Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2003 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER November 18, 2003 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday, November 18, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The invocation was given by Dr. Michael Ruffin. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk. The Clerk: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD: Ms. Rosa White Housing and Neighborhood Department The Clerk: Ms. White is an employee with the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department. Mr. Warren Smith is the director. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Ms. Rosa L. White with the Housing & Urban Development as Employee of the Month for the month of October. Ms. White has worked for the city of Augusta for over 17 years. Her duties include administering the community development block grant and supervising four positions. Ms. White is employed as the neighborhood development administrator. She was nominated by fellow employees Belinda Brown, Joyce Ford, and Vicki Johnson, who state: Ms. White is a supervisor that cares about her staff by making sure they’re trained properly and are capable of performing their duties accordingly. Her expertise regarding the CDBG program is valuable to our department and to our new director who has only been on board for several months. City Administrator George Kolb appointed Ms. White as the contact person for our department for several months during the time we were without a director. She performed the duties of department director in addition to her other responsibilities without any additional pay. She assists HND staff, the general public, the Mayor, and Commissioners and the HUD staff that she reports to in Atlanta. Of course, she had the support of the HND staff, but still she had to perform multiple tasks, supervise and manage the department, in addition to her assigned responsibilities. They further state Ms. White is a very dedicated employee. Many weekends she can be found working in 1 the office. This is not due to mismanagement of time throughout the week, it is because of her commitment to the best job and job performance. You will not find Ms. White asking what’s next. She’s already miles ahead of the game. The Committee felt that based on the department’s joint recommendation and Ms. White’s attributes, she should be awarded Employee of the Month. The Committee also received many letters of recommendation from those who Ms. White assists, including Ronald Sheffler, Executive Director of the Senior Citizens Council; Paul Decamp of the Planning Commission office; Pat Jones with the Augusta Youth Center; Bishop A.L.L. Green, pastor of the Light of the World Evangelistic Outreach Ministry; and Mr. Tyrone Butler, Executive Director of the Augusta Mini Theatre. Ms. White is the daughter of Ms. Mary Corley and the mother of two children; a daughter, Crystal, and a son, Sterling. Congratulations, Rosa, you’re making a difference in the city of Augusta. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Smith: It’s always nice when a department head has employees that make them proud, more so that they get the job done. But it’s also even more important when you have an employee that’s an example, a great example for other staff, that’s exemplary in her deportment, in her commitment, in her dedication to getting the job done. HND is a department, as many of you are aware, that serves several masters. We work for this city through the Commission. But we also have another master of there in Atlanta that’s called the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and there’s a lot -- and when I say a lot, there’s many, many requirements, regulations, statutes that we have to adhere to. This lady on my left is the person that keeps us straight, so to speak. She knows the regulations, she keeps us in compliance, and I just applaud her. She makes sure we’re on the right track, and she’s truly the person that is an example for getting things done in our department. Thank you, really thank you for a great job, Rosa. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, we have a delegation with us today? The Clerk: Yes, sir, we do. DELEGATION: Belair Hill Neighborhood Association Mr. James Rouse RE: Community Improvements Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rouse, welcome to the chamber. For the record, if you’d just give us your name and your address, and then you have five minutes. Mr. Rouse: Thank you. Gentlemen, Mayor Bob Young, Commissioners, Mr. George Kolb, Administrator, Ms. Lena Bonner, good evening. Mr. Mayor: Good evening. 2 Mr. Rouse: My name is James Rouse. And today I am representing the Belair Hill Neighborhood Association. I saw the empty seat up there, Mr. Shepard, but he’s in now, and I wanted to make sure that he was here to hear what we had to say. Mr. Shepard: I’m all ears, Mr. Rouse, thank you. Mr. Rouse: Thank you, sir. I don’t know whether you all received some information on some priority projects that we sent down to the committee that you had on the SPLOST fund, but we sent in a list that we was hoping this committee that you all selected would put us part of, would make us part of that list. But somehow or another, we were left off that list. And that is kind of disturbing to me and to the residents of Belair Hill Association. Let me go down the list. Now, I say go down the list, you all think about where they can be fitted in, if they can be fitted in. I know money is tight, at least that’s what I hear you all saying, but there are some things that concern us that need great attention from you all. Street openings and paving, curbing, sidewalks, development of M.M. Scott Park, and walking trails. Lights installed at the intersection of Dyess Parkway and Belair Road. Street drainage and underground utilities. Now we have -- my understanding that we have the sewerage project in place, and it was my understanding that it was supposed to physically take place starting in October. We hadn’t seen that happen yet, and I hope someone will be here to give us some rationale as to why it hadn’t happened. Because I’ve had some problems with my septic tank. There are some streets out there that we have houses on that are unpaved. And sometimes when it rains, it gets real hard to pass to get to these people’s houses. One is Patrick Street. Some time ago, we brought this issue up. It’s been years ago that we brought this issue up and see if we can get the Commission and this government to do something about that. As I stated, we’re out there hoping that your leadership will provide us some of the services that we need. Now when they consolidated this government, I understand that mean one. Now I don’t know whether that mean when we do that, we should have combined the services that other people in the community are getting, and some of those services we are not getting. So we hope that, take this list that we give you, and whatever, whatever the community can do to help, I think we’re willing to do it. But we need some of the services that other parts of the county are getting. Some time ago we requested some lights at the intersection of Dyess Parkway and Belair Road. It’s dark in that area. Lot of traffic coming there. So I made a request to our Commissioner, Mr. Shepard, and I think he referred that on to Ms. Smith. But as of now, we hadn’t got any feedback as to what’s going to take place at that intersection. We are hoping that we can get something resolved. Although I saw in the paper a few weeks ago that you were planning to put some street lights on some other streets. I done forgot the street, but I did read that. So we are hoping that you would consider putting lights at the intersection of Belair and Dyess Parkway. M.M. Scott Park -- Mr. Mayor: You have a minute left. Mr. Rouse: One minute? All right. We have a lot of, a lot of community neighborhoods around there off of Belair Road. And we were just, our request is that we 3 do something with the M.M. Scott Park so everybody can make use of it. Right now, it’s just undeveloped. And we need someone to commit to developing that park. Considering that when I go over to Warren Road, I see a lot of conveniences there, and I don’t see no reason why we can’t get these conveniences at M.M. Scott Park. And we’re hoping that somewhere down the road that you all will consider doing it. Okay? Thank you all for the opportunity. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rouse, thank you very much. Let me just state that this Commission has not developed any list for SPLOST projects. The Citizens Committee, in fact, put together a list that they are taking around this community to get public feedback, just like you’ve given us. And I would encourage you to give this same feedback to them that you’ve given to us today so they have the benefit of that and then we anxiously await their recommendations, which we should receive next month. Mr. -- just a minute, ma’am, just a minute. Mr. Shepard I think can address some of the other issues you talked about in your presentation and I’d like to turn the floor over to Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, back in February we had a good meeting, we thought, we your association, Mr. Rouse, that was attended by Mr. Kolb, Mr. Doug Cheek, the representatives from Public Works -- I think they sent two in addition to Teresa Smith -- so we have certainly been meeting with you and moving on your concerns. I’ve asked Mr. Cheek if he would be prepared to address, if he could, right now, some of the things that have been done and are in the plans which will be happening in the Belair area. I think we’ve explained to you and your group many times that of course to construct the sewer properly we must extend it up Butler Creek. And I do appreciate the fact that Butler Creek lies both in other Commission Districts and partly in my own. And that is, that is in the works, and I believe that we’re going to be lighting the Dyess Parkway/Belair Road intersection more than likely before the end of the year, and I’ve asked Public Works to confirm that. The requests that you are putting in are similar to some of the things that I’ve put in for other folks. I’m hoping that they will be included. Not to beat a dead horse, but I have talked to the SPLOST Committee on several projects, including railroad relocation. I won’t miss a chance to plug it here today. And I wish we could give just a few minutes to Mr. Doug Cheek so that he could update you and the body as to what is happening and plans to be happening in the Belair Hills area. Thank you. Doug? Mr. D. Cheek: My name is Doug Cheek. I’m assistant director in Augusta Utilities Department. Good afternoon, Mr. Rouse. We, the October date may have been the date that we told you in February, and that date is now pushed to the first of next year, and that’s due for design reasons, right-of-way acquisition, and that’s, that’s the big sewer project within Belair Hills. But to go back just a little bit, back to say ’99, the water project I think is the first project that really was constructed as far as utilities standpoint in Belair Hills. And that was completed, like I say, in about ’99 and cost about $2 million. And the other project that Commissioner Shepard was referring is that the need to extend the sewer line in order to get to Belair Hills, and that project was actually approved by the Commission in late October, and that project -- you should be 4 seeing a lot of work starting to happen, that’s a $6 million job. That’s extending from Butler Creek now on up into past Powell Road and basically stops right there at Powell Road. That is where eventually Belair Hills will tie in. And that project is to begin the first quarter of next year. It’s going to take about 12 months to construct at a cost of about $3 million. The only reason I’m giving those figures is to show the size of the projects. They’re fairly large projects, a lot of complications with design and right-of- way and things such as that. So I guess to give a -- we actually did send a letter to Mr. Lewis back in July and actually told him at that time it was going to be around December, was the estimate, and that’s pushed just slightly into next year, that’s just to, I guess, the number of projects that we have, but you can feel rest assured that that sewer project is moving forth. And then collectively, the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department which really is their project, so if you want me to let Ms. Smith give you the dates, but basically that’s the deal with the paper streets, that we call them, or the roads that aren’t there. And that project was approved by the Commission for design and it’s underway. The estimate construction date, I don’t know what that is as of right now, but that is moving forward and it’s going to take a little while to get that one designed. It’s a lot of complications associated with that. Including [inaudible] why I’m speaking [inaudible] is we have water and sewer lines that will go in conjunction with that project, and when all of that is through, all the roads will be resurfaced, so that is at a nice, smooth, new asphalt neighborhood, and you don’t want to kind of do it in pieces cause you’ll tear it all up during construction, so I think in the next couple of years you should see some major improvements in there as far as utilities and roadway. Thank you, sir. Mr. Shepard: That’s the update that I had planned. Teresa, do you have anything to add, what Public Works will be doing? My understanding is we didn’t want to pave streets, then tear them up for the new utility lines and then repave them, so there’s -- maybe you could speak to the streets lines on Dyess, too, that was approved here in the last two months, I believe, in my recollection. Ms. Smith: Yes. And we are still planning to move forward with having those installed. The -- Mr. Shepard: Could you share with Mr. Rouse and his neighborhood about what the time line would be for putting that in? Ms. Smith: If I’m not mistaken, we’re still looking at having those installed before the end of the year. I believe that’s what the original commitment was. Mr. Shepard: I was thinking it would be a merry Christmas present. Ms. Smith: Yes. And in conjunction with the roads, the work being done with respect to the paper streets, as Mr. Cheek has alluded, there are several areas that they’re going to be installing sewer lines. A lot of that work is being done as one combined project. We anticipate having a concept and 30% layout complete within the next two to four weeks and probably will wait until the very beginning of the year, just after 5 Christmas, to have a public information meeting and come out and to share with you the layout and the plans that we have for that project. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Shepard: No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope that helps you out. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to sat that while I agree that in the last four or five years there have been more on the books and plans [inaudible] than there have been in a long time, that I also understand the frustration from the people from Belair. And although that’s not in my District, I considered that at one time my home, from 1967 until 1993 or ’94, somewhere along there. I can remember when we first went out there we had a lot of streets out there unpaved, and we worked with that for some time. And it was very difficult to get anything done out there at that time, so I understand your frustration, that it’s still there when you look around, because it shouldn’t have taken 30-something years to move forward on some of the things that we have out there. And in lieu of the fact that the county at that time was given I think it was either 10 or 15 acres of land to developed, and that land has still not been developed out there. [inaudible] now. And I guess Mr. Shepard is to be commended for helping at this point. But there is a lot to be done out there and I, I just want this to go on the record that you have been neglected out there, we know you’ve been neglected out there, we hoping we can correct some of that now. And I appreciate my Commissioners and especially Mr. Shepard in your District is trying to get some things done. But these things should have been done a long time ago. And I want that on the record for that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Beard. Anything further? All right, Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and take up the consent agenda next. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Oh, we’d love for you to stay. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: No, that’s fine, you can go ahead and leave. Maybe we should have door prizes. That would keep people here longer, wouldn’t it? (Laughter) 6 Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I’d like to try to add 58 and 60 to the consent agenda, too, if we could. [inaudible] issue with those, but you never know. So if you’d go ahead with the consent agenda. The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 49, with the addition, the Mayor’s recommending items 58 and 60 to be included in the consent agenda. Planning petitions, if there are any objectors to the planning petitions, would you please signify your objections by raising your hand, as well as any alcohol petitions. PLANNING: 1. Z-03-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Maxine Bosket Newson requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to B- 1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3626 Milledgeville Road and containing approximately 1.0 acre. (Tax Map 67 Parcel 24.01) DISTRICT 4 2. Z-03-94 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the subdivision shall not exceed 69 lots; a petition by Nordahl Homes, Inc., on behalf of Preston Price, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the east right-of-way line of Ervay Street, 199 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Ervay Street and containing 27.68 acres. (Tax Map 167 Parcel 111) DISTRICT 6 3. Z-03-95 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl Development Company West, on behalf of Sara Hogue and Tom Lott, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Roy Road, 1,500 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Roy Road and containing 2.6 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcels 37 & 38) DISTRICT 3 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Under our Public Services agenda, alcohol petitions: PUBLIC SERVICES: 6. Motion to approve a request by Chong Sook Chon for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gaeryong, Inc. d/b/a Get It To Go located at 3379 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Service Committee November 10, 2003) 7. Motion to approve a request by Jay Jahn for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tailwinds located at 1543 Aviation Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 7 14. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #5 located at 2510 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to the alcohol petitions as read? Mr. Mayor: None are noted. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: And would that include those other two items, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: 58 and 60. The Clerk: 60. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, do you want to pull any items for discussion? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull item 18. Mr. Mayor: Number 18 for Mr. Hankerson. Any others? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: 19, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay, item 19 for Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: I just need clarification on something. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get some clarification, Mr. Mayor, if I can, on a couple of items. Mr. Mayor: What are those? Mr. Williams: Items 6 and 14 and the District, I’m a little concerned that these Districts, are these correct? Even item 1, Madame Clerk, says District 4 here, 3626 Milledgeville Road. In fact, all three of these are on Milledgeville Road. Is those in, are those Districts correct, I guess is all I need to know. 8 Mr. Patty: The only think I can tell us is that after the problems we’ve had in the past, I’ve threatened my people to get those right, to double check them, and I’m going to ask you to stand by them. This in particular, this Milledgeville Road case is way out on, way out on Milledgeville Road, right where it ties into Gordon Highway. Mr. Williams: And that’s what I’m looking at, George, and I guess my question is, this one, 3626 says District 4, and then 3379 says District 5, and also 2510 says District 5., and all of them Milledgeville Road. I mean it could be correct, it just caught my attention, I just wanted to be clear on it. Mr. Patty: I believe it is correct. Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay. Milledgeville Road. Mr. Mayor: Did you want to pull items 6 and 14, or did he answer your question? Mr. Williams: No, he answered my question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further? So the only two items we’ve been asked to pull then are items number 18 and 19. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 17. Mr. Mayor: Number 17 for Mr. Boyles. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? CONSENT AGENDA: PLANNING: 1. Z-03-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Maxine Bosket Newson requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to B- 1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 3626 Milledgeville Road and containing approximately 1.0 acre. (Tax Map 67 Parcel 24.01) DISTRICT 4 2. Z-03-94 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the subdivision shall not exceed 69 lots; a petition by Nordahl Homes, Inc., on behalf of Preston Price, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the east right-of-way line of Ervay Street, 199 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Ervay Street and containing 27.68 acres. (Tax Map 167 Parcel 111) DISTRICT 6 3. Z-03-95 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl Development Company West, on behalf of Sara Hogue and Tom Lott, requesting a change of zoning from 9 Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Roy Road, 1,500 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Roy Road and containing 2.6 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcels 37 & 38) DISTRICT 3 4. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE, SECTION FIVE, PHASE TWO – S- 655-II – 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 approval for Breckenridge, Section Five, Phase Two. This residential subdivision is located on Crested Butte Road, between Breckenridge, Section Five, Phase One and Section Four and contains 17 lots. 5. FINAL PLAT – SOUTHRIDGE COMMERCIAL PARK – S – 657 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of R. C. Rentals, LLC, requesting final plat approval for Southridge Commercial Park. The commercial subdivision is located on Flowing Wells Road, south of I-20/Frontage Road and contains 9 lots. PUBLIC SERVICES: 6. Motion to approve a request by Chong Sook Chon for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gaeryong, Inc. d/b/a Get It To Go located at 3379 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Service Committee November 10, 2003) 7. Motion to approve a request by Jay Jahn for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tailwinds located at 1543 Aviation Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 8. Motion to approve consulting agreement 2B with Ricondo & Associates, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 9. Motion to approve consulting agreement 7B with Ricondo & Associates, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 10. Motion to approve the budget amendment for fuel purchases and sales at Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 11. Motion to approve the agreement with Avfuel Corporation for Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 12. Motion to approve the license agreement with MultiService Corporation for Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 13. Motion to approve amending contract with W. K. Dickson, Inc. in the amount of $12,963.95. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 14. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop #5 located at 2510 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 15. Motion to approve a request by Rhiannon Hubbard for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Rhiannon Hubbard at Bello Salon 10 located at 3124 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) 16. Motion to approve airport salary reclassifications for Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 10, 2003) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 17. Deleted from the consent agenda. 18. Deleted from the consent agenda. 19. Deleted from the consent agenda. 20. Motion to approve application for designation as a “Preserve America” Community. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 10, 2003) PUBLIC SAFETY: 21. Motion to approve awarding bid #03-132, Walk-in Cooler, to Meyers Refrigeration for $12,450.00 for RCCI. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 10, 2003 FINANCE: 22. Motion to approve Cost Allocation Plan Update to be done by KPMG. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 23. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on property owned by City (Map 47-1, Parcel 284). (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 24. Motion to approve the abatement of various tax accounts on properties acquired by the City and the Land Bank (Map 33-2, Parcels 39 and 40; Map 17-3, Parcels 61.01, 64.01, 68.01 and 65.01; Map 47-3, Parcel 40 and Map 35-4, Parcel 335). (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 25. Motion to abate the 2003 property taxes for the Augusta Boxing Club headquarters. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 26. Motion to approve the request for items to be declared excess and available for auction. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 27. Motion to approve the redistribution previously approved General Fund Contingency funding for the Pavement Marking Program. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 28. Motion to approve authorizing to fund $7,129.00 General Fund for payment of services with GTARC for LEOP. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) 29. Motion to approve the renewal of the exemption of the Mayor’s vehicle from the decal ordinance. Under Georgia Law, the Commission may exempt certain vehicles from the decal ordinance for a 12-month period. After a public hearing, the exemption may be renewed for another 12-month period. (Approved by Finance Committee November 10, 2003) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 30. Motion to approve redistributing previously approved General Fund Contingency funding for the Pavement Marking Program (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 11 31. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 5, Parcel 184, which is owned by T & Z Associates, for right-of-way on the S.R. 56 @ CR 4/New Goshen Road Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 32. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 195, Parcel 15.06, which is owned by Willie Campfield, Jr., Elizer Jan Campfield f/k/a Liza Campfield Morrison, Jessie Campfield Bland, Rose Campfield, Thelma Campfield, Inez Campfield and Rena Campfield Frazier, for an easement in connection with the GWTP #3 20” Water Main, more particularly described as 617.09 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and 613.36 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 33. Motion to approve the awarding of construction contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction, Inc., in the amount of $5,986,012.11 for Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade – Project 60105. Bid Item #03-133. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 34. Motion to approve engineering design proposal from Khafra, Inc. in the amount of $32,000.00 for the design of a sanitary sewer on Olive Road between Martin Luther King and Gordon Hwy. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 35. Motion to approve Renewal and Extension Funding in the amount of $90,000 for the construction of the RCCI-Tobacco Road Sewer. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 1) Allow the City Attorney to negotiate cost-share agreements between Augusta, Georgia and two property owners along Tobacco Road for the construction of the RCCI – Tobacco Road Sewer Extension. 2) Approve cost-share agreement amount between Augusta, Georgia and Horizon Group for $10,000, which can be applied to the Commercial Dwelling Development fees once development begins. 3) Approve cost-share agreement amount between Augusta, Georgia and Dr. George Snelling for $5,000.00. 36. Motion to approve bid award for the Thermal Infrared Camera to the lowest and only bidder, Flir Systems, for the total amount of $23,170.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003 ) 37. Motion to approve concept of extending sewer line to Grovetown area with stakeholder participation. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 38. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with Environmental Services Group, Inc. to provide engineering services for the Augusta Utilities Department to include collection, input, and uploading all AUD water production assets into the GBA Master Series computerized maintenance manage system. The cost of the services will be in the amount of $142,700. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 39. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with Environmental Services Group, Inc. to provide engineering services to perform a comprehensive plan for staffing requirements after completion and startup of the Tobacco Road 12 Water Treatment Plant. The cost of the services will be in the amount of $87,400. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 40. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Heather’s Glenn Subdivision, Phase Two. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 41. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Heather’s Glenn Subdivision, Phase Three. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003 ) 42. Motion to approve the adoption of the new 2003-2008 Short Term Work Program as approved by Georgia Department of Community Affairs. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 43. Motion to authorize Public Works to obtain an easement across Mr. Ronnie Johnson’s property on Wrightsboro Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 44. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental Encroachment Agreement No. 31083 (Fenwick Street – South Augusta Transmission Line). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) 45. Motion to approve Contract Item Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and the Georgia Department of Transportation for the US 25/SR 121 Roadway Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 10, 2003) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 46. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held November 5, 12003 and Special Called Meeting held November 11, 2003. ATTORNEY: 47. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the 1945 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County. (Approved by Commission November 5, 2003 – second reading) 48. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the 1949 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County. (Approved by Commission November 5, 2003 – second reading) 49. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the 1977 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County. (Approved by Commission November 5, 2003 – second reading) 58. Consider approval of Resolution of Support of the Beulah Grove Resource Center Application for a 2003-330E Grant for the Center for Community Health. APPOINTMENT: 60. Consider the recommendation of the Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services to appoint Dr. Louise A. Rice to fill the unexpired term of Dr. Wilson Rice to the DFACS Board. 13 Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, minus items 17, 18, and 19, please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might, I just wanted to note that I voted the same way on number 7 as I did in committee, which was no. Mr. Mays votes No. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 8-1. [Item 7] Mr. Shepard out Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-6, 8-16, 20-49, 58, 60] Mr. Mayor: If we could next take up item number 57, at the request of Commissioner Hankerson. Got some people in the chamber for this item. The Clerk: 57. Discuss Sewer Tie-In Program. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to bring this to our attention because of the fact that previously we had a subcommittee to address the sewerage tie-in. And the subcommittee met and we came up with a method of payments by contacting banks, to get one bank to provide low-interest rate loan. And also the timeline of 90 days to tie in was decided also. Since that time, we have been hearing, and especially I know it started over on Sibley Road, a lot of citizens have been complaining. They have medical problems, they cannot afford to tie into the sewerage system in 90 days. Concerned about the 90 days, some of them are expressing hardship. And then also I have been listening to some public announcement on radio that’s been sort of misinforming people on what’s going on, and the reason, the real reason for why we are doing this, is for safety reason and we are improving our drainage system and so forth. And by no means we wanted to do this to put a hardship on the citizens of Augusta Richmond County. I talked to Mr. Warren Smith about whether or not there is anything else that, anything that we could do to assist those that are low income or meet the criteria, for those that have medical problems that cannot afford to tie in. We just started this, and I now that Utilities have been doing a great job on improving and sewerage system and so forth, so it’s all for a good cause. But I thought that maybe we can look at, revisit the suggestions that we made, the rules that we made, the 90 days, and sort of see whether we can assist those qualifying individual citizens, medical, or cannot afford this in 90 days. We may have to extend this to six months or maybe allowing them a year to tie in, but give them the opportunity, because they are complaining about the $1,500 or $2,000 to tie in to the sewerage system is creating a hardship on some citizens. Some are 14 happy about it. And I think everybody is going to be happy about it at the end. But I just want to know from Mr. Smith and I asked him to be at this meeting, that if there is anything that we can do to further assist those that meet the criteria, and if you would I’d like to put it allow Mr. Smith to address that, and I would hope that, I’m asking, and in the form of a motion that we send this back to the sub-committee that was appointed by Engineering Services and that we can come up with -- we can meet with Mr. Smith and come up with some other methods, if there are any, to assist in this. Mr. Mays: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to send this back to subcommittee. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I attended the meeting at Garrett, and we have another one tonight at Gracewood Community Center. [inaudible] the intention of the chair to defer the hardship applications, if you will, from the different meetings back to the committee, and we can do that with a motion or we can do it from the chair of Administrative Services, but we do understand that there are certain people who have legitimate hardships and that we do need to review those, establish criteria much as we’ve done for solid waste collection, and it is my intention to have the committee do that. So I think this is very timely. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Additionally, I’ve asked Mr. Wall to look into the requirements of the ordinance and any requirements that may be written in the bond documents with respect to requiring people to tie on, because whatever we do has got to be consistent with what the bond document says, and number two, if it’s an ordinance involved the ordinance may need to be amended, so I’ve asked Mr. Wall to do that research. Have you done it yet? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: You have? All right. You want to just wait and report to the committee? It won’t make any difference today. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Mayor: So if you’d have that report ready for the committee, then. Anything further on the motion? Mr. Hankerson? You want Mr. Smith to speak to the committee since we’re referring this back to the committee? We can take it up at the committee. Mr. Cheek: It would be useful to hear that before the [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. 15 Mr. Smith: I just wanted to say I concur that there’s possibilities for funding under HND. The CDBG Program could be a resource. I guess what I’m concerned about is that we, we have made some decisions for 2004. What I want, what I’d like to do, and I think that we can work this out. I’d like to meet with Max Hicks, his staff, look at the amount of need, look at the cases that we have, and try to carve out an idea of the cost so that we could possibly even amend our 2003 action plan for CDBG to carve out some funds. So I think this is something we could look at. We do need to be careful, but I do think this is something obviously that is a community need that we can take a look at. So I’ll be happy to look. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Mr. Shepard abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Shepard: Madame Clerk, just show that I abstained and was present, since I was not in the debate. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: We go now to item number 17. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we also have a delegation here for item 50, as well. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: Item 17? Mr. Mayor: We’ll take 17 and then we’ll go on to the [inaudible]. The Clerk: 17. Motion to approve the airport salary reclassifications at Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 10, 2003) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you asked this be pulled. Mr. Boyles: I did, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I sat in committee the other day when this went through two committees, and both committees -- as a sitting Commissioner -- I was thinking back to our other employees that work for us in the general fund that have not had any sort of salary increase in the last two years of any type, reclassification or across-the -board merit-type increase, cost-of-living increase. And I don’t want to see us get to the point that just because we have some enterprise 16 funds in our government that can generate revenue that they can become a different level or different class of employee than our regular employees who pick up our trash and keep our parks clean and those that prepared our budget for us. As we set for the past month I think it’s been, and discussing the 2004 budget, all of us have been keenly aware of trying to find money, monies to look after the rest of the employees. I saw us do this last year when money was given through a tax increase to the Sheriff’s office, and those salaries were raised over there and our rank-and-file employees in the general fund did not receive any increases. And I realize I probably am in the majority, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the persons who work at the airport and maybe those jobs are under-valued, just as we’ve been told all of our other jobs are under-valued. I would just simply ask the Commission that we hold off oft these. Our budget is due. If we don’t st finish it today it’s got be done before the 31, I understand, of December, and we’ve got time to include everybody or to look at everybody and see what may be done, and we’re only talking about six weeks. So, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make the recommendation that this be denied at this time. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from Mr. Boyles. Mr. Kuhlke: I second that motion and would like to say something. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I concur with what Commissioner Boyles is saying. I think reclassification is something that is going to be discussed when we go through the budget, as we go through the budget process. I hate to see one department set aside, even though it’s a small amount of money. I think everybody should be considered at the same time. And so I think he has an appropriate motion on the floor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I think in the enterprise we have Utilities and landfill and the rest of those folks. I think they generate the funds and I don’t think we should punish them by [inaudible] have them wait until we can go through a budget to get an increase. I’m going to make a substitute motion that we concur with the item in the book. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We discussed this, I believe, the other Monday, whenever Administrative Services Committee met. We do know the airport is a little different from, from the rest of our agencies that we have and their operations. And it’s a little different because we’ve been, you know, we value all of our employees, and I think [inaudible] but I think we also have to understand when we have to make exceptions. We made exceptions for Utilities and we made exceptions for Public Works. And we made exceptions for a lot of things here. And the reason that -- and I don’t 17 usually go along with those exceptions, but as I said before, the airport is a little different here. We are struggling out there. You know. Continental will probably cut back on the flights to Houston and to Newark. We are trying to get new carriers to come in to the airport. I mean, you know, those people out there are, they are fighting for existence. And I think we have to look at that. And I think that the, it was brought forth at the last Administrative Services Committee that, you know, they need people out there, they are losing people. So how can we afford to say that we are struggling out there, trying to upgrade the airport, [inaudible] new terminal out there, [inaudible] how can we say we can’t give them any help out there or any assistance? And I know we are going to have a tight budget and all of that. But I’m going to go along with the substitute motion here today and say let’s do this today and let’s recognize when we must come together and do something a little different because of the extent of which we are doing it, and what is going to help in saving the airport out there and get it on good footing out there. So let’s open our eyes a little bit and move forward and deal with [inaudible] today instead of close mindedness. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you seconded the motion. Go ahead. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The thing that we can’t lose sight of is that we changed the law enforcement and raised their salaries because we were losing deputies every 12 months or so at $25,000 training cost for each individual. We did that because we were losing them to the Board of Education and Columbia County and Wackenhut Security and other places. It was a necessary move to try to preserve trained personnel at a reasonable salary. We’ve got enterprise funds now that are funded and can cover the reclassifications and pay raises and so forth. The premise that people in the work force would rather have everybody suffer than see some people’s suffering reduced by increasing their salaries when we can do it I think is not correct. I think all of us would like to see a pay raise for all of our employees, but we have to decide whether we want everybody to suffer or we going to help those we can help, and I think we need to help those departments that we can help and then be diligent in trying to help the other departments as well. This all-or-nothing mentality is like trying to swallow an elephant. We have an opportunity now to take some small bites of this big problem and digest them and then correct the other problems. But the idea that everybody needs to suffer equally is flawed. When we have an opportunity to reduce pain and suffering within our work force, with employees, we ought to do it. And frankly, gentlemen, six weeks for a weekly wage employee is a long time, and the sooner we can reduce that pain and suffering, the better we will be, the better our employees will be, the more able they will be able to meet their bills. We need to act on this, and act on today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Cheek and I understand where Commissioner Boyles coming from, but I guess my question would be if we waited until whenever or we look at everybody, that’s not going to make a difference with the airport, that’s not going to change whether they get more money or less money. I mean they going to be at that level they’re at now. So I’m in agreement. 18 Now if that’s going to make a difference and we wait and we can be able to share that with other employees, you know, then I might be willing to, you know, to go along with the first motion. But if that’s not going to make a difference, I agree with Commissioner Cheek, we should not make everybody suffer because we, we, we, we made some exceptions right inside the government and, you know, there is no courthouse secrets, so Mr. Mays say, so we, we need to look at these things we done already. We brought in parties in here and gave them as much as the department head was making, and it wasn’t fair. But we did that, and we, we had the money to do it, nobody questioned it, nobody said a word, that was fine. All I’m saying is that if it’s not going to affect the rest of this government, let’s go ahead and take what we can and spread it with those employees that really deserve it, who we are working hard to, to build and, and bring a better airport. Not a remodel or upgrade. We’re trying to build a new facility out there. And those employees are very important to this City. We have airlines coming in and we need to have those people paid as best they possibly can. Mr. Boyles, I understand what you’re saying, but unless that’s going to make a difference, I mean I have to support the substitute motion and not the initial one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: My question, Mr. Mayor, and I basically support the first motion because we have on this agenda today to deal with the budget for next year. Let’s assume that there are going to be -- I don’t want to say anything that would cause them to decrease service, but I think a good question has been posed. If there are fewer flights in and fewer bodies arriving and departing, will that not impact the airport revenue? Is there anybody that can speak to that? Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Johnson and Mr. Boshears are here. Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d like, I’d like to know if that would, if the revenue, if the number of operations, the commercial operations, Buster, is cut -- and that’s not a decision for this body -- but if it is cut as has been reported in the media, will that affect the revenue of that enterprise fund? Mr. Boshears: The operations I don’t believe are down. I think the operations for this year are up. Mr. Shepard: I wasn’t asking about the present. I’m asking about what may happen in the future. We’re going to vote on a budget that’s a future oriented document, and what I want to know is -- Mr. Boshears: If there’s less activity, there’s going to be less revenue. Mr. Shepard: Well, and, and I think we’ve been told by the carriers that there well may be less activity. So what I don’t see is that it’s financially prudent at this time -- I mean we’re going through the budget and we’re going to do this today and I don’t think this meeting is going to finish today, but I don’t think that we should be increasing 19 overhead in that operation when we are facing a possible loss of revenue. That, to me, does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Shepard, maybe I can address your question. Even before we had Continental, we were profitable without them being there at all, we were making a profit. Mr. Shepard: I understand that. But aren’t you, if Continental reduces service, aren’t you going to suffer a reduction in revenues? Mr. Johnson: Yes, we probably will. Mr. Shepard: And then what this item does is increase your expenses; correct? Mr. Johnson: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: So I’m just saying let’s, let’s take a look at the whole financial package together. I’m not, I’m wanting to give them some money, too. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Shepard, if I could address what you’re saying, we came to you I guess in May or June and we asked -- you told us to wait until the middle of September or August and you as the Commission would make a decision. And we abided by what you said. Now it’s November and our employees -- and you’re at the process now of making a decision today which may or may not pass. And my understanding, even if you do make a decision today, it won’t go into effect until July of 2004. Is that correct? Mr. Kuhlke: Not necessarily. Mr. Mayor: Not necessarily. Mr. Johnson: Well, that’s what we were told at the Committee meeting, that it would probably be July of 2004. So the only thing we’re asking is that we’ve got some filled positions, we’ve got some people that we need to keep, and we want to go ahead with the reclassifications. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, just going a little bit further on the original motion. I stated the reason I’m opposed to it, because I think it ought to be taken together. My other reason for it is that when the presentation was made to committee last week, it’s only a $29,000 increase in salaries for all of the positions, and I didn’t see the urgency of it because of the $29,000, $19,000 are vacant positions and I didn’t feel like that they would fill those positions before we made a decision on the budget. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? 20 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me try and clarify something if I can. One, a lot of things are based on hypotheticals. If we going to get into hypotheticals of what could happen, we’re talking about building buildings, doing infrastructure improvements, building arenas, building amphitheaters, fine arts [inaudible], on sales tax it may an economy that doesn’t produce it. So I mean you, you live in a world of hypotheticals per se that you at times gamble on. I don’t see this as being a gamble of -- I think Mr. Johnson is correct in terms of the timing, that this was put forth in terms of classification. Now let me say this in support of our rank and file people. And the ones that come out of the general fund. I voted for those first reclassifications. That particular round of what we did failed. I don’t cry over spilled milk. I’m a big boy. I’ve been here a long time. But I think to a point that if you follow the trend of how we have responded as a Commission on a time frame of doing ours, that’s, that’s not even light at the end of the tunnel to a point of when other reclassifications might be handled. So I don’t blame them in bringing it forth. I chaired one of those committees last week and I supported it. I support it today. This reason. We talk about treating different. Let’s, let’s go to that just a moment. We didn’t do what I would have liked to have done, and I agree with Commissioner Boyles, if we had the money to do some things I think we would have done differently. But one thing that we did do, we tried to keep our work force together. At the airport, when they made the initial cutbacks, there were people who were let go. There were folk who were given pink slips and who had to leave. They did a downsizing and tried to work within those numbers. So automatically you have a difference there of where you had some difference of treatment already. If you’ve got those skilled positions that are there, and I think the former Chairwoman brought this out last week, in terms of their level of competition, you are asking them to compete with Columbia, you’re asking them to compete with Savannah, and let’s not even get into Hartsfield. That’s why the motion was made to go ahead and approve theirs separately and not have to wait until June. Part of their staffing has already been cut. That’s why the motion that was there was to deal with this on an immediate basis. Now Mr. Kuhlke makes my point. If it’s only $29,000 and we don’t know when we are going to settle our budget, I’ll bet basically my life it won’t be today, so to a point when these people will get an answer, it may be the end of December, obviously because of state law. But if they are waiting for us to deal with reclassifications, quite frankly it may be never. Because if we don’t find the money to close those gaps, then that becomes a moot issue. So I, I think we to a point all of us want to help our rank and file folk. That’s going to be the heart and fight of our budget, trying to deal with costs of [inaudible] if nothing else, raises that are there. Whether we’re going to deal, Mr. Mayor, with a pot of money which equally divides it. We may have to address it from the standpoint that percentages may not be fair. Because what occurs at the $25,000 level is not the same impact as what occurs at the $70,000 and the $80,000 and the $125,000 level. So we’ve still got a lot to do. So, so why to a point I think make a mountain out of a molehill? In a $29,000 argument, it sounds good, it sounds good politically, but let’s do the politics with our vote and put together the budget for those rank and file people. That’s the time to do it. The airport has done a prudent job in managing its money. It has brought us something to the table. They’ve been back time after time and I think if we can go on and settle that issue, then let’s settle that issue. What we need to be arguing about and debating is how we going to settle a $103 million issue. Let’s get that one straightened out and deal with it. But [inaudible] order. That’s 21 what I think is out of order, not to a point of what they brought to us, and I hope the substitute motion will be approved. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Chair would just like to clarify the record. From the backup information out of committee, the recommendation passed effective the pay period after this Commission meeting. Not next July, but the next pay period. And the Chair needs to ask our Parliamentarian for a ruling here, because whether this discussion is really relevant. Because item 16 and 17 are identical and we’ve approved Item 16 unanimously. There hasn’t been a motion for reconsideration. So I’d -- I don’t understand what we’re arguing about. The Chair would like a ruling from the Parliamentarian. Before we proceed any further. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: We didn’t pull item 16, we just pulled 17. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Mr. Wall: You’ve got inconsistent actions and obviously -- Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, we’ve had items come from two committees before to this full agenda. Mr. Beard: And I think we did do this on the two committee thing. Mr. Mayor: It’s on the agenda twice, and we’ve -- Mr. Beard: I’m saying Administrative Services and Public Services did a joint meeting and this is probably where the confusion came in. And it was approved by both committees and I guess that’s why you have it under both committees. Mr. Mayor: The full Commission has already approved item 16. Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Which is the request. Mr. Beard: Right. Mr. Mayor: Effective with the next pay period. Mr. Wall: That approves the funding of it. Well, it actually is part of [inaudible]. I think you’re correct, Mayor, and the action having been taken to approve that is effectively approval, which renders moot item 17 without a motion to reconsider number 16. 22 Mr. Mayor: Does anybody want to challenge the ruling of the Parliamentarian? Mr. Hankerson: I can’t hear, I can’t hear you, Mr. Attorney. Mr. Wall: I’m sorry. I said that there is an inconsistency between items, the approval of item 16 and the fact that 17 is on there. However, in view of the fact that the approval has been obtained as to the agenda item number 16, that that effectively is a decision which would control, which would render item number 17 moot, absent reconsideration if number 16. Mr. Beard: We need to move to the next item, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke: Can I change my vote? Mr. Mayor: The votes have already been recorded. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: The Chair will accept the ruling of the Parliamentarian and rule that further action on item 17 is moot and we’ll move on to the next item, and that item is number 18. The Clerk: 18. Motion to approve recommendations from the Probation Services Study Sub-Committee; expansion of the community service program to six (6) days per week, adjustments to the present contract as recommended by State Court Judge; payment of fines through use of credit cards and that fees not exceed the fine and that Sentinel’s contract be renewed for this year and RFQ be requested next year. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 10, 2003) Mr. Mayor: That was Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to thank the subcommittee that worked with me on this probation service study. Commissioner Kuhlke and also Commissioner Cheek worked very hard, had several meetings. I wanted to make known that we did make some recommendations. We were very sensitive to the outcry of individuals that were on probation. I talked with several individuals and also several meetings with Sentinel and also the judges. And the recommendation, I just want to reinstate and clarify a couple. First of all, we recommend that the citizens be, the probationers, rather, be education about the procedure and the system about the fines and so forth. Also making sure that they understand the consequences of not abiding by the law once they’re placed on probation. Because of the fact that there are some severe surcharges that is not placed by Sentinel, but it’s by the courts. The surcharges on the fines. One may have, be fined $1,000 and once the surcharges have been added to that, 50%, it could be $500 of surcharges, and these surcharges are, goes to peace officers, 23 prosecutor training fund, money goes to jail construction, and also to victims’ assistance programs. So they, an individual that’s placed on probation need to know first of all when they come before the judge, they come to pay the fine, if they do not have the money to pay the fine, the next thing is they not pay it or they go to jail or then they get on the program, they are sentenced to probation, which give them opportunity not to be jailed, but also to be supervised by Sentinel and pay their fines on installments and do community service work, which at times the fine, the fines, the surcharges, the fines will be decreased by the amount of community service that they do. We recommended that at this time we would not take on an in-house system due to the time and the budget restraints that we have right now in place, but we would study that at a later time. We also recommended that community service programs be expanded from just on Saturdays to five, six days a week, Monday through Saturday, therefore allowing a probationer the opportunity to do more community service, finish his fines quickly, and then they would not be under that supervision fee. The quicker they finish their fines by working it off. Also, we asked Sentinel to present to us some changes or adjustments after they speak to the judges about it, to assist the probationers. We recommend, and I want the citizens, all citizens to understand this, this is not just for the probationers, but we recommend to pursue a payment plan of fines through a credit card system. Sentinel at this time is already working on a credit card system for those that have been fined and supervised under the program. We talked to the Attorney and we are looking at the City as a whole would have a credit card system. Therefore, if you get a traffic ticket or fine or so forth, that you can just pay it with a credit card if you desire, so that’s for convenience of all citizens. Also, we recommended to the judge at this time that they would not consider renewing the contract with Sentinel, that they would renew the contract with Sentinel for the next year, and we could put it out for proposals the next year, that Sentinel’s contract will be renewed for another year. I have been well educated by them. They’ve been very helpful to me and answering questions and trying to resolve the problems that citizens are having, and at this time I think they are doing a good job at doing that, and within the next 12 months we will work and monitor and they would also send us financial statements quarterly or however they have been requested to do so. So I think the subcommittee did a great job on this, and there are some improvements. And also that citizens will be more educated on the probation program. Thank you, and again I’d like to thank the subcommittee, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek. Mr. Mayor: Are you just making a report, or do we need some action on this, Mr. Hankerson? Do we nee to approve? Mr. HankersonI move that it be : Since I pulled it from the agenda, yes, and approved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. 24 Mr. Mayor: If we could jump over to item number 50. We have some people in the Chambers for that item. Go ahead and take it up. The Clerk: 50. Z-03-91 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Priscilla Brown requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2519 Mikey Drive and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 153 Parcel 353) DISTRICT 4 Mr. Cheek: A motion to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Patty, you want to give us some background on that, and then we’ll let the petitioner speak. Mr. Patty: This is in Fairington, and the petitioner had a petition signed by what appeared to be a majority of the immediately-surrounding neighbors in favor of the request. We had one neighbor who testified. He’s handicapped, he’s right next to her, basically the driveways are next to each other, and he felt like he’d be most affected by it. He was opposed to it because of the usual reasons that are given, noise and activity and that sort of thing. There was a split vote on the Planning Commission and they did not [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Are there any objectors present today? Would you raise your hands so we can get a count? (3 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Fairington is a neighborhood that has come a long way in the last few years, recovering from problems. The neighborhood association has stated that this is the kind of business that they do not want in their neighborhood. These people have worked very hard to recover from a lot of problems and they’re well on the way to becoming a first-class neighborhood. I just hope that the Commission will support them in this, this request to deny this petition. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion to deny. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. 25 Mr. Shepard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go back now to item number 19, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 19. Motion to approve the recommendation on image to represent Augusta in marketing efforts and for citywide implementation. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 10, 2003) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have, I have no problem in terms of doing whatever we need to do to improve our imaging. I have just got a couple of questions I wanted to get some clarification on. In the backup, under the alternatives, I notice there -- well, let’s look at 3. And I guess that is what I’m concerned about. Are we going with blanket implementation on everything that we’ve got? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, yes, we were recommending alternative number 3. However, you have three to choose from. Four, actually. Mr. Mays: Well, that’s, that’s my, my question, Mr. Mayor. Changes to improve are fine. But I guess where I’m coming from is the point that this does get us back to what we just referred to a few moments ago. This is now in the general fund ballpark per se, and I know that through, through Ms. Seigler and CVB, they’ve done a great job in bringing this to us, and I’m, I’m not knocking that. But what I would like to know, have there been any projected or established costs relating to doing this point blank, you know, county wide and doing it on everything? Cause I mean if you’re talking about implementation, while we’re a very old city, one of the oldest in the country, this is still a very young government in terms of consolidation. We’ve not celebrated our tenth anniversary yet, and I’d like to hear some numbers to a point that if this involves changing decals on trucks, on cars, we went through a tremendous amount of, of grief before we, we got decals done on everything. And I mean I just like to see, while it may be presented to us free of charge, I need to know the impact of time, who’s going to do it, if this is going to involve Public Works doing it, what cost it’s going be. I’d like to hear that a little bit. And I’m not knocking the imaging. But you know, I am concerned in a tight budget year to a point that if some of us have got concerns in reference to labor force, who’s going to do the work, how much it’s going to cost to get all this done, can somebody tell me that? Mr. Kolb: Yes. We did not budget nor had we planned to do implementation of this overnight. This would be gradual. As we run out of letterhead, then the new letterhead that we’d be printing up would use the new logo, use the new image. Water 26 tanks would not be changed until such time as they have to be repainted. As, in fact, some of the water tanks that were done in the last year or so were done with the current image that we have, and the old image or where it said Richmond County was eliminated. So we will do this gradually. As we have to replace vehicles, the new decal will be placed on it. If we have to replace a decal on a vehicle, then the new image would be placed on it. So it’s not something that we’re budgeting for. This will be done gradually over time. Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, my response a little bit would be if we going to gradually do this over time, then maybe, maybe, George, y’all need to stick with letterheads for a while. Because last time I voted on painting a water tank, it was a lot of money to paint one tank. And, and not knowing the schedule, when you say this is going to be done gradually, I mean is this going to be months apart, years apart, weeks apart? See, these are the types of unclear things that add up in the long run. For instance, you’re talking about changing this logo. Those of us that attend GMA, ACCG, our national conventions, we get almost mugged in terms of trying to keep a lapel pin on, because people across this country want to have that image of Augusta’s lapel pin. They are basically regarded at any conference and convention as the most stylish and the most classy ones that we’ve got. Period. Bar none. Folk want to get them. And then all of a sudden we’re changing. You know, imaging to me gets into as much as how we act and what we do for people as to whether or not we print or whether we sign a name. And I’m just a little unclear in terms of where when you give me something this open and say you going to blanket put it on everything, and I don’t want to be the one that keeps coming here every month, dealing with the arguments like a grinch who, who, who’s looking for every penny, but to a point when, when this does not necessarily to me, other than if you want to do it letterhead, fine, you got folk to print it, fine, deal with it. But when you start talking about all the other things that have to be done and if you going to do them gradually, then you know, we just got used to having trucks and vehicles enrolled in a fleet, that when you see them you see one image and logo. You’ve got the historical picture of that home on there. Now are we going to change them five at a time, ten at a time, one at time, and then to a point where you’ve got part of them looking one way? To me, if you don’t budget it, and you don’t set aside that you can do it in a reasonable time frame that’s unique and that you’ve got everything uniform, then you know, it’s just like me conducting a service where all of my people that are on there, put everybody in a different color suit and a different tie on, to a point that they stand out because you’ve done it uniformly. If that’s what you’re trying to achieve. Now I’m not knocking it, and it’s going to pass and I think it’s kind of one of those things that looks good, sounds good, but I think when you’re talking about blanket implementation, without a time frame and definitely without a budget, this is the exact course of action I think that’s what got us to the delayed point of how we are going to have to finally debate $103 million. And that’s why a few minute ago I voted for some folk who had their act together and came in and dealt with something that I could readily see, as opposed to something of just going out here and doing, that looks good, but to a point you’re not really telling me to a point in dealing with it. You going to do a billboard like that, that’s specific. It’s one or two, or whatever you put the 15 or 20. You’re going to do letterheads, fine. But when you start talking about everything and you’ve not assigned any numbers to it, then to me 27 if y’all [inaudible] talked about the prudency of the money a few moments ago, then y’all ought to look at this in terms of how non-prudent that is because it’s open ended, gives no time frame, and has no idea of how to keep anything uniform. And I’m not knocking what they’ve done. The people have, Ms. Seigler and those have done an excellent job in bringing it forth. But to say you’re going to blanket do it across the City with no answers for it, I just don’t think that’s a good way to do business. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays said all of the things I wanted to say. He left me one addition, and that is that our pins, if nothing else, he’s right. When we do visit other cities and we do travel, people from all over -- we’ve got a lot of equipment, not just cars, not just trucks, we got a lot of equipment with this logo on it, and I’m not against changing, I mean, cause I think there is a time to change. But Commissioner Mays said this government is only ten years old, and I think that’s relative new to, to want to change the logo. Not having a, a number factor involved, a cost associated with this, how far, how much we going spend. If we do this, we can spend until eternity because we, we said we going to change them. And I don’t know how many we going do, might do it six months, might do it 20 years, until we get them all done, I guess. But there is no limit. When you talk about money, here it is budget time. I think if we going to approve this, we ought to do it for letterhead. If that’s what, what the Administrator wants to do, I’ve got no problem with letterheads. But I got a serious problem with changing all of the logos as they needed, as they come available for this government. Now when you talk about logoing or putting all our, the government equipment in uniform, the state record says that all our equipment supposed to be one color. Is that right, Jim? All our vehicles, all our vehicles not supposed to be one color? Mr. Wall: That’s not part of that statute. Mr. Williams: Okay, well, now that’s where I was misled. I been misled before and so, so, so that’s no big one, but the way, the way it was presented, this, the City vehicles supposed to be sealed and the logo supposed to be placed on them, and they all supposed to be uniform. Is that right? Mr. Wall: Let me see if Vanessa is here. She’s dealt with that statute more recently. They are all supposed to have the name on there. I don’t know that there’s anything that says they have to be uniform. Mr. Williams: Well, I don’t have it with me, Jim, y’all taught me to keep all my [inaudible] papers and I got something that says that, but my, my point is we got several different colors on automobiles. From blue to gray to red. We got trucks going down the road with seals on them that if you didn’t see the seal you wouldn’t know it was a City vehicle. So if we going do something, we might want to start with getting in uniform with what we already got. There’s a lot of our equipment, when we talk about vehicles now, y’all know that’s my thing. We got Jeeps out there, we got four wheel drive trucks, I mean we got all kind of equipment and they’re not uniform. So my point is I think we 28 ought to either do the letterhead and wait on this until the beginning of the new year, after we got through this budget season and being able to know where the money’s going to come from and how much money it’s going cost. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While I agree with my colleagues on certain points, staff has come to us with an implementation program, over time, at a direct cost per replacement, which is no additional cost over the original. This is a very nice improvement to the original design. Let’s face it. The reason people want Augusta pins is not so much for the City of Augusta as the international event that goes on here. And while that Augusta written across there is pretty close, and I don’t want to get on any copyrights or anything, but it looks more like the international even logo, and thus brings the city on a par with that international event, and it’s more recognizable. It’s just a beautiful addition, it’s something that I think we can implement over time. Having the same logo on every car and changing it all at once is significant cost, while implementing it over time is something that is affordable, it is a path forward, it is something that is I just make a achievable, in some point in the future as we trade cars and vehicles, motion that we approve the Option 3 directing the staff to implement it over time on a replacement policy versus buying new. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, what kind of cost are we looking at here? Mr. Kolb: We do not anticipate any increased cost. It would be whenever we replace our letterheads, and much of it is done on the computer now anyway in our own print shop. That’s when it would be replaced, and part of the cost of imprinting, you know, letterhead. Mr. Bridges: What about our water tanks? Mr. Kolb: Water tanks, we do those I believe every five to seven years, so it would be included in the cost of painting and cleaning out the water tank. Mr. Bridges: So we, this is not something then that we’re going to just go out there and do within the next year or anything like that? Mr. Kolb: No. 29 Mr. Bridges: It’s as they, these items come up for repainting, maintenance, that type of thing? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. And the pins, I think, that -- you’re right, the pins are classic and we’ll replace those. But we’re also talking about an Augusta signature pin, which will be just as sharp as the other one. And you know, that, that is negligible in cost, also. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any trouble with the motion. I guess, I think Mr. Mays brought up a good point. I looked at this and I saw at no cost, so I went on to the next item, but I think Mr. Mays has brought up a good point here that we need to discuss, and after discussion, as long as we’re doing this over a period, in particular regards to the water towers, that type of thing over a five year period or whatever the maintenance schedule is, I have no trouble with this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I voted for this in Administrative Services and could possibly vote for it now. But after discussed this, see so many points, and I think this is what happens so often till we just say something out here and it would be my recommendation here that George outline these things, because here we’re just seeing some things out here, and yes, they’re going to go into the minutes, but you know, in the next four or five months, who’s going to look over those minutes? But to me, the best thing to do in this situation is for him to outline all of these things that would be done, like most of the people had no idea about when they’re going to be replaced, how much it’s going to cost. These things [inaudible] out here. I think that these things should be designated, what you’re going to do, no cost [inaudible] as we get new items in, then utilize that. I think all of that should be brought to us at some other time and let us vote on it, and let us know what we are voting on. Because it’s just by word of mouth out here, what I’ve heard today. And is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: There is a motion to approve. Mr. Beard: Okay, I’m going to make a substitute motion that George outline those items and bring it back, and he can do that for the next meeting, the next Commission meeting as far as I’m concerned, unless [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: I’ll second it Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if you look in your backup, we did outline the financial impact of this particular item, and it does say there are no 30 additional costs associated with using the new design for departments. And if there was a set-up cost, but that minimal, and that we would do it as replacement. So we did, I think, put that in the backup as part of the original recommendation. Mr. Beard: Now you, I just heard you say we’re going to change the pins, too. Is that in there, too? Mr. Kolb: No, I didn’t say we would change. I said the pins we would probably keep, but we would like to talk about an Augusta logo, but we probably will use -- that’s minimal cost, as the pins are. And we probably can do a small run of those for less than $1,000. Mr. Beard: But I’m just interested in knowing everything that’s going to take place with this change at this point. Mr. Kolb: Okay. We can resubmit the agenda item to you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My colleague, my twin had just brought something to the table that I’m glad he mentioned, about these pins. And they resemble something that looks like Augusta. And, and, and the Administrator said that he was going to do some additional pins, but the change going to be just as good. Well, if it ain’t broke, why you going fix it? I mean the pins are already nice. I mean the logo is already good. I, I, I just don’t see, I don’t understand the change that needs to come about at this time. Maybe if we had something that wasn’t attractive, something that people didn’t appreciate, people didn’t want. At the animal shelter the other day, Mr. Mayor, when we cut the ribbon, had a lady there from Athens Clarke County who, who lifted my pin off of my lapel and said that she needed it because someone came from Germany and got the one that she had and she wanted another one. And I gave it to her. But, I mean I don’t understand we going to fix something that ain’t broke. I guess that’s my point. And I -- Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I voted for this, and I still support, I still will support it. I support change. The concern, the question I have is about the vehicles, about the vehicles. I know we said we going to phase them in, and it appear to me that we do need to budget some money for it when it’s available, if we going to do all the vehicles at some phasing in, the new vehicles will have one, one logo on it, and then the old ones will have another one. Is that what, what you had in mind, Peggy, to do that or we do all the vehicles? I would like to see all the vehicles be done like we did before and do all the vehicles at one time. You have uniforms, too, that going to have to be changed. I know letterheads is probably the most simple thing to do, the least expensive to do, letterheads, but when we do the vehicles I would like to see 50 new vehicles with the new logo on it, and you got 200 old ones with the old logo, then I think you’ve defeated your 31 purpose of a new image of Augusta. To me, I think some funding, if we going to do this, some funding is going to have to be somewhere in the budget to do it. Ms. Seigler: You’re correct. It would be great to have it all done at once, but you’re also correct in saying you’re going to have to find some money to do it that way. And I just don’t see it in the general fund, giving me $100,000 just to go blanket implementation. So the other alternative is to do in replacement. It will take a little bit more time, but eventually it will get there without any additional cost to general fund. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Ms. Seigler; I just wanted to mention also I know that the seal is not broke, but when it comes to marketing, looking at your seal now I can’t read what city you’re representing. But with Augusta bold across the front, for some of the marketing efforts, it will be leave more of an impact. And will be easier to read and identify as Augusta, Georgia. And that’s where initially this request does come from. Mr. Williams: Peggy, I understand what you’re saying, too, but every city that we, we -- I think she was addressing that question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Hankerson had the floor. Mr. Williams: But she was addressing my question. I need to respond. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: Okay, well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: You’re only supposed once under the rules -- Mr. Williams: Well, she was addressing my question, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] respond if you just let me have just a minute. Peggy, I understand, I understand what you’re saying, but when we travel and every city has a pin, and you can’t recognize that person’s pin from that distance where you’re standing. But when you, when you standing face to face with that person, I mean we see all of those cities from all across America, and we have got a reputation in Augusta for having an outstanding pin and logo that people recognize. So you know, from this distance you wouldn’t, even if you put Augusta on it. If it’s going to be that big where you can recognize from there, I don’t want one. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: I mean if it’s going to be that big. So all I’m saying is -- Mr. Cheek: Like a bow tie? 32 Mr. Williams: It look worse than a bow tie. My, my point is we ought to have something that’s feasible with everybody else. We’ve got something that stands out. We’ve got something that’s unique, we’ve got something that people ask us for everywhere we go. The Clerk will tell you, when we go out of town, the first thing we do is we address that issue about getting pins to take with us cause people ask for them. Ms. Seigler: And I think those images complement each other. I’m not saying you have to replace those. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be very brief. I came into the parking lot today and I didn’t see the first horse or the first carriage, so there is a perfectly viable means of transportation that worked quite well, but people opted for something called automobiles because it was a better way to travel. This is a better logo, it’s an improvement, and I just encourage support. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Can I ask one question on -- cause blanket means blanket and -- Mr. Mayor: We’ll put it on any blankets we own, too. Mr. Mays: Well, I mean it changes your new flag, too, because if you going to change, that change everything. So I mean that goes in the deal to change the City flag that you’ve just done. What I’m getting to is the point of changing imaging in a young th government that’s in its 9 year. Those [inaudible] efforts sound very good, but with term limits you’re going to change a lot of people. What I’m looking at to a point is that every time something looks a little different, do you in a city that’s, you know, getting ready to soon be on its next major anniversary be 300 years old, do you get to a point that every time six folk decide that the image need to be changed then you change then the image of it because it looks a little better? I can agree with it if you’re not dealing with all this. You handed me something when you say blanket, that mean everything that you’re doing. Now when it comes down to, to, to dealing with, with, with vehicles, and that’s a good place because I don’t think -- Bobby went into it, but then it got criss- crossed into Marion’s situation there, and I don’t think we ever got back in terms of the fullness, Commissioner Hankerson, in reference to the point of having -- if you are going to only do them when they, when they run out, that could be to a point that none of us are here, and quite frankly, none of y’all are here. So I mean, you know, but you setting something in motion to deal with when do you deal with doing the trucks? And I know it looks to be nit-picking, we ought to be dealing with something bigger, but this is the kind of example to a point that when we get this type of half-baked stuff that comes out that sounds simple and you say blanket it, do it every place, you give me no numbers to deal with it, then I certainly don’t want to be in a city, it may be where the logo looks good, but I chair Public Services. And, and Commissioner Williams and I argue about this sometimes because of the way, Tommy, that Recreation folk change seasonally with 33 colors. But they deal with their logos and shirts. We stockpile and add to those supplies that’s there. Then do you turn around and make those uniforms obsolete at that point because they need to now have the new logo that runs across them? It’s a lot that you’ve not figured into everything that you are changing. And I think the worst thing you can do, if there are some folk with the script Augusta running across it, have for the rest of them with it printed, when do we get updated? Those are the kind of things, if you want to ask for morale problems, that’s what creates them, when you have one department looking one way, one looking like it’s a stepchild of government, well, we’ll get to yours when we do your trucks three years from now. I mean those are the kind of things I think you ought to, if you going do it, have a time line, so you’re going to do it within two years to deal with it, but not just where you going to blanket do it and you could run around the city to a point that you could be in the city and folk want to know is that one of your cars I saw? I saw a different emblem on it. Well, yes, it’s one. It’s one that’s written. Well, now, this is the one that’s printed. And, and, and, and I just think that’s, that’s not any coordinated effort to quite frankly do anything, and if this is what you’re getting out of CVB and this is what you’re getting out of PR, then I think that’s quite frankly a, a PR [inaudible] poorly in order of getting that done. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have two motions on the floor. We’ll deal with the substitute motion first from Mr. Beard. Mr. Colclough: What is the substitute motion? Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion I think is to revisit this at the next meeting with some additional information supplied by Mr. Kolb with respect to implementation. Is that a correct summary, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s the substitute motion that’s on the floor. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in the affirmative. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to approve the item. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No. 34 Mr. Beard abstains. Mr. Mays not voting. Motion carries 6-2-1. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, what I’d like to do now is take up item number 54. The Clerk: 54. Readopt the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hankerson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Gentlemen, these rules were initially adopted by the consolidated government on July 3, 1996, and it’s the road map, the guidebook for the conduct of these meetings, and I am charged by State law with chairing these meetings, and I would like to chair them consistent with the rules that are in place and adopted by this Commission and I would ask the concurrence of each Commissioner in complying with the procedures that are outlined in the rules. Since we do have some problems with abiding by the time limits in here, with directing questions as they should be, and who is supposed to recognize people and who is supposed to have people to come up and speak, if any of you want to make any changes to these rules, I wanted to give you the opportunity to do it. If not, we have a motion on the floor to readopt the rules as published, and if that passes I would certainly ask each Commissioner to let’s try to abide by these rules and expedite the conduct of these meetings. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any problem with readopting the rules, procedures for, for this government, but I want to say this afternoon, I just want to make sure that the rules are followed out each time, I mean because sometimes we get selective amnesia where we, we look one way when we want to look one way, and we look the other way when we want to look the other way. So I’ve got no problem with readopting, but I want to make sure now, cause if anybody going to be paying attention, I’m going to be paying attention to make sure that everybody is treated the same way. I said it a hundred times, Jim, we need to play the same ball all the time. That goes for re-adoption of these rules as well, so it’s no problem with that, but I just want to make sure, cause we have not always been consistent. Now we want readopt and get consistent, and I guess that’s good, but let everybody be treated the same way. And if we do that, I don’t think we have any problem, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, anybody else have any comments? Anybody want to amend the two minute rule so they can speak longer than two minutes? Now is the time to do it. Mr. Boyles? 35 Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. We have nothing in process to enforce these rules, or it’s just strictly a volunteer effort on somebody’s part to do it? Mr. Mayor: Well, I think -- Mr. Boyles: You’re asking for compliance from the Commission, but what happens if you don’t? Mr. Mayor: Well, get somebody else to preside maybe, I don’t know. But the point is, the rules were adopted before some people who are at this table and elected to the Commission. If these rules are no longer valid, if these are not the rules you want to operate on -- I sent them out to everybody about a month ago and said is there anything you want to change? I haven’t heard back from anybody about that. Here today, we have a motion to readopt the rules as previously adopted by this board, and we have no, no motion or comment or anything on the floor to change any of these. So we’re about to move forward with a vote to approve them when we finish this discussion, and after that point we would certainly appreciate it if everybody would abide by the rules. That’s all. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: To answer Mr. Boyles’ question, you know, you’re presiding and I would think that the person who is presiding is in charge. That’s the way I feel with Administrative Services and I feel that all the other committee chairs feel the same way. So it’s up to the person who is presiding to, to enforce the rules. Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Mr. Boyles: Maybe we should move the clock over there. Mr. Mayor: That might help. We might need a timer. We’ve got a TV camera and Marshal. We might need to get a timekeeper next. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’m just planning to vote, but I’m going to make this statement. I’m going to be like Garfield a little bit since some of this seemingly resembles somebody. You know, it’s ways of saying things pointed at folk that you don’t have to call any names. I’ve been here long enough to realize how that game is played, too. But I just want this down for the record that if, if, if this is leading to something that’s different from the rules, I was taught very well about rules and how to deal with them, and so there 36 is always, as old folks used to say, more than one way to skin a cat. So if it’s being aimed in such a way that certain needs of my constituents in four Districts will not get addressed, I know how to put them down and to deal with, if I’ve got to bring eight to nine different delegations to express it and to deal with their five minute rule on issues that I feel that are pertinent in the four Districts that I represent by vote, and the four others that some folk don’t care to represent, cause I’ve done as much or more than some of them have. So that’s how I’ll handle that. I wasn’t prepared to deal with it necessarily when it came up the first time, wasn’t in favor of all of it, not necessarily in favor of all of it now. But the democratic process wins and I’ve always been one that’s played by whatever rules are there and whatever hand I’m dealt. But one thing that you say about me, whether you like me or not, I’m going to play like hell that hand that I’m dealt. And so whether I got a bad hand or not, sometimes I’ll take a bad hand and beat a fellow with a good hand if he doesn’t know what he’s doing. So that’s all I’ve got to say about it. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor to readopt the rules. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mays: Figured it’s a good day for one of them. Haven’t had one in a long time. Mr. Mayor: Let’s -- do we have unanimous consent -- we have a request to delete item number 59. Do we have unanimous consent to do that? ATTORNEY: 59. Hearing to consider whether Augusta Video’s business tax certificate should be suspended or revoked pursuant to the provisions of the Richmond County Code §2-1-38 for violations of Augusta’s Adult Entertainment Ordinance, Richmond County Code §6-1-1, et seq, as amended, and/or Augusta’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,§28-C. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you want to explain why you requested that? th Mr. Wall: Yes. The adult video store filed a motion for rehearing in the 11 Circuit, and therefore technically the order of the District Court is not final, and rather than run the potential risk of having Augusta held in contempt for violation of the order, I th felt it was appropriate to let that motion for rehearing be decided by the 11 Circuit, either to rehear the case or to reject the request for the rehearing. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall: And as soon as we get a final decision on that, I’ll reschedule or recommend that the rehearing be scheduled. 37 Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there anyone that objects to deleting this form the agenda today? Okay, no objection. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: It’s not an objection, but I did want to ask Mr. Wall something, and realize because it’s legal that has to be very thin in terms of asking. But it’s just something, Jim, that I think maybe you need to think about. If we’re going to schedule a hearing per se, if our agendas are up to 60 to 70 items per agenda, per meeting day, I think if you are going to have a hearing on, on something of, of this magnitude, then it needs to be held on a separate day in terms of doing that. And that would deal with whatever accommodations that you going, going to deal with on just that hearing. The other thing, Mr. Mayor, that, that I think would be helpful to us, and I, I mentioned this to, to some members of the media in reference to it, is that if a, a map could be gotten from Planning & Zoning that we looked at in reference to this, in terms of the designated areas which are laid out within the ordinance and then the map showing those areas in which those businesses can go, I think that would be most helpful in terms of disseminating that, not only to me, but to the general public. Because I, I, I think that there is a misconception to a point that some of this is absolute and that you can strike down and you can do some things. So I think that a map needs to be given out and made public in terms of -- I know people can go get it, but I think it needs to be made public from the standpoint that folk will know where areas are already, that businesses can locate in without objection if you are using a zoning mode. And that’s just -- I’m not making a motion on it, but I just think that would be a good suggestion, because there are a lot of people in this county that aren’t aware that a map does exist and that you have places there that places can be located. And I think it would be surprising to, to some of the constituencies that you gentlemen represent to know that you’ve got some large areas or large dots that’s on that map that’s in red of where those businesses can go without having an objection to it. And I think that needs to be made public. Even though it’s a public record. But it needs to be made available so the media can disseminate it, and then if you got interested persons on either side of this issue, that they can have that to be able to deal with. Because that’s been something that we’ve not readily said or talked about. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The next item we’ll take up is item number 56, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 56. Discuss Legal Representative. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek : Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to put this on the agenda for us to, to take some positive action towards determining the type of legal representation 38 that we will have. And not necessarily select who at this point, but at least select how I’d like to make a motion, one, that we continue and and when. And so therefore maintain the hybrid legal system that we have with in-house, and for lack of a better term, out-house representation and that I guess we would defer to Administrative Services to make a recommendation whether we go out for request for proposals or so forth to select a firm to represent the City for the coming year. Mr. Williams: Second that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Brenda, what, what’s the EEO requirement for this vacancy, for filling this? What, what steps need to be taken preparatory to making decisions about who or what you’re going to do? Does there need to be some posting or something that’s required by the City policy? Ms. Pelaez: Well, actually, technically, no, sir, because it’s a professional service. And in that regard we would go through the professional service process to look for the [inaudible] firms to provide services to us. Mr. Mayor: All right, any discussion, any other questions? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. Mr. Shepard abstains. Mr. Boyles out Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Shepard: And on the record, Madame Clerk, I would put since I have an interest in that position, I should not vote on it. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. Next we’ll take up item number 53. The Clerk: 53. Discuss the filling of the Deputy Administrator’s position and the EEO/MBO positions. (Requested by Commissioner Mays) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, as Chairman of that subcommittee appointed by Mr. Beard, I asked that this be placed on, in conjunction with the filling of the Deputy Administrator’s position, not just for the purpose of looking for funding for the position in this area. However, it does not rule out looking for funding in that particular area. But my main focus, if I’ll back up and away from EEO, is the fact that I thought that you gave us a tremendous challenge in your inaugural statement in reference to how we were going to deal with small and minority businesses, how we were going to work in this 39 area, the, the forthrightness and the courage to come forth with that. I, personally, have held off even making an appointment to this board because I wanted to see in terms of the fact whether it was going to be treated seriously and whether or not we were going to fulfill the obligations that were put in the original bill in order to call for those things that were to be dealt with by this government, which to a certain extent have not been dealt with. 2,700 employees to a point in terms of the independence of this position and the office has not really been given its seriousness. I said a few weeks ago when we had a personnel hearing [inaudible] public trial per se that I hoped it would be the last of those, but I think it gave out the very glaring aspects of why this area needs to be dealt with and why it needs to be filled. Now it may look, and let me clear up this perception, because we’ve talked a lot about imaging today, more than anything else. So let me clear up my imaging in where this is. This is not on there because it relates to the Administrator’s office. It’s on there because the management of positions and of filling them, that the Administrator has asked that departments of this City abide by, has gone through a certain procedure in terms of doing it. I don’t think that there should be exceptions to this particular procedure. I responded by putting this on there because it’s addressing this in reference to filling this position immediately on the letters that were sent to us. And it was a friendly letter and I also sent a friendly letter back which was copied to each one of you. And also to, Mr. Mayor, your chair person and co-chair person of that committee, dealing with small and minority business. Because the management of, of finances and of how we deal with personnel, I think in imaging everybody ought to be equal in their imaging. When you have a position that calls for it to be paid at nearly $100,000 and a position that in which the salary was raised because we had to do it to keep us out of litigation, then I think to a point that it needs to be on the table and discussed with everything else. Inasmuch as the budget of this City has not been passed yet, I felt that it should be considered along with everybody else. Now this is not a dig at what’s coming in Administration. I think decisions need to be made. But I think to a point that if you’re asking other departments to wait their turn, to deal with 90 days or whatever they’re dealing with, then the Administrator’s office should be no different. It should be considered in the same magnitude. And that’s just about fair play. So it was put on for that two-fold reason. One, admittedly I will say, in terms of looking for funding for that particular office has called for in the bill, but also secondly, if there is going to be an attempt to do so, then I think that with that not being a department head’s position, the . And what I’m funding is there. It can go through the normal process to be filled asking the Commission to do today is just simply to freeze that item and to allow it to go into the normal budget process and then we decide whether or not there is going to be an extra Administrator’s position that’s even filled or not. And that’s all that I’m saying in terms of how that’s to be done. That’s why it’s put on. It’s not personal. It’s just a matter of business. And that was my reason for placing it there and I’ll entertain any questions that any of my colleague have in terms of why I might have put it there, if I’ve not stated them. Mr. Mayor: Willie, did you want to make that in the form of a motion? Mr. Mays: I’ll so move. 40 Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: There’s a second. Okay. Now is there discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I understand what Commissioner Mays is saying, but I disagree with him. And I disagree with him from this standpoint. We’ve got, we’ve got a big business here, and if we don’t give the support to the Administrator to be able to do his job, supervise and provide help to department heads and so forth, then I think we are going to be going backwards. We struggled with this at the outset of consolidation. We finally got a good team on board. I just don’t see how this government can function with an Administrator and one Assistant Administrator and handle all the duties that need to take place. So I’m afraid I can’t for his motion, and yet I understand where he’s coming from. But I, I think that if you take this action and we don’t have the flexibility to replace the Deputy Administrator as promptly as possible, that we’re going to create some problems. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. When it comes back to my time. Mr. Mayor: I’ll get back to you. Mr. Mays: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I’ll get back to you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard: Well, what I was going to say -- thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I was on that committee and I believe I pointed out, Mr. Mays, that it was a chartered responsibility as to these two positions and not the Deputy Administrator, but I think we need to move in that direction in the budget process, and as Finance Chairman I’ve been doing a lot of listening in the budgetary process it seems to always fall my lot to begin the budgetary discussions. And we will do that today and I intend to raise the funding of those positions in that budget. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My legal partner on the side, Mr. Shepard, has stated exactly. The charter calls for that position, that’s something we need to really look at. I differ from Mr. Kuhlke. We do that a lot, but we had an Administrator before that only had one assistant, and I won’t say how good or bad he was, but they, they got some great things done. The Administrator presently has got an assistant and an assistant to that one. And if, if, if, if we’ve got to cut costs and, and, and do some things to save money, we are going to have to start at the top. Little people work, drive the trucks and the people that sweep the floors and mow the lawns always get, get cut down, but now, and we’re doing things like we’re supposed to be doing. When you start at the top, there is money there, there is not anybody in that position. We 41 ought to be capable of keep, keep the shift floating with what we got. I think we got a very good assistant and I think we got a very good assistant to the assistant, but I think those money need to be placed in a position where we can go ahead and fulfill those obligations that the State has laid down for us to do. I think the, the taxpayers, the voters expect for us to do that. So I’m in wholehearted compliance with Mr. Mays and his motion. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else before we go back to the maker of the motion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me, let me, let me re-clarify something. I’m not saying one way or the other whether Mr. Kolb will end up with one Administrator, two, or even what was suggested from the very beginning, Bill, in terms of when we had outlined the, the organizational chart back in ’95 and were working on implementation, when it originally called for the possibilities of dealing with three. The only thing that I’m saying is, and it’s not putting it off forever. Now I find it very strange that folk earlier was going deal with, with possibilities of crippling the airport to wait until we made up our mind about general fund, but yet don’t want to take something through the budgetary process and do only what they Administrator has asked his department heads to do in every other department. The department that we oversee, the Clerk’s office has not a beat with the three women that have been down there. Anybody that I know of has not missed any information they’ve been getting. Our stuff has been out on time. Our minutes have been here. Yet almost since Belinda left and went to HND, it’s been 25% down for not the 90 day period, they’ve abided and it’s not been there for almost a year to a point of being in there. And the only thing I’m just saying is that follow the rules if you’re going to lead, if you’re going to lead and set and example for your people to follow, then do them just the same way in terms of what you ask other departments to do. Now unless somebody’s waiting around the corner by the bathroom to be hired tomorrow morning, there is no great emergency that this cannot deal with the normal process. And the normal process takes us through the budget period, which actually comes first, and Mr. Kolb might even get it if we approve it in the budget that it will be before 90 days. But I think to a point of example, you need to have it, and you need to have it done if you’re going to say what you want to do for everybody else, then be the first to stand up and do that in the department in which you lead. And that’s why the motion is the one I made. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mayor : On the -- trying to get what I think are easy items out of the way On the addendum agenda we’ve been asked to add an item. first here. 42 Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve an exclusive Option Agreement to purchase 2.022 acres, more or less, and a non-exclusive easement in perpetuity over and across a fifty foot strip of land containing .342 acre, more or less, fronting Flowing Wells Road between James M. Johnson as “Seller” and Augusta, Georgia through the Augusta Fire Department as “Purchaser.” Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that item? We’ll go ahead and dispose of that. Mr. Kuhlke: I move we add and approve. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding and approving the item on the addendum agenda? Mr. Shepard: I second that motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have an objection. I just wanted to bring up a point on item 55, that there should be a 55A to include discussions that were suspended when we lost a quorum at the last meeting on a cost cap for the project. Mr. Mayor: All right. That will be included in that discussion. There is no objection heard. We have a motion to add and approve item number 1 on the addendum agenda. It’s been seconded. Is there any discussion on it? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a couple of items left that are going to take some time, so the Chair will declare a five minute recess and then we will be back in and hopefully finish the business of the day in short order. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the meeting back to order. As the Commissioners are taking their seats, the Chair will note on a point of personal privilege while we were meeting this afternoon I received an email from Washington, D.C. Congressman Max Burns’ office. The Congressman today announced the Transportation Treasury Appropriations Conference Agreement includes over $25 million in funding for th transportation projects throughout the 12 District. And if you’ll recall earlier this year when the, when the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure asked for earmarked projects, we specifically asked for some money for rail relocation for preliminary planning and engineering work. The Congressman reports to us today that under the earmark, the City of Augusta, we received $2 million for Augusta rail relocation. We 43 certainly hope, at least Commissioner Shepard and I hope, that this will lead to adding some SPLOST money for rail relocation -- Mr. Shepard: Amen. Mr. Mayor: -- so we can put it to work. Secondly, the City of Augusta has received $2.5 million for Augusta airport toward construction of the terminal out there. And two other projects directly impact us, $1 million is going into Burke County for U. S. 25 widening, and $4 million is going to the Bobby Jones Expressway extension, Phase II extension over in North Augusta to take that on around to Interstate 20. So we have done exceedingly well with earmarks in the transportation bill, thanks to Congressman And certainly the Chair would entertain a resolution of appreciation to Burns. Congressman Burns for his bringing home the bacon. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. And I’d ask our Clerk and you, Mr. Mayor, to craft that language appropriately, as I know you so well can. Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Now, let’s see. The next -- well, [inaudible] about money, so why don’t we go into the budget? Item number 51 on the agenda. The Clerk: FINANCE: 51. Motion to adopt Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, is there anything you want to say leading us into this discussion that has not been said, or you want to reiterate anything? Then I think the Finance Chairman would like the floor. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you do have a resolution in your packets that deals with the basic budget. If you, since there are only two to three funds that are, we’re still discussing, you may want to consider adopting those budgets that are balanced and that do not need additional discussion or attention. Other than that, Mr. Mayor, I think that Commissioner Shepard, your Finance Chairman, may have some additional remarks. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, in view of the action taken earlier today with respect to the airport budget, does the budget resolution for that enterprise reflect those changes? Mr. Kolb: Yes, it does. 44 Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have been listening to the budget presentations as they have gone forward in the workshop format. And I think they just concluded. And it has fallen to the Finance Chair, and I have listened to what has been said. And I would like to take the Administrator’s budget and make some amendments to begin this discussion. And I do that by looking at not only our general funds, but our fire protection fund. And I would suggest that in terms of fire protection that it no longer be burdened with the expense. Not to say the service is a burden, but it not longer be charged for the expense of the ambulance service, and I propose a new district for the ambulance service and its appropriate support in the 911 Center. So the Fire Department budget would remain the same at $18,067,110 and there would be a new tax district set up county-wide to fund the $775,000 expense which was removed from the Fire budget, plus $200,000 for the E-911 System. The millage requirement on that, which I was told is slightly under 3/10ths of one mill, actually .2802. And then we go to the present general fund budget, which are funds number 101 and 273, and I have been advised that there was some additional revenue that we are able to earn through the Human Relations Commission status as a deferral agency for the, for this, and that’s in the amount of $65,000, so it rises to $101,804,410. I have asked that we look at the scenario of continuing the manpower management, and that would be in the amount of $1,500,000. The Diamond Lakes Library does not come on line until ’05 so I think we can save $130,000 there. The administration has developed $88,490 in additional matters, additional expenses saved, for a total of $1,718,490. I think that we need to make some other adjustments on the plus side. In law enforcement personnel, we’ve been hearing about jail fights, we’ve been hearing about the need to increase road patrol, and I’m of the opinion that we should let the sheriff make the call there, with just supplying him some extra money, let him allocate that as he deems professionally appropriate, as between the jail and the road patrol. We’ve just opened a new Animal Control shelter which Commissioner Irvin told me was “the state-of-the art, the best in the state” the other day. And I think it needs some additional staff to run properly and I have asked for $240,000 more there. I have taken seriously the charter mandate that we’ve discussed about the minority business and EEO programs. The Administrator had already put money in the amount of $59,000 into our general fund budget. So from the general fund, I’m asking for an additional $4,500 to complete its 1/3 of that cost. The other 2/3 I would pick up from the water and sewer budget, fund 506, by reducing that contingency in their account by $63,500 and moving that money into the EEO office in a like amount. Further, since Bush Field is important and will be expanding and dealing with contractors, minority business contractors, I think it’s only fair that in the initial setup, in order to minimize the impact on the fund, that we have an appropriation of $63,000 from the airport, $63,500 from their contingency fund, and that we then add that to the office, which will fund that office with the professional persons and staff in the amount of $190,500. An additional two matters that I think we need to address are for the staff, and I propose we implement the reclassifications as of January 1 in the amount of $415,400 and that the market adjustment be placed in the contingency fund pending the improvement of the economy, and that that would be $523,590. So I would move that 45 into contingency at this time, which would bring contingency up to about $1 million. And those basically are the changes that I thought were absolutely necessary to the Administrator’s budget, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I mean Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the 2004 budget as amended as set forth in this recommendation that I’ve made and that we adopt the enterprise funds with the amendments that the contingency and water and sewer and Bush Field airport be reduced each by $63,500. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It always kind of come down to this, but I’m not sure I’m at the point, and I know what Steve, Commissioner Shepard can do with this, because I worked with him quite a bit on it last year and we got it approved. But to vote on this today, I think may be a little premature and I’m just saying that we have a little bit more time to study, look at this, and I’m not going to make a motion, but I just think that we need to look, do a little more looking at this. And when it come down, it will probably be [inaudible] but I think it will be a little premature to do this today. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. My Chairman presented a very good amendment here. Also, there are some questions I still to ask about it, and I hope that we can at our next work session, if this do not pass today, our next work session that there be some clarity. I’d like to see the reclassifications. I’ve got some questions to ask about the reclassification, the amount. That $415,000 in reclassifications, Mr. Chairman, what does that -- Mr. Shepard: I’m going to defer to [inaudible] for that to Fred and George and Tammy, if they could help me get through that. I was given a gross number to put in there. But basically this is the long-delayed attempt to rework this area. If Fred -- Mr. Hankerson: Can someone answer? I’d like to know what that $415,400 in the reclassification, what, what does that include? That includes the -- just answer that and then I can -- Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the $415,000 includes the reclassification requests that you have reviewed several times, but that we made the recommendation be funded on January 1, 2004. It includes career ladders, reclassifications of all levels of employees throughout the general fund departments. Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to -- I’m questioning this because I’m not accustomed last year, from what we did last year, this reclassification and all was presented to me in the full budget. And last year we saw identified the reclassification. I know we did the study to show the reclassification that we should do, and my question is, in this 46 reclassification, I’m still concerned about departments that came up, the Tag Office or Jerry Saul’s office came up and asked for certain position changes because of the inequity that was in the department. So my question is, in this reclassification, are there any merit increases or anything like that? Because everything you just handed to me, I can’t identify, and I like to identify department heads or whoever is getting this increase by departments or so I know the individuals and so forth. Any increases in here for performance or merits? Is this the same reclassification that we had, that we received from Carl Vinson Institute? Mr. Kolb: Yes. This is the very one that was studied internally and we look at market -- not market adjustments -- but we looked at market salaries of comparable positions and Carl Vinson did check those and those are included in the reclassifications. That’s what’s included. Mr. Hankerson: So we had one last year that we just put on hold, we didn’t pass it. Is this the same exact one or are there some other increases that been added in to it? Because I still asked the question in budget work session whether those positions that we were trying to address the individuals in certain departments when the department head came and said inequities, whether they were addressed, and we said the inequities were addressed in this reclassification. I’d like to see, though, I’d like to see that so I’ll know what we’re doing because I mentioned in budget work session that I sure don’t want to see department heads coming back again this year after we adopt a budget and they’re coming back a month afterwards asking for salary adjustments. So if we going to do it, I want to make sure that those problems that we put on hold last year be addressed. Just like the airport, it was addressed this time. We had some other staff members that came before us. But I, I, I think we need to break this down like we did last year when we saw each department, each director, what, what increase they were getting. I wouldn’t know what Bob or whoever was getting, I wouldn’t know that he is [inaudible], his increase is from a 59 to 61 and that’s a $20,000 pay increase or is a $10,000 pay increase or a $5,000. Mr. Kolb: All of that was included in your budget and also in the summary budget that we gave to you. We also gave you the salary schedule so that you could verify that for yourselves. Mr. Mayor: Is that in the big book, George? Mr. Kolb: Yes. It’s in the big book and also in the summary book that we gave to you a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Mayor: While Mr. Russell goes over that with Mr. Hankerson, let’s recognize Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m, I’m kind of like Commissioner Hankerson, too, but did we not do some classification last year that those people came in 47 and we, they was left out for whatever reason and we did some and didn’t do all of them but we did do some? Mr. Kolb: I don’t, I don’t recall you doing any reclassifications other than individuals that we deemed as an emergency. I do recall the Tax Commissioner’s office did come in after we had began to review salary reclassifications. We added those to the list. We did the analysis and all of that is included in the budget as we have submitted to you, in the big budget as well as in the summary. Mr. Williams: Okay, so, so we did do some. And I guess my question, and you said reclassification for all employees, would that affect those people who has already been done, however many it was, 1, 2 or 20? Mr. Kolb: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear the last part of your question. Mr. Williams: You said in this statement, the statement that you just made this would include all employees, and I’m asking would that affect those people who just been reclassified here in the last whatever. I think in the last year. But is it going affect - - Mr. Kolb: If you did -- I don’t believe they are in here. But if they are in here, it would be consistent with what you had done in your study as a group and [inaudible]. I don’t believe, though, they are in here. This does not include every single employee, but it does include many classifications throughout the organization. Mr. Williams: So it’s not -- all is not inclusive then, with all, like you said [inaudible] not including every single employee or everybody is not going to be considered, just the ones you got in the big book and the other book; is that right? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Those, it does include all of those positions where we have determined that there is an inequity in their pay system. Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, if I may. Wasn’t there a cost of living for those employees who did not get a reclassification? You go the greater of the two; is that correct, George? Wasn’t that stated in one meeting? Mr. Kolb: That, that was in the recommendation. That was in the original recommendation that if you got a reclassification then you -- and it was 2% or greater, you would not be eligible for a market adjustment. Mr. Mayor: Okay, but everybody gets something. Mr. Kolb: Eventually, yes. Under the new one, we advanced the reclassifications to January 1. 48 Mr. Mayor: Well, the reclassification that is in the presentation from the Finance Chairman, is that the one that has something for everybody or is that just --- Mr. Kolb: No, that’s just the reclassifications. The one that is across the board, st the 2%, is July 1 of 2004. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, you helped me out. Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Mayor: I was trying to get that clarity. Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard did a good job. And I think we got time, I think I’d like to look at this and take my big book that you gave me, George, along with the other little books you gave me and put them side-by-side and look, look at this again before we vote on it. I think it’s a good [inaudible], Mr. Shepard, I think you did a good job here. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: I yield [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I’d just like to see us when we address, adopt this budget, before we adopt it, that we separate the reclassification and, and we go back to the work session, cause that was what I was prepared to do at the work session, to really know this. This is sort, this is very good, but it’s green to me. I can’t put that much time in a work session and then come up and get a document that I really haven’t had time to study. I don’t think that’s fair to me and I applaud our Finance Chairman for doing this, but that’s why I’m asking so many questions about it today. I don’t really need to be talking today on this issue because I wanted to [inaudible] and be prepared, but I’d like to see before we have reclassification, we had the old salary right beside it, we had where each one of them was going. That’s what I want to see. That’s what I asked for. That’s what I was asking for. My second question in this is I see also that the law enforcement personnel, I see $600,000 and we talked about what we are going to have to do, and I know there are things we are going to have to do, and right now don’t have the amount that the Sheriff’s budget, but Mr. Chairman, how much did the Sheriff ask for? Mr. Shepard: He asked for more than we gave him, but -- Mr. Hankerson: Is this half of what he asked for, is this almost, or ¾? Mr. Shepard: It’s about [inaudible] third [inaudible]. 49 Mr. Bridges: It’s about $1.8 million, I think, total. Mr. Hankerson: This is a third of what he asked for? For personnel? Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Hankerson: Well, I know we need to take it back, then. This is going to be very serious here. So I’m finished, Mr. Mayor. I’m not ready to vote on this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb, has the airport EEO officer at $63,000, have they agreed to that? The airport board? Have they agreed to share that position and the pay the 1/3 of $63,500? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Colclough, maybe I can address that. No, they have not. This is in the proposing stage. I think it’s something that we need to come together around. I was looking for a way, quite frankly, to avoid tax increases, and so by sharing expenses between enterprise funds and general funds, in this area just seemed a natural, so I’m trying to avoid duplication, but I’m trying to start up this office where it can impact the airport, water and sewer, and the other agencies. That was the whole idea. It is a cost sharing, totally a cost sharing situation. Mr. Colclough: I agree with you, but since they do have a board and are an enterprise fund, I would think that someone would ask their opinion prior to saying that this is what’s going to happen You know, they do have a board that sits out there and governs that airport and I would think that they would have some input into this prior to we passing something. Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Colclough, I have had a conversation with some of the members of the airport board and they were somewhat in agreement with what we were doing. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] voted? Mr. Kolb: I didn’t say they voted, I just said I’ve had conversations and they were inclined to agree with some of the concepts of what we’re talking about. Mr. Colclough: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 50 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I agree with the sentiment of the Commission that we do need some additional time to study and certainly resolve questions and issues that we may have. I think it’s a great idea that although it’s been on the record for six months that we completely go through the reclassification study again. No further comments. Mr . Mayor: Well, since the ordinance requires us to adopt a budget at this meeting, what we can do is recess the meeting, and so in a parliamentary way, if we have , would it be appropriate to have a motion to table and a motion on the floor, Mr. Wall then we’ll recess the meeting and when we reconvene we’ll pull the budget off the table? Is that, is that one way to do that? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, so we have a motion and a second to table the budget discussion. It’s a non-debatable motion. It’s a procedural question. Otherwise we’ll take a vote now to table the budget. We’re voting on the motion to table the budget and we will come back at the end of our day today, we’ll determine when we’re going to meet again and resume our discussion on the budget. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mays: What I was going to ask, Mr. Mayor, just what you brought out in reference to coming back at the end of the day, [inaudible] establish another date, I presume. Mr. Mayor: Another date. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor: And what I would ask each Commissioner to do, if there are some specific questions that you have about any of these items, if you’d get with staff between now and the time we reconvene to try to get as many of those answered as you can, I think that will expedite our resumption of this meeting. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could this also go to a general work session that we could -- do we have another budget session scheduled as a work session, Steve? Mr. Mayor: No, we don’t have another work session. When we resume this meeting, we’ll continue our work. Mr. Hankerson: Did we postpone one or cancel one? 51 Mr. Kolb: No. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb said there are no more scheduled. Mr. Hankerson: I was just asking did we postpone one? Mr. Mayor: We had one scheduled last week. Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] seem like we ought to have another one, then. Mr. Kolb: We did not. That was not a scheduled meeting. Mr. Mayor: It was not scheduled? Mr. Kolb: It was not scheduled, no. Mr. Mayor: I thought it was cancelled. Mr. Kolb: Well [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: In order to cancel it, it had to be scheduled. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: But you’re saying it was never scheduled so it was never cancelled? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, to answer a question Mr. Boyles asked and indirectly which Vice-Chairman Hankerson asked, I think that we just recess this meeting and therefore when we reconvene it there can be decisions made. It can certainly be discussed. Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Shepard: But I think the, the ordinance we passed requires us to pass a budget by the second meeting in November, and we’re at the second meeting in November and we have always recessed it as many times as necessary until we all came to a consensus on this budget and had six votes, quite frankly. This is just a -- you’ve heard a lot of things called a discussion document. This is certainly the, the, the -- I wouldn’t say the mother of all discussion documents, but it’s close. It is a discussion document but I think it’s a, it’s an effort to bring together some of the sentiments that 52 have been expressed on this floor and head us in a particular direction toward adoption of a budget, which is our responsibility under the law. Mr. Mayor: As we look to continuation of this meeting, we have a meeting with the Legislative Delegation next Wednesday morning at 8, and we could resume this meeting after that meeting since we’ll all be here and be in the Chambers, so you might give some thought as to whether next Wednesday morning would -- The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, they will also be meeting with the School Board at 10, and they’ve asked to use our Chamber and room for that meeting as well. Mr. Mayor: Oh, they are? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Boyles: Could we switch times? School Board first? The Clerk: Sir? Mr. Boyles: Could we switch the times and have the School Board first and then -- The Clerk: We probably could. I think if they met in the committee room, that may accommodate our needs, and the Commission meet out here, if you don’t mind doing it that way. Mr. Mayor: No, we don’t mind. The Clerk: Have them meet -- Mr. Mayor: We don’t mind at all. I’m just trying to keep people from having to make other trips down here, consolidate some of our trips here. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I think the Chair has already sent out the invitations. The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you have something? Mr. Mays: The only thing I was going to say is just a point of courtesy of them being our guests, in terms of using the facility since it’s convenient for the three governmental entities to be down here. [inaudible] haggling about at that point, I think this just a suggestion, just let them keep the big room that’s in here and then the items that we need to be talking about ought to be narrowed down to a point at that point where we actually can meet next door in the smaller room, as far as committee’s concerned. Because it will basically be us. We meet in there for about 4 to 5 different committees 53 unless we’ve got general public and the few department heads to a point that I would think at that point we’d all be able to fit in there and since we’ve invited them here on our turf, just let them keep this room and we move next door. Mr. Mayor: If, if, if next Wednesday morning after the Legislative meeting works with everybody, Ms. Bonner and I will find us a place to meet in this building. There are enough rooms in here -- if we have to go to a courtroom, we’ll do that, but we’ll -- if that works for everybody. We’ll just go ahead and work toward meeting next Wednesday morning and take care of it, Ms. Bonner and I. Okay. Let’s see. Mr. Shepard: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor: We’ve already voted. We need another item now. There’s been a request that we go into legal to discuss items 52 and 52A and item number 55. And then come out here and continue our public discussion and have a vote on that. Mr. Bridges: How about item 57, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: 57, we have already dealt with that. Mr. Wall: And with regard to 55, we will not be talking about the positioning, we’ll be talking about the real estate aspect of it. Mr. Mayor: Real estate, yeah. Mr. Wall: But it would be for the purposes of discussing personnel, real estate and also discuss pending litigation. 61. LEGAL MEETING ?? Personnel ?? Real Estate ?? Pending Litigation Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to go into legal? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote in the affirmative. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 54 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re ready -- call the meeting back to order. The Chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit. 62. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. Mr. Cheek: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 10-0. 52. Consider salary increase for the Administrator. (Deferred from the November 11th Special Called Meeting) 52A. Discuss contract extension of the Administrator. (Requested by Commissioner Bridges) Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Kuhlke with respect to items 52 and 52A. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we, we’ve had some discussion I’d like to about these two items. We’ve got a meeting called for next Wednesday, and make a motion that we defer any action on these two items tonight. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to table items 52 and 52A. All in favor, we’ll record this vote, all in favor please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 55, which I believe is the last item on the agenda. Mr. Cheek: Don’t forget 55A. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, we’ll take these up together, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 55. Select the positioning of the Judicial Center on Telfair, 9th, 10th and Fenwick Streets. (Requested by Commissioner Bill Kuhlke) 55 55A. Discuss cost cap on Judicial Center Project. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we select Option 4 for the site for the site for the new Judicial Building. Mr. Mayor: Option number 4. We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question. We passed something in regards to the site previously before we had any discussion about the location and everything. My understanding is, Jim, the one that’s on there right now, that we approved before, is really option 1 that we have out there. Is that the case? Which is C&C? Mr. Wall: Yes. What was shown as part of the -- what was in the backup and what I believe was voted on originally was what it showed -- was Option 4 -- I’m sorry, Option 1 with the exception that this shows the additional First Union property. I mean as far as the property south of Walker Street, Option 1 is presented in this book shows more property being utilized than what was voted on. Mr. Bridges: So that’s, that’s what’s moving forward right now unless we make a change; is that correct? Mr. Wall: Well, I can’t answer that. The Commission has obviously by virtue of its action since that vote has determined that that was not in fact a definite decision insofar as the location of the building on the property. Mr. Bridges: Okay. [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor for Option 4 that’s been seconded. The Chair now will recognize Commissioner Shepard. Mr. Shepard: As a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, I would make the motion that we go with site Option 3 modified to the extent that we take the corner properties at th Telfair and 9 Street extending back to the alley that divides it, and I believe those properties, Jim – how should they be identified, by map and parcel number? Mr. Wall: By map and parcel number, and that would be map and parcel -- well, Parcel Nos. 280, 281 and 279. Mr. Boyles: I second that. 56 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. I’m trying to keep track of what’s going on here. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I think I need some clarification, too, with Option 4 to understand that that does not take in and that does not exempt the center part of that property, if necessary. I think in my original motion on last meeting, I made amendment to my motion that if we needed the center section, which didn’t take any of those business on either side, that, you know, I had no problem adding that to my motion, but that, that would not impact any of those businesses, whether it be in existence or non- existence. Option 4, is that right, Jim? Mr. Wall: You’re correct. Actually, Option 4 includes what generally is referred th to as Mayfield Dairies property, which would leave the buildings fronting on 9 Street th and the buildings on 10 Street. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just, I’m going to speak against 3 modified. 3 modified takes 100 year old buildings that are in reasonably good condition. You can look through the history books of Augusta and the forefathers of this City and a lot of cases were very foolish for taking down bell towers and other things that really set the character of this city. I can’t imagine talking to my grandchildren and showing them some of the grand pictures of Augusta and then answering their question of “Daddy, or Granddaddy, where are these buildings now?” And I’d have to answer that the forefathers of this city weren’t wise enough to preserve them. It is completely hokey to say that we don’t need, we don’t need to sandwich that building between those existing buildings. If you go to big cities, buildings are sandwiched every day. The argument about the parking lot at the post office is also equally hokey. If you look out the back door of this building or the front, you see cars parked everywhere. If you get above the second floor, you don’t see them at all. Let’s talk about cases and what needs to be done. This city needs to preserve its heritage and its historical roots. It needs to preserve existing businesses that are viable and potentially viable structures that could enhance the quality of life in this city. Option 3 I can live with. 3A destroys history. It destroys viable properties that would enhance the city. If the Bankruptcy Court is wise enough to preserve the facades of the buildings across the street, why are we not equally wise in preserving the other 100 year old buildings that are on that corner? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? 57 Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to -- I’ve always said that if we could we should get around condemnation and taking those buildings and disrupting people if we can. We have enough land back there, even with Option 4 we have enough land there, even if those people who are interested in coming from Telfair Street, with modification [inaudible] putting that footprint on Option 4, we have enough land there coming in from Telfair Street between that dairy or somewhere up there, trying to get my calculation right, that you could have a beautiful gateway entering into a courthouse back there on th Walker Street, right there at 9 Street and to the, to the railroad back there, put any kind of beautiful, statuous courthouse that you want to find, in that area, and you would not have disrupted anybody. And I think that’s where we’re all trying to get. And I think that Option 4, as far as I can see, gives you that opportunity, wherein the other, you’re going to have to disrupt some -- not only buildings and businesses but historical. And I was reading the other day where we had [inaudible] destroyed all of our historical buildings, from the train station to the old Lenox Theatre and all of that stuff is gone and we didn’t preserve any of it. And I think it’s time now to look at things we can preserve if we can and not just look at it from one point. That would be my observation at this point. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Doesn’t Option 3 do the same thing that Mr. Beard’s talking about? Option 3 itself? Mr. Mayor: Option 3 in the motion or Option 3 as presented in the book? Mr. Boyles: Option 3 as in the book. Mr. Wall: The difference between Option 3 and Option 4 is that the properties that are taken are the same, but the footprint of the building under Option 4 would be th behind, south of Walker Street, fronting on 9 Street, whereas Option 3 has the building fronting on Telfair Street and having parking on the south side of Walker Street. th Mr. Cheek: It doesn’t take the property on 9 Street in Option 3 in that book. Mr. Wall: No, it does not. Did I say that? Mr. Cheek: Yeah. Mr. Wall: I’m sorry. Mr. Boyles: So Option 3 basically does, except for the footprint of the building, thth does pretty much the same thing as Option 4 in preserving the buildings on 9 and 10 Street? Mr. Wall: Correct. [inaudible] just has the building located in a different fashion. 58 th Mr. Boyles: And Option 3A eliminates one building on the corner of 9 and Telfair? Mr. Shepard: That’s right. Mr. Wall: It’s three lots. I’m not exactly sure how the configuration of the buildings, but three lots. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I would like to, to, to comment inasmuch as I probably have, have represented this area as long or longer than maybe anybody in this history of this City has. Businesses and property owners that, that I do represent that are out there in the audience. And they have been patient in the meetings that they’ve come. I think over a period of time in terms of our inability to reach a decision, unofficially they have thought things were going one way and then they change and possibly go another way, so I’d like to yield. I do have a comment to make, but I would like to yield, Mr. Mayor, in terms of however you allow them and whatever process to come, but I think if this is going to get down to a final decision time, that they should be allowed to speak on not necessarily negotiated -- and I realize some things cannot, because you cannot deal with prices and you’re doing that. But I think on just the mere fact of what their ideas are in reference to the future of their properties and what they may want to do, I’d like to see them be represented at this time and to have some say-so in this, because this complexion has changed again. And when they were here last -- and [inaudible] some people may say well, they’ve had an opportunity to speak. But when they spoke last, there was no 3A in the picture. It was 1, 2, 3 and 4. This is now a different proposal, one of them that’s on the floor. And I think we should allow them to be heard. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, since we have two specific options that are mentioned in the motions, I’ll recognize the property owners who are directly affected by Option 4 and Option 3A. I don’t think we need to hear from others whose properties are not the subject of these motions. Mr. Mays: And I, and I, the only thing I’d, I’d say to that, Mr. Mayor, is that hopefully others will not be subject to, and I think that’s their, that’s their uncomfortable zone that they’re in is because every time that they come to a meeting, things change, and we pay people $97,000, we owe them nearly $300,000, and yet you know, this game keeps changing all the time, so hopefully when you recognize them they will be the only ones that are affected in a possible vote. Because this has changed since the last meeting. Mr. Mayor: Whose property is affected by Option 3 modified? Are they here today? Mr. Murray: [inaudible] owns those three properties. 