Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 20 2006, Augusta Richmond County Commissi REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER June 20, 2006 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2006, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Brown, Grantham, Hatney, Williams, Beard, Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: John Manton, Attorney’s Office; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The invocation was given by the Reverend Nedenia Barber, Chaplain, Augusta Youth Development Center. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Barber? The Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and the members of the Commission, we’d like to thank you for [unintelligible] appreciate that and as a token of our appreciation we have named you Chaplain of the Day for Augusta Richmond County. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Now, that we’ve blessed the Chambers, let’s move on, Madame Clerk, and we’ll take the Forum issue first. The Clerk: Are you going to take that in conjunction with the presentation? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: DELEGATION D. Ms. Sandy Lawrence, Foxhall Subdivision RE: Forum Development PLANNING 45. Z-06-51 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the conditions listed below, a petition by Forum Development Group, on behalf of Nixon Trusts and Roger Graham, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception to have a group of retail buildings which would exceed 15,000 gross square feet of area per Section 21-2 (a) affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Walton Way Extension and Interstate 20 consisting of six land parcels totaling 44.8 acres. (Tax map 16 Parcels 55, 52.2, 52.1, 52, 51.1, and 51) DISTRICT 7 1. There shall be no development or other 1 encroachment in the 100 year floodplain except for connections to sewer lines if necessary; 2. The only access to the property shall be a new intersection on Walton Way Extension in the vicinity of Hebron Court to be paid for by the developer of the subject property. This intersection shall also provide access to the apartment complex across Walton Way Extension. The intersection shall be signalized and the cost of equipment and installation shall be borne by the developer of the subject property. If the new signalized intersection is determined not to conform to the AASHTO standards, then the new zoning classification shall revert back to the previous classification. 3. There shall be no access to Walton Way Extension except at the new signalized intersection. If outparcels fronting on Walton Way Extension are created there shall be no access easements placed on plats and deed of such parcels. 4. Illumination at the rear of the complex is a potential impact that can be mitigated by the following: A fence, wall or solid vegetative screen shall be located along the entire floodplain at least six (6) feet above the elevation of any retaining wall or fill at that location. For building walls facing the floodplain on the creek side of the property, all building wall lights shall be directed down the building, not outward; In the rear parking area there shall be full cutoff lighting that does not shine into the floodplain. 5. That the only development of this property other than development allowed in the R-1 and R-1A zones shall be an upscale shopping center consistent with the concept plan in the file. If site plans for such development are not presented within two years of approval of the rezoning then the zoning of this property reverts to R-1A. If development of the property does not begin within three years of approval of the rezoning, then the zoning classification reverts to R-1A; 6. That the Stormwater facility shall be built to accommodate a 100 year storm and release it at no more than 90% of the predevelopment rate. Mr. Mayor: Actually, let’s let Ms. Lawrence speak first since she was—please keep the presentations to five minutes. Dr. Johnson: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Dr. Johnson: My name is Dr. William Johnson. I live at 2948 Foxhall Circle. I’ve lived at that address for our 25 years. I’m a retired physician, semi-retired, consulting [unintelligible] Department of Mental Health. This has been a long, drawn-out process for our neighborhood. [unintelligible] memories of problems with due process [unintelligible]. We came to that Commission people with about 200 people. [unintelligible] chairman of the political party here in Augusta stood in the door of the [unintelligible] and told people to go home because there was not going to be a vote that day. Also, the owners of the land in question called people in our neighborhood to tell them not to come to that Commission meeting. Well, that [unintelligible] and we’re concerned about it. Whose Constitutional rights have been violated? That seems to be a big thing. The U.S. Constitution. Under the Voting Act, Voting Rights Act [unintelligible] telling us to go home. We’re talking about a piece of property that goes for about $7 million, I understand. And apparently there’s only about a few thousand dollars a year paid in property taxes for this [unintelligible]. We’ve made investments in our homes. We’ve paid mortgages. And we are concerned. We seem to be discounted. We are very concerned about ineffective counsel. The vote of the Commission against the rezoning was 6-3. The County Attorney we do 2 not feel fulfilled his legal obligation with an effective defense and we have reasons to believe that, because some of us were approached the evening or the day after, the hours after the presentation to Judge Fleming for affidavits. We are very concerned about this. Judge Fleming lives three doors from the property owners. Under the same stand of trees. Steve Shepard did not want him recused. Everybody says why wasn’t he recused? Why didn’t he recuse himself? We have some serious safety issues. We are still concerned about one entrance. This is a lot that is about a half a mile deep, a narrow rectangle wedged between Interstate 20 and off ramp and Crane Creek. That’s pretty deep, a half a mile deep, with one entrance. This is [unintelligible] entrance that has to be used by 18-wheeled trucks. There’s no other way in or out. We just had a gas leak at a shopping center in Columbia County a few weeks ago. We just had an accident on Riverwatch between an ambulance and an automobile that tied up the intersection just like that for some time. We want a second entrance. If this is zoning is passed, we want a second entrance. This has been examined. I’ve talked to people around the state. No one has seen this type of a configuration [unintelligible] Peachtree Parkway. It’s a little bigger than this one but it’s got seven access points and it’s got a main parkway in front of it with two streets on the ends that are signalized. We haven’t got anything like that out where we are. We are very concerned about that. And we want—if this rezoning goes forth, we want—we want a second entrance on the east end of it, [unintelligible]. We are concerned about water. We want a written guarantee from the city— Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. The five minutes are up. I hate to cut you off but they will get exactly the same amount of time as well. Dr. Johnson: Okay. We’ll be counting. Mr. Mayor: So will I. Please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Lyons: Good afternoon. My name is Charles Lyons and I’m an attorney here in Augusta. My office is located at 336 Telfair Street, right down the street. We’d like to thank the Commission for giving us the opportunity today to speak to you. Mr. Mayor, we appreciate you taking us out of line here. We’ve heard these concerns and I’m sure everyone knows how we got here today. We were here earlier this year on this issue, which we didn’t prevail. We followed the rule of law and we had an impartial judge to decide on the issues involved here. And the issues involved here are controlled by the Georgia Supreme Court case of Barrett v. Hamby. Judge Fleming followed the requirements of that case and that case requires a court to balance the critical interests of all the parties. And that’s exactly what Judge Fleming. I just want to read some specific language from that case as to what a judge has to do in a situation like this. Specially, a zoning classification may only be justified if it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Lacking such justification, the zoning may be set aside as arbitrary or [unintelligible]. If the zoning regulation results in a relatively low gain or benefit to the public while inflicting serious injury or loss on the owner, such regulation is compensatory and void. So we’re at a point now where we have a ruling, which is a final ruling, from Judge Fleming. No appeal was taken. So we’re here today to ask this body to follow the rule of law and to follow the request of these petitioners. Now, the Planning and Zoning Commission, they have heard these issues. And I will say that is a commission that is put together specifically to address and hear these kind of issues. And the opposing parties had the 3 opportunity to make that issue known. That body ruled favorably for the petitioners. Now, these petitioners just don’t want to come in here and put up some little rinky-dink establishment. They are concerned about the issues that the doctor has presented here today and they have been more than willing on many occasions to meet with them and to address them. And Mr. Brown here from development, if you want to, he’ll speak concerning some of those issues. But they have imposed upon themselves conditions to mitigate any adverse effects that these property owners may have. And I think they’ve gone over and beyond to do that. And I think this Commission needs to consider the economic impact of this development. 600 permanent full-time jobs. 100 permanent part-time jobs. 400 construction jobs during the development/construction phase. Tax revenue. Property tax revenue of 750-60 thousand dollars a year. A million and a half dollars in sales tax revenue. This community can’t afford to turn that away. This will be a unique development. It will be an upscale development. This group has done—has gone over and beyond what’s required of them to make this development a very livable and [unintelligible] development. Georgia law requires in storm drainage runoff, it requires 90% pre-development storm drainage run-off capacity for new developments. This organization will have 85% development. The traffic concerns, those same concerns were voiced in front of the Zoning Commission. [unintelligible] eight lanes of traffic out there. Judge Fleming heard a very qualified, very well-established expert who testified as to traffic, safety concerns out there, all those were addressed. Mr. Mayor: Four minutes and 50 seconds. Mr. Lyons: If you want to hear from Mr. Brown, he’s here. Mr. Jack Long and Mr. Pat Rice, the attorneys who have taken the lead on behalf of our clients are both in court, one in Burke— Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir, that’s five minutes. I gave you five extra seconds for the interruption. Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: [unintelligible] may I ask you a question, please. I think you mentioned the establishment of the development have gone on and above what these individuals have requested and I think the thing I had in mind [unintelligible] second entrance [unintelligible]. Mr. Brown: My name is Bill Brown, I’m managing member of Forum Development Group. As far as additional entrance into the center, we are working with the Georgia DOT to add an additional entrance. Basically they have told us they’re favorable in doing that but basically they wanted to get the zoning beyond this stage first and then they would get in formal discussions with us. But we actually have conceptual plans that have been in front of the Georgia DOT for some time. Mr. Hatney: You are [unintelligible] second entrance; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Brown: Yes, we are. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? 4 Mr. Brown: I also heard a concern about water, that Dr. Johnson did not get to finish. Could I hear what that is and if that has been addressed? Mr. Bambrick: My name is Bill Bambrick and I’m a 28-year resident of Sugar Mill Woods and I have seen all the flooding that has taken place through the years in the Crane Creek basin. And my concern is with all the construction that’s going on, we’ve got to look beyond the confines of Richmond County. That water comes out of parts of Columbia County, it drains right through our neighborhood, our neighborhoods have been flooded before, Commonwealth was flooded, the federal government had to step in and tear the houses down. I-20 has been raised another 20 feet. In my opinion, they’ve raised the dam another 20 feet. They’re going to flood all our neighborhoods if we have a catastrophic flood again. The Crane Creek and the Raes Creek basins have been straightened. This is to me an engineering fault because now all the flooding is going to occur quicker rather than slower because we don’t have that natural runoff. Erosion and silting is going to occur. It’s going to go right through the Augusta National, we’re going to silt Lake Olmstead, and God help us if the dam breaks at Lake Olmstead, it’ll flood downtown Augusta. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Brown: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Yes, please. Mr. Brown: I didn’t hear from Dr. Johnson. Mr. Speaker: I think he [unintelligible] in his stead. Mr. Brown: Is that true, Dr. Johnson? Mr. Johnson: I wanted to elaborate. Mr. Mayor: Approach the podium, please, sir. Mr. Johnson: They’re talking about a second access point right in, right out with a divided highway on Walton Way Extension, just up north from the big entrance. And only entrance. We’re asking for an access point, and entrance/exit at the opposite end, on the east end of that very narrow, long, half mile triangle. Mr. Speaker: Regarding the water runoff, basically there are several things going on right now outside of our development. There are a lot of DOT changes going on [unintelligible] coming in at our property and along with those DOT changes there is also a lot of work being done to Crane’s Creek that is trying to help improve on this. Basically—I’m not an engineer— but basically flash flooding basically in Georgia occurs in the summer. We get heavy, heavy rains in a quick period of time and we basically get a flash flood. Many of us get them through our back yards, with or without creeks. So there is already work being done to mitigate the current situation that Foxhall is concerned about. Above and beyond that, the county requires 5 that with a development of our sort coming in that we detain water for a 50-year flood and that we release water at 85%, excuse me, 90% of the release of water prior to the development. Well, we’re willing to double that to a hundred-year flood and go to 85% of the prior release of water of the development. So we are going to be adding [unintelligible] service but we’re adding a pond that will hold it and release it at a measured rate. So it is designed to actually improve Crane Creek and improve the Foxhall situation rather than make it deteriorate. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty? Is Mr. Patty around, who is our Planning and Zoning person and who I rely heavily on for a lot of issues. George, I need to know— Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need you to ask George— Mr. Mayor: Now that you’ve gone through the Chair, ask for yourself. Mr. Williams: I thought you gave me the mic, the liberty. Us preachers now, when you give us the mic we don’t go through the Chair. We go through Jesus. But anyway, my question is, George, Mr. Mayor, what, what’s your stand, George? I heard Dr. Johnson say something about the safety as far as going in. But what about the flooding, what about the water? See, it’s too late after the flood, after the rain. You know, that’s like when Noah closed the door, couldn’t nobody get in. It’s over with then. It’s too late. So I need to know from your perspective what’s your concern? Are you willing to sign off on the creek back there, the way the development is? We know the courts and what they said but I think everybody ought to be heard. If you going to hear then, now is the time to hear them. Not after the vote is over with. But now is the time to hear them. So I want to hear from you, George. Mr. Patty: Well, from regulatory standpoint you’ve got two sort of separate issues. You’ve got storm water, you’ve got flood plain. As far as flood plain, there’s been substantial flooding that you cannot explain or that you cannot model in Crane Creek. Everybody knows that. The project that is currently being constructed by the Federal Highway Administration at the conceptual stage when it was developed, it was going to be neutral to the flooding on Crane Creek. It wasn’t going to raise, it wasn’t going to make it better, but it wasn’t going to make it worse. Their goal is to make sure that hurricane evacuees could get across there in flooding conditions. So there is supposedly no effect of that project above or below the interstate. But in—before they could do that project they had to model, they had to remodel the flooding on Crane Creek. They actually did it twice. They did what we call a CLOMA, conditional letter of map amendment, and then after it’s all complete they’re going to a LOMA, a letter of map amendment. They will model that flooding twice. And the modeling will take into account the improvements to Interstate 20 and Bobby Jones. Every conceivable engineering skill has been used to determine what flooding on that property will be. And the petitioners have agreed to stay 100% out of that flood plain, hundred-year flood plain. They won’t do anything but possibly run some sewer lines in there. But they will build a retaining wall at the edge of the flood plain. So 6 from our standpoint, from a regulatory standpoint, they’re doing everything they can to accommodate the flooding. But the reality is nobody—I’m not going to, your engineers are not going to sign off and guarantee that there won’t be flooding in that area. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that helps me a lot. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: With that question, with the work that being done, with the I-20 and the new construction that’s going on there. It’s going definitely put an impact on to what they’re doing as well. So that’s—and they can’t control that. That’s a State thing that they’re doing. And whatever the State does is what the State does. But that’s going to be a major impact I believe from what you’re saying. The other issue is a State issue. Is there any kind of—not with the flood, but safety, getting in and out with traffic? And you know how traffic is. I keep talking about growth in Augusta. And when you grow you’re going to have that. You can’t grow without traffic. We ain’t riding horses and buggies no more. You going have, you going have the cars. Going have the diesel engine. All that kind of stuff going be there. But as far as a safety factor, Mr. Mayor, I’m trying to get Mr. Patty to tell me his perspective on the safety, cause he is the man and he’s the Planning and Zoning person. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: I would love to pass the buck on this to your new traffic engineer and he’s here, but my perspective on it is it would be a lot better if there were additional entrances than there are. An attempt was made to access Warren Road. It proved to be from a regulatory standpoint—I don’t want use the word impossible but it was ruled out. It was looked at extensively and ruled out. There is, however, going to be 80 feet of pavement up there which is roughly equivalent to the pavement on Washington Road at its widest point, and I just can’t imagine anything other than an unthinkable disaster that would stop up that total intersection, 80 feet of pavement. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can get my last question answered by the traffic engineer, I’m through. That’s it. I want to hear from the professionals that we pay. Mr. Patty: Could I add one thing while I— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Unfortunately, an error was made in the condition, and if you go to Condition #3 which says that there should be no access to Walton Way Extension except a new signalized intersection, a sentence was left out there that said an additional [unintelligible] access point that serves the entire development may be permitted. And that’s the access point that the petitioner referred to. That does not affect the rear of the property, which we would love to see an entrance but we believe it to be impossible to accomplish. Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] 7 Mr. Speaker: What was the question? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Restate the question. Mr. Williams: The traffic impact with the development going in, the way it is with one entrance in, from your professional point of view, what’s the impact, what’s the down side to what’s going on, the events to take place? Mr. Speaker: I’ve spoken to Bill [unintelligible] about pursuing an additional access point. I know he’s spoken to DOT. I’d like to see an additional entrance south of the development, coming in to the development to basically [unintelligible] traffic from that signal. The traffic study that they submitted estimates about 600 entering and existing [unintelligible] which is about ten cars per minute. The stuff that they’re going to be doing out there, actual dual left-turn lanes, de-cel lanes will help. It will help mitigate. I’m not going to say there is not going to be any impact to any of the adjacent intersections but traffic at that intersection should offer a relatively [unintelligible] with or without an additional entrance. I would just like to see [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Are you done? Mr. Williams: Yeah, I’m done. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: Sir, before you leave, you say you would hope that there could be another entrance, the same entrance that they were talking about [unintelligible] concerned about also? Mr. Speaker: Yes. I would prefer it. With the Walton Way Extension widening we’ve had to revert that over to DOT as a temporary state route, so a lot of the access issues will have to go through DOT permitting. The entrance that I’m speaking about, and I have to see his survey, is I’m only concerned about where the limited access comes in, where that ends. I think that the existing entrance may be at the edge of the limited access, so we would have to get a special permit through DOT to [unintelligible] limited access at that point. For Georgia DOT standards typically you have to locate them 150 feet apart. So with limited frontage that they have there I think they’d be close. But I’d like to see it actually, yes. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland? Hang on one second, Commissioner Holland. One more question. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Developer, I didn’t get your name, sir, but are you willing to attempt to do what they’re asking for [unintelligible]? Mr. Speaker: Yes, we are already attempting that. Mr. Hatney: You are attempting to do that? 8 Mr. Speaker: Yes. As I said before, we are looking for a right-in, right-out between basically the ramp and our main entrance. And we have discussed it with the Georgia DOT. They believe that it’s something that they’ll grant approval but they did not want to take it further until after the zoning issue. Mr. Hatney: I think they was talking about moving the east end or something like that? [unintelligible] front end of the property and then another entrance from the other end? I think that’s what they’re concerned about. Mr. Speaker: We would put one in there as well. There’s additional property in there that we are attempting to acquire. We would have another entrance in there as well. Mr. Hatney: You wouldn’t have no problem sitting down and working this out? Mr. Speaker: I think we’ll sit down with the appropriate people to work it out and if they’re included in that group, that’s fine, yes. [unintelligible] everyone’s benefit. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: That was my concern in reference to what Dr. Hatney said to [unintelligible] Brown that the petitioners would have a contractual agreement with the residents and of course with the DOT to adhere to the requests of the people in that subdivision in reference to making those changes, if you’re going to want to make [unintelligible] that you would have a contractual agreement so that when it comes up, you know, everybody would be on the same page and knowing this is what’s supposed to be done so they won’t be left out in the cold. Mr. Speaker: The DOT will seek local input into the permitting process. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I have two concerns. My first concern is the way that the developer has referred to the property owners by saying that if they are part of the group that needs to be involved. My second concern is that if we’re talking about including a road that will be at the far end of the development and then we’re being asked to vote and wait on DOT to tell us if it can or cannot be done, that puts us in an uncompromising position. Mr. Mayor: I would like to hear from the attorney with regards to if this matter is not voted on today, we have basically, have a judge’s decision, it’s passed Planning and Zoning twice; but what if we fail to rezone the property today? Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, the ruling was put down on th May 5 from Judge Fleming, which gave us 60 days to rezone the property. If we fail to rezone the property, according to his ruling, within 60 days, it becomes free of zoning, basically meaning that these property owners can do whatever they please with the property, we have no 9 control of it. We had an opportunity to appeal within 30 days. The Commission decided not to th appeal so basically it’s a binding order at this point in time. If we don’t do it by July 7 the property owners will go back to the Court and get an order from the Judge which will make it free of zoning, without the stipulations that we already have included that they have agreed to go with. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: You said that we decided not to, but when we discussed this we were told that there wasn’t any need to. That’s not the same thing. Mr. Mayor: Basically though— Mr. Hatney: It’s not the same thing. Mr. Mayor: --to legally proceed this Commission does need to—and correct me if I’m wrong—this Commission does need to vote on this zoning matter. Correct? Mr. Speaker: Correct. Mr. Mayor: And if we do not act it will then be free from any zoning? Mr. Speaker: That’s correct. Mr. Speaker: Can I ask a point of information, sir? This is of deep concern to us. Can you add an amendment that on the zoning that this access point on the east end is a requirement? If it cannot be provided then that’s something else. But I think that you can add that amendment as the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can we hear from you on that? Mr. Patty: Well, as your attorney said, your situation is that you’ve got 60 days from th May 5 to zone this property in a constitutional manner. The courts—Georgia case law cannot rezone the property. They’ve got two levels of remedy. First remedy level is to declare the present zoning unconstitutional, which is what they’ve done. And the second level is to declare it free of all zoning conditions forever, meaning you can’t control the use, you can’t impose conditions on it. For instance, the condition that there be no access to stub out through the subdivision would be eliminated. I mean you’re playing with fire here. And at this point, you know, if you take any liberties outside of what this—the considerable conditions that the petitioners agree to, you’re taking a huge risk. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, could I make one point? I misspoke earlier on what he asked about. What you’re asking for is an access point to the east, which takes us to another property owner and into another residential subdivision. So basically we’re agreeing with Foxhall not to 10 go into their subdivision. It’s a stipulated condition that we’ve agreed to and added since the Planning Commission voted. It now—there’s a request for us to go through another person’s subdivision, which I don’t understand. Mr. Hatney: Is that what you’re asking? Mr. Mayor: Please, wait until— Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible] residential area, excuse me. Mr. Mayor: Wait until you are recognized, please. And I’m going to recognize Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Several years ago this Commission voted to develop some of the most stringent flood control ordinances in the state of Georgia. What I’m hearing from the developers is they will discharge water post-development 15% less than currently is there now, the runoff that occurs from the un-developed state, which will reduce the flow of water into Crane Creek. Secondly, we’ve heard from our traffic engineer that the impacts—while there will be impacts—will not be earth shattering nor devastating. I’ll remind everybody that this is one of the busiest sides of town. It is a growing side of town. It’s a very prosperous and beautiful side of town. We’ve got a judge that has made a decision on zoning that ruled what we did illegal. We are $5.5 million in the hole. Other cities are developing and building these things and they are very nice amenities to the communities they’re in. All of us in our communities hope to preserve the dollars we have in our nest eggs, but the bottom line is that any city that stops growing starts dying. In case you haven’t looked at the numbers, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, one percent growth with three percent inflation is minus two percent. I’d call that pretty close to dying. I cannot believe that we are kicking around this in the face of what’s been told us by our experts. I want to correct what was said earlier. The Corps of Engineers did not purchase the property in Commonwealth. The city government instituted a plan with FEMA to buy out flood-prone properties and used matching money from this city’s coffers to buy out those areas. That is a program that is ongoing to buy out properties along Crane Creek, Raes Creek and other flood-prone areas. We have as a Commission done many things to try to protect and preserve neighborhoods and the quality of life in this community. Mr. Mayor, it is time for this Commission to do what is in the best interest of the whole city and move forward with economic development, to move forward with providing a sound financial basis from which to operate this city, which we haven’t been able to do in the last few years because of deficit spending and a lack of growth in our tax digest. I cannot believe we continue to debate and try to place issues on people who want to invest in this community and I can tell you that the warning flags are going off to other people that want to invest in this community that are simply saying don’t come to Augusta because they’ll do anything they can to keep you from developing. We need to move forward with this and other development in this city and grow this city and grow this economy where everyone in this room’s children can have jobs, where they can at least afford to buy decent housing, and this city will not be in deficit spending that it is because of the lack of growth of the local economy and the tax base. Those are the simple choices that are before us. And dragging out feet around and talking about further conditions and issues is a waste of time for everybody in this room. We’ve been ruled in a court of law to 11 move forward. And the worst thing that can happen is to have this property come under no zoning, which means we could have anything—from auto repair shops to mobile home parks to And I’ll X-Marts and everything else—there. So I just urge the Commission to vote for it. make a motion at this point in time to approve and proceed with this development. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: I think we need to understand two things. First, the flooding on Raes and the topography of Raes Creek; it is not a flat valley. The topography from Boy Scout Road to Berckman Road falls approximately 50 feet, so if we have a flood that is big enough to wipe out the dam at Lake Olmstead, it’s going to back up to this shopping center, it’s going to be a mighty deep flood. It’s going to flood a whole lot more than just the dam and Lake Olmstead and the National and all that. Let’s understand that. But let me also go to where we’ve gone with the flooding in Raes Creek, and I think I know a little bit about the flooding in Raes Creek. I’ve lived it as an elected official more than anybody else in this room. Now, we have done things to improve the runoff in Raes Creek where it will not flood. If it rains long enough, if it rains hard enough, if it rains long enough and hard enough in a short time it is going to flood. We all sit up here, we all know that. And what we can do is we have made improvements where a 1-1/2” rain doesn’t flood, we’ve made improvements where a 2” rain doesn’t flood. If it rains long enough, if it rains hard enough, if it rains in a short enough period of time, it is going to flood. Now I think that these developers have done more than is required on the runoff. I think that is because we have insisted that they do more than is required to reduce the runoff of this property, trying to protect the neighborhoods along Crane Creek and Raes Creek. This is something that I insisted on when I was on Planning and Zoning. This is something I’ve always insisted on on this Commission. I have done that to try to protect the citizens. Now, as far as the traffic, I don’t—I am very much in favor of any other entrances into this property. I would like to see that as a condition. I don’t know that we can make it a true condition. I think the developer would like to see that also. I think he would agree to it. The problem is the DOT, the Georgia Department of Transportation, has the final say on that. I’m going to lobby the people that I need to lobby to see that we have additional entrances into this property. That’s my job. And I will do it. Now, as far as the—I think those are the big concerns. My only other concern is I would like to see an enhancement of the flood plain so that we have some evergreens in there for aesthetics and I would certainly hope that the developer would do those type things to improve the aesthetics [unintelligible] to their neighbor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, and then we’re going to vote this thing either way. We’ve heard from everybody that we need to hear from and it’s been going on for quite some time. Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a comment that I’d like to make, cause I find this conversation today very interesting for the fact that back at the first of the year I met with the neighborhoods for several hours in my office to discuss these issues and to talk about the safety factors that were involved for this particular project. And that was at that time 12 certainly the main concern, with possibly flooding, that I had talked to Mr. Patty about. But I talked to quite a few people in regards to this project. And in a motion that I made on the second floor in the courtroom was to delay the voting of the rezoning at the January meeting to give these two bodies time enough to work out their problems and to come back with a solution that would be acceptable by everyone. This did not seem to fit the bill that day, nor did it want to work. I don’t think they wanted it work, regardless of what the issues were. However, it could have saved all of us a lot of time and a lot of money had that been done at that particular time. I do not see a difference of opinion in my own viewpoint as far as what it was then and where it is now, today. My opinion is that I usually, 99% of the time, will abide by the recommendation of our Planning and Zoning Committee and our Planning and Zoning director, and I plan to do that unless I have a real strong reason not to go along with their recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith, one last time, and then let’s vote this thing. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is it right that we are in violation of a court order if we don’t vote on this today? Mr. Speaker: You won’t be in violation of the court order. I believe the deadline is July th 7. You have 60 days from the date of the order to amend the zoning [unintelligible]. Mr. Smith: I call for the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been—Mr. Williams, but I’m not going to recognize you on this one. It’s been adequately debated. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you have to be recognized to speak. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: I have not recognized you. Mr. Williams, you have to be recognized by the Chair to speak. The question has been called for. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Brigham, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the vote been taken but can I have a point of clarification now, sir, since you had— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I will now recognize you. Mr. Williams: I needed to know how many constituents here from the neighborhood that had not been counted today, to show their self present, to stand up for the neighborhood, and 13 that’s what they need to do. But I needed that vote, that number if I could just get that for my own personal reason, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can we take that count, Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: Twenty. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Madame Clerk, let’s move to the recognitions. The Clerk: RECOGNITION Employee of the Month Award A. Mr. Chris Scheuer, Athletic Supervisor, Augusta Recreation Department. The Clerk: Would you please join the Mayor, along with Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beck? Mr. Grantham is chairman of our Public Services Committee, which has oversight over our Recreation Department. [reading] Dear Mayor Copenhaver, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected Chris Scheuer as the May, 2006 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Chris has only been an employee for 13 months but he has really made a difference. He is currently an athletic supervisor with the Augusta Recreations & Parks facilities. Chris was nominated by his supervisor, Buck Salter. Chris was in charge of the local track and field event and the Georgia Recreation & Parks Track and Field. He ran a very successful local track meet for boys and girls that were combined for the first time in Augusta Recreation track history. He worked with the marketing coordinator to make sure that sponsors received the team schedule and other [unintelligible]. Chris sets goals and achieves them. He will assist with many and all programs. He has an outstanding attitude and was selected as the April Employee of the Month for Recreation & Parks. The Committee felt that based on the recommendation that Chris’ dedicated and loyal service to the city of Augusta and we would appreciate your in joining us in awarding Chris Employee of the Month for the month of May. [ends reading] Mr. Mayor: Congratulations. Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, members of the audience, I just wanted to say a word about Chris. Chris is one of many great employees that we have. Chris is part of a new brigade of employees that are really making a difference, doing things out of the box to bring new services at the lowest cost. Chris is to be congratulated for that. The Clerk: RECOGNITION Information Technology B. Recognition of Information Technology employees who have served the organization for 20 years or more. 14 The Clerk: Mr. Cheek is Chairman of our Public Safety Committee, which has oversight responsibility for IT. Ms. Tameka Allen, the department director. And I’ll allow her to— Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, technology is an ever, ever changing industry. As you well know, what is considered to be the latest and greatest today can be obsolete within minutes. It takes a person with dedication, drive and the appreciation of a good challenge to withstand a career in technology. Technology is an integral of an organization and behind the technology stands the people who implement and support it. Research shows that after 10 to 20 years, a technology employee normally becomes burned out with all the challenges that technology seems to present. I am here today as the Information Technology director to recognize seven very dedicated people who have proven the statistics wrong and who have given a total of over a hundred and fifty years of service to technology for this organization, each contributing 20 or more years. I would like to thank each of them personally for working with me as we strive to meet the technology needs of this government. I would like to present each with a plaque, signed by me and the Mayor, and states in recognition of service, dedication and loyal to the citizens of Augusta, Georgia in the field of information technology. I ask that you come forward as I call your name. Jerry Hewitt, 20 years of service. [unintelligible] Freeman, 20 years of service. Ricky Cantu, 20 years—21 years, excuse me, of service. Annette Coker, 23 years of service. William Yates, 24 years of service. Mark Smith, 25 years of service. And last, but certainly not least, Renetta Rigdon, 30 years of service. Again, thank each of you for joining with me as I thank each of them and I appreciate what every one of you has done. Mr. Mayor: 163 years of service between them, Commissioner Grantham counting. Mr. Grantham: Exactly. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, moving along. The Clerk: RECOGNITION Recognition of Appreciation to Mr. R. Joseph Vignati C. Recognition of Mr. R. Joseph Vignati for his service on the AHEDD Citizens Advisory Committee Mr. DeCamp: [unintelligible] We’re here today specifically to recognize Mr. R. Joseph Vignati, who his not retiring but existing the Citizens Advisory Committee that we work with over at the Augusta Housing and Economic Development Authority. With him today, with us today are other members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, [unintelligible] Williams, Barbara Gordon, Herbert Thomas, Mattie Mitchell, and Jay Forrester. These folks volunteer their service, as do so many other folks in the community. But they work with us at the department. They meet monthly, go over a variety of items, make recommendations. They also serve on special subcommittees to look at specific issues from time to time, and they just put in countless hours and countless amount of time and we couldn’t do that work without them. And we are so grateful to all of them, but particularly today to Mr. Vignati for his service on the Citizens Advisory Committee and I’d just like to take this opportunity to read the plaque. This certificate 15 of appreciation is presented to R. Joseph Vignati for serving the citizens of Augusta Richmond County as a member of the Housing & Economic Development Department’s Citizens Advisory Committee from April of 2002 to March of 2006. Presented on this date, June 20, 2006, and signed by Mayor Copenhaver and myself. Joe, on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Augusta Commission, the Mayor, and all of the folks in the parts of this community that have benefited from your hard work, thank you so much. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, on to the delegations. The Clerk: DELEGATION E. Ms. Annette Santiago, Hope for Humanity RE: Redevelopment of East Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Santiago? And please, ma’am, keep it to five minutes. Ms. Santiago: Good evening. Good evening, Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Good evening. Ms. Santiago: Commissioners. My name is Annette Santiago. I’m from Columbia, South Carolina. I was once a resident of Augusta, Georgia. Now that I’ve relocated I’ve come back here with a passion for the east side of Augusta. As I recall being a little girl growing up that community, I have very little hope over there. The condition of those homes was poor then, and they seem to be now. At those times, those homes was very poor then. And to my amazement, after coming back after twenty-something year, that area still is the same, and even worse. I have a passion there because I have a great aunt over there. I can’t get her to move out. You know how it is when you get old, you get very settled in your ways. But nevertheless, the people over there seem very hopeless. And I would like to take that particular community and bring hope with your support and your approval. My formal background is the political arena in Chicago. I was the former executive to the mayor. I know what it takes to run a community and I know what it takes to give people hope and that’s what I plan on doing with diligence and with your assistance and your approval and standing behind me to give these people hope. Cause there’s very little hope over there. Going over there sometimes it breaks my heart. Words just cannot describe how hopeless it is over there. After twenty-something years I’m appalled that no one has taken the initiative to go over there to that community and do something, where I have come back, I couldn’t find a job here in Augusta, so I had to go to Columbia. But nevertheless my heart is in Augusta so I’m coming back here, hoping that you all will assist me in making a change over there. I also plan on helping bring over in that community business investors who will bring in jobs. It has been done where I was at in Illinois. I’ve seen it done. And I know the funds and the magnitude and the strength that it’s going to take and I’m willing to put forth every effort to see that done. So I did make copies of my proposal. I don’t know who is the Commissioner of that particular community but I’m hoping to hear from you all with support and your approval of me taking on this challenge. 16 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. That’s Rev. Hatney and Ms. Beard. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to say to this young lady it’s welcome [unintelligible] for us to hear such words coming from you. I was just down on Japonica this morning visiting someone who I been knowing for many years. And there is some real serious issues. Ms. Beard and Dr. Hatney I think has been working but there are some real serious issues that need to be addressed on that side of town. You talking about back streets that are forgotten about cause we don’t drive down through those streets. In fact, they’re not even wide enough to be called streets. But they got pavement on them. But they’re really not streets. There’s mixed income, there’s [unintelligible] people but I’m just glad to hear that. I was down there this morning to address [unintelligible]. A friend, Ms. Beard, I been knowing for many years had called me to come down and look at it. But the housing situation, houses about to fall to the ground. I would be afraid to let any live animal even be around them [unintelligible] people be around them. So I applaud you. Ms. Beard, Dr. Hatney, along with myself, will do anything I can to help you in that vein. Ms. Santiago: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: I’m very happy to know you would like to do something for the area and they do have a number of bad pockets, you might say. But overall you have wonderful people there. I’m wondering if you have met the president of the association? Ms. Santiago: No, I haven’t. Ms. Beard: They have a very active association and do a tremendous job and really pay attention to what is going on in the political arena. And I’d like—there’s one thing that I’ve done since I’ve been here, and I’ve only been the Commission 2-1/2 years. We do have a summer program down there now for children ages 5 through 12 and last year was the first year. We are really moving forward there. So I want you to know we welcome you and we will be very happy to work with you and we hope to improve those conditions that have really deteriorated down there. I guess one section would be the Marion Homes section, which would be so beautiful because it’s right on the river. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Thank you, Ms. Santiago, for your presentation. You Can we get a motion to receive that as can get with the appropriate Commissioners. information? Ms. Beard: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote with the usual sign. Thank you for caring about the community. 17 Ms. Beard: Motion to approve receiving this item as information. Mr. Cheek: Second. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: DELEGATION G. Mr. A. Earl Thompkins, Chairman of ARC Citizens Small Business Advisory Board. RE: Disparity Study Mr. Mayor: Did we skip F? The Clerk: I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Actually, we skipped F. The Clerk: DELEGATION F.Mr. Patrick Walton RE: Concerns with License and Inspections Department Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walton, please keep it to five minutes. Mr. Walton: My name is Patrick Walton. I’ve recently been having some problems here with License & Inspection, actually with the inspection department. License—it’s one whole department. This started back in May. I’ll be brief. I’ve talked to Mr. Leverett and I’ve talked to Mrs. Allen about this and I spoke to you and I spoke to the Commissioner of that District about the problems I’m having. And it has really bothered me to see the way things were handled there. Mainly the employees of the department and the way they handled it. And that’s what really brought me down here today. I have dealt with—I have talked to several of them on the phone and in person. What I ran into was arrogance. I ran into horrible body language. [unintelligible] do your job, you’re here to do your job. I ran into several things from the director on down. [unintelligible] ceremony here. But we have some that what really bothered me, got me fired about this, it was [unintelligible] get out of hand. You can do your job and you can do it in a professional way. And I treat people with respect and I also want to be treated with respect, too. That’s the type person I am. I’m not going to let people run over me and talk to me in any kind of way and treat me any kind of way. Like I said, I don’t have enough time to go into any deep detail of what has been going on [unintelligible] two deputy administrators, they’re aware. I brought it to their attention what had been going on. And this, something really needs to be done about this department. If it’s too big, you need to break it down. If it’s something—I understand they’re in a position to do their job, let them do their job. [unintelligible] another thing I noticed with that department, there are laws and ordinances on the books. If you go to the 18 law library a floor above us, you won’t see the Code book on file there. They have it on file at License & Inspection. When I asked about the Code book they showed me certain items in the Code book. They gave me the phone number to obtain that Code book. But if you’re going to enforce laws and regulations, let’s let the public and the citizens of Augusta see that. And I have a problem [unintelligible] certain way. And when you treat people any kind of way it’s not going to get you anywhere at all. I’ve dealt with them on the phone. I’ve left you, actually, Mayor, you [unintelligible] on the phone and a message that was left on the phone. I wish you could have heard the other conversations that we had on the phone, the messages that he did not th leave. And it goes so far that we had a court date on this, the 15. That’s how ugly it got. I was written a ticket. That’s fine. Let the law take its course and let that go. Like I said, I won’t get into all that but it’s a long, drawn-out matter. I appreciate your time, Commissioners, and all— Commissioner Holland is aware. I made him aware of what was going on and I spoke to Commissioner Williams about this, also. But I wanted to let you know and also the full Commission hear my concerns. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Mr. Walton had called me and I think this body needs to know what we talking about. I have not talked to anybody in License & Inspection. If he was mistreated I think he needs to state what happened and so we can know which direction to go in. I mean it’s two sides to every story. I’d like to hear both before I make any recommendation or anything else. I’d just like to know at least some of the details of what’s going on since it was brought to this body, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walton, if you could make, just give us a brief— Mr. Walton: I’ll try to stay brief. It’s pretty long. Back in May I had a piece of rental property. They recently had an improvement project in the area. They were putting in sewerage and new water lines. I went to take this vacant property and tie in to sewerage. We ran into the problem. This started out with a permit issue. It started out regarding issuance of a permit, whether a permit was needed, whether one would be needed. I was told that I would not need a permit, it did not exceed a certain amount. Well, to make a long story short—I’ll be brief—there was a stop work order issued by the inspector, plumbing inspector. He issued a stop work order for working without permit. I spoke to him. This was a waste of time. It went from there to his supervisor. Marshal Masters, his supervisor came along and advised me of certain things and he also told me what the limits were. I heard two different things. They told me the limit was $100, if you did not exceed that amount you would not need a permit. Then they came back and told me it was $500. If it exceeded $500 you would need a permit to work on your property in Richmond County. Well, moving right along, I’ll skip along, but Mr. Masters also contacted me and he apologized for the inspector and told me what he was going to do. He advised me a few things, too. He said Mr. Walton, I want you to do things. This is before the court date came up. thth The original court date was June 8 and was put off until the 15. He said Mr. Walton [unintelligible] work needs to be completed. I said when the ticket was issued the work had already been completed and an inspector had been out there. I was not out there when he’d been. He’d been cooperative. He advised me I need to get a permit. I told him they had told me I did not need a permit. He went back and he put a stop work order on the job. I talked to his 19 supervisor and his supervisor said Mr. Walton, I want you to fill in your septic tank. It has to be pumped and filled in and I want you to obtain a permit. Well, if you think about this, why would I buy a permit after you’ve written me a ticket, after the Marshal came by and wrote me a ticket for working without a permit? All right. When I talked to Mr. Masters, he was quite belligerent, quite rude on the phone, said you didn’t buy a permit, you’re not in compliance. I said why would I buy one? You’ve already written me a ticket for not having a permit. Already been out to the department on several occasions. I spoke to the director, Rob Sherman, and he words to me were you cannot buy a permit unless this is your primary residence. That goes back to what I originally said, why would I buy one when you’ve written me a ticket, you’ve had the marshals come out, you have a court date [unintelligible] now. Mr. Williams: Question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Walton, did you continue to work after they— Mr. Walton: No. The work was already completed when the ticket was issued. The work was already completed. This was finished. The tap fee had been paid to Richmond County. Marshal Masters came to me and told me—his exact words of what we’re going to do with this—he said you fill in the septic tank, you get a permit, we’ll go to court with you, we’ll make this thing go away. His exact words were we’ll make this thing go away. He’s here today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Like to hear from License & Inspection now. Mr. Mayor: Please. Mr. Harris: Mr. Sherman is out of town. He had to leave. First of all, I want to say I know Mr. Walton. I’ve dealt with him several times in the past. But unfortunately, the day he’s talking about I happened to be in the office when he came in with the sheriff’s deputy. I was in my office and a deputy came in and asked me, said did anyone from here call a police officer? And I said I don’t know so I start to look around the building to actually see if anybody had called an officer, if something was wrong. By that time Mr. Walton came in. I don’t know what happened prior in the field but I do know what transpired inside of our office. That’s not my side. I don’t deal with permits. I sell the business license and handle the alcohol but I do know everybody on both sides. He is saying that our employees are arrogant. That’s not true. That day, Mr. Walton— Mr. Walton: I’m not talking about the whole department. Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please. Mr. Harris: Mr. Walton was the one that had the attitude. He was a little teed off and that may have been from whatever happened in the field. His biggest problem that day is that he 20 was not listening to what was being said. They told him—the girls up front on the permit side told him that anything under a hundred dollars does not need a permit provided that what he’s doing does not require a permit. And I have here under international building code that states that plumbing is one of those things that you have to have a permit for regardless of what the cost is. He was not understanding that or refusing to understand that. He didn’t want to hear that. And as far as the citation, the inspector told him his choices. Get the permit or I have no alternative but to cite you. He told him write me a citation then. So in other words, this inspector has no other recourse but to do his job. Now, all of the interactions he had with Mr. Masters or Mr. Smith, I can’t vouch for those. But I can speak to what happened that day. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’ve a sense of where this is going. I think we need to give it to the Administrator and take this into a meeting where we can sit down with Mr. Walton, along with License and Inspection and get this resolved versus carrying it on. I’m going to make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, okay, you’ve made the motion but I was going to state this is not—this probably—he has not been the only one who has faced this with our government and I think it’s awfully important that all employees understand that they work for the citizens. I am saying this because many times when I call the tone is different until they know I’m a Commissioner. What I would really like to see is, along with the [unintelligible] that all employees receive a letter stating the importance it is to be respectful to all of the citizens of this city. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say that I agree with what Ms. Beard is saying but I also believe that that level of respect starts from the top. The Commissioners need to also keep that in mind. Mr. Mayor: Amen. Any further discussion? Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I’m going to be brief, but respect—apart from this case—respect is a two- way street and I’ve worked retail before and had to deal with the public in that respect. And people call in, may be bent out of shape for reason or another. You know, we get to a point where we get into a he says/she says situation. The bottom line on it, though, is respect goes both ways and I don’t want our employees to be [unintelligible]. I’ve heard some of the calls as I’ve sat in the offices and some of the abuse people take. I get some of the calls myself, people wanting to vent for no good reason. So while we do send a letter, we do encourage customer 21 friendliness, let us all keep in mind—and all of us have probably got some of these phones—the public is not always as friendly to our employees as they should be as well. Mr. Mayor: I think we’re all calling for a kinder, gentler community. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? The Clerk: DELEGATION G. Mr. A. Earl Thompkins, Chairman of ARC Citizens Small Business Advisory Board. RE: Disparity Study Mr. Mayor: Come on down, Mr. Thompkins. Please keep it to five minutes. Mr. Thompkins: Yes, sir. Afternoon. My name is Earl Thompkins. I’m chairman of the Augusta Richmond County Citizens Small Business Advisory Board. The board worked closely with the DBE office. I was here in February to outline the board’s goals for 2006 and one of our goals was to decide if we needed a disparity study, and if we did, to conduct that study. I’m here today to request approval to solicit a request for proposal from qualified providers to identify the cost of conducting a comprehensive disparity study on Augusta Richmond County. We’re not asking for money to conduct that disparity study, just the approval to solicit qualified vendors. The first study was conducted in 1994 prior to consolidation. It revealed that DBEs received 4.33% opportunities with Augusta Richmond County. The bulk of those dollars were awarded to Fairway Ford, which we no longer purchase from this dealership. The recommendation from that study was to implement a county ordinance to establish [unintelligible] preferences, th [unintelligible] firms to subcontract with DBEs, 4, to do joint ventures, to do a mentor protégé relationship, [unintelligible] protégé relationships, number 5, establish utilization codes of 21% to be subdivided across 16% African American, 3% women, 2% Asian and Hispanics. I’m sure in 12 years that has changed greatly. The last one was department with procurement responsibilities should make greater efforts to solicit quotes from DBEs on purchase orders of less than $1500. The purpose of starting this process? Augusta Richmond County seeks to improve its utilization of minorities, women-owned, and local small businesses in its procurements. In order to legal and effectively accomplish this, compelling government interest must be established to serve as support, and any implemented program must pass a strict scrutiny test for constitutionality. Since the 1994 disparity report, additional court rulings or programs established based on race and gender have impacted the [unintelligible] nationally and have been giving rise to the need for another disparity study, which can more effectively stand the legal test of constitutionality that these rulings require and which is based on current legal findings. Basically, this study is too old. If a study—if disparity study is conducted it will be used to aid Augusta Richmond County in evaluating and improving its current program of promotion equal opportunities in Augusta Richmond County contracts. The results and recommendations will 22 serve as a reference document in the creation of directories, spenders, practices. Your approval will authorize the DBE office to send out a request for proposal for a disparity study. This board and the DBE office will evaluate these proposals and bring back recommendations to the Commission. Bottom line, we need some current, in writing to allow the DBE office to put [unintelligible] goal for DBEs on Augusta Richmond County’s RFQs. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I will tell you, I think you probably had us at hello. I’ve had many discussions with Ms. Gentry about this and Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowles and so I know I feel good about it. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I feel good as well about it and I think we should go ahead and I’ll make a motion to approve this. Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Cheek: I guess you’re not asking for funding at this time; what would be the eventual funding source and approximate cost of the project? Mr. Thompkins: We don’t know as of this time. It start off probably about 50,000. There are some that gone up as high as a million dollars. Mr. Cheek: Would we be in a position to use some of our HED money or something that would—for that? Mr. Mayor: I think we go ahead and approve getting the prices and then figure out how to pay for it. Mr. Thompkins: Because once the proposals come back, we want to look at those proposals and see if they fit the bill. Then we’ll look at the prices at that point. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in support for sure but don’t we have something in place that was mandated or that was put together [unintelligible]? I mean this is not something we just brainstorm to come up with, but aren’t there some things already there? I’m just asking the question to somebody, DBE person? Mr. Thompkins: Ms. Gentry would have to answer that. One thing is right now when a bid goes out we have no documentation that says what [unintelligible] goals should be there, such as 5%, 10%, 20% or whatever. The study should come back with numbers to say what kind of disadvantages are in the area. Then we can take those numbers and say this bid, you should get 10%, 15% goal based on the number of minority businesses in that field or serving that commodity. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? 23 Mr. Williams: And I understand that, Mr. Mayor, and the reason I said [unintelligible] Sylvia Cooper wrote an article in the paper about the parking study and how we had already done a parking study to tell us we had had too much parking already. So I just don’t want to repeat doing a study and paying for it later down the road and let Sylvia write another story like that. So I’m just asking that question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to make a point. One of the points is—make a couple of points actually. One of the points is Commissioner Williams, we do have a study but it was done 12 years ago. Those numbers at this point are obsolete. The other thing that I would like to say is that we do have something in the city charter but it reads that the person who is awarded the contracts would make a good faith effort and what we need is something changing the language that would be more inclusive and would mandate. Those are the points I’d like to make. Mr. Mayor: That would lock down the percentages. Commissioner Bowles? Mr. Bowles: I’d like to ask Ms. Gentry; I believe we are required by law to have this disparity study done in order to move forward on what the charter states; is that not correct? Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, that is correct. Completing a disparity study will give the program the legality it needs in order to put in percentages. Atlanta—programs that are based on race and gender have been challenged and it dates back to 1989. This program, this process will give us the legality that we need in order to move forth to put forward a little bit more teeth into the program. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: And now the consent agenda. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 44. Item 1 through 44. For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, I will read those petitions. If there are any objectors would you please signify your objections by raising your hand? PLANNING 1. Z-06-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Michael Jones, on behalf of Charles Bartholomew, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive Zoning for Augusta- Richmond County containing .17 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1345 Druid Park Avenue. (Tax Map 045-4 Parcel 096) DISTRICT 1 10. Z-06-52- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Pakmerica LLC requesting a Special Exception to 24 establish an extended stay hotel in a B-2 (General Business) zone and to modify a previous condition (Z-96-109) to allow the serving of alcohol in the guest lounge of one of two hotel proposals per Section 22-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property containing 3.76 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1052 Claussen Road. (Tax Map 012 Parcel 014-07) DISTRICT 7 11. Z-06-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that no houses may be constructed with less than 1500 square feet of heated floor area; a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Willis Foreman Development LLC, requesting a Special Exception to establish a conservation subdivision where one or more of the lots are 60% or less than the minimum lot size permitted in an R-1 (One-family Residential) Zone per Section 28D-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County; also variances are being requested from Section 28D 5, 7, 8 & 9 concerning technical requirements involving the amount of greenspace, lot density and building setbacks, and the 30 foot perimeter buffer strip that is required for conservation subdivisions adjacent to a single-family residential zone; affecting property containing 30.84 acres and is known in the present numbering system as 2249 Willis Foreman Road. (Tax map 195 Parcel 002-01) DISTRICT 8 12. Z-06-55 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Phin Hitchcock, on behalf of Augusta Capital, LLC, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Private School per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing 1.97 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 333 Greene Street. (Tax Map 047-2 Parcel 264) DISTRICT 1 13. Z-06-57 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that a concept plan be submitted to the Planning Commission and an engineered soil erosion plan be submitted to all the appropriate agencies and departments; a petition by VFW Post 3200 requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area per Section 26-1 (o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing approximately 6 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2901 Gun Club Road. (Tax Map 008 Parcel 002) DISTRICT 7 14. Z-06-60 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Phillip Hibbard, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Lydia B. Davis requesting a plan modification of an existing R-1E development for the construction of an additional residence per Section 13-12 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County Zoning Ordinance affecting property containing 2.06 acres and is known as Reid Place Subdivision. (Tax Map 032-4 Parcel 067) DISTRICT 3 15. Z-06-61 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Roger Garvin, on behalf of Jackie C. Garvin and Gretchen Detwiler, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property containing .5 acres and consists of three tax parcels that are known as 2105, 2107, & 2109 Reedale Avenue. (Tax Map 110-3 Parcels 034, 035 & part of 036) DISTRICT 6 25 16. Z-06-62 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property be used as an in-home therapy office as described by the petitioner or those uses allowed in an R-1C zone; a petition by Pat L. Estep, Jr., on behalf of the estate of Burnett Julia Wallace, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property containing .1 acre and is known under the present numbering system as 801 Crawford Avenue. (Tax Map 035-4 Parcel 435) DISTRICT 1 17. Z-06- 64 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Glenda W. Snively requesting a change of zoning from zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property containing .17 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1862 Central Avenue and 1301 Wilson Street. (Tax Map 045-3 Parcel 115) DISTRICT 1 18. Z-06-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that parking for all professional uses shall be in the rear yards and 2) that any new driveways shall be shared by multiple properties; a petition by Kathleen Thompkins, on behalf of Kathleen Thompkins, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property containing 1.31 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2710, 2712, 2714, 2716, 2718, and 2720 Wheeler Road,. (Tax Map 033-2 Parcels 095 thru 100 and 381) DISTRICT 1 19. Z-06-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Land South Communities, LLC requesting a plan modification of an approved development plan in an R-1E (One-family Residential) Zone for The Enclaves at Raes Creek per Section 13-12 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Amli Way (private), 420 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Amli Way and Augusta West Parkway. (Tax Map 040 Parcels 044, 045, 046-01, 046-02 and 046-03) DISTRICT 3 20. ZA-R-174- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by deleting Section 29-4 (b) in its entirety and replacing it with a new Section 29-4 (b): Eave or canopy: An eave, canopy, or other similar architectural feature may extend into any required yard not more than three (3) feet. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions and the amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need to ask the Clerk a question. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: On a zoning issue, Madame Clerk, there was one that I don’t see. Has it maybe been pulled off here? District 2, Milledgeville Road I think it was and [unintelligible] which one is that? Ms. Beard: I think it’s in regular. 26 The Clerk: Alcohol petition? Mr. Williams: Alcohol petition. The Clerk: I haven’t gotten there yet. Mr. Williams: Okay. The Clerk: Under our public service portion of the agenda: PUBLIC SERVICES 21. Motion to approve a request by David E. Greenfield for an on-premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Helga's Lounge located at 2015 Central Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to the planning petitions or the alcohol petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Mr. Mayor. The Clerk: Our consent agenda, items 1 through 44. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Williams: And I guess it’s not here, Mr. Mayor, but there’s a item from District 2, MLK, approving an alcohol license. Mr. Russell: It’s item 48. It’s already on the regular. Mr. Williams: No, no, no, no, no. 48 is something I had placed on the agenda. It’s another item that was on the committee. The Clerk: Item 48. Mr. Williams: I got 48. That’s the one I placed on there. The Clerk: Yes, sir. That was deleted. Mr. Williams: It was deleted? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. All right. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other items to be pulled for discussion? 27 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. First I’d like to go back to the minutes of the last meeting to be approved, Mr. Mayor. It was mentioned to approve the exemption of the Commission budgets. The DA was not mentioned in that, and neither was the Clerk’s office in there, Mr. Mayor, and I wanted to make sure that that was clear. That’s one. On page 4 of 20 I think it is where that amendment need to be changed at. The DA was not included, neither was the Clerk’s office included in that and I wanted to make sure of that. The Clerk: Yes, sir, your motion did not state that. Mr. Mayor: And we can amend the minutes to reflect that. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, while I got it, if you want me to go ahead and start my list, I’ve got one. Or I can wait until some of these other guys and lady go ahead. But I wanted to make that clear first. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Cheek: I have one. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Item 15, just for some information, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Did he take your item? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item 31, item 36, and 37, Mr. Mayor, along with 40 as well. 31, 36, 37, and number 40. Mr. Mayor: Any further items to be pulled for discussion? Any items to be added to the consent agenda? Mr. Williams: Item 45 has already been resolved, Mr. Mayor [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Let me ask. Is Larry still here? Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: Item 48, item 49, are both parties here? Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. 48 is here, Mr. McTeer. I mean 49. 48 was one of the agenda items that we asked to be pulled from sub-committee because of some other actions being taken and I think someone had that placed on the agenda to discuss and we’re here to answer any questions that they may have about it, but Mr. McTeer is here. 28 Mr. Grantham: But there was no recommendation at that time? I just wanted to make sure he was here today. Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: For discussion on this item. Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. Mr. Grantham: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having discussed item 49 at length at committee, if there are no objections I would request that be moved to the consent agenda. PUBLIC SERVICES 49. New Application: A. N. 06 - 28: A request by C. H. McTeer for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Oil Company located at 4150 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) Mr. Grantham: I’ll accept that [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any further additions? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: I’d like to request that whenever we get through with the consent agenda we deal with the planning and zoning items for the rest of the people here for planning and zoning. Mr. MayorCan I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? : Okay. Mr. Cheek: So move. Ms. Beard: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. Z-06-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Michael Jones, on behalf of Charles Bartholomew, 29 requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive Zoning for Augusta- Richmond County containing .17 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1345 Druid Park Avenue. (Tax Map 045-4 Parcel 096) DISTRICT 1 2. FINAL PLAT – MANCHESTER, SECTION 1, PHASE 1 – S-742-II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for Manchester, Section 1, Phase 1. This residential subdivision is located on Diamond Lakes Way, adjacent to Diamond Lakes Park and contains 27 lots. 3. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 14 – S-721 - A petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co. Inc., requesting final plat approval for Cambridge, Section 14. This residential subdivision is located on Bansbury Place and Oxford Road, adjacent to Cambridge, Section 11 and contains 27 lots. (This subdivision is bonded) 4. FINAL PLAT – NATIONAL HILLS WEST, PHASE 2 (CONTAINING LOTS 1-9 (TRACT B-1) & TRACTS A, B, B-2) – S-747 – A petition by Southern Land Surveyors, Inc., on behalf of Randy Gilbert requesting final plat approval for National Hills West, Phase 2. This residential subdivision is located on Springwood Drive, adjacent to National Hills West, Phase 1 and contains 12 lots. 5. FINAL PLAT – WALTON ACRES, SECTION 9 – S-745 – A petition by James G. Swift & Associates on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Acres, Section 9. This residential subdivision is located on Walton Loop, adjacent to Walton Acres, Section 7 and contains 50 lots. 6. FINAL PLAT – WALTON HILLS, SECTION 8, PHASE 1 – S-744 – A petition by James G. Swift & Associates on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Hills, Section 8, Phase 1. This residential subdivision is located on Isaac Way, adjacent to Walton Hills , Section 7 and contains 29 lots. 7. FINAL PLAT - WHEELER LAKE TOWNHOMES, PHASE 3 – S-608 – A petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of ATC Development Co., requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lake Townhomes, Phase 3. This residential subdivision is located on West Wheeler Parkway Ext, adjacent to Wheeler Lake Townhomes, Phase 1, Section 2 and contains 32 lots. 8. FINAL PLAT – WALKER HILL, PHASE 1 – S-739-I – A petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Prather Construction Co. Inc., requesting final plat approval for Walker Hill, Phase 1. This residential subdivision is located on Storey Mill Road, north of the centerline of Patiller Road and contains 10 lots. (Subject to final Health Department approval for lot 10) 9. FINAL PLAT – WALDEN PLACE – S-711- A petition by George L. Godman & Associates, on behalf of L P B Properties, Inc., requesting final plat approval for Walden Place. This residential subdivision is located off Walden Drive, adjacent to Whitney Pointe Subdivision and contains 38 lots. 10. Z-06-52- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Pakmerica LLC requesting a Special Exception to establish an extended stay hotel in a B-2 (General Business) zone and to modify a previous condition (Z-96-109) to allow the serving of alcohol in the guest lounge of one of two hotel proposals per Section 22-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- 30 Richmond County affecting property containing 3.76 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1052 Claussen Road. (Tax Map 012 Parcel 014-07) DISTRICT 7 11. Z-06-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that no houses may be constructed with less than 1500 square feet of heated floor area; a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Willis Foreman Development LLC, requesting a Special Exception to establish a conservation subdivision where one or more of the lots are 60% or less than the minimum lot size permitted in an R-1 (One-family Residential) Zone per Section 28D-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County; also variances are being requested from Section 28D 5, 7, 8 & 9 concerning technical requirements involving the amount of greenspace, lot density and building setbacks, and the 30 foot perimeter buffer strip that is required for conservation subdivisions adjacent to a single-family residential zone; affecting property containing 30.84 acres and is known in the present numbering system as 2249 Willis Foreman