Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS December 3, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, December 3, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Boyles, Kuhlke, Shepard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Hankerson, Mays, Colclough and Beard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was given by Rev. Willie Rivers. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk: Rev. Rivers, the Augusta Commission would like to thank you and [inaudible] and in honor of that [inaudible]. (A round of applause was given.) Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda? The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. ADDENDUM AGENDA: DELETION FROM THE AGENDA: Item 45. [Appeal hearing for Mr. Steven Fishman, 2231 McDowell Street, regarding the HPC denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the purpose of roof and window replacements affecting property located at 2231 McDowell Street.] (To be rescheduled for the December 17 Commission meeting) ADDITION TO THE AGENDA: 1. Motion to award inmate medical services contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. in the amount of $3,272,904.00. Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Colclough has asked that we postpone until the next meeting item number 42. He wanted to address that and he is not here today. Is there any objection to adding item 1 on the addendum agenda and deleting items 42 and 45? Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Second. 1 Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard, so so ordered, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people here with respect to item number 46, so we’ll go ahead and take that item up first. The Clerk: For the record, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners Hankerson, Colclough and Beard are attending National League of Cities Conference today, and Commissioner Mays is en route to the meeting. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Clerk: 46. Appeal hearing for Mr. John Ribock regarding the HPC denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the purpose of demolishing property located at 2625 Helen Street. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ribock is here. You’re represented by counsel today; is that correct? Mr. Ribock: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And Mr. Pittman, you’re here on behalf of the HPC. Are there other people who have an interest in this? I understand there were a bunch of neighbors. I assume y’all are here in opposition to the demolition? Is that – all right, if you’d raise your hands so we can get a hand count for the record, please. Mr. Wall, are you getting a count for us here? (15 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. You can put your hands down. Mr. Pittman, if you’d like to give us background and the reason for y’all’s decision on this, and then we’ll hear from Mr. [inaudible]. Mr. Pittman: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, in our October meeting the Historic Preservation Commission heard the request from Mr. John Ribock to be allowed to demolish his house on Helen Street. Such a request runs contrary to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and to the historic Summerville design guidelines. If one cannot prove that the house is in such a state of disrepair to warrant complete and total demolish. Hence, after hearing the case, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously decided to deny this appeal based on the grounds that I’ve mentioned. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go head. 2 Mr. Markwalter: I’m here, involved in this case, on behalf of Mr. Ribock, who contacted me last week. There are a number of things that need to be pointed out to the Commission in this consideration of whether or not to overturn this denial by the Historic Preservation Commission. First of all, there are a number of people, while they are present here today in opposition, a number of people in that very same neighborhood who have signed off on a petition requesting that or stating rather that they have no opposition to the demolish of the structure at 2625 Helen Street in Augusta, Georgia. That structure – Mr. Mayor: Do you want to submit the petition to the Clerk, if you would? Mr. Markwalter: Yes, sir. To give you a point of reference, it is a house on the block of Helen Street that sits between Glenn Avenue and Monte Sano Avenue. If you come off of Monte Sano just past the condos at the corner of Monte Sano and Helen, it is the first house on the right, not very well visible from the, from the street, but it’s the first house on the right. One-story house, two bedrooms, one bath, approximately 1,000 square feet. I have a picture here I’d like to submit, both the front and rear of the house. At the time that the request for demolition was made, it’s also important for you to know that it wasn’t just a naked request for demolition. Now if you have not been provided with that information, we’ll fully explain what did happen at the initial October meeting of the Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Ribock has plans to replace that structure which you see in the Polaroid photographs with a nice, new home of approximately 3,300-3,400 square feet. The artist’s rendering of that particular home that he would like to build there has not yet been completed. I spoke with his architect yesterday, Joe Gambill, a local architect here, but we do have – I’d like for you – it’s kind of hard to pass along, but if I could just set it right here [inaudible], the current version of what we have for the [inaudible]. [inaudible] closer look and let everyone [inaudible]. This is the proposed home that would go in place of that structure there that’s pictured. It doesn’t list the plans for the second floor of the building, but it would substantially mirror that of the first floor, with the exception that there would be primarily sleeping quarters on the second floor. Mr. Mayor: Let me interrupt you and just ask a procedural question. Is there a provision for architectural review of new construction in that district? Do you know the answer to that? Mr. Wall, do you know that? Mr. Wall: Well, any improvement has got to have a certificate of appropriateness which has got to go through the HPC and so compatibility with the neighborhood and compatibility with the guidelines [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: So there is an architectural review process? Mr. Wall: I would – yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. 3 Mr. Wall: [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Markwalter: I show you those plans [inaudible], it’s not just tearing down for the sake of tearing down. There is in connection with the request to tear down that house, that structure, the existing property on Helen Street a plan for a replacement that if you look at the sketch, the drawing of that particular house, if you’re familiar with the area of Glenn Avenue, it is absolutely consistent with the existing homes and the structures that are there in that particular area, in that particular area of Summerville, that area that’s been designated a historic district. It’s not just destruction for the purpose of destruction. And Mr. Ribock is willing to work with anybody he has to in regards to coming up with a suitable plan for a replacement structure there if there is a decision granted in his favor to overturn the request for the permit for demolition of the home there. In addition to that, he would also ask you to consider possibly that you remand it back to the Historic Preservation Commission for further discussion and review to see if there is something that can be worked out now that he does have counsel, now that he does have someone who can involved themselves in the dialog and discussion with any representative of the Historic Preservation Commission to see if there some sort of compromise that might be worked out. My entry into this matter is late as of last Thursday or Friday. I should say Friday, because Thursday was Thanksgiving, at Mr. Ribock’s behalf, and then only able to begin the basic research