The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-21-2003 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER January 21, 2003 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2003, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was presented by Rev. Randy Monk. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk: Pastor Monk, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the Augusta Commission, we would like to acknowledge your presence by [inaudible] and by honoring you as our Chaplain of the Day. Thank you. Rev. Monk: Thank you very much. (A round of applause was given.) The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, we’d like to acknowledge the following fire fighters: RECOGNITIONS: A. Sgt. Stephen Parish Engine Company #3 Firefighter Nicholas Costello, Engine Company #2 The Clerk: Is Chief Gillespie here? Mr. Gillespie: I am. I don’t know if my people are. Do we have any in the hall? I would request at this time, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that we bring this forward when we can honor these people in person for their acts of bravery and carry this forward to the next Commission meeting so we can make sure they’re in attendance. I appreciate that. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Gillespie: Thank you. 1 The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, we’d like to now acknowledge the Employee of the Month. B. Employee of the Month Perry Riley, Firefighter Augusta Fire Department The Clerk: Mr. Riley, would you please join the Mayor Pro Tem and Chief Gillespie at the podium? The Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Firefighter Perry Riley with the Fire Department as Employee of the Month for December, 2002. Mr. Riley has worked for the City of Augusta for over six years. Mr. Riley is employed as a firefighter at Engine Company No. 5. He was nominated by fellow employee Lt. Harmon Brown, who gave the following reasons for his nomination: Firefighter Perry Riley arranged a public safety basketball tournament to raise money for the Shelter and Advocacy Center. Firefighter Riley worked diligently using his personal time and managed to raise over $800 toward the charity. This is a perfect example of how Augusta employees give to the community in which they serve. Firefighter Riley has set a standard that other employees should strive to meet. The committee voted to award Firefighter Perry Riley as Employee of the Month for December, 2002, based on Lt. Brown’s recommendations. The committee realizes the importance of community service throughout the Fire Department. Firefighter Riley saw the need that this organization had for assistance, so his having a love for basketball, he came up with an idea of a basketball tournament between EMS, police and the Fire Department to raise money for this [inaudible] at Christmastime. Firefighter Riley is married to Terersha and two children, Perry, Jr., eight years old, and Pellum, five years old. Congratulations, Firefighter Riley. You are making a difference in the City of Augusta. (A round of applause was given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Firefighter Riley, we commend you with this small token and thank you for being such a good employee. The Clerk: Both of them here, Chief? RECOGNITIONS: A. Sgt. Stephen Parish Engine Company #3 The Clerk: From Chief Al Gillespie: I would to take this opportunity to commend you on your performance and professionalism you showed while rescuing and rd rendering medical care to Mr. Ballard on Saturday, November 23, at the scene of a [inaudible] fire. Your actions were an example of the concern and dedication we have for the citizens within our community. I commend you on a job well done. Keep up the good work. (A round of applause was given.) 2 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On behalf of the Mayor and Commission, [inaudible] thank you very much. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we’d now like to have Mr. Moses from the Employee Selection Committee, please come forward. C. Employee of the Year Award Mr. McCauley: Good afternoon. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Augusta Commission, the Employee of the Month program was started during the summer of 2000. This program has and will continue to raise the level of employee involvement in their jobs and serves to increase morale throughout the government. Employee recognition is a very important aspect of any organization. Therefore, as an organization we must continue to recognize and let our employees know that they and the work they do is appreciated. At this time, I’d like to introduce the members of the Employee of the Month Review Committee. This committee is composed of City of Augusta employees who review the applicants based on the departmental nomination. The committee members are – and if they would stand – Mr. Travis Doss from the Board of Elections, Mr. Jim Williamson from Public Works, Ms. Linda Hand from Recreation & Parks, Mr. Chris James from the Augusta Fire Department, Ms. Joyce Ford from Housing & Neighborhood Development, and I’m Moses McCauley from Human Resources. At this time, Mr. Travis Doss and Mr. Chris James will present the past Employee of the Month winners. They will be followed by Ms. Linda Hand, who will present the 2002 City of Augusta Employee of the year. Mr. Doss: Good afternoon. I would like to ask for the previous Employee of the Month winners, if you could please come forward to be recognized, and then after we introduce the previous Employees of the Month, then Ms. Hand will recognize the Employee of the Year. Mr. Curtis Edderly from Public Works, winner December, 2001. Mr. Walter Hurley, Facilities Maintenance, for January, 2002. Mr. Roy Jones, Recreation & Parks, February, 2002. Ms. Valerie Jenkins, Public Works, March, 2002. Mr. Gerald Wall, Utilities, April, 2002. Ms. Mary Black, Business & License Inspection, August, 2002. Robert Clemens, Public Works, September, 2002. Judy Blackstone, Risk Management, October, 2002. Angela Rice, Probate Court, November, 2002. And now we’ll have Ms. Linda Hand introduce the winner of the Employee of the Year. Ms. Hand: Hi. Y’all all do make a difference with the City of Augusta, and today we’re going to be presenting all of you with a little pin that says You Make A Difference. I want to thank y’all for participating in the program, especially the Department Heads. It’s not difficult to select one Employee of the Month, but when it comes down to Employee of the Year, you’re talking about butting some heads, we can do it. And normally, I sit there and I stand my ground and normally I’m right. This year -- (Laughter) 3 Ms. Hand: Ask Tommy Boyles if you don’t believe me. Right, Tommy? And behind him is Tom Beck going oh, yeah. It’s our pleasure to present Gerald Wall of Utilities our Employee of the Year. (A round of applause was given.) Ms. Hand: Gerald is on his way. He’s out working. Max, I want to present this to you. We will have a reception in the Mayor’s office for everyone. Mr. Hicks: Let me say this. We were trying to find him. Once we did find him, he’s involved in a sewer emergency. (Laughter) Mr. Hicks: He said he was sorry he couldn’t break loose to be here, but otherwise he’d loved to have been here. That’s where he is. Ms. Hand: Thank you. (A round of applause was given). The Clerk: PRESENTATION: D. Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission. I’m Barry White with the Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau. It’s a pleasure to come to you today and report the results of Phase I of the Exhibit and Trade Center Feasibility Study. This project is often referred to in the media and has been included in several long-range planning discussions. In order to address the questions that you might have, I wanted to share some information directly with you today. First, let me tell you what and exhibit and trade center is. This is a large building with a flat, load-bearing floor, no columns, ceiling height of about 30 feet, a power grid in the floor that can accommodate individual exhibit booths. It’s not an arena. There is no fixed seating. It’s basically just a big box. It’s used for trade shows accompanying conventions and meetings, both for car shows or large banquets. So why did the CVB commission the study? First, we identified several opportunities to host large conventions or large groups, things that wouldn’t fit in our current existing facilities. We saw a potential for true exhibit space. We also experienced challenges with date availability, rate and service standards at existing facilities, resulting in a loss of over $7 million to this community. In the spring of 2002, the Board of Directors of the CVB selected Strategic Advisory Group, SAG, to conduct a study to determine first if Augusta can support more or additional exhibit space, and secondly if so, to determine what size 4 and what location they should, it should be placed. SAG reviewed our existing facilities, assessed our competition, and calculated the demand for our City. Of our current facilities, SAG concluded that the Civic Center does not offer true exhibit space and is mostly utilized as a sports arena. Furthermore, the Civic Center, is in a poor location when used for trade shows accompanying conventions. They confirmed that the City’s conference center at the Radisson is our primary meeting facility. When they compared us to our competition in Georgia, Augusta ranks first in the number of hotel rooms within walking distance to our conference and meeting space and fourth in the total square footage of conference and ballroom space. But when they compared our exhibit hall space to our competitors in Georgia, Augusta ranked toward the bottom and often last, at least last in one category. Many of our competitors in Georgia either have new facilities, are building new facilities, expanding older facilities, or have plans for expansions. For example, the Classic Center in Athens, they just added some new space and they’re looking for a hotel to connect to their existing facility. They currently have more meeting and exhibit space than Augusta has. Columbus has more exhibit space than Augusta and is expanding their Ironworks Trade Center as we speak, nearly doubling its size. They are planning a hotel expansion in Columbus and hope to connect that to the Trade Center as well. Similar projects are underway in Macon, Gwinnett, Jekyll Island, Rome, Dalton, Perry and Columbia, South Carolina. Our study surveyed over 50 clients and meeting planners. They were given six proposed locations to choose from, including an I-20 location, several downtown sites, and even a North Augusta site. The planners indicated that their ideal meeting and exhibit space should be under one roof or at least adjacent to each other. Now of the planners surveyed, 95% of them said that they would likely bring their event to Augusta if a new exhibit and trade center was connected to or adjacent to the existing City conference center at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel. Upon complete analysis, SAG recommends the following: a new exhibit and trade center is needed and can be supported in Augusta; it should be a modest-sized facility, somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet in that exhibit space; thirdly, it should be attached to or adjacent to the City conference city at the Radisson. The next steps of this study is Phase I think, which is scheduled for completion at the end of February. It will tell us the exact size, location and cost of a new exhibit hall. It will also include utilization estimates, funding analysis, and expected return on investment. SAG has summaries of both the performing arts center study and the sports arena study and has been in contact with those groups throughout the process. Phase I think will make appropriate recommendations in regard to those studies. Tourism is big business for Augusta. On any given night in Augusta, we have 5,000 people, more than 5,00 people as guests in our hotels. Those people are spending money, they’re eating out, they’re paying taxes. And those people support 7,000 jobs in the local hospitality industry. This equates to more than $17 million in tax money to the City on an annual basis. It’s an exciting time for Augusta. We’re glad to be a part of it. We’re certain than a new exhibit and trade center, with a new exhibit and trade center, Augusta can firmly position itself as a preferred meeting destination in the Southeast, contributing significantly to the economic vitality of our City and our citizens. I appreciate your time today in advance for support of this study, and I look forward to returning to you with more information towards the end of 5 February of this year. We’ve got some handout information, just a brief summary of the presentation and a brief summary of the study for your information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. White. Appreciate the information. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I wanted to ask Mr. White a question, if I could. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure. Mr. Shepard: Barry, will the second installment give us some idea of funding recommendations? You talked about coordinating with [inaudible] -the arena plan which is being considered in a seven-to-ten year SPLOST. Will you also outline some other funding mechanisms? Mr. White: Yes, Mr. Shepard. A funding analysis will be done. Mr. Shepard: That’s coming next month? Mr. White: Yes. End of February. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes. While you’re at the mike, Mr. White, a good report and I think it brought back some things that everybody should be, should be glad to hear. Let me just ask this, and this may be coming in your, in your forthcoming report. For those of us particularly having to attend various conventions, whether it’s dealing with City business or whether it’s with our own private and professional organizations. As we’ve now moved past 25 years of age, the convenience of being in a facility or near facilities where conventions are being held with the room, space, but will you be coming back with any numbers or will anything target – while you’re looking at the – I guess what, what I’m getting to is that while you’re looking at the proximity of the exhibit hall and the further expanded 25,000 to 50,000 square foot in that area, is there a ratio if this is going to be your, your central place, and if you’re going to expand and to do that there, one of the selling points, and I know some folk get tired of me bringing this back up, but when you talk about Augusta a big selling point initially or was to be the river itself. And while we have beautiful hotel and facilities that are there now, you pointed out I think very well some things that are still needed. But in doing so, will you all be looking at, if you, if you’re getting the convention space, and let’s just say a magic wand waves and you could get it very soon, also when people are planning for a, a visit and if your river is your 6 drawing card and getting in that proximity, then is your hotel space for the future going to be able to also deal, and I’m not talking about your scattered hotel space, because I think we host the biggest week in the world with our event that we deal with with the Masters, but in terms of keeping in line that same proximity of hotel space with convention center space, is there any numbers, are any numbers being, being, being done to, to look at what that looks like on the future marketability of downtown in terms of being able to stay there? Because once you use up where you are at that one place, even if you’ve got 100,000 square feet in convention space, will you be looking at some numbers to deal then which also equals out into hotel space that is in the downtown proximity of the river? Because I mean if you can get that many, say delegates in and different people, well then you’ve got to have them spread out across the City, then I think also if we’re going to make that big move, then we ought to make that move with, with, with everything in mind. And that’s not to knock what you brought here. I think that’s very good. But I think if you are going to come back with something else or if you all are still talking, that’s something that you may, just a little suggestion, need to throw out there, and I’m saying that also for the same reason while we still, while the City still owns property that’s totally vacant down on the river between Fifth and Sixth. And I know everybody here has got – the 11 folk, the Mayor’s absent – but you probably could get 11 ideas about what ought to go on the river. But while you own property that’s prime that’s there, that’s as big as any hotel in Georgia’s convention space, if you’re talking about being downtown and being on the river, I think you ought to at least think about that, too, in your thinking before we leave, abandon that, or it goes for some other use and then you have locked yourself totally into that being your convention center place, but then you don’t have the on-front river hotel spaces to do it. And that’s just me thinking out loud. I’m, I’m pleased with what you brought back thus far, but if you are coming back with something else, I’d like to see that included in the equation and to talk about it, because right now your rooms may be outnumbering the space, but then if you build a big convention center and it dwarfs what you’re got in terms of who you can bring in, then where are you going to house those folk when you get them in? It’s not like folk want to leave 520 to come from one hotel there or somewhere else or to talk into this place. It may be a convention where everybody there is of a silver-haired nature or getting to be and want to get near the river and to do that. So it’s just a suggestion. Mr. White: I will take that suggestion. If there was a question there, I’ll probably address that. The, the study again looked at our competition in Georgia. We eliminated the downtown and metro Atlanta competition, and we eliminated the Savannah Maritime and Trade Center for study comparison. With those removed, again Augusta right now ranks first in number of hotel rooms close to our conference center. We have not at this point incorporated into the study the future needs for hotel, hotel rooms near the conference center. I think this study was based on the significant investment that the City has made in the conference center at the Radisson and then our facility at the, at the Civic Center site. So those two sites were two of the six that were studied for the space. Mr. Mays: I, I, I guess I was just thinking out loud for the future, because I know sometimes we plan and, and, and maybe, maybe I think a little bit too big sometimes. 