Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting 9-5-2006 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER September 5, 2006 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., September 5, 2006; the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bowles, Brigham, Cheek, Grantham, Holland, Smith, and Williams, members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Beard and Hatney, members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by Minister Cecelia Butler Johnson. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Minister Johnson, we got a little something for you, Minister Johnson, prior to you coming up to make your presentation, and thank you for that wonderful prayer. Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and the members of the commission, we would like to thank you for coming and imparting those words to heaven on our behalf. It was quite an inspirational prayer and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. In recognition, we name you as our Chaplain of the day for your community and spiritual guidance throughout our community. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Alrighty, Madame Clerk, shall we move onto our presentations. The Clerk: PRESENTATION(S) Minister Cecelia Johnson – Literary Publication. The Clerk: Yes Sir. Ms. Johnson. Cecelia Butler Johnson regarding presentation of literary publication. Mr. Mayor: And if you could just keep it to five minutes, please ma'am? Thank you so much. Minister Johnson: Yes, sir, I will. To the Mayor, our Mayor Pro-Tem, can all of our commissioners as well as our citizens of Augusta Richmond County. I am Minister Cecelia Butler Johnson and it is my pleasure to have this honor to present this book to you. Some time the Lord -1- plays a special ministry on my heart and that ministry is a message, and that message is that God sent you good children and that's what he has asked me to carry throughout this world so I feel it's best that I begin here, at home. Yes, God did send us good children and what he means by that is, that when he sent them into this world, they did not come here cursing, they did not come here being disrespectful, they did not come here using drugs, and if they did not come here doing that, then something had to happen to cause them to chose that particular journey. And that's what this message is all about. The book that I have written is, God Sent You Good Children, How To Keep Them That Way. How to prevent them from going down that particular road, but to choose the good road. That's what this message is all about and I would like to present this book to the Mayor and to all the commissioner, may you read it, may you be blessed by it and I know that it will uplift the children in this community, and I thank you. Clerk: In recognition of Mariah Butler. Whereas Mrs. Mariah Butler was born in the union of Rev. Hezekiah and Nanny McKee of Trenton, SC, And whereas Mariah moved to Augusta at a very early age and became a dedicated citizen of Augusta, GA, serving in employment at University Hospital for seven years, Gracewood State School and Hospital for thirty years, and is currently lending her services at the Psychology Spirituality Center. And, whereas Mariah was blessed with five good children, in whom she instilled the value of higher learning and good citizenship. Who under her tutelage, remained good, growing up to become highly productive citizens of Augusta-Richmond County. To included the obtaining of college degrees, two masters degrees, and a doctorate. And, whereas, her fourth child, Minister Cecelia Butler Johnson, is a clinic social worker who has become in positions at the Medical College of Georgia, St. Joseph's Hospital, the New Bethlehem Community Center, has taught at the Augusta State University, Augusta Technical College, co-founded the Johnson-Butler Group, authored two books, founded the God Sent You Good Children Ministry, and has joined the Paine College faculty. And, whereas, the Mariah Building at 616 4th Street is named in her honor and thus her name and influence will forever be a part of Augusta- Richmond County's rich history. And therefore I now, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor of the city of Augusta, do hereby proclaim September 5, 2005 as Mariah Butler day in Augusta, GA, and encourage all citizens to acknowledge the love and the accomplishments of this special mother and grandmother. And, witness hereof, I have unto set my hand in cause the seal of Augusta, GA to be affixed this 5th day of September, 2006. Mr. Mayor: Alrighty, Madame Clerk, I think we have a couple deletions from the agenda and one addition. Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 54 and Item 56 as listed on the agenda. Item 54, we ask that item be deferred until meeting with Augusta Richmond County and the grant recipient. Item 56 is being requested by the organization to have this item deleted at this time. And item 1 is to approve the appointment of Mr. Kevin Glass to the Small Business Advisory Board representing District 3. -2- Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 6-0. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Beard and Dr. Hatney will not be in attendance at today's meeting. They're out sick. Mr. Mayor: Alrighty. Moving on to the Consent Agenda. Clerk: Consent Agenda consists of Items 1-42. Items 1-42. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, Item 12 under Public Services consent. I have received what I got here today an order of notice of a civil action of Thompson Building Wrecking Company against Augusta, GA and I ask that this item be deferred until our attorney can give us information regarding this order. Mr. Mayor: Any further items to be pulled? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you can pull Item number 13 and 14. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I need to get Items 19, Item 20, 27, 30 and 32, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Are there any further items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Williams: One moment, Mr. Mayor, 32 and 38. Just need a couple things clear to me. I'm not opposed to all those, I just got some questions I need to get some answers to before we disapprove those. -3- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Let me look at one thing first. Go ahead with someone else. Mr. Mayor: Any further items to be pulled for discussion? Any items to be added to the Consent Agenda? The Clerk: Items requested to be pulled. Items 13, 14, 19, 20, 27, 30, 32, 38. Mr. Williams: I think I mentioned Item 12 to be pulled as well, Mr. Mayor. The Clerk: Item 12 to be deferred until legal. Mr. Williams: Now 12 is on the agenda. If we gonna defer we need to pull it and talk about it. I don't think we can just defer without somebody to help me out. The Clerk: You deferred it to the legal meeting: Mr. Grantham: Yes. The Clerk: Oh, he's deferring it to the legal meeting. So that will be all coming out of legal. Mr. Williams: But it will come back. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay, just checking is all. Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there are no further items to be pulled or added to the Consent Agenda, I look for a motion to approve. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Clerk: Mr. Grantham I need you to vote. (Laughter). Mr. Grantham. I did. Mr. Mayor: You're sure over there? -4- CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. Motion to approve revisions to Ordinance 6903 due to the correction of technical errors. 2. ZA-R-177 – A request to concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to modify Section 8-1 by adding Section (f) relating to the use of sales offices in residential structures in subdivisions under development. (Approved by the Commission August 15, 2006 – second reading) PUBLIC SERVICES 3. Motion to approve a request by Vijay Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with First Stop located at 2762 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 4. Motion to approve a request by Robert J. Pierson, Sr. for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Coach’s Place located at 1721 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday Sales. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 5. Motion to approve a request by Bradley Usry for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fat Man’s Discovery Deli located at #1 Seventh St District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 6. Motion to approve a request by Falguni Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with JB Foodmart located at 3104 Wrightsboro Rd. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 7. Motion to approve a request by Douglas Joiner for an on-premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Le Chat Noir, LLC located at th 304 8 St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 8. Motion to approve a request by Urvesh Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Neesha & Bansi, Inc. located at 545 Sand Bar Ferry Rd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 9. Motion to approve a request by Eduardo D. Rivera for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Topicabana located at 1251 Broad St. There will be Dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 10. Motion to approve a request by Saleem Gaulani for a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Wally’s of Hephzibah located at 4250 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 11. Motion to approve a request by J. Russell Krueger for an on premise consumption Beer license to used in connection with the Blue Horse Music Hall located at 985 Broad Street. There will be Sunday Sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 12. Deferred to legal meeting. -5- 15. Motion to approve a request by Michael C. Provenzano for a Therapeutic Massage and Operators license to be used in connection with Mike’s Massage located at 2704 Peach Orchard Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 16. Motion to approve a request by Kimberly Wood for a Therapeutic Massage Operators license to be used in connection with The Balanced Body located at 2323 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) 17. Motion to approve Implementation of Para-transit Certification Software and Mapping Enhancements at Augusta Public Transit. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 26, 2006) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 18. Motion to approve a request from Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation regarding approval of professional services for the engineering of the Enclaves Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2006) 21. Motion to approve Retirement of Ms. Elvie Nicholson under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2006) 22. Motion to approve Year 2007 Proposed Annual Action Plan for CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA Funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2006) PUBLIC SAFETY 23. Motion to approve KSGW-led team’s Proposal for Design Services for expansion of the Webster DC. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2006) 24. Motion to approve proposal from QORE Property Sciences to perform geotechnical engineering services associated with the Webster Detention Center Expansion. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2006) 25. Motion to approve a two (2) year contract extension with Motorola for the Mobile Data and Voice Systems currently being utilized by Augusta departments. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2006) FINANCE 26. Motion to approve funding for the August 8, 2006 General Primary Runoff. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) 28. Motion to deny the purchase of an ad in the October ’06 issue of the Georgia County Government Magazine “Family Album”. Full page $600; 2/3 page $450; 1/2 page $400. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) 29. Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute an amendment to the loan agreement between the U.S. Housing and Urban Development and Augusta, GA on behalf of the Partridge Inn Project for a fixed interest rate. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) 31. Motion to approve the sale of property on Damascus Road to Augusta State University. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) -6- ENGINEERING SERVICES 33. Motion to abandon a portion of Walker Street containing 0.05 acres beginning at the intersection of Beech Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 34. Motion to approve and accept an Option and Easement Deed from Boral Bricks, Inc. for the Industrial Wastewater Force Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #012-0-018-00-0 2907 Washington Road, which is owned by the Washington Plaza for 0.15 acres taking and 506 sq. ft. of permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement, more or less. Public Works Project: Washington Road Intersection Improvements Project 324-04-201824371. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 36. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Interim Director of Engineering regarding the resolution of the problem of Gwyn Toole concerning the regrading or changing of the contour of the easement adjacent to her home in order to redirect rainwater away from her residence to prevent further damage to the home. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 37. Motion to approve and accept the Phinizy Swamp Access Road Construction and Maintenance Easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 39. Motion to approve the Engineering Department to secure funding for the proposed storm pipe replacement at Good News Baptist Church in the amount of $54,164.00 for construction and $2,708.00 for project contingency. Funds are available SPLOST Phase II Recapture. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 40. Motion to approve a request to waive tipping fees at the Landfill for a volunteer waterways cleanup day on Saturday, October 21, 2006. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) 41. Motion to approve CPB #322-04-204822378 Change Number One in the amount of $161,040.00 with fundings of $104,163.00 from the GDOT State Aid Contract and $56,877.00 from SPLOST Phase II Recapture for project construction. Also, transfer $90,000.00 from project Contingency for project construction on the Walton Way Extension Storm Drainage Project. Also, approve award of construction contract to Topcor Augusta, LLC in the amount of $600,738.00 for Walton Way Extension Storm Improvements as requested by the Engineering Department. Subject to receipt of signed contract and proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 42. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held August 15, 2006 and Special Called Meeting held August 28, 2006. Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 6-0. [Items 1-11, 15-18, 21-26, 28-29, 31, 33-37, 39-42] Mr. Mayor: Alrighty. Let's go through the pulled items first. -7- The Clerk: Item 13. Mr. Williams, do we do these together? Mr. Williams: Well, I guess we can do them together. I don't see why we can't. The Clerk: 13.Motion to approve amendments to the Augusta Richmond County Alcoholic Beverage so as to increase the application fee and to increase the alcohol fees by 5%. Item 14 is to increase the administrative fees and regulatory fees to increase the business license and to increase the business tax for professionals by 10%. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham. I'd like to hear first from Mr. Sherman since he conducted the public hearing over here. (Pardon me?) Did you conduct your public hearing--- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir, we did have a public hearing this morning at 11 and we had two people attend. It was advertised in Sunday's paper and the Chronicle, the Focus and the Courier, Sunday and today. Mr. Brigham: And what were the results, what were there, what did they have to say? Mr. Sherman: Well, they were just more curious about what they read in the paper, um, uh, they both, the two people that attended, they're actually contractors, they wanted to know if the building permit fees were gonna be increased, and I told them at this time, no. Mr. Brigham: Okay. Mr. Mayor, my concern is that we are going to raise, my biggest concern is we're raising the business license 10%, and I personally think that if we're going to do anything we ought to raise the alcohol license 10% and only raise the business license 5% and not, and also I think we ought to go back to the old method of charging for a full license fee equal to the other licenses, Monday through Saturday license fee for alcohol. For Sunday sales, I think we ought to go back and charge the same fee for Sunday sales like we used to do. The other thing is I think we ought to double the current license for adult entertainment. I do not think we ought to raise the business license at only 5%. I think this affects more of the type businesses we want in Richmond County and not, and I think its going to cause some hardship on some of the general merchants that are in Richmond County and that's basically my position. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Rob, I need to ask you one question and that is that when is the last time we had an increase of such for either these two that's up here now. -8- Mr. Sherman: That was in 2000. Mr. Williams: In 2000. And not just gas but everything that's going up where everybody's feeling the increase and I think that this is something that's gonna be passed on not just to the applicant but the um, consumers as well. I understand Commissioner Brigham's uh, fighting this but I think this is more than fair. We talked about 10% at one time, we dropped it 5%, is that right. Mr. Sherman: That's right. Mr. Williams: In order to not hit the businesses so hard, but like everything else, I mean this is a part, this is something we gotta do. I'm gonna make a motion we go ahead and approve both of those items as they presented to this body. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham: Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The things that I'm concerned about is that I know that the original presentation to Southern Services was a 10% increase on the alcohol license as well and after a lot of discussions and those discussions, uh, were viewed based on the professional business license and tax being increased by 10%. Along with the previous recommendation that we had received from the Board of Health to increase the inspection license, and they have basically, and that was as much as 350% on some of the items in regard. It's my understanding and I hope that we have not gratified that 100% yet, and we're going back to the Board of Health to review some of those charges in order to help balance this situation out somewhat. I know I've spoken to Mr. Brigham about it and Mr. Bowles in regards to that and granted, that's a state agency that we're dealing with and they do come under the auspices of our gratifying and approving, but still I think we need to look at that, uh, to let the people in the restaurant business and the short order type business that we are looking at and working on something that's been increased tremendously and I know they say they have not had an increase in approximately 10 years. But, even at ten years, and you do that on a percentage scale basis, is about 35% a year. So, I'm of the opinion that we need to review all three of these areas before we move in and make a firm commitment as to what these prices are gonna be and that we hear from the Board of Health as well. Rob, I think that would be worthy of us then, because there are certain businesses that have to apply for all three licenses. And, I think we just need to look into that and find out what we're dealing with and how we're gonna handle it and make sure we do it . I'm going to make a substitute motion that we refer right for the best interest for all of them this back to further study with committees and that Mr. Sherman get the information that we need. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor. -9- Mr. Russell: Because of the timing of these issues sir, we do have another budget work session scheduled for Thursday and it would be my suggestion that we go ahead and put this first on the agenda for Thursday, discuss that move forward and decide up or down what we're gonna do at that particular point, then refer it back to committee for further action, or commission for further action so we can go ahead and move forward with that if that's OK with the body. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, are you okay with that? Mr. Grantham: I'm fine with that, I won't be here but I'm fine with it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second and if there's no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Commissioner Holland: Would you repeat that motion for me again? Clerk: The motion was to refer these two items to our budget work session on Thursday and to get a consensus from the commission at that time when Mr. Sherman brings back the information and forwarded to the next commission for consideration. Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item please, ma'am. The Clerk: ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES 19. Motion to approve the Dover Lyman Area Redevelopment Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm in support of this effort. We have talked about this in committee and sub-committee, come back and made a recommendation. I think we have created a machine or a tool to use through ------ to continue this. We talked about starting the same process again with another area in this community and what I want to do, I wanna make a motion to approve, Commissioner Smith, but I want to make a motion to approve it with the attachment that we will start the leg work, another process, on another area. That area being between 12th and Mill Street and Wrightsboro Road and MLK, which is basically the Bethlehem community area that we have neglected for many, many years. We got a machine, we got a tool in place now, we need, to, both processes ought to start simultaneously, Mr. Mayor. At one time we was talking about doing this and using it as a model. Well, I don't want to wait till the model is finished before we start it. I think we already got a plan from Mr. Michaels, I see him out there, Norman Michaels from HEED, how this process is supposed to work and could work. But we -10- need to get involved, let's talk to some of the ----- some, of the pastors in the area and ought to So my motion would be we that we go ahead and try and get those people involved to do this. approve this with an attachment that we get started with the legwork and other necessary thing we need to do on those boundaries I just called to the clerk, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Williams, for making that nomination. We worked at this some two and a half years to prepare this and I believe we've got it ready to go and we certainly do want to use this plan in other areas and we appreciate what has been done, especially by the department heads to help us with this and I wholeheartedly endorse this motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Commissioner Cheek, you came in right at the right time. Mr. Cheek: Sorry, I'd have been here sooner, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Perfect timing. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 20. Motion to approve a moratorium on demolition of structures in the Old Town neighborhood until January 1, 2007, except for those specifically approved by the Augusta Commission. (Approved by Administrative Services August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Miss Beard has asked me to speak with her and taking to her about this area, she's in support as well, and so am I, the moratorium would be I think until the first of the year. What I'm concerned about is those shotgun facilities there, those dilapidated properties that needs to be removed when, you're in a historic area, or designated historic area like that, and we want to maintain the same area. Some of those areas were not brought up to par back when they was constructed. So, I'm worried now that we gonna try to keep those negative, unsightly type conditions, there's some nice areas in that community, Old Town, but there are some areas that I think, this is my personal opinion, that's dilapidated, that it would cost to much to repair them and even if you could repair them, no one would move back into those with no more land space than they had. But I understand the nature, what they're trying to do and I'm not opposed to the moratorium but I want to be mindful of those things that the community is tired of, that's keeping those people from even investing in those things they could invest in because of -11- the stuff that's across the street or behind them or on the same side they may be on. So, I think we've got to be mindful of how we do this Mr. Mayor and hope we got a plan that we come back and that we will enhance those things that need enhancing cause some people can't afford to stick to the rules and regulations that the historic board would put in place in order to put those things So, I wanna make a motion to approve with the stipulation that those dilapidated back. situations, those homes that really you can't call a home, those conditions that people had to endure at one time, don't remain in that same condition. Whether we have to go in there and re-configure those conditions or add to them but I'm support of the moratorium but we got to be mindful of those things that's there . Mr. Holland: Second that motion. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 27. Motion to approve the transfer of existing funds within the Augusta Municipal Golf Course budget. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes sir, Mr. Mayor. I'm a little bit concerned here as to what we're doing and how we get to this point and why we would do this at this particular point. The back up talks about water meter bills and stuff that we got to pay, we gonna take salaries I think, part time salaries, is that right Mr. Russell, and pay for our water that we've been supplying. Well what's gonna happen to the money for the part-time positions when that does need to be addressed. I read in fact that there wouldn't be anybody laid off. Well, maybe they wouldn't be laid off today but to use the salary money for those employees, then who's gonna pay, and where's that money gonna come from when it is necessary, cause it was put there for a reason. The other question, Fred, you can answer all this at one time if you want to, how to we get to the point of getting behind. If we're not making any money we ought to be able to at least break even, meaning that we ought to be at least able to pay for the services we've been getting there, and if that's not the case I'd like to hear and explanation on that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, what's happened with the salary issue there is that they are part-time people and would only pay for the actual hours that they work. Because of the number of, I've just thought about, just asked me to lay off people with, we send people home because of rain dates in the past, those dollars would not be needed. We anticipate being able to -12- fully fund their anticipated use with the dollars that are remaining through the rest of the year. But the water bill does need to be paid and we just want to use that money to pay the water bill. Mr. Williams: May I respond Mr. Mayor? Mr. Russell, what I'm saying if we send people home because of the rain, and then we gonna pay the water bill with the money, that don't add up. I think we need to look at the sunshine days maybe but--- Mr. Holland: Mr. Williams. Mr. Mayor: You have not been addressed Mr. Holland Mr. Williams: Just a minute Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: I think we need to look at this very, very carefully before we do a knee-jerk reaction as what we gonna do here. We're in support, we're trying to assist. There's some things been going on that we're trying to look into. We're talking about people we send home and the money we done saved for rain dates creates a whole other can of worms. I'd like to see this sent back to administrative service committee so we can talk about it, so we can get to the bottom and In fact, I'm gonna make a motion Mr. Mayor that we send this work through some things. back to administrative services so we can pass the dollar and try to work this out. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor if I can--- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: I would support that motion. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. There's two things I want to mention in reference to this. What have we been doing prior to this, you know, in terms of paying the water bill. What has been happening in reference to the money at that particular time since we at this point now where we need to transfer approximately, what about $35,000 on that particular fund over to help pay the water bill. We need to know, we need to know an answer to all these kinds of questions. The next question is this. I've requested the last, I think two meetings ago, I requested a list from the recreation department, from the golf course. I needed a list of all the operable and inoperable equipment that we have at the golf course before we approved for you to receive or to get a new lawn mover. And as of this particular date, Mr. Howard and Mr. Russell, I have not received that list, and I've been up to the golf course and I've looked around and I've seen that equipment under sheds so I really need to get a list to find out what we have, what is operable and inoperable before we start approving any other funds, you know for the golf course. -13- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell and then Mr. Howard. Mr. Russell: Mr. Commissioner I apologize for that. I received that list shortly after you requested it and thought I had forwarded it on to the members of the committee. If you haven't received it, I apparently did not do that and I will get that to you as soon as I can. It's my fault sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Howard: Mr. Howard: Yes, to answer Commissioner Holland's question In 2005, we would like to submit the same budget in which we had in for 2005and 2006. In 2005, our water bill was in line. Some kind of way, this year we had problems with leaks and what have you and our water bill has gotten out of hand. All we'll likens to do today was go within our funds and transfer money within our funds, not asking the commission to vote on any new money, but just to transfer what we have there. Just to give you a little estimation on our part-time staff that we have at the golf course. When it rains at the golf course, we close our golf course, and we let our part-time staff go home. They're only paid for the hours in which they have worked. And this is money that's in the budget and looking at the budget, going through the budget, this was an obstacle that we felt that we could transfer this amount of money. The golf course would still run it's same pace, no one would be out of work and at the same time we wouldn't have to come back to the commission to ask for some more money to pay a water bill. We have no control over our utility bills, up there we submit it to the finance, what we was asked to do and for some reason or another we had some problems this year with our irrigation system up there and this is why the extra money is needed for our water. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek: Mr. Cheek: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One of the things that needs to be placed on the record is that we've had a deficit rain fall this year and in order to maintain a golf course you have add additional irrigation to preserve that and I for one who first walked on the "Cabbage Patch" as a child in diapers, have witnessed that golf course make a miraculous turn around under the Recreational Parks Department guidance and while I did work as an assistant to the assistant greens keeper right out of high school I don't think any of us on this board are excellent greens keepers and I just hate to see us get in a position of second guessing a staff that's done a marvelous job in turning that golf course around. This is a department asking to do something that's within budget with little or impact to existing employees. I would note, make note of the fact that in order to cover our budget deficit, we are going to have to reduce head count across the city in some places. If this is a way to do it without reducing head count, within the existing budget, I think it's something we should seriously consider, and I'll go back and say this, and we should remember that we do have professional staff making recommendations. While all of us were elected, we weren't elected to become experts in everything and I think we should support what staff recommends in the maintenance of this facility. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles. -14- Mr. Bowles: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think we're all under the agreement that we need to do something to stop the bleeding at the golf course. We have received a proposal from a group willing to do that. Not only would we quit losing 60-100,000 a year but we'd be gaining a net So I'd like to make a substitute motion that we go out with a request profit of 60,000 a year. for qualifications to see what other companies are out there and to see what solutions we can have to the golf course problem. Mr. Cheek: Second Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I don't what side the golf course get on, but I got enough sense to know that I'm not an expert in greens keeping or anything else, but if we saved enough money through rain to pay for the water bill, then we had a lot of rain. We ain't getting the full scoop. Now you can't tell me that we saved money on people going home because of rain days and that accumulated enough money, $35,000 to pay a water bill. That just don't add up. But I was elected to inspect what I expect and that's what I intend to do. We're not saying anything but we wanna send this back to committee. We want to at least look at it, talk about it. I mean here it is on the agenda and I said in the meeting the other day, ya'll hold two meetings at the same time and you don't wanna do that, that's fine. But when it gets to this table, anybody on this board has a right to question those items. I didn't hear any conversation and I'm not satisfied with that. I think that there's some things that we need to, we really need to address. But, we saved that many rain days to accumulate that much money, then we shouldn't have had to pay for the water we talking about paying, those two things just don't go together Mr. Mayor. So, uh, my motion still stands the same. I think I got a second to send this back to Administrative Services Committee and be able to get some questions answered and to look at what we're really doing over there. There's a lot of problems with the golf course. Lot of problems that we've been dealing with. Mr. Bowles just made a motion that we go out and seek to try to find somebody to run the facility. If it was running so good, I don't think he would've made that motion. That's something else that didn't add up. So we need to look at what is going to be feasible, what's going to be good, how can we get a handle on what's going on, Mr. Mayor, at the golf course. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don't understand why we're playing the committee game on this motion. It came from finance committee, it is a budget matter. If it's to be returned to committee it ought to be returned back to the finance committee where it came from. That's what we do in every other case. I don't know that we just shift around from committee A to committee B because of who may be on that committee, but I think we always, when we refer an item back, we always refer it back to the committee it came from, and I don't think we ought to start changing that process right now. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek: -15- Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that when we do have rain fall, one, we don't have to turn the sprinklers on, and two we do send employees home so there's a two-fold savings associated with rainfall events, of which by this time last year we had a surplus which would have had a significant impact both on staffing and the usage of water. Also, I'd like to bring to the attention of the commission that the marina, which was a losing asset under the operations of the city and the county after consolidation, has become a performing asset under a sub-contractor and requires no staffing on the part of county employees to cover those costs. The proposal before us now is to investigate the same type of approach which would have sub-contractors running this, bringing in additional revenue to the city, with no additional head count gain towards sustainment at the golf course. They would be basically running it themselves with us providing the same type of interface that we do with the marina. So it seems like a win, win. Take it to committee or not, I think we're going to have to consider this type of approach to maintaining city assets as operational and open and in light of the current budgetary dilemma we find ourselves in. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Ah, yes sir. In view of the fact that our commissioners have expressed what they feel about the golf course, I'm still concerned about what we still need to do. I'm especially concerned about the remarks coming from Mr. Howard when he stated the fact that for some reason or another, the funds were not there so for some reason or another for me, you know, it's not acceptable. So what I would like to know what some reason or another is when we refer this back so we can have a list, or we can have an explanation as to what, for some reason or another, is in reference to the monies that were not there in order to help defer the payment for the water bill. So if you can get for me I would appreciate it very much because it would help me to understand why we want to make this transfer of $35,000.00 over to the golf course budget in order to pay the water bill. So I would appreciate having that and I think I've seconded the motion that Mr. uh, Commissioner Williams had made previously. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor. Madame Clerk, could you read back the substitute motion. Clerk: Substitute motion was to solicit RFP's for the management of the Augusta Golf Course. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign. Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion fails 5-2. Clerk: The original motion was to send this budget item back to Administrative Services Committee. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. -16- Mr. Brigham, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No. Motion fails 2-5. Mr. Mayor: No action taken. The Clerk: FINANCE 30. Motion to approve the sale of property of 819 Camellia Clerk: Road. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams. Thank you Mr. Mayor. We approved one piece of property that uh, ASU has been acquiring to buy. I went buy and saw it myself, talked with a couple of commissioners. My problem with this piece of property, Mr. Mayor, and all the pieces of properties in this city are supposed to go through a bid process where they are bidded out, not just designate a single source sale. We're all set on that. And if we're going to change that process I think somebody should put in place that we change it versus just deciding to change it. Where this may be small, where if we can do it for a small piece we can do it for a large piece. I think that this is a process that the city government put in place. We just did a piece of property here that we designated a group to sell it for us which circumvent the way the law is set up for us to do biddings in Augusta, and I just think it ought to be a process, Mr. Mayor, versus just doing it when and where we think and with who we think is the proper person to do business with. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This particular piece of property which came before the finance committee has been discussed now for over two years and it's a piece of property that is somewhat landlocked by the lake up there on Camellia road and two residences to each side. It's determined that this property is certainly not wide enough and would it have the availability of any constructions on the property. Because an easement has to be, a permanent easement needed to be granted for that piece of property to have accessibility to the water as well as to the road based on the width of that property. The property has been in the land bank for some period of time and as I've said, been discussed quite a few times. What this would do is allow the owner next door to purchase the property to maintain the property in a very appeasing way and to make sure that the accessibility is granted to the government if it needed to get in and out of that property. Not only that, it would also put the property back on the tax digest in order to generate funds from the tax digest in the appraisal of that property. So I’m going to ask, and we took our bus tour and we went buy that area and we looked at, and not only was that piece of property shown but the one on Damascus Road. We had other pieces of property that were landlocked that were sold based on that same purpose here about two three weeks ago. I'm going to ask the commissioners to please reconsider the condition in which they are looking at this piece -17- . So therefore I'm going to make a motion on those of property and ask for approval conditions that we approve the sale of the property on Camellia Road. Mr. Cheek: Second Mr. Mayor. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Holland: I'd like to-- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. You said this property we sold is sale property adjacent to the landowners based on corrected survey and the property owner had it appraised twice at $12,000. Mr. Grantham: That's right Mr. Holland: Who's the landlord, who's the landowner? Mr. Grantham: Is a Dr. Bass-- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham: Mr. Grantham: Excuse me, thank you Mr. Mayor. It's a Dr. Bass that's one of the land owners and Dr. Randy, oh I can't think of his last name right now, but he's also the other land owner. And they made an agreement to purchase this property and to maintain it in the conditions that we had referred to earlier. Mr. Holland: Thank you. Mr. Grantham: Thank you sir. Mr. Mayor: Any further --- Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I'm not opposed to the sale of the property. And I think my question and my issue was that the process and I don't think anybody else would want coming in because Mr. Grantham's right, we did look at it and I agree with him. But it's not the sale of the property it's the procedure for the sale of the property. We can do that through a bid process. I mean I've got no problem with going on through with it, but if we going start to select who and where we're going to sell property to, it's going to create a Pandora's box for us later on. So I'm going make a substitute motion that we do this through the bid process and I think that we come up with the same thing, except just designating and saying so. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. -18- Mr. Grantham: Thank you again. Mr. Williams, I understand where you're coming from, we just approved one on Item #31 that we've done the same thing with, and that's on Damascus Road based on the approval of evidence presented under the conditions that it was not large enough to be of any benefit to anything else and that's why we approved it and we approved that for Augusta State University. So, I just feel, we've been dealing with this piece quite a few years. I understand the process in which you're speaking of. I think we have worked this particular piece of property for so long that now I think that we ought to go ahead and move on with it based on that process of what we have previously done. So that's my only reason and I don't mind going through bid processes with it. I think that may be the order which we should come to. But we have set a precedent here today as well as in the last two weeks on doing something with other pieces of property. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams: Mr. Williams: Mr. Grantham I agree with you about the precedence being set here today but only today but even before today, and I'm not against the sale, I don't think there's anything we can do with that. But I just think that if we're gonna do stuff in this city, we've got to do it the same way every time. We can't just change back and forth when we feel like it. Now, I addressed the ASU property when I began. I understand that's a piece of property I went by, I saw it myself, talked to some of the other commissioners. It's something that we won't be able to use, something that will be beneficial to them. But if we start, and we continue rather, cause we already done started, if we continue to do business like that than we gonna have where we're picking and choosing who's gonna buy where and when and I think the process is already in place we just need to implement it and use that so it will benefit this government and be fair to all of the citizens and tax payers of Augusta Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith: Mr. Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This property is a place where there's a lot of litter being dumped and so forth and that and it really needs to be cleaned up what would enhance the community and whatever route we take, something needs to be done. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion. Back to Mr. Williams. Is there a no second on the substitute? Okay. Is there any further--- Clerk: I didn't hear it. Mr. Mayor: Did any body--- Mr. Grantham: My motion was to approve the sale. Clerk: I know, I didn't hear a substitute. Mr. Holland: The substitute was for the bid right. -19- Clerk: Bid process. Mr. Holland: Okay. I second that. Clerk: All right Mr. Mayor: Okay. Dr. Bass, please state your name and address for the record. Dr. Bass: Dr. William T. Bass, I live at 821 Camellia Road adjacent to this property. I've been maintaining this property for the last ten years. There's a fence that I was allowed to put up at my expense by the city. I have a letter, not with me but I have a letter that allowed me to put the fence up. It keeps people from going in and out, particularly teenagers who go onto that property drinking beer, playing the radio late at night and just, you know basically tearing up. There's beer cans out there, and other things. The fact of the matter is, I offered more than a fair price. Half of this property is livable. Quite frankly, I would relish a bid, because I'll be the only bidder, and guess what, you'll get about $500 instead of $12,000.00. So, you know, suit yourself how you want to handle this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to say one thing, well, I'll say two things. One, while I'll agree in concept that we need to have a open marketing of these, of all of our properties, for everyone, on the steps auction or bid process that we go through often attracts people who buy properties for little or nothing and they turn around and make worse properties out of them than they did before. And so while we may have a process, that you generally net very little in the way of return to the tax payers, one and two doesn't give the city the potential it could achieve from the sale of these properties if properly market them, and it's gonna take some time, I think, certainly more than a couple of weeks to develop a process that helps us get the best return and best use for the land that we want to market and sell. Today we're in a situation where we have shotgun houses and other properties across this city that we're talking about combining and everything else. So what if somebody owns the property next to it. Do we want to auction it off for somebody to buy it and throw another shotgun house in there or do we wanna give somebody that has a development plan first option if it's gonna be in the best interest of the city. These are some things we do need to iron out, but today I don't think is the day. I've seen these properties. If there's no other use I think what was said by the gentleman is quite correct. We can get a lot less return on our dollar when we could settle this today and move on towards developing a process, but the process we have today is far from perfect and I don't want to see us get into mixed types of approaches to this in favoritism. I'm strictly against that. But today, these two properties have specific uses for the people who live adjacent to them or have a need for them. One is our University and one's a property owner that's maintained the property at no expense to the city. We should consider these things. I urge the passage of these sales so we can move on to developing a true property sales policy for this city. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion a second. Madame Clerk, could you read back that substitute? -20- Clerk: Substitute motion was to allow this property to be sold through the bid process. Mr. Mayor: If there is no further discussion, commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign. Clerk: Mr. Williams, are you voting? Mr. Williams: Yes, and we're voting on--- Clerk: Substitute motion and bid process. Mr. Mayor: The bid process. Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek vote No. Motion fails 2-5. The Clerk: Original motion is to approve the sale of the property at 819 Camellia Road. Mr. Mayor: If there's no further discussion, commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to directly reflect that I'm voting for this issue. How can we set up a process though where we'll use it and use it every time versus change it. I'm not trying to stop the sale of the property, but I think if we got ordinances, rules and regulations, that we need to follow those and we have not been doing that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your statement. Mr. Holland votes No. Motion carries 6-1. The Clerk: FINANCE 32. Motion to approve the Administrative/staff recommendation (all or none) regarding State-paid County-reimbursement for employees in the District Attorney's Office. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had this item pulled, I had this item pulled, Mr. Mayor, because there had been some great concerns about levels of staffing and monies that's produced not just by the District Attorney's office but by the Courts themselves and I'm in favor of this item but I would like to get a report from the Administrator or from the Clerk showing us what the -21- revenues have been in the Court Systems, the District Attorney's, the monies that have been brought in. We talking about budgets, deficits and problems. We know what that budget is. I'd like to get a report as to how much funds, how much monies have been brought through and can be brought through that system. We deal with this stuff in front of us everyday but there's a lot of So, I'd like to get that back and I make a motion we stuff that we don't look at, that's the idea. approve this. . Mr. Cheek: Second Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Yes sir we can--- Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 38. Motion to approve the Purchase of Server Operating Software, Set-up and Maintenance for Utilities. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Prior to us proceeding, I'd like to recognize the Commissioner of Agriculture, Tommy Irvin, who just walked in. (Applause) Mr. Mayor: I like to recognize our dignitaries when they come in. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I'm not opposed to this one either, it's just that some questions have come up. The water department, being that this is as it is with Enterprise funding mechanism, that we need to look at how much money we are spending. Now, the water department don't ever come complaining about money because they've got an over whelming abundance of money in that fund. People who don't understand the government say so why don't ya'll collect the water money, why aren't people paying their water bills and whatever. Water is doing great, in fact it is doing extremely great, and we need to be mindful of what we have there, in the water fund, to see when we expose, and we keep spending and people see what's going on in the water department thinking that city money and the water funds are all one fund. I see my -22- friend Max down there, he setting on ready cause he's always been a good stood of a man, and without question that today. But there is a abundance there in the Enterprise situation and I would love to get a report back from that department as to where we are, what we have, what's projected. We have spent a lot of money in that area and we know water is lifeline. I mean, we got to have water and I think we're doing good things with it. My motion is to approve this but I'd like to get a report back from Mr. Hicks from his department. Utilities as to how much funds, where we are with our bond, how our bonds set up. Can we, we just did a situation here a few months ago with a swap Mr. Mayor, with the money that's supposed to be coming and we need to . So, that's my motion to look at all of the money in this government not just safe parcel money approve with those stipulations that we get those, that information back. Mr. Cheek. Second. Commissioner Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we we're due a report back and if the maker of the motion will agree, I'd also like to attach to that a report back on the repair strategy for the tow path and the engineering study on those repairs, and the time table for those repairs. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams have you finally decided? Mr. Williams: I agree to that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there's no further discussion, commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Hicks: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Max. Moving on to the regular agenda Madame Clerk, you want to take the addition first. Clerk: That was added and approved---- Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: PLANNING 43.Z-06-83 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions: 1) a 6 foot -23- solid board fence shall be placed 10 feet inside the rear property line; 2) and an undisturbed natural buffer shall be maintained between the fence and the property line; the use of this property shall be limited a micro-distillery or those uses allowed in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) zone; a petition by Gerald Blount, on behalf of Little Red Dog Distillery, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property containing approximately .32 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 214 Sand Bar Ferry Road. (Tax Map 048-3 Parcel 105) DISTRICT 1. (Deferred from August 15 Commission meeting) The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, Item 43, I think you and I both received an e-mail from Mr. Patty stating that the petitioner was unable to come up with a mutual agreed date with the neighborhood, however they have come up with a date now of September 8, and would like to have this item postponed to the next meeting. Mr. Cheek. So moved. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Grantham out. Motion carries 6-0. The Clerk: PLANNING 44. Z-06-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Louise M. Swan, on behalf of Swan Construction Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family residential) affecting property containing .15 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1648 Hicks Street. (Tax Map 035-2 Parcel 538) DISTRICT 1 (Referred from August 15, 2006 Commission meeting) Mr. Mayor: Can we hear from Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, the petitioner called me on this one about an hour before the meeting and said she decided to build a house on it rather than a duplex so she doesn't need the zoning, so you could deny it and that would be the end of it. Mr. Cheek: So moved for denial. Mr. Holland: Second. -24- Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. George, is this now in to be approved on from Planning? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. It was the recommendation that the Planning Commission approve it. It was a, you know a close call and, you heard all the reasons the last time. She, I think, saw she was not going to get it approved, or just decided she wanted to build a house and uh, so uh, you know you could withdraw it, you could deny it, however you want to handle it. Mr. Cheek: Unintelligible. Mr. Williams: Mr. Cheek was coaching on this side. How long ago did we deny it? How long, if we deny it? Mr. Patty: If would be six months to apply for something other than the R-2 zoning. It would be a year to apply for an R-2 zoning. Mr. Mayor: Can you go along with that? Can we have a motion to second? If there's no further discussion, commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Grantham out. Motion carries 6-0. PUBLIC SERVICES 45. Discuss issuance of a license to Phillip Barrett to drive a taxi cab. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman: Mayor, commissioners, at the committee meeting the other day, we discussed this item, the license and inspections department of a stately issued drivers license, taxi cab license. Mr. Barrett he operated for a few weeks, a couple of months or so. It was brought to the Sheriff's Department under the attention that he was at the time 18 years old. Our ordinance presently requires the drivers be 21. At the committee meeting you asked me to look into it to see if perhaps the ordinance needs to be amended. I did check with other cities, Macon, Columbus and Savannah. Macon does not have a specified age. Columbus and Savannah their So we would recommend to choose, to consider amending the taxi cab ordinance age is 18. to the age for driving at 18. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Cheek. Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? -25- Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Following up a little bit on what Mr. Sherman has indicated, in investigating of the other municipalities, and the conditions that they have, and we've looked at those for examples that we might can use, and our ordinance requires that after a thorough check and everything that a driver has to be 21 years of age and I would like to tag onto that motion that Mr. Sherman look into this changing our age limit, based on our ordinance to 18 years old, making sure everything passes in the normal way that we do. But I think that would be required. We require these people to go to military service. We don't require they do into military service. They take responsibilities in raising a family and I think we owe them that much in order to allow them to able to earn a living. Mr. Mayor: Are you okay with amending your motions there, Mr. Williams? Mr. Cheek: I thought that was the original one. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Miss Bonner can you read back the--- Clerk: The motion was to amend the ordinance reflecting the 18 years of age requirement. Mr. Sherman: I didn't catch---- Mr. Grantham: Apologize. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham: I just wanted to make sure they all knew that. Mr. Sherman: Don't we need to wait for the second reading in that Mr. Mayor, since we're amending the ordinance? Clerk: If you want to. Mr. Sherman: If we're amending the ordinance I think we have to. Clerk: No, you don't have to. I would go to a second reading, but can waive you're saying. Mr. Grantham: Waive the second reading. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Madame Clerk? Clerk: Are we waiving the second reading or we going--- -26- Mr. Grantham: Yes. Mr. Williams: Who made this motion? Mr. Sherman: I'm just trying to find out what we're voting on. Mr. Mayor: Alrighty! We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you for clarifying that. Item 46. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 46. Motion to approve the lease between Augusta, GA and Title Max for the lease of improvements located on Deans Bridge Road property that was purchased for the use of the fire department. Mr. Mayor: Chief Willis, can you speak to this forum? Chief Willis. Members of the commission, this is a lease that's already been in place with Title Max. It's a piece of property that the Fire Department doesn't have any use for yet. As of this time I think it's a yearly lease, I think it's actually going to expire at the end of the year. It's year to year so we can get out of it any time. So, once the Fire Department actually needs the property, we can kick them out at that time, and it's a good way to make money if the county tells them. Mr. Williams: How much does that rate, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Chief? Chief Willis: It's $2,000 a month. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think we probably need to go to a month to month basis so we can have greater flexibility if we was to start construction. . Mr. Mayor: Would you like that flexibility within that lease? Chief Willis: It's my understanding that this ends, the end of this year, and if we can just keep it that way, than some of the discussions that we would possibly be moving out, in -27- November anyway. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Oh boy, we're not going to settle this any time soon, I mean, as long as we can let them stay there, they're trying to say we can kick them out anytime we want to,--- at the end of the year. Mr. Mayor: Give them notice. Mr. Williams: Sounds better huh Mr. Mayor? But, I don't see anything wrong with keeping it like it is. We got an understanding with them, where we're not needing it right away, I . So I make a motion we approve, Mr. Mayor. think it's a positive for the Fire Department Mr. Cheek. Second Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Clerk: Mr. Smith, are you voting? (unintelligible) To approve the lease agreement. Mr. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 6-1. The Clerk: FINANCE 47. Motion to receive as information to authorize Sutherland, Asbill to Act as Bond Counsel for Merrill Lynch, to Underwrite and prepare a Bond Purchase Agreement for the Refunding Bonds from the Swaption Agreement entered into on June 2, 2004 and bring back recommendation to September 5, 2006 meeting. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Shepard and Diane McNabb are in route and if we could put this off till the end of the meeting I'd greatly appreciate it Sir. Mr. Mayor: That'll be fine. The Clerk: FINANCE 48. Discuss/approve the development of a policy concerning commissioners' travel to national conferences. (Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham) -28- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, I believe we, Mr. Bowles had said that you'd like to combine 48 and 50? Mr. Brigham: All right, I think he wants to, I don't have a problem from discussing 48 and 50 at the same time. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to develop a policy, basically I outlined it in here that we would send the Mayor Pro-TEM as our representative to national meetings of NACO and legal cities and case he could not go, I think we ought to send a designee of his I think given the light of our financial situation I choosing to represent us at those events. think we need to cut back to just sending one member to the National Meetings at this time, and that's outlined in the policy that I have placed in the agenda and I make a motion that we approve it . Mr. Cheek: Second Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor I'd like to just elaborate on this a little bit in reference to our travel to these different conferences and to being members of these different organizations. In view of the fact that I'm a new commissioner, and in view of the fact that I think this has been happening for years in reference to different commissioners that have been elected. It appears to me that if we are going to learn anything about what is happening in the other cities, I think it bears fruit for all of us as commissioners to attend these different conferences so that we can learn what is happening with the other cities at the different conferences that we attend. To send one person to one of these conferences would not help us out at all because when we attend these different conferences Mr. Mayor, as you know, and as the other commissioners know, there are different classes that we have to attend and that we've been scheduled to attend and that we have the opportunity to fellowship and network with other members from other cities and share information with us. So, you know, coming onboard as a new commissioner I find that this information as been very, very educational for me, and the people of my district whom I come back and share the information with, you know, have really enjoyed the information that I brought back to them. And of course we've come back here before this commission and tried to share information from when we've traveled to the other places that we've had an opportunity to travel to. Now if for some reason, if for reason, there's a commissioner who feels that he or she does not want to travel to these different conferences or does not want to be a member of these different organizations, I don't know how Mrs. Bonner handled this, but if for some reason that particular commissioner does not want to go, than let him stay. But then let the rest of us who want to go, and learn about what is happening around the country come back and share that information you know, with the rest of the commissioners and the city. I mean we can't learn anything. You can't grow if you don't go. So you have to go and find out what is happening in -29- other places. I brought information back here from Savannah in reference to the taxi votes and, you know, we dropped it. I brought information back here from Savannah in reference to the trolleys, and we act like we don't want to adhere to these kinds of things. But, if we can't go, we do not grow. So I am for all commissioners traveling abroad, wherever we have to go, to learn what is happening in these other cities when we go to these different conferences. Undertakers go to conferences. Doctors go to conferences. Principals go to conferences. Nurses go to conferences, and they learn and they get information and they bring it back and they share it. Why can't we as commissioners continue to go to conferences? So I don't see any reason why we can continue to be a member of these organizations. How can we extend an invitation to some other cities to come here to be a part of what we have here if we're not a member of these different organizations? How can we share information with them? You know, and these different organizations, they come here, we just had the Mayor from Hinesville down here, and he came and shared information with us. And so this is the only way we're going to grow. I mean I can understand what Mr. Brigham is saying and when I became a commissioner, when I decided to run, I knew at that particular time I was going to have to make some sacrifices, and I've made those sacrifices. So now if can't allow yourself to make these sacrifices, to make these trips, my suggestion would be then maybe you need to make some other circumstances and make some other standards in reference to your position as commissioner. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, please ya'll know the laws. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we are members GMA and ACCG that we pay tax dollars to be a part of. We call on them for guidance and information from direction to training. When they hold classes, they don't come to Augusta to hold the classes, and that's another problem, but we go to conferences where they are hosting. This is not a, let's get together to have a good time situation. This is where we have been able to get information and education and clarification on a lot of things that happen in our cities. Commissioner Holland is right. We can not grow unless we know how other cities are operating, how other commissions and counsel persons. We network, we talk about issues, and believe it or not we got some of the same issues all over the world that we're dealing with right here in Augusta. And some of those issues have already been worked out. There's no sense in reinventing the wheel if it's already rolling, we need to roll it in Augusta. Now---might write something different is that---the wheel is rolling somewhere and we have been able to learn different things, and bring it back to this community and implement it here in Augusta, so we know how, how some things work. Our previous Mayor, Bob Young, brought the Mayor from Charlotte, NC to a conference with us, met with all the commission. The only statement that I remember him saying and the one the one that stood out in my mind, he said, they send a hundred people a year to some city to see what's going on and how it's operating and what they're doing. And they come back and implement it in their city. He said, you need to look at your neighbors, and your neighbor don't be across the street, across the river, he could be in the next state, he could be across the world. Whether it's working with people and a city, it'll work in your city with people and we need to continue that legacy and trying to change Augusta so Augusta will be aggressive and not a town. I can't support it Mr. Mayor so I think we need to continue, along with ACCG and GMA and put on those training events. We need to go, and I think, my last statement is, that's some of our problems. We had not been, we are not learning anything. -30- Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the first things we learn if we look at business publications is, in the business in the private sector, one of the first things that usually suffers during an economic downturn in any type of business industry is the travel budgets are cut, in order to preserve operational capital to run the business. If we do a cost benefit analysis and the total return of dollars saved or progress made in this city, for the trips, and I choose not to go on many of them, I have family and I feel like I can learn more by going down when I'm on vacation with my family and reviewing the public works facilities, rather than going to a conference and sitting with a bunch of other politicians. Going to Charlotte, for instance to see how they run their streets program or their drainage program would be better than going to sit in a room where everybody else in many of these other cities are using the travel account and the education program as a personal travel agency. What we have to decide the same thing corporate America does, one as a board of directors, are we going to lead by example and cut in areas that are dear to us just whereas in the departments do, two, has there been a real cost benefit. The water taxis Marion brought to us, what, 6 years ago, from Savannah, I mean, you know, and we can go having the collection agencies collect the fees, that was brought up about four years ago by Commissioner Shepard. But, the problem we have here is not that we don't bring new ideas back to the tables we just don't implement them. And again, a lot of these things are, except for Project Access, which Commissioner Brigham and then Commissioner Shepard brought back, has been the only thing to save us money on indigent medical care. It's been very successful. But the overall benefit to this city, to the tax payers of this city in progress of advancing our civilization here in Augusta, our community, making it a better place to live, or bringing things is going to save money and help us be more efficient has been nil. And, again while I say that we may not need to have a permanent ban on travel, we do need to look at making cuts just like Corporate America does to save tax payers money to use it to operate this government. Again, do we bring dollar savings for advances in anything of significance back from these conferences, and the answers overwhelmingly no other than a good feeling or something we learned personally. Our biggest problem is putting it on the ground and making it work here. That's the thing we learn to work out here at home. We could travel the world over and still not solve the problem or making it work better here at home. And, Mr. Mayor, I support this, it's consistent with what Corporate America has to do, it's consistent with what other governments are doing, if they put the operation of the government ahead of personal travel. And, it's just that simple. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, evidently I didn't make myself very plain. This has nothing to do with ACCG or GMA. It only has to do with NACO and the National League of Cities. And the only travel restrictions are to the National Conventions. There is no restrictions in my policy to that I proposed to any of the state organizations and I would not be in favor of doing that, for the very reason that both Mr. Holland and Mr. Williams has addressed here is that we need to be up to date and see events that take place in the State of Georgia. We need be aware and knowledgeable of new programs and services that our State Associations make available to us. I have traveled as often as probably as any member up here to a State Association. I have not -31- traveled as often to a National. I was very fortunate to go to Charlotte, NC, to a NACO Convention and to find Project Access. And with the help of Steve Shepard we got it implemented here, in Augusta. It only saved the Richmond County taxpayers some 5 million dollars. Nothing to sneeze at, but this is not what that is about. This is about our travel budget, in tough times and a way to show that our employees that we can't send them to places and that we're not going to go and waste money going just for the sake of going. It's not that we don't get new ideas, that we don't get fresh ideas, that we don't see projects that cannot work in Augusta, GA. This is about leadership and financial leadership. This is about a way of cutting our budget during these austere times that we are facing. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Let me add on to that Mr. Mayor. I can understand if we attending these different conferences maybe four, five times a year. You're talking about a National Conference that you attend, probably just what, just once a year. You know, and if we have the opportunity to go and meet with people from all over the country, why not have that opportunity to go and meet with people from all over the country. We can't learn just by staying right here in Augusta. We have to go and learn something from people from everywhere. You know, to deny us, to deny those persons who would like to attend these National Conferences I think would be totally unfair. So I'm not for this, I'm definitely against this because I appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity to move around and travel around and network with people. I've met people from all over the country since I've had an opportunity to be a commissioner and come back and share that information with other people and I'm going to continue to do so. But to deny us this opportunity to do this right now would be totally unfair to the commissioners that we have on board especially when we have some new commissioners on board. Mr. Mayor. Okay. We have a motion and to second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Holland: Okay, now which one is this, approval or not? Mr. Mayor: This is for approval. Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion fails 5-2. The Clerk: FINANCE 49. Discuss the process for homestead exemption. (Referred to Commission by the Finance Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I had placed this on the finance agenda for last week -32- and just want a brief discussion on how the homestead exemptions are removed from property owners in the city once the property owner is deceased. Considering that when the majority of our property owners aren't going through probate court and thus it may never pop up for the Tax Assessors Office to remove that. I just want to get a brief explanation on how the homesteads are removed. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Bowles, I talked to council for the Board of Health who are looking for a cost effective way of determining the deaths of holders of homestead exemptions. They are putting together such a list for other agencies and they didn't see why they could not approve, copy that list in the tax assessors hands so that there could be a way of removing the people without a whole lot of additional effort. So, I would recommend, one thing that I did see they were sending out, which I didn't know was necessary, they were sending out social security . Subject to approval of council I would ask that this list that is generated already numbers by the Board of Health be utilized by the Board of Assessors and that the, take the form of a motion so that we could have that information shared with the assessors. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to hear from the Tax Assessors Office to make sure that's something that would be helpful for them. Ms. Ogelsby: I'm Melanie Ogelsby from the Tax Assessors office and that would be helpful. But, we have to check to make sure there's no errors in that property before we drop that homestead exemption, such as husband and wife, and if the husband passes away, we send a letter to the spouse, by the spouse, we drop the homestead from the higher school exemption, change it to a regular exemption, and then we notify them and then they have 10 days to come in and tell us if they're indeed entitled to the higher exemption. So, that would be helpful and we would be glad to take a look at it. Mr. Bowles: All right. I'd like to put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Cheeks: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Clerk: It’s unanimous. Item 50, I wasn't quite sure. Mr. Grantham, were you satisfied with that? Mr. Grantham: I'm satisfied with that. -33- Mr. Mayor. Okay. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 51. Discuss drainage issues of the Greater St. John Baptist Church on Ellis Street. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have Dr. Melvin Ivey here who's attached to the Greater St. John's Baptist Church who talked with myself along with Commissioner Lee Beard when he was here and also talked to Mrs. Beard. There's a drainage problem. We sent our engineers out to look at what was going on off the Calhoun Expressway running into the back of their facility. They're looking at building a new facility adjacent to that facility and that hasn't been done. Dr. Ivey's here, I would like him to speak Mr. Mayor for himself. Mr. Mayor: Please, Dr. Ivey, can you state your name and address for the record. Dr. Ivey: Yes, good afternoon to the Mayor and to these commissioners. My name is Melvin Ivey, I'm the pastor of the Greater St. John Baptist Church, 1940 Ellis Street, Harrisburg, here in the city of Augusta. For some years now we have been dealing with a drainage problem. Initially we believe that the drainage problem that we were having came from, it was a state problem. When we contacted the state, the state informed us that they paid the city to maintain that particular area. What happens is when it rains, there's a large increase of water that comes to the back not only of our facility but all of those residences that are in that area who's territory buffer Calhoun Express. Now the main thing that I've discovered that there is no drainage ditch, so when they built this particular expressway they did not look into the aspects that, how we're going to get rid of the water, Cause one of the things I found out, with talking with the city, any time that you're going to build a facility, you've got to have something in place so that water is released into a drainage system. Nothing is in place. We need something because we're looking at, we want to build a $300,000.00 facility where we're able to minister to the kids in that facility. We want to have a daycare. We want to have an after school program. We want to have some programs for adult literacy. We want something that's gonna be going on during the course of the day not just on Sunday. Now, we're not just having a fellowship but we want something so that we can improve the quality of life to the people in that community so that they can give back, so that they can become productive individuals. But right now, we have a problem because, when Commissioner Lee Beard was here, he was working along with us, with Commissioner Williams. Once Commissioner Beard passed, then things kinda got a little stagnant. We had a couple people come from the engineering department, came up when it was raining, and water's up around their shoes just like it is around ours and for some reason nothing has been done. Mr. Mayor: Can we hear from somebody maybe, from engineering on this? -34- Mr. Ladson: Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. I became aware of this today, but after the commission meeting today I will definitely go out there and actually take a look at it and see what the issues are. As far as the history behind it, I have talked with staff and they don't recall any issues out there. But, our department will definitely take a look at it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek: Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to put on, with Commissioner Smith's approval, I'm going to put on my former engineering services chairman hat for a minute and I'm going to say this. This is typical of many of the problems we have across this city. We're in a position now of asking the same people that maintain the 300 miles, square miles of drainage ditches, 260 plus detention ponds, 1600 miles of roads and ditches to take budgetary cuts in order to perform. The only way we can afford to maintain and improve these areas that we're dealing with right now, is to do the same thing we did with our utilities department and create a storm water utility to manage and improve these areas. There's no funding, we're going to ask them to continue to build things that they don't have the staff to maintain or the equipment without a sustained funding source. It's successful in other areas. We can put them in a position to where we can take those people off the general fund roles and work as a utility and give them enough funding to deal with the drainage issues that are in this city and the rainy season is on the way, and Mr. Mayor, while I understand this problem, based on the description I've heard today, this is a two and a half to three million dollar solution that's going to be required unless there's a accessible large diameter drainage pipe in that area. So, I just urge this body to move forward with establishing a funding source and an entity in this city that would give public works the ability to maintain and improve drainage in this system, something they've never that the ability to do before because of budget constraints. This is not one of many priorities, this is a large priority for property damage and settlements we've seen over the years. It is the only true solution to working this out. And again, I haven't seen the area, but based on what you're talking about and the cost of the type of pipe we're going to need, we're talking easements and everything else, probably be 3-5 million dollars to what we need to do, and there's just no way we can afford, and honestly afford to do anything, and a quick fix isn't gonna help you, it's gonna create more problems down the road, then creating a storm water utility to deal with this once and for all. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you Dr. Ivey for coming in and sharing with us, but he's right this is not the first time that this has been brought up. We since, we had meetings at his church over there, with some of our public works staff. We looked around the area there, and we was going to do something, we gonna get started, and we have not. Now, we talking about water here, falling from the sky and God saying, what do you want us to send? But, utilities got some money in water, this is still water. We talking about moving water, taking money to help with and other things because it's water related. This is related to water as close as you can get. So, whether it's drinking water, it's still water. We need to find a solution. We need to find a resource to do what is necessary for these constituents who have been suffering because they are small, and had not got the attention. Now, I can tell you about some folks who have got some attention and we found a way to get to it and make some things better. So I think he is more than -35- obliged in coming and sharing with us. But, I think that says he's going to look at this, I think to go back to, Mr. Mayor, to committee and let us know what he's found and what process we can begin. We keep talking about what we're going to do, and it's been over two, maybe three years now, and look how much water have fallen and have been running across there since then. Some , we need to know that all of the poor guy got water coming into their homes over there. But taxpayers need to be taken care of in this community and Mr. Mayor, if there's not a motion made, I make a motion a report back in committee--- Mr. Mayor: Next engineering services? Mr. Williams: Next engineering services from---, and look at the water situation with utilities as an enterprise fund, and if we can use it. It's still water, and we've been picking and choosing on that. Mr. Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, there's a second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, while I agree with everything that Mayor Pro Tem has said, you have a utility for supplying water and dealing with waste water. The model that is successful in other cities, we could take the excess, whatever excess there is in utilities and spend it entirely this year and not deal with one tenth of the drainage problems and then you don't have any money to maintain it. This is why I go back and say we need at separate funding source, and a separate entity established to deal with these problems citywide and not rob Peter to pay Paul, and take the risk of collapsing the water system again, which the city did in the past. It's just time out for putting band-aids on things. It's time now to get a solution and to fund the public works department who deals with the drainage in a way that's going to help them sustain and improve the city's drainage once and for all. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. ENGINEERING SERVICES 52. Motion to approve the Engineering Department to secure funding for the Rock Creek/Warren Road Restoration Project in the amount of $1,200,000.00 for de-silting and storm water quality improvements with the intention of reducing flooding along the Rock Creek drainage basin. Funds are available in SPLOST Phase II Contingency Account (322042220-60222220/292822444-6022220). (No recommendation from the Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. -36- Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have motion and to second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek: Can I make one comment, Mr. Mayor--- Mr. Cheek: Can I make one comment, Mr. Mayor? It's germane to this issue. Mr. Mayor: Point of personal privilege? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Is yesterday, and this is not the only issue we have along our canal where we're seeing siltation occur. Driving over the canal yesterday from Reed Creek that Columbia County has dumped into the canal, the canal was brown with silt. So after we get this out of the way, I'd really like to see us deal with our neighbors and brethren to the North on getting the dirt out of the canal. It's just making it un-navigable up around the diversion dam. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to vote along with that? Mr. Cheek: I'm ready, yeah. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 53. Accept, Trade, Exhibit and Event Center Taskforce recommendation for site and operational agreement. (No recommendation from the Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you Mr. Mayor. As member of the task force pertaining to this project, there were some questions raised at the last engineering services committee meeting last The task force would request a postponement on week that they don't have a final answer on. this until the next meeting. I'd like to put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Does that mean it's going back to committee, Mr. Bowles, what's going to happen? Would it come back straight to this? -37- Mr. Bowles: Yes, I believe it would come back straight to this whole body, yes sir. Mr. Williams: Yes, I'm going to need some clarification Mr. Mayor. If the task force is not sure, cannot understand what the other issues were, some of the other commissioners, I have a couple of issues myself. Now, I think it would be appropriate, we send it back, and be able to discuss those things, and maybe we can get those things resolved. That, versus if it comes straight back to this body, and not have the opportunity to ask those questions until we get here. But, however you wanna do it is fine Mr. Mayor, I just thought that it would go back to committee so we can at least discuss it. There are some things I wanna, need asked about but, however you and the commission wants to do it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles: I think we'd rather keep it here sir. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and to second. Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor, I think doing that at the time we were in committee, I think Commissioner Hatney had requested some information in reference to this, to the task force recommendation an arborational agreement sight, and I would think it would be most feasible for it to go back to committee, because he would be back at that particular time for us to discuss it in committee at that particular time. Wasn't it discussed in committee, for instance this is where he requested information at that time. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Bowles. I think Dr. Hatney had several issues, and it would be well if it went back before the committee I believe. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Commissioner Smith, you're saying, back to committee would --- Mr. Smith: I'll amend my motion then, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Cheek: Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, all I'm going to say, is for every day we delay getting this thing on the ground we're losing 2-3 days in competition with other cites, and it's time to get some bricks on the ground. Mr. Mayor, OK, Commissioner Bowles motion is to refer this back to committee to come before the full body at the next commission meeting. We have a motion and to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, personal privilege? -38- Mr. Grantham: Uh, and I agree with this going back if there are issues involved. I guess what I'd like to know from some of the people involved on this task force is what those issues are so that I'd be able to address them at the time when we do come back to vote on it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon: Please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Simon: Paul Simon, 14 Highgate West. The question he had, was he wanted support for the figures that we had presented and we have given, the checks, copies of the checks to Fred. So I think he send them, has he, Fred? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I was able to share that information, well, I was not able to share that information with Dr. Hatney, but Dr. Hatney had that information in my office Friday and reviewed that. I have not spoke to him since he's had a chance to take a look at that but, I was able to provide the information that he had requested. Mr. Grantham: Was that the only issue at hand. Mr. Mayor: Was that the primary --- Mr. Grantham: I just wondered, you know I'm kinda like Commissioner Cheek in that we have resolved the problem, and the issue's been handled, what's the purpose for the delay? Unless others have questions. Mr. Williams: I got a couple questions and a couple--- Mr. Mayor: I believe this was requested by the group to refer it to the next meeting. Mr. Grantham: ----- to and end. Let's go on with the agenda Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Moving on. Mr. Grantham: Here, here. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 55. Motion to approve accepting the pass-through grant in the amount of $25,000 from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for the Augusta Youth Center. Mr. Williams: So move. -39- Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and to second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: I was just wanting to make sure there's was going to be a contract involved since we're held accountable. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, there will be. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: APPOINTMENTS 57. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Brian J. Nozolino as Trustee for the James Brice White Foundation. Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: That was better than I did the first time. Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Holland. Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 58. Discuss Diamond Lakes Way in association with Manchester Subdivision. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As of this item, to address this item about the Diamond Lakes Way association with the neighborhood that's coming in there and I'd like to -40- know, I'd like to see where those approval plans, I guess, as we approve that to, as such to move that gate back and all the things we're asking to do. I'm sure it was approved but, I had not seen those and, before I could support that, I'd like to see when that was approved. We approve plaques all the time. Like Commissioner Cheek stated earlier, we're not experts in no field so we shouldn't be an expert in approving the plaques. But, when we approve the plaques, we don't know the extent of, I guess all's that in there. I'd like to know when that was approved. This body comes in and meets with committee and in regular commission. So, if Ms. Bonner has a record, Mr. Shepard has a record, someone has those, I would need to at least see them before I could support this measure. Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Also, Mr. Mayor, I think we really need to take another look at this sub- division to make sure that this sub-division is being built for those persons that are going to be moving into that particular area and make sure that the houses that are built there are for the people in that particular subdivision. I think it's just something that we really need to take a closer look at because there appears to be some other facilities, I mean some other houses going up, for maybe for some other purposes and I do think this is something for this Diamond Lakes sub- division, we need to pay really close attention to this before we make a final decision on this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, Mr. Shepard can y'all pull the dates that those were approved and get those to Commissioner Williams? Mr. Patty: I can or I can tell you now. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Then, please. Mr. Patty: This property was rezoned in January, on January 18th, 2005, and on March 2006, just kind of bring it chronological order. It was rezoned in 05, in January 05 and the road name was changed to Diamond Lakes Road and it became a county road in July of 05. In March 06 or thereabouts,---owner here to speak to this, attended a public hearing, found out that there was going to be some problems with accessing Windsor Springs Road because there weren't going to be any possibility of any median cuts with planned improvements to Windsor Spring Road. So, all traffic would have to go down and make a U-turn to come back to Augusta. There was going to be a long decel lane for entrance into the park so that, I think DOT really discouraged any kind of curb cuts or driveway cuts into that a decel lane. I also found out that Turkey Trail was going to lined up with Diamond Lakes road any probably signalized. Based on that, when they gave us the development plan on April 3rd, 2006, for the first section of the subdivision, it showed access through the park, and that would've been discussed with department heads and what not. Section one, the final plat, which was approved by the commission on June 20th 2006, showed access through the park. That was the first phase including 12 acres, 27 lots and then of course this came to this commission for a slight revision of that. You go from 27 lots to 29 lots plus an easement on August 15th 2006, when this came up before. The full tract is 125 acres, 275 lots going back to -41- January of 05. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as this came up I was blind-sided last time and had not heard, or just frankly had not noticed the fact that it was going into Diamond Lakes. But the bottom line is, and this is where we're at, we have an opportunity to build a significant number of homes in an area that would otherwise be vacant due to the situation on Windsor Spring Road and the entrance to Diamond Lakes. We're dealing with developers in this case who have exceeded drainage requirements and worked as partners with this city in developing communities that are above average. We're looking at putting in a community that is, and will be one of the nicest ones in that entire 4 square mile quadrant. It will be a very nice addition to the area. I had concerns about interference with the race track and the potential for it's development as a use in the future. That has been resolved. And concerns about the entrance way and the impact on the entrance way to our beautiful Diamond Lakes. We are dealing with people who will do nothing but, I think the very best. We're looking at very large lots, very nice homes by people who have by practice exceeded the need in their construction. We did pass this, and it has come before us more than once. The bottom line is, with the situation, with the expansion and widening of Windsor Spring Road, we acquire a couple hundred homes on property now that I believe is under agriculture and producing very little revenue. We get a very nice neighborhood out in that section of the city or we delay this and get nothing, other than some sand hills and scrub oaks. I consider myself to be the guardian of Diamond Lakes and one of the chief proponents on this board in my tenure. I urge passage for, and basically a pat on the back for the staff and everyone else. The only thing they apparently didn't do wrong was talk more about this to us, and I have assurances from staff that, that will be rectified in the future. But this is a good deal and, if we're going to move forward in this city and grow the economy and the tax base, we we're going to need head count of people with disposable income. These homes will attract those types of people. It'll be a nice addition to an area, and quite frankly could potentially raise property values around the area, or we can delay and not have this amenity added to this area. So, I think we passed everything through at this point, and rather than delaying and making it hard on the developers and the department heads, I find that my confidence has been restored in our department heads logic. They did talk to Commissioner Colclough and Commissioner Brown about it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Never have I indicated at and one time that this was not a good project, that the builders or whoever was doing them was not doing a good job. But I'm saying that, the process that we go through, that we vote on here hasn't been followed. And if it is, I want somebody to show it to me now. We always talk about the good things and how we need to keep moving forward and I'm with that 100%. But there are ways of doing things and going about the procedure that's been laid out by this government. George Patty mentioned a discussion with the department head and I'm sure it has been, but the department head don't make the decision. This body, this elected body here makes those decisions. And it was discussed with him and it should have been discussed with us. And I don't' think we are here to try to fight or stop a project. That's not what we're about. But you can't have people making decisions for this -42- government that we have to vote on and not normally what we vote on, or thinking what we vote on. Now if all of this has been done, George Patty just told us in 05, I remember them coming, I remember them talking about what good things we're doing. I remember paying, this body voted to give someone $500,000.00 for a Christmas tree farm, and gave them trees on the farm. So, we done a lot with Diamond Lakes. It's done come a long way. We done built a new library facility out there, and all the other stuff, Mr. Mayor, and I think that's good. But what you talking about now, opened up a flood gate I believe. You talking about doing some stuff now that hadn't even been going through the process. And if it has, I'm just asking to be shown that. That's all I'm asking. I ain't got but one vote up here. That's all I got. But I want to see that process, see how it was done and not well, somebody than done something because they think it's good, and then we got to take the brunt of it because whether good, bad or indifferent, it's gonna all fall back on us. You has well as these commissioners, Mr. Mayor. So if it's been done, I just wanna see it. That's all I'm asking for. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, is Mr. Patty, is he still, is he still here? Okay, excuse me. You indicated that this was brought to us in 05 and than again in March of 06, and than in June of 06 and than again in August in regards to the request being made based on the ingress and egress of these particular lots. Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: Is that correct? And this was voted on--- Mr. Patty: It was actually wasn't brought to you in March. In March, you know the plans were to build a road---and I've got all these documents. I'll be happy to tell Commissioner Williams--- Mr. Grantham: But we were presented those and it was voted on and approved by this body. Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: Along those lines, Mr. Mayor, with the, with the information from our department head and based on, on that I feel like he'll follow through in providing Mr. Williams with that information. I don't think Mr. Patty's gonna stand here and tell us something that was done and it was not done. I think there's enough confidence and faith that we have to put in, in And, in doing so I'm gonna make a motion these department heads in order to move forward. that we approve the request for the Diamond Lakes Way. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Grantham: Are we in discussion of this or are we gonna approve what they're -43- requesting? Mr. Mayor: Yeah, just need to receive it as information. Mr. Grantham: I'll make a motion that we receive it as information, and that, that information be provided to Mr. Williams as Mr. Patty indicated. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and to second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS Item 59 is to approve--- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith. Is this important? Personal privilege? Mr. Smith: I want, yes please. I want to ask Mr. Patty. Is there and exit coming out of that or is that just an inlet--- Mr. Patty: No, it will be the only way in and out of this subdivision. Mr. Smith: Is that right. Mr. Patty: Only way in and out. I believe will be a signal at the entrance to the park . whereas a square intersection with the park Turkey Trail and Windsor Spring Mr. Mayor. Okay. Item #59. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 59. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $2.5M from Phase IV SPLOST (Interest Account) to the Laney Stadium Project as approved by the Commission August 31, 2005. (Requested by Commissioner J.R. Hatney) Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. -44- Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. I had looked at the funding source in Phase III. This was apparently not there so I'm asking the commission to rescind its action on September the 2nd, 2005. Taking this money from SPLOST III and instead taking it from SPLOST IV which will involve the consent of the Augusta neighborhood, well not the consent but, their awareness of the Augusta neighborhood improvement corporation that part of the commitment of the funding will come from the Laney/Hopkins street account that will be reduced by $900,000. The $900,000 will be added together with other funds which the finance director and the administrator have identified in that same category as SPLOST IV and that will put together $2.5M from the SPLOST IV, and the additional $900,000 from Laney to total a $3.4M dollar commitment. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and to second. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate that information, Mr. Shepard and I think that's important, uh, however it's similar to some of the times when we say we found money and we put it in different areas, and I voted on this previously and I voted on it again today. However, when we go back and we have to shuffle different monies around, I think it's important that commissioners receive a page showing where this is coming from out of whatever SPLOST II, III, IV or what areas, and if there's any moving of money from any particular ongoing projects. We need to know about that so that we can not only continue the approval of this project but there may be those projects that we're taking money from that we want to realign in some form or process that they're gonna make sure those other projects get back on the table as quickly as possible. I don't have a problem with it, I just think we need to know where it's coming from and the items that we're using there. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Accountability. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what happened to the money, the 03 sales tax money that was supposed be used for that. Now, we're talking about finding money, but who lost it. Where is that money and where did it go to? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Williams. It was voted on, I think, Mr. Grantham. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, that money was located, and is still in an account there for $9M worth of projects. I think the misunderstanding that Commissioner Bowles, or not Bowles, Commissioner Boyles at the time, was on the assumption that was not committed. That is committed, $5M of which this building here and the balance of other projects that have been committed. To reprogram that at this point would not be what I would suggest to be best alternative. We have dollars available in the SPLOST or they're not committed at this particular -45- point in time. I believe that would be the best way to do it sir. Mr. Williams. Mr. Mayor, thank Ms. Bonner, Mr. Russell, that's a large mistake, there, that's a large loophole there. And, I understand how things happen like that. But it looked like somebody would've came to our finance meeting to report, to show us what that was voted to do. And that's supposed to be the law up here. I mean six votes supposed to be what's carried out. And, when that happens, if there's mishap or there's something wrong, that should've been brought back to finance so we can, you know correct that at that time, so we can make those provisions. I mean, here we are now, needing it and what was that we voted on, excuse me Mr. Mayor. Mr. Grantham: That was ,uh---- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham: Mr. Grantham: ---a year and a half ago. Mr. Williams: A year and a half ago that it's been floating downstairs in Donna's office and I see Donna my friend sitting over there, I know that, but it's been floating somewhere, I mean, those figures are written down somewhere. And that's a large amount of monies that we should've been abreast on, what's what. We have to receive that Mr. Mayor that's all we can do about it. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a substitute a motion that we take no action till we receive figures outlining where these funds are coming from and going to. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to say the same thing I did earlier is, I think everybody remembers last year and the year before. I don't think we had any two sets of SPLOST numbers that were the same from one day to the next. And while I trust that we're getting that worked out, I think we should get this project on the road, it's needed. The potential for economic stimulus in the inner city is tremendous with what this stadium will do. While I'd like to see the numbers, and I pray that we're going to start seeing some consistency on these accounts in the future and some better accountability of our funds and where they are, I'd like to see us move forward with this project and these monies and make it happen. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham: Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, thank you, and I think the same principle applies here that I just mentioned a moment ago, and that is, I'm happy to receive that information, I think it's good, I think we need to move forward with this project and in listening to Mr. Russell and to the finance, the interim finance director, they find this money, they know where they're getting it from. They're -46- going to provide that information to us. They're very reliable people or we wouldn't have them in the position they're in and so I wanna move forward with that. I think we would be in order to do . that, but ask them to provide that information to us so that we'd have it in handSo, I would request that we uh, that we withdraw that substitute motion, if you would please Mr. Brigham. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and to second. If there's no further discussion, commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek: Is this for approval, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: This is for approval. Mr. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 6-1. Mr. Cheek: (Unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Hang on there, Andy, we got to get back to 49. I mean, excuse me, uh, 47. Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, we have Ms. McNabb here. She was at the finance committee and she represented that she could bring back some analysis that would help the commission make this decision. We have been in preparation, she and I have--- Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, can we have a recess. We ain’t got a quorum. Mr. Mayor: We're getting near the end here, we can't just go through this? Mr. Grantham: We ain't got a quorum (Unintelligible) Mr. Mayor: Alrighty, I'll declare a five-minute recess. Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Okay. I'll recognize Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in light of some information that's come to light, in light of 401 and the numerous problems we've had with it, I understand we may have awarded a contract today to a company that may not ever built a jail before. So, I just have enough concerns whether I don't want to down select at this time but I would like to have the opportunity to have this kicked back . So I'm gonna make a motion to reconsider 23 and then dispose to committee for discussion of it, perhaps back to committee if we get unanimous consent to reconsider. -47- Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, is there a second? Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, motion to send Item 23 back to the appropriate committee for discussion of the selection process ofthe firm or firms that are in the final grouping and uh, the logic behind the selection or grading that occurred with the recommendation. Commissioner: Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Commissioner's will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. Commissioner Grantham: I don't want no more 401. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Alrighty. Madame Clerk. The Clerk: FINANCE 47. Motion to receive as information to authorize Sutherland, Asbill to Act as Bond Counsel for and Merrill Lynch to Underwrite and prepare a Bond Purchase Agreement for the Refunding Bonds from the Swaption Agreement entered into on June, 2,2004 and bring back recommendation to September 5, 2006 meeting. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard: Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. At the last finance committee, we tasked the financial advisor, Ms. McNabb to give us some guidance and some of the alternatives we have here with the proposed interest rate, not the one we passed, but the proposed interest rate Swaption which is an option to swap interest rates. She has done some -48- research and has presented with my input and Steve Little's input, a memorandum and a summary page which has three alternatives. So I would like to ask her to begin the discussion of this, what we call Attachment A with alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on the table here for the city to consider, and then I'll come back to finish the matter. Ms. McNabb: Thank you. Good to be with you guys again. Um, to kinda step back, two years ago in 2004, your 1996 and 1997 bonds were, what we would call in the industry good refunding candidate. Interest rates had dropped to a point that uh, refunding those bonds would be advantageous and save the city money. However, tax law would not allow that to be done. Uh, the so, in 2004, you entered into an agreement called the Swaption with Merrill Lynch to, so that what they did was give you, negotiate your savings from, effectively refunding those bonds, and they entered into a contract with you where by they provided payments to you totaling $2.1M dollars over 2 1/2 years and in return you gave them the option to enter into a swap with, between Merrill Lynch and Augusta with those bonds could be refunded. Now, those bonds can be refunded now, and under the terms of the Swaption, Merrill Lynch had the right to exercise their option, request that you issue the bonds to refund, the actual bonds that'll refund 96 and 97 and then enter into the swap that was negotiated two years ago. So that basically, you would be issuing those bonds in order to affect the refunding that you have been payed for over the last year and a half, and still receive two more payments. So my job as your financial advisor was to determine what your alternatives were and whether it was in your best interest to move forward with that transaction. Now it was, as part of that original transaction, you also had a right to terminate that agreement. And, of course there's a price associated with that termination. So that's part of the analysis. Do you want to move forward with the agreement as it was entered into in 2004, or do you want to exercise under the terms of that same agreement you're right to terminate that agreement and take another course. So the, what I presented here is three different alternatives. The first alternative is if you just move forward with the status quo, than you would issue variable rate bonds and enter into this interest rate swap with Merrill Lynch. The financial impact of that is that you continue to receive, you still receive your $2.1M in savings. You've received all but a million, you will continue to receive, you've got one more million dollars to receive this October and next October. A half million each date. You do that, you will have variable rate bonds outstanding which effectively uh, subjects you to interest rate risk, and you will enter into this swap agreement. Now the swap agreement mitigates your interest rate risk, because you're gonna be swapped, you will be paying, including your servicing costs, associated with the variable rate debt, you will be paying 4.8%, 4.54 goes to Merrill Lynch and than .26 are the monthly costs that go along with it. So that you're effective rate 4.8 and than in return you will receive 67 % of the one month LIBOR rate. Now, basically, and I have a hard time doing this without moving my hands. Over here you've got variable rate bonds outstanding, and you, Augusta will pay the variable rate on those bonds. Now, the expectation, when you entered into the swap was that you expect that the variable rate on those bonds will be approximately 67% of LIBOR. Over here, you've got the swap. That's a totally separate agreement. You will pay, the effectively 4.8%, you're going to receive 67% of LIBOR. Now 60, that doesn't, if your bonds don't trade at 67% of LIBOR, you will be paying, or receiving the difference. Because, over here, you're gonna pay your variable rate. Then on the swap side you're going to either receive or pay that net differential. That then comes over, that net difference comes over either totally offsets 67% of LIBOR. If your bonds are actually trading at 70% of LIBOR, than when you receive that 67, you're gonna be short -49- by 3% of LIBOR which is part of your payment. If you're trading on the other hand at 65% of LIBOR, you're still gonna receive 67% and you'll be ahead by .02%. So what you've done is instead of having variable rate risk, that can go like this, OK? You're variable rate risk is really more like this. Now, the risk associated with alternative 1, is that you have basis risk and tax risk. Now that, what that amount, the basis risk is what I just described. If you're bonds, variable rate bonds actually incur interest at 70% of LIBOR, or 65% of LIBOR that's your basis risk. The risk is that your bonds will not trade at the rate that you're receiving. The tax risk is probably the bigger risk as far as how it could cause your rates to deviate. Not necessarily riskier in terms of whether it would happen or not. But your bonds are expected to trade at 67% of LIBOR, because interest on your bonds is tax exempt. LIBOR is a taxable interest rate so that the, expecting your bonds to trade at 67% of LIBOR, is assuming that the bonds are always tax exempt. Now if the Federal government came in and Congress decided that they needed more money for their coffers, they could turn around and eliminate that tax deduction. Who knows whether that could happen or not. It's hard to imagine it happening, but theoretically it could happen and then your bonds will trade, the bonds over here, are going to trade at 100% of LIBOR, up here. Well, if that happens, you're still just gonna receive 67% of LIBOR. So, that's, what we've put here is the interest rate risk which you understand is the variable, the basis risk that your bonds will not trade at 67% of LIBOR, and the tax risk that it could be a 100% of LIBOR instead of 67%. Now there's also counter-party risk that, which would be the risk that Merrill Lynch for some reason would not pay you 67% of LIBOR. I think that the transaction was structured such that, I think that would be unlikely, plus you just wouldn't pay them 4.8%, or 4.54%, and that 4.54 should more than offset whatever it is that they don't pay you. So I think the counter-party risk is very minimal. Then, effectively your bonds are non-callable. You'll enter into, you'll issue these bonds but this swap that you also enter into will go the full term of the bonds. So that if at some point you want to de- fees these bonds that are outstanding, you will have to terminate this swap, at the same time in order to come out even. Now, as you're gonna see here, there's a payment that's due, associated with terminating that swap and you may not be able, at this point I'm going to show you exactly what the costs and benefits are of terminating it. Down the road, you may not have that same offsetting benefit that will allow you to come out even, or better. Now, that's alternative one. Alternative 2, would be, don't enter the swap and instead of issuing variable rate bonds to refund your 96 and 97 bonds, you would issue fixed-rate bonds to refund your 96 and 97 bonds. When you issue those fixed-rate bonds, it will be a fixed interest rate and in lieu of paying Merrill Lynch a fixed interest rate, you will be paying your actual investors a fixed interest rate. There would be no variable component, no interest rate risk, no basis risk, no tax risk, no counter-party risk associated with that, and, but you would have to pay a termination payment. So what I've done in the box on your summary, is that, that termination payment, when we did the calculation last week was $4.1M and you've already received, offsetting that is the $2.1M in savings that are locked in. You're gonna get that, either have gotten it or you're gonna get it. It's there. OK, then, the last item in that summary, called benefit fixed, versus variable, $3.2M dollars. What that is, is that, that's additional refunding savings. Where you did the refunding back in 96, back in 04, for $2.1M in savings, right now, you do that refunding and it's gonna save you an additional $3.2M. So, when you take into consideration the $2.1 savings that are locked in, at $3.2M in savings that you have if you refunded those bonds on a fixed rate basis instead of variable, and then you take into consideration the $4.1M in termination payment, you have a net impact of $4.2M dollars. Now, basically what that is, is a $900,000.00 reduction in your original $2.1M in savings. Ok, so that is -50- effectively what happens is, you have to make that payment, the $4.1 is part of the new fixed-rate bond issue and that with the new fixed-rate bond issue your savings are $1.2M instead of $2.1M. And, that differential is over the life of the new bonds. So this, alternative two, just wipes out basically everything that was done and puts you in a position as if you had only done a fixed-rate refunding. The bonds would be callable in ten years, and assuming interest rates continue the way they have been which is up and down, you should be able to call, refund those bonds again in ten years. Now, Alternative 3, is presented in order to show you the value of that tax risk. So, that what we're, Alternative 3 is, taking Alternative 2 and going one step further. Alternative 2, we don't enter into the swap so you're gonna make the termination payment, use your fixed-rate callable bonds, just like we've been talking about, and then you enter into a new basis swap, and again I'm not proposing a new basis swap, I just want to show you where you are, OK? This new basis swap, basically gets you, your bonds if you were to issue as an alternative 1, variable rate bonds, those bonds should trade, or the interest rate incurred should be the equivalent of BMA, or Bond Market Association Index. Now, that is a tax exempt index. That index generally mirrors 67% of LIBOR, OK? So, that if you were to enter into this with the fixed-rate bonds it, if what you did was carve out just a little swap over here, that said okay you pay me BMA and you're gonna receive 67% of LIBOR, that sort of like what you did in #1, except that you don't have any risk with regard to where your own bond rating is or whether your bonds trade differently from BMA or 67% of LIBOR. And what that swap represents, bottom line is that's the tax risk. So, it order to better explain this, I hope, you've got the same termination payment of $4.1M, the same prepaid benefit, your refunding savings that you've already locked in of $2.1M, then this additional swap which is the tax risk, that's the tax risk of Alternative 1 that you've got, you would be able to enter that swap for a payment of $1.9M dollars. Another words you could do Alternative 1 but you would never do alternative 1 at this point in the market, Okay. Because you could do Alternative 3 and receive another $1.9M. Okay? And, you would be in the same position you were in with Alternative 1. And again, these are just market forces that, and how they react with other indices, etc. So, Alternative 1, instead of you swapping your variable rate for 67% of LIBOR and Alternative 3 you're swapping the bond market index for 67% of LIBOR and you've got no variable rate risk over here, okay. That swap is strictly BMA versus 67% of LIBOR. So if the Georgia EPD comes down and says, you've got to tear down all you waste water plants and build all new plants, and suddenly, you know the systems in turmoil and could send your variable rates way up, that won't happen in Alternative 3. Cause than Alternative 3, you are basically trading on the standard variable rate not your variable rate. So, the market would pay you $1.9M, and again, you get additional savings from doing a fixed-rate refunding of $2.1M, excuse me $3.2M. So that the net impact instead of $1.2M would be $3.1M or the differential of $1.9M. Again, the purpose of this is just to show you basically, if Alternative 1 and not entering the swap is not what you want to do, than don't do 1 do 3, okay? But, if what you want to do is eliminate that risk and go back to fixed-rate bonds, the standard fixed-rate bonds in Alternative 2, is what you want to do. And again, in 3 your bonds would be refundable again on the call date. Mr. Mayor: Okay. With regards to your recommendations, the safest alternative would be Alternative 2. Ms. McNabb: Absolutely. -51- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh, Diane, based on Alternative 3, and I'm asking this question, cause I'm not in favor of it, I'll just tell you that now, but within the arrangements that you make for Alternative 3, would that possibly allow us to do what we're doing today against our present Swaption? Ms. McNabb: I'm not sure, I don't know what to tell you. Mr. Grantham: Well, if we entered into Alternative 3, two and a half years from now, can we use Swaption against Alternative 3, like we're doing against what we presently have. If we exercise that right. Ms. McNabb: No. This cleans it out. Mr. Grantham: Okay. Ms. McNabb. Okay. Everything, all three options on this page, all three alternatives on this page, does away with that option. It's gone. Mr. Grantham: So you have no future options. Ms. McNabb: That's right. Mr. Grantham: If you go with 2 or 3, the only option you have with 2 is the right to call the bond. Ms. McNabb: That's right, which you would have--- Mr. Grantham: Which you'd have under three as well. Ms. McNabb: Right. In other words Alternative 2, if you had never entered into the Swaption, you would be refunding those bonds today with fixed-rate bonds, and that's exactly where you end up with Alternative 2. Mr. Grantham. Okay. And we eliminate all risks involved in alternative 2. Ms. McNabb: In Alternative 1. Mr. Grantham: Right. Ms. McNabb: 2 eliminates all risk associated with 1. Mr. Grantham: All risk associated with 1. -52- Ms. McNabb: That's correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham: And we still have a savings of $1.2M based on it. It's gonna cost us $4.1 to get out of it, and we're gonna be paying those last two payments based on the contract we that we entered into to start with. Ms. McNabb: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Yes, Thank you Mr. Mayor. Dianne, I have two questions for you. The first one would be if we went into a basis swap would we be better off switching from a one-month LIBOR to a five-year LIBOR. Ms. McNabb: That under current market conditions, yeah I would probably, if you wanted to go down that path, I would probably recommend that you do that over and above this one that shown, and the amount would be higher than $1.9M. Mr. Bowles: My second part of the question is, considering the swap that we approved back in April, that was about 33% of our outstanding bond debt, if we would approve this that would add about 16% to it so we'd be hovering around 50%. Isn't that getting a little aggressive in your opinion? Ms. McNabb: I think that's a lot to keep up with. Mr. Mayor: I'll take it by your aggressive nod. Ms. McNabb: You know, I think that it, most of the folks that I work with, just the issuance of variable rate debt at monitoring at what variable rates are doing, to determine that you're not, that you're in the position you need to be in, is headache enough. But, that, your swap has to be monitored on an on going basis. You have to have a swap policy in place, you've got to have financial people that are trained to monitor that swap, you've got to, it's got to be revalued at the end of every fiscal year. There's a lot of work that goes along with it, and another one would just compound it. Mr. Mayor: So, Alternative 2 would really offset some of the risk of the swap that we voted on, I wouldn't say ----- Ms. McNabb: Me and my mind, it offsets the swap ---- Alternative 1--- cause you're not doing it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham. -53- Mr. Brigham: Diane, I didn't realize that calls were ten years now, I thought they were still five. Ms. McNabb: They're usually ten on municipal bonds so that in fact if you think about the 1996 bonds, and the 1997 bonds, the reason that those can not be refunded two years ago, but can be refunded this year, is because this was their call date. Mr. Brigham: Okay. I thought call times were shorter. Ms. McNabb: So, that 1996 had a ten year call and 1997 had a nine year call. But five years would be common for certain kinds of debt. Mr. Brigham: I knew that was coming for a lot of municipal debt. But, the other thing, on option #3, which I'm probably not in favor of. The city call dates would be the same as option #2. Ms. McNabb: Yes. Mr. Brigham. So it's not like the other swap agreement where we can get out on 30 days notice or 45 days notice or something like that. Ms. McNabb: You could have the same option, you could have the swap could be terminable just like the line option in alternative 1. But, it would be, and if you did it you'd have a termination payment, but----- Mr. Brigham: In our other swap agreement we have either a 30 or 45 day out. Ms. McNabb: Oh, right, cause you received no up front payment. Mr. Brigham: Right, and I want to make sure that, if we was to do option 3, which like I said I'm probably not in favor of, would we still have that provision in there? Ms. McNabb: We could have the same provision in there. I'd have to do a little research to find out if it would impact the $1.9M, but if what you're talking about is the option with the 5 year comes to maturity swap then, yeah, you would definitely be able to included that. Then you'd be able to call the--- Like the $160M. Mr. Brigham: And your recommendation is that we do 2 if we was to consider one of these? Ms. McNabb: I would, my recommendation is 2 if you want to eliminate all risk, 3 if you, otherwise we be willing to do alternative 1 because 3 is better than 1 but, well 3's just better than 1. Mr. Brigham: Are you, you're either a gambler or a conservative. -54- Ms. McNabb: I'm personally very conservative. Mr. Brigham: So, are you telling me that your option would be #2 if you’re very conservative? Ms. McNabb: My option for most of the folks that I've worked with would be #2. Mr. Mayor: OK. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is certainly not my area of expertise, but just a couple of questions. I've heard the term risk, and I've looked at the performance graphic we've got on the other Swap, and the performance over a 30 year period of time was to the green instead of the red, I guess on the positive side producing revenue for the participant's in the Swap. When we say risk in Alternative 3, and the reason I'm looking at this is, I've got several 140, 150 year old structures on our main water conductor that are crumbling and literally falling apart that $2M dollars would make a lot of difference towards repairing and improving those structures. Can you place a dollar value of risks most likely, a scenario of things that went bad against the $3.1M? What is our loss or what would we have to pay. Ms. McNabb: Well, I would say that based on feedback from the market, the present value of what you would have to pay is likely to be, based on market prediction, $1.9M. Mr. Cheek: So worst case we're not going to lose any ground we just won't make as much money. Ms. McNabb: Well, I can't say worst case but that's what would happen. But I can say is that your interest rates are a function of what the consensus of all these market people out there think where interest rates are gonna go. That's why, today, if you were gonna borrow money for your, for a 30 year mortgage, that rate isn't 4%, it's 6 1/2%. And so that's what the market consensus is at this point. Well the market is willing to pay you $1.9M dollars because there's someone on the other side of that transaction that figures they're gonna make $1.9M dollars off of you. Mr. Cheek: You know, I'm all for people making money. I guess what I'm getting at--- Mr. Mayor: Not off of us. Mr. Cheek: No, not off of us. I mean, what I'm getting at is if the most likely risk, or risk scenario has us making about the same as we do in Alternative 2, you know there's no, it's just something that performed well over time, over all from what I've seen. Ms. McNabb: Well the risk that you would be taking on, on this scenario, would be the risk that the, the most significant dollar risk would be that the tax code could change and make interest on municipal bonds less tax exempt. In other words if they came in and put a ceiling on the amount that you could exempt from your taxable income, then suddenly you wouldn't be trading at -55- 67% of LIBOR it would be something higher than that because there's some dollar limitation. If they came back and said okay, well individuals can continue to deduct municipal interest or receive exempt municipal interest but corporations can't. Well than that would impact where your bonds would trade. Mr. Cheek: Any bills pending before Congress to that effect? Ms. McNabb: There have been. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Ms. McNabb: Now, I would say that most people, you've got a pretty strong lobby in NACO and all of these other organizations that when that shows up in a bill, everybody's running and screaming, and you do have good lobbies, but for me I, it would be impossible for me to predict what they might do. You know, we end up with a war someplace, in Iran, and they gotta have money, God only knows where they might go. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, there's one school of thought that says it's never gonna happen, there was also a school of thought that said that levee's would never break. Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, just for the commission's information the IRS is tracking non- exempt, is it tracking tax exempt interest in 2006 and I don't think this is going to go away, I think it's only going to get worse and I do think there's going to be limitations on the amount of money that a person can deduct from their income. Ms. McNabb: Yeah, I think everybody would agree that the likelihood, well not, I take that back. I think the likelihood that they'll flat set it down would, it’s gonna be difficult to do. But at the same time, as the Mayor was saying, one of those dykes might break. They may not all break but one of them might. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham: Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. In receiving the information, that if we were to enter 1 or 3, that puts us into a 49% exposure of our bonds based on Swap risk. And, I don't see us doing that at this present time because I think that the financial position that we're in does not warrant us having to do that. If we go to Alternative 2, than that leaves the door open for us for additional bonding of Swap issues if it ever becomes necessary again. Ms. McNabb: Certainly. You'd do another Swap at some point in the future. Mr. Grantham: Right, which right now would eliminate those risks that, by doing 1 or 3 at the present time would not possibly put us in that position to be able to issue another Swap bonding. So I like the idea of Alternative 2 and we're in agreement right now without bond capsule and with our underwriters. But we need to, I think give our attorney the proper information that Diane has given us today and allow us to withdraw from that arrangement, that, -56- we have with those people and to able to move forward with any future underwriters to go to . So I'm gonna put that in the form of a motion that we do just that Mr. Mayor. Alternative 2 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: You saying withdraw, withdraw from--- Mr. Grantham: From our present arrangement with the people we have now based on the bonds that are issued. If we don't withdraw, than there's a deadline date that they have in order to exercise their option rights. Clerk: Is that Merrill Lynch? Mr. Grantham: That's Merrill Lynch. Ms. McNabb: Um, you will also have a deadline by which to inform them that you're going to terminate. Mr. Grantham: Correct. And if we terminate and we take Alternative 2 than we have the right to go out for additional bids on underwriting for Alternative 2. Ms. McNabb: You could. I'm just afraid that the timing is such, it's so short that, that could be very difficult. Mr. Grantham: Well, we could explore that as well. But if we don't than we give that privilege to Merrill Lynch. Ms. McNabb: You can allow anybody to--- Mr. Grantham: Come in and do this. Ms. McNabb: Come in and do it that you want to. Mr. Grantham: That's my point, and that's a new bidding process for our bond. Based on Alternative 2 we might get a better rate than what we are anticipating. Ms. McNabb: Well, Id like to think that with the financial advisor looking over everyone's shoulder and putting, and holding their feet to the fire you'd get a better rate either way. Mr. Grantham: And I'd like to even exercise the fact we use Ms. McNabb as our financial advisor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. -57- Mr. Cheek: Now this is on the 96 issuance and 97 issuance. Okay. I'm good. Commissioner Brigham: I'll second Mr. Grantham's motion. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: If you want to tie this package up, the last paragraph of the memorandum--- would be to retain Sutherland, Asbill--- Mr. Grantham: I don't have a problem with that. And I ask you this afternoon to quote the fees and basically that's a fee Mr. Shepard: of $200,000.00, which is the cost of issuance that's bond counsel and issuance counsel. Underwriters counsel I've called Kilpatrick-Stockton. They were satisfied with the fee of $75,000.00 and Ms. McNabb, I asked her to bring the contract and also included the fees for the financial advisor and, she estimated $75,000.00 for new bonds and $250,000.00 for the negotiation for the termination payment and her analytic services today. She also recommends that she be allowed to negotiate with the underwriters, which would be a form of obtaining the same benefit as a competitive bid. So I would ask that those stipulations be incorporated into the motion. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes Sir, Mr. Mayor, I have not said very much on this issue, I've been looking at Donna around the podium and trying to see what her expression was cause I lean on my financial leaders to know more about this. And, I'm not questioning anything but, when you talk about the fees and how much it's gonna be put out here, is there a process, do we go through the same thing Donna, that we went through before to make sure we getting what is best for. I mean, and that's the point I'm getting at because I just need know that we're doing those things that we supposed to do to get this to--- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham: Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The point I'm making too, is that we're already in an agreement based on the 96 and 97 bonds. There's an agreement already there. We want to terminate that agreement. The thing we're saying to do is to retain the bond counsel that's already involved in that which would move us forward into a new bonding situation to go to permanent bonding which allows us at that point of going out for the bid process that our financial advisor would do for us in order to obtain the rates and the people that we would want to handle the new bond issues. And, that being the case we'd more than likely would get a more favorable rate by -58- putting it on the competitive basis than we did if we just rolled it over to the Merrill Lynch people right now. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you--- Mr. Grantham: I think I've answered it. Mr. Williams: And I want to know but wood than I would've called you but I've been watching Donna shake her head so, I'm in agreement with what she's nodding over there, you explained it well. But if I wanted to know about wood I would call you but-- Mr. Grantham: (Unitelligible). Mr. Williams: I missed the point Mr. Mayor. We need to go ahead and do that. I just wanted to make sure we're clear. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Commissioner Cheek: Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question and I'm going to ask this for Commissioner Beard because I know this is one of the things she brought up before. Traditionally, we've seen some pretty exorbitant percentages going out to the different parties involved in bonding. How do these fees that we look at compare to the percentage of the total issuance. Are we in 2%, 7%? I think that the will of this bonding was to get into a situation like Chatham County and others where you look at large issuance issues and have a cap set on that, that's well below the traditional 7% or whatever it was back in those old days. I'd kind of like to get a handle on what percent of the total dollar value we're looking at as compared to what it was before. I know it was a pretty big deal when everybody was toting home a half million dollars or so on these bond issuances and so forth. Ms. McNabb: Well, I can tell you because I'm Chatham County's financial advisor as well and I think that, of course we saw that in the general obligation bond issue, I think which we just did. And I think from the water and sewer perspective, I can go back and look at what's been done in the past and what the various expected fees are and then moving forward. But, I would have to say you're sort of in a transition phase at this point because with the original agreement in 04 to execute the refunding this year, there are already, kind of already have a cast of players, especially from the legal side, that had agreed to certain fees and I would say that we could probably get somebody to come in a low-ball their fees. But, we won't get it done by the first of October and I can't guarantee it would be, there's always somebody willing to low-ball it than not do it. Mr. Cheek: If I can follow up Mr. Mayor. All I'm going to say is I am more interested in the Savannah model where we have a fixed lower percentage fee for a large issuance. I mean it should get to, I mean people need to make money but it should be capped. As contrasted to the traditional Augusta situation wherein somebody---gets set to retirement. Mr. Mayor: I think I can get an Amen out of Commissioner Williams on that one. Alrighty, we have a motion and to second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the -59- usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. LEGAL A.Pending and Potential Litigation B.Real Estate C.Personnel Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Yes, Sir. Mr. Mayor I'd ask that we have a legal session for the purposes of pending litigation, real estate. I don't think there's any personnel matters on those two items. Mr. Mayor. OK. Look for a motion to that effect? Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 7-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham. (Unintelligible chatter) Mr. Mayor: I'll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. Mr. Shepard. 60. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Shepard: I ask for a motion to approve your signature on the closed meeting affidavit which indicates that we only discussed in executive session the acquisition of real estate and pending and potential litigations. Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion--- Commissioner Bowles: Second. -60- Mr. Mayor: ---and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Grantham: (Unintelligible). Mr. Holland out. Motion carries 6-0. ADDENDUM Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would ask for authority to add and approve a settlement in the case of Duggan, D.L. Duggan and Sandra Duggan vs. the City of Augusta in the amount of $85,000.00 to settle any and all claims that were brought in that case orcould be brought in that case. This settlement will be binding on the Duggan's and their successor claims, and their successors entitled and this will allow the city to continue to discharge storm water on the property owned by the Duggan's and that the specific descriptions will be supplied when I give Ms. Bonner an agenda item in the morning and this covenant will be recorded the Change of Deeds and that will give notice to any other persons purchasing the property will not allow the city to have repeated exposure. The Duggan's will be allowed to remove the pipe that cuts through the property at their expense and reroute a storm water pipe down Paris and Mileage streets subject to our ordinances regarding location for the replacement pipe that will be done at their expense. The settlement includes as I've said includes all claims, but specifically includes the claim of attorney’s fees and that will be an amount which is charged to the settlements account. The settlements account needs to be reimbursed by a contingency by appropriate transfer from contingency to settlement in the amount of $85,000.00. Mr. Bowles: I so move. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Holland out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Grantham: (Unintelligible). Mr. Shepard: I have to restate to that effect that it'll be required at their expense to relocate the pipe--- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, are you still--- Mr. Shepard: I changed, allowed to require--- at---expense. -61- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell: Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. It's my understanding we need action on the issue regarding Item 12 which is the candy factory issue and I assume that action would be to direct Steve to proceed as directed and bring that information back as soon as possible. We do need to take some action to get that over with. 12. Motion to approve Proposal from J &B Construction & Services, Inc. to demolish the Candy Factory. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Can we get a motion to that effect? Commissioner Bowles: So moved. Commissioner Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Holland out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: If there is no other business to come before the body we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:05 PM] Lena 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 September 5, 2006. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission -62- -63-