Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 20, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 6:00 o'clock P. M., Tuesday, February 20, 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 Commission-Council. Also present were Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Called Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County consolidated government. The Reverend Clyde Hill, Pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, is going to bring our invocation; and if you'll remain standing, after that we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND CLYDE HILL. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: First, could we have the additions and deletions, please, ma'am. CLERK: We have two deletions to the agenda: Items Number 3 and Number 4. And we have two additions to the agenda: The first is approval of a proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. regarding Borrow Pit Grading at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill, and the second is the approval of the adoption of the 1996 Permanent Budget. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was talking to Mr. Patty just then, and I understand he wants Items Number 3 and Number 4 to be voted on today, he just don't want them to be a part of a consent agenda. I would make the motion to add the other two items as read by the Clerk. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bill Kuhlke. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, how are we going to handle the other item, the personnel item? MAYOR SCONYERS: Under Other Business. MR. TODD: I'd like to at least add it -- I don't have the list in front of me. I'd like to at least add it to the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it's coming under Other Business. MR. TODD: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any further discussion, gentlemen? [MR. WALL CONFERS WITH MAYOR SCONYERS.] MAYOR SCONYERS: We missed a franchise agreement that will hopefully bring some additional funds to Augusta-Richmond County. I don't think y'all would mind if we added that, would you? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll amend my motion to add that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to move the Public Services Committee first. CLERK: On the Public Services portion of the agenda, Items Number 66, 69, 70, 71, and 72 were all approved by the Public Services Committee in meeting today, February 20th, 1996. [Item 66: Consider approval of a request for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with S'Moores (Cafe) Inc. located at 3669-B Walton Way Ext. Item 69: Consider approval of a request by William Keith Ashley for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Holiday Inn located at 1075 Stevens Creek Rd. There will be a dance hall and Sunday sales. Item 70: Consider approval of a request by Glenn Sibley to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license used in connection with Fat Tuesday Restaurant located at 2820 Washington Rd. There will be Sunday sales. Formerly in the name of Andrew P. Bodyk. Item 71: Consider approval of a request by Matt Harris to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license used in connection with Holiday Inn located at 2155 Gordon Hwy. There will be Sunday sales. Formerly in the name of Jim Ricci. Item 72: Consider approval of a request by Thomas Edward Hodges, Sr. to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license used in connection with Augusta Elks Lodge #205. There will be a dance hall. Formerly in the name of William H. Berry, Jr.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that -- have we added those items to the agenda yet? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, that's already completed. This is the -- CLERK: They're on. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're voting on the consent agenda now -- I mean, the total of the -- that was passed in Mr. Mays' committee. MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor, that we approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, would you repeat those items? MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you repeat the items, Nancy, please. CLERK: The items were Number 66, 69, 70, 71, and 72. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. VOTE: 8-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like the record to read my objection was to Sunday sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like the record to show objection on all the items that are Sunday sales. Change my vote to no on those; I missed them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Did you get that? CLERK: [Indicates affirmatively.] MOTION CARRIES 8-0 ON ITEMS 69-71. [MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-2 ON ITEMS 66 AND 72. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Also on the Public Services agenda, Items 67, 68, 73, and 74 were all denied by Public Services in meeting today. [Item 67: Consider approval of a request by Ronnie A. Brown for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Harambee Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Rd. There will be a dance hall. Item 68: Consider approval of a request by Melissa Coggins for a liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Krystal Palace Sports Club located at 2805 Wylds Rd. There will be a dance hall. Item 73: Consider approval of a request by Melissa Coggins for a Game Room & Sports Club license to be used in connection with Krystal Palace located at 2850 Wylds Rd. Item 74: Consider approval of a request by Ronnie Brown for a Game Room license to be used in connection with Harambee Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Rd.] MR. WALL: Mr. Brown is here, so we need to take his separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. So that is 74 and -- MR. WALL: 67 and 74. We're going to need to take separately, because I understand Mr. Brown is here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Well, why don't we go ahead and vote on the other one then. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? This was to deny the license that all you folks are concerned with; okay? Further discussