Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2004 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER June 15, 2004 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 15, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Beard, Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Hankerson, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: Call the meeting to order. I want to thank everyone for your attendance today. First, I’ll call on Bishop Peoples, the pastor of Faith Outreach Christian Life Center for the invocation, and then ask you to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I’d like to call on the president of the Medical College of Georgia who is visiting with us, Dr. Dan Rahn, to lead us in the pledge. Please stand. The invocation was given by Bishop Richard Peoples, Sr. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. The Clerk: Bishop Peoples, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the Augusta Commission, we’d like to thank you for imparting that petition on our behalf to heaven, and in honor of that we name you Chaplain of the Day. Thank you for coming. Mr. Mayor: If you ever want to know what it’s like to go to church, go out and visit with Bishop Peoples out there. His congregation. Mr. Mays: Amen. The Clerk: Again, thank you for coming. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll do the Employee of the Month. The Clerk: 1 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH: Ms. Joyce Downs, Recreation and Parks Mr. Mayor: Ms. Joyce Down, Recreation and Parks Department, along with Mr. Tom Beck, other representatives from the Recreation Department, please feel free to join Mr. Beck and the Mayor. Dear Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected Ms. Joyce Downs with the Recreation and Parks Department programming division as Employee of the Month for May, 2004. Ms. Downs has worked for the City of Augusta for the past 20 years. Her duties include supervising the effective and efficient operations of various community centers and the neighborhood parks within District 2. She also oversees the senior nutrition program. She was nominated by her supervisor, Joanie Smith, who states: Joyce Downs is an exceptional employee with a good work ethic. She is respected by her subordinate employees and her colleagues in the Recreation Department. She works for a better department and city. She deserves to be considered for the Employee of the Month because she assumed the tremendous responsibility of supervising the senior nutrition program that started January 5, 2004. She has developed a successful program and represented the department in a very professional way. Under her leadership, she has ensured that the program has become more cost efficient and of better service to the senior adults. The committee felt that based on Ms. Smith’s recommendation and Ms. Downs’ attributes, she should be awarded Employee of the Month. The nomination also states that Ms. Downs has been the recipient of the following awards: Character Training Merit Award, Three Recreation Department Employee of the Month Awards, Bachelor of Science degree in History from Paine College, a GRPA Senior Inspection Program Award, Employee of the Year Athletics three times, and numerous certificates for service to various organizations. She has two children, five step children, nine grandchildren, a sister and brother, along with two dogs she loves very much. (Laughter) The Clerk: The committee would appreciate you joining us in awarding Ms. Joyce Downs Employee of the Month for the month of May. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Beck: I just wanted to say a quick word. One of those dogs was me. (Laughter) Mr. Beck: Joyce Downs is truly a great public servant. And committee, if you ever need an Employee of the Month, just wasn’t the month of May, Joyce Downs can be 2 Employee of the Month any month for you, cause she does a great job every day for us and we appreciate it. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: We have a request to add an item to the agenda. That would need unanimous consent, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: ADDITION TO THE AGENDA: RECOGNITION: Broadway Baptist Church Boys to Men Initiative Mr. Mayor: Hearing no objection then, it’s ordered added to the agenda. Commissioner Mays, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? The Clerk: Mr. Mays and Minister, Coleman, would you join the Mayor Pro Tem and the Mayor here, and we’ve asked the attendants from the Broadway Boys to Men Initiative, would you please stand? Thank you. The Office of the Mayor would like to award this certificate of recognition to the Broadway Baptist Church Boys to Men Youth Development Initiative for providing assistance to the youth in the community through Christian action and leadership. The City of Augusta recognizes and applauds your commitment to spiritual guidance. The purpose of this initiative is a training program of Christian [inaudible]. It is designed to train, develop, and inspire youth, boys and girls, for Christian action and leadership in their churches, homes, schools and local communities. Their mission is to create a Biblical intervention module through spiritual teaching, positive proactive programs and ministries that will effectively assist in development of youth as Christian leaders. Thank you. Commissioner Mays? (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mays: I don’t think I probably need one, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: I’d just like to say that it was quite an experience to share with these young men and others at Broadway last week, and they are quite interested [inaudible] great job, Minister, and also to Pastor [inaudible] and to others, people who are there [inaudible], and one of the things that they shared with us was most exciting, Mr. Mayor, was during the question and answer session that we had. It was not just speeches that 3 was given to them, but their interaction and their interest in government and the things that are going on in this community and around the world at this time, even though none of them are old enough to vote at this time. But I saw, I saw a group with those young men and young ladies that were there that could probably occupy every office that we have put together, and it was quite an experience to share with them, and I just ask them to come and to be a part of our meeting today, and they’ve seen us a lot, watched on television, on the news, they wanted to share the experience of government first-hand, so we’re glad to have you here today. Thank you so much for coming. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mays: [inaudible] man with the afro, mine was bigger than yours and I know [inaudible]. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: He told me one thing that he had that I didn’t have, he had his circle covered in the back. (Laughter) Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all very much. Okay, we’ll move on to delegations, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS: A. Medical College of Georgia Dr. Daniel R. Rahn, President RE: Update on MCG’s strategic initiatives of education, research, clinical service and diversity. Mr. Mayor: Dr. Rahn, we’re glad to have you here. Dr. Rahn, members of the Commission, had indicated to me he’d like to periodically come over here and brief us on some of the exciting activities going on at the Medical College of Georgia, so we look forward to your first in a series of presentations to us, Dr. Rahn. Welcome. Dr. Rahn: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. I really appreciate the opportunity to come before you and just provide you with a brief update. I do this often with civic clubs and other organizations, but I realized I hadn’t spoken to the Commission since we discussed our master facility plan now nearly three years ago. I’m 4 not here to ask for anything. But I find that there are often a lot of misconceptions and perceptions about the Medical College, really even in our own backyard. So what I hope to do is just take a few minutes to provide you with some information about what is going at, at the Medical College of Georgia. MCG exists for the purpose of improving the health of the people of this State. We’re unique among the 34 universities in the University System of Georgia and we have a special purpose, and that special purpose is to improve health. We do that through academic programs in 40 different disciplines and five different schools. We do that through the provision of clinical services and modeling patient care for the health professionals of the future, and we do that through discovery and through research, focused on improving health services and also by medical advances. All of our academic programs are fully accredited by appropriate accrediting agencies. In recent months we’ve added new programs, masters programs in bio- statistics and also in health information science, we’ve added a new program – doctoral degree in physical therapy. Every year we have new programs added to our academic array. Our enrollment has increased 7% over the past two years. At that time, during that same span, applications have gone up nearly 30%. 15% last year and a further 13% this year. So it’s becoming increasingly more competitive to get into the institution. We retain students from their first year into their second year at a rate of 88% to 98%, depending upon the program. University System’s retention rate after the first year is 75%, so we’re 88% to 98%. Our graduation rate ranges from 86% to 100%, again depending upon the program. University System as a whole’s graduation rate is 43%. And ours, as I said, is 86% to 100%. We graduated 700 new physicians, dentists, nurses, allied health professionals, and research scientists last year. There have been a total of 30,000 graduates since the institution opened in 1928. More than 90% of our graduates passed the relevant licensure and/or certification exams on their first attempt, and 2/3 of our graduates who have professional practice degrees of one type or another are in practice in the state of Georgia. And well over 90% institution wide of all of our students come from the state of Georgia. Some programs, like dentistry, we don’t even accept applicants from outside the state. On the research side, we’re organized to focus on the diseases of greatest import to the population of this state – cardiovascular disease, neurologic diseases, diabetes and obesity, infection and inflammation and cancer. We also have areas of emphasis on what’s called regenerative medicine or stem cell research and also genomics. Total research funding increased 47% last year, is on track to go up by about 13% on top of that this year. It’s increased 156% over the past five years. The benchmark for research excellence in medical, in the medical arena is funding from the National Institutes of Health. It’s federal funding, it’s awarded based on investigator initiated competitive peer reviewed research. We now have in excess of $40 million of funding annually from the National Institutes of Health, which places us within our th School of Medicine, which is the flagship of the institution really, in the position of 76 rdth overall. That’s up from 83 a year ago, and next year actually will be closer to 70. Our faculty and student population and employee base have been growing over the past several years. We’ve recruited 330 new faculty since I came in as the, as the president. Within that cohort are four deans, six department chairs, four vice presidents, eight 5 section chiefs, four senior research scientists funded by the Georgia Research Alliance, and 11 Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Scholars. We’ve also succeeding in increasing the diversity of both the faculty and student population, and also our staff. 16% of our faculty are from minorities. Of that, 8.5% are African American and/or Hispanic. Seven percent were three years ago. The student population, 12% of MCG’s students are African American and Hispanic. That’s a 22% increase over the past two years. In the Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, which are the areas of, of course, greatest interest and attention, African American medical, African American medical school enrollment exceeds the national rate. We’re at 8.6% versus 6.4% nationally. And in the Dental School, we’re at 7.9% compared to 5% nationally. So we’ve been increasing our faculty, we’ve been increasing the size of our student population, and we have been increasing our, our diversity. There are lots of signs of activity on the campus. The physical signs are often the ones that are most easily seen. We’ve just opened the new 100,000 square foot research building. That was funded only to a minor extent by state funds. $5 million of state funds in that $27 million project. The rest we generated. We are, we have broken ground on a cancer research building. That’s 165,000 square feet, and we expect that to be open in about 18 months. Right, Michael? 18 months. Okay. And we hope to be breaking ground on health sciences building for nursing and allied health sciences, within the next few weeks. That’s 183,000 square feet. So all told, this is nearly 500,000 square feet of new space that we’re working on, which is a clear sign of progress, but really I think the real progress is the work of the faculty and the work of the staff that necessitates this new space. One of the issues that we’re going to be addressing in the months ahead is the need for really facility renewal for our dental school. We have some serious challenges there. We’re working with the Board of Regents to develop a strategy and plan for what’s due in the coming months and years with regard to the dental school. I’m sure I’ve used up my five minutes. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have. I would like, I would really appreciate the opportunity to simply come before the Commission from time to time and to talk to you about activities at one of the area’s largest employers, clearly a key institution in the future of this region. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dr. Rahn. We appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to come over here. Are there any questions for the president? Thank you again. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me also thank Dr. Rahn for his presence, and I’m not going to take him over his five minutes today. He may not have gotten but four minutes and 30 seconds, but I would like to, to probably in conversation with a couple of the State Representatives that I share in my Super District representation. We always glad to have 6 MCG, which is a good, a good citizen of this community, and I was glad that you addressed some of those things that you addressed. But one of the things that – not necessarily today to address it, but that I think that probably we need to address because it’s something that is falling up us, not necessarily in a direct means, but an indirect means because we’re elected officials, and that is to have some conversation with MCG in reference to the community’s position and where they are , one, as it deals with pharmacy and the interests that are there within the community and particularly surrounding community and of how we may be able to do some things, whether it be lobbying on the State level to actually get you all some help there with some means of doing it. And also, there was another question in reference to – you mentioned staff, and so therefore I’m also looking in terms of staff and in terms of, of nursing personnel and some questions that have been raised in that area, and particularly into a large concentration of African American females, and to a large changeover that was done there, particularly in one department. But I’ll be glad to work with you in another setting, another time, but if we’re going to talk about that and the community basis of doing it, I would like to share that those are some very serious concerns that are there in the community, and even though they are not the City’s direct responsibility, but as an elected official I get that question a bunch, and that is a serious concern on those two levels particularly. Dr. Rahn: I appreciate those concerns, and let me just tell you that we would be more than happy to work with you. You have – you know, we’re always happy to help address issues and questions raised by constituents. If I might just take one minute to address, just to provide a little clarification. MCG is a component of the MCG Health System. The MCG Health System also includes the hospital and clinic system, which is under the management of MCG Health, Inc., which is a not-for-profit corporation that’s in affiliation with the campus. Those issues which you referenced are really under the management of the MCG Health System. Something that I would like to just make the Commission aware of is the fact that we do face some serious financial issues. MCG Health System, the hospital and clinics, will be providing in excess of $100 million of indigent and charity care this year, the fiscal year ending the end of June. And yet, there are very serious unmet needs. We are all aware of those. The magnitude of the need outstrips the capacity of individual hospitals to meet the need. It really does require collaborative effort that, to, to develop potential solutions to meet the need, while at the same time serving the mission of the various components. And we would welcome that opportunity, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to work with you and other members of the Commission, to try to address both local and also statewide health issues. Mr. Mays: Thank you so much. I guess like people tell me sometimes, well, you know, you’re the Commissioner, and I guess probably in a more simplified term, the only reason I brought it up, cause you’re the president. But you know, I’m not, I know you have the different entities that you have to go through with, but I say it in a friendly tone and as a friend of MCG that it may be some things, particularly because we are all 7 neighbors in this same CSRA family and even closer in walking distance, you know, to where you are, that it might be some things that we may need to help collaborative to lobby for to be able to help on a local level, because so many of our local people that are here on this eastern coast of Georgia and with Augusta being the lead city and the metro area here and the second largest city now in Georgia, those are health questions that we get on this side, that come directly to the Mayor and Commissioners, so we welcome, you know, you here, but also would like to further those talks along, because so much has been in the news and with people, when they see the city and they look for funding, they don’t necessarily ask us whether it comes through the general fund or whether it’s through sales tax. They just know the City’s got some money. So sometimes I guess in your case, whether it’s one entity or another one at MCG, they look at it in [inaudible] it’s still MCG. So I say it as a friend of yours and not, you know, as a foe, but I do welcome the opportunity to talk about that, because I do think it is something that is on the minds of a lot of our local people. Dr. Rahn: As well it should be, because it’s a serious concern of elected – for elected officials, but also the entire population, and I think that the major organizational leaders within the region share responsibility with elected officials with solutions, not just say that it’s raining outside. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. President. MCG has been a great attribute to this city. One of the things I wanted to ask you perhaps in one of your future discussions with us, if you could bring any information that you may have access to that would help us to further develop the area surrounding MCG and grow the research and development arm of the campus in partnership with the City, perhaps construction of laboratory space or additional research space for development and research in medical needs and equipment and pharmaceuticals and treatment. Aiken County has just recently invested several million dollars in a hydrogen research center and due to their proximity to Savannah River, that makes sense. Well, y’all have been a major economic contributor to this area and an institute of higher learning for so many. My question is, if you see market needs or a niche that we can help you fill and at the same time provide economic stimulus to some of the surrounding neighborhoods, please by all means bring that information back. You are, I guess, Richmond County and Augusta’s Savannah River Site, as far as economic stimulus and I think this board would be interested to hear and perhaps be able to work towards taking action to help fund future facilities to help the campus. Dr. Rahn: Well, I really welcome that. I’m pretty good at identifying financial needs. (Laughter) 8 Dr. Rahn: And we really, what we’re seeking is a partnership. We’re seeking transparency, open communication, you know, a willingness to work together to address human service needs, but also engage in strategies that will lead to economic development and benefit everyone. So we’re very anxious to be participants in that and I look forward to it. Mr. Cheek: Well, Augusta, you know, you’ve often heard Augusta is called a Medical Center of the South, as far as all of our facilities and all that we have available here, and we’ve often talked about branching out and growing that arm of our City’s infrastructure, if you will. I’d like to see a road map. Dr. Rahn: I think it’s good, it’s intelligent to build on our strengths, and we’re very anxious to do that, we’re certainly developing our strategies and working on the updating of our master facility plan and where our cancer center might lead us, and how to deal with space issues, as you are aware, and we will keep working with you on that and look forward to further opportunities to work together. Mr. Cheek: I probably shared this with you, would love to see a medical research park on some of the land downtown that is currently unoccupied, and that would attract private sector and public sector monies and hopefully more people to this area. Dr. Rahn: Great. The way that we contribute to that most, and I’m not going to take any more time, is by continuing to recruit and retain national and international caliber faculty. That’s the driver. That’s the foundation of development of commercialization and technology transfer and business around it. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dr. Rahn, we won’t hold you too much longer. It’s been talked about in a round-about way. Commissioner Mays kind of touched on it a little bit, also Commissioner Cheek. You know and the news media has been proposing a lot of things for MCG and we certainly appreciate all that MCG brings, but nobody mention the fact as yet, but when it talks about MCG it’s automatically now in the, in certain areas of this city, Gilbert Manor. We know that the growth is coming and Commissioner Cheek talked about a plan. The community is still curious at the least to find out what’s, what’s being proposed and what’s going happen. That’s a area that a lot of people are proud of and a lot of people in the area are proud people, but we need to be mindful of the little people, the little person. We need to know what’s going happen and not spring it on them, I guess at one time. We need to kind of preplan for what’s going take place. We know that inevitable it’s coming, it’s not just talked about this year. Been talked about for quite a few years. It’s getting closer. This board will have many 9 discussion on it with some of your staff people. We tried to let them know that we wasn’t against any growth, but we have to be mindful of the people in that area. And I just say to you that if you just consider that in your planning, in your talking with your staff, so we can be able to share with other people, with our constituents who, who think the world has forgotten about them, who think the world looks down on them, who think the world don’t even care about them. But those are still people and we need to be very mindful about how we can explain and how we can, we can better understand as elected officials to share with them so they’ll understand. But I don’t want to keep you on the spot. We know you done had your five, maybe ten, might be going to 15 now, Dr. Rahn. We just thank you for your coming, we thank you for all that been said. But I just think we ought to lay some things on the table, we ought to be just blunt, be plain about it so people will understand what, what MCG is wanting to do, what the community need to do, and what we can do together. I think that’s from communication. Dr. Rahn: I thank you for those comments and that advice, Commissioner Williams. We’re – you know, we are going to need more space, if we are to continue to grow as an academic research institution and contribute what we can contribute to the health of the people and also to the, to the economy and economic development. What we’re anxious to do is to develop a collaborative strategy that would include the Richmond County Housing Authority, the County Commission, the county-city government, the citizens, involved individuals, other individuals involved in housing and development, and just see if we can develop what the best possible plan is for all involved in order to improve quality of life and contribute to the mission of our institution, and to economic development in the region, and do that in a way that gives us access to the most amount of funds outside our own budgets that we might gain access to. We’re not, we are not pursuing any agenda that would not be fully collaborative and would not involve all of those partners that, that I mentioned. If a successful scenario can be developed that is to everyone’s benefit, is to the benefit of all involved, we would like to be a part of that. And that’s pretty much where we are. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m certainly glad to hear that, and I think once we talk, and Commissioner Mays talk more than anybody up here, they say, but I’m second, but I think that’s in order, I think that’s – we got to communicate, we got to talk, we got to lay some things on the table and we got to be open and honest with everybody so they’ll understand what is about to happen, what is going on. And that way, we can prevent a lot of things. But I just thank you for your comments and I thank you for your coming and sharing with us. We certainly want to work with the community, along with MCG. Dr. Rahn: We’re very anxious to do that. I thank you for your time and for your attention. We do, of course, have some propaganda to leave. (Laughter) 10 Dr. Rahn: That we will leave here with you. And I look forward to meeting anytime, anywhere to discuss these issues of mutual importance. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dr. Rahn, we look forward to your next visit with us. Thank you very much. And you can leave the propaganda with the Clerk and she’ll promptly distribute it. Madame Clerk, the next item, please? The Clerk: B. Salvation Army of Augusta (Requested by Commissioner Betty Beard) Major James Hall RE: Partnership with Augusta, Ga. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Ms. Beard for the introduction of this item. Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Yes, I’d like to introduce you to Major Hall, who is here with the Salvation Army, and along with him is Judge Wheale, Duncan Wheale. I believe Judge Wheale is president – Mr. Wheale: Chairman. Ms. Beard: Chairman, the chairman of the board. We are very happy to have them. They have an exciting presentation. As a matter of fact, they were so excited they invited some of the citizens, and I felt immediately that they should come in and talk with the city council in reference to it. I’m sure you’re going to find it very interesting, and if it comes to pass it is our hope that the city will partner with them in their effort. Mr. Hall: Thank you. First of all, I want to say thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation. I believe it’s exciting, also. The presentation I’ll be giving today, we’ll be talking about an opportunity that became available to the Salvation Army on a nationwide basis, but what I wanted to specifically focus on is how this opportunity can impact and positively affect this local community. But I’d like to tell you about something that was in the news not too long ago. If you remember, there was a news article talking about the Joan Kroc estate. The McDonald’s heiress, I guess you could call her. She loved the Salvation Army, and because of that when she passed away, in her estate she gave $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army nationwide. Now the Salvation Army is divided into four separate territories in the United States, and so each territory received an even amount. So the southern territory, which Georgia is a part of, received approximately $400 million. Now there are some stipulations, of course, in this estate. The first one is that the monies can only be used for building new facilities. It cannot be used to help fund ongoing or existing programs. That was her vision, is to provide something new to the community. Second of all, the money also includes if you build 11 something, she recognizes the fact that you have to pay for it, and in her wisdom, in the estate outline it talks about the fact if you build it, there’s also monies that are put aside in matching format for endowment, to help operate the facilities that would be built. And it also includes a section on matching funds from the local communities. It’s important to do that so that it shows the support and the ownership of the community for whatever may be built. Not a lot of communities would be able to come up with the funds or would support the Salvation Army in the building of new facilities, and that is one of the indicators, [inaudible] if they were able to make some matching funds. A perfect example of what she envisioned can be seen here. It’s in San Diego. This is a huge facility. Now this cost close to $50 million. There’s no way we could ever, ever hope to accomplish that. But this was the epitome of her dream. If you see this, this stretches all the way from these fields up here, all the way down here, this whole area, close to 16 acres’ worth of facilities available to the community. It’s in an area that people of need would reside and just some examples of some of the architecture. This is the front entrance. And one of the things Ms. Kroc said is, no offense, but we don’t want these buildings to look like Salvation Army buildings, okay? So you can see they’re very beautiful. Another viewpoint of the front entrance. She wanted in her estate, she stated specifically, she wanted to provide exceptional services to a community. Exceptional meaning those that would not normally be available. So over there in San Diego they have a school for the performing arts. Beautifully decorated, a beautiful foyer, an auditorium that provides not only services to the community, but also is available to the community in case they would like to use it for some type of public presentation. There are athletic fields. Several of them. That involve young people, of course, but also adults in their programs. They have many sports options that deal not only with youth development but also adults and give them opportunities. For example, a skate park for kids that normally wouldn’t be able to afford the cost. I’ve got a son, he likes to go to skate parks, we don’t do it very often, it’s expensive. But it makes an opportunity available to those that would normally not have it. They have an ice skating rink there. It’s a huge one. The local hockey team uses it. This was the dream of Mrs. Kroc, as a young girl, was to become a professional ice skater. But she never had the money to go the ice rink, so she was never able to do this, and that’s why she’s so interested in providing the funds for people that may not afford it. There’s an aquatic center, there’s four pools there, which include an indoor therapy pool. Health and educational center. There’s much more that I don’t have up here, don’t have time to talk about, including day cares and everything else. But the idea is to provide something that normally that community would never be able to afford. Well, in talking about this, whenever the information came down, the Salvation Army said we need to put together a committee of Salvation Army officers to decide and to interpret all of the ramifications of this, and come up with some criteria, some guidelines, how local communities can take advantage of it. It just so happens my wife was selected to be on that committee. Now that’s a very short list of people on this committee and the good thing about it is that information that would be shared with the Salvation Army in general, I got an inside track, okay? So we get it four to six weeks earlier, and that’s a good thing because that helps us to go ahead 12 and put our plans together on a much faster basis. Now the reason why I mention that is because the criteria that was decided is very simple. First of all, location. Any opportunity for these funds means that you have to have a location that’s visible and accessible, so people can see it, they know where it is, and it’s accessible to the people that would need it most. Second of all, one of the issues has to do – have to look at my notes – with the scope. It’s very important that the programs that are presented, any type of facility or facilities be based on the needs of the community. I think it’s very fortuitous that the United Way has just completed a needs assessment study, is in the process of completing it, to help us understand what the idea of the needs of this community may be. And the last is the importance of a joint effort with other agencies or organizations. That is a critical area because it needs to be seen as a community effort in being able to do something. Examples were given, and one example was that there was a city that donated its park to the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army then – actually, they sold it to the Salvation Army. When the Salvation Army built on it, started programming, the city then gave the money back. There’s cooperative efforts that can be exampled on and on. But with that being the case, when I presented this to my executive committee of the full advisory board, they saw immediately it was going to take a lot of land to do any type of program that we’re talking about. In looking around the areas, our present facilities, our present land that we have is much too small to do anything of this scope, and so in brainstorming was presented, the if-if-if, and you’ll hear me say this many times – the if-if-ifs – because of the possibilities of relocating the civic center, if that happens, means that it has to go first of all, if it’s even put on the referendum and if it’s passed by the people and if it happens, then what about these possibilities? And what we did, I put together an outline for the present civic center location. The civic center, this is of course an aerial view. The first idea was to understand that whatever happens, wherever we go, think of a campus, think of a college campus. And this is the civic center, with the civic center intact. To make things simpler, we said let’s start from scratch and see what the big picture could be. So what we did is we said if you take out the civic center, take all that parking area, and turn it into green grass, like a campus, then what are some of the programs that would be possible? First of all, the Salvation Army has a heart for young people. Let me say I’m so glad to see the Boys to Men program over here. And let me say you are not the leaders of tomorrow, you are the leaders of today. So do what you can in the community. Anyway, a state-of-the-art youth program. Let me say I’m so glad to see some representatives from the local Boys & Girls Club we’ve already been talking with about this cooperative effort. Educationally-based program, but much broader like you would never, ever have in this community without these funds. Second of all, of course, ball fields, recreation program made available. I didn’t put pools in there because I couldn’t find any fun pictures. Other options? A school for the performing arts. That’s what they have in San Diego but we’re not limited to that, but an idea of being able to broaden the opportunities for young people or even adults. It could be an education center for young people or adults. In this property, we could also, we would move our present worship center that we have, the Salvation Army has, depending upon how much money could be raised in the community, and that’s the 13 iffy part also. It may be that we could relocate our present emergency housing facilities, and we’d have to do it in a very careful way so that we do not affect the balance of youth programming and emergency assistance. Right now, we presently have a clinic on our facilities that help out those who are indigent with emergency medical care, well, medical care. In talking with some of the people in the community, let me say that Dr. Rahn who was just up has expressed his support and his interest in supporting this idea if it happens. If-if-if. It could be in the effort of a place that could be a teaching clinic. If possible, for people that are interns and all that. An expansion of our present program that’s operated by St. Vincent DePaul. Other opportunities are there. We just have to identify what those agencies and organizations may be. If-if-if this is made available, we could have an opportunity downtown like no other. The wisdom of this is the fact that you get money to be able to build the facilities, you get money put aside for endowment, and then the local monies that are raised also go to the endowment. So they’re wanting at least a 2:1 capacity so that you don’t have to worry about the city, the county, the people having to fund it, because the people that would be using these services normally are the people that can’t afford them. So I appreciate the time of the Commissioners, appreciate the opportunity that is presented before us. If you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Mayor: Major Hall, thank you very much for your presentation today. Commissioner Beard, thank you for inviting Major Hall today. This is quite an exciting project. Is there anything you’d like to add to the presentation, and then we’ll open it up for questions? Ms. Beard: I’ll simply pass it to my fellow Commissioners. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s start on the end and go around. Commissioner Sims? Ms. Sims: Yes, I’m wondering, will you be writing a grant? Mr. Hall: This is not necessary to write a grant. We have to fill out the forms that the Salvation Army itself would provide for us. It is so new they haven’t even gotten those forms together yet. But we’re putting together our ideas so as soon as those forms are available, we’ll fill them out, send them to the Salvation Army itself. Ms. Sims: Fine. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Major Hall, I’m, I’m excited. I think what I saw was very, very nice, very pleasing, and you’re talking about serving the people who couldn’t on a normal scale afford those events. But let me go back to that if question again. What if this doesn’t happen? What if it does not, the civic center is still there? Have you got 14 another location, have you got another site prospectively around this city or somewhere else if that doesn’t happen? I guess that’s my question. Where, where would you place this facility or try to do this facility if that doesn’t work at that location? Mr. Hall: Well, at this point in time it’s so new, we’ve only had a week since our first presentation where we had people to come together just to say is this a good idea. We have been looking around. But the issue is this: anything of that scope would mean that in an area, according to the guidelines, accessible plus visible would mean the possibility of having to relocate people, and we don’t want to purchase land that would have to relocate people if we can help it. That’s why this became such a wonderful idea. We have identified some ideas, areas, but if this doesn’t happen I’m committed to go ahead and find an area, working with the local community, go ahead and sending up the options to the Salvation Army headquarters to see if we could go ahead and use these funds for this area. Mr. Williams: Well, and my last comment, I think you on to something, but I’m like you, if it doesn’t work, I would like to see, you know, another site that it may possibly work on. And like you say, rather than relocating people, we need to look around to see where there is another prospective place in order to do this. I think this is, this is really great, and with the, with the monies that’s been donated for the area, this area, it’s no reason not to do that. I see all of the positive, but I’m just concerned about that if-if-if situation. Mr. Hall: Sure. Mr. Williams: If it doesn’t work. Mr. Hall: That’s why I’ve got a great advisory board, because that would be their job, then, to go out and find those places that we could use. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m really pleased by what I see, and I’m going to kind of follow along with my twin brother as far as some commentary. While a lot of people are under the impression that the civic center is going to go away, that is a state authorized authority that runs that, and in my discussions with a majority of the Legislative Delegation, they are not going to vote to abolish that, so even if we build a new civic arena that will still be an entity until some future date. Of course, if we de- fund it to fund the new arena, then it will be difficult for them to survive. But I have to concur with Marion in considering other sites. And here again, if it’s not the will of the body that we build a new civic arena, the Regency Mall area is centrally located and we’d 15 love to see something, a civic arena or this facility come there. But I applaud you on your efforts and I hope that if the future is as bright as we hope it will, that we’ll be able to put something together and work with you on it. Mr. Hall: Thank you. Let me say this, that there have been three communities that have already been approved for these funds -- one’s in Atlanta, one’s in Louisville, one’s in Biloxi, Mississippi. The only reason why they’ve already been approved is because they have already completed a capital campaign, they’ve been in this operation for at least three years to this point. They just changed everything so they can make these funds available. And even in Louisville, they don’t have a place yet. They’ve had different options if this becomes available, if that becomes available. The wonder about this is that if you can reduce the amount that you have to pay for land, then you can increase the amount that you can do in programming. And again, I understand perfectly well the iffies are there, but at least if the opportunity presents itself we want to take advantage of it. Mr. Cheek: Godspeed in your efforts, sir. Mr. Hall: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess I thrive on optimism and not pessimism. And I think that the, the idea that has come from you and from the Foundation, from McDonald’s, Ms. Kroc, is certainly one that we need to press forward with as quickly as possible. I’ve had two calls in the last week with the excitement of local businessmen and people that are involved in the Salvation Army that has shown the great interest that you brought to us today. And I think we would be remiss if we didn’t pursue this as strongly and as possible as we can. And if you can give us whatever information is necessary for us to support your efforts, then I think you’ll find that we will be in that support. Mr. Hall: Thank you. Appreciate that very much. Mr. Mayor: Jimmy? Mr. Smith: I’d just like to put in my two cents’ worth concerning Regency Mall. That’s got to happen first, and you can be assured that as long as we’ve got breath in our body, we’re going to work for it. Mr. Hall: Sure. Mr. Mayor: Willie? 16 Mr. Mays: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Major, let me thank you for coming. And I think every Commissioner and the Mayor can, can attest to the fact, and I won’t talk as long as those fellows on the other end down there, we’re a little short winded up here, from this side, but I think that I’d be remiss in saying, I’m one of the first, I don’t like to leave things that could happen laying on the table. And I think it’s important that we, we try to help and to pursue giving you assistance in terms of making some things happen on behalf of a partnership of ours with the Salvation Army. But what I, what I would say is this, that I would like for you to possibly put the project part in terms of thinking more so ahead of the ifs, and in terms of one location. I think where we can be of a lot of help is the fact that we have in house staff that can probably help you to identify large parcels of land that contain nothing, that are just there. And I make that statement to say that sometimes it’s a lot easier to buy flat land with all the utilities that’s growing weeds and some things that need to be removed rather than maybe putting it all on the back of saying whether or not we pay off a building that’s maybe got $6 million to $7 million in debt and then another $2 million to $3 million to demolish it in order to get it on the ground, to make it flat, while we’ve got flat land in the surrounding area that could possibly do that. So I would like to see you work and to move in that effort and would pledge, particularly as a business person, a resident, in a lot of the areas that you serve and do an excellent job in terms of the serving. But I think in terms of the opportunity to utilize those funds, we would be remiss in not trying to help you. But I wouldn’t want to see you have all your eggs in one basket to a point of just that place when the possibilities exist and probably exist a lot cheaper, even though I know it’s money, but I think the less that you spend to get something, the more that you can spend on it when you start to building and you get ready to develop, rather than to try and deal with it in acquisition. And those would be my comments, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Hall: If I could say one thing. The three criteria, the scope, the cooperative effort and the location, those are the three criteria that you have to qualify for. The scope as working with other agencies – as you can tell, we have Laverne Gold here from the United Way, we have representatives from Boys & Girls Club, we’ve been talking with people about that scope. I don’t think there is going to be a problem with the broadness of it. We even have my director from my substance abuse program here. We’re doing a cooperative effort with Augusta Tech. We may be able to put a satellite campus there. Okay, so the scope is fine. As far as the location is concerned, this is one idea I just need to put in your mind. In talking yesterday – because it’s so new, I had to talk all the way to Atlanta yesterday and they said if this comes true, then the idea is not to denote anything to the Salvation Army. The reason why is you make that part of your capital campaign, you buy from the city – and I’m going to make up a number here, make it up, $15 million. We have to buy that from the city. That means that the Kroc monies would be given – we put $15 million in an endowment, immediately $15 million goes to 17 building the facility. We have to raise $15 million, but see, if they give us $15 million we give it to the city, and the city turns around and gives it back to us to go toward our matching funds area, so everybody can get some kind of benefit from it. We’ve increased our endowment, the city has been able to, you know, if you keep the money in the bank a week you might make some interest, I don’t know, but those possibilities are there. Mr. Mays: I think, I think it sounds great. I’m just one, I like to see when I see dollars and they come about, and obviously you’ll be in control of that and you’ll have to make that decision. But I think in terms of if you’ve got two paths that you can go, one in which you can utilize funds in order to build and to expand on facilities, then even though you might give that to us, I think to a point rather than getting it locked into a one deal situation on what might happen and of the if-if-if path, we got some acreage here, like I said, that could probably, you know, plant, you know, grass and, and, and collards until the end of time that really needs to get some things done on it and it’s in the same prospective area that you’re talking about and that you serve and so that’s the only reason I threw that out there to a point that rather than it being that approach only – and I’m sure that you wouldn’t, but I’m just saying if there are six ways that you can do something and got some options, I’d much rather have the options to a point as long as it doesn’t take you out of what you’re trying to do, because rather than spending it and getting it back, to a point that if you got the limit the facilities in terms of what you build, I’d much rather see you – and then plus, too, this group here, you give us to us, you got to make sure we’re going to give it back. (Laughter) Mr. Hall: Thank you very much. I’ll have, I have an outline of the presentation, I’ll put on the table if you’d like to look at it later. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Major Hall. Thank you, Judge Wheale, for bringing this forward today. We appreciate it, and this is the type of faith-based initiative I think we can all get involved in. Madame Clerk, the next delegation? The Clerk: C. The Hyde and Aragon Park Improvement Committee Rev. Charles N. Utley, President RE: Campbell Recycling Facility, Dan Bowles Road Mr. Mayor: Rev. Utley, if you’ll come forward, please. Mr. Mays, I would ask you, if you would, to preside over this. I’ve got to slip into my office and sign a document for the Department of Energy. I’ll be right back. 18 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: My friend, we’re back with each other again. Go ahead, Rev. Utley, you have the floor. Mr. Utley: Good evening to each and every one of you this afternoon. If I may, I would like for the rest of the delegates that are in the hall to come in at this time. And while they’re coming, I certainly want to thank this board and thank the Mayor for accepting our letter to come before you this afternoon to just voice our opinion concerning a new company that has arrived in our neighborhood, and we want to address that company’s existence before you this afternoon. Just come on in. We’ll make room. Just come on in. Commissioners, what we, what we were looking at – I know it’s nothing new to any of you that’s sitting up there this afternoon, is the Goldberg junkyard. The four story junkyard that plagued our community for some 40-some years. An eyesore to those who are traveling on 78, going and exiting our city of Augusta. After $12 million plus, there is no more Goldberg junkyard and an eyesore for the Hyde- Aragon Park-Virginia subdivision. We were able to get all of that cleaned up, looking for new businesses, looking for a new vein that we can feed our community with. But just the other day, after weeks and months of trying to find out what was going across the street, we made several phone calls to see just who it was. Matter of fact, the Mayor came out with the Senator, he asked the question well, what’s going be there? We couldn’t find at no avail what was going be there. And all the time, they was putting together a new junkyard. Ladies and gentlemen, enough is enough. We don’t want no more junkyards by whatever name you want to call it. Whether it’s recycling, whatever it is, we don’t want it. And it’s time for us to stop, stop plaguing this community, and I know that they’ve gone through a lot, because I been there with them. I grew up in Hyde Park. But I’m here to tell you that it’s time for it to stop. We asked and we cleaned up the Goldberg site. Goldberg was clean but yet a block away [inaudible] moved in. Started piling up junk on the next block. Nothing we could do because there was no law on the books for an inert landfill. The community got busy, along with the [inaudible] and we sent legislation to Atlanta to get something on the books to keep this type of invasion out of our communities. And yes, now, we’ve gotten that clean, and up comes Campbell. And that is, as they old song say, that’s the one that broke the camel’s back. Because we are tired of fighting for existence. And when we look at what has come through, the flood area, and I know when you all get together and you start finagling on how you are going to fix this problem, let me just remind you, Hyde Park has flooded from its conception. I still own my [inaudible] boat that we paddle up to the highway to get out of. But yet, in a few weeks, there was another neighborhood that started flooding. I noticed bit by bit, house by house, they have been moving. I hate to say I don’t know whether it’s because of where they’re located or because of who they are, but they have been addressed. Hyde Park is still flooding. It’s time out. Enough is enough. And we’re come by to tell you this afternoon that we want to stop this invasion on our community. It’s time out for dumping to be held in Hyde Park, Aragon Park, Virginia Subdivision. And yes, on Monday, we welcome the World Changers coming in to help us make new faces in our community, help us to clean up our area. How’s it going to look with the 19 new recycling company and we’re trying to clean up? I’m fed up, because enough is enough is enough. I want to just remind you of that, and I invite all of CSRA, I invite all of you down in here today, I want you to bring somebody from wherever you live, from anywhere in the city of Augusta, in the CSRA, I invite you to come to Hyde Park. But I also want to tell you if you got junk in your trunk, don’t come. Because you’re not going to be welcome. If you want to recycle something, carry it to your end of town. Hyde Park is no more the dumping site. You call it what you want to, but we don’t want it in Hyde Park. And I just want to leave you just one thought. As the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth said, inasmuch as you have done until the least of my brethren, you have done it until me. Thank you very much. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me say this, and the Mayor came back in, Rev. Utley, I think at a very appropriate time. I shared this in private conversation with you, but also in public in reference to the role that he has played in the Mayor’s Brownfield Initiative and of working there, saying that I was glad I had finally worked with a chief executive that had taken on the initiative and the intestinal fortitude to fight for that effort and to get us into that, and I thank him so much for his support and what it’s done there. We were kind of taken aback. I got your phone call on last week, and I was very happy at the time to see Mr. Arthur Smith, who is here on another issue that was affecting the area, but it was a blessing that he was here at our committee meetings on last Monday. Because we had the opportunity to bring this issue in and members of this Commission, because it was not something that was, was on the agenda per se, but we took the initiative to get the signatures to rush and to get an item put on here today to deal with this issue specifically. Junkyards in general, but specifically the one that’s there in reference to recycling that’s there in Hyde Park. I was a little disappointed and angry, though, about two things. One that I reflect upon that you and I shared with each other, and we’ve been friends a long time. I remember when there was another issue that we were down and had the Superior Courtroom full of participants who came to help another license situation that was in your area. People came from the length and breadth of the county to be there. And remember I remarked to you, Charles, and pardon the personal reference, I said to you then, I said I hope there are no more nightmares in Hyde Park. But if something occurs, I hope that the same level of support will be there for Hyde Park to pack a courtroom when we get filth of another kind to come into the community. I wish this room were packed today with a fraction of those supporters who came at that time to deal with that issue. I can remember Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Williams, you mentioned about the [inaudible] situation [inaudible] and we followed that filth trail from the depths of the canal digging back into Hyde Park again and were able to stop that in its tracks and to get it done. And what hurt us so was this was a contract we were paying people to do out of governmental money, but yet it found its way to be in your neighborhood and to be there. That was shameful. What bothers me today is that in the bureaucracy we spent that much money – when I say we, the government per se – eight figures of money that’s gone into 20 that area and all that’s there, that somehow or another with the loopholes that exist in the law that this may be one that we might have to fight from a different angle. I was disappointed that they even had a license. Some red flags – the Mayor and I have discussed this privately that something should have gone up in somebody’s head to a point that all that you all have been through, that this should not have had to be an issue. Now the attorney is going to have answer a little of this in here, I think, Mr. Mayor, and probably whether it be License & Inspection/Attorney to address it from that standpoint. But I’m going to say this, and as I yield the gavel back to you, I’m a – I have a little problem that when we accidentally gave a license to the bookstore, this is in the same neighborhood that Hyde Park is, we went back out and we took it back. You know, it’s a shame with what they have gone through with filth that we can’t find a way, we’re going to judge filth on filth, if that’s going to be the case of it, then certainly one that you’re st going to fight under 1 Amendment rights to be there, that one, to a point, that if we spent that much money in terms of millions of dollars to clean up an area, that if we want to get into a fight about what we spend our money about and what we direct the legal representatives of this city to do, I don’t have a problem in voting to challenge to go back and to take that particular license back. I think there should have been some things done ahead of time, some guidelines set, some respect for the community to a point that you would not be here. You have the support, I know, of this Mayor. In this situation. He won’t be able to vote on an issue of that particular nature, but I for one, if the City is out on that much of a limb of not knowing where that legal case is going, I’m just a much want to see just how much courage the Commission has to a point that if we went out on that limb to deal with that, how much do we want to deal with this one? We accidentally gave one. You know, usually it’s like a sale, when you put a price on something, truth in advertising, you sell something, you say well, you know, this suit had $100 sticker on it and it was a $500 suit. Person at the cash register has usually got to ring it up for $100 cause that was the price that came through in your store. In that case, we went back and say no, we made a mistake, here’s your money back, we shouldn’t do it. And I’m going to see how far the Commission wants to deal with to a point that of what’s been ducked in a community, if there was a license, or whether or not we want to fight by the same set of rules. So I think if you going to take one in one place, one way and do it, and say we’re going to fight with this because we don’t want certain elements in the community, then let’s apply the same standards of helping to keep a community clean to say what we will do in this case. And I rest my case, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Rev. Utley, thank you for being with us. Mr. Utley: Thank you very much and let me just say – Mr. Mayor: I’m not going to end you just yet. Hold on. We want to hear from a couple of people. Mr. Cheek wanted to be heard, Mr. Williams, and then I think we need to hear from our Attorney who can tell us what the legal position is in this matter. And Ms. Beard, too. 21 Mr. Cheek: I’m going to yield to Ms. Beard and come behind her, if it’s all right. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s go to Ms. Beard. Don’t forget Mr. Williams, he wants to speak, too, now. Go ahead, Ms. Beard. Ms. Beard: Mr. Utley, I was in a meeting last week and we were talking about the flooding on Sand Bar Ferry Road. And at that time they told me about the flooding in Hyde Park. I haven’t been on the Commission very long so it was my first time hearing about it. But I have a question for the Administrator. I’d like to know if the flooding in Hyde Park is a part of SPLOST V. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I can’t answer that at this moment. There is some monies that were spent in Hyde Park on some flooding issues, but whether or not there’s an overall project – I can find out while we’re discussing it but I can’t answer it at this time. Ms. Beard: I would like to pass it to my fellow Commissioner. He thinks he can answer it. Mr. Cheek: The Phinizy Swamp channelization project will reduce the flooding in that area in that it will open the channels up and due to the proximity of Hyde Park to Phinizy Swamp, the fact that it’s only one foot or so above the water table, this will help. Sand Bar Ferry and Hyde Park suffer from the same problem. They are very low-lying areas, they are very flat topography, and we lack major channelization to conduct the water away from there rapidly. So if you get a 1” to2” rainfall event, it’s going to be on the ground until it can be carried away in the existing drains, and that’s why it’s so important to unplug Butler Creek and Rocky Creek and all these others to be able to conduct that water away. Some of those are included in the SPLOST V proposal. Whether they make the cut or not is up to us. So. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can continue. The, there was a study done by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Phinizy Swamp drainage area, and at this time they are recommending that they would not participate in a project. So Commissioner Cheek is correct, you would have to consider from your SPLOST V proposals. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Holiday Park flooded and we bought those homes and relocate those folks, and I’m glad that you’re here today to say enough is enough. I been saying that for almost five years now. Hyde Park is a area that has been neglected, and I don’t blame all of it on the Commission. I blame the folks in Hyde Park a little bit. Let me share what I mean with that. Today you come and you say 22 enough is enough. I been trying to get folks to come down and say enough is enough. We have allowed this board to do what it’s been doing for many, many years. We have sit idle at home and watched stuff happen to our community. I stated many time and I say it [inaudible] today, I told this Commission Hyde Park people don’t have two cars. They got a car and a boat, because when it rains the only way they can get out is get a boat and get to Gordon Highway. And it ain’t just happened like. I been in this town all my life. Rev. Utley, I think you was one of those [inaudible] we [inaudible] together, but all my life Hyde Park been dumped on. And if this community don’t wake up and demand what is rightfully belonging to that community, [inaudible]. I hear Commissioner Cheek talking about the creeks and basins and those kind of things. I don’t know much about that. But if there is a problem, look like you would address the problem. We have been putting money and adding stuff. I heard Commissioner Mays talk a little while ago about a proposed arena might happen. How can you talk about a place, spending money on a situation like that when you got people that don’t have, that has got drainage problems in their front and back yard, got ditches in the front and the back? Now I called Rob Sherman -- I see Rob standing over there -- and asked him what was coming? He checked the records and said well, we don’t have anything. This been a couple of months ago. Rob, if you remember, wasn’t nothing on the books. I said well they cleaned up. He said we can’t stop folks from cleaning up their property. If they want to put up a fence, we can’t stop them. I said okay, I just want to know, for whatever reason. The news media want to know how much gas that the Commission spent. I’m going spend every dime I get cause I ride every day to take care of the people I got to take care of. Folks tell me I ought to slow down. You can’t slow down when you got problems like this and folks who don’t go to Hyde Park, some folks don’t know where Hyde Park really is. If you go right now [inaudible] they couldn’t take you to Hyde Park, cause they never been that way. Then when they go through there they got their eyes closed as much as they can just to get to the other side. But folks are suffering. You got some people who want to live like that, but you got some good people that don’t want to live like that. And we shouldn’t allow the, the, the negative people to affect the good people. We need to have some laws in place. We talked about junk cars, we talk about the brownfields, all that stuff that been in Hyde Park from day one. But I just want to know now what can we do, if we can rescind those license and can start now, what can we do to hold people accountable, to make Hyde Park a vibrant area or move the people out of there? If it’s that bad, nobody should have to live like that. And Mr. Mayor, in my close, I want to tell the community that those people that don’t believe Hyde Park is that bad, you go over there and spend one night, just stay one night in anybody’s home or just take your own tent and pitch out one night in Hyde Park and see how long you’ll last over there. But it’s a shame. But like I say, I’m part of the community, too, cause we done allowed that, we done let that go. We, we, we tolerated it for so long. We need to stop tolerating. We need to come down here every week this Commission meet and fill this building up until we do something about it. And if that what it take, that’s what we got to do. But I just need to hear from somebody what is the solution. Even if we close that particular business. Rob Sherman, the Attorney, Mr. Shepard, and myself went over 23 there last Friday or last Monday at 6:30 in the afternoon and there’s another wrecking yard around the corner in horrible shape. Cars sitting on the side of the road and in our City, people ride by, police cars, a Marshal’s car pass by and don’t say a thing about it, and they aren’t in compliance -- as far as they can get. But because it in a certain area, nobody cares. I’m through, Mr. Mayor, but I need somebody to tell me what we do. Mr. Mayor: We’ll get there. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rev. Utley, you mentioned I guess in reference to Hollywood Subdivision, us buying out the homes in that area. Under the federal grant money that we get, that renders that property unavailable for future construction. Is it my understanding from you that the residents of Hyde Park are requesting that assistance and would move if we acquired flood relief money to buy them out? Mr. Utley: The Hyde Park area needs relief, whether it’s that money or any other money, because we have been asking for relocation ever since they found out that we had the signs put up by the Health Department about playing in the ditches. Yes, sir, to answer your question. Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, if you could add to Engineering Services Committee next meeting a report from Terry concerning flood plain status of Hyde Park and availability of federal monies for buyout. Just to let you know, Augusta had certain areas that were long-term identified as problems. I’m not sure where Hyde Park falls on that list, the number of reports and so forth, whether people continued to call in and complain or not, but it was basically a 20-year effort, and one very diligent staff member, Terry Turner, who led the charge in acquiring those FEMA funds to do that. We will research it and next Engineering Services Committee we’ll come up with a path forward if that’s at all available. The concern there is with the brownfield, I know there’s hope to attract industry or business back to that area. If we do embark upon this course, that will render all properties purchased unavailable for future use, because it would be deemed in a flood plain. Hyde Park, and I was thinking about how to demonstrate this, if you pour water on the top of this table, it’s going to take a certain amount of time for it to run off. If you pour it into a V, it’s going to off on a slope, it’s going to run off immediately. Hyde Park, almost Commissioner Williams’ entire District and Commissioner Beard’s entire District, are just like this flat table. They’re very low. The water just does not conduct away. And I want to say this for the entire city. If it rains 2” or more per hour for over an hour, the entire City’s major waterways and flat spots will flood. That is an act of God based on geography, not necessarily an engineering fault, although that is part of the problem. We have half handed our drainage issues in this city for 100 years. We are working to correct that problem, but even if we had the biggest drainage ditch in the world next to Hyde Park, if it rains 2” you are going to have a certain amount that’s going to stay there until it can blow away. And when you have no slope over 100 yards, it’s not going to go 24 very fast. So you know, those are just some food for thought. I stand with me Commissioners and we’ve come so far there. We do not want to go back. We are going to have to find a place for industries like recycling yards, salvage yards, perhaps some of the many acres of vacant industrial park space, and create an industrial park zone for that type of business, would be the way to go, and to reclaim some of our communities for nice development, for clean industry and business and residential, instead of continuing to populate Gordon Highway. For the life of me, Willie, that was something that amazed me, is we have a major corridor in the city that had been cleaned up from an eyesore and somebody thought it a good idea to put a dad gum inert landfill on that highway. Now you can never use it again for a store or a business, you have to, you know -- where is the logic in that? And that’s where the system is failing and where we as Commissioners are going to have to tighten up. Because issuing licenses, putting in inert landfills, even if it’s zoned heavy industry or whatever, there’s a time and place when you to revisit what’s appropriate and then say, compare to the needs of the day, and say no, it’s not. And we’re not doing a good of that but we’re working on it. But what I wanted to tell you was that information, we’ll discuss it next Engineering Services, and from this Commissioner we are not interested in going backwards in Hyde Park. We want to go forward. Mr. Utley: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good afternoon, Rev. Utley. It’s good to see you again. You know, I’m no stranger to Hyde Park. You know, I’ve worked with your mother over there for many, many years. We built the recreation facility over there and right after we did, it flooded. You remember that. Mr. Utley: Right. Mr. Boyles: And we were told at that time as long as that railroad bed is back there, the water can’t get out when it comes downhill and it can’t get out, and that’s probably going to be the answer to alleviate that flooding problem over there, is the removal of that railroad bed. But I’m willing to test our legal system. I take Mr. Mays’ I will offer a motion that we rescind the license of the Campbell challenge serious. Recycling Facility immediately. Mr. Williams: Second that motion. Mr. Utley: God bless you. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. All right, discussion on the motion? Ms. Beard, you had your hand up? 25 Ms. Beard: Well, it addressed something [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard, would you like to be heard on the motion since you’re going to have to defend it? Mr. Shepard: I would and I’m not wasting any time [inaudible]. And the motion is, please? Mr. Mayor: To rescind the time for the recycling company. Mr. Shepard: And I would -- Rob, would you, since I’ve been off the floor, I recall the site visit that we had, Mr. Williams, and it was Mr. Patty and you and I and Mr. Sherman, which was an unannounced visit. And my recollection -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Utley, if you would yield the podium to Mr. Sherman, please. Okay. Mr. Sherman: If I may, if I could provide you with -- Mr. Shepard: We determined that they were legal that day. Mr. Sherman: That’s correct. The property that we’re talking about, Campbell Recycling, we’ve been working on that since 2002. At one time, or at that time, it was not much different than the way Goldberg’s was. We got the owner to clean up the property, removed everything off the surface. We don’t know what’s under the surface. That occurred, has been occurring, I guess, since 2002. The land is completely clean right now. It is fenced in. Probably in April, Commissioner Williams asked me if we had issued a business license out there. The owner wanted to go back in that property with a salvage yard. We told him that he could not go back in there with a salvage yard, it’s not grandfathered in, he would have to go to the Planning Commission and reapply for special exception, and that’s what I was telling you last week, that if they were going in there with a salvage yard or a junk yard they were going to be coming back to you for a business license, for approval before we could issue a business license. There was a man at the meeting who said that there was some activity going on over there, and I asked him does it look like anyone is working over there? Is a business operating over there? And he said he didn’t think so. I had not had any reason to look at this property since I guess Commissioner Williams asked me about it. So on the way back to the office I decided I’d stop and see what was going on and I did find out that there was a business going on there. And you know what my thoughts were then. I got back to the office and what the business license is for is a collection center. Under the zoning ordinance, that is allowed in a light industrial zone. This property is zoned heavy industrial. A collection center where everything takes place inside the building. There is no reduction in volume. 26 It can operate in a light industrial zone by right. That’s how the license got issued. Now I found out last Monday that a license was issued there. So that’s where we are. Mr. Shepard: And that being the state of facts, I would ask you to vote against that motion to rescind the license. In my opinion, the license was validly granted. It was granted before the moratorium was issued by this body and I would, I can’t rule it out of order but I would ask you to vote to oppose the motion. Mr. Mayor: Any comment on the motion? Mr. Williams? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, please, I’ll get to you, ma’am. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, what about the guidelines? If the license had been approved, do we have any guidelines? I mean because if there are no guidelines, Rob, and I see you nodding your head. Mr. Sherman: Right. For this particular facility that’s a collection center -- now a collection center can also go in a general business zone with special exception. It’s allowed by right in a light industrial zone. It’s not a use where they’re going to be laying their stuff out on the ground. The only regulations are, that apply presently in the zoning ordinance, is that it has to be light industrial, everything has to be stored inside, or it does say that they can put it outside but it has to be brought in at the end of the day and there is no reduction in volume. Mr. Williams: If they violate those rules, though, can we do something? Revoking their license if they’re out of -- Mr. Sherman: Right, there’s a section in the code under the business license that if someone is violation of the code that we can bring them back before you and ask you for revocation or the suspension or the denial of their license. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: On the day of our inspection, there was no violation. Therefore, you might have an action in the future, but I do not think you have an abstract action today. The day we visited, we did not gain personal knowledge of a violation. Mr. Mayor: But you don’t, you don’t see that under the concept of environmental justice where we spent of $12 million cleaning up that area that they can bring the stuff back in again, that we don’t have a case? 27 Mr. Shepard: I don’t think we have a case to revoke their license because they’re within the conditions the license states, Mr. Mayor. I mean they are, in my opinion they are legal and if there is a law on the books, I think the Court will first follow the law, and will cast aside any argument of environmental justice. I mean they say where, where are we getting that from? And I, I think that they were -- like I say, if we had found a violation out there that day, but we found them no reducing materials volume by any mechanical means, we found them conducting all their activities inside the structure. And here again, it was not something that we planned to do. It was a spur-of-the-moment trip that we had promised Mr. Williams to do in his ward, and we did it. And this just happened to be the first stop. I mean correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Williams, we were all there together and we did not see a violation. Mr. Williams: You’re right, Mr. Shepard. Let me ask another question, Mr. Mayor, if I can. What about the contamination side of it? That same area used to be the old Goldberg and was a junk yard even before they came in there. Have anybody, have that soil been tested to see whether or not it’s contaminated in that particular spot, not across the street? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, that’s item number 35 on the agenda today, is to award the contract to do the testing. That’s on the agenda today. And that’s the EPA brownfield grant, and we’re in a brownfield redevelopment area and it seems, if nothing else, we ought to put a moratorium on issuing business licenses in there until we finish the assessment and then we wouldn’t have to come back here and try to close the barn door after the whole herd of horses have gotten out. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Shepard, what are they collecting? You mentioned collection. What are the collection items? Mr. Sherman: They buy tin cans and aluminum. Mr. Shepard: We didn’t make photographs. Maybe we should have, but they had scrap copper wiring in a container which went directly from a pickup truck I think to a pallet. They had some other material, other metal material in the, in the facility, but it was all inside. There was no -- we discussed if they were in compliance with their business license. And it was a totally surprise visit to them. Totally surprise. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith? 28 Mr. Smith: Rev. Utley, you know I have two businesses right in front of Hyde Park on both sides of Gordon Highway, and going back to 1990, October 12, we had six foot of water in our place. But there has been a lot of work done upstream from that to slow that down, and we haven’t had that type of flooding since then. It’s been several million dollars spent in Hyde Park, but I know what you’re saying, it’s not solved. And I’m totally in agreement with you and I’m one of the Commissioners who will do anything I can to help the situation out. But from the place you’re just talking about, the one around the corner, in my opinion, is a lot worse than that is, that certainly ought to be addressed, too. Mr. Sherman: If I could address that, there are two properties that came into question while we were out, Mr. Shepard and Commissioner Williams. One is the property directly behind what is called Campbell’s. that was known as Richmond Recycling. The owner is bankrupt. But that is a site that the State EPD is approving or has approved to clean up the scrap tires. Originally the City, we had applied for a grant to clean up scrap tires on I think six sites. It became so expensive the EPD said that they would take it over. They are going to remove the tires, some several thousand, possibly 6,000 scrap tires. That’s going to be removed, but they’re only removing the tires. After that’s done, then we’re going to have to come up with an approach to get the rest of the property cleaned up, because the owner is bankrupt. The car lot that is known as [inaudible] Budget Used Cars, we’ve been working on that since February 15. They were given a period of time to come into compliance. They were working on it. They were working to come into compliance. They have not. They will be going into Court next month. There are three individuals involved there. So those two properties, that’s the status of that. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m certainly in your corner when you talk about spending $12 million to clean it up. And then we are talking about more grants and when we talk about grants we’re still talking about our taxpayer dollars. I don’t care if they come from Washington or Atlanta or the first floor of this building. But why do want to go ahead and do all of that and then allow another place right across the street? It just doesn’t make any -- it’s like putting a bar across the street from a church. You know, it’s just -- and we’ve been protective of that. We’ve put distance requirements. And here we are with a $12 million project that you worked so hard on and gotten this far with it, and then we are going to put another one across the street. And I agree with our Attorney, too, we might be on a little dangerous ground here, but let’s see with the judges have to say. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion that’s been made. Mr. Utley? 29 Mr. Utley: Yes, sir, I would say that it is an environmental issue as well, due to the environmental issue that was signed by President Clinton that disproportionate contamination to one neighborhood is overwhelming. And we have more in the Hyde Park area per person than the whole average in the city of Augusta. So it does become an environmental justice issue, as well. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Utley can be your expert witness, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: You know, to, to add to that, this may be other than a handful of superfund sites in America, this may be the only neighborhood in the United States that’s gone through two different national administrations in reference to federal funding. And what’s so said, I think, about the way governmental wheels turn, while I think the efforts are fine that’s been put in, the $12 million on the brownsfield effort, well, then let’s not forget about the $2 million that went into soil sampling in Hyde Park and Virginia subdivision that would qualify it to get to the finalization that you’d only get sick if you ate so much dirt. Over $14 million has been spent, and it’s one of the reasons I stopped going on, on Chamber tours, because stuff like this would never get on the agenda when we would talk to executives at that time to make a trip. We missed a golden opportunity and Charles, we’ve said this, and I jus want to put this on the record again. I did in another government, I’m going to do it in this one. Had we decided to make that area an industrial area on one hand and then probably a massive retention area in the other, our sales tax money and initiative, $14 million would have moved everybody from that side of Gordon Highway that had a house, got them another house of their choice, paid for it, and been a done deal and then be able to recruit from a city perspective industrial partners to come into that side, Jimmy, from Gordon Highway all the way back over to New Savannah Road in making that an industrial area totally that would have been the place then that there would not have even been this argument. And it’s just sad that that much has gone there to a point that the folks are still there, arguments are still there, and I just wish sometime that I had the luxury of the, of the type of decisions to make that where folk might not want a million dollar house in their neighborhood cause it was one foot short or two feet short. That would be a unique thing to have. I take all those type decisions and put them in my different four Districts any day, sometimes to a point that this type stuff, when the old government didn’t want to get involved in it, and I may have been the only Commission chairman probably of, of -- Charles -- other than Henry Brigham until this Mayor got on board to want to deal with this effort of doing it. But it’s still sad, because that much money, had it been redirected and just said hey, look, let’s go pick some, and let’s do it, and let’s move and get out of it, and then you’d of had acres of land that we could have recruited very cheaply to ask certain industries to come in and then they would have been over there, it would have increased our tax base. But at the time there were people who didn’t want to hear it, and Mr. Mayor, unfortunately there are still folk that, that make decisions, not so much elected folk, but people who make 30 decisions in this community that still don’t want to listen to those type things. And that’s why we still have problems. Not so much in how we look, but just in a difference of haves and have nots that continuously split this area that we can’t move on to deal with a lot of positive things in a community. And I know folk that would be packed down here for miles. This would have had to have been not a Courtyard decision but an outside in the yard decision, if you’d been talking about going from whether it’s recycling being legal or not, but just to the point of what it would have been to do it. And I think there is a great deal, Jimmy, to a certain extent of a slight -- I just have to say it -- it’s a slight bit of hypocrisy to a point that we will fight for some things, and we’re challenged and we’ll say we don’t care how much money we spend, because we want to set a certain tone in our community -- but we’ll go from one level of filth that’s against the law and another one to be shoved down on folk, and we say well, that’s within the law. I thought, quite frankly, the other one was within the law. Probably still do. If they had a case to stand on in terms of their right to be there, whether you like what they’re doing or not. And that case is still out. But to a point here I think you fighting one isn’t really any different from fighting the other one. I think you got the same kind of situation. License. License. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mays. Ms. Sims: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate debate on the motion, so we’ll go ahead and commence with voting. All in favor of the motion from Commissioner Boyles, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Utley, the flooding issue will be addressed at the Engineering Services Committee, is that this coming Monday? Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: Sir? Mr. Mayor: That meeting, the Engineering Services Committee, is -- The Clerk: June 21 at 3:00 o’clock. Mr. Mayor: June 21 at 3:00 o’clock, Rev. Utley. Mr. Utley: Thank you very much. We will attend. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Don’t go anywhere just yet. Mr. Kolb, I would like my office to be notified of any applications for any business licenses in Hyde Park neighborhood 31 before they are issued. We’d like the courtesy of that notification so we can make sure the community is notified. And also I think it would be appropriate if we ask the Planning Commission to review the existing zoning and use of land in the Hyde Park neighborhood. We may need to recommend some changes there. What I’d like to do, if we could, Madame Clerk, is move to item number 35. That involves Hyde Park. If we could go ahead and take that up, Rev. Utley, if you’d be here, if there questions, that’s to continue the brownfield assessment work in the neighborhood. If you’ll real that caption. The Clerk: 35. Motion to approve award of Bid #04-069 to Gannett Fleming, Inc. in the amount of $116,000 for professional services in conjunction with the Augusta Brownfield Program. Funding for this bid award comes from the second Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Assessment Grant. (Account #101- 04-1112/51.13118) (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? Any questions of Rev. Utley? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Utley: Thank you very much and we will do the best we can with this new approval grant to continue to clean up the neighborhood and the new assessment will then take up some of the parcels in the Hyde Park area and Virginia subdivision. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Before Rev. Utley leave, I think the suggestion that you just made about all the licenses coming to your office, I think the Planning Commission Director needs to here that, also. I think he needs to get a memo so he’ll be aware of this action that’s taken today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb will see that he is notified. Mr. Kolb: We’ll take care of that. 32 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Utley: Again we want to thank all Commissioners and each and every one in the Hyde Park, on behalf of Hyde and Argon Park and Virginia subdivision, and we do have Bishop Green with us, as well, and Sister Holiday, our vice president, and all the community that is here today, I wanted to personally thank you for coming out and being with us. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Rev. Utley. Y’all are invited to stay for the rest of the meeting if you’d like to. Mr. Utley: [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: President of the Alliance. Mr. Utley: President of the Richmond County Neighborhood Alliance and they are [inaudible]. Thank you very much, and thank all the other organizations for supporting us this afternoon. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a number of people who are here for a number of different issues, so we’re going to deal with some of these that have delegations and what not here and move them along. What I’d like to do next, Madame Clerk, is take up the consent agenda, all the zonings and all that. Then we’re going to come to yours. Mr. Williams: 42 is -- I got some people here who got to get back to work. Mr. Mayor: I know you do, but we’ve got people here for zoning and other things. We’re going to try and clear out the ones with no contest first, Mr. Williams, then we’ll get to yours. All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and move on the consent agenda, if you would, please. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 38A. That’s items 1 through 38A. If there are any objectors to the planning petitions, when they’re read would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z-04-33 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve; with the condition that a 6’ fence be added on the rear property line; a petition by John Lewis, Sr. requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 33 2042 Fernwood Circle and containing .22 acres. (Tax Map 110-1 Parcel 131) DISTRICT 6 2. Z-04-41 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Broken Shackle Ranch Inc., on behalf of Harrison, Hearne, Martin & Davis Estate, requesting a Special Exception, to establish transition housing, per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 1,045 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of North Leg and contains approximately 4.3 acres. (Part of Tax Map 69 Parcel 16) DISTRICT 5 3. Z-04-42 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Reverend Clyde Hill, Sr., on behalf of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception, to establish a church parking lot, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1244 Wrightsboro Road and contains .14 acres. (Tax Map 59-1 Parcel 328) DISTRICT 2 4. Z-04-43 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Ernestine James requesting a Special Exception, to establish a family day care home, per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2862 Conniston Drive and contains .39 acres. (Tax Map 119 Parcel 463) DISTRICT 5 5. Z-04-45 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Gaynell Sanders requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 1027 Mosely Road. (Tax Map 338 Parcel 3.41) DISTRICT 8 6. Z-04-46 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Fritz Paulemon requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2568 Lumpkin Road and contains .66 acres. (Tax Map 96-4 Parcel 45) DISTRICT 6 7. Z-04-47 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherwood Belangia, on behalf of William R. Belangia, requesting a change zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Roy Road (Street), 1,515 feet south of Wheeler Road and containing .43 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcel 48) DISTRICT 3 8. Z-04-48 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Charlie B. Davis, Jr. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2436 Windsor Spring Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 26.1) DISTRICT 6 34 9. Z-04-50 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of Earl White et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Barton Chapel Road, 450 feet, more or less, north of where the centerline of Franke Industrial Drive extended intersects the west right-of-way line of Barton Chapel Road and containing approximately 12 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel 84 and Tax Map 54 Parcels 69 & 62.2) DISTRICT 3 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. We didn’t have an alcohol petitions. The Clerk: No alcohol petitions, no, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, gentlemen and ladies, what’s your desire with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: I move to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Would you like to pull any items from the list? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Item 1, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull item number1. Any other items? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Item 38, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other items for anyone? Do you want to pull some, Mr. Mays? Anybody want to pull anything else? PLANNING: 1. Deleted from the consent agenda. 2. Z-04-41 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Broken Shackle Ranch Inc., on behalf of Harrison, Hearne, Martin & Davis Estate, requesting a Special Exception, to establish transition housing, per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 1,045 feet, more or less, west of the 35 northwest corner of the intersection of North Leg and contains approximately 4.3 acres. (Part of Tax Map 69 Parcel 16) DISTRICT 5 3. Z-04-42 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Reverend Clyde Hill, Sr., on behalf of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception, to establish a church parking lot, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1244 Wrightsboro Road and contains .14 acres. (Tax Map 59-1 Parcel 328) DISTRICT 2 4. Z-04-43 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Ernestine James requesting a Special Exception, to establish a family day care home, per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2862 Conniston Drive and contains .39 acres. (Tax Map 119 Parcel 463) DISTRICT 5 5. Z-04-45 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Gaynell Sanders requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 1027 Mosely Road. (Tax Map 338 Parcel 3.41) DISTRICT 8 6. Z-04-46 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Fritz Paulemon requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2568 Lumpkin Road and contains .66 acres. (Tax Map 96-4 Parcel 45) DISTRICT 6 7. Z-04-47 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherwood Belangia, on behalf of William R. Belangia, requesting a change zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Roy Road (Street), 1,515 feet south of Wheeler Road and containing .43 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcel 48) DISTRICT 3 8. Z-04-48 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by Charlie B. Davis, Jr. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2436 Windsor Spring Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 26.1) DISTRICT 6 9. Z-04-50 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of Earl White et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Barton Chapel Road, 450 feet, more or less, north of where the centerline of Franke Industrial Drive extended intersects the west right-of-way line of Barton Chapel Road and containing approximately 12 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel 84 and Tax Map 54 Parcels 69 & 62.2) DISTRICT 3 36 10. FINAL PLAT – THE HAMPTONS – S-664 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cranston, Robertson, & Whitehurst PC, on behalf of LHP, LLC, requesting final plat approval for The Hamptons Subdivision. This residential subdivision is located on Georgetown Drive, North of U.S. 1 and contains 49 lots. PUBLIC SERVICES: 11. Motion to approve bid item 04-080, new lockers and benches at the Augusta Aquatics Center, to Apex Pinnacle in the amount of $23,845.00. (Approved by Public Services June 7, 2004) 12. Motion to approve a salary of $85,000 for the Airport Director. (Approved Public and Administrative Services Committees June 7, 2004) 13. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $10,000 from HND subject to availability for Star Transportation, a service of AbledisAbled, Inc., (Approved Public Services and Administrative Services) 14. Motion to ratify Commission’s “Letter of Authorization” regarding a moratorium restricting the issuance of Occupation Tax Certificates for the purpose of establishing an automobile junk yards/salvage yard, or recycling facility, until such time that regulations are adopted governing such uses. (Approved by Public Services June 7, 2004) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 15. Motion to approve 2004 Cost-of-Living Allowance (COLA) for part-time employees of the Augusta Consolidated Government and the employees in the Extension Services Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 7, 2004) PUBLIC SAFETY: 16. Motion to approve a request from Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) to submit an application for Richmond County Juvenile Court and The Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC). (Approved by the Public Safety Committee June 7, 2004) 17. Motion to approve purchase of one new thermal imaging camera for Battalion Chief Command Car #904. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee June 7, 2004) 18. Motion to approve the purchase of two sets of Hurst “Jaws of Life” extrication systems. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee June 7, 2004) FINANCE: 19. Motion to approve refunds on 15 accounts in accordance with recommendations of Tax Assessor’s Board. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 37 20. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Thermoplastic Premelter Trailer for the Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division from Transafe, Inc. of Lawrenceville, Georgia for $36,696.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03- 137A). (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 21. Motion to approve Georgia Administrative Services as the third party administrator for Augusta, GA’s Workers’ Compensation claims. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 22. Motion to approve for Administration to implement in the General Fund Budget options for FY 2004 to avoid the projected shortfall of $4,016,000 excluding the EEO and DBE positions. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 23. Motion to approve a request for disability exemption for Mr. Iain T. Crawford of 1835 ½ Starnes Street. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 24. Motion to approve the appointment of Commissioner Don Grantham as a liaison to the Board of Tax Assessors. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) 25. Motion to approve Finance Committee’s recommendation regarding the Commission’s appointment of a Study Subcommittee to review the City’s budget structure. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 26. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $45,000.00 for the upgrade of the construction of the Belair Road – Raes Creek Sewer line extension from an 8 inch sewer line to a 12 inch line in conjunction with the Cameron Subdivision development project. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 27. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $130,000 for the sanitary sewer extension in conjunction with the Warren Road Sewer Project. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 28. Motion to approve Change Order #1 to Tesco, Inc. of South Carolina in the amount of $27,471 to demolish the existing dry lime system at Groundwater Treatment Plant #2. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 29. Motion to authorize award and execution of an engineering contract with Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $82,250 for professional services in association with investigation of the Augusta Canal. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 30. Deleted from the consent agenda. 31. Motion to approve new Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance as required by the Official Code of Georgia, Chapter Seven and waive second reading. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 38 32. Motion to approve budget resolution in the amount of $47,890 to be funded from United States Environmental Protection Agency Grant. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 33. Motion to authorize execution of state and county contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Neely Road Improvement Project subject to receipt of said documents and approval by the City Attorney. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 34. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract to the low bidder to perform emergency repairs by installing a lining in the failed corrugated metal pipe per Phase IA of the Pointe West Subdivision Drainage Improvement Projects (CPB # 323-04- 203823372) concept report in an amount not to exceed $100,000. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) 35. Deleted from the consent agenda. 36. Motion to abandon alleys located on Tax Map 47-1 between Telfair St. W. Ford St. and Walker Street and contain approximately 0.07 acres. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 37. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 1, 2004. ATTORNEY: 38. Deleted from the consent agenda. APPOINTMENT: 38A. Motion to approve the reappointment of Hugh Connolly to the Canal Authority representing District 10. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items number 1 and 38. All in favor -- Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Would you entertain any additions with the pleasure of the body? Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll -- Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: No, let’s just go ahead and move this along here, if we can. Mr. Boyles? 39 Mr. Boyles: I need some additional information on item 30 because -- Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull item 30. Okay. That’s 1, 30 and 38 that have been pulled. All in favor of the consent agenda then minus those three items, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 2-29, 31-34, 36-37, 38A] Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, could I have just a moment? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: Within the consent agenda that we just passed, I’d like to recognize Mr. Hugh Connolly of the Canal Authority. Hugh was in the audience just a moment ago, but Hugh is a long-time resident of Augusta. He’s been involved in this Canal Authority for many years. He’s a civic minded individual and I just wanted to recognize him as a person that, that has certainly done an outstanding job for this community and to let him know how much we appreciate what he does for us. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Grantham: If you see or hear Mr. Connolly out in the hall, I’d like for him to step in. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. If we may, we’ve got a delegation here for item number 24. We’re going to take up that one next and then we’re going to try to hit these delegations and get those out of the way. Madame Clerk, if you would call the caption on item 42. The Clerk: 42. Discuss Wood Park. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this to be on the agenda today. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some people, some people here from Wood Park or from Highland Park to talk about Wood Park. In our committee meeting, I think the last time we, we had discussed this, there was some confusion, and there is still some confusion because of the way the lines are drawn. You’ve got confusion in the District where there is District 5 and District 2 is overlapping. And some of the community in District 5 and some of the community in District 2 and I don’t know whether they have got together yet, but the proposed plan that I saw in the news, nobody 40 called me, I didn’t get a notification of anything, but I saw it on the news that the plan was to go ahead and fill the pool in and construct a basketball court. When I talked with the neighbors that’s in my District or the neighbors that was concerned about it, said they didn’t know anything about the meeting, they was not there. They wanted to be aware of what was about to take place, and I was kind of lost because had I not saw it on the news, I wouldn’t have known. I’m against filling the pool in. That’s the same thing as digging it up. If you going to demolish the pool then we need to say we going do that. The instruction was, I think, that the Clerk informed me, that it was to cover the pool and then get with the community and decide where the best place would be for the basketball goal that we took out when we put the fire station in. I see Mr. Beck here, the director of Recreation, and I’d like to hear from him and then I got some in the community here that may want to, want to say a few things themselves. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck? Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at your direction, at a couple of meetings ago, we were directed to put a temporary cover over the pool, existing pool at Highland Park, Highland Avenue pool, at Wood Park, and to find a temporary location for a basketball court. And that was your direction that you gave me. So I attended the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association June 8 and we discussed options at that meeting. And the options that we got are this: we cannot find and there is not a cover that is made that is that big that will not have a sag in it that would create the same standing water situation that we have got there now, with a pool that will not drain. So that is not an option. There is not such a cover that can be purchased that wouldn’t give us the same problem, so that wouldn’t be a wise use of taxpayer dollars. The only other option that we’ve got as far as covering the pool would be to fill it temporarily. Fill it with dirt. Should that pool be determined to be renovated for use in the future, then that dirt can be excavated and that pool could be put back to use should you decide to do that. That would not be our recommendation because of the age of the pool and the amount of money that would go into, but should you decide to do that, that could be done. The other issue was the temporary basketball court. We met with, again showed an option to the neighborhood association. They were in agreement to place a temporary basketball court in the existing parking lot there at the old bath house. We had a GIS map there, went over those options with the neighborhood association members that were there. They were in agreement with those options and so that’s where we’re at right now. Mr. Williams: Tom, with all of the commotion and confusion we been having with Wood Park and as many meetings we had that you attended, look like we would have tried to converse with the majority of the people. And I don’t want to speak for the people, but some of the people are here now and if Mr. Mayor would allow them, I don’t [inaudible], but just speak. But from my understanding was, and they’ve got a call box, what do you call it? A call post that goes out to the community to let the neighbors know 41 about the meetings. And that didn’t happen. I think the president had a death in his family – not the president, but the man who do the calling. He’s not the president, Mr. McCoy that usually do that, had a death in his family and the word didn’t go out. And that’s where some of the confusion comes in at now with some of the people proposing one thing and then other people not being there, proposing something else. And I explained to them that they need to be together. I’m in support of what the community wants. It don’t, you know, I don’t have a dog in the hunt. It really don’t make a difference. I’m trying to support the neighbors in that community who wanted to keep the facility. If that’s the case. We had a petitioner come up with about 60 or 70 names that said they wanted to keep it. We had people to come down to our committee meeting, said they wanted to keep it. We had planned to build this indoor facility and I think one of the neighbors said they would naturally take a Rolls Royce if offered one, and that was [inaudible] world on a silver platter. And naturally they accepted that. And I explained to them that’s, that just a proposal, that the money’s not there. I had some in the community that was upset with me because I couldn’t tell them how much money was being left in the present account up there as far as Highland Park concerned and then we find there is no money left. So people need to communicate. We need to understand and we need to share with those people as to what we going do rather than doing something and then causing the neighborhood to be split even more. So Mr. McCoy here, Mr. Mayor, if you allow him – Mr. Mayor: Let’s do this, Mr. Williams. If there are some people here who were not at the meeting and didn’t have the benefit of the discussion, why don’t we allow them to go meet with Mr. Beck now and go over that information and then perhaps everybody will agree with what was decided? We don’t know. But give them a chance to go talk with them and we can move on to other issues and come back and revisit that. Mr. Williams: Okay, I got no problem, Mr. Mayor, but let me say this. The majority of the people still not here. I mean the few people here now – Mr. Mayor: We shouldn’t be talking about this today if the majority aren’t here. Mr. Williams: Well, but the proposal came back to go ahead and fill the pool in. And that was not the direction. Now the direction said to cover, and there was not a cover it should have came back to this body saying we can’t find a cover. It shouldn’t have been made, a decision been made to fill the pool in cause you know as well as I know once it fills in, it’s not coming back. We’re not going to dig it out. So I put it on the agenda to stop that process so the neighbors could get together and really find out what the neighbors really want, rather than a few neighbors getting together and deciding what a few people want. Mr. Mayor: Do these neighbors know what they want? Are you willing to go meet with Mr. Beck now and talk to him about it? Are you willing to do that and then – I 42 mean we have talked about this three for three or four meeting and keep hearing the same information again. Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] well, decisions have already been made. Mr. Mayor: I don’t think any decision has been made. It’s back on the floor today. Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: He’s saying, he’s saying he did not recommend the cover because water would settle on the cover and you would still have the mosquito problem. Ms. Speaker: But we would like to know that. We didn’t know that the [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: That’s why I’m suggesting, that’s why I’m suggesting, ma’am, that you all go meet with Mr. Beck right now. And you all discuss it, and if you can agree on something then let’s move it forward. Ms. Speaker: I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand, that it seems to me that when Mr. Beck was up here he said that they decided they were going to fill it in with dirt. So I mean – Mr. Mayor: Well, he went to a community meeting and it’s not his responsibility to publicize the meeting. That’s the neighborhood association. Ms. Speaker: I know it’s not, but he has been to several of our meetings and he knew – Mr. Mayor: What are you asking for today? Do you have some specific -- Ms. Speaker: Well, first of all can I – Mr. Mayor: No, ma’am, I’m not going to recognize you for that. Because we have talked about all these issues over and over again and what we’d like to do is give some finality to this. A very specific recommendation that you have for the board, that you’d like somebody to make a motion and approve today. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Ms. McCord, we done addressed this so much, Mr. Mayor, to go back to the Hyde Park issue. Certain people do what certain people want to . I think Mr. Beck needs to go back and do. The community had not met as a whole meet with the community again. 43 Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make that motion? Mr. Williams: I want to make that motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr.Colclough: Second. Mr. Williams: And then bring it back to this body. Don’t make a decision and do something, because it was supposed to been already directed as to what to do. And if they couldn’t do that, look like it been brought back up. But there’s an alternate plan that was being put in place and if I had not put it on the agenda it would be too late to dig it back up. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have … Mr. Williams: I want to make the motion that Mr. Beck go back and meet with the community and then bring this back to the body. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: You have a motion that’s been seconded for Mr. Beck to go back and meet again with the neighborhood to discuss this one more time. Discussion, is there any discussion on that motion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I’m going to just reiterate what you said. It is not Mr. Beck’s responsibility to muster the neighborhood to come to the meeting. Now the neighborhood, if they have an interest in a community project, need to beat the bushes. Certainly they need to have enough advance notice and a place to meet. But they need to beat the bushes to get the neighborhood out there. I for one made comment on this before. When we talk an hour and 45 minutes over an unplanned and unfounded projected, I am very concerned that we take up additional meeting time, but the bottom line is this neighborhood needs to get together and come back with a request and we’ll do what we can. But until then, I just hope it doesn’t come up again and again. Mr. Grantham: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams? 44 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to try to make this as brief as possible, and I just share with some of the residents. Commissioner Cheek’s comments, I understand that, but – the lady’s right, they are taxpayers, and when they come down, they don’t come down just to look at us. They are the people who voted for us, they are the people that – that’s the reason we’re here. It’s not Mr. Beck’s job. And I never said any one time it was his job to get the neighborhood together. But I think he ought to be, in [inaudible] fairness when there’s a meeting called, the meeting ought to be called of everybody. Now this is out of the norm. I had this put on the agenda because of the news media that I was able to catch it, to find out what the plans were. And nobody even called me, who is not in that District as far as [inaudible] but I remember the people in that District. I keep saying I work too hard for folks to make decision that I get all the phone calls for. Now if Mr. Beck going to be the Commissioner or Mr. Mayor, if you going to be the Commissioner for District 2, then y’all need to get the phone calls. Now I don’t like coming down here and talking and spending all this time. I don’t care what the news media say, I don’t care what nobody else think, I’m here to represent the people. And I’ve tried to do that. But if I don’t get some understanding – and when you give direction and somebody come back and do something totally different from what you gave, what am I supposed to do? The first time it got on the agenda because the neighbors came to me and said they wanted to keep the pool. That’s how we got here in the first place. They came down in numbers and with a petition. And then there’s a, there’s a certain group that wanted to demolish it and there was confusion. Now the first thing need to happen is the confusion need to get straight with the neighborhood. There’s a problem there first of all. But, but I’m going to do my job as Commissioner and not sit here and let stuff get pushed under the table cause certain people got a group they want to support. If it’s right, it’s right. If it’s wrong, it’s still wrong. Mr. Mayor: So now it’s up to the neighborhood to schedule a meeting, notify Mr. Beck to be there, and he’ll be at the meeting, and then they can decide what they want to do? Mr. Williams: Exactly. Mr. Mayor: All right. And then bring that back. Mr. Williams: And notify me as well. Whoever calling this meeting. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. 45 Mr. Mayor: They’re going to meet one more time. Okay, the next item that we’re taking, we have a delegation for item number 38, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 38. Motion to adopt a “Contractor and Private Building Inspector Registration Ordinance” with an effective date of January 1, 2005. (Approved by Commission June 1, 2004 – second reading) Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] actively enforcing it by July 1. Mr. Mayor: Of this year? Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to, before we get into discussion, is there any aspect you wanted to brief the Commission on? Mr. Shepard: The only aspect that I really have any concern is that if we try to mandate workers compensation coverage at a level lower than the State of Georgia law, we may have a challenge to the ordinance when there is a two-person or one-person business who might have the ability to voluntarily comply to the law, but for whatever reason they would not, would not. More likely than any, it would be the expense of that premium. And certainly if the references were changed to just state that we have – that businesses have workers compensation as required by State law, it would dovetail exactly with State law. And the break point for State law is when you have two or fewer employees. If you have two employees and a part-time employee, then you have to buy the appropriate coverage of workers compensation. So I can defend it, but I can also foresee because you have a regulatory scheme that would be perhaps in conflict with State law, and I have an argument to defend, but if you wanted to for sure stay out of court, the reference would be not to mandate that coverage in any extent greater than presently mandated by the State statutes of workers compensation in the State of Georgia. That’s the caution that I, that I give. Here again, it’s a recommendation that I make. And I think I asked you last time to vote your conscience on the matter and that’s where, that’s where I would stand. If you wanted just to track the State law, then you should indicate, and there are several changes in that that would be necessary in certain sections. We could go through them where they are. But also, I noticed in the ordinance they had, a vote by the simple majority of quorum present, I changed that to six affirmative votes. And also there was a disjunctive reference to appeals to the Commission or a committee. I just make that appealable to the Commission. And one other item that I, that I suggest to you, that I basically borrowed from the current proposal on the Historic Preservation Commission, is that I suggested that there be mandatory mediation before issues came 46 before this body. So those are the comments I have and I just ask you here again to vote your, vote your convictions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And I’m in agreement with the Attorney, Mr. Shepard. I have no problem with none of this except that part, the way I understand it, and I see Mr. Sherman sitting there. Maybe he can answer this question. This, this, this, this guideline that I got here said that you have to present this insurance and it would be required to be carried, such insurance under the State of Georgia workmen compensation status and will in force at all times. Rob, my question is, if a homeowner himself does some work and hires one man, he would still be required. Is that right? Mr. Sherman: You’re talking about constructing a new house? Mr. Williams: If he added a room, if he built a garage, if he hired one person. Mr. Sherman: According to this, yes. Mr. Williams: Well, I mean I’ve got no problem with this except the fact that the State law says if you’ve got two or less, one or more – Mr. Sherman: Three or more. Mr. Williams: Three or more. That you have to be mandatory [inaudible]. You got some small businesspeople who are not going to be able to maintain this insurance at all times. Especially with the job they’re getting. You going to run up the price of building it and the work. In the area that we just got through talking about, Hyde Park, they not going to hire a man that’s got a firm to come in and do no work over there. In fact, we had trouble getting volunteers to go over there to help build ramps in the public works to try to help assist those people. So I’m thinking about the little person. I got no problem with this. If we can [inaudible] to what the Georgia law already states, that if so I you got two or more, then you know, but less than two would not have to have it, make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we approve this with the – Mr. Mayor: You mean three or more? Mr. Williams: No. Mr. Mayor: You said two or more. Mr. Williams: 2-1/2, Mr. Shepard? 47 Mr. Shepard: It’s more than two is the way you phrase it. Mr. Williams:More than two, okay. If you got more than two. And that’s to reflect what the State law says that we’ll approve this with what the State law says, that [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Would you like your language in your motion to track what the Attorney said so that if State law changed, our law would automatically change? Cause it would be as prescribed by State law, as opposed to putting specific – Mr. Williams: I got no problem with that. Mr. Mayor: Is that – Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second to that. Now we’ll have discussion. Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: I see the gentleman that brought this forward. I wonder if perhaps one of you would address this issue for us? Mr. Mayor: We’ll get to that in just a minute. Ms. Sims: Can we do that? Mr. Mayor: Well, we will. If y’all have something to say, we’ll hear that, then we’ll hear from them. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just on a comment from Rob there. If I’m working on my home and I hire a contractor to come in, one person to come in, I don’t qualify. I have the right – that does not constitute a corporation or a business. That’s one person hiring for professional services. And I don’t know what interpretation we want to use, but that’s one person. I guess this is something you’ve heard from me before. I’m very concerned with government intruding upon homeowners doing their own repairs or hiring one person. I just wanted to throw that out. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That was one of my questions. But you know, I look at this as almost a Wood Park situation, that this has been going on now for a couple of years with these people doing all of the studying and investigation and now that our Attorney has taken issue with it – I think what we’re doing is, we’re not, we’re 48 not harming the little man, we’re actually trying to protect not only him but the other people that are involved in this type of business so that they can do what’s right. And that they can, if an accident happened on the job, that they are protected under workmen’s compensation and that homeowner is not liable for that particular accident or libel suit that he might have. So I have to look at it from both sides. We going to protect the homeowner, the taxpayer, or we going to protect the man that’s out there doing the work? So it’s a catch-21 that I see us having. And I just think that we need to look at this from that standpoint. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Youngblood, did you or someone from the construction board want to address the motion that’s on the floor? Mr. Youngblood: Yes, I would, Mr. Mayor. I’m Nathan Youngblood, Nordahl Homes, Inc., member of the Homebuilders Association. Have been involved in this subcommittee and task force, along with construction advisory board for about three years now working on this. The specific reason for us requiring, us wanting to require workmen’s comp is intended, is pointed directly at a person in business making a profit. It’s not intended towards a homeowner trying to do repairs to his own home. However, we want to be sure that that homeowner doing those repairs is not putting himself in jeopardy and ignorance thinking that his homeowners insurance may cover injuries, etc., that happen during that process. So you know, we also have with us here Don Bailie who writes a lot of workmen’s compensation insurance and knows some of the horror stories that have happened to people that weren’t covered. You know, you look at these employees that work for minimum wage all over this city for different businesses. If they become injured, then their family still gets fed. This worker’s covered for medical expenses, worker is covered for disability. If a construction worker is hurt and he’s one man working for one man, either he goes to indigent care or there is no coverage for him or his family. Now, you know, granted it is – it’s going to cost him about $800 a year to do this, but it’s a tremendous amount of protection in that and it’s a cost of doing business. It protects the taxpayer, it protects the homeowner, and it makes businesses legitimate. Again, it’s not pointed – and I think Rob can give you some points of reference. You know, homeowners trying to do repairs is not the target of this. We want to try to let that continue. Any person doing his own work can do anything he wants. Doesn’t need any insurance. If you’re building your own home, if you’re doing all the work, it’s not required. Mr. Cheek: I was just concerned about creeping big brother-ism. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yeah. Nathan, while you there, I mean, I hear you say if a man building his own home, but if he hires a helper and hires a contractor, or one man, and I think that Mr. Sherman said that he would fit under this, and I think you probably would 49 agree. The State have set some guidelines. You can never have too much insurance, but you can get more than you can pay for. A lot of people, you know, don’t understand that. If you had a million dollar life policy, it wouldn’t do you any good cause it’s a life policy. But you know, it’s never too much. And I said all that to say that we need to be mindful of the people – and you say $800. To some people, that’s a lot of money. I mean a year that they got to continue to pay out. And if they need it, you know, they grateful. But if they never use it, they think I been paying $800 for x amount of years and never reaped the benefit from it. But that’s why it called insurance, I guess. But, but I just think we ought to follow the State lines, the guidelines, and if the law changes then this ought to automatically [inaudible] to whatever the State law have done. And all the rest of it, I can agree with. I got no problem. But I just think we need to be careful with that before we send the wrong message out. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I just – in the course of the two meetings that have elapsed, the course of the two weeks that have elapsed since the meeting, I furnished those of you who are interested the case of Wimpy v. Otts, which is a 1993 decision of the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and it said that a homebuilder and remodeler who agreed to install signing and do trim and cornice painting on the residence was an independent contractor and not an employee of the owners, so the owners were not liable for any negligence on the part of the builder that may have caused injury to builder’s employee. Owners did have the right to nor did they direct time, manner, method and means of builder’s execution of the work, but rather asked him to produce the result. And even though the owners selected some of the material. So I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring it to you. Here again, I have. And I, I just put that in the record. Mr. Mayor: Did you want to come up and say something? Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Bartley: Jim Bartley. I own Bartley Homes and I primarily work, live in Columbia County. I agree with what Mr. Shepard is saying, and Mr. Williams, I enjoy talking, but what he’s leaving off the table is this, you know, let’s put it where I see it. From being in the construction business for 20 years. This nice, elderly woman that’s over here hiring this person to do that work. Guy gets hurt. What he’s saying is exactly true, but the way he got that ruling was it got into court. That person had to hire a lawyer to defend their right to keep their property because a lawyer’s coming after it. And I don’t think the legal community is going to offer their services free to all of these little homeowners when they get a claim against them. So it’s going to cost them, Mr. Williams. It’s going to cost them a lot of money. And these people prey on elderly people. They’re not going to prey on somebody who is worldly. And there’s a person over there with an $18,000 because [inaudible]. I see it happen all the time. And now the taxpayers of Richmond County are paying for that medical bill. And there’s a lawyer 50 waiting around the corner that wants to represent that guy because that homeowner has got title to that property. And the only way that homeowner is going to get that person off their back is to hire a lawyer. And that’s ultimately what happens. And that’s who, you know, this was targeted to protect, was the homeowner,, who wants to do right. And just falls prey to this crack in the law. And like I say, that’s what we worked two years to try to do. And like I say, the person that wants to do the work at their house, you know, get their cousin to help them, nephew, brother, not a problem. Please do it. But if you’re going out here hiring a profit-making company, the $800 that you could be saving that this contractor doesn’t have, but another contractor does have, loses the job. So that’s jobs and money that’s lost for a profit-making company against one that the playing field is slanted, and then an injury happens, I don’t care what any lawyer says, he will find one, that injured person will find one that will go to Court. Mr. Williams: I [inaudible] to my lawyer, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: You had your hand up, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, and here again I think when you don’t take – when you take an action as an attorney and you don’t have it well grounded in fact and in law, there are existent statutes and case law decisions where that lady who might be defended by another lawyer could have a ruling by the Court for the bringing of an unauthorized lawsuit. And I don’t think – this is not a matter of trying to create any work for a particular section of the legal community. I just wanted the Commission to realize that they are mandating more than is required by State law. Mr. Speaker: Well, I just – Mr. Mayor: All right. Please address your comments to the Chair, please. Mr. Speaker: I’m through. Mr. Mayor: Anybody else before we move on with this? Mr. Bartley: Also, looking at the bigger picture, there are a lot of builders that build 25 to 40 houses a year that are in the same situation. They may have one or two employees and they wouldn’t necessarily come under workers comp and they’re using subs that they assume are insured and generally 70% of them are, but 30% of them aren’t. Again, that’s part of your indigent care cost if you, you realized these people have to be treated somewhere. If we don’t have the workmen’s comp like it’s written in the ordinance that we’re proposing then you are just going to leave a lot of gaps in there for people to not get care or to go on indigent care or to not draw disability if they become injured, to not be treated equally to some, you know, the bag boy that works at the grocery store. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 51 Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? We have a motion from Commissioner Williams. It’s been seconded. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Let me just ask our Attorney just a hypothetical question, because one side of it that we’ve, we’ve, we’ve not, we’ve not addressed, and that is – and I realize this was done in terms of trying to initiate additional consumer protection, and I have absolutely no problem with that at all. In addition to people getting hurt, I’m probably as much or more concerned as I am about folk in construction business, be they large or small, that walk off and leave these same little old ladies who don’t have a lawyer to represent them when work is shabbily done, that they have no place to turn and no protection under the law, to a certain extent ours or anybody else’s. And then end up, still with their work undone. And I realize that’s another part of consumer protection, but I think that that’s one that needs to be equally looked at. What I’m wondering is, and this is not to invite anybody to challenge, but when we, when we, when we go beyond that standard then, you know, what are we inviting when we, when we open that up to do it? Because you know, I’m a little confused because it seems like, I don’t know, maybe Mr. Mayor, $800 is the magic number that happens with everything. Cause I know when we were trying to set different and higher standards for people who lived in subdivisions particularly in south Richmond County, to increase the standards that were out there, you know, some of us were accused of tacking on $800 to folks’ home bills that they were going to pay when they got ready to build a house. And so I’m just wondering to a point that when we supersede those standards then will we end up getting that struck down or are we safer staying within a confine that we know is going work? And I think they’ve done a lot of work toward that, but I do have a concern that same way that to a point that if you find seven to eight of these who will attack us on the same basis and will find that lawyer that’s not waiting for the accident but waiting around the corner to come in to challenge us to deal with it, then what happens at that point? Mr. Shepard: Well, we just have to look to see what happens as the events unfold, Mr. Mays. I mean the idea of this ordinance is to have a, a, a better qualified and trained profession in the construction area. I don’t have a, a problem with that. I had a very narrowly focused problem and to the extent this advances consumer protection, I’m not raising that issue, Mr. Mays. And here again, you know, in the future you’ll be able to find a registration that will be required. If somebody comes to you and wants to do some work, you can, you can inquire into the status of that contractor’s registration with the county and find out, you know, a lot of information about this to help, you know, to help find out whether you have engaged a qualified contractor. And to that extent, I applaud this work. You know, that’s really, that’s not what I had wanted to point out to 52 the Commission. It just, the other area seemed to be something that exceeded State law. The Legislature has legislated in the area of comp since the twenties, I think, so there’s a long history of the Georgia Legislature dealing with those issues. Then, again, will this cut down on suits for, you know, non-performance or less than adequate performance? I think that remains to be seen. It may well. I hope it does. Mr. Mays: I was just, I was just asking for, just for informational purposes, because I think they have a good point in wanting to know only in terms of the consumer side of it, but also protecting us from the standpoint – when I say us in terms of government, in terms of the mounting costs that can come out of what’s provided in terms of indigent care in these areas. But I certainly hope and I think this is going to pass, I would hope, though, that the first persons we go to check on are not necessarily that little two man fellow that’s over there trying to deal with that [inaudible], as are a lot of these larger companies that come in and land contracts, even some of them that do business for the government. And you know, we concentrate to a point of going back to that number to reduce it to get these small folk when in essence a whole lot of these folk with these big long trucks and names that get these multi-million dollar projects, we found in the past that a lot of them, Mr. Mayor, that had folk over there on the indigent care roll. They were not the so-called mom-and-pop operations or the two-man crews who were doing some work that nobody else wanted to do and that the big firms won’t do and still won’t do, but it was a lot of these big-name folk who had the multi-million dollar contract get hurt and they the ones who sent them over there. Now I think those are the ones that licensing folk need to be investigating them thoroughly that when we award something to them, is to bring in a copy of how their workmen’s comp program works within the state of Georgia, how they are able to conform with it, and what happens to their workers, and they come in and they hire 35, 40, 50 to 60 people to work on the job, as to what’s going to happen then. Those are the ones who have been the violators. [inaudible] one and two person operations to a point that have been out there. And my problem is to a point if that’s where this is intended, yeah, it’ll get them, but what’s going to happen on the other side? Just because somebody to a point lands a big contract doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve got the biggest heart when it comes down to doing right. And that was my only point of bringing that in because the proof has been more of those being violators to a certain extent than you have in terms of those little folk out there to a point to where when this goes beyond what State law says, that it brings them in, but State law already covers some of those who sent their folk to our indigent care rolls that we have had to pay for. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Barbara? Ms. Sims: Yes, I want to be certain about this motion. I would like it reread because I’m afraid we may be confused on the motion. At least I am. 53 The Clerk: The motion by Mr. Williams was to adopt the ordinance with the change, regarding the workmen’s compensation to be two, more than two. And track the State law regarding changes. Ms. Sims: So that is not what, that’s not what the original contract in the ordinance that we okayed the last time? This would not be the second reading? This is – Mr. Mayor: It would be the second reading, but it would be an amendment. Ms. Sims: But it has modifications in it? Mr. Mayor: Right. Ms. Sims: So it’s not what we’re asked to adopt here. It is a different? Mr. Mayor: You’re being asked to adopt this with the amendment – Ms. Sims: With amendment. Mr. Mayor: -- to the workers compensation required, requirement as presented by Commissioner Williams. Ms. Sims: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. st The Clerk: And also the July 1. st Mr. Mayor: And the July 1 [inaudible]. Mr. Bailie: I’m Don Bailie. [inaudible] Insurance Agency here in Augusta. And I’d like to bring up another point or two. The rule in Georgia in the Georgia statute is three or more full-time or part-time employees. And in that employee count, the owners count in that employee count. Mr. Shepard is correct in what he’s saying, I believe, about people under three, the homeowner, whatever, are exempt from the law. That’s the way I understand it as well. But let me read some prepared text and I’m going to stay within your five minute time allocation to bring up a few other points that weren’t brought up. A recent question came up [inaudible] availability and non-availability of workers compensation coverage by a one-owner proprietorship entity in the state of Georgia. Like to point out and stress that the one owner or so proprietorship can purchase workers compensation insurance and elect to include himself for coverage. As a sole proprietorship, the insured is automatically by state law excluded and has to elect to be covered under the workers compensation policy. In addition, workers compensation can 54 also be purchased by the individual homeowner if so desired, with the same premiums mentioned before. They’re usually about $750 to $1,000. In contrast the one owner employee type of corporation is automatically included for coverage and premium charge. However, he can exclude himself in coverage by way of a signed exclusion form. Should the one owner proprietorship or corporation entity exclude himself from coverage, Builders Insurance Company, which writes the majority of builders in the state of Georgia, will make a premium charge to the homebuilder upon audit of their insurance policy at year end, which leads me to ask several questions. Is it fair for the homebuilder to have to pay the workers compensation insurance premium for so-called one man sole proprietorship company? Builders Insurance, the largest single writer of work comp insurance in the state of Georgia, accounted for 80% to 90% of all premiums written for homebuilders and their subcontractors, will make a premium charge to the homebuilder unless the subcontractor purchases workers compensation insurance and including the owner in the coverage, in premium charge. So my question, is it right or fair for the homeowners of Richmond County to possibly be caught up in a workers compensation claim involving a injured sole proprietorship or his [inaudible] and the homeowner, which under the homeowner policy will not provide coverage or defense coverage as previously brought up? So if y’all have any questions I’ll be glad to try to answer some of your questions. Mr. Williams: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate debate on the motion. Thank you very much, Don. All in favor – Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Point of information? Mr. Mays: I guess to you or to Steve, and this is particularly in light of what he’s just brought to the table about a situation here. Because of the different amendments that we got going into this ordinance, does it state the second reading, or to a point with this being vote on, with different amendments, I guess I’m asking do you still need – since this is the second reading – but it’s a major change from the standpoint of the first ordinance. Do you, does this still stand when we vote today, that this goes into effect in July? And my reason, just on the one question [inaudible] and the responsibility [inaudible] homeowner, I’m just wondering if to a point if there wouldn’t be a simple means of when the person deals with applying for the permit for that one person to do it, if [inaudible] should [inaudible] but [inaudible] his liability insurance that that question comes up, that it’s a [inaudible] that goes out that they are getting somebody who is not insured and then at least they have the choice of making that option. I’m concerned that the ordinance is still – you’ve done a heck of a lot of work, but I think to the point of really protecting some of those folk who getting just the steps fixed, whether or not they 55 want to elect to hire that person or not simply because they’re not in that program, but at least they know it in terms of the consumer having the right to know. I mean since we’re saying we’re facing this [inaudible] consumer protection, but it doesn’t really tell me as a consumer whether or not I’m getting that right of information to know. To me this is more in the system of what contractors know per se. But if [inaudible] that’s one that a homeowner basically does not know until something ends up happening. And that’s why I was asking if this was a finalization of this today or do we to a point need to add all these amendments and at least think through them and then, and then vote on them? I understand about the July deadline, but wouldn’t we be able to cover that and vote on that the same day? Mr. Mayor: Let me try and answer your question, Mr. Mays. I think under the way the ordinance was originally written, a contractor being licensed would be an indication in and of itself that the person had workers comp for his employees. The way it’s been amended, the person could have employees that are not covered by workers comp, and you might want to include in the ordinance a disclosure that the person has to disclose to a potential client whether or not he has workers comp to bridge that gap that you would have in there. Mr. Mays: I guess – Mr. Mayor: That would be my understanding. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] driving of where I’m trying to go. What I’m looking at Steve, is if, if that’s done, is there a way in terms of that small contractor, per se, if that’s the person who is getting the permit or if asking me if I’m hiring somebody and I’m the who [inaudible] License & Inspection, is there a way [inaudible] this is, this is Willie Mays Builders, per se, and that’s a 1-1/2 person operation, is there a way that it can stamp on that permit a [inaudible] that this is not a workman’s comp covered project and it’s there on that permit that’s issued, and then it’s just simply a part of the printing process to a point that when he comes back with that permit and sticks it up, then whether it’s a young person or an elderly lady, they know to a point that on that permitting system it’s somebody who has not done that, and they’re not covered. Then at least they’ve got an option that’s in there. But as it stands, what we are passing to me really does not reveal a lot to a consumer who is actually hiring somebody. It tells them nothing per se until something basically happens in there. If that’s the point we’re trying to make in terms of protecting consumers. It doesn’t tell a consumer a lot. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I think that disclosure could be written into the ordinance, Mr. Mays, and it could be, if it’s written in the ordinance, it could be required to be disclosed. Mr. Mays: But what I’m saying, though, on the permit – 56 Mr. Shepard: On the permit, yes. Mr. Mays: -- when it goes on the house – for instance, if it’s up there, a one liner that’s on the bottom, this work is being done by a contractor who is not covered by this program. And it’s posted there, that it throws that risk back that’s out there to a point that if somebody comes back and says whoa, I don’t want you working here, or it may be somebody who is totally satisfied with the price, that the only got $250 to pay John Doe to do that little bit of work that they doing and they’re satisfied with it. But I think at least that gives them the option and is protecting the person that you’re really trying to protect. What we’re doing, this is within the industry that you’re doing it and strengthening it and I don’t have a problem with that. I think that’s good. But I think if you’re trying to extend that to a point of a person knowing what they’re getting [inaudible], we may need to go another level of disclosure and have it put on the permit. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Boyles for the purpose of addressing Mr. Mays’ concerns. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. After hearing Mr. Mays, I think I’d like to offer a substitute motion that we send this back to committee and bring it back on July 1. We meet on July 1. Is that too late? That’s too late. Mr. Mayor: You can make it effective immediately, could you not, Mr. Shepard, effective on passage, and that would be July 1? Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] so we could get it done by July 1. Mr. Boyles: I understand. But it’s entirely different with all the amendments and attachments that was brought to us in the first version. Mr. Shepard: I understand, but I still think you could pass it validly today, if you want to, and I suggest that you do pass it today. Mr. Boyles: As our Attorney, you recommend we pass it today [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: I recommend that you vote it through today so that there is no question you have some ordinance on the books on July 1. The question is the policy choice. Do you want to make it more extensive than state law and workers compensation or not? Or do you want to do more than state law requires and risk a challenge or just go ahead and track state law workers compensation so there’s no – it’s just a narrow policy choice that I think the Commission needs to make here. Mr. Williams: The question been called, Mr. Mayor. 57 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays had a point of order and we’re trying to pursue his point of order. If you had one, we’d be pursuing it as well. In all fairness. Mr. Williams: All right. Mr. Boyles: I’ll withdraw, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: And I’ll yield. Mr. Mayor: Is there anybody else that needs a point of order? We’ll move ahead with the vote on the motion. All in favor please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Mayor: Let’s take item number 1. Mr. Speaker: We’re all sitting out here confused. Can you tell us what happened here? (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: The ordinance as amended by Commissioner Williams was approved today, effective July 1. Mr. Speaker: Okay, so we have builder licensing in Augusta Richmond County with state law workmen’s comp? Mr. Mayor: Right. [inaudible]. Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for all your work on that. We appreciate that. Item number 1, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 1. Z-04-33 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve; with the condition that a 6’ fence be added on the rear property line; a petition by John Lewis, Sr. requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 58 2042 Fernwood Circle and containing .22 acres. (Tax Map 110-1 Parcel 131) DISTRICT 6 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked this be pulled? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, just two or three questions. I have, with the adoption of the day care home in Caddenwood, softened my position somewhat on these things as far as there is a need and I believe there’s a way to manage them. My question is how many total children will this incorporate? Is this yard fenced in? I see the addition of a 6’ fence to the rear property line. Is the entire back yard fenced to contain the children? Also, the agreement we made with the folks in Caddenwood was there would be no parking lot in the front yard, the front yard would not be used for parking, nor would there be any play equipment established in that front yard, that the front appearance of the house would be consistent with the remainder of the neighborhood. I don’t see some of those stipulations in there and I’d like to see at least front yard stipulations put in place, and my concern then is with that how many kids are going to be there, and is the entire back yard fenced or just that section across the back? Mr. Austin: Mr. Mayor, I’m Bob Austin. I’m sitting in for George Patty. The – six or less children, Andy, is the state, state requirement. George went out on a field trip and saw a swimming pool on adjacent property on the rear, and that’s why the special condition on the privacy fence in the back. He was worried about a safety issue on that. And I don’t know, I can’t address the other things you brought up. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. Austin: I don’t think so, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: I would make a motion to approve with the stipulations, and this is depending on them agreeing to it, that no parking occur in the front yard and no play equipment be established in the front yard and that the entire back yard is fenced and I will make a motion to approve that. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Williams: I second it. Mr. Austin: Mr. Mayor, I might bring up that this is a typical residential house and the parking is either in the driveway or on the street. Mr. Cheek: My intention is to keep a typical residential neighborhood. This is a for-profit business and consistent with this six people, they should be going and coming and dropping their kids off, not making a parking lot out of their front yard, and in a lot 59 of cases a dirt parking lot, which detracts from the remainder of the neighborhood. So like I said, in interest of preserving the neighborhood, allow this with those stipulations. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I second that motion, Mr. Mayor, but I want to get some clarification from Commissioner Cheek. And I understand his concern about them and we did see that there is a need for that type of facility, but with the parking aspect, picking up and Bob said there was a typical neighborhood, so you are going to have the coming in and the leaving out of the front entrance, but as far as establishing parking [inaudible] or designated parking area for cars to come in, is that what you’re speaking of? Cause they going to have to use – and Bob just brought it out, being a typical neighborhood they going to have to be able to come in and drop off and pick up. But that doesn’t create – that doesn’t constitute a parking lot. So I second your motion but I want to get some clarification cause the, I think the applicant may be confused in saying well, you know, I ain’t go no other way to come in. Coming in and parking is two different things. Mr. Cheek: Let me – I can clear this up based on concerns of an awful lot of neighborhoods. They got half a dozen cars parked in their front of their house, they don’t need to apply for a daycare center. Mr. Williams: I agree with the parking lot, but – Mr. Cheek: If there’s not adequate space for a person to pull in – the other concern from every neighborhood this is brought up in is traffic flow problems. If they can’t, if they can’t provide adequate space in their driveway for a person to come in, pull in and park, or pull in the front of their house temporarily and get that person, then they don’t need to be opening a business in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Williams: I think we’re in agreement on that. I just wanted to get that – Mr. Cheek: That’s my only concern, that we don’t allow the situation to occur when you have half a dozen people pulling up and parking all over the place and congesting the street that they understand that they are doing a daycare service, that you don’t have cars parked all up and down the street with people staying. That they come in and do that business, pick up their children and leave, and not adversely impact the remainder of the neighbors in that community. Cause they’re not making a profit living in their homes, and this person is. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor that’s been seconded. All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign. 60 Ms. Sims out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: The last item on the consent agenda was item number 30, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 30. Motion to approve modification of the existing contract with ARCADIS G & M, Inc. in the amount of $153,080 for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) design for the Regional Transportation Control Center of the proposed new facilities for the Public Works and Engineering Department. These services are to be initially funded from Augusta Utilities Renewal and Extension Account #507043490- 5212115/80400038-5212115, which is to be reimbursed by Public Works & Engineering. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you asked this be pulled? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had pulled this one because as finance chairman, when I did not see the signature of our finance director and then I see that for traffic control center, that these services are to be initially funded from the Augusta Utilities Renewal and Extension account, and then on the financial impact, the design contract for Public Works and Engineering administrative offices, shops and related work, [inaudible] increases by $153,000, the money is to repaid by the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax program, and I’m assuming that’s Phase V, and I just don’t like to jump ahead and thing that Phase V is going to pass until it passes. I’d just like to have some explanation on it from, from – mainly because the finance director didn’t sign it, that’s what concerns me a little bit. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you respond to the Commissioner’s concerns? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission – it’s hard to tell you where to start. As you are aware, this is a joint project between Public Works and Utilities to build a campus off of Richmond Hill Road. And there are some state monies involved in the project. Utilities money is involved in the project through their bond program, and the rest of the facility will be built upon passage of SPLOST V. What the state is requiring, they’re participating, too, in terms of building a traffic control center. They are requiring before they put their funds into the project that we submit to them a design for the traffic control center. We have to pay for it up front. Again, there’s no funds. Utilities has been fronting the cost for this project moving ahead with theirs, and so we are going to charge it to them with the proviso they will be paid back along with 61 other costs that they are paying for up front. Mr. Persaud and I had a conversation after this item was submitted, and he concurred at that time with me. Mr. Boyles: Well, it just looks to – I guess what I’m concerned about is I’m, I am concerned that when we go into the Utilities, because of the past, what happened prior to this consolidated government, what happened with the water money, and it seems like we’re putting it over there with the – and I believe totally that SPLOST V will pass, but I’m just thinking if it doesn’t, what happens? We’ve put that money over there and then what happens to this? Mr. Kolb: The general fund will have to pay it back. Mr. Boyles: Now that’s where I’m concerned. Mr. Kolb: Rightfully so. But you’ll also have to pay back the cost of the road that Public Utilities is putting in. Mr. Boyles: The Utilities Department has done all of this? Mr. Kolb: Well, they’re in the process of doing that. That is correct. There is no way to get back to the site to do any construction. No access to it unless there is a road built. All of these things are dependent upon upfront expenditures in order to receive the monies from GDOT and also in anticipation that SPLOST V will pass at least in part. Mr. Mayor: Is – since this is a building that’s being constructed, is it possible to take the money that’s been set aside for the municipal building renovation and use any of that for this? Or is that just Public Facilities money or is that specifically identified for this particular building? Mr. Kolb: That’s a Steve question. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my recollection is that the monies in that category is specifically designated for this building. Now we could pass it with this, with a possible funding source of SPLOST V and with the contingency that if that funding source was not available, that there be any other authorized funding source and you could name perhaps recapturing some of the previous SPLOST and perhaps – and ultimately the general fund. Some undesignated source. And I understand Mr. Boyles’ concern. And while we’re on this matter, this is actually the second amendment to a contract that was done on the old AIA form and there was a first amendment which was passed at a meeting of this body in I believe it was October of – October 7, it was on item 33, that was the first amendment. This is actually the second amendment. I would ask that the motion include that I harmonize these two amendments into the contract, because that has 62 not been done, we found that it had not been done as to the first one, although it was offered. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While I share some concerns Commission Boyles has concerning using monies from the utilities, we’ve been very frugal with any effort to do that. They are utilizing this campus that we are building. This project with our traffic control center has been one we’ve struggled with ever since its inception with funding and time tables in order to meet construction needs and state requirements for design and location and plans and so forth. In order for us to secure, it’s my understanding, for us to secure the additional $3 million to $4 million of state money to build this traffic control center, $2 million, which is consistent with every other major city in the state, that we move forward with this project, and in order to move forward we have to approve this. I mean let’s all face it, if SPLOST V does not pass, we are in some I’m going to real deep – that’s not politically correct, but yes, we have a problem. So make a motion that we approve this and that we pray for SPLOST V and that we harmonize the two contracts as the Attorney has recommended with the identified funding source and methodology. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second to that motion, seconded by Mr. Williams. Further discussion? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: As Mr. Kolb said, the finance director has signed off on this, or will sign off on it? Mr. Kolb: In our conversation, yes. Mr. Cheek: He’s over at the door. Mr. Boyles: I see him by the door. I been missing him all day, but I see him by the door. Mr. Kolb: He can speak for himself. Mr. Persaud: The – Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the issue is basically [inaudible] either from future SPLOST or from Public Works. The issue that I 63 was concerned about is basically capital expenditures, and normally we don’t fund major capital expenditures from the general fund. But if you approve it, it will become into one [inaudible], either payable back from the future SPLOST or the general fund. Mr. Boyles: As long as you’re in agreement, Mr. Persaud? Mr. Persaud: Yes. [inaudible] general fund, if the SPLOST is not realized, $153,000 loan. Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me just ask this. It’s probably an in between question in there. Could it not – let’s just say in that worst scenario, couldn’t it still be a situation where it does not have to come out of general fund in a worst situation in that it’s not, if these facilities are being housed together and you’re using funds out of a utility, and I’m saying I’d rather [inaudible] I know that’s a concern about the [inaudible], but wouldn’t it still be legitimate to a point that if it’s there and housed in that same building, and on the same grounds of where you’re taking that to do it? I mean it’s not like you’re taking Utilities money, and say and went and built say a gymnasium with it somewhere else or you went and you paved a road somewhere else, but to a point of the on-site that’s connected to utilities, in a worst case scenario, I’m just wondering – my concern is what Tommy asked, but I’m thinking to a point that shouldn’t we have some, some area in there that makes it legal from its usage, since you’re using that within that same departmental concern that you’ve got? If it’s being housed on the same facility area. Mr. Kolb: If you did, you’d really, really be stretching the rubber bands. Public Works and a traffic control center have absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Public Utilities. However, if Utilities charged a fair market value for use of that property, so that they’re getting some return on the investment, that is, to me, that is stretching the rubber band, but you could do it that way. So you would have to pay some value back to the Utilities Department. We don’t recommend that. We recommend that you make every effort to secure the funds that have been promised for this project and pay utilities back outright. Incidentally, you have another project that’s out there that you are forced to wait on SPLOST to pass, and that’s your canal project. You just authorized supporting an $8 million expenditure by the Canal Authority on that canal, and those payments are dependent upon SPLOST V. 64 Mr. Mays: Yes, y’all did, but let me say this. My reason for saying that with this one is the fact that they may not have [inaudible] doing it with each other, but their kinship comes into fact that I’m saying that they are connected there, going to be on the same campus facility, and if you’re securing state funds in order to get it, I was trying to look for a way to solve my finance chairman’s problems, which is a legitimate concern as to where that money was coming from to a standpoint that if you are going to get it back out of the state deal, I mean I’m thinking you’re making something that doesn’t even have to come about in a general fund question at all. Because the state is going to guarantee that you get it, you’re advancing it to put it in one campus, then that should satisfy the problem. You’re only using that as advancement to do it. And SPLOST then would not come into the picture, because then you’re satisfying one side with what the state has promised, and you’re guaranteeing the money out of the side of utilities. And I agree with you that kinship is not there, but it’s the funding source of doing it. So then – I get argument what if SPLOST doesn’t pass? What if it doesn’t pass? To a point if you get what you’re getting out of that match, I think we ought to be concerned about, is that the match be guaranteed from the standpoint that the state would do it based on the fact that you put the money up. That should be the question that’s out there, and I think that can be done out of the utility money that’s in there. [inaudible] money being there. Mr. Kolb: I hear what you’re saying. I appreciate what you’re saying and what you’re trying to do and I think it’s okay, but understand that the $2 million that comes from the State can only be used for construction. It’s not part of, they will not reimburse us on design. We have to put those funds up. Mr. Mays: That’s correct, but once we get it, they’re not going to give us a quarter unless we put up something in order to do it. And this argument that we been playing with for a year now to go ahead on and find it and do it is the one that we’re making the decision on today and I think that’s where Engineering Services Chairman is trying to move it forward to a point that either you do it or it dies. And if that’s the case, we should have told the State to kiss the $2 million goodbye a year ago when we first were playing with all this. So I mean I think we ought to have had some way out of this path before we got into it. That’s why I’m saying to a point that if you using it only as leverage, then you’ve got that problem cured. If, if, if, if SPLOST doesn’t pass, this is going to be the least of your worries to worry about as to how you put this particular amount of money together. They’ll line up and deal with that. The first thing you’ll start doing is handing out pink slip to folk who under contract working on the sales tax program. So I mean that’s far down the line before you get to where this going get done. But I think if you got an opportunity to secure $2 million out of it as leveraging funds and you got a source to do it with, then you’re not really gambling it away like you taking it and spending it on some use that you’re not going to get the money back. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 65 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, surely to goodness, it’s just horrifying to think about us being the only major city in the state without a traffic control center. The $2 million the state is allocating can easily be consumed in the city-wide intranet traffic control system that will be implemented. It’s not a perfect situation but for issues from homeland security to major sporting events that this city plans to hold, certainly traffic flow and traffic control, if we had an evacuation, these are essential elements that will help us improve the operations of our city. I urge, while it’s not the best of every worlds, we all lot to have a pot of excess money to draw on, this is a finance mechanism to get us on the road. I urge support and approval of this measure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Not long. I just want to say that the finance director just said it’s a policy decision. And we make policy. So let’s go ahead and make this decision and get it over with and then we can go on to something else. I call for the question. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to approve, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: We will declare a five minute recess and reconvene and take up the regular agenda. (RECESS) Mr. Mayor: We’ll call our meeting back to order. Madame Clerk, we’ll proceed with the regular agenda. Item number 39, please. The Clerk: PLANNING: 39. Z-04-44 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County planning Commission to approve with the following conditions: (1) Exterior lighting shall be designed so that the light is reflected away from adjacent properties; (2) All outdoor activities shall cease at 10:00 P.M.; (3) Only one sign per street front shall be permitted. Such sign may identify the business only, not to exceed 24 square feet in area, and extend not higher than six feet above the ground. No such sign may be internally lighted; (4) Alcoholic beverages may not be sold on the premises. An open bar where guests are not charged for drinks may be provided; (5) The volume of amplified sound shall be kept at such a level that it is not audible from any single-family residence; (6) Parking facilities shall be provided 66 as the staff deems necessary; (7) The design and scale of any improvements shall be consistent with the surrounding area; (8) Improvements shall conform to all appropriate provisions of the Tree Ordinance; and (9) Additional conditions may be imposed if deemed appropriate to the proposed use and location; a petition by Tim Squarcette and Ted Weathered, on behalf of the Simone S. Kortick Estate, requesting a Special Exception, to establish a private club, per Section 26-1 (i) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3518 Milledgeville Road and contains .85 acres. (Tax Map 68 Parcel 65) DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Austin, first of all, is the petitioner here? Mr. Austin: Yes, sir, I believe so. Mr. Mayor: The petitioner is here, okay? Mr. Austin: One of the two petitioners. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Austin, you want to give us the background on this? Mr. Austin: This property is at the corner of New McDuffie and Milledgeville Road and it’s been up before y’all twice for general business zoning for a car lot. It’s been turned down. And the second time around, the Planning Commission directed the, Mr. Squarcette, who is a realtor, who is the co-applicant, to come back with a softer use of the property, and this is a initial attempt at that. This is a special exception, not a rezoning change, and it is for a private club, for a motorcycle club. Well, these conditions, there were placed, the Planning Commission approved it with the conditions that actually appear for private clubs in the professional section of our ordinance, and there was one modification on number 2 of the conditions, on all outdoor activities shall cease at 10 instead of 11, as appears in the ordinance. Mr. Mayor: I’d be concerned about item number 5. I think the sounds of a motorcycle would be a lot more sensitive to the neighborhood and disruptive than amplified sound. Mr. Austin: Mr. Mayor, a lady at the end of the Planning Commission meeting made a pretty good point. Even though all the indoor activities, everything’s inside, when they do leave it’s going to make a lot of noise, and George and I acknowledge that and George directed me to bring that to the Commission’s attention, as a matter of fact. Mr. Mayor: Do we have the – are there any objectors here? Can we just get a show of hands for the record? 67 Mr. Gay: Mr. Mayor, I’m here representing the objectors. Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Let me get the Attorney here to get a count here, if you would. Everybody opposed to this? I think there were a couple of people here earlier that had to leave; is that correct? Mr. Gay: We have three here. We had two elderly ladies, the Lowery sisters, they had to leave. She’s suffered a stroke and just can’t be out this long. (5 objectors noted – 3 present, 2 out) Mr. Mayor: For the record, name and address, and then proceed. Mr. Gay: My name is Arthur J. Gay, Sonny Gay. I’m representing my father at 2309 New McDuffie Road. As Mr. Austin just told you, this is our third appearance here. We were here just in February. And one of the things I’d like to open with is I would like to ask the Commission, regardless of the outcome here today, is that I really think you need to consider how these properties that are owned by people – and I passed out some pictures there of the property itself – the first two pictures are the property, the subject property, and you can see it’s a cinderblock building. It’s been there 57 years I know. It’s had no work done onto it. All the paint on it now has to be lead paint. It’s been there all these years. They didn’t have any other. So we have a terrible problem there, but the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned that it’s not a residential use, so they’re looking for a softer use to impose on these residents. I’m sorry that this gentleman owns a piece of property that was non-conforming all those years and now that he’s lost his zoning, as it ran as a nightclub all of my high school years – when I left home, it was still a nightclub. But now that it’s non-conforming, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission and Mayor, I’m sorry, we don’t care what he does with his property, but we don’t want them to continue to infringe on our parents and these elderly people. These ladies, the Lowery sisters, live within 100 yards of this building. And they live about 40’ above it on a high bank there. My parents live down and across the street. The two pictures I want to call your attention to there, one picture you can see is a white house, as it comes around, and it’s just dilapidated, it’s just falling apart. The owner has to pile sand, which is against your soil sedimentation and erosion plan if you check that, but he piled sand in his driveway to keep vagrants from staying in that run-down property. Nobody will live there because of the subject property. The house that you’ll see that’s across the street, I had to make in the winter, in February, when we had the last meeting, because it’s completely covered with kudzu. Thank the good Lord, during the summer we don’t have to look at that house. You can’t see it for the kudzu. We don’t want our neighborhood to continue to be deteriorated as you move up the street, with the people moving up the street, when they move out, no one else will move in. There’s no reason to do that. We have one bright hope, and that’s Morningstar Baptist Church, is now considering building a building directly across the street from where this particular piece of property, the 68 subject property is. We’re hoping that they come. They’re now on Maple Street here in Augusta and they’re trying to expand and they’re coming out there, and we’re hoping that Minister Bussey will pull that off for us because we need good people to come back into this residential neighborhood. The point I want to make with you today is we are not against people coming into the neighborhood, but ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, if we start allowing special exemptions, this doesn’t mean that the house three doors down from you won’t be a motorcycle brotherhood or club or whatever they’re calling it, because special stipulations – I mean you can zone anything you want to. This property is residential just like the lot across the street or next door to you. And all I’m asking you to do is please consider my parents’ home for 57 years in the same light. And I appreciate Mr. Cheek’s motion today when he was talking about the people want to keep the children in the house. That’s okay. But if you’ll look at the lot of this subject property, it’s dirt. They’ve never taken care of it. And that’s what is going to happen there unless he holds to those type motions and makes people do what should be done in residences. I sent all of you a letter I hope that you got, so I will not try to go back over there. I respect the ability to read and comprehend on your part. I ask you to please keep us zoned residential neighborhood and please give us the opportunity to have a peaceful co-existence there at 2309 New McDuffie Road. I have the names of the people that live all around us that do not want this to happen, as well. But I need to tell y’all this, in all kindness and sincerely, two or three have told me, I’m not going down there, I’ve been down there three or four times, they just going to wear us down and they are going to do it. Prove them wrong, because I’m not going to quit coming. I promise you. We are not going to let this happen. Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sonny. Let’s hear, if we could, from the petitioner. If there is anything you’d like to say. Give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Weathered: I’m Ted Weathered. I live at 1383 Fury’s Ferry Road in Evans. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you for having me address you. I think that the concerns that were raised about a non-residential use of property in a residential area are valid and worth listening to. Our group is a group of friends that have been riding motorcycles together, some in excess of 20 years. And we’ve kind of gelled together and get together to do things, just fundraising for various good causes, we go on motorcycle rides together, and that sort of activity. We have cookouts for friends and family. And these sort of activities have been occurring already in residential areas around the CSRA at members’ houses, and we just were looking for a central to have those sorts of activities, and we hope we can improve the property. We agree that it’s dilapidated and run down, and by putting some of our sweat into it and cleaning it up and maintaining it, we hope that we will not only improve the value of that property, because it is an investment of mine, but that it will also improve the surrounding neighborhood. That’s really all I have to say unless you have any specific questions. Mr. Mayor: Do you own the property? 69 Mr. Weathered: Not yet. The purchase contract is contingent upon getting this exception. Mr. Mayor: Any questions for the petitioner or the objectors? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: This is in the form of a comment, because I grew up on the corner. Fifty years ago, I lived in that house that Mr. Gay said was covered with kudzu, what’s still left of it. We went to school together and I’ve known Mr. and Mrs. Gay, and of course Sonny, I guess all my life, because we went to Bayvale School there. And I had, th too, gone out after I’d talked with Commissioner Hankerson, because it is the 5 Commission District, and I talked to him this morning. He’s on vacation, but I talked with him. This is another picture of the building, and right across the street is where Morningstar Baptist Church has asked for fill dirt, which is standard in those kind of things, and I think this is a very good picture. Unfortunately, it doesn’t show the great garden that Mr. Gay has at his home, and that’s what we would be going into, and I think that even if we get to the point that the church does build out there, I don’t want to get into a situation where we could put a motorcycle club and it could get grandfathered in, I’d like to make and I think knowing the two ladies that just left and Mr. and Mrs. Gay, a motion that this be denied. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: There is a motion to deny that’s been seconded. Discussion on the motion? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I just want to ask one question. I was in Planning and Zoning when this issue came up and I think Commissioner Jerry Brigham put the stipulation that would affect the business and also cut the time down to 10 p.m. But to the petitioner I’d like to get some clarification. You said to the Mayor that you don’t own this property yet? Mr. Weathered: No, I do not. Mr. Williams: Depending on whether or not it’s approved? Mr. Weathered: Yes. 70 Mr. Williams: And that was a smart move. A lot of people ought to do that. Several people, several people -- Ms. Weathered: My mother was a real estate agent. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: Several people brought issues to us after they done purchased the property, but I’m in conformity with the motion that Commissioner Boyles made. The church is coming. Motorcycles is fantastic. They, they, they, they excite old people and young people, those that interested. But most of them are loud from just the nature of the beast there. There is no mufflers, so to speak, to say quiet a motorcycle down. You can run as loud as you want to and it’s still legal. But I just, I just, I just, I’m glad to know that you’re not the purchaser of the property as of yet cause I don’t see this motion passing. I support you. The other day I was trying to get them to change the hours, but you do have some neighborhood people who have been here. You have not purchased this property and I support the motion. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: We will next take up items 40 and 41 in tandem because they are related. We’ll let the Clerk read the caption and then we’ll hear from the Attorney. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 40. Motion to approve a contract with GA Food Service, Inc. for food services at four senior nutrition sites operated by Augusta, Ga. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee June 7, 2004) 41. Motion to approve Augusta, Ga. being named a subgrantee to receive funding through the CSRA Regional Development Center for the operation of Senior Nutrition Program. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee June 7, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in some discussions had off the floor this afternoon with the Senior Citizens Council representatives and the Regional Development Center representatives and counsel for both of those entities, I would request that the body consider the following motion, which 71 And that motion is that this Commission will be basically a motion to postpone. postpone action on these items, 40 and 41, to its meeting of July 1, 2004. That subject to the entry of the order of Superior Court of Richmond County in the case of the Senior Citizens Council versus the CSRA Regional Development Center and Georgia Foods, the City will enter a contract with the appropriate vendor. The Senior Citizens Council will provide the meals on July 1, 2004 in the event of the inability of Georgia Foods to provide said meals to Augusta Richmond County seniors as authorized under the current contract with the Senior Citizens Center and that would be at the level those meals are provided during the month of June, 2004. Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Mayor: Motion. Is there a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve had the pleasure of being involved in [inaudible] who followed this very long and diligently on behalf of the City. They have expressed concerns to me about the additional cost that this will pass on and reduction of services. I, for one, rather than have them sit here four hours and not make a presentation, would like to hear and let the Commission hear some of the concerns about this contract, its future – because it sounds to me like a very bad deal for our seniors, our City, and that it’s going to cost us additional money. But I’d like to hear from the Hammond brothers about this and let them kind of express their concerns about this. Mr. Mayor: Is there any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Jeanette Cummings of the CSRA Regional Development Center is here. I think you had some concerns for her about the – if it happened that the GA Foods, Georgia Foods were to become the vendor, how quickly they could mobilize and serve. I think she’d like to put that in the record. I would like to further indicate on behalf of both counsel, or I guess all three counsel, that for the parties, that they’re in some negotiations, which I think they would in respect to Mr. Cheek like to defer their presentation to the Commission because they would first like to negotiate it. The negotiations have been opened I think this morning. There was a hearing yesterday. And Mr. Hammond, Mr. Shawn Hammond, if I’m misstated that, you can, you can correct me. Address the body, Mr. Hammond. Mr. Mayor: Name and address. 72 Mr. Hammond: Mr. Mayor, my name is Shawn Hammond. I’m an attorney here in Augusta. My office is located at 505 Courthouse Lane here in Augusta. Thank you very much for this opportunity to see everyone again. Yesterday, on response to Mr. Shepard, we had a 2-1/2 hour hearing in regards to this matter in front of Judge Fleming. We felt on behalf of the Senior Citizens Council we had a very solid presentation of the facts in evidence. This afternoon after the Commission began its meeting, we had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Harley, Mr. Tom Harley, and Mr. Andy Crossin, and the other parties involved. We’re attempting to have this matter resolved. I know that the meals for seniors is a great concern for both the City and the Senior Center, and if we can we would concur with the motion presented by Mr. Shepard to allow us to table this discussion. Anything that we would have to say is both vitriolic and unproductive at this point. I think the correspondence that has been sent is, although accurate, is counterproductive to our ability to settle this case. So if at such time as the Commission would like to take this up, at that time we would like some significant amount of time to go through the details and show you where, you know, our concerns are, but we hope that from the case that has been filed and from our discussions with the RDC that this matter may be resolved and this would not be of any further concern to the City. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And that is my hope as well, but if something comes back before this board that includes the City having to subsidize the Senior Citizens Center for $170K a year to replace money they lost from their food services program, if we see a reduction in services across the board or quality across the board to our seniors, this is one Commissioner that will fight like hell to stop it. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion vote with the usual sign. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] trying to get your attention. Mr. Mayor: Jeanette? Name and address for the record. Ms. Cummings: Jeanette Cummings, CSRA Regional Development Center, 3023 Riverwatch Parkway, Augusta, Georgia. I represent the Regional Development Center and I would like to go on record as saying today a lot of misinformation has been said in the community. We are, in terms of increase to the meals program, that information is, is not correct. We have the details. And on behalf of the Regional Development Center we would like the same opportunity to be able to come and share in detail because we represent the CSRA region, which represents 14 counties. As far as Augusta Richmond County for centers [inaudible] funded, we heard the same kind of information as you recall last – in fall of last year in terms of if we made a change in Richmond County with the four centers, and we found – and today you honored – the Augusta Richmond County 73 Parks & Recreation Department for the outstanding work they have done on behalf of maintaining a seamless and continuity of services. We envision that the same thing will happen in this case. In terms of the dollars we presented a budget. The numbers are there. As far as the nutrition program is concerned, the county will not realize that kind of impact. As I said, we have documentation. We truly invite you to come and we specifically want to go over the details because what is very important is that the senior citizens in Augusta are not alarmed or misinformed that they will not have services July 1. That has never been an issue. In terms of continuity and maintaining service in Augusta Richmond County and the CSRA region, that is not a question. Services will be maintain without our region. We will maintain the same level of services, and those services will be available to all the senior citizens within our region. I know in terms of us having continuity, because these issues have been contained and we do have that information available. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’re voting on the motion, so please continue to vote so we can publish the vote. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I could get just a little clarification, maybe not clarification, how did and where did the rumors come from to get out in the community as such as the thing was so bad. Ms. Cummings, you was up, can you enlighten us on where that came from and what changed? I mean it’s, it’s a lot going on in this government, but – Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re voting right now on the motion to postpone this thing until July 1. Mr. Williams: I understand that. Mr. Mayor: Let’s complete that and publish the vote. Mr. Williams: I mean I already cast my vote. Ms. Cummings, if you could give me an answer, please, as far as you know, if you know, I understand. Mr. Mayor: Has everybody else voted? I’m trying to conduct a vote on a motion. Please show the Chair the courtesy of voting so we can publish the vote and then we’ll get Mr. Williams a response to the question. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Ms. Cummings, could you respond to the Commissioner, please? 74 Ms. Cummings: Be happy to, Mr. Mayor. In terms of that answer to that question, I think in terms of -- I know that the Area Agency on Aging has not disclosed a lot of information that has not been true. I know that we have made attempts in terms of sharing information. We’ve always said that there are two separate issues in terms of the food vendor, which is GA Food, and we’ve heard a lot about, and then in terms of the provision of services in terms of the fights in Richmond County. The Senior Citizens Council has shared that they would no longer be able and that their doors would be closed and they have made that a very strong point. As the Area Agency on Aging, we are the area agency on aging for the Senior Citizens Council and we value what they do in the community. What we have a responsibility to do and which I think we have very clearly demonstrated is that we have to be good stewards in terms of making sure we have options available for seniors. So I think there was some confusion around and the alarm because even when the public, most of the people in the public, believe that seniors would not be served as of July 1. That is not true. And so we’ve been trying to get the message out that seniors will be served July 1 and I think we as citizens and good public servants deserve in the media to make sure our seniors are not misinformed and that they are taken care of. And so our [inaudible] plea to you today is that we owe it to our older citizens in this community to make sure we get the facts and that we hear both sides of the story. Believe me, seniors will be served and they, just as we heard earlier today, in Augusta Richmond County you will have that same quality that you have now in those four sites that you put on Augusta Parks & Recreation Department earlier this year. You can be assured of that. We are committed to seniors and we will make sure seniors get services. Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s -- Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Ms. Cummings, could I just ask maybe two questions? Did I hear right that these meals are going to be prepared in Conyers or Covington, Georgia and shipped to Augusta? Ms. Cummings: Yes. Covington is the location. We are going tomorrow. That’s one of the important features I think in having, going with a commercial vendor who has been in the food service business since 1973, and in the aging services business in terms of providing the kind of meals we serve to seniors to Title 3 Program since that period of time. They have actually purchased vehicles that can actually finalize cooking in process. I mean in terms of delivery time. They have been going the routes. We have the same RPFs that the Senior Citizens Council responded to, and they have assured us they can have the delivery, the quality will be the same, the delivery period time span will be the same, and all the references that we’ve checked, where we have similar circumstances, similar logistics, they have performed with excellence. This is an outstanding agency in terms of a vendor with a capacity to do those services, so we have no concern. Tomorrow we’re going to go, like I said, to see the new facility that they 75 have invested in. Have purchased five new vehicles. They will have a northern part of the CSRA that -- Mr. Mayor: Ms. Cummings, I’m going to cut you off. Cause the simple answer was yes or no. The Commission has voted to take this up on July 1 and we’re not going to argue it today and come back on July 1 and plow the same field over again. Ms. Cummings: Okay, Mr. Mayor. I just [inaudible] thank you. Mr. Mayor: If any of the Commissioner have any questions for the Senior Citizens Council or for the RDC, these folks are available between now and July 1 and I’m sure both groups will be willing to share with you any and all information and bring it back on the first, I’m sure, too. Ms. Cummings: Yes. And we will really like to invite you to come and if we can help spend more time and for you to see our operations and just how we do business for seniors within the region. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Jeanette. All right, let’s move along to item 43, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: FINANCE: 43. Receive report from Actuary on requested benefit increase for 1945 Pension Plan. (No recommendation from Finance Committee June 7, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Persaud doing this, Mr. Kolb? Who is presenting this? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Kolb: I think -- Mr. Shepard: I have a request from the pensioners’ attorney, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mr. Wall called me right before the meeting today and requested that this matter be continued to the July 1 meeting. Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to postpone it to the July 1 meeting? Mr. Grantham: I so move. Mr. Mays: Second. 76 Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion on that? Let me just state for the record that I received a similar request from Mr. Jackson, who represents the 1949 Pensioners, and I turned that request over to Mr. Persaud and he informed me today by copy that he’s asked the actuary firm to gather the same information on the ’49 Plan. So just make you all aware of that. All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 44. The Clerk: 44. Authorize Fleet Services to sell Asset #980679 as surplus equipment and authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to purchase/lease a replacement Grinder with a value not to exceed $600,000 by discontinuing the revenue deductions, funding litter patrol and funding the scrap tire inspector as of January 1, 2005. (Requested by the Administrator) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I had this -- at the Finance Committee meeting you tabled this to your next Finance Committee meeting with a [inaudible] that we come back to you with a recommendation. Because the grinder is of such importance to the landfill and we’ve been without it, I decided to put it back on your regular agenda, with that financing plan. It’s our intent to lease this equipment, as we do with other equipment, from GMA, and then have the landfill pay the annual payments on it until it’s paid off. That’s the recommendation. I would not consider the option of reducing revenues to the general fund as it will impact reduction of services. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In giving some consideration to this problem with this grinder, and I got some few questions. I won’t ask them now about this grinder. We can address that later. But in talking around the community, I found some, some landfills and other participants that would have this type equipment [inaudible]. I’m wondering can we kind of maybe not postpone this, but if we do a lease, and I think if you lease for a five-year term -- is that what you said, George? How long? Mr. Kolb: I think the term is ten years. Mr. Williams: Okay. Ten year term. Ten years. There is another proposal. I’d like to have an opportunity to sit down with maybe Public Works and the Administrator, 77 maybe somebody else, and bring some people in that we might be able to do something a little bit different now. We talking about creative, we’re talking about partnership. We been doing some of that. But there are some equipments and [inaudible] that’s here in Augusta that we may be able to take advantage of. And we may be able to even sell the stuff that we been burying, the stuff that we been grinding up and putting in the ground. We may be able to partnership and do some things, so Mr. Mayor, I’d like an opportunity to at least discuss that before we make a decision on doing a ten-year lease at that rate. Then if that, if that not a workable solution then we can, you know, come back and go, you know, along the same route. But I had a conversation this morning, just this morning. Mr. Mayor: You want to refer to committee? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, if we can. To refer to committee, to give us an opportunity to at least share with the Administrator and some of the Public Works people as to what I’m thinking and maybe get those business people to come and maybe look at what we doing. If that’s not a workable, then we can always go back. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb has indicated that’s acceptable, if that’s what you want to do, send it back to committee. Actually, it hasn’t been to committee yet. Send it to committee. Mr. Kolb: Correct. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I guess just a question to the Administrator. We, we go, I guess weeks, we get our presentations, perhaps, and will that require us to go out with a request for proposals from the area corporations or companies that provide this service? I guess what I’m getting at is to provide this grinding service and get it on line, we’re talking about what, one month, two months, three months perhaps to get a contract in place? Mr. Kolb: I’m not sure I know what the proposal is, but if it requires us to go to bids, you’re talking at least 60 to 90 days. Mr. Cheek: I think the concern that Commissioner Williams is expressing is perhaps we could privatize this segment of our grinding operation and allow local vendors to do that service for us. Do we see any adverse impact from doing this as far as temporary storage of these tires that we’re collecting? What are the sideline ramifications of this delay? 78 Mr. Kolb: Well, that’s one of the reasons I put it on the agenda today, is because we do need the grinder. It’s been out of service since the fire. And stuff is piling up. However, if we could -- the backlog of trash, etc., tires, is going to continue to grow unless we do something. Mr. Mayor: Can we stop taking tires until we resolve it? Mr. Kolb: Well, where else are you going to take them? Mr. Russell: The tires don’t count. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, you had something you wanted to -- Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, if -- it looks like -- I am talking to Mr. Johnson and to postpone it for two weeks is not a big deal. But what we would like to do is get surplus today so we can get it off the property. Apparently having that machine on the property now puts us in some jeopardy with EPA or somebody. EPA inspection. So if we postpone the purchase until we can do some more exploration with local businesses, we have no problem with that but we do need to surplus the property so we can get it moved off of our property today. I got that totally confused. Need to surplus the machine so we can get that off of our property. Mr. Williams: I don’t have any problem with amending my motion to include that, but I do have a problem with the, that type of equipment and how it came about in the first place. I mean that’s a responsibility that somebody should have had. We won’t get into that now so I amend my motion to fit that, but I need to know how that happened and why that machine would not have some special attention brought to it. And [inaudible] don’t need to get into that now cause we’ll talk about that later. Mr. Russell: We’ll be more than happy to sit down with you as part of that and explain that to you, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, was that motion seconded? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Now it has. Did you have your hand up? 79 Mr. Boyles: Will this come back to Finance Committee this coming week or we st going to hold it until July 1? What was -- Mr. Mayor: It will go to committee at the next committee meeting. Mr. Boyles: Back to committee. st Mr. Mayor: And then back here July 1. Mr. Boyles: I heard the figure two weeks from today, so. st The Clerk: Plan to come back for the 21 meeting anyway. Mr. Boyles: To the Finance Committee anyway? The Clerk: Right. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just requesting that also some information come back, if there is any adverse impact, it come back before Engineering Services as well to let us --- Mr. Kolb: We’ll give you the pros and cons of both approaches. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got to cover it with a tarp or camouflage or something in the meantime. Mr. Kolb: We are going to get it off the land. Mr. Mayor: We got a pool we can put it in. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: It’s getting late, it’s getting late. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative. I’m glad everybody is still paying attention. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Now we go to the Attorney’s agenda. Item 45, Madame Clerk. 80 The Clerk: ATTORNEY: 45. Authorize condemnation of properties in accordance with agenda item dated June 7, 2004 within the Augusta Canal Third Level Improvement Project. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I was going to say this item was authored by Mr. Wall, he is on the way. If you want 45 and 46, have any questions, he would probably be -- Mr. Mayor: Do you want to wait, do you want to defer those? Mr. Shepard: If they don’t have any questions, I think we can go ahead with them. But if there are questions, something that -- Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a motion on 45. I need a second. I have a motion to approve. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Does anybody want to have any discussion on 45, or prepared to go ahead and vote? Mr. Mays? You’re going to abstain on this cause it’s -- Mr. Mays: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams: What are we voting on? Mr. Mayor: To complete the work on the canal. Mr. Williams: To complete the work on the canal. Mr. Mayor: It’s the property they need to complete the work. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 8-1. 81 Mr. Mayor: Do we need to take up 46 or do you all anticipate there may be some questions there for Mr. Wall? 46. Motion to approve the following in connection with the proposed construction of the Federal Annex to house the Bankruptcy Court, to-wit: (1) Conveyance of properties bounded by Ninth Street, Walker Street, West Ford Street, and Telfair Street to Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. (2) Authorization of the closure to public traffic of Walker Street between Eighth and Ninth Street the Mayor and Clerk to execute such temporary construction easements, licenses, or other documents to provide any needed access by the developer, Keenan Development Associates Of Augusta, LLC, for access to the Project site. (3) Receiving as information and approving the proposed ground lease between Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. and Keenan Development Associates Of Augusta, LLC for the Federal Annex Project. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Does anybody have any questions Mr. Wall may need to answer? This is in conjunction with the federal court property over here. All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay, item number 47. The Clerk: 47. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the code of Augusta-Richmond County Section 1-10-52, “Rejecting Bids, Re-Advertising and/or Negotiating.” To provide for a re-stated §1-10-52 captioned “Rejecting Bids and/or Negotiating.” and to repeal any conflicting Ordinances. Mr. Mayor: Are also asking to waive the second part of this? Is that part of that, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, it can be, if the body so desires. The object of this amendment was to move the process of [inaudible] engineering forward in the process. And that’s why it’s restated section 1-10-52. Mr. Williams: [inaudible] is there urgency in waiting? 82 Mr. Shepard: No, sir, there is no urgency. Mr. Mayor: You want to have a second reading on this? Mr. Williams: Yes, if no urgency, let’s -- Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Williams: If there is no urgency, let’s go ahead and have a second reading as well. Mr. Mayor: So we would be passing this on first -- Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve this. And just a comment that this is staff response to a problem we ran into with the Diamond Lakes bid and they have made administrative changes within the ordinance to correct that problem and prevent it from occurring in the future. Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to approve. Mr. Cheek: Motion. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item, number 48, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 48. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend §7-4-32 to provide a process for appeals to the Augusta Commission from the Historic Preservation Commission: to require mediation prior to submission of the appeal to the Augusta Commission; and to repeal any conflicting Ordinances. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The point of this ordinance was to formalize the process that seems like we’ve been going through in regard to HPC appeals. We’ve always made an attempt to go outside and work with the parties and I have been the mediator on several occasions. And rather than have that interrupt the flow 83 of business here on the Commission floor, I suggested we have that mediation accomplished beforehand and that it, that it be a condition that you try mediation to move it on the Clerk’s agenda. That may, that should resolve many of these HPC matters. Mr. Mayor: And here again, we’re being asked to approve this on first reading. We can waive the second reading. Mr. Shepard, you had something to add? Mr. Shepard: Yes, in addition to that there was a suggestion from the members of the HPC that the time for determining when a filing would be timely, in other words would it be timely from the time they announce the decision at the HPC, they mail it out or they fail to act, and I call that the Haltermann amendment, because he suggested that they had had problems with that, determining that time frame, so I would ask the Commission with respect to the HPC ordinance that you pass the revised version, which was distributed to you at the beginning of the meeting. That includes both the mediation and what I call the Haltermann amendment. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. And I have a question. Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there a second to the motion? Mr. Williams: I second, Mr. Mayor, but I got a question, too. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll take your question first, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my question, and I brought this up with a specific property in mind. What teeth are there in the ordinance to make people conform to the agreements they agreed to on this floor as far as following through with paving parking lots and putting in landscaping, after tearing down a historic structure? Mr. Shepard: I remember that case, Mr. Cheek, and I think I suggested that before you sanctioned them under the -- there are sanctions under our ordinances -- but I suggested that perhaps a show cause why that had not been done, invite the petitioner here who had asked for those modifications. I know the case you’re talking about. I believe I called it to your attention that instead of an attractive looking landscape parking lot, we’re looking at chain link fence and a gravel parking lot. So my suggestion in that particular case would be that you ask those parties to show cause why they have not done that. Mr. Cheek: And I thought we had gotten to that point. Did we handle that administratively? Can we make that request without passing amendment? 84 Mr. Shepard: We can. st Mr. Mayor: Can we do that and have it for our July 1 meeting? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard, what, what do this, what this does for this body and Andy talked about the teeth and having some, some, some, some aggressiveness to it. Does that really help us to put this in perspective? Is that going do it, I guess is a better way of putting it. Should we have something else to this? Mr. Shepard: I think it’s going to cut down on the number of appeals from the HPC to this body and it will also give us a chance to work in a forum that’s not off the floor. Every other mediation that we’ve done has essentially been a mediation, it’s taken me off the floor. And the people were not -- I think they’ve been very responsive to that, but if they knew that that was a step in the process, we could go ahead and accomplish that. I remember several cases where we sent the people to talk to them, talked to both sides in the presence of my office, and the matter got resolved, we brought it back as a consent, as a consent thing. So hopefully we could present this as a consent disposition by putting the mediation at a time prior to the meeting date of Commission. And here again, it’s just something that I suggest for process improvement, Mr. Williams. If it doesn’t work we can certainly strike the, strike the part of mediation. Mr. Williams: And I think, there is, in my mind there’s two different types of historic value to properties and stuff around this town, where one is very significant and very much needed, but some of the history stuff that the historic board see as history to some people is not history at all. And that’s why some of those disputes came in, and I remember the [inaudible], Mr. Mays, on Wrightsboro Road, where there was a three- bedroom, yeah, I think a three-bedroom house that they wanted to tear down, but the three-room house next door to it, the historic board wanted to keep it [inaudible]. So I’m a little concerned about the process and who determine what’s historic and what’s not. It can 100, it can 200 years old, but it’s not [inaudible] to anybody and it’s not in a designated area that’s being take of, it blight then to the neighbors. And here we go again, I got a bunch of that. I got stuff sitting around now that folks talking about it’s some historic value. Well, we ought to put an ordinance in place where we can move it somewhere and just set them all on a certain street so that can go by and look at them. But it’s too much of that. and I just wanted to find out where our teeth was, like Commissioner Cheek has said. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Grantham? 85 Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The point I want to make is when Mr. Cheek is talking about the people that have to do the work after they come and get approval of it, there be certain stipulations given, a certain time frame. You know, what about the people that’s out there that’s not doing the work and that’s not keeping up their historical property like they should? And I think that’s what Commissioner Williams is alluding to. We had a case down here not long ago in an appeal situation that Historic Preservation didn’t want anything done to that property. Well, what that did was leave it in the horrible condition it was presently in, and the individual had to continue to ask for appeals to get to us in order to get this rectified. Well, what, what bothers me with this mediation is that, you know, who is going to do the mediating and who is going to be the deciding factor as to what’s going to take place when an appeal is made by a landowner or an individual against the Historic Preservation Commission? I think that’s important. And the other thing is that, you know, if we don’t take care of these people and take care of this property out there and try to increase our property value throughout the historical area of Augusta, then we’re not doing what we’re charged to do. I want some answers in that regard before I can vote. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, if I can answer. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: To answer your question, Commissioner Grantham, the ordinance provides ultimately if you can’t agree upon a mediator then the Director of Planning and Zoning or his designee would be the mediator, in an attempt to come to a common sense resolution of the issues and present it to the Commission. If the party appealing wanted to have a professional mediator and wanted to pay for it, that’s allowed, also, but the options are there and ultimately would default to the director of Planning and Zoning if we can’t, if they can’t agree. My, my thinking was that you would take less Commission time and you could have such factors as economics, the particular character of the building, like Mr. Williams talked about, whether it’s historic or not, could be basically talked out in a situation that really is not, is not confined by this meeting time. It would just be another day. And then if you’re not satisfied with mediation, you bring it on up here. Mr. Grantham: Well, that was my next question. Mr. Shepard: It will not stop. Mr. Grantham: The process will not stop, it will still come to us if the mediators do not reach an agreement? Mr. Shepard: Exactly. 86 Mr. Grantham: Okay. Mr. Shepard: It will come on up here, but I thought for conservation of Commission time, this may be something you want to look at. Mr. Grantham: Okay. Mr. Shepard: If it doesn’t work, it can be repealed. Mr. Mayor: I think most of the recent ones we’ve had have been settled as a result of mediation, but mediation in the hallway during a Commission meeting. Mr. Shepard: Exactly. I think that this will be a way to mediate it in a less pressured situation, but yet they’ll have to know that if it’s not finished, then it comes on up here. Mr. Mayor: All right. Did we have a motion to approve that? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: We did. This is the first reading? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. It’s not time sensitive. Two readings. Mr. Mayor: So it will come back. All in favor of the motion then please vote. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Number 49. The Clerk: 49. Motion to approve Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta, Ga. (Augusta Fire Department) and Department of the Army. Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor -- Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? 87 Mr. Mayor: -- please vote by the usual sign. Mr. Shepard: If I could, as presented, paragraph D at the request of the fire chief has been deleted, paragraph sub-D item #4, paragraph #4 in that mutual aid agreement. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek: A motion to, I guess alternation on the motion, based on the recommendation of the attorney. Mr. Williams: Second. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Item number 50. The Clerk: 50. Motion to approve Solid Waste Collection Contract Extension Agreement regarding Sections 11, 11A, 11B and 12 with Georgia Waste System. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: This is the contractor actually doing the work. If you look in the [inaudible] paragraph it shows why this is necessary. I believe there was a merger or I think acquisition of assets from, by BFI Waste Systems. They reorganized it to have Waste Management, and then Waste Management has the work being done by Georgia Waste Systems, and so I just, when I redrew the extension agreement I just conformed it to how service is being rendered, and I comment it to you. Mr. Mayor: No change in charges? Mr. Shepard: No change in [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Just, just, just one question. Liability, everything is there? Just same contract, different name? 88 Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 51. The Clerk: 51. Motion to approve supplemental Bond Resolution to modify and supplement the Bond Resolution adopted June 1, 2004. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I refer you to a memorandum that was sent to me by Matt Nichols, which was dated June 14, and he asked, in order to get the rate locked in these transactions so that we can minimize our interest costs, he and the bond insurer, which is Financial Security Assurance, asked that this supplemental resolution be passed. The one that was passed out today, because there was a -- here again, some technical changes to get the rate lock agreement to the satisfaction of the bond insurer and I would ask that if you take action on this affirmatively that it be on the revised supplemental resolution which affects both the refinancing that we did earlier in the year and the new money issue which we did on June 1. The intent is to get that rate as low as possible. Mr. Cheek: I move that we approve with the recommendations of the Attorney. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams: On a roll, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: The Attorney is on a roll. The law firm. Mr. Williams: The law firm. Motion carries 9-0. 89 Mr. Mayor: Number 52, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 52. Ratify “Authorization Letter” regarding Quit Claim Deed at a façade Easement relative to property known as 925 Laney-Walker Blvd. Mr. Mays: So move. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second? All in favor please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, the former City Attorney and my colleague, Mr. Wall, is here now to address the two items at the beginning of the attorney agenda if you so desire. Mr. Mayor: No one had a question. We have already passed it. [inaudible] bill us anyway. Mr. Shepard: Not on the items we’ve passed. Mr. Mayor: Item number 53, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 53. Consider approval of Richmond County Board of Health – Fee Schedule for Environmental Health Services. Mr. Mayor: Okay, everyone has a copy of the request from Dr. Rumph and the fee scheduled in your backup. Mr. Boyles, you want to be recognized? You’re our representative over there, and then you want to take it from there? Mr. Boyles: I can, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I see we have my friend here from the Health Department and I had to kind of go against him on the Board of Health. I had to, because of the doubling of the fees and then basically the principle of it, I thought, I know how we have felt about increases, tax increases and fee increases. I 90 voted against it over there. They did have some compelling arguments, I guess, for it, but I think that -- I just think that we should have some sort of public hearing or something before we go out increasing people’s fees, be it the Board of Health or be it the Board of Commissioners on something, and I realize they’re small amounts. $100, you’re doubling it $200. I guess that’s a small amount unless you’re the little small out there that’s just trying to make a living. We talking about in that ordinance a while ago, the building inspection ordinances. But I [inaudible] over there but I’m going to leave it up to the will of the Commission. I am thinking we should -- maybe I jumped ahead, maybe we should hear a presentation [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Health Department on this since y’all are making the request. Give us your name for the record. Mr. Morris: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen on the Commission, I’m Lee Morris, county manager with environmental health with the Richmond County Health Department. Our address is 1916 North Leg Road. Mr. Colclough: Speak up, please. Mr. Morris: Lee Morris with the Richmond County Health Department, environmental health section. What came about is we started charging fees some 22, 23 years ago when Uncle Sam decided that he wasn’t going to give the states as much money as he once had, so the states had to compensate for the loss of revenue by making the counties within the state structure fees. In the last 22 years, we’ve had one increase in fees. I have been in contact with some of the other districts within the state of Georgia and our fees are pretty much across the board lower than everybody else’s. By increasing our fees, they’re not all double, but you might as well say they because probably 95% of them have been increased to double what they were. By increasing our fees, we are kind of in the middle of the road now. We’re not as high as some still, but we’re higher than others. So at least we’re more in line with the rest of the fees, as far as fees we charge. We talked about this, we actually started talking about this back in February, and did a little investigating with other districts and other counties within the state, and we felt like, well, even if we did double our fees we would still be in the ball park with the other counties within the state and that would also help our revenue. We haven’t had an increase in fees in probably 12 or 13 years, but yet the materials that we use on the job, the stuff that we have to purchase to do our job, continues to increase pretty much on a daily basis. So that’s the reason we decided we’d increase the fees. Mr. Mayor: You believe that these fees that you’re requesting, then, reflect the actual cost of providing the inspection; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Morris: Probably not. We are still going to be behind, but we won’t be as far behind as we are presently. 91 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Have the state budget cuts of the last three years in a row impacted the ability of the department to fund all these services and other services? Mr. Morris: Very much so. Mr. Cheek: And so the fact that the state has cut funds three years in a row, the fact that we haven’t raised our fee and the cost of stuff goes up, has gone up significantly, plus the EPA reporting requirements for dispersion of pesticides of larvicides and other compliance issues justifies the fee increase? Mr. Morris: We would like to think so, right. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to move to approve. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Comment in regards to the small restaurant, the people that -- the 1-25 you say you’re leaving that fee at $100? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. And that was not my idea. That was the Board of Health’s idea, which I think is good one. [inaudible] Mr. Grantham: Is there any way you could tell us what the possible breakdown is on that number versus the larger number? Mr. Speaker: I don’t know the number off the top of my head, but we’ve got over 600 eating places in the county, so it’s a very small percentage. Mr. Grantham: Well, that was one of my points. I just wonder if that number should be increased [inaudible]. 92 Mr. Speaker: The original number was 40 and they decided to bring it down to 25. But it’s a very small number of mom-and-pop operations. Mr. Grantham: Right. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded. All in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Boyles and Mr. Smith vote No. Mr. Grantham abstains. Motion carries 6-2-1. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. The next item is number 54. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 54. Receive evaluation of performance report of Operation Management International, Inc. (OMI) from Quest Engineering. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may recall that the contract with OMI to operate our two waste water treatment facilities expires at the end of this st year, at December 31, 2004. One of the provisions of that contract is that Augusta has the option to renew that contract for an additional five-year term. And the provisions state that can be exercised by notifying OMI in writing 180 days prior to the end of that stth agreement term, which is December 31. So 180 days, with it right around July 4 or so, what we wanted to do, and I think the Mayor has suggested that we have someone do an independent audit of how they’ve been operating our facilities, and that’s what you have before you today, that was approved by you a couple of months ago, that that be done. And we wanted to get this in your hands today so that you’ll have time to look at it and digest it and consider what you’re going to do with this information. Obviously it’s the Commission’s decision as to whether or not we proceed with renewing the contract or whether we go out for new RFPs or whatever we’re going to do with that contract. But this is provided to you today for information. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. If you would like, the gentleman from Quest Engineering was unable to be here st today, but he would be available on July 1 if you would like to ask him any questions. They’re the ones who did the report. He will be glad to come down for that meeting if you would like to take it up at that time. 93 Mr. Mayor: Would he be available for the Engineering Services meeting? Mr. Speaker: He would not be available for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just turn everyone’s attention to page 30 of this report, the performance matrix of OMI in service of the City. One thing I ask everyone to note, that as you turn through the pages of the 57 items, agreed upon tasks that we’ve asked OMI to perform, that they meet or exceed in all of those categories. Simply, if you walk the facility itself, you’ll see that it’s in better condition than it’s ever been in in the history of its operation, and its [inaudible] is probably as clean or cleaner than it ever has been in the operation of the plant since it was brand new. Since we do have the ability, and I know everybody wants to study this, but I was just going to share this as my opinion, since they have met or exceeded all of the requirements, have proven to be good neighbors and good partners with this City, I myself would have no problem with extending that contract, because we have so many other things to worry about. These guys have done an excellent job for us and that would be one less headache, one less thing to review. But I know that it needs to come before the Commission, before Engineering Services and the Commission for review and disposition of that, but I would like to say on behalf of the people from my District to OMI a job well done and thank you. Again, out of 57 items of agreed-upon tasks, you met or exceeded those. I don’t think there is another agency within the government that I can point to right now that has done that. You have done a good for us. Mr. Mayor, I know we need to go through the process and give everyone time to digest this material. I guess I hear if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Of course, then again there’s the covered wagon story, how they worked well and we replaced them for something better. I think this is evidence that we’ve got something, already something that’s better than you’ll find on average, and certainly better than what we had. Mr. Speaker: I would need to point out one thing I forgot to mention, too. You’ll notice as you’re reading through that they’ll refer to some appendices. Our friends with Federal Express let us down and we received, ended up getting two of four boxes of the full report, which is a 3” binder with all the supporting documentation. This is the meat of the report. The only thing that’s not here is the appendices. We will have those and as soon as we get those we will get those distributed to everybody so you can have that information as well. Mr. Mayor: That’s good. Thank you. Marion? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I echo Commissioner Cheek’s thoughts, as well. I think this department done a good job. I told Commissioner Beard a few minutes ago that my friend, [inaudible] came up and introduced him. He complimented 94 me the same we he complimented Commissioner Mays [inaudible]. But as far as the work concerned, I think they done an outstanding job. There are still some things that we as Commissioners need to sit down and talk about. We still trying to bring everybody to the table. I keep talking about how much input we got with -- (End of tape 1) (Beginning of tape 2) Mr. Williams: No doubt about that. And this is, this is just a comment that I’d like to see a little more diversity brought into the, the, the organization. I like to see where people are doing the work and, and, and, and being held accountable. Andy talk about how hard you work and how you achieve. I think about myself as Commissioner. Ain’t nobody on this board that I think work any harder than I do. I think y’all did a great job as to what y’all are doing out there, and the facility looks great, hats off to you, but I do want to, I did want to bring those comments to you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I want to thank the Utilities Department for moving forward with this independent review. At the time we issued the contract to OMI, it was the largest contract of its kind ever awarded in the history of this city, and indeed this Commission and the Utilities Department were breaking new ground in privatizing the, the plant out there. But it’s clear that the improvements out there have not been just significant, they’ve been substantial since OMI has been there, and I look forward to reading a report. It was a concern to me, as I’m sure it was to others, that indeed the promises made to us at the time we awarded the contract were being met and were fulfilled through that contract. And whether we move forward with renewing the contract or putting out an RFP, I would hope that we would see the value of continued privatization. If you wanted to have some managed competition in the new RFP, but I think if you look at the value of privatization it’s proved itself over and over again at the wastewater treatment plant, and certainly this could be a model for some other operations within our city. If you pick the right partner, you’ll certainly get your money’s worth out of it. But this kind of homework is good to do, to make sure that we’re making the right decisions, that we are getting value for the money we’re spending, and indeed the promises that are made are promises that are kept. So thank you very much for following through on this, and I think that Commission for supporting that, also. Mr. Williams: Do we need a motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith had his hand up. Mr. Smith: I was going to move that we accept this as information. Mr. Williams: Second. 95 Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: In reference to something other than this. Mr. Mayor: The report? Ms. Beard: No, not – I’m wondering if we could go back and look at item number 22. I’m sorry for that inconvenience. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s, let’s dispose of this, and then I’ll recognize you for that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, I’d like – this is not on the agenda for Monday for the committee meeting so if you may, you may want to include that. Mr. Mayor: The chairman is going to put that on there, isn’t he? Mr. Cheek: Yeah. What I was going to request of the Clerk is to add develop [inaudible] contract awarding [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Mays, you have that puzzled look on your face I usually see before you want to say something. Mr. Mays: No, Ms. Beard and I have an item to bring back. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The Chair at this time will recognize Ms. Beard. I think you’d like us to reconsider an item? Ms. Beard: Yes. This is in reference to balancing the budget. And I’d like to specifically look at number 4, expenditure reductions. Mr. Mayor: Where, what agenda item are you on? Mr. Mays: Number 22. Mr. Mayor: Item 22. 96 22. Motion to approve for Administration to implement in the General Fund Budget options for FY 2004 to avoid the projected shortfall of $4,016,000 excluding the EEO and DBE positions. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 7, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Beard, what we need to get, to be able to discuss it, we need a motion from you to reconsider item 22 then. Ms. Beard: I so move. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion to reconsider, please vote in the affirmative. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item 22 is back up for discussion and the Chair will recognize Ms. Beard. Ms. Beard: Yes, I’d like for you to look at item number 4, expenditures reductions. And if you will turn over to the next page, especially close indoor center leased to Laney Walker Neighborhood Association, does that mean that the Laney Walker Neighborhood Association would come up with $10,946 in some way? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you explain what this means? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this item was not included. The Finance Committee excluded those expenditure cuts. However, in answer specifically to your question, no, that would be a reduction to the city budget if we were to close the indoor center and lease it back to Laney Walker. We’d have to negotiate what that would be. And it would be something much less than that. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I think the Finance Committee basically did not even consider – Mr. Kolb: Number 4. That’s correct. Mr. Boyles: -- number 4. I think we looked at the manpower savings and the – 97 Mr. Mayor: I think it would be helpful for the benefit of those, especially those who did not attend a committee meeting, to put updated backup information in these, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Kolb: Well, if you’ll notice on the backup, the items that are checked are the ones that the Finance Committee recommended. Mr. Mayor: Now how would a casual reader know that, just from looking at this? Mr. Grantham: You’re just supposed to know it. (Laughter) Ms. Beard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Ms. Beard: I’m very happy to hear that. Mr. Mayor: Maybe you were at the meeting and – it would just be helpful to have updated backup information. Mr. Boyles: We should, we should eliminate number 4, and number 4 includes what’s on the back side of that page. Mr. Mayor: Yeah. Mr. Boyles: And that should be eliminated in its entirety and we can probably do that, because that, you know, that would be a situation where if we absolutely, critically, had to, and we’re not at that point. Mr. Mayor: Yeah. Mr. Williams: So clarification, Mr. Mayor. None of these items are, 1 through – well, the number is not numbered on the back – Mr. Mayor: The unnumbered items on the back that total $357, 459. Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Mayor: None of those items are included in the budget reduction. They are excluded from the budget reduction action. Is that correct, Mr. Kolb? Did I state it correctly? 98 Mr. Kolb: You stated it correctly. And let me -- Mr. Mayor: And then when the Commission approved this item on the consent agenda, the approval excluded these items specifically. Mr. Boyles: Correct. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. I wanted to explain the list. This list is not what would be charged to someone else. This is what the financial savings impact would be to the general fund. So in other words, that’s what we’re spending now, that’s what would have been eliminated. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m looking now – Mr. Mayor, if I can – and I thought we had a partnership with the indoor 30901 Development already and the city was running the outdoor. Now it says lease indoor center to 30901 Development Corporation. Is that not the way the facility is run now? From my understanding, and I had a lot of problem with this, as the Commissioner of that District, I had to go down, I met with them and talked with them, and my understanding is that the inside facility was ran by the 30901 and we was running the outside as the government. Mr. Kolb: I think the programming of the inside, 30901, is done – I’m sorry. That the inside programs, like basketball and other things, are actually run by the 30901 Corporation. The actual indoor operations like paying for the lights and other things like that and making sure that the center is open is done by city, city workers. Mr. Williams: Okay. I think I understand. The program is run, and that’s [inaudible] not leasing of the facility, it’s still the city facility. I mean, okay. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. I think when you sit down and negotiate what we’re talking about here, is not the $36,000 – well, the $23,000 cost. What it would be is a negotiated amount of who is going to pay the bills, how you’re going to staff it, probably with volunteers, what time would the center be open, those kinds of issues. Mr. Williams: Okay, but none of that [inaudible] that just a proposal that you have. All right. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Yes, I am. Mr. Mayor: Did that address your concerns, Ms. Beard? 99 Ms. Beard: Yes, it does. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ve already approved this and we don’t need any action. Ms. Beard: We’re fine. As long as that is out. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, it’s just a – I have no problem in living with the vote. I’m not on finance. That was one of the reasons for this same situation that I saw coming that I made sure that the items that I was talking about, and I said so in the committee meeting that day, I made sure mine got in there in writing in the [inaudible] because there was a discussion and Ms. Beard and I had had it not in that meeting but it was a week before then when it first came up, we were talking about the in reference – because we were going through the procedure about EEO and [inaudible]. And that’s why they are listed specifically on there, is making sure that they are not, cause I, I wanted mine in writing. I wanted to make sure they were like that. But what I would caution the Commission on, while I think that the – we don’t need to go back to deal with the vote in any way – I think we need to make sure that we have a strict monitorship on where you’re going with this item, because there are two things in here that, that bother me, from the standpoint that – and Jim knows how I feel about this. We used to call, Jim, best, best effort method of things. When I look at 5 and 6 – the reason why I’m saying [inaudible] if you’re talking about numbers. Five says implement modified hiring freeze. Now we have to be very careful about what modified means. You either have a freeze or you don’t have a freeze. Modified means you may be jumping back and forth every time somebody comes to the microphone, adjusting the numbers, if it’s modified. The second thing on six that says implement a freeze on purchasing, except for essential purchase orders. Now I remember Don made the comment what’s essential to one Commissioner may not be essential to another one. So I think you’re just going to need to make sure that while this is a very good start, I think it has to be monitored on a monthly basis from the standpoint to see where you’re going if you get off track from this. Because there’s no need of looking like deer in the headlights stare when you get a few months down the road and wait a minute, the numbers don’t add up. Well, if it’s not specific and if it does not say 100% that’s what you’re going to do, then you end up in a gray area to a point that you’re really managing this and trying to do it, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I just wanted to make that observance for the record, and that’s why I was kind of glad I didn’t say too much cause I had my other two little items in there and y’all didn’t take them out and they were in writing, so I left them in there. But I, I thank the Commissioner, she was right for wanting to go back, because I kind of missed it myself on 22 cause I had really intended to pull it, just to mention that for the record [inaudible]. 100 Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mayor, clarification [inaudible] listed, the project, I mean the manpower management plan, none of those things that potentially would have been affected before is affected now, it’s just an observation? Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding. Mr. Kolb, can you confirm that? I was looking at the minutes, and by discussion in the Finance Committee, it’s a little confusing what – Mr. Kolb: I’m trying to understand your question. Your question is number 4? Mr. Williams: Number 1. Well, I thought all of this was off the radar screen. I thought that was just a proposal, so I’m asking now is number 1, 3, 10 or whatever, what’s on the radar screen and what’s being affected, I guess is a better way to ask is. Is the manpower measurement programs, that’s going be implement? Is the modified hiring freeze going – what’s, what’s affected? Mr. Kolb: Okay. The Finance Committee recommended adopting a plan that would include numbers 2, which is the manpower management plan, number 3, using fund balance that we’ve identified as of December 31 of – Mr. Williams: Hold, Mr. Kolb. Number 1 says – Mr. Kolb: Did I say number 1? I meant number 2. Sorry. I thought I said number 2. We’re starting out, the target is number 1, $4,016,000. That is our target. In order to get to that number, we’re recommending that you implement number 2, which is the manpower management plan, number 3, use of fund balance, which was generated in terms of last year’s operations, number 5, which is to implement a hiring freeze, and number 6, implement a freeze on non-essential purchases. Mr. Williams: I go back to Commissioner Mays, if I can continue, Mr. Mayor. What’s important to one, Commissioner Grantham said, may not be important to another. So how we going determine what essential purchase is going be and then how you modify a hiring freeze. I mean that’s just – Mr. Kolb: We will do that administratively. For example, we know how many vacancies it takes to generate X amount of dollars. And so we have tried to set that level or are in the process of setting that level per department. And the larger departments that have the larger vacancies, we are really looking hard cause that’s where we’re already generating some savings and we can generate more. In terms of purchasing, we pretty much know administratively what’s essential. Like we know we have to feed to prisoners. We know we have to provide health care services. Those kinds of things. Those are essential to the operation of the city. And we’ll make those determinations on a case-by-case basis administratively. 101 Mr. Williams: What would be non-essential, George? Give me a for instance for that. What kind of think you talking about that wouldn’t fit this program? Like? Mr. Kolb: Office supplies. We’ll use down inventories as much as we possibly can. Furniture. Desks. Chairs. Those kinds of things. We’ll put those off until next, next year, that would be charged to the general fund. Now if it’s coming out of another fund, airport or utilities, they’re not having a problem, so those will go through. But those purchases that we consider to be non-essential will be – we’ll hold off on. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if we actually formalized it, but last time we went through this we identified several key or critical skill positions that we would fill. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Cheek: And those would be the ones – traffic engineer, preconstruction engineer, several like that. I still believe even those, if we decide to fill it, would come back before the Commission for approval. Mr. Kolb: No. Mr. Cheek: They would be administratively handled and then anything outside that box would come to the Commission? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Anything we normally do on a day-to-day basis we will do it. You know, if we have to pay a higher salary, for example, we’ll have to come back to you. But we know what the target is and we’ll try and manage to that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Mayor, that was the reason we asked that the word total be changed to modified. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Grantham: So there would be some flexibility within the hiring arrangements of our government. And so those are the things that I think we have to give some liberty to. But when it becomes a critical position, or one that becomes vacant unexpectedly, say right now, then we know if that position need to be filled it’s going to be brought to us by the Administrator. This is to, this is to maintain the present level of our employment that 102 is not in a critical status, and I mean that from the standpoint of where we may be in some cases over-hiring or we may have over-hired in the past, and if we get attrition to take place, then we should use that as a way to reduce our budget situation. And that’s what this is for. The same thing and the same principle applies to the purchase orders. And yes, what I said was what’s essential to me may not be essential to Willie. And that rdth depends on whether you use the 3 floor restroom or the 5 floor restroom. But I think that’s important that we let our people within our purchasing department use good judgment and common sense on what they do and how they do it. And then if it’s necessary for them to come to us for certain items, that we make that approval, and we pass that. And Marion, I think that’s what we talked about the other day in our Finance Committee meeting, in regards to these two particular items. I believe Ms. Beard was there, as well. Mr. Williams: Yeah, we did, Don. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, thank you. In response a little bit to your suggestion about monitoring it, the day after the Finance Committee meeting, I attended a meeting that was conducted by Mr. Kolb and Fred and David Persaud, Geri Sams and Brenda Pelaez, and because they’re going to be the ones, the purchasing and the manpower people, personnel people, are going to be the ones that are key to this thing, and they came up with ideas within themselves that’s going to make a difference. In spite of what all has gone on, I really felt real comfortable with what they were doing, so I am monitoring that for us, as your Finance Chair, and so I’m inviting any member of the Finance Committee that wants to sit in, to please do so. But we are monitoring it and we are going to monitor it every two weeks at the most, you know, to make sure we’re all right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I think that’s what need to be done. And that’s why I had no problem voting for it per se, but I thought it needed to be noted for the record from the standpoint I know as Chairman you’re going to do that, but with ten of us I wanted to make sure that down the road that if the numbers – say for instance if the savings was going to be a million dollars, and we were dealing with say at some point in time $880,000 and somebody says well, how did we do this cause we had a freeze, they would understand that the government couldn’t be dysfunctional. [inaudible] necessity, so I have no problem with the flexibility but I think it needs to be noted to a point that when you do that and you modify it, then you are operating on a mode that could change. And it would have to be changed by a vote of this Commission. But it’s not absolute to stay at those same financial numbers. And that’s the only reason I made that observance. Mr. Boyles: Let me just comment, too, by saying that the staff was extremely impressive with the way they have pitched in to work with us to try to get this done. So I 103 want to commend them very highly and probably do more so at the end of the year, but -- when we hit it. But I do want to commend them because everyone has pitched in to help. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I just -- I don’t want to prolong this, but I just, just to make the point about good backup information, because the motion that was made in the Finance Committee meeting said that you direct the staff to look at the six components shown on the budget balancing options list attached to the agenda item, and that they move forward with those and any other variations they can reasonably come up with to resurrect the consultant study of the tax digest. Nowhere in the motion did it say take those items off the list. So. Mr. Kolb: Also, Mr. Mayor, your motion did not include the, resurrecting the consultants’ -- the assessor’s recommendation on looking at a consultant for the tax digest. That will be coming back to you later. Mr. Mayor: So anyway, I just made it. Mr. Kolb: I understand what you’re saying. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on this? We’ve already approved the item, and the items Ms. Beard was concerned about are not included in the -- Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Ms. Sims: As we went backwards, I have, I have a problem with the vote I made. What do I do? Mr. Mayor: You have a problem with the vote you made? Ms. Sims: Yes, because I didn’t see the bottom. It’s our number -- Mr. Mayor: What item? Ms. Sims: 53. Item 53. Mr. Mayor: Item 53. Yes? Ms. Sims: I did not see everyone that was involved in this. I did not realize that the people that were doing drive in/drive throughs/carryout service. I saw none of that until just then, and I can’t vote for that in the affirmative. 104 Mr. Mayor: Well, would you like to make a motion to reconsider this? Ms. Sims: Yes, I would. Mr. Mayor: Okay, there’s a motion to reconsider item 53. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of reconsideration of item 53, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 53. Consider approval of Richmond County Board of Health – Fee Schedule for Environmental Health Services. Ms. Sims: I just had, I had a problem that I did not see everyone that was involved in this. Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to approve so that you can vote against it, is that essentially what we need? Ms. Sims: Correct. May I make that motion? Mr. Mayor: You certainly may. Ms. Sims: I make a motion to reconsider and approve. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion a motion to reconsider. We need a motion to approve it. Ms. Sims: To approve it. Mr. Mayor: I think what she wants is the option to change her vote on it. Ms. Sims: Exactly. Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to approve the item to get back where we were. 105 Mr. Mays: So move. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the schedule of fees as submitted by the Health Department. All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Grantham abstains. Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith and Ms. Sims vote No. Motion fails 5-3-1. Mr. Williams: Wait, wait, wait a minute now. If we going start that now, we going start that now, [inaudible] because now Jimmy’s vote was yes in the beginning, in the beginning, the first time. You voted yes the first time, too, and then, and then you come back and voted no and then Mr. Smith voted now. If we going start -- I ain’t got no problem. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, it is the prerogative of any member of this Commission to vote any way that they choose at any time. Mr. Smith: Mr. Williams, I voted no the first time. Mr. Williams: Voted no the first time? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner, what was the count the first time on that same vote? The Clerk: It was 6-2-1. Mr. Williams: 6-2-1? The Clerk: Uh-huh [yes]. That was Mr. -- Ms. Beard voting yes, Mr. Mays, Ms. Sims, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek. Voting no, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Jimmy Smith. And Mr. Grantham abstaining. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having sat on the Board of Health as a Commission representative for four years, I know the due deliberations and due diligence that this 106 board puts in to its, all of its recommendations that come to us. I have seen budgetary cuts every year for the last three years that are significant in nature. They’ve done everything they can to balance their budget. They’ve come to us after 20 years with one budget increase, one fee increase and asked for assistance to help balance their budget and cover their costs. We can tap dance around how we’re looking out for the best interests of the citizens of this county, but the bottom line is if they can’t fund the effort, if they don’t have a way to print the money, just like we don’t, then the inspection process will be extended longer, which will leave our residents going to restaurants that have a less frequency of inspection than they currently enjoy, which is annual. It just amazes me that while they have done their due diligence in trying to be -- and as we heard, they’ve talked about the little guys, the smaller restaurants, all the way up, and did a breakdown on it, that we don’t have the guts to step up and provide them with a user fee that is, is certainly not as high as it is in other places, but middle-of-the road, to cover the cost of their operations. I want to ask this body just where in the heck do you think they are going to get the money to maintain operations? To cover 32,000 calls, visits alone at the south Augusta clinic per year? Not to mention how many are covered down here. They have seen 20% and 30% budget cuts every year from the State in certain targeted areas, while the federal government and State has required increased coverage in environmental compliance and reporting, which requires additional staff people or people to work longer hours. It just amazes me that in the interest of we don’t want to raise fees or we don’t want to put a burden on anybody else that we will basically disable a service or neuter a service from its ability to perform as it needs to. They’re not coming to us asking for something exorbitant. They’re asking for fees to help cover part of the cost of doing this job. This city got in the fix it’s in because it did not have a tax increase for 14 years, while the cost of doing business went up and up and up. Now we’re dipping into reserve funds. Let’s force that on other entities in this government, cause we ain’t got the guts to step up to the plate. It’s just, it’s amazing to me that we suffered through these same problems ourselves and now, due to our lack of resolve, we won’t step up to the plate and help them cover the cost. It’s just a shame. And the people that are using the services, that are required to be inspected, should be the ones paying the bill, not the rest of the citizens, and by deferring this, that puts it back on the back of the citizens to come up with the additional funds to cover the cost of this operation. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Commissioner Cheek, I want you to know that I was in favor of an increase, but when you double, you double what you’re doing to caterers and small drive- in, I’m sorry, I don’t think that’s fair. We’re talking about protecting the little people, and you’re looking at somebody that’s doubled. You’ve got 26 people in a restaurant or you’ve got a small mom-and-pop drive-in and you’re going to double. I’m all for increasing, but this is doubling on this, and I did not see that they were doubled. That is why I wanted to go back. I agree with an increase, but I just don’t think that it ought to be doubled on this, on this bottom line that says category two. 107 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond to Mr. Cheek a moment. At that Board of Health meeting last Tuesday night, I’m trying to recall the revenue over st expenses starting July 1 was $97,000, without talking about a fee increase. This was an extra part. So the Health Department budget showed a $97,000 plus side over expenses. Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, if you would, this was a no action item. st Would you put this on the agenda for the July 1 meeting? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: At my request, please. All right, the next item is number 55. The Clerk: 55. OTHER BUSINESS. Consider renaming Hunter Street- Mal Cook Street. (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. Mayor: Just for information of the Commission, this is really coming out of the Recreation Department. They’ve been working with my office on this. I think most of you know Mal Cook. He’s a legend in radio in Augusta. Not just an African th American pioneer in radio, but a true pioneer in radio. He’s celebrating this year his 50 anniversary in broadcasting and he continues to work in the business. And Mal was -- none of you here would be old enough to remember this, Mal used to have record hops at the Sunset Community Center every Saturday. That’s where the young people would go. the Recreation Department has done the And in honor of his milestone in the business, research and what they’d like to do is rename the game room at the Johnson Center for Mal Cook, recognizing the record hops that he conducted in that recreation center those many, many years ago. Mal will be recognized in a program at the nd Augusta Common Friday night, July 2. We have a number of musical groups and people that worked with Mal and his family members and others who will be there participating that evening, and the NAACP and the Recreation Department are working So today the with us to make this a truly memorable evening for Mal and his family. request would be that the Commission name the game room at the Johnson Center in honor of Mal Cook. Mr. Williams: So move. Ms. Beard: Second. 108 Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: You’re not old enough, I know, to remember. Mr. Mays: Well, two corrections on that. One is that I’m glad that Commissioner Williams, since he been digging on me today I get a chance to get back at him in a playful way. He often said that he put the D in dancing. (Laughter) Mr. Mays: So in tribute to the dancing preacher, he was old enough to be there, he was able to go there on Saturday morning unescorted and by himself, because he was a large, tall fellow. Skinny but tall. And he didn’t have to go there with anybody. Now I do remember it, cause the young lady that was working over there on Saturday morning as a center director and on the evening times was my mom. But it was a baby-sitting situation for me because I was much younger than both -- cause both of them are preachers now. I see Rev. Thurmond out there in the audience. But they were grown teenagers when I was a small boy going over there. So it’s significant that Mal had a lot to do with both of their lives and I just wanted to recognize that fact that they were very much large size fellows during that time and now. Mr. Mayor: I guess in fairness I need to recognize you. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I’m not going, I’m not going to get back at Commissioner Mays, even though he say he was with his mother when she was working. But Mal Cook was a big inspiration and a lot of young peoples’ lives, every Saturday morning there was a place for them to go. I still say and I used to, I put the D in dancing, Mr. Mayor, when it come to dancing down there. This new stuff these young people do, I don’t know nothing about that. But when it come to the swing or the old two step dance, they called it, I still enjoy that, and I think people need to understand how important it is for role models like that situation at the Sunset Homes, the old W. T. Johnson building. And back in those days, Mr. Mays, you didn’t win any money. The old RC Cola was sponsor of the events on Saturday morning and you and your partner, whoever she may be, would win a six pack and you had to divide that six pack up. But I left that center every Saturday with three of those RC Colas. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to approve and it’s been seconded. All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative. 109 Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’d like to invite all of you to come join us tonight at the Common the night of July 2. It’s going to be quite an evening. Let’s see, we are at the point where we recognize our attorney for our legal meeting. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I request a legal meeting on the items printed in the agenda book, to include pending and potential litigation, real estate, personnel, and the D’Antignac claim. 56. LEGAL MEETING. ?? Pending and potential litigation. ?? Real Estate. ?? Personnel. ?? Discuss claim of Don D’Antignac. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion? Mr. Colclough: So move. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: All right, everyone’s accounted for. Come to order, please. 57. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will now entertain a motion to do the affidavit. I forgot what we call the thing. Mr. Shepard: Closed meeting affidavit, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: That’s it. Mr. Shepard: I would ask that the body approve the motion approving the closed meeting affidavit, which the executive session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. according 110 to my records and we returned to open session at 10:05, and that the topics discussed therein were the consultation on pending and potential litigation, personnel matters, and the D’Antignac claim. And we did not discuss real estate. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion to approve? Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Mayor: Second? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: I’ll sign the affidavit. All right, do we have any -- let’s see, we have a request from the administrator for submitting his resignation. 58. Consider acceptance of resignation of Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I would suggest that a motion be phrased as follows: that we accept the resignation of George Kolb as administrator of Augusta, Georgia, that he be relieved of his duties as of today, June 15, that the contract that he th entered be terminated early as of July 19 and from this day until the 19 that he have the following status: that he have administrative leave fro June 16 through June 18 and that he then be placed on his vacation pay for the period June 21 through June 25 and then paid holiday pay and on July 6 that he resumes vacation pay from that time until July 9 and then he returns to vacation pay status on July 12 through July 16 and that his final day of vacation pay be on July 19. His benefits would accrue through July, that he would draw regular checks with deductions for the mandatory taxes and insurance and that he also have his deductions for his benefits and that he have the right to exercise COBRA benefits, that he give this government in consideration of this early release from his contract a full release of all claims to be memorialized in an appropriate document by counsel and that he also in addition agree not to sue this government for any reason as part of that full release and that he give us full cooperation in the discharge of any responsibilities relative to litigation in the future, administrative litigation, administrative action and policy and programs that he had participated in here of which he may have knowledge and that all of that would be placed in an appropriate document drawn up by counsel. 111 Mr. Mayor: Are these terms agreeable to you, Mr. Kolb? We’d like to get that on the record if we could. Mr. Kolb: Yes. Let me also say that I wanted to express my appreciation to the council for having the honor of being administrator of this government and to thank all the employees and all the people that I served with, thank them for their cooperation and support during the years. It’s been a good experience. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to accept the resignation? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Under discussion. George, just let me say to you how much I appreciate your tenure here as administrator in Augusta Richmond County. We know the times have been challenging, there have been a lot of good times, we’ve made some tremendous progress in this organization during your time here. The work you’ve done is going to be around for a long time after you’ve gone to Wichita, and we certainly appreciate your service and your loyalty to this government. I would be remiss, too, if I did not thank your wife through you for her commitment to community service and her service on the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Race Relations Committee and other endeavors in this community. Augusta is better because George and Sandy Kolb have been residents in this community and have been partners for those of us who live in this community and we thank you very much for that. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: There was one thing that was not mentioned in there, and I [inaudible] before he gets relieved with that vote. He’s not off the hook yet. He’s got one day that he has to report back to us so that everybody can say goodbye to him on that particular rd evening of the 23 so you’re not excused from that particular date, it’s mandatory that you be there. So that will be done and he knows all about that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 112 Mr. Cheek: George, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing total quality ideals to this government and your efforts to work to improve the government, bring it into the new millennium. I appreciate your vision, your dedication. I appreciate our days of [inaudible] management and I look forward to maybe that in the future, but God bless you and good luck in your new job. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: George, just let me say simply that I’ve enjoyed working with you. And not only do I lose you from down here, but you and I live on the same street and it’s going to seem strange to not -- to go by your house and not see you there. So if they’ve got good steak in Wichita, give me a call. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Yes. George, I’d like to say I wish you the very best of luck on your new endeavor, and thank you for being a quality person. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: George, it’s been a short time that I’ve been involved but we appreciate your input and your support that you have given to me and I know most of these Commissioners feel the same way. And I just want to tell you that I wish you and Sandy the very best in what you will be doing in the future for Wichita and we look forward to seeing you again soon. Mr. Kolb: Thank you. Mr. Colclough: George, good luck to you, my friend. And get your long johns out. You are going to need them. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Don’t be surprised if y’all hear from George next April looking for tickets for a certain event down here. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor to accept the resignation and the terms that have been enumerated by the attorney and incorporated into the record and acknowledged by Mr. Kolb. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. 113 Mr. Mayor: Now that Richmond County is about to be without an administrator, the Chair will recognize Mr. Williams. 60. Consider appointment of Interim Administrator. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we appoint the assistant administrator, Mr. Russell, deputy administrator, Mr. Russell, to the interim position for the period until we can find someone to fill that position. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor then, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Under the ordinance, there are -- Mr. Russell, is he here? Welcome, Fred. Under the, under the ordinance, there are two things that, two requirements that must be met before we can have an administrator or an acting administrator. Number 1, a bond must be posted, and that will be arranged for in the morning, Fred. The second is that the administrator shall take and subscribe an oath for the faithful performance of his duties under the Code. Fred, I’m going to come down and administer an oath to you. One thing that we did not do, that the Attorney has reminded me, is to put the terms and conditions of the employment of Mr. Russell into the motion that we just approved today as acting administrator. Vanessa, can you, do you want to enumerate those for the record? If you would. I don’t think we need to revote, just incorporate for the record and get an acknowledgement from Mr. Russell. Ms. Flournoy: For the term that he is, while he is interim administrator he will be earning a salary of $105,000 a year, earn $250 per month car allowance and also with the assurance that he will be returned to his status as deputy administrator when an administrator is selected. Mr. Mayor: Do you concur with those terms and conditions, Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Yes. Ms. Flournoy: He also has the right to make application for the position of administrator. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Do you accept those terms and conditions? 114 Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, so we have that square. [inaudible] repeat after me. I, Fred Russell -- Mr. Russell: I, Fred Russell -- Mr. Mayor: Will well and faithfully -- Mr. Russell: Will well and faithfully -- Mr. Mayor: Perform the duties -- Mr. Russell: Perform the duties -- Mr. Mayor: Of the position -- Mr. Russell: Of the position -- Mr. Mayor: Of acting administrator -- Mr. Russell: Of acting administrator -- Mr. Mayor: Of Augusta, Georgia -- Mr. Russell: Of Augusta, Georgia -- Mr. Mayor: To the best of my ability -- Mr. Russell: To the best of my ability -- Mr. Mayor: And to protect -- Mr. Russell: And to protect -- Mr. Mayor: And defend -- Mr. Russell: And defend -- Mr. Mayor: The constitution of the state of Georgia -- Mr. Russell: The constitution of the state of Georgia -- 115 Mr. Mayor: And the United States of America -- Mr. Russell: And the United States of America -- Mr. Mayor: So help me God. Mr. Russell: So help me God. Mr. Mayor: Congratulations. Mr. Russell: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before this body tonight? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Hold on, Mr. Mays, I think has a -- all right, we are adjourned without objection. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 15, 2004. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 116