Road. (Tax map 195 Parcel 002-01) DISTRICT 8 12. Z-06-55 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Phin Hitchcock, on behalf of Augusta Capital, LLC, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Private School per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing 1.97 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 333 Greene Street. (Tax Map 047-2 Parcel 264) DISTRICT 1 13. Z-06-57 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that a concept plan be submitted to the Planning Commission and an engineered soil erosion plan be submitted to all the appropriate agencies and departments; a petition by VFW Post 3200 requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area per Section 26-1 (o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing approximately 6 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2901 Gun Club Road. (Tax Map 008 Parcel 002) DISTRICT 7 14. Z-06-60 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Phillip Hibbard, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Lydia B. Davis requesting a plan modification of an existing R-1E development for the construction of an additional residence per Section 13-12 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County Zoning Ordinance affecting property containing 2.06 acres and is known as Reid Place Subdivision. (Tax Map 032-4 Parcel 067) DISTRICT 3 PLANNING 16. Z-06-62 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property be used as an in-home therapy office as described by the petitioner or those uses allowed in an R-1C zone; a petition by Pat L. Estep, Jr., on behalf of the estate of Burnett Julia Wallace, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property containing .1 acre and is known under the present numbering system as 801 Crawford Avenue. (Tax Map 035-4 Parcel 435) DISTRICT 1 31 17. Z-06- 64 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Glenda W. Snively requesting a change of zoning from zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property containing .17 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1862 Central Avenue and 1301 Wilson Street. (Tax Map 045-3 Parcel 115) DISTRICT 1 18. Z-06-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that parking for all professional uses shall be in the rear yards and 2) that any new driveways shall be shared by multiple properties; a petition by Kathleen Thompkins, on behalf of Kathleen Thompkins, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property containing 1.31 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2710, 2712, 2714, 2716, 2718, and 2720 Wheeler Road,. (Tax Map 033-2 Parcels 095 thru 100 and 381) DISTRICT 1 19. Z-06-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Land South Communities, LLC requesting a plan modification of an approved development plan in an R-1E (One-family Residential) Zone for The Enclaves at Raes Creek per Section 13-12 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Amli Way (private), 420 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Amli Way and Augusta West Parkway. (Tax Map 040 Parcels 044, 045, 046-01, 046-02 and 046-03) DISTRICT 3 20. ZA-R-174- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by deleting Section 29-4 (b) in its entirety and replacing it with a new Section 29-4 (b): Eave or canopy: An eave, canopy, or other similar architectural feature may extend into any required yard not more than three (3) feet. PUBLIC SERVICES 21. Motion to approve a request by David E. Greenfield for an on-premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Helga's Lounge located at 2015 Central Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) 22. Motion to approve proposal by Working Buildings, LLC to provide building commissioning services for the new downtown Augusta Library. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) 23. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit 2006 grant application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and to the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for capital and planning funds. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 24. Motion to approve Department recommendation for Award of 2006 HOME Set- Aside Funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2006) 25. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $147,929.35 from the Aragon Park Project and award to McDuffie Woods Recreation Center, New Savannah Road Police Sub-Station and Housing Rehabilitation Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2006) 32 26. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $4,000 from R-UDAG Funds and award to Belle Terrace Community Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2006) 27. Motion to approve a change in the design of the Homeownership Assistance Program. (Approved by Administrative Services June 12, 2006) 28. Motion to approve Early Retirement of Mr. Curtis Etterlee under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 12, 2006) FINANCE 29. Motion to request that the Board of Tax Assessors give the Commission a review once the final digest for 2006 is completed. (Approved by the Finance Committee June 12, 2006) 30. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator to make recommendations to the Finance Committee regarding reduction of the budget deficit without using fund balance and report back at the end of July. (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2006) FINANCE 32. Motion to approve Resolution of Support for the CSRA Regional Development Center to continue to manage and administer the Coordinated Transportation System for Augusta, Ga. 2006-2007. (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2006) ENGINEERING SERVICES 33. Motion to approve proposal from JG Swift & Associates for an engineering design of a sixteen inch (16”) water main along Gordon Highway as part of the 630 system improvements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) 34. Motion to approve proposal from JG Swift & Associates for an engineering design of a twenty-four inch (24”) water main along Gordon Highway as part of the 630 system improvements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) 35. Motion to approve proposal from W.K. Dickson for an engineering design of a twelve inch (12”) water main along Gordon Highway as part of the 630 system improvements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) 38. Motion to authorize the Engineering Department to extend the current agreement with Jordan, Jones & Goulding (JJG) to provide project management support via staff augmentation in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV Administration lapsed salaries upon receipt and review of executed documents. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) 39. Motion to approve solicitation to Fort Gordon to provide a municipal water supply commodity and a wastewater treatment service commodity. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) 41. Motion to approve entering into an agreement with Thompson Building Wrecking Co, Inc. in the amount of $64,440.00 for the demolition of 2 buildings and their parking areas on the St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street/15th Street project, CPB#327-04- 0296812003. The buildings and their parking areas must be removed for the purpose of doing the fieldwork associated with the mitigation of the African-American archaeological site. Funding is available in SPLOST Phase IV Project Engineering Account 324041110- 33 5212115/202824003-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 42. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 6, 2006. APPOINTMENT(S) 43. Motion to approve the appointment of Clyde Lester to the Riverfront Development Board representing District 10. OTHER BUSINESS 44. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Pension Committee to reject the proposal to amend the Investment Committee membership. (Approved by the Pension Committee June 13, 2006) Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: We need to check to see if there is anybody that opposes 49 in the crowd and then probably read that for the record. Mr. Mayor: All right. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 49. New Application: A. N. 06 - 28: A request by C. H. McTeer for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Oil Company located at 4150 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee June 12, 2006) The Clerk: Are there any objectors? Mr. Russell: None noted, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. The Clerk: Mr. Hatney, are you abstaining on the entire consent agenda or just the alcohol petitions? Mr. Hatney: Just those liquor. The Clerk: Are you voting yes on the other items? Okay. 34 Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 9-1 [Items 21 and 49]. Motion carries 10-0 [Items 1-14, 16-20, 22-30, 32-35, 38-39, 41-44]. The Clerk: Item 15? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: PLANNING 15. Z-06-61 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Roger Garvin, on behalf of Jackie C. Garvin and Gretchen Detwiler, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property containing .5 acres and consists of three tax parcels that are known as 2105, 2107, & 2109 Reedale Avenue. (Tax Map 110-3 Parcels 034, 035 & part of 036) DISTRICT 6 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Question on that one is what is the proposed use of the property and will that proposed use impact the remainder of the neighborhood? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: This was a speculative rezoning. It is within the 400 feet of Peach Orchard Road that our plan supports rezoning for. It’s across from the health, University office there. It lines up with the right-of-way of Floyd Road so the property across Reedale from it is zoned commercial so it conforms to the zoning pattern and land use pattern. The petitioner may be here. He did not have a proposed use at the time. Mr. Cheek: How far does this intrude into the neighborhood? 400 feet goes into a lot of homes in that area. Mr. Patty: Can I just show you the map? That would be easier. Mr. Cheek: Yes, please. Mr. Mayor: Please come forward, Mr. Patty. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. 35 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask Mr. Patty a question. Is that the property that Ruby Tuesday is looking at? Mr. Patty: This would be one block north of that. Mr. Smith: Has nothing to do with that then? Mr. Patty: No, sir. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: Item 31. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we go on and do the other planning and zoning items before we do the rest of them, please? Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s fine. The Clerk: Okay. PLANNING 46. Z-06-59 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that this be an owner occupied facility, if not the use reverts to all uses allowed in the existing R-1A zone; a petition by Carrie Burton and Joe Burgess requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .46 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2342 Dorn Road. (Tax Map 070-3 Parcel 035-01) DISTRICT 5 The Clerk: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: We had a couple of objectors to this. This was a home that had been operated by Walton Rehab for some time. I believe it was Walton Rehab. It’s a rehab home. They lost their non-conforming status to use the property for that purpose and a couple bought it and they want to use it as a live-in personal care home. They would live—they testified they would in the house and they wanted to have several elderly, elderly folks live with them. And there were some objectors. Staff, commission weighed both sides of it and felt that it was appropriate to approve it. 36 Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objectors here? Mr. Hatney: Move for approval. Mr. Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: PLANNING 47. Z-06-63 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to DENY a petition by Thomas J. Drake III, on behalf of Richard R. Gayle requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) with a Special Exception for a detached dwelling subdivision proposal, not to exceed 5 ½ units per acre, developed in accordance with Section 13, and Section 10-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing 2.47 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 801 Stevens Creek Road. (Tax Map 6 Parcel 13.04) DISTRICT 7 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: This is a 2.47 acre tract that’s somewhat of a mixed area out on Stevens Creek Road. It’s a house, historic house, it’s been there for a long time. I guess the last thing that hadn’t changed out there left. The petition is for sort of a cluster subdivision. I guess that’s the old terminology but they would save the old house and then build some patio homes in front of it. We embrace [unintelligible] development and it’s a close call but I think that the density and especially the lot size are just excessive. Some of these lots within this subdivision would be down not too much above 3,000 square feet, which is approximately the size of some of the homes in the surrounding subdivision. So we recommend denial. Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion. Mr. Williams: Is that a motion to deny? Mr. Grantham: Yes, to deny. To approve the denial. 37 Mr. Cheek: Approve the recommendation. Mr. Williams: Just want to know what I’m voting on. Mr. Grantham: Listen up. Mr. Williams: Y’all speak up. I’m on it. Mr. Grantham: Yes. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Back to the consent agenda. Yes, sir? Mr. Larson: We were here for this past one, but since we didn’t have to do anything— Mr. Mayor: Could you please state your name? Mr. Larson: Richard Larsen. I live at 2001 Autumn Chase in Mayo. We appreciate the Commissioners voting in our favor to deny the previous thing. One thing that does concern me is that we are losing population in Richmond County. That is something that we are really concerned about. Don’t know exactly why we are but we need to find out and stop it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Give me a call later on and I’ll tell you [unintelligible] national trends. Thank you. Next agenda item? The Clerk: FINANCE 31. Motion to approve Cherry, Bekaert and Holland filing a request for an extension for the 2005 Audit and distributing the last three years' management letters to all members of the Commission (Approved by Finance Committee June 12, 2006) Mr. Brigham: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. While they moving and seconding, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from somebody from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland as to why we need this extension. Now we know we just go through the bid process that was won by another firm. But I need to hear 38 from somebody from the firm as to why we need the extension and why hadn’t—I mean they not ready to present to us today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Williams had asked me last week to arrange for somebody from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland to be here today. I contacted them and asked them if they could have a representative here today. They are in their annual training at Wake Forest, I believe. They were unable to be here today. And that’s the status of that request at this particular moment. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. We pay that firm and we have been paying that firm for nine year, maybe ten, but at least nine years. They lost the bid to another firm. We paid them $10,000 more for this particular firm to represent us. Our finance director informed us we needed to get another set of eyes to look at our financial statements or our monies. We turned around and gave it to the same group, who promised us in this chamber that they could do it on time and they would be here. Now, I called Mr. Russell on Thursday to make sure that we had somebody here today because of the amount of money we paying them and someone did call, and I explained to them that they needed to be here to answer why they hadn’t got this ready. Now, first of all we paying $10,000—you talking about people leaving Augusta, you talking about sharing with the young man that just left. But the way we are spending money, it’s a wonder we still have a city of Augusta here. But I think that’s unacceptable for that firm to disregard this body of government they been working for for nine years, and maybe ten, for nobody here to show up. Mr. Russell, you remember exactly. We had a group to evaluate the response that we got and the firm lost the bid. We still voted—and I say we cause I’m a part of this Commission. I didn’t vote for it but we gave it to a firm and gave them $10,000 more, Mr. Mayor. That’s upsetting to me. And they’re not even here today to even face this Commission or give us a good explanation why. Now if we can sit here and accept that, then we can accept anything. And I make no bones about it, Mr. Mayor. We need to resend that decision to give it to that firm and go back and find a firm that’s going to do what we have paid them to do and do it on time. Now, if they was a brand new firm, Mr. Mayor, be something different. But I’m truly disappointed. And I made sure I called them in time enough for them to fly from the other side of the world if they had to to get back here. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek and then Ms. Beard. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we did cover this at length and I think staff caught a proper amount of grief because of the additional information that was needed to complete the study. But just for the record we did start late on this. We did have a very questionably directly effort to hire a different firm using, I believe it was legislation governing the Commodities and Exchange Commission and the audit, some real hokey non-applicable law, to deny Cherry, Bekaert & Holland. We started late. We’ve had some problems with flow of information. 39 We’ve left, lost our finance director who in fact preferred the other firm, and then in light of some of the things that we’re finding about the operational statute of Finance, it’s no wonder he wanted a different firm, but that’s a different story. Bottom line is Cherry, Bekaert & Holland I believe is doing due diligence. I think staff is doing due diligence under these current conditions and I think we should move forward with continuing with this. And if we go out next year for a proposal—I have no problem with that. But casting blames to hire somebody when we denied a firm the ability to have access under something that wasn’t even applicable under law, at the recommendation of the finance director who has since left us, is the most questionable thing here. I can’t see [unintelligible] on that side of the argument. I just move for support for the extension, which is something we’ve got to have because we’re not going to make anyway, and go forward. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say, along with Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Grantham had the same problem and called to see if I would set up an appointment. I did call and they did state they are out of town and I didn’t think it was unreasonable. But they will be—I just want you to know they will be at our next Commission meeting. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I don’t think it’s unreasonable either for them not to be here, but with modern technology it seems like we could have had some type of report, some type of presentation, some type of letter, something for us today. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I still think it’s unacceptable for us to sit here. This is no knock on our previous finance director who has gone on for a lot of different reasons, who done a good job. If we got a bad report or if we have a problem with him that’s something we should have addressed. This firm, who I’ve got no problem with. But we talk about the bid process and we went through that. We even had a set staff set aside to look at the bids to see who won. We even came in with saving this county some money. And then when this firm promised—in fact, they lied and said they could do this and do it in time and have it back here for us. It took three times bringing it before this Commission before we finally persuaded the six votes we needed to give it back to them, which they had lost. And I got a serious issue with that, Mr. Mayor, and I can’t see how the rest of us can sit here and act like nothing has happened, this ought to be [unintelligible]. I mean you talk about holding people accountable, you talking about starting at the top, this is the top. We need to let people know if you get paid from this government you need to do what the government pay you to do. If you don’t want it, don’t take it. [unintelligible] $10,000. And I ought not be the only one here who is concerned about that at that rate of money. But it’s taxpayers’ money. It ain’t coming out of your pocket. It’s coming out of taxpayers’. [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles? 40 Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Williams on the fact that this was not awarded to the lowest bidder, although I wasn’t a part of the Commission at that point. I would like to say that this is—and the only CPA sitting up here and I’ve done for 13 years and I know what delays an audit. What delays an audit is not the CPA firm. It’s when they come in and records are not prepared and not ready to be audited. And so before we start laying blame on Cherry, Bekaert & Holland we need to take an internal look at some of our internal processes, and that’s the fact. And so I would like a motion that we approve this and file the extension as requested. Mr. Mayor: We actually already had a motion and second, I believe. Is that correct, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham and then Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Those of you who were in attendance at the Finance Committee meeting last week when the report was given from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, I think I was the first one that jumped on the table wanting to know why we did not have our audit in on time. And after some conversation with the representative from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, at the request of our administrator, due to in-house—and I won’t say non- cooperation or whatever—but he requested that we not further that conversation in order to give him time to review the in-house problems and to bring that back to us as soon as possible. That is what caused the reason for the extension request. Not what Cherry, Bekaert & Holland did. It’s what Commissioner Bowles just alluded to of what we did not do. So I know that there are several areas that our administrator is dealing with right now, and it’s not just one area but several of them that need to be addressed as to a in-house audit as well as audits that have not been performed over a three-year period of time with some of the authorities that are involved in this government. So we need to get to the bottom line and we need to discuss and talk about what is going on in-house and not necessarily in the out-house. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: My concern is—I don’t have no problem necessarily with needed extension, but there should be a time line. There is no date here. And the way I understand it that th [unintelligible] due June 30 but there is no date. It [unintelligible] extension but it don’t give no date. Mr. Mayor: I had the same issue during the finance meeting and said that we need to first off—and I think it goes back to what Commissioner Grantham said—we need to require that any information that our staff has not gotten to the audit firm is in by a certain date and I couldn’t agree with you more, Commissioner Hatney, that we need some sort of measurable time line here. Commissioner Brown? 41 Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say a comment that I made in the finance meeting the other day. I was very surprised and embarrassed that we did not get any numbers at all. In a finance committee meeting it seemed to me there should be talk about amounts of money or problem areas or at least to say $2, $4, $6, something, but I did not hear one figure in the Finance Committee meeting the other day and was not informed about what was happening in our city government until I saw the news that night where they talked about a $4 million amount. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this is [unintelligible]. Let’s face reality. We are not going to th have an audit completed on June 30. Therefore, I’m going to call the question on extending the extension to Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, for us to apply for the extension [unintelligible] state. I think it’s something we have no choice in and I therefore call the question. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you did have your hand up. If you’ll keep it brief? Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, this is not about the firm. I don’t care what firm it is. You can use a German shepherd to do the audit as long as they do it when they’re supposed to do it. My point being made is, Mr. Brown brought it to the table here, there was no explanation. If there was a reason for them not being able to get that information, if that was the administrator’s fault, if that was the department head’s fault, if that was [unintelligible] finance, whoever the hold-up, Mr. Mayor, we shouldn’t [unintelligible] government. We ought to be wagging them, now, Mr. Mayor. And we sit here and talk about the firm. We done had an extension from this firm before. The extension is not the issue. But when nobody feels obligated enough, to take our money, to come before us to tell us where the problem is—now the problem is somewhere and if they don’t know they may be the wrong firm. But if they know they ought to at least share that with the administrator and he ought to share it with us. That don’t make good sense, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. You’ve made your point. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion carries 8-2. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 36. Motion to approve proposal fees in the amount of $677,674.52 for the design of a 48" sanitary sewer main to replace the easternmost portion of the Butler Creek Sewer main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked this to be pulled. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? 42 Mr. Williams: I need to—I got two questions. DBE, I want to know whether or not their participation is being met, is she satisfied with that? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry? Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this particular project is being awarded to W.E. Toole, which constitute 100% local participation. There is no DBE participation in this. Mr. Williams: Ms. Gentry, I needed to know the DBE participation. I didn’t ask you whether it was local. I understand where you’re coming from and I hope you do think that’s a short answer. But my question to you was about the DBE participation. And if it’s not there that’s all I need to know. I don’t need [unintelligible]. Ms. Gentry: Zero. Mr. Williams: Next question, Mr. Mayor, and I said two. Mr. Hicks, when would this project start? When would we begin to go into moving dirt and gravel and start? When would this take place? Mr. Hicks: Probably the design [unintelligible] for this is going to be close to a year, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It looks like it’s going to be second quarter of ’06 the design would start and it looks like the completion would be—completion of design would be looks like ’08. So it looks like it might be a little longer than that. I’m trying to see. Okay, no. It’s about a year and a month, excuse me. A year and a month for design. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I thank Mr. Max Hicks for that answer and I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and send it back so the DBE participation can be added since it’s going to be a year and some months. Max said one, but I’m sure with this government it’s going to be some months, so we got time to go back and do this. That be my motion, to send this back so we can get the participation that we been trying to reach all this time, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Brown: I second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. I’ve heard this come up and I fully support DBE participation, but how many local DBE engineering firms do we have that could perform this service? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry or Mr. Hicks? Mr. Hicks: As far as local DBE engineering firms who could perform the surveying work that would be necessary for this and the design work in-house, we don’t have one. The largest local DBE engineering firm is probably Khafra, and they would be in Atlanta, but they do have a local office. But they don’t have the surveying crew, neither do they specialize with their 43 local folks in sewer design. The other on would be [unintelligible] and they fall under the same category, so there is no local DBE firm that could do this. To get a DBE firm that could do this we’d have to go to Atlanta. Mr. Cheek: I guess—and I’m going to voice the same concern. I fully support the growth of and participation of minority and disadvantaged businesses in our government activities. I think it’s essential. But the other side of that is, what I’m hearing is that it may actually be better to go find a smaller disadvantaged business in another city in preference over maybe a local business. And my concern is the [unintelligible] divided, if you will, like the peace divided from the end of the Cold Wars, the divided from the growth of our water system when we go to our local economy would only go to our local economy if we work to have local people, both disadvantaged and other businesses do that work and keep those dollars at home rather than boxing them up and sending them to Atlanta or somewhere else. I just voice that concern. However, I do fully support the efforts to increase and grow DBE businesses and their participation in our local government projects. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: Based on the fact that I have seen several projects that come before us through Utilities that seem to not include DBE, I’m just wondering about how is it that the projects are selected, as well as how—how the projects are selected. Mr. Hicks: Okay. For these 2004 bond issue projects, we issued a request for qualifications to a number of engineering firms. There’s a list of them in your—in the backup material. Shows all the firms and then shows the ones who responded. From those who responded, we asked them to indicate which type of project they would rather work on, to share their preference. Large diameter sewer lines, small diameter sewer lines, large diameter water lines, small diameter water lines. We then looked at all of those responses. We graded them based on past work they had done for us and their performance on that in regard to what they selected. Then we sat down and tried to match the firms with the jobs and this is how we came up with this. We then met with Ms. Sams in Procurement. We met with Ms. Sams and with Ms. Gentry and went over the recommended awards to see if there were any problems at that particular time. At that particular time we—Ms. Sams asked us about how we had selected them. Of course, she had been working with us in the past also. She knew. But we went over our selection method and the process and why we had selected various ones and they were approved and concurred with. At that time Ms. Gentry concurred with it. But it is a local and we thought we were looking for local as well as DBE in order to meet the spirit of what we’re trying to do with our local and DBE participation. Insofar as the local engineers or the DBE firms that have been selected or minority firms, let me put it this way. There’s two, Williams Russell & Johnson, and they are the ones selected for item 37. And then B&E Jackson was selected for one of the projects. I forget which one. But they’re both minority firms. They’re fairly large firms. They’re from Atlanta. We wanted to give them an opportunity to come to Augusta, see what type of work they did do, so we awarded them two of these contracts. That’s just the way we went about selecting. We went through RFQs, let them say which ones they’d like to be considered for, selected based on that and based on prior work, and then we reviewed it with Procurement and DBE coordinator in selecting. 44 Mr. Mayor: I’d just like to make a comment. I think this is a clear example of why we need the disparity study, so that we can put the percentages in and look at that, every project. Commissioner Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just would hope that eventually we can get Ms. Gentry involved in the up-front planning of these RFPs somehow so we can up front during the planning process we can include DBEs and niche out certain areas where we can get some DBE participation. Because I think once the RFP goes out it’s too late to review it after that. And once it’s written—if she can be involved in the writing process of it she may be able to find some [unintelligible] DBE participation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks? Mr. Hicks: One comment we’d like to make. After the committee meeting it became obvious by virtue of the questions there that there was a real strong interest in increasing the DBE participation in engineering and we’d love nothing more than to see that. It’s just that so far as DBE firms or minority firms that are local with offices and able to do big jobs, we don’t have them. So we thought maybe the best thing for us to do would be to start working through the local firms and try to increase the minority employment in those firms and try to bring local high school kids and even go to colleges and try to bring them on with the local engineering firms. It’s much the same as the effort [unintelligible] trying to make with large construction projects, in order to bring smaller local DBE firms in as part of it, and then let them get training and let them [unintelligible]. It’s harder to create an engineering firm than it is maybe a concrete firm or a painting firm or a masonry firm. That’s what we’re committed to try to do that. Mr. Goins with our department was the one that came up with that idea and I asked him—I thought it was a real good idea, to please pursue it with both of our large engineering consultants, as well as Ms. Gentry and see what we could come up with in order to increase if not ownership, at least participation in local firms, is what we’re trying to do. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? Mr. Hatney: My question is this particular project, sir, was it bidded out? Mr. Hicks: We don’t bid engineering projects but we do send out request for qualifications and then we select the firms and then we ask them for a proposal. And if you’ll notice, it’s not here on item 36, but one of the tell-tale figures is the percentage of construction cost. And if you look at the backup data, the construction, estimated construction cost of this project is $9.9 million and with an engineering fee of $677,674.52, that’s 6.74% of estimated construction cost. That’s really well in the low-range ballpark for engineering fees for work of this type. So we do work with the firms to make sure that we get a fee that’s by all senses reasonable for that engineering project. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? 45 Mr. Hatney: The other question is [unintelligible] Mr. Bowles had mentioned, there should be a way that the DBE person could be involved up front because hindsight is always 20/20. And I think it makes us all look bad to [unintelligible] person [unintelligible] not in a position to do anything about in the initial process. That concerns me. Mr. Hicks: That certainly is valid. We could be sure we—let me make this comment. We tried to send it to as many minority firms as we knew about. Mr. Hatney: I’m not talking about firms. My concern is there needs to be some DBE participation in the whole process. The representative should be—that’s my belief—should be in the process. And not having to come up here telling us every time that no, it doesn’t meet it. At least if that individual is in the process, when this come forward there will be a statement from the DBE person stating [unintelligible] definitively and we won’t have to keep asking her. It would be in the process. That’s all I’m saying. There’s a better way to do this than what we are doing. Mr. Hicks: Ms. Sams has just reminded me that indeed the DBE person was involved in the process as we went about sending out letters. I guess, Geri, you sent out the letters. I’ll let Ms. Sams speak to that. Mr. Hatney: I’m not just talking about you now. I’m talking about all y’all. Mr. Hicks: I know. Mr. Hatney: I’m talking about all of you. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, please come forward. Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. As it relates to the procurement process which includes the DBE and of course when we receive a draft of any RFPs or any specifications they are in fact emailed to the DBE office at that point. She’s given an opportunity at that point of course to make any comments or changes. Some time ago you all approved the language for the DBE office and that language also goes into all of the specifications and the bids for the city of Augusta. Mr. Hatney: The process you talking about now, that good faith statement, which is a waste of good paper. Ms. Sams: Well, sir, that information came from our DBE office. Mr. Hatney: Good faith. Ms. Sams: And the Commission approved it as written. Mr. Hatney: It ain’t working, though, you know. 46 Ms. Sams: Well, perhaps we need to go back or that office need to go back and make some corrections to it. And make some corrections, put in some teeth, and perhaps make that part of it competitive, but the specifications itself she is a part of that on the front end. Mr. Hatney: [unintelligible] Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Holland? Mr. Holland: Well, I just wanted to mention that I think some time ago, maybe a week or so ago I talked to Ms. Gentry in reference to organizing and setting up a workshop for some of these smaller companies and minority companies to bring them in and sit them down and talk with them about the different specifications that they need, and what they need to know about making applications for these different bids. [unintelligible] also spoke with some of the larger companies who are willing to work with these smaller companies to assist them, to help them make these bids. So it’s a good idea to come together, send a letter out, organize some kind of a workshop, bring these smaller businesses in, minority business or whatever businesses they are and give them an opportunity to sit down and explain what they have and you explain to these different businesses what they need to do in order to meet the specifications and applications for these different bids. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator, can I ask you a question, or this might be for Ms. Gentry or Ms. Sams. What can we do in going forward to where we don’t have to go through this process in every meeting? Does anybody have—cause we talk about problems so often. I want to talk about solutions. Give me a recommendation, somebody. Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor and Commission, a recommendation coming from the Procurement office is that we go back and we review the language coming from the DBE office and perhaps make changes and adjustment to it. One of the changes that’s in dire need is that we identify vendors project specific. If there are local, if there are DBEs [unintelligible] attach those persons to those bids. And once we receive that and make the list available for the proposals or for the bidder to have there as part of the specifications, that would [unintelligible] some of these issues that we have. Smooth out some of the issues. Of course, Yvonne has a list and she will readily say that it’s [unintelligible] but we need to make that a part of the RFP process. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Gentry, then—go ahead, Fred, and then we’ll hear from Ms. Gentry. Mr. Russell: I think Commissioner Hatney was probably right on target. We need to make sure that this is not an afterthought, but part of the process from the get-got. When one of our department heads or one of our people here decide they want to buy anything, that one of the first things they think about is a process that includes minority business participation in an appropriate manner. In addition to that, not only leveling the playing field, but you broaden the 47 pool, too. I agree with Geri, we need to make sure that we have people that can come to the table. While that’s not our responsibility, I think it’s our duty to help our citizens better deal with us and continue to move forward. The idea Coach Holland had about the workshops and moving that and taking advantage of people that are willing to do that I think are two important issues that we need to continue to work on. But the bottom line is you can’t create something that’s not there. And that’s something we’ve got to be real careful about. We’ve got to make sure that something is there. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry? Ms. Gentry: In looking at some of our projects, we need to be receptive to unbundling the projects. This particular project is over $600,000. There’s not a large number of minority, small business that could come to the table for a project such as that. So that’s one issue. The second issue is there’s not a resource within Augusta Richmond County that house all of the data as relates to businesses within Augusta Richmond County. Masonry, drywallers, painters, whatever. I have partnered with License & Inspection to get this listing and we are currently— the listing is about this thick, that includes every business within Augusta Richmond County. So we’re dissecting that. However, it’s going to take time in order for me to clearly identify every resource so that we can come to the table with an [unintelligible] goal. The last and final thing is that we still must be careful. Without a disparity study it’s going to be—someone can come back and challenge us, so just want to make sure that the Commission understands that. Mr. Mayor: The disparity study is key. But let me go—Mr. Williams, then Mr. Cheek, then Mr. Brigham, and then y’all, let’s vote on this thing. It does not look like we’re going to get to—we understand that there is an issue. The will of the body is to overcome the issue but I don’t think we are going to overcome in this meeting. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I just want to reiterate that the disadvantaged business piece of this puzzle doesn’t mean that you just get local people and that solve the whole disadvantaged business part of it. We got local people but that’s still disadvantaged and that ought to be all segment of the disadvantaged. Now, you may have to go to Atlanta. You can’t, you can’t serve what you don’t have, Fred, in your business. So if we don’t have it here maybe we have to go to Atlanta. But you still fulfilling the disadvantaged business process. Not local disadvantaged, but disadvantaged. And we sit here and act like if we do local participation that include everything. That just a part of it. And that local part who been doing business in this city for 2000 years now, and we still hadn’t got any further with disadvantaged. We do include the local and that’s been a part [unintelligible] but we need to include disadvantaged business whether they in August or outside Augusta. If we don’t have them in Augusta, Mr. Mayor, then we need to go outside. But we be inclusive then. If we was limited cause they in Augusta and they local business, we still ain’t fulfilling the disadvantaged business piece that goes with this puzzle. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, and Commissioner Brigham, I’ll get to you. And then let’s—once again, we understand there is an issue. Let’s move forward and vote this thing up or down. 48 Mr. Cheek: I think something that was touched on earlier is very important. Breaking these projects down. And while the company may not be able to survey and engineer, perhaps we can look for companies to survey. I have a problem with breaking engineering projects down into several stages because if you get—no matter what the code is, two or three different firms, where those projects overlap you’re going to run into problems. And so big projects need to be designed by one firm for continuity’s sake. Now, we can break the jobs down once the prints are in place to allow several smaller businesses—and Max and I have had this discussion before. I wanted to make this point really clear, is everybody on staff in this room works for Fred except Lena, the attorney and Ms. Gentry. They are direct arms of this governing body, the body having jurisdiction. They are doing the bidding of the Commission and it has been the will of this Commission that we support and grow DBE, and I would say Yvonne’s word carries iron. And so if she’s not getting cooperation or if we’re not coming to terms [unintelligible] for the [unintelligible] things, as my twin brother often says, it’s time out for that. Ms. Gentry is here to develop a program and I would hope that staff would work as a team to cooperate to make that a reality. Again, I’m going to voice my concern about seeing Augusta’s taxpayers’ dollars go to any other city. But if you look at the number of kids we’re graduating from engineering school now I believe that you’ll clearly see that it’s no longer an issue of black and white graduates. It’s foreigners graduating more than Americans. And that is a very serious concern when we’re trying to fill out engineering firms and grow them locally. Who would want to come and locate in Augusta for 80,000 when you can go to Atlanta for twice that much? We’ve got some serious issues, but Mr. Mayor, I’m concerned and I think Commissioner Brigham is going to ask the question. These projects are very important and I want to make sure we don’t delay and impact the progress. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, was that your question? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, that is my exact question, is how long will this [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks? Mr. Hicks: I wanted to comment to that because I don’t want to leave a false impression. While it takes a year and a month to design this it does take that long to design it. Now, you have already today approved—and I very much appreciate it and I know Fort Gordon appreciates it—the solicitation. That was item 39, to provide municipal water supply commodity and wastewater treatment service commodity. The wastewater treatment service commodity is going to be provided by constructing a large sewerage pumping station on the fort and pumping that sewage into the Butler Creek gravity sewer line, of which this is a part. And so you’ve already awarded the contract for the pumping station and the force main. We’re moving ahead with the contract to the fort and they’re going to be looking to us to be able to live up to the terms of that contract insofar as time limits. So if you want to look at things, that’s all right. We work for the Commissioners, of course, and will try our bet to carry out what you want done. But realize that while it takes a year and a month it does take that long and the clock is going to be ticking on the ability to provide service to Fort Gordon at the time we stated we could, anticipating these projects moving ahead in a timely manner. That’s all I’ll say. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion we approve this project. 49 Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that. Mr. Hatney: Okay, I’ve got an observation. I’ve listened to what Commissioner Williams. It’s dangerous to put a mic in the mouth of a Baptist preacher. He just proved him right. Mr. Brigham: Call the question. Mr. Hicks: I just try to preach the truth. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. I take it that would be on the first motion to deny. We’ve subsequently had a substitute motion to approve. Is there any further discussion? We will now vote on the substitute motion using the substitute sign. The substitute motion is to approve. Mr. Williams and M. Brown vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: As we move on, the will of the body, everybody wants to address this, everybody wants to. Ms. Gentry and I have had discussions. One of the issues that we’ve got as we’re going through growing pain, because we as a city got started so late on this. Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say it is going to be very difficult for us to expect the contractors to come to us with the participation, and we’re going to have to put language into our charter before we’re going to get any kind of results. Mr. Mayor: Once again, it comes back to the disparity study is so key, and I hope they come back with a price. I know we’ve got a budget issue but that is going to be the key here so we’re not wandering around in the dark. Mr. Hatney: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Last I heard, it shouldn’t be no discussion on an issue after it’s voted on. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek: Amen. Mr. Mayor: Amen. Next agenda item? The Clerk: 50 ENGINEERING SERVICES 37. Motion to approve proposal from Williams Russell and Johnson for an engineering design of a thirty-inch (30”) water main along Gordon Highway as part of the 630 system improvements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in light that this is, my understanding, tied in with the same work for Fort Gordon, in light of the discussion we’ve had earlier, move for approval. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Hicks: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item? The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 40. Motion to authorize execution of an Amendment to Zimmerman Evans and Leopold’s (ZEL Engineers) professional services contract for the design of the Auxiliary High Service Pumping Station Upgrade Project in the amount of $79,747. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 12, 2006) Mr. Grantham: Move for approval. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. You had somebody to pull it Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Mr. Williams: You’re excused. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, I asked about this amendment before in committee meeting. I asked that someone tell me how much money have we paid and this is just another change order, when it says amendment. But how much money have we paid this firm 51 who been doing business in this city for many, many, many years, who have put many pipes in the ground, Mr. Mayor. The same thing applies to this as DBE and everything else. I‘d like to hear how much money we paid this firm to date. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Goins? Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. You had asked that question and I had prepared a memo and it was delivered to the Clerk’s office and I assume put in your box. The Clerk: It was delivered after the books, after your mail had been sent out. Mr. Goins: I apologize. Mr. Williams: Okay, so— Mr. Goins: That amount is $105,000 for this specific contract. 90,000 has been paid out since 2001. Mr. Williams: Mr. Goins, my question was how much money have we paid this firm to this date for the work been done. Not just on this particular project. Is that what you saying? I didn’t need that anyway if that what you saying in the package. I needed—my question was to you in committee how much money have we spend to date with this firm? Because we talking about DBE participation, how much we spend in the past, how much we going spent. I asked you the difference in amendment, I think it was. Maybe it was another word you had. Then a change order. And virtually the same thing. That’s no knock on anybody, it just a fact that we done spent a lot of money—it’s a local participation, too, Mr. Hicks, and I understand that. But locals don’t fulfill everything we want. We want to deal with local. We want to deal with local every chance we get but we also want to do with the disadvantaged who’s local also and had not been [unintelligible]. But can I get that, Mr. Russell, from you? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, we’ll get that to you. I apologize. Mr. Goins: I apologize. I thought the question was of the $105,000 on this contract how much had been spent. Mr. Mayor: We’ve clarified that. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item? The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 52 48. New Ownership: A. N. 06 - 28: A request by Yong Pyo Hong for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Spirit Center located at 2238 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was on the Public Safety agenda. It was pulled off. We had had numerous calls about this facility. The facility—I don’t know when, maybe License & Inspection can tell me when they acquired a license to have on-premise consumption, was my first question, Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris: They have had that some time. As you know, when were separate governments there were establishments inside of Augusta that were like that and there was maybe one or two outside and that was one of the ones that was outside. They’ve always had that lounge area there. Mr. Williams: We’ve had several incidents—and I don’t want to call them incidents but people were actually murdered or killed at that facility. We even had construction that’s going on [unintelligible] neighborhood is really tired of it. It was pulled off the agenda and I don’t know who, for what reason it was pulled off, so I put it back on the agenda, Mr. Harris, so we can find out. What’s the process now? Where are we? What’s going to happen? This is a facility that had had numerous—now we talk about closing other people down about situations that’s not even close to this, and somebody should have been bringing this in to do something on this facility. Mr. Harris: That is in the works. What happened, that was a new owner who we brought to you with this. They have not actually started to operate that facility. The Sheriff’s Department is doing statistics on that location as we speak. Mr. [unintelligible] was here but he had to leave. He got a call. And we are in the process of probably preparing something to bring to you within the next couple of weeks against the present owners. And I think it’s—go ahead. Mr. Williams: And my question, Mr. Harris, you talking about statistics, but I know at least three people done lost their lives at that place. How much statistics we going to have to have to determine what we need to do? I mean regardless of the owner. I don’t think the owner did it. I think it was the establishment, with the environment they had. So I mean this is a part of my community, a part of my district. We got up and down that street, you know, from Gordon Highway to below [unintelligible] Avenue, you can count probably ten of them right there within walking distance of each other. But something need to be done about the facility and so I can wait, Mr. Mayor, until the sheriff brings something back, but something need to be done with this establishment. We can’t sit back and idly sit by and let this continue, what’s been going on. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? 53 Mr. Hatney: I just wanted to mention—Thank you, Mr. Mayor—that I don’t think it’s who have the license [unintelligible] individuals that they going to be serving. If that doesn’t change, it doesn’t matter who has the license. Folks are still going to be losing their lives. It doesn’t matter who has the license. They’re not doing the shooting. Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. But in this instance, that individual who is buying that business will have a substantial investment in that business. Once he buys that license, that’s his license. So in order to give them the opportunity to work something out where they can either get out of that deal and let all of the blame fall on the present license holder, because until it’s changed it’s still owned by the present license holder. So what we’re doing is giving the potential buyer the opportunity to get out of the deal really. That’s what we’re doing. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m hearing Mr. Harris but I’m kind of confused. And I think we ought to be as friendly [unintelligible] as possible. But if that owner or that potential owner knows the record of that establishment, I think he know what he’s buying. I mean unless he’s a blind man. Jose Feliciano wouldn’t buy that building. Mr. Harris: [unintelligible] most people when they see the potential for significant income they figure they can—it’s like a woman see a man she like and he does a whole lot of things but she figures in due time she can change him. So that’s basically the same thing these people feel, that they can put some [unintelligible]. But they try, the figure they can go in and put some security measures in place and change it, and I don’t think they can. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Harris: I agree with you. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, this place is unsafe. This place have gotten to be a—and all these people not inside. The building is probably 4 x 4 if it’s that big, and people are outside. It’s unsafe to cross the street. People are afraid to drive through there. With the violence that done happened, it ought not even be a second thought as to what we need to do with that building. And so we need to go ahead and do that. And if I need to put it back on the agenda for committee or next Commission meeting I would do that because it just don’t make sense, regardless of who wants to buy it. And if he buys it then he needs to know it’s going to be closed down. He needs to make a farmers’ market out of it or something cause it ain’t going to be [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Of course the chairman of Public Services, I think we are all talking the same language when we’re saying let’s give our License people the time to get their due diligence done and to make this happen and then we can address those 54 issues that Mr. Williams is talking about and do the right thing at that time, but at least by then we should have that information when they bring that back to us. If it’s not, I’ll certainly help you put it on there. Mr. Mayor: So would anybody like to make a motion? Mr. Grantham: I make a motion that we receive it as information. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Hatney out. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: ATTORNEY 50. Approve contract between CSRA Regional Development Authority and Augusta, Ga. in the amount of $12,000 for administration assistance of the City of Augusta's Transportation Enhancement Project, Reynolds Street Depot Community Center. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Manton: This is a matter that Mr. Shepard is working on. He’s out of the office this week. In light of that I’d ask for a motion [unintelligible] to defer this until next meeting. Mr. Grantham: So move. Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, RDC assisted the DDA with the writing of the grant for the railroad depot monies and helped to acquire nearly half a million dollars to do that work. They’re very skilled. It’s one of the finest grants I’ve ever seen. I would have no problem in supporting them, knowing the caliber of work in this measure so I’m going to make a substitute motion we approve. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any—Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: Before I vote I need to know what the attorney said. I did not hear one word he said a few minutes ago. 55 Mr. Grantham: Speak up louder. Mr. Manton: I apologize. Mr. Shepard is out of the office. I spoke with Ms. Woodard over the DDA. She was not aware of this today. I just didn’t feel comfortable going forward today without any information for you all and just ask for it to be deferred until next week. Mr. Williams: He’s not asking for it to be denied, Mr. Mayor, just deferred? Mr. Williams: We’ve got a motion and a second to defer it. We’ve got a substitute motion and a second to approve it. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: This is not the DDA’s grant is it? This is a transportation grant the way I read it. The Clerk: DDA project for the depot. Mr. Manton: It has something to do with the depot. The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Brigham: Item 50? I don’t think that’s—I think we’ve already passed the grant for the depot already. Mr. Manton: Technical assistance to go along with it is my understanding. Mr. Brigham: Okay. Well— Mr. Mayor: Do we have any—it sounds to me like we might want to pass the motion to move to next week but we do have the substitute motion on the floor to approve. Commissioner Hatney? Mr. Hatney: Looking at the caption here it says contract between CSRA Regional Development Authority and Augusta, Georgia in the amount of $12,000 for administration. What department, what committee did this come through? The Clerk: It didn’t go through committee. Mr. Mayor: It came through the attorney. Mr. Hatney: We need to send it back to committee. 56 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I can say this. This contract language is in the back and as I said, RDC is one of the major elements responsible for us acquiring the $475,000 to do this work. I will say again that we have a tinder box in the way of a hundred year old building over here that’s in desperate need of renovation and stabilization with the roof. Even if we delay this I would hope that we wouldn’t delay it any further than a week. This is a very worthy project and I plan on still voting to move forward with it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. The substitute motion is to approve. The Clerk: We have two motions on the floor. We have an original motion to defer to the next meeting, substitute motion is to approve it. Mr. Mayor: And the substitute motion is what we’re voting on now. The Clerk: And now we’re voting on the substitute motion to approve. Mr. Hatney: To approve now? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Smith, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Brown and Mr. Holland vote No. Mr. Williams abstains. Mr. Bowles out. Motion fails 3-5-1. The Clerk: The original motion is to defer to the next meeting. Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: If I’m mistaken, help me out. I was under the impression that what these folk were asking for $12,000 for administrative fee for the fact that they wrote the grant. Ms. Beard: Right. Mr. Hatney: That money doesn’t come [unintelligible]. Mr. Cheek: To manage the project. Mr. Manton: To help manage the project. Mr. Hatney: Help manage the project? Mr. Manton: Yes, sir. 57 Mr. Hatney: But it still comes out of the grant money, doesn’t it? The Clerk: We don’t know where it’s coming from. Mr. Hatney: We don’t know where? Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: We will now vote on the original motion to defer. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, shouldn’t it come through committee though? Shouldn’t this go back and be deferred and come through committee like the proper process should do? I think the maker of the motion need to amend his motion to include to go through committee like any other process would. Because it come from the attorney don’t mean it come straight to this Commission. Mr. Mayor: Who made the original motion/ The Clerk: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Mayor: Are you willing to amend your motion, Mr. Grantham? The Clerk: To send it through committee, as opposed to back to the Commission? Mr. Grantham: That’s fine. Bring it back to committee. The Clerk: To the appropriate committee. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek: For clarification, Mr. Mayor, so this means it’s going to be about a full month before we get the authority to move forward on this [unintelligible] vacant building and vacant lot thing again. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: I’m in agreement with Mr. Cheek. I don’t see why we’ve got to wait a month to get this back to us. I think we want to meet next week. Mr. Grantham: Next week. Mr. Brigham: But if we’re going to committee, we don’t have any committee meetings next week. The only thing that meets next week is Commission. Mr. Williams: That’s government, Mr. Brigham. That’s government. 58 Mr. Mayor: The motion was amended— Mr. Cheek: Substitute motion to put it on next week’s agenda. Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve already voted on the—correct me if I’m wrong, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: We’re in the middle of the original motion, voting on the original motion. And— Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Hatney and Mr. Grantham not voting. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I believe the amendment was made after we voted so I think it needs to be recast. Mr. Williams: No, sir [unintelligible]. Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Cheek: Once a motion is made it becomes the body’s, and then if you amend it then it becomes the body’s to also concur with, not only the maker of the motion. It’s on the floor for discussion and belongs to all of us. In any event. Mr. Grantham: We hadn’t even vote on the motion first. The Clerk: We’re in the middle of it. You and Dr. Hatney hadn’t voted. Mr. Grantham: I understand that but I made the motion. I want to know what they’re talking—did we amend the motion or did we not? The Clerk: You said okay and Dr. Hatney said okay and then— Mr. Grantham: But there was other discussion in regard to that. Mr. Hatney: Are we sending this back to committee or back to— The Clerk: Mr. Grantham agreed to accept that. 59 Mr. Grantham: Well, then I’m going to have more discussion on it. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Grantham: Because if we send it back to committee, and I’m going to agree with Mr. th Brigham and Mr. Cheek that if we do that we are delaying it unless July 19 probably. The Clerk: Right. Our next set of committee meetings would be on— Mr. Grantham: If we’re looking at that time we’re looking at another month in regards to this. So I’m not going to accept the amendment. Mr. Williams: You already accept the amendment. [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Now, I would look to somebody as to how to proceed on this. The Clerk: The parliamentarian. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian, how? Mr. Manton: I don’t recall that vote actually being cast once they asked for the amendment to the original motion. I don’t think the motion ever actually was completed, was it? Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] six votes [unintelligible] needed two more votes that hadn’t voted, but six votes had already been cast. Mr. Cheek: A point of parliamentary procedure. On an actual amendment to any motion, does it require not only the maker of the motion and the seconder to consent, but also unanimous consent by the body in order to allow the amendment to go forward? Mr. Williams: We ain’t never did it before [unintelligible] never did it before. Mr. Cheek: Then we’re in order with the six votes. Mr. Williams: That’s right. Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Sir? Do y’all mind if the Mayor calls for a three minute recess? Mr. Grantham: No, let’s finish this thing. Mr. Mayor: So where do we stand on this? 60 Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider . I think the vote is legitimate, Mr. Mayor. We just move forward. Mr. Mayor: The Chairman rules that the vote is appropriate. Let’s move on to the next item. Mr. Bowles: Since my vote— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles? Mr. Bowles: --was before the amendment I’d like to change my vote to a no so I can sleep tonight, please. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: Just a few minutes ago we voted to wait 13 months and not send a bid back out to include minorities. Now we’re complaining about waiting 30 days about a building that is—that we need to have further discussion about? I think we need to think about what we’re doing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian? Mr. Manton: On this matter it says concerning amending a particular motion, if a Commissioner feels that the main motion might be more acceptable [unintelligible] the Commissioner may amend through substitution insertion of stipulations, striking out portions of or striking out the inserting portions. The substitute motion shall be treated as a motion to amend. Such proposed amendment shall be handed in one of the following ways: by unanimous consent of the Commission, the Chair, or another Commissioner through the Chair may suggest changes or stipulation; if there are no objections from the Commissioners the motion shall be amended by unanimous consent. Mr. Williams: And we’ve done that. That’s exactly what we done. Mr. Cheek: We didn’t have unanimous consent. Mr. Williams: Nobody voiced it then. Y’all can’t voice it after the fact. Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] Mr. Williams: You had to vote the opinion then. Mr. Mayor: Well, everybody, once again the Chair has got to recognize you to speak. Mr. Parliamentarian, what is your recommendation on how to proceed? Does the Chair not make the rule in this situation? Okay. The Chair rules the vote appropriate. Let’s move on. Commissioner Cheek? 61 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a motion to reconsider item 50, please, to move it to next week’s agenda. Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] unanimous consent to reconsider? Mr. Brigham: Not to reconsider you don’t. Mr. Williams: I’m asking the question, Mr. Brigham. Y’all let me ask my question, please. Mr. Manton: Motion to reconsider, six votes. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Commissioner Hatney? Mr. Hatney: You [unintelligible] you don’t need permission to bring this back next week to—you don’t need permission for that. Mr. Mayor: You guys can put it back on. Mr. Hatney: He brought it [unintelligible] but you don’t need permission. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] committee process like [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: I will not let anybody else speak unless I recognize you. Let’s get back to the business. Mr. Holland and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: I mean good gosh, if we can’t—Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, all I’m going to say is there one of this building in this city. It’s over a hundred years old. There’s none left. It’s the only railroad property to get the grant last year. We’ve got 4.75 million, excuse me, .475 million to close in the roof and to seal in the building. It’s a fire trap. It’s the only one we’ve got. How can there by any pride in delaying, not expediting, getting this thing closed in and keep it from rotting or burning down? I just urge passage and make a motion to delay it until the attorney can give us an explanation next week at the Commission meeting. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? 62 Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Holland and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion carries 8-2. The Clerk: Is there a legal meeting, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Manton: There are a few matters, take five or ten minutes. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Point of personal privilege. I just ask that after we conclude all of our district tours that you lead us on a tour of the levee from the lock and dam to the head gates because that’s one area that is our most beautiful area but is also an area not covered in any of the current districts and I think all of the Commission needs to see it. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 51. Discuss abandoned buildings. (Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, this is an issue that License & Inspection has got someone here to address, the abandoned buildings in Augusta. Not just homes, but we got buildings that’s dilapidated and falling down. A lot of them on our main streets. And we need to get aggressive about doing something about those. That’s why [unintelligible] come. Mr. Mayor: I agree with you. Ms. Costabile: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of that. Mr. Williams: The abandoned buildings that we have in the CSRA, some on main streets, some of those buildings that dilapidated and they’re failing apart. Not just the house, the homes. We got some buildings that we need to get aggressive on and make sure that we don’t allow that. We got an ordinance for signs. We got—and I know it’s election time coming and thank God I’m not in that election, but the signage is enforced on one side of this city, but on the other side, people can put any kind of signs anywhere they want. And we need to make sure that those things are addressed and get people to conform [unintelligible]. Ms. Flournoy: [unintelligible] temporary signs in the roadways? 63 Mr. Williams: Temporary signs on the right-of-way, business signs as well, that’s improperly placed and in the wrong perspective. We need to clean up and we need to go back with that, too. Ms. Costabile: Yes, we’ve currently had a meeting. We’re joining forces with several departments, with the Marshal’s Department, our department, and Public Works in trying to solve those issues on the signs. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? I guess Mr. Mayor left me in charge. He didn’t tell me he was gone but I’m going to take charge anyway. Mr. Cheek: We requested a study of staff probably nearly a year ago of the properties on Broad Street that are in disrepair, after serving much verbal—suffering much verbal abuse from one of the property owners. We still haven’t seen that engineering and structural study of the Kress building and the Penney’s building and several of the others down there. One, I would like to see us enforce the mothball ordinance on this structures, and two, just hopefully get serious, as Commissioner Williams has said, about all these bigger buildings and smaller buildings across this city. I’m very disappointed that after much ado about getting that review of those properties downtown that nothing was done and it’s been nearly a year now. So I’d like to see that study and report on that inspection. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Thank you. While we’re on the subject of downtown there is a fabulous building on Telfair Street, the old Davidson Fine Arts building that’s owned by the Board of Education that is in total disrepair. The back door is knocked down. You have people living in it. I sent the License & Inspection about two weeks to look at it and they were told that they don’t have any jurisdiction, I believe, over this property because it’s Board of Education property. But we’ve got vagrants downtown living in and selling drugs in these buildings. We need to do something to rid our city of this problem. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Costabile: As far as the Davidson building, that is owned by the Board of Education, which we do not have jurisdiction over. However, we have been in contact with them to try to work with them to get an answer on what they’re going to do with the building. And we’ve been in contact with their attorney and we have forwarded that case back over for someone to get with the Board of Education on that. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] let me ask the question. And I understand we don’t have any jurisdiction over the Board, but that building is in Richmond County. Now, if the building is in Richmond County our Code should be effective wherever the building is and whoever owns it. Now, I challenge the attorney to get back and let us know what our process is. But you can’t own it by a government agency and just let it go dilapidated like that. So if I can get an answer 64 from the attorney’s office I’d certainly like to know because I don’t think the Board or anybody else can just leave a building dilapidated and then walk away from it and say it belongs to a government. If they a government they need to step in there and do something. Ms. Costabile: Right. It would have to be done by the Board of Education. What we’re talking about as far as with Code Enforcement on state, local, federal properties has to be worked within that jurisdiction. We work with private properties. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Can we demand that they do something as a government who our citizens’ children and everybody else is at risk for going through and by there? Now, when one person get hurt, something happens, then the Board of Education ain’t going to say that was my fault. So we need to be aggressive and get them to go ahead and do something for the building. Ms. Costabile: We requested to forward that over to the county attorney’s office because it is the Board of Education property and they will be working on that issue, on those particular buildings. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? Mr. Hatney: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The problem with that building, as I remember, is that they had two contracts, two or three contracts to sell it, but the problem that they run into is that it’s about a hundred to a hundred fifty thousand dollars’ worth of asbestos that’s got to be removed, taking it down. And that’s probably why it’s still [unintelligible]. But I’m sure [unintelligible] have our attorney to contact theirs and express the situation I believe they will do And I make that motion that our attorney contact theirs and tell them what is necessary. how urgent this is. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I was in discussion with some of the folks that are involved in research, medical research in this area, and they approached the School Board about this and were told that they were going to sell it to them, and then they crawfished out of the deal and said, quote, they had a better use for the property, which is apparently aging mold and spores and so forth. It’s to a point to where this has been allowed to go on long enough and I would hope we could expedite the legal discussion or find some way to remedy this situation. We have had legitimate firms that want to come in and occupy that building and have been turned away by the School Board to allow it to rot and this is not the only property they’ve done that with. So if this doesn’t work in a timely manner perhaps, Mr. Mayor, you could cut a letter on behalf of the Commission and we could all sign it or several of us go over in a delegation to the School Board and ask them to help us renovate and improve the city. 65 Mr. Mayor: No problem. Rev. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: I just wanted to mention to Mr. Cheek, you’re right, a couple of contracts were drawn up and some folk did back up because they wanted the Board to pay $150,000 to clean it up. They didn’t want that to be a part of the purchase cost. Mr. Cheek: According to my sources— Mr. Hatney: The ones I know about. Mr. Cheek: -- the Board backed down. Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, gentlemen. Okay. We have—right now we have a motion on the floor and a second to have our attorney contact their attorney. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to add to that A.C. Griggs, is another one the [unintelligible] sitting there dilapidated in the neighborhood with rodents going really, really out of control. So along with Commissioner Hatney’s motion I’d like to add those two, first of all, for the Board need to address them. Mr. Mayor: I believe Commissioner Bowles might have some more names. Mr. Bowles: Not to pick on the Board of Education, but Martha Lester, where they’re housing the symphony, it’s in awful shape, also. It’s rotting. Mr. Mayor:And for clarification would you like to We have a motion and a second. amend your motion, Rev. Hatney, to add these other schools on that list? Mr. Hatney: I couldn’t say it as well as you. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objections? Mr. Cheek: I have just a comment. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Can we get them to repair their brand new building on Broad Street that’s been crashed into the column for the last several months? I’m just afraid we are going to have another Davidson Fine Arts administrative building [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. 66 Mr. Speaker: Ask for a motion for a legal session to discuss real estate, personnel and litigation. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and Potential Litigation. B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian is asking for a motion to go into a five minute legal session. Mr. Brigham: So move. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Hatney: Absolutely. Five minutes. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] The Clerk: 53. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act. Mr. Brown: I so move. Mr. Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: Call the meeting back to order. Look for a motion— The Clerk: We’ve got one. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got one? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams not voting. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Bowles out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. 67 [MEETING ADJOURNED] 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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 20, 2006. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 68