7 But I think when you start thinking to where you eliminate before you start, then you also eliminate yourself probably from some things in the future as well. And you know, Savannah is there and what I’m looking at is not only that the Maritime Center across the river or where the new complex is built at the new hotel there, but then when you come back across the other side, and they do have an advantage on us, they control both sides of the river, whereas ours is in another state. But when I, I look at what’s downtown there in terms of having the Radisson, you know having the Hyatt, having the Marriott and then having the hotel across the river, I think if we don’t think in those terms, I simply think that we can be the best mid-size convention city anywhere. I think we can look at some other folks’ mistakes and say how do we build on it, but what I’m looking at to a point is that if we got a convention center that we basically could, could unload the Georgia Dome and fill it up with folk, but then we have nowhere to sleep folk other than in one hotel where they all want to be, then I think we need to look at that down for the future as to what we can empty and tunnel folk into. And I say, I’m on your side. I’m with you thus far where you are with it, but I think to eliminate us in that capacity, to say think small, that we think small, we’ll be small, we’ll be small forever. And, and I think that’s one of the main faults we have with this Civic Center. So many people downsized it and beat it down before it could get off the ground until it was basically obsolete when it opened. And, and, and I hate to see you with, with a great big convention center that we looking to, to try and shuttle bus and to get folk from Walton Way or to other places and this all going on downtown, to me, is a major happening and even to a point if where if on that river where we’ve got – and, and, and I shut up on this, but, but even to the point of tunneling in and having a history of Augusta tool to a point of what moves folk from Fifth and Sixth over to Seventh and Eighth of where they can travel and never leave out of there, from one hotel to another. And I won’t charge you nothing for that. It won’t cost you a quarter of a million dollars. But it’s just some points and cities that have done that, of where you never leave out from that area, and you can go from block to block, and you can go from multi hotel to multi hotel and enter into those convention complexes. And if I think if we going do that, if we going to commit for seven to ten years, to think about the future, then I think we need to think to a point of not eliminating, think about what makes folk want to come to us. Because I don’t, I don’t think that, that Cobb Galleria and those places with hotels emptying into the Cobb Centre, that they thought one minute about how competitive Atlanta was going to be. They were going to build what they were going to build and they were going to attract, they were going to compete. We can still be able to do the same thing. But I think if we piecemeal it, I think if we do it. So I’m with you on that, but I just want to hear us do more than to a point of where we have one side of it and then we guess where we are going to put the other folk. Because the flip side of it that could be negative is that if folk want to come and they’ve got the delegates they can bring and then turn around and ask you, say well how many can you house that puts us on the river and then it comes to a point where that ratio changes because then we can only sleep a smaller percentage of those people downtown. Then I think it throws you back to a negative. And I know you got to do one thing at a time, but if we going to spend it, we ought to think big about it, because you don’t always get that second chance to make that first impression, and sometimes we need to do it right the first time. So I’d like to hear more about it. I’m enthusiastic about what you brought, 8 but when you take that back just if you would, throw that in, tell them the poorest fellow in Augusta came up, [inaudible] put that on the table and continue to talk about. Mr. White: All right. Thank you. Excellent points. Thank you. Mr. Mays: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. One of the things that would be useful for me and I’m sure probably for the rest of the Commission is if we could have a rank order of potential financial impact of this center as compared to the new coliseum and the performing arts center. We may at some point in the near future be forced to pick and choose projects to choose, and certainly from an economic standpoint we’d like to look into funding the one that would have the most positive financial impact on this City. And so if you could do a comparison on that for us at your next report, we’d sure appreciate it. Mr. White: Certainly. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. White: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clark? The Clerk: You want to do the addendum agenda? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Addendum. The Clerk: Addendum agenda. The addendum agenda as printed: ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Approval Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB #323-04- 296823191) in the amount of $52,600.00 on the Glenn Hills Drive Sidewalk Project to be funded from Phase III Grading and Drainage Account. Also approve Change Order Number One with APAC-Georgia, Inc. in the amount of $52,600.00 Mr. Williams: You don’t have unanimous consent to add this, this addendum [inaudible], Madame Clerk. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman? 9 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I think it would be nice, I think maybe since we don’t have that consent, to take it to the Engineering Services. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Engineering Services. Mr. Beard: So if that’s in order, I would move that this be passed on to them. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the floor to carry this. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Boyles: Rev. Hankerson had his hand up first. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I, I would hope that we consider this. The project is on the way now and my understanding that with the extra work that is noted here that need to be done, and the cost, I mean for us to, to stall this, I think would hold the project up and stop the project. Right now as I came through there this morning, the side walk project is going on real good. But this is a change order and we’re familiar with change orders do come with many of the jobs. I think they ran into some unnecessary, some things that they didn’t expect. And if Ms. Smith is here, I’d like for her to speak to it because I was – she may have knowledge of some things that were going on there that needed to be corrected. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith: Good afternoon. If you will recall, when this project was let, it was let as sort of a design-build project. When we put together the estimate, we did an internal engineering estimate as to the quantities that will be needed and attempted to take into consideration the appropriate sizes for materials and some things like that, considering that we knew that some drainage improvements would also need to be done out in the vicinity of this project. The contractor proceeded with doing the grading work and installing some of the, starting to install the sidewalk. However, an engineer was in the process of doing the design. The thing that we discovered is that the size pipe that we had included is slightly smaller than what the hydraulic calculations called for and what this change order does, it increases the size of the pipe and changes out those items that are needed in order for us to proceed with this project as a design-build. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Williams. 10 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I thought we had a motion to take this to committee. Look like we discussing this anyway. My, my, my, my point is I’m not going to sit here and vote for an additional $52,600 that just been given to me in just a few minutes. I got no problem with the project. I’m in support of what, what’s being done out there. But I have had time to look at it. I’m not going to support this, this amount that I just, just been gave, just been given to me. If there’s a problem, it should have worked out before and carried to committee through normal channels that it should have been carried through. Why are we discussing this? I guess that’s my – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and a second on the floor to carry this back to Engineering Services Committee. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Mays: I was just going to ask for a point of clarification on it. I, Mr. Kuhlke and I were redoing the river at the time, but the point is, was this, was this to go on the regular Commission agenda? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: The motion is to send it to Engineering Services? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Okay, what, what I didn’t hear, though, was that I didn’t hear unanimous consent rejection and then on the procedure to take the vote to go to Commission. That’s the only thing I want to know. I heard a motion but I did not hear the rejection to go on an unanimous consent. The Clerk: Yes, sir, we have that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There was objection. The Clerk: Mr. Williams objected to it going on. Mr. Mays: I know he objected. In the dialog. But was there a, was a call for unanimous consent? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Bill and I built a whole lot in there. Okay, no problem then. No problem. Mr. Hankerson votes No. Motion carries 9-1. 11 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Consent agenda. Consent agenda consists of items 1 through 29. Items 1 through 29. And for the benefit of any objectors to the Planning petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand once the petition is read? PLANNING: 1. Z-03-01 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that there be no access to Wrightsboro Road; a petition by Jim Reeves, on behalf of Edwina Charles et al., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church including day care services, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1104 Wrightsboro Road and containing .85 acres. (Tax Map 59-1 Parcel 544; Tax Map 59-2 Parcels 669 – 673). DISTRICT 2 2. Z-03-02 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) all have a minimum of 1500 square feet of heated floor area; and 2) that there be no access to Bowers Road; a petition by ReMax Masters, on behalf of Lynelle P. Stewart, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3858 Old Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 7 acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 27) DISTRICT 8 3. Z-03-03 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of Frances C. Mattox, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 440 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Tobacco Road and containing 1.51 acres. (Tax Map 142 part of Parcel 3.1) DISTRICT 4 4. Z-03-05 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Charlie Davis requesting a change of zone from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 2436 Windsor Spring Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 26.1) DISTRICT 8 5. Z-03-06 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by A. Anthony Atkins, on behalf of the Harmon estate, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3515 Wrightsboro Road and containing 3.0 acres. (Tax Map 40 Parcel 61) DISTRICT 3 6. Z-03-07 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 30’ natural buffer be erected and maintained along the rear property line; a petition by Georgia Bank 12 and Trust Co. requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and B-2 (General Business) with conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3613, 3615, and 3617 Walton Way Extension. (Tax Map 23 Parcels 35, 36, & 37) DISTRICT 7 7. Z-03-09 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that all lots shall be at least 70’ wide and 9,000 square feet in area; a petition by Fred Sims Jr., Trustee, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Harper- Franklin Avenue, 701 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Jimmie Dyess Parkway and Harper-Franklin Avenue and containing 48.14 acres. (Tax Map 66 Parcel 56.3) DISTRICT 3 8. Z-03-11 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Barinowski, on behalf of Barinowski Investment Company, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of adding a second telecommunication tower at 4920 Deans Bridge Road per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4920 Deans Bridge Road and containing 6.5 acres. (Tax Map 222 Parcel 79) DISTRICT 6 9. Z-03-12 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ted Kapp, on behalf of Waffle House, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2974 River Watch Parkway and containing .55 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 22.03) DISTRICT 7 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions as read? No objectors, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Are there any items to be pulled? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: 22 for, just for [inaudible] language to that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Mays: Number 16, 17, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and item 28. I need some clarification on that, please. 13 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other items to be pulled? PLANNING: 1. Z-03-01 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that there be no access to Wrightsboro Road; a petition by Jim Reeves, on behalf of Edwina Charles et al., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church including day care services, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1104 Wrightsboro Road and containing .85 acres. (Tax Map 59-1 Parcel 544; Tax Map 59-2 Parcels 669 – 673). DISTRICT 2 2. Z-03-02 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) all have a minimum of 1500 square feet of heated floor area; and 2) that there be no access to Bowers Road; a petition by ReMax Masters, on behalf of Lynelle P. Stewart, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3858 Old Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 7 acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 27) DISTRICT 8 3. Z-03-03 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of Frances C. Mattox, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 440 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Tobacco Road and containing 1.51 acres. (Tax Map 142 part of Parcel 3.1) DISTRICT 4 4. Z-03-05 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Charlie Davis requesting a change of zone from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 2436 Windsor Spring Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 26.1) DISTRICT 8 5. Z-03-06 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by A. Anthony Atkins, on behalf of the Harmon estate, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3515 Wrightsboro Road and containing 3.0 acres. (Tax Map 40 Parcel 61) DISTRICT 3 6. Z-03-07 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 30’ natural buffer be erected and maintained along the rear property line; a petition by Georgia Bank and Trust Co. requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and B-2 (General Business) with conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3613, 3615, and 3617 Walton Way Extension. (Tax Map 23 Parcels 35, 36, & 37) DISTRICT 7 7. Z-03-09 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that all lots shall be at least 70’ 14 wide and 9,000 square feet in area; a petition by Fred Sims Jr., Trustee, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Harper- Franklin Avenue, 701 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Jimmie Dyess Parkway and Harper-Franklin Avenue and containing 48.14 acres. (Tax Map 66 Parcel 56.3) DISTRICT 3 8. Z-03-11 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Barinowski, on behalf of Barinowski Investment Company, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of adding a second telecommunication tower at 4920 Deans Bridge Road per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4920 Deans Bridge Road and containing 6.5 acres. (Tax Map 222 Parcel 79) DISTRICT 6 9. Z-03-12 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ted Kapp, on behalf of Waffle House, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2974 River Watch Parkway and containing .55 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 22.03) DISTRICT 7 PUBLIC SERVICES: 10. Motion to approve bid item #02-205 to Beams Pavement for $209,709.90 for Diamond Lakes Softball Parking Lot Construction. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 13, 2003) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 11. Approve staff recommendation to secure consultant services via RFP to create economic development and downtown revitalization including job creation and entrepreneurship through unique urban retail enterprise development. The estimated cost of study will be approximately $45,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 13, 2003) 12. Approve retirement of Mr. Walter Hunter under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 13, 2003) 13. Motion to approve $150,000 to fund a Micro Loan Program that would target low to moderate-income entrepreneurs. The funds would be used for a Loan fund: $100,000: Computer Software and Training, $25,000: Technical Assistance: $25,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 13, 2003) FINANCE: 14. Motion to approve the purchase of a full page ad in the 2003 “Family Album” issue of the Georgia County Government magazine in the amount of $500 funded from the promotional account. (Approved by Finance Committee January 13, 2003) 15. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the African American Association of Augusta, Inc. (Approved by Finance Committee January 13, 2003) 15 16. Deleted from the consent agenda. 17. Deleted from the consent agenda. 18. Motion to approve a request from the NAACP regarding the purchase of tickets for the Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Fund Banquet. (Approved by Finance Committee January 13, 2003) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 19. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 139, Parcel 327, which is owned by Kenneth Ray Scott and Olivia Laura Scott, for an easement in connection with the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Extension Project, more particularly described as 6,220.60 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 20. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 145, which is owned by Debbie A. Garner and Michael S. Grimes, for an easement on the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Extension Project, more particularly described as 3,458.12 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 21. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award engineering services contract in the amount of $97,854.72 to US Infrastructure, Inc. for the Wrightsboro Road Widening, Phase I Improvement Project to be funded from CPB# 324-04-201824333. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 22. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to approve a request from Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful, Inc. for a letter of support to make application for the 2003 Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) Grant that will fund a feasibility study for the need and placement of a Regional Material Recovery Facility for Richmond-Columbia County residents and designated Augusta as the lead City. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 23. Motion to approve bid award contract to APAC-GA, Inc. in the amount of $790,828.90 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for the Augusta Canal Multi-Use Trail Project (CPB #327-04- 296812019). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 24. Motion to approve award of Bid Item #03-048 to low bidder, Waste Management of Augusta-Aiken, at a cost of $88,596.96 a year. This is a one-year contract with an option to renew for a second year. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 25. Motion to approve payment to Mabus Bros. Construction Company in the amount of $25,016.94 for elimination of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) situation on the Laney Walker Boulevard Widening Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 26. Motion to approve the recommendations from the Public Works Personnel/Performance Sub-Committee. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) 16 ?? Consider the options of bringing in employees on a contract basis, hiring them on a full-time permanent basis or hiring a contract management firm on a contract basis regarding sales tax funded building projects. ?? Deal with Public Works professional positions separately from a countywide salary reclassification when positions outside the salary boundaries surface and that the Director at that time bring her recommendations to the Commission. 27. Motion to approve Revised State-Aid Contract Priority List. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) ATTORNEY: 28. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to approve a request to amend the Tree Ordinance with the Illustrated Guide. The additional wording added to the Ordinance provides for clarification of the existing regulations. The Illustrated Guide changes the point values to multiples of five (5) for all trees. A list of trees under power lines was also developed. (Approved by Commission on January 7, 2003 –second reading) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 29. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held Tuesday, January 7, 2003. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-15, 18-21, 23-27, 29] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, dealing with 30 and 32, I believe, we have some people here who want to speak to those. I was wondering if we could take those first before going into discussion of the items that have been pulled. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objection? Hearing none, Madame Clerk, let’s deal with items 30 and 32 on the regular agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir. PLANNING: 30. Z-03-08 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Dennis Caddell, on behalf of Jefferson Energy Corp. requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1718 Brown Road and containing 1.0 acres (Tax Map 213 Parcel 13.1) DISTRICT 8 17 Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? Mr. Bridges: I have a conflict on that one. I work for Jefferson Energy, and let the record show that I, I cannot participate in debate or anything and take no position on the matter. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. So be it. Mr. Caddell? Mr. Caddell: Yes, my name is Dennis Caddell. My address is 3021 Longfield Drive, Augusta. I provided a handout for each Commissioner. You have that before you. I’d like to go through that and discuss it briefly. Over on page 1 we’ll see an aerial map. The lot is question is highlighted on that map. The property is located on Brown Road, west of the intersection of Old Waynesboro Road. Three of the four corners at the intersection of Brown Road and Old Waynesboro are zoned B-1 now. The northeast corner is a vacant building that used to be a convenience store. The southeast corner consists of a convenience store that moved from the northeast corner. Along Brown Road, across the street from this property, is the Water Department’s existing 250,000 gallon water tower. Also indicated on this site map is future 3,000,000 gallon water tower. Adjacent to the property is an electrical shop zoned B-2. The property was rezoned from Agriculture to R-1 in the late 90’s as part of a blanket zoning. There has not been a house on this property in the last 62 years, if ever. Over on the next page, you have a site plan, proposed development. Primarily the site plan indicates how the property will be developed. The proposed use is not a thrift store. It’s a Dollar General Store. Dollar General is a discount store offering basic household items such as cleaning supplies, health and beauty aids, as well as some apparel and food. Over on page three, we have R-1 zoning is misleading. These pictures will show that the property was actually being used as a storage yard by Jefferson Energy Corp. since 1976. The property has never been a substation. The current use is not allowed in R-1, B-1, or B-2. On the next page we have some existing conditions of this site. This current use would require Light Industry zoning. What was used on B-1 is actually a down zoning from the current non-conforming use. On the next page we have some pictures of the view from this property looking back east towards the intersection of Old Waynesboro Road, which is approximately 514 feet from the centerline of the intersection. The bottom picture, we are looking west beyond this property, mostly residential. On page six, we have some views of adjoining property at the top of the page. Mr. and Ms. Brinson’s home, which is next door to this property on the west. The extreme left of that picture, you’ll notice, is a fence with some growth growing up on the fence. That is the property line of the lot we are talking about. The bottom picture is directly across the street from this site. There is a for sale sign there, but that’s not property for sale. It’s the mobile home for sale. On the next page, seven, the B-2 zoning which is east of this lot is Salter Electric. It gives you a view of that. On page, the next page, page eight, will give us a view at the rear of the property line along Mr. Salter’s property. This is the back of the existing lot. Say if you turn and look across Mr. Salter’s property towards Pine Hill Baptist Church, Pine 18 Hill Baptist Church is 1,050 feet away from this property line, back property line. On page nine we have a view of the adjoining property. Standing at that corner and just turning around, and Mr. Salter’s property at the top and Ms. Turner’s property at the bottom. On page ten, we have a view of the existing 250,000 gallon water tower. The water tower is approximately 100 feet tall. There is also a radio tower on this property that’s approximately 200 feet tall. We go over to page 11. There is an elevation, a sketch of the water tower that will replace the 250,000 gallon tower. This will be a 3,000,000 gallon water tank. It’s twelve times larger than the existing water tower. The water tower will be 113 feet tall and 118 feet in diameter. The Water Department will also have a maintenance shop at the base of this water tower. Now on page 12 will give us a sample of the appearance of the finished building. Dollar General is a neighborhood store serving the people who live in close proximity and regularly pass by it. Dollar General is not expected to generate traffic from outside the immediate community. Dollar General merchandise is not geared towards teenagers, so there should not be a problem with teenagers hanging out. Over on page 13, 14 and 15, there are letters from the adjoining property owner supporting this zoning. Mr. Salter, which abuts the property to the rear, then Mr. Zange that owns the B-2 zoning next door, and then Mr. and Ms. Brinson who owns the residential to the west of the property, all agree and are in favor of this being done. I believe this zoning will be an asset to the community by replacing industrial use with neighborhood shopping, offering convenience and competitive prices, offering employment opportunities, increasing the tax base, and providing a buffer from the B-2 zoning to residential. There is currently no buffer between existing light industry use and the residential. And I respectfully ask for your approval of this request. I thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could we now hear from the objectors? Any objectors present? (2 objectors noted) (Supporters noted) Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. My name is Jerry -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Come to the mike, please, sir. Mr. Smith: My name is Jerry Smith, and I live at 1755 Brown Road, which is right down the street from this property, and I would like to ask that this particular property is not only going to affect the property at 1718, it’s going to affect my property at 1755, because it’s going to increase the traffic up and down Brown Road, which is also in turn going to increase the litter. And as far as the teenagers hanging out, the gas station which is located on the corner, when the gas station closes about 11 o’clock or so, the teenagers do hang out. So when this facility close, teenagers will be hanging out. And, and there is some property all around us. For instance, on Tobacco Road and Peach Orchard. The old Winn-Dixie property is vacant. There is property down at Old Waynesboro and 56 that can also be utilized for this facility. This is a residential 19 neighborhood. Most of us out there, our homes exceed $100,000 and we moved out there for that purpose. And I consider this as an eyesore to our neighborhood. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is Mr. Patty in the house? Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. You’ve got a comprehensive plan that suggests that commercial – non-residential development, rather, should be limited to 500 feet from the center of an intersection in an area like that. And that principle is difficult to put into place sometimes in, you know, semi-developed areas where you’ve got mixed uses. But in this case, you’ve got an intersection that’s got commercial development around the intersection. Four quadrants of the intersection. And not much else. And I think that you need to have compelling reasons when you take actions contrary to the plan, and this one clearly is. It’s more than 500 feet from the center of the intersection. And there are, you know, there are other, other issues. There’s not question – I submit to you that the R- 1 zoning is probably not the proper zoning for this property. But B-1 use such as proposed here is, is definitely going to have an effect on surrounding residential properties that begin just, I guess that would be west of this property on both sides of the road and you’ve had some substantial development in that area that would be affected by this, and I think it would be a mistake and recommend that you deny. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you like to respond to that? Go ahead, Mr. Caddell. Mr. Caddell: At the Planning Commission meeting, two couples attended the meeting to oppose the request. One couple lived in Blythe, Georgia, ten miles away. As far as we know, the property has never had a house on it. The Planning & Zoning staff acknowledges in their report that it is not feasible to expect someone to build a house on this property. The property has been used as light industry for over 26 years. Given the above, it is logical that the property has not, does not, and may never conform to the R-1 zoning, which was applied during the blanket zoning of the 90’s. The reason for denial that Planning & Zoning give before was the reason -- recommend now that the property is greater than 500 feet from the centerline of intersection. The staff’s reason for denial for the B-1 zoning is invalid. Because in recommending the professional zoning, which in itself is a commercial zoning. With their recommendation of professional zoning, there are in essence saying that exceeding the 500 foot limit is not a reason to deny the commercial zoning. The comprehensive plan states discourage commercialization arteries of collectors where commercial development is not established. Commercial zoning should be limited to an area within 50 feet of the intersection. According to Richmond County Planning website, the comprehensive plan does not serve the purpose of regulation, but is a guideline. It does not remain unchanged, but amended as growth occurs and as old problems are solved and new ones arise. It does not contend a definite answer for every specific zoning. Given the fact that the property has been used as light industry for over 26 years, this property has already been established as commercial use. The blanket zoning of the late 90’s created the current situation. If the property had been zoned according to its use, it would have been zoned light industry. The request for B-1 zoning is actually a request to down zone the property from its light industry use for the 20 past 26 years. Also, I think we have someone in the audience that’s in favor of this, also, if you would like to hear from them. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We would. Mr. Caddell: Ms. [inaudible], would you? Ms. Turner: I have here three sheets of paper with people’s names supporting this piece of property, that they would like to see a Dollar General Store there. And it is really an eyesore now, simply because it’s not kept up. At one time, this was in my family’s possession and we did sell it to Jefferson Electric. And I have almost 40- something signatures – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could you, could you give us your name and address for the record, please, ma’am? Ms. Turner: Jeanette Turner, 4209 Old Waynesboro Road. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Ms. Turner: Hephzibah, Georgia. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Turner: And I do support this, simply because we do need a store of, of this size in our community. And I have lived on this property approximately 62 years and I can remember when Old Waynesboro Road wasn’t anything but a dirt road. And we would have give anything to have had a store like this. And I am thankful for our Food Lion moving out there to south Richmond County. And just like Mr. Mays here was talking about, we have to look to the future. It broke my heart to see business coming, because I like the peace and the quiet. But there comes a time when you have to move on, and that’s why I support this and this is why approximately 40 other people support this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give the Clerk the papers. Ms. Turner: I’m, you know, I’m not new to Old Waynesboro Road. I’ve been there for 62 years. And I understand what Mr. Smith was talking about, peace and quiet, because I live right across from Pine Hill food store. But just like Mr. Mays was saying, there comes a time when you have to look forward to the future, and that’s why I am in favor of it, because it is part of our future. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. We’ve got this other gentleman out here. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you come to the mike, sir? Mr. Padgett: My name is Kenny Padgett and I live at 1748 Brown Road, and we was one of the couples he said that live ten miles down the road. I live a quarter mile from where this project is going to be developed. The other couple live right across the street from me. The Clerk: Mr. Padgett, could you come to the mike, please. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Come to the mike, sir. The Clerk: Thank you. Mr. Padgett: They moved there about a year-and-a-half ago. We’ve been there for a little over three years. There’s a Dollar General Store, Family Dollar, whichever, basically the same thing, there’s one in Hephzibah, Windsor Spring Road and corner of Highway 88, there’s one next to Food Lion on 56. At the end of Waynesboro Road and 56. There’s one next to Bi-Lo on Peach Orchard Road. I mean you can just go on and on. We moved out there for the peace and quiet. And you know, the speed limit down through there is 40, but you can go out there anytime and I mean, you know, cars are flying up and down the road. As far as the teenagers hanging out, I think it will create more of that because they are going to move probably from the filling station up on the corner to the, you know, it’s a new facility. And they are going to hang out in the new parking lot. The trash and the litter. There’s an intersection right across the road at Markwalter Road. That’s going to create some, you know, traffic there. There is a curve right there. There’s going to be a lot of unnecessary traffic and not necessarily congestion but danger right there for that intersection right across the road from there. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there anyone else in the audience like to address the Commission? If not, Mr. Kuhlke, go ahead. Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Dennis, what are the store hours of the Dollar General? Mr. Caddell: The store hours would be from 9 in the morning until 8, Monday through Saturday. And on Sunday probably from noon to five. Mr. Kuhlke: So it closes before the store on the corner closes? Mr. Caddell: Yes, sir. 22 Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Patty, I wanted to ask you a question. If we happen to reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning, what long term negative effect will it have on the overall plan that we have in this community? Mr. Patty: Well, it will, you know, it will set a precedent for not sustaining the 500 foot radius that was set forth. I don’t it guess would have any devastating effect beyond that. It would send a message I would think that whoever lives next to this water tower, that they might have some zoning other than residential. I want to correct one thing that Mr. Caddell said, and that is – the implication was that this property had been zoned light industrial. I don’t believe that that’s correct. In the action that we took to rezone it from A to R-1 had no effect on the non-conforming use of that property. Which it may have been a light industrial use at the time Jefferson Electric was using it. They may have been exempt because they’re a utility or they may have had a legal non- conforming right going back to 1963. But when you change the zoning from A to R-1, that did not affect the non-conforming rights that they had. That’s the point I’m trying to make. If you go beyond the 500, then where do you stop? You know, I mean every house, every, wherever you [inaudible] commercial, the house next to it is going to have a negative effect. You know that’s going to potentially become a rental house or something else and there’s no way to stop it. It, it is sure important to stick to these rules where you’ve got clear, definable boundaries like you’ve got in this case. Like I’ve said before in some cases you just don’t have those boundaries. You do have them here. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, one other question. What did the staff recommend in this situation? Mr. Patty: Staff recommended denial. Mr. Shepard: And that’s the way the Planning Commission voted? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Beard: Call the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. The Clerk: We have no motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No motion. Mr. Beard: No motion on it? 23 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s no motion. Mr. Beard: I move that we accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Boyles and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges abstain. Motion carries 6-2-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please. The Clerk: Item 32. Do I need to read it in its entirety? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, ma’am, just give a brief synopsis. The Clerk: ATTORNEY: 32. MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 11 OF THE AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY CODE REGULATING CERTAIN EVENTS CONSISTING OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS TO BE HELD ON SIDEWALKS, STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAYS WITHIN AUGUSTA; PROVIDE FOR A PERMIT FOR SUCH EVENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTENTS OF SAID APPLICATION; TO PROVIDE THAT THE SHERIFF SHALL ISSUE OR DENY SAID PERMIT; TO PROVIDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SHERIFF IN ISSUING OR DENYING SAID PERMIT; PROVIDE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLYING FOR SAID PERMIT; PROVIDE FOR APPEAL; TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW; TO PROVIDE FOR THE INTENT OF SAID ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR REVOCATION OF TERMINATION OF EVENT OR PERMIT; TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF SAID ORDINANCE TO EVENTS CONSISTING OF MORE THAN 20 PERSONS TO BE HELD ON ANY OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHIN AUGUSTA, GEORGIA; TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY; TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES. The Clerk: Mr. Wall? 24 Mr. Wall: We are recommending approval of this ordinance which would amend and replace an existing ordinance that we have that deals with protests and demonstrations. Let me explain why we are bringing it forward at this time. Believe it or not, free speech encompasses a lot of different things, and as a result of the Court challenge and the adult video licensing, that is a [inaudible] restraint of free speech. And one of the criticisms that the Court found insofar as the adult video ordinance and the adult entertainment ordinance was the lack of specific time periods within the ordinance dealing with the prior regulation of free speech issues. As a result of that experience in the adult video litigation, we amended or proposed an amendment to the protest demonstration ordinance that is currently in place, to put in specific time periods by which the Sheriff must act and to set forth specific criteria upon which the Sheriff must act, and also to put in a specific provision insofar as the appeal rights of anyone who might apply for a permit and to provide for judicial review. And all of these things are designed to protect and enhance the rights of someone who wants to protest, whereas I think the general sentiment, the view has been that it is designed to limit. And that is not the case. The practical effect of this ordinance is to expand the right and to give specific criteria by which the Sheriff in this case must apply if he to deny and if there is a denial to specifically provide that the obligation is on the part of the City to institute a judicial review of that denial, rather than force the, the applicant to incur the expense of going to Court to challenge it. And so that is the rationale behind this ordinance, and we recommend, I recommend approval of the ordinance in order to set forth the criteria that I’ve mentioned. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim, my first question to you is who asked you to, to draw up this ordinance? I mean who, where, where did this come from I guess is my better way of putting this? Mr. Wall: It came from me as a result of the decision that the Court rendered in the adult video. I wanted to be pro-active insofar as addressing the situation on [inaudible] restraint of speech because I recognized from the decisions that we were reading in the adult video that a similar type challenge could be made insofar as the protests, the demonstrations, and I instituted this entirely on my own. Mr. Williams: Well, Jim, now, this adult video store has been ongoing for some time. I mean I don’t know when these brainstorm came into your head about doing this but why, why wasn’t we as elected officials notified of your thinking or what you was – I’m really surprised, cause I got calls about this, and until I got my agenda book I had no knowledge of it. And I felt really bad when people asked me about it and then I’m in the dark saying well, I had, I had not heard anything about that. With the adult bookstore and all the other stuff that we been talking about for some months, I’m really surprised at you for not bringing it to at least our attention in some either individual contact or some calling some meeting or through the Clerk. I think you should have took it not upon yourself to draw up an ordinance that you feel like is good. I think we are elected to do 25 that. I don’t think that’s, that’s, that’s in the law books. Help me out, Steve, what, what – Mr. Shepard: I’m going to speak, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Oh, okay. Right. Well. Still, I want to make a substitute motion here that we deny this -- okay, I’m sorry. I want to make a motion. We hadn’t got a substitute. That we go ahead and deny this ordinance. We got a ordinance in place. I think the Attorney overstepped his bounds in this area for stepping out there on his own, as he said, to draw this up. I don’t want him making decisions for me to put me under the gun like you have, Jim, with this, so that, that’s my motion to deny. Mr. Mays: I’ll second the motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Is the Sheriff’s Department in the, currently in the process of issuing permits? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Cheek: I’m sure that’s a traditional thing, but to me, we should have our License & Inspection or Permitting Departments handling that, and the Sheriff’s Department assigned basically to enforce the laws and not get in on the business end of it. Mr. Wall: This is an ordinance that’s been in place for a number of years. Mr. Cheek: And swimming in the river was, too, and [inaudible] appropriate for the times. I guess that’s my concern is that we try to separate out that enforcement division and have them doing enforcement and we handle the legislative part of it, as well as administering different things dealing with the general public and not have that go through the public safety side of the house. That’s my concern with it, that the same people that will be enforcing the law will be issuing the permits, and while it’s good to have him in the process, that’s not – it doesn’t assure as free an access to public assembly as I would like to see, and I think that’s maybe we need to look at factoring out at some point in time, to have our permitting agencies that already do licenses and so forth to handle the permits for events, and allow the Sheriff’s Department to enforce the laws, and try to remove as much gray area from, from any language as we can where there is strict enforcement of existing laws with little room for interpretation. So. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I usually sit here and hear that we are always having our backs against the wall about Mr. Wall or some issue or another issue, but I for one appreciate a pro-active approach to any problem. Oftentimes 26 a counsel sees something that needs to be improved when you’re working on another project. And I just, despite what’s been said here on the floor today, I appreciate that foresight or pro-activity or whatever you’re going to call it. I think it’s looking after your client’s business, and this is one public official that appreciates it. But what I’d like to understand a little bit better, Jim, is what the current state of the law of our ordinance. I notice this is an ordinance to amend this particular title and chapter, and how does this improve our position? Mr. Wall: Well, the current, current ordinance says no person shall promote by advertising or otherwise a protest or demonstration of any kind unless a permit for same has been issued by, such gathering, by the Sheriff’s Department. So the current ordinance is, I mean, basically any individual, and we have had individuals who have obtained permits in the past. We have expanded it now so that you’ve got a limitation. It would only be an assembly of five people or more that would require a permit. And then whereas the current ordinance basically lists five criteria for it to be taken into account, and one is the applicant shall provide a plan for review and comment by the Sheriff’s Department, which plan will assure the safety of the applicant’s representatives as well as the public at the locations where the protest or demonstration will take place, the applicant shall indicate in specific detail the location of the protest and demonstration, together with the hours, will provide an indemnification and hold harmless agreement in favor of the Commission and its elected officials, the Sheriff’s Department may consider the nature of the protests or demonstrations, the plan for safety of the applicant’s representatives, as well as the public, the location where the protest or demonstration is being proposed, the hours of the proposed demonstration, expected or anticipated traffic or traffic congestion at the proposed locations, prior requests of the applicant as well we prior experience with protests or demonstrations, and such other matters as may be important as may be important to assure the safety of the applicant’s representatives as well as the public. And then it further gives the Sheriff the right to terminate the protests and demonstrations should traffic, weather or other conditions develop which in the discretion of the Sheriff’s Department present a danger. And as you can see, there is no time period within which the Sheriff must act. There is no time period within which an appeal must be filed. There is no specific time period, there is no specific provision insofar as judicial review of it. So those are the types of things that we are attempting to address in the, in the modification to the, to the ordinance. Mr. Shepard: Do you think – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could follow up with a couple of questions. Do you think that the present ordinance if attacked could cost us attorneys fees for the plaintiff under the – I can’t remember the section, number 19-88 [inaudible], is that? Do we have some exposure there, Jim? Mr. Wall: Well, I would rather not answer that question. Take that question to legal session. Do I think that we would enhance our position by adopting the ordinance? The answer is yes. Mr. Shepard: Well, and you recommend doing that, is that correct? 27 Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d conclude, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, by making a substitute motion that the ordinance as drafted by the City Attorney be approved as written. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion, substitute motion and second on the floor. Mr. Mays, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard. Mr. Mays: I guess as the senior member of this Commission, I guess Mr. Wall and I have had more debates both pro and con. This will probably be one that I’ll oppose today and probably the next two weeks we’ll be together on five or six more and that’s how we live our two lives. But I try and base my arguments based on what I think is content of a particular issue, and that’s all I’ve ever done. One, I think when we change an ordinance, and let’s not be coy about this timing of this ordinance and the publicity that surrounded the proposed change prior to us getting it and voting on it as a governmental body. We’ve had a lot of comment out in some parts of the media as to why this was being done in the first place. I’ve not seen any of that reflected or deflected through the Attorney’s office by anybody else. I’ve only heard the Sheriff’s comments. And, and I can speak in these terms because I’m a strong supporter of law enforcement and always have been. But also a equally strong supporter of right of non-violent and peaceful assembly, the right of freedom of speech and expression. Memories brought back, I’ve seen one of my old marching buddies sitting out there and Moses Dunn from Local 1137, and we’ve been through a lot of different things together. But as one of those so-called long-haired students in ’69 and ’70 that actually staged, with others, the first demonstration at then what we called Harvard on the Hill, Augusta College, and when we had our first sit-in during homecoming, to come back a quarter of a century late and be Chairman of the County Commission and speak at the President’s inaugural, it shows what peaceful demonstration can do, and that it has its place in a democratic society and a place where people can have that type of free speech. To come forward now with an ordinance, whether its intentions are good or bad, I think to a point, one, of not even having the other one to compare it to and to say I guess where do you go from here at this point, whether, what, what are the real intentions that are there? If what we had on the books, be it old City, old County, and in the absence of what we didn’t change when we consolidated or what was updated, those laws still stood. I can remember the United States District Court’s ruling right here in the City of Augusta, Georgia, in reference to the Ku Klux Klan. Now if the ordinance on the books was good enough for the Klan to parade in Augusta, Georgia, and get the protection of law enforcement on a bright, sunny, Sunday afternoon, down the main street of Broad Street. While I may have 28 disagreed and may hate the activities of what they have done, they had the right to do that. What bothers me is when we start lumping ordinances where we give the control of such, the enforcement, the gathering crowd, the right of public assembly, where it gets under one room with no objection to it, then if it is a person that we may not like of some other group to come, then do we put them on the edge of town or at the county limits to say if you’ve got over five people this is where you go, this is how we limit you? I don’t think that’s quite American. And, and, and to sit here after being in this government going now into the fourth decade, having the right to be here because a lot of people had the right of freedom of assembly, the right of freedom of speech, I would be very derelict in my duty, not just as an elected official, but as a human being, to say to a point that why are we really doing this? I’ve not seen the so-called good reason or the right of the good fight. I’m going to agree with Jim probably on a hundred more things out of 101 different issues, but I think this one, I would have needed to have some real reason where this is an improvement to do what is necessary, not a reaction that brings us something into a different format and time that if we’re trying to hide a situation. I think that the laws that are prescribed on the books give our law enforcement arena the ability to provide and to carve out a means to do what is needed to be done, there is the right if necessary of both the Mayor and the law enforcement chief officer, who is the Sheriff, to carve that out and to ask for assistance, both as when, Moses, when we were in Forsythe County to deal with on the basis on both the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Georgia National Guard, which I don’t think is even needed, but I think we are on the verge of trying to make an issue, quite frankly, out of a non-issue. The timing is not what’s bothering me. It is the lack of content and the lack of its real purpose, and if there is a real purpose, if someone should so state it, I would be glad to hear it. But I don’t think it’s written in the form of this ordinance. I urge my colleagues to reject it. (A round of applause was given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to clarify one thing, and Commissioner Shepard said that, you know, we criticize for having our backs up against the wall and we have been criticized where folks have not done what they supposed to do on many, many other occasions, but on this one we going to take the lead on. And, and, and I’ve got a serious problem with that. I just hope in the near future when there is a law that’s going to be changed that’s going to affect the citizens of Augusta Richmond County, cause if we pass then, constituents who don’t agree with zoning or anything else cannot gather in this building or anywhere else. We have people, so many come in this room, that we couldn’t even hold them, we had to go down to the Judges’ Chambers. But if we pass this, not even the constituents of Augusta who do not agree or disagree with a zoning or with a issue that we have as a Commission can’t come into this room to assemble. I’m not going to sit here and close my eyes to this. This is the most crazy thing I ever heard of. And that’s all, I promised Commissioner Beard I wouldn’t be long, that’s all. 29 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: We have – the only thing I’m going to say, I’m in support of the first motion. And we have some people out in the audience would like to talk in reference to this, and I think they ought to be heard at this time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall, will you proceed and go ahead and speak? Mr. Wall: Sure. I, you know, I have been around long enough to know when you’re swimming upstream, but let me, let me tell you, just draw attention to one thing. Currently, there is no prior judicial review of the denial of the permits. So the only safeguard that someone who is denied the permit, the burden is on them then to go into Court. This ordinance changes that and that is the good thing that this ordinance does. And if, if you look on page six of the ordinance, subparagraph C, upon receipt of any appeal, the Sheriff shall notify the Attorney for Augusta, who shall promptly, no later than 20 days, seek judicial review of the proposed denial of the application in a Court of competent jurisdiction. That is the safeguard that the cases, the recent cases have said have got to built in, and that is the safeguard to be sure that a permit is not arbitrarily denied. And while I understand that perhaps the perception of this ordinance is to restrict future demonstrations or protests, the effect of this ordinance is to enhance the opportunity and to protect the opportunity of individuals to come forward and protest. And I, I would hope that you will continue to study this ordinance if it’s turned down today. And that you’ll continue to study the benefits of this ordinance to those who do want to exercise their free speech right to protest or to demonstrate or whatever. And – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who’s the young lady – Mr. Mays: [inaudible] my question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Ms. Trainer: Hi. My name is Denise Trainer. 