. But I, I’ve reached a conclusion that networking across this country, you’re not going to have to not only deal with people who read publications, but I have found out there are folk who steal other good folk, and if [inaudible] dealing with a head hunter [inaudible] then network with folk from other rival firms, you’ve got a place and a position open [inaudible] checking them out in dealing with it, and it doesn’t necessarily [inaudible] out of a publication who reads a trade magazine. It’s going to have to be – sometimes it’s where you just have to get up and make it an agreement that I’m going to find somebody to work in these positions. Cause it’s not just going to stop there and I’m not going to [inaudible]. I worked too hard, Mr. Mayor, that when we were under every court order and Richmond County ignored them, to get that landfill working to where it’s making money, now to see it get on the possibility of a question mark with no director, no assistant director, and let it slip back and we get into agreement where we walk in one day under the gun and pay somebody a million dollars to run it and then turn around and give it away. That’s wasteful money, and if we sit here and let that happen, then all 11 of us ought to be – now you talk about something you ought to indict somebody about. That then is malfeasance to allow that to be done for the millions of dollars we spent on that landfill to do it, and we need to turn around and not only push this issue, but that one needs to be done, too. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Boyles. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the staff has heard loud and clear the concerns that this Commission has concerning the recruitment of key positions within this government. At the next Engineering Services Committee, I would expect to see something similar to a recruiting plan that the head hunters use with implementation steps to bring us in under our March 1 deadline. I don’t want to hear we’re going to try, we’re going to do. I want to see a list of things, concrete steps and goals. I’m real tired of the vague. I want to see an action plan, not an action statement. But this is something that we have got to resolve. We have to improve upon it, and quite frankly, in the last two years the improvements toward hiring and recruiting as far as interfacing with the Commission staff have not been there. We have waited months and then been told oh, we’re not paying, or oh, we need to do this, that or the other. That is not the level of communication that I expect as a Commissioner from my staff to help me better serve the people of this city. These are acute needs. They are constant. They require constant 51 communication. And I hope that by working together, not only in Engineering Services but in these other key positions that we will be able to find a formula that will work in a timely fashion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I’ll just make this brief comment. I read all the time about the problems that we may be going to incur with the HOPE scholarship and we keep sending kids to college. And the last time I looked at some information on Georgia Tech and Southern Tech and I think they had record enrollments, and they’re fine engineering schools. It seems to me like in this government we have most of our positions pretty much filled except for Public Works. It seems that that’s what we debate every time we come in this chamber. And I’m just – somebody is going to need to explain to me sometime about why we are having trouble keeping folks in Public Works. I realize that before I came here there was an exodus that went over to Utilities. And somehow I just think that Public Works took the brunt of that, and maybe at the next Engineering Services Committee, Mr. Cheek, maybe we could talk about that. But that’s what concerns me. There are people coming out of school everywhere. If you compare it to a great football school sometimes you find those recruiters going out and getting kids. They don’t tell kids we’ve got a great sports program here, would you like to come, we’re going to give you three meals a day and a place to sleep and some books. You have to go out and get them. And if that’s what we have to do to build our forces in our Public Works Department, I think that’s what we need to look at. And that’s just in the form of a comment, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We are back at the original motion and that is to approve with the amendment setting the March 1 deadline for filling the positions. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: And that brings us to a five minute recess. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk, the next item I believe in the order we’re taking items up is item number 50. The Clerk: FINANCE: 50. Motion to approve adoption of Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Resolution. (No recommendation from Finance Committee November 11, 2002) 52 ADMINISTRATOR: 51. Motion to approve the implementation of reclassifications for Executive and Line Staff effective October 15, 2002 (the first paycheck in November 2002). To include the Clerk of Commission’s office for reclassification; Implement career ladder, basic skills and tuition reimbursement programs. Approve Reclassification Administrative Procedures. Eliminate salary grades 30-35 and begin Salary Structure at Salary Grade 36. (Approved by Administrative Services September 23, 2002 deferred from the October 3, 2002) Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, it seems to fall to the lot of the Finance Chairman to move the discussion forward, at least on the initial consideration of the budget. I’m prepared to do that today. The Administrator brought up a General and Law Enforcement combined funds 101 and 273 for a total of projected proposed expenditure of $100,024,170. And that brought with it a property tax increase for new programs and I think the consensus of the Commission has been and I’ve had some discussions with some of you and read your statements in the paper that it was not appropriate to bring to the citizens, the taxpayers of Augusta Richmond County a property tax increase this year. So my first assumption on the budget proposal that I have put out in front of you today will be that there will be no property tax increase in this budget. The next assumption that I’m going to follow is that we’re going to use the Fund Balance appropriation which the administration has recommended, but that’s going to be subject to the actual revenue and expenditure performance during the year. And I have seen a recurring policy that we have used Fund Balance during the last five budget years and except for one of those years that we have conflicting data on, the revenues have exceeded expenditures and we have been able to increase the Fund Balance. Now where, where do we, where do we go from here to amend the current budget which the administration has brought before us? From the $100,024,170 the mill increase was to raise $903,320, which was specified or itemized in Tab 6 of the budget workbook. That revenue increase, along with the funding for the programs that it represent has first been deleted from my recommendation. In order to, and here again I’ll solicit all of your comments just when I’m finished, the other additional revenue that I saw that would be available would be to pick up $160,000 from the UDAG balance, which would basically go toward the Economic Development office, which is also in the budget, but it’s not in the $903,320. The other two items that caught my attention in the workshop were two programs that brought with them not only cost centers, but revenue centers, and that was the Mobile Home Appraisal Program, which is projected to bring in over expenses $38,000 and the Civil Court Marshal Program for Evictions, which is to bring in $14,310. Neither of those, neither of those represent increased program expenses without fully allocating the program revenues, so they do bring to us an excess of revenue. So the adjusted number that I’m working with is $99,333,160. Now on the expenditure side, I do recommend several adjustments. I think that we’ve talked about in addition to just eliminating the new programs this year that are tied to the new millage, we should, we should look at two programs that we presently 53 have on our plate. Number 1, which is also item 51, is the reclassification program. Several of you have mentioned to me that in light of the economy that we should take a gradual approach into this reclassification issue. And I see that as the appropriate way to handle it. In this proposal, I have spread it over three years, which results in $160,000 savings in this year. The next program that I ask that you look at phasing in is what we call the pay for performance program. And I’m recommending that we not do that the first half of the year, we do it the second half of the year. There’s a $378,000 revenue benefit in that regard. But we can’t ignore a couple of demands that have come in to this government over the last few month. One that’s caught my attention is item 52 of today’s agenda, the Indigence Defense situation. You realize that when we formed the budget for 2002 we did not know that Alabama vs. Shelton would be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and we did not know that it would result in a ruling which would require us to expand our indigent defense responsibilities as far as funding goes. And so to address the Alabama vs. Shelton situation, I have recommended that we increase the Indigent Defense budget by $346,000 over its current budget, and I do that because I’m going to propose in item number 52, which is going to be presented by our Deputy Administrator Russell that staff attorneys be placed on salary really immediately to replace the current system of paying private members of the Bar for that defense, which has been the custom since basically August. We’ve had expense that has been dictated by the rates which the Georgia Supreme Court recommends that private lawyers charge, and therefore I’m recommending that we go to a staff attorney system which will fund Indigent Defense or which will be the method of delivery of Indigent Defense for the next year. I also thought that two programs seemed to stand out from their, from the new programs which I would recommend putting in $50,000 for public relations and also $75,000 in training. There is another item which I’d like to put back, too, which I think has been discussed just today in the subcommittee which was delegated that issue, and that’s the establishment of work crews for the Districts to help improve the state of the maintenance of public facilities in each of our Districts and to improve the clean-up of this city all around. I know that’s something that Commissioner Hankerson has been interested in, so put back $146,000 for that. We’re also going to have the issue of increase in prison medical costs. $77,200. And that I think is unavoidable. It’s something we have to do in terms of the jail population. We have to care for the prisoners under mandated standards and various court decisions and prison regulations. So the budget that I have is not fully discharged by all the revenue that we’re going to raise. It’s actually $56,100 under what the revenue is budgeted, so I have a slight excess of revenue over expenditures, and the total expenditures in this proposal is $99,277,050. In the area of Indigent Defense, I think we also need to look at potential revenue raising potential which exists in that area. And I have indicated an alternative Indigent Defense funding possibility which would help us reach the – and in fact exceed the additional monies required in staff and staff upgrades in the Indigent Defense area. And there are two, two areas that I suggest we look into which would help fund this program. The, one is indicated on the memo as what we call the facility use charge, which could be a charge we would negotiate back with a private probation contractor which we could perhaps raise, and this is just an arbitrary number that I chose, around $200,000. Then there is something that I’ve been interested in for a long and that is legislation at the State level which would surcharge cases for the creation of an Indigent Defense Fund. And I just, in 54 looking at this the other night, if we simply charged a $5 surcharge on the approximately 35,000 cases that are moving through the State Court, that would generate another revenue source of $175,000. I think it’s more appropriate to surcharge the offenders that are going through that court than to ask the taxpayers to come up with additional money. Another solution would be ask the courts to recover the costs of Indigent Defense from the individual cases that are coming before it and a condition of probation would be based on financial ability that the offender would repay for the, pay the government for its contribution to Indigent Defense in some part. So there is potential revenue raising in that area, gentlemen, that would offset this impact of Indigent Defense. We have spent a lot of time on budget this year in 2002 in that we had a budget session and we had a moratorium and we had probably about a 2-1/2 month long reconsideration of the budget. We finally finalized it. We just funded this year’s budget a month or so ago with a tax increase which I think we’ve asked our citizens and taxpayers for enough this year so that’s why I’ve avoided a property tax increase, and I think that is something that needs to be a given in this budget, that we commit ourselves not to raise property tax increase. Now of course the expenditure reductions can be varied from the proposal I have here. I’m happy to hear from any proposal that any member up here wants to advance today that would include the same touchstone of no property tax increase. I advance this one. It does represent a balanced budget. It mostly works off the Administrator’s budget, which has been prepared by the people in Finance. I guess the thing that I worry most about is using Fund Balance, but they’ve shown me historical data that says that we have used Fund Balance as a budgeting tool and then they’ve been able to successfully manage the revenues and expenditures so that there has been an increase or there’s been an excess of revenue over expenditures in most years. So that is the pledge that I’m receiving from the administration through Mr. Kolb and also through the Finance Department who have largely put these figures together for me. Let me conclude my presentation of this proposal by, number one, inviting any other members of the body to present a proposal and to remind you that as part of the budget process reform which we enacted earlier this year, that we made budget season still effective for the calendar year ensuing 2003, but we committed ourselves by ordinance to pass a budget at this meeting or recessed session of this meeting, and that means we have to really do it before the first meeting in December. So we have, we have talked a lot about on various programs a deadline to do this and a deadline to do that. We have a deadline to do this budget, Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, and fellow Commissioners, and we have put a lot of attention to it in terms of workshops, in terms of staff time already, and I would like to see that we pass the budget that is not dependent on a property tax increase, as I’ve said before, and is somewhere in the ballpark of what this proposal that I have made shows. It’s a budget that has already been reduced in the request by the Administrator and it’s going to be further reduced I think by what we are going to do here today or in some recessed meeting of this session. But for starters, anyway, I’d commend to you, Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, the 2003 budget proposal that reduces our budget to the $99,333,160, and that having been said, Mr. Mayor, I would open it up for comment by you, Mr. Mayor, or any member of the Commission or whoever. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I certainly appreciate your presentation and your well-reasoned approach to the budget for next year, and I concur in the 55 comment you’ve made. I just have a couple of things I’d like to throw on the table and then we’ll continue with the discussion on this. I am concerned about creating a new department within this government at a time when resources are thin and I still have a lot of reservations about an Economic Development Department. I think it’s appropriate to have one economic development staffer function in this government, at least at this time until the need is demonstrated that we need to create a new bureaucracy and fund it. In the information that was prepared at my request in the Finance Department, I think all of you have a copy of the memo, it shows that we have currently 68 vacant positions within this government. And I think to help with our cash flow it might be appropriate if we did one of two things. Number one would be to have a freeze on new hires and filling of these positions or perhaps even abolishing these positions and allowing the Department Heads to come back in and justify the need to recreate each position. Certainly if we’re getting along without the 68, I don’t know that we can’t get along with maybe not all of them but certainly some of them and [inaudible] opportunity to look at the savings there. I’d also like to see us, as part of this budget process, to adopt a resolution to go to a zero based budget in 2004, a process that should begin in January of next year. If we come back each year and just add on to the previous year’s budget, we really aren’t taking a close look at our organization and fine tuning it and identifying what projects and programs are still relevant, which ones have served their purpose and where we have opportunities to do things different ways, and I would submit that with a zero based budget, as we discussed with Mr. Kolb in his job interview, that that would be an excellent way to reaffirm our commitment to having an efficient and cost efficient government in 2004. Mr. Beard, I’ll defer to you. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank Mr. Shepard and others who have contributed to this. I think they’ve done an excellent job here, especially as we go down the list here and look at some of the things that they’ve thrown out to us. My suggestion was and it probably would be in a motion later on after I’ve finished that we recess and that we take this as information and discussion today and establish a date next week to come back and work on this to finalize this, because I think Commissioner Shepard has put in a lot of time here, but I think we need to discuss it a little today and then set a date that we can act on this. And be ever cognizant of the fact that we must – the timeline that we have established for this budget is very close so probably have to come back sometime next week and set that today before we leave. I especially like the millage that he talked about. I don’t think any of us up here, from what I’ve heard from many of us, that we are ready to increase the millage. In some way we have to work around that. The Fund Balance is another one that we wanted to work around and I don’t think we can afford to take $1.7 million from Fund Balance. However, I do, and hopefully this is answer [inaudible], you know, before we meet again, I am concerned about the actual Fund Balance that exists. At one time we were talking about, I’ve seen from $29 million to $33 million to $19 million, maybe $20 million. I would just like to get a handle on that and in the next few days maybe I can. The other thing that I would like to know more detail on these new programs. I know that Tab 6 of the workbook we have the new programs listed, and I’m concerned about personnel. There’s a question mark there. I do like the reclassification because I was wondering how we were going to work that out and maybe with a little initiative we can spread that over a period of time. 56 All of these are workable items. I think that they need to be just massaged a little bit and thought about and maybe somebody else in discussion that maybe they will come up with some new ideas. I have one which I would like for the Administrator to maybe look into and that is generating revenues from tickets. We’ve talked about. Several have mentioned that up here, but I don’t think we’ve ever really looked into the feasibility of that and how much revenue that would be. So I think that’s one, one thing that I would like to see put forward. And Mr. Mayor, at the end of the discussion period I would like to go back to my motion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To my unofficial law partner, Steve, I say good job and your presentation on what you’ve done. I agree with Mr. Beard, I’d like to let this soak in before we make, we make any rash decisions. When I think about the things we done in the past and this year alone, I, I’m wondering why we didn’t do something a little bit different, and Steve worked on this thing pretty well in a short time. But when I think about the monies we are spending in this government and that I think, and this is my personal opinion and that don’t go no farther than myself, but my personal opinion, when we spend $3 million a year for preventative maintenance and we brought it back to this body that we could do it in-house for probably a million and a half, that’s a million and a half of savings that we could have used, just in that alone. When we talk about projects, and I go back to, to the, the, with the Animal Shelter. We could have saved money in that respect. There are a lot of things we could have done as elected officials in trying to curb or save money in different areas to do. We are spending out a lot of money. A lot of that money I know can’t be used in certain, certain corners, certain areas that money is designated for. But we’ve got to take advantage of the things we can and utilize those funds in those areas that we can get the most for our dollars. I’m one of those people who said I wasn’t going to vote for an additional tax. [inaudible] asked the taxpayers of Richmond County for an increase for Homeland Security and public safety. I felt then that we should have put it all in one. We shouldn’t have done it and then come back and asked them for any more. I was not going to support an additional tax cause I think that we ought to raise taxes, I think if people can see something for their money they don’t mind paying the taxes. But for so long, people have not seen. We talk about the money we supposed to be collecting but everybody, you know, don’t receive those services. We ain’t got enough people. We don’t have enough staff. We don’t have enough equipment. But folks still paying taxes. So I think people don’t mind paying for something they can see. But I just want to comment again, Steve, I think this is good. I think this is something we should have had probably even before this day, it probably could have been finalized today. But I do commend you on what you have done. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to agree with much of what I’ve heard up here today. I wanted, too, to congratulate Commissioner Shepard and the 57 Finance Committee for the job well done. I was privy to a briefing just before the meeting. I met with Commissioner Shepard. All of my questions have been answered. All of my concerns as to the budget have been resolved with the benefits of no recommended tax increase for the coming year. The trending did show over the past few years that income exceeded expenditures, which would help address the Fund Balance issue. Maybe I, and I’m sure I’m optimistic in this, but I would like to see us probably make history tonight, so I’m going to go ahead and offer a motion at this point in time that we approve the budget as submitted by the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. All right, we have Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I just, I commend my co-chairman, the Chairman of the Finance Committee – I serve as co and need to ask him some questions about this. Now in the reclassification, 1/3 per year, that’s $160,000. I think there’s some things on here needs to be explained. I know there’s a motion on the floor to accept it, but – and I’m part of the Finance Committee and I’m at a loss on some things before I’m able to vote on any of this I have to be more informed. The, first of all, I go on record, I do not support the reclassification at this time. I don’t think it’s the proper time for it. If we had to do a portion of it or the part that we’ve already [inaudible] I have some questions about that. I don’t think it’s the proper time to support $1.something for reclassification. Another thing is, my question is about the Economic Development office. I’m with the Mayor on that, I think that we need to try one staff person, bring one person in and let them work toward economic development. We hire them like we hire a football coach. If they don’t produce, then we get rid of them and get another one. You don’t have a winning team. Mr. Kolb, the Economic Development Department that you proposed at first, wasn’t it about $400,000 that you were asking for to operate and something like $195,000 addition? Mr. Kolb: Just off the top of my head, I think you’re probably right. However, on top of that we were bringing in some funds from Community Development through the existing program that they have. To offset that cost, we were looking at revenues coming from the Richmond County Development Authority, that they would split it with us. That is included in your budget, also in the budget that Commissioner Shepard has proposed. One other item, there is a misconception out there, and I’m probably the cause of it, regarding reclassification salaries. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Kolb, before you go into that, I was just asking about the Economic Development and my question was [inaudible], I see on here it’s $160,000 that Mr. Shepard has here in his report for Economic Development. Now how much are we allocating in this budget for Economic Development Authority? Mr. Kolb: Roughly, well actually in addition to what you give the Economic Development Authority, roughly $300,000. 58 Mr. Hankerson: So that Economic Development was not under new programs? Mr. Kolb: No, it was not. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. You can go ahead now, what you were getting ready to say about the reclassifications. Mr. Mayor: Continue, go ahead, George. Mr. Kolb: In the 2003 budget, I need to explain the compensation to you. We have set aside about $640,000 which includes a 3% pay for performance of about $300,000, $400,000 and an additional $240,000 for the reclassifications continued for a full year, assuming they were approved tonight. So the actual cost of the reclassifications is not $1 million. It’s only $242,000. And the 3% pay for performance would only cost about $400,000 roughly. Mr. Hankerson: Gentlemen, that’s one of my reasons that I said that I don’t see how we can pass a budget that we have a motion and second on the floor to pass this budget, with some things that we don’t quite understand and have not been explained to us, and I think we need some more time even to look at this and ask some questions because I could ask my Finance Committee Chairman so more questions on this, but I won’t impose on the time, but it’s a lot I don’t understand, here before I’m able to vote on this particular motion, budget today. Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s go to Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to commend Mr. Shepard for taking the initiative on this and coming up with this. As usual, he’s shown leadership, and anytime we have critical issues that are coming up that have a deadline on them, he’s always shown the leadership and has done so once again and I commend him for that. I’m going to go center in on the same thing that everybody else seems to be centering in on, and that’s creating a new department within the government. The UDAG funding, I don’t see Jim, I was going to ask him, and maybe someone else can answer me. Is that going to be a yearly transfer from UDAG or strictly for this year? Mr. Kolb: That would be a one shot deal for that particular program. Mr. Bridges: And then next year we’d have to fund it out of General without expecting a transfer from UDAG then? That $160,000 would have to be come from another location? Mr. Kolb: I do not believe that you could take out of UDAG to the extent that you’re taking out of it now because it’s an accumulation of years of repayment of UDAG loans. 59 Mr. Bridges: So it would have to come from another source, the funding for that? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Bridges: And Jim, the legality of moving it out from UDAG this year, is that an issue we need to address? Because I thought we had some problems with that, with the UDAG funding. Mr. Wall: These are funds that have gone through the cycle twice, and once you go through the cycle twice they are free of those restrictions. My understanding is this money, the money that we’ve been using to fund some of these other things are monies that have been funded – Mr. Bridges: Have been through there twice? Okay. Mr. Kolb: If I could answer that, we haven’t decided whether or not to expense directly out of that account or to transfer to General Fund just for that reason. But we can use it for this purpose. Mr. Bridges: And also, in regards to the Economic – I understand it’s going to be used for the Economic Development Department within the government, are we coordinating that with the Chamber? I mean are they aware of what we’re doing here? I know we normally give them close to $100,000 for the year, and I’m assuming that that money will not be going to them this next year if we approve this transfer. Mr. Kolb: Not necessarily. We are in discussions with the Chamber at this point in time. We’re still negotiating what kind of a design structure the Regional Economic Development program would take, which would then take the recommendation back to the Commission as to whether or not you should continue with your current funding of that program. However, we have advised them and they are in agreement that we ought to have a local Economic Development office to deal with local redevelopment issues. Mr. Bridges: And my thinking originally about the Economic Development Department was that you have one person who trouble-shooted the red tape and what-not through government for these people to come in and look around, and you know, I’m just not fully convinced we need to get up to a four or five person department. I think we’re creating a new department and that causes me some concern in that regard. I’m like the Mayor, I don’t have any trouble in a trouble-shooter for the red tape, because I think that’s beneficial to economic development, but it also concerns me that, too, I don’t want to go ahead and approve something in the budget here and then the Chamber and the Development Authority and us not be on board in regard to the Regional aspects of it. I think the concept there has to come first before we actually create our own department and know what that’s going to look like. Those are just some of my concerns in that regard. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? 60 Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what Commissioner Bridges is saying, and I do owe the Commission a more detailed structural analysis of what the office of Economic Development would look like. We’re just asking to put the funding in place. If the funding is not in place, then there is no reason to even go forward with it because it takes a lot of work. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Boyles. Mr. Colclough: I would also like to commend Commissioner Shepard for his hard work. I heard a few minutes ago about the actual amount of Fund Balance. Can the Finance Chairman tell us what the actual Fund Balance is? Mr. Shepard: Well, I can tell you based on what the Finance Department tells me, there are two kinds of Fund Balance and the last calculation obviously is at the end of the fiscal year of 2001 which is a calendar year. There is the ending Fund Balance, which is $29,416,200, then there is the unreserved Fund Balance which is $23,220,100. David, you want to – you have that where you can show him? The Fund Balance is broken into an unreserved category and a reserve category so he can give you that or I can – you want to give that to him, Dave? You won’t have another Fund Balance until the end of this year is what I’m told, Commissioner Colclough. Mr. Colclough: These numbers are correct? Mr. Williams: I can’t see it down here but I sure would like to hear it. I thought we was going to hear something. Mr. Mayor: Would you share a copy with Commissioner Williams? Anything further, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: No, that’s it. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me echo what the others have said concerning our Finance Chairman. But let me also give a great big thank you to our Finance Department, too, in the work that they’ve done to put this together. I made a comment up at our meeting at the barbecue pit about old programs sometimes and how they seem to always be with us and they never seem to go away. If we’ve got, as the Mayor said, about 68 vacancies, if we could put a freeze of some sort on those for a certain amount of time, we could pick up some additional money in there, and the reason I say additional money that would concern me, there are three items that do. We’ve had delegations come down here concerning our museum funding. We’ve had numerous times the Library has been down here and if you’ve been over there, those books are in terrible condition and they need to have some serious money sent over there. And we spent an entire work session down here one afternoon talking about going online and 61 updating our online files. I’m not much on computer technology but our management information system folks had asked for some things. There are still some items in this budget I’m, that I don’t know about. Again, I hate to say it, I guess we run out of time to say this, since this is Rev. Hankerson and my first year down here, we’re just about to run out of that excuse. (Laughter) Mr. Boyles: But there’s some things that I would like to get some more information on. I don’t know that I can do that right now other than the three that I mentioned. I know that there has been a lot of comment made about – I guess we call it IT or management information or whatever else, and I know somewhere down the road, I look over at Tom Beck and I see that we’re going to open a new community center. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: I know that, but the community center has been cut out or the funding has been cut out? Mr. Kolb: Under the new programs, Blythe and Sand Hills – I’m sorry, McBean and Sand Hills will not be funded. Mr. Boyles: So those are going to sit complete and idle? Mr. Kolb: I don’t believe Sand Hills has begun construction yet, so – Tom, can you help me out? Mr. Beck: Maybe I can clarify that. From what I understood with the Administrator’s budget, what we have already in that budget does fund a fair amount of McBean. What would not be funded would be a maintenance position there. So in order for McBean to open, the new center to open, we would have to transfer a maintenance person from existing forces there for that to open. Sand Hills is a new program. Construction has not started on that center yet. It will be out to bid in about two weeks. So construction should start in January but the monies that are in there for the new programs for that, those would be new positions and it is anticipated that center would open in October of next year so there wouldn’t be any funding to staff that. I do believe there is some funding in the budget for utilities for the new center, but the new personnel part is in the new program section, so we would have to again close something else for that to open or make other cuts for that to open. Mr. Boyles: Well, again, I go back to, and I’m probably repeating what the Mayor said, when we can maybe go back and look at these vacancies of 68, if we could put a freeze on that for a certain amount of time. I know we’ve got some critical positions. We just have to identify those. And go ahead with those. Thank you, Tom. And then I keep hearing a lot of places that we go that there’s still some folks who want to retire if we would just change the age or something and let them go, and that may be 62 another way that we could probably find some spaces on our payrolls. I think, I think David told me the other day that about 70% of our payroll, 70% of our budget is labor intense, and it’s our personnel. So if we’re going to find any money at all, it’s going to have to come from Personnel. I still think it’s just important for some things, keeping that museum open, keeping those library books, developing the things that are supposed to get us completely in the technology age, the IT folks. I think there are just some things we are going to need to look at, and I don’t know that I’m ready right now today to vote on this budget. I would support a recess to go into it, give a little more time with it. Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Let me say this first. I think the Chairman of Finance has been quite clear in terms of the deadline that we wanted to set and that we did set by ordinance and which I supported. We spent a lot of time talking in private about it and in public about it and agreeing about it. I’m, I’m pleased with, with getting out of the box and getting to at least one part of, of some level of simplification in terms of some things that we may want to set and some guidelining parameters, and I think that the Finance Chairman’s proposal has, has done that. Now if – and this is just Commissioner – if – and I’m not a newcomer Commissioner, so I won’t, I won’t go there. I’ll let the two newcomers deal with that. But one of the things I think that an old- timer can recognize is the fact that when you, when you set certain guidelines, you have to, like anything else, contract and any time of proceeding that you attach money to, and if it’s going to be a blueprint to work by, you’ve got to be very careful and know what the fine print contains. I think this is a very honest effort to get us to stay on our timeline. He and I both, along with other Commissioners, I think at one point in time throughout this whole year, particularly since at least maybe July 1, we have pressed [inaudible] as much information as we really could really seriously get out of the way, that we do that and we talk about the budget. Now I’m going to say this, and I, I do think that we’ve got very good people there in Finance and I’ve worked with them as a senior member of this Commission longer than anybody else. But I’m going to say this in terms of part of the process of where we’ve gone to, to get to where we are to make this decision tonight, I’m going to be a little different. I’m going to break out of the box [inaudible]. I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed for this reason. Not in our people that have been working. I’m disappointed in a way in terms of our time frame of where we pushed ourselves to and of some of the things that we took the time this year discussing or, quite frankly, not discussing. I’ve heard wondrous dream ideas of everything of, of, of building new buildings, skyscrapers, coliseums, indebtedness of this