on the issue just yesterday and today. And I’ve not yet had the opportunity to engage in any dialog with any of the people representing the Historic Preservation Commission or, for that matter, the Summerville Neighborhood Association. I’d like that opportunity if there is a chance that could be done or something that could be worked out. I mean, I know that there is stated opposition now to oppose the demolition of the house, but I don’t know that there has been a full and extensive dialog about the potential alternatives on that issue. In addition to that, if there are, if it’s not remanded back to that level for further review and consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, there are procedural defects that my client contends exist with the existing ordinance as amended in 1999 with the designation of the Summerville neighborhood area as a historic district. The Official Code of Georgia 44-10-26(a)3 requires that any kind of ordinance enacted by a county designating an area as historic district must set forth the name within that particular ordinance of the property within the affected area. In the ordinance that’s enacted currently, there is no designation of the names of the property owners in the affected areas, there is a mere referencing of a list of those names in the tax records here. And actually, actually the historic preservation ordinance from Augusta, which is 7-4-15, also requires similarly, to listing of the names in the ordinance and designating an area of the historic preservation district. It doesn’t specifically call for or allow any sort of referencing of the list of names as a way of avoiding having to list the names in the ordinance itself. And that’s one particular problem that we contend there is with the ordinance as it stands. With regards to a hearing, it also requires it to be held with regards to designating an area of a historic district pursuant to 24-10-26(b) of the Official Code of Georgia. I don’t know at this point in time that that particular requirement was met or adhered to with regards with the 1999 adoption of the 1994 4 designation of the historic preservation district. In any regards, there was a 1993 hearing with regards to this where the proposed boundaries for the historic district changed between the initial hearing in December of 1993 and the adoption of the ordinance in December of 1994. There is no hearing notice at this particular time that I can find or [inaudible] with regards to the 1999 adoption of the 1994 notice as required by O.C.G.A.44-10-26(b)2. That notice, according to O.C.G.A. 44-10-26(b)2 requires that it be published at least three times. The Augusta historic preservation ordinance, 7-4-15(c), is in conflict with the state of Georgia law that it only calls for or requires that that notice be published one time. There is a conflict with state law. There is no record that I know of at this time that there was a mailing of notice to all the owners within the affected district for the 1999 adoption of the ’94 ordinance, that all the owners in the affected district were mailed notice. And that would be another procedural defect with regards to the 1999 adoption of the ’94 notice. I don’t know of any [inaudible] 44-10-26(b) would call for an investigation and report of historical, cultural and architectural aesthetic significance to be submitted to the Historic Presentation Division of the Department of Natural Resources. To my knowledge, it was not done with respect to the December, 1994 designation of the Summerville Neighborhood as a historic district, nor was it done with regards to the October, 1999 adoption of that December ’94 ordinance. There are also a number of other procedural, another, I guess, procedural protection issues that we would submit would be present in this particular issue, and that is that there is that there are a number of other houses in the Summerville neighborhood that have been submitted for demolition and new construction, that is 833 Fleming Avenue, there was a house that was torn down there and replace with new construction. Here is a picture of the new house that was built there. 833 Fleming Avenue. Mr. Mayor: What year was that done? Mr. Markwalter: It was in the last 18 months, to the best of my knowledge. Again, like I said, I was recently in to this matter and I haven’t had time to fully research all of the issues as to the time frame, but I know it was in the last 18 months, to the best of my knowledge. There was also another home at 835 Fleming Avenue, where now sits a vacant lot where a structure was torn down. There was a, I won’t call it a demolition, a removal, if you will, of a home on the block of Helen Street, in between Arsenal Avenue and Monte Sano Avenue, and that was home was moved and placed at the corner of Raymond and Highland Avenue, rather than being demolished. And it still sits today in a state of, I guess, mid-renovation, if you will. It’s probably something that moist of you are familiar with, at the corner of Raymond and Highland, and here is a picture of that one moved from Helen Street between Arsenal Avenue and Monte Sano Avenue. And again, on Kings Way, there was a home at 2344 Kings Way that was demolished and in its place a new home was constructed as well. So. There is also a home recently that was destroyed, demolished and replaced with another home. I don’t have a picture of it. It’s still under construction right now. It’s at the corner of Milledge and Walton Way. The address is 912 Milledge Road, and according to the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission on the internet, on January 24, 2002, they considered a request for a certificate of appropriateness of approval of the demolition of the house that was there at 912 Milledge Road. It was granted, and the minutes on the internet note that the future 5 building plans or construction plans were to be considered at a later date and time. The Historic Preservation Ordinance, Section 7-4-20 says that when considering the demolition plans, they are to consider post-demolition plans at the time of deciding whether or not to grant the certificate of appropriateness for demolition. That was apparently not done, at least inasmuch as according to the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission. They approved the plan for demolition without having at that time plans for the construction that are now currently undergoing there at the corner of Walton Way and Milledge Road. Mr. Pittman: That is not factually correct. Mr. Markwalter: Well, I didn’t know he was going to interrupt me, but it’s according to their own internet web site. They have a notation there that it was approved without the – Mr. Mayor: Well, the information on the web site would be the best source, and each person can look at it and judge for himself what it says. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t mean to interrupt, [inaudible] I’d like to make a motion that remand this back to the HPC and see if there is something that can be worked out. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion then please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: If we may, let’s move on the consent agenda, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir. The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 41. Items 1 through 41. Mr. Shepard: I move approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: May we add to that from the regular agenda, can we add to that items 44, 44A? The Clerk: 44? Mr. Mayor: And 44A, can we add that to the consent agenda? 6 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, on these two items, if I could, the Finance Committee usually considers them, and our policy has been not to buy tables but to buy tickets for Commissioners who are interested in going and do it on an individual basis. Mr. Mayor: I’ll withdraw that request. Mr. Shepard: I mean if we could just put that with your request and pass it in that fashion, I think we could handle it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Also, item number 47, you’ve already approved in your budget, unless you – The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Kolb: 47. Mr. Mayor: 47. Mr. Shepard: I’d amend the motion to pass the consent agenda with 44 and 44A and 47. 44 and 44A being considered under the standing Finance Committee policy of buying individual tickets. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and second for the consent agenda. Do you have something you need to read out, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: If you want to go ahead and do that. The Clerk: Under our Public Service portion of the agenda for the alcohol petitions, if there are any objectors to any of the petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? PUBLIC SERVICES: 3. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Laney Supermarket located at 843 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 4. Motion to approve a request by Sin W. Kang for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with One Stop Convenience Store located at 7 2382 Barton Chapel Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 5. Motion to approve a request by Kyong Gleason for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Yeung’s Grocery located at 1478 Wrightsboro Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 6. Motion to approve a request by Sybil S. Devore for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shannon’s Restaurant located at 300 Sharton Drive. There will be a dance hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 7. Motion to approve a request by Alex Rhoads for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Coconuts located at 469 Highland Avenue. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 8. Motion to approve a request by Augusta Richmond County’s License & Inspections Department to renew the Alcohol Beverage Licenses of all current license holders in Augusta Richmond County including the Adult Entertainment Establishments and Arcades. There will be dance halls. There will be Sunday sales. Districts 1 through 8. Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 9. Motion to approve a request by Kwok K. Lai for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with China Garden Restaurant located at 1535 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9 (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 10. Motion to approve a request by Mark Zagar for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stevens Creek Wine & Spirits located at 1061 Stevens Creek Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Okay, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Were we due a report back on item number 8 concerning business establishments that may owe property taxes? Are we going to get that back at this time? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Okay, so we’re going to pass this and then take further action if someone is delinquent? The Clerk: Yes, sir, that’s the [inaudible] committee. 8 Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: In other words, we’d approve it today, but if somebody was found delinquent then we would reconsider that at the next meeting? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Sherman said by that time he could have gathered that information. Mr. Mayor: Would he have it at the next committee meeting – The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Or the next Commission meeting? The Clerk: Committee meeting. Mr. Mayor: Committee meeting? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Walker: Mr. Williamson is working on that list right now. We gave it to him last week and he’s working on it now. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: Would it be of harm or of detriment to the community if we held this approval up pending that report back? Mr. Walker: We will not sell a license to anybody – we start, we bill them, after today, once they’re approved, anybody’s that past due we will not sell them a license until they are up-to-date, or we bring them back to you. We will not sell them one until y’all know about it. Mr. Cheek: Okay. That was the concern, I think, brought up in committee was that the people, current license holders that had applied for new licenses would just be denied that if they owed us property taxes. Mr. Walker: That’s correct. And they will be. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Do you want to word it so you approve the renewal subject to the payment of the property taxes? 9 Mr. Cheek: Subject to, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Would anybody like to pull any items? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Bridges: Pull 15A, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: 15A? All right, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get items 27 and 29, some clarity on it, please. Mr. Mayor: All right, 27 and 29 for Mr. Williams. Any others? PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Motion to approve a request by Jude Willemse for therapeutic massage license to be used in connection with Jude Willemse Massage located at 601 Wheeler Executive Center. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 2. Motion to approve a request by Ashley Landrum for therapeutic massage license to be used in connection with Stress Management Center located at 1203-A George C. Wilson Drive. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 3. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Laney Supermarket located at 843 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 4. Motion to approve a request by Sin W. Kang for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with One Stop Convenience Store located at 2382 Barton Chapel Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 5. Motion to approve a request by Kyong Gleason for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Yeung’s Grocery located at 1478 Wrightsboro Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 6. Motion to approve a request by Sybil S. Devore for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shannon’s Restaurant located at 300 Sharton Drive. There will be a dance hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 7. Motion to approve a request by Alex Rhoads for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Coconuts located at 469 Highland Avenue. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 10 8. Motion to approve a request by Augusta Richmond County’s License & Inspections Department to renew the Alcohol Beverage Licenses of all current license holders in Augusta Richmond County including the Adult Entertainment Establishments and Arcades. There will be dance halls. There will be Sunday sales. Districts 1 through 8. Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 9. Motion to approve a request by Kwok K. Lai for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with China Garden Restaurant located at 1535 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9 (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002 10. Motion to approve a request by Mark Zagar for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stevens Creek Wine & Spirits located at 1061 Stevens Creek Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002) 11. Motion to approve in resolution form support of the Georgia Transit Association’s FY 2003 Legislative Agenda. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 3, 2002) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 12. Motion to approve reclassification in the Utilities Department of a 2000 Bond Program funded Civil Engineer I (PG 52) position to a Code Enforcement Officer II/Inspector (PG 43) position. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 25, 2002) 13. Motion to approve retirement of Warren Washington under the 1949 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 25, 2002) 14. Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Ga. and the Pollock Company to be service provider for "Copier Management Service" for ninety-two (92) copiers producing 1,350,000 copies per month (attachment 1) and thirty-four (34) copiers that produce 800,000 copies per month (attachment 2) which were additional add- on/upgrade units over the previous contractual period. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 25, 2002) 15. Motion to approve the creation of a Budget and Administration Division with the Public Works Department and approve funding. The approval of this division will create an Assistant Director of Budget and Administration, Administrative Assistant I and Accounting Technician I. This reorganization will also involve the reclassification of an existing Accountant III position to an Accountant I in the SPLOST program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 25, 2002) 15A. Deleted from the consent agenda. PUBLIC SAFETY: 16. Motion to approve Purchase of Services Subcontract between ARC (Juvenile Court) and Community Mental Health Center of East Central Georgia for juvenile offenders. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 25, 2002) 11 17. Motion to approve the purchase of a walk-in freezer in the Augusta Richmond County Jail Kitchen at 401 Walton Way to augment and supplement the current existing walk-in freezer that is now being used for food storage at the facility. Funding is provided in existing funds within the Sheriff’s Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 25, 2002) 18. Motion to approve the selection of Palmetto Microfilm Systems, Inc. PSMI as vendor for the Electronic Document Management System EDMS project to be funded through approved SPLOST funds, subject to final contract approval from the County Attorney (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 25, 2002) FINANCE: 19. Motion to approve the abatement of the balance of 2002 taxes in the amount of $2,564.57 on City property. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) 20. Motion to abate the 2002 property taxes in the amount of $1,824.77 for the Augusta Boxing Club headquarters. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) 21. Motion to transfer funds from various funds identified in the recommendation section to the Workers’ Compensation Fund to cover necessary expenditures for September through December 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) 22. Motion to approve continuing commercial property insurance through Chubb. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) 23. Consider abatement of tax balance in the amount of $86.72 on property purchased by City. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) 24. Motion to approve Co-Sponsorship Agreement with Georgia’s Civil War Heritage Trails, Inc. to become a local co-sponsor of GCWHT’s March to the Sea Heritage Trail. (Approved by Finance Committee November 25, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 25. Motion to approve reclassification in the Utilities Department of a 2000 Bond Program funded Civil Engineer I (PG 52) position to a Code Enforcement Officer II/Inspector (PG 43) position. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 26. Motion to approve bid for reworking the access bridge over the Augusta Canal at the Raw Water Pumping Station to the lowest responsive bidder, Scott Bridge, in the amount of $98,500.00 (Bid item number 02-182). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 27. Deleted from the consent agenda. 28. Motion to approve Change Order #2 to Hebbard Electric Company to replace the existing motor control center at Groundwater Treatment Plant #2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 29. Deleted from the consent agenda. 30. Motion to authorize Public Works to purchase benches and picnic tables from Leisure Lines, Inc. to replace the existing at Riverwalk for $117,398.80 to be 12 funded from capital account 272-04-2260. This is the lowest bid meeting specifications. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 31. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-05-201150410) in the amount of $250,000 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase IV for Phinizy Road Lightning Protection System. Also, authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract to best bidder, B & B Electrical Contractors of Augusta, in the amount of $169,565.40 to design, furnish and install a lightning protection system at the Phinizy Road Jail subject to execution of contract and receipt of proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 32. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 130158-0015-B and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 130158-0020-E revised to reflect a Letter of Map Revision dated August 27, 2002 with an effective date of December 12, 2002. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 33. Motion to approve Change Order Number One with Mabus Brothers in the amount of $27,618.40 on Laney-Walker Boulevard Reconstruction Project to be funded from Project Contingencies. Also approve Capital Project Budget (326-04- 288811018) Change Number Four to reflect internal project account transfers. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 34. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two with Mabus Brothers in the amount of $138,619.44 on Laney-Walker Boulevard Reconstruction Project to be funded from the Grading & Drainage Account. Also approve Capital Project Budget (326-04-288811018) Change Number Five to reflect internal project account transfers. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 35. Motion to approve the creation of a Budget and Administration Division with the Public Works Department and approve funding. The approval of this division will create an Assistant Director of Budget and Administration, Administrative Assistant I and Accounting Technician I. This reorganization will also involve the reclassification of an existing Accountant III position to an Accountant I in the SPLOST program. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) 36. Motion to approve the reclassification of the Traffic Engineer, Salary Grade 53 to Salary Grade 57, and Assistant Traffic Engineer, Salary Grade Salary 51 to Salary Grade 53. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) PLANNING: 37. 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. (Approved by Commission November 19, 2002 – second reading) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 13 38. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held November 19,2002. APPOINTMENT: 39. Motion to approve the re-appointment of Ms. Nancy Barnes to the Housing & Neighborhood Department Citizens Advisory Committee representing District One. ATTORNEY: 40. 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 Commission Public Services November 19, 2002- second reading) 41. 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 Commission November 19, 2002- second reading) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 44. Consider sponsorship of ($500.00) from the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc for sixth annual Unity Breakfast, Monday, January 20, 2003. 44A. Consider sponsorship for Corporate table of eight (8) from the American Red th Cross in the amount of $500 for their 9 Annual Boot Scoot Boogie Bash on February 1, 2003. Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended and to include items 44, 44A and 47. We pulled 15A, 27 and 29. All in favor of the motion to approve the consent agenda please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. [Items 1-15, 16-26, 28, 30-41, 44, 44A, 47] Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go then to 15A. The Clerk: 15A. Motion to approve referring to the Planning Commission the creation of an Entertainment District within the zoning ordinance wherein and permitted uses and that they provide special exemption to other regulations that may impact on an entertainment district. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 25, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I had this pulled, and I spoke against this in committee as well. I don’t think the entertaining zoning is the direction we want to go in. As I understand this motion here, it’s to send it to Planning & Zoning and 14 ask them to come up with an entertainment district and different regulations for that. Some time ago, we were discussing extending the bar hours and we received input from cities that were pro – I guess you could say pro and con to that. One of the ones that we talked to was Mr. Sam Massell from Buckhead in Atlanta, which is sort of a quasi- government in Buckhead, and one of the issues, one of the side issues that came up in regards to extending the bar hours was the entertainment zone, and he recommended highly that we do not designate a particular area as an entertainment zone because they’ve had experience with that in Buckhead. What it did, it ran out the retail business and all you were left with was bars and the kind of atmosphere that you might not – that I don’t think we would really like. So I don’t think that’s going to be something that’s desirable for the community, to have an entertainment zone. I’m also against lowering the distance requirements, too, particularly to such an extent that you’re just right next door to – you can be right next door between a church and a bar. I don’t think that’s, I don’t think it’s the direction we want to head with downtown. We’ve spent like the last six or seven years trying to get shops, small shops, boutiques, that type of thing to repopulate that area. It appears to be working. But it’s going to – downtown is going to be vibrant and alive only with a mixed or diverse economic draw. I think it’s a mistake to head it in one single direction, and I think that’s what, after business hours, I think that’s what you’re doing by coming, by designating an entertainment district or zone. So I’m opposed to the concept of that. Also what frightened me during the discussion in the committee, and I was afraid this would come up, was that not only are we talking about the downtown area, the designated area as an entertainment zone, but also to extend those same guidelines and regulations throughout the county. And once again, you’re going to have the same problems and the same issues come up in that regard throughout those areas. And I just, I don’t think, you know, anyone has – there’s no lack of areas or bars or places people can go to drink or dance of do whatever they want to in Richmond County. And I think to cause the proliferation of that in a single area is to move in the wrong direction for that area. So I realize I probably won’t have a second to my motion but I’m going to make the motion that we deny referring this to the Planning & Zoning. Mr. Mayor: All right. There is a motion from Commissioner Bridges on the floor. Is there a second to that motion? That motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Cheek, you’d like to be heard? Then Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kolb. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll be brief. This, in comparing Augusta to Buckhead, the problem Buckhead has is it has more people than it has space on the sidewalks. I wish Augusta were in that position of where we had more business than we had room for. The truth is this is exactly what cities like San Diego and Athens and other cities are doing. It allows us to tailor specific areas and adjust legislation to meet those specific needs within that particular area. This is not about selling more alcohol. The revitalization of downtown has occurred on the backs of some very hardworking entrepreneurs. We have seen as many or more restaurants develop in the downtown area as we have any kind of bars or taverns. The truth is the retail industry by and large left downtown over 20 years ago. The problem the existing retail businesses have is head count and getting people to their stores. And this is exactly the situation where we have created a hospitality resource panel. They have made the recommendations and concur 15 with this. I do have some concerns with the 25’ portion of this legislation, but it works in other areas. And the truth is for this to be an adequate pilot, a couple or three or four years would have to be in place before we would be able to determine its success or failure. That would be a time when we look at other areas in the county, specific geographic, small areas that may have the same type of need. Augusta is a big city. There are several developing town centers in different areas of the city that may have the need for specifically-tailor legislation to small, geographic area. It’s successful in many other cities without causing the cities to convert into barroom only type environments. If you walk the streets during First Friday or other weekends or days in the city of Augusta, you will find a very diverse cross section of people and income levels that are brining a lot of business to downtown, and it’s the entertainment and hospitality industries that are causing that to occur, and there is a definite positive spin-off to other retail establishments in the area due to the head count it creates and the traffic that has returned to Broad Street. Again, this can be implemented as a pilot, but it is definitely something that is successful in other cities. And there is absolutely no reason at all why it cannot be successful in Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we have the votes to do anything with this motion today, with this issue. I’d make a motion that we postpone it until the next meeting. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb, do you want to be heard? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I just need to clarify a couple of things. After I reviewed my memo and after I had a conversation with Rabbi Fischer, it came to me that I had not made very clear about the issuance of an alcohol license, and I’d just like to do that briefly at this time. It’s the intent that any property adjacent to a church or synagogue or like institution would not be granted a liquor license. Now in the event that the adjacent property is 25’ in width or less – for example, a narrow building or an alleyway, then the adjacent property to that property would not be issues a liquor license. So I don’t think it was very clear in my memo what the intent was, but I’m hoping I can clarify that now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you’ve confused me even more. Mr. Kolb: Okay. I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: I tell you what, we’ve got a motion to defer this for two weeks, so why don’t we go on and take up the motion and then we can seek clarity at the next meeting? Is there discussion on the motion to postpone it for two weeks? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. 16 Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 27, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 27. Approve a contract to purchase a 4.1 acre tract on Rae’s Creek at Berckmans Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I just wanted to get some clarification, Mr. Mayor, on the piece of property. I think the backup said it was $54,390. Something like that. What is – Jim, can you answer that? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. This is the property that is located right there at the intersection next to Ingleside Drive and Berckman Road. It’s property that the Commission had been asked to purchase for a number of years, but for Greenspace and otherwise. And we in fact made an offer at a previous time to the previous owner to purchase it for $50,000. And so this is – the ownership has changed. They are now willing to accept that offer. Mr. Williams: This come out of Greenspace? Mr. Wall: Greenspace funding. Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s what I need to know, Jim. I got no other questions, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Let me ask one question. I see on page 3 in the backup information that buyer agrees to forgive unpaid taxes [inaudible] taxes on the property? Mr. Mayor: Did you hear that, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Yeah, I was sitting here looking at the contract. Mr. Boyles: The contract, on page 3. Mr. Wall: We have not done a title search at this time. I do not know whether or not there are unpaid taxes. Let me explain. This sales contract is one that we developed 17 and used for properties and it’s a standard contract, and I’m sure when Deke Copenhaver negotiated the contract that was part of the standard contract in there. It would not surprise me if there are unpaid taxes. Mr. Mayor: And those would be deducted from the purchase price? Mr. Wall: Well, what we pay them – under the contract as worded it says that we would absorb that, we would forgive it, so it would not be deducted from the sales price. I think that’s the point Mr. Boyles is making. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, are you anxious to say something about this? Mr. Patty: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: I think what happened in in this, the buyer can’t forgive the taxes. The agreement, George, I think it is to $50,000 plus outstanding taxes on the property. And I’ll get that clarified and recommend that it be approved in that fashion. Buyer to pay unpaid taxes on the property. Mr. Mayor: Is that part of the motion? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: How much is that going to be, Jim? Mr. Wall: I don’t know. It would be $50,000 plus the unpaid taxes, whatever amount it is. Mr. Williams: I’d like to know what the taxes is before we – I mean – Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, we could table this for a moment and call the tax office and get a figure for us. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, before I vote for it, I’d like to know. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you get that information for us? Mr. Williams: Mr. Boyles had has hand up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? 18 Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to suggest maybe we could put a limit on it, like $2,500 or something like that, so the tax – Mr. Williams: But if the taxes have not been paid for a number of years, Mr. Mayor, and then we come in and property or absorb the taxes, I mean I think that’s unfair to other taxpayers. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just make a motion to table this and we’ll find out. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any objection to tabling this? None heard, so we’ll table this item while they get that information for us and then we’ll come back to it. The next item is item number 29, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 29. Motion to approve Amendment No. 6 (Year 2003 Agreement Modification) to Agreement to OMI for a 2003 Budget cost of $5,925,263.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043310-52111110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I’ve got no problem with the, with the firm that’s doing the work out there, but when are we going to come to the table and take part of, take the responsibility of the job that we are paying somebody to do? I mean $5,925,263.00, and it’s the sixth, Amendment No. 6, I think. I’d like to know how much money have we spent on outsourcing. I got no problem with OMI. I think they do a great job. But I think if they can do that job, we ought to be able to do that job ourselves. We ought to be able to hire and get in that position. Are we going to privatize this from now on? I thought it was a position where we would get to a point where we can start to train and get our people trained to go in there to do this. How much longer? If this Amendment No. 6, when does it stop? When does it? Mr. Saxon: This was actually – the agreement with OMI is a five year agreement, with an option for a five year extension after that five year term. So we’re in – I think this is the – 2003, I believe, is the fourth, beginning of the fourth year. So we’ll have like two more years after this year on this contract. Mr. Williams: And I hear you saying that we got a five year agreement, with an option for five more years. Mr. Saxon: Right. 19 Mr. Williams: And at the rate – and Mr. Kolb, if I can, I’d like to have the, the dollar figure on what we spent on outsourcing this. I say again, it’s not about the company. It’s about trying to get the same people. I think, I think, you know, I think you ought to hire some quality people and we maybe able to do some of the same things. Y’all don’t have no robots out there running the show. We ought to be able to do the same thing with people on this side. We ought to be able to get the same type people that you’ve got, doing the same thing that you do. If you can do this for $5 million and I think y’all have done a great job. I just think we need to look at when we going to come to the table and, and, and handle this thing ourselves. Are we going to continue to do this for, after that extension, for another five? I’d like to have a dollar amount as to what we’ve spent. Mr. Kolb: On just OMI? Just OMI or – Mr. Williams: Well, I’d like to know what we spent on all the contracts that we outsource. Now right now we talking about OMI, Mr. Kolb, I’d like to see what we’re spending in there. We, we just redid another contract here a couple of meetings ago. I don’t remember now. And it was with another group. Mr. Kolb: For Fleet Services. Mr. Williams: I’m sorry? Mr. Kolb: For Fleet Services. Mr. Williams: Okay, with Fleet Services. And I said then, check with other cities. Commissioner Cheek mentioned about asking other cities some of the things with the entertainment. I checked with other cities who’s the same size and some even larger than we are doing services that we need to be doing. That we could handle ourselves. That they are making money. We are paying out money. Those businesses that are doing work are making money. They ain’t just doing it to break even. We ought to be in the position to do some of those things that we are not doing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, and then we’ll hear from Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Bridges. Mr. Kolb: If I just might say, one of the reasons that we outsource services that the government traditionally does is for two reasons. Number 1, we can save money, which we’ve demonstrated in both the OMI contract as well as the Fleet Services contract. And second of all, in many instances, because they are a larger concern and specialize in providing these type of services, they do a much better job than we can do on our own. They are able to hire qualified people and obtain the services that we normally may not be able to obtain for ourselves. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? 20 Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, and I want to ask Commissioner Bridges because I think he was chairman of Engineering Services at this time. For the first year, if I recall correctly, when we subbed this out to OMI, I think our net savings during that first year was around $2 million; am I correct on that, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: My recollection is we saved $1 million but we didn’t have to spend out additional funding for the new biologists and scientists that we are going to have to bring on board to get us out from under the EPD requirements. Mr. Kuhlke: And, and if I’m correct on this, is that bringing in of OMI did not displace very many county employees. In fact, I think the majority of the people were county employees that now work for OMI. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with the employees. Not mention them. I’m still concern about how much money we’ve spent and there have been cases when companies have come back and I don’t want to call the wrong name. I won’t name any companies. But companies have returned money to us, have showed us savings and then the next year, I mean I don’t know about nobody else but I sit here and seen that double. And I’m not speaking of OMI now. I’m, I’m, I’m talking about contracts and stuff that’s come through here. So to, to save you $100 and then charge you $500 next, next go round, I mean, that’s good business sense, I mean, for somebody who’s not paying attention to what’s going on. But I just wanted to bring that to the attention. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for this, this, this item 29, but I think we ought to have a report as to what we paid last year, what this is coming up to this year, and what we looking at, at, at in the future. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb has made the notes to get that information for us. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a comment. Just as with Fleet Management and OMI, it would be really nice at his time, when we come up for reestablishing the contracts, if we could get just a short presentation on the benefits the companies have provided to the City, their savings, the improvements in the process, and so forth. It would not only help us in a determination of our vote, but it would also be an opportunity for the public to hear about the performance of the subcontractors that work for the City and how they are doing quality work for us. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We need a motion to approve this. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Mayor: We do have one, Ms. Bonner? Okay, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second? 21 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? All in favor then of item number 29, please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 43, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 43. 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 to be assessed to the resident including Apple Homes and that it be spread on an acreage basis. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 11, 2002, deferred from the Commission’s November 19, 2002 meeting) Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve with a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor then please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Do we have the information we need on item 27, the back taxes? Is that available to us yet? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: All right, why don’t we go ahead and go into legal meeting? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Don’t we have an addendum item to do as well? Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I flipped the page over and covered it up. We sure do. Let’s go ahead and we’ll take up item 1 on the addendum agenda, Madame Clerk. 22 Addendum Item 1. Motion to award inmate medical services contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. in the amount of $3,272,904.00. Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: My only comment is when we approved the budget yesterday, I don’t think we covered enough in the budget to take care of this contract, and I think Donna Williams can confirm that. I remember Mr. Shepard’s budget had $177,000 increase for medical and I think Commissioner Beard’s had $77,000. I’m all for this, but my only comment is that where are we going to get the other $100,000? And I know Donna had presented, and working with Steve, that there was some additional income possibilities out there. I may be wrong, but I think we’re $100,000 short right now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Kuhlke is exactly right. We are $100,000 short. However, I believe that we will be able to finance it with the law enforcement budget. I’m going to meet with them and determine how we cover that cost. And it may be in terms of negotiating the contract downward. I would like to explore those possibilities and I would recommend that you go ahead and approve this contract, and if we need to we’ll come back to the Commission and ask for a budget amendment. Mr. Shepard: Is there a motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: No, there’s not a motion on the floor. Mr. Shepard: I’d make a motion – The Clerk: There is a motion. Mr. Shepard: Oh, there is? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Williams and Mr. Bridges. Mr. Shepard: Would they accept a so-called friendly amendment as suggested by the Administrator that he negotiate, renegotiate to find the money in the law enforcement budget so that we could approve the contract today but perhaps address the alleged shortfall in what we’ve appropriated for this [inaudible]? You try to find it in the budget or reduce the contract. Do you accept that amendment? 23 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I got no problem with that. But I’ve got a couple of comments, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Williams. I think the Sheriff – did the Sheriff want to be heard on this? Some of y’all are shaking your heads. I want to give you a chance to speak now before we move on with this. Ms. Gibbs: We have already put the present contractor on notice prior to going out for bid. And they did not get the lowest bid. That was PHS. But CMS got the low bid for this year. So it’s not something that we can postpone because the end of this year, we will not have a medical contract unless it is approved. As far as the $100,000 shortfall, and I understand that George says that we have $100,000, he must know something that I don’t know. Because when we through our budget workshop, the Commission already cut our food by $400,000, and now this will be another $100,000, and I don’t know where we will find it and be able to operate. Mr. Kolb: I will help you. Trust me. Trust me. Otherwise, we will be back to the Commission. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Bridges. Mr. Williams: I’ve got a problem, too, with okaying a contract or approving a contract, going back and negotiating with the low bidder. If they win the bid or won the bid, then it ought to be their contract. And if they don’t negotiate, they don’t come down, what we going do? Go back and, and do something else? Before I vote for this, if we going approve this contract and they are low bidder, I mean I’m going to be in their corner because that’s what we approved. I can’t see going back and readjusting or trying to get them to readjust. I mean they might. But if they don’t, we done awarded them a contract for this amount and legally, Jim, you have to stand and say that they are legally right. I call Steve in, but somebody going to tell you right. Say something. Mr. Wall: I’m thinking. The – what we’re asking you to do at this point is to award the bid to them. The actual contract itself has not been finalized and we in the process of working on that contract. That contract will be brought back for approval if that’s the Commission’s desire. In order to get the new medical provider in place by January 1, we need to go ahead and make the aware so that they can begin the process of hiring the people and be ready to come in. Through that process, there is always an opportunity to negotiate and see whether or not we can save $100,000 or $50,000 or whatever. But that is the bid that they made and they have presented various options. This is the option that has been selected. Perhaps there can be some cost savings there. I don’t know. But what we’re asking you to do is make the award so that they can begin 24 the process and staffing up and making arrangements to come in to take over the medical services January 1. Mr. Williams: Jim, I know how [inaudible]. I been around long enough to know that [inaudible] use different words, and words can mean one thing one way and another thing another way. This contract says motion to award the inmate medical service contract. Mr. Wall: It doesn’t say to approve the contract. It says award it. Mr. Williams: Okay. And I, I, I say again those words that you use, award or give or approve or whatever, now in my mind if I vote for this I’m giving them the contract. They won it, they had the low bid, it’s been awarded to them. Mr. Wall: They do. Mr. Williams: Okay. And so, and, and, and I can’t see – if I was the provider for the service, Jim, I wouldn’t come in after you done been awarded the contract and negotiate it. Would you? Mr. Wall: Sure. I mean if it involved less than the manpower hours or some other aspect of the medical care. There are always terms of the contract that can be negotiated. Mr. Williams: Well, we going to do this with all our contracts then? We going to go back and try to negotiate them before we award. And that’s the word. Mr. Wall: Let me – Mr. Williams: [inaudible] garbage or ambulance service, when we award a contract, I want you and the Administrator or whoever involved to go back and negotiate to get the service down, to cut it to the dry bone. Mr. Wall: Let me explain why we’ve got this item on the agenda. When the medical service contract went out for bid, it was necessary to extend the time for the bids to come in by several weeks, because of requests for information that the medical providers were requesting in order to get all of that in place. And so the bid date was extended. In that process, the award date was not extended. And so the award date is what we are trying now to give them notice that they have been awarded the contract. In the typical arrangement, the contract has been negotiated before it ever comes to the Commission so that y’all approve the contract at one time. But here, the contract gave us ththth until December 10, I believe it is, or the bid specification gave us until the 10 or 11 to negotiate the contract, but they did have an award date in there. That’s what we are trying to beat so that they can begin the process of staffing up. And I understand what you’re saying. That we submitted bid documents requesting a dollar amount and they’ve 25 responded with that. And yes, if they want to hold us to that they can. But that does not stop us from negotiating to try to see if there are some savings that we can make. Mr. Williams: Who decides the dates on the contract, Jim, that we’re talking about here now? You said that we had, that that’s our job, your job, I mean that’s on us. That’s the government, right? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: In other words, the provider don’t set the date. That’s something we do. Mr. Wall: We set the date. Mr. Williams: And, and, and I said this a hundred times. We pay folks too much money not to do their job they need to be doing to get those dates in line so we not have this kind of thing to come up on, on other cases. We, we, we sit back and wait on everybody. Everybody waiting on somebody. Mr. Wall: Well, with all due respect, I don’t think that we did that in this scenario. Mr. Williams: All right, Jim. I’m not saying you did it, but I mean that what happen, and if nobody’s at the driver’s seat the car sitting still. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Bridges: I yield to Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to enter a substitute motion that we award the inmate medical staff services contract to Correctional Medical Services subject to negotiation and in no case to exceed $3,272,904.00. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor the substitute motion then please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. This – I would suggest, too, that we try to, with these contracts, we know when expiration dates are, and it’s really unfair to push the Commission less than 30 days to approve a $3 million contract. Backup information hasn’t been marked up from the administrative side, financial information is not on here, and we need to do a better job of back timing of putting these contracts out so the 26 Commissioners can get all the information that they need to make these decisions. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Amen, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Do we have the information on item number 27 that we were looking for? Mr. Wall: We do. (Continuation of discussion regarding Item 27) 27. Motion to approve contract to purchase a 4.1 acre tract on Rae’s Creek at Berckmans Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 25, 2002) Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair will entertain a motion to pull item number 27 off the table. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Item number 27 is off the table now and is up for discussion. Mr. Wall, what’s the information you have on back taxes? Mr. Wall: The back taxes for years prior to this year’s taxes is $3,053.79. The taxes that are due for this year are $578.24. For a total of $3,632.03. And – Mr. Mayor: So do we proceed to the sale? Mr. Williams: That’s right. Mr. Wall: If that’s the desire of the Commission to approve it in that form. Mr. Mayor: We’re being asked to approved the contract, right? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: So we could send back a counter offer to the contract; correct? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: What’s the desire of the Commission? Mr. Bridges: I so move. 27 Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: If the maker of the motion would do like Commissioner Kuhlke just did and make sure that’s in there that we would not pay any more than the tax, to be deducted from that amount. Could that be put in there? Mr. Bridges: I’d be glad to put that in there, and that’s not to exceed – Mr. Wall: $50,000. Mr. Bridges: $50,000. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, Mr. Mayor. It’s my understanding that we are purchasing this property at well below market value; is that accurate? Mr. Wall: Well – Mr. Boyles: Appraised value. Mr. Wall: Appraised value. Mr. Cheek: All right. That will suffice. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Next is our legal meeting. But I have a request before we get into Legal Meeting. This goes back to item 46, the HPC item we took up and referred back to the HPC. When we have an issue like that before us, it’s helpful to have the background on it, and we really don’t get that in the HPC items that are in the backup material in our books. We’ve got a two-sentence letter asking for a hearing and then we’ve got a letter from the Clerk scheduling the hearing. It would be good, Mr. Wall – Mr. Wall, it would be good if the HPC or the Planning Commission, one, would send us background, some background information on these HPC hearings so we have a little bit better idea what the issues are before we come in here. It would certainly be a help to me and probably would be to the rest of the Commission, too. The Chair will entertain a motion to go into our legal meeting for the purpose of what, Mr. Wall? 28 Mr. Wall: 48. LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss pending and potential litigation. ?? Discuss real estate matters. ?? Discuss personnel matter. Mr. Shepard: So move, as outlined by the Attorney. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is there any objection? Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: We will recess to our legal meeting. [LEGAL MEETING] 49. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: The chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: I have been given one item that we’ve been asked to add and approve. I’m sorry this came up at the last minute. This is $2,135.40 for Christmas decorations for the Augusta Common. We don’t have any, we didn’t have any in the budget and it looks pretty naked over there right now. I’m told that if we approve this today the decorations will be in Friday and they will put them up on Monday. Mr. Boyles: Move to approve. Mr. Mayor: And we would designate that this come out of the Promotion Account. Or Commission Other. George will find the money. 29 Mr. Cheek: I’ve got a question. Mr. Boyles: Add and approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, when Commissioner Williams and I did our tour over at Highland Avenue, there were Lord knows how many thousands of dollars worth of Christmas decorations laying in the dirt. Are we going to look at any of those to see if they are usable? These are steel frames that have lights strung on them that we spent probably big money for in the past and they were just like cast aside. Mr. Speaker: Since the poles that we have over at Augusta Commons are still under warranty, we’re not putting anything electrical on them this year. What we’re looking at is some heavy vinyl Christmas bows [inaudible] poles. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any further questions? All in favor of the motion to add and approve, please vote aye. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Speaker: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Bridges: One other thing, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Bonner, could have I have the items with Sunday sales show that I oppose those items? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Then those items are not approved today. (Laughter) Mr. Bridges: Disregard my previous request. Mr. Mayor: The record will show you voted under protest. We’re adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] 30 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 December 3, 2002. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 31