The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-15-2005 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER March 15, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 15, 2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Mays, Williams, Beard, Cheek, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. 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 Rev. Patricia A. Scott. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. The Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and the Commission, we’d like to extend to you this token of our appreciation for your being here today [inaudible] impart a petition to heaven on our behalf. Thank you [inaudible] Chaplain of the Day. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) The Clerk: At this time, the Mayor and members of the Commission would like to acknowledge our Employee of the Month award. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD: Chester Willis and Joe Crozier Risk Management Department Safety and Training Division The Clerk: Would you please come forward? [reading] Dear Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected Chester Willis and Joe Crozier as the February, 2005 Co-Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. The duo was nominated by Derek Vanover. They work in the Risk Management Department, Safety and Training. The nomination states that both employees represent the City of Augusta with integrity and honor. They work as a team to provide county departments with training and support for safety-related issues. They live the team concept every day by offering their assistance whenever they see a need. They are both exceptional in their follow-up skills. They are the example of how departments should support each other to accomplish the greater goal. The Committee felt that based on Derek Vanover’s recommendation and Mr. Willis’ and Mr. Crozier’s dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta, both should be awarded Co-Employee of the Month. We would 1 appreciate you joining us in awarding Chester Willis and Joe Crozier Co-Employee of the Month for the month of February. Thank you. [ends reading] (A round of applause is given.) The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’re honored today to have Ms. Tara Miller, who is co-sports directors for Channel 6, who will do the honors and do our roll call in recognition of the Hephzibah Lady Rebels basketball team. RECOGNITION: Hephzibah Lady Rebels Basketball Team 2005 Georgia High School Association’s Class AAA Champions. (A round of applause is given.) Ms. Miller: First of all, I just want to extend my congratulations to the girls. They had an excellent season and it was a pleasure for me to cover them. I’ve covered them from beginning to the end and they really deserve this championship. We’re obviously very proud of the community and they also should be very proud. Let’s start with the players. Renate Lopez. Renate Lopez. Cammie Phillips. Neshia Harley. Charlotte Styles. Brittany Henderson. Laquoya Terry. Brooke Johnson. Chenice Wright. Amber Preston. Janessa Alexander. Chianti Lewis. Victoria Burch. Portia White. Jasmine Judge. Tiffany Drayton. Alissa Hugene. Phylicia Morris. Manager Dominique Anderson. Statistician Leadra Sabb. Assistant Coaches Angela Anderson and Erica Stokes. And the man who lead them there, 29 years he’s been here, he’s finally got himself a championship – Wendell Lofton. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Jimmy, you want to say anything? Mr. Smith: Yeah, I do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We appreciate this very much, the opportunity, and we certain appreciate these young people in our schools at Hephzibah. And just tell everybody who we are. This is the promised land. South of the Gordon Highway. Come on out and be with us. I congratulate all of you on a great job (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: We would also like to recognize the principal. Veta New is here with us today, too. Congratulations. (A round of applause is given.) 2 Mr. Lofton: Today we are so happy to be here and we’ve brought along a little shirt to give to our Mayor. Mayor Young? (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Lofton: And we thank everybody for just giving us the accolades we deserve. And also, we thank God for everything that He has done for us. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: Yes, sir? Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up the delegations next. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS: A. Lucy Laney Museum of Black History Ms. Christine Betts, Executive Director Ms. LaVeta Jones, President Delta Signa Theta Sorority, Inc. RE: Programs sponsored by the Museum The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Lucy Laney Museum of Black History has asked to be rescheduled for a later meeting. B. American Cancer Society Ms. Tricia Miller, American Cancer Society Mr. Robby Burns, ARC Human Resources Department RE: Relay for Life The Clerk: We now have the American Cancer Society, Ms. Tricia Miller, Mr. Robby Burns from the Augusta-Richmond County Human Resources Department regarding the Relay for Life. Ms. Miller: Good afternoon. Thank you so much for letting us be here today to tell you a little bit about the American Cancer Society Relay for Life. We have three volunteers here today that are part of the Relay for Life, Connie Crenshaw, Brenda Carroll, and Carolyn Free, that came to show their support. And Connie and Brenda are going to tell you a little bit about the event coming up in May. Ms. Crenshaw: Thank you. We were invited here by Betty Beard. Thank you th very much. She’s our honorary chairperson for the relay this year. This is Augusta’s 11 year for the Relay for Life. It’s going to be May 20-21. Starts at 7:00 p.m. at the Family 3 Y track. This is an overnight event, because cancer never sleeps. And each team keeps a walker or a runner on the track overnight. The purpose of the relay is to raise money to support the American Cancer Society’s programs and research and also to honor all cancer survivors and to remember at the luminary ceremony, when it gets dark, all those who have lost their battle with cancer. We would like to encourage all the Commissioners to join the City team, that Robby Burns is the team captain for. The website is on the brochure at your seat and you can go online to register to walk as part of that team, and importantly, to donate money for the cause. Ms. Carroll: Each year the Relay for Life begins with a roll call of cancer survivors. As our names are called, we congregated on the track to begin our survivors lap. Our group is diverse – young, old, men, women. Cancer isn’t choosey about who it chooses. All of us share one thing in common – we survived cancer or we are surviving cancer, at least for the time being. Those of us who can, walk the laps. Those who can’t are driven around in golf carts. One thing we are is a team, because we’re all in this together. I can’t begin to tell you what it means to all of us when we walk that lap around the track. The cheers and the applause and the support that we get from the other relayers and from people like you who contribute can’t be replaced. Our walk is our celebration of life. We walk because we can, and without the dedication and support of people like you, this would never, ever be possible. Your support helps us raise the funds that we need for research, for education, for awareness, and to hold camps that allow children to just be regular kids, even for just a brief period of time. We need the support to provide the education, to provide the funding for continued research. Your support offers us a hand to hold when we’re afraid. It offers us a shoulder to cry on when we need one. But more than anything else, it offers us hope – hope for a cure and hope for a future. Please walk with us on May 20. Your dollars may be the dollars that put us over the top, the dollars that find a cure for cancer, and the dollars that help us all walk the survivors lap. This year our goal is 500 survivors on that lap. If you know of survivors, please invite them to participate. We’ll also be holding a dinner May 3 to honor all the survivors. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Ms. Beard, would you like to say anything? Ms. Beard: Well, I’m wondering if Bobby [sic] Burns is here. The Clerk: Robby. Ms. Beard: Robby Burns is here. Robby, we want to thank you for being our team captain, and do you know, they have many groups participating, but we want to win. So what I’d like to do now is present a check to you for the Relay for Life and I hope with this, this will be the beginning. Please don’t miss anybody. All of the Commissioners, staff members, what have you, it doesn’t matter whether it’s $1 or $10 or whatever. But it’s going to be a great time for all of us and it’s a wonderful cause. 4 Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We are, we have next a presentation on the Judicial Center which is going to take some time, so what I’d like to do is see if we can clear up some of the non-controversial issues that people have come to the Chambers for today and they can go on about their business and we’ll go back to that item. Let’s, if you can, Madame Clerk, go to the consent agenda. If you could read the zoning and the alcohol issues and then we’ll move forward. The Clerk: Under our consent portion of the agenda – Mr. Mayor: I tell you what, let’s go through the consent agenda we have here [inaudible]. The Clerk: Our printed consent agenda consists of items 1 through 30B, items 1 through 30B. Our planning petitions, if there are any objectors to any of the planning petitions, would you please signify your objections by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z-05-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Gordon E. Brown, Jr., on behalf of R. L. Macklin, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Group Home per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2230 Lee Street and containing .26 acres. (Tax Map 44- 4 Parcel 332) DISTRICT 2 2. Z-05-24 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Calandra B. Brown 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 2217 Winston Way and contains .26 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 80) DISTRICT 6 3. Z-05-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by David Bostic, on behalf of LPB Properties, requesting a modification of a patio subdivision plan in an R-1A (One- family Residential) Zone affecting Aylesbury Landing Subdivision, per Section 9-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Belair Road and Burdette Drive. This property contains approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map 53, Parcels 2.2 & 8.1) DISTRICT 3 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: There is one objector. Which item is that? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that’s the one for the disapproval for item number 1; is that right? Lee Street, I think that’s the one. 5 Mr. Mayor: You’re here for Lee Street? Mr. Williams: Yeah, and it’s on the agenda to be denied, and I think that’s what she’s in favor of; is that right? The Clerk: Are you in favor of denying it or want it approved? Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: She’s here in support of - The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner for that item here? Petitioner is not here? Petitioner is not here? The Clerk: Mr. Macklin, R.L. Macklin? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, since the petitioner is not here, and we’ve gotten numerous, numerous calls about this, and I know this is in Commissioner Williams’ district, he has half of the street and I have the other half, so I think I’ve been getting calls, too. I think that we should show the support of the denial of everybody came here to oppose, if you may. This item today. So it’s strong support in the community that they do not want this and we do not want it and the Commission support that. And if they’re here, if you would ask them to stand and be recognized. Mr. Cheek: I wanted to just ask a question about number 3 [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let me – let me start with 1 first. Let me ask our Attorney. If we’re going to deny it, do we need to have the petitioner here? Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: I talked with the petitioner about an hour ago and he told me he would not be present today. [inaudible] try to find another location. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, before you do that, I know a lot of times we deny something but if we do it without prejudice – which way, without prejudice or with prejudice that it won’t come back? Mr. Mays: Just with a denial. Mr. Grantham: With a denial. 6 Mr. Hankerson: With a denial? Okay. Yeah. We want to make sure it’s gone for good. Mr. Mayor: Those people who are in the Chamber today in opposition to changing the zoning on the Lee Street property, would you raise your hands? All of you who are here in opposition? Just want to get a count of the hands. Four, four people are what I need is a motion to approve the consent agenda. present. So we’ll – Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second. Now what items from the consent agenda would you like to pull? What items from the consent agenda would you like to pull? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 15. Mr. Mayor: 15. Mr. Williams: Item 18, item 22. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: 3, please. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to pull any other items? Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] comment on one [inaudible] when we get there. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Now what I’d like to do, if we can, since we had a committee meeting or two since this agenda was prepared, if there are items we can add to the consent agenda. First of all from Planning, 31, 32, and 33. PLANNING: 31. Z-05-20 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Winston Gardner, Sr., on behalf of Susan Bly, et al, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2969 Ulm Road and contains 10.4 acres. (Tax Map 151 Parcel 31) DISTRICT 8 32. Z-05-22 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Garey Vangarden, on behalf of Geosong Presbyterian Church of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the 7 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1629 Barton Chapel Road and containing 3.07 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3 33. Z-05-23 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Abdullah El Khalifa 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 3539 Jonathan Circle and contains .22 acres. (Tax Map 123-4 Parcel 10) DISTRICT 2 Mr. Mayor: Public Services, that’s where the alcohol licenses are. Mr. Smith, are you handling those? Mr. Smith: Yes. Are they going to be on consent? Mr. Mayor: Can we put those on the consent? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Which items? Give me the numbers for the agenda. Mr. Smith: 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] to add 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 to the consent agenda. If the Clerk could read those, the alcohol applications, and see if there any objectors here. The Clerk: 35. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-13: A request by George S. Harrison for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Skyline Café located at 3328 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. 36. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-14: A request by Yong S. Hong for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Kinja Sushi Express located at 516 Shartom Dr. District 7. Super District 10. 37. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-15: A request by Chanda Kay Oglesby for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hampton Inn Augusta located at 3030 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. 38. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-16: A request by Jerald S. Scheer for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with T-Bonz Banquet Hall located at 2860 Washington Rd. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. 39. New Application: A.N. 05-10: A request by Back Hap Ja Son for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Corner Mini Mart located at 635 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 8 Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors for any of those licenses? Ms. Speaker: 39. Mr. Mayor: 39? Okay. Do we have unanimous consent here from the Commissioners to put 35, 36, 37, 38 on the consent agenda? Is there any objection to that? All right, now Administrative Services? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I had one more. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, any of those items from Administrative Services eligible for the consent agenda? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, do they want to discuss 39 or – Mr. Mayor: We pulled it out. [inaudible] Ms. Beard: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: No, I don’t have any. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Let’s go now to Engineering Services. Mr. Cheek, do you have items we can add? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have several items to add to consent with the consent of the body, and then we’re going to recommend an addendum item that’s come forward to be added as well. Those would be items 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56. Those would be the items from Engineering Services. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 44. Update from the Attorney and staff regarding the request from Mr. David Brown for an exemption from the solid waste collection service. 45. Motion to approve allowing members of the American Hiking Society’s “Volunteer Vacation” program access to the Lombard Mill Pond Greenspace Tract in order to clear a trail system around the pond at no cost to Augusta Richmond County. 46. Motion to approve to clear invasive species and refuse and install bollards to prevent future abuse from the 15.55 acre Greenspace tract lying along Rocky Creek. 47. Approve an amendment to a professional services contract with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. (CRW), an Augusta, GA firm, to design a 36” diameter gravity sewer from the intersection of Brown Road and Highway 56 to the new Spirit Creek Pump Station. 9 48. Presentation by Mordecai L. Evans of Aquvair Corporation regarding ultraviolet disinfection for HVAC and water systems in buildings. 49. Update from staff regarding the status of the St. Sebastian Project. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 50. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with AES for leachate monitoring quality at an annual cost of $8,626 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04- 52.12999. (See background information under Item 24 under Finance) 51. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with EMA for groundwater monitoring at an annual cost of $52,805 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04- 52.12999. (See background information under Item 25 under Finance) 52. Update from the Attorney regarding the dilapidated property along the Canal at 1238 Fenwick Street. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 55. Approve the proposed organization chart for the Public Works and Engineering Departments Solid Waste Division for all positions supporting the Solid Waste Collections Contract to include job title, working title, salary grade, concept or career ladder, as well as number of positions. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 56. Approve the final concept for the collections contract and associated resolution, allowing Public Works and Engineering to bid the solid waste collections to start on the proposed January 1, 2006 date. Mr. Cheek: And Engineering Services also recommends adding and approving the initiative to allow the Administrator and Mayor to negotiate with Fort Gordon for I’d like to make a motion to add municipal services. So I guess at the appropriate time and approve. Addendum Item 1. Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to continue a dialogue with Fort Gordon that may result in a contract for municipal services. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Go ahead and amend the motion to add and approve municipal services, the discussion of municipal services agreement with Fort Gordon. It’s my understanding that any – before any contract is signed it will come back to the body. This is strictly approval for the Mayor and the Administrator to negotiate. Ms. Sims: I second. Mr. Mayor: Is there – does anyone want to pull any of those engineering matters? Mr. Williams? 10 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the last one Commissioner Cheek added, the conversation, I think there need to be some discussion on it. I think we all in favor but that, there ought to be some discussion. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this. Is there any objection to adding the addendum item to the agenda? There is no objection, so we’ll add that to the agenda and we’ll add it to the regular agenda. Mr. Williams: Okay, sounds good. Mr. Mayor: So we’ll add the other consent items unless there is an objection. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, do we have copies of that? Mr. Cheek? So we can be scanning it while we’re talking? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Do we have anything from legal, from the Attorney, to add to the consent agenda? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we have a delegation here regarding the redevelopment powers act, but I would – as a resolution in support of that act, I would offer 59, 60 and 61 as potential consent agenda items, or we can discuss them, either one. 60 is the certified uninsured care Project Access contract, the other is an administrative matter to provide for the fees at the landfill. ATTORNEY: 59. Consider/approve Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to pass Legislation to activate the Redevelopment Powers Act. 60. Consider/approve Agreement for certified uninsured care with Project Access. 61. Consider/approve Ordinance to amend Title 4 Chapter 2 Section 6 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code to provide for increased fees for the use of the Augusta-Richmond County Solid Waste Landfill; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date and for other lawful purposes. Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, do you want to discuss 59, 60 or 61, or shall we add them to consent? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to talk about 61, just to get some clarification if I can. [inaudible] this ordinance kind of throw me, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this. Is 60 a renewal, Steve? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. It’s the contract for this year for Project Access. We had one last year. 11 Mr. Mays: I have no problem with them having a contract, and I guess because Commissioner Colclough is not here – he’s probably had some very serious concerns in reference to not what we are doing in it, because it’s a [inaudible] program [inaudible] objection per se, but just in terms of other cutbacks that have happened, that the program is having to take on, and I’m sure that wouldn’t necessarily affect the contract, but I just was wondering if there were any, say, added [inaudible] efficiencies per se that they are having to deal with that we may need to look at, and that doesn’t necessarily have to be done today but I just thought I would mention that. He’s not here and I know he would mention it, particularly in the areas of mental health and of those [inaudible] that are there that that contract looks at. But I can, I can – Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as a point of clarification on number 19, we were asked to look for funding for the EEO Department. After several long discussions, we recommend that come out of the General Fund, fund balance, as opposed to any other option we have available to us. It’s the only option we have available to us. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. Mr. Mayor: Does anyone need the numbers read back by the Clerk, the consent agenda items? CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: PLANNING: 1. Z-05-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Gordon E. Brown, Jr., on behalf of R. L. Macklin, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Group Home per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2230 Lee Street and containing .26 acres. (Tax Map 44- 4 Parcel 332) DISTRICT 2 2. Z-05-24 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Calandra B. Brown 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 2217 Winston Way and contains .26 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 80) DISTRICT 6 3. Deleted from the consent agenda. 4. FINAL PLAT – WALTON ACRES, SECTION 8 – S-709 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty 12 Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Acres, Section 8. This residential subdivision is located adjacent to Walton Acres 5 & 7 and contains 27 lots. 5. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 6, PHASE 2 – S-671-II – A petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co. Inc., requesting final plat approval for Cambridge, Section 6, Phase 2. This residential subdivision is located on Oxford Drive, adjacent to Cambridge, Section 6, Phase 1 and contains 16 lots. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 6. Adopt Resolution to observe March 28 – April 1, 2005 as National Community Development Week. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 7. Motion to approve waiving the educational requirement for the Mail Clerk I and allow the Mail Clerk II to be considered for promotion to Mail Clerk I. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 8. A motion to establish a policy wherein any requests for ordinances be presented to the respective committee for approval prior to notifying attorneys to start the process; outside agencies will be required to submit their requests through the Administrator’s office and once requests have been acted on by either the committee and /or the Administrator they be forwarded to the Commission for final direction. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 9. Motion to approve contract disbursement for the East Augusta Development Corporation subject to no violations of existing guidelines and in the event that violations are found the Augusta Department of Housing and Economic Development be held responsible. (Approved in Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 10. Motion to place a freeze on the disbursement of any monies to any new programs; task the Administrator and the Mayor to develop a method to make sure that the CHDOs are not penalized through the withholding of funds; that an audit be commissioned for the AHED and that AHED not be allowed to bring any new programs forward until that process is completed. (Approved in Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 11. Motion to deny authorization to revise program design for HOME Program, the establishment of the Augusta Redevelopment Corporation and direct that the most recent revised document(s) be forwarded to the Citizen Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations. (Approved in Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 12. Motion to deny the reprogramming of $60,000.00 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Economic Development Loan Fund Program to the Business Education Training Program. (Approved in Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) PUBLIC SAFETY: 13 13. Motion to approve Purchase of Services and Equipment for the upgrade of the existing Financial, Human Resources and Procurement Software. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 7, 2005) 14. Motion to deny a request from Empire Tree and Turf for a waiver and indemnity of Augusta Richmond County regarding the construction of a garage on property located at 2686 Gordon Highway. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 7, 2005) FINANCE: 15. Deleted from the consent agenda. 16. Motion to approve the abatement of penalty on Map 12, Parcel 8.05 for 2004 tax bill for Augusta Inn and Conference Center. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 17. Motion to approve budget calendar for FY 2006. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 18. Deleted from the consent agenda. 19. Motion to approve a budget increase in the amount of $30,000.00 or the EEO Department operational expense from the General Fund Contingency to EEO Department with an inquiry to AHED to fund half of the requested amount. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 20. Motion to approve increased revenue for the local portion of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 21. Motion to approve increased revenue and equal expenditures for the CYCC Purchase of Services for Juvenile Offenders Program. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 22. Deleted from the consent agenda. 23. Motion to amend the 2005 budget to include the account designated for NPDES fees collected for each acre of land disturbed in Augusta and for any fines collected associated with violations of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (account number 261-000000-3221220). (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 24. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with AES for leachate monitoring quality at an annual cost of $8,626 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04-52.12999. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 25. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with EMA for groundwater monitoring at an annual cost of $52,805 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04-52.12999. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 26. Motion to approve the retention of NFJ Investment Group as a manager without delay and request that they be invited to the next Pension Committee meeting.. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) ATTORNEY: 14 27. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta Richmond County Section 1-4- 110, et seq. “To provide for a restated Section 1-4-110 through Section 1-4-139 captioned “Human Relations Commission” and to repeal any conflicting ordinances. (Approved by Commission March 1, 2005 – second reading) 28. Motion to approve a private hydrant ordinance added in the Augusta Richmond County Code in Chapter 3-3-9 Subparagraph 6 (b). (Approved by Commission March 1, 2005 – second reading) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 29. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission held March 1, 2005. APPOINTMENT: 30. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Michael S. Barnes to the Augusta Ports Authority representing District 10. 30A. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Lourdes Neely Coleman to the Augusta Aviation Commission representing District 1. 30B. Motion to approve the Mayoral appointment of Clyde Hightower to the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Business Council. PUBLIC SERVICES: 35. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-13: A request by George S. Harrison for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Skyline Café located at 3328 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. 36. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-14: A request by Yong S. Hong for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Kinja Sushi Express located at 516 Shartom Dr. District 7. Super District 10. 37. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-15: A request by Chanda Kay Oglesby for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hampton Inn Augusta located at 3030 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. 38. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-16: A request by Jerald S. Scheer for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with T-Bonz Banquet Hall located at 2860 Washington Rd. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 44. Update from the Attorney and staff regarding the request from Mr. David Brown for an exemption from the solid waste collection service. 45. Motion to approve allowing members of the American Hiking Society’s “Volunteer Vacation” program access to the Lombard Mill Pond Greenspace Tract in order to clear a trail system around the pond at no cost to Augusta Richmond County. 46. Motion to approve to clear invasive species and refuse and install bollards to prevent future abuse from the 15.55 acre Greenspace tract lying along Rocky Creek. 15 47. Approve an amendment to a professional services contract with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. (CRW), an Augusta, GA firm, to design a 36” diameter gravity sewer from the intersection of Brown Road and Highway 56 to the new Spirit Creek Pump Station. 48. Presentation by Mordecai L. Evans of Aquvair Corporation regarding ultraviolet disinfection for HVAC and water systems in buildings. 49. Update from staff regarding the status of the St. Sebastian Project. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 50. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with AES for leachate monitoring quality at an annual cost of $8,626 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04- 52.12999. (See background information under Item 24 under Finance) 51. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to execute both option periods for the existing contract with EMA for groundwater monitoring at an annual cost of $52,805 to be funded from the current Solid Waste budget, Account No. 541-04- 52.12999. (See background information under Item 25 under Finance) 52. Update from the Attorney regarding the dilapidated property along the Canal at 1238 Fenwick Street. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 55. Approve the proposed organization chart for the Public Works and Engineering Departments Solid Waste Division for all positions supporting the Solid Waste Collections Contract to include job title, working title, salary grade, concept or career ladder, as well as number of positions. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 56. Approve the final concept for the collections contract and associated resolution, allowing Public Works and Engineering to bid the solid waste collections to start on the proposed January 1, 2006 date. ATTORNEY: 59. Consider/approve Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to pass Legislation to activate the Redevelopment Powers Act. 61. Consider/approve Ordinance to amend Title 4 Chapter 2 Section 6 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code to provide for increased fees for the use of the Augusta-Richmond County Solid Waste Landfill; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date and for other lawful purposes. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda – Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Shepard: I was going to add, with the consent of the body, the disposition of number 40, which was – Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that separately. 16 Mr. Shepard: All right, sir. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I noticed on 42A, which I believe is part of the list, did we identify a funding source or approve that funding source? Mr. Mayor: It’s not on consent. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as amended. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-2, 2-14, 16017, 19-21, 23-30B, 35-38, 44-52, 55-56, 59, 61] Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize the Attorney with respect to an announcement on item number 40. 40. Discussion: A request by the RCSD for a hearing to discuss the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the alcohol beverage license held by Brenda Palmer for Alex’s Sports Bar & Restaurant located at 3160 Wrightsboro Road for the following violation: numerous infractions and a threat to Public Safety. District 5. Super District 9. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Shortly before the meeting I was tendered a copy of a letter from Mr. Theodocion who represents Alex’s Famous Restaurant & Sports Bar, and I can read it into the record and I will file it with the Clerk as item 40, and it states [reading] “as legal counsel for Alex’s Famous Restaurant & Sports Bar located at 3160 Wrightsboro Road, I’m hereby providing notice of the voluntary and permanent surrender of the alcohol license for the premises in the names of Brenda Palmer and Angela Askew. No further sales of alcohol will be conducted pursuant to that license and neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Askew consider the license valid as of today’s date.” That’s signed by Mr. Theodocion. Mr. Mayor: We want to receive that as information? Mr. Shepard: I think it would dispose – he says permanent surrender. I think that disposes of the matter. 17 Mr. Theodocion: Mr. Mayor, they’ve been closed for two weeks and I spoke with License & Inspection today and told them that I could – the actual physical license itself I could bring by here [inaudible]. The business is closed. No plans of reopening. And they don’t consider themselves to have a valid license. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I do have some comments on that. With the license already up to come before the Commission, and then a surrender comes, what if the individuals come back to the City again and want license? They say well, our license was never revoked, whatever – I can understand what’s happening here, but I think that that’s the question on the application for license, have you ever had a license revoked before? And they could say no because they surrendered it. Is it a way that this here could be on the record? If mismanagement any where, is everywhere. Mr. Theodocion: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond to that. As part of the license [inaudible] one of the considerations that is in the ordinance as to whether or not a license be [inaudible] granted or not, is everything that comes with the prior licenseholder’s application, whether it’s been revoked or not, the County can look at the past record of the licensee, and if there have been troubles in the past, can use that as a valid reason to deny the license. It’s not really an [inaudible] as far as Richmond County goes. Richmond County – there’s no doubt that whether these folks ever come here and request another similar license, that would be denied, and this doesn’t change that at all. It may, however, help them out of state, in other areas [inaudible] there are no plans to operate in Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: Another consideration, too, would be the location. Somebody else may want to come in and do something [inaudible] it could be the location in addition to the license [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: I need to make a motion. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Attorney, what – I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, go ahead, Mr. Hankerson, finish your line of questioning. Mr. Hankerson: I hear what is, what’s being said, but – that we can mention that, but also – I want to use a scenario of what you said, Mr. Attorney, that if the individuals wanted to go somewhere else out of Richmond County, I’m just as concerned about Burke County and I’m concerned about North Augusta cause I’m a two-state Commissioner. If you go to North Augusta, I’m concerned about the same people coming to North Augusta. That’s South Carolina. That’s out of state. Go to another county. I think that a drug user at one place, a drug pusher in one county, makes him bad in that county, he’s bad in the next county. And records should follow him or her. So Mr. 18 Attorney, is this the way out or what should we do? I’m talking to our attorney now. I want the clock to roll now. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Given the language he’s used, permanent surrender, voluntary and permanent surrender, and the concurrence of the departments involved, I would recommend that you accept it, Mr. Hankerson. But if you want to have a hearing, we can go through the hearing. And so this would be tendered as an exhibit which I think that, which would control the result of the hearing in favor of a sanction, a revocation. If you want to have the hearing, we can have the hearing. But I deem this to be – given the language he’s used, voluntary and permanent surrender, I deem that to be a revocation. If you want to have a hearing, we’ll have the hearing. Mr. Mayor: That would be up to the Chair whether you have a hearing, wouldn’t it? If they surrender the license, they have no license, so there is nothing to hear, nothing to support a hearing. What you do with this is try to [inaudible] cow after it’s gotten out of the barn and somebody else has [inaudible]. Mr. Hankerson: See, on the other hand, we have an item here on the agenda, too. We can, we can address this item on the agenda before the attorney [inaudible] what they wanted to do. Mr. Shepard: It’s not just what the attorneys want to do, it’s what the Commission wants to do. Mr. Hankerson: No, what I’m saying is you – we hadn’t got to this item and you addressed this item of what they supposed, what they wanted to do. But if we were saving this item to take action on the item and we took action on the item, I mean that would be whether we want to accept that or whether we take action to revoke the license. Mr. Shepard: Well, sir, this is certainly an admission against interest for the licensee and he’s tendered it to me. We can have the hearing and you can, you can hear the evidence. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand what Commissioner Hankerson, where he’s coming from, but even if we had a hearing there is no, there is no predetermined destination as to what would be the outcome of the hearing. We may not take the license, they may be put on probation, they may be – I mean it’s like going to court, you don’t know until you come out how you going to fare in that deal. I understand what the Commissioner is asking, but I think to turn in the license would be a way to resolve this for both parties. I mean we had problems with them, they are not there anymore, they gone, they say it permanent. I think, I mean I’m not going to follow them to South Carolina like Commissioner Hankerson now. I might follow around Augusta but I’m not going to follow them in Carolina. Wherever they are, if they out of 19 And I think that if I could make a our hair, I think that’s what we was trying to get. motion that we accept that and move on to the next item, Mr. Mayor, if I get a second. Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to receive as information. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams: I got some ladies on [inaudible] Street who may not understand what happened. Okay. Mr. Mays: That was on what item? The Clerk: Item 40. To receive it as information. Surrender of the license. Receive it as information. Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Hankerson votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: First of all, Mr. Grantham, then Mr. Williams. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I thank my fellow Commissioners for the approval of the consent agenda, which included an appointment that I had asked for, and that is Mr. Michael S. Barnes to the Augusta Ports Authority from District 10. Mike, you’re in the audience. I’d like you to stand, please. Mike is a lifelong resident of Augusta. He is certainly a dedicated individual to this community. He had been working out of this area for quite a while but once retiring he returned. And Mike, we’re glad to have you here, back in Augusta. And certainly we are honored that you will serve on this board for us. Mr. Barnes: Thank you. It’s a real pleasure. Mr. Grantham: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify that the constituents on Lee Street, whether they be on one side for Commissioner Hankerson or the other side for Marion Williams, that had been denied. You are welcome to stay but your petition have been granted. It is. Thank you very much. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. 20 Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today for items 31, 32 or 33? Zoning items. Okay. Are there any objectors to 31, which is the first one? Are there any objectors to – I’m sorry, your hand is up? No objectors for 31? Okay. Ms. Sims: 32. PLANNING: 32. Z-05-22 – A request for concurrence with Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Garey Vangarden, on behalf of Geosong Presbyterian Church of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care activities, per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1629 Barton Chapel Road and containing 3.07 acres. (Tax map 53 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Mayor: Objectors for 32, if you’d raise your hands? 32. Ms. Sims: Oh, may I just say that the objector is in the hospital and called and could not be here and would like to wait on this for the next Commission meeting, if that’s possible, if I can get that clarification. Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion to postpone this item? Ms. Sims: Yes, I would. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then to defer item 32 to our next meeting, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here then for item number 33? Just raise your hand. Okay, since we have a delegation for that, we’ll take up that item next. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption. The Clerk: 33. Z-05-23 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Abdullah El Khalifa 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 21 property located at 3539 Jonathan Circle and contains .22 acres. (Tax Map 123-4 Parcel 10) DISTRICT 2 Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. El Khalifa: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and did we get a hand count of the objectors here? Mr. Shepard: I counted four. You may want to raise it again. (7 objectors present) Mr. Shepard: Now seven. Mr. Mayor: Seven. Mr. Patty, you want to give us some background on this? Mr. Patty: This is a pretty typical home in Apple Valley. It is a two story home. We did have a number of objectors. This is actually a personal care home, not a family day care home. This would be for elderly or handicapped folks. The Planning Commission felt that the fact that it’s a two story home as opposed to one story made it unsuitable and I think there were some other considerations, but it was a split vote and they voted to deny it. Mr. Mayor: Would the petitioner like to say anything to the Commission? Would you come up here to this microphone, please, so we can all hear you? Mr. El Khalifa: Well, I want to thank everybody for allowing me to be here. It’s a great opportunity. I’m from Chicago, Illinois. I wasn’t originally born in Augusta, Georgia, but Augusta is the first place I’ve felt safe. I left Chicago at 18. There’s a lot of violence in Chicago, a lot of things from the community [inaudible] may see in their neighborhood. I’ve met some of the people who – some of the – I would say elders may have met and be concerned with, and I’ve talked to them. I was told once before that I should not buy property in Jonathan Circle period. I didn’t believe that, just as I didn’t believe when people used to say [inaudible] to be nothing. When I was 15, 16, 14, some thought I would amount out to be nothing. But I had uncles. My dad didn’t help raise me but I had uncles, I had my grandmother and mother. And who would have known that in this year, 2005, I would have been able to stand side by side with James Brown and back him up singing, opening up a black-owned bank, and now I’m standing here before the Mayor of Augusta and the board members of this committee and I think I’ve proved them wrong. Today I just want to let the people here know that if you believe that this wouldn’t be a good thing for your community, which is my community, you’re wrong. Because I’m going to give my all. I look at the people here who raised their hand before and the people who sit here on this committee as my uncles and aunties and my grandmother and my mother and I want to prove that I can do something right. I’m a real 22 estate investor. This is the first time that I’ve decided to do something like this. But I had people in the community, some the same doors that you knocked on and asked them to come here today, some of those same doors I knocked on before this came up, and cut their grass for them. Cut their hedges for them. For free. Because I didn’t like the way it looked. Some of the same people, I took their garbage cans to the curb. No strings attached. But I mention that today just to say that I am a member of your community. I want the opportunity to do something. As it was mentioned before, it was 4-4. And I felt, as I feel now, that it’s already been a victory because today I’m standing here and I’m speaking to you and you’re hearing my side of the story. The people who raised their hand, they’re not my enemies, but some take it so personal and I really don’t understand why, whatever your fears are, you know, I want to know so I can address those fears. But I want you to know that we’re talking about elders staying here. We’re talking about [inaudible] because some elders can move a lot better than other. You know, I like to visit, I like to visit places where there are elders. I’m a member of Men Making a Difference, I’m a member of the United States Army since I was 18, and I’m going out to RYDC, I talk to troubled teens. This Thursday, I’d invite you to come out with us to talk to some of the troubled teens that I talk to, that I deal with. This Saturday, I’m sponsoring, along side with Men Making a Difference, kite flying for kids. I remember coming up with my next-door neighbor, had a garage and a garbage can full of kites. And he opened up his garage door for all of us to pick up kites and fly. And that’s one of the memories that I have. And I’m bringing that memory that I had then and I’m sharing it with Augusta and I hope to have as many kids as possible out there on [inaudible], going right outside of Gate Five, I mean Gate One of Fort Gordon. Mr. Mayor: I appreciate the information you’re sharing with us, but let’s stick to the merits of your application. Mr. El Khalifa: Okay. Yes, sir. Well, if the people don’t want it, the people truly don’t want it, I don’t want it, sir. But I don’t know if the people here, the seven hands represent the entire, the entirety of the people. Because I’ve spoken to some people as well and they don’t have any problems with it. And like I say again, this is not for young people, this is not for 22-year olds, 23-year olds. This is for elders. This is for people who are in their fifties or sixties and even seventies. I just want to give them a nice place where they can enjoy their elder years, their later years. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do the objectors want to say anything, a petition you want to present or is there a spokesman for the group? If you’ll come up here and give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Johnson: My name is Ronald Johnson. I live at 1718 Apple Valley Drive. I’m the president of the association at Apple Valley. I spoke to the gentleman. We spoke at the [inaudible] hearing last week and he understands our concerns. I don’t know what [inaudible]. We didn’t buy our property to start a business, and basically that’s what he’s doing. No matter what he says. And that’s his privilege. Just like ours was. We bought out property, we bought them to live. Not to make a profit. And again, I say, that’s 23 exactly what he’s doing. If he’s truly concerned about our community, why doesn’t he live there. If he’s truly concerned about our community, and as a property owner who is setting up a business, why doesn’t he do what we’re trying to get the other people who own rental property in our neighborhood, maintain the property and maintain the people in the property. We are not the problem. That’s why we formed our association, just as well as other people throughout Richmond County, who see the problems in Richmond County with rental property, Section VIII property, it’s destroying Richmond County. And for anybody to try to deny that, I don’t know where you’re coming from. You can go in any neighborhood in Richmond County and you see the problems that people are dealing with. People who live in those communities. Not people who set up businesses in those communities. My request is very simple. The same as the people that are here. And as I said, we’re all residents. We’re citizens, we’re voters, and we’re taxpayers in Richmond County. We ask you to deny this man’s request. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may the record reflect, in a subcommittee meeting on Section VIII property several months ago, we did an overlay of the crime map of Richmond County and the Section VIII map of Richmond County, and it’s almost one for one. So what was said by the neighborhood president today is a very valid point in Augusta-Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, some of you may wish to review the summary which was prepared in the Planning Commission staff. I can publish it. It’s two or three sentences long, if you’d like me to read it. I can pass this around. But it indicates that the comprehensive plan does not address the specific issue of petition other than to preserve residential areas by protecting them from encroachment of conflicting land uses. Whether a personal care home is a conflicting land use in a residential area is subject, is a subject that has been extensively debated. This particular parcel contains .22 acres and there appears to be very limited off-street parking. The staff then said they would make a recommendation in the matter on the Planning Commission hearing. George, do you have that? Mr. Patty: Yes, that’s pretty standard language, I think. We recognize that these uses are needed and to a certain extent they’re protected by law so we’ve got to allow the opportunity for them to be established, but at the same time we can review them based on certain limited objective criteria and what we hear at the meeting, and based on that staff did recommend denial. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to make a motion, but before I do let me just try to clarify a little bit about Section VIII. Never been on Section VIII but 24 I lived in the project at one time. Poor people got to live somewhere, too, and I don’t agree with all Section VIII being the problem with the city of Augusta. There are some absentee landlords that walked away from brand new [inaudible] and never looked back. There people been [inaudible] properties and never seen them before and still don’t have anything to do with them. So I don’t want to brand Section VIII along with anybody else. I think that poor people need an opportunity, and Section VIII provides some services. I disagree with the landlords, Mr. Mayor, and how they put people in to make I’m an income, like Mr. Johnson said, and don’t follow up. But I still don’t want to – going to make a motion that we deny this application because of the neighborhood and its association and being against it. I think that’s what the neighborhood association ought to be doing, is help protect. But let’s don’t [inaudible], let’s don’t call no names, let’s don’t point out no certain groups. That’s been done too much in the past in the history of this world, so we need to be mindful of that when we speak. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Ms. Sims: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, two things. One is it’s not an attempt to brand any particular group, but a statistical fact. You know, we’re not in the business of trying to categorize people based on income. People have needs and [inaudible] Section VIII program is about providing for and helping people who want to help themselves. What was brought up earlier is a very valid point, is we expect property owners to maintain their property and then maintain the people in those properties. That is why I’d like to ask, if we could, to direct staff to pursue looking into the creation of a renter’s license that would require people renting property to do exactly what was mentioned today, maintain those properties and maintain the people in those properties where we would not have the negative impact that we have across this city with absentee landlords and people who do not want to behave themselves in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion it be denied. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up item 39 and then we’ll get into the presentation. The Clerk: 39. New Application: A.N. 05-10: A request by Back Hap Ja Son for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Corner Mini Mart located at 635 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) 25 Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, I represent the applicant. Mr. Mayor: All right. If we can, we can [inaudible]. Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. This applicant meets all the requirements and we recommend approval, but there is some reservation from the Sheriff’s Department, which I’ll defer to Richard Elam and he’ll tell you about that. Mr. Elim: Members of the Commission, good afternoon. This thing of the Richmond County Sheriff’s office that this applicant [inaudible] best interest of the community, in particular, the Laney Walker neighborhood. We ran a statistical background on the area, where there were alcohol sales along the stretch between the 800 block of Laney Walker Boulevard and the 600 block of Laney Walker Boulevard. In running those statistics, we found that in the past year we had a report of fourteen assaults. These were reports where not just calls, but rather where reports were generated. Fourteen assaults, 39 thefts, 10 auto thefts, five drug cases. For this reason, we think it would not be in the best interest, is our only reservations about this particular applicant. Mr. Mayor: When you say this stretch of Laney Walker, what general area? [inaudible] Mr. Elim: Yes, sir, we have an investigator that does crime analysis, and what we asked for was just a statistical review of that block area and we restricted it to the 800 block to the 600 block because on the 800 block we had two places there that had alcohol licenses at the current time, and that was the only reason for doing that. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Elim: No, sir, two places, establishments that currently have alcohol licenses. And we’re thinking putting another one into the area would rise the statistics. Mr. Mayor: We had someone who wanted to speak in opposition to the license. Would you come up to the microphone, and as much as we know and love you, we need your name and address for the record. th Ms. Armstrong: Yes, sir. My name is Margaret Armstrong. I live at 1308 11 Street. And the president of Laney Walker could not get here, of our association, and he asked me to come. First of all, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, fellow Commissioners, we, the people in that community, have been working long and hard to try to bring that community back to where it once was. We are now spending millions of dollars in that community. We have been working with our young people because they have had to 26 travel back and forth through many bars and alcoholic places. If you noticed, since we have cleared some of the bars out of the neighborhood, Lucy Craft Laney High School has really been a turning point, to show you if you work with our young people and give them the right opportunity for the better things in life, they will do a good job for you. We have had no policemen in the halls of that school at all, and if you noticed, you have not had anything called in negative against that area. We constantly as of last week had to worry the Sheriff’s Department I guess about 25 or 30 calls within there, because of the negative of hanging around in open places that are left there at night particularly. You cannot shop because of the lottery and we are losing, our businesses are beginning to lose money. You cannot hardly go to church sometimes for the lottery and the drug dealings and other things that go on. We’ve had some violent things to happen in that neighborhood. Just the other day, on [inaudible] Street, a young lady’s pocketbook was snatched, which is about a block and a half down the street. Now if you go out there and you really, truly take a look at the money that’s being invested – yes, we want businesses, but we also want the kinds of business that you have around your neighborhood. We have two major housing projects. You’re talking about people coming out of these things, doing wrong things. Are we going to provide another avenue for this to continue that we are trying to clean up and have begin to do so? I ask you all to take a look at what we are doing out there. And if you would find it in your heart to help protect elderly people, which it’s a great population of people who own that property there, they’re elderly. Some of them are afraid to come out. I get calls all day, half of the night, can you call the police for me? They are afraid to call, of some retaliation. Yes, I was threatened in the parking lot because I personally went down there after I received so many calls, and the young man told me you better watch it cause we know where you live. Well, I told him, and I know where you live and you don’t live in this section of town. Every Friday, Saturday and Thursday nights it is ridiculous down there. And if you add one more site for them to hang around, to buy the beer, instead of going home and drinking it, they hang out in the parking, on the corners, and I’m going to tell you, I have to give my hat off to some of the policemen, they have tried their best. But before they can pick them up and get them down, somebody lets them out and we got to go back around that same circle. I understand there was a petition that was gotten at an establishment up on Augusta Avenue and Wrightsboro Road in support of this. And the neighbors went in there and somebody asked them to sign it called, said did we change our position? We said no. So therefore, there is some undercurrent of trying to keep a lot of beer and a lot of wine, and you talking about a canal, they’re sitting almost on the canal that we’re trying to beautify and to bring to Augusta a site that the tourists – we don’t need to have those big old signs that they have sitting out there in big, bold red letters selling beer and wine. We do not want those signs. If you go out there and look at the business that’s coming, we have them on the side of the building. We’re trying to beautify Laney Walker. And if you go down Laney Walker you can tell. We are really trying and we are working with the community, we work with the City, and we work with the Sheriff’s Department. I thank you and I ask you please, deny this wine, beer and wine license. We have four or five within a block from where it is. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. 27 (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Theodocion: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. I do represent Back Hap Ja Son. Mr. Mayor: Would you come up to the microphone, please? Mr. Theodocion: Not a lot of room here. Excuse me. Mr. Mayor: You can take the microphone out of stand and just hold it. Mr. Theodocion: They have opened up a grocery at 635 Laney Walker. They’ve been there for over a year, almost a year-and-a half in that facility. They were formerly operating as the Hot Dog House. They have put about $30,000 of renovations and fees into upgrading and turning this into a convenience store, with the full approval and authorization of the landlord, and they seek to sell beer and wine. Now I want to comment on a couple of things that were said, and I certainly appreciate anyone who wants to help their own community, and that’s what communities and neighborhoods and really cities like Augusta are all about. But there are, there are other things on this block. The 635 – the 600 block of Laney Walker, gentlemen and ladies, has one building. It’s this building. This convenience store. And so I want to first talk about what Lt. Elam mentioned as far as police incidents. That’s 800 block he was talking about. The police have not been called out to the Hot Dog House in the last year-and-a-half. Only one time the alarm company called them out there when a window got busted. So all that violence has not occurred on the 600 block, and that’s, this is the only building on that block. It’s a very small city block. And the [inaudible] ordinance that we have here, one of the considerations that this Commission can use to possibly deny a license is if there have been a substantial number of incidents which have required police intervention within the preceding twelve months, but that subsection of the ordinance is very clear that those incidents only apply within a square city block. And I’m here to tell you we’ve got zero. And we can bring Lt. Elim back in here. He sort of said, well, the 800 through the 600. But he’ll come back in here and tell you that’s the 800 block. Cause that’s the closest place you can buy beer or wine right now. There are not four other locations on that block. You move two blocks up and there’s the Laney Walker grocery. That’s the IGA grocery. It has beer and wine. You go up another block or two and you have J’s Supper Club, which is a brick structure. On one side of that building is a supper club. On the other side is a full blown liquor store. They’ve got a sign in the window that says Seagram’s gin. Now if you’re going from that housing project up towards either the library, the Lucy Laney High School, or any of the churches on Laney Walker, you exit that area and go past J’s, but you don’t go past this location. This is not along the way. This building is over 5000 feet from Lucy Laney High School. It’s over a mile, if my math’s correct, or that’s about a mile. But it’s a good distance away. You don’t have a 28 problem with people hanging out at this location. You don’t have the police being called out to this location. Now, we have turned in a petition with 221 names and there are addresses on there. There are various people, from residents of that immediate area to customers of that store to customers of another store, and their addresses are all on there, and they’re not trying to hide where they’re from or where they live. As I mentioned, as far as places on Laney Walker we can buy beer or wine, there’s a convenience store on th the corner of 15 Street that has a license, there’s a location at J’s Supper Club, which I want to say is probably, I don’t know, 300 yards away from 635. And then about 150 to 200 yards away is the IGA grocery. Adding this location is not going to add to people drinking in the neighborhood. I mean you’re talking about two blocks away from a grocery store with beer and wine. Three blocks away from a liquor store. You’re not going to have any extra people out there drinking. If anything, if we could keep them away from a liquor store, it maybe would be the lesser of two evils. As Mr. Harris, my good friend Larry Harris has indicated, they meet the objective requirements of the ordinances. That’s why the ordinance is there. All these considerations we have, about where we’re going to allow beer and wine, where we’re going to allow liquor, we address that when we make an ordinance. And if we have somebody come in as an applicant and they meet the objective criteria of that ordinance, well, unless there’s a factual basis that fits within this ordinance we can’t deny that application. It’s our position that because she’s met all the objective criteria for the issuance of a license, the denial of that application would be in violation of her equal protection and due process rights under the State of Georgia Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America. I do want to refer you back to a case we had, a rather famous, notorious case in 2000, when we had the dance hall on Broad Street. If you recall, it was the same situation. We had the license and inspection come in and say well, Commissioners, these people meet the objective criteria of the license. We had Curtis Baptist come in with hundred of people, hundreds of people, put a lot of pressure on this body to deny the license. I just want to note a couple of comments that were made at that time and I think they apply here. Then-Commissioner Shepard stated wisely “if we’ve got the ordinance we have, gentlemen, I think we’re going to have to live by that ordinance. If we don’t follow our own ordinance up here, what we’ll have happen down on the third floor is that we’ll be told to follow our own ordinance.” And especially I believe these words are appropriate from the late Commissioner Beard: “I’ve seen nothing from the License Department to indicate that these people should not have a license. I think sometimes we can’t let our emotions overrule what is right and to me is right to let these people have the license.” I know it’s tempting when we have somebody from the neighborhood come in and say well, we don’t want this and we don’t want that. But frankly, I’ve never lived in a neighborhood that didn’t have a convenience store nearby that sold beer and wine. I think few people do. This is not a problem strictly with Laney Walker. I mean these kind of places exist. They’re all around us. You can’t go into a gas station these days that doesn’t sell beer and wine, whether you live in the best community or a community that other people don’t want to live in. And they have done a lot on Laney Walker Boulevard. They’ve got great schools there, Laney High School and the comprehensive school across the street, and there’s a lot going on there. These people want to add to that community. The people know them in the community because they’ve been there for a 29 year-and-a-half, and by and large the community supports them. They’re going to serve hundreds, if not thousands of people. And people, you know, people with their checkbook they should you if they support something or not. Now you can have five people here or fifty people here but it’s going to pale in comparison to the 500, the 5000 that are going to be served at that location over the next few years, and so the community as a whole does support this. The ordinance, if the Commission follows its own ordinance, it has to approve this license. And I did want to – is Lt. Elim still out here? I do want to clarify on the record because the ordinance is clear that that consideration only applies with prior incidents to within a square city block, and actually I could confirm – Mr. Harris, is it true that – Mr. Mayor: Direct all your questions to the Chair, please. Mr. Theodocion: Okay. Well, if the Chair could inquire of Mr. Harris, he’s familiar with the property, as far as how many buildings are on that square city block. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Mr. Theodocion: I did want to get Lt. Elim back in here to clarify, because he gave very – Mr. Mayor: He gave some statistics [inaudible] on the record. Do you have anything further you want to present? Mr. Theodocion: Not at this point. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other objectors who are here for this item? Ms. Armstrong: May I speak to that, please? Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Ms. Armstrong: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors? Just raise your hands so we can get a count. Don’t want to leave anybody out. (2 objectors present) Ms. Armstrong: The reason we are not here, we were prepared to come to a th committee hearing, which I don’t think this has been done. We were notified at the 11 hour that it was on this agenda today. That’s why I had to come in place is Mr. Hawes because our people have a petition, too. That petition that you have, sir, was circulated by – 30 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Armstrong? Ms. Armstrong: Yes? Mr. Mayor: Please direct your comments to the Chair. Ms. Armstrong: I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Armstrong: But the petition he’s referring to, we know about it. It was in a store that’s owned by this conglomerate so we understand, at Augusta Avenue and Wrightsboro Road, where you have a lot of problems, even a killing there. But I need to clarify something. We had the Spur service station right across from where this building is. They sold beer and wine and there were a lot of hang-outs and drugs there until most of the people there folded up and left, so that building has been there a long time, right across the street. Now the Hot Dog [inaudible] you’re talking about went out of business. There has been another business in there called the – supposed to been a Caribbean, something like from Louisiana, restaurant. It didn’t survive there because of the problems on the corners, is what we’re talking about. And we still talking about right in front of M.M. Scott and across the corner from Allen Homes where we have, what you all refer to, as low income people. And I fight for those and I always will. I, too, was in a housing project. I know some of the things that people have to concur with cause we are dealing with it right now at Dogwood Terrace because a facility that they know about right across the street. So we’re asking y’all, be fair. You said you have one. I’m sure where you live you don’t have four or five convenience stores. Those stores were grandfathered in, and as long as we live, when they go out, we going to fight just as hard to keep another one from coming, cause if you been through redevelopment and you talk about Charlotte, you will find in that redeveloped community one single convenience store with no alcohol and beer license. Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to call on the Attorney and ask a question. Jim, how – well, I see Jim standing back there, Steve. That’s why – (Laughter) Mr. Shepard: I answer to a lot up here, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: What’s the guidelines, though, on the church? You know, Rev. Hankerson [inaudible] been sitting there for over 200 years, probably one of the largest buildings on Laney Walker before they built the ANIC building. Do this meet that guidelines, Mr. Harris, as far as the church being there? 31 Mr. Harris: 12,000 feet away. Mr. Williams: 12,000 feet away. Now, what’s, what’s the guidelines for – Mr. Mayor: It couldn’t. That would be two miles. Mr. Harris: 1,200. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: What’s the requirement then? I mean if it’s – Mr. Harris: [inaudible] yard. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, nobody mentioned that. And the Attorney mentioned about the one building. And yes, sir, he’s exactly right. Mr. Elam have to clarify that. That, that one block that’s been there, so small that really it’s not a block. I mean it ought to be combined. If it wasn’t for the road that is not used, that’s cut through there, it would be one block. So it’s not a block by itself. It’s not like it’s sitting off in never-never land somewhere and it’s way off from everything else. It is so close that really you can’t even call it a block. Ms. Armstrong is right, living and growing up in that area we have enough. I mean the ordinance says one thing and we’ve got the discretion if we feel like that’s too much in that vicinity and that one area that we can do some things on that basis. We been sued before, and I’m sure that somebody as we speak right now downstairs filing another suit, Sylvia, so this ought to be one to get behind them. We, we, I can’t support it. I don’t think that this Commission can support an additional alcohol facility coming in right at the project, right at the Section VIII people that we’re putting in homes, the stuff that we just go through talking about. All the negative stuff that we been dealing with going expand and grow from that area. I’m, I’m just shocked that the churches is not here in numbers [inaudible] and his congregation not here in numbers to, to, to stand against this. But I’m really surprised, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go on and motion, it’s not my district so I’m not going to do that, I’m going to let somebody else make that motion, though. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays, you want to speak to this? Mr. Mays: I do want to speak to that, but she had her hand up. Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, did you want to add some new information? All right, if you’d come up here and give us your name and address for the record. Ms. Speaker: To the Mayor, I wasn’t here for this, but I know I just purchased some property on Laney Walker, the corner of Laney Walker and Tenth. And to the realtors, when they come out to sell the property, they said this area is changing, this area is improving and we’re trying to get businesses in to build up the area, and then when I 32 come in and I sit and I hear this, it’s sort of contradicting if the area is improving. We don’t really need any more alcohol and wine in the area. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Let me – Mr. Mayor, if Lt. Elam could come back in for just a moment, I’d like to ask him a question or two. Mr. Mayor: With the permission of the Chair, you may ask. (Laughter) Mr. Mays: I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor, the question that I wanted to ask Lt. Elim, and I know what he said in reference to the 600 block to the 800 block, but – and of where the requirements are. And I think one of the reasons why, and I think you’ve got to have in an ordinance, you’ve got to have wording there, you’ve got to have some limits that are written, you’ve got to have some things that are specific. But I think also you have with an alcohol license, which is someone still a privilege license of where you have other intangibles that you can take into consideration, other than just the distance requirements. Many times they don’t come into play until you start to talk about specifics of a given area and of what those negatives and positives may be. The reason why I wanted Lt. Elam back in the room for just a moment, because it’s kind of been challenged a little bit on the technicality of where the block is, but being a veteran of the Sheriff’s Department and of knowing that terrain a lot, it might help the Commission, Mr. Elim, a little bit if you might expand upon the situation. A lot of time, the communities, when you’ve been, when you’ve been bit once folks don’t want to get bit twice. And what I’m referring to is the fact that for instance a good point the improvement that’s been done with the apartments that were there on Twiggs Street that for years that have been run down, been an eyesore till Mr. Collier went in and improved, the houses that have been put back there, all the trouble that he went through of having to just completely move in and put security in and build a place there for those folk to, to, to stay, to just watch the facility, the premises, on the amount of foot soldiers that you all on the Sheriff’s Department had to contend with on open drug sales day and night, folk who had basically no property rights within the area per se, no ID to be identified by, that basically living in that block, that it took us a long time to get rid of, some that still [inaudible] excuse to come back on a daily basis, to a point of where he might build something one day and have the equipment that you put into a house or apartment, it’s gone the next morning, because you’ve got folk there, nobody knows anything about it, folk just camp out, just make them a home. Now no reflection upon businesses, but when we had that other corner and the amount of trouble that you all had, wasn’t so much in reference to where the owner was. Could have good ownership. But to a point when folks leave what they buy and what they just settle down and deal with, as a point of that amount of loitering and of what you have in that area. I think that maybe you might need to speak to that aspect of that corner’s expanded activity that’s been in there and of what you worked for months and a couple of years to get rid of to a point that some of us don’t 33 want to see back. And that’s not an indictment to say you don’t have good ownership coming in, but sometimes you can open up the best place in the world, but once you can’t control it – and I mean I can speak to a lot of areas that have gotten like that. I mean you’ve got one now on one stretch as you go out Martin Luther King, where folk cross five lanes of traffic, as though you going to the Ritz Carlton. And it’s more traffic there than anywhere else and that’s another story for another day. But to a point it’s too many out just getting licenses as retail places that turn into full scale campgrounds. And I think that’s the issue that the community is afraid of, to a point once you get them clear than are you creating another one in that midst? And I’d like for y’all maybe from the Sheriff’s Department to expand upon that aspect of what we’re having to deal with and of catching the devil out there in that area. Mr. Elim: Definitely if you are making a reference to the businesses that used to be the opposite corner from where this business is going, there’s definitely been a substantial fall off in activity in that area, especially after the business owner in that area fixed up the property. I don’t believe it was ANIC property, but some – Mr. Mays: Allen Collier. Right next to part of ANIC development. Mr. Elim: Housing project directly behind there. It’s night and day. I work [inaudible] gas company cleanup project, and you could see the problems that were there, loitering, drug sales, prostitution, all that kind migrate toward the other areas of the city where the improvements have not yet begun. But that whole area down there, including the improvements made by ANIC, is an improvement and is pushing the bad element out. Do we have problems generally in that area now? Yes, we do. We’re working on them. I’m sure the Commission understands the problems that we’re having to deal with [inaudible] that area. But in order to clarify this bit, when we ran statistics, there were no statistics to gather from that area because there hadn’t been a business there that had generated a criminal complaint within the last year. Do I see a difference? Absolutely. It’s been – we just – [inaudible] just different from what Mr. Theodocion and his licenseholder would say. Mr. Mays: The only thing I say, Mr. Mayor, is that there is the possibility and I’ve seen situations of where the City has gone in and there have been reversals of what we’ve done, there have been upholdings of what we’ve done, but I think to a point – we talk a lot about community standards and at some point, sometimes you have to test that [inaudible] ground as to whether or not you have something. But I would say this, is that if, whether we turn down or not, then there is still going to be, quite frankly, I think a very serious watchful eye in terms of off premises consumption, which is supposed to be take-away, that if it turns into on premises and [inaudible] loitering to a point that [inaudible] this Commissioner is going to be very strong on public nuisance. And if it gets to be that way, not only is it a point about alcohol, but it could be about alcohol and everything else that’s on there. A lot of fears are in that neighborhood to a point. You come in, and you’re correct when you say people come into your business and establish a relationship and folk know you, but a lot of times it not those good people who come in 34 who will sign on and who will say something is a plus. It’s the other elements of undesirable activity that goes along with it, that a lot of these neighborhoods have had to fight and have to fight for a lot of years, and to a point you get it down that all of a sudden this is the only way that it can work and that you can improve upon that lot. I think it’s a point of where you, you’ve got one where there are a lot of legitimate fears that are in that neighborhood to a point that we – it’s a decision we have to make. I think you probably would have had people that maybe the applicant maybe could have brought that signed the petition. I know there are a bunch of folk that on the other side of it that because the committee did not meet on its time would have been here, and from the association, and probably from all the entities that have made investments in that area, that would have been here today to oppose it. There are technicalities within every law, but I think sometimes you’ve got to look at the other intangibles that are there and nobody’s been rushing to Laney Walker to really pump in money. I’m sympathetic, I’m glad to see businesses come in. I can say that from the point cause my family has been there longer than anybody else. We been in that block since 1922. I’m glad to see somebody open up a business, but I also know we’ve survived the redlining, we’ve survived the drugs. I survived them in my back door. I stayed up more nights dealing and riding with police and then the Sheriff’s Department of running off folk who own nothing in a whole neighborhood other than the fact just the right to be up all night and all day, and that’s the point of where a lot of people, quite frankly, are just afraid to a point of the other elements that some things can bring in. Appreciate them coming, but to a point there is a pattern history of what a lot of this brings. And I think to a point we may have to approve it on the technicality that’s there, but if it is does, I just think that there is going to be a lot of eyes there that are going to watch and I can guarantee you it does not take long, that if the loitering is not controlled and if it is passed, then we’re going to push for something a lot stronger than a revocation of an alcohol license. It’s going to be the revocation of a business license. And that, that may be the answer where we’ve got to go if people are not going to move into a neighborhood and are going to put positive businesses in, where people have made lifelong investments. I don’t want to see people move back in retirement and come into Laney Walker, who build homes, who move into condos and to a point of having to deal with more of the same over and over again. You mentioned about some of the things that are there, some of those names that have been called, that have been there and that’s because some of them, yes, have been there since the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, [inaudible] everything been there [inaudible] doesn’t necessarily make it right either. It just to a point that legally we hadn’t been able to get rid of some. But those that have stayed have changed their act as well. And they have conformed to what the community standards and what neighborhoods have done, it’s th because it’s been cleaned up. We’ve got one that’s gone down from 9 and Hopkins, gone to where you’ve got homes now. But to a point it was where you had more folk get a building that [inaudible] hold 50 people, that would hold 200, inside and outside. T he houses down the street from the [inaudible] when they get ready to leave, the folks sit on the church fence and cuss the folks out when they get ready to leave church and tell them what they’re going to do and what they’re not going to do. And so that’s the kind of thing that we’re talking about in a neighborhood that I wish the ownership would understand and maybe to a point that they might – I would have like to seen it, Mr. 35 Mayor, a lot better had they met [inaudible] to at least met with the neighborhood association, talked about how they wanted to maybe expand on their plan and say this is how we plan to at least run our business, conduct our activity, and what kind of guarantees we’re going to put in that we are going to run a positive business, that if you come in and buy a six pack then you need to be gone, you don’t need to be here, we don’t need to be sitting on the outside or sitting in the back or out on the curb and just hanging around. So even if you get other customers, the ones driving up don’t know whether or not they fixing to get robbed before they come in. That’s the kind of activity that we have been sick and tired of in that area. And once you get something like that gone, you don’t put out a welcome mat in a neighborhood to come back and welcome folk to come back and put more of the same in there. That’s what I wish the ownership would have done in there. I’m proud to see them come to open up a legitimate business. When you start talking about things that are going to bring a negative activity, you got to be careful. Mr. Mayor: We’ve had plenty of discussion. We need a motion. Mr. Theodocion: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: I was going to make a motion. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead. Mr. Smith: I move that we deny the beer and wine license. Mr. Mayor: There is a motion to deny. Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Theodocion, did you want to say something else? Mr. Theodocion: I just wanted to say one thing that I had left out before, that the business is operated from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and plans to continue so, so it’s not going to be a late night operation. They’re willing to cut off, shut down the doors at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Just a moment, please. The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard for the purpose of clarifying the motion that’s been made. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if we’re going to make an application – if the application is to be denied, we’re going to have to cause a written report to be made showing the reasons for the denial. I’m going to refresh your memory on some ordinance points that I should well be incorporated into the motion, rather than just leave it as it is. And those are – additional considerations can be the reputation and 36 character of the applicant, previous violations of liquor laws, the manner of conducting prior liquor businesses, the location for which the license is sought, the number of licenses in the trading area, whether there is going to be dancing, and I haven’t heard any evidence about that, previous revocation of a license, payment of taxes, congregation of minors, prior incidents – and that’s evidence of a substantial number of incidents requiring police intervention have occurred within a square city block of the proposed location, if within the city or the – that is within the city, previous denial or revocation at the proposed location within the previous twelve months. So if the maker of the motion would, I would suggest that you incorporate your findings from what you’ve heard in the evidence as to this particular motion and not just make it a motion to deny – I would state one of those reasons. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Smith made the motion. I think Mr. Smith was making it based it on the testimony from the people in the neighborhood with respect to how it would impugn on the character of the neighborhood and would be out of context with the residential character of that particular part of the neighborhood. Does that summarize it for you, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, I think the reputation and character was dealing with the applicant’s reputation. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, but you also said location. Mr. Shepard: Yes, I said location for which the license is sought, traffic congestion, general character of the neighborhood – Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Shepard: - effect the establishment would have on the adjacent and surrounding property values. That’s the ordinance, what the ordinance is speaking to. Mr. Mayor: I think that’s the language you can incorporated in the motion. Is that right, Mr. Smith? Is there anything further? Mr. Grantham: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate debate. All in favor of the motion to deny, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: This takes us, Madame Clerk, to presentations. Back on the first page. 37 The Clerk: PRESENTATION: JUDICIAL CENTER SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Bill Kuhlke, Chairman Re: New Judicial Center Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you still with us? Okay. You want to go ahead or you want to take a brief recess? Are you worn out? Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t need one. The Commissioners might. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We come back to you today to present some information in regards to the site at the corner of James Brown Boulevard and Walton Way. You directed us to move forward with that project over there and we have obtained surveys, plats, soil bearing, soil tests, appraisals, and in the process of negotiating for the purchase of some of those properties over there. What we were going to do today is to come back and demonstrate to you that the building that was approved by this Commission in October of ’03 will fit on the site that’s over there at this time. That action taken in October of ’03 was to move forward with roughly a 300,000 square foot facility. And you may recall that the reason for that is we started looking at this facility, adding on to it, and when the project definition was completed we found that we didn’t have enough room here to be able to put the facility, and that’s when we began to look at other sites within the city. The final selection was the site that we will be presenting to you today. I’m going to ask Frank Greene, with Ritchie Greene, associated with Turner & Associates, to come up and do this PowerPoint presentation. A few of the things we will run by pretty quickly so that – they’re pictures of structures that are on the site and so forth – and then we’ll get into the meat of it. If you would, I’d like to ask that maybe you hold questions until we get through with this presentation and then we’ll open it up for some questions. Thank you. Frank? Mr. Frank Greene: Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Commissioners. It’s been a while since I’ve been here and I’m really happy to – Mr. Kuhlke: Can I say something? Mr. Frank Greene: Sure. Mr. Kuhlke: Joseph A. Bank. (Laughter) Mr. Frank Greene: I had some very good advice in that regard. (Laughter) 38 Mr. Greene: I’m a little nervous right now because my PowerPoint presentation has been sitting here open for about an hour-and-a-half and it was all set to go an hour- and-a-half ago and it doesn’t seem to be moving right now. Oh, there we go. Now I can relax. The – again, to repeat what Bill said and to cut all the way to the chase, we’re really thrilled to report to you today that this site works very well for a new judicial center, so I’m going to spend the next ten or fifteen minutes running through quickly some of the analysis that we undertook and then some of the options that we studied and then give you a hint of what we think the recommendation should be for development of this site. But it’s good news. This is where we started. There was a group of all the stakeholders that got together right at the outset of this project and wrote this statement as to what we thought this project should result in. And to summarize, that’s a functional and attractive courthouse, reflects the values of the community and the integrity of the judicial system. We actually wrote another set of, another list here which is what we call the measures of success. How will we know we’ve done the right thing? What are all our goals? And these are a lot of the goals, and some of them are really relevant to what we’re doing right now, it’s a much shorter list. And I will read these quickly. A design that responds to and enhances the urban context, the neighborhood around the building. It can’t just be a good building in and of itself. It’s got to make the whole neighborhood better. And when we were looking at the downtown sites, we had a certain vision as to how that was going to work. In certain ways it was less ambitious. But this particular site presents a great opportunity to do a lot more than create a new courthouse for Augusta, but really to be the catalyst for revitalization of a whole neighborhood. And I think it’s a wonderful opportunity. The courthouse should be functionally and operationally efficient and that means for the long haul the building should hold up, it should be easy to operate and maintain, as well as be efficient for the court operations. We want to address all the parking needs on site, at least 420 spaces. We want to plan for flexibility, future expansion on site, and above all to create a model judicial facility, one that’s based on best practices nationwide, best practices here in Georgia, and one that will be a source of community pride for a long time. The driver for the project really is courtrooms. There’s, there’s insufficient courtrooms for the courts to operate today. As you can see here, there are seven courtrooms and seven hearing rooms that are in the various buildings that are occupied by the courts today. The proposition is to make 21 total courtrooms. You’ll notice that what is being used as hearing rooms right now will be upgraded to small courtrooms that can be used for hearings or can be used for trials where you don’t need a full 14-person jury. So the number of 14 going to 21 reflects that today’s 14 is not really adequate, 21 is planning for 15 years into the future so that when the building opens it’s not obsolete the day it opens, and it’s also reflecting an upgrade to more flexible types of courtrooms. You should also note that these 21 courtrooms serve 30 judicial officers, so it’s not a case where you have one courtroom for each judge. The planning diagram that we’re using that I’m going to show you the design option’s based on is basically four courtrooms per floor as one option. Each of these rectangles is a courtroom. You’ll notice that they’re paired around a red block here – it used to be red anyway. That block is a prisoner holding suite. And the little square that’s in it represents an elevator that goes all the way down to a basement holding facility. With the recent events in Fulton County in mind we should – this courthouse is being designed 39 so that a person in custody never comes in contact with the public from the moment they leave the jail until the moment they arrive in the courtroom. It’s a much more secure, indirect means, situation than what caused that action in Fulton County to occur. So the building operates with three modes of circulation. This yellow zone is public circulation. The red is prisoner circulation. The light blue is judges circulation. They never cross paths until they meet in the courtroom. So this is the diagram that’s formed all of our effort. There is another version of this which is six courtrooms per floor. It means when you use six courtrooms per floor you have a larger site, which we have here. You’re able to make a lower building and one that’s easier to navigate for people. So the schemes that we’re looking at – and this is what we call a stacking diagram – sorry about the technical stuff – but this is the ground plane here. The green is the public service, the clerk’s department, the public defenders, the U.S. Attorney, that sort of thing. The blue is the courtrooms. And at the very top is the judges’ chambers. The red is the prisoner elevators that come from the cell block that would be in the basement up to the courtroom. So at four courts per floor, which is what this diagram represents, you have a ten story building. At six courtrooms per floor, which is what this diagram represents, you have a seven story building. So that’s really those are the two options that we’re really talking about here. I’m going to quickly move through the site. I’ve become familiar with it recently, hope you all are more familiar than me. The site is bounded by th Walton Way, James Brown Boulevard, Walker Street, and then 10 Street on this side, and then it gets a little funky here in the corner. So this generally speaking is the site. It’s a really important site, I think, in terms of the future of Augusta, because it’s really pivotal in its urban development location at this juncture between downtown Augusta and the Laney Walker Boulevard here. Particularly with James Brown Boulevard as a link between those two neighborhoods. Just some very quick photographs again. The, most of the edges of the site around are not developed. This is the view across Walton Way, looking at the parcel there, and the gas station on the corner. Across – this is from basically behind the post office looking towards the site, across this open field, and the courtroom would be basically right in that zone there. And what we’ve just seen in front of it is parking, but hopefully parking developed in a park-like way. This is some of the development across the street, and I apologize for how hard it is to read this. Maybe I’ll go quickly through these. But [inaudible] redevelopment of the canal that’s underway shows the great promise that this site has, because when that canal is redeveloped and the park is built across the street, the setting will actually be remarkably good for a courthouse. The speakeasy is kind of the landmark for the most important corner, the corner of Walton Way and James Brown Boulevard. It’ a highly visible corner that you can see from quite a distance. Some of the view around the site. And this is a view showing basically from below Walton Way where new housing construction is going on, and looking back towards the site there’s the speakeasy there. But if you can imagine the speakeasy not there and then a seven to ten story courthouse right there creating a gateway, moving along James Brown Boulevard towards downtown Augusta. And then here’s just an image, a proper setting [inaudible] and this is the way we can imagine that the landscaping around this courthouse could help to create a setting for a dignified home for the courts. This is a map of the canal system in Augusta and the site is actually right here at a very critical juncture in the historic [inaudible] past, so the – I believe this is the 40 second canal [inaudible] expert on the canals here – that cuts directly through this intersection of Fenwick and James Brown Boulevard. The site is here. So one of the things that the canal suggests is that there’s really two parts to this site and what we’ve done is basically focused on this lower part of the site as the site that’s most appropriate for building locations. If you could imagine a building zone that’s parallel to James Brown Boulevard, if you could imagine a building zone that’s parallel to Walton Way as being part of kind of the prime sites. If you could imagine parking zones that if Fenwick could be closed could be combined into one or perhaps separated into [inaudible]. And then another parking zone that’s on the other side of the tracks would be more for overflow parking. This [inaudible] edges. Some of the neighborhoods are still intact with [inaudible] street fronts and there’s new homes going into place. And this zone here kind of the gateway to our site also retains the historic buildings that hopefully will be redeveloped when the federal courts go into place. But the site itself is really bisected by these railroad tracks and by the canal, which is kind of industrial remnants of the history of Augusta, but really keys to the redevelopment of this whole neighborhood. And in fact, the canal itself serving as the major amenity. Connections, James Brown Boulevard is a major connection between downtown, the river and the Laney Walker neighborhood. And similarly, Walton Way is a major connector between the University medical center and the jail and the highway at the other end. Similarly, there are strong pedestrian connections between the federal courts district, between the site, between the parking lots and this site, and then from the Laney Walker neighborhood back up to this site, which would suggest that James Brown Boulevard in particular would become a very – it’s very important that it be developed to encourage the pedestrian use that we anticipate. With also the parks as destinations. The site is terrific in that it will be the tallest building around. Therefore, there will be tremendous views to the north, to downtown and the river, and really in all directions, as well as having a lot of visibility from all directions because of the tall building and particularly this corner being very prominent as a gateway. Solar orientation, very quickly. This prominent corner happens to face south which is the most favorable solar orientation. If an entrance were to be located on this corner, it would get the maximum amount of daylight, it would encourage people to use it, and there’s great opportunities to create shade on the site as well. But you need to shade against this hot summer sun from the east and west that [inaudible] incorporate into the design. There’s this great promise of a green zone along the canal, and actually along the existing site there’s a number of mature trees that are a great amenity and we would seek to incorporate those in the parking lot. You’ve got full size, mature trees. No point of cutting them down and putting in little buggy whips. And really you need to counterbalance the amount of paving that exists around the post office, because it’s very important that this whole district feel green and park-like and appropriate to the setting at the courthouse. Again, the uses – residential on this side, commercial along Walton Way itself, and with many likely development sites. The industrial sites along this way, historic buildings, federal courts, and the large post office really kind of set up a front side to this site and a back side to this site that works very naturally, which is reflected in this overall composite diagram. I’d be happy to go into it in detail when we have more time. Just quickly, we took a very few conceptual schematic approaches. These are not building designs but I think they are some very powerful ideas in here that will guide the 41 design work that is to come. This is a scheme that’s based on four courts per floor, which means that it’s a smaller footprint building and taller. It’s ten stories tall. And what we’re showing is a building that really fronts on James Brown Boulevard. We would locate the lobby on the corners to have the corner visibility, but it’s – the major mass of the building is really oriented towards the canal park that would be developed across the street, hopefully locating the parking behind the building all the way up to Walton Way, with the overflow parking lot at the other end of James Brown Boulevard. And with the presumption that not only with the canal [inaudible] develop, but this street frontage would be developed as a park on both sides. Right now there’s new light poles along James Brown Boulevard but no new sidewalk and no new trees and it’s much needed to create the proper ambiance. And I must apologize for not showing the trees not extending further down James Brown Boulevard. It’s very important that the whole district be developed, not just the site for this courthouse project. This is the floor plan then that shows the parking lot here that is kind of the closest proximity to the parking lot, the overflow parking lot that allows people to walk down James Brown Boulevard and reach the site. A couple of things worth noting, this sliver of land here between the tracks and the canal is really too tight to get anything into. It’s a problem because yeah, we’d like to have more parking but it’s of benefit in that when you come to the site coming down James Brown Boulevard, what you’ll be looking across is park land, something that’s developed as a beautifully landscaped front door, I guess I would call it. So this is, this in combination with this other parcel help to set the whole tone of the neighborhood. This is the upstairs portion of the building where you see the four courts per floor. And you’ll notice in this scheme, and the next one is going to be different, we did not show parking coming into this zone here, and the idea there is again, this nice first impression where you see the building across a landscaped zone. You don’t see it across the parking lot. This scheme is six courts per floor. It’s a lower building. It’s seven floors. It places the entrance along James Brown Boulevard across from the park, but it places the mass of the building basically fronting along Walton Way, similar to the way that the major commercial buildings along Walton Way, including the University building, address that big street, if you will. So what this is saying in this lower pancake portion of the building here is again, all the high access public agencies would be located there. The people are coming to do anything but go to a courtroom, they would go to the low part of the building and might just go up and down the stairs. It’s only two stories. If they have to go to a courtroom, if they have to see a judge, only then would they need to get on an elevator and go up into the tower. So we think this would be a very user- friendly building. The thought is that the lobby is the complete corner so you see into it from both sides but you would enter it from James Brown Boulevard. You’ll notice the park sweeping around here into this zone. I’m sorry, parking sweeping into this zone, and that shows a little better in this site plan, where we have not brought the parking all the way out to Walton Way. We’ve allowed it come back this way. This allows all of Walton Way to be a green setting for the courthouse, so the courthouse is really wrapped in this landscape buffer on these two major sides and we’re able to replace that parking with bringing the parking over here. So in this scheme, Fenwick really becomes closed to traffic, it becomes the entrance to this parking lot, with another entrance here, but it’s a way of getting more efficiency in the parking. This shows the upper, the upper portion of 42 the building, with the six courts in a row, along Walton. And then this final scheme, which is very similar, is basically slides, the block of the building down more towards the corner, brings the parking out to the corner on this end, basically to increase parking numbers and make a more compact building. So you see that here. It’s just an additional block of parking. In this scheme we have not opened the lobby to Walton. The lobby is completely oriented towards the park across the street and towards James Brown Boulevard. Just another way to swing it. We’ll probably have about four or five more different ideas before we’re done. There’s your six courts per floor on the upper floor. So that’s it. We’ve got basically three conceptual approaches, two of which are very closely related. The ten story, four courts per floor building, it gives you about 650 cars total, 375 immediately adjacent to the building, with the corner lobby, entrance on James Brown Boulevard. Option B is again six courts per floor, seven stories, lower building, one that’s more in scale with the neighborhood in both directions, with 400 cars adjacent to the building and almost 700 total. And then Option C, also seven stories, slightly more parking numbers close to the building and overall. I guess it’s worth saying that we do have a favorite, if anybody cares. We look all of them, but I think we think Option B really works best on the site because it presents the best face back to the community by the courthouse completely occupying the block and not having parking that comes out to the street. It distinguishes itself from commercial buildings that would have parking in front of it and other buildings like that. It has as much a powerful civic image. We like keeping the mass of the building that’s on James Brown Boulevard lower than this tall building right on the street because it fits in much better with the neighborhood scale that’s not much more than two stories that runs all the way along. So we’re very much in favor of Option B but chances are by the time we get at this thing we’ll be doing Option D. (Laughter) Mr. Greene: So I’m very, very pleased to report to you that this site meets all of the urban development goals that we had for the project and I think is very much in keeping with the spirit of the charter statement. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Frank. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to introduce Oscar Harris, is a principal of Turner & Associates; Dave Bitter, who is basically the project manager on the Judicial Center; Bob Woodhurst, who everybody knows is the local affiliate; and of course Frank, you’ve met him. I’ll open it up for any questions in regards to the presentation, should you have any. Mr. Mayor: Any questions about the presentation itself? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think I’m on record and long about this project, and while I support the project, again I’ll go back and say 21 courtrooms, when we have most of the courtrooms empty at least half of the time in this building, I cannot legitimize in my mind 21 courtrooms. If it is appropriate, and since this is on the agenda, I know that we are proceeding with design, concept and silting of this particular property, my concern 43 is that we are indeed running towards the edge of a cliff and by the time we get to the edge of it and look at the dollar amount this project will cost, we will be hanging over the precipice, with so many other worthy projects going unfounded the next round of sales tax. I would like to make a motion at this time to once and for all perhaps put this to bed or if it be the will of the Commission build this facility for the amount suggested, but that we establish, make a motion that we establish a $55 million cap total on the project. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I think it was a very good presentation. I know it’s been quite a while since we discussed this. I thought we would never get back to it again. I like the idea of building for the future. I think that the project, you say was about 15 years, you’re building 15 years out. And you know, with the increase of crime and everything that we have, I’m quite sure there is going to be more activity 15 years from now, not getting any better. But I think that we need to build for the future and build enough. We still deciding where we are going to put some of the other facilities. Law enforcement, we’re saying we already talking about that. But I, the courtrooms is not too big of an issue. I hear my colleague was saying that it’s empty here now. I’m not sure of that. I’m not disagreeing with that, with Andy on that, but the increase is not but seven more for 15 years. My understanding is we already have 14 so it’s increasing by seven more. And I’m quite sure from the time that you did the first study until now, with the cost of steel and the cost of everything has really, really increase, and to go back and do something 20 years form now is going to be even a lot more. So – now I’m still not comfortable with putting that cap on, something a cap we had ten years, not ten years, but three or four years ago, three years ago. I remember when I came on Commission I think you had money set aside for the Judicial Center and we talked about that amount then, but really now this is a new day so it’s going to take more. I hope that we can get on with it. I like the presentation I think because it’s revitalization for the entire area. James Brown Boulevard, all that entire area. It’s a beautiful plan and I think it’s planning for the future. So I hope that we could support somewhere in between that if we not put that same cap on it, that we look at where, if we had to cut. Once you start cutting, then you might look, you may not want to cut where you’re cutting. It’s like a car, you see everything there and then you go back and they say they’ll give you a stripped-down model, and then you say no, I don’t want that. But I hope before we vote to support the lower amount that we kind of consider the 15 year future, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, before we continue with the Commission discussion, did you have a recommendation for a budget or anything today that you wanted to present? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor. 44 Mr. Mayor: You want to go ahead and do that now? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. I’ve actually got three things if I could throw them out for the Commission to consider. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: And in your agenda book I think you had the budget that we are recommending. Back when we first began this project, our budget was roughly $74 million. I think everybody is aware of all of the increases that we’ve had over the last year-and-a-half. Concrete, steel, whatever in building has gone up. So we are recommending that a budget be adopted of $80,122,000. Now we’re recommending that – this information came based on the 300,000 square feet that we started with. And I will say this – and I understand where Commissioner Cheek is coming from – that budget will actually be shelling in some space. We can’t do the whole thing, but we need to get the gross square footage that is going to be needed down the road for the judicial. We don’t need everything right now. But it makes some sense to go in and build the facility that we can grow to and do it in the right kind of way. We need to have a substantial building, we need to put a building up there that is as maintenance free as we possibly can, is energy efficient as it possibly can be. So that’s one of the requests that we make of the Commission. Once the budget is adopted, then we would like to ask that we go back to the project definition part of it and structure it along with what budget you give to us. And the third thing is to come up with a contract amendment with the architect consistent with the approved budget and bring this back to y’all for approval, hopefully in the second meeting in April. I will say this, if there is a significant reduction in the budget, that there is a possibility we would not be ready to come back to you the second week in April because it’s going to require an awful lot of work. So those are our recommendations. Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’ll give Mr. Cheek an opportunity to respond to Mr. Hankerson and then we’ll hear from Mr. Mays and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I – this is a beautiful plan and I applaud the wisdom of building for the future. But in these times when we have over $20 million of unanticipated additional costs to apply to SPLOST to build and repair and take care of 401, in addition to that monies, the additional “must have” public projects and facilities runs us nearly into 4-1/2 years of sales tax without touching fire, recreation, roads, drainage, or any of the other needed items in this city. Again, if we build for the future, I ask anybody in this room do they buy a car that they’d like to have 15 years from now and pay the insurance on it until you’re ready to drive it? Essentially if we build this building we will be providing heat, maintenance and other things that consume general fund dollars that we, frankly, do not have nor are we likely to have unless we lay people off or raise taxes. That is the facts. Everybody that is sitting at this table knows that. While I would like to build a 20-story, or my twin brother has often said an 80-story building down here, we have to be realistic in that we have got a Joint Law Enforcement 45 Center that will need to be closed within the next five years with new jail pods built to compensate for that, the renovation of this building which must occur to accommodate not only perhaps the Sheriff’s Department and other groups, but also it needs to be renovated because it hasn’t really been touched since it’s been built. This is the first and only project I’ve seen since I’ve been here to where we have developed a wish list, things we’d like to have to build for the future, that has gone unchallenged without a cap on it. We need to ask the architects to build to the dollar amount we have available, not the other way around, which is exactly what we are doing. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to just say we have plenty of money to build this thing right now and we should build for the future and have those rooms set aside, used as storage or whatever in the interim, but the bottom line is the judicial segment of this government is going to have to plan and schedule better. We don’t need that many courtrooms to heat and cool the empty space, or as we’re doing downstairs, the vacant space that’s going unused. From all the lawyers I’ve talked to across the city who will not come on record because it would be going in the face of the judges, some of the judges, we can plan and schedule better and save significant dollars. This is a great project. The team has done a wonderful job in its presentation. But at this time, this city has too many other priorities to financially address, and that is why I ask for this cap. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I guess I’ve probably asked as many questions about this project as anybody here, about the dollars, about the location, about the little private joke Bill and I shared when we first started with this presentation today. And a lot of other things. But on a serious note, one thing I think you all know that I have been very critical of is that historically the local governments – say that with plural – have basically for the most part under planned and built small, with very few exceptions, anything that they’ve done. And I realize and I am respecting very much what Andy is saying in reference to those numbers and of how we have to realize all the things we’ve got to do, but before we rush to a total judgment of where we, we stop – Bill mentioned about the April meeting. I would hope that we would keep an open mind from the standpoint of a two week period to think about something very seriously, that I think was missed in it and Bill can address this on his own in doing it and I think some of it goes back to some of the things that he and I both talked about that we went through, some of the pains of the jail project in itself. As chairman of the citizens committee on his side and at part time, chairman of the county commission on my side. But all of this – and I think where Andy is absolutely right, you are going to use a lot of the sales tax money over a four year period if you’re talking about this building. The other side of that is we may want to think creatively on how we build this building and deal with the total financing of it. You are going to be – and the only thing I’m saying is if you put together a sales tax package that is concise enough and supported enough by the community, that’s got enough things in it that people will really rally around and feel good about and will support it, I think you are going to be over into another sales tax period before you get some of this finalized and done. There is a risk, but I think if you do it right and if you plan it right, folk will follow your efforts in terms of what you do, and you’re going 46 to get a very good indication of that in November whether they’ll follow any of it at all. But if you’ve got $20 million on hold and you’re going to go into this to a point of where on one side we’re thinking about redesigning everything, if we deal with a cap that probably deals with better that $20 million on a difference, or do you think in terms of how you may be able to get parts of these monies, put them together in a legal way, nothing that [inaudible] has not been done already and we didn’t come out in a good way with it, in fact fiscally the – I’m fixing to say a real bad word right now – but – I’m not talking about the police, I’m talking about certificates of participation. But to a point, I’m just asking you to keep an open mind to maybe study everything that you are looking at over the next two weeks, because we were able – and all the delays and all the court orders and meeting with the plaintiffs’ attorneys with the jail, one thing that we came out on top of was the fact that when we did that project we had enough money housed, enough interest drawn that we did, Andy, what you said. We built it around the dollars that we did have. But also, we had a pot of money that was there that we were waiting on sales tax to come in and to do and we had the $32 million intact and were able to spend $29 million of it and have money left over. That’s how we been supporting 401, was the money that we saved on the project that we did going to Phinizy Road. That’s how we had a cushion. The county and city didn’t have any money. It was left over from the jail project and that’s what has been keeping 401 glued together. I said in a light way I’ll be glad for 401 to go cause I voted against it five times and I want to kind of get my name off that building down there before it falls down. I don’t want folk even coming down there looking at it, so I didn’t want to see it go down there in the beginning. But I think before we put a [inaudible] maybe of saying let’s tap it to a point today, maybe let’s look and see how we can deal with alternative financing in there. It may still get back to those same numbers. But I would much rather see us build in right and built it tight. And to a point that we start looking back, that it becomes the second civic center, the third jail, untold other buildings around town that we spend millions of dollars in that are too small when you have the first big event going in. I heard about the – I want to see economic development obviously grow around this project and to do it and to have the – you got folk working there, people coming there, so you’re going to see eating places. But I even want to see to a point we go – the governmental buildings, we go to state governmental buildings, whether we’re talking the buildings there around the Capitol now in Atlanta, Sloppy Floyd Building, even to a point of what we may put in commercially to eat within in its own buildings. Contracting food services that are in there, other things that bring in money inside of that particular building, whereas everybody may not be able to leave the building for an hour or an hour-and-a-half to go get lunch. Some folk go on thirty to forty minute break. You go into these places, they have those things. I’d like to see us think about enough space to deal with all that so that this inclimate weather, folk that are there that are coming there for trial, that may not be able to go to some of the other places that are around there, that may come in public transportation to deal with it. I just want to see us do it not to a point that it’s the Taj Mahal, and I agree we’ve got other stuff we are going to have to do. 401 is looking us in the face from the standpoint that it wasn’t even on the radar screen of this magnitude when you all started out. And for that, I thank Andy for being that watch guard in terms of doing that. But what I kind of would like to see us do rather than to make a quick decision, to say let’s slice 20% to 25% of this right now, is 47 to at least think over the period of two weeks, look at what else we’re talking about in sales tax – it may be that we may have to put something else that we’re going to build on sales tax in another creative fashion, in terms of how we deal with the money. Whether it’s to a concept of some bonds, whether it’s through certificates of participation, but sensibly look at how we are going to get this whole thing built. Because, you know, I remind you, caps don’t always necessarily work. We had a cap – I went to Columbia, y’all [inaudible] put a cap on the sales tax, and it started out being 11 years, it went to 13, it wasn’t too much long than where you started at, but it had a cap, too. And in the end, you know, we still back in here trying to deal with sales tax. So I think that we ought to dedicate ourselves if this is going to be this central building of this government. It’s going to be the footprint building you are going to build, it’s going to last for the next 50 to 60 years at least, equaling what you’ve got here. It ought not be where we start looking to build another part of it along the other part of Walton Way or somewhere else down there in the next five to six years because it wasn’t built right. And that’s my only observance of saying that. And that’s not saying you put an open pocketbook on it, but I think to a point at least maybe let’s talk about the financial sources that can happen and the amount of time that you’re spreading this building out to be paid for and what could be put into it to actually make it work over a course of time. And I’m just throwing it out there as an observance, to say that’s something that you just may want to think of, because when you start you can cut off a percentage of some of these things but to a point we’re going to get into some serious money soon if we keep changing [inaudible] directions on what it is going to look like. Cause you know, these little drawings, they look good when they get up on the paper and on the board, but every time you change them a whole lot it costs to even do those. So at some point we’re going to have to make up our minds about that. But I’d like to see us maybe if we’re in the vein of something we want to change, let’s give, let’s give the alternative financing question a chance to come into play and talk about it and say what else we can do other than sales tax, particularly since all of this will not be done particularly at one time. And I’m just saying that as a suggestion and something I hope over the next two weeks we might look at. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you wanted to respond? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I think our committee is coming to you, the Commissioners, for a budget. I understand and I think Mr. Mays is absolutely right, how you finance it obviously has got to be your decision also, whether it be sales tax or some alternative way of financing. But when you go through this process, and we had a meeting this morning prior to this meeting trying to get ready, is when we go through the project definition there’s got to be a good balance between project definition and budget. That can’t be off one way. If you’ll look at the budget in your – that was put in your agenda, Andy’s figure of $55 million is really what the building is going to cost. The problem is you’ve got land acquisition, you’ve got professional fees, you’ve got FF&E, you’ve got audio visual, you’ve got telephones, you’ve got a lot of other things that go in there that support the facility that you’re going to build. So you know, he’s on target as far as what the building will cost, but you’ve got other things that are built in there to make the building functional, and of course you’ve got to have the land first. So you 48 know, I’ve said to all of y’all that I have had a chance to talk to is we’ll work with whatever you give us, but I hate for this community to be short sighted. And we, we’ve got – it doesn’t make much sense to build something that in five years is going to be obsolete and you’ve got to add to it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Hey, Bill. Mr. Kuhlke: Hey, Marion. Mr. Williams: You want to sit down and rest yourself a minute? I’m not going to be as long as Willie. Mr. Kuhlke: No, I been sitting down for an hour-and-a-half. Mr. Williams: I didn’t want you to think I’d be as long as Willie. But I met with Bill and we talked and discussed this plan and what is being presented. I, too, like Commissioner Cheek thinks there has got to be a limit but I been speaking out about building a building that if you build out for 15 years, then you take five years to build it, really you ain’t building but for ten years. Because five years done went by before you know it, Bill. The funding is going to be our main deterrent. We got to figure that out. We know we got to build this building. We know the building is needed. We done run around in circles on the site. All that’s cleared up. I mean we talking about land acquisition now. I just think we need to do like Commissioner Mays mentioned earlier. Just sit down and make a decision whether it’s going to all come from sales tax, whether we are going to do a bond, and build it. I mean I’m still in favor of building something bigger. But this is what, this is what’s here. We need to go ahead and do it. We need to go ahead and get started. But before we get started we got to know where the money is going to come from. You wouldn’t do that until you did that. So Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a lot to say. I’m glad we’re to this point. We need to go ahead and try to look at the funding source and how we are going to be able to come up with it and which way we are going to do it. We know if we put all this on the taxpayers about this building and there is nothing in there, not much in there for recreation and other things that people want, we are going to end up back to the drawing board again. So we got to be – we have a balance of this thing. So hopefully we can do that, we can put our program together, some of this money come from there, it may be a bond situation, I don’t know. But I’m glad we’re at this point to go ahead and get started, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think I’m as conservative as anyone in this room, but I think this is one of the most exciting things I’ve seen in some time. And I’m going to say that because where we are putting this has been called inner city. This will now be called business district. And as we look at that, we are going to find if we put in a good 49 structure, then other development is going to follow it. And at this time, the Mayor has already or he is working on a group to look at the canal and the redevelopment of that area in this vicinity. I feel sure you are going to have many lawyers moving into this area. I have talked with people at the Medical College and in the medical area and with thth the canal moving into the 12, 13 and what-have-you streets, they’re looking at bringing in businesses of that sort. We have the incubator in the Enterprise Mill now. I feel we must do this right. We want something we can be proud of and we want this city to move forward. And you’ve got to move forward by doing, making things better. We are all tired of the way things have been going. And we want a difference. But when we take that step, we want that step to be the correct step. We will take one step at a time, but when we do it we want it to be 100%. Now I’m not saying we can afford $80 million. But I don’t think we will be doing ourselves justice if we put it at $55 million. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Yes, I just, I want to ask a question about the occupancy. Is there a possibility that any of the floors could or any of the rooms could be rented to private persons? Is that a possibility? Mr. Kuhlke: I think, Barbara, the problem with that is - one of the big features of a Judicial Center is the security part of it because of what happened in Atlanta last week, we all see how important that is. And I think if you get to a point where you start having mixed used outside of the judicial function in a building, my feeling is I don’t know that that’s ever been done but I think you make a mistake. Mr. Mayor: Tommy? I’m trying to get to the Commissioners who haven’t spoken yet and then I’ll get back around to those who have spoken previously. Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Many, many times I certainly th agree with my colleague from the 6, but anytime I think about or even hear of a cap, and most of them may have already been said, of course, but you think about the civic center over there when they put a cap on it and it’s 2500 seats short of where it was originally designed and proposed to be. We’re all struggling with 401 Walton Way and what’s going to happen there, but that was another building that we cut corners on. The old city, the old county. Mr. Mays, you remember that well. We tried to cut corners and you see what we have ended up with. I also take a lot of pride coming in this building. This building was built in the early 50s. When we leave here at night, and we’re always here late, but our housekeeping crews – this building looks almost brand new when you leave at night because there were no corners cut when this building was built. I’m going to have to vote against the motion for the cap at this point. I’m not saying I won’t vote for it later on, but at this point I think we need to go back and discuss some alternate methods of financing, I think we need to look at some of the things that [inaudible] issues that Mr. Mays alluded to a while ago, and some other things to come back before we go back to the people for the sales tax again in November. But at this point I don’t mind saying I’m 50 going to have vote, Andy, I’m going to have to vote against your cap proposal at this time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I think we’re looking kind of like down the tube instead of looking in a broader, imaginative way. And that is, we are going to have more construction, more buildings, more projects that we are going to have to look at, based on sales tax and based on what we’re talking about doing over the next five, seven, ten years. However, the reason I’m saying that is that – as I mentioned last Thursday in our sales tax meeting – that we do have to be creative, we are going to have to show some imagination about not only what those projects are going to look like for the future, but how we are going to finance them. And sales tax money has been a godsend to this community as well as others throughout our state. It’s been an opportunity to get things done that we never would have under the regular taxable situation that we had. And I can agree with Mr. Mays 100% in the idea that we are going to have to have combinations and that people are going to have to understand that if this is, if this community is to grow and this community is going advance in a way that we want to be recognized like we feel we should be, then there will be increase in some form of tax, but it won’t be to pay salaries, it won’t be to do some of the unnecessary – some of the unnecessary things, but it would be hopefully looked at and done on the basis of the necessity. I just feel that the combination of financing creative-type work, along with what we’ve been presented today, and I’m sure we’re going to have a lot more projects brought to us that we are going to have to look at, so I’m of the opinion to let’s get the full package, let’s get the whole box lunch before we start eating and digest thing. We need to get all the information we need to get, everything that is available for us, and then if we have to ask this committee to go back and do some adjustments then we can do that, but until we know what it’s going to be like and how much it’s going to cost and what we are going to get right down to, then you know, I think you’re right, Bill, two weeks from now should give us ample time to at least study and understand before we start making definite decisions on what the cap or what the amount of this thing can be. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, did you want to – let me just ask as couple of questions and make a few comments and then we’ll go around to the repeat speakers. Bill, this may be for your design team. With the presentation that was made today with the number of [inaudible] and so forth, will this building absorb all of the court functions that are currently in the Joint Law Enforcement Center? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: That would be State Court, Juvenile Court, Clerk functions? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Mayor: All of those. Okay. 51 Mr. Kuhlke: And the public defender. Mr. Mayor: Public defender will be in there, too. Now is the building – I like your Option B. I think that, to me that’s, I don’t know, it’s a lot softer look and at the same time it makes a pretty bold statement the way it’s lined up. Does that lend itself to expansion on the site? If we’re building for 20 years, in 15 years the Commissioners will be back here saying do we need to add on and is that layout, is that conducive to expansion on the site? Mr. Kuhlke: Let me make one comment then I’ll let Frank speak to it. Okay? The layout that you saw the plan part of it, where it showed the building and showed the parking and then it showed the parking on up further, that – the parking up toward where the new bankruptcy court will be is sort of overflow parking for the Judicial Center. It’s also going to allow the bankruptcy court to use some of it and will also be available when you build the new library up that way. So I would say it would require some work, but we’ve got in plan B, how many spaces total did we have? Close to 700 spaces. But, so I don’t know whether you could add to the building – we haven’t gotten that far yet, but whether you could add to the building where it is or whether you’d have to go somewhere else with an annex somewhere. Frank, you want to speak to that? Mr. Greene: Bill is absolutely right. We haven’t studied expansion closely, but let me just quickly – since we both [inaudible]. The worst way to add to a building is to build more floors on top of it. So that’s really off the table. But although in emergency situations you do. But this is the ground floor plan, and this is the low rise portion of the building, the two, three story building. Clearly this parking area here is available for expansion of – it depends what you want to add. If you want to add courtrooms that’s in the tower block. If you want to add office space for agencies that serve the courts, that expansion is relatively easy to do by encroaching on the existing parking area, even to the point where twenty or thirty years from now you can imagine that this site is completely full of low rise building and this parking then, you’d need more parking than what you have today and that parking could displace to structured parking decks, say, on that site, two or three story decks. So I think there is a nice – Mr. Mayor: I asked the question because one of the options we looked at as we got to this point today was adding on to this building. And we found that this is not a building that’s designed to be added on to. And you know that because you all looked at this. And I would certainly hope that whatever option we determine is the one we want to move forward with that we have, we have sited this building on the property in such a way that it can be added on to at some point in the future if it is needed. I like the emphasis that you’ve given to James Brown Boulevard. We had a [inaudible] conducted by the Design Institute of Tulane here about five years ago and they were very perceptive in taking a look at that need for a north-south connector between the central business th district and Laney Walker, and 9 Street was the street. And I’m glad to see that attention is being given to it, and certainly we have already sent messages to the Post 52 Office that we need to talk to them about how to streetscape the parking lot that they have that fronts on this. The final point I wanted to make was I think one of the keys to making this site a little more attractive than it is, is the establishment of railroad quiet th zones on James Brown Boulevard and on 10 Street. And I would hope that early in the process you would give some attention to that. I understand we’re against a deadline to get some applications in to the Federal Railroad Administration so we can get these approved. And I think that’s something we need to do early in the process, rather than later. But overall, I like the approach you’ve taken and we talked about a park like setting, returning our courthouse to what we used to have here before we had the marble palace and the courthouse grounds and whatnot. I think we’re headed in that direction. It’s going to be a real people place. It will make a statement in this community and be a place where people will gather long after the hours of court have ended. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Two things that I’d like to say. Number one is we don’t have anything in this budget as far as equipment for the quiet zone. You need to know that. Mr. Mayor: I understand. Mr. Kuhlke: The other thing is that is not in our budget, is we don’t have anything for a program manager in this budget. All of the fees – Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] program manager? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, he’s for Turner & Associates, but I’m talking about we don’t have – we have the architectural part of it, their consultants and so forth, but nobody outside of that is included in this budget. Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll go – yes, Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: I wanted to ask Mr. Kuhlke. [inaudible] seven story is going to cost as much as a [inaudible] story? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I think what it is, is a function of the square footage that we have. We have got 300,000 square feet built into all of them. And then we are working it from a square – we’ve got a long way to go, but the numbers came from the professionals that are involved in this day in and day out. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I may be the lone voice crying in the wilderness, but allow me to be politically incorrect. This is the group that I’m hearing 53 created – and I’m all for creativity, and again, I’m all for a grand scheme and a great package. A package. A project. Which is the entire package is what I’m considering. I do have a little bit of background in running projects, and so this should be considered a project which includes acquisition, construction and all the other things that go along with it. We’ve just heard in less than five minutes an additional cost that wasn’t incorporated into the budget. Buckle your chin strap, boys and girls, cause it’s going up. Secondly, I’m hearing that we need to be creative and do a certificate of participation. Also, that we need to flow a general obligation bond. Well, ladies and gentlemen, general obligation bonds have a long history of failure in the city of Augusta and this is the same group of Commissioners that voted overwhelmingly to run the city’s solid waste collection $6 million in the red because it didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to raise rates $3 a month. This project, in fairness to the team, we don’t need to wait and allow them to go, continue deeper into this project without placing a cap on it, thinking we’re doing this city a service, by placing a cap on it at some later date, and then telling them to redesign it. I’ll ask a question and I already know the answer. This Commission put a cap on it at the last sales tax. Bill, did the design team look at a Plan B for the dollar cap we put on it back then? Mr. Kuhlke: If I – I don’t remember what it was, Andy. Mr. Cheek: I think the total was about $65 million or so. Mr. Kuhlke: We have, we have not done anything since we changed and went to the other site, and we have only been working under the work authorization that this Commission approved, which was 300,000 square feet. That’s all we’ve worked on. So we really haven’t done anything. Mr. Cheek: And we – in fairness to you guys, we need to come up with a price ceiling, like we do for everything else, for this project in order to give you a dollar figure to work to. Mr. Kuhlke: And that’s what we are asking for. Mr. Cheek: And we have continued to delay and defer until we get bigger things and you guys are going to be through the project and ready to go with this and we may discover that we can’t, don’t have the political will on this board to vote for a certificate of participation and indebt people without them having a say-so, which is exactly what it is [inaudible] will not pass. And so we’ll consume our sales tax if we don’t come to some conclusion about a spending formula, which is all I’m asking for. I’ll support it if we have reasonable spending formula, but ladies and gentlemen, I’ve got drainage that needs to be done, I’ve got fire stations that need to be built, and other things. And this Commission is already on record at the sales tax meetings of not wanting to go more than five years. There are only so many dollars in five years. We are at the fifth year now, 4- 1/2 years with the must have projects without this escalation in cost, which is sure to go up. I may be the lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I will be in the position in the 54 future to say I told you so. We need to set a price on this project. We need to make it something reasonable. And again, how jaded have we become as a group of city officials when we think we can’t build something nice for $50 million? We have been playing with other people’s money too long if we have that belief. Other cities do it. We can, too. And as far as repeating the mistakes over there, I bet there is enough change orders on both those facilities to choke an elephant. If we design this thing from the get-go with a dollar amount in mind and set the standards and inspect it like we didn’t do over at the Law Enforcement Center, we can build a good facility for $55 million. Everybody else does it. And again, I’ll be the lone voice crying in the wilderness. Just because you spend less money doesn’t mean that it’s not a quality facility. This building – and we talk about obsolescence – this building was obsolete less than ten years after it was built [inaudible] same standards and yet we’ve lived in it for an additional forty. Does it have to be state of the art to occupy and use it? No. I just ask you to consider these things, because we’ve got big things ahead of us and we’ve got to develop a formula for SPLOST that will appeal to the public. And again I’ll say what I said over a year ago. Nobody comes to a city to go look at a courthouse. They come to convention centers, they come to performing arts centers, they come to play ball, or they come to do other things in the city, not to the courthouse. This is a net deducter from our economy and our general fund. We need to build things that are going to improve the economy and attract people here, to be a net contributor to our general fund and our tax base. I just ask you to consider those things. Of my being the lone voice in the wilderness, if that’s what God sent me to do, that’s fine. But I [inaudible] myself, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I was going to make a substitute motion, but I can yield to Bill and then I would like to be recognized after him. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to say is, Andy, we can build a building for $55 million. We cannot build a building and consolidate on the judicial functions, and I’m saying this because this comes from the professionals that we hire. And so, you know, I’m not going to even attempt to argue with you. You understand that. I’m just saying that we have developed a program to consolidate all the judicial functions in Richmond County. And if we cut it, in just some round figure calculations, cutting it to $55 million we’ve cut it by a third roughly. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, so I can make a substitute motion that I think does not necessarily [inaudible] under one package of money today on the budget that’s been asked, but it also gives consideration to the motion that’s on the floor, but most of all, gives us time to look and examine what we’ve got. Now let me make, let me say this. Andy, I know about the wilderness, I’ve been in there a long time, a lot of times. You know, I started down there and then got up here so it can get lonely sometimes. Nothing wrong, you’ve got to have that. What, though, I hope the time frame does – and let me make one correction about certificates of participation. My aim is only to give us options. I’m not saying how long or how much. Obviously not to deal with this whole 55 project. But quite frankly, more realistically, a portion of it and a smaller portion of it that blends over a period, that takes us into one sales tax, and quite frankly, gets us into another one. There are some good success stories other than the jail. We did a pretty good, I think, public golf course and keeping it public with the COPS project. And paid for it out of sales tax. And the Cabbage Patch probably would have been just that by now, a patch, because if we had not made the improvements to do it. So I think we got to look beyond and deal with it. We may come back to where your numbers are, but I yield a minute ago, not knowing that [inaudible] to folks with the same name, but the combining of the judicial facilities already on one hand where we’re talking about the demise of 401, whatever aspects of court space that we thought about, we might be able to save or to use for court space over in that building, all that’s out the window now. That’s gone. That’s going to become something else, some parking lot, [inaudible] expansion, whatever. Cause it’s going, it’s going to end up with a wrecking ball. So you will not have that space there at all. I think there is somewhere that we can, we can meet and blend some of this, because you are correct, those [inaudible] expansion of facilities you want to see at Diamond Lakes, those facilities that we need to do with Rec projects in all parts of this city that we have not done, we have to be able to still have money to do those creative things I think that people want. And that’s what I was searching for, if we can put together a different way of financing all of this and if we, if we are not that far apart, as opposed to slicing something, but of finding a means to connect it and to make it Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a all work, that’s the only thing that I’m search for. substitute motion that, quite frankly, over the next ten days to two weeks that if you and Mr. Russell as the facilitators would bring us together both with Chairman Kuhlke on his committee, the resources that we have in house in terms of our Finance Department and any other creative measure that we want to look at that are both conservative and legal, that will get us on some talks as to how we can finalize some of this and be able to put a final number into where we are going. Because in looking at this also, the Judicial Center may not be the only thing that we have to look at in terms of another means of financing, in terms of where that goes. So it’s just something there, that motion that I’d like to make, see us do that, rather than locking in today and locking down, to leave the door open long enough to be creative enough and to say these are the ideas that we’ve explored and still gives us the option to vote it up or down, but it does not leave on a path to a point that we are, as some people have said today, we build too small [inaudible] too fast and if we – I’d rather see us, rather than building two things that might be wrong, at least build one of them right for a change. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that has been seconded. The third item Mr. Kuhlke asked for today was to [inaudible] the contract amendments with the architect consistent with the approved budget be brought back to the Commission. Bill, is there some work that needs to be done on that prior to that April meeting? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’ll defer to Jim, but really – 56 Mr. Mayor: Things go on concurrently? Mr. Kuhlke: They do. We really can’t, can’t amend the contract until we know what kind of budget we’re working with; am I correct, Jim? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays, is this for the next Commission meeting or for the second meeting in April? Mr. Mays: I think the second meeting in April, Mr. Mayor, gives us probably more time, and I think also it gives us an opportunity as we are putting other aspects of sales tax together that we know [inaudible] what we’re looking at and at the same time we may be back to the same numbers of where Andy is at right now. And I’m not saying that there may not end up being some type of cap that’s there. But I think we owe it to ourselves, but most of all we owe it to this community, to make sure we’ve explored every way to do this right. And I don’t have to talk about the hidden things to a point of why we are going to have to deal with doing some of this right. Because we’ve [inaudible] talked about what’s not being scheduled, what’s not being done, but we sit there right now with two jail facilities, and both of them sit on the verge of federal court order. So we got to work within this whole package of this judicial deal. The building that’s there. What we are going to deal with at Phinizy Road, all of that stuff has got to be worked in, so I’m not limiting our talks about financing to just the Judicial Center. I like to see it go to the top because it’s the budget that’s before us. But I think we got to talk abut some other things that are in there on how we are going to deal with the money. Mr. Mayor: Bill, the second meeting in April will work for you? Mr. Kuhlke: That’s fine. I think the Commission just needs to know that we can’t do any more, any more until we get a budget. Mr. Mayor: We have land acquisition ongoing, don’t we? Mr. Kuhlke: I think Mr. Wall will be maybe meeting with y’all later. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Ms. Beard: How far along do we have to be in order to see some designs? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’ll let Frank speak to that. Once we get a budget, then it depends on, Ms. Beard, how severely we have to do, redo the project definition. And that determines what we’re going to be doing, what we will house in the building. Then I think you go into schematic designs after that, which is maybe a single line, I don’t know. 57 And then you begin, you build from that. So to answer your question this way, from the time we get a budget to the time we get construction documents, we are talking about a year. If we started now, the plans would be ready – hopefully next spring we would go out for bids and it’s going to take about two years to do the project. So we’re looking at a three year time frame now. Now in our budget you also see that we built in an escalation because as we wait to get these things done, prices are going up. But we’ve got some built in. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Go ahead and take a vote on the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion then please vote with the usual sign. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Cheek votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Bill, thank you and your team for the work that you’re doing and we trust we’ll have an answer for you at the next meeting. Thank you very much. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Boyles: If I may, we have a large contingent of folks down here on item 22. Most of them have left because they were business people and they had to get back, close up shop or do whatever. Is it possible we could hear that item passed in the Finance Committee but Mr. Williams wants to hear it again. Mr. Mayor: What we’re going to do is take a five minute recess right now. We’ve been here for three hours. We’re going to take a five minute recess and then we can take that item number when we come back from recess. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, Madame Clerk, are you ready? Okay, let’s try to get some of these things cleaned up. We’ve still got people here for some items and we want to deal with those first. There are some people here for item number 3. If you’ll read the caption. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And then we had the other item, Crystal Cheatham? Mr. Speaker: I don’t think she’s here. It’s my understanding she’s not here. 58 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, there are some, some [inaudible] so contacts can be made. I know you going to get with him, but you have a card you can give him or [inaudible] a card or something? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: So they can be sure and not get off [inaudible] get out the door. Mr. Speaker: No, we don’t have that problem. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see. Item number, item number 15. We’ve got Mr. Cosnahan, who has been waiting patiently here. If you’d read the caption, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 3. Z-05-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by David Bostic, on behalf of LPB Properties, requesting a modification of a patio subdivision plan in an R-1A (One- family Residential) Zone affecting Aylesbury Landing Subdivision, per Section 9-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Belair Road and Burdette Drive. This property contains approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map 53, Parcels 2.2 & 8.1) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you had asked that this item be pulled? Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I had discussions with the developer on this project and my concerns were that the roads would be built to county standards, with I make a motion to approve. drainage and so forth. I have that assurance. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Were there some people here for this item? Okay. Did y’all want to say anything? You like the motion? Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Mays and Mr. Smith out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, if we could go to item 34 and 34A. We’ll take these up concurrently. I’m told these people need to leave so we’ll – if you’ll read those captions. 59 The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 34. Presentation by Crystal Cheatham regarding a transportation problem on the city bus system. 35. Presentation by Mr. Wing of 3003 Thomas Lane regarding the Augusta Public Transit ADA Program. Mr. Mayor: Okay, who is going first?Mr. Wing? Mr. Wing: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Would you give us – okay, go ahead. Mr. Wing: I’m here regarding the Augusta Public Transit, in particular the ADA Program. Basically that’s the handicap bus. And I’m running into a few problems with it from the standpoint of I have to make my appointments a day ahead of time and schedule pickup time, destination and return time. One of the problems [inaudible] make a trip to the grocery story and couldn’t get back on the handicap bus, and the explanation I had had to do with the time factor, which is non-existent, and the space factor, which is non- existent, so the problem I’m running into is Augusta Public Transit. I’m getting to my destination and I’m having a tough time getting back. And it seems like Augusta Public Transit is doing a very good job of getting the job done halfway and I’d just like some input from Augusta Public Transportation, particularly with the ADA Program. Mr. Mayor: Have you spoken with Mr. Johnson about this? Mr. Wing: Yes, I have. Mr. Mayor: And have you met with his Advisory Committee? Mr. Wing: No, I have not done that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson? I thought this body a few years appointed an Advisory Committee that was supposed to - Mr. Johnson: We do have one. Mr. Mayor: - meet and take up these issues and try to resolve them and bring us recommendations. Mr. Johnson: Okay, what we can do, Mr. Wing, we can invite to the next meeting. It’s the first Thursday in each month. Mr. Wing: Okay. 60 Mr. Johnson: Three o’clock. And if you need a way, we’ll come pick you up. Mr. Wing: Thank you. [inaudible] public transportation works pretty good. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Johnson: We’ll be sure you get back also. Mr. Wing: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson: I’ll get with you. Mr. Mayor: And then we had the other item, Crystal Cheatham? Mr. Speaker: I don’t think she’s here. My understanding is she’s not here. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you then. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, is there some [inaudible] so contacts can be made? I know you going to get with him but do you have a card you can give him or give Heywood a card or something? Mr. Johnson: Okay. Mr. Williams: So they can be sure not to miss, not to get [inaudible] get out the door. Mr. Johnson: No, we don’t have that problem. We take care of it. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s see. Item number, item number 15. We’ve got Mr. Cosnahan who has been waiting patiently here. Read the caption, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 15. Motion to approve tasking the Internal Auditor to conduct an audit of the contract between Augusta, Georgia and Heery International, Inc., as it relates to what is expected of both parties and all invoices submitted for payment along with related documents. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) 61 Mr. Mayor: And there is a companion item with this item, number 58. We’ll take these up concurrently. The Clerk: 58. Discuss Heery International contract. (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams, you asked item 15 be pulled? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I needed to find out from the internal auditor as to some time lines on when we can look for a report back discussing the contract. I think there is something we need to do as well. I think it’s on the agenda for 59. Mr. Mayor: 58. Mr. Williams: 58. Wanted to discuss the contract. But my reason for pulling this one was to get a time line on when the auditor could be back with something for us on this, J.T. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell has his hand up. He might be able to provide information. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I’ve spoken with Mr. Cosnahan and we’re looking at 45 days. That’s what we talked about Monday. You were agreeable with that. It should not be any problem. Mr. Williams: Okay. As long as there is a time line and a date on it so we will know that we can expect something back within a time. J.T., that’s reasonable. Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible] out of the office this time of the year, so we’ll get on it. And it will be no longer than that. Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: If there is any change, Mr. Cosnahan, if you would let us know so that Commissioner Williams can be advised of that. Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you had some discussion about the Heery contract? Mr. Grantham: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Last week we had talked about the Heery contract and about the role which they were to play based on that contract that was approved last year. And I think there has been some misunderstanding possibly on both 62 parties. And that is what direction Heery is supposed to be going in and also who is supposed to be guiding Heery as to what projects they are supposed to be working on. And that is the clarity that I wanted because we didn’t get that the other day in our committee meeting. And that’s why I asked Mr. Russell as well as others to let’s discuss the Heery contract based on who gives them the projects, what areas they’re supposed to be working in, and as to what type of information is to be presented back to the Commission once they do their research of their project. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Grantham: That’s what I was looking for. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. We’ve had several conversations with the people from Heery and that’s ongoing at the moment. In fact, we’re meeting again tomorrow. But at this point they’re following directions specifically from me in reference to their current assignments. We are in the process of reviewing the contract to make sure that I’m in compliance as I ask them to do specific things. David and I are meeting in the morning to go over the billing again to make sure we’re okay with all that. So that’s an ongoing process. But at this point they’re receiving direction directly from me in reference to any future assignments and following up with assignments they have now. As we modify that or as we deal with that, we’ll keep you informed. Mr. Grantham: That’s what I need. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In light of the many new projects I hope that we get and some of the needs we have currently, I would hope that we employ them as much as we can in doing the project management for us that we hired them to do, as much as possible. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could ask Mr. Russell, the memorandum that David Persaud sent us, is that what y’all are basically discussing? It was to the members of the Finance Committee, and I’m assuming it went on to all the members of the Commission. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, that’s the beginning groundwork for our discussion at this particular point in time. I’m actually meeting with him to determine, to flesh that out a little bit so I have a better understanding and that we both have an understanding that Heery did understand the direction that we’re giving them and the payback we got there. We are looking to make sure we charge what they’ve done to the proper accounts, and 63 then continue to move forward to capture that in a way that’s a little bit more, a lot more descriptive of what they’re actually doing with the dollars that they’re getting paid at this point in time. Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need to make a motion, but I need to clarify a couple of things first of all, too. The contract is something that I think we really need to look at and to make some adjustments, I guess is a good word. I’m a little bit confused about the contract myself. I know that when the contract was written, when we hired this firm, it was to help us with sales tax, with SPLOST, that we had coming, our new SPLOST, that didn’t get passed. We hired them before we had to vote on last year. And they was hired under those, under the intentions of helping with SPLOST projects that we was hoping to undertake. Since we did not undertake those, and it sound like we are going to use them for “other projects” that’s not there now, and I don’t have a problem with that. But what I do have problem with, we – the Gallup & Associates who I’m thinking works with this firm, was hired to be inclusive of minority participation. Well, since then we’ve hired a DBE person, we’ve got a staff person, and it looks like we’ve got two contracts. That’s one with Gallup & Associates and one with Heery, and if that’s the case I think we need to look at the contract ourselves as a whole to see what are we contracting and who are we contracting with. This whole thing got on the table cause of the light of documents to go along with the amount of money that we got for invoices for something over $300,000. That’s how this whole thing got to the table. And I don’t want to continue that. I think we made it clear in the committee that we need the documentation to go along with whatever invoice we got, but if that’s not in our agreement, Mr. Shepard, we need – the language in the contract ought to specify how things are, not to leave it to the Administrator, to the Mayor, or this Commission. There ought to be some language now when you talking about monies in a contract, as to how and who and when. So I’ve got a serious issue with the [inaudible] versus the DBE person that we pay now, plus the at-will liberty, I guess for lack of a better word – my attorney didn’t tell me how to phrase this so I’m phrasing it – Mr. Shepard: You told me to phrase it for you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Okay, well, sometimes – Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: My [inaudible] but I just want to get some clarification so this would not happen to us again and with other contract, with any other business. I mean we talking about some serious money. So I think looking at the contract, Don, I thank you for putting it on the agenda, I think we need to discuss and look at. Maybe that needs to be brought to our committee, maybe through legal, but somewhere we need to get – I 64 need to have some guidelines. I need to have some insight. My motion, Mr. Mayor, though, is that Mr. Cosnahan would bring those, a report back to us within the 45 days or earlier if I can get a second to that. Mr. Grantham: Let me ask the attorney, if you don’t mind, please, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is that along those lines is a direction that during that time frame be given by the Administrator as to what they’re to be doing so that he’s got the guidance of what we are asking them to do. Mr. Williams: I can amend my motion to do that because I think we had no direction before. Somebody else was doing it, somebody else said that they wasn’t supposed to be doing it. And that’s the basis. Mr. Mayor: Are you seconding the motion? Mr. Grantham: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what I would also like to have included in there if it’s okay with you is that I report back to Engineering Services in two st weeks, two weeks, on the 21 with any recommendations I would have after reviewing the contract, reviewing the billing process, and reviewing whatever changes might be appropriate in that, and bring that back to Engineering Services to be processed. Mr. Williams: I can amend my motion, Mr. Mayor, but he – I think what Mr. Russell said, that he would bring back anything that he sees. Mr. Mayor: That would be a good starting point. Mr. Williams: Well – Mr. Russell: Starting point for you to, for y’all to discuss that obviously. But I’d like to make that recommendation. The Attorney and I review that and bring back to you whatever changes we feel appropriate, and at that point we review the contract with you as a group in Engineering Services and – Mr. Williams: I can amend my motion to say that, Mr. Russell. No problem. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the amendment as stated? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I have a couple of questions to ask. Mr. Mayor: All right. 65 Mr. Hankerson: Cause I heard, I heard my colleague mention about the DBE or minority participation. The city, we did not hire Gallup & Associates, I don’t think. I thought there are part of the Heery contract. Or did we hire Gallup & Associates? Ms. Beard: We made it a part. Mr. Hankerson: They’re part of the contract so they’re hired – Gallup & Associates are hired by Heery. That’s the way I understand the contract. So they’re not hired by us so they, Heery can utilize Gallup & Associates anyway that they want to utilize Gallup & Associates. Now I mention that because I know that we worked on the applications for DBE and that never came up that we already had a DBE person. I never understood that we had a DBE person for the city. I thought that Heery placed Gallup & Associates in that position. My second issue is that where are we with the funds that we owe Heery? Are we going to hold them up until the audit is completed? We mentioned that in our meeting before whether or not – I mean they had some invoices there that didn’t seem to be Heery’s fault. They turned them in but they haven’t been paid. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, do you know the status of that? Mr. Hankerson: I thought that, in our meeting I thought we needed to address that and I haven’t heard that part come out. Mr. Russell: Mr. Persaud has looked at those invoices that are currently outstanding, has recommended to me that we pay approximately $80,000 of that. I’ve got that on my desk. That was one of the first things I was going to go over with J.T. to make sure that we were okay with that, let him look at that very quickly so we could go ahead and process what information that they – what is outstanding to them so that we could go ahead and pay them what’s their due. That was one of the first tasks I was going to have the auditor address. Mr. Hankerson: What was the total amount? I heard you – pay $80,000. We paying $80,000 of how much, Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: I think the balance was about $114,000 or something like that, if I remember correctly. There was 21 or 22 outstanding. I don’t have those numbers off the top of my head. I apologize. Mr. Hankerson: Are the others in questions? I’m just only asking why we came up with the figure of paying $80,000 out of 140? Are the others in question? Mr. Russell: I got the directive from Mr. Persaud and have not had the chance to have that discussion with him at this particular point in time. That’s why we’re meeting tomorrow. So I don’t know the answer to that question at this point. I think, I would surmise that the $80,000 is fairly clear and is – 66 Mr. Hankerson: Well, I know we left, we had, when we were addressing this issue we were kind of confused about how did it get where it got, got paid, and – Mr. Russell: And that’s why I want to meet with Mr. Persaud in the morning and with J.T. fairly quickly thereafter to make sure we were on firm ground as we continue to move forward. Mr. Hankerson: Because I think that if it’s in the contract that this is what we’re supposed to be doing, we supposed to be paying, we need to do our part, too, as well as correct the other part. I mean some legitimate questions have come up for us to address, but that doesn’t exclude us from abiding by the contract and paying this company unless we find something that’s wrong there. I don’t think that the company – I think we should immediately look at that and go ahead and release the funds to them that is owed to them and then also look at the things that, the questions that have been brought up about the contract. And if I need to put that in the form of a motion I so move then. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Substitute. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Hankerson: Substitute . Mr. Mayor: What is your substitute motion? Mr. Hankerson: Well, I guess it could be amended, rather to – I know we addressed the [inaudible] of the company [inaudible]. What was the motion? Read the motion to me. The Clerk: The motion was to approve tasking the internal auditor to perform an audit within 45 days or earlier and report back and to authorize the Administrator to be the project manager for the contract now. To give direction to Heery regarding projects and tasks. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So I move that we go ahead and move forward with paying the invoices that, legit invoices, go ahead and pay them and also conduct an audit and we hear in 45 days back, for them to bring back in 45 days. The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Pardon? The Clerk: That’s what he said he was going to do. 67 Mr. Hankerson: The only thing what I added to that is making sure that they get paid. Mr. Mayor: That’s what he said he’s going to do in the morning. Going to pay them. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can clear this up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you want to try to clear that up? Mr. Williams: Let me try to clear up just a little bit. First of all, two things is that Commissioner is right. We don’t want to be in violation of the contract as to what we supposed to do. And if everybody is the way it’s supposed to be I think that our Finance Department will go ahead and do that. That’s a given. What I don’t want to do, if there, if they are out of compliance or if we are out of compliance, whoever is out is just out. Now Ms. Sams, I see in the back back there, that might need to help us out because I think when I approached her about it she had just received all this information at one time for some back. Now [inaudible] we had them and we didn’t pay them, we need to do our part. I mean we are not trying to get out of anything, we’re not trying to hold up the company from what they done. But the whole contract is something that we need to look at. Commissioner Hankerson is right again on when he mentioned about Gallup and who Gallup works for. But if Gallop works for Heery, then how can he bill us? There has been invoices come to us to pay Gallup as if Gallup has a contract and Heery has a contract. So I mean when you talking about money, let’s, let’s do this thing right, let’s find out what the contract said. Evidently we need [inaudible] because nobody don’t know. I mean [inaudible] let me finish [inaudible]. All I’m saying is there are some things that we need to get cleared up. We’ve got a DBE person on board. We’ve got a contract where a man can bill us and we owe him, we need to pay him as well. We got a firm who has got guidelines that if they bill us in 30 days we need to pay them in 30. We need to do those things. But all of those things be brought to the table so we can see exactly what was. And until we get the audit back and get the report back from Fred, we’re not going to know what to do yet. But I think the motion is to go ahead and pay them the $80,000 that, that, that, that there are some balance out there that [inaudible]. A lot of folk leaving Augusta, but is the government going to be here? We probably be left holding the building up but we going to be here. So we ain’t going nowhere. Might not have no money but we will be here. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Russell asked me to look at that bill book with him for the purpose of determining if there is anything out of scope of the contract and we will do that. 68 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: I took that as my task when you said [inaudible]. He’s going to do it and it’s set for tomorrow. Mr. Mayor: We have the substitute motion on the floor from Commissioner Hankerson. Is there any further discussion before we call the question on that? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just want to get a point of clarification and it can be on, out of either motions cause I think the two Commissioners just simply trying to get to the bottom of this, but in terms of paying the money, I am a little confused if we are going to do an audit, are the monies that we are going to pay monies that are absolutely, unequivocally – and I guess like Ivory soap, they used to say 99 and 44/100ths percent pure – that we can go ahead on and pay those, that there is no question about them whatsoever, or is there anything in that book that y’all need to look at similar to what we were talking about in terms of invoices that need further explanations or the fact of it being just a bill, but not having any divine scope of what it relates to other than the billing and the amount. And I’m saying that as a blanket deal of I don’t really care who the bill is from, whatever company, it’s just the point of a bill. If y’all sure about where you going on the other and that’s clear between the Administrator, the Finance Director and the Attorney, then I’m going to have to trust y’all with that. But I think it ought to be clear to a point that there are no questions still hanging about it, and I think that was Commissioner Williams’ side, on one side [inaudible] Commissioner Hankerson [inaudible] shouldn’t be in violation of the contract and I support that. But I’m trying to clear where Marion is coming from, from the point of how this got out here in the very beginning of getting us clear with it. And if y’all clear on that, then you know, I can, I can move, you know, to pay. But if you got any of this that’s unclear that you’re holding, then, you know, I kind of on yesterday was of the opinion that maybe we needed to look at what was there and maybe it [inaudible] 45 days to do some of it, but that [inaudible] auditor need to also look at this payment book. And it may be one of those horses that’s out the corral, and I’m glad to see on whatever motion that you got a monitorship that’s going to be defined and that it will be paid basically on what guidelines you set from this point on, where there is a mutual understanding about doing some of it, and to a point of why y’all dealing with it that we further decide what pocket of money all this is going to be paid out of. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. What we have is a sum of money of $80,000 that David and I are comfortable with at this particular point in time. There’s $21,840 that I am not comfortable with at this particular point in time, and that could simply be because David 69 and I have not had a conversation about that at this particular point. We were going to do that in the morning. What I would like to do, though, is make sure we involve the Attorney and the auditor in that conversation as we move forward to raise my comfort level on the $21,000. And do that. I believe that’s the direction I’m getting at this particular point in time. As we look at this to make sure that it is a legitimate expense, that we have a line item to expense it to, and that we have got J.T. there, available as a third party to make sure we’re in pretty good shape – not pretty good, but in good shape with that. And that’s why I asked to do it that particular way and involve those people in that communication, that review. Is that where you’re going, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: [inaudible] so but I guess we got some multiple [inaudible] up here tonight cause we got a lot of the bills that resemble a lot of us. And I think that’s where a lot of the initial questions came from on one side of it, and to a point I know for a fact, and that was one of the concerns that Commissioner Williams had – Commissioner Grantham and I were just sharing it, and to a point that that really needs to get clear. And I hope that’s in that stack that you’re uncomfortable with, cause I know certainly I’d like to know and to find where it is. That that I know about, I have no problem owning up to it because that’s to a point if you’re talking in a conversation and you do that, then that’s legit, even though you may or may not know what the bill is going to be. But if you have, that’s fine. That’s fair game. If you want to change that, then do it. But I think to a point the numbers in it ought to be right to a point of where you can do it. If that’s in that basket [inaudible] where you coming from. Mr. Russell: And that’s what I want to report back to you at the next Engineering Services Committee as we move forward with that. Mr. Grantham: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: All right – Mr. Williams: We won’t be long. We need to go on and get this rolling, I know, but it’s highly unusual to do business with an agency like this government and not have a process as of how you are going to be paid, you know, what project were you paid for. I mean, and that lends to closer scrutiny of what we got here. I mean this is – we been doing business for many, many years, and this ain’t something we just started doing here. And it sound confusing, it going to get confusing, I’m going to let it go, Don. We go ahead and pay [inaudible] and – but if there is a question, there’s an unclarity, there’s an unreadiness I think, Mr. Russell, you and the Finance Director and the Attorney may need to take a slow walk with that one, I mean. Mr. Russell: That’s what we plan on doing. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion. We’ll go ahead and vote on that. The Chair rules there has been adequate debate. 70 The Clerk: [inaudible] did you want it to remain a substitute motion? I didn’t get a second. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] We didn’t have a second on the substitute motion? I thought it was seconded. The Clerk: I didn’t hear anybody. Mr. Grantham: I’ll second it. The Clerk: You second it? Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute now. Wait. Hold it. When you make a motion the body could vote on the amendment. If the majority of the members of this body are in favor of the amendment, it doesn’t matter what the maker of the motion thinks. The motion stands amended. Mr. Williams: Y’all vote then. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: We can vote on the amendment, Mr. Williams, if you’d like to, but I think there are six votes here that amend it. All right. So what are we – I got to ask the Clerk where we are cause I’m lost. I need a road map now. The Clerk: The motion was to approve tasking the Administrator to conduct the audit of the invoices and the contract within 45 days or earlier and to pay all legitimate invoices submitted, which will be approved by the Finance Director and the Administrator and the Attorney. Mr. Mayor: And that’s the motion that’s on the floor. The Clerk: That was the amendment. Mr. Hankerson wanted to make sure all invoices be [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on that motion as stated by the Clerk. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Ms. Sims out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: We have some people here for item number 22 so we’re going to jump over to that, Madame Clerk. 71 The Clerk: 22. Motion to approve funding from the Urban Services District Contingency budget in the amount of $50,000 for the first year and $27,000 and second and zero the third year for the Main Street Augusta’s Farmers Market. (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And the reason I did, and I did some buying at the farmers market his previous weekend and realizing that the farmers market down on Laney Walker who some of the vendors explained that they hadn’t had any advertisement done down there in many, many years. And there are some subsidies done, which vouchers are being used, that people have to use to buy fruits or vegetables. They have to buy fruits or vegetables. They can’t buy anything else but fruits – they can’t go the store and get anything but fruits and vegetables and they got to buy it from the farmers market. There are certain individuals who is approved by the state to receive those and they, they are concerned that their business is going to be pulled out from under them. I was in opposition in the committee for the advertising of this money, we don’t do this money, we don’t advertise this kind of money for the entire city. So it’s not against the market. I explained to them the Downtown Development Corporation and Ms. Peel and everybody who came to present. This is not, this is not anything to hold them back. I think Main Street is membership type organization that I thought would be raising funds, and I wanted to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we would match up to $50,000 dollar for dollar what they would raise and give it rather than to coming straight from this government and giving the $50,000. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? That motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion we approve it, Mr. Mayor. And just say that I understand my colleague’s concerns. That is a state entity and the state is – it’s in a bad location, the traffic patterns have changed. Perhaps relocating that as has been discussed out here – 520 would be [inaudible] benefit to all people that could participate in that particular farmers market. But the truth is, downtown needs this farmers market. Growth is very slow, if not flat. We need to provide incentives for people to come down here on the weekends and spend time, not only buying fruits and vegetables and other things, but to walk by the shops and see what else is available in the unique atmosphere of downtown Augusta. It is appropriate, the advertising will allow the group to develop a base of funding for future, future use and future advertising. This is seed money. I would hope that other groups would come to us and ask for just two years of funding and then plan on standing on their own two feet as this group has done. I just urge and encourage support for this. It is very valuable. Ladies and gentlemen, drive downtown, walk by the stores and you’ll see. We have got to do everything we can to increase head 72 count on Broad Street, to increase people coming into the area or we will see stores close and the progress lost that has been made these last few years. That is the reality of the economic times. We’ve got to do everything we can to attract people from other areas who would not normally come downtown, and that is exactly what this farmers market has done and will do. So I encourage your support. Mr. Boyles: Second that motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Have a motion and second. Before I move on, I’m going to sound like the proverbial broken record, but I must again express objections to using money from the urban services district fund for activities downtown. The urban services district fund is not a slush fund. It seems like every time there is an activity downtown people see that as a convenient pot to take money out. That fund is there to provide municipal services to the people who live in the urban services district. And activities downtown benefit people who live outside the urban services district. If there is going to be a source of fund, it should come from the general fund contingency. Indeed, if there were a farmers market out at Southgate Plaza and it came out of contingency, it would come out, everybody in the city would pay for it, even those who live in the urban district. So there is no reason to treat different parts of this community differently when it comes to funding activities. And so I would just caution you to, for the benefit of those who live in the urban services district, not to keep picking their pockets to put activities downtown. Downtown benefits the entire city and the entire city ought to be involved in supporting the activities. Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: I’m going to yield to Mr. Williams. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My twin brother and I wore a different suit today because the people wouldn’t be able to tell us apart, but we are not thinking alike at all today. And that’s, that prove that we just like everybody else. But you know, I keep hearing about downtown. I mean this whole city is downtown. We are one city now. I hear all this hype about downtown, downtown. You can’t build a downtown until you build your community. If you build your community, downtown going to take care of itself. I remember when the mall came in. Everybody was scared and worried about everybody leaving and going to the mall. We are a small community in numbers far as people. We don’t have an excess like a lot of major cities. Our downtown is doing as well as any downtown our size. Now if you don’t believe that, get the record from the economic summit that the guy came from Charlotte and shared with us at the Radisson about how well our downtown was doing. But I’m like the Mayor. We came last week and Chris needed some money for a parking study. We done done studies before. We want to take either sales tax or urban service money to do that. And if you look at the money that we done spent downtown, downtown only benefit the small number of people in Augusta. There are a lot of other people who live in this city who don’t worry about downtown so much. When we was talking about south Augusta, I hear people oh, south 73 Augusta again. We are one city. We can’t keep taking the money and just giving to one group, to specify one area that everybody not benefiting from. I’m not against, I think if we got a matching situation where the membership or the Main Street raise some money, where they donate some money and we match that, we’ll be doing better than most cities do. But I’m not going to sit here and you used [inaudible] a little while ago about the judicial building, how much money it going cost. Money is still money and you got to spend the money wisely. And I’m sorry if that makes somebody uncomfortable. That just tough. I can’t support it. I mean y’all probably got six votes, but I still think it’s wrong to take [inaudible] money when you going to give a matching fund. Now what happens when the next person wants to come for a donation for downtown on the other end of town? And I’m sure some people – if they ain’t coming, they ought to be coming to collect from the urban services district. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to let Mr. Grantham talk now. I told them in committee I wasn’t for it. I’m not opposed to it, but you can’t start another situation. First Friday was a good event. Until we got the vendors down there it didn’t do anything. We had the same type of situation. We had people selling arts and crafts and different stuff. It didn’t do anything until we brought the vendors. When the vendors came down, people start coming. You can’t make buy goods. You can set it up in their living, room. Avon been doing it for 200 years, coming to your house. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: Folks still don’t buy. You can’t sell folks stuff they don’t want. But if you do something to make folks come, folks will try and maybe start to loosen up. I just think [inaudible] that’s my point, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Of course, you know, we talking about urban funds and suburban funds and funds from this and that. We are a consolidated government. We all one city. We don’t need to be identified – and this money, I think it’s all in one pot that we’ve got. I think it is. I’m not sure. But when this money is used, you are going to run out, it’s going to be gone. We won’t have to worry about whether it is urban or whether it’s suburban or where it’s going to be used. So that was money that was left over prior to or during consolidation in those identified – and so whether the continue to get it from that point, I don’t know. I’m going to ask Mr. Persaud that or either I’m going to ask the Administrator to find out. But I don’t think that we should continue to collect money under urban situations. We need to be under consolidated government, not [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Every time you send out a property tax bill to the people in the former city limits, there is an urban tax on it. When they go down to register their automobile, there is an urban tax on it. We are still collecting the urban tax. Mr. Grantham: Why? 74 Ms. Sims: Why? Mr. Mayor: Because that’s the policy of this government. Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Let’s change it. Mr. Grantham: I think we better check for that. Mr. Shepard: It is charter set. And we’ve never bitten the bullet to try and get the taxes equalized. I mean talk about a major project, that’s a major project. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mayor: That’s what I’m saying, there is not a slush fund there, Mr. Grantham, that’s collected every year on tax bill. Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] under those conditions if we are chartered under a consolidated government. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: I just have to say something that I said at the summit a couple of weeks ago. We are already in position, we already have downtown. We already have a base of a place to be. We don’t have to create anything. We have it. So why do we want to take a chance of losing it or making it less than it can be? We have downtown. Let’s support it. Let’s make it the greatest downtown of anywhere. Evans, Columbia County, they are trying to have a central place to be. They’re trying to make a downtown [inaudible]. We have it. So I don’t understand the problem with not utilizing what we already have. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just, I’m going to close with just a couple of comments. Peach Orchard Road is less than a quarter mile from my house. That’s my main street. All of Augusta is Augusta. The consolidation took care of that. We have on downtown. Columbia County is building, as Commissioner said, building a center, a city center out in Evans. We have a city center and we continue to quibble about this street and that street. If you look at the breakdown of where money has come from, there’s a lot of people getting a lot of money that’s isolated to a few different areas. The bottom line, though, is it’s viable growth, not only Broad Street, but the surrounding areas to help them stand on their own two feet. We’ve got to get people down there to make that happen. This is a tremendous vehicle to do that. Other cities do put money into their economic development. We put very little comparatively speaking. If we want to grow, 75 we’re going to have to advertise. That is what this is about. If we’re going to grow, we’re going to have to do things to get people down here. Yes, we want people at Southgate and on Laney Walker and at Augusta Mall. We want people everywhere. But when we all think of downtown, and I grew up in south Augusta, and since I was a child I came to Broad Street. I’ll probably die in south Augusta. But Broad Street is my downtown. It’s not that I want it favored over other things, but there’s some things you have to do that make economic sense to make an area viable. It’s not the mall. It has unique shops and other things that you don’t find. Just like River Street in Savannah. We need to support it. And this is a step in the right direction to doing that. We hope that in the future we’ll see a Second Saturday and a Third Friday and other things that are going to get people down there every night instead of having them travel to Savannah and Atlanta to do the same things they can do downtown. I just urge support for this, Mr. Mayor. It’s a good program. And let me say this, I’ve heard since I’ve been here the five years, half a dozen or more times when we talk about we need to do away with the urban and suburban concepts of this government and oh, it’s going to be hard, well I plan to – if it is in order after this measure is voted up or down – to make a motion that we instruct the Attorney and staff to proceed in that direction. We’ve all given it lip service and it’s top to decide if that was hot air or are we willing to stand behind it and do something about it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I just, I just want to make us aware now, when we talking about looking at that and getting rid of the tax, we talking about a tax cut – that’s money coming in so let us be aware of that. If you doing away with something that was agreeable in the consolidation plan. That’s tax money generated every year. Mr. Mayor: We’re straying away from the agenda item, which is funding for the farmers market, so let’s stick with what’s on the agenda here. Mr. Hankerson: I thought that was about the urban tax. I thought you mentioned it, about the urban tax. Mr. Mayor: I did, but I didn’t say do away with the urban services district. Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: That’s not the agenda item. Mr. Hankerson: I’m agreeing with what you’re saying. I’d like – Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] county-wide pot. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I head about Columbia County and the [inaudible] they building and Savannah and the river. What’s the street down there? 76 River Street. My twin brother don’t have no hair on his head and I got gray hair. In other words, everybody is different. I don’t care what Columbia County does. That’s their thing and I think our problem is we watch other folks and want to model after them and be afraid. Competition is good. Competition get the price down, Mr. Mayor. I’m glad we talking about a hotel because they keep the prices down. That keep, that keeps things different. They don’t have a downtown and you talking about a center, not a downtown but a center. But whether we get this money from anywhere, Mr. Mayor, I need to have the Clerk, if she will, to get a report back as to how much money we done spent downtown from this government in the last two years. Just the last two years. How much, whether it be parking decks, whether it be parking machine, whether it be anything to do from this government downtown. I’d like to have a report back for that for the last two years and you going to see how much money we spent in the downtown area to help downtown and see where [inaudible]. If it wasn’t for First Friday, and we almost killed that, we wouldn’t have no downtown, and if we going to do anything, we ought to be trying to expand that and get that opened. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that has been seconded. We’ll move ahead with the question. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams votes No. Mr. Mays not voting. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Bonner, next is item number 18. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, was that motion in order I plan to make? Mr. Mayor: It’s not on the agenda. It would take unanimous consent to put it on the agenda tonight. As much as I would like to see it, I would not prefer putting it on tonight, but I would welcome you to put it on [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: Sounds like hot air to me now. We planned on, we talked about this, all of us have, and we have the opportunity now to start the ball rolling. Ms. Beard: Put it on the agenda for next time. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to item – we’ve got enough to keep us here too late as it is. Let’s go to item 18. Mr. Cheek: Ms. Bonner, I’ll ask you about adding that to the next agenda. Mr. Mayor: Please add it to the next agenda. The Clerk: 77 18. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) Marshal’s Department vehicles for $24,273.30 each from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-139). (Approved by Finance Committee March 7, 2005) Mr. Mayor: I wonder who pulled that. Ms. Beard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. (Laughter) Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled because I need – Mr. Mayor: The motion’s been seconded but you didn’t get to speak, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: We ain’t voted, it won’t be voted on till I speak, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Mays: What item is it? Mr. Mayor: 18. Mr. Williams: I had that pulled because I need to know what we, were we replacing cars or we adding cars? I talked to Ron about this in committee. It got to this floor. But I need to know were we adding or we replacing any of the Marshal’s cars? Are we adding to the fleet is I guess my word? Mr. Crowden: Yeah, one for one replacement. Three vehicles out, three vehicles in. Mr. Williams: Three vehicles. Okay. That was all my question was. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to ask one question and it will be quick. Why are we still doing – we’re doing Crown Vics with this, I assume? Is that correct? Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: You know, I see every other city that I go to putting in Impalas and cars that consume less gas and cost initially less than these. I’ve heard the argument that they don’t last very well in Augusta. I guess my question is why is everybody else able 78 to do this and our cars will wear out if we get anything other than Crown Vics? And are we looking at doing that type of change in the future? Mr. Mayor: Ron, can you answer that? Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. I’ve addressed the issue as a concern, really strongly expressed last year as part of the budget process and so forth. Both the Sheriff and with the Marshal. And as you’re ware, they’re constitutional officers and I have to – and I did express your concerns to them about the prices. Both responded back at that time last year that they wished to stay with the Crown Victorias. The Sheriff, from a pursuit standpoint, has a higher risk. And the Crown Victoria has served him very well. I would support continuing road patrol with Crown Victoria. The Marshal, the risk factor for accidents and pursuit is lower than the Sheriff. The Marshal’s desire was to stay with Crown Victorias. Commissioner Smith asked me in the hallway if it was my opinion if the Impala would serve the Marshal, based on what I knew what the Marshal’s requirements were. My response is it is my best professional opinion that the Impala would suit the Marshal’s requirements. I find myself caught between the Marshal’s Department, which I’m supposed to support as fleet manager and the Commission. So I’m not very comfortable right now. Mr. Mayor: Let me correct something, Ron, you said. The Marshal is not a constitutional officer. He’s an elected official, but his position was not created in the state constitution. Mr. Crowden: I stand correct. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, go ahead. Mr. Cheek: To follow along, just for the record, the state patrol of South Carolina, and I think Georgia, too, uses Mustangs, they use Dodge Stratus, they use Z28 or Super Sport Camaros. And their pursuit demands the mileage, I’m sure, equivalent to what we have here. I do notice that while we all have our wants, like I was stating earlier, I do know that we’re here to sign the check. And it’s hard for us to maintain any type of [inaudible] of public funds when we don’t get cooperation from our other fellow constitutional officers. I sure hope we can pass it along to them that we are working on efficiencies. Mr. Crowden: To complete my response to the question, we did a pricing study as requested by the Finance Committee. They wanted to know the cost factors involved. At that time, we were looking at the possibility of using the Dodge Intrepid as a comparison, cause Dodge Intrepid did have a police package, the Chevy Impala, which does have a police package. The Intrepid has been pulled. It is going to be replaced, I understand, in the very near future, this year, by the Dodge Charger. There will be two engine packages, six cylinder and an eight, we understand. However, the official announcement has not been made. We expect the pricing to be approximately $1500 less 79 than the Crown Victoria. The Impala, depending on the type of setup that we have, and we have basically five different setups of car for public safety. The Impala for the Marshal would probably come somewhere in between $1500 and $3000 less than a Crown Victoria [inaudible]. As we know it right now. Now we have not [inaudible] out the Impala for competitive bid, as you are aware. So those are estimates, our best estimates in fleet. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Thank you. I had talked to our Sheriff about that [inaudible] pursuit vehicles. He has a lot of vehicles that are used other ways and they price different and operational difference [inaudible]. And I’ve not talked to the Marshal, but I just feel like his cars, since he’s not near as much [inaudible] pursuit vehicle as the Sheriff. So I recommend that we look at this. That’s some serious money. In these three vehicles we’re talking about tonight would be at least I think $10,000. Mr. Williams: I been saying it for five years, Jimmy. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: It was last week at the Finance Committee meeting that I had asked about that Fairlane 500. Marion and I talked about that. Based on not having it as a pursuit car, but within the Marshal’s Department or within the administrative work of the Sheriff’s Department. You know, we can always reduce ourselves in size if we’re not in pursuit or need the capacity in order to haul passengers. So that was one of the things that we wanted to look at that we were talking about. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] overhaul [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Ron, Ron, what happens – this item on the agenda is to approve these. If we turn these down and don’t do it, what happens? During the budget hearings in October, November, we talked about looking at different cars, but this is already to us. If we don’t do this, this late in the year, what – in the model year – what happens to – Mr. Crowden: The money for these acquisitions has been allocated as part of the process, budget process, been allocated by our Administrator. So I have a certain dollar figure I work with. And then we start haggling about how many cars for which departments. I also have other time lines, as you brought out, which I have to consider which will affect the funding of the Commission and so forth and the departments. And that is the price cutoffs. When we go out, we usually get for these type of known 80 requirements, each of the manufacturers have pricing dates. So I have to work with the pricing dates as well. You recall not too long ago that I had to hold back two trucks because of pricing from the manufacturer cutoff. Mr. Boyles: That’s correct. Mr. Crowden: Caught us a little off guard. So I’ve lost those trucks, but I haven’t lost the money, unless you all have determined there is a higher need for that money, through the Administrator, or the Administrator has determined there is a higher need. Mr. Boyles: That’s correct. Mr. Crowden: So I still plan on using that money. If you deny these cars today and say we need to look at other options and we want you to go back, express our concern to the Marshal, which I can do, that we would like him to seriously consider, because of budgetary constraints, going to the Impala, at least three vehicles, to test. Or whatever your desires are, to see if they will work. I still have the money which has been allocated by the Administrator unless the Commission decides that I don’t have it. And we can start that bid process and I’ll get the new pricing. We could still bring these cars possibly in, I would suggest probably at the end of the year or the first part of next year. The new models. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion then that we approve item 18 with the comment that no more Crown Victorias be brought to us unless they’re pursuit vehicles for the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that. Mr. Mayor: That’s the substitute motion. Mr. Boyles: Is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. All right, Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Let me suggest that, as I listen to what Ron is saying and I’m trying to program in [inaudible] buy the new cars and stuff, let me suggest that what you might want to do is ask us to provide an explanation of this in total, looking at the three or four different police packages that are out there now, pricing those out and giving you some options to deal with, not only for the police packages but for the non-pursuit vehicles. And what I was trying to ask Ron is whether or not, where we are in the timing for when he had place orders for new vehicles, and I think we’ve got time to do that. Mr. Crowden: As far as I know right now, we will be all right. 81 Mr. Russell: I would hate to tie our hands at the moment with that type of motion, but I do believe based on my experience is there are some economies we can gain by using smaller vehicles for non-pursuit vehicles and for administrative vehicles, even though I can guarantee you it’s not going to be well received. That’s the world we live in these days sometimes. But I think there’s some benefit there and I’d like to be able to provide you some comparisons on those vehicles and the costs before we get too far down the road. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go back to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Ron, do you have the mileage on these vehicles that you’ve sold now? Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir, they’re part of the agenda item. We have a ’96 model with 109,000. We have another ’96 model with 131,000. And we have a ’99 model with 165,000. Yes, sir. Now I will also tell you that the Marshal does not have a lot of reserve vehicles, so when one of these goes into the shop – if two vehicles go into the shop at the same time, the Marshal is hard pressed to meet his commitments. And I hate to say that, but that’s the reality of it. The Marshal does not have a lot of [inaudible] vehicles. We have from time to time provided him pool cars to serve papers. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m not the softest driver in the world. I flipped one SUV three times. I got 199,197 miles on that truck I got out there. And I used to drive an ambulance for years [inaudible] but I’m kind of getting to the point now with maybe some of these to be handed down and used somewhere with some of these cars or else I need to start sending somebody to some of these auctions we have, you know, that ain’t kin to me and ain’t in my business and buy a vehicle. Cause they got less than half the miles that I got on mine that’s over there. [inaudible] brand new car, still have it for [inaudible] on the truck I got outside. But let me just say this. I’m wondering do we have a motion – I know where Commissioner Boyles is coming from, but is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, he made a motion and it was seconded. Mr. Mays: Okay. The only thing I need to ask then, and I know where you be going with it but can – maybe I need to ask this of the Attorney. Can we, can we legally lock out a particular brand of business, a manufacturer within our system. And what I’m getting to, I would like to support it, but hypothetically let’s just say bids go out and if the – say you got a Chevy, got a GM, Chrysler product and Ford product and a dealer decides to take a chance and says I want to get some business from Augusta and that make the Ford Crown Vic less than what the Intrepid does, do we lock ourselves in to a point that if we exclude the Ford out of it, can we legally do that? 82 Mr. Shepard: I don’t think so, Mr. Mays. I would suggest that the motion be amended to strike that part of it. If we’re going to study the economies of some other cars, the appropriate expertise is here in the Administrator, the procurement director, and the fleet manager. I would be more comfortable with just a motion to approve [inaudible] the low bid [inaudible] which is Bobby Jones Ford. Mr. Mays: That was the only kind of thing that kind of scared me. I see the point of just giving a directive. Mr. Shepard: I think the appropriate way to handle that would be through a prospective action, study those cars – this is the end of the process. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the motion were devoid of that part. Mr. Mays: That’s kind of even – I’d hate for somebody – somebody could very well lose some money on a bid intentionally to make that process really cost us some money if we’re not careful. Because they turn around and do a bid, and they lower those prices, and it comes in [inaudible] but we’ve issued a directive to say we can’t do that, then I see probably [inaudible] don’t submit a bid. That’s why I wanted to maybe get some kind of ruling on that real quickly [inaudible] legal business. I seem my ex-lawyer over there, Mr. Wall. I still do a little business with him every now and then. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I don’t mind, I’ll go back and amend that. But that’s all we seem to hear, whether it’s in committee or we hear it in finance sessions or budget sessions or on this floor here, is that we’re always talking about the Ford LTDs. Now from my prior experience as a department head, we went one time to buying those smaller cars. I think it was something called a Chevrolet Nova one time. And then we got out of the Ford system and went to the Ford F100 and we went into the little Courier. They last about half as long. They were a lot cheaper to buy but they lasted about half as long. I personally don’t have any problem with that model we just talked about. Maybe I shouldn’t say Ford LTD, but that’s – the Crown Victoria – because it’s a very good car and it meets the needs of our employees. But it always seems to be some sort of problem up here with it, so that’s why I said let’s just tie it down. If we don’t anything else but pursuit vehicles, let’s just go ahead and say so. I’ll amend the motion on the advice of counsel. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Both of them say the same thing. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we – the thing is not all the vehicles need to be pursuit vehicles. But we keep getting these things down here that we’ve got to have these because there is a one percent chance somebody that drives to and from their office every day may get in a pursuit. The bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, fuel is – our cost is 83 going to be approaching $2 a gallon if it isn’t already there. And that’s not going down. If you listen and read the Wall Street Journal and everything else, those are the types of things we’ve got to seriously consider. These other cars, they are smaller, they smaller engines, they have [inaudible] warranties and longevity. We need some cooperation to cut some costs initially on the purchase and the operating costs, which is consuming gas. And I would hope that rather than being dictated to, we are the ones that have to manage the budget and I need to remind everybody that every dollar that comes out for fuel is a dollar that we can’t use to maintain a building or a piece of grass or put in a pipe somewhere. So I would hope that we would trust our Fleet Director, our Administrator and others, but we have got to on this side of the house mandate some changes for efficiency which may be nothing more than saying each department will only buy vehicles that get 20 miles to the gallon, and that will make them buy pursuit cars that get higher mileage which in fact will be the V-6 powered Impalas and other cars like that. I just hope that they will consider that because again fuel prices aren’t going down. Vehicle prices aren’t going down. We don’t need the [inaudible] from the 60s and 70s. It’s time to downsize a little bit. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Cheek is right. In that training you sent us off to, the new Commissioner training in Athens, they share with us that larger cities sell their automobiles with 150,000 miles and smaller cities buy them for little or nothing and use them for another 150,000 miles. If you drive through Sandersville, Georgia, right now you will see a black and gray and it looks just like Augusta-Richmond County, the only difference it says Sandersville. They got the same thing, same lights, same car that we sold them for like $2,500. It cost us $25,000. But they using it to chase criminals in high pursuit, but it’s not good enough for around here cause our roads are too bad, I guess. But I mean it don’t take no brain surgeon to figure out. Commissioner Mays is right, he’s got over – almost 200,000 miles on his Navigator. Drove it to Nashville, drove it to Indianapolis, drove it everywhere we go, he drives. And he never – I guess he never thinks about it [inaudible] on the highway cause he maintains the car. We pay $3 million a year for preventive maintenance. How can you take care of equipment for a year and then get rid of it after 100,000 miles? Don’t make good sense, Mr. Mayor. Call for the question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays had his hand up. Mr. Mays: It was just something I was going to remind Ron of while they are checking and it’s in the [inaudible], to follow up [inaudible]. This was directed, Mr. Crowden, in checking within the Ford family, I was just going to remind you of something to follow up what Mr. Grantham was saying, in that 500 package, I think they’ve got – and this may be something [inaudible] Ford family. They’ve got a performance package in that 500 and even with the space within it, I know that [inaudible], at least the chairman [inaudible] opted to go down from the Crown Vic into the 500. It’s got a high performance package with it. It’s smaller. And Mr. Mayor, as 84 you know, if they can [inaudible] in terms of driving a car, and these policemen for 33 years, all the way up to [inaudible], and if anybody can get performance out of car on how fast it will run [inaudible]. But it may just be something to look at cause that new one has got some details in it that they were able to equip that car and get the high performance [inaudible] came in something like about $2100 or $2200 cheaper I think than the bigger Ford did. But had the high performance works with it. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate debate. We have two motions on the floor which are nearly identical. Mr. Shepard: Identical, Mr. Mayor. Vote on the substitute. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and vote on the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote with the usual sign. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: I believe, Madame Clerk, the next item is 31, is it not? Or did we get that? The Clerk: No, sir, we didn’t. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item 31. The Clerk: 31. Z-05-20 – A request for concurrent with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Winston Gardner, Sr., on behalf of Susan Bly, et al., requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care services per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2969 Ulm Road and contains 10.4 acres. (Tax Map 151 Parcel 31) DISTRICT 8 Mr. Mayor: We had no objectors here to that? The Clerk: I think they’re gone. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: Move to approve. Mr. Grantham: Second. 85 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve and a second. Discussion? Y’all need to ask Mr. Patty any questions? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: I believe that takes us to 41. The Clerk: 41. Mr. Mayor: Is that right? Help me now. The Clerk: You’re right. Mr. Mayor: This is where we give Rev. [inaudible] the endurance award. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 41. Receive/discuss an administrative plan for the Laney Walker Development Corporation/AHED and the identification of an appropriate funding source. Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this? Who is speaking on this? Rev. Bennings? Mr. Bennings: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Bennings: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Madame Clerk is going to pass out some information that we will be talking from to give you some talking points. Mr. Williams: Reverend, would you give us your name and address for the record, so it be on – Mr. Bennings: Rev. Hardy Bennings, board member of the Laney Walker Development Corporation. The document you have in your hand, if you would direct your attention to the figures where it says under the contracts, Laney Walker Development Corporation has. Those amounts of money are contracts that Laney Walker had. That first figure represents money that we already had in the bank to continue building, which we were told to stop in 2003. Those monies are currently, with the exception of $20,000 which we had to pay for an audit, are currently housed in a local bank. Which means in essence that we have had those funds for a while and we wanted to continue building but in 2003 we were told to put that on hold. The other two represent existing contracts that Laney Walker has involving land purchase, land th acquisition, and other aspects of the building program, to include the 10 Street area 86 district and also a new plot of land which we are looking at off of Martin Luther King Boulevard. So in essence we have in the bank the $195,727.97. Mr. Smith had to leave but we spoke for a moment and also we talked to our Commission Chairman of Administrative Services. Mr. Smith has agreed to release the monies that we already have in the bank to continue the building program in Summerfield East. That’s the $195,000. He also has agreed in principal to release the $231,812 which will allow us to continue our land purchase and getting the land and all prepared for a building project that we already have on board. He wants to continue to hold the $185,000 so which in essence we have the top two figures that were put on hold – well, the first figure was put on hold by Mr. Doug Manning in 2003, so he’s releasing those figures and he’s releasing the second set of figures. So that’s where we are. We did have a meeting on last Thursday to try and get some clarity on the future of Laney Walker Development Corporation and the building program. A lot of information was shared in that particular meeting and we are scheduled to have another meeting I believe this Thursday to look at that third set of figures, I believe. But those figures are continuing to be put on hold. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. [inaudible], on Monday morning meeting, the Administrator, the Attorney, the Mayor and myself met and we was informed by the Mayor that he had, he had a meeting with HUD and that the funds would be released for all the [inaudible], that everybody would be brought up to speed the way it supposed to been. Are you comfortable, are you – what are you asking us? Mr. Bennings: Well, based on what you just said, that’s not the information that Mr. Smith shared with us. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell, Mr. Hankerson, go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Smith had to leave, but he left [inaudible] here to speak to this issue that Mr. [inaudible] is speaking of, correct what he is saying. So I’d like for his representative to go ahead and speak and he did on agreeing on the $195,000. But I wanted the body to know that Mr. Smith came over to me and asked – he had something very important to do but he had representatives here to speak in his behalf on that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Ms. Speaker: Mayor Pro Tem and fellow Commissioners, my understanding, we met with Laney Walker Development last week. We sat down and we talked about different avenues that we could take in order for them to spend down their funds. This is my first time hearing today about some of the funds are being still held. My understanding was that once they come back this week to meet with us, they will have a plan and we could move forward. So you know, Mr. Smith did not inform me that he still wants to hold some of their funding. I was unaware of that until Rev. [inaudible] spoke of it, and I’m not sure because in our meeting it was that we would have another 87 meeting this week, come with their plan, and we would move forward, because we were informed by the Administrative Services to release all funding. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to turn it back over to the Mayor and he can – Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: We are clear with this. I talked with Mr. Smith and members of Laney Walker [inaudible] that the understanding is to go ahead and release their funds, $195,727.97, is their own money anyway. It was just frozen. So to release that. They were pleased with that, satisfied with that. But he’s going to follow up on the meeting with them on the contract, the money that’s frozen, so they will address that at a later time. But from my understanding that Laney Walker was okay with these funding sources at this time. Is that correct? Mr. Bennings: With all due respect, my brother and fellow Commissioner, with the information that just has been shared by the Mayor Pro Tem, my question is why weren’t we notified that all funds were released? I mean, you know, it’s like I don’t know where the cart is on the horse, either, whether it’s before or after. Now if that were the situation and that had been explained to Mr. Smith, surely he could have shared this with both of us when we got together. He did not share that with us. Mr. Hankerson: I think it’s a misconception here, though. I think we still are where we were when we spoke, Rev. [inaudible]. But we going to have to address – right now we on the item of releasing the funds for Laney Walker, the funding source. But this is different from the other [inaudible] that – which are still included on the money from this contract. This money we releasing now is not the money that we discussed that we were going to release. We asked him and instruct him to release all the monies that, from the [inaudible] that were under contract, and you were in that meeting. But this is not discussing that. Because the other two, 2002, for ’02 and ’03, that’s what we still got to hear from. But this item is to go ahead and give the funding for the $195,727. That’s where we are right now and that’s what you all said you were okay with right now and then next week he’s going to call the meeting, because that money right now he has not identified that money, what we asked before to release the money to the [inaudible] by Friday, and he said by this coming Friday. So I’m clearing that part. That doesn’t have anything to do with that part. Mr. Bennings: Well, I think from Laney Walker’s standpoint, to say to us all your funds have been released would have been a tremendous burden lifted off everybody. Mr. Hankerson: But they haven’t. 88 Mr. Bennings: But now, well, that’s what I’m hearing our Mayor Pro Tem say. That they were instructed to tell us that all the funds had – Mr. Mayor: All right, let me ask the question. I spent an hour-and-a-half with John Perry and Stella Taylor of HUD last week, and I specifically asked them is there anything in those contracts that has been held up that is a violation of any HUD rule? And they said no. Now they said they might like to change some of the language and terms in them, but the contracts as written and approved by this Commission and signed by me are not in violation of HUD rules and there’s no reason that money should not be released. And the last discussion we had was that they have valid contracts and the money was going to be released. So Mr. Russell, why hasn’t the money been released? Why are we here today asking where the money is when it’s been appropriated, it’s there, it’s waiting for them, and they don’t have it? How many times do we have to have this discussion? Mr. Bennings: And due diligence to everybody, that was just information we were not aware of. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I explained to them that on our Monday morning meeting you assured the Administrator, the Attorney and myself that the meeting with Stella and Mr. Perry, that everything was in order, that HEED was to disburse all of the monies from 2002. I asked these specific questions two, three, four and whatever, and you said all the money was supposed to be released, if not that Monday then the next couple of days which was to be released. And even the fact came out in that meeting that the audit was never been mentioned by HUD. Mr. Mayor: That’s right. Mr. Williams: Said that the audit was done but the audit was never mentioned by HUD. I was under the impression that we have got this thing on a level playing field, everything was out. Now, Mr. [inaudible], I’m asking the $195,727.97 was already yours in the back. Mr. Bennings: Right. And in fact in November of 2003, Mr. Doug Manning put a hold on that money and told us we could not use a dime of it and still it’s sitting in the bank. Mr. Williams: Okay, but that’s the money you had sitting in the bank, so this is money that already been set aside or put over in that department but you had a freeze on it. Mr. Bennings: Right. 89 Mr. Williams: Okay. So what you heard or what you under the impression of, that you was just – that was being released to you to operate with and nothing else? Is that what you understood? Mr. Bennings: To complete, to begin the completion of the Summerfield East project because that’s what, that’s what the revolving account did. As we would sell a house a percentage of that money would go back towards building a new house and we had a total of – in fact, if you add $20,000 which we had to pay for auditing, it would be somewhere right at $215,000 that we had to continue the Summerfield East project, which we were put on hold in November of 2003. But you’re correct in that it’s already our money. Mr. Williams: What do we do now? Cause I’m under the impression that – Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] the disconnect is – correct me if – I’m not wrong on what I heard before we addressed this issue. We’re not addressing right now the money that we ordered Mr. Smith to release. We know we did that. I’m trying to keep it separate cause I think we are saying the same thing but this is not what we’re addressing. Now Laney Walker came to me before, when we were on recess and said that with Mr. Smith understanding that we go ahead today and release the $195,727 today. But then we still going to address the other issues on the contract that is still due to them. Isn’t that my understanding, Mr. [inaudible]? Isn’t that what y’all said? Mr. Bennings: $195,000 plus the $231,000. He said that he would release those funds. Mr. Hankerson: Today? Mr. Bennings: Effective immediately. Mr. Hankerson: Well – Mr. Bennings: [inaudible] We would discuss the last figure at the meeting. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Well, I wasn’t clear cause I kept asking that. I mean it’s fine with me if that’s – are Vickie and Ms. White, are you familiar with this particular item? I didn’t see you all over there. I couldn’t see from the side. I didn’t [inaudible] Mr. Mayor. Ms. White: I’m not familiar with this. [inaudible] is more familiar than I am, but as she just said, you know, she wasn’t informed of the complete release of all the funds or the withholding of some funds. She wasn’t familiar with that and I’m not either. I’m sorry. 90 Mr. Hankerson: Here we are in disarray again because I mean it’s fine with me, but my understanding that you said the $195,000 and the two contracts item that still will be discussed, that was my understanding. Mr. Bennings: It was the last one. [inaudible] last one we would have to – we would discuss that in the meeting I believe scheduled for this week, this Thursday. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, how – Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] had six months to discuss it. Mr. Williams: How can we have a department head who, who – Mr. Russell. Mr. Mayor: He works for Mr. Russell. Mr. Williams: How can we have a department head, Mr. Russell, that you sit in on the meeting with us on Monday to explain to us that everything, even though it was hold up, we done disbursed those things. We been dealing with this thing back and forth. You talk about the Heery contract, I mean this – I don’t understand. How could we not be to the point of releasing and even the staff know what’s going on? How – somebody need to answer to that, Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. My assumption is we’re moving forward with that. Mr. Smith is briefing me tomorrow after the Heery thing to tell me where we are with the process. I assume that we were releasing the money and moving forward with that as we are. That’s where I am at this particular point in time. We directed him to do that. The contracts have been approved and we’re moving forward. Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, unless the money is not there or there is a guideline or some way we are in default with the contract, meaning that it’s not up to standard, we don’t need to be briefed. Mr. Smith need to be told to go ahead and disburse this money to all of these [inaudible] that been held up. Unless there’s a reason. Now if they out of compliance, if there is something wrong, we been dealing with this too long for nothing. Now if he can’t do that, Mr. Russell, then what you need to do is circulate a letter, and I be the first to sign it. But I don’t understand all this talking about why, where we are, what we not doing. Monday morning meeting I was assured everything was fine, everybody was going to be brought up to speed and go back to work. Mr. – Rev. [inaudible] hadn’t even heard that. Now he was here today [inaudible] staff, if the money’s not there, if there’s a reason for – Mr. Mayor, you need to help me out because you talked with HUD yourself. Mr. Mayor: A week ago. Mr. Williams: A week ago. And you had a group coming to Augusta, is what you explained to us on Monday, to talk about issues – 91 Mr. Mayor: Going to meet with the [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: Meet with all the [inaudible], and who else you told me? It wasn’t just the [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Going to meet with the Commissioners, going to meet with staff. Mr. Williams: All right. The Commission, the staff and the [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Separately. Mr. Williams: Separately. But they was going to stay an extra day, I think, if I’m not mistaken. Mr. Mayor: Stay here as long as we need them. Mr. Williams: In case somebody had some questions, they had technical assistance from HUD that we could use if we ever need. All we had to was call them. Now something is wrong. Now do I need to put in the form of a motion? Mr. Mayor: The Commission has already voted that the money be released that’s been appropriated under the contract. But for some reason we can’t get it released. Is that the issue? Mr. Bennings: We don’t know, Mr. Mayor. I mean – Mr. Mayor: Could [inaudible] come by here in the morning and pick up his check? Mr. Bennings: I doubt it. It’s on a draw down basis. Mr. Mayor: He’s got a signed contract and HUD says there’s nothing wrong with the contract, so why can’t he pick up his check? Ms. Speaker: The money has to be tied to a project and it’s on a draw down. It’s a system called the IDIS system, so he can’t just come in and say okay, I’ve expended $100,000, I need $100,000. Mr. Mayor: I understand that. But he’s got a contract. Ms. Speaker: The money is available. We can – Mr. Mayor: That contract is tied to a project, is that not correct? 92 Ms. Speaker: Yes. Mr. Mayor: He has a contract. We approved it months ago. Ms. Speaker: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: A year ago maybe. And in some case years ago. So I mean it’s there for him. Ms. Speaker: Right. The money is there for him. If he has the documentation he can draw down. Mr. Williams: Why can’t he get it then? Excuse me, Ms. Beard. I heard you say he can’t get it tomorrow because he can’t just walk in and you write a check. I understand. But he got a contract, and it’s tied to that, when can he get it? Ms. Speaker: Once he starts that project with the construction, we have a draw down process, he can bring that in and he can start drawing his money down. If he had a reimbursement from his contractor to bring in, he could get a check Friday. But because his funds has not been – he has not been told that he could start drawing down his funds, that’s the problem there why he could not get his money. Mr. Williams: So he wasn’t told he could start back, and now he’s told he can start back, so once he authorize the contractor to go in and do anything related to the project, to that contract, he needs to bring the bill from you, from him to you. Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: What about the operational costs? Ms. Speaker: His operation – he can turn in a reimbursement under his operation agreement. We did discuss, we discussed that last week and they were informed that they could start drawing down the operating funds. Mr. Mayor: You can do that today, tomorrow? Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: How many other [inaudible] that’s in the same scenario? 93 Ms. Speaker: Three others. We have met with all three. We met with 30901, we met with East Augusta, and we met with Sand Hills. We informed them that we are going to amend their agreement, because the agreement that they have now, the one that was approved by Commission, some of them have changed their scope of service. There are some other things that they would like to do. I spoke with Mr. James at the last Admin meeting and he told me the only thing that I would have to do is amend the specific sections that they would like to change, and once that it done, we can move forward. Laney Walker’s scope has really not changed. The only thing they’re asking is to complete Summerfield East. Mr. Williams: And they still, they be released for the 195 and the 231 for ’02, is that right? Ms. Speaker: From what I’ve just been told, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: And they looking for ’03. Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: Looking for ’03. All of this in the scope of the same project, this ain’t nothing new. Ms. Speaker: Well, the [inaudible] is for a different project, it’s for a project that they call Super Block Project, which when we started working on that agreement after Mr. Manning arrived, it was thought that that was really not a good project because some of the lots are too small to build on and they’re not contiguous to each other, so unless we can get that whole block [inaudible] so we’ve asked them to come back with another plan for that 185, maybe to pick another block. Mr. Williams: And y’all agreed with that, to come back with another plan? Mr. Bennings: Let me explain that, Mr. Commissioner. We were purchasing land at the point that we were frozen, our funds were frozen. We were still in the process of the purchasing land. We knew that many of those lots were too small. The goal was to try and buy enough of them to combine some and with planning, have them rezoned and what have you. But once you stopped us, it made it look like the project was not doing anything because we were buying lots too small, but we did not stop purchasing land until they put a hold on those funds. So once they put a hold on the funds, sure, we got a bunch of land sitting up there that you probably couldn’t build, you couldn’t build very much of anything. But we were purchasing land. So they stopped the land purchase. Now that $185,782 is, along with the second figure, both of those have to do with land purchasing. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? 94 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Why don’t – I don’t think we are going to resolve this. I’m not comfortable with resolving it, of saying we are going to give the amount frozen, too, because the director is not here. Now what I understood and I said to Laney Walker I don’t have a problem either way, but my understanding was that – why don’t we go ahead and release the $195,727.97 and then we get with Mr. Smith as soon as possible to bring this back to find out why all the money wasn’t released as we instructed the contract money to be released? And that part, that wasn’t on the agenda about the contract money. We ordered that in Administrative Services for him to go ahead and release the money but it’s not an agenda item on here today, is it? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I understand where the Commissioner coming from. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard had her hand up. Mr. Williams: Go ahead, Ms. Beard. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard. Ms. Beard: Thank you. Sonya, I guess what I really want to know is did you present, your department present this 2005-2009 consolidated plan, or where did that come from? Mr. Mayor: That’s the next item on the agenda. Ms. Beard: Oh, is that the next item? Mr. Mayor: We haven’t gotten to that yet. Ms. Beard: We haven’t gotten to that? Mr. Mayor: No. No, ma’am. Ms. Beard: Well, the thing I’m going to say is [inaudible] but after reviewing this, it’s just so massive, are you doing all those things, you have so many projects, they’re all interesting and exciting, but I – you know, it just seems to me this is one – and it’s not small to you, but one of so many. You understand. And I think all of us probably need to really go through this and maybe it would help us to understand what you’re really doing because it’s sort of – I was unaware [inaudible] so many different organizations and so many different projects. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek? 95 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, it’s hard to get money, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to spend money. We got people that’s been held up since 2002 and money been frozen in the bank. If anybody get with anybody, Mr. Smith need to get with us probably tomorrow or the next day but I think we need to go ahead and to release whatever funds – and you can’t write a check tonight, I understand that. But we need to give some direction tonight to go ahead and release those funds so that this one – got three more, I think she mentioned – but this one can at least be [inaudible], because after the meeting Monday I just assumed that the Administrator gave him direction and everything was on page, you all know about it, that the hold was off, whatever money y’all had was out there, was being guided by the contract. Mr. Mayor told us that he asked HUD directly was there any violation. They said no. There was some language they would like to change but it didn’t have to be changed. They would like to see some things different. Even the fact about coming down and spending time with the [inaudible] and the department head and the Commissioners if there was something they could help us on. I mean 2002, I don’t think that’s good business sense to have contracts and money held up all this time unless there was a violation. There’s a stigma put on this group and if anybody, we ought [inaudible] by letting them know we appreciate what did come out But Mr. Mayor, and [inaudible] back to working and do some good work over there. I’m going to make a motion that we direct the Administrator to have Mr. Smith to go ahead and give all the monies from previous up to 2003 or whatever monies supposed to be given [inaudible] that as long as they are going by the guidelines of the contract that their funds be released so they can proceed with work and bring those bills to HED to be reimbursed. If I can get a second on that. Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and a second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, with the emphasis that the Chairman of Administrative Services has placed on this, with the emphasis that the Commission has placed on this, all of us [inaudible], I believe we pretty – if not directly – inferred by our presence and concern that this should be handled by now, and it’s amazing to me after that kind of interest by this many Commissioners [inaudible] that we’re still here tonight with uncertainty. Now again this falls directly on the department head’s shoulders that there should be at this point, after all that has occurred, no gray areas, black and white, this is where we’re at, this is what will happen, that all the players be on board. This is an obvious flaw in the chain of communication and I have to concur with Commissioner Williams, it’s time to release this money and let these people get back to work. We either need to know why it hasn’t been done or have it released by now. It just amazes me after all the meetings we sat through and all the [inaudible] emphasis and direction from us that we’re still here tonight dealing with gray areas. Again, I would say somebody is not doing their job. I would expect when they get this kind of direction from this [inaudible], if they are an employee of this government that we get black and white solutions, not more gray. 96 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Just one more thing. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Beard: I really do think they are trying to make a number of changes as far as the [inaudible] are concerned, and that could be part of the problem at this time. Ms. Speaker: Well, those changes that they were trying to make was not approved by Administrative Services but we are going back to the old program. We are just trying to move forward now. Mr. Mayor: Any – Mr. [inaudible]? Mr. Bennings: One thing, Ms. Beard, if you’re changing the scope of a project, that would call for some kind of amendment to the contract. As she stated, Sand Hills, I believe, wants to change. But the problem we have at Laney Walker, we’re continuing with the same contract and the scope of the contract and there is no need for any amendments, we want to operate under the same contract that this, this full body gave us permission I’ve forgotten when. It had to be at least two-and-a-half years ago to go forward with the program. So our contracts are basically intact. We have, we would like to continue what we were doing. There is no change in the scope. Now maybe HUD wants to change some language but that would have to be done in a future contract because these current contracts which we are operating under or hope to operate up under were approved by this full Commission and I know [inaudible]. So the fact that – what’s really disturbing to me now as representative of the board is that Mr. Smith had some knowledge that he did not share with me. I don’t think he shared it with the Chairman of Administrative Services. If he was told to release all the funds, he could have said that to us. We are willing to work with the organization to try and get some things done but the fact that you hold back – you give in a piece of information and hold back the rest of the information, what does that do to the credibility and the trust factor that we have been fighting for over a year, beginning with that audit that they said HUD ordered, which HUD did not order. Mr. Mayor: Is there – yes? Mr. Hankerson: Let me clear one thing up. And I’m not speaking in behalf of anybody. I’m just speaking in what is correct and true because I don’t want to get caught up between this as I am already. But Mr. Smith hadn’t withheld anything from us. We gave those instructions in the last Administrative Services meeting to release all the funds. That order was already given. When you all were in the meeting last, last Administrative Services meeting we, we gave instructions to give all the money on the contract, all the [inaudible] money and it’s supposed to been given by Friday, so that part was already understood. Now today I think all Commissioners here was not aware, none 97 of us was aware that that had not taken place. So that had not taken place from my understanding because you all have not gotten your money. So we already knew, we already gave that very strong, that should release the money. Now how we address this item here today, I’ve said this now. I don’t think, and I’m not holding any money back for Laney Walker, but I don’t think that we should go ahead and vote to give all of this contract money, because we don’t know if we got the money or not. [inaudible] I don’t know. I mean are we comfortable with voting to give the half a million dollars out and you got the other contracts, other contracts out there, too? I don’t know the reason the money wasn’t given. I still don’t know that. If the money was available, seem like everybody should have gotten the money. I got a feeling that the money is not there. That’s my feeling. Mr. Mayor: The money’s there. The money’s there, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: Well, if all the money is there – Mr. Mayor: If we don’t spend it, it won’t be, though. Mr. Hankerson: If all the money, if all the money is there, and we been talking about this and it’s already been approved, then give them the money that’s on the contract and they also said $195,727 is already theirs in the bank so that’s not an issue, so then I just – did you make a motion, Mr. Williams, to go ahead and give it to them? I call for the question. Let’s go ahead and move on. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to that as soon as Mr. Mays speaks. He’s had his hand up and he’s patiently been waiting. Mr. Mays: Yeah, let me, let me, let me ask this question, Mr. Mayor, to get back to the item that’s on the agenda. And I’m for Rev. Williams’ motion. But I guess, Mr. Administrator, and I feel a little bit, I feel a little bit unfair asking the question, a little bit cause the director isn’t here and I probably would ask it a little bit different if he was here. But we started talking before we left out of committee meeting in reference to the clarification on [inaudible] money about Laney Walker. And down here it talks about identification of a funding source. Now on the floor of the Commission on the motion that’s out there, which I’m very much for, it follows up the freeing up on the contractual monies which [inaudible] in one piece, they move as the projects go. But I need to know, and this was in the directive that was given to Mr. Smith, which I feel that he is still obligated to bring us back an answer, there was supposed to be after the meeting that you all met [inaudible] and Mr. Mayor, if I follow the rules I need to know [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Mays: Since they’ve met, part of the directive and I understand it very well because I made the motion to give it, what was discussed about the funding source of that administrative side? Because that was supposed to be something that was brought back 98 here today. We put a deadline on it for this meeting to be brought back today. And that’s part of what’s on the agenda item where it says [inaudible] funding source. That’s someone different from even the release of these funds because there was a diversion from the standpoint that a line of credit was used, there was some rules changed in the game, and we said okay, how then are they going to deal with some operations, because there was only $14,000 available? I need to know for clarification since there was a directive given by the committee and it’s out here on the floor today, what is there in reference to that? Did he leave any note to it in reference to that amount of money? I’m asking the department. If you’ve got an answer from the department [inaudible] I think we need to hear it, but also then we need to compare the answers [inaudible]. Mr. Bennings: I’m just saying that we have no knowledge of how the additional funds are to be in there. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] would y’all agree then on a figure? Mr. Bennings: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Well, then, that was what was supposed to be discussed at the meeting. That’s what y’all – I’m not trying to tell you how to wage your battle cause y’all were sent back to get a funding source to deal with administrative stuff. That was dealt with as a part of the motion in committee. I’m like that elephant, ain’t too much I forget [inaudible] I been, I been, I been [inaudible] I was too mad about it, I was too mad to forget what I made the motion on. So I know exactly what I did [inaudible]. That money needs to be released [inaudible] to all the [inaudible] to do. So I don’t have no . In fact, Rev. Williams, I’m problem [inaudible]. I’m going to vote for that motion going to [inaudible] and ask you if you would to accept an amendment to your motion that they not only be released, that if there’s a problem that the director needs to [inaudible] he make more money than I do – I’m still here – so the point is it needs to be directed if there’s a problem he needs to tell his boss who handles the day-to-day activities of this city why they can’t go on and release the [inaudible] whether to Laney Walker or anybody else. I would like for that to be an amendment. That was a directive given. And if that is supposed to be done, I think that clears that up. We decided [inaudible] ball in his court and the department’s court to say then, Mr. Russell, why the monies can’t be released on the proper, drawn-on basis that they’re to do, if you’ll accept that as an amendment to what you already got. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mays: Thank you, sir. But I need to know now on reference to the motion in committee where is the money, how much of it [inaudible] the administrative funds that’s to go to that area. Is it any notes that he left in reference to that? Ms. Speaker: In reference to the administrative funds, in our meeting with Laney Walker Development Corp., Mr. Smith said that they could go ahead and use their 99 remaining 2003 operating funds, which is $7,363. Within the next couple of weeks we will be having an application workshop with all of the [inaudible] to release the – for 2005 and 2006 funding year. Therefore they will receive more admin funds then. But there’s $7,000 that should hold them at least about a month or two until we complete our new applications. Mr. Mays: And I appreciate your answer in that, but I remember Andy asking about the percentage of what was the administrative part in there and something about how [inaudible] but I thought that that was supposed to be cleared up. Now everybody is on that and you’re going to be [inaudible] if that’s the time line that you developed, and I’m asking this now on Laney Walker and [inaudible] can’t speak totally for Mr. Smith, I know y’all don’t want that big a risk. But the point being it needs to get clear that if that’s what y’all were meeting about we sent a clear directive, clear I thought, the administrative part of it even more so than the freezing of the money was. There was supposed to been an amount [inaudible] because I remember us looking at each other, eyeball to eyeball and we were talking about how long that figure was and you was putting through to a point what they had and I knew that wasn’t going to go far. That was why I kept belaboring the point that day, how then were they going to deal with the funding source of doing that? Then that’s what the meeting was supposed to entail, it was supposed to be an identified funding source, not two weeks from now or have an application meeting. That was supposed to been an identified funding source today. Now that’s what bothers me, Mr. Mayor. If there wasn’t going to be one, he ought to wrote a letter, sent it to Mr. Russell, to you or to somebody else. But we issued a directive. If the time line was too short, hey, say it’s too short. But we directed that it be done today. This wasn’t supposed to be discussed another day. It was supposed to be discussed this day. Now that’s what was in the motion. Now somebody did otherwise [inaudible]. Now the only reason I won’t ask Mr. Williams to take another amendment is because you all at Laney Walker have not agreed on a figure to do it. If you had one, I’d say put that in there and let him answer to his boss on how he’s going to get the money. But that would be unfair because there is no number out there to do it. And I feel handcuffed again. And I already done got enough talking about what I said about that [inaudible] statement last week, but I’m going to bring some more of it, Mr. Chairman, soon, because I’m tired of making motions that folk ignore that committees put on and that this Commission directs, and some folks seem to think that it’s a cartoon show. If it is, and you getting paid to deal with that, then you need to go home and look at the cartoons. You don’t need to come to work and tease me. I ain’t got but, I ain’t got but ten, nine more months here. And I’m kind of like old [inaudible] you may not like me, but some folk going to get to love me, at least in these last nine months. Now I’m tired of making them. Now somehow we need to find out why folk can’t follow directives. That’s a “k” – ain’t no “s” onto it. Because this was supposed to be settled today. And I think you got, again, you got all these department people that been tied up here all day, having to be over here to deal with it, you got neighborhood people been here since the start of the meeting on something we discussed last week on a very crystal clear directive that’s still not being done. Now my next motion, I ain’t going to predict what it’s going to be. But anybody that’s got a half ounce of sense I’m going to make one real soon and 100 it’s going to be in Administrative Services. And it going to be one that some folk ain’t going like. But I’m getting tired of making motions directing the folk that think that this is a playing game to deal with it. And I wish they would get it straight. If there is a legitimate reason not to get it straight, then they ought to [inaudible], people have emergencies, family things come up, I don’t have a problem with that. But write down on paper why you don’t have something ready. And I think it’s unfair. And I’m not going to criticize you with that. You’re doing a perfect job. You ain’t been handed nothing. We ain’t been handed nothing, either. So we even on that deal. But I just think to a point it needs to get better in there, Mr. Russell, or it need to get gone. I’m through with that, but I ain’t making no more directives about this same thing, cause I hate to use th that 9 Street language when I come down here cause women and children and ministers and folk be listening out there. I told some folk that I wasn’t going to be cussing no more. I ain’t going to do that tonight. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Yeah, and it’s a whole lot more of them out there so I ain’t going to do that. But I know how to non-cuss to get my point across. And it’s real simple of it. I’m just tired of it. It doesn’t make sense. It just does not make sense and it’s almost like a dare game to a point and I do have one more amendment, Mr. Williams, if you’ll accept that. (Laughter) Mr. Mays: It’s for the director not to make no more damn rules. Cause you said in there if you follow, and if it’s legitimate, whatever rules on tap, Mr. Russell, they need to be followed as to what they are at this time of the evening on this date. They don’t need to come up with no more new rules cause I’m tired of it. I been lied to before, been lied to about the 2004 audit which HUD did not order him to make, and I wish they had [inaudible] ask a neighborhood department to [inaudible] twenty-some-thousand dollars to audit $14,000 that we had given them. That’s wrong in itself. It’s kind of like Ray Charles [inaudible] so you might need to know where the rest of that money come from, Mr. Mayor. But I’m getting tired of giving those same directives that we vote on as a group and then get ignored about it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay, we have a motion that is on the floor. Does anybody need the amended motion read back? Everybody is clear? Okay. All right. Call the question then. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? 101 Mr. Hankerson: This has been going on quite a while and I think it’s too much confusion in HED Department and I’d like tomorrow for the Administrator and the director and Mayor Pro Tem or Mayor one, to meet with me tomorrow at 2:00 o’clock. This must come to a stop, to an end, because it’s been different things here, situations I’m not clear on and it’s just, it just seem to be no end to it. So it’s time to bring to an end to it. I’d like to meet with Mr. Smith tomorrow and the Administrator and I’d like to make some suggestions. Mr. Mayor: Be glad to accommodate you. All right, the next item is 42, and 43 is a companion item so we can take those two together. The Clerk: 42. Approve Final Version of Year 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan and Year 2005 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) 43. Adopt Resolution authorizing Submission Year 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan and Year 2005 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS funds. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) Mr. Cheek: 42A, is that going to be taken up as a separate item? Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Hankerson: I speak to this item. There may be some items we asked for the [inaudible] or anyone had any concerns and the Commissioners to go back and look at 42 and 43. With the director not being here, I’m not comfortable with going ahead and passing it unless all the Commissioners are in consent with it, knowing everything that’s there. There are some questions within it so I think I would like to refer it – Mr. Mayor: Back to committee? Mr. Hankerson: - back to committee unless someone is here to speak to it to answer the questions. Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me address the time table under which you’re operating, because I had a discussion as part of my meeting with HUD about the timeliness about getting this approved. This consolidated plan was supposed to be approved by November 102 15 and that’s the date they give because it assures a timely review and a prompt release of the federal funds. The money cannot be released until the plan is adopted by this Commission and submitted to HUD and then approved by HUD. We are not in jeopardy of losing any of this money until we reach the month of August. If we haven’t acted by August, we stand to lose probably about $4 million in HUD funding for this year. HUD would like to have us have this plan adopted by the end of this month. Now the committees meet next Monday and then the Commission meeting, the first one in April thth has been moved forward to the 29, the 29 of March, so there is still an opportunity over the next two weeks to review this, discuss it, and adopt it by March 29. If we are not prepared to vote on it by March 29, we can delay action and vote on it in April. The problem that we run into is that the later we get it up to HUD and get it approved, then the longer the agencies have to wait to get the money and this may cause some service delivery issues, some cash flow issues and other issues like that. So I think you want to keep this in mind as you, as you consider how you want to act on the document. That’s the, that’s the gist of the discussion I had with HUD. I would [inaudible] they’ve asked us to have it in by the end of the month. If for any reason there is slippage into April, that we have the courtesy to notify them ahead of time that we need more time with it and it will be forthcoming. So having said that, I think that kind of gives us the lay of the land tonight as to where we are with this plan. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Excuse me, Mr. Pro Tem. Mr. Williams: Go ahead. Mr. Boyles: This is basically late now, am I correct? Mr. Mayor: No, it’s not late. It’s – Mr. Boyles: It’s got the potential of being late? Mr. Mayor: It has the potential of being late. It was not filed as timely as HUD would like to have it filed, but it’s not late. You run into the danger when you get into the summertime. July, August. You get too much beyond that and there’s a chance you won’t get it in and get it approved in time. The fiscal year will end and the money will not be claimed and the money will be gone. Mr. Boyles: But will it be prudent to go ahead and pass it tonight? 103 Mr. Mayor: Well, it would be prudent of the Commission to pass it as soon as you’re comfortable with it. And I think that’s been the issue because at the last meeting it’s my recollection that Mr. Smith took this back and took out of it all the new programs that he wanted to put in here that the Commission would not approve, so this has been revised since it was last presented to you. It would certainly be the decision of each individual Commissioner whether you’re ready to vote on it at this time or whether you indeed want to go back and take a closer look at it. Mr. Boyles: Just going by why I read, you know, in the backup over these last couple of meetings. Mr. Mayor: Now keep in mind that this plan can be amended. Just because you approve it today, in two week or in a month, doesn’t mean you can’t go back and make changes in it. That’s perfectly proper to do that. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I think we need to go ahead and approve it and at least get it off our table onto somebody else’s table to do something else with. Like you said, we can come back and amend it if we have to. It’s bad when you’re a little leery of what’s in here but I know some things been taken out and [inaudible] you don’t know whether some things been changed to the better or to the worse. But I think we need to go ahead and approve it, at least get it off center so we can get it up to HUD. Several times I requested and asked about the HOME funds and the CDBG funds and I was told that it hadn’t been applied for. So I was afraid, I was worried that we may lose those funds. But [inaudible] your explanation about November last year should have been approved, I think it’s time now to go ahead and not procrastinate any more, to go ahead and I’m going to make a motion that we go ahead and approve this so we can get it off center. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve this. The only question I would have – [inaudible] maybe you know the answer, or Rose, the Commission directed Mr. Smith reconstitute the plan, asked that it be passed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Do you know whether that has been done? Ms. White: Okay, that hasn’t been done. I mentioned that to Mr. Smith and due to the time constraint I had to get it to the Clerk’s office so she can get it out to the Commission I think Thursday and that was the reason why it wasn’t taken before the Advisory Committee. Mr. Mayor: Does the Advisory Committee have a meeting scheduled? 104 Ms. White: They had one. It wasn’t – I think it was a called meeting. Initially I think Mr. Smith thought he was supposed to meet with the Chairman, Ms. Williams and Ms. [inaudible], but some more members were present so it wasn’t really a called meeting to discuss the plan. Mr. Mayor: I get concerned when we create these advisory groups and we just leave them out of the loop altogether. It doesn’t encourage active participation. Ms. White: He’s planning on meeting with them on a monthly basis. All I can say, and I have to agree with Rev. Williams that we need to go ahead and approve it, but I would like to point out there the changes that the Commission asked, those changes was made, and in addition another change that was made. The [inaudible] had a limit of a set- aside of 20%. We added more to the [inaudible] pot so each one of the [inaudible] is going to get about $92,000 subject to them submitting a project. That’s in black and white. That’s for projects. In addition, they’re going to each one get $12,000 for administrative expenses. So that’s in there. I don’t know if he has discussed that with the [inaudible] yet or not but you know, it’s in there. Mr. Mayor: Will that money be released? Ms. White: It’s subject to HUD’s approving the plan. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other questions? Do we have a motion to approve the plan? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Those are the kind of things why I say why we, we need to have him here, because we didn’t address those changes in the last Administrative Services meeting so there may be some other changes. I don’t know. Seem like things just keep changing after we meet and identify the changes that we want made, but then it goes beyond that or does not go to the level that [inaudible] so it’s a mass of confusion. With that, what Ms. White just said, I saw that, I read that, and that’s why I wasn’t sure about this change, when did this happen about changing the percentage and all that. That wasn’t in, that was not directed when we saw this plan before, so I don’t know what else – you know, it’s a motion on the floor and you all can go ahead and approve it, but the Chairman says send it back, but go ahead and do it if you’d like, I’m not going to vote [inaudible] . Ms. Beard: I have a question. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Is that about what they received last year? Ms. White: No. What we used to do is just put the whole pot out there and just let the [inaudible] apply for what was out there for projects. Now they are being 105 restricted. Even though we used to just say 15%, but we would allow all of the whole pot to be used for applications that the [inaudible] could submit and draw money for, for their projects. But with the new HOME guidelines, it was, the intent was to limit that pot to 20% for the [inaudible] and enable the new corporation to do projects. The new corporation wasn’t approved by Commission. We were instructed to take any new initiatives out of the consolidated plan. That’s why that $250,000 for the Augusta renovation [inaudible], we took that out and transferred that money to where the [inaudible] could apply for that. I know it’s confusing because we did a lot of changes. Ms. Beard: And you had something about demolition and rebuilding. Is that something new or have you always done that? Ms. White: Okay, HED has always had a demolition/rebuild program. That particular program, just say for instance if a house supposed to be [inaudible], if it’s, if it’s cost prohibitive to rehab it, what they would do is tear it down and build the new house. So that demolition rebuild program has been around. It’s not new. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other questions before we move ahead with the vote on the motion? Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] motion, I just hope we keep in mind that we have time to send this back and make sure that we all are clear, because by the time we send it back there going to be some more changes. So I think we need to be clear on it. Tomorrow I’m going to meet with Mr. Smith, tomorrow, and between now and the next Administrative Services Committee meeting I think that we can be clear that everything is in here. I still, I encourage us to not vote for it. Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: You’d like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: I’d like to make a substitute motion at the request of the Chairman of the Administrative Service that he be given his time tomorrow and that we bring that back Monday to committee meeting and have it ready to come, to be approved. Mr. Cheek: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, the Chair can’t make a motion but I would encourage that you also include in your motion that a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee be called and that group be allowed to review this document and provide such feedback as appropriate to the Commission through the Administrative Services Committee. Mr. Grantham: Absolutely. 106 Mr. Mayor: I’m just very concerned that they’ve been left out of this process. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, if I recall, Mr. Williams and I made that point the other day in the Administrative Services meeting, that these, these people that have been appointed by Commissioners were not utilized for what they were supposed to be doing, and we talked about that advisory board meeting and we actually instructed them to meet. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Don is right. We did talk about that. And I think it was stated earlier that even if we approve this, they got time to take it back and we can always amend whatever we need to amend, but to get it off center, to go ahead and get started. We waiting on everybody else. The director shouldn’t have us on hold like he’s got everything else on hold. Now if we going be elected officials, leaders of this city, we need to go ahead and do some things. If we pass this, all that’s saying is that we ready for it to go to Atlanta to be accepted, to get in the race. We may get the funds, we may not get the funds. There may be some cuts and there may not be some cuts. But all this does is get us off center to go ahead to okay the funds. That’s not going to lock us into anything. It don’t have to be approved by anybody except HUD when it gets to Atlanta. So if there was some reason to hold it up, as if it’s going to be a program that we going want, going to cause somebody to not get some funds [inaudible] holding it. But we need to go ahead now. We don’t make very much, well, I don’t know what y’all make, I don’t make very much up here, but I work hard at this job. We got folks making good money ain’t doing nothing. And I’m not going to sit here and hold up a project, hold up a proposal to go to, to, to HUD that we ought to be able to [inaudible]. So – Mr. Mayor: Well, we have two motions and the Commissioners may vote for either one. Mr. Cheek, you wanted a final work and then we’ll go ahead and vote? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. We need to go ahead and forward this. There is not a thing in these documents that can’t be reviewed and refined and resubmitted at a later date. We need to go ahead and get this in the queue at HUD and have it done. Every committee here, citizens committee [inaudible] review it and make changes and revisions to this program. We can get it in the queue now and work the changes later. It’s just frustrating for me that we have one more reason to defer something else. We just seem to be really good at deferring things these days. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion – Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to take a little exception to that deferment. It ought to be right for starters. And I think if you’ve gone through enough confusion tonight to think you ought to approve a plan on something that is in the absence of the 107 director, and it’s no so much respecting what he’s going to bring back, it’s the fact that you don’t know what kind of surprises your Mayor and your Chairman and the Mayor Pro Tem are going to find tomorrow. Now the staff is here to think what they may think hadn’t been taken out of the plan or in there. I think we better get some serious clarification about what even gets sent up to Atlanta. We keep hearing it’s nothing in there. It’s been full of tricks over there for the last six months on this mess we been going through. And I know where you’re coming from, Andy, to a point that it needs to go and it needs to get in that hopper, but to a point if they going to meet with him tomorrow, if nothing else out of defiance of what we’ve already directed him, I don’t feel comfortable in sending the plan off to a point. I’d like for it to be on that plate when Fred Russell sees him tomorrow eyeball to eyeball, your plan has not been sent, and it’s not been sent off because you have not followed the directive that we have sent you as a Commission. You’ve disrupted the community, you’ve had neighborhood groups that you have turned upside down because of the way you’ve run a department, and left them in confusion and left the Commission there to [inaudible]. That’s only my reason for being that defiant about saying it ought not go. And it’s one more reason that if you have go a step further to add to it, that’s why it’s still sitting here, because you’ve not followed directions that the Commission asked you to do. I agree, too, no, we should not be doing the job over there [inaudible] to get done, but to a point if you almost to a point where you directed him to give this to your citizens group and do it – I just heard he thought he had to meet maybe with one or two people. [inaudible] I even said to him, if you work [inaudible] some of these people they can even help you. If that wasn’t enough common sense to go follow that, to go gather then, I’d of gathered them up first. Had them over in my office the next morning. They’d of been fatter than cows by the time I get through nourishing them to a point of getting that point over to them. And you hadn’t even met with them yet? And yet they coming back [inaudible], what if they come back as a delegation and say to you we would have liked to seen the comprehensive plan before it went out to Atlanta? Why then did you even ask us to serve? I think it does a disservice to them. [inaudible] disservice to the community. I don’t want us to get all split up to a point that we at each other about it, but that’s what happens when another person that we’ve hired creates enough dissention and confusion. I thought the last of them was already gone. Seem like it ain’t. But that’s why I can’t support it, to send it on. If this was going to bankrupt up to a point that this was midnight and we had to do this tonight and deal with it, but I want something to be on Mr. Russell’s desk and the chairman and the Mayor when they come in there to a point and confront and say this is why you still got this mess sitting here because of a lack of confidence and not following directions that you already been ordered to do. Now if we going to sit here and beat ourselves up about this, we just as confused, we don’t know what’s in it, but yet we going to turn around and [inaudible] plan off tonight in order to get that done. There’s something we need to send off but it ain’t the plan. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask a question to one of the staff members. We getting ready to pass this. Could you tell us about the Vista program, whether we still have the funding that we approved for the Vista program and where the 108 fundings are going to come from? I see the Vista program is in here, [inaudible] Vista. Did we get all the funds that we supposed, that we approved first? Ms. White: It’s my understanding the initial grant that we brought before you, I believe it was a year ago, that wasn’t approved. What was approved was $40,000. I think a year ago, about 300-and-something-thousand was approved. Well, we were told was going to be approved, but only $40,000 was approved. Mr. Hankerson: Okay, so the Vista program is in here, and we’re supposed to get – we’re approved for $300,000 but it’s not but $40,000. We also approved renting a place and all of that, leasing a place [inaudible] that’s in here. Those are the kind of things I was trying to tell you. You need to make sure you read it good. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, let you have the final work and then we’ll go ahead – Ms. Beard: Yes. You have many different programs for all of these things. Do they give you a certain amount for each of those? Ms. White: Yes. Ms. Beard: And then you have the projects within each group. Who makes that decision? Ms. White: Okay, what happens with – we get four federal grants. With each one of those federal grants we have so much for administration and so much for projects. What we do is go through an application process and that’s how we determine who is going to receive the money, and we bring those projects before the Commission, and that’s what’s in the consolidated plan, the different projects like for CDBG. We get so many requests for public services and you’ll see a lot of service oriented projects in there. But because there was going to be a change in the [inaudible] guidelines, we had not went through an application process for the HOME funds. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s take up the substitute motion first. That would send it back to committee and [inaudible] citizens committee meet. All in favor of the – Ms. Beard: What was it again? Mr. Mayor: That was to send it back to committee, to come back to this board on th the 29. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? 109 Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Boyles: Could I ask a question? If this meeting tomorrow produces what [inaudible] want to, is there some way to expedite it, that we could circulate a letter for signatures, that we could do that instead of waiting two weeks from today to bring it back for full Commission approval? Mr. Mayor: You could do that. You certainly could. But HUD has said they’d th just like to have it by the end of the month. You meet again on the 29. Mr. Boyles: That’s true. We do meet again this month. Mr. Mayor: But I think if you’re looking at some point [inaudible] citizens advisory committee, either this week or the first part of next week. Mr. Boyles: It’s just my concern that we get it out of here, you know. Mr. Mayor: I talked to HUD about it and our funds are not in jeopardy. Mr. Boyles: Okay. Mr. Shepard: We have a third meeting this meeting this month, and we’ll take advantage of it. Mr. Boyles: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s take up item number 42A. The Clerk: 42A. Discuss CDBG funding of the Economic Ombudsman Initiative. (Deferred from the Administrative Services Committee March 7, 2005) Mr. Mayor: There’s no backup for this, is there? The Clerk: This item was deferred from the Administrative Services Committee, giving a directive to the department director for possible funding of this initiative. Mr. Mayor: Does the department have a report? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I will wait on the department. I was going to make a motion. 110 Mr. Mayor: Rose, do you have a report on this? Ms. White: Yes. There were two items that I spoke with Stella Taylor at HUD about, and one of them was the – this particular one, the possible funding of this through CDBG. It was her and Russell Douglas’ consensus that we could not fund this from CDBG. The reason being is this is more or less considered a PR project that will benefit the city communitywide. Whenever we fund a project through CDBG it has to meet a national objective. And one of those, and the most important national objective is benefiting low and moderate income persons. So we could not show how this benefit low and moderate income persons and HUD said that was a no under CDBG. However, if we had recaptured UDAG, we could fund it from that. But we don’t have any. Mr. Mayor: Rose, aren’t we paying for it now out of a federal grant? Ms. White: It’s being paid for out of the portable housing grant. Mr. Mayor: And there’s not a national objective tied to that? Ms. White: There’s not a national objective tied to that. What’s tied to that is what we initially submitted for that $500,000 and part of that was economic development and predevelopment for [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: So you’ve come with no source of funding for this; is that the bottom line? Ms. White: That’s the bottom line, yes. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Before she spoke, I was going to make a motion to send this back to Administrative Services Committee. I know sending back is not very popular this evening but I definitely want it there. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: And I concur. This is one that I think needs to go back because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the poorest people in this city are the ones benefited the most by the creation of jobs. And how we cannot link the creation of jobs in this city, which is what this office has done and will do more of if we’ll follow through with the economic plan created at the summit, the action plan, I’ll write it up. I think I could pretty simply justify the fact that when we create jobs in this city, which has had pretty poor job growth, that it will benefit the poorest, especially if they’re in entry level jobs. It seems pretty simple to do. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, but to say we can’t fund it because it can’t be targeted to a national objective of working with the needy, all 111 the groups associated with this summit, in fact, are those that fall in the creation of jobs, service level and on up, in the pay scale, which is exactly where we need to go. It also included educational institutions, Georgia Tech and Augusta State and other groups. To me it sounds like it’s a reason why we can’t rather than why we can and I think it’s a very easily writable document to demonstrate that this project, this initiative is both good for the city and it does promote the whole city, like you said. But it promotes it in a way that it creates, it has the opportunity to create jobs which I might remind everybody the summit that you authorized had never been done before, the group, some of the groups had the audacity to send in blank sheets for their goals and objectives which shows you just how loose a rein this city has had on the people they’ve funded, that we fund to do economic development, and quite frankly, this is a very necessary office to follow through on making sure that the people go out and create jobs. And I for one, and I’m going to repeat what I said before, if you’re happy with 2% growth, it may be a good thing here in Augusta, but every other city would consider that flat, especially if you compared that to inflation or failure. I’m not happy with it. This is the position that is going to coordinate the follow-through on what needs to be done in this city which has never been done in my lifetime, one, and two, it does qualify and I think that’s more than just my opinion, in the fact that the jobs created will be everything from entry level jobs, it also incorporates the training component and other things that meet my understanding of the qualifications. Ms. White: Let me say this on the note that you just mentioned. If the two ombudsmen, if they bring in a new business and they can document that that business was brought in their initiative and it’s documented that those jobs were created, then, yes, as long as we could show something. But the way the description that I was given and I shared with HUD, it looked more like a PR firm. Mr. Cheek: So it’s [inaudible] personal interpretation. The definition of ombudsman is someone that oversees the total package, not goes out and creates jobs. Their job is basically to coordinate efforts and promote economic development overall by utilizing the existing resources, as well as go out and do other things, I’m sure. But the bottom line on all this is it sounds like more of an “in home” interpretation than it does an actual comparison against the national standard of their roles and goals, versus what’s required by the federal government. This is something that’s essential that hasn’t been done and we talk about doing something different than we’ve done in the past, we need to ride herd on the people we’ve got doing economic development in this city because again, if you’re happy with 2% to 3%, you’ve got a bad case of lowered expectations. This city can do better and this is the office that is going to handle it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. And I kind of, I kind of – I don’t kind of, I fully respect Ms. White’s knowledge of the department rules and I won’t, I won’t share our private conversation this morning but it was very complimentary. She usually speaks all the time with authority in terms of knowing what gets us in trouble and what doesn’t. 112 But what I would say I think we need to do, and Andy, I think you’re right on point in terms of those needs and where we’re going [inaudible]. What I think the City needs to do is if we are thoroughly committed to the job that the folk are doing, what I think our mission needs to be for the next couple of weeks is not really to get into the interference of where the HUD funding is, is just to go ahead on and to bite the bullet and to deal with funding where we’re going, let the Administrator bring us back a source so that when we get to Administrative Services we’re not searching for a source to do it with, that if we’re going to do it then we look into, quite frankly, and I boil it down to the fact either you support it or you won’t support it. Get it down into contingency, if you need to split it to a point, if the job is working in terms of some things maybe happening in one geographic area, and I think if that’s the case then I think this is where you really seriously look at taking money from an urban services tax district, if you’ve got something that’s going in urban services, and I 110% support how you do that, and maybe look at the general contingency that if it’s outside of the urban services district, go ahead on and deal with that and then if we want to write a further explanation to HUD or [inaudible] like Ms. White was talking about to show where we [inaudible] that we might be able to get that money plugged in at another time. But I think it’s important that the people stay in place, that we don’t drop the ball in doing it. And even though they may have other missions to do on a daily basis, just the excitement of what they have brought from the time being that’s different and the encouragement level of other economic opportunities I think is far more worthwhile to go out and to deal with their money, so I’d like to see us to do it to be ready, when we come back, say the next Commission meeting, to be able to vote on a funding sources to keep the initiative going, and then if we want to write something to change the language of how we apply to HUD, I think Ms. White is one of the best advisors that we’ve got already on board, show us how to do it, but don’t cut the plan off or let it die because of the money. This, this is where I think if you’ve got something [inaudible] contingency to deal with in terms of plugging economic development, this is the time you reach back and you get something like that in order to keep it going. And that’s what I’d like to see us do when we come back to our next meeting in order to get it done and let the Administrator be able to bring us that source, even if we [inaudible], even if it’s from [inaudible], it’s all green and [inaudible] if we need Ms. White’s help to show us how we might be able to make HUD reconsider to do it, then I think all that’s gravy at that point if it is. If it’s still turned down then we’ve not stopped anything, we’ve kept that train going. That would be my take on it. That’s what I’d like to see us do. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Go ahead. Ms. White: And I’m glad you mentioned that because we have – when I say we don’t have any recaptured UDAG, what I mean is it’s all obligated. And what we can look at is possibly switching a CDBG project, you know, a recaptured UDAG with CDBG project so we can free up some money to fund the [inaudible] Initiative. You know, we can look at it that way, switch the funding sources so we can fund it, you know, 113 that way. We can look at that. Cause I know we have one project that’s like $97,000 funded out of recaptured UDAG, and maybe we could look at CDBG and how to switch those funding sources and it will be easier that way. Cause we have project, you know, that are not moving, and that’s how we come about with reprogrammed money. We look at the project budget. If that project money is not moving, if all of that money wasn’t spent out of that particular project, and there’s no use for it, we will reprogram that money to another activity. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Okay. As I recall, that was a very short contract. Is that correct? And a lot of money really wasn’t involved. But they have been very enthusiastic and very aggressive and I do feel they’re making a difference. So I’m hoping that maybe we can redo some of those things you have mentioned, but if the City needs to continue to [inaudible]. Ms. White: But let me make this clear. I don’t want you to get confused now. When I said HUD said we couldn’t do it, we can’t do it out of CDBG. Out of recaptured UDAG, that money is considered the City’s money and the City can use if for whatever it wants. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just – I’ll have to defer to your expertise, but there seems to have been some CDBG projects in the past that were funded with far less ability to impact the poor people in this city than the initiative that we have started here. And ladies and gentlemen, I will say that, what we need to do is we need to fund and continue this because if you’ve seen an impact so far, I can assure you that if we complete the follow- through on the plan, the plan of action, you ain’t seen nothing yet. We will turn this 2% horse around and turn it into a 5% or 7% horse if we follow through on this. Ms. White: What I would like to ask the Commission is to identify an amount. I was given $60,000 to $75,000, if you want to give me an amount to look for. Mr. Mayor: If you’re looking for $75,000 that’s the amount you send over to the County Development Authority, would be available. If you didn’t think they were doing their job you could pull it back and redirect it. Mr. Cheek: Well, I quote the folks at the Augusta [inaudible], they quit calling me a year and a half ago and I quote the head of the Development Authority, well, I didn’t take pictures of this place, I thought only somebody crazy would want it. So now they’re bringing 400 jobs here by the end of ’06. [inaudible] Ms. Beard: Maybe we could let you know that tomorrow. 114 Ms. White: Okay. Ms. Beard: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion? Mr. Cheek: A motion – I think the Commissioner deferred it back to the committee. Mr. Mayor: To the committee, okay. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: I think, Madame Clerk, if we’re keeping up correctly, that takes us to item 53. Have I skipped anything? The Clerk: No. Right on it. Mr. Mayor: I’m lucky. The Clerk: 53. Report from staff regarding the costs for short term renovations at the Joint Law Enforcement Center. To approve Option 1, plus $25,000 for camera and additional equipment as a short-term renovation cost at the Joint Law Enforcement Center. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, is going to – are you going to talk about that, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: 53. Okay. As promised, and after discussing this with staff and asking them to come forward with a recommendation, this has been heard by the subcommittee and Mr. Russell is here, he can give you the plan, and Engineering Services, and we have concurrence from both bodies that this is the – what we recommend as the course of action for the City to take. Mr. Administrator, if you could give everybody the executive summary on the recommendations for 401. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, what we basically have done is looked at the options that were placed in front of us over and over again and came up with five specific options, to include everything from a three to five year fix to a 20- year fix that would redo the building. My recommendation, to cut to the chase, is we spend approximately $317,428 to do a fix that will get us three to five years life out of the building. Based on that, what we would continue to do is move the judicial function to the new Judicial Center that we heard about today, move the jail facility itself into a new 115 series of pods, or a facility like that. The reason I’m recommending the pods, moving into the pods, it’s our estimate that over the life of the building, about twenty years or so, we’re probably going to receive about $1 million in savings just through the efficiency of using pods versus the tower that we have got there, which will move us forward with that. And then in addition to that, look to move the Sheriff’s function, administrative function into either this facility or a stand along facility close to the Judicial Center, in either new space or converted space at that particular point in time. The cost of that is approximately $51 million total. That requires, that is a foot for foot replacement. Deducts from that would be the savings that you’ve already looked at in reference to moving the judicial space, the Clerk’s office there, and the courtrooms into the new Judicial Center, and whatever savings we would do by using the pods as opposed to a tower arrangement. This basically buys us three to five years of time where we can continue to move forward [inaudible]. In addition to that, there’s a $25,000 addition to that, to the $317,427, which makes it about $352,000 or $342,000 that would provide for a teleconferencing issue. We can make use of the hearings and bail hearings, make use of the teleprompter and video setup where you can do that so you’re not moving prisoners back and forth from the facility to the jail and back and forth there. So we would like to recommend that. And that would give you a total expenditure of $352,428, and what that would do is get us, buy us the time to do that. What I’d like to recommend is that you take that money from the current SPLOST available for the Judicial Center as an immediate funding source and replace that in Phase V as we go forward. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, just so that there’s no confusion, there was a story written about this in the paper last week which was quite confusing, and that is the agenda item is the cost for the short term renovations at the Joint Law Enforcement Center and the short term renovations do not total $51 million. They total $352,428. Is that not correct? Mr. Russell: That’s correct, sir. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we had clarity on that. My eyes about popped out when I saw that article. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. What that does do, if we pursue that path we don’t want to continue to commit the same mistakes of the past and if we commit to the three to five year extension of the life of the building by committing those dollars for those band aids, if you will, this sets us on a course of action to, one, commit ourselves to building four pods at Phinizy Road to replace prisoner housing, which we’re going to have to build anyway, at a cost of about $24 million, plus or minus. Also, it forces us to relocate the courts to the Judicial Center, which was the initial plan. It forces us in a commitment to build the Judicial Center. Also, it puts us in a position to renovate. I’m not in favor of building a new building for the Sheriff’s Department. I think we should renovate floor space in this building which will be vacant, two to three floor to house the Sheriff’s Department in this building and better utilize space, not create additional space that we’ve got to heat and cool and have vacant space in this building. But you’re still 116 looking at a savings over replacing the Law Enforcement Center, which was $51 million, somewhere in the order of mid-30’s to 40’s, thereabouts, with about a $12 million to $15 million savings over building a new building. That’s, those are ballpark numbers but those are what we feel in the committee was the best course of action. This building has become a case of good money after bad. The building is - $27 million is estimated to give us a 20-year life extension with no guarantees to speak of. So we feel we can build the pods, which will help reduce the overcrowding, save us operational expenditures annually, which would be a benefit to this city over reduced operational cost of our jail facilities. Phinizy Road is much more energy efficient than the towers. But we I’d like to make a motion that we approve this and recommend that with an approval. in concept commit ourselves to pursuing a course of action which commits us to the money on SPLOST for the pods or some other funding source for the pods, the Judicial Center, and renovating this building to house the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: [inaudible] clarification. The four pods are a replacement for the tower, it doesn’t include the two additional pods that we talk about as far as [inaudible] for expansion or [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? No discussion? We’ll vote on the motion then. All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 54. The Clerk: 54. Report from Planning/Public Works regarding the number of projects for site plans that are currently in the system for approval. (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting). Mr. Mayor: Who has got the report? Somebody? Ms. Smith: I think the first thing on this is to simply recall that this is not a new report from Public Works and Planning. This is an attempt to identify and clarify issues with the reports that were presented in January. So we do not stand before you today with a new document or a new report. Included in your books are documents that were presented at that meeting on that day and follow-up documents. 117 Mr. Patty: Mr. Chairman, due to the hour, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, I would hope that you would let us give you the short version of this. And I can do it in about two minutes of that’s what you want to hear. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Patty: [inaudible] there was a problem in 2004, which was document, carried over a little bit into 2005. Public Works got on top of it and as if this date, March 1, when we spoke about this the last time, there was one plan that was outstanding over 30 days. So progress has been made. Mr. Mayor: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes. [inaudible] I need a little bit more than the two minutes, I might need another couple of minutes. You – are you saying that within the last [inaudible], this – I’m, I hear you because the [inaudible] bad for a long time and hadn’t gotten better. Am I, am I – Mr. Patty: Well, the way I got into this is in October, after Eric left, I wrote a letter and I told you that – let me go back. I asked my people when Eric said he was leaving, what’s the status? When I saw what the situation was I thought that you all, meaning the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Engineering Services, needed to see it. I didn’t give that letter to anybody else. Eventually I think it did go to Mr. Smith when further action was taken. But at that time there were a bunch of these projects that were over thirty days. The report I gave you was the status of projects that had been initiated in 2004 and this was as of October 4 and there were 96 of those that were over 30 days. Now we did find, going back to it, like I told you I gave you the raw data, a couple of those were projects that had been approved by the former Administrator, were not projects that we actually had jurisdiction over, such as the Medical College, and we just didn’t have it, it was never reported back to us so we didn’t have it in our data base. But that was the report I gave you on October 7 and I stand by it. But that’s not the situation today. Ms. Smith: Just one point of clarification on that. It was stated that this entire listing you have of projects submitted in 2004, this entire list with projects being overdue by [inaudible] days, those were in excess of, excuse me, in excess of 2004. So this list does not represent only plans that were submitted in 2004, which comes back to the comment that Mr. Patty made, that some of these have been, as I stated in my letter that’s included in here, have been completed, were under construction, or have been approved by someone other than the Public Works Department, because as we’re all aware, 954 days is longer than a year. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I got a couple more comment. But I’m going to wait. I got another item here, 57, which is going to relate to this and some other stuff, I guess. I’ll wait. I’ll wait. 118 Mr. Mayor: Is there any other questions of Ms. Smith or Mr. Patty with respect to the reports? Mr. Mays, go ahead. Mr. Mays: Just a minor comment. I just, I just hope in terms of bringing some finality to this, I think the bottom line is all of us are glad that if there is one [inaudible] project, if one is the number out of everything that is being built to this point, and that’s good. What I think though needs to happen, and I think it can move forward and I think it’s a good idea, because all the computers in the world, all the technology, [inaudible] late at night from a [inaudible] is that I think you’ve got two department areas that have to work with each other, and I think when it’s a lesson learned, everybody, and a piece of just general constructive criticism that falls in that category of being nobody’s fault, but I think when we’re doing something like that, and Don and I kind of joked to each other when the two of you all approached the microphone, Ms. Smith and Mr. Patty, is that I said I hope we got a [inaudible] number and we don’t have two [inaudible]. I’m glad to see that tonight, Mr. Mayor. I think it serves us to a point that when we check off on information I think that probably the best thing that probably could have been done is that when there may be conflicting information from two different areas of our city, that those folk will have conversation with each other, that it runs through our Administrator, and that it be brought to us as one report, through either the persons in the department, preferably I like it coming from one of the deputy administrators or the Administrator at that point, and that the department heads answer the question, if we’ve got some to do it. But I think when we’ve got the multiples coming in, that clears a lot of it, that’s over and done, then I think we move on to better business about what the City’s got to do and they working on paths forward to get everybody’s business straight. So I think that’s a, that’s a good idea [inaudible] if we can work it in that manner when you’ve got areas coming in and you’ve got to gather information, you know, the computer says something at one point, pulling that information up, [inaudible] old fashioned talking with two folks settles a lot more sometimes than what comes out of a computer. Gets it settled. And I think that’s how this has evolved, has got us to a point, then the best thing for us to do, quite frankly, is be [inaudible] if that’s where our problem is, then it’s a whole lot better than a whole bunch of stuff I heard the rest of this evening and today to a point of dealing with that and we can move on to some better things. Mr. Mayor: Do either of you know whether we’re using that software that allows a developer to go in and see the status of his submission and which departments have signed off on it, if it’s pending? Mr. Patty: We are using that software, but you’ve got to know a developer’s name or project name or – Mr. Mayor: But a developer could check his own plans? Mr. Patty: Yes, but we can’t run summaries with that software and that’s what we hope to be able to do at some time, short term in the future. 119 Mr. Mayor: The calls I get, the people say we don’t have our plans back. Well, I don’t know who has passed off on it and who hasn’t, but if we’ve got the software we can just send them to the website and they can look it up then. Okay. Good. Thank you. Want to receive this as information? Anything further? Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 57. The Clerk: 57. Discuss Public Works Department. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) (Referred from March 1 Commission meeting) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into your microphone so that Mr. Smith can hear you? Mr. Williams: Getting back to the last item, Mr. Mayor, in discussing the Public Works Department, it been on the agenda several times and for whatever reason we have not discussed that and I’m glad to see, and Commissioner Mays said, the reports coming and the departments coming together. But I’m, I’m, I been a little bit under the weather, and under the weather means I’ve been a little disturbed probably all week. Had a conversation with a young man and he shared some information with me that I found really, really disturbing. As to the fact of trying to find something on the Public director. This young man was asked to write a letter to the effect that he was leaving a department in this government and he said that he had no problem with the director at all, but he was still asked to write a letter. And I asked for a copy of the letter itself. I asked for a letter from him cause I thought it was very unprofessional for anybody to try and find something. And the young man stated to me that they needed something on the director. I mean this has been a witch hunt, Mr. Mayor, and I know it now, if I know my own name. Maybe I don’t know my name, but if I seen anything, I’m so upset with this thing here I didn’t really want to talk about it. But out of all the stuff that happened, out of all of the work and all of the effort that people do, and we just got through with a department head who don’t respect this body at all, who left this meeting making $85,000 or better a 120 year, and then people who been trying to do a good job and folks going behind them trying to circumvent and not even get what’s facts and what’s true. But trying to get somebody to say something about somebody that, that, because they needed something on them and they fire them. It’s enough junk around here that we could put our hands on to make a case on some folks that we don’t touch. But we going to look for folks who, who trying to do a good job and to make them out to be villains. And what most of all, Mr. Mayor, is elected official. I mean I can see, you know, we stab each other in the back as departments and workers, but when elected official, that, that, that proves to be pretty low. So I’m, I’m, I want to find out what we going to do with this department, I want to hear everything everybody got to say. I think this department needs to have the staff and the people been asking for. I think we need to get the groups to come in and have a consulting group to come in like we did with the water works. We need to make a decision and get off this person’s back and let them do their job. And I’m totally upset about it and frankly, I, I, you know, I ain’t above calling no names, but I’m frankly so perturbed with this person that I just didn’t think nobody would be that low. So Mr. Mayor, I need to find out what we going do with Public Works, are we going get off this person back and give them the staff and the finance they need to do their work, or what we going do? Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Williams, the Chair is not in a position to answer the question, so let’s see if somebody else here is. Mr. Smith, you have your hand up? Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As you know, all of you know that our subcommittee from Engineering Services worked on this for six months and we feel like it’s time, Mr. Williams, to bring it to a close. My recommendation tonight, and not going into all the things, and I don’t have any idea what he’s talking about, about somebody My recommendation in the form of a motion is writing a letter or asking somebody to. to follow our Administrator’s advice by splitting Public Works up into Solid Waste, Engineering and Maintenance. That’s my motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Grantham: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I been on that committee that was put together, and I don’t know about the six months, Jimmy, I mean unless y’all had a meeting that I don’t know about. I’m, I’m, I’m presently still on that committee as far as I know. The Administrator brought back the recommendation to make some changes, but we hadn’t accepted anything through committee. My question is why are we going to divide this 121 department? I mean, if the Administrator got an answer or anybody, I need that answer first before I go any further. Mr. Smith: I’d like to finish, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, go ahead. Mr. Smith: We feel like that the present director is certainly adequate to do her job as an engineer, but it’s too much on her plate for any one person to take care of. And the job just has not been done without this body to get where we were tonight with no plans that have been brought back [inaudible]. I feel like, and I believe most of the Commissioners do, that it would be in her best interest. She’s not losing any money or anything. And 30 days from now I believe she’ll be glad it happened. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to keep directing to you cause I know what the rules say. I’m going to keep directing to you. Whether or not she will feel – if she had of came to us and asked for some relief or some changes, then I probably can agree to that. But when you take a person’s department, when you take a department and subdivide it, there’s HED, we just got through talking about with millions of dollars, federal dollars that coming through this government and nobody made the suggestion to come through to change that department, to cut that department now, but here is a department who we have said, not just me, other Commissioners said they worked from sunup to sundown, have done everything they been asked to do, been lied on, been cheated, been everything else, and then even asked to try to build a case against them to put something in their file that wasn’t true, and the young man wouldn’t do it. But I’m wondering how can we justify changing that department, dividing that department, and not give them the staff that they supposed to have? Now for 200 years, however long this city been here, it ain’t been divided up. It’s been one person handling it, one person operating it. But now, all of a sudden it’s got to be a department too big for one person to handle and we going to divide it up. I’m not going to support divided it up myself and really I, I, I, I don’t understand how come, and if there’s a reason for a division, somebody need to say that and quit playing games and quite acting childish up here and be a man or woman or whatever it is you are, and address the issue that you got to address. But to say because – and Mr. Smith, you know, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Smith knows, that he asked me as a member of the subcommittee before we ever met to divide the department. I said to him I can’t do that. We had not listened to the facts yet. You can’t just make a decision to divide the department up because you want to do it. If there’s a reason, then the reason ought to be explained. When we got these documents in here I said somebody need to be fired sure enough. We had two conflicting documents. Whoever lied, whoever didn’t give the right report ought to be fired. Whether it’s the department head or anybody else. But we didn’t discuss that. Wasn’t nobody want to talk about it. I need to know what reason are we going divide it? Not because – now if she was complaining, if there’s a problem with her and he or whoever it is – it’s a she this time – if she said she wants her department [inaudible] because it’s overload, then I think that’s something we ought to consider. But she been asking for employees who left that 122 department in the five years I been here have not been put in there, not even a temporary person. Not even one temporary person been put in there. So I ain’t heard nothing yet, Mr. Mayor. I can’t support that motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek, you had your hand up. Go to you and then to Mr. Grantham. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have allowed this department head to be investigated on three or four separate occasions now. This department head has done many good things. I will remind this body that we did not know how many ditches or detention ponds we had in the city of Augusta. We had not developed [inaudible], maintenance plans or other things. We did not have a comprehensive garbage collection program like we have now that is actually in the early stages of having another contract go out that’s even better than the one we have now. In spite of all that we’ve seen accomplished by this department head , she has been set up to fail from the get-go. There have been areas that we needed to have improvements, where we needed jobs filled, and I hold the Director of HR, the former Administrator and Teresa accountable for not having those positions filled by now, in spite of this body on numerous occasions saying we will give you everything that you need. We have as a body, though, every time the department head has come and asked us, we have almost down the line found reasons to delay or not follow through or provide her with the funding and training. Again, I’ll go back to where you have someone that I know works six days a week, I know comes in at 6:00 in the morning and leaves at 7:00 at night, who is set up to fail based on the existing system. I also will offer a cautionary note that I’m fully aware that there are Commissioners on this board that go in to subordinate personnel and direct work activities. That is a return to the past and will not be tolerated under my Chair. But the bottom line on all of this is the enterprise fund should be created at the landfill. I remind everybody that this body has voted to – started off in the red by not funding changes to the tune of about $3 a month for solid waste collection, which again, this body refused to give the people in this government what they requested, what was reasonable, what was necessary to do the work. Also, engineering has emerged as one of the most pressing issues in site selection and planning for economic growth and therefore has taken on to me a much higher meaning and need than the day-to-day maintenance and operations. I cannot see in the next two years unless this body changes, unless we find a funding sources, unless we create a department that has a supportive body like CH2MHILL is for utilities, a supportive body like that for public works, that this department head will have any more opportunity to be successful and she will continue to be hammered by this body. Therefore, as Engineering Services Chairman, and with much prayer in my heart that I make the right decisions, I will support this move. I think that we can put our department head, as I said earlier with no loss of funding, in a very important position to make this city successful and in the meantime take off a very, very great deal of unnecessary pressure that has been placed upon her by some people who would have some very unscrupulous characters from the past put that [inaudible] those positions. The good old days weren’t as good as they were. Public works is better off because of the department head that has been there. This restructuring has been mentioned, 123 recommended by our Administrator. Teresa is not accountable for her lack of success. I hold myself fully accountable for any shortcomings of that department and our former Administrator for not mentoring her better or providing her with the support, and I hold this Commission responsible. I recommend to this body that we take this bold step and support our Administrator, to put our Public Works Director in a position where she can be successful in the most important department in this city. And that we move from this. And I will close with this one comment – we are not solving all the problems today. We are still short of staff, we’re still underpaid, we still lack personnel to do the day-to-day work, unless we as a body make a change to support the maintenance and operations side of the house and the engineering side of the house. We’re not solving a problem here today. We’re just arranging the deck chairs on the sinking sink. And I just hope that you will consider that when funding needs, personnel needs and other things come up for this department. Mr. Mayor: Mr. – some other folks want to speak, Marion. I’ll come back to you. Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I, too, agree with Mr. Smith and Mr. Cheek, based on the work load – I think that had been possibly proven with the increase in the number of developments that have started throughout this community within the last two to three years. And certainly we did not, we did not want to see the confrontation between Mr. Patty and Ms. Smith, based on the reports that were issued. And I think they took the high road in not doing that. I think what they did is came in and said that, you know, a lot of these things have been resolved in the last 30 to 45 days since we first got those reports. I don’t think there was any blame put on anyone as to, as to who was right and what report was issued. They did what was right and they were able to get those particular late items, so to speak, brought up to date and taken care of. Based on the information that had been presented to a subcommittee, which I had served on that subcommittee as well, and based on the information that was issued to the Administrator and what his recommendation is back to this body, then I feel like that is the direction we should be going in, and giving the support of all of these people that will be involved in the, in the new setup. And it’s not taking anything away from the, from the way that Mr. Russell has indicated that the department should be set up, and I think what it will do is, as Mr. Cheek said, is a stronger, stronger Public Works Department than what we have seen in the last two to three years. If there is personnel that has been lacking as far as bringing them on board, then, you know, where does that fall under? The only one I remembered, and we talked about it several times, is the one that was brought to us last year that wanted more money, and when that was approved by this body we found out that person had gone somewhere else. So I don’t think that we have refused, from what I’ve seen within the last year, have refused any form of support for that department in the way of work force. If we have, I hadn’t been here when that was done. So I’m, I’m encouraged by what will happen and I think that we’ll see a big change in the engineering side of it, as well as in the maintenance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 124 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me just say this first. There is an item on the agenda and any Commissioner has a right to make whatever motion they want to make. I think you know I try always to play by the rules, whether I like the rules or not I play by them. And I think you’ve got a legitimate – well, let me say this. I think you got a legal motion that’s on the floor. I don’t think it’s legitimate. I’m going to get to that in just minute. What I thought, though, is that after this committee met – now the committee – make a few corrections in there. The committee was put together over six months ago. But the committee wasn’t meeting for no six months. I want to correct the chairperson of that committee. We had two meetings of that committee that occurred during that period of time. I mean, you know, it ain’t, it ain’t [inaudible] one could have been called any time anyone wanted to call it. But that’s, that’s, that’s the first observation about that. The second one was when we did not move forward, and Marion and I took another one of them editorial hits about we were not working on some things and we were micromanaging and I got a real big laugh out of that one because you know, that ain’t my style no way. I call the gentleman sitting down at the front down there. I don’t deal with department heads period, other than [inaudible] speak and laugh and go on about my business, so it doesn’t apply to me. But what has bothered me is that I thought we came back in Administrative Services, I thought we had a long discussion that involved about maybe ¾ of this Commission, that we talked about Public Works, we talked about paths forward, we talked about and I made a motion that actually was approved that went forward, unlike the motion that the chairman of that subcommittee made, that to approve what the Administrator done, you know, it didn’t make it out of committee. It died. [inaudible] the motion is legal that’s out here, but I think it’s very much undermining that if the motion that did pass out of committee, which gave a directive to the Administrator and the Public Works Director to sit back down and to come forward with a program that would bring this department forward, that would set goals, that would set time tables – now Madame Clerk, I might be wrong, but I think if you look up the minutes of when we last met during that committee, there were Commissioners who were not even on Engineering Services that made comments. Folk talked about the mentoring program. Mr. Hicks was in there. We brought him into that discussion about how those departments were [inaudible] and I thought it was a good idea that he was there because we got an idea to compare about monies that had been spent over in that department to do good things. I brought out the fact that a number of times that on this Commission floor – see, what I was hoping, folk talk about what they witnessed after they got here last year. It’s kind of like saying the world started last year. The world started, the city started before all of us got here. But the point being that the only surviving member of the first elected part of this government that we put together, I was here when the young woman was brought on. We started to dismantle a department. We talked about all that. I thought that in that last meeting we gave some directions that did pass. Now I’d like to know how did we get forward in here tonight, even though y’all legal with a motion that’s out there, do we then just disregard what we did legitimately, asked the Administrator of this City to sit down with the Public Works Director and to bring back to us, or have we gotten a case of selective amnesia about what was said? Now, you 125 know, like I say something is on the agenda, you can make any motion that you want to make if it’s in proper order. Since it’s out there, I’m going to go ahead on, Mr. Mayor, and, and, and further expound upon the fact of why I think to a point [inaudible] and I mentioned [inaudible]. I even said to a point that I thought [inaudible]. You know, it’s so funny all the departments that have grown, some that have grown by 100 people since we consolidated to a point ain’t nobody, you know, you know, really gave two cents about whether or not somebody had too much of a work load to do and what control they had over it. How you do it. I mentioned in there about the fact that all the people that’s in there, I think the landfill a great selection, the young man that the director brought on to do that work, I’m very proud of the work he’s doing over there. But I think in essence, quite frankly, and I’m not going to even worry, I’m not going to even worry about – Mr. Attorney, you can raise your hand if I go over into personnel, but it’s out here, more worried about what goes on back there that might be illegal, so I’m going to say it out here. There is a gross reason why I think if I were working, quite frankly, for y’all right now, and I had this job, and you dealt with this dismantling which supposed to make somebody feel good, and you say you ain’t getting no more money, let me tell you what it really in essence amounts to. It amounts to in a way a de facto demotion of a career mark of that person being in place and [inaudible] I think [inaudible] when asked around the table, all the little intermediaries, black and white, running around town wanting to know what the director want, is the fact the director says [inaudible]. I don’t blame here because, number one, when you get that mark that’s in there about what was dismantled under you – but then I also think to a point that if you get to a point and you look inside their record and you see a job promotion, you don’t see the reprimands, you don’t see the citations, you don’t see all those things that [inaudible] and you have redirected a career path by that dismantling. Now I said, and Rev. Williams went on record, we could flip a coin, one make the motion to fire, one make the motion – I mean would second it, to a point if you set goals, if you set directives, you put a timetable, the person doesn’t do the job you get rid of them. But ain’t nobody playing no game out here. There some folk y’all might thing don’t understand. You put this out here to a point where you show a parallel department – I’m going to go on and put it out there for you. I can retire tomorrow and defendant [inaudible] and come back and eat y’all’s lunch. You put one out there in another department, person of a different sex, different race, you put them there, you pumped millions of dollars into to, [inaudible] move that was made on the night she was hired, two engineers that left to a point projects undone, ain’t never been back to do, and to a point [inaudible] last year. I respect the fact that you just got here last year, but the world didn’t start with you coming. There were folk who come in with a mission and said hey, she needs to go. That were the comments that were made. Has she been perfect? No. I’m criticized on this floor as much as anybody else, but I believe in giving people the equal opportunity and a chance. You’ve not done that as city government. I’ve been critical of the man that went to Kansas. I told him it wasn’t going to work. You could not do what they were doing to that department and dismantling it and make it work. Now all of a sudden to a point you say okay, fine, we are going to give you some help, we’re going to dismantle it. You want to give her some help? Why don’t you stock it back? Why don’t you hear what the Administrator has to say about a path forward, along with the department head, and then set the goals and time table to do 126 it? Cause I’m going to tell you what, I would [inaudible] you demote me that way, I will bring it home to you real hot and heavy, because that’s in essence what you’ve done, and you better be very careful about how you handle that in that way of thinking you helping somebody. You ain’t helping nobody to a point of where you’ve got one set of directors over there reorganizing and with a path to hire more folk, promote them, bring in $6 million and $8 million contracts at a time you over in here not wanting to hear or at least say what that chance and that forward path is to move. If it doesn’t work, get rid of her. But to the point being that motion to deal [inaudible] it didn’t go nowhere, it deadlock, that that we voted on that passed which was the last set of directions was given to the Administrator of this city to sit down with that director and to come back and bring it. We have not heard that. Evidently we do not intend to damn listen to it in any way, shape or form, yet you come on back with the same kind of ambush of this mess tonight. And you probably may even get it done. But one battle don’t necessarily make a war. One set of chains don’t make no prison. And to a point I think I would be asking, too, [inaudible] get rid of me and let me go. But you would see me again. If you built up departments that way, everybody done walked in this sucker and got everything they wanted and especially a parallel department that took from this department before y’all arrived on the scene, to change the world last year, and you going to come in here now and going to talk about what you done done, and you going help somebody, [inaudible] somebody [inaudible] shoot me, help the bear, cause this ain’t no help that you’re providing. I think to a point if you talk about what personnel grounds you going deal with in there, I think you better sit somewhere and let somebody give some of you a piece of legal advice, because what you constitute, you can move anything you want to, but if you deal with it in a manner in which your steps forward can damage a career and you have not documented jack – Mr. Williams: Nothing. Mr. Mays: - on paper to do, then I think you’re treading some very dangerous ground, and that was why I thought we had worked out a reasonable compromise that was voted on in this committee room on last week. But again, amnesia’s taken over at the end of the night, and here we’re just going to go on and move forward and deal with this. But you know, this is one deal, this fight ain’t going to go quietly into no night, now. So if you think this one is over with to a point, then go on and do, do what you feel like y’all grown enough to do. And again, you got a legal motion out there, and I suggest got the vote, go on and pass it. That’s what you want to do. But I guarantee you the path that you are taking is a very dangerous one in light of the fact that what has been brought up in reference to this department [inaudible] and the way this city has allowed it to [inaudible], you are stepping into a bunch of dog mess that you had better listen to a [inaudible] better than the one that you’re going. When I hear statements to a point that just like Rev. Williams has brought up tonight where elected officials make some statement, where we go in and we allow people to meet with the second, third, and fourth in the department, all the time that some of y’all were wasting in meeting with subordinates in that department, was the lady [inaudible]? She certainly looked better than the people you talked to, it ought to been something you could have sat down and 127 talked with the director about. But we got folk going out on [inaudible], changing work orders and stuff. And yet Marion, you and I, get written up about how we micromanaging something. But that won’t flow forth in an editorial, that won’t get no major news, that will not deal with a headline in the paper about the ones who have gone out and done that. Don’t have to call no names. Y’all know where you been, orchestrating [inaudible] meetings around town and done it, came in with an agenda that didn’t get by the ones that preceded you, and coming in now and this is the way you plan on shipwrecking this deal to do it. But it’s more than one night in this year, more than one meeting, and so going on, you got a legal motion out there, do what y’all feel like y’all want to do. But I tell you what, it’s going to be rocky to play and it’s one going remember the way it was handled, because it’s as though we didn’t even have a committee meeting back there last week that was voted on legitimately to allow something to come back, and I heard tonight on the motion on the floor, I’m going to follow what the Administrator said [inaudible]. Last time I checked, that didn’t get out of the committee, but the motion I made did get out and it was one that we passed in that committee for the director, the Administrator to bring back before this [inaudible]. That’s been totally disrespected and even to be heard. Mr. Smith: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Williams had his hand up, so let me recognize him and then we’ll move along. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need you to ask Mr. Russell, though, what was his direction and what he bring back. Mr. Smith made a motion but it wasn’t, it wasn’t [inaudible] Administrator, then I want to finish my comment. Cause I’m not, I don’t know about Mr. Mays, but I’m not above calling names, I’m not above telling the truth, cause that’s what I’ve got to do. I’m not above telling people when they’re wrong, sitting there thinking they’re right, acting like they want to do what’s right, acting like they love the Lord. I don’t want to get into that, ain’t going to start a sermon today, but folks who say they love the Lord sure don’t act like it. But I need to hear from the Administrator as to what he proposed or what he brought back cause from the committee he was directed to talk to the director and himself come back with a, with a, with a, with a, with some kind of solution. So I need to hear that first, Mr. Mayor, but I got plenty more I need to say. I got some names I need to call, too. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you respond to the Commissioner? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. As you remember, I was directed to make a recommendation, which I did after speaking to the director, the assistant director, various people in the community. That recommendation was to split the department, giving Ms. Smith the engineering section and providing the support she needed to do that, splitting the department into maintenance area, and splitting the department a third way by using a separate enterprise fund for the waste management situation. That was put forth to the committee meeting, and you’re correct, Commissioner Mays, that was not moved 128 forward out of the committee. I was then directed to meet with the director, Director of Personnel and various other and sundry people to provide a path forward, with time frames and directions that were, that would allow us to have time frames and specific actions to be taken and specific functions to be accomplished over a period of time. I’ve begun those conversations with the director, we met with personnel, those conversations are ongoing, and I was directed to report back within 30 days or so of that, and that time has not elapsed yet and that’s still a work in progress, as I was directed at that point in time. Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mays was right then, your directive out of committee was to get with the department head and personnel, I think you stated, and then come back with something that y’all worked out together? Mr. Russell: Right. With some time frames and objectives to be accomplished and the tolls necessary to move that forward. And like I said, we’ve begun those conversations and I have not finished that project yet and still within the time frame I was given to accomplish it. Mr. Williams: You know, thank you, Mr. Russell, but I’m highly disappointed in grown, adult people who profess to be something they’re now. You know, Commissioner Hankerson, if you need something for Sunday, you need to talk about those who profess to be Christians, if you put them on the trial for being a Christian they have to be let loose for lack of evidence. Cause too many folks up here claim that they want to do what’s right, claim they love this community, claim they want to treat everybody right, but they certainly have not been doing that in the past few, in the past year or two, I want to say. But I’m really disappointed in what the body been trying to do. I’m willing, Ms. Smith, whatever this come down to, I’m willing to go with you all the way. Every step of the way to court, if you need to go, I’ve got documents, I’ve got people that, that’s willing to testify. I know, I know all the secrets that been done to try to undermine you and pull you down, not to help you to accede in your job, but to pull you out of that job. And now, and all the stuff we going divide, we still hadn’t said one time about the resolution as what’s going fix it. All we going do is divide it. Going to take it off your shoulders cause somebody else can direct an order, I guess, better than you can. I ain’t heard yet about no additional people, no, no other director that’s going be better than what we already got. If you put it under three heads, you still ain’t going have nobody to do the work unless you give those, those, those personnel. Mr. Mayor, that’s all my comments. I really didn’t want to come today. You talk about a bad day. All week, this stuff been stinking. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that this body in its infinite wisdom supported cutting training, not funding career ladders, cutting the reassignment reclassification of personnel. I can go on on what we have not done in support of Public Works these last two years. Again, I’m going to restate that, that we are not, we have not 129 put this department head in the position to be successful, nor will we put this entire three tier group of departments now in a position to be successful until we do things like fully fund the 40 hour week, which we didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to fund this year and went back to the 37. You know, we keep wanting great things, and yes, we have a great city, but we don’t want to make the hard decisions when it comes to funding the positions which may mean a tax increase or may mean creating a storm water utility or something else. We want to talk about the things and we all want our little pet projects done, but we don’t want to collectively as a body take the bold steps necessary to fund a full 40 hour week for our employees, fund a training program, fund reclassification which would pay our employees and keep them from flying to other cities after we train then. And again, I don’t see conditions getting any better for existing department or the three departments until we as a body decide we’re going to quit [inaudible] around and fund these positions and take the steps necessary. There’s no substitute for people when you need people to do work. I don’t see what we’re doing tonight as an opportunity to fail. I think this may be the first opportunity we’ve given this very capable department head to succeed, only if – and only if – we fund the positions necessary to staff Engineering. We need a management firm in here to run the projects like we gave Utilities. I remind everybody else that Utilities is an enterprise fund with a funding source, which we do not have for Public Works, which will not exist unless we create a storm water utility, which by the way is the only way to fund maintenance and the upkeep of our storm water system. It’s something we must address in the future. I [inaudible] remind everybody on this board that this Commission in its wisdom [inaudible] Citizens Committee for SPLOST was fully ready to fund Public Works at about an 80% reduction of the requested amount to handle roads and drainage and other infrastructure improvements. So saying we as a body don’t remember us not doing the things we need to do, is either we have selective amnesia or have had our heads in the sand. I am in favor of seeing success that can brought about by this very competent professional. I’m very interested in seeing a solvent, solid waste collection system and landfill which we as a body did not vote to support. I’m very interested in seeing consistent maintenance programs, where our maintenance staff is not jerked around by some Commissioner that goes in their friend’s office and says hey, can you do my ditch? Which puts my ditch on the back burner, which does happen. We need to run this City like a business, and business runs by schedule, by plans, and they deal with emergencies. Just because you’re a friend of somebody doesn’t mean that you, everything you have is an emergency, you should take a place in line just like everybody else. I intend to keep a close watch. And it’s just like Marion said, I’ve heard, too, of people going on site and directing the work activities of subcontractors. We have a [inaudible] in this city called the delineation of responsibility ordinance. So help me before God I will bring you up and I’ll ask for censure. I’ve had enough of that. But it’s time to sit this situation at rest. It’s time to reduce the pain and suffering that we have caused this department head and hopefully restructure these departments for success, which is going to require us to fund them. There’s no substitute for people when you need people to do a job. There are some things a city cannot afford not to do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] 130 Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays, you may. Mr. Mays: Okay. And I plan to make a substitute motion, but I need to get a question answered. Is there, if we go with the reorganization and the split and the commitment is there to fund, just maybe it’s not a question, maybe it’s just a statement, that would seem very ironic that if you take a type of de facto or [inaudible] form of demotion by doing the splitting, and then all of a sudden there is a grand scheme to fund and to bring it up and you didn’t do it with the one that was at the top, then I think you leave yourself in a very precarious position and not only to be criticized by a lot of folk in the community, but also to a point of where you actually strengthen the person that someone you been basically trying to cripple from the very beginning. And I’m going to make the substitute motion that the Commission follow the committee’s action that was passed and allow the Administrator to continue to put together the path forward as he discussed that with the Public Works Director and to bring that back to us on the allotted time frame that he is already so working on on the motion that did get out of committee and the directions that were given from that committee. I ask the Commission to support the one that passed and not the one that failed. And that’s in the form of a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion of that motion? Yes, Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: I think in that subcommittee meeting, the last we had, our Administrator advised us on what he felt like it was to do, and that was what I thought we were trying to do, is follow the instructions of him, and that’s what he advised us to do, was to split the Public Works into those three categories. Mr. Mays: If I might respond, Mr. Mayor, under the democratic process, it was a vote taken on a recommendation, and it did not pass. So therefore I do not criticize the motion that the subcommittee chairman has placed on. That is his perfect, legal right to make under the rules. I am just asking the committee, I mean the Commission to support, however, a motion that did pass and directions that were given and that seemingly the Administrator and Director are working to try and bring a path forward to deal with a situation that obviously needs some help in that area, which we all agree that that has happened. And so I have no, nothing else to say. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll take a vote on the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote with the usual sign. (Vote on the substitute motion) 131 Ms. Beard, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion fails 2-7. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any comments on the original motion? All in favor please vote with the usual sign. (Vote on the original motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: If I may have a point of personal privilege. I would like to at this point request a vote of confidence in myself as Engineering Services Chairman by this body, whether I should retain the position or not retain the position. I feel fully accountable for today’s transactions and I would like to know from this body if they want me to stay in this Chair or not. Mr. Mayor: Well, that item is not on the agenda for tonight, and I would encourage you if you are seeking a vote of confidence that you add it to the agenda for the next Commission agenda. Mr. Cheek: Can I have motion to add at this point? Mr. Mayor: It takes unanimous consent and I will not consent to that. Mr. Shepard: I would agree with that, it would take unanimous consent, Mr. Cheek. If you have that consent, you can certainly have your motion. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 60 now, Madame Clerk. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Cheek, your request I don’t think is necessary. I just feel sorry and I want to make a statement to Ms. Smith that I’m truly sorry to be a part of a board who have an employee who work as hard and done as much as you done and with the people that undermining you, even elected official who undermine you and try to come in to this government to change what was here. You have held to the rule that this board, that this Commission have asked you to hold to, and because you have done that, you have been scrutinized in every corner and every way. 132 But I say again that I’ve got some documents. I think you to proceed with whatever necessary you need to proceed with. I mean in my eyes, all this is another way of firing you from the position that they want to call demoting, and when you [inaudible] all they done, Mr. Mayor, was give you an avenue to go downstairs and see one of the judges and you ought to be on your way. Mr. Mayor: All right. Ms. Bonner, let’s move ahead with the order of the day. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 62. Discuss local legislation. (Requested by Commissioner Willie Mays) Mr. Mayor: It’s item 60. The Clerk: 60? Mr. Mayor: Yes. The Project Access. Well, it was, but we took it off. There was some question about it. I had it down and took it off because someone asked a question about it, whether it was a new contract or – I think somebody made a reference to some questions Mr. Colclough had about it. Said he – there was some interest he had on it. ATTORNEY: 60. Consider/approve Agreement for certified uninsured care with Project Access. Mr. Mays: Number 60. Mr. Mayor: Number 60? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t pull the item, but for the three years I’ve represented the Commission on the Project Access board, and I do know that Mr. Colclough over the years has had some concern about the – I think it’s the drug costs for the mental health type patient. And I thought that had been worked out because the director of mental health is now a member of that board. This contract here is something that we do every year. In my three years here we’ve done this contract with the Medical Society for Project Access. I think this is just a routine thing that David Persaud wanted done, so that he would have something in his file to back up the $400,000 that we send over there. 133 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as you know, the Project Access contract was the result of a visit to the [inaudible] convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, and subsequent follow-up visits to the Asheville, North Carolina, Project Access. The Clerk: [inaudible] County. Mr. Shepard: Correct. And we have finally modeled the contract here that caps this body’s expense toward that contract. And in return, the physicians of this community have been signing up for free visits which are then used to service, to deliver medical services to folks that do no qualify for any kind of health insurance either through their job or they don’t have it or they don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. So we have sent this money and have been utilized I think to fund this program, particularly the need for the purchase of drugs under their formulary. I had received no substantial change in the contract. It’s one of the more progressive things that’s been done I think in this body because we are now providing an alternative to emergency room care for those that qualify under this contract, and they are treated with dignity, they have a card which they present, they are – instead of presenting at the emergency room they then go to a physician who sees them just like that physician may see any other patient within his or her specialty. So the contract I commend to you as written. Mr. Boyles: Ms. Beard and I were at the Access banquet two weeks ago, and they told us that we probably – this is probably 1/5 of what that total cost would be and not in three years have they asked us to increase their monetary amount. So I think it has been, it has been a plus and a boom for Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Does anyone have any questions about the contract? Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Further discussion? None heard. We’ll go ahead and vote, vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 62. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 134 62. Discuss local legislation. (Requested by Commissioner Willie Mays) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the lateness of the hour, I can put it on again. The Attorney may have some questions about his part of it. I had some in reference to how some things were being introduced in Atlanta in reference to our city government, but I guess those things are basically moot, and if they are still around by the time of the next meeting, I just [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Yeah. Well, unless they call another one. I’ve seen strange things happen. [inaudible] my little two cents cause I don’t want to rile up somebody else from another county [inaudible] run this, but [inaudible] hell, they don’t have to come down there [inaudible] so I just won’t make any comments on it. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Mays, if I can be so presumptuous as to piggyback off your agenda item which you put on here, I was informed today that the Legislative Delegation, the House side, is circulating a bill that would raise the salaries for the Mayor, the Commission, and constitutional officers. And in view of the fact that our employees are not getting a pay raise this year, I think it would be appropriate for this body to go on record requesting the Delegation, if they are inclined to change compensation for any elected officials, that they do so effective January 1, 2006, because our budget for this year is already set and the fact that our employees have not gotten a pay raise, I think it sets a bad example for the elected officials in this community to get a raise and the rank-and-file workers do not. And I would encourage you to take that action today. Mr. Shepard: And I would like to – Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’ve told Mr. Mays yesterday that our minds are running in the same, same thought, because there were several items that had been talked about that I had not yet been asked formally to draw a notice of local legislation, so those areas of interest were the redevelopment powers act, which [inaudible], properly advertise. There was a [inaudible] but she went back to Atlanta and I will consider that not on my plate. As well, the Board of Health, I believe [inaudible] changes have already been advertised by Rep. Howard, which leaves us with the salary bill and the government reorganization, potential bill that I’ve heard about, but I have found myself in the position of if I went ahead and ran an ad, I would be in contrary to the spirit of the budget here, which is to hold the line. So I was going to – if you want my office to run that ad, I would ask for specific direction. Now, since you have indicated you want to hold the line on the budget, I just wanted to say that on the record so that I get instructions from this body and 135 not from the Legislative. In the past, the County Attorney has as a courtesy run most any ads that they wanted, but with this being against one of our policies, I felt that I needed the direction of this body. And [inaudible] no one has requested that from me, either, and I just put that on the record indicating that they may be circulating bills but they’d [inaudible] because I have not been requested to do so on either of those topics, the salary bill or the government reorganization. So we just receive that as information, I’m happy with that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just want to correct – if I’m not mistaken, the local workforce did receive cost of living raises last year. While I’m not in favor of passing anything in the [inaudible] I think we do need to consider it at some point in the future. Now is probably not the time [inaudible] leadership [inaudible] position. I think [inaudible] no to it, whenever everybody else [inaudible] pay raises and so forth [inaudible]. Also on the legislation to change the City government, Mr. Mayor, you made a very eloquent proposal which I think and I hope and I understand it’s being considered in Atlanta [inaudible] abstention [inaudible] change in voting [inaudible] which would save about $8,000 per year. I hope that that is certainly something that is circulating in Atlanta [inaudible] add [inaudible] to a Commissioner’s term, it [inaudible] improve the operations of the government. And [inaudible]. Just wanted to make those comments. Again, I’m all for leading by example. Certainly the record does need to be corrected in that we have had cost of living raising [inaudible] consolidation. So [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Anything further on this item? Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, do we need to send a message back to the legislative body or do we need to let them know that our feelings are not, that we do not want a raise or looking for one nor requested one, to my knowledge. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, when we communicate with the Legislative Delegation they always like us to do it in the form of a resolution, whether we’re in favor of something or against something. So if there is a communication it would be appropriate to do it through a resolution. Mr. Shepard: That’s what I would ask for if you wish me to do any [inaudible] I would ask that you express yourself in the form of a resolution. Mr. Mayor: If you want to send a message to them, we just do it in the form of a resolution, or not send any message at all, or just talk to them individuals. Mr. Grantham: I’ll do whatever the body feels. Mr. Shepard: I would – 136 Mr. Mayor: I think the body wants to adjourn. Mr. Shepard: Well, that – well, I would like the direction of the body. If there is no direction, that’s fine. But if you’re directing me to advertise, I’ll advertise for the [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: I met with Rep. Howard twice in Atlanta, tried to meet with him the third time, and they’ve not requested that we do any – Mr. Grantham: What we’re doing is taking no action. Mr. Shepard: I understand. Mr. Grantham: So with no action you don’t have to advertise or do anything. I mean we all have personal feelings in this. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move along to item – I guess we’ll call this 62A, which is the addendum item which everyone has agreed to add to the agenda already, and that’s the Fort Gordon municipal services initiative. Addendum Item 1. Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to continue a dialogue with Fort Gordon that may result in a contract for municipal services. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Boyles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is there any discussion, any questions? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Please understand that these individual contracts will be brought back before the Commission for consideration. Mr. Mays, Ms. Sims and Mr. Williams out. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize the Attorney for the purpose of the legal meeting, and as I do that, I have two real estate matters to update the Commission on, and one employee. 63. LEGAL MEETING: A. Pending and potential litigation. B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. 137 Discuss early retirement request of Ms. Maxine Powell under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Referred from the Administrative Services March 7, 2005) Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re here late. I have real estate matters, personnel matters and pending litigation we can discuss as long as we can. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] lose the quorum. Mr. Shepard: Well, then – the quorum – Ms. Beard: You know Mr. Charles Smith is back there. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Smith has been waiting patiently for the last seven hours, and so if we may, let’s do that, and if we lose the quorum after Mr. Smith, then the meeting will dissolve. Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] in that case I’d ask that we go in for a legal meeting on the subject of personnel only. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyles: I’ve got one small item on real estate I need to just briefly – Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: It’s important. Mr. Mayor: All right. If they leave, they leave. So let’s go ahead and build the agenda. We’ll go in, and if people need to leave they can leave and then we’ll just stop where we are. Mr. Shepard: I’d ask them for a motion to go into legal session for real estate, personnel and pending and potential litigation. Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion? Mr. Grantham: So move. Mr. Mayor: Second? Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any opposition? None heard. [LEGAL MEETING] 138 Mr. Mayor: We need a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit. 64. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Grantham: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Being no other items to take up, the Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. 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 March 15, 2005. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 139