59 Mr. Mayor: And you represent Mr. Field? Mr. Murray: I do. Mr. Mayor: All right, if you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record. We’re not going to negotiate -- wait a minute -- we’re not talking about any negotiation or negotiating any condemnation or anything here today. If you want to talk about, about your property and what-not, you can do that, but we’re not going to get into anything that attorneys might negotiate for acquisition. Do you understand? Mr. Murray: Yes, I do. Distinguished gentlemen, Madame Clerk, thank you. Mr. Mayor: You need to speak into the microphone. Mr. Murray: I’m Jeb Murray. With Hunter McLean law firm. 699 Broad Street, Suite 1202, Augusta, Georgia 30901. Phone number is 722-7062. I represent Rex Field. Would you stand up, Mr. Field? He’s the owner of these three historic buildings that thth would be on the corner of 9 and Telfair Streets, specifically 501 through 515 9 Street. These buildings, I believe, would be demolished under your site option number 3A. And we are strongly opposed to this option. Mr. Field bought these historic properties, which date back to 1870s, about three years ago. He has the intention to give them a first class restoration, to make them office space and retail space. You can see from the pictures that although the facades have been bricked over and the windows have been boarded up to protect the properties, that they are in good shape. The interiors of them are in good shape. He’s already begun renovations on the inside. He’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars into this project already and intends to spend over a million more. This represents the private investment critical to the economic growth and historic preservation of downtown Augusta. These buildings add to the historic image of Augusta that the Commissioner has spoken of today. The City should embrace such investment. The City needs private investment that will complement this public project, and here we have a perfect situation where once these beautiful structures are unveiled, that they will provide office space and retail space next to an area that’s going to be thriving because of this Judicial Center. The City should be trying to collaborate with private landowners and investors such as Mr. Field, but some reason he’s been largely ignored. One important point you need to consider is the risk of trying to use Option 3A. Before you demolish the historic structures that are in an historic district, you would need a variance from the Historic Preservation Commission. You would also need a certificate of appropriateness before you could proceed. I don’t think it’s prudent to pick a site for a $74 million project that’s not approve and may well never be approved. These are significant buildings and the Historic Preservation Commission is put together to protect buildings like this. So this project could be bogged down in legal battles and differences of opinion with the Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission and it doesn’t seem prudent to choose this option when there are other options such as 3 and 4 which are viable, which do not necessitate the destruction of historic buildings or existing business. I think it’s your duty to only take property if it’s absolutely necessary to the project. Here you have two other viable options. The greatest public good with the least private 60 detriment is the standard that the Commission should apply here, and don’t risk bogging down the project when there’s viable options. So I humbly request that you not consider 3A and not consider Option 2, which also would require demolishing these beautiful properties. I ask that you only consider 3 or 4. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Mays, you have a question for him? Mr. Mays: Not necessarily a question. Mr. Mayor: Let me see if we have any questions. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Thank you. You had a question? Mr. Shepard: Yeah, I did. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Jeb, let me ask you a couple of questions. I think you said your client had spent about $100,000? Mr. Murray: Hundreds of thousands. Mr. Shepard: Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Have you brought us any building permits to evidence the work there, sir? Mr. Murray: No. Mr. Shepard: Are there any? Mr. Mayor: Come to the microphone, please, and just give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Field: My name is Rex Field. 851 Old Chapin Road, Lexington, South Carolina. The majority of the work has been on the interior, which does not require a building permit. There has been thousands of hours of work done on the inside of these buildings. But it’s, most of the work -- I have four sons, and I do a lot of work myself. It’s not changing, has not changed the historic aspects of the building or the, the floor plans or anything of that nature. It’s been cleaning out the buildings and, and bringing them to a point where when -- I’ve been waiting to see what the City is going to do before I bring the storefronts back, but I’ve been working on the inside of these buildings. But I haven’t done any work that required a building permit. 61 Mr. Shepard: What about electrical permit, plumbing permit? I guess [inaudible]. Mr. Field: There’s electrical there now. I pay my electric bill every month on all three buildings. Mr. Shepard: I’m just trying to see what -- the evidence we could look to see that you’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Field: I don’t have to show any that I’ve spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to you. I mean I really don’t. Mr. Shepard: And let me -- Mr. Field: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: The Commissioner has a legitimate question because you have stated, your representative has stated you’ve made these expenditures and he’s inquiring into the nature of those expenditures, so don’t stand here and say you don’t have to respond. If you don’t want to respond to something, then don’t bring it up. Mr. Field: Okay. If you take the purchase, the cost of carrying the investment over these 3-1/2 years, plus the purchase price, plus the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve put in every year, plus the electric bill, plus the water bill, plus all of these things just to keep this building to where when the area comes around that it will be ready -- I’ve done work on the roof, just patching it, just keeping it from leaking or anything like that, just keeping it in good condition until such time that I can restore, I can make the significant investment that I want to make to put office space in there, maybe an upscale deli or something on the corner, depending on what the market will bring, but I have made a significant investment in this building. I don’t have every receipt with me, but it’s been over a period of 3-1/2 years, and it’s -- like I said, it’s the cost of carrying it, the purchase price, and all the good money I’ve put into it, just in repairs. There hasn’t been any building changes on it. Haven’t changed the floor plan or anything like that. Mr. Shepard: My other question, so -- I’m trying to find out where, if there is any, what I would call brick and mortar money spend on these buildings. That’s what I’m -- I appreciate the cost of acquisition, sir. I appreciate the carrying costs, taxes, debt service, maintenance. I appreciate all that. Okay? But I’m trying to find out you know, exactly where you spend this money. I mean -- Mr. Field: I can give you an idea. I spent a few thousand dollars just on landfill costs in taking plaster our, exposing the brick inside, things like that. Mr. Shepard: And if, here again, let me ask you one other thing. Have you done anything that required a filing at Historic Preservation Commission? Have there been anything down there that would evidence your plans? 62 Mr. Field: I have been in contact with Erick Montgomery. He’s toured the building. And the -- he’s walked through them and I’ve talked to him about it. And initiated that about 3-1/2 years ago after I bought the buildings. So he’s been through the buildings. But again, it’s restoration work. It’s like stripping paint off woodwork, things like that. It’s very [inaudible], a lot of labor there. But I haven’t done anything that requires any type of building permit. I have put my name on the list for the façade grants. But I haven’t heard back from that. But I have looked into façade grants. I have requested information on that. And I’m waiting to hear back from the City on façade grants. And I understand there is $30,000 available for the corner and $15,000 available for each of the two remaining storefronts. Mr. Shepard: But here again, and I’m just trying to find some, some records evidence of your intentions. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Parliamentarian, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Mays: Parliamentarian, a point of order. I had [inaudible], and I’m sorry to interrupt you, Steve, but I thought in this discussion that they would have a chance to talk about what was their status within their building. Now I think, and Jim, you need to make a ruling in this, I thought if we -- we’re delving into an area of value, of expenses spent, and I think those areas that should be reserved to a point of argument. Now you said there was not going to be a question of argument. If we’re going to proceed in this manner to ask a property owner in terms of an expense record here tonight when they’re making a general appeal, I don’t think that’s quite fair. Because that was not the rule where we set out to go into this and that’s my point of breaking in. I’m sorry for interrupting, but I think, Jim, you need to step in here at this point, because if this is going on to provide expenses and to do that, that is a point of argumentation for a condemnation court, not for a Commission meeting. Mr. Wall: While I agree that we should not get into issues concerning value, I had recommended against getting into a debate because of exactly what is transpiring, and as I understand Commissioner Shepard’s questions, it was his intention with regard to the buildings, Mr. Murray brought up the fact that he had spent substantial amounts of monies in, in work on the buildings, and I think that that’s the area that Mr. Shepard was inquiring, and to deal with trying to make a determination about the intent with regard to the buildings. So I mean I think it follows that. And so I think that, I think the question has been answered. I would hope that Mr. Shepard has gotten the answers to his questions and we could perhaps move on to something on. But I think that’s perfectly in line because that’s what they brought up. Mr. Mays: Well, I think if that’s the case, Mr. Mayor, if we’re going to get into that then the City should just go ahead and provide what it’s offering to the property owners then. And to so state the ridiculous figures that are out there. Now I’m going -- 63 he lives in Lexington, but he’s a property owner in my District and I’m going to stand up for every darn one of them. And, and, and, and if we going to get into that night and open this up into a legal jargon about property values of where we’re going, then we go full scale with it or we don’t go at all. Mr. Mayor: I don’t think we’re headed in that direction at all. Mr. Shepard, did you have any -- Mr. Shepard: No, I was going to say that I was finished with those questions. Mr. Mays: Well, it’s kind of like when do you beat your wife, a lot, or you know, have you stopped? You know, I understand that legal -- Mr. Mayor: Are there any other questions for the property owner or representative? Mr. Cheek, do you have a question? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a question for our Attorney. I know that we are probably going to try to exercise eminent domain in the taking of these properties. Is that where the condemnation comes in or what legal grounds do we have to take property from people when there’s so much vacant property around? I’m assuming that we say that it’s in the immediate best interest of the City that we take these properties, that it’s going to serve the health and well being of the City and so forth and that we have no other option, that this site is -- Mr. Wall: Not a question of whether there is no other option. You have the right to condemn the property for a public project based upon the discretion of the Commission as to how that project should be located and constructed. Mr. Cheek: So we have the right to take personal, private property from people just because? Mr. Wall: Not just because. In furtherance of a public good, a public project that is needed by the community and absolutely you have the right, the Commission has the right to condemn the property [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] a specific reason other than the vague term in the public interest or whatever? I mean this doesn’t -- we don’t have to justify that? Mr. Wall: You, we’ve had a lot of discussion concerning the need for a courthouse and that is a public purpose and the Commission has discretion as to the location of the project, how it’s constructed, etc. Mr. Cheek: But to take persons’ personal property, to take a person’s personal property, according to the Constitution that I was raised with, we have to demonstrate a specific need -- 64 Mr. Wall: A public purpose. A public purpose for the property [inaudible] compensation. Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] when there’s five acres of vacant land behind there? Mr. Wall: I don’t think so. Mr. Cheek: You know, this country was founded on the rights of the individual and personal property, and for the government, for this government to take that land from these people who do not want to sell, I mean it -- I can’t sum it up any other way but it’s un-American and contrary to the Constitution of this country and it’s government intruding into areas it shouldn’t be in. We’re taking people’s personal, private property because we like the street corner, rather than there is an immediate necessity. We’re taking it because we like the street corner versus a real, legitimate need, and I swear, I hope to God nothing like that will ever stand up in the courts of this country. It is wrong. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I promised I’d come back to you when Mr. Shepard finished his questioning. Go ahead [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me try and sum this up very quickly. I think that they’ve spoken in reference to the property that’s there on the historic corner, and you were only going to deal with those persons to be recognized on that, and I think, I think that’s fair. But let me encourage, let me include others in my comments. What I think this is leading to is a classic case of block splitting. In subdivisions they used to call it the same basic thing in terms of where you would deal with [inaudible] of a block. How I think this has an effect on the other businesses and properties there is because if 3A does prevail, let me tell you what it does. It then turns around and it lowers the values per se on those others. Because if there is a potential to restore, if you’re going to recreate -- I looked just recently, all of us had a great time that were there, all the media present on Broad Street on Saturday, James Brown celebration and a statue going there with your leadership, Mr. Mayor, and I, and I commend you for it. Not only a great day, but what we going do in May. But then to come back and we look and some people say well, what’s on James Brown Boulevard? There’s an opportunity, and I said this to the contractor, Mr. Mayor, when you were not here, he talked about the fact that it didn’t have a prominence. Sometimes it’s the obligation of the City to make something that is stagnant, that is blighted, and that can be something -- you can create prominence if you have creativity. Historic Augusta to a point and Erick Montgomery [inaudible], you have the historical nature of the canal, you have the railroad that built this city, an opportunity that if we get behind that block, not only will it improve this gentleman’s property, but you can improve the others, whether you’re going to recreate the Red Star setting in terms of a soul food place there, and the historic nature of where people of color who came to entertain, one of the few places that they could sleep period unless they slept in residences. There’s an opportunity to make something out of the [inaudible] and I defy those fellows who we are paying in those Brooks Brothers suits to come down at a high price and tell me that you can’t make that area prominent. It’s a lot with creativity for 70-some million dollars that you can make a lot 65 prominent. I heard the same argument about the Health Department to a point of what was going to happen [inaudible]. Nobody’s gotten mugged, nobody’s gotten raped, and the same folk who didn’t want to come down and join us, Mr. Beard, I think they wish they had. So there’s an opportunity to make is better. But we won’t make it better in a historic city by tearing down and wiping out history and then doing consequential to those folk who are near it because when you wipe it out and then you put the parking lot next to them, you’ve then destroyed another impetus for them to seek economic development and do something with their property, but I forgot, maybe that’s the overall plan. You get them in the domino effect, you condemn these on the historic and if you beat the toughest of the bunch, then you go to the rest of them and they fall like dominoes. I don’t think that’s a good idea to deal with this City, particularly when there’s an opportunity to do something different. And that’s where I’m coming from. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let me inject a few comments here, if I may. I’m reading the backup for agenda item number 19 on today’s agenda. In the backup it says Augusta is a city of incredible historic significance. It says the city name -- and this is that new logo that we were talking about -- boldly scripted over the icon looks as if it came right from one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. A new logo that’s going to capitalize on the heritage of this community. And in item 20, this afternoon we unanimously approved an application to the U.S. Department of the Interior to participate in the Preserve America Program, with designation as a Preserve America Community, a program set up by the President to promote greater appreciation for historic resources. And I’ve had the opportunity for the last two years through my service as a member of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation to work with other people from across this country to put together the Preserve America Program, which First Lady Laura Bush has been, been helping to promote this year. We have the history in this city, but the trouble is we don’t have the foresight to preserve it. We tear too much of it down. City Hall is gone, the courthouse is gone, the train station is gone, you can go right down the list. This area of James Brown Boulevard, this block, is one of the few downtown blocks that has a streetscape on both sides of the street, and to me it would th be a travesty to tear down any buildings along that stretch of 9 Street. And I don’t say that as, as some, some, some crazy preservationist. Because I don’t believe we can have preservation without economic justification. There’s just not enough money in the world to save everything. But if you’ve got the potential for adaptive use of these buildings, which I can see law offices and other things moving into these, businesses that would migrate because the courthouse would be there, I think we, we are doing irreparable damage to the heart and soul of our city as we continue to tear down our heritage in this city. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Option 3 without the modification. I see nothing wrong with Option 4. I think you could probably come up with Option 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, as you go through the [inaudible] here without damaging these historic structures and existing businesses that are in this area. As Commissioner Mays so ably pointed out, you can do a lot with $70 million. You can get very creative with it. We’ve gotten very creative around here with much less. And it would just be a shame, I think, if this th Commission moved forward by taking these, these buildings out from 9 Street. It really flies in the face of the intent that we have put behind our support for the Preserve America application, as well as our consideration which I imagine will be favorable the 66 next time we meet of the logo with the historic connotation. So as much as I respect the work Mr. Kuhlke and his committee have done, and Mr. Shepard’s involvement in the Judicial Center, I would urge you not to approve Option 3 modified that would take out those properties on that, on that corner. There’s a lot of things that are more important to the future of this City than the street number that is placed on the Judicial Center. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Is there anybody else -- is there anybody else that would like to speak? All right, we have two motions on the floor. We’ll go with the substitute motion first. That’s option 3 modified. Mr. Cheek: Can we get a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: We can do that. Madame Clerk, we’ve been asked for a roll call vote, so if you’ll call the roll, we’ll do it that way. (Vote on substitute motion) ROLL CALL VOTE Mr. Beard: No Mr. Boyles: Yes Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. Colclough: No Mr. Cheek: No Mr. Hankerson: Yes Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Mays: No Mr. Williams: No Motion ties 5-5 The Mayor votes No Motion fails 5-6 Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is option number 4. The Clerk: Option 4. Mr. Mayor: Would anyone like to discuss Option 4 before we take a vote on it? Mr. Beard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do you want a roll call vote again? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ask for a roll call vote, Madame Clerk. 67 (Vote on original motion) ROLL CALL VOTE Mr. Beard: Yes Mr. Boyles: Yes Mr. Bridges: No Mr. Colclough: Yes Mr. Cheek: Yes Mr. Hankerson: Yes Mr. Kuhlke: No Mr. Shepard: No Mr. Mays: Yes Mr. Williams: Yes Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, is there any further business to come before us before we take a recess? We will be in recess until the conclusion of the meeting with the delegation next Wednesday. That meeting is at 8. As soon as it concludes, we’ll immediately resume this meeting to take up the three items that are on the table. So we would estimate that meeting to be about nine o’clock, I guess. All right, we’re in recess. [MEETING RECESSED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on November 18, 2003. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 68