613 Bohler Avenue here in Augusta. And I’d like to thank you for allowing me to be heard. I may need to study it more, like you suggest, but I have to admit the first time I became aware of this ordinance, I just wanted to be able to discuss some view of the people involved in the peace movement. Excuse me, I’m getting a cold, I think. But I did want to let you know a few of our thoughts. A lot of people from different political persuasions and religious backgrounds have been involved in the peace movement in Augusta, and we’ve enjoyed an environment of cooperation and mutual respect with our local authorities. We’ve expressed our political and social concerns in a free and open arena. However, today I stand before you compelled by need to remind all of us that when we limit or deny free expression, we are lying to our citizens in this county, in this state, and in this nation. The Patriot Act is already limiting our personal freedoms and eroding the rights given to us in our Constitution. But that law was thrust upon us by our federal government due to a fear of terror. Locally, though, in Richmond County, we have witnessed peaceful 30 gathering of concerned individuals praying and vigilling for peace. Please don’t prevent us from being able to continue this tradition. Coming from differing political and religious backgrounds, we are uniting to bring that message of peace to the multitudes of citizens who will attend the Masters Tournament. Please don’t deny us that right. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr., Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim, can you respond to her request there? Will she, will this in any way deny the people the right of speech? You’re just – in other words, what’s changing here is the location possibly. Mr. Wall: It’s not even the location. I mean the current ordinance gives the Sheriff the right to approve or deny the location. What it does is, it say – Mr. Bridges: Wait, wait. Right now he can deny the location? Mr. Wall: Absolutely. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Wall: And, and there’s no time period in the current ordinance within which he has to exercise that denial. There is no time period within which an appeal can be filed. The obligation is, is on the individual who has been denied the permit to institute a lawsuit and to get an injunction to prohibit the Sheriff from enforcing the ordinance or enforcing his failure to issue the permit. So all of the expense, all of the obligation is on the part of the applicant. Our ordinance – and we went further than what I think the law requires, in saying that in all cases in which the Sheriff turns down a permit, then the obligation is on the Sheriff upon an appeal, a dissatisfaction by the applicant – some applicants may say okay, fine, you know. I mean we get applications from people to, to permit, to picket, and they never follow through. Others are serious about it. If they’re serious about it, then all they have to do is express dissatisfaction, appeal to the Sheriff, then the obligation is on us then to institute an action to demonstrate to the Court that the reason for denying the permit has got a valid basis. It’s not that you disagree with what they are going to say, it’s not that you disagree with where they want it. You’ve got to demonstrate to the Court that there is a legitimate basis for turning down that permit. Mr. Bridges: It sounds like to me you’re putting more stringent strings on the government as opposed to the demonstrators. Mr. Wall: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, but the perception right now is to the contrary because of the timing, I think. Mr. Bridges: I understand. 31 Mr. Wall: It’s just the opposite of that. Mr. Bridges: Well, I, you know, I think – and I – the lady that spoke before, I’m, I’m sympathetic to your views concerning the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security and some of the things that are going on there as well. I’m probably on the other end of the spectrum from you, but I mean I have those same concerns. But this is an issue like Commissioner Shepard said. We don’t have our back to the wall. This is something that our staff has been proactive and brought before us as an issue that we could consider. And what I’m hearing once again is this is something that binds the government as opposed to binding the demonstrators. At the same time, I don’t want – I mean this is a national, this has become a national issue and we probably don’t, would prefer this not happen, but it’s something we’ve got to address. And it happens at a time when this, the area that these demonstrators will probably want to be is a congested area. We’ve had people killed on Washington Road just trying to cross it during that time. And you know, my concern is that we, we want to maintain some discipline, some regulations, some rule, and some decorum of order about the demonstration where [inaudible] allowing them to do so. And if what I’m hearing from this is true, I think it’s a good move forward and I think we should, we should hold the consideration for our Attorney’s opinion here in high regard and move forward and pass this ordinance. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard. I’m sorry, Mr. Mays, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Beard and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Mays: Yeah. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I’ll be very quick. In reference to, to the appeals process of people who might be, be dissatisfied with a decision to be granted a permit to, to march, to parade, to picket or whatever, I guess my question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to, to, to the Attorney is then do we have nothing on the books in this City to deal with such action? Is that what I’m being told today? Mr. Wall: No, sir. What you have right now is the Sheriff either approves or denies the permit. If he denies the permit, our current ordinance does not provide the appeal. And so what would happen is just like in a situation where some other permit, an alcohol license or whatever may be turned down, the obligation is then on the part of the applicant to institute an action in Court to presumably – I mean if I were representing them – seek an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, to enjoin any, any further enforcement of that section. The ordinance that I’ve brought before you turns that around, places the obligation on the government to carry before a Court a determination to determine whether or not the, the denial of the permit by the Sheriff is, is based upon legitimate reasons. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr., Mr., Mr. Mayor, he’s answered my question from that perspective, but it leads me to another question and I’ll, and I’ll, and I’ll make this comment and I’ll, and I’ll shut up. If, if, if that being the case, wouldn’t it seem, and like I said again, let’s, let’s, let’s I guess in words of the great Ross Perot, let’s cut the chase and really get to why this got dropped and got started. It wasn’t because one day we 32 were thinking about just sitting down, improving the rights of how anybody could deal with the First Amendment. This is basically a reaction to what already has been said and what most of us have had to read about, whether it’s been dealing with the news, whether from how law enforcement was going to deal with it. I think common sense, and that’s a debatable term in this day and time, of how this would be dealt with, and I think this is an issue that goes beyond the case of, of Hootie and Martha. This is about everybody’s rights and where this goes. You mentioned about the Court. I think if the chief head of law enforcement knows what the provisions are and what the Courts have said, I would think that a group or groups that have been talked about in a very negative way, such as official hate groups, that have been able to go into the federal Court system in this City, and in, and in a flick of the finger, be able to get granted their permission to march down this main street. Then if somebody’s thinking, they already know what is within that remedial procedure that you just mentioned. I think the only thing that the ordinance does is to basically draw attention to whether or not that’s fact or fiction in terms of how this applies. Rumor has it that the course of it is to deal with the displacement in this particular issue so that people will be a certain distance and will not have access to public right-of-way sidewalks that are in that area in order to be able to deal with that type of demonstration. Now I think that the Court also very well looms in this issue. I would almost hasten to think that people of a non-violent background, people who come in on that issue of wanting to deal with that right, and you’re talking about inviting other folk to join something, I think you open that door and that pathway unless you’ve explained this very clearly as to why you’re dealing with it, why you’re doing it in the first place. Because if the Court acted that swiftly against a group with the background and nature of the ones that I have mentioned, with almost a sweeping [inaudible] of nothing anybody could deal with, then I’m sure the average citizens who assemble for that right of free speech and their placement would not also be able to get to Court in another five minutes to do it. Now I think after that’s been done so many times and we get our butts whipped enough in Court to a point and get ordinances struck down, then maybe if you want to deal with it in that time frame to say maybe we ought to be proactive because we getting whipped so many times, this is what we ought to do. But I think to a point where the timing on this one is, I think you just invite everybody to a party that doesn’t even have to start. And I think this is where the ordinance leads you to. I think you’ve got the Sheriff who’s got all the rights in the world, that’s he big enough and grown enough and his Constitution give him the right to do, and I think this is one that he ought to be able to handle, and if it’s not handled, then people have the remedy and the right to deal with it very swiftly, just like the Klan did. I didn’t like what they did. Didn’t like them there. But it wasn’t nothing I could do about it. Wasn’t nothing that the government could do about it. But I think that you have to also protect their rights, just as you do anybody else’s. And it’s like the old situation says, you never know for whom the bell tolls. If it’s not answered for them in all of their heinous background, then it will not be answered for those who come in a right of peacefulness and who come under the protection of the Constitution. And I think that’s where the fight lies. And I think if you are going to deal with it, then you ought to deal with it at a point that if it’s rested since that time, the it’s lying dormant to the point of sleeping a little while longer. It’s not going to hurt our great City one bit. 33 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you. [inaudible] Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I probably can’t add anything that already hasn’t been said, but I thought that I recalled when I first came on the Commission, and especially after the adult book store, that we, either in legal or in committee that we talked about asking our Attorney to go ahead and try to get our ordinances that needed to be updated or upgraded or improved or whatever, that we asked him to do that. And I thought it has always been the feelings of the Commission that we did want to try to get ahead of some things, and I may be using some broad memory and not selective memory when I say that, but I thought that was what we were wanting to do. Going back to some old experience, I remember the days Mr. Mays have alluded to, that if you wanted to have a peaceful demonstration or any kind of parade permit, you went to the Chief of Police in Augusta, Georgia, and if he turned you down, you were down. That was it. Some were approved. Some were not. But I understand with this ordinance that it’s an appeal to some sort of review board. And I would not be opposed to having the Chairman of the Committee of Public Safety to take that responsibility to do that. I think it does have some things here that we need to look at that does get us in compliance with our other ordinances. I think that, I think that we need to probably go ahead – I know there’s two motions on the floor now and we can’t put another one, but I would like to somehow find a way that we could send this back to – whether it’s in legal session or whether it’s in the appropriate committee, to send this back to and study it with the hopes of bringing something out. And one final comment. As I’ve heard all of you talk about freedom of expression and everything else, let me just remember that in 1969 I served with the United States Air Force in Viet Nam. So if you want to talk about freedom, include me in the discussion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Well, Jim, the only thing I can say is your timing was real bad. But I am going to say there may be something [inaudible] to what you’re trying to do here. But you picked the wrong time, as far as I’m concerned, for my support to do that. And I’m saying this because this is a national event that we’re talking about. We may be talking about something local here, but I’ve had calls from New York and a couple more calls from other places wanting to know about what this ordinance is all about. And it is becoming a national event. And I would hate for, you know, to be on national TV talking about how we are coming up with something to stop a demonstration that’s going to happen in April. And I just don’t think we are part of that. I think that this need more review, more talking about, and then let’s move on from there. And I think we have the time in there to do that. To talk about it. This is poor timing. It shouldn’t have been brought at this particular time because we all know what the repercussion is going to do 34 that. And we know that perception is almost 99% of whatever is happening. The perception is there that the reason as to why this ordinance came about. So I think we should set this aside and deal with the original motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree with what Commissioner Boyles is saying about the Attorney is supposed to go out, we instructed him to look at some things that wasn’t right and to try to correctify those things. Commissioner Beard said that the time was bad. My question is, if we had a process in place, if we had a law, if we had something written down somewhere that the Sheriff were going by, what reason would the Sheriff have not to approve or not to grant a group for a peaceful demonstration? Now if you got a history and the Sheriff know that you, you, you, [inaudible] Ninth Street where Willie Mays has grew up and know they throw rocks in a minute, you maybe don’t want to let them down there. But if you don’t have that history and you have no – what reason, and I’m trying to understand why this needed changing. Because if there was a reason that the fee wasn’t paid or there was – whatever reason there was, that the Sheriff would have the right not to grant a peaceful demonstration. I mean if had not been for that, a lot of them folks on this panel and in them chairs would still be picking cotton today, Jim. If they had not had the, the right to stand and stand what you, for what you believe and not believe it, that, that, that, that wouldn’t have been. I agree there are some thing we need to change. You talking about the law. We sit here every Commission meeting and bring the law. There is laws on this book that call for us to do some things that we have not done and we don’t, we have not even addressed it. You as an Attorney have never brought them to us. Two of them coming up today. But nobody – now you talking about this. If you going to play ball, I keep tell you, Jim Wall, let’s play with the same ball all the time. Now right is right and wrong is wrong. I need to know from this change. We changing something to keep something from happening. In other words, the Sheriff can deny. I need to know what’s in this thing to prevent the Sheriff from denying somebody. That, that’s my point. If you can show me what’s in here that can prevent – now you say he has the right to deny and there is nothing we can do, there is no appeal. Show me in this new group that you put up together where there is going be a provision from him denying if he wants to. Now the appeals process, there’s a time if he deny, but you don’t show me – I don’t see anything in here that shows you where he would not have the authority or the power to deny. He still got that right don’t he? Is that right? Mr. Wall: Well, he has the provide the reasons for such denial or provisional approval in writing to the applicant, and then, then the Sheriff – the Sheriff is the one who has to institute the judicial review. Mr. Williams: Okay. 35 Mr. Wall: He has to ask the Court, take a look at the reasons that I’ve given for denial, and tell, tell me and tell the County whether or not those are valid bases for the denial. Mr. Williams: Okay, Jim. We can debate this all day. I’m, I’m going to yield and let Andy speak, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Kuhlke: You know, I think what prompted this is the problem we had with the adult bookstore. I think another thing that prompted is the, is the Masters coming up in April. You’ve got two organizations that have said they are going to be in Augusta, they are going to demonstrating against the Augusta National because of their membership policy, but I think the spin-off effect of that is going to be devastating to the City of Augusta. Frankly, I’d like to vote for the first motion, because to me it gives less – it puts the burden on the person that gets denied. I think what Jim has done is made it more palatable for somebody that’s denied the opportunity to, to get permitted for a demonstration, provided the Courts deny what the Sheriff has – or strikes down what the Sheriff has said he denied it on. But you know, I don’t know what effect it would have on us when we get to, if we have demonstrations and we stay with our existing ordinance. And Jim, you might speak to that. Suppose that happens and somebody goes to Court with an injunction. Where can they go beyond that for the Courts to say that we’ve got an invalid ordinance totally? Mr. Wall: Well, I mean, the remedy would be for them to go into Court and to, to seek an injunction and to try to strike down the existing ordinance. And, you know, so – but – and if can address Commissioner Williams’ comments for a minute. In my mind, talk about the timing of it. In my mind, going, having the Court, if it were to determine that the existing ordinance is invalid and that we’re moving on an ordinance that is then thrown out, I think that puts us, Augusta, in a worse perception than dealing with it on the front end, bringing the ordinance into compliance with those that have been found around the country to have been upheld, where you do have a prior judicial review, and which is not required. I mean we’ve gone beyond arguably what we’re required to do. But the attorney in my office who prepared this, I said I want a judicial review in every situation. And so we’ve gone beyond what the law requires. And, and by putting a – someone outside of this government, the judiciary, involved in reviewing that process, I don’t see how there could be anything more fair to an applicant who wants to get a permit. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think it’s a good thing that we’ve had this discussion and debate. Certainly my concerns have been put at ease in that the essence of proactivity is recognizing a potential problem and correcting it before it before it becomes a problem, and that’s exactly what you’ve done in this instance. Certainly if you’re an advocate for free speech and the government’s stopping or delaying that free 36 speech, you would want the government to have the burden of proof as to why they deny it. This is what you’ve accomplished in this. It’s not, the burden is not place on the individual citizen or group who may or may not be able to afford the attorneys or have the organizational knowledge to carry out that type of request for appeal against the denial. And so in saying that, I do applaud your proactivity in this. This is certainly a better ordinance than that which is on the books. And as a result of the debate, I support this measure. I would say to my colleagues if you want to see something that is both oppressive and against the First Amendment, I believe it’s the abusive language and disorderly conduct code which can lock up you for “speaking aloud in public.” That is on the books as we speak. And that is probably more detrimental to free speech and probably used in different instances. But this is an improvement from what I’ve seen as a result of this debate, and I support the measure. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree that I think the timing, I think we need to use wisdom in what we are doing. Sitting here listening to each person, the reason why it should be or why it shouldn’t be. I recall when I was I was in, back in December I was in Salt Lake City, and being in Salt Lake City where I was greeted with a lot of people when they saw my Augusta pin, they said oh, you the one. I respond to that what they were talking about, and they were referring to the Masters, about the protests of keeping women out. And I think this brings, will bring more light, negative light than good. It’s coming right after the day we celebrated in Augusta, commemorated, rather, all this week, Dr. King’s birthday and we talked about diversity in Augusta and we saw that on the news last night. And I was in some of the services. And diversity was brought about. But I think this, we heard in the messages that Dr. King march non-violently and it was all protesting, and there was the freedom of speech. I think really that if, if we pass and we deal with this ordinance, I think the one that we had on the book has been okay because it said anybody wanted to march, they marched whether we liked it or not. They protest. And we had law enforcement there to control the crowds if they got rowdy and protect the people that was marching. Even if we had the, if this passed and we would not allow the protestors to protest in certain areas. And I must say I’m against the protests. I’m against Jesse Jackson coming to Augusta. And I’m against Martha Burk. I think that we need to look at our economy, so I’m against that. But they have a right to freedom of speech, even if we pass this, and they were only allowed to form their lines on the Burke County line or the Jefferson County line, those cameras are going to be right there. Going to be right out, right at Burke County line, where the protestors are. They are going to leave the Masters, they are going to have a special team to go out and meet them. So it’s going to bring more attention. I think that we ought to leave it just like it is and go on and as time come, that it’s something that we need to work on, that we need change it, then we need to change it. You know, the Sheriff has the right to, you know, to control it and sometime I don’t agree with putting too much power when it comes to an issue like this in no one person hand, because it could be, you know, whether they like it or not or whether they dislike it for the kind of discipline that they would use, and I think we have experienced that. So I think we need 37 to just leave this alone and just go on. And you could write some letters to Jesse Jackson and write some letters to Martha Burk and just ask them not to come. And that’s about the best we can do in this situation. So that’s what I want to say about it and I think we ought to call for the question. Mr. Speaker: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Madame Clerk, could you – The Clerk: Yes, sir? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could you re-read the motions? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Substitute motion by Mr. Shepard, seconded by Mr. Bridges, was to approve the ordinance as recommended by the Attorney. The original motion by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Mays, was to deny the ordinance. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor. All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion ties 5-5. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back to the original motion. The Clerk: The original motion is to deny. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Boyles vote No. Motion ties 5-5. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s a no action. The Clerk: No action, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item. The Clerk: Are we going back to the consent item that were pulled? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes. Items that were pulled. Number 16. 38 The Clerk: 16. Motion to approve the contract options for parking at the Augusta Conference Center (Radisson Parking Deck). (Approved by Finance Committee January 13, 2003) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you very much. This is something we talked about in Finance. I’ve got Mr. Davis, Davison here that I came in contact with and he talked to several Commissioners. I’ve got a problem with this contract the way it’s, it was presented. I think the Attorney mentioned, and Jim, you might be able to help me out [inaudible]. Okay, he’s still here. He’s smart enough to do two things at one time. Jim said that they had let this contract out and when they let it out almost a year ago, I think, is that, the first of the year. Nothing have taken place until the last committee meeting. I brought in Mr. Dan Cross who said he had applied and I think, and in researching our conversation found out that he may not have applied for a parking attendance or parking facility. He may applied for security. The news media printed an article on it and Mr. Davison called me, had some material where he had been down and applied through a person, I think. Talked with the Mayor and the Administrator. I don’t know whether this Administrator or which Administrator but he’s here and I’d like for him to be heard, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we could. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Davison? Mr. Davison: My name is Jimmy Davison. I, my family have been in the automobile business in Augusta, Georgia, for 58 years. Since 1993, I have been coming before this Commission. Several of you have been here. Trying to get the bid on the parking at the Radisson Hotel and at Port Royal and at Ninth and Greene Street. I’ve got this much documentation to show where I have been here. I’ve, I’ve been to studies about parking in the city of Augusta. As I say, we have parked cars for 58 years, we have stored automobiles, we have been protecting them, we have been maintaining parking lots, we’ve been repairing them, we’ve been transporting them, we have just been in the automobile business. When it came to light in 1993 that Port Royal, Port Royal parking was being paid a management fee to an outfit in North Carolina, $10,000 a month, and the Radisson Hotel was paying $10,000 a month, or this community was paying $10,000 a month, for a total of $240,000, I started pursuing this. I asked the assistance of the late C.S. Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Calhoun, numerous people. Mr. Mays, you were here. Mr. Wall, you were involved in it. I was assured not on one occasion but on several occasions that we would be informed of any bids to take place for parking. In ’95, after two years of dealing with it, we finally had the opportunity to submit a bid. We did not get the parking [inaudible] but we were assured it would be bidded the next year. My understanding is that it was not bid for the next five years. I contacted Mr. Bob Young by telephone and by letter. He contacted me October 29 of 2001. And basically what this letter says is that he’s discussed it with Mr. George Kolb, Administrator, that we would 39 certainly be involved in the parking, that he suggested that I would take it to a Mr. Sanford Lloyd, who was chairman of the Downtown Development Authority. I took the better part of these papers to Mr. Lloyd and sat in his office and discussed with him on a couple of occasions, volunteered to do anything I could do to, to help the community get a better grip on this parking, rather than send large amounts of money out of town. I got basically nowhere for about three or four months. I requested that I get some paperwork back. I had just been assured time and again that we were on the bid list for parking. Monday a week ago I looked at the news and lo and behold, the parking was going to be done, it’s going to cost this community over and above the $150,000 that we take it, it’s going to take an extra $45,000. I can park cars cheaper, I can maintain the lots, I can, I can do it, I can keep the money in Augusta, Georgia, save this community money. I think that’s what we are supposed to be here to do, is to save the community money and to keep our money in the community. I don’t know who the 17 people were that we bid this parking out to. It was my understanding that the only person who replied was Republic Parking. I don’t think Republic Parking has got the love of Augusta – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Davison, you know you have five minutes, you’re about to run out of time. Mr. Davison: I don’t think that Republic has the determination to have friendly parking in Augusta, Georgia. I’m requesting that y’all would open the bid, allow me to bid on it, allow other people to bid on it, in this community, and do it properly. If anyone would like to see any of this documentation where I’ve been assured over the last ten year period, be glad to show it to you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Davison. Are you on the bid list? Mr. Davison: I have been told for ten years that I was on the bid list. I have the bids here where we’ve submitted in ’95, which I would [inaudible]. Mr. Wall – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But have you gotten a letter? Mr. Davison: No. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Davison: Mr. Wall [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Thank you, sir. Let me just come to the Commission here and I’ll get back to you. Mr. Beard and then Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You know, I’m all in favor of local people getting the bids that have been brought forth, but I’m a little confused about this 40 because like I don’t quite understand it, and maybe the Attorney can correct me on this. I don’t see how we can open these bids back up if we’ve already, you know, we’ve gone through a valid procedure of bidding, how can we then open this back up and say we are going to rebid all of this, and when we’ve done it once, and I just want a little legality of doing it in that respect. I know if I had won a bid, I would be expecting to claim that bid and move forward. And as I say, I have no problem with local people getting these bids, but it is a bidding process and we are going by the lowest bid, and I would assume that we have, whatever this company is here, had the lowest bid, and we move forward. My only suggestion would be that, you know, we are going to bid – this is a yearly bidding event here, that this bid is only for a year and I would think that after that year, the next year everybody would be given the opportunity to bid. But I just can’t see, as much as I would like to see both of the people who have come forward have this bid, because they are local and I know that they probably would do a good job, but then I think we have to do what is right and what is legal and [inaudible], and maybe you can enlighten me a little, Jim because if there is any way legally we can do this, I would be glad to listen to that. Now if we made a mistake and it’s our fault, then we just have to deal with that. Mr. Wall: Well, the bid process was handled properly, and in my opinion there were no mistakes made. I mean it was advertised in the local paper. Those that were on the bid list were notified. And so we went through the process. Also keep in mind that the City had gone through a similar process with Bush Field just six to eight months previous to this and had looked at the bidders at that time, looked at those that responded, etc. Now it’s my recollection, and Geri, I think, has confirmed that, that when we only received one bid proposal on this, this was brought before the Commission and the Commission did in fact accept that bid sometime last spring. Now the actual contract is being brought to you today because there were some – we wanted to get the cost down as low as we could. Normally the Commission has the right to reject all bids and to send it back out for a rebid process, but in this case I think you’ve already accepted that one bid and, and the contract has now been negotiated, which is before you. And as you say, it’s for a one year period, and if the Commission decides that it wants to rebid for 2004, then we can do so. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to address my questions to the Administrator and/or the Purchasing Director, if they could enlighten us as to how this RFP that resulted in the Republic contract was put together, and specifically how they assemble the distribution list. I’d like to know it, George. Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I may have some follow-up, but I’d ask Ms. Geri Sams to give you an overview of the bid process, the minimum qualifications for the bidders which determine who would receive bids, and the actual bidders list. Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Kolb. Good afternoon, Commissioners and Ms. Bonner. The actual bid process for parking facilities actually started, the process started 41 at the airport. From the airport, we had about 33, 35 interested parties who submitted, who submitted statement of interest to the Purchasing Department. The airport advertisement started October 12, 2001. We sent out 35, mailed out 35 proposals. We received only one proposal back. We had a pre-bid conference, of which six companies – we received two, I’m sorry, two. We had six companies to attend a mandatory pre-bid conference. For the Radisson Hotel, we took the mail list from the airport, contacted every interested party to see if they would be interested in bidding the parking lot locally for the hotel, with the following criteria: those criteria were (1) an interested proposer must have five years of experience in management and operating of a hotel facility; (2) it must presently be operating at least one hotel with 500+ parking spaces; (3) it must currently operate a hotel parking facility where at least one location generate in gross receipt of $1 million. It was never the intent of Augusta Richmond County to exclude any local vendor. I would have welcomed the opportunity to review both Mr. Cross’ and Mr. Johnson’s [sic] proposal had they let me know that they were interested parties. But in listening to Mr. Johnson – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Davison. Ms. Sams: Mr. Davison, I’m sorry. He said that he had in fact spoke with the Mayor and he said also he had in fact spoke with him in 1995. Unfortunately, our data base does not keep vendors active fir seven or eight years if they have not shown any interest or submitted a letter of interest to us. I do apologize for that, sir, but I did not have the privilege to review the information submitted. Mr. Shepard: So the short answer, Ms. Sams, is that these two individuals who have come before the committee and the Commission weren’t on the list because they didn’t keep their application current? Ms. Sams: Nor did they express an interest. Mr. Shepard: And I mean if they do express an interest and they don’t meet the criteria, do we send them some correspondence that we appreciate your interest but you don’t meet the criteria; do we do that? Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, we would have. Mr. Shepard: Well, in light of what our Purchasing Director has stated, and in light of the fact that we have just a one year contract here, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, and in light of the fact also that Barry White reminded us that we have 5,000 guests here nightly that we should look after from a public safety standpoint, and I think that we must immediately stop the security breach or the lack of security over at the Radisson, because I think a good number of those 5,000, whether you like those hotels or not, are, are being housed in the Radisson and in the Radisson Country Suites, and I don’t think we can afford a, a claim that we might have as a result 42 I’d make the motion that we approve the contract and of that inadequate security, sustain the committee action. Mr. Beard: I second that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second on the floor. I got you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, I support the motion that’s on the floor. I regret the people that want the opportunity to bid on these either haven’t filled out the paperwork or the deadline has expired or doesn’t meet the qualifications, but – and, and I would, you know, we always want local people to bid on these things, but if we go back and open the bids up again, it’s going to be – even if we made the error, and Mr. Davison or Mr. Cross didn’t get in there, even if it was our fault – I don’t believe it was in this case – but even if it was our fault, there would be just as great an injustice done to not move forward with this bid as it would be that they didn’t get to bid in the first place, and that is everybody knows the bid of the one that got it, and that’s, that’s a great advantage to be working from if you’re going to go back and do a bid, and that is to know what your competition is going to come up with. So you already know that. And I think, I think that would be an injustice as well. We’ve got the bidder, we’ve gone through the process. We’ve negotiated the contract down. Basically approved the bid and negotiated the contract where we’ve got it. And I think due to the fact that this is just a year thing, we need to move forward, approve the RFP here and go ahead and rebid this item and give these other people and opportunity next year. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, thank you. In hearing last week in committee meeting what was said from I think Mr. Cross and then hearing today from Mr. Davis [sic] and the people that he talked to, the Mayor, the Administrator and Sanford Lloyd and everybody except the Purchasing Department, so I’m wondering whether it’s a need in the City for some type of workshop for our local people to know the process of how to, the procedures how to go about submitting a bid, or whether that maybe has been done. But I meet some people and they say things like that and I know the process pretty well, when I first came Ms. Sams met Tommy and I and gave us the, a short session on how to go about and what her Department was about. So I think it may be a need that we look at doing some kind of workshop because a lot small businesses and our local people are crying out that they don’t get a chance. And when I hear something like we asked the Mayor and Administrator and Sanford Lloyd and maybe the Commissioners, but that’s not the procedure. And I think we need to know how to follow the right procedure and then I think that local people, our local business people will have a good chance at these bids, as well as those from out of town. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? 43 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have to concur with some of my colleagues. I think that we’re here now. Although this sounds like something that we’re going to again end up paying more than we make on it. We need to move forward and go ahead and secure this parking lot. This to me, throughout this entire debate, has been at best a break-even proposition through the years it’s been operated, it’s my understanding. And one of the things I would like for us to do is to identify the folks that delivered us this pie-in-the-sky make money on the parking deck to pay off part of our convention center. Identify these individuals. And in the future, if they do business or bring pie-in- the-sky to this City, that we question that heavily. This is not the first time this City has been sold a rosier than reality picture, that we’ve invested major dollars into a facility in the hopes it would pay for itself, or at least pay for some of itself, and then be left with not only the operating cost, but additional monies having to be spent out of our already tight budget to cover additional operating and unforeseen operating costs. So I guess my question would be who brought us this pie-in-the-sky plan that said this parking deck would help us pay for our convention center? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Cheek: That was just my question. Anybody got an answer for that? These are the people, that their economics need to be questioned. I mean this is an historical question, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m not here just to try and circumvent this contract, but when you got people like Mr. Davison and Mr. Cross. Commissioner Hankerson mentioned about local people. What I heard from Ms. Sams was back in October 12, 2001, was when we went out for bids. Here it is now January 2003. If we had a contract in 2001 or when it was let in 2001, and they was going sell us air conditioner for $2 apiece, we couldn’t hold them to that same price now. From October 12, 2001 till now, January, and this contract says agreement made to enter into this date blank, and it leaves a year. My question is if we did this back in 2001, 2002 done come and gone, and 2003 is starting to leave, and now we want to say this contract is still good. Something don’t smell right to me. I think, I heard what Commissioner Bridges said, everybody knows what the price is. These people live in Augusta. 58 years of being in business. The last man been here 21 years and was going to provide security. But we want to say we got to hold to the contract. How can you hold a contract? You can’t put nothing on layaway for over 30 days, so you sure can’t hold this agreement from October 12, 2001 until January of 2003. I mean that don’t make good sense. Jim, I agree with you. I understand when you’re swimming upstream. And it ain’t going to do me no good, but I’m just bringing some awareness there. This don’t make good sense to say that we can’t do anything about it, that we got to go with this firm because back in two years ago we went out for bids and they was the only one bid so now we going to hold them to that bid, we going to bring them in, and then we knowing in the beginning that it’s going to cost us more money for this contract, we now making it, it going cost us 44 more money, and we got local people in this town and we ain’t talking about watching prisoners, we talking about watching cars that sitting still, just parked in the lot. I can see if they was moving, [inaudible], but we talking about automobiles. But here we going to say we can’t do nothing. We ain’t up against the wall this time, Jim. We just swimming upstream. That’s all I got, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m glad we’ve got a chance to have some discussion on it, cause I made the motion a week or so ago for this to go back to, to committee so we could try and get some clarity in terms of where this was, was going or coming from. And, and let me make a couple of clarifications real quick. I know Jim knows where he was in ’95 and I been around here a long time, but let me make this officially clear since it’s on the record. I didn’t come with the building. Now Mr. Davison is a friend of mine and we talked about a lot of different things. We talked about Greenspace, we talked about property, we talked about problems downtown, we talked about his being on the agenda [inaudible] out at times in reference to government, but now what [inaudible] for the record, correct him on, in 1995, the last year officially of City government, I was not a member of City government. I was a member of County government and the City of Augusta took a bid, I believe, at that time from Mr. Davison, which I was not a member of that governing body. Mr. DeVaney by those [inaudible] sent me over to County government. I became a non-member of City government in 1987, so I was not a member of that so we didn’t have a conversation about your parking lot in reference to this Commissioner in reference to any dates and times on that, so I need to correct that cause this is a part of this minutes. You know I’m a stickler for minutes, so if I’m going – I can cause enough problems for me on my own. I don’t need to accept any. But with that being said, I, I, I think we’ve got an obligation to go and to deal with, with somebody on this issue and [inaudible] go on and do, deal with it. What bothers me a little bit, on one hand I think you’ve got the firm ready to go. It’s only a one year contract. Now is anything being said that we are going to actively pursue quotes, bids, or anything else from other people in a serious manner during the course of this year? And I think that’s the question that’s not really been asked. I agree with – the point [inaudible] Steve’s motion [inaudible] I can agree with it 100%, let’s do it. But I think if we going, if you going to really be in fairness, on one side you’ve got the company in waiting, it’s ready to go, we need somebody over there doing something. But at the same time, I think we need to stress also the seriousness either in that motion or make one out here today, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that the process will be explored so that just because we are granted a contract it does not hurt or, or say put the company that you may give it to, in an unfair position. Because what I’ve seen happen with the history of government is that we do things in an emergency, we get it done, and then we say oh, my goodness, we’ve got to stay where we are. And then folk get to where, where Jimmy’s talking about. They get locked into a position of where they stay for six years or a decade automatically because then the foot is in the door and we don’t deal with it in a competitive fashion anymore. I think if you’re going to approve it, something needs to talk about the fact that, that, that it’s not just going to be something of a passing fancy, 45 that we seek bids for it. I think you need to really have a timetable that you want to put that down and say that’s what you are going to do. Then those people who are interested, whether it’s the two in question or whether it’s others who want to do it, they have that opportunity then to go through, through the Purchasing office there, they have a change not only to get on that list, they have a chance to find out what the RFP really says, what it contains, because I was kind of dumbfounded last week, the company that did give us the proposal. But at the same time, even that company was not at the benefit of knowing what was in the RFP. They put some numbers out there, which could be very well suicidal if you don’t know what’s contained in the RFP. And, and, and that’s something you have to really think about. While numbers may lower, but they also have to go by what guidelines are written there and what you have to conform to. So if we are going to do it, I maybe would like to see some amendment that says by, whether it’s 90 days or six months or whatever, that there will be an RFP that goes out, that solicits then some work to deal with the parking lot, and possibly even expanded to more than just a one year deal. Because sometimes when you have a one year contract, for people to commit to hiring people, to buying equipment that they need, if they are going to be subject to a point that they may be out of the contract in 13 months, they are going to look another way. So I think that also gives an opportunity for it to be there within say if the next one is going to be 24 months, if it’s going to be 36 months, with some cancellation procedures in it, it does it, but I think then you can actually help all parties that are concerned. The local people who are in there, as well as the one that’s on the table to be voted on, so that saying that we are going to solicit doesn’t just go by the wayside. And I won’t bring up old hat, but every time we’ve gone into something saying we are going to open a process up later on, we’ve ended up with this Commission 99% of the time getting stuck with whoever lands something the first time, because then they in the door and then it’s automatic, and then we never go back to the process and then those who are in the door are in those, those who are locked out are permanently locked out. So that, that, that’s my concern with it, and I can vote for the motion, but I think we need to be serious about the fact that we are going to solicit, not so much in terms of the terms of the contract, but the fact that if we are going to open the process door, then truly open it, and then allow folk to do that and to come in and to deal with it. And I think that would clear up your whole problem on both sides. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. [inaudible] Mr. Mays: [inaudible] microphone. Mr. Boyles: They must have gotten a hold of mine and wore it out. I don’t know. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I appreciate the Commission listening to Mr., to Mr. Cross and Mr. Davison. They are long-time residents of the District that I represent, and I appreciate you all at least listening to both cases. A question I have, and it may be procedural, and it may have to go back to Purchasing next time, but I was listening to some of the requirements, the bid requirements that Ms. Sams was reading out. That 46 would almost eliminate anyone from local when you’ve got to have worked in a parking lot for five years, at a major hotel, or 5,000 cars or whatever they were, Geri, I don’t recall what they were but they were pretty stipulative. I would like to maybe have us go back and revisit those, Mr. Administrator, or something, and look at our bid requirements, or Attorney, whoever can do that, you know, the next time the bids are put out, because I do think we have eliminated or would effectively eliminate our local people if we didn’t do that. But I say that, but again, I appreciate the Commission, at least Mr. Williams as Public Safety Chairman, bringing it back to at least listen to the th residents of the 7 District. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Hankerson’s remarks prompted me to remember, I believe, Geri, that you always annually have a purchasing workshop or purchasing fair that you put on every year for people, people doing business with us or educating them about how we, they can do business with the City. Ms. Sams: Four scheduled. Mr. Shepard: Four? There are four scheduled for this year, and maybe since Mr. Cross and Mr. Davison have taken their time to come down here, maybe they could be put on the distribution list of that so that they would have an opportunity to get in the purchasing cycle and compete for some of this business that could be in the future. I think that is certainly the sense of this Commission that we try to reach out to these folks, and you have been doing that in the past through, through that workshop and that is a good thing, I think, but they should be – I think these two gentlemen, since they have come forward, one to the committee and one here to the full Commission should be accorded notice of this process, and particularly the bidding of the parking contract for 2004. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just, just a comment. Commissioner Boyles said a lot of what I was going to say. We do have to find some mechanism to allow local folks to compete for these contracts. I know when the trash hauling business – we had the same problem. Our local guys were worded out of it by virtue of some of the qualification criteria, and so certainly in the future I would hope that we would find ways to open doors for local guys, where we’ll have them able to go out and do business in other cities as a chain perhaps. But give them that starting point that they don’t have right now in doing business with local government. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? 47 Mr. Wall: In response to Commissioner Mays’ comment, I want the Commission to be aware this does have two renewal terms in there that have to be exercised by Augusta, but to exercise within a sufficient period of time that in the event that Augusta is dissatisfied with the operation or the Commission decides at some future date that it wants to open it back up, that we’ve got time to go out for RFPs and get proposals in. So I wanted to clear that up. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentleman? We do have a motion. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: If I can just respond, just quickly. That was kind of my unofficial point of [inaudible], and I’m glad you brought that out, Jim. Because, you know, if, if, if, if it has a right like you say for refusal or for renewal, what usually gets into the trap of not doing is the fact that I don’t think you’re saying that when you have a right of, of going back to automatically renew that you’re saying in any way that the company has done anything wrong or has not done its job. But I think when you have a contract like that, to a certain extent it does give a leg up to a point that if you’re saying on one hand we’re going to be soliciting proposals, but then in the contract it says you’ve got that right for renewal, well, if we’ve got so-called bigger fish to fry and this could be one of those things that get, that gets caught up to a point like this one did that when you found out it wasn’t over there, they wasn’t over there. Now we’ll have a lot that we have to deal with this year and we get to a point to say well, okay, we got automatic right or renewal, it’s now October, well hadn’t anything been done wrong. Well, that’s true, too, but at the same time we’ve not been consistent in saying we would seek other proposals. Now the possibility might be they may be the only one who comes back again. It may be consistently where it’s the only one that’s in there. But by the same token, I think you’ve got some conflicting thoughts, for the lack of a better term, that if the contract reads one way and what we’re saying we’re going to seek in another way, if you’ve got a contract that’s got an automatic in it where you are going to look to a person, there is just the overall tendency of government that that’s a contract that’s not going to be put back out. Now that’s just the way that works and the history of it, you know, kind of speaks for itself. That’s my only comment, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor – do anybody need the motion reread? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, motion reread. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk? 48 The Clerk: The motion is to approve the contract option for the parking at the Augusta Radisson Conference Center, sustain the action of the committee. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Beard. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Gentlemen, if you’re in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, item 17. The Clerk: 17. Motion to approve to retain Baird & Company, CPAs, LLC as Internal Auditor provider for the Fiscal Year ending December 31, 2003. (Approved by Finance Committee January 13, 2003) Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, sir. I’ve got no problem with this firm and it being the company and what they was doing. I mentioned, Jim, earlier the law has stated in our consolidation bill as to what we should have as far as I’d like to make a substitute legal counsel and also in-house, internal auditor, finance. motion that we approve this contract but have the Mayor Pro Tem to appoint a sub- committee that will look at another source trying to find an in-house source to do this Internal Audit service for the City of Augusta. Mr. Beard: Second that motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. And I support the motion put forth by Commissioner Williams. I do have a question, though. We had a rather scathing commentary offered by the Special Grand Jury concerning our Purchasing Department. It’s been several months now that we were scheduled to have an audit on that. I was just wondering about the status of that. Mr. Kolb: Um – 49 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Administrator. Mr. Kolb: At a recent – I can’t remember exactly when, but it’s been several Commission meetings ago, you stopped the audit of Baird & Company for proceeding, so they have stopped, and you have not re-authorized to continue forward. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr., Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I remember the discussion in reference to it, but is that exactly how that went? I thought we did a directive and I thought in the, there was one of those sidebar conversations and it was asked as to whether or not the firm that was made in the motion could without a conflict of interest do the auditing that was on that one, and it was ruled that they could and I thought then there was a motion that was carried to do something else other than – and I, I’m just asking. Ain’t pointing, ain’t accusing. But I, I, I think we quoting into some minutes there that may not be exactly correct as that occurred. Mr. Wall’s remember is a little younger fellow, but I think we had a lot of discussion. And I do think that, that, that the Administrator is right from the standpoint of where that was going but we did something in there and I’m just trying to figure out where that whole thing went in there. Mr. Wall: My recollection is that you are correct, that there was a sidebar and a motion was made to have a different firm, but that motion did not carry, and so the, there was a lot of doubt about whether or not the, the current internal auditor was authorized to proceed or not, and so effectively that stopped his work. Mr. Mays: Well, I guess, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, did the motion stop his work? I mean the vote his stopped his work or did the, or did the ruling stop his work? Because my understanding was that I was not in on the conversation that several of [inaudible] which I have no problem because everybody needs to be in on the conversation. But the point was, I thought the question was asked and it was brought back to this body that there was no conflict and that – I’m just trying to get clarity on this. Mr. Wall: And motion was made for that other firm to do the work, and that motion did not pass. And the issue that precipitated that discussion, if I’m not mistaken, was who had authorized the internal auditor to do it. And the discussion centered around the fact that Purchasing was on the list that had been approved at the beginning of 2002, that there [inaudible] authorization [inaudible] by the Commission [inaudible]. Now that’s my recollection. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. Since we recollecting, let me try to do a little of that, too. What, what, what I remember, Jim, and I do remember the discussion, when we talked about another firm doing it. Commissioner Shepard and myself, we went out to make a call. There was a question whether they was either legal or whether there would 50 be any guideline for them to do. We went out and made a call and come back and the vote did not pass for them to do it. But there was no vote for them to stop the internal audit from already doing cause the Administrator said that they was already in process of doing something. But now, where he put them in that mode to begin, I don’t every remember a vote. Now we recollecting now, I understand. But I don’t recall anytime where there was a vote to, to stop him. Mr. Wall: You’re correct, there was not one. Mr. Williams: Okay. So how, I mean I don’t understand how we started them up and then the motion didn’t pass but then they stopped. Mr. Wall: Because there was an issue raised by who had authorized it initially. Mr. Williams: Okay, but they was almost 80% through with it, is that right, from what I remember? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: It was almost 80% through and we did not say don’t, don’t continue. We had a motion and didn’t know that it was 80% through to get another firm. Thought it would be a conflict. After it was not a conflict, that motion did not pass. Well, if that motion did not pass and you 80% [inaudible] downhill. I, I, I don’t, I don’t see how that was, that was stopped. That what I’m saying. [inaudible] legal opinion, Jim, don’t shake your head, give me a legal opinion. What’s your legal opinion? Mr. Wall: It was, it was my understanding at that time that the existing internal auditor was not authorized to proceed without some further direction. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible], no use crying over spilled milk, we don’t worry about that, we need to go on from here. I mentioned to you earlier there are some things that the charter calls for that we have been overlooking. I know for the fourth year, in, in, in, in, in my term, and I don’t know how many years prior to that, but we need to approve this contract and ask the Mayor Pro Tem if he would to put a subcommittee together where we can look at getting in-house service which the charter calls for to do. And that was my motion. I think we got a second on that. But it ain’t no sense in worrying about what didn’t happen. I mean we got people proactive now about a lot of things but then we got people who, who 80% through and the other 20% we just, we just stopped, we parked in the middle of the road. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke and [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cosnahan, would you clear this thing up a little bit? 51 Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir. I appreciate that. I recall the meeting very vividly because at that meeting, if I’m not mistaken, it was about October when we had been asked to look at the Purchasing Department, and I reported to you at that time that we were about 50% complete. As a matter of fact, I even gave you the purchase order amount that we had looked at and how many more we still had to look at. I estimated that we were about halfway done and used the term 50%. During that meeting, I believe it was Commissioner Williams said that he would like for us to stop at that point and, and actually made the statement, [inaudible] don’t do anymore work. I took him literally at that. We stopped. We did not do any more work. Mr. Williams: Somebody listened to me. (Laughter) Mr. Cosnahan: But that was the way that, that was the procedure that we went through. We stopped at that point. Nobody else instructed us to pick back up, and we did not pick back up. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Cosnahan. Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, if you would amend your motion to instruct the Internal Auditor to complete his work on the Purchasing Department, I’ll vote for your motion and against mine. Mr. Williams: I’ll do that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Williams have cleared up a motion I was going to make. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to get into some of the recollecting, too, because I told Mr. Williams they were 80% through and it turns out they were 50%, so my memory is failing me just as bad as everybody else. But I do recall this being stopped. It might not have been by a vote but it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission at the time and as a matter of fact, I think the Administrator was moderately, I guess reprimanded would be the word for taking the initiative to proceed with the audit. And without consulting the Commission. And anyhow my recollection of it was that the, that there was consensus on the Commission to stop that at that time. In regards to the Cherry, Bekaert & Holland people doing it, we did find out that they, they thought there would be no conflict in being both the external auditor and doing auditing 52 in the Purchasing Department, but in my mind still there is the appearance of conflict, so I think that’s something we should steer away from. And having said all that, what is the motion on the floor, Madame? The Clerk: The motion is to approve the contract and he later amend, asking the Mayor Pro Tem to appoint a subcommittee to look at the possibility of an in-house Auditing Department and that the internal auditor, Baird & Company, be instructed to continue the audit of the Purchasing Department. Mr. Bridges: A question on that, Jim. Does the bill actually instruct us to do an in-house Auditing Department? Mr. Wall: No, it does not. Mr. Bridges: It does not? And I know in regards to that, I’ve been an advocate of that in the past and we have to look at the cost of what would be involved there and we know that it would cost more to have an in-house auditor than we do to have an out- house/in-house auditor, I guess you’d say in this regard. And I’m reminded, too, of the Legal Department that we’ve created that that’s more expensive than it would be to have Mr. Wall and his firm do it in that regard. And although I believe maybe the bill, maybe I’m recollecting again, Mr. Williams, maybe the bill does call for a in-house Legal Department. But I’ll support the motion. I think it’s something we need to move carefully on in regard to costs, though. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Question has been called. Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by – Mr. Kuhlke: Substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute motion on the floor. The Clerk: Substitute, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 9-0. 53 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? Okay, let me appoint this committee right now. Mr. Williams, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Boyles. Mr. Williams, you’ll be the chairman. Mr. Shepard: We look forward to serving with you, Mr. Williams. The Clerk: Point of information, sir. You all requested that [inaudible] come back to the next Finance. Do you want me to pull it off of that agenda and have the subcommittee look at it? Mr. Williams: Yeah, yeah. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I would also like to have the Administrator and the Finance Director involved. Item 22, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 22. Motion to approve a request from Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful, Inc. for a letter of support to make application for the 2003 Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) Grant that will fund a feasibility study for the need and placement of a Regional Material Recovery Facility for Richmond-Columbia County residents and designated Augusta as the lead City. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 13, 2003) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I wanted to applaud Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful for their efforts in this. There is a tremendous amount of grant money out, available to deal with this and a world of issues that this City has daily on its agenda. And this, this is one that has a great potential, one, for reducing the total amount of waste going to our landfills, but it’s my understanding that places like Pickens County, South Carolina, pays a large portion of their trash bill by providing recycled materials to local industry. And currently we don’t in Ag have that mechanism in place I want to make the motion to approve Item 22 adding and we desperately need it. language at the end of it that states that Metro Augusta Clean and Beautiful write and manage the grants for this particular project and just encourage all of you to support this. This is something that if we wait around or don’t deal with it today, then someone else will take the lead in this area, and Augusta, being both the largest waste generator and the largest municipality in the area, we definitely need to be in the lead in it. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Shepard? 54 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It’s my recollection that the old City had a materials recovery facility in partnership with the City of North Augusta and the old City official who was very much familiar with that facility which did get up and running, Andy, I don’t know if you’re aware of that, but there are some signs still on the streets directing you to the old MRF, Materials Recovery Facility. And it was a joint project, I think, of the City of Augusta and North Augusta, and the person most familiar with that was the former Traffic Engineer who is now retired, George Goddard. So in, in writing this, I hope that Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful will consult the City for the resource that it, that it obviously had at some point, obviously does not have now for some reason, and so it’s, it’s an idea I think that deserves revisiting, but I think the good parts and the workable parts of the partnership between the old City and the City of North Augusta be brought forward and try to get caught up in the problems that obviously developed to cause the old City and the City of North Augusta to discontinue the MRP, the Materials Recovery Facility. And, and Andy, I would hope that we would not only consider a partnership with Columbia County, but you’ve been an advocate of across the river partnerships, regional partnerships. Trash is trash, and so they say that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. But I would hope that we would consider a, a regional partnership if that’s viable in terms of reaching across the river to do this materials recovery facility as well as being in partnership with Columbia County. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Ms. Blanos: [inaudible] work hand-in-hand with the City of Augusta and also we also already have six counties who have indicated that they want to be a part of this regional concept, so we are way ahead of the game. We just have a very short time to write this grant. [inaudible] progress as rapidly as we can. We do appreciate your support and I think it’s going to be a really good thing for this community, and our progression of moving on. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. The question has been called. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 28, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 28. Motion to approve a request to amend the Tree Ordinance with the Illustrated Guide. The additional wording added to the Ordinance provides for clarification of the existing regulations. The Illustrated Guide changes the point 55 values to multiples of five (5) for all trees. A list of trees under power lines was also developed. (Approved by the Commission on January 7, 2003 – second reading) Mr. Williams: I just needed some clarification, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, on what we was doing. This is the second reading. I thought Jim would, you know, could explain a little bit. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Patty: It is the second reading and this makes a [inaudible] editorial, minor editorial changes. It, we required any new development to have a certain number of what we call tree quality points, either new trees or saved trees, and those tree quality points are accumulated on a tree-by-tree basis and it changes the number of points various trees get. Mr. Williams: I got no problem. Mr. Patty: Things like that. Nothing substantially, nothing is more restrictive as a result of what you would to. Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: th 31. Motion to approve rescheduling the regularly scheduled February 4 Commission meeting to Monday, February 3, 2003 at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Bridges votes No. Motion carries 9-1. 56 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Beard wanted to be heard. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would like to move that we reconsider the addition to the agenda, Item 1. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and a second for reconsideration for the addendum agenda. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Approval Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB #323-04- 296823191) in the amount of $52,600.00 on the Glenn Hills Drive Sidewalk Project to be funded from Phase III Grading and Drainage Account. Also approve Change Order Number One with APAC-Georgia, Inc. in the amount of $52,600.00 Mr. Beard: I’d move to add and approve. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to add and approve. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney? 33. LEGAL MEETING: • Discuss pending and potential litigation. Mr. Wall: Ask for a legal meeting to discuss pending and potential litigation. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Williams: Second. 57 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor, signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 34. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Wall: Need a motion to approve the execution of the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Wall: Addendum Item: Motion to approve settlement of property damage claim arising out of automobile accident involving Deputy Michael Orr in the amount of $21,876.00. Mr. Shepard: I move that we add and approve it as recommended by the lawyer. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Those in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further business to come before this Commission? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] 58 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 January 21, 2003. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 59