county [inaudible] over the next 15 to 20 years. But yet I’m boiling down tonight, if not for the sanity of my Finance Chairman, of having something here and go on and move on as a guideline [inaudible]. That does not take away my dissatisfaction [inaudible] to a point that all of a sudden we got busy as hell. Now I asked the question at the last meeting, Mr. Mayor, when I chaired about how some things came to order. Now I was told, and I’m not going to reveal any names, don’t have to, and ain’t harassed nobody cause folk came to me. So I’ve not violated any ordinance. Y’all know how I am. I don’t go seeking out and I don’t looking over anybody’s shoulder. But I’m disappointed to a point that when we got into certain workshop areas where we were going, that the people who were going to have to 63 run these departments, quite frankly, knew or saw what they were going to deal with. At the very last minute, some of us saw what they were going to deal with. Now I was assured last week, two weeks ago when I asked this question, that that was not the case. I was told that that did not happen, everybody was on board, everybody was prepared. Everybody was not. In some of these documents, they were guarded like they were in a Brinks truck and the people who were going to run departments knew all about it [inaudible]. This was not the case. And I’m, I’m working with them longer than anybody else in some cases, I’m not going to call the names [inaudible]. But [inaudible] in that for this reason. I think you almost have to reassess from this standpoint that a summation of departmental activities in terms of where the budget carries us and what it will do or a breakdown within those departments of what’s going to be there. Because gentlemen, face the realization. I just heard the key word. People coming back and proving what is necessary [inaudible]. Well now, that’s old hat. Anything that’s critical is going to be brought to say well, that’s critical. And then to justify it. My Recreation Director, and he [inaudible] on the spot, his name just happened to come across first, and I worry him less than anybody else up here. I’m his Chairman and been his Chairman the longest. But right away I saw some [inaudible]. Y’all sat here and [inaudible] deer in the headlights look when you learn about some parks that wasn’t going to be funded. Bam. But you might go ahead and [inaudible] and what you fixing to put yourself in the position, if you don’t study or know how this is going to take you into individual departments, what the performance is still going to be. These were the critical questions, gentlemen. We were down here talking about spending and doing things, that we didn’t have other money and [inaudible] ideas to do. This is the nuts and bolts of what citizens ask for and to a point of whether you are going to be able to deliver or now. We look crazy and ought to be locked up from the standpoint, the insane asylum, Richard, [inaudible] your job, take everybody else with you and you lock everybody else up, including yourself, if you sit here and, and, and, and vote for something to a point you really don’t understand where totally it’s going to take us throughout these different departments. I appreciate us trying to move forward on the timeframe, but representing four Districts directly and trying to represent all eight, I am not necessarily prepared tonight to say okay, fine and go. And then what I’m going to hear from now until the end of December, guess what, you know that’s not necessarily the budget, guess what, this will not be funded. There still has to be summation of those things that come out of those departments, of how they function and at what level they are going to function. Now I support in terms of that premise of dealing with this on the millage rate. I thought that, quite frankly, Steve and I have discussed this in reference to one, dealing with where we were, primarily at least [inaudible] in terms of dealing with that in terms of [inaudible] simplification. But of going through all the dog and pony show that we basically have gone through and of sitting through it. Ms. Bonner, we got to say the food was good where we ate, but the food for thought, quite frankly, I thought we pushed ourselves into a back line, gentlemen, and I kept saying we got to talk about this starting in July. You cannot, you got to break down and know seriously what you are going to do. Now just like Tom came and addressed that on that mike a minute ago, about Sand Hills and McBean, I got news for you. [inaudible] people going to ask you to fund things for 10 to 15 years on sales tax that probably some of you probably are going to be gullible enough to jump right on it, say it sounds good. I tell you what. Some of the same people – 64 mentioned a good one, Tom, I’m glad yours was on the top of that list when you mentioned it – they been ardent supporters, two neighborhoods that came together basically there in Summerville and Sand Hills, coming together and are meeting there [inaudible] putting together something that they been waiting for for years to finally happened. Supported the sales tax program since 1987. And you come up and you say new program. You’re not going to get folk who constantly you’re asking and say support us and give us money to come out and realize that they been there for 15 years and you may have to look at whether or not some things that have [inaudible] whether or not you are going to be able to staff them. We’ve got still, gentlemen, a lot of consideration and work to do and I think [inaudible] I do again, I give my [inaudible] to my Finance Chairman, but in terms of everything else where we going, I think it has been a mad doctor’s rush in the last 35 to 40 days to get us where we are, to get this out here, and I don’t think [inaudible] what in fact the budget is going to totally have deep down into these departments unless that is totally expressed and where it is to be done. And I use that word disappointed because I think that’s a very nice gentlemanly term to use. And I’m going to leave that like that cause my pastor looks at this program. But you know, I, I, I, I have to, I have to say that because we may want, we may want to [inaudible]. But I can guarantee you, when somebody finds out and gets a particular call, and guess what, you know they’re not getting any money this year, oh, my goodness, it’s the first item on for reconsideration. So I think before you move past tonight, at least consider the recess process of dealing with a delicate situation of where the people who are going to have to run these departments are not going to be hamstrung, they are not going to be under a gag order to be able to get up here and tell us how a department is going to be run, bad, good or indifferent, and when the questions are asked to a point of how that’s going to be to a point [inaudible] no disrespect to the Administrator, but those folk out there, when they get that call and it’s not open and certain things don’t happen, they are the ones who are out there who are going to have to face that music, get the cussing out, and then it comes to the Mayor’s office and then it comes to the Commission. So I would just beg you to know what’s in there in doing it. This has been real good. There are some other things that could have been simplified from July, August, September, into October, then I think you’d have a better understanding of where [inaudible]. Steve, I thank you for where you’ve been on this. I understand your pain and concern with it, and I accept it like the parameters, but I do think we need to seriously know what is down into the fine print as it relates to the numbers. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, I hear all of my colleagues’ comments that they need more time and I respect that, getting down into the details of the budget. I hope they will. It’s not an easy task, these decisions we have to make up here, and as much as I would like to pass that history-making motion, I think the appropriate motion is, Mr. Mayor, that we take items 50 and 51 and that we do not adjourn this meeting when we conclude it but we recess it to a time later in the time, that we come back and satisfy ourselves what So I put adjustments, if any, need to be made in addition to the ones I have suggested. that in the form of a motion that we table these two items, 50 and 51. I think we’re in a position almost to go ahead with all the other funds, but in deference to – cause the 65 problem is only in the General Fund – I think in deference to those of you who want to look at all the, all the details, I don’t see why we couldn’t bring it back and just do all the funds at one time. Mr. Mays: I second it. Mr. Mayor: All right, there’s a second. Mr. Beard: Could we set a date? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, the motion to table, that’s not debatable? Mr. Wall: Not debatable. Mr. Mayor: It’s not debatable. You have a question? Mr. Beard: It’s just asking him – we need to put a time for it. Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that. Just to table items 50 and 51, the motion has been made and seconded. And the Parliamentarian says it’s not a debatable motion. If you have a procedural question, I’ll entertain it. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I have – Mr. Mayor: You have a procedural question, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yeah, I was going back after that motion, Steve, I need to get some answer to a Fund Balance question, that’s all I need. Mr. Mayor: All right, well, that’s not part of the motion to table, so we need to move ahead with the motion to table. All in favor of tabling items 50 and 51, please vote yes. And what we’ll do at the end of this meeting, we’ll recess and then we’ll come back and we’ll pull them off the table. Mr. Cheek, your motion is still alive and well. Mr. Cheek: No, sir, I think it’s probably dead. Mr. Mayor: I don’t know, it has life for a little bit longer. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to item 52, Mr. Williams, you said you had a question about the Fund Balance, you said? 66 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I mean I’m a little bit confused. I’m looking at it right here and it says unreserved Fund Balance, 23, and then under Fund Balance it’s got 29. [inaudible] Finance Director. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you clarify that? Mr. Williams: I wanted the Finance Director to clarify it, Mr. Mayor. We paying the Finance Director. Let him give me an answer. Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re paying the Administrator a lot more. Mr. Williams: Yeah, we sure are. Mr. Persaud, could you come and clarify that for me, please? Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Williams, the report you have in front of you shows the [inaudible] Fund Balance for December 31, 2001, was $29,416,200. However, $6,196,100 is reserve. The importance of the reserve Fund Balance is that that portion is not available for appropriation and it consists of certain reserves this board has set aside for [inaudible] issues, [inaudible] for encumbrances, which is uncommitted [inaudible] prior years and inventory and [inaudible] item. We define it as reserve fund balance because it’s not available for appropriation. That leaves a net balance of $23,220,100 as unreserved, undesignated Fund Balance that’s available for appropriation. Mr. Williams: So the true Fund Balance is $23.2 million then? Mr. Persaud: From my definition, yes. Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s, that’s what I wanted. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now, Madame Clerk, we’ll take up item number 52. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, could have a follow up to Commissioner Williams? Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek: So the sheet we’re seeing from ’98 to 2001, the unreserved Fund Balance has increased from 1998 from $19,280,000 and change to last year, $23,220,000 and some change; is that correct? Mr. Persaud: That’s absolutely correct. You’ll see it fluctuate from $19 million to $22 million to $19 million to $23 million. Low range of $19 million and high range of $23 million. Mr. Cheek: So the overall trend is we have been using Fund Balance. Mr. Persaud: No significant deviation, that is correct. 67 Mr. Cheek: And so the end result is that at the end of the year we do not necessarily take that money, we designate that money to spend but there is actually more money left over at the end of the year? Mr. Persaud: That’s correct. The trend shows that [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can just also add to that real quickly. It’s also showing a very positive trend because as your General Fund grows, so should your Fund Balance reserve. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move on to item 52 now, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 52. Consider early implementation of Indigent Defense restructuring. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you doing this or Mr. Russell or someone else? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I think I’ll have Mr. Russell do it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Fred? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you know the last couple of months we’ve been talking about the impact of Alabama vs. Shelton on our Indigent Defense system. We’ve looked at lots of different alternatives, had numerous discussions with lots and lots of different people, including judges, the defense people, other members of the Bar, our city Attorney, Mr. Shepard has been actively involved with this. We tried to figure out what would be the best approach to deal with providing this service. As you know and as we’ve said on numerous occasions, this is a service we’re mandated to provide. The Supreme Court of the United States basically said thou shall do this, and we shall. The Tripartite Committee is authorized by Georgia statute to develop the Indigent Defense program to do their own policies, hire personnel and actually pay for that. And basically we’re, by Georgia statute, they’re the ones that control the funding for that. The Georgia Supreme Court by rule has established rates for [inaudible]. What this has done since August is [inaudible] impact of what we’ve looked at as far as our Indigent Defense numbers go. We have told you about this numerous times of what we’re actually doing with this. What we’re providing, having to provide now lawyers to people that were never provided lawyers before. If there is any jeopardy of incarceration, be that as a revocation of a sentence because of failure to pay a fine or whatever, two qualifications must be met. First of which, they must have been given a lawyer or have on record that they had the opportunity to have a lawyer and that lawyer was refused, and that’s on record. That has put us in a big bind, simply because we did 68 not really have any numbers to look at. There was never really any need to collect these number, never needed to collected any data, so there were no numbers to look at, which makes projections very, very hard. Tripartite Committee for the past several months has looked at different ways of funding this. What they’ve done in [inaudible] been doing is hire private Bar attorneys to come in and have hired contract investigators for those people to provide the services that are necessary. As you might remember, in Augusta they brought forth to you a recommendation that they hire on staff one senior attorney, three staff attorneys, two Investigator IV’s, one Investigator III, and one administrative assistant. In our budget, the Administrator recommended that we hire one attorney, hire one investigator, and then take the balance of that money and hire people from the private Bar [inaudible] retainer of approximately $15,000 a year. That has continued the dialog to date, and up until this morning we were continuing, continuing that particular dialog. It was, based on meetings with all of the relevant parties involved from the Indigent Defense office, to judges from both the circuit – not circuit – Superior and State and well I guess Probate Court. Everybody that’s got a piece of the action here has been involved in this particular discussion for the past several weeks. What has come to the conclusion is the recommendation that you have before you today, and that is that we hire one senior attorney with a pay grade 56, two staff attorneys at pay grade 51, and two investigators at pay grade 45, for a total of approximately $214,760, with fringe benefits of $75,166. A grand total for that of $289,926. What that does in effect is the two staff attorneys that are currently on staff, we would have to move those people up to the pay grade 51. They are currently ungraded apparently. And that’s a total cost of approximately $4,808 to do that. We’re close, and that would do it. We’ve done it in the past. Would bring them to a minimum for that pay scale. So that gives you a total cost if available to continue this budget year projected approximately $284,000 from our Contingency account to meet st these needs, to get us through December 31. In addition to that, Commissioner Shepard has asked us to look at that over the next year, and it’s our very, very rough estimated, based on two months of data, two months of data and a rough estimate, based on that, by th implanting this restructuring plan, making it effective November 25, we would pretty much break even with the cost for this particular year, with some minor savings over the current process that we’re doing now. But if you look at it for the next physical year and that’s been included in the budget presentation that Commissioner Shepard made, it looks like a projected savings of almost $500,000 if you roll that over the next budget year. And once again, that’s a very, very, very rough estimate of what we’ve got, simply because data is not available. We do believe that we can provide the service. In long discussions with Mr. Long, who is chairman of the Tripartite Committee, he feels that he can do that and will work very, very hard to do that. The motion that we have before you, the recommendation that we have before you at this particular point in time, is to transfer $284,000 from our Contingency Fund to cover the cost to date, plus the projected cost to the end of December, and then as part of the budget to do the inclusions that were mentioned in the Shepard proposal for the budget next year. In addition to that, part of the recommendation is that we continue to look at this, because as I’ve said numerous time, we are still a moving target at this particular point in time and we want to continue to monitor that. That is our best recommendation based on facts that we have, based on discussions with everybody that evolved and that’s where we are at right now. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try to answer those. 69 Mr. Mayor: Fred, if I may, when the Tripartite Committee brought their recommendations to us, there were actually two proposals in there. One was for Indigent Defense. The other was for a wholesale reclassification of staff in that office. Are you telling us here on the record tonight this was not including that wholesale reclassification? Mr. Russell: The only reclassifications that are included in this proposal are for the two staff attorneys, and that would be to bring them to the [inaudible] level of staff attorneys that we’re hiring across the board, pay level, grade level 51. And the total impact of that for a year is about $4,800. They are close now. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Russell: No reclassification for any other employees other than those two attorneys. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to make the motion that we approve the implementation of the Indigent Defense plan as outlined by Deputy Administrator Russell. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Boyles. Mr. Bridges: Fred, I’ve got a question here concerning the back-up that we’ve been given. It’s my understanding that right now we’re looking at a $1.8 million under the current program for Indigent Defense and under your proposal in the year 2003 it would be $1.3 million, so we’re actually savings half a million dollars; am I reading this correct? Mr. Russell: We’re not savings half a million dollars, we’re just not spending the additional half million dollars. Mr. Bridges: I got you. Mr. Russell: Once again, that’s very, very rough numbers. Mr. Bridges: I understand that. Mr. Russell: Based on limited data. Mr. Bridges: But initially we thought the effect on this was going to be half a million a year, so basically what I’m, what it looks like and I understand they’re rough 70 numbers, it looks like that half a million dollars has gone away and we’re in essence going to be roughing it for the same amount of money, we’re just going to be managing it differently. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: I see George shaking his head over there, even though you’re saying yes. Mr. Kolb: I think what – it’s hard for me to understand, too, but I’m beginning to understand what they’re doing here. The current budget is approximately $1 million. The impact of Alabama v. Shelton could potentially be another million dollars or $800,000. The plan that they have come up with now is approximately $400,000 more than what we’re currently spending prior to Alabama v. Shelton so we’re actually avoiding an additional cost of approximately $600,000. Mr. Bridges: So the half a million is really just for this year alone, 2002 alone then that we were discussing earlier apparently. And I think that’s right. I think so. Okay, so we’re really not doing it for the same amount of money. It still is costing us an extra half a million. It’s just that it could have cost us an additional half a million. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I’m sorry, yes, sir. Mr. Kolb: Cost avoidance. Mr. Bridges: All right. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to be clear. Are we talking about these new attorneys that are going to be working in our legal department? Mr. Russell: No, sir, they’ll be working for the Tripartite Committee, in Indigent Defense, not in our legal department. Mr. Boyles: That’s all, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: [inaudible] and I think I’ve heard this before but for the record, aren’t we connected with two other counties? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: Do they have participation in this? 71 Mr. Russell: That’s one of the funding mechanisms that we are discussing at this particular point in time. We’re connected with Columbia and Burke County. One of the recommendations that’s in front of the Tripartite Committee is an adjustment of their costs that were involved. Currently it’s approximately 80% based on – help me, Jim, several years ago it was determined that approximately 80% of our – Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Russell: so there might be some costs savings there but I would be afraid to project that at this point. What happens is we pay the money up front and then bill them back. Mr. Beard: So we don’t know whether – Mr. Russell: That’s only the administration. They pay their own direct costs for the lawyers that they hire for specific cases in those particular jurisdictions. Mr. Beard: Okay. Now just let me get this in my mind what we doing here with this [inaudible] Alabama v. Shelton case. We are hiring whoever, the Tripartite is hiring a group of attorneys, and we will not be using these lawyers who they have hired out in the past. This would, this would be under the jurisdiction of this committee, right, and they will handle all of this, staff, hiring staff and that kind of thing? Mr. Russell: [inaudible] please jump in. What we’ve got are two separate situations here. The private Bar in Superior Court will be handled exactly as it is now, by hiring out lawyers as they are. That’s a whole other column over here. The additional work load created by Alabama v. Shelton, which the majority of which is in State Court, not Probate but State Court and Magistrate Court and those other courts, would be handled by the staff attorneys hired by Indigent Defense or hired by the Tripartite Committee to work for the Indigent Defense office. So it’s still a mixed system. What we’re doing now is hiring – Mr. Beard: Answer this now. With these in Superior Court and so forth, is that under this umbrella as far as finance is concerned or is that another [inaudible]? Mr. Russell: It’s all one umbrella, with two different people walking under it, holding it. Mr. Beard: [inaudible] talking about. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This may just be an administrative housekeeping item, but we, just to keep this from falling through the cracks, we need to 72 add the request for legislation to change or to create a surcharge for Indigent Defense to our Legislative Delegation Committee as a line item for a talking point at our next meeting, and maybe get our Attorney to formulate a strong amendment to go out to the Delegation where we can go ahead and forward this to Atlanta, if we can get some cost avoidance there, too. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as we’ve said in the committee meetings prior, this is an issue that everybody across the state of Georgia is facing. The state of Georgia is facing it so it’s something that is on a lot of people’s minds. I agree fully with you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: In response to Commissioner Cheek’s suggestion, I understand that’s part of Commissioner Shepard’s proposal as far as revenue is concerned. I would remind the Commission, I think y’all are aware of this, that the GMA and ACCG has been studying this, and there is a committee and I anticipate that they will be making a recommendation to the General Assembly about how to deal with it. Mr. Beard: GMA will be. Mr. Wall: Yeah. Mr. Cheek: It’s always been my experience that the more soldiers you have dedicated to your cause, the more likely of winning. So. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: And to clarify what Mr. Cheek was concerned about, I believe we are – and I did not put it as an additional revenue source for the alternative under Indigent Defense funding, but a cost sharing of the overhead with the other member counties of the Tripartite Committee would be appropriate, and that’s something we should anticipate when we fine tune that program. And so I would – that’s something we don’t want to forget. And I think we’ve had this on the, on our own Legislative agenda. I’ve tried to place it there for several years. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I have to with respect to leadership [inaudible] as well as the [inaudible] Commission. I know Fred, Mr. Russell put in a lot of time into this proposal. Let me ask this from a, from a non-legal perspective. Since we got to vote on this, as policy makers. Where we’re going with this tonight is, is there a, is there a vast differing opinion in the legal community per se that [inaudible] a lot of these cases and how they [inaudible] proposal that’s on the floor that you’ve got tonight, and I guess what I’m asking [inaudible] when we pass this, are we going to hear this one again from the standpoint of having a good argument on the other side that we need to do something different from where we are going? And I’m asking that simply from a lay side, as a 73 non-legal person in terms of where that’s going, Jim, because I just, I just, you know, when this started off, and obviously money is one thing but then you’ve got to abide by court decisions, but at the same time sometimes if you, if you, if you don’t abide [inaudible] with the program you put in, you dig yourself into where, you know, last time it was, you know, Alabama v. Shelton, it could be, you know, Richmond Augusta and somebody else for what we, for what we didn’t do. And that’s what I want to know here tonight, you know. And I’m having to depend on y’all to tell me this, but I’ve gotten some calls in reference to this one, in reference, and I want to make sure that, that we, that there is not some great divide out here that we need to hear some side from, and I still want to respect what, what our side has done, and done first. But just, you know, kind of, if you might be able, they, they, hit me on that, quickly, kind of where it sits. I’m, I’m not really up to speed on that one, where it’s going. Mr. Wall: Commissioner Mays, from my understanding, first of all I’d point out that the number of lawyers that are handling Indigent Defense cases has dropped [inaudible]. There are only approximately 25 attorneys within the circuit that are now handling Indigent Defense cases. There was the idea that a part of the budget as originally presented and I think it was communicated to some of the attorneys that speaking in terms of a retainer agreement. The number thrown out was $15,000 a year. And yes, I think that there were some attorneys who were interested in such a proposal. However, in looking at it and discussions that we’ve had, we do not feel that the court, State Court can be furnished adequate counsel with that type of arrangement, and I don’t think that there would be sufficient attorneys that would enter into that type of agreement that would handle it. I do think that there were some attorneys who were interested in that proposal. But looking at that proposal, it was pretty much the consensus of the group that met that we did not believe that system would work. So may you hear from some of those attorneys? Quite possibly. And I see Jean over there, she may be one of them, I don’t know. And so I don’t know. But