Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2005 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER January 18, 2005 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday, January 18, 2005, the Hon. Marion Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Mays, Beard, Cheek, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor; Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by Bishop Sylvester Norwood. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. PRESENTATION: The Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club to the Augusta Recreation and Parks Department Youth Scholarship Foundation. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD: Mr. Anthony Williams Augusta Public Works and Engineering Department THE 2004 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AWARD: Employee Recognition Committee The Clerk: DELEGATION: Ms. Gisela W. Sager RE: Budget reductions in Augusta Recreation Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sager, good evening to you. Give us your name and address for the record, and under the rules of the Commission you have give minutes. Ms. Sager: Good afternoon. My name is Gisela W. Sager. I live in Augusta, [inaudible] Drive, Georgia. As city officers are forced to cut the budget, that means you cut some of the [inaudible] programs. Closing the craft center on Merry Street. Recreation and Parks director told us that it is too expensive to operate the facility. If you don’t make any money, how can you afford to ceramics for 50% off? 2002 [inaudible] but [inaudible]. After changing the days of operation from five to three days [inaudible] 1 $30,000. Reducing the days of operation by 40% only $510? If [inaudible] believe the figures [inaudible]. Under the new plan, Monday and Tuesday the [inaudible] go to Henry Brigham Community Center from 9 to 3 p.m., a much smaller facility with poor ventilation. Wednesday and Thursday we go to Carrie G. Mays Community Center, a facility without ceramics programs. This change don’t make much sense to the [inaudible] who utilized the Merry Street facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions and the opinions of the [inaudible] of Merry Street. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We thank you for your comments and your address. Is there any comments from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner Mays? Mr. Mays: I was going to ask is there anyone from Recreation, you know, planning to maybe address it at this time or whether or not it’s going to be taken up at the Public Services? I know the chairman is not here, but whether anybody from the department or whether this is to be passed over to the committee for any further consideration, because I think it may be related to another item that’s on the agenda. And the reasoning why this is there. I’m not on that committee any longer, but I was just wondering if anyone was going to address that situation, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Howard, have you got any comments? Can you address this statement? Mr. Howard: To our Mayor Pro Tem and County Commission, this afternoon, the Merry Street ceramics shop is part of our cuts and which we submitted to the Mayor and the Commission for 2005. Let me correct one thing. We did not close the program, but we did close the building. The program would be transferred to two other locations here in the city. The figure that we have, $43,310 that we was going to save with the budget. They was operating three days a week at the Merry Street ceramics shop with about 20 participants in this program. And we do have the capability of having the same program at Carrie J. Mays and Henry H. Brigham Community Center, and what we proposed was to go from three days to four days. It would be two days at Carrie J. Mays and would be two days at Henry H. Brigham, keeping in mind that we already have seniors at these two locations, a program that’s already in place there. We had at Henry H. Brigham a ceramics shop for many, many years and what have you. But trying to keep this in line and to allow places to serve the citizens of Richmond County that have these needs, when it come down to ceramics, and we looked at the budget, we evaluated the budget, and we just saw that we needed to do this. This have been on our agenda for about three years and each year we revisit this and look at it and we was not making money there. We were just paying out money there. And it’s a craft shop that only had about 20 participants, participating in this program. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:Can I get a motion, then, to receive this Anyone else? as information? Ms. Sims: So move. 2 Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second that we receive this as information. The chairman of that committee is not here, but we’ll go ahead and vote to receive this as information and so note that the delegate came in to mention to us about what been taking place over there. Mr. Mays: Let me ask you just one question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, just for clarification. Mr. Howard, on this particular proposal, is that in response to the original budget cutting figures that the Commission put in place at the end of last year? Mr. Howard: Yes, this was part of that cuts that we have of our $496,000. Mr. Mays: This is in no means any furtherance? Mr. Howard: No, sir. And this is why I wanted to say we were not closing the program. But yes, we are closing the facility. But we are still offering these programs at two other sites. And just to let you know, in order to keep what we have at Merry Street shop, it would cost us about $22,000 a year. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other comments? Mr. Grantham: How many people are in the program? How many participants? Mr. Howard: About 20 participating in that program. At that location. Mr. Grantham: No, I meant total in both Henry Brigham and Carrie Mays, how many are in the ceramics program? Mr. Howard: The ceramics program that we have at Merry Street is right at 20. If you look at the participants that we have at Henry H. Brigham, we have a total of anywhere from 45 to 50 a day. If you look at the program at Carrie J. Mays, we have a total of 36 to 39 in the morning program over there, five days a week. And this is dealing with seniors. Mr. Grantham: And have these 20 moved into those two locations? Mr. Howard: What we have done, we had it on the agenda here today. It was part of our cuts. We was allowing whatever inventory we had over there, to try to sell at the location, and what we did, Mr. Beck went up and talked with the seniors who was at the Merry Street, letting them know that we was closing the building but we’re not closing the program, that they had two options, to go to either Carrie J. Mays or Henry H. Brigham, and it would be adding a day. They was only just three days a week. By going 3 to these locations, be four days a week. Be two at Brigham, two at Carrie J. Mays. Same program we offer there and other programs that they can engage in, too. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anyone else? Any other comments? Mr. Howard, let me ask one question. In light of the transfer or moving the funds now, I think that’s Commissioner Sims’ district, but in light of transferring and moving the funds, that has no effect on this program that was already being cut anyway; is that right? Mr. Howard: Right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Madame Clerk, we’ve got a motion and a second, I think. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If no more comments, can we get a vote on this issue as receiving this as information? Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Howard. We’re now down to our consent agenda. Madame Clerk, would you read any alcohol license and any - The Clerk: Planning petitions? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: - planning petitions. The Clerk:The consent agenda consists of item 1 through 28B. Yes, sir. That’s items 1 through 28B. For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, once the petitions are read, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z-04-105 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that no business license be issued until the Traffic Engineering Department approves the existing circular driveway for site distance; a petition by Judi Hollingsworth Greene 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 2382 Wheeless Road and containing .50 acres. (Tax Map 85-1 Parcel 204) DISTRICT 5 2. Z-04-112 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that only 3 single family units may be placed on this property; a petition by Carleton Vaughn, Jr., on behalf of VVS Properties, LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C 4 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 210 and 214 Victoria Drive and containing 1.08 acres. (Tax Map 87-3 Parcel 112 & 113) DISTRICT 2 3. Z-04-113 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve for a reduced area (the acreage to be rezoned will be reduced to 75.4 acres as shown on the site plan submitted) with the following conditions 1) the petitioner provide an easement to the State of Georgia onto Gravel Pit Road to access the parking area for the Wildlife Management Area and 2) that an undisturbed natural buffer be maintained along the east property line; a petition by Cranston, Robertson, & Whitehurst, on behalf of Susan Steven Eren requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Bobby Jones Expressway and containing approximately 98 acres. (Tax Map 124 Parcel 6.1) DISTRICT 1 4. Z-05-01 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that an undisturbed natural buffer be maintained on the property line as shown on the concept plan submitted; a petition by Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, on behalf of Susan Steven Eren requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the northeast right- of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Bobby Jones Expressway and contains approximately 23 acres. (Tax Map 124 Part of Parcel 6.1) DISTRICT 1 5. Z-05-02 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Shelley Mack requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3554 Evangeline Road and containing .49 acres (Tax Map 120 Parcel 9) DISTRICT 5 6. Z-05-03 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl and Company, Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R- 1A (One-family Residential) with a Special Exception per Section 9-2 (a) to allow greater flexibility for a proposed detached single-family residential subdivision not to exceed 4 units per acre in density, affecting property located on the west right-of- way line of Windsor Spring Road, 300 feet, more or less, south of a point where the centerline of Turkey Trail Drive (Extended) intersects and contains approximately 125 acres. (Part of Tax Map 166 Parcel 1) DISTRICT 4 7. Z-05-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the Special Exception shall be granted only on rear of property behind existing solid board fence; 2) solid board fence must remain in its present location shielding rear yard from Dan Bowles Road; 3) only operable vehicles for sale may be parked in front of solid board fence, not to exceed 50 vehicles; 4) no vertical stacking of vehicles in area behind solid board fence; 5) any zoning or code violations will void the Special Exception; a 5 petition by James Jones, on behalf of Mcarthur Godley, requesting a Special Exception in an HI (Heavy Industry) Zone per Section 24-2 (16) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County for an auto wrecking use associated with an auto sales operation affecting property located at 2005 Dan Bowles Road and containing 3.50 acres. (Tax map 87-4 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 2 8. Z-05-05 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Juanita Waldrup Hambrick requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Maddox Road and containing 3.3 acres (Tax Map 39 Parcels 7.1, 7.2 & 8) DISTRICT 3 9. Z-05-06 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mills Briggs, on behalf of Rebecca Rice, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 1927 George Road and containing .70 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Part of Parcel 50) DISTRICT 5 10. Z-05-08 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Brown, on behalf of Sandra B. Brown, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone HI (Heavy Industry) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 4168 Mike Padgett Highway and contains 2.00 acres. (Tax Map 200 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Under our Public Service portion of the agenda, the alcohol petitions: PUBLIC SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve a request by Lawrence E. Sheffield for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Summerville Grill located at 399 Highland Avenue. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 15. Motion to approve a request by Gloria Steffen for an on premise consumption Liquor license to be used in connection with Sergeant’s Bar & Grill located at 2960 Old Hwy. 1. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 16. Motion to approve a request by Mae B. Powell for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway located at 3021 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? There are no objectors, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to receive our consent agenda? 6 Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There has been a motion and a second. Is there anything to be pulled? Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: would also like to add to the consent Yes, I’d like to pull 21 and agenda deferral of item 33, to go back to Engineering Services Subcommittee on Friday, with a placeholder on the following Commission meeting, for it to come back forward. 33. Approve Amendment No. 7 to the existing Program Management Services Contract with CH2MHill, Inc. to provide Program Management Services for the 2004 Series Bond Capital Improvements program at as cost not to exceed $8,250,000. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back to committee, item 33. Mr. Cheek: Back to committee and then back to Commission. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Then back to Commission. Anyone have anything else pulled? Ms. Sims: What number was that? Mr. Cheek: 33. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’d like to pull item number 7 for discussion. The Clerk: 21 and 7. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 7 and 21. Is there anything else to be pulled? There is a motion and second that we – The Clerk: The Attorney. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney? ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Motion to approve amendment to Sewer Use Ordinance. (Requested by the Attorney) 7 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we had been requested by the Utilities Department to have an amendment to the sewer use ordinance, which was turned in as an addendum item by my office today. I would ask that you add and approve that. It is to meet EPD – it is – Mr. Grantham: We can’t hear you. Mr. Hankerson: If you can speak into the mike. Mr. Shepard: It worked for everybody else, just need to speak up. If we could, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d ask that the amendment to the utilities be added to the consent agenda and if not, just into the regular agenda, and/or added and approved. This would – and the text of that is one sentence, section number one, which would become a new section C, in section 5-3-5 of the Code concerning the requirement that Augusta’s required to notify the Georgia Environmental Protection Division immediately when any industry and centralized waste treatment [inaudible] category under [inaudible] currently charged [inaudible] changes in the following ways: (1) sewer service is terminated; (2) [inaudible] discharge. Mr. Cheek: Move to add. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and second to add to the consent agenda. Mr. Cheek: Actually to add it to our agenda, and then I’m going to go ahead and make a motion to add it to the consent agenda or request that it be added. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are we adding it to the agenda or to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: Consent agenda, if it pleases the body. The Clerk: We need to carry that to the agenda and then that would come back and add it to consent, so if the Mayor Pro Tem, if we carry that motion to add it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] motion to add it. [inaudible] to add to complete the consent agenda. The Clerk: We’ll consider that as a substitute motion to add this to the agenda, and if it’s approved, then Mr. Cheek can amend his motion to add it to our consent agenda. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we got a motion and second and to add to this agenda. All in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. 8 The Clerk: This is to add it to the agenda. This motion is to add this item to our agenda. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, a request to have this item added to the consent agenda. Ms. Sims: Second. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Shepard: It is an ordinance and we should have the second reading waived in order to get it to EPD before January 22. Mr. Cheek: My motion is amended accordingly. The Clerk: Yes, sir. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: PLANNING: 1. Z-04-105 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that no business license be issued until the Traffic Engineering Department approves the existing circular driveway for site distance; a petition by Judi Hollingsworth Greene 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 2382 Wheeless Road and containing .50 acres. (Tax Map 85-1 Parcel 204) DISTRICT 5 2. Z-04-112 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that only 3 single family units may be placed on this property; a petition by Carleton Vaughn, Jr., on behalf of VVS Properties, LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 210 and 214 Victoria Drive and containing 1.08 acres. (Tax Map 87-3 Parcel 112 & 113) DISTRICT 2 3. Z-04-113 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve for a reduced area (the acreage to be rezoned will be reduced to 75.4 acres as shown on the site plan submitted) with the following conditions 1) the petitioner provide an easement to the State of Georgia onto Gravel Pit Road to access the parking area for the Wildlife Management Area and 2) that an undisturbed natural buffer be maintained along the east property line; a petition by Cranston, Robertson, & Whitehurst, on behalf of Susan Steven Eren requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Doug Barnard 9 Parkway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Bobby Jones Expressway and containing approximately 98 acres. (Tax Map 124 Parcel 6.1) DISTRICT 1 4. Z-05-01 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following condition 1) that an undisturbed natural buffer be maintained on the property line as shown on the concept plan submitted; a petition by Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, on behalf of Susan Steven Eren requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the northeast right- of-way line of Doug Barnard Parkway intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Bobby Jones Expressway and contains approximately 23 acres. (Tax Map 124 Part of Parcel 6.1) DISTRICT 1 5. Z-05-02 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Shelley Mack requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3554 Evangeline Road and containing .49 acres (Tax Map 120 Parcel 9) DISTRICT 5 6. Z-05-03 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl and Company, Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R- 1A (One-family Residential) with a Special Exception per Section 9-2 (a) to allow greater flexibility for a proposed detached single-family residential subdivision not to exceed 4 units per acre in density, affecting property located on the west right-of- way line of Windsor Spring Road, 300 feet, more or less, south of a point where the centerline of Turkey Trail Drive (Extended) intersects and contains approximately 125 acres. (Part of Tax Map 166 Parcel 1) DISTRICT 4 7. Deleted from the consent agenda. 8. Z-05-05 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Juanita Waldrup Hambrick requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Maddox Road and containing 3.3 acres (Tax Map 39 Parcels 7.1, 7.2 & 8) DISTRICT 3 9. Z-05-06 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mills Briggs, on behalf of Rebecca Rice, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 1927 George Road and containing .70 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Part of Parcel 50) DISTRICT 5 10. Z-05-08 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Brown, on behalf of Sandra B. Brown, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone HI (Heavy Industry) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 4168 Mike Padgett Highway and contains 2.00 acres. (Tax Map 200 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8 10 11. ZA-R-169 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by amending Section 8, 9, 10 and 11 relative to certain developments permitted by special Exception in single-family residential (R-1) zones. 12. FINAL PLAT – WHEELER LANE CENTER – S-627 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Channel Properties, requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lane Center. The commercial subdivision is located on Wheeler Road at Roy Street. 13. FINAL PLAT – CREEK FARMS, PHASE VIII – S-2004-012 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ayercorp, on behalf of Creek Partners, Inc., requesting final plat approval for Creek Farms, Phase VIII. This residential subdivision is located on Keysville Road at Bath Edie Road and contains 10 lots. PUBLIC SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve a request by Lawrence E. Sheffield for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Summerville Grill located at 399 Highland Avenue. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 15. Motion to approve a request by Gloria Steffen for an on premise consumption Liquor license to be used in connection with Sergeant’s Bar & Grill located at 2960 Old Hwy. 1. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 16. Motion to approve a request by Mae B. Powell for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway located at 3021 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 17. Motion to approve an amendment to the lease with the Augusta Soccer Club to provide for maintenance and operation of the Augusta Soccer Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 18. Motion to approve, in resolution form, support of the Georgia Transit Association’s FY 2005 Legislative Agenda with the deletion of item (3) three. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) 19. Motion to approve the reallocation of Commission District 3 Phase III SPLOST funds in the amount of $10,000 from Hickman Park to the Augusta Soccer Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 11, 2005) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 20. Motion to approve adjusting members’ terms to align with the fiscal year of the Downtown Development Authority which is January 1 through December 31. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 11, 2005) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 11 21. Deleted from the consent agenda. 22. Motion to approve execution of a Local State Route Acceptance Resolution for State Route 1128, 1128TA, 1128TB, 1128TC, 1128TD, 1128TE, 1128TF and 1128TG (Projects STP-1105(4), PI 245320; STP-7007(6), PI 250610; BHSLB- 1105(5), PI 245325; and BRSLB-7007(7), PI 250615; (Order of the Commission 3393 and contract for maintenance of highways 3393M) in association with the widening of Windsor Spring Road Phase IV (CPB# 323-04-299823766) and Phase V (CPB# 323-04-299823786). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 23. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-04-201824117) Change Number Two by transferring $33,000 from Project Contingency to Engineering. Also approve Supplemental Agreement Number One with B & E Jackson Engineers in the amount of $32,764.51 to provide additional engineering services to address drainage issues outside of the project limits that will severely impact the project area. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 24. Motion to approve Change Order Number Six for Mabus Brothers in the amount of $28,919.00 to be funded from project construction account for the Warren Road Improvement Project (CPB # 323-04-296823314). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 25. Motion to approve deductive and Final Change Order #4 in the amount of $131,205.71 to the Jamestown Phase I Sanitary Sewer Extension Project in order to close out project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 26. Motion to authorize the execution of an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the installation and operating of gauging station 02196484 (Augusta Canal near Augusta, Ga.). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 27. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for 20 West Commerce Park. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) 28. Motion to authorize the acceptance by the Mayor of an easement conveying an easement across property of BCRE Investments, LLC for the installation of a sanitary utility line in connection with Project 70125 – Alexander-Brookwood 16” Water Main, 2716 Washington Road, Parcel 013-0-025-01-0. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) APPOINTMENT: 28A. Motion to appoint Mr. Robert Moon to the Augusta-Richmond County Historic Preservation Commission representing District 6. ATTORNEY: 28B. Motion to approve an Ordinance regarding penalties for alcoholic beverage license holders for serving alcoholic beverages to minors (Approved by the Commission on January 4, 2005 – second reading) 12 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-6, 8-20, 22-28B] The Clerk: Item 7? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 7, Madame Clark. The Clerk: 7. Z-05-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the Special Exception shall be granted only on rear of property behind existing solid board fence; 2) solid board fence must remain in its present location shielding rear yard from Dan Bowles Road; 3) only operable vehicles for sale may be parked in front of solid board fence, not to exceed 50 vehicles; 4) no vertical stacking of vehicles in area behind solid board fence; 5) any zoning or code violations will void the Special Exception; a petition by James Jones, on behalf of Mcarthur Godley, requesting a Special Exception in an HI (Heavy Industry) Zone per Section 24-2 (16) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County for an auto wrecking use associated with an auto sales operation affecting property located at 2005 Dan Bowles Road and containing 3.50 acres. (Tax map 87-4 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 2 The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, you asked for this item to be pulled. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes. Rob, George Patty is here. This is a piece of property out on Dan Bowles Road that we had some concern with, and I’m a little bit disturbed about the number of cars that are going to be left on this property, in the rear of the property [inaudible]. Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, this is a 3-1/2 acre tract that’s been used for an operation for some time. What they’re doing is taking wrecked cars, insurance jobs, and taking several and making one out of it. And they’ve got the salvage operation behind the building and behind the fence and on the front, which fronts Dan Bowles Road, right across from Hyde Park. They are, they are selling cars that are completed and basically a car lot. And they, even though they’ve been doing this for some time and been given business licenses to do it, there has been some recent scrutiny in that area and technically they needed a special exception in addition to the heavy industrial zoning that they had, so they were asked to apply for it. And we took the position that since they had been operating in this manner and had been given businesses licensed before y’all passed the junk ordinance in September that they should be considered for this special exception. We approved it with several conditions, and you can see what those are. I think we came down to one point of possible contention, and that is the number of vehicles behind the 13 fence. And I had asked the applicant before the meeting to give us a reasonable number of vehicles back there and at the meeting the number that he gave us was 600. And that struck me as maybe unreasonable and so in the heat of the moment we made that condition, that there be no vertical stacking of vehicles. Now I’ve talked to the Commissioner from that district a couple of times and he desires that there be a number established, and the only guidance I can give you on that is this. I’m going to pass this around. This is an aerial photograph of the property in March, 2002, which is the date of our most recent aerials. You can clearly see the fence at Dan Bowles Road, and you can see that there about 200 cars. I tried to count them, behind the fence. And you can see the property is not [inaudible]. And the other way I looked at it is in order to do a parking lot, we’d require spaces that are about 200 square feet, 10’ x 20’ and so I figured if you divided the area that’s not included in the front property or the building by 300 square feet, which is half again the size of the space, you come up with about 400 cars. Either way it looks to me like to fully utilize the site, but not do any vertical stacking, it numbers about 400. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty, in lieu of what happened in that area with the brownfields, condition with other junkyards that’s been in that area, not to hold this petitioner back from his business, from their business. I talked with the owner and I tried to call her this morning. I can’t support 400 cars. I mean that’s, that’s creating another facility that we’re trying to do away with in there. I think they did a lot of work. They cleaned up a lot. I seen some, some movement in there where they put up the fence and did the things we asked them to do. But since the petitioner here now, maybe he can give us another figure that we might be able to live with. I cannot live with 400. Certainly not the 600. But I can’t live with 400 cars in that area to do that. Can you, can you give us – Mr. Jones: Basically as I told Mr. Patty, I said since I started the business, the highest I’ve kept is 600 cars at that property. In order for my business to do, you know, for me to make a living at that business, 400 cars, you know, like I just said, I’ve got 300 there now and that’s to the bare minimum as far as right now. I just actually had [inaudible] come in and take out 200 and something cars, you know, for the cleanup, as well as those were the cars that I was finished with. And I do that periodically, as I finish with the cars. I don’t hold them there. I have someone come in and take the cars out. But to make my business do what it should do, 400 cars is what I think I [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty, let me ask you a question. With the business there on Savannah Road, where they extended their property and they had to put in a facility, some kind of drainage system, because I know they was doing a different kind of work, but when you got that many cars coming through a year’s time, I mean there’s no doubt that chemicals going to get into the ground and chemicals going – oil, antifreeze, battery acid, I mean I need a number and I want to support it, I want to help. We giving an exception now. But I can’t support – Mr. Jones: [inaudible] when the cars come in, we drain all the oil, we have containers where the oil, the antifreeze, all that stuff is separated, all that stuff is taken out 14 of the cars when they first come in. The oils, antifreeze and the batteries are taken from the vehicles. And they’re also stored in the building, in containers, labeled and everything. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: How long have you had your business? Mr. Jones: I’ve been there for about four or five years now. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, may I ask Mr. Patty, has there been any basic problem that we have had with this gentleman and his company? Mr. Patty: I believe there was some zoning action taken against that property before I got involved. Mr. Boyles: Now that was zoning, but has there been any violation of whatever we’ve been doing lately with junk yards and wreck yards and whatever? Mr. Patty: Not that I know of. Mr. Boyles: Rob would enforce that. Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. This business, this location I think we had three businesses operating there. Three or four. They were operating out of zone. And I think all three or four of them were in Magistrate Court. I think they have been working to come into compliance to get close to what the regulations are. This is one step that is needed, if they want to continue to operate there they have to have correct zoning. You did approve the salvage yard ordinance. It does require the containment facility, once you bring the cars onto the property. We have a meeting tomorrow afternoon to go over – the last meeting of getting these businesses up to speed on what’s required because of the new ordinance. Again, I think they are working to get into compliance. The number of cars is limited to one level. You can’t stack them. They are required to put up a privacy fence, have some – comply with the tree ordinance. Mr. Boyles: But have your environmental – the folks that do environmental in your office or from the state or anywhere else, have there been any kind of violations, technical violations, along that line? Mr. Sherman: There were when we first started working with it. Mr. Boyles: Zoning violations or – Mr. Sherman: Zoning violations and then operating a salvage yard – well, prior to you adopting the ordinance there really were no regulations on how a salvage yard 15 operates. Since you’ve adopted the ordinance, they are working to get into compliance with those regulations. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, thank you, Rob. Thank you, George. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now, Rob, this is – I guess George can answer. This is a special exception that we’re doing because of their business have been there, and we trying to work with them when they were out of compliance, but now giving this special exception and setting some guidelines in place, and if they fail to meet those then they will be closed down anyway. But to try to work with them and try to give them an opportunity to continue their business, we had this special exception put together we so can continue to help them. But I need a number and I’m going, I’m going to want to make a motion. Mr. Mays, I see your hand up. Mr. Mays: I’m going to yield, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to Ms. Sims. She had hers up before I did. Ms. Sims: I just wanted to be sure that now, because you did come under the zoning, the special zoning after we had enacted a new rule, that you will try to comply. I think my, my question is – or my point is for you to try to comply with what we are asking you to do, and if you are willing to work with us, and I think – yes, sir? We want to keep businesses open and we want people to have businesses, but you have to comply with what we are asking you to do, so I would just say can we have you come back and give Mr. Mayor Pro Tem his number that he needs, or if he can work with Rob to be sure that the schedule that we need to meet is met. I don’t – I’d like to postpone this, I think. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Go ahead, Willie. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, my question is a little bit different but I think it is germane to what’s on the floor. But you started earlier in reference to the brownfield initiative, and I know the Mayor is not here today, however has worked very hard on that initiative, along with Rev. Utley and the neighborhood association that’s there. We – and I don’t like to co-mingle cause I think every situation should be able to stand on its own. I’m trying to protect a business owner that has been there and preceded and ordinance, but of trying to get into compliance and I want to – I’d like to see if we can make that happen, if we can. But my question is, and it’s a real simple one. We got into a lot of court situations in reference to trying to work with the neighborhood on the last issue, and a very similar one. We went through court process here, we went through appellate process, and a lot in trying to work with the neighborhood. And one of the things we found out was that probably our biggest negative was the fact that the decision we made very early – and I remember it very correctly, we made the motion and I think we probably could still agree or disagree with where the judge went on it – but that’s why they call them judges. So they made a decision in reference to when did the action start 16 per se, whether it did when we took away the license or not. But what I’m moving towards is that I hate to see us move today when maybe a simple thing has or has not been done. My question would be to the petitioner as to whether or not being in the area where you’re in and what you’re having to go through now with special exception, has there been any dialog with the folk in Hyde Park at all, in reference to the neighborhood association. Because what I think happens, if you change and do a special exception today, and we just finished a court fight in that area with another business, what happens to the point I think that started what Ms. Sims is looking into in terms of postponement, do we do next week if we end up with a 40-50 person delegation to a point to say y’all have done another zoning change on top of us that we didn’t know about, then we fighting a situation from behind and then he has to try and answer, which is unfair, he is trying to keep his business open, and I’m [inaudible] if they know what he is doing in terms of the new situation, he’s not new to the area, but I think maybe it would help if they had an opportunity to speak with each other. Because I think if you change a zoning in that area, and I don’t see them being represented here today, but then again, they were not here the last time the first time, but then two weeks later we ended up with the room full and said what happened, how did you all do this to us? Then we ended up in the middle of a court fight that we couldn’t get out of, that plagued Mr. Shepard, and he was doing his job and what we dealt with him on. But I just think we can avoid that to a point that if maybe they have not talked and if he is a current business resident of that community, then maybe there is some dialog they can have on their own, if they know what he’s doing there, and what the changes he has to make to meet this, and he’s been there five years, that might help us to make a decision, that something they don’t an objection to, but then it’s something that he can work within that is not putting his business in peril, either. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, we have talked to the neighborhood president, Rev. Utley, several times. They are pleased with the cleanup on the front that was done, that we had them remove some cars from the front. They have put up fencing that is required so the neighborhood is in favor of helping. At the same time, they don’t want to create another situation we just got rid of. And that was my point about the 600 cars, that I can’t agree with, and really I can’t agree with 400. But I don’t want to, I don’t want to cripple the business and not have the variety that they need to do what they need to do with the cars. But the more we talk about this and hear about the oil being moved and the fluids be changed and going somewhere, that’s going to lead to something else, and I think we need to do something before we open up a keg of worms that going to crawl all over this building if we don’t [inaudible] real quick. Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The point is well taken as far as the neighborhood knowing and having been [inaudible] that this was going to be happening. And I think under our rules of changing any zoning ordinances, excuse me, any zoning areas that that has to be posted, and certainly I’m sure that was posted, George. You alluded to me it was. And knowing as much as Rev. Utley and them have been involved in that area with the cleanup, having the posting being available down there, they would have seen it and at least been able to make comment. I would like to 17 think that with the history that this young man has had with his business there that they had dialog, as you may have said, Commissioner Williams, and hopefully with the idea that the number of restrictions that we are putting on the operation of this concern with this special exception – I think there is a compromise here as far as the number of vehicles, and one that we might could look at based on – and I hear you, this is your district and always yield to that Commissioner, when we talk about a situation like that. To where you would not like to see the number 400 vehicles. But I think with the number of restrictions we have in putting a number of 350 vehicles, we compromise between the 300 and the 400, and we put 350 and let him operate and run his business with the special exception rules. If he violates any of those then we have reason to pull his business. So I would put that in the form of a motion based on all the information being provided for the neighborhood and for everyone else that we approve this with the number of 350 vehicles to be the maximum amount on that property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a second? Ms. Sims: I second it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask you this. Inasmuch as they know about it, has there been, I’m asking this either to you or to Mr. Patty, has there been at least a verbal signoff on what you’re talking about doing here, by the neighborhood association? And what I’m clearly trying to get is to – I don’t want to vote against this young man or his business in here today, but I also have just been down the path of 2-1/2 court decisions. I’m trying to get us to a point that – let me [inaudible] while we’re deliberating this, if no decision is taken today, am I correct in saying that his business goes on, he continues to operate, it’s not anything that’s against him at this point? Am I right, Rob? Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is – well, let me ask you this. Is he out of business today? Mr. Sherman: No. Mr. Mays: Okay, then, if we don’t make a decision today, if we decide to do it in two weeks, will he keep functioning, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Okay. What I’m trying to get is I think the attorney, of having to deal with the Hyde Park situation previously, going into three court situations, y’all on a tight budget and having to pay for it, the only thing I’m saying is that the neighborhood 18 be given the opportunity, and this would not influence me to a point that if the petitioner is correct – but I just don’t think you ought to march down that same path to a point of potential to where you could end up two weeks from now, rehearing this, and then we [inaudible] neighborhood to a point of trying to get something taken away that should not have been done in the first place. I’m just saying if there is any finality, let them know it’s in the final, if they don’t have any objection to it then fine. Because remember a little bit [inaudible], we went through it, nobody was here, and then all of a sudden, bam, it’s full. And then we reacting to it. And then we spent money to react. Folks, you know, it costs. The attorney only did his job. The Commission instructed to go and when he came back, we went again. But I’m just saying if the young man can continue to operate without any interruption or interference from the city, he’s in business, [inaudible] he’s got a [inaudible] they know him, he’s not stranger, it would be much better that if they’re in concert with the plan he’s doing than to a point of coming back. And I think all of us have been here long enough to know that the typical case [inaudible] second time is that most people, the classic is I didn’t see the zoning sign, and you have to end up hearing it. So I’m just saying if two weeks is not going to injure his business, keep him functioning and operating, it gives time, George, for you all to communicate with the neighborhood and if necessary with the business owner and the neighborhood, they know it’s in your final plan, bring it back to us here in two weeks and go on and get it passed, as opposed to coming in here and then trying to react to a neighborhood situation that’s going to cost us some money that we don’t have to spend. And at that point then I’m going – and I be frank, I’m going to have to tell the neighborhood, [inaudible] legally then I’ve been that route with court, I don’t plan to go it again. I think out of courtesy we should at least know what they’re thinking and to a point [inaudible] but I think they are the ones who live there and he’s the one who operates the business there. Do the folk have a meeting And of mind or don’t have a meeting of the mind, but at least we know where they are. I’m going to make a substitute motion that it be postponed for two weeks and that you all conduct that type of communication with the neighborhood and with the business owner and that he be allowed to continue to operate and to move ahead with his business as normal and uninterrupted and that that decision be made at that time. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second. Any other discussion? We’ll vote on the substitute motion first, Madame Clerk. All in favor of the substitute motion, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Mr. Grantham votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll bring this back at the next regular Commission meeting, is that right? The Clerk: Yes, sir. 19 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Brought back. st The Clerk: February 1 meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So the petitioner will know when to come back [inaudible] chance to talk to the neighborhood association and make sure [inaudible]. Next? The Clerk: Item 21 was requested by Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 21? The Clerk: 21. Motion to approve funding and engineering study and project from Phase I SPLOST for Winchester Subdivision with the identification of an appropriate funding source. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess that would be identification of an appropriate funding source. There is some question as to the use of Phase I SPLOST money. I just wanted to make sure we had cleared that up. I support the project but I just wanted to make sure we had an appropriate funding source and dollar amount that we were going to spend on this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, it would be my ruling that – and I checked the resolution – that it was a tax imposed throughout Richmond County, including the city, and therefore the remainder of that tax would be money available for use throughout Richmond County. So my [inaudible] is that it is an appropriate funding source. Mr. Cheek: And do we have the dollar amount set aside for this? Mr. Shepard: In the SPLOST report, there was some $2 million of unexpended funds, which was there in Phase I, and then subsequent to that there were two encumbrances of those, of that fund balance in behalf of two projects recently brought before this Commission, which were not just carte blanche, but they were one subject to engineering and the other subject to appraising. And by the same token, it would be my ruling that this money would be available for projects similar to the projects that were comprehended in the law at that time, and those were roads, streets, and bridges. So it would have to be limited use for roads, streets, and bridge purposes. Mr. Cheek: And for the work that we’re asking to have this funding appropriated, we need a balance on the encumbrances on the repair money, SPLOST repair money, 20 how much we’ve spent or allocated, what the balance is, and then the balance for this project that we’ll be taking out, to see if there is additional funds left over for other work. Mr. Shepard: I can make inquiry about the specific amounts set aside a couple of meetings ago. Mr. Cheek: Teresa, can we get some light on estimated amount for the project? Ms. Smith: If memory serves, we had approximately $800,000, I believe it was, that was allocated for this project, and based on the other allocations that were recommended by Mr. Shepard, I believe there was approximately $300,000 remaining in the balance of the monies that are being appropriated based on the numbers that Mr. Shepard had presented. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I may. I have received, Mr. Cheek, I have received subsequent information that the corrective measures in each one of those projects might be significantly cheaper than originally forecast. And so there may be a possibility to increase the fund balance and decrease what is there for that project. I recently had the information communicated to me, and I apologize for Ms. Smith that I didn’t have a chance to talk to her about this. Ms. Smith: Is this technical information that you had communicated directly to you that I’m not familiar with? Mr. Shepard: I would call it technical information, yes. Ms. Smith: Okay. Mr. Shepard: And I think that there may be more money available there if the [inaudible] can be utilized as recommended. I have not yet talked to the engineer so there may be additional monies – not additional monies, but it may be that the scope of the work and the cost of the work of the previously-approved pipe repair – I’m referring to the Milton Martin case – could, could be saved so that there would be additional monies available for other projects that are of like kind, such as drainage, streets and bridges. Ms. Smith: Would that be a project that Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst is performing a study to submit to us? Mr. Shepard: They are performing a study and I had a person call me and indicate that there were technologies that may be available, and like I say, I had not yet had a chance to have your opinion or your department’s opinion, to comment on that. There may be more money available for projects like Wilkinson Gardens, so that would be – subsequent to me talking to Ms. Smith – 21 Ms. Smith: If you could just refer them to me, I think it will be a better use of time for my technical staff to review those types of inquiries and provide a brief report back to the Commission with respect to finalizing and following up on those technical suggestions. Mr. Shepard: And I think we can get that to you by [inaudible]. Ms. Smith: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I call for point of order. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: I thought this agenda item was about finding out whether funding was available, and seem like we discussing a whole lot of other things involved in here. Only thing this supposed to come back to find out whether the funds were available, identify the funding source. You’ve already said that they have been identified. Now all the other problems and all this other, that’s another issue. And so I think that we should move to approving this as is stated here on the agenda. I mean we getting into a whole lot of other things now. That’s not the agenda item. Ms. Smith: And I apologize, Commissioner Hankerson. I wasn’t familiar with those other items, either. Mr. Hankerson: I think the questions were answered that the Engineering Services chairman asked and the funds are available, we can use the funds for this. Now the amount and all of that and the other projects I think, we got concerns with that I think I move for we need to put that on another agenda. I appreciate if we go ahead. approval of item 21. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that is what item 21 says, is that right, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir, with the appropriate identification of an appropriate funding source, and the Attorney has ruled that it could be funded from SPLOST I maintenance funding, $2 million maintenance funding. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I don’t want to leave out one small detail, but we have got to establish a budget ceiling for this project. I think all of us would love to have $2 million in an unlimited – have that money allocated to a project without a cap on it and I think that that is in fact germane to this issue, and I’m trying to get this passed today. I support the project, but I will not support it without a dollar figure associated with the engineering study and the project work. That’s all I’m asking for, is the dollar amount set aside for this. We’ve identified the funding source. All I want is the dollar amount set 22 aside for the project where we can look at the balance. That is germane. And secondly, I’ve had enough things, and this department head has dealt with enough stuff from people on this Commission and people in other departments taking so-called technical information from other people, taking it public and taking it everywhere else about technologies, technical things related to Public Works need to come to the Public Works director. There may be savings, there may not. But very few people have ever – I’ll calm down about this, but the technical stuff needs to go to her. We don’t need to be rendering opinions on things when we’re not technically based. I’ve already said this thing about the pipes and so forth. Everybody said well, let’s just line and everything else. Well, the pipes are collapsing. We’re not going to get into that today, but all these technologies to save money have to be proven through engineering bases. T hat information needs to go through the department head. I’ve just had enough of these end runs around the department head. It comes through her. Commissioner Hankerson, that’s all I’m asking for, is just a dollar amount for the project and an estimated dollar amount for the engineering study where we can go ahead and approve this today. Mr. Hankerson: Well, that’s what I thought you were getting. I don’t see a reason for you chastising me about some other issue. What is it about $800,000 that you don’t understand? Mr. Cheek: Well, that’s not written down anywhere and that needs to be written down as part of the motion. It’s not written down as part of this measure. I mean we have approved the project, but we need those dollars, as identify the funds, what funds are we identifying? That’s all I’m asking for. Mr. Hankerson: Right. In the meeting, the last meeting she did say $800,000. She stated $800,000 here now. Mr. Cheek: But the way the measure is written, it says identification of the appropriate funding source. There is not a dollar amount listed as there is with every other project on the list. Mr. Hankerson: Well, it was understood. We already stated how much it was. That’s why [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s get back to the motion. I agree there ought to be a amount to any project that we looking at, not just [inaudible]. I agree with that. Is there a motion on the floor now? Mr. Cheek: I make a substitute motion that we appropriate $800,000 – we don’t have a motion yet? The Clerk: We didn’t get a second for Mr. Hankerson’s motion to approve. Mr. Hankerson: I said to approve, if you want to amend it, say $800,000. 23 Mr. Cheek: Yeah, that’s all. I just want a ceiling on it, just a dollar amount like Not to exceed $800,000 for the project and engineering study. every other one has. The Clerk: Not to exceed? Mr. Cheek: From the SPLOST funds identified by the Attorney. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and two seconds, I think. Any other discussion? Commissioner Mays? Mr. Mays: No, I think both of them are right. The Chairman agreed last week in committee for us to hear this and he supported it and I was thankful that Commissioner Hankerson sat in our committee meeting and brought it to our attention. It was one that was long overdue and I think there was a particular reason, you know, for going ahead to bring it forward as much before those funds particularly disappeared and you have one that been waiting out there for years. So I think that putting a number figure in it, I hope that that will satisfy it and to, that we can go ahead and move ahead. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and two seconds. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? And that is for Winchester Subdivision. The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion is to approve funding not to exceed $800,000 for the engineering study and project from Phase I SPLOST for the Winchester Subdivision. That’s the motion on the floor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me say this, too, and y’all, y’all know Olive Road has been sitting here for 212,000 years and still have not gotten funds, still have not benefited, so just leave the door open cause I’m coming. Mr. Boyles: Is that the sewer, Mr. Williams? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s the sewer. Mr. Boyles: That’s supposed to be bid this month, I understand. We want to see it though, don’t we? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand. But when you get to spending money, Tommy, we talk about it after we carry this motion. Let’s look at this motion. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. 24 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you talking about money, Tommy, see I don’t care where it come from, as long it [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: [inaudible]. The Clerk: We’re on item 29, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. PLANNING: 29. Z-05-07 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bruce E. Coward, on behalf of Margaret Sibley Dale and Kathryn Sibley Boardman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture), Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 affecting property located on the southwest right-of- way line of Walton Way Extension, 930 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of Wheeler Road and Walton Way Extension and contains approximately 9 acres. (Tax Map 23 Parcels 7, 7.1, 8, 346, 346.1 and 347) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Patty: This is a nine acre tract located between Walton’s Corner, where Winn-Dixie used to be, and a tract that’s got Walton Rehab Rehabilitation Center just next to Augusta Exchange Shopping Center, it backs up to the new Regal Cinema. It’s a nine acre tract. Got a fair amount of frontage on Walton Way Extension. It’s surrounded by B-2 zoning so we’re going to recommend you approve it, but I want you to be aware of the traffic situation that’s out there now. If I can just bore you with some numbers here just for a second. The DOT 2002 count on Walton Way Extension in that area was 22,196. The city did a count in October of 2004 and the current count out there is 34,203. So you can see that traffic is increasing rapidly and part of that is because of Best Buy and some other things that are happening out in that area. We are soon to be let a project that will add a half diamond interchange to I-20 at Walton Way Extension and improve Davis Road into Columbia County, and when that’s complete, estimated at about 2007, the project is going to be a massive project, if it’s going to be let, to improve Bobby Jones Expressway at I-20, which will include the interchange at Bobby Jones and Wheeler Road, and a great separation at Scott Nixon and system collection distributor roads in front of Home Depot and all the way, almost to the vicinity of Lowe’s up there. The bottom line is that this corridor, traffic has grown quickly and for probably the next five to seven years if this construction takes place it’s going to be even higher because traffic diverts to this location. And even though we want the development, you know, we want them to do well, the zoning is justified, I think you need to be concerned about how we’re going to control the traffic out there and what it’s going to be like if it’s not any traffic control. I’ve had a number of conversations with the traffic engineering folks and while they’re too close to Skinner Mill/Walton Way extension light probably to meet the normal signalization requirements, the southern end of this property is about mid-block between that signal at Skinner Mill and the signal at Walton Way Extension and Wheeler Road, so it could be signalized if it had – and we estimate that what they want to build is a 90,000 square foot retail center. No restaurants, that sort of thing, although there could 25 be under zoning they’re requesting. We estimate using [inaudible] trip generation standards that they’re going generate about 6,000 or 6,500 trips per day just out of this, out of this shopping center if it’s fully developed and successful, which we hope it is. The only way to get in and out of there right now is that center turn lane. So I’m going to recommend that you approve it, but you – as a stipulation require them to do a traffic impact analysis, to use a consultant that we both agree on to do that, and if so, that – I’m just going to leave this open for discussion – that they contribute in some way to the traffic signal that will probably be needed at that location for full development and all these other things I’ve mentioned to you. I understand from the traffic engineering folks that the cost of that signal would be somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000, depending on how it has to be coordinated with the other signals in the area. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What’s your pleasure, gentlemen? Commissioner Sims? Ms. Sims: Yes, this is good news. Good news/bad news. I would like to recommend that we do approve this but that we ask for them to maybe participate, after a traffic study, to participate with us in the signage if we need a traffic light at that area. This is a wonderful new development and definitely Richmond County is excited about having new retail businesses. I don’t want to do anything that would jeopardize this project, but at the same time we are going to have to face the fact that it is an extremely crowded and potentially dangerous area to go in and out of. So I’d like to recommend that we do approve it, but request that they would join us in a traffic study and maybe a portion of whatever the traffic signal would, the cost would be. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and two seconds. Any other discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for it, cause I agree, it’s a plus and [inaudible] business in, but if I can – and let me, maybe I need to address this probably to the Attorney and to Mr. Patty. In looking at the amount of property they’ve got and of making sure that they get maximum use of the property that’s there, and I guess of trying to make what I’m going to say more business friendly from the city’s standpoint – I’m hearing us say on one hand we want the – honestly, the traffic study is going to have to be done anyway, but then if I’m a perspective business person coming in with that type of development, just playing devil’s advocate, I’m going to say to the city, if I’m coming in new I wasn’t really responsible for everything else y’all put up there, so it ought to be some plan, somewhere, that gives some perspective about what should be done there anyway. And I think if the bottom line is going to be signalization – I just want to make 26 sure that to a certain extent we’re not making them pay twice per se [inaudible] traffic study to be done and they participate and then we say participate in the signalization. But I think if you’ve been up there on foot or in a little go-cart like that leprechaun in the movie, you know it’s going to have to be some signalization that’s going to be done there that’s different what you’ve got that’s up there. Is there any way possible that we can, from the standpoint, looking at it from the city side of what needs to be done with increased traffic flow, and then we work with them maybe on a signalization part, as opposed to them paying for study parts of it to be done on traffic, when in essence you’ve got a lot of existing properties per se that’s there and a lot of retail that’s out there, that I think some things should come under this confines of [inaudible] on board and of being able to be ready to go, to say okay, we know if we’ve got X number of thousand per se increase to come into this area, this is what we’ve got, but in coming on could you work with us on the new signalization? Cause the signalization is going to be there [inaudible] I’m just a little leery about asking folk to kind of pay for two different things to come in and they increasing the tax base. And maybe just from a little small business owner, I’m looking at it from that perspective that’s in there. I mean I’m going to vote for it and I want to see it done, but I mean I’m just, I’m not – I don’t want to see us to a point where somebody coming in and all of it goes on their shoulders and say look at what I’m bringing you and then you say okay, fine, help us with the study, and after the study’s over with, we want you to help us put up the traffic lights, too. You know, when in essence – and I’m not knocking what’s out there, Barbara, but I’m just saying to a point some things, you know, that they didn’t create the other positive things we got, that caused the congestion we that we got. And I think collectively the city ought to have in place some plans when we move, whether it’s the Target area, whether it’s downtown, whether it’s Washington Road, whether it’s in south Augusta, there should be some means for [inaudible] of traffic flow and how it does that’s on shelf, dusted off and [inaudible] 10,000 more cars than what you got, signalization is here, could you possibly help in doing this? Because you know, to a point, you know, if they’re not – if theirs is not the only vacant piece of land, we could see it take an attitude of maybe going west, young man, [inaudible] may not require them to do all the things that we want to require them to do. And I’m just throwing that out. I want to see it down, but I’m just wondering if there’s a more business friendly way, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, maybe that’s something that could be worked through the Administrator’s office and the proper channels, that we’re not asking them to come to us with a project, put it up and do, and then pay for some of the things I think that ought to be in place in any given city in-house that you do. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Point well taken, Mr. Mays. I want to recognize Ms. Sims, with her hand up. Ms. Sims: And yes, thank you. I would like to clarify my motion. Perhaps I did say join us in the traffic study and in the traffic light. What I meant was that we need a traffic study and they will join us in the traffic light. But we definitely do. We, the county, the city, this government needs to do the traffic study. Because there are already existing businesses there that probably should have been addressed maybe before now, 27 and I don’t think that the new prospective people coming in would be necessarily the ones to do the traffic study, but I do think perhaps they will help us with the traffic signal, and I thank you for that clarification and like to amend my motion to reflect that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: The [inaudible] young lady is usually always on cue, but I just wanted to make sure we didn’t, we didn’t run them off before they got started, and that was my only thing in there, Barbara, that I was doing. I want to see it get done, too, even if mean some folks finding some traffic lights maybe that’s too close together in some places, that you stop every 20 feet. Have one or two downtown that it takes you 15 minutes to get from one to the other. Maybe could move one of them and move it somewhere, but that’s a thing for another day. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I just had a conversation with the Attorney and he wants to have a five minute recess in order to – might have some resolution to this whole thing that we might be able to solve it. I’m going to yield to Mr. Williams [sic] down there with his hand up. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Cheek [sic]. I’d just like to say message goes out to staff that this needs to happen and we need to do everything we can to make it happen. This is the type of development we need to attract here. And if there is a little traffic – as long as there are people in and out of the store they might complain, but at least they’ll be frequenting businesses in Richmond County. But let’s make it happen. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we postpone this just for about five minutes and go on with the meeting? Mr. Cheek: A motion to table this and take a five minute recess. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Hankerson: Recess? Mr. Grantham: Table it. The Clerk: Motion is to table. Mr. Cheek: No recess? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we’re going to move, keep right on going. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: A motion to table is undebatable so we’ll table this and carry the vote. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. 28 Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk, while we’re moving along. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 30. Motion to approve a request by Kum Cha Smith for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Corner Store located at 1801 Marvin Griffin Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Deferred from the January 4, 2005 meeting) Mr. Sherman: This is a request. We presented it to you in Public Services Committee. The License Department and the Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the application and recommend that it be approved. This is an existing location with a new owner. And if you’d state your name address for the record. Ms. Smith: My name Kum Cha Smith. And I have [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Sherman, I notified the neighborhood association and talked with them, talked with some of the neighbors. They expressed some concern but they are not here. I had this pulled last time because of the area in Apple Valley, beer and wine sold, coming in, the – Highway 56, Mike Padgett out there, on this side, and this is the Marvin Griffin side which runs into the neighborhood, Winesap and Marvin Griffin. But in lieu of them not being here, I had no other phone calls from them. I got nothing to, no reason to hold this up any longer. If we get a motion out of the of the members – Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve and second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Mr. Mays and Mr. Boyles out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 31. Discuss changing the approval limit for the Administrator. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee January 11, 2005) 29 Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, the Mayor, myself being Mayor Pro Tem, met with the Clerk, met with the Administrator to approval of the limits. We decided together that we would raise the limit from $10,000 to $20,000 to - in case something come up that he had to do rather try to get this body together, he has the authorization to spend up to $20,000 and that’s what we agreed on, Mr. Russell, here. Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Grantham: I second. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion seconded. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I - Mayor Pro Tem, I have some concerns about it. I thought - I didn’t see why it was so important to do this right away. To me it seems to be premature to do this. We haven’t confirmed appointment of Mr. Russell as of yet and why is this so important to bring this issue up? I haven’t heard Mr. Russell come and request anything since he has been serving in this capacity so I just think it’s immature to increase the purchasing power and authority. I know it’s going to pass but it seems like we put the cart before the horse. There may be some other things that Mr. Russell want to change and I’d like to ask him if there anything else while the commissioners on a roll that you might want more authority in to go ahead and I’ll amend the motion. I ask for the motion to be amended. Anything else that you want, Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: That’s not what’s point of order. Mr. Cheek: Point of order, please. Let’s proceed with the order of the day. Mr. Hankerson: That is the order -- let me talking about this -- let Mr. Russell answer the question. I’d like to hear his answer. It says increase purchasing power and authority. That’s what it says so I’ll -- that’s why I was asking. I think my question -- I think my question is easily in order. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners and Members of the Commission, we did have some conversations about this and I am in favor of raising it to $20,000. I think it would help eliminate some of the backlog that we have in front of us today on a regular basis. We’ve got a few numbers that would speak to that to some degree. I did not favor raising it to $50,000 simply because I thought that was a fairly large step to take at this particular point in time. Looking at other communities around us, between $20,000, $25,000, $30,000, and some are still at $10,000, it seems to be an appropriate amount given the size of our government and the nature of the kinds of business we’re doing today, given the tenure of the times and I would support that. As far as additional items, at some point, I will be coming back to you with a request of things that I think we need to do to continue to move Augusta forward but one small step at a time and I think this would be that step for today, sir. 30 Mr. Hankerson: Could you give me some examples of, Mr. Russell, of what this change would make? What problems or just some examples of this change from $10,000 to $20,000? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. It would allow us to make purchases without coming to you of an additional $10,000. There’s - Ms. Sams has the numbers and it looks like we’re probably talking a - if you got a minute, Ms. Sams, to present those numbers and talk about the number of things we’re talking about there. She did look those up for us. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we get Ms. Sams to maybe provide the Commissioners, anybody that’s interested in seeing those numbers? Y’all know this is my first meeting here. I want to keep this thing on a roll so I can get in and out. Mr. Hankerson: So I can follow up. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We don’t mind you having a follow up, Commissioner Hankerson, but maybe Ms. Sams can provide that information to those who would like to see that information and that way we can, you can compare those things. I think we got the votes like you mentioned earlier to go ahead and pass it. I just don’t want to hold us up here with me being in the driver’s seat right now. Mr. Hankerson: I don’t need to hear. I just got another question I just wanted to ask for clarity of what this means. Does this mean that up to $20,000 that could be more than, that can be anytime, that could be four $20,000 projects? That’s my question. That it could be four within one Commission meeting, between Commission meetings? Does that mean - that’s what that means? Any separate item? I’m asking that for information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, and my perspective on that is I think we got an administrator that we got enough confidence in to know that if four - if three things, two things came up and he just spent $20,000, I think he would be competent enough to come to us and say we got a situation here. That’s something else to do. If we’re thinking that he’s the type of administrator that it’s going to take the liberty of spending $12,000, at liberty at four different points, I think if something came up, I think it’d be justified, I think he would be mindful enough to share with us as a body as with the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, whoever he or she may be, but not just to spend the money because it’s there. If that’s the case, then maybe we shouldn’t vote not for this raise, for this increase but not vote for the administrator. Mr. Hankerson: I’m just only asking if he does that, that’s fine. That’s the only thing I’m asking. If he comes back with four $20,000, is that, that’s what we’re voting on? $20,000 for four different occasions? That’s what I’m asking. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, I think Commissioner Hankerson brings forth a good point and this is not meant to subterfuge 31 the purchasing process. The purchasing process will be followed in all matters there and if the purchasing agent, Ms. Sams or myself notice that individuals have brought forth two $19,000 purchases on the same project to try to be a subterfuge of that, you’re right. We will not approve that and that will not be approved. What this will do is get us up to that $20,000 limit but it’s not a mechanism to spend any more than that just based on what we got now. I think Ms. Sams and myself are very cognizant of that, and occasionally, we will talk regularly about individuals that have come forth with a $9,900 purchase request and then another and that gets kicked back and y’all look at that on a regular, y’all look at those things so it’s, the purpose of this is to speed government and not to circumvent the process at all. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s been plenty of discussion on this. We got a motion and a second, is that right, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Yes, sir. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re going to call, any questions and go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor, let it be -- Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me just ask two questions very quickly and I think he’s in that same direction. But one, in reference particularly to change orders, does this keep you in that same perspective of your overall change order policy or how does that work within there? Mayor Pro Tem: Now, my understanding, Mr. Mays, is that when we talk with the Mayor and the Administrator about that, the change order process will stay like it is now. Any change orders still come back through committee as it have been before. Now if there was an emergency situation and I think that’s why the Administrator was given that increase, for something that had to be done for whatever reason, that may be different but the normal change order process will go through the process its going through now and that’s back to committee then back to this body. Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking that quite frankly was more to protect the Administrator than to, than to have it, so much answerable by the Commission. We’re not the only folks around the room on broadcasting policy, to sit down and how to figure out some things out, and my reason for asking that a change order just in case playing devil’s advocate then if you got some devils to decide to play with your policy and what they do is figure out in a change order scheme that it’s been raised by that level and get some numbers in there to a point that gets you out of that bracket then to a point it may be and I think Fred’s smart enough to catch them before it gets out of hand but I think to a point they can do their best of a few first ones in there and that’s why if the change order policy stays the same, that’s what I was getting to and I don’t have any problem with us moving with that, Mr. Mayor. I also think that to a point it may also help us in our realm of small businesses from the standpoint of adjustments and being able to work with some packaging of smaller increments of where you may want to deal locally but of having 32 them in packaging outfits of where small businesses can come to the table if some of this can be worked even through the administrative process and it gives it a limit in there that’s worth while of doing business with so I support it. Mayor Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, we’re going to take a vote. All those in favor, let me know by the normal sign of voting. I’m voting yes. Mr. Hankerson votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The next item, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 32. Motion to approve the installation of a water line on Raborn Road. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee January 11, 2005) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Max, is that yours? 32, Doug. Mr. Doug Cheek: Excuse me. Hopefully all the Commissioners, Mayor, Attorney, Clerk, Administrator all received copies of additional information that was requested by Commissioner Mays. And basically that is an additional spreadsheet that you’ve actually seen before, but it had an added column, has an added column now, with anticipated costs, is what we were asked to bring back, keeping in mind that those numbers are estimates, hopefully they’re on the high side. But they are estimates with very little engineering done to those. The purpose of that, I think, was to basically just see the size of the projects that we had already identified and that’s what those numbers should reflect. Give you a chance to digest that if you haven’t seen it yet. The [inaudible] question is Raborn Road, which currently sits at number 15, not based on a numerical scale but based on the overall rating scale, which is the second to last column. And the numbers, those overall rating numbers is addition basically from left to right and it’s kind of difficult to summarize the rating format in a spreadsheet because it would be pretty long, probably stretch all the way across the chamber. But that’s generally the summary of how that works. We can go through each or any of those that you’d like us to. And Raborn Road is actually – this spreadsheet was presented to you back in August when we initially did a rating of all of these projects. The only difference is we added the numerical values, which did not play into the rating format, simply because the rating format was based solely on the need for the project and not necessarily the dollars. And that’s kind of why I think we’re still here talking about this one, is maybe the discussion about whether or not we build them in order of priority or we summarize those and do some of the smaller projects together is what came up. I think only there’s one on the Commission today that actually was involved in what we call the unsewered pocket projects, which we’re now getting to the very end of those, thank goodness. But this was a similar format. We identified the needs, we came up with a methodology to address 33 that and then after we came up with a list, the Commission had an opportunity to kind of move those priorities around, based on a number of things. And that’s, I think that’s kind of where we’re at today. Commissioner Smith has asked that this one be addressed sooner than the Utilities Department’s methodology had it listed at 15. I’ll answer any questions about that. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Doug, if I may ask, Raborn Road, that was a part of the old Pine Hill water system, wasn’t it, with those 2” lines, that was about what they ran out there before the old county water works was able to take them over and try to run those lines. I just wonder if Raborn Road didn’t somehow get lost in the consolidation effort. Because I forget – if I remember right, there’s quite a number of homes on that road. Mr. Doug Cheek: Unfortunately, Raborn Road did not fall into the Pine Hill water system. Mr. Boyles: It was not in the – Mr. Doug Cheek: But the same problem. Mr. Boyles: The 2” line? Mr. Doug Cheek: 2”, similar problem, either 2” or a different kind of pipe. Those type projects used a lot of what we call thin wall PVC. This is not thin wall PVC. It’s undersized. This is one that sort of got caught in the middle, I guess it was – when that line was ran 20 years ago, there weren’t but about two or three homes out there. Now there’s 33 and growing. And the growth has stopped. We have stopped growth, because you can’t draw any more water off of a 2” line than what is already drawing off of that line. So basically there can’t be any more. We just can’t in good conscience allow any more water to be drawn off that line, keeping in mind that that’s only for drinking purposes and use within the home. That doesn’t even include fire suppression, cause there is none. There are no fire hydrants on Raborn Road. Whenever we do one of these projects, that is one of the criteria, and you’ll notice across the top one of them says – it’s about in the middle of the page actually in the first bend – it says fire protection. Most of these you see do add some sort of fire suppression to the system. That’s kind of because of the under sizing of lines, typically aren’t big enough to allow for enough volume and flow to fight a fire. This would do that, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So Doug, what do they do for fire suppression? You know, you bring up another valuable issue here now. You talking about [inaudible] and drinking water, and that’s important. But when you need fire plug and you got 33 homes versus the five when y’all first ran that line out there, what do we do? 34 Mr. Doug Cheek: What we do is – you have to do what’s called fire flow. It’s a test and actually when this road came up we were asked to look into it a little bit deeper and find out basically what it would take to design, get a good estimate. That’s kind of what started this whole process for this particular road. And when we did a fire flow in this area, what we do is we hook a gauge up to a fire hydrant. The closest one in this case is at the bottom of the hill, at the bottom of the 2”, where the 2” ties to the 6”, and then we go to the next closest fire hydrant and you open one up and you actually are able to read the kind of flow that you have. And it’s actually what’s called static and residual basically, but it’s what’s left over if you’re fighting a fire with every bit of water you can out of fire hydrant you’re letting it free flow, what kind of pressure do you have left over. That scenario on Raborn Road created a negative pressure of siphon at the top of hill. So that’s not a good thing because you could actually siphon into the water system, into the distribution system, which is something you avoid at all costs. So without proper fire flow, we call it, you can’t just run a new line and just add a fire hydrant. It would give a false sense of security that you actually have enough flow to actually provide the fire suppression. Typically water lines were not ran, especially in the Pine Hill system, they were not ran to provide fire suppression. In fact, the funding mechanism for that did not allow for that. You would have to add money – and this is directly from Mr. Hicks’ knowledge of it. This is not one of those instances, but basically this is how that line got ran. It was, it was ran for the basic needs of just providing the drinking water. So now we don’t do that. We try to be smarter, I guess, cause we have more funds – and not that they weren’t smart, it’s just they didn’t have the funds. We try to be I guess more futuristic and make sure that we provide adequate fire flow for any new line that we run. But these lines, as you see, most of them are in the 20, 30 and some even in the 50 year old range. Hope that answers it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions from any other panel member? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, a comment. I think – let me thank Utilities for the amount of information that was gathered in a short period of time. I really would hope that regardless of whether the decision is up or down, and I know Jimmy hopes it’s up, on this particular project today, I would hope that everybody would take the time to look through and this may not cover, this covers a lot of the places that are there, but this information is very valuable from the standpoint particularly of a lot of the customers. And I’m looking at some of those that y’all rated near the top, where we have got several hundred people that are up here that are not being served at all, on some of those that are near the top, and the potential to take on in some cases 100 new customers. My reason for asking that this information be compiled, Mr. Chairman, so that before we make a decision on this road, and I don’t think this one is going to break the store in terms of how you go with it, but the same reason we just got through discussing about Winchester and the debate there about sales tax money popping up and being left over, is that my question was once you do a road and get it done, then and to a point are you going to develop a formula if you go from 15, to do 15 ranking down instead of 1, or if you’ve got 2, and I think that there could be some exceptions if you’ve got [inaudible] the top that 35 you do not have the money to do but that you may be able to move down the list and get those for lesser money and to be able to satisfy those people that are out there that need the service and to be able to deal with the, with the expanded lines of bringing on more people. So I think it’s a decision we are going to have to make but what I do see is once you do approve this and you look at it – fortunately a lot of them, and Jimmy’s trapped with a bunch of them. I’m looking at more 8’s on this list than I see anything else. I see some 6’s in there and ironically, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I see District 2 at the very top of it. It’s the first one that’s up there with the highest rating, 656.5. And $1.6 million to be done with an existing number of customers at 420. And a line length that’s very long in there. But I think once you do it, you just need to be mindful of the fact that when you approve and you do have an existing utilities list, human nature starts a domino effect as to where do you go next and then how much money do you have. And my question would be, Doug, again, I thank you for what y’all put together, but say for instance if we wanted to move on a massive program to go ahead and aggressively deal with your master list that’s here, and let’s say, let’s just move, quit sitting on it, we’re going to get Jimmy’s and we are going to get some more, how much money do we have? Any my reason for asking this, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is that I’ve heard us – we’ve signed off on a lot of bonds lately, we’ve been approving a whole lot of money. But when I total up this list here of everything that’s on here, I’m only looking at $10,400,000 to cover a lot of these areas that really need what needs to be done. That’s not a lot in the scheme of things of what we are running through with dollars in terms of being there. How much money do we have on hand if you – and [inaudible] but if we decided say in thirty days, Doug, to move, what kind of funds are we looking at without getting over into the system of moving any other money or if we did a separate project bond-wise to deal with this and to move them, because what I see is there is a danger three wise – either we are trapping folk that we’ve got, we are stifling any potential to deal with growth that are in those other areas to move, and if it gets piecemealed to death, then another generation of mayors and commissioners will deal with the same water problem, and if we’re coming on with a $75 million plant to do it, I’d like to know where we’re set with money to do it, because maybe we need to possibly change some of our priorities on where we’re dealing with with water. Got project management folk on board, we got stuff ready to be done, and for all we’ve signed off on and all those big certificates you’ve given Ms. Bonner to sign off on the bonds and all that, I’d like to see us, if it [inaudible] this can be done for $10 million to move out and to potentially do some more, how do we [inaudible] finance- wise to be able to do it, or are we looking at [inaudible] to be able to move more aggressively on getting these lines done? I know you all have got to deal with the hand that’s dealt you, but this helps a lot, but I’d like to know then the next step how do we move with it with the money, how much do we have, and what will it take us to get to that next step? Cause Jim has gone on here today and we’re only dealing with item number 15, it’s a quarter of a million dollars a little better, but then there are 14 ahead of his that’s got far more people in it and I don’t want to punish anybody that’s on this list cause all these folk are important. But where do we stand with the money and maybe how can we get to that conversation, on another day, to move with that? 36 Mr. Doug Cheek: Basically the funding for this was not accounted for in any of the bond money that we got. The $160 million. This was a separate project that – or program, actually, that we developed in the Utilities Department to take care of our existing customers. Typically, the bond projects have been identified projects for extensions and things such as that. In our original concept of this program, we offered to allocate $1 million annual to this effort. At that rate, of course, it would take ten years to finish the whole list and it would probably take a little longer, due to engineering. We do have renewal and extension funds. Annually, that is a $2 million pot which will actually grow after 2010, because that’s when we are going to stop using bond funds for the construction of most of our projects. But of course that money was allocated solely to the water line replacement program, you’re looking at a five to eight year range, based on engineering that would take some time to get most of these projects ready. We’d like to do most of them in-house because we do have that capability. We hope to – but of course if we wanted to speed it up, we would have to go out and get some help from a design firm. So we do have a funding mechanism that could allow us. But keeping in mind that that account typically is used for some other things that we actually use it for, it would be allocating our annual budgeted amount [inaudible] totally toward this program, which at the pleasure of the Commission we’d do that. We’d love to get them all done as soon as possible as well. I’m not sure if the bond funds could actually be readjusted for that. I don’t think so cause it was never listed. It was never listed as a potential project, but I see my boss coming, so I’ve got a feeling – Mr. Hicks: Doug’s done a great job, but when it comes to the funding, what we could do would be to use that $2 million a year for renewal and extension now that we’ve got the bond issue passed. Now some bond counsel might faint dead away, but there are state funds available. You’ve got – y’all maybe here about these state revolving loan funds for water and for sewer. And we would definitely qualify for state revolving loan funds. We have not used them heretofore because it has more paperwork and it’s more headache to administer than a bond and the interest rate isn’t really any better when you get to the bottom line in it. But it would be another way to leverage that renewal and extension money, if you wanted to say take $1 million of it a year, go out and get a state revolving loan fund and start paying it back. If you’ve got a $10 million state revolving loan fund, you’d have the money all at once and you can pay it back over a ten year period, using $1 million a year that’s already been allocated for that kind of thing. So there’s a number of ways to approach this. If you wanted to go ahead and not only authorize this today, but say okay, come up with a mechanism for funding the remainder of this program, we could do it. It would just be a matter of finding it. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could just follow up and I’ll be through. And it’s not being critical. But I think when we, when we talk about nine figures of money and we th talk about a new water plant and we talk about the potential of right at – and my 9 Street math might be a little wrong – but I think, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I calculated right about 558 new customers in addition to the ones that are being underserved that are on here that get into probably four figures of folk that are on here. I think it’s worth looking at very soon as to how we can do that. Not only is it good economic development, if we can get 37 the money. I think if you’ve got people who are in existence and conditions who have the potential to deal with [inaudible] and also to get water that is there on an adequate supply level, and to bring on that many, and then no telling what we could with with new customers that are out there. If we are moving to do other things with that type of money, then I think certainly we need to get a little bit more aggressive, and I’m not being critical, but it’s a very critical observance that I think we need to be moving in that direction to try and get stuff like this done, if there are some unused funds that we can [inaudible] do it. Now I probably will end up voting for that, but I also offer the fact to you single district Commissioners that once y’all do this, then some of you are going to be asked, cause when this becomes public and what you deal with it, is that folk who are inadequately served, once you make this move today, you put in here, and I’m seeing up and down the line, I’m looking at 2, I’m looking at Hankerson in 5, I’m looking at Jimmy with a whole lot more up in 8, he’s going to get all the calls. The folk on Raborn Road, they going to love you death, but let me tell you what, all these other [inaudible] you’ve got down there, they are going to call you, too. You’re going to need some help dealing with them. And you can get all of them in one day. But to a point I think it’s good that it’s out there, but I think it’s about time we start talking about how do we aggressively relieve this list, and if we’ve not been talking about it then certainly we need to start doing it, because this was my point of bringing this information forth. I think y’all have been very detailed with it. It gives the adequate numbers that we need. I appreciate it a lot and I hope the other Commissioners will look at it and that it will [inaudible] very soon, we can move toward an aggressive plan of trying to deal with getting this done. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to yield to Jimmy Smith, then Andy Cheek. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Out on Raborn Road, we do have a serious problem with that 2” line. First of all, we can’t have any more economic developer. The developer had to stop selling lots and building on account of the water department wouldn’t allow any further building there on that account. Out there with the 2” line, no fire protection, and then at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon everybody is taking a bath, we run out of water. And this is something that we really desperately need. In talking to Doug and Max about this, they said if we could tie it together with the [inaudible] tank and come across the landfill we wouldn’t have to purchase any right-of- way or anything and tie it together, which would be actually a plus to the whole line. So I want to move that approve this system. with that Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek, we got a motion and second. We yield to you. Mr. Cheek: I just – [inaudible] Lake Subdivision, is that the [inaudible] north of the area we repaired [inaudible] near Plantation Road last year? Okay. We promised them last year that we would complete that work this year. Is that still a good promise or are we [inaudible] now? 38 Mr. Speaker: No, sir. Mr. Cheek: We’re not going to finish that? Why did we tell them? Mr. Speaker: I don’t remember, I [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: We did an emergency repair because the pipes were part of the Pine Hills Subdivision and they kept busting along Plantation Road at the rate of about three a month and we told the residents and this Commissioner, I think the two guys standing next to the podium, I’m not sure I remember correctly, that we would complete that work this year that we started. And my concern is yeah, it’s $1.2 million, but you’ve got the second highest number of current residents – the highest number of potential development, new customers, and a system that has failed on a regular basis for the last several years. And I can’t in good conscience – while I support this project, not come to terms with some way to remedy that situation, especially in light of the fact that we told them we would. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think Max has his hand up. Mr. Hicks: One thing that the Administrator just asked us about in regard to funding is indeed the state revolving loan fund and if we were given say six to eight weeks could we put a program together and come to you and say that yes, we can borrow this number of dollars at this interest rate and it would be from – it wouldn’t be from money allocated [inaudible], it would be from money already allocated, $2 million for [inaudible] but we could leverage that $10 million as often we have to do in our homes or whatever to borrow money to get something done more quickly. We could approach it on a five to six to eight year period, but just as was pointed out, we could add hundreds of customers more quickly so it makes sense to borrow the money and go ahead and get it done more quickly and be bringing in more revenue. I think any business would do that, would spend dollars to get more dollars back in revenue. So it would be a good thing to do and it wouldn’t take away from this one today but it would let us come back to you with a plan using the amount of dollars that have already been built up in renewal and extension and used that together with additional renewal and extension funds, which we have budgeted $2 million a year, even covering everything else that we’re doing. Then we could put together a program and come back. And within reason that we put together the list that Doug and his folks did is that this day is finally here. We concentrated first on the pockets of unsewered areas for sewer. Now we need to go concentrate on doing the same thing with our pockets of water lines that need fire protection. It’s true that fire protection doesn’t have the EPD breathing down your neck with fines if untreated waters get into the – if untreated sewage gets into the waters of the state, but still it’s a need that our customers have. So we’re at the appropriate time and the comments from the Commissioners are well put today. And we will put together a plan if you’ll give us that direction, we’ll be glad to do it, and come back to you with a plan that would let it be done as quickly as could, using loan funds, and I feel sure we can get [inaudible]. 39 Mr. Cheek: Would the maker of the motion accept that as an amendment to direct staff to work on the remainder of these projects under the loan fund? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second. Any other discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I would hope to – and I’m not going to ask for an amendment to be done on this – but since I know how that domino can take effect, I would hope that if you all are going to put this in one motion, cause I was going to make a substitute that you let the whole plan go and you bring it back, but if you going to put this in one motion and you’re going to deal with the rest of those projects later, please, please allow the Administrator and the department head to work that program before you all start bringing these back one week, one committee, two at a time, and trying to beat everybody to that finish line of doing it, because then you’re not going to have any organized method of doing it, and you’re going to totally dismantle what you’ve got in any project priority placement, and it will be a total joke. So I just hope that – and I don’t think that has to be in the form of a motion, but I just hope you understand it, but I can tell you one thing I’m going to promise you. If I see one that pops up prior to my seeing Mr. Hicks or Mr. Cheek, I’m not going to vote for it. Because I think it needs to come back in a comprehensive way that we can get enough money to help all of these people and see a way clearer that we can do it in a short enough time and to get it done. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I agree, Mr. Mays. We all been in line waiting for some things to change. We’ll wait to hear from Mr. Hicks. Let’s go on and carry this motion through. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hicks, I need to talk to you after this meeting about Olive Road. I’ll talk to you after this meeting. Mr. Hicks: We were sitting in the other room, and when I heard your comment, I looked over at Doug, is it being bid? He said yes. Wait a minute – it’s going to bid this month, right? Ms. Sams, has it come to your department yet? You wouldn’t know necessarily, would you? Okay. It is right ready to go to Ms. Sams, to Ms. Sams to be advertised. So Commissioner, once I promised you that on the open floor, I made sure we were covered. 40 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Max. Thank you. Next item, Madame Clerk? Let’s get to that item on the table. We got some business people here. Let’s go ahead and lift that up. 29. Z-05-07 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bruce E. Coward, on behalf of Margaret Sibley Dale and Kathryn Sibley Boardman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture), Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 affecting property located on the southwest right-of- way line of Walton Way Extension, 930 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of Wheeler Road and Walton Way Extension and contains approximately 9 acres. (Tax Map 23 Parcels 7, 7.1, 8, 346, 346.1 and 347) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to take it off the table? Mr. Cheek: So move to pull the item off the table. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor, vote. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Which item number was that? The Clerk: Item 29. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 29? The Clerk: 29. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we need a motion to [inaudible] back? The Clerk: We just had a motion to take it off the table. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s off the table. All right. Steve? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me see – the deal has The motion should be that you approve another variation, or make sure I state it right. today the rezoning of this property to B2 status or zoning, that we not require a traffic study from the city because we have no funds for that currently, but if the city in its discretion determines that a signal is necessary within the next five years of this date that the cost of that signal will be shared 50% by the city and 50% by developer, which is Hand Properties, Inc. and that that condition be placed in the chain of ownership so that that will run to any successors in title for the next five 41 years. That would be the only way I know to get around the apparent lack of money that we [inaudible]. George would be primarily cast to call that or his designee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion? Ms. Sims: I make the motion. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. We have had plenty of discussion. I don’t think nothing else need to be said. Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and take the vote. Mr. Mays: One thing need to be said, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Mays: And I’m going to vote for it. And I’m glad we’re at that point. I have no problem with that part of the motion. But before you rule me out of order and not being germane, we don’t have money for that, but I’m going to tell you what, we had better change some philosophy about what we got on the shelf and what we don’t have, because if we’re going to attract business and be ready for them, we don’t need to be in a question mode about what we can handle and what we can’t handle. And that means to me that there are some priority adjustments that need to be done by this Commission to a point of a perspective business owner or owners coming in to a point of you knowing what is in place in a given area they going. And I don’t really think that’s real acceptable. And so I’m going to shut up before I’m out of order, so I got it in like in court, before you ruled me out of order, I’m going to vote for that motion, but I think to a point that when you’ve got these coming in, that that should be able to tell somebody something, if nothing else for their own investment, what they’re getting into and how that area looks. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go ahead and carry this motion. I see the Attorney’s hand. Mr. Shepard: Please. May I also ask that the representatives of the developer who are here, do so on the record, identify themselves and indicate their agreement to this compromise. Mr. Coward: My name is Bruce Coward. I represent Mr. Hand. Hand Properties, Inc. We do agree to that proposal. Mr. Powers: Thank you, thank Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commission. We appreciate it. My name is Roscoe Powers. I’m director of Hand Properties out of Atlanta and we agree to the proposal. Thank you. 42 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now can we [inaudible] the motion? Mr. Shepard: That’s all I needed Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I want to say something I been saying all the time, too, these developers coming down from Atlanta, I say then and I still say that Augusta is about to explode with growth. Atlanta done built so much they are building on top of themselves. People are trying to find places like Augusta. We hear all the negative stuff [inaudible] Sylvia, we hear all the negative stuff that the media puts out, but I’m telling you Augusta is the place to be. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Coward: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You have a good day. Mr. Coward: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: APPOINTMENT: 34. Consider appointment to the Richmond County Hospital Authority for a four year term. Reverend Clyde Hill, Sr. • Mr. James Kendrick • Dr. Roscoe Williams • Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I’ve had the opportunity to know all three of these gentlemen for a long period of time, and it would be my recommendation that we reappoint Rev. Hill, because I think of his ministerial background I think he fits the role pretty well for what needs to be done on the hospital authority. Ms. Beard: I second that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. 43 Mr. Cheek and Ms. Sims out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mays: If you think you’re going to get an undertaker to vote against that, you’re crazy. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’re going to hold these other two, well, three, we’ll discuss after we come out of legal. Well, we can take 37, if we want to take it now. Commissioner Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yeah. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll go ahead and take that and then we’ll hold confirming and approving the compensation package until after we come out of legal. The Clerk: 37. Discuss Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax V (SPLOST). (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson) Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, my colleagues, it’s time and it’s crucial time for us to develop a SPLOST package to present to the public. This should be done by August, and now we are at the end of almost – we’re in the middle of January so we only have about seven months to look at SPLOST V. We have some important issues that we need to dialog, so what, the reason I put this on the agenda today, I’d like for the Administrator – [inaudible] last time, the last SPLOST – our attempt to pass a SPLOST – did a great job of bringing it forth before us. We had work sessions that we were able to put the items on the table, and that is what is needed now. I’d like to make a We have to, and it’s a must for us to pass SPLOST V this year, so motion for the Administrator to begin compiling a work session schedule and recommendations immediately and also I’d like to welcome citizens and organizations for their recommendations. We must present an inclusive SPLOST package that the citizens of Augusta will accept and vote on and pass. So I’d like to put that in the form of a motion that we begin the process. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I don’t know if it was in anticipation of this, but I had placed on the Finance Committee for this coming Friday a work sheet with a time table on here for the 2005 issue, and it will be in your package 44 then. But I’d like to go ahead just for discussion at that point, to go ahead and ask Ms. Bonner if she will distribute these to the members of the Commission. We had talked with some people about putting this together, and I think it’s, it will turn out to be kind of a comprehensive plan that we can all look at, make the modifications that we need, and it gives us a time frame and a time table and we found that that worked pretty successfully the last few years with our budget preparation, and it’s again – it’s just solely information to look at and it is going to be in your Finance Committee package for Friday for members of the Commission to – and the Mayor’s office and the Administrator’s office and anyone else – to kind of come back and just look at. And I’d just kind of like to tie that in with Commissioner Hankerson’s desire to go ahead and get it on today, but I think if we just kind of look at the outline and discuss it in Finance Friday – I know the motion is already on the floor and I think it probably encompasses the same thing. So it was just an effort we had made to try to put us on a time frame. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other comments? Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible] elections office has also prepared the election time frame for us and has that to distribute. I think it’s appropriate that we go ahead and start and if you’ll allow the Clerk to distribute that. That gives us the time frame based on the elections requirements there, and I would be prepared on Friday to talk about this at some length, and I think that’s the appropriate forum for bringing that forth in Finance, and I appreciate Rev. Hankerson and Commissioner Boyles for getting this going. I agree fully. We need to move quickly on this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I have no problem with [inaudible] information that’s here. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ll just give you this so that we have time to look at it and digest it before Friday and even after that if we need to, but it just gives us a starting point and somewhere to go with it, who all would need to be involved in it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and a second. Mr. Mays: Let me ask one question. I realize and I think this is good, Mr. Finance Chairman. I just wanted to be correct on one thing, and I know we are going to bring it up in Finance, but is it probably safe to say just looking at [inaudible] that we have about two full months to potentially get out with at least a discussion package per se, that we will put together. I’m looking at the March 28 deadline date, give or take our being say gone, GMA, or whatever it is, and moving back in here. We’re pretty much looking at February. And they’ve you’ve got February a short month and then you’ve got March. So you’ve got two months in terms of having something to put together to talk about when you do get out there, even though that may not be what’s finally done, but I think there has to be something that you can [inaudible]. 45 Mr. Boyles: That just gives us a point to start talking. Mr. Mays: Yeah. Mr. Boyles: Nothing is concrete on this proposal. This is just a point to start talking. Mr. Mays: I think it’s good. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal manner of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We need a motion to go into legal. 38. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and potential litigation. B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. Mr. Grantham: So move. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Shepard: We only need it for personnel and pending and potential litigation. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Personnel and potential litigation. Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I’d ask that you consider the affidavit, the approval of the affidavit that I tendered to you indicating you went into executive session and discussed matters relating to pending and potential litigation and personnel. 39. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Cheek: So move. 46 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. Do I hear a second to sign this affidavit? Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Madame Clerk, if we could return to the two items that were deferred until after legal, relating to Mr. Russell. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 35. Confirm the appointment of Fred Russell as City Administrator. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? The Clerk: 36. Approve Administrator’s compensation package. Mr. Shepard: And if you will bear with me, I will read this into the record, because it’s going to be a letter memorializing this agreement and then we will file this with the Clerk tonight and put an appropriately typed version in the Clerk’s office in the morning. I’d also ask if you want this to be effective today, we will expressly authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign this letter of memorialization of the terms of the agreement. “Dear Mr. Russell: I am authorized by the And let me read them into the record. Augusta Richmond County Commission to memorialize the terms of your employment as follows: 1. You agree to serve at the pleasure of the Commission in an at will employee status. 2. Upon acceptance of this offer your annual salary will be 47 $120,000. You will have a car allowance of $7,200 annually paid in equal monthly installments with your regular compensation and a deferred compensation payment accruing monthly on a pro rata basis of $4,000 annually which shall be paid by Augusta to an institution of your choice. 3. You are entitled to other benefits such as vacation, sick leave, health care, life insurance and pension in the same manner as a twenty year employee. There will be a limit on the accumulation of vacation as provided by the personnel manual of Augusta which is incorporated herein by reference. I think that limit is 21 days. Salary and benefits package will be prorated for January, 2005. 5. If you are separated from employment by vote of the Augusta Richmond County Commission for any reason other than the conviction of a violation of local, state or federal law, you will receive salary continuation for six months. You will be entitled to continue your benefits package based upon your salary at the time of separation for a period of six months. The deferred compensation payment will be prorated for the months of service you have been employed and shall not exceed $4,000. 6. If you voluntarily resign for your benefit and convenience, you will not be entitled to the severance benefits package of six months salary and continuation of benefits. If these terms are acceptable, please sign the bottom of this correspondence and return this to the Office of the Mayor.” And this is a letter to be signed by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams on behalf of Augusta- Richmond County and Frederick Russell as Administrator. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell, officially welcome [inaudible] as the Administrator for the City of Augusta. We have had and we look for even greater things from your leadership. We are here to work with you. We appreciate your diligence and the things you have shown already. We have got all the confidence in you that you do a great job. Mr. Russell: Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I can guarantee that I will work very, very hard to live up to your expectations and do the best I possibly can, not only to serve you but the citizens of Augusta. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you again. 48 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: Not only do I congratulate Mr. Russell, now that he’s officially officially on board, but I also would like to congratulate the senior member of this body on his first full meeting presiding. A very good job, sir, in doing so today, and we congratulate you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Boyles: Could you tell us how many time you voted no today? (Laughter) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I need a motion to adjourn? Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We are adjourned. [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 January 18, 2005. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 49