Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2003 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER June 17, 2003 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, June 17, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Hankerson and Colclough, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by the Rev. Mark Deaton. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Approve the appointment of Mr. John Manuel to the Augusta Richmond County Coliseum Authority representing District 6. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) (No objection to adding this item to the agenda) RECOGNITION: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD Messrs. Roy Searles, Roy Jones and Jim Herbert Augusta Recreation Department Mr. Beck: -- this crew couldn’t accomplish their mission, they do an outstanding job, this is their day. They deserve to be recognized. But I’d also like to pay special tribute to their manager who coordinates this programs every day, and he deserves a lot of credit for their success, and that’s Ron [inaudible]. So Ron, thank you for all you do. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We want to add our congratulations to the employees of Recreation for their designation as the Employees of the Month, and we certainly encourage department heads in all city departments to nominate worthy employees each month for this award. And on a personal note, Mr. Kolb, I’d like to extend my personal congratulations to the employees in the organization who yesterday responded so 1 professionally and effectively to the incident out near Bush Field at Phinizy Swamp. I think they did an outstanding job. It just shows how this organization can pull together in an emergency and get the job done in a professional manner, and I just want to express my congratulations and thanks to your employees for a job well done. Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We’ll pass it along to them. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, we are going to move around on the agenda just a little bit today. We have a lot of people in the chambers for some specific items, so we’re going to try to take those up first. The first item we’d like to take up today will be item number 46. Item number 46. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption. The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Before we get started, we’d just like to acknowledge that Commissioner Bobby Hankerson, who is out of the chamber today on vacation, and Mr. Colclough will not be in attendance at today’s meeting. 46. Motion to accept pre-payment of $150,000.00 for outstanding UDAG loan for th Landmark Apartments at 505 13 Street. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 27, 2003 - No action vote Commission meeting June 2, 2003) Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Is it appropriate at this time to do any combination motion on another item? Mr. Mayor: We’re going to go to that other item next. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor: That’s item 31, is that the one? Is that the one you’re talking about? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, I’m going to that item right after we approve this. Mr. Mays: Okay. 2 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded. Any discussion? Yes, sir, are you here to speak on item number 46? Mr. Speaker: I’m just wondering can we use that money to use for item number 31. Mr. Mayor: Well, we don’t have the money yet. We’ve got to approve the motion to get the money, so let’s stick with the motion at hand. All in favor of the item then please signify by voting aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll now take up item number 31, if you’ll read the caption, please. The Clerk: Yes, sir. FINANCE: 31. Consider supplemental funding request in the amount of $150,000 from CSRA Regional Development Center and recommendation from the Senior Citizens Nutrition Program Sub-Committee regarding the Senior Citizens Nutrition Program. (No recommendation from Finance Committee June 9, 2003) 47. Approve the award of $10,000 in Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant (R-UDAG) funds for Augusta Youth Center, Inc. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2003 – No action vote Commission meeting June 2, 2003) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, does the staff have a recommendation on this item? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, the staff does. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, somewhere there is a paper floating around with a recommendation on it from Recreation & Parks, but I’ll briefly outline what our recommendation is. We are proposing that the Commission resolve this issue by taking over the recreational activities at the four satellite centers. The Recreation & Parks Department would do it through four existing full-time staff for additional -- which we would have to hire -- part-time staff. The cost for the remaining portion of this year just to do the recreational programs would be approximately $22,000 if the program started August 1. That leaves you with the month of July, and we’re proposing that you add another additional $8,000 to be provided to the Senior Citizens Council, that they continue to keep those satellite centers open for the month of July, and that’s approximately $8,000. Together of new dollars, the remainder of this fiscal year we are requesting that you appropriate about $30,000 just for that activity. Now with respect to the meals themselves, provided that the Senior Citizens Counsel can continue to provide the same number of meals for the remainder of this 3 fiscal year, through December of 2003, we would recommend that you pay what you’re currently paying to them just for that purpose. That’s about $15,000 a month or about $85,000 through the end of this fiscal year. Next year, we would continue to do that or continue that in that vein, that we would pay them at least through the end of June for the meal program. We would continue to pick up the recreational part of it. The annual cost we’re anticipating to be about $60,000. It will be slightly more next year than it would be this year. But again, let me emphasize that that $60,000 is over and above what you’re paying now. $171,000. But it is considerably less than the requested $150,000 for the balance of this year or the $400,00+ that’s being requested for next year. And we believe that we can maintain the same level of service under that scenario than we’re currently providing or that is being provided by the Senior Citizens Council. Mr. Mayor: So in other words, Mr. Kolb, the end users will not notice any difference in the activities or the meals under the proposal submitted by the staff? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. It will be the same level of service, only different providers. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the Administrator’s detailed proposal that’s there in terms of working this situation out. However, I want to make sure that that’s not cutting it too tight so that -- and I think the Commission’s aim today is to quite frankly get this program through the rest of this year so that the fear factors are out of the way, that the programs go on, that they run at the same level. However, I’m a little bit uncomfortable from the standpoint that I want to make sure things are scrutinized, that’s true. But I would feel a lot more comfortable, and I don’t think I’m necessarily going to - - the Commission has choice of voting up or down, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if in the motion that I probably will make that we use the money that we have just earmarked in receiving from the, from the UDAG proposal to deal with putting and we can deal with the draw downs as we need them. I want to make sure there is enough money there to do what we are supposed to do. I know Rec has had some time to look at this, but to a point when I see a difference of figures on one hand, when we were looking at Finance, that would take us through July, I knew that that would be unacceptable. We needed to deal with this in terms of getting it through the rest of the th year. I expressed the fact when I met with Seniors on 15 Street that obviously we could not deal with 2004 budget because we have not dealt with our own 2004 budget, and I think everybody understands that. But I think that -- I had questions, I was in a neighborhood meeting the other night at Savannah Place and questions in reference to transportation and the droppage of transportation and of making sure that that even remains the same. I’m not sure whether or not that gets us there. I would much rather have more than enough draw down on it. If we do not use it, then that money can be And the motion that I’m gong to make is that we allow the reprogrammed. reprogrammed money that we have just taken in on payment from Landmark Apartments, that it go to under gird the seniors’ programs, that there be monthly 4 reports from the Seniors Council, that they come to us on a monthly basis, that the releasing of the rest of the funds for the rest of the year that we’ve already approved, that they be released but that the reports go to a monthly basis and that we constantly do the monitoring so that in the interim that if even before September if something doesn’t work out, we’re prepared to deal with it in a transition that does not hold anything back, be it Rec, be it staffing, be it nutrition, be it transportation and that is what I would like to see in the form of that motion that we do it and we earmark that amount that’s there to get us through us there, because if we’re talking about $171,000 dealing with us through a two-month period which we legitimately recognize, that was what the committee had said, Mr. Mayor, and we were going to upfront give them the rest of their money for the rest of this year which was going to last only through two months, then I’m a little bit confused with the Administrator’s proposal in terms of the numbers of how – if $171,000 would probably last for two months, how then can $60,000 or a little better last for the rest of this year. My motion, Mr. Mayor, is that we deal with the entire amount, that if it not used it is still there in UDAG, it can be reprogrammed for other projects, but I would like to see that entire amount go there, leave this issue to rest, we monitor it, monitor them. If it does not work out, then we take it over. But I think their proposal is that, their understanding is that they’re not really caring, they’re like folk when a house is on fire, they don’t care whether the fire truck is yellow, whether it’s red, or whether it’s blue. But that somebody responds. And so I want to see us deal with that entire amount of money that’s put over in there. If it’s not used, then we deal with it, but it remain in that category to deal with those programs through December 31, midnight 12:01 a.m., whatever it takes, but getting us through this year. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Just a clarification, Mr. Mays. The $150,000 would go to the Seniors Citizens Council and not be reprogrammed to follow the staff recommendation by using our people to man the center? Mr. Mayor: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Is that right? Mr. Mays: What it would do, the $150,000 would go towards seniors’ programs. We hold the purse strings, Mr. Mayor. It is not to be turned over to them. We deal with their already budgeted monies, which is in $171,000, but we monitor them on a monthly basis so that there is enough there to cover it out. Probably we may deal with a surplus, but I think there are other issues that are in there regarding transportation and other things of which they have serious concerns about and I’ve not heard an answer on where that $60,000 would take us nor cover us through December 31. Therefore, if we reprogram the amount of money -- no, it’s not to be given and turned over to them. It is to be earmarked so that in the transition period, that we are working in, as seniors are working out on their monthly basis, then it may be where it’s disseminated to Senior Citizens 5 Council. If it is not working out and we don’t like the numbers, then we’ve got enough there within our own funding source to be able to adequately do it so that it does not miss a step. That’s the intent of my motion. Not to take the $150,000 and just say okay, fine, here’s a check you take it. That’s not the intent of it. It is to make sure that the programs are covered. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Beard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that what Commissioner Mays is trying to say is some sort of a draw-down account like you’d have when you build a I house. You know, 50% complete, you can draw down 50% of the monies. And what wanted to ask if you would accept a friendly amendment, what time should these reports be, and we talk about monitoring. I was hoping that maybe the Center could address the issue of when they have their books closed for each month so that they would immediately transmit it to us and we review it at, at say the second Commission meeting in the month or the second committee meeting. I think this came out of Finance and we’re in it, and it could come in some fashion, but I would ask our Finance Director and the accountant that works for the Senior Center suggest an appropriate date so we could something in there in the nature of a timeline so that we would know -- they would know when to give the reports to us and we would know when we’d be expecting them. I would hope you’d put a friendly amendment in there to that effect. Mr. Mays: It’s certainly very friendly and I know where you’ve been on this, you’ve been friendly with it, too, and I appreciate it, Mr. Finance Chairman. You’re absolutely correct. That’s the ballpark that I wanted to get it into, and I think from a staff perspective, just like you said with their closing dates and our Finance folk, having that together by the time it gets to us on the Commission floor, so that we would have it for review, and I accept that without any reservations. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, let’s just say that they’ll turn that report in to us th by the 15 of every month beginning in July and that way we would have it for the second Finance Committee each month. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard:I just wanted to add another friendly Thank you, Mr. Mayor. amendment to that, if I can, at this point. We had two other items that we kind of wanted to get that in with the $150,000, and that was we had the request from the Project Success and the Youth Center and I would like to honor those two requests 6 today and coming from the $150,000 that we’re getting back from the UDAG money. Mr. Mays: I have no problem with accepting the amendments, Mr. Beard. I do think maybe it might be better if the amendment is accepted on the basis that there are existing funds currently in the UDAG monies that I could take into this motion. Cause the big question has been whether or not it would be paid back, not the category it would come out of. I know where you’re going with that, and I have no problem accepting that there. That will not, that will not break that for that small amount that’s in there, in order to do that, of helping those entities. Mr. Mayor: Let the Chair state at this point, the money for the Youth Center is item 47 on the agenda. The money for Project Success is not on the agenda. At least that I can find. And it would take unanimous consent to be able to -- according to the Parliamentarian -- it would take unanimous consent, Mr. Beard, to -- Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: It doesn’t take unanimous consent to amend a motion. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] vote. Mr. Mayor: Have a vote. It just takes a majority. Mr. Wall: That’s what -- Mr. Mayor: All right. That’s that legal speech you’re using up here. Mr. Bridges: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Where do the additional projects fall on the motion at this point? The Project Success and the other? Mr. Mayor: We can find out very quickly. Are there any objections to amending the motion to include Project Success and the Augusta Youth Center? Mr. Bridges: I object. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other objections? All right. So if we took a vote on it, then it would 7-1. Mr. Beard: One item is on the agenda, so we can -- Mr. Mayor: Both of them, you can add both of them. The Parliamentarian and I were not on the same page. You’re okay, your amendment is okay. All right, now somebody else had a hand up. 7 Mr. Bridges: I did. Mr. Mayor: Okay, go ahead. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to get some more information here, George. First, in regards to your proposal for us to take it over, the $8,000 that would go to the Senior Council, I assume that’s for one month to pay for the meals; is that correct? Mr. Kolb: It would be one month to pay for the staff. Mr. Bridges: Pay for the staff? Mr. Kolb: Right. They would continue to get the $15,000 per month that they’re getting now, which is the $171,000 divided by 12. In addition to that $15,000 just for the month of July we would give them an additional $8,000 so that they could continue the employees that they have under their agency working at those satellite centers. Mr. Bridges: Then after July, we would take it over with our staff? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Bridges: And we would pay them the $171,000 or the 1/12 portion of that for the meals? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Bridges: Now -- Mr. Kolb: And that should last, I have been told it will last through the end of the year. Mr. Bridges: Now is the Senior Citizens Council in agreement with that? Are they able to do that? Mr. Kolb: I have, I had a conversation with them this morning. They felt that they could, yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. And so in regards to -- what’s the $22,000 again? Mr. Kolb: The $22,000 -- we already have four fulltime people assigned to those centers that are currently on staff. We need an additional four part-time individuals. The cost from August 1 through the end of December, the end of this year, would cost about $22,000. Mr. Bridges: Okay. 8 Mr. Kolb: So all told, in addition to the $15,000 per month, we need an additional $30,000. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Kolb: Which brings it to a grand total to run the program as is through the end of this year to about $115,000. Mr. Bridges: And you’re proposing, and I guess you’re proposing in the 2004 budget to use the $171,000 plus $60,000 more to operate the entire thing, which is $231,000. Did I hear that right? Mr. Kolb: Yes. Essentially that is correct. Mr. Bridges: And what -- so that’s your recommendation in regards to that? Mr. Kolb: That’s is correct. Mr. Bridges: The amendment, I mean the motion that’s on the floor in regards to the $150,000 UDAG loan, what is the staff recommendation on the use of that and the proposed motion? Mr. Kolb: I -- Mr. Bridges: Can it be used for this? Mr. Kolb: Yes. It can be used for it, yes, sir. I’m a little confused by it because if we are just writing a check to the Senior Citizens Council, the only assurances that I think that we need that they are going to provide the meals until the end of the year. That’s the only guarantee at least I would be looking for. And that they would run those four satellite centers until the end of July. Other than that, if they overspend the money or under spend the money, as long as we are guaranteed the service, I would be satisfied. So I’m a little confused by the motion. Mr. Mays: Can I clear it for him, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb -- Mr. Bridges: I don’t want to yield the floor. Mr. Mays: I’m sorry. 9 Mr. Bridges: You go on and speak. Mr. Mays: I was just trying to get it clear. I’ll clear it for you and him. Go ahead, you got the floor, you’re correct. Mr. Bridges: No, please, you go ahead. I just don’t want to lose it after you’re through. Mr. Mays: No problem. Mr. Mayor: I’ll come back to you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Mays: What I was just trying to clear, Commissioner and to Mr. Kolb. I just repeated the fact, and it was kind of left in and I know George has some details from Recreation and I had some in the motion. But the heart of the motion is not to dispense funds on an automatic basis to the Senior Citizens Council. It is providing a funding source to make sure that a need is accomplished, doing two things. It clears the fear factors. It doesn’t put our seniors into a gathering point of where they’ve got to come back every two months to know whether or not the programs are going to stay intact. This gives the funding source -- we still control the purse strings. It may be that within 30 days in terms of my Finance Chairman’s amendment that’s there which I readily accept, it may [inaudible] to a point that we may say wait a minute, we’ve got to do something different and creative in this whole program. Then you have a funding source that you can turn to, so that if there are unforeseen things such as the part in reference to transportation, and it’s more in terms of the seniors in terms of the program than just meals, there are people that are there that are providing other types of programs, other types of activities, if it means that there may be there may need to be a shift in staffing to blend with our staffing that’s there, so that those type of activities do not diminish and on a lower scale, that is why you earmark the funds and put them there. It is not a turnover to automatically be spent. It is providing a source so that we don’t have to come back and reinvent the wheel and try and find 6 or 7 votes to get it done two to three months from now. It’s there, but it’s not necessarily -- it may mean we can do it cheaper, but at least it gives us a pocket so that we can spend out of, and that’s in terms of the motion. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Bridges, you have the floor. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I think that does help some in regards to this. I want to speak to a couple of other issues, the transportation issues. Under the proposal that you recommend, Mr. Kolb, will the transportation be an ongoing factor? Mr. Kolb: Yes. It is my understanding that the RDC actually contracts with another agency for transportation and that will continue uninterrupted. Mr. Bridges: Now in regards to the extra $60,000 over and above the $171,000 that we would do, and I’m speaking on a yearly basis here, we as the city as operator of 10 this would be able to apply for various grants and funding sources that would supplement that; is that the case? So potentially we could possibly not be out any more than the $171,000? Mr. Kolb: Potentially you could. As I understand it, part of the $171,000 is used for the recreational part of the current program. And the other part is used for two things. Number 1, to match a federal grant for the meal program and also to pay 100% of additional meals over and above the federal program. So the Commission would have the option of whether or not they wanted to reduce those additional meals or increase them or look for other ways to more resourcefully use that $171,000 to at least maintain or improve the services of that program. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor, in regards to the motion that’s on the floor, I think it’s very favorable to the seniors and I think it’s a good one. However, my concern with it is that it continues an existing program that according to the audits we were given, and I sat on the subcommittee that was formed to bring back a recommendation to the Finance Committee, the audit referred to the situation that brought this on, they even cast down on whether the Senior Citizens Council is a going financial concern. Looking at some of the numbers, looking at the budgets for the Council, I think if we pass the motion that’s on the floor, when we get to the end of the year, we’re going to be right back here trying to figure this thing out. We’re going to be considering taking it over ourselves again, we’re going to be doing it at a time when we’re in the middle of budget, and I think that’s going to be a time consuming process. To me, from what I’ve seen, I think we’ve got a proposal that’s on the floor that will, that will end this problem once and for all, it will continue, and I’m talking about the one the Administrator has proposed here. It will continue this program for the seniors. There will be no cut in the service, the food, the transportation, the recreational activities, and it will put it on a solid ground, whereas if we do anything else I’m afraid there’s going to be a question whether we finalize this thing or not. And I think we need to finalize it and I think the proposal that the Administrator has given us is one that does that and we can all put it aside and go on and continue and it be part of our programs. I’m going to make the motion that we approve the recommendation as given by our staff. Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that motion for discussion. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: All right, we had Mr. Cheek’s hand up next. Then we’ll go around the table. We’ll get everybody in on this. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No department in this city has come up to a point or has come up in my tenure to a point that this far into the fiscal year and needing this type of funding to complete its mission without -- none have come to that point and 11 none certainly have come close without a great deal of scrutiny. We have put the city’s financial house in order, based on the leadership from the Mayor and Commission. I have no problem with the original motion, and I agree with Commissioner Bridges in that this is an unsolved problem that will continue into the coming year. Not a person in this chamber continues to live beyond their means expecting somebody else to come out of pocket and cover that cost. That is an unreasonable request. Were it not for the $150,000 that we have coming in, we would have to go into our contingency fund, our savings, the city’s rainy day funds, to cover these accounts. I urge the Senior Citizens Council to look at its operational costs, just as we request every department of this city to do, and just as every one of us as citizens do when our budget, when our income is not meeting what our budgetary needs are, to make the adjustments necessary to where this is corrected before the end of the year. We have to look at the services we provide every day to the citizens of this city, and to provide what we can afford. We cannot, as much as we’d all like to, provide more services than we can afford. So I urge you, I encourage you to look within your own house to correct this. Work it out. Look at the staffing cuts. We’ve had hiring freezes, pay freezes, we’ve not hired people that we’ve needed because the city couldn’t afford it. Help us to correct this problem where we don’t all have to be back down here at the first of the year. Please. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support the original motion, but I respect what Commissioner Bridges has said. But the reason I’m going to support the motion is that it appears to me that what Mr. Mays has said is that we’re going to look at this operation on a month-to-month basis, and our fallback, if they’re not performing the way we think they should perform, would be to go back to the Recreation Department to take it over. The other thing is that I think as we look at the next year, during the budget cycle is when we are really going to take a strong look at this Senior Citizens program and see which direction we go. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I a little bit earlier realized that as of last August, I was placed on the Senior Citizens Board of Directors, and after discussing with legal counsel, the conclusion was that I have to excuse myself from any vote and from any discussion, and I regret that because I felt like I had a lot of experience in my past years as Recreation Director to contribute to this, but I have to follow the advice of counsel, so I’ll excuse myself. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say I agree with what been said. I was going to say we have a chance to look at it on a month-to-month basis, as Commissioner Shepard has said. I think the original motion would be the best thing to do, and I call for the question. 12 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I had asked to speak, Mr. Williams. Well, in the Finance Committee, Commissioner Bridges and I voted for an advanced funding [inaudible] to buy time for this agency to have at its board and management level, to have its house put in order. And so I saw that as a technique for forcing accountability. I see the main motion is doing exactly that as amended, cause they’re going to be coming back here with reports, maybe more than we want to see, but the first one is due next month and we’ll be taking it up. So I think with that, we have achieved the accountability that we hoped to achieve with the motions in committee. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, do you have a procedural question? We’re ready to vote. Mr. Bridges: I have, I still want to discuss the issue, if I may, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Well, the question has been called, and the Chair will rule there has been adequate debate on it. Mr. Bridges: Adequate debate? I mean I still have some issues I would like to resolve, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask my -- Mr. Bridges: I still have some questions that are different from the discussion that’s been on the board. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask our Parliamentarian here. All right, after conferring with the Parliamentarian, I will rule that there is unreadiness to proceed with the vote. Mr. Bridges, you may continue. Mr. Bridges: Thank you. George, in regards to part of the motion, the original motion, the $10,000 to Project Success, is that something that UDAG funds can be used for? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate the response there, my concern with the additional funding -- I think Project Success is great. I think it does a wonderful job with the youth of the city. My concern is what we’ve already seen experienced with providing additional funds to these different groups, that we haven’t funded in this way in the past, and that is we have some coming before us when they see us providing funds to these organizations, they come and they want -- rightly so -- coming before us and want something for their organization, too. One would be the -- and I’ve already been 13 approached by a youth organization on Brown Road that wants funding based on what we’re doing here today. We’ve had other Commissioners approached by organizations whose funding has been cut by the State or the federal government. They’re looking to us to provide the additional funding. And rightly so. They come before us when they see is providing it to different organizations. My concern with the original motion, and I’m not saying if I don’t get the votes on the substitute, I’m not saying I’m not going to support it because I think we need to do something for the seniors today. I just think that the original motion doesn’t end it. I think the substitute motion does it and provides them a firm foundation and they can rest assured they’re going forward with the program and will continue, they’ll be able to continue the [inaudible] and the practices they have in the past. So I hope my colleagues consider those comments. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re ready to move ahead with the vote now? We’ll vote on the substitute motion from Commissioner Bridge, which was to follow the staff recommendation. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams, M. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No. Mr. Boyles abstains. Motion fails 1-6-1. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any further discussion on the original motion? As I understand the original motion, we’ve got -- Mr. Mays, help me out now. As I understand your original motion, we’re setting aside from the UDAG money $130,000 toward the senior initiatives, $10,000 for the Augusta Youth Center, and $10,000 for Project Success; is that correct? Mr. Mays: Yes, those amendments were accepted. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Want to make sure everybody is clear on the motion. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: It’s my understanding that we’re going to get monthly reports and that we are going to be monitoring the situation and if things continue to go as they are with this level of overspending then we can expect serious changes by the first of the year. Mr. Mayor: You may see them sooner than that, Mr. Cheek. Okay, all in favor of the original motion then from Commissioner Mays as amended, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Boyles abstains. 14 Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: I would invite our senior citizens to stay here the rest of the afternoon and enjoy the rest of the meeting with us, if you’d so like. Otherwise, we have disposed of this item and we thank you for your attendance and attention today. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We’ve concluded with the item. If you have questions like that, I refer you to our staff. You can take those up with the staff. The next, the next item on the agenda, Madame Clerk, will be item -- well, we’ll give them a moment to clear the chambers. (A round of applause is given.) (Brief pause) The Clerk: JUDICIAL ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE: 50. Consider recommendation from the Judicial Advisory Subcommittee regarding alternate selection site for the proposed Judicial Center. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Kuhlke, Chairman of the committee. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen, I’ve tried to take the opportunity to speak to each one of y’all concerning the recommendation that’s coming back from the Judicial Subcommittee. And I’d be happy to answer any questions but I don’t know that I need to go into specific details. But the Judicial Subcommittee, after reviewing the project definition from the architects, have found that adding on to this facility over the long term would not be in the best interest of the judicial, nor for this site. So our recommendation back to you is to move the location of the Judicial Center to the pension property on Reynolds Street. And I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve this location, and along with that motion that we all the appropriate things that we need to do to establish the fair value of that property for the pensioners and instruct the Attorney to go ahead and begin negotiations on purchasing that property from the pensioners. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Beard and then Mr. Williams. 15 Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I served on that committee and at that particular time we had two sites that I think some of us on the committee could agree with, and I told them that I possibly could agree with both sites, either the May Park or the Reynolds pension property. Since that time, there’s been a lot of discussion and a lot of people in the community wanted to know different things, wanted to know more information about this, and I think we’re making a big step forward here, wherein I think that possibly, you know, either place could be suitable, with the right information given. And people have been stopping me in the street and asking me, you know, cost factors and you know, we’ve been working on this thing and I must our Chairman, Mr. Kuhlke, Commissioner Kuhlke has done an excellent job in carrying this thing through, in trying to get it up front, and back to the Commission. And he and I discussed this last week, that this is where we were going to bring it, back to the Commission. I was very pleased to see that it’s here where it should be, and at this point, I don’t know what’s going to come up today, but I do think at some time we are going to have to qualify this and get a little more information on it before we jump to this big step. And it’s not that I’m pro or con on either issue, but I think the questions that I’ve been asked over the past two or three days -- because I think that the people need a little more information and where this information come from -- even Bill and myself don’t want to go back through what we’ve just been through, so I think as Commissioners we’re going to have to bit the bullet and come up with something that is going to be good for the community and just not for a few people. And I think it’s going to be important that we do. And we’ve been working on this for I guess 10, 12, maybe 18 months now, and my thoughts was at the beginning until a few weeks ago that we were going outside to the, to the outside of this building. But I do think we need some information, and that’s why I probably will abstain on this vote. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, talked to the Chairman and I’m grateful to him for what the committee have done. I’m a little bit confused, I guess, and that’s easy to do but I just need to know what happened to the other site that was looked at. We looked at the Greene Street site, we did a study and all that other stuff on that site. And I’ve got no, no real big problem with going down on the riverfront property, but being a block or two away from this building, I never did -- I don’t remember, I won’t say I didn’t get it, but I don’t remember what was the final outcome of all this study of the property. We talked about the parking behind, that the Civic Center could be used during the day. I’d like to know what happened to that, Bill, before, before I take a step, you know, on the river this afternoon. Mr. Kuhlke: Can I answer the question? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Kuhlke: Commissioner Williams, we first looked at the property adjoining th this property, on the west side of 6 Street. As we got into that, there were a number of 16 different owners of that property. That didn’t appear to be such a problem, but we had about three historical buildings on there, and they were in good condition. We got prices to move those buildings to another location, and the prices ranged somewhere in the area of $500,000 to $1 million apiece to do it. And so it became, actually it became financial impractical for us to go there. That’s the reason we moved to this location. About three months ago, we went to Atlanta, met with the architects. They had gathered all of their information, and they presented us with a program that would take -- a Judicial Center that would take us out to 2013 and one that would take us out to 2023. When we started looking at this particular location, we were looking to see if we could work out something with the Coliseum about parking. Following the meeting in Atlanta, the Judicial people got together, they digested the information that we got from the architects, they looked at what they perceived as the inconvenience of having the parking at the Civic Center. And then when they looked beyond 2013, which I think the Judicial Committee felt like that’s too short-sighted to look for a Judicial Center, we need to go out somewhere between 2013 and 2013. When we did that, and to be able to fully consolidate all of the judicial operations in Richmond County, it dictated us going to another site without crowding here and not having the adequate parking. Over there, we can have, we can consolidate all of the judicial and have the adequate parking in that location. Mr. Williams: And again, I’m just trying to search for some answers here. When I look around almost everything, and we look at growth, we are really blessed with [inaudible]. Now we got some historic buildings and stuff like that we got to contend with, but other cities who build buildings and come in and put stuff up beside each other, and I’m amazed at how a building go up the side of another building and look like they never touch it. But here we are with all of the room we got, all of the area we got, going to this facility going cost us parking spaces. We talked about at least 200 people being there, at least 300 to 400 people in and out there. We going to have to build a parking deck if we go with that location. That’s another what -- $10 million, $12 million we’re looking at. We’ve got to come up with something. I mean I appreciate what you did. We talked about it a while. I told you then that I could see the pros and cons to it. Riverwalk is our number one, our prize and joy. When you come to Augusta, we tell people to come to Riverwalk. In my mind, I don’t think that will be the place where people ought to see people coming in in orange suits with chains on them and walking their kids up and down the breezeway. Maybe we can build a building that you won’t even know it’s a courthouse, but I just think that’s a area we ought to try to keep the focus point of Augusta. If the other Commissioners feel like that’s a good place, then I guess we do that. But those my comments, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Colclough and I met Saturday with about 60 citizens and discussed this and other SPLOST, potential SPLOST projects. At the onset of this last SPLOST that we’re in, we allocated $20 million plus an additional $1-million-some-odd to buy this pension property, bringing that total for the Judicial Center project to $21 million-some-odd to cover the cost. My understanding is 17 that the building on the site recommended by the committee will exceed $68 million, $58 million to $68 million, which is the equivalent of telling the citizens of this city that they will eliminate for other projects such as drainage, roads, recreation, fire stations, and other things, an additional year-and-a-third SPLOST money to go into this project, which will be used by the judges, lawyers, and criminals of this city. I have a real problem with this, the entire evolution of the project such that it has not come to the point where it’s living within the budget, which is 2/3 of a year of SPLOST money for a Judicial Center. A Judicial Center is certainly important to the citizens of this city, but it is not the most important thing to the citizens of this city. The citizens unanimously said at the meeting Saturday, this past Saturday at Gracewood Community Center at nine o’clock that they did not want to see us spend any additional funds on this project. They were very adamant in that there were other, more important needs to the citizens of this city, and I’m very concerned that at the site of the river that we cannot build something suitable for that real estate, for the $20 million. I really am thankful that they did the projections of 15 and 30 years, however many years out for use and growth. But this Commission said that it should look at ways to build the judicial, to fill the judicial needs within this existing structure and for $20 million with some other type of annex or other arrangement, and that is just simply not what we’ve done. We have got too many other needs in this city for us to continue to grow a project that will suit the needs of so few, and I’m going to have a problem voting for either one of these changes. I really think that this is déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra says. This is a project that we should hold accountable just like we do every other project. They should live within the $20 million budget that we allocated. Instead it’s growing like a monster, and I, for one, am not in support of it. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else care to be heard? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I’ve really got some questions, I guess of Mr. Kuhlke, in regards to this. The funding site for the Reynolds Street, what is the funding site for it as compared to May Park? How far out does the committee think the Reynolds Street site would carry us, as far as the years it will serve us, as well as the May Park site? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we looked I think seriously at May Park. We looked at the Civic Center location. May Park had more property than Reynolds Street. The problem with May Park is we felt like the residents in that area were going to demand that they have a park. If we took that particular location, we’d have to find another ten acres, we’d have to move the senior citizens, we’d have to build all the recreation facilities, and we felt like the cost to do that would far exceed the cost of purchasing the pension property. So we looked at that. I think as we move forward that we will be looking somewhere in the neighborhood of between 2013 and 2023 as far as establishing the gross square footage that’s going to be required. Speaking a little bit to what Andy’s comments were, we do have about $25 million right now. And we add the $1.2 million in I think for the pension fund. The Administrator had plugged in about $20 million for a new administrative facility. We would not necessarily need all of those funds because the 18 administrative part would stay where we are now. And so you would have some additional funds that you would have to put in there. I’d be, it would be purely speculation on my part to say what it’s going to cost. I don’t know that until you finalize what you’re going to do. But needless to say, it’s going to cost more than $25 million. Mr. Bridges: And you’re saying it would go out to 2003 [sic], possibly 2023 at the Reynolds Street site? Mr. Kuhlke: And probably beyond that. I think you’ve got to look at the growth of the last decade. In Richmond County it was about 5%. And you know, you look at our adjoining county, Columbia County, and it is was about 35%. So I see the potential, the judicial growth probably moving more toward Columbia County over the next ten to 20 years more so than Richmond County, but we projected it out to 2023. Mr. Bridges: What about the previous study that was done a few years back? I think it made the paper this morning that recommended that this not be a site of that, that it was not compatible with how downtown was trying to develop in regards to attracting tourists, that type of thing? Was that -- Mr. Kuhlke: Well, you know, I think that study was done maybe three years ago, and updated maybe 18 months ago. Things do change. But if you ask me over the next, over the long term is this the highest and best use for that property, I’d say no, probably not. But if you look at the study that CVB did, I don’t see a hotel going on that property. We ranked roughly around number 1 in our size city as far as hotel rooms. Where we’re lacking is in exhibit space. And I think the committee took this into consideration. By putting the Judicial Center down there, I think it would be the catalyst to start upgrading the lower Broad Street area which has not come up like the upper part of Broad Street. So I think the economic spin-off would be significant with the Judicial Center there. You’re looking at 250 permanent jobs, you’re looking at 400 to 500 people a day to go through that facility. It would have a very strong impact. And it’s going to some on some attorneys, they’re going to have to drive their car over there. But it was the only viable site that we could come up with. Mr. Bridges: I’d also like to just throw out something. I’m [inaudible] to support the recommendation of the committee because I think we’ve got to move forward some time, some way. But we sort of had a gentleman’s agreement in regards to this building, a future library, and where the administrative staff was going to go, in regards to the future building of the library. So moving the judicial building and leaving this one as-is kind of throw that into limbo in regards to what we may have to work out in regards to a library and those issues that we addressed before. But I do appreciate the work that Mr. Kuhlke and the committee have done. I think they’ve spent a lot of time, many years with it actually, and I commend them for it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 19 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, that, too, is something that I’m glad Commissioner Bridges brought that up. We discussed moving certain of the administrative staff to a centrally location position in the city as part of the arrangement of maintaining this building as the Judicial Center, which was either as a whole the Judicial Center or certainly part of with an annex to it. Again, I’ll go back to the fact that of the $20 million that we allocated last sales tax, plus accrued interest if that money is in fact in the bank, completely gutting the renovation funds which originally were around $13 million and they’re down to $7 million or so, which would be rolled over into this project, the required monies to build something that we seem to have evolved to in this project, which again is a cash consuming monster in my opinion, that serves the needs of a very few, is something that’s very unpalatable to myself and a large number of the citizens of this community. And on top of it, downtown has changed. It has become more of a tourist attraction. It has become more of a place for our citizens to come and enjoy Riverwalk and certainly have prisoners escorted from patrol cars in shackles next to our Riverwalk is certainly something we should consider as a byproduct of locating this property down there on the river. We don’t have any immediate need, but most assuredly if we locate the Judicial Center on this property, it will have no future use. Therefore, I just again, and this is a heads up, and I think if other Commissioners will go out to your people and have these public meetings and talk with them, the citizens have said $20 million is enough. Although there’s been constant study and a lot of work put into this study, living within that $20 million budget doesn’t seem to have been the number 1 priority, and I don’t care if it’s the judges, the Utilities Department, Public Works Department, or Rec Department, we ask everybody to live within a budget. $20 million is enough to meet the immediate and some future needs for this Judicial Center. Yes, there will be growth in Columbia County. We have got to consider the security of our next round of SPLOST, which is in jeopardy if we start lumping a lot of these programs on them that the citizens do not want. And this is certainly one of those projects, and I urge everyone to consider this. I’d like to see us -- I don’t think we need to study it forever, but we’re completely abandoning the gentleman’s agreement we talked about, that Commissioner Bridges brought up. We’re doubling, more than doubling the cost of the project, and to me that is way too much for change for me to be comfortable to vote in any way for this facility. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. To my colleagues, I think that two important parts of the judicial system have been overlooked in our debate today. It’s not a system for attorneys and the judges or for criminal defendants exclusively. Those cases are made to protect victims. And those are the victims of crime, and they won’t be protected unless they’re prosecuted. And they’re victims of civil negligence and other causes of action. Breach of contract. So to say the judicial system serves only the criminals, the attorneys and the judges is not quite right. What it serves is it serves the victims of crime and the victims of civil contract breaches and torts. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Anything further? Mr. Mays? 20 Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I could add a few friendly comments to what’s been discussed here today. Let me say that I think that bringing this to the Commission, the Committee has followed its path in terms of making some decision for us to have the right to make a decision on. Now this has been probably one of the most difficult committees that a Commissioner would have had to serve on. And this Commissioner is certainly glad that he wasn’t on that committee. One thing I’m probably going to miss about my colleague sitting to the right of me the most, and I’ve told him this in private and I want to express it in public, is that I think we’ve been lucky to have his expertise on this committee because I’ve seen us pay consultants far more for probably less information than we are going to get out of Bill for free. And that’s not saying that in January [inaudible] get off the hook totally with it. But I think it had to come to at least some form of discussion of getting it out here. With that said, however, I believe that the opening statement by Commissioner Beard that we obviously need still some time on this particular issue. A lot of time was spent to get us to the point where we are, and yet I think probably if a vote was taken and everybody was still here, you would not have a real consensus of a, of a support to deal with any location that’s out there right now. That leads me to believe that we may have to search just a little bit harder. The numbers obviously, Mr. Mayor, are something that have to be looked at seriously. I heard the [inaudible] today, but I heard the numbers that the Administrator had, of plugging in another $21 million for the administrative building. And when you start moving and switching numbers that get into eight figures, that’s a lot of switching. And somewhere in there, some things obviously can kind of fall short. This particular property, and I’ve made a commitment, I go way back with this, I remember the meeting we had at the boat house with all the judicial officers. I put that on the agenda and asked for that meeting to be called because some of them were concerned that some of their needs had been overlooked. We met at the boat house and talked about it at length in an open meeting. I made a commitment then that I said from the very beginning, whatever they were going to build, it should be a state-of-the-art facility. I probably even differed with it being here from the standpoint of security concerns and where it [inaudible]. I also made a commitment that I thought this courthouse should have a downtown presence. Now with that said, that does not mean I’m married to what is on the floor today. I think we’ve still got to deal with some looking and searching, not only with costs but also with location. Let me make a couple of clarifications. We say that we may not get into a hotel situation for another 15-20 years and obviously we have a lot of rooms. And I heard the survey about we need advanced convention space, but you know, I’m one of those people now that’s over 50 years old, and you travel to conventions, it’s good to have numbers of rooms, but if you’re promoting an idea, if your riverfront is your crown jewel to a point people don’t want to stay all over a county if you’ve got a convention site that’s located down on your riverfront. We looked at the comparisons with Savannah. It may have an advantage in some of its tourists being combined with Savannah and at Hilton Head, but you have a situation where three [inaudible] riverfront competitively [inaudible] their convention bookings is the largest they’ve got [inaudible] 94% occupancy rate. It was mentioned that one of the hotels recently changed hands. Well, it did. But it changed to better hands. It had local participants that were there, now being back totally by the 21 Westin Foundation family, which makes it one of its crown jewel hotels that’s there and the convention space that it’s built. I think to a point that when you look on one end, if you talk about a Golf Hall of Fame and you talk about a National Science Center, if we’re talking about a museum, obviously this will be a beautiful building, yes. But is it the intended purpose for the future of what we want it for the entertainment of Riverwalk to look like? I took the time to call people involved in [inaudible]. I called one of my old close friends at [inaudible], Harry [inaudible]. Harry worked for Sheraton at that time and [inaudible]. And people in Jacksonville. You know, the Mississippi River flowing in New Orleans. But we would probably be the only city in America, and there’s nothing wrong with being different, but we probably would be the only one with our main courthouse sitting on our riverfront. Savannah has got its city hall that’s there on one street over from the river, but everything was built around the historic city hall. Plans that Augusta Tomorrow had in place [inaudible] those things just now go up in smoke, to say that this is the only place that we locate it? I’m not saying that May Park is perfect, either. And I think that the Chairman had some good ideas in reference to the difference that it would cost in May Park. But I think one thing that we looked at, and I think if you don’t lay numbers out with projects, you cannot adequately expect to get support from people. I think people have to see comparisons. I think they have to see what totally is going to the [inaudible], how much additional property you’re going to have to acquire for the future, how much the parking decks will cost. By the same stroke of fairness, I think you have to say how much will it cost to replace May Park? If you say hypothetically looked at the fairgrounds [inaudible], if it was for sale, if it is still for sale it was one of the cheaper properties we looked at. That would probably be a good location for a new May Park and being able to put adequate ball fields, parking and everything that you would need. And the complaints that have been raised in some quarters about Mayfest being too close to the residents, it actually takes it further away from the residents, to be able to, so that the park itself can enjoy its fullness in a modern th state. And we also own the streets, as a city we own Walton Way, we own 4 Street, we can take them into [inaudible] anytime we so deem it necessary. And they become a part of the properties that are there, of which then it makes it even bigger acreage when you take in the street portions that are there. But then have we looked at everything that we’ve got? And I’m not going to mention, cause I think we’ve got [inaudible] another day. I think when we telegraph properties, we have to do things in public but sometimes the prices go up and price tags get [inaudible] and other properties come out, Mr. Mayor, everybody then wants to raise their property seven or eight times if they know you’re coming. But it may just be in fairness to the committee, and particularly in fairness to the chairman, I think they’ve done a job, a great job, in bringing something back. We can’t condemn them for doing a job that the Commission supported the committee to do. But I think there are some numbers issues. I think there are some long-term location issues that are involved with this that still have to be at least discussed. And I think you’ve got to put a number with each one of them. I mentioned, for the record, when the finalize [inaudible] and I said I’m not going to fight us on the site when we decided to build the building here. And I posed the question, and I went back and looked at the minutes the other day to make sure I had posed it. It was there. I said what happened if now this one falls through and we got to come back to this again and we look at it? I think to make a 22 one site decision, once we’ve gone over 18 months, to go to one site [inaudible] without at least putting all the numbers on the table, what it’s going to cost totally, and I think if the numbers bear out to where you can’t do something, then at least you have a more [inaudible] product to the general public when they see what numbers are. But I think if we’re going back now to [inaudible] we’re going to do this, we’re going to make this fit into a particular puzzle to make it work, well then what happens if that doesn’t work? Do we start all over again? I think to be a little bit competitive, and I said, Mr. Mayor, this was going to be friendly and I’m going to close with this. Maybe we need a little friendly competition in the game. Maybe we need to [inaudible] some sites with two or three different people as professionals, maybe two or three different professionals need to come back with two or three different locations, [inaudible] assigned to them with a number with it and what will work, and let them battle it out to bring back the best of numbers. Cause if one person is looking at two to three sites, and if it’s a predetermined situation it’s going to go in one place, they’re not going to work as hard to bring us back alternatives. But I think if you’ve got two to three folk, and they are assigned to one project, cause if you let them, if you let one [inaudible] it means you’re going to pay one three numbers, or if you let three do three, you’re going to pay three three numbers. So maybe that’s unorthodox, but it might get us to a point where established numbers are on some different sites and so I still applaud the committee. I think they’ve had a tough job. I think it’s a building that has to be built. I think you’ve got a $20 million commitment that’s already been made to it. [inaudible] going to cost somewhat some more money [inaudible] there. How much, I don’t know. But those are my comments, Mr. Mayor, and I just think we need a little time to do this and I don’t think we have to necessarily start World War I think with each other on the floor about it. I just think it needs a little time to go over and to deal with some other things. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if we can’t try to move this along then. We have a motion from the chairman of the subcommittee. It’s been seconded. Let’s go ahead and call the question on that motion and then see where we proceed from there. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No. Mr. Beard abstains. Motion fails 4-3-1. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in light of the vote we just took, I make a motion that we invite the architects that are assigned to the project to come to the full Commission and let’s have a meeting with that group. I understand that we should have a better understanding of their recommendation, so I’ll put that in the form of a motion with the meeting to be scheduled by the Clerk and the Mayor at the convenience of as many Commissioners and the Mayor as we can. Mr. Bridges: Second. 23 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Discussion on that motion? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think this is where most of us on the committee, that worked on the committee wanted this to get. I think Mr. Shepard has, Commissioner Shepard has offered a very good solution to this. [inaudible] conversations around here, I think we all think that we need a little more conversation. And with these people, as Mr. Mays alluded to, with professionalism, bringing it in, and we can have direct contact with them. I think this will solve, at least get us started again. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, again I don’t want to be just the lone voice crying in the wilderness, but if you add the additional projected cost with a jail pod or two, and a couple of other choice projects, we have completely consumed our next round of SPLOST without improving drainage or streets or recreation or fire department or anything else except in terms of token measures. I really think that we all need to do a reality check on this and see if this is the direction we want to go in. And if I have to be the one driving this thing, to coming back to reality to live within the $20 million we allocated and I go down like the Titanic, that’s fine. But dog gone it, we have a lot other needs within this community and really I just urge all of the Commissioners to think about what, the road we are embarking upon, regardless of the site we choose. This is, this is a growing, money-gobbling monster. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate what Mr. Shepard is saying, but I think to have the architects come down here at this point would be a waste of their time and a waste of our time. I can tell you right now that $20 million is not going to build a Judicial Center, and it would be my recommendation that probably that the Judicial Subcommittee meet, I think we need to make a decision as to whether we just completely scrap this project. We’re wasting our time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I think the Commission would ultimately have to make that decision, Bill, I mean I think we might as well go straight to it. We’ve spent a year-and- a-half and I appreciate the committee system. Mr. Kuhlke: And that’s fine. What I’m saying, I understand the Commission has got to make that decision, but you know, the, the only thing the architect can do is to come and show you the program that was developed up to this point, and very frankly the program that they’ve come up with, we’re looking at a building about three times the size of the building that you’re sitting in right now. And that’s what it’s going to take to 24 house the judicial system as it is. To house it as it is today would take a facility twice this size. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, I understand, and here again, I’ve seen some of the materials. I haven’t seen them all. I understand there’s a large amount of common space, and I think, you know, I’d like to inquire into that. I think that the new facility that’s just been built in Evans has a lot less space. I mean the results of that meeting may well be as you suggested, but I think that we, you know, we should have them down here and we should express the feelings that we’ve expressed here among ourselves. There’s all kind of issues here. Economic development of the river, having some attraction to the other members of my profession to continue to locate in this area, overall budgetary consideration. We need them to know that. I do not think they have a carte blanc on the expense of anybody [inaudible]. If we put all our eggs in one basket and don’t have some local projects in the SPLOST that will benefit neighborhoods, we are going to have a problem. If we don’t have a criminal justice system that keeps the criminals prosecuted and incarcerated, we’re going to have a public safety problem. And if we don’t have a method of trying in a timely fashion the many civil claims that are founded in this county because it’s the appropriate place of trial for those civil claims, people who have been hurt and injured are not going to see justice. It’s going to be justice delayed and justice denied. So I would entreat all of you to have these, these professionals back in front of this Commission and make those tough decisions. Mr. Kuhlke: If I could just ask this, are you asking the subcommittee to invited them to come before the Commission? Mr. Shepard: I’m asking the Clerk of this Commission today to invite them. I think we’re at a critical point in the process. Mr. Kuhlke: Should it be at a Commission or should it be at a special meeting? Mr. Mayor: A work session? Mr. Shepard: A work session is fine, a meeting is fine. I’m open to suggestions on that, whatever my colleagues want to do. I tell you what, for purposes of a motion, I’ll make it a work session. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard: I think, Commissioners, what we ultimately have to face here, and I have said this before, the buck stop with the ten people sitting up at this podium here, and including the Mayor, which would be 11. It’s going to stop there. And it is essential [inaudible] we get together, whether it’s a workshop or whatever kind of meeting you want to, but I think it’s essential that we as a group of Commissioners sit down and talk 25 about this thing, and I think this is the only way we are going to move this forward. We can’t leave it to the Judicial Subcommittee, we can’t leave it to anybody else. We have to, we have to accept that responsibility, because whatever you [inaudible] on this, it is going to be ours, and that means we are going to take the responsibility and we have to move forward. So that’s why I’m gong to support Commissioner Shepard on this, because I think it’s needed. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick lesson in history. Last time we embarked upon building jail towers, they doubled in cost in less than a year. Much similar to this project. We relocated to Phinizy Road. Built the pods and brought them in on budget. We, the take-it-or-leave-it or all-for-nothing $48 million or whatever the cost us, above the $20 million, is simply to me unfathomable, especially in light of the many other needs that we have in this city. The fact that we probably could save money in a lot of ways. We built Cross Creek High School, bought the land and built the high school for $21 million. And I know I hear oh, that’s a lot of difference, lot different than courtrooms. But you go to other places in Statesboro and other places, and these folks that have the victims that do have to go to the courts aren’t nearly as concerned about the mahogany and marble as they are the justice. We just have to require of this project the same thing we do of other projects. Live reasonably within your means. Your budgeted amount of money. Don’t double the cost. Don’t narrow us down to one location that is quite possibly not the best location. There are many ways to save money, to value engineer this, and again, the people of this community deserve the quality of life amenities that this very project in its current form will strip from them by taking their much-needed SPLOST money. And I concur with Commissioner Shepard. It’s time for the architects to come down and let’s discuss their methodology behind the design of this building, this complex, and see where our costs are. Mr. Beard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. I just say as we go into the vote the Chair and certainly a number of these Commissioners who have sitting here for the last 4-1/2 years talking about the location for the Judicial Center, and if a meeting with the architects moves us one more step closer to it, we’d certainly welcome that and I would support the motion if I had the opportunity to vote on it. The question has been called. All in favor of the motion from Commissioner Shepard then please vote aye. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and build our consent agenda. Try to get through that, then we’ll [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: We have some items from Engineering Services to add. 26 Mr. Mayor: Let the Clerk go ahead with the regular agenda and then we’ll move to Engineering Services and I think there are a couple of other items we can tack on there, too. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 29. That’s items 1 through 29. For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, once those petitions are read, if you have any objection would you please signify that by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z –03-40 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tom Ledbetter requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a dog kennel in an Agricultural Zone per Section 7-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3145 Goolsby Road and containing 4.20 acres. (Tax Map 265 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8 2. Z-03-42 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Chris Booker, on behalf of South Augusta Church of Christ, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing an existing church into zoning conformance per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4149 Daisy Lane and containing 5.17 acres. (Tax Map 154 Parcel 29) DISTRICT 6 3. Z-03-43 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Reverend Mark Walden, on behalf of Old Time Way Church of God in Christ, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of church improvements including day care services and related church activities per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 3450 Old McDuffie Road and containing approximately 32 acres. (Tax Map 94 Parcels 27.1 & 4.01) DISTRICT 4 4. Z-03-44 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Karen Burke requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of a Multi-family Residential use in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 930 Stevens Creek Road and containing 1.17 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 19) DISTRICT 7 5. Z-03-45 -A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road 150 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road and containing approximately 15.5 acres. (Tax Map 141 Part of Parcel 538.5) DISTRICT 4 27 6. Z-03-46 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Wright McLeod, on behalf of Daniel McLeod Living Trust, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple- family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the rear of 1939 15th. Street and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 72-1 Parcel 74.1) DISTRICT 2 7. Z-03-47 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cynthia Butler, on behalf of James Otis Crooke and Louise Irving Crooke, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 3C (Multiple-family Residential)) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a Special Exception to use second floor for residential purposes affecting property located at 616 and 618 Fourth Street and containing .09 acres. (Tax Map 47-4 Parcel 323) DISTRICT 1 8. Z-03-48 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Herbert, on behalf of Frankie Hitt and Jacqualyne Payne, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One- family Residential)) to Zone R-1 C (One-family Residential) affecting property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Jackson Road intersects with the right-of-way line of Sycamore Road and containing 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 41-2 Parcel 30) DISTRICT 3 The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Do we have any alcohol license applications? The Clerk: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. Commissioner Cheek, you have some items from the Engineering Services agenda you’d like to add to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Madame Clerk, do you have the list we prepared earlier? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: Could you go ahead and just recite that for us? The Clerk: Consent agenda from the Engineering Services Committee held June 17 at one o’clock consists of items 36 through 40, 45 and 35. Mr. Shepard: Could you repeat that, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Items 36 through 40, and item 45 and 35. 28 Mr. Mayor: And is it possible to add item number 53 to the consent agenda, which are two reappointments? Of is it your preference to have an election? Okay. And we have one item on the addendum agenda, which is an appointment for District 6. If there’s no objection, we’d like to add that to the consent agenda today. Are there any other items that we can add to the consent agenda? All right, do we have a motion to approve? Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: What items would you like to pull from the consent agenda? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on items 37, 38, and 39. Just some clarification, please. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Chair would like to pull item number 11 just for a question. Are there any other items? Okay. CONSENT AGENDA: PLANNING: 1. Z –03-40 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tom Ledbetter requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a dog kennel in an Agricultural Zone per Section 7-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3145 Goolsby Road and containing 4.20 acres. (Tax Map 265 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8 2. Z-03-42 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Chris Booker, on behalf of South Augusta Church of Christ, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing an existing church into zoning conformance per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4149 Daisy Lane and containing 5.17 acres. (Tax Map 154 Parcel 29) DISTRICT 6 3. Z-03-43 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Reverend Mark Walden, on behalf of Old Time Way Church of God in Christ, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of church improvements including day care services and related church activities per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 3450 Old McDuffie Road and containing approximately 32 acres. (Tax Map 94 Parcels 27.1 & 4.01) DISTRICT 4 4. Z-03-44 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Karen Burke requesting a Special 29 Exception for the purpose of a Multi-family Residential use in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 930 Stevens Creek Road and containing 1.17 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 19) DISTRICT 7 5. Z-03-45 -A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road 150 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road and containing approximately 15.5 acres. (Tax Map 141 Part of Parcel 538.5) DISTRICT 4 6. Z-03-46 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Wright McLeod, on behalf of Daniel McLeod Living Trust, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple- family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the rear of 1939 15th Street and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 72-1 Parcel 74.1) DISTRICT 2 7. Z-03-47 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cynthia Butler, on behalf of James Otis Crooke and Louise Irving Crooke, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 3C (Multiple-family Residential)) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a Special Exception to use second floor for residential purposes affecting property located at 616 and 618 Fourth Street and containing .09 acres. (Tax Map 47-4 Parcel 323) DISTRICT 1 8. Z-03-48 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Herbert, on behalf of Frankie Hitt and Jacqualyne Payne, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One- family Residential)) to Zone R-1 C (One-family Residential) affecting property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Jackson Road intersects with the right-of-way line of Sycamore Road and containing 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 41-2 Parcel 30) DISTRICT 3 9. SA-38 – Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 302 (Y) to provide additional information to be included on the Development Plan. 10. SA-39 - Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 302 (E), Street Signs. 11. Deleted from the consent agenda. 12. FINAL PLAT – WILLIAM ACRES, PHASE ONE – S-623 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Steve Bargeron & Assoc., on behalf of Rascal Enterprises, Inc., requesting final plat approval for William Acres, Phase One. This development is located on Bath Edie Road, north of Hwy. 88 and contains 11 lots. 30 13. FINAL PLAT – WHITNEY PLACE PROFESSIONAL PARK –S-656 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by George Godman & Associates, on behalf of L.P.B. Properties, Inc., requesting final plat approval for Whitney Place Professional Park. This development is located adjacent to Whitney Place subdivision. (Reviewing agencies approval 5/19/03) PLEASE NOTE - a 4 to 1 subdivision variance was approved 3/4/03 and a variance to create landlocked parcels was granted 5/5/03 by the Planning Commission. The BZA granted a front setback variance on 5/29/03.) 14. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE, SECTION 4 – S- 653 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting final plat for Breckenridge, Subdivision, Section 4. This development is located on Harper-Franklin Ave, adjacent to Breckenridge, Section 3. PUBLIC SERVICES: 15. Motion to approve a special exception to allow for the installation of pole banners promoting the July 4th Celebration on light posts within Augusta Common and the 8th Street Plaza. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 9, 2003) 16. Motion to approve Commission’s notification regarding various city- sponsored events. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 9, 2003) 17. Motion to approve a contract with Melrose South Pyrotechnics, Inc. for the July 4th Celebration fireworks display. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 9, 2003) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 18. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Albert Roberson under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 9, 2003) PUBLIC SAFETY: 19. Motion to approve of Indigent Defense Grant for 2004 funds. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2003) 20. Motion to approve the MCIS Agreement between Clerk of Civil and Magistrate Court and Georgia Courts Automation Commission. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2003) 21. Acknowledge receipt of Contract Renewal Letter for Rental Agreement for Driver’s License Facility located at 3423 Mike Padgett Highway. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2003) 23. Motion to approve proceeding with the Accreditation Proposal from the Augusta Fire Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 9, 2003) FINANCE: 24. Motion to approve a request for an appropriation from Commission Promotional Account to purchase fifty Augusta Books (Augusta – A Pictorial Journey) from Book House Group, Inc. in the total amount of $1,072.50. (Approved by Finance Committee June 9, 2002) 31 25. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty for property at 1101 Greene Street. (Approved by Finance Committee June 9, 2002) 26. Motion to approve a request for temporary employees for the Tag Office at a pro-rate amount over current year budget and 2004 budget. (Approved by Finance Committee June 9, 2002) 27. Motion to approve the abatement of tax penalty to Dana Folsom for condominium located on property at Port Royal. (Approved by Finance Committee June 9, 2002) 28. Motion to approve expenditure from General Fund Contingency in the amount of $59,500 to expedite coming into compliance with Federal Regulations the Public Works Department Traffic Striping Program. (Approved by Finance Committee June 9, 2002) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 29. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 6, 2003. th 35. Rescind award of the contract for Replacement of the Fountain at 8 Street and Riverwalk with ADS and authorize Public Works and Engineering to reissue th the RFP for Replacement of the Fountain at 8 Street and Riverwalk to be funded from capital account 272-04-2260-54.12110. 36. Execute a Local State Route Acceptance Resolution for State Route 1102, 1102TA, 1102TB and 1102TC (Order of the Commissioner 3355 and Contract for Maintenance of Highways 3355M) in association with the relocation of Wrightsboro Road in Richmond County, GDOT Project No. STP-7001(9), PI # 250510. 40. Execute Relocation Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for utility relocations in conjunction with the S. R. 121 @ Windsor Spring Road Upgrade Traffic Signals Project with an estimated cost of $12,925.24 to be funded from the project utilities account. 45. Motion to approve assignment of contract between BFI Waste System, LLC and Waste Management of Georgia, Inc. APPOINTMENT: 53. Consider the re-appointments of Dr. Wilson Rice and Mr. Marion Barnes to the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services for a four-year term. Addendum Item 1. Approve the appointment of Mr. John Manuel to the Augusta Richmond County Coliseum Authority representing District 6. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote -- yes, Mr. Mays? 32 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, it’s just a note, and I’m going to vote for it. We did in Engineering Services move 44 to the Attorney and I didn’t know whether or not we [inaudible] whether anybody was here on 44. The Clerk: I’ll do that. 44. Consider a claim from Ms. Paula Garnett regarding damages to her automobile caused by striking a raised manhole in the Laney-Walker Blvd. Reconstruction Project. The Clerk: Ms. Garnett, are you in the Chamber? Mr. Williams: I know she’s not here. The Clerk: Okay, well, that item has been moved to the June 20 Committee meeting. Mr. Mayor: So those in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye. Mr. Speaker: Legal session. The Clerk: Legal session, I’m sorry. The July 1 legal session. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-10, 12-29, 56-56, 40, 450, 53, Addendum Item 1] Mr. Mayor: I had a question about item number 11, Mr. Patty. We certainly have our share of questions and calls when inert landfills pop up, and I was just wondering if we had a semantical difference or substantive change here that we need to be alerted to. 11. ZA-R-160 – Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 2, 21 and 26 to provide that inert landfills be referenced as inert fill areas. Mr. Patty: Semantical difference. Satisfy one particular Commissioner who declared he would never vote for another one of these if I didn’t make this change. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: Wonder who that could be. 33 Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion then on item number 11? Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. All in favor, please vote aye. Don’t want Mr. Patty to be slipping something by us. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item would be number 37. In fact, why don’t we take all three of those together since they’re related? 37, 38, 39. The Clerk: 37. Award contract to lowest bidder, Empire Tree, in the amount of $28,200.00 to prune 200 trees subject to decline on Greene Street Phase I between the 100 block and 600 block and remove 5 decayed trees. 38. Award contract to lowest bidder, Big Dog Stump and Tree, in the amount of $17,475.00 to prune 67 trees subject to decline on Wrightsboro Road and remove 2 decayed trees. 39. Award contract to lowest bidder, Augusta Stump Master, in the amount of $9,750.00 to prune 69 trees subject to decline on Milledge Road and remove 2 decayed trees. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification. I just, in the item 37, it says 200 trees in my book, Madame Clerk, and then the price is $28,200.00. 38 says 67 trees for $17,457.00. Then item 39 says 69 trees at $9,750.00. And I’m wondering why there is so much difference in the pricing from 200 trees for $28,200 to 67 trees at $17,475, and 69 trees is $9,750. I mean -- Mr. Vanover: It’s for [inaudible] pruning we’re going to be performing on those. And it’s also a difference in the size of the trees. Some of the trees that we’re going to be [inaudible] on Wrightsboro Road may be only 40 or 50 years old, the calipers, 12” caliper tree. 18. Some of the ones on Greene Street, it’s going to require a lot more [inaudible] aerial climbing, the removal, and the trees are grandiose. Over 100 years old, plus. Mr. Williams: So we’re not just pruning, we’re going to removing some of those large trees, is that right? 34 Mr. Vanover: That’s correct. That’s removal of the dead wood and pruning, including limbing up a lot of the lower canopy to be raised up to a minimum of 18’, 16- 1/2, 17’. Mr. Williams: On my way here this afternoon, I was coming down Greene Street and I noticed the same thing in the front of the old Southern Bell building there, the trees have grown down low, and how much nicer it would be for them to be raised. Mr. Vanover: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: So you can see more and feel more comfortable in an area. But I just needed to know the big difference in price, you’re going to be removing trees, along with pruning. I got no other questions, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: A motion to approve. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote in the affirmative. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will declare a five minute recess and then we’ll continue with our business. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’re all set now. Let’s go ahead and we’ll resume the meeting. The Clerk: PLANNING: 30. Z-03-41 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Priscilla L. Mason requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1568 Citation Road and containing 1.25 acres. (Tax Map 233 Parcel 52) DISTRICT 8 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background on this? 35 Mr. Patty: This is a lot in old Ranch Estates subdivision off of Brown Road, a subdivision that’s one of the older in the southern part of the county. All big lots. Lot of folks have lived in the area a long time. The lady has been in the house for a while and wants to operate a family day care home. If it’s granted, she could keep up to six children in the home. She appears to be doing that now. She’s got some recreation equipment in the back yard, and the house is 2172 square feet and it’s 1.25 acres. The Commission voted to approve the request and I think the basis was the fact that covenants on the property had expired. Mr. Mayor: Were there any objectors, Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, there are objectors. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? You are? Okay. Are there any objectors here today? If you would, please raise your hand and let the Attorney get a count. (7 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: We’ll proceed by hearing from the petitioner. Ms. Mason, like to come forward, please? Pull the microphone down and speak into it. Ms. Mason: My name is Priscilla Mason and I’m here requesting permission to be allowed to keep six kids in my home. My neighbors seem to disagree, but I’m standing on the grounds that there was a covenant established and it expired in 1993. The covenant also gave permission to whomever to establish a business of their profession in the home. I have been keeping children since 1981, from Fulton County, DeKalb County, and Richmond County. I’ve always kept kids in my home right there at 1568 Citation Road. And now it’s a problem. I don’t know why. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, as a point of clarification, would the City’s zoning ordinance take precedence over a covenant? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: We have some objectors who are here. Is there a spokesman for the group? For the record, would you give us your name and address? Speak into the microphone so we can all hear. Mr. Smith: I’m Jimmy Smith. I live on Brown Road in Ranch Estates. Our family moved out there in the early 70’s and when it was just a few people around there. My daughter and her family live on Citation directly in front of this home, and my mother-in-law, 80-something, lives next door, and then some of the other people here, some of them left, couldn’t stay much longer. Citation Road is a short street that comes between [inaudible] on one side off of Brown Road and Fairbluff on the other side. They 36 run parallel with Brown Road, just two streets like this. And we have a petition with people’s name that just in the area. We didn’t go out anywhere and get any names that do not live in the area. And this petition says what our feelings are. Around this block is a one mile walk, and some of us seniors walk around this in the evening, and we feel like it’s already created a lot more traffic than it ever has before. There are a lot of cars coming in and out of there already. I don’t know if they’ve already started or what, but it would prove to be, I think, not good for the neighborhood. To grant this petition would change the character of the neighborhood, and we’d like to keep it like it is. That’s why we moved out there some 30 years ago, to get out of the firing line of things. Not we realize the need for the childcare. We don’t have any problem with that. But we feel like it needs to be in another setting, not in a residential area like this. Our feeling is, and we respectfully request that you deny this petition. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Any other objector desire to be heard? Yes, sir, if you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Rosier: My name is John Rosier. I live at 1567 Citation Road, that’s right in front of Ms. Mason. And I’ve been out there around 30 years. I don’t have anything against Ms. Mason. We just don’t want no businesses out there. You know, you let one come in, then the next thing you know you’ve got another one. Then another one. Then the whole neighborhood is full of businesses. And we want to try to keep traffic down. It’s a good family neighborhood. We want to try to keep it up, and I think you let the property value go down when you start putting businesses in. While we was out trying to get the petition, this fellow said he wouldn’t sign it because he was going to try to open up a beauty shop. So we just had to tell him, you know, we’re going to fight it, you know. He wouldn’t sign it. And I’d just like to keep it like it is. Because you know, when you get one thing in, that’s just a start for others. And I’d just like to keep it out. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we deny the petition. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to deny it. Seconded. Ms. Mason: May I add that you’re only talking about two cars. I keep two kids, I mean two family kids. Not a whole lot of traffic. I’ve been there for 12 years myself, and Ms. Rosier tried to start her own baking cake business. No one object to it. They are also some of the original people who made the covenants that said you could have a business of your own profession. That’s my profession. There was no objection to it in 1972 when you accepted the covenants. Why are you objecting to it now? There are also 37 business people who have Mary Kay businesses, weekend clothes businesses out of their homes, right in that same subdivision. Mr. Mayor: Thank you.. Anything further? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the past, we’ve always, in a residential area, in a neighborhood, we’ve always disallowed business, particularly when there’s objectors to it. I think that we’ve got that case today. Nobody wants a business starting in their neighborhood because you open the doors for one, you can’t deny it for others, so it’s best to stop it when it comes up for the initial legal approval. So I hope my colleagues will support the motion to deny. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? If not, we’ll go ahead with the vote. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get George to come up. George, and I understand the neighborhood, I understand how businesses come in and start, but what did the board decide on, and why did they decide on? Mr. Patty: The board obviously approved it. It was somewhat of a split vote. The main consideration that was expressed was that the covenants have expired and it appears the covenants provided for some limited business opportunities when they were in existence. Mr. Williams: What’s the ruling for non-family members and family members in day care, in homes? Mr. Patty: As many blood relatives as you want to keep, plus two unrelated individuals. Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I made a comment maybe a couple of meetings ago on a zoning situation, and I voted to support the neighborhood’s objections that were -- at least I think that’s the way I voted that day -- it was 70-some items, I may have voted otherwise. But the point is I made a comment in reference to the Brown Road area and zoning and changing in zoning in that area, and in deep southern parts of Richmond County period. I’m probably not going to vote on it today and I need to ask the Attorney a question and I’m going to wait on -- I’m going to hold off -- I’m probably not going to vote on it today and I don’t want to get into a situation cause Jim has another zoning matter that’s probably coming under the litigation form that we may still have to discuss. But I’m a little concerned about the growing number of zoning cases that we’ve got on the deep southern end where particularly where we may reverse the Planning Board’s 38 decision, and obviously we are the body where the buck stops. They do the recommending. The final say so rests with us. What I’m little worried about is that when there is wide discretion with them, and our standard being that if somebody shows up, we turn it up. If nobody shows up, and it may still be bad zoning, we might approve it. And I think we moving into an area to a point where I think we need to have some serious discussion about a lot of the zoning on the deep south side in reference to neighborhoods and occupation of businesses because I think we going to get into a situation to a point of where if our discretion rules only deal with a head count, I’m wondering how we are going to at some point in time deal with the differences of the Court, if there are asking us to get back and rezone and do some other things with it, and whether we are going to get into the appealing business on it. I realize that’s another case. But this is the area where these continuous zoning cases, quite frankly, coming from. And I think the Commission is going to have to get with one set of rules on them or we going to either have strict rules, no rules, you know, or something to a point where it’s, it’s just getting to be confusing to where when we get one and [inaudible] and then we’re looking [inaudible] the Court looks at it to a point well, that’s discretion, but have you used it, have you gone overboard in dealing with it, and you know, just how is that pattern in terms of objecting to it? I’m just, and I made those comments several weeks ago and [inaudible] Brown Road because I said we’ve had some differences just to a point that sometimes [inaudible] do and you know, I’m just unclear to a point I’m casting a no or yes vote on it and particularly in light of the fact that in that area right now we’ve got one and can’t discuss it because we’ve got pending litigation on it and what we’re dealing with but it sits right again on that portion of the county and in the same District so that’s kind of where I stand with it, Mr. Mayor, but I think sooner or later we’re going to have to come to grips with it or some comprehensive thing that says specifically what we want to put in specific areas that are there because it just seems like this has been our area to a point where these continuously pop up. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a somewhat supportive question for Mr. Patty. Is it city policy to allow all covenants to lapse after so many years? Mr. Patty: Well, I don’t think that would involve city policy. Actually it was a change in Georgia law back in the 80’s that reversed 180 degrees the limitation on covenants. The Attorney may want to speak to that, but we don’t get involved in covenants other than on the front end when they’re, you know, accepted as part of the subdivision. Mr. Cheek: But aren’t they automatically renewed by the city? Mr. Patty: No, the city is not involved in that. Mr. Wall: It’s a contract between the residents in that subdivision and the developer and then becomes a contract among themselves once the developer is out of it. 39 Mr. Cheek: Do they have a sunset date built into them and there’s no approval process from the county? Mr. Wall: The old ones do. There’s a process now for renewing them. Mr. Cheek: See, that’s my question. Mr. Wall: It’s up to the residents to do that. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything -- Mr. Cheek: We’ll talk about it more another time. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Ma’am? Ms. Mason: I’m sorry. This is my livelihood and that is one of the reasons [inaudible]. I have been doing childcare for over 20 years. I have been in that neighborhood for 12 years, and all of their children has played in my yard and come up in it. There has never been a problem with letting me keep their kids. I only keep cars. And the kids are gone by four o’clock in the evening. They’re not even home from work yet. There’s no way in the world that they’re causing confusion in my neighborhood. There is no way [inaudible] Brown Road, Old Waynesboro Road, and they do not come from Citation Road. If you talk to those neighbors on Citation Road, they are not in disagreement of me keeping kids. I’ve talked to them. Even your mother, Ms. Cannon, said that -- Mr. Mayor: You will address your comments to Chair, you will not talk to the objectors. Ms. Mason: I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to say? Ms. Mason: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to deny this petition. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion fails 5-2. Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? 40 Mr. Bridges: Is this a denial of the permit, then? Mr. Wall: It’s no action. Mr. Mayor: No action. Mr. Wall: To come back.. Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day. Mr. Mayor: All right, we will resume with the agenda. I have to leave the room to email some legal information with respect to a meeting we have tomorrow. I need to be out for about five minutes, and under the rules of the Commission the Mayor Pro Tem would preside, but he is not here today. So in the absence of the Mayor Pro Tem, the Commission needs to designate a presiding officer so that you can continue to conduct business while I’m out of the room for a moment. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I nominate Super District Commissioner from District 10, Mr. William B. Kuhlke. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke’s appointment, please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Kuhlke abstains. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: I’ll be back in about five minutes. (Laughter) Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, Madame Clerk, I don’t know which item’s next. The Clerk: We’re at item 48 now. Mr. Kuhlke: 48. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 48. Communication from the Director recommending department head authorization to fully administer the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department Emergency Home Repair Grant Program. (No recommendation from 41 Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2003– No action vote Commission meeting June 2, 2003 ) Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: Any discussion? If not, we’ll vote. All in favor? Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Item 49. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY: 49. Consider a request from Patrick R. Lay regarding an increase in the number of taxicab passengers they are allowed to transport. (No action vote by the Commission June 2, 2003) Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Lay, state your name. Mr. Lay: My name is Patrick Lay. I’m owner of Community Cab Company, Inc. 255 Boy Scout Road. I’m not a real educated man. I just wrote something here that I’d like to read to you. I don’t mean to offend anybody. It’s just something I wrote that maybe try to help. I need a larger seating capacity for hauling large groups. You have state operated 15 passenger vehicles, you have county 15 passenger vehicles. Burke County, McDuffie County, I think are getting more Richmond County business than Richmond County is. I’m out there about all the time. I see what’s going on. It’s like this with county and state vehicles. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. [inaudible] 15 passengers are getting a lot of our taxi business. I wonder do they have a taxi license, taxi meter, top light? How much do they charge for taxi service? It’s all in their high motel [inaudible]. They need to leave the taxi business up to us. We have real license, meters, that’s our job, that’s what we do. Our Sheriff is using scare tactics to try to help keep us from growing. A big cab company is influencing him and they have influence on the License Department. Motel van can have meters and top lights, be inspected like we have. That should be fair for everybody. People with lots of money can go in business tomorrow [inaudible] with only partial tools or necessary equipment and get away with it. I have been trying to grow for 15 years. [inaudible] county and state vehicles, they are taking a lot of our business. I can understand the motel vans having one van, but not 20 like some motels have during the Masters. We know the people in Augusta do appreciate our business. We are trying to grow with Augusta. [inaudible] regulations were designed to put small business out and help big business to grow. We need simple rules and regulations for [inaudible] times. We do need the 42 Sheriff’s Department enforcing rules and regulations. The big cab company is in favor of, the Sheriff need to keep his own deputies in line, he don’t have time to be involved in our business. He has his own business to run. The soldiers are getting [inaudible] for being late. I want to make it perfectly clear we are asking for 11 passengers, counting the driver. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Commissioners. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Lay. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Appointee, thank you, sir. Mr. Lay been down here several times and I had this put back on the agenda because I do feel it’s necessary, I do feel we are holding up a businessman who is trying to grow. There is a subcommittee together, not for this particular issue but to look at our taxicab ordinance altogether, event the fact of the airport and its guidelines as well. I’m going to make a motion that we grant Mr. Lay the authority – not just him but any businessperson in the taxi business that’s licensed, taxi person to have a ten-passenger van, eleven with the driver. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: Have a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Appointee. It’s amazing to me that we spend so much time governing the amount of people they can put in a van based on an arbitrary government regulation instead of what the safe design limit is based on the number of seat belts and so forth. Why in the world are we wasting our time governing, trying to govern this, when if a van is designed for 15 passengers, they need to be as a private sector businessman allowed to seat 15 passengers in it. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Gentlemen, of course we’ve had this, and you know, I’m sorry that this gentleman is coming down here continually, but I guess if the Commission keeps putting it back on there, I mean that’s going to continue. But there is a subcommittee, is my understanding, that’s been appointed to review the entire ordinance which will affect every taxi cab owner out there. I don’t think we should be out there changing our existing ordinance for one individual when we’ve got a committee studying it that will affect them all. And I think we need -- and my understanding, this committee is going to be coming back in less than a month anyway with a recommendation. And let’s just let everything be done that will be clean and above board and be an established policy once and for all. If we pass this today, conceivably the subcommittee could come back and part of the policy would be to reverse what we do today. So let’s just let that subcommittee act and function and review their recommendation at the time that that comes back, and I think we should -- I don’t think we should pass this today. I think we should wait on the subcommittee and their recommendation and we’ll review it at that time. 43 Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Who appointed the subcommittee? Mr. Williams: I did, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. I’m going to recognize Mr. Boyles first. He was next in line. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. As I came in the meeting today, I received a notice from Rob Sherman that there will be a meeting on June 26 in these chambers at 9:30 a.m. Interested parties, owners and drivers be present to discuss the proposed changes to the rules and regulations governing taxis. So it looks like it’s going to be an open meeting to discuss all of this, and I’m certainly in favor of what Mr. Lay wants, but I think if we’re going to make a change, we should change it all at one time, and I’ve felt that way all along when I suggested that Mr. Williams appoint the subcommittee. And I think that Mr. Hankerson has done a good job as he’s moved this committee along. And as Mr. Bridges said, we hope to have some sort of results back within a month. So I just want to -- I don’t know if you other Commissioners had received that notification or not, but I just received it as I came in. So that’s next Friday. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Commissioner Bridges made a couple of good points about being above board. Let’s do thing right. Let’s do it right. This is nothing addressed just to Mr. Lay. The subcommittee is no guarantee we’ll be back here within a month. The next thing, the subcommittee is only going to make a recommendation. They are not going to come back and tell us what is going to be in place and what is not going to be in place. They are merely to get some facts together, to see, to look at our ordinance, our guidelines, compared to the rest of the world. And I can tell you now, we behind the rest of the world, what we been doing the last 50 years in Augusta when it comes to just the taxis. And if you want to do what’s right, Mr. Boyles, you support Mr. Lay, you can vote for this issue. I’m going to put it back on the agenda again, and Mr. Lay, you don’t have to come back. You don’t really need to be here. You been here probably 10 or 15 times already. So if it goes on the agenda and it will go on there, you don’t have to be here the next time. But if we going to do and act like men who was elected to do a job, we wouldn’t sit here and twiddle our finger around and act like we don’t know what’s going on. If somebody can tell me a good reason now why you should not have a 10 passenger van for safety reason or for health reason, for any reason, if somebody can do that, then I drop it, I wait on the subcommittee. But to hold Mr. Lay up, who’s been fighting for this in the very beginning, who came down and asked us for permission, and there’s other vans, other taxi service running in this town who said they take the back seat out. We don’t know whether they take the back seat out or not. Cause we’re not concerned, it don’t affect us. I may go in the taxi business. I said it before, and if I decide to go in the tax business, I would hate to have to face the opposition that he’s facing now which should be ludicrous, for lack of another word, just holding people up. Now this is more revenue for this city. We just got through fighting about senior citizens and money we got to [inaudible] one program that we was robbed 44 with to give to another agency. But we don’t have monies coming in, and we trying to stop somebody from bringing money into this city. Somebody need to tell me on this board a good reason why we should not give this businessman or any taxi person with license that’s been bought through this government the liberty to go out and buy a van that will hold 10 passengers. Now if somebody can have an explanation for that, I’d like to hear it, but if you ain’t got one, then you need to vote for this motion and give this man the rights like you do in your business and go out and be competitive. It always -- Mr. Lay had a good letter. Mr. Lay, you said you weren’t an educated man, but you did a really good job. What you said you that letter, big businessmen do it, they do it, this government, all the time, and we need to stop that. That’s unfair to people who live in [inaudible] who work hard every day. Now that’s all I got to say, Mr. Chairman. I see the Mayor’s back. You may want to give the gavel to him, but I certainly hope that we support whatever’s right. Mr. Kuhlke: I think I’m a roll. I’m going to keep it. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: I’m still rolling myself now. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke, who was formerly Mayor Appointee, but he’s recognizing me in some capacity, I understand that. I think Mr. Lay has brought an issue to this board and we started a policy process. And I mean if some Commissioners can’t wait on the policy process, I’m sorry, but this Commissioner is going to have the policy process work, so I’m going to make a substitute motion that we hold this until the subcommittee chaired by Mr. Hankerson, the subcommittee that you appointed, Mr. Williams, comes back and let’s treat everybody the same under the rules. That’s a substitute motion. Mr. Bridges: Second it. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Lay? Mr. Lay: [inaudible] it affects everybody. I mean I’m not just getting it for myself. I know if it passes it will be for everybody. I’m not trying to do it just for myself. I mean it’s going to help everybody. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir. I, too, just want to follow along with what Commissioner Williams said. I’d like for all of us to kind of look in the mirror and I agree with following this process, but on this one, it’s somewhat of a no-brainer. Either we’re telling the world that we’re smarter than the National Transportation Safety Board 45 and everybody else that recommends the number of passengers, safe number of passengers per vehicle, why in the world are we debating this? This is again a case where government is deferring something to committee that could easily be resolved in one session based on pre-established federal, state and other guidelines. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Just last week, the Mayor and Mr. Kolb and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Hankerson, and myself were in Washington, D.C. and we had the -- we were going somewhere and we had to catch two taxis when we could have all ridden together in one, so that gave the information and the impetus that the subcommittee chairman needed to bring this back and to be in favor of it. And I know I certainly was because we’re paying double fees to ride taxis by being up there. And I have no problem with this. I’m like Mr. Shepard, I think we started a procedure to do this and when we start changing the ordinance, we should change it all at one time. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’m on a roll, Mr. Kuhlke. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke: You’ve been on here four times. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I got a few more times to come up before the debate’s over with, I believe, cause -- Madame Clerk, the first thing I want to say if this motion do not pass, I want this back on the agenda. In fact, you might want to put it on the committee, Public Safety Committee again and the regular agenda cause we going discuss this. May not change it, but we going discuss it, I guarantee you. Next thing is that nobody yet have said, have gave any reason why except following the committee. How many time have we not followed the committee? Have many time have we come straight from the committee room over to the chambers and voted on things that we have not followed committee? If we was trying to do something else, I can understand it. But to give this man the right to go out and purchase a vehicle that’s going to give him the authority to carry safely 10 passengers, nobody on this board has set yet. Now if you got another reasoning, please, ma’am, please, sir, tell me, then I’ll tell the Clerk to take it off. But if you don’t have any other reason, then tell me why, other than the fact of the committee. I appointed the committee. I’m a member of that committee, Mr. Boyles, along with yourself. But my point is whether the committee comes back or not, it’s going be in place. If it comes back, it’s still going be in place. We don’t know when the committee’s going to come back. We’re not just studying this city ordinance, we’re talking about the taxi cab ordinance altogether. That go back from the airport. I’m not letting it come back until we factored in everything there is concerning taxi cabs. Trust me. So Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mayor, whoever is in charge, if this don’t pass today, Mr. Lay, if you want to, I welcome you to come back next week or next Commission meeting, but it will be on the books, I guarantee you. 46 Mr. Kuhlke: If I could say -- I think I can say something, can’t I? Mr. Williams: You’re on a roll. Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. I don’t think that I’m opposed to what you’re asking for Mr. Lay, but I think this. Mr. Williams appointed a committee, and out of respect for the chairman of whoever that subcommittee is and the other members of the committee, I think that it makes sense for us to defer any action on this until we get a report back. This will be a primary issue, I’m sure. But for that reason, and I wanted to tell you this, I’m not opposed to what you’re asking for, but I am going to vote against it. Any other conversation? If not, we’ve got a substitute motion to defer this until after we get a report back from the subcommittee. Is that correct, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. All in favor of that motion, please indicate. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Mr. Beard out. Motion fails 4-2-1. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, we’ll go back to the original motion to approve the request from Mr. Lay. All in favor of that motion? (Vote on original motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No. Mr. Beard out. Motion fails 3-4. Mr. Williams: Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir? Mr. Williams: I’d like to have this put on Public Safety Committee and I want it put on the next agenda, as well. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day. Mr. Mayor: The Chair inquires on the order of the day, what item? The Clerk: We’re on item 51. 47 Mr. Mayor: Okay. ATTORNEY: 51. Approve execution of deed restrictions for Allen Homes incident to environmental clean up. Mr. Wall: If I could ask item 51 be referred to the Engineering Services Committee meeting on Friday of this week. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? Then we’ll move that to Engineering Services. Item 52. Is that for legal or is that for out here? 52. Motion to authorize settlement of condemnation case against Michael D. Tomberlin, et al. on Warren Road Improvement, Tax Map11, Parcel 61. Mr. Wall: We put it on out here. This is to authorize settlement of a condemnation case. This is the one parcel that’s been holding up a project and we’ve finally be able to work out an agreement and recommendation approval. It’s an additional payment of $1,025 above the original award of the Special Master. This is [inaudible] cost and reconnection of the security system, in addition to some minor engineering construction costs. We recommend approval. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, how long has this been a hold up for this project? Mr. Wall: I really cannot answer that. I know it has been pending for months, but now whether it has actually held up the project or had the potential for holding up a project, I can’t answer that question. Mr. Kuhlke: It has. It has. This is the last hurdle we had to jump through. Mr. Cheek: Is it such that we need to establish a period of time? Land acquisition and right-of-way seems to be a bottleneck in a lot of the process to establish a negotiating period before we go into the condemnation process. 48 Mr. Wall: We were actually in the condemnation process. In an effort to try to get it settled, there were some engineering aspects of it that had to be evaluated. Mr. Cheek: It seems to me there just needs to be some administrative process improvements in this area. This seems to be a bottleneck in a lot of our projects. I’d like to see if there is some administrative way to expedite acquisition of properties and settlements. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,, we can absolutely take a look at it, but one of the considerations is the due process of property owners. When you start talking about taking their property and it becomes really difficult to make sure that you maintain their rights and their ability to exercise those rights. Mr. Cheek: And I understand due process. But there’s got to be some trigger date for negotiations. Whether that’s six months, a year, or a year-and-a-half. We begin the process in earnest of acquiring the property, some legal arrangement. Mr. Wall: I’ll be glad to discuss the details of this. This has been pending for a long time. That’s [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: There appears to be an opportunity for consistency of saying we’ll negotiate for a period of a year, then we’ll go into condemnation proceedings and not arbitrary per project, but universally applied across the board. Mr. Kolb: We’ll take a look at that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve this item. All in favor, please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Did we have some items off the Engineering Services agenda for the Commission to consider? The Clerk: There was one item, the mosquito control. Mr. Mayor: Let’s take that. The Clerk: Mr. Cheek wanted a report done on that. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and address that. What item number is that? 49 Mr. Cheek: 33. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 33. Report from Public Works Department regarding the City’s program for mosquito control. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson) (Deferred from May 27 Engineering Services) Mr. Speaker: Public Works Division, trees and landscape kind of took on the lead for [inaudible] chemical called [inaudible], which is a liquid chemical purchased through the Environmental Health [inaudible], kind of working under the [inaudible] mosquito control. I pass around kind of quick synopsis of what we’re doing. Our goal is to actually get out and identify areas where mosquitoes are breeding. This is not a repellant. We’re not out actually spraying to kill insects on contact. We’re shutting down the breeding process. We’re dealing with stagnant bodies of water, pools, [inaudible] boxes, I’m talking about [inaudible] and tree stumps, under bedding plants, things like along those nature. Basically we’re looking at one to two ounces of this chemical to affect 100 square feet of water. So it’s not going to take much to do an area that we’re talking about [inaudible] basically 18” long x 10” wide. Basically just need a couple of drops. It puts a coat on over the water, it films it, and just shuts down the germination cycle of the mosquito. Our goal is to actually apply this to the identified area once every 30 days. One application every 30 days will be conducive to our task at hand. The problem that we get into is the amounts of rain we’re having now, the gully washers and things like that. If we apply in inclement weather or the change in the weather cycles or if there is some other interruptions to a stagnant body of water, it may call for a reapplication. What we’re doing, is as you see there is a schedule, there’s a mosquito log, and that’s an example of what we’re doing. We’re actually, each crew member receives a log, and as they go out and apply it, they write in the time, date and location. And then at the end of the month we’re trying to send a summary [inaudible] environmental health and give her an identification of where the chemical is being applied. She logs it in and [inaudible] under her wing of how the chemicals are being effective. It’s a slow treatment. Our guys are out, I’ve got 16 crews in our division that have it. Recreation has four crews and Utilities as 12. They’re carrying something along these lines with them in their vehicles [inaudible]. Yes, sir? Mr. Cheek: Just a couple of questions. Is this work process causing any kind of negative impact on the existing workload of our personnel? Mr. Vanover: At this time, it is not. The only we get into is a little bit more paperwork. They’re working off a work request system, as we have now, and all we’re doing is trying to work out the kinks to make sure we get the information back to Ms. Turner that’s beneficial to her tracking system. It’s not a direct problem or complication in our daily routines. 50 Mr. Cheek: And are you working to continuously improve your application process and coordination with the Health Department? Mr. Vanover: That’s correct. There’s training involved, and a lot of our guys, they come up on a pond and they want to squirt, squirt, squirt. They [inaudible] they want it resolved. It’s [inaudible], that’s not the purpose of this ingredient, and you’re th actually wasting it. Some things we’ve run across is identifying areas. 7 and Twiggs Street, we write that down on our log chart. Well, that information doesn’t really help Ms. Turner has much as she needs 1401 or 731. She needs physical data. So those are some of the things we’ve already started working through as we’ve been in the program a little over a month or so now. Mr. Cheek: I’ve got one more question. Mr. Vanover: Sure. Mr. Cheek: So you mean to tell me, I believe the Health Department has four crews, they work part-time during the season, we’ve added 32 crews at no additional expense to the city? Mr. Vanover: That’s correct. Mr. Cheek: Sounds like efficient government to me. Mr. Shepard: I move we accept the report as information. Mr. Mayor: We have a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion then please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us to item number 54. Madame Clerk? The Clerk: 54. OTHER BUSINESS. Discuss the decaling of city vehicles. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) Mr. Mayor:Mr. Williams? 51 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On our last discussion, we talked about the airport director’s automobile that had all the whistles and bells on. We talked about it being decaled as well. From that conversation came that certain vehicles was eliminated. Then we had the records pulled and found out that one of the vehicles eliminated was your vehicle, Mr. Mayor, and the law enforcement. I just need the question answered today is all the vehicles that supposed to be sealed, have been sealed? And if not, I need to know who’s responsible for sealing those and why hadn’t they been? Mr. Mayor: Can you respond to that, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the question. Mr. Mayor: Let’s be attention to the Commissioner. He asked a question about the decaling of city vehicles. Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, it came out of our last meeting when we talking about the vehicles that was exempt and found out the only vehicle that was exempt was the Mayor’s vehicle and the law enforcement agency. Are those vehicles that supposed to be sealed, my question is have they been sealed, and if they have not, who is responsible for getting them sealed? Mr. Kolb: As far as I know, all of them have been sealed. Mr. Williams: As far as you know? Mr. Kolb: I have not personally inspected all vehicles. Mr. Williams: I think you got a crew, Mr. Kolb, that you shouldn’t have to go and inspect them yourself. There ought to be somebody report to you to tell you whether or not they, you know, been sealed. Now if you, if those people not following your orders, then maybe we need to make some changes up here. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, as I repeated, as far as I know, I believe all of them are sealed, based on the reports that I’ve been getting from the department responsible. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, would you please be kind enough to reconfirm that information this week and be prepared to give a report to the Public Safety Committee at its next meeting as to whether that’s been done, just to reassure the Commissioner? Mr. Kolb: Sure. We can do that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I’m hearing the Commissioner say is that the records were searched and no record was found of the Commission approving the 52 airport director’s car for not having a detail. I mean I haven’t heard that information until just now. Is that the case? Maybe I’m just getting old and my memory’s getting old, but we did that at some point because of the 9-11 and the airport director’s position there. It was a, the argument was it was a security measure and I can understand that. Mr. Wall: It was brought to you but it never passed. Mr. Bridges: I stand corrected. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: You’re right, I’m a half century old next month. Mr. Shepard: That’s young. Mr. Mayor: Some of us are already there. Next up is our legal meeting. Mr. Wall, do you have something for that? Mr. Wall: Yes. 55. LEGAL MEETING. Mr. Wall: We need to discuss litigation matters. Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into the microphone so we can hear you, please? Mr. Wall: To discuss litigation matters. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add personnel matters to that, too, please. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Cheek. Anything else? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, did we just do by consent, and I have not problem, on the item that we finished, I guess 54, that goes to Public Safety? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb is going to have a report to the Public Safety meeting. He says to the best of his knowledge everything is decaled that’s supposed to be but he’s going to verify that and report to Public Safety. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, Ron Crowden, who is in charge of the fleet, is here, and he nods he head and said yes, all are decaled. Mr. Mayor: Let’s double check and make sure everything is decaled that’s supposed to be. 53 Mr. Williams: We’ll have a report back, is that right. Mr. Mayor: A report to Public Safety. Mr. Williams: I’d like to add to legal, if we can, to discuss the, just the system that land acquisition to that, also. I’d like to bring something up and share with Bill. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion? Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes stated by the lawyer and the Commissioners. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 7-0. [LEGAL SESSION] 56. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mays: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 7-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 17, 2003. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 54