we do not feel that that would adequately cover the State Court system. We feel like if we do that, you are still going to have to supplement it through other services, and that supplementation we feel would be more costly, more costly than what has been proposed in this proposal. Mr. Mays: Let, let, let me say this, and I [inaudible], I’m depending on y’all [inaudible] and let me say this for the record. Jean and I have not discussed the at all. But the, the thing I just wanted to make sure was that not so much somebody that may differ from it for one reason or another. I think what I’m most concerned, while we’re being budget conscious in this, that we – I guess is there a safety net formula per se that say for instance you’re trying something new and to a point where you are working it that if that’s not working out then – and I guess we’d have to return and look, and I can support where you are tonight on it, but I just wanted to make sure we were doing it. The other comment that I wanted to make is that while I have no problem with us being able to generate the revenue, I, I agree with the city Attorney in terms of the revenue that we’ve proposed to generate. This is why during the course of the budget session I brought up the fact that when this came out, particularly when you’re talking about increasing jail costs and having to build two more pods, we could, we could go on and build pods like we, like we proposing to build parks. But we got to address the question 74 at some point, does the, does the punishment fit the budget? And we put something in the parking lot during the budget session that I hope we’ll take out, we’ll deal with. Because overall judicial reform has got to be talked about in Richmond County at some point. Because you can, you can say okay, I’m going, I’m going to ask for an increase or even if the State does it, even if our two associations do it, if the folk who are there for non-violent crimes are sitting on us, getting three squares, enjoying the facilities, dealing with the overcrowding, putting us in the thing of getting back in the court order, if they are not paid [inaudible] have not paid, I agree, Steve, in terms of the increase, I think we ought to tack it on, but I think we ought to go a little bit further. I think we need to have some type of creativity to a point we ought to have room for heinous criminals, violent offenders, [inaudible], but on the other side of that coin [inaudible] to a point [inaudible] because maybe the [inaudible] violation and they can’t meet the fine. Well, if they’ve got a little old job and [inaudible] go to it, I’d much rather have some deal where we’ve got somebody out working, making restitution, mandatory the way it goes and gets paid back into the government, paid for that [inaudible], pay the government, and at the same time be able to, if they are not there where they are gainfully employed, if they can’t do that [inaudible], then work for Augusta Richmond County under whatever court it’s under, State, Superior Court. They can come to work. I’m sure we talk about Public Works and cleaning the city tonight. You can get a [inaudible] workforce to a point of folk who make a regular residence out of either 401 or Phinizy Road and until we sit and talk about that, other than the fact of saying we are going to [inaudible], we are going to build more motels for them, we are going to hire more deputies, the Sheriff is going to come in, tell you he’s got to have [inaudible] and justifiably so, and the court is not going to let you keep folk unsupervised. And the same folk got to be represented [inaudible]. Then when you let the out to finally [inaudible] because the judge doesn’t set bond, then they don’t have any money to pay it, you’ve got a round robin situation of these folk who are back there and have to be defended the second time under Indigent Care [sic]. And that at some point has to be reasonably addressed in total judicial reform that’s in there. And I think everybody needs to sit down and talk about that and people who have to do the defending, I think the judges, the District Attorney, the Commissioners, and the Sheriff in a real [inaudible] way of what we’re going to do next because we can’t keep adding on to Phinizy Road like it’s a Hilton out there. And then on this end we say we’re not going to raise taxes to deal with it. Now somebody going to keep paying [inaudible] and if I got to deal with it [inaudible] Commissioner, I feel a heck of a lot better spending my money and the money that people have put into taxes and even sales tax as far as building, do that. So that I hope that when we talk about increasing a fine, that we also talk about in a friendly way not where we going [inaudible] but I’m talking about in a good way of sitting down a realistically talking about what you’ve got right now in law enforcement and in terms of judicial reform to do it. Because if not you are going to keep doing this and you are going to keep spending money and it’s money that you do not have to deal with. When folks sit six, seven months at a time and to a point where there is an employer that you can walk in with somebody like Jean and said look, I got a job, I can put this young man on, we can make sure [inaudible] deduct his check every month and send it to whoever is going to collect it, whether it’s Probation or whatever, then to a point if it’s non-violent, if it’s there on civil, [inaudible] money then find someway then, those are the folk you need to unload your situation with where you don’t have folk walking 75 around as second time killers, two and three times [inaudible] and domestic violence folk that you have no place to put. And that’s just what I wanted to comment on, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for what we’ve got on the floor, but I think as long as we know of that core problem and continue to say we can throw money at – and if everyone throwing good money at bad money, that’s one here that you are going to continuously do, and at some point we got to talk about how to reform the whole system. What’s going on somewhere else in the world is not going to make a hill of beans to folk in Richmond County. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I’ve been charged by the Administrator to put that [inaudible], I’ve been charged with putting together that meeting sometime in the near future, hopefully before the holidays and the Commission, the judges and the relevant people can sit down and have that kind of frank discussion, so hopefully that’s on the table and will be done sometime before the holidays, the Christmas holidays. Mr. Mays: Thank you. I’m glad to hear that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve the presentation from the Deputy Administrator. All in favor, please vote yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Russell. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in view of the time of day and the fact that we all need some more time to deal with the budget and tweak it and comment and make some changes, I’d move that we recess this meeting until Monday at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? Mr. Speaker: I will not be here Monday. Mr. Mayor: You will not be here Monday? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Atlanta. Mr. Mayor: You may be in Atlanta? You’ve got to be in Atlanta? Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m amenable to another time that’s convenient. 76 Mr. Mayor: Tuesday? Do you want to recess until Tuesday? Everybody available Tuesday? Mr. Cheek: Wait till Thursday. Mr. Mayor: Thursday? Mr. Kolb: If you can do it later than 10 o’clock, we’d appreciate that. We’ve got a 10 o’clock meeting on Tuesday, if they didn’t want to do Monday. Mr. Mayor: Want to do it Tuesday afternoon? Mr. Cheek: Tuesday afternoon would be great. Some of us aren’t fortunate enough to be retired and do have to work fulltime jobs. Mr. Shepard: I’ll amend the motion to 3 o’clock. Mr. Mayor: 3 o’clock Tuesday? Does that work. All right, if there is no objection, we’ll stand in recess until 3 o’clock Tuesday when we will take up the two items that were tabled, plus the remaining items on the legal agenda. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: If I could just make an announcement. I’m not sure, I asked Lena whether or not y’all were aware. Columbia County Courthouse dedication is tomorrow at 2 o’clock and I know that doesn’t interest you. However, Justice Kennedy from the Supreme Court is going to be at that ceremony, and the Bar Association in fact is having a dinner tonight in honor of him, in recognition of him, but he will be at that, and I have heard him speak before and it’s a rare treat and I would encourage those – it’s 2 o’clock tomorrow at the Columbia County Courthouse. Mr. Williams: What about dinner tonight? (Laughter) Mr. Wall: You’ll have to check with your law partner. I don’t know whether an honorary law degree will get you in. Mr. Williams: Steve, how about it? Mr. Shepard: I’ll vouch for you. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: If I may let me make one other announcement. You should have already gotten it or you’ll get in tomorrow for sure a letter inviting you to a breakfast at the Beulah Grove Resource Center Monday morning at 8 o’clock. Deputy Secretary Alfonso Jackson from HUD will be here to present us with a half a million dollar check 77 for the redevelopment work on our affordable housing program. Invite everybody there for that. Mr. Kolb: Since we’re making announcements, I wanted to remind you that Friday at 4:30 there will be a press presentation or presentation of the consultants’ report regarding the downtown and the new coliseum. Should say the sports arena entertainment center. Mr. Mayor: We’re in recess until Tuesday at 3. [MEETING RECESSED] 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 November 19, 2002. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 78