Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS January 16, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 6:00 0' clock P.M., Tuesday, January 16, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of the Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our Regular Commission-Council Meeting. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend J.R. Hatney, Pastor of Good Hope Baptist Church, and if you'll remaIn standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND J.R. HATNEY GAVE THE INVOCATION. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. CLERK: We have deletions and additions. Items 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21 were items placed on the Planning Commission agenda that we inadvertently picked up and should have been deleted. Item 37 is the same as Item 38; they were duplicates. Additions to the agenda are 13A, approval of final plat for Pepperidge Subdivision; Item 49 was approval of paving of certain unpaved roads by in-house forces that was approved by Public Works Committee last week; and Item 55 is to consider a partial payment settlement of condemnation action against Ming Lin. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I move by unanimous consent that we approve the agenda deletions and additions, with the exception, I believe, of the paving of certain roads. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Item 49? MR. TODD: Yes, I believe that's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Recognition of the T. W. Josey High School State Championship Football Team. MR. MAYS: Coach Starr, if you don't mind, how about coming up to the Mayor's podium, please. First of all, I want to thank the Mayor for allowing me to come up to his podium this afternoon on behalf of my own alma mater. But when you came to us last year -- and I guess I kind of went out on the Pat Riley limb and I predicted that we'd have a state championship in this county and that hopefully you all would go undefeated, and here we are. We have today certificates of appreciation from our new government, and we're waiting for our seal to come in, and these are for all the coaching staff, cheerleaders, and the champions themselves of Class AAA Georgia High School Association, T.W. Josey Eagles. We also have a plaque here today that we want to present on behalf of our new consolidated government. And, as you know, it has the War Eagle there on the side of it, and which it reads: The Consolidated Government of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, salutes T.W. Josey High School Eagles, 1995 Georgia High School Association Class AAA State Football Champions. And to have for a permanent record, it has inscribed on it the entire record of the 1995 season and everyone that they beat and all the scores on there. And on behalf of our government, particularly our Mayor, the other members of this Commission, I want to thank out of our Recreation and Parks Department those who worked so closely in helping with the parade last week that was there: Robert, Melinda, Rex, and Mr. Boyles, and others that were there, for all that you've done throughout this year. But we congratulate our champions. And I won't put him on another spot because I did read the paper on Sunday, but I'm hoping that he'll be back here next year to get another one of these and not there in Alabama. We still want you here in Augusta-Richmond County, Coach Starr. MAYOR SCONYERS PRESENTS PLAQUE TO COACH STARR WHILE AUDIENCE GIVES ROUND OF APPLAUSE. MR. MAYS: And we won't reveal our other surprise today, but I think the Mayor has something else in store for the young people in this community. And that's probably going to be coming forth maybe at our next meeting, and I'll let him do that at that particular time, but it's something that I think we can all be proud of in terms of our champions for this community. CLERK: Item 2: Mr. Ed Dickerson in reference to Augusta Exchange Center. MR. DICKERSON: Thank you, gentlemen for allowing us to be here tonight. We'll make it very brief. Last month the developers of the Augusta Exchange Center and Richmond County Board of Commissioners came into agreement in regards to a joint participation in the building of Skinner Mill Road Extension and Agerton Lane. In that agreement there were several items, one of which I'd like to seek a modification of tonight. But to recap the agreement in general, the cost of the roadway improvements and the right-of-way acquisition was to be funded -- the right- of-way acquisition outside limits of the project was to be funded on a 50-50 basis by the developer and the Richmond County Board of Commissioners. That was in recognition to the Board of Commissioners project that was programmed and is to be funded in Phase III of the one-percent tax money. It was further agreed that the developers would do some minor landscaping on Wheeler Road, and it was further agreed that within the project area the developers would furnish the real estate required for the right-of-way. After that meeting, some few days shortly after that meeting, we determined that that amount of right-of-way was much more than the developers were thinking it was, and it's in regards to the 7.2 acres of right-of-way needed for this wider roadway system. We ask that this 50-50 agreement that we originally got into be just that, a 50-50 agreement, and we would respectfully request that the government fund half of the right-of-way acquisition within the project area itself. And with that, you know, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Timberlake, the developers, are here and they'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. KUHLKE: Ed, I wasn't here before, but I was sitting in on that meeting and I think that there was a cap put on what the County's participation would be on that project. Are we still talking about staying within the same cap that was approved at that last meeting? MR. DICKERSON: Yes, sir. The cap on the project on behalf of the County's participation would be held at the same level, that being $1,681,000. Of the several items of the agreement, we're only asking for a modification of one, and that is in regards to the amount of the cost in regards to the right-of-way acquisition. The cap, no, sir, we do not want to change that. It does not expose the County to any greater expenditure than was previously agreed to. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in the sense that this is verbal information that's being brought to us tonight, I need time to look at the original agreement and something in writing as far as this proposal go before I'd be in a position to vote it up or down. So I'd like to make a motion that we accept it as information and we act on it at the next regular meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd that we accept this as information. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: At the request of the Mayor, Item 25: Communication from the Mayor with reference to the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Sam Nicholson and I am Chairman of the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. I want to thank each and every one of you for giving us the opportunity to come here tonight to make a presentation to you. I also want to thank all of the former members of the County Commission and former members of the City Council, City of Augusta, who provided the mechanism by which the people of Richmond County could vote to place on the sales tax list of projects the funding for the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame, which we have in place to the amount of $6 million. Because of this we were able to go to the Governor, and the Governor used that vote of the people of Richmond County to base his decision to put $6 million from the State of Georgia into his proposed budget that he presented to the Legislature just last week. So because of the vote and because of the efforts of the local government, we have been able to procure the State funding, so far, and we are very confident and hopeful that the State funding will make it through the Legislature and be passed into law and therefore we can receive that money probably by July 1st. What we are doing here today is presenting to you, or asking you -- asking your permission to receive our money a little bit ahead of schedule. And I'm going to have our architects here, Joe Gambill and Steve Virgo of Virgo-Gambill, who are the architects for this project, to explain to you exactly what we are asking for. So we certainly hope that you will take this information and give us the opportunity to get started. We have a proposed deadline of Masters of 1998 to finish this project, and things are moving very fast and that's why we're coming here to you tonight to ask for this request. So I'm going to turn it over now to Joe Gambill. MR. GAMBILL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to give you a brief overview of the project. It is in downtown Augusta. The project is bordered by Reynolds Street, as shown here, 13th Street here, and the Savannah River on the upper side of the board here. The project consists of basically about two and a half city blocks; it's about 18 to 20 acres of land; it runs from the Radisson, again, down to 13th Street, and from Reynolds to the river. The acquisition of land in this area is one of the first phases that we need to start immediately because, as you can see, the yellow buildings on here are existing buildings and these buildings need to be demolished so that we can construct the new project. The parcels of land on here constitute about ten different landowners in the area. They're all familiar with this project and have seen some of this information ahead of time. The project eventually will grow to look like this shown on this second board. We will develop an entry off of 12th Street into the project, into what will be the center building, the Golf Hall of Fame. This will be approximately a 60,000 square foot building. It will house the Golf Hall of Fame itself, along with interactive exhibits much like you would see in Disney World. There will be a constant changing of programs inside the building itself. It will be surrounded by approximately 16 acres of outdoor garden areas which will have sculptures in them. We are anticipating about 37 sculptures in all. These will honor each of the winners of the Masters Golf Tournament. There will be walkways to each one of the gardens; there will also be a waterway for boats to travel around the site and also look at the gardens. The gardens will be continually changing throughout the year. They will represent the several regions of the state of Georgia. We anticipate a lot of color and a lot of changing of scenery in the garden areas so that we can not only attract people who identify with golf themselves but also will be attracted to the City of Augusta as the Garden City of the South. So it's a well use and a good mix of both the attraction of Augusta nationally as the Golf Capitol of the World and the City of Augusta being the Garden City. The reason we're here tonight is, as Sam mentioned earlier, we're on a critical deadline to get the project open to the public by Masters of '98. This time line represents -- the first yellow line represents this January. The project will take approximately 12 months to design, and during that 12-month period of time we need to design the project, along with the exhibits and gardens, and acquire the land, demolish the existing buildings on the land, do surveys of the land, do environmental studies of the land, and do geotechnical studies of the land. All this needs to happen in the next nine months. Then we need about three to four months for state reviews/local reviews of the project, and obviously the owners' review, the board. At that point, that would bring us to January of next year. The project will take about 14 months to construct, and that will put us into about February or March of 1998. We don't have a lot of cushion in the time schedule, so it's very critical that we get started. As Mr. Nicholson mentioned earlier, we have six million committed from the one-cent sales tax, we have six million now committed from the Governor, and we also have to date approximately four and a half to five million committed in private funds. These funds have been committed for quite a while and, obviously, as a private contributor to the project they want to see some progress, they want to see the project get underway. And so we're trying to move as fast as we can and give them a guaranteed deadline so that we can also receive the private funds for this project, and that's why we're targeting this Masters date of 1998. As you know, the one-cent sales tax is in force. Collection of this money will not occur until approximately March or April of this year. That would shift our schedule roughly three to four months. That three to four months right now is very critical for us in land acquisition, in design fees, surveys, et cetera, that's necessary to get this project underway, and that's why we're before you tonight. We're not asking for any additional monies, the monies have already been committed both locally, state-wise and privately, we're just looking for assistance in speeding up the process so we can get underway. Are there any questions that I can answer pertaining to the project? MR. BEARD: I have one. I was just wondering, would you need the entire six million -- that's what we discussed in the Finance Committee a little earlier -- or would there be stages that you would need this? You just need a commitment for -- I wasn't quite clear on the amount of money that you actually needed until the sales tax monies start coming down in April. MR. GAMBILL: Right. We had submitted for the one-cent sales tax, when they were putting together the tier projects and how the money would come in, an anticipated amount starting in January of about 140,00 and then about 200,000 in February and about 250-300 thousand in March. So we don't need the entire six million today. What we need is -- MR. BEARD: To be able to draw on that? MR. GAMBILL: We anticipated that the money would come in in increments over time, it's just that we need, for the first three months until the tax money starts coming in, we need about one to two hundred thousand per month to get the funding underway. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I guess my question would be to the Comptroller to see if those funds are available. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. McKie here? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. Mr. Powell, as you know, we haven't presented the details of the sales tax allocation. That won't be until next week. We do anticipate that the funds will be allocated in 1996. The preliminary allocation that we have now, we would place that in the June or August time frame. As you know, we won't be collecting the tax until April, so it would be difficult to know before then unless we use some alternative methods. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe earlier today when we voted in Finance, we voted to fund this and to pay bills as needed and necessary, but we were not anticipating any bills for the first 60 to 90 days at that time. Has something changed? MR. GAMBILL: I'm not sure what was presented in Finance Committee. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if a solution to allow them to go ahead -- and, Mr. McKie, you might answer this -- if possibly the County could give a written commitment that they will fund this on a scheduled basis and allow them to maybe use that commitment to borrow funds to get started, and when the funds are available, that we'd reimburse them for the cost up to that date. I'm asking if whether the County can do that legally and, secondly, could the Golf Hall of Fame work under those conditions until the sales tax funds begin to come in. MR. GAMBILL: The Golf Hall of Fame is not structured -- they're not enabled to borrow money the way they're structured through the State Legislature. MR. McKIE: Mr. Kuhlke, we could do a tax anticipation note and draw down on that only when land closings are needed, since this is all for property acquisition, and reimburse that out of the sales tax proceeds and allow them to go ahead at this time. The interest cost on that would be part of their contribution, so there'd be no net interest charged to the County. MR. KUHLKE: And so what you're saying, that we could accommodate them on that basis, but the interest cost to the County would be deducted from the contribution the County would make? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And how much would that be, do you know, over a four-month period of time? MR. McKIE: No, sir, I don't have any idea. We have not talked to any banks about it because it had not been presented here. That's something we could approach very quickly. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it discourages me when we're talking about deviating from the plan and recommendation when we have flood projects and other projects that's just as important. Now, I want to point out that this is one of the projects that I supported when we were putting together the one- penny tax. I don't have a problem with this project, but we have a schedule, a recommended schedule and plan, and I certainly wouldn't want to deviate from that to do a cultural arts project versus a flood project. And it seems to me that if we need to go back to the local delegation and say, hey, we need to, you know, be able to borrow money and we need that structure so we can go on and borrow the money that we have coming from one- penny, borrow the money that we have coming from the State and get this project underway, that it seems that that's what you guys need to do versus coming in and possibly, if I understand you correct, requesting money ahead of a lot of other very needed and essential projects. So I don't have a problem with a letter of credit, I don't have a problem with helping you out in some kind of way, but I certainly have a problem with talking about the County floating a COPS, which we've got in trouble with to the extent that there was legislation offered by one of our local delegation members to put an end to this, and we had to fight that at a state level. And I don't want to come back, you know, and float a COPS issue to help this entity where it's going to have a negative impact on what County and City government can do state-wide. MR. WALL: I was going to clarify something that Mr. McKie said and point out a couple of things that were discussed in the Finance Committee meeting. We did discuss purchasing the land in the Finance Committee, however, the contract gives us the right to purchase options, so we could simply put some of the land under option until the July 1 State budget comes into being and that money then presumably would be available to complete that funding. So, therefore, on an interim basis, during the period from now till June the 30th, I think the costs that you're looking at are the surveying cost, the environmental impact Phase I study, surveying cost -- those types of costs that are associated with being in a position to acquire the property come July the 1st. So I don't think we're talking about anywhere close to the $6 million figure that was discussed in Finance Committee. And I would also point out, for the benefit of those who were not in the Finance Committee meeting, that a contract was approved by the City Council of Augusta in December with the architectural firm and with the Golf Hall of Fame that obligated the then-City and now the consolidated government to acquire the property either through direct purchase, eminent domain, or through the options, as well as an architectural contract which authorized these gentlemen to proceed with the design of the Golf Hall of Fame. So I think you're talking about much fewer dollars than we were talking about in the Finance Committee after looking at the contract in more detail insofar as the right to acquire options. And point out one other thing that Mr. Todd commented on. From a cash flow standpoint, this would not impact those drainage projects because those drainage projects, once the budget is approved by this body, some of those, from a design standpoint, are going to take several months to complete, and so the actual contracts for those projects would be sometime presumably in the latter half of the year. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, the only concern that I have, since we don't have the exact information of where we're going to find the money and where we're going to get it from, that I think we should accept this information and come back so we can get together on the money. Because we all can see that we have some problem with the amount of money they need and we also can see the problem that -- in Finance Committee they said $6 million and I added up about $500,000 based on what he was counting out there. And I think we should accept it for information and then call a special meeting for the Finance Committee until we get the money straight before we make a commitment, because we don't know where the money's coming from and we can't commit to it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that a motion you're making, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I would like to put that in the form of a motion. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd seconded the motion. Any discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess because I'm sitting between my two Republican friends down here today I'm going to be real conservative, I'm going to put on my Republican hat for a minute. I'm glad that that motion is on the floor, and I too support that particular project and it's in my old home base district. But now, just getting out of our recent retreat, one of the things that we set within our 30-day goal period was to define priority on sales tax projects, and I think when we meet to develop a plan, that we need to try and stay somewhat within the lines of the plans that we develop. And I realize this is a special project, but then again, when we get into specialties, everybody has their specialties. We're going to be required at some point very soon to deal with an accelerated time track on Discovery, Inc. In our responsibility for public health, a health department is going to have to be built, and I know we've handled part of that just recently. But I think in defining the priority list, along with how we're going to deal with the prorated funds, I think it is very incumbent upon us that we deal with that priority list that we set forth as one of our major priorities within the first 30 days of doing that. And then if we're going to incorporate that into that list of the first-tier projects and if, say, maybe we're going to do some semi-advancements in terms of a one through ten project list or one through five project list, then I think that would be the proper time in order to do that. But I think what we are opening the door for if we do otherwise today is that on the very next agenda meeting everybody who has a special project is going to be here with a A-B-C-D list in terms of needing to get some of those things done by a specific deadline, and I think that's what you open the door for when we put it on that basis, so I hope we can support that motion that's on the floor to go by what we've done in terms of planning, in terms of a numerical basis, in terms of priority as to how we will do the sales tax projects. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. If we delay this, how is that going to affect your time schedule? When do you have your time frame drawn out to where you're going to start needing these funds? MR. GAMBILL: We need the funds immediately. Every month that we slip, we slip past the completion date, and what we're jeopardizing is losing the private funding, which right now is at about four and a half to five million dollars. MR. HANDY: I had in my motion to call a special meeting if we had to. MR. BEARD: The only thing I would ask of Mr. Handy, and I didn't know whether he included in this, but I think these people need to know -- if we're going to prioritize this, then they need to know -- we need a time frame in this. If we're going to act on it at the next meeting or whatever, I think in all fairness they need to know what we're going to do and not that we're going to wait two more months before we prioritize or decide what we're going to do, and I would just like to put some type of time frame on that so everybody would be clear and know where we're going. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the voters of this county prioritized what we prioritized when they voted on that referendum. I'm not for deviating one inch from that referendum. Now, if we can help out in some other way through creative financing this project, then I don't have a serious problem with that as long as I have an understanding that it's not going to change things as far as the referendum that the people in this county, the taxpayers in this county, voted on. And that's where I'm at with this project. I support this project vigorously, but I think the voters of this county, as Mr. Nicholson said, had the opportunity to vote on a referendum, and there were recommended projects and schedules, and I don't think there's any prioritizing to do. I think that we need to look at whether we can do a fund transfer or something to loan this entity some money or whatever, you know, until their money can come available. But we have the Canal Authority and we have Discovery, Inc. and we have several others that want to get their projects on line on time to meet that time line, have already indicated that they are looking for funding. And, gentlemen, we've got to be careful what we do here and that we don't, you know, violate public trust. MR. NICHOLSON: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council, I want to just thank y'all for giving us the opportunity to come here. We realize that this is a special request, that we're asking for something a little ahead of schedule, but we hope that you feel like that we have good reason for doing that. This facility, after it's built, we believe will be a tremendous spark for tourism in this area and for convention travel in this area, and to have it open in conjunction with the Masters as soon as possible is very important to the overall viability of the project. Again, we certainly understand -- I do, and I speak on behalf of our board of directors --understand your concerns, especially from Mr. Mays, who I can understand where other people will come in and want to do the same thing. But this project, I sincerely believe that because it's involved with golf and because it's involved with gardens, the two things that we're known for throughout the world, not only just the state of Georgia and the United States but in the entire world, that it's very important to get underway and to have a deadline, break ground, so that the overall project will be successful. It will be a money-maker for this area, provide a tremendous amount of income from tourists and conventioneers, and it would just be a tremendous boon for the whole Central Savannah River Area and the state of Georgia. So that's why we come here to ask to get started a little early, but we certainly again appreciate your concerns and understand the predicament and the dilemma that you're in. MR. BRIDGES: How much money are you looking for that you need immediately to get started on the project? You don't need the six million that was requested through the Finance Committee, apparently. How much are you looking at? MR. GAMBILL: We're looking at approximately 150 to 200 thousand dollars per month starting in the month of January, and that is for design fees, surveys, and land acquisitions. MR. BRIDGES: So you're needing about 450,000 immediately is what you're saying? MR. GAMBILL: Ahead of schedule. MR. BRIDGES: Ahead of schedule. MR. GAMBILL: And, again, as stated earlier, we realize that the interest money that would be necessary for borrowing that money would come out of our $6 million. So we're not asking for any more money at all, we're just asking for the City's help in borrowing the money. Because the way the Golf Hall of Fame is structured, they cannot borrow the money. We have tried that. We have contacted the State Attorney General's office and worked with them through many other options before coming before Council to ask for this method of obtaining the funds. MR. WALL: I guess the only thing, in response to Mr. Bridge's question, I would again point out the consolidated government would be the one issuing the check to the surveyors, to the various property owners, so that we would control that flow of money. And the only monies that would go directly to the Golf Hall of Fame would be to the architectural firm, as I see it. MR. BRIDGES: Which is how much? MR. GAMBILL: Estimates now are probably around 25 to 30 thousand dollars a month. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, in my motion I stated not necessarily to go into the sales tax money but try to find funds elsewhere to try to help this particular project; not to go into the sales tax and not to change what the voters stated and Mr. Todd stated, just only try to find the money elsewhere and then come back and call a special meeting if we had to in order to help them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Nicholson, have y'all already spent $100,000 this month? MR. NICHOLSON: No, sir. No, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I will offer a substitute motion that we allow -- that we recommit $6 million to the Golf Hall of Fame out of the one- percent, as voted on by the sales tax referendum; that we fund -- as the funds become available, we start paying bills for the Golf Hall of Fame in line with our current schedule as the Comptroller has presented previously to us; and I ask for a second on that motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges seconded that motion. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I understand the motion, it's a friendly motion, it don't change anything from what was already in place. If I'm understanding the motion, that we are authorizing -- we're reconfirming our commitment and we're saying that we're going to go by the schedule that the Commission prioritized and the voters voted on in the referendum, and I can support that, I don't have a problem with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask the maker of the motion -- and I guess I'm concerned, as Commissioner Beard is -- when you say to start paying bills, Jerry, now, are we identifying a funding source or just sales tax? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Sales tax. MR. MAYS: And that's immediately? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, that's when funds become available. MR. TODD: Per the schedule. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Per the schedule. That's what I said to start with, that it had to be funds come available. We all know that we don't get no money till April, but we will pay them bills as quickly as we can when we get the money. It'll allow them to go on and get started. There's other items on this agenda to do the same thing for other agencies right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. KUHLKE: Just clarification, Mr. Chairman. I don't understand how they can go ahead and get started if we're going to be April before we have any money. It doesn't make any sense to me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Bill, we can't pay a bill till we get it, and they're going to have to have some work done first. MR. KUHLKE: But they're saying that they're going to need 150 to 200 thousand dollars a month starting this month, and so I don't understand how -- if we're not going to have funds until April, well, what are we talking about? Are we telling them that they can't have any money until April? Is that what you're saying? MR. J. BRIGHAM: If we had a way to give it to them, I would be more than happy to give it to them. The only other way we've got to do it is borrow it. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I think they're going to leave here, if that passes, and they're not going to know where they are. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that any legitimate firm is going to come in here and start doing work when they know they're not going to get draws for 90 days right off the bat. And then once billed, you're looking at another 30 days, so we're 120 days down the road. And at 150 to 200 thousand dollars a month, that's quite an amount of money you're asking these folks to go out on a limb for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're going to vote on the substitute motion first. That was Mr. Brigham's motion. Do y'all need the motion reread? MOTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REPORTER. MOTION FAILED 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we'll go back to the original motion, Mr. Handy's motion. Do y'all remember what Mr. Handy's motion was or do you want to have it read? MR. POWELL: I'd like the motion reread, Mr. Chairman. CLERK: Mr. Handy's motion was to receive this as information until financing would be determined, and a special called meeting will be called to address the issue at that time. MR. POWELL: Is that a if necessary on there? Wasn't that the way that was stated? MR. HANDY: Right, if necessary. We just need to identify the money and where it's coming from, not to go into the sales tax money. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, does the maker of that motion have any problem with us trying to move ahead with setting that order of priority that we discussed in just coming out of our retreat? And I'm going to vote for the motion, but I think you're going to see a sequence of events to follow with everybody with a project. And what I'm trying to get us on is that if we've agreed to that over a last week period of coming out of some of the things we want to see on a 30, 60, 90-day incremental basis, that we go ahead, since we don't meet until February, and start trying to determine some of the projects on a priority list even though they are prioritized, yes, on the ballot. But you've got to start somewhere, and with as many of them as we've got, we're not going to get 50-some million dollars overnight, some of them are going to have to be started before some others are, and I'd just like to see us maybe at least get started initially on some prioritization. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification from the Comptroller as to whether the funds can be used to fund this seeing how we don't have any other budgets other than the one-percent sales tax money with the Golf Hall of Fame. MR. McKIE: Let me make sure I understand you. Do we have other funds available that could be used to advance to the Golf Hall of Fame? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. MR. McKIE: We have both capital reserves and reserves in the General Fund that could be used to advance if we could repay ourselves out of the sales tax later on this year. MR. MAYS: I guess I have a question, Mr. Mayor, one probably Sam will know. If we're trying to -- and I guess I'm looking for some middle ground in this. If we found a funding source in order rather than derail a project of this magnitude and got to a point of where you had some advancement in money and then you were waiting on the State's fiscal budget to kick in, would you be amenable probably at that process then to maybe not get a check during that summertime period when you had some other money to kick in inasmuch as we're going to have to fund other projects? MR. NICHOLSON: Yeah, I think we'd be amenable to -- you know, we'd be amenable to that. We'd be amenable to getting money from another source in the County and as soon as that sales tax money comes in give it right back to you. I mean, you know, we're just not asking for more money, please be sure, we just want a mechanism to get a little money ahead of time. And it's a real small portion of the overall six million. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Brigham. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council. Thank you for your time. CLERK: Appointment of Mr. Bud Amerson to the Citizens Advisory Committee: Vacancy due to the resignation of Mr. William B. Kuhlke, Jr. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Handy and a second by Mr. Todd. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, isn't Mr. Amerson already a member of this committee? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think it's appointing him to the chairmanship, isn't it, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, he was elected chairman. He's already on the Citizens Committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we just want to affirm his election to chairman; correct? MR. KUHLKE: That'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Appointment of Mr. Perry Herrington to the Citizens Advisory Committee. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Same thing, vice-chairman? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Handy made the motion, who made the second? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: [Z-95-144] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Julius E. Mayberry, on behalf of John R. Shaffer, Jr., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on the property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Woodlake Road intersects the centerline of Dayton Road extended. (Postponed from the December 11, 1995 Meeting) MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission that it be denied. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays seconded that. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 6 through 9 is a request for approval. [Z-96-1] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from C.A. Black requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 257.0 feet south of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Satcher Boulevard intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road (3408 Peach Orchard Road). [Z-96-2] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Tony Walford requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Twiggs Street and Laney-Walker Boulevard. [Z-96-3] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rhonda J. Taylor, on behalf of George R. Sibley, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B- 2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Highland Avenue, 120.0 feet southwest of a point where the southwest right-of- way line of Parkway Drive intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Highland Avenue (1904 Highland Avenue). [Z-96-4] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ronald Haberkorn, on behalf of Charlie Cook, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 60 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the centerline of Spirit Creek intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (4105 Deans Bridge Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to any of those? CLERK: There was none listed by the Planning Commission on any of those items. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy made the motion to approve, Mr. Jerry Brigham made the -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, I didn't. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me. Mr. Kuhlke seconded the motion. Further discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. The exact location of Item Number 9, I haven't got a clear picture on that one, exactly where it's at. We've got some land there that we had to purchase, but I'm not sure exactly where this land is at. Is it farther north on Deans Bridge Road than I'm expecting? MR. PATTY: Mr. Powell, that's actually right at Spirit Creek. It's that little structure that sits down there next to the spillway at Spirit Creek. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 10 and 11, there were objectors present at the Planning Commission meeting. Item 10: [Z-96-5] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from In Kyu Choi requesting a change of zoning from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Massoit Drive and Barton Chapel Road (2655 Barton Chapel Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have objectors to that? MR. PATTY: Yes, the petitioner is present on this. This is a property that's already zoned B-1, light commercial. It's got a strip center, but behind it is a subdivision. This property actually touches the residential properties behind it. We had a petition to rezone the property directly across the street that was surrounded by commercial property about a year ago, and that was denied and the courts upheld the action of the County. And we had a substantial number of objectors to that that we believe set the policy for that area, and we recommend it be denied. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we hear from the petitioner? MR. McQUINN: Yes, sir. My name is Jonathan McQuinn, I'll be speaking on behalf of Mr. Choi. The reason we're asking for this change of zoning is because the building has been empty for six months and there's been three businesses in it in '95 which haven't continued, obviously, and what we're trying to do is upgrade it so we can offer a new leaser a more attractive building. And, of course, we all know that an empty building is less rentable. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question for the petitioner is what the immediate plans for the zoning that you're requesting? MR. McQUINN: Well, right now we just want to change the zone to make it more attractive to prospective leasers -- or lessees, excuse me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the Planning and Zoning in denying it. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made the motion, Mr. Mays seconded it. Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: [Z-96-6] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions a petition from George E. Perkins requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast right- of-way line of Toucan Road, 142 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Ravenwood Drive intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Toucan Road. MR. PATTY: We had some, let's call them interested parties at our meeting. I'm not sure they were objectors when they heard the conditions, but I wanted to put it on for your consideration in case they were here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have anybody, any objectors here today? None noted. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I move approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham seconded the motion. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, that is with the conditions as stated by the Planning Commission? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Perkins, you accepted those conditions; right? MR. PERKINS: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 12 and 13 is a request for approval. No objectors noted. [Z-96-11] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bob Cashin, on behalf of Atlanta Prosthetics, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Fifteenth Street and Pope Avenue (939 Fifteenth Street). [Z-96-12] Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Robert R. Collier and Chris Powers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on a Bearing N 50 55'00" W and being 320 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen Road, and also being 1,247 feet, more or less, west of a point where the centerline of Spirit Creek intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen Road. MR. PATTY: These were just routine requests for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd and a second by Mr. Bridges. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't think I have a problem with it, I just want to ask George, on 12, with your basic professional area in there, is there a proposed usage or reason for that particular change? MR. PATTY: Yeah, this is a carry-in laundry, White House Laundry. It's surrounded by commercial property. I think P-1 was probably the base zoning in that area years ago. Probably most of the properties are zoned commercial today. MR. MAYS: I know you had pretty much -- whether it's been that business or whether you had doctors offices, insurance companies, and then you basically got past the Old Thunderbird and then you dealt with -- well, commercial from that part of it are food establishments, and I didn't know whether you had an artificial buffer or anything that had been established there. MR. PATTY: No, I think the majority of this property is zoned commercial today, P-1. MR. MAYS: Okay. I know it's commercial, I just was wondering about the type. Sometimes you change that, you open that door, and you wouldn't necessarily in that area have any residential objection because you basically have got all businesses in that area. So everybody's tending to their own business, so you're not going to really get -- I just wanted to know what it was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: 13A is approval of the final plat for the Pepperidge Subdivision. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy's motion to approve. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to second to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd's second. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be we said routine, everybody signed off on it, and everything is -- meets minimum standards. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 14 and 15 was approved in the Administrative Services Committee today, with recommendation for Commission-Council approval. Item 14: Communication from the Director with reference to personnel hiring. Item 15: Communication from the Assistant Director of Risk Management Department with reference to Substance Abuse Policy. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made the motion. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges seconded the motion. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I wasn't in the Administrative Services meeting, I was tied up on another matter, but I'm somewhat concerned about folks that's falling through the cracks, like temporary employees, as far as substance abuse go. And I guess that we're going to be rolling all our temporary employees into a permanent situation and that's going to correct that. I guess that's a question. It concerns me when I hear things out there that we have problems with temporary employees and we don't have a mechanism of testing them per, I guess, the law or whatever, or the policies. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. My concern is that I wasn't here either for the communication, and how are we to know what's going on in a Commission meeting or what was said when all you say is it came from recommendation and there is no recommendation here for me to look at and see actually what went on? MAYOR SCONYERS: Who's the chairman of the Administrative Services? Mr. Beard, I think; right? MR. BEARD: I think I can enlighten Mr. Handy on the first -- on Item 14, and other Commissioners who were not present at the committee meeting. This was -- we're dealing with Community Development in the first personnel matter, and the lady who was performing this task died a couple of months ago. And we are dealing with quite a bit of money over there. There is no one there to deal with this or have the qualifications or the skills to deal with this, and this is why it is being brought to the floor for you to deal with it today. And it was approved in there and it was explained in the Administrative Services Committee meeting and this is why we are asking for this. As you know, Community Development deals directly with their funds coming from HUD. There are strict guidelines of dealing with this, and we need someone with the financial experience to deal with that and we have no one over there at this time. The second item is 15. This is coming from the Risk Management and this is a combining of the two policies that -- the urban and the suburban policies that was previously in existence, and they have combined those policies to have something clarified for the new government. MR. HANDY: Well, I appreciate what Mr. Beard just explained here, but there's no way that we can have a committee meeting when all of us is not on a committee and then you have it on the regular agenda to come right back and vote on it before we hear anything of what happened in that meeting. Well, in my opinion, this should have been on next week's meeting. Although they might have had the meeting today, but this should be on next week's meeting and we should have some kind of information or some minutes or something from the committee meeting. We don't have anything to know what goes on in committee meetings. All of us are not on the same committee, and there's no way that I can sit here and vote on something and not knowing what went on in there just because you got a recommendation from a committee meeting saying that this should be approved and not having it --nothing to show or any kind of substantial evidence to show what actually went on. Not that I'm against what went on in there, and I understand what the communication is about the Development person for what Mr. Beard needs for that block grant, but there's nothing here in this meeting -- I mean, in this package telling me exactly what went on in that meeting that I can actually look at if I had to make a decision to vote on it. We need some information about what happened in each and every committee meeting put in our books. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think that's the committee form of government, in that the purpose of having the committees is to make recommendations to us. MR. BEARD: I would just like to inform Mr. Handy of a couple of things that -- I think in the retreat there was a decision made that we would do the committee meetings on the off weeks. I believe that was stated. However, as we know, we were pushed for time at this point and I think we didn't have time to -- those committee meetings came so that we didn't have time to spread this out as we had suggested. And I don't know, Mr. Mayor, but if we follow the suggestion that we had at the retreat, that these committees meet on the off weeks, then I think he would not have this problem and you would probably have time to address these committee meetings and read the minutes that took place. And I do sympathize with most of the Council members that you have not had that opportunity to review this, but maybe in the future we could work out something where it could be done. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me like we are trying to work under a committee structure, that there is a letter in the agenda book from Mr. Patty to Mr. Beard requesting, the way I understand it, to fill a position that's been vacant, and you're only asking to advertise for that position. And it would seem to me that if we're going to try to make the committee structure work, that if you get your book on Thursday or Friday, if you got a question of anything under a committee, why don't you pick up the phone and call them? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard moved for approval and Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my concern would be what we agree on at one point and we have it completely undone and redone, and hopefully we can get back to the format for all meetings on all committees. And I can accommodate any committee that need me there, and I call for the question. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Finance, Items 16 through 20 were approved, with a referral to the Commission-Council for approval. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll make that in the form of a motion. The only catch is, I don't have the minutes for the Finance Committee and I know some of these items weren't voted on unanimous by the committee, and I -- CLERK: Item 21 and 22 were not -- did not carry out of committee, they were deadlocked, so you all need to address those individually. The other items were approved. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would appreciate, not only for my own benefit but for the other members of the Commission, that the minutes of the Finance Committee, especially when it was held a week in advance of this meeting, be included into the book that comes out to all the Commissioners. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion if the maker of it will accept an amendment that we pull Item 22 and 23 from the consent agenda, I guess, on the Finance Committee meeting. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Todd, I can't agree to that because we've got -- those two items heavily impact on our budget for this year and I think we need to at least discuss them this day. MR. TODD: Well, I'm saying pull them out and discuss them individually. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's, what, 22 and 23? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what's being done. MR. HANDY: We need to pull out 21 also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right now we're looking at 16 through 20, gentlemen. Isn't that correct, Ms. Bonner, 16 through 20? CLERK: Yes. Through 20. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I made a motion for that already. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, somehow we've got another motion in here about something else and you've got me confused a little bit. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information, Commissioner Brigham made the motion initially and I seconded it, so there's no need for an additional second. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, that was -- hold it. Could you read the motions back, please, ma'am. MOTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REPORTER. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. CLERK: Item 21: Communication from Ryder with reference to inclusion of City of Augusta fleet vehicles under their maintenance contract with Richmond County. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, the committee deadlocked on this. I make it in the form of a motion that we add these. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Make it in the form of a motion that we add the City vehicles to the Ryder contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham made the motion we add the City vehicles to the contract. Do I have a second to -- MR. POWELL: I'm going to second the motion to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Discussion? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions basically really more than anything. My first question is, is Ryder going to, you know, honor the contract price? And the second question I have with this is, the Ryder contract itself was for the County vehicles. If we add more vehicles to it, is there any way that we may get some kind of a little better deal or something here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, do you and Mr. Avery want to address that for us, please? MR. AVERY: The first question on the price, the price was determined based on the vehicle and equipment list that the City presently maintains. And what we did was, yes, it is a reduced price because we're carrying the present management and supplementing that. So we're not adding a whole different tier of management coming in, so that was eliminated where we utilize presently what we have as County employees, plus the addition of the City employees. The pricing also included taking on the additional City employees at their current wages with equal to or better benefits, similar to what we did with the County employees. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, what is the cost of the contract to take on the City vehicles? MR. AVERY: 1,260,000. MR. KUHLKE: And the existing contract with Ryder with the County vehicles goes through when? MR. AVERY: Through, if I'm not mistaken, April 15th of this year. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And the contract for the City, is that to go until the end of '96? MR. AVERY: What we were anticipating doing is, if you roll them together, is to roll it on an annual basis so that both contracts would be concurrent with your calendar year. MR. KUHLKE: So the contract with you would not start until April, and then -- MR. AVERY: No, the contract with -- we could roll the City vehicles in within 30 days. If you so move tonight, we would start effective February 15th with the City and then carry that through the end of the year. MR. KUHLKE: And the employees of the City now would become employees of Ryder? MR. AVERY: That would be correct. MR. KUHLKE: And are we saving any money? Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. It's a little bit over $300,000 from existing City budgets and almost 400,000 from what was spent over the past three-year trend. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think everybody know where I'm at on this one. I learned about the first contract riding downtown about 12:00 noon approximately a year ago. I got down here and I was told that this was a sole source contract, you know, and I think that it was even -- the minutes will reflect that even agents of Ryder alluded to the fact that it was a sole source contract. I know that we were in an embarrassing situation a year ago, that we needed to be bailed out of that embarrassing situation. And I didn't cry bloody murder on that one, but I'm going to tell you, gentlemen, that we're talking about Public Works contracts and repairing equipment, et cetera. I think we must and we shall go out for competitive bidding, that we can't enter into a contract with Ryder for the City services and extend the County contract without going out for proposals. I think that most of us are familiar with, I believe it was a Douglas, Georgia, situation that I passed you literature out on approximately a year ago. I seriously believe that we're dealing with the bid statute of the State of Georgia here in that we shall go out for proposals or for bids. There is other entities that's out there that would be interested in bidding on this work and may even give you a better price than you're getting here. We know when we do budgets that sometime we pad those budgets and it's not necessarily what we can do bottom line. All I'm asking is that you go out for competitive bidding on the City addition and the County contract, and if Ryder get it or the MSI or whatever, then I don't have a problem with that, I'll support it 100 percent. And I'm going to make a substitute motion that we go out for competitive bidding on both. This other contract is fixing to end here shortly and we should have already been out for competitive bidding, and we need to do that. So that's in the form of a substitute motion, that we go out for competitive bidding for the City work and the County contract when it come up. MR. KUHLKE: I second that, Mr. Chairman. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make another substitute motion, that we get proposals from Ryder from now until April and then go back and bid both of those contracts out at the same time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding, if I heard the committee meeting correctly, is there's no way that they can take a contract for that length of time and staff up and so forth and that that just would not be a reasonable request of Ryder. Am I correct? MR. AVERY: The major concern that we have is the employees. We inherited the employees because the County at that point in time, and I'm assuming still, was very concerned about the employees. We took over the existing employees at equal-to wages; no one lost any money. The benefits, to my knowledge, are better than what the County was -- that they were under under the County system. The incentives that we offered as far as ASE certifications and training, those have been in place. Our concern would be for the employees, that if -- you know, competitive bid, that's fine. What we're asking for is extend it through the end of the year, let us put the whole thing together so that the City vehicles know where they're going to be worked on, i.e., the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department, so we're not dividing up now that there's a consolidated government. I mean, a competitive bid, we have no problem with that, but to do it for 60 days and then lose that, the employees could have three employers conceivably in a very short period of time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that if the present contract runs until April, that we've got sufficient time to put a package together for both the City and the County vehicles and get competitive bids. MR. POWELL: My question, Mr. Chairman, is what are we going to do from now till then? MR. KUHLKE: What are you doing now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, did you want to say something? MR. HANDY: No, I don't think I need to say anything to that. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my question would be -- maybe the best person to answer that in reference to what they're doing now -- and the only reason that I would change anything at this point, because of the shortness of time and employees' peace of mind, comfort zone and everything else. And I think in all fairness to other bidders and in all fairness to Ryder in terms of putting together a comprehensive package, that I would ask the Interim Administrator for the Urban Services District are there any emergency problems that are existing currently with Public Works that they cannot handle until the April situation is up, so that if you're going to look at privatization, then Ryder and anybody else can have adequate time to put together a package that will encompass everything. And since theirs is going to expire in April, then Ryder and whether it's three to four other companies if they so desire can bid at that time on a consolidated workforce. And if there's no emergency -- and I guess I'm asking you that, Mr. Dillard -- is there any reason that they can't work as they are right now until the 15th of April? MR. DILLARD: Mr. Mayor, I can answer that. There is not any reason that it cannot continue on through April as we're doing now. There's no emergencies that I know of at this point, or repairs. They could continue on with the present job. MR. MAYS: That would be my main concern, because I think you are right, I think the gentleman has so stated they can end up working for three people very immediately. They're working for the City of Augusta right now, they can work two to three months for Ryder, and then if -- let's just say hypothetically Ryder loses the bid, then they're working for somebody else, you know, after -- by May or some time. And I think in fairness to you of having to rush, rush, put it together to take us in to bail that situation out and to fix something that may not even be broken between now and April 15th, then I think we can do the whole thing at that particular time. And I would want to vote for the motion that's on the floor as a substitute. MR. AVERY: The major concern that we have, as I stated before, is the employees. In a competitive bid situation -- I guess I've been doing this for ten years. It's not as easy to put a competitive bid together as everybody thinks it is, simply because each department has their own, in a way, agenda that they want things addressed. MR. MAYS: Well, let me ask you this: Wouldn't you have a little cushion doing the County's, the old County system, and if we're asking you to take on the City's, from a time frame standpoint, you or anybody, wouldn't you be in a better time frame of doing that than what you were handed when you were handed the garage situation to do the County's? I mean, you've got now until April the 15th. I mean, I'm just asking because I'm green with it, but I'm asking out of a point of ignorance wouldn't you be in just as good a shape in doing that as you were with what you were handed when you did the other? MR. AVERY: From a time point of taking -- let me make sure I understand your question. Are you talking from a time point of taking over the City garage? MR. MAYS: From the time point that we were asking you to put together a comprehensive package of adding the City of Augusta's employees on to a contract that would do then a combination consolidated workforce under your company. What you have now in existing County government, wouldn't you be in a more comfortable time frame now in trying to put together adding on the City's than what you were handed under the circumstances of dealing with the County's? MR. AVERY: There's a yes and a no to that. The yes is because -- MR. MAYS: Well, I wouldn't hold you to a yes and a no. I don't believe in answering them that way myself. MR. AVERY: Because we've been doing this for 15 years, the transition plan 30 days is pretty solid as far as how we can turn it around. The people are trained, the trainers come in, the opening teams are there. The real advantage that we had here as far as taking over the City vehicles that we didn't have taking over the County's is we were already in place and we already have additional people that -- same as we took over the County -- that we bring in. Those people are trained through the whole opening procedures, so that 30 days is pretty solid. I mean, I'm very confident at the end of 30 days we're in place, fully functional, ready to go. We have been for 15 years doing business like that. The one question that you all have to consider is that we have been asked, and we did respond, that those employees in the County are receiving our benefit program and equal to or better wages. If you're going to do that for the City in a competitive bid situation, I seriously doubt that another company is going to come in and honor that agreement. We are going to be at a distinct disadvantage in that we're going to be paying not only the City employees if we inherited them but the County employees. The only person that's going to get hurt in this, unless those employees are covered somewhere in this agreement and it gets developed that way to say you've got to pay at the same price Ryder is paying with equal to or better benefits, then most private contractors aren't going to want to do that. MR. KUHLKE: But if that is part of the specifications, that's what they've got to bid on. MR. AVERY: You would hope. But they're inheriting our employees. They're inheriting private contractor employees. And how long do you keep them for? Do you say okay, yeah, I do and 30 days later they're gone? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, if there's no other information, I move for the question. MR. TODD: I call for the question, too. I have a serious problem with the -- you know, with consulting the person here that's wanting us to circumvent the law possibly and back into a contract to extend their contract. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all need the motion read? Because I think we had two, didn't we? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like the substitute motion read. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we ought to have the motions read. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS READ BACK BY THE CLERK. MR. TODD: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. That motion never received a second, Mr. Mayor, so I believe that substitute is dead. And it was probably also out of order in the sense there was a substitute motion already on the floor. MR. POWELL: I'll withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman, to make it a little more simple. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you read the other motion, please? MOTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REPORTER. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. CLERK: Item 22: Communication from the Interim Attorney with reference to the University Hospital Indigent Care Contract. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we hold University Hospital to the cap on indigent care. MR. WALL: Point of inquiry, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a second, Mr. Wall, so you want to go ahead, please? MR. WALL: Well, the point of inquiry was the cap, the setting of that cap. I mean, we had a cap under the contract that expires January 31st. Under that contract we're to pay $208,000 for the month of January. The communication from University Hospital that I think that I have furnished everyone -- hopefully I have -- was their proposal to extend the contract for an 11-month period of time for the $2 million cap that had been imposed for 2 12 months during calendar year 1995, and I assume that's the cap that you're referring to is $2 million for a year as opposed to 11 months, was the 2 reason I raised the question. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that's the -- that was the motion. And I remake that motion that we send them a counter-proposal or we hold them to the cap of $2.5 million for 12 months, whether it's in a calendar year or whether it run into two years -- different years. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays seconded the motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve it for the 11 months. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell made the motion, Mr. Jerry Brigham seconded it. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I also would like added in there that we go out for proposals prior to the end of the year on indigent care so that we can have it in by the end of December of this year, and I want to tack that into the substitute motion. MR. POWELL: Not accepted as an amendment. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'll withdraw my second. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second his motion, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke seconded Mr. Powell's motion. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. Mr. Mayor, I don't think there's any justification for this increase. If my math is correct, this is an increase of approximately $200,000. By creative accounting on changing the contract from 12 months to 11 months, this is a continuation of the ripoff on indigent care. We certainly appreciate things that University said they are doing as far as a partnership and care provider. I went over to University for that meeting that was -- you know, the Lieutenant Governor, the State Senator Walker and et cetera, was a party to, but I see it as a clever scheme to package and sell University to this community and continue this ripoff on indigent care, and I think it's unfair to the taxpayers of this county. This is where we were at last year. We had to get the D.A.'s office involved in this thing with University having several hundred of their employees on indigent care, and we got where we got last year because the D.A.'s office was breathing down their neck, and if we're not careful we're going to be back where we were at three years ago when I come to this board and started to question the activity over at University at $5.2 million a year for indigent care. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Comptroller to maybe come forward and justify these changes for us in this contract, if you're familiar with it. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. The contract as it exists for the calendar year 1995 was capped at 2.5 million. In their letter, University pointed out that their expenditures had been quite a bit more than that, and rather than ask for a complete renegotiation of the contract in a short period of time, would the County accept an 11-month contract because the '95 contract ends the end of January for the same cap. It is for 11 months at $2.5 million, which is roughly an eight percent increase, and that they would evaluate the new programs that are going into place, including those in cooperation with the Health Department the coming year, and the results of that would be worked into negotiations with the County in the future. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in respect to my colleague and not wanting to beat a dead horse, I call for the question. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. McKie, one thing, pointing to this, on everybody's tax bill there's a line item up there for indigent care and the ambulance service. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And the information that I got is in 1995 we collected $2,840,000 on that line item, plus another 4 to 5 hundred thousand dollars in ad valorem tax on the automobiles and mobile homes, which far exceeds what we paid University Hospital last year. And just for my own information and maybe the Commissioners' information, I'd like to have a clarification on that from you at some point to see exactly where we are. Because if that's the case, I'd like to know where the funds that we collected over and above what we gave to University Hospital went. MR. McKIE: That was put on there several years ago as information, Mr. Kuhlke. Those funds were not specifically assigned by the Commission to University. The totals for the ambulance contract and the indigent care was some 3.3/3.4 million dollars last year. MR. KUHLKE: Well, if that's the case, that pretty much verifies it, but I just -- it sounded like that we were doing something different. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, we separate the two contracts. The ambulance contract has no cap on it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, when we were billed by University Hospital for indigent care this year, was it consistent and throughout the year the same bill or was it inflated at one point in the year? MR. McKIE: The bills for inpatient were very low until about April or May, and then from that point until August -- I believe at that point we had spent roughly $1 million over five months and then we caught up, and between May and August we reached that cap of $2.5 million. And University continued to bill us with the understanding that the cap had been reached, but it doubled in about three months. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But the first four months it was very low billing? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If it had continued at that rate, we would have come in well below the cap? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. We would have come in about 1.5 million, something like that. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think it's good to try and estimate what you can deal with with health care, but I guess having the unfortunate experience of dealing with both parents with catastrophic illnesses, I don't think you can gauge from month to month what you're going to deal with with health care. I mean, it may deal with one quarter where it's down, it may escalate in two to three months, it may bust your budget in eight or nine. But I think with what has happened with the cutbacks of the other part of the contract provider that you're talking about in terms of jobs, in terms of jobs where people are not there, then you question whether or not certain services are. I think that at least with us being reasonable people that we ought to at least stick with the contract guidelines that we've got on board, and then if there is a major problem, just as we incurred a few years ago, I don't think that this Commission turned its back on indigent care. We came back and we had to dip in and we had to increase. We still provided. But I think we don't need to start out in the first month of the year going backwards. And from the standpoint of when you're talking about people where they are downsizing, then, you know, some of that ought to at least be prorated in what you're talking about of dealing with the contract. You know, a lot of people are changing lifestyles and their employment or workforce because of what's going on there, and yet we're being asked to increase on this side of our contract, and I think that's cutting against the grain that they are using. I think that we should at least stick with the contract, and then if there gets to be emergency problems, then I think we can turn to this body. And I don't think this body -- and I would be one of the last people in the world that if it got to a situation of denying people who were in that state and we had money to do it with, I certainly, regardless of who the health care provider was for indigent care, I would not base that on what was done in the past. But I think if we start backing up on a yearly contract and we haven't even got to the second month yet, then what happens when there is an emergency? Do we keep back pedaling? And I think when we have been in some ways wrongly accused of being the grinch who stole Christmas -- because some of the cutbacks that were made, I've heard it said that that County Commission down there, they were the ones that made us have to do certain cutbacks. And, you know, I think that when you've had on one hand --when you show budgetary things that show multi-million dollars that are there and you do the cutbacks that have been scaled down over there in terms of employees and their workforce, then I think certainly we ought to stick to our guns and what we are dealing with, at least to get to a point of where an emergency can be shown. And then if that happens, then you turn back to us and I think then we can be considerate in what we are doing. We've always been considerate and we haven't turned our backs, I don't think we will, but I don't think we ought to start off doing it. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I think we have our Internal Auditor over there now, or he was directed to go over, you know, several weeks ago. I don't know whether that's completed yet or not. There's some question about whether all the billing that they're doing to Richmond County is true indigent care or it's a, you know, catch-all and the folks that fall through the cracks as far as not qualified to indigent care. I want all the facts before I vote to increase one penny to University as far as indigent care. And the other question I have is that we're supposed to be for running a government like we run a business -- or you would run a business. Well, I think a business would be willing to go out for competitive bidding for indigent care. And we can use the argument that we're doing business with the Hospital Authority and this is a non-profit entity. Well, you know, I think anybody that's followed this issue know better than that, that this is a for- profit entity with a fund balance of a year ago of somewhere in the neighborhood of $165 million. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, first of all, looking at it from a business standpoint, I'd like to clarify that indigent care cost and operating costs are two different things. What we need to do is look around the state and see what other major cities are paying and then come back and look at what you're paying. You're paying a lot less. And at that, Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. I think we done rode this horse long enough. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need the motion read or do y'all know what we're voting on? CLERK: To approve the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just want to make sure that everybody's in agreement that we know what we're doing. MR. BRIDGES: This is Moses' motion? CLERK: No, it's Mr. Powell's motion, to accept the contract as in your book from the City Attorney -- from the Interim Attorney. MOTION FAILS 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we're back to the original motion. Do y'all know what the original motion was? CLERK: To hold University to its cap for 12 months. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 23: Communication from the Interim Attorney with reference to a request from the Health Department for an advance of funds. The Finance Committee took no action with regard to this request. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, this was presented to the Finance Committee, which we tied on. I make a motion that we advance this $170,000 out of the Health Department's operating money, to be paid back out of the sales tax funds as they become available and accrued to the Health Department. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We had a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Any further discussion? VOTE TAKEN. MAYOR SCONYERS: 9-1? MR. MAYS: No, I'm voting to abstain. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand. MR. MAYS: I didn't vote merely on -- being in that area in terms of a possible conflict, my vote will be abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, one question. Was this advance for a project or is that just an operating cost? MR. WALL: This is for beginning work, engineering work, ground work, insofar as a potential site for the clinic. So it's not operating -- it's coming out of the operating budget, but to be repaid out of sales tax. MR. POWELL: So it's for a project? MR. WALL: It's for a project. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just a point of information. I just want to ask Mr. Wall, because we've been down this road before with it on County government side, is there a permanent site selection in terms of what you're advancing for? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Not at the present time. MR. MAYS: No permanent site selection? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. This is for site location and engineering costs and deciding on the site. MR. MAYS: I change my vote from abstaining to no then, if there's no site selection in place. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 24: Communication from the Richmond County Board of Tax Assessors with reference to refund recommendations. It was recommended by the Finance Department that we accept the recommendation of refunds from the Tax Assessor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I bring this to you in the form of a motion. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham made the motion, Mr. Todd seconded the motion. Any discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Public Safety, there was a communication from the Central Services Director with reference to bids for container garbage collection services. It was the recommendation of Public Safety that we accept the low bid. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, it was voted on in committee and I bring it to you in the form of a motion to approve. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham made the motion, Mr. Todd seconded the motion. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. I guess, Mr. Mayor, this is the pickup at the Joint Law Enforcement Center, et cetera? MR. JOHNSON: I think if you'll look in your packages, 28 different locations, the Joint Law Enforcement Center is one of the locations. We have three Dumpsters down there. It runs approximately $21,000 a year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, just basically a point of information here. Who is picking up the garbage now? I mean, is it a private company? MR. JOHNSON: Right, private companies are picking it up. Waste Management and BFI are the major. We've got a few with Georgia Disposal. MR. POWELL: Well, one question. The City Sanitation doesn't provide this same service? MR. JOHNSON: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 27 was referred back to the Fire Chief for further information. Under Public Services, Item 28 through 33 was approved: Communication from Richard A. Carter requesting a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with O'Shea's Lounge located at 2701 Washington Road. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, were those items approved in the Public Service? CLERK: Yes, sir, they were. MR. TODD: The other problem that I have with the alcohol licenses, I though there was a State statute, or at least a law, that says we have to take them individually. And I guess from the County Attorney, Mr. Mayor -- CLERK: The record will reflect that you voted on them individually if there wasn't any objections to any of them. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 28 which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates it, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Carolyn Anne Tyson requesting a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Copperfield's Lounge located at 1365 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall and Sunday sales. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 29 which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates it, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg seconded the motion. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are Items 29 and 30 the only ones that are involving Sunday sales? I guess I'm asking -- MR. MAYS: I believe so, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Mr. Brigham, did you want to say something? MR. J. BRIGHAM: On these items that are in for Sunday sales, are they full-fledged restaurants and do they now have sufficient food sales to justify it? MR. MEYER: Copperfield's is a new application, and this is a restaurant and it's in the Ramada Inn -- used to be Ramada Inn, I'm not sure what the name is now -- on Gordon Highway at Molly Pond Road. And the same owner will have the restaurant and the lounge, and both of them are Copperfield's, and the restaurant does meet the requirements. Now, they have not been in business, so until they've been in business and audited, I can't tell you, but it meets the ordinance requirements for Sunday sales. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where it's a restaurant it would be helpful if it would be listed lounge-restaurant versus a lounge. You know, certainly I think that if I'm voting on it and I understand what the State law says, I'm going to have a problem voting on a lounge for Sunday sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I have the record show that my objection was with 29? CLERK: 29, Mr. Bridges? MR. POWELL: I would also like the record to reflect that, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Sam Sun Persinger requesting a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Neighborly Restaurant located at 1979 Tobacco Road. This establishment is currently licensed for a consumption on premises liquor, beer, wine & dance hall license. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 30, which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates it, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg seconded the motion. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are Items 29 and 30 the only ones that are involving Sunday sales? I guess I'm asking -- MR. MAYS: I believe so, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Mr. Brigham, did you want to say something? MR. J. BRIGHAM: On these items that are in for Sunday sales, are they full-fledged restaurants and do they now have sufficient food sales to justify it? MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, the one is requesting the addition of Sunday sales to an existing restaurant with alcohol consumption, and I think that we'd have to, if they meet the requirements, grant it and then audit them at this point. They haven't had Sunday sales, so they have not been audited, but it is a restaurant. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where it's a restaurant it would be helpful if it would be listed lounge-restaurant versus a lounge. You know, certainly I think that if I'm voting on it and I understand what the State law says, I'm going to have a problem voting on a lounge for Sunday sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I have the record show that my objection was with 30? CLERK: 30, Mr. Bridges? MR. POWELL: I would also like the record to reflect that, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Young Chu requesting a Game Room license to be used in connection with 56 Game Room located at 3706 E. Old Savannah Road. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 31, which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates it, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg seconded the motion. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Young Chu requesting a Beer license to be used in connection with 56 Game Room located at 3706 E. Old Savannah Road. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 32, which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates it, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg seconded the motion. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Kevin Tierney requesting a Pawn Shop & Game Room license to be used in connection with Sunday's Pawn Shop & Game Room located at 2625 Deans Bridge Road. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Item 33, which was heard in Public Services Committee in open meeting. The objectors, which were none, were so noted on this item. And it was recommended by the office that regulates them, and I move it be approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg seconded the motion. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Items 34 through -- with the exception of 37, 34 through 48 was approved by the Public Engineering Services Committee last week, and they referred this to the Commission for your approval. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, these items were discussed and voted on in the Public Works Committee Meeting, and I'd like to bring Items 34 through 49 to you for approval as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd seconded the motion. Any discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd like for the record to reflect my vote in committee on the items, and I'm prepared to vote for the consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Didn't we have a question about Item 49? CLERK: Yes. The addition was approve subject to that one being deleted, Item 49. MR. HANDY: So the vote we're fixing to take now, it's been deleted? CLERK: Yes, it had been deleted from the agenda. MR. POWELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that was 34 through 48. I'm sorry. MR. HANDY: All right. Appreciate that. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 50 was a communication from the Interim Attorney with reference to Medical Services Contract at the former Augusta Stockade. MR. WALL: I'm sorry I did not have the contract in time to get that in your agenda book for the new members of the Commission-Council that were not members of the Board of Commissioners. Last year Richmond County entered into a contract with CMS to provide medical services at the Joint Law Enforcement Center. With the Stockade coming under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff, we obtained a proposal to have a contract with the same entity, CMS, to provide medical services at the Stockade. That price is an annual -- excuse me, is for an 11-month period of $141,376.62 as the base compensation, which would be based upon an inmate population of 100. It's payable in monthly installments of $12,852. And this is the same company and I think that the Sheriff's Department generally has been pleased with the service that they have there, and I recommend approval of this contract for the 11-month period. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham made the motion. Who seconded the motion, please? MR. J. BRIGHAM: [Raises hand.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry Brigham seconded the motion. Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have just one question. You say that contract was based on 100 persons being in jail. In case it doesn't get 100, is the contract going to be prorated, or what's the answer for that amount of money? MR. WALL: That is a base price, and so if it were under a 100, no, there would not be any savings. There is a per diem charge, however, for inmates that go over 100: $1.16 per day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question is, how far are we from consolidating the Stockade with the Joint Law Enforcement Center and doing away with that Stockade? We have liabilities over there I don't think that we should continue, and certainly we shouldn't go into a one-year contract to provide services unless those per inmate is going to transfer over to the jail -- Joint Law Enforcement Center and that rate is the same, you know, as the existing contract. I understand here we're dealing with professional services, but I would certainly like to go out for proposals if we're going to stay in this business at the Stockade. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, we have met with the Sheriff. He feels like at the present time he has no alternative but to use the Stockade. The daily jail population at the Fourth Street facility simply mandates that he continues to use the Stockade. He intends to do some work through inmate labor and in- house to try to clean it up, get it in shape. He feels like that in the short-term -- and I'm speaking now of until the Phinizy Road site is completed --that he really has no alternative but to use that, and so this is -- he fully intends and has to basically use the Stockade. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, kind of question here is that what has been happening up there before, as I understood it, that you have had people up there and they were receiving medical attention. And it's my understanding that -- I mean, the jail is in such a condition that something is going to be affected there. And my other point would be the number of people or inmates up there at this time, and we're talking about 100, and I'm not so sure we are near that number up there. MR. WALL: My information was that there are in excess of 100 at the Stockade, and you are correct in that some work has got to be done in order to get the place where it doesn't create a liability for the County. We currently have a nurse up there, who is the one rendering the care. I think that anything you can do to improve the health care up there is going to help prevent lawsuits up there, and this is -- I mean, again, it's consistent with what we've done down at the Joint Law Enforcement Center, and that has worked down there. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I understand that there was some talk at one time with the warden out at RCCI about the use of some space out there and there was some recommendation from the Task Force to do some things, but I was just wondering could we revisit that. And I know it's been approved that they are moved directly to the RCCI, but to keep them up there we may end up spending more money, I just don't know. Could we revisit it if possible? I don't know, Mr. Chairman, you may have more information than I do on that. MR. WALL: That was explored. It was thought that that might be viable; however, it was my understanding that Mr. Leverett can only accommodate 50 inmates up there. So that does not take care of the problem because, again, the Fourth Street facility cannot accommodate the balance of them. And, again, it was a situation where he really did not feel like he had any alternative on the short-term. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't know how the system works, but could we get some information to see why the people at the Stockade have to be at the Stockade? At the Fourth Street jail, they are transferred from there, I think, out to Tobacco Road on certain offenses, so why -- since we are a consolidated government now, why can't we move some from the Stockade out to Tobacco Road or either get it down to a guaranteed 50 people versus 100? Because it'll never get 100 people up there at the Stockade. So if they get a contract with, say, 50, maybe cut it a little -- at least cut it in half or either guarantee you're going to pay for 100 people whether you get 100 or not. Because since we all are one government now and you're transferring them from Fourth Street to Tobacco Road, why can't you transfer them from the Stockade to Tobacco Road? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to answer that, please? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, I'll try to. Again, RCCI can only accommodate 50. The Stockade is, in fact, housing more than 100 inmates at the present time. So if you take 50 out at RCCI, you've got 50 inmates left that you've got to do something with. If you carry them to the jail, then you've got an overcrowding situation that is worse than what exists currently. I mean, they are fighting daily, and particularly over the weekends, to keep that number down so that we don't run afoul with the Court. So it was -- in the meetings that we had insofar as trying to come up with a solution, the Sheriff reached the conclusion that he had no alternative but to continue to house inmates at the Stockade, which he is currently doing. And he has sent Chief Toole up there to work with the existing warden up there to try to see what can be done to improve the conditions up there and continue to use it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to the County Attorney, in the sense that we're talking about misdemeanors, what would it take to get the sentence adjudicated or whatever you call it and send them home? It's cheaper for us that they go home than to try to keep them up there. And in the sense that anyone that have any knowledge of the Stockade, they know it's just a accident waiting to happen in the name of a lawsuit. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, you have a very valid point. Some of the sentences that have been imposed up there are greater than what you would anticipate, and they are looking at trying to get as many of those inmates out of the system as they can, because the Sheriff has certain prerogatives that he can use to shorten the time. And, again, we can't control the length of the sentence that the Court imposes. Now, after they're there, there's certain things that the Sheriff can do to limit the time. But you're going to continue -- as long as you've got the Municipal Court, you're going to continue to have people being sentenced up there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor -- and Lee is probably the closest one to it in terms of time, but to echo, you know, an accident waiting to happen, that's a problem up there. But the other side of it is that -- Jim, what I was going to ask, is there no way we probably can work on anything of a shorter length contract other than a year? MR. WALL: One of the reasons that we went with 11 months was to tie it in to the Joint Law Enforcement Center contract so that they would expire at the same time and at the end of this year, you know, revisit the issue and look at it again. MR. MAYS: You know, because one of those things I think we ought to be mindful of is the fact that probably doing what Moses was saying in terms of some type of program of getting some of them folks out from up there period, and what they are there for, would definitely be probably your best solution in some cases. But Municipal Court, and I think the Attorney can attest to that, is now handling worse cases than it used to handle in terms of crimes and what they're taking in and putting there in that situation. And what you've got going that's bad is that in the health care situation that's there, if you don't control it, then you're going to constantly be utilizing -- and we just got through battling about indigent care. If it's not controlled and supervised in some way, you're going to be making periodic trips back and forth to the emergency room because you cannot deny that access on request. And if it's not improved there, then it's going to have to be improved on demand. You don't have really a win situation out of it at this point. But -- and I wish we could, but I think the Attorney is right from the standpoint that if you don't provide it, then you're really looking for a problem. MR. WALL: Let me also point out that we've got this -- MR. MAYS: It may be the least costly of methods. MR. WALL: We have the same contract with RCCI, so if you increase their daily population you're going to be paying an increased per diem out there. Now, I don't know what that dollar amount is and I can't fully address that issue, but you're going to wind up paying for medical care at some point. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, just briefly, in the contract, is the service provider picking up the one nurse that we have there? I think there's a similar situation at the Joint Law Enforcement Center and they did pick up -- MR. WALL: If we request it, they will pick her up. I think she has some concerns about whether she actually wants to go over or not, and I'm not sure that that decision has been made. MR. TODD: If we don't have a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Got a motion and a second. MR. TODD: Got a motion and a second? May I ask the maker of the motion then to amend it, if the nurse wants to go over, that they accept her. MR. BEARD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. MR. TODD: When we did the Joint Law Enforcement Center there was some personnel there that they took into their system. That way we wasn't stuck with employees that we didn't know what to do with. And I'm just requesting that the maker of the motion accept an amendment that if the nurse that's there at the Stockade wants to stay with the company, that they take her in -- or him in. MR. BEARD: I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all know what we're voting on now? I hate to do this, but you'd better read the motion back. Ms. Bonner, do you have it? CLERK: It was on the contract, to approve the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: But to protect the -- CLERK: To include the nurse. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 51 is communication from the Executive Director of the Board of Elections with reference to the establishment of a qualifying fee for each county office to be filled in the upcoming primary or election. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept this and post it. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham made the motion, Mr. Freddie Handy seconded the motion. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 52 is a resolution authorizing the annual appropriation of all amounts required pursuant to participation in the Pooled Lease Program sponsored by the Georgia Municipal Association. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we get some additional -- well, I'm going to so move that we do it, you know, I'd just like to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Dillard was fixing to give you the information. MR. DILLARD: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, with the Georgia Municipal Association, the City has been in the Pooled Lease Program with them for a number of years where we've been purchasing equipment from them. And since that time they've been -- they have required the government to annually pass a resolution stating that the monies to pay that lease amount for that year is appropriated in the upcoming budget, which we have placed that in, to my understanding from Mr. McKie. I talked to him about that and that is in the budget for '96, and that's what the GMA would like to -- a resolution to that effect. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I had a second by Mr. Handy. Mr. Todd made the motion. Any discussion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question here -- I guess, Mr. Dillard -- under some of the information that's in the book. It speaks of the issuance of certificates of participation and the Georgia Municipal Association in the amount of $127,635. What does that mean? Am I voting for a COPS here? MR. DILLARD: No, uh-uh, that's not part of it. It's the, I think, 1.2 million that's set up in the back of that correspondence is what's due for the '96 year to pay on the equipment that's been purchased thus far. It's nothing with the 127, no, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Well, it speaks in the resolution again whereas certificates of participation have been issued pursuant. MR. WALL: May I address that? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, please. MR. WALL: The certificates of participation were issued by the Georgia Municipal Association back in 1990, just like the certificates of participation were issued by Richmond County in 1993, and the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution virtually identical to this insofar as its lease facilities under the certificates of participation back in December. It is something that is required annually. And whereas Richmond County issued its own, this was a pooled arrangement where the Georgia Municipal Association issued the certificates of participation and then these individual members of the GMA could participate through the lease program. But you are not -- the COPS have previously been authorized, been issued, this is simply saying you are setting aside those funds in the '96 budget to meet the lease payments that were required when the various leases were entered into, presumably sometime in 1990. MR. BRIDGES: So how long is this COPS that the Municipal Association is addressing here? Are we doing this year to year or? MR. WALL: Well, yes. I mean, that's -- because one government cannot bind another, the certificates of participation documents require annually certain things be done, one of them being adopt a resolution saying that funds are being budgeted to meet the lease payments, and that's the purpose of this resolution. MR. BRIDGES: So really the COPS have been issued previous to by the Municipal Association, all we're doing is saying this is our continuing lease payment that we've agreed to two years ago; is that correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 53: Communication from the Coroner with reference to upgrading the salary of the Deputy Coroner. MR. SIMS: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as you know, the Deputy Coroner was a police officer, and now that they've gone under the Sheriff's Department, I have no choice, he either stays with me or goes to the Sheriff's Department. And this man is well-trained, he's got about 15 years experience, and I want to upgrade his salary to the same pay grade as an investigative lieutenant with the Sheriff's Department. And an investigative lieutenant, when he goes to work, he works eight hours. If he goes over there, he gets comp time. The Deputy Coroner does not. He works 24 hours a day, subject to call all the time. And I would appreciate the consideration of the Commission to help me out on this matter. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Powell, a second by Mr. Handy. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: My question, Mr. Sims, I note that your paper is well- documented, but most assistant coroners, it appeared, are working for $24,000 a year. And you have said that you've got much more of a caseload than they do. Would you be better off with two deputy coroners? MR. SIMS: Not if I had him full-time. Because most of these deputy coroners only work part-time throughout the State. That's why most counties of our size has three to four deputy coroners. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, the paper didn't say that, and so I'm comparing apples and oranges then, I guess. MR. SIMS: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I know one of the things we've been concerned about is overtime and getting in trouble there. I would assume Mr. Sims is going to work this out where we don't get in trouble on the base salary and being on call 24 hours. MR. SIMS: There is no overtime for him. That is a straight salary. And he is subject to call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just like I am. MR. TODD: So he's kind of like a supervisor than a manager far as overtime? MR. SIMS: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. SIMS: Thank you, gentlemen. CLERK: The next item is to consider partial settlement of condemnation actions against Ming Lin, Tobacco Road Project, whereby Augusta-Richmond County agrees to connect existing drainage pipe to nearest point on Lin's drainage system as shown on the site development plan approved by the County. MR. WALL: Gentlemen, I asked that this be added to the agenda. We had a possession hearing this morning. Mr. Lin was formerly represented by Richard Powell, who, of course, is deceased. In the hearing, the Court requested that it be included in the order that the County would agree to connect the existing pipe that is coming across Mr. Lin's property onto the drainage system at such time as Mr. Lin moved forward with the development of his property, which may or may not ever occur. Jack Murphy and the DOT are in agreement. A little bit of background. Originally this pipe was to go down across property, a Smile station out on Tobacco Road, it was going through a retention pond under the dam, and as a result of what was going to be a tremendous cost to the County, in my estimation, the pipe was -- or that drainage line was redrawn such that it came down to the road that we were already taking from Mr. Lin. We amended the petition, the Board of Commissioners approved an amendment to the condemnation proceeding sometime last fall, and -- I think in December -- and the contractor is being held up until we can get access to that, and we recommend approval for this. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made the motion and Mr. Powell seconded it. Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, under Other Business, I neglected to comment about a settlement that was approved in the Administrative Services Committee earlier about the house that is located out in the area where the 42-inch water main ruptured. And for the benefit of those that were not on that committee, basically it's a settlement for the total sum of $89,500. That represents $40,000 for contents to the house; it also represents title to the house. The appraised value of the house was $75,000, however, it's going to cost $25,500 probably to repair it. One of the contractors is willing to buy the house for that, so that the net cost -- or the net check to the individual would be $49,500. Total cost to the County, complete release, is $89,500. This comes as a recommendation from Steve Reed, who is the City's adjuster, and Mr. Dunbar, who has worked on this matter, and I think it's in order and recommend approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do it, with the exception of selling the house, that we tear the house down and use the right-of-way for improvements of the line if we need to improve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we don't have second to the motion, so it died for lack of a second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did I hear a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, maybe you'd better explain to them about somebody bought the house, didn't they? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't know if it's any cheaper for us to buy the house the first time without having to buy it a second time if this was to happen again. MR. TODD: What we mean, Mr. Mayor, he said somebody's already bought the house. MR. WALL: No one has already bought the house. The settlement on that basis would be $75,000 appraised value plus $40,000 contents, or 115,000 rather than the 89,000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand the difference in money, but what I - - you know, and I understand also that truth in lending, et cetera, that you got to tell an individual that the house was flooded, but I don't want a future commissioner to sit here ten years from now and re-buy this house. There is more problems here than just that water main breaking. There is flooding that's going on, we're having to do some other things as far as a wall go, et cetera. MR. WALL: This is not that house, Mr. Todd. This is a house at the top of the hill right beside where the water main ruptured, so they're not going to have anymore flooding, and the water main is -- water line is away from the house, I mean. MR. TODD: Are we going to repair this water line or replace it or is this going to be eliminated, and are we going to get in the situation of going in and acquiring right-of-way to do those repairs? MR. WALL: Of course, y'all will have to decide when and if the water line is repaired, and presumably there is an existing easement through that property where that 42-inch water line runs, and we could reserve that --well, let me back up. The County would not be involved in the transfer of title. Title would pass directly from the property owner to the contractor and it would not pass through the County to avoid one of the situations that you've commented on. Insofar as making the prospective purchaser aware, let the contractor assume that responsibility. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, is there a recorded easement through that property? MR. WALL: I received this letter this morning, I have not done any title check, I'm not certain whether there is or not. Certainly I think that we would require that -- CLERK: Charles is here. MR. DILLARD: There is a recorded easement back in the 1940's, I think, for that area. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, my concern is if we're going to let the house be sold for $25,000, if this would rupture again, would it cost us more than $25,000 to buy this house the second time around. And I think the $25,000 investment now is a better investment than to face this thing five to ten years down the road. MR. WALL: Well, if you plan to put that water line back into service, then -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't see how we've got any choice in the long run. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Mr. Wall if we -- whether we put it back in service or not, I guess particularly if we do put it back in service, if we're selling it for $25,000 -- and I've heard all the talk we've done today up and down the line about competitive bids. You know, if the house is going to still stand, you know, we're going to get in the house selling business. And even if it passes on to the contractor, somewhere down the line if we still have some responsibility of a potential catastrophe, then maybe we ought to put it out for an accepted bid, too, if we're going to sell it. I mean, if we're going to still maintain some type of liability, you ought to go up there and get the house for $25,000. MR. KUHLKE: We're not going to sell it, are we? Wouldn't the property owner sell it? MR. WALL: The transfer of title would be directly from the property owner to the contractor, and what we're doing is paying the difference between what that contractor would pay for the house and its appraised value of $75,000. So we are paying -- they received three offers from building contractors, and I'm sorry, I don't think I have that information about who the contractors were -- well, I guess do, too. It's attached to this information. I mean, the County has a lot of houses around, lots of properties, and I understand your concern, but -- and I guess my question is, what are you going to do about the person that's uphill from that house and the one that's downhill from that house? MR. KUHLKE: I share the same concern. MR. MAYS: We just -- we indirect buy. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess one thing we could do is give it to one of the non-profits that we support and let them raffle it off versus pretty much giving it away at a sale. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to hear from Mr. Max Hicks as to whether or not he thinks we're going to need to reinstate this 42-inch water line. MR. HICKS: Well, at the present time there is a study being performed by Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold Engineers in which they are investigating the various options that will be available to us. They have talked to people throughout the country who are saddled with this same kind of pipe that has broken even more often than ours has, and from that they're going to present various options to us. Now, whether or not putting that line back in service on a full-time basis would be one of those options would remain to be seen. Each of us has our own personal opinion about that. I don't think it would be prudent for me to express that at this time because the full Commission is going to eventually be faced with that situation, but come first I would imagine to the Engineering Services Committee, then to the full Commission. I certainly would rest a lot easier if there were not a house subject to being washed away again, I'll just make that comment to you if you want my direct opinion on that. So it would depend on what our options are to prevent that from happening, and that's what we are waiting to hear about from the engineering firm. Is that sufficient information for you or what do you need? MR. J. BRIGHAM: In other words, we will probably use that 42-inch water line some point in the future? MR. HICKS: In my estimation, only on an emergency basis if we were to place it back in service, and even then only with modifications taking place where it passes near inhabited dwellings. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, do we have to pass this today? Because I had an opportunity to ride up there where this pipe burst and this pipe goes within two and a half/three feet from the house that it ruptured in the yard, but it also, when it crosses the other street, it goes right across the front yard of another house. And I don't know how many other houses it crosses, is what I'm getting at, and that should be something taken into consideration. If you're going to put this pipe back in service, that means you're going to have to dig up all that what's down there now to put a new pipe in, and that's going to be a hell of a lot of work and acquiring property just to replace that pipe. So if it was me, I would abandon it in place where it is and try to find another direction and get it out of there to get it from under them houses, because it goes right by two houses that I know of personally. Because Commissioner Brigham and Commissioner Powell and myself, we walked the line. We walked straight across, and it goes -- it's got to go under one house that we couldn't even find, so it'd have to go under the house, there's no other way to go unless it go under one. We think that across the street in front of Garrett School, that a house may be sitting on the line instead of going down beside the line. That's something to think about whether you want to put that pipe back in service or not, just go ahead on and find another alternate route. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is an extension of Mr. Handy's. Along that entire route from the water plant all the way to Central Ave., how many houses does it go near or? MR. HICKS: I don't have that exact figure, but you're exactly right, this is not the only house that it passes quite near. That easement was obtained back in 1943 for an 18-inch water line through there, and then it was used for a 30-inch -- excuse me, a 36-inch and then the 42-inch line. Now, there are other houses that had encroached either on or had come very near to that right-of-way, so there are other houses that would be involved. This will be a part of the study that Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold will present; that is, what are the options for repairing the pipe near those houses to prevent such a disaster from affecting the houses. And only until that's presented will we know the cost options involved, and then we'll be able to make a rational decision. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go ahead and make a recommendation, I guess. As far as the water line, that's all being studied, as Mr. Hicks says. It's not going to be a fast fix, but we need to go ahead and settle this housing dispute, because the longer this thing lays out there I think the worse this situation is going to become, so I'd like to go ahead and call for the question. MR. KUHLKE: What was the question? MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't think there was one. Was there a motion? I think it was interrupted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made a motion and Mr. Brigham seconded it. CLERK: Yeah, to accept it, to accept the proposal and not buy the house. MR. MAYS: Tear it down. MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, I didn't say tear it down, I said buy it. MR. TODD: Well, I think the motion is, you know, that we don't sell the house to the contractor, that we sell it. CLERK: You said to tear it down. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That we buy it and then later on we would sell it. COMMISSIONERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL MEETING, 8:39 - 8:52 P.M. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw the motion that I made before the recess. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll withdraw the second, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion and the second have been withdrawn. MR. POWELL: I'd like to make a new motion that we accept the County Attorney's recommendation. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell made the motion to accept the County Attorney's recommendation, it was seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Under Other Business, Mr. Bill Carstarphen would like to make a report to give the Commission an update. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, let me once again thank you for the confidence that you have placed in me and tell you that while I have only been in your community now for about ten days I am impressed by its attractiveness, I am impressed by its potential for the future, and I am impressed by both the challenge and the opportunities that I think are represented in the consolidation of governments and the building of a new government which we are about. As I would like to do from time to time periodically, I have a very brief report on the activities that I have been involved in, which I'll give to the Clerk and let her distribute to each of you for your reading. You will see that I am concentrating on the internal operations of the new government, trying to gain a full understanding of the organization and capacities which currently exist within the structures that are here today. I also have suggested some dates that I am going to reserve for opportunities to spend with each member of the Commission, because I would like your help in getting to know more about the community at large. Once again, I'd like to thank you, and I will turn this report over to the Clerk. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. Any further business? Do I hear a motion that we adjourn? MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I so move. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion on that? I don't think so. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:56 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council held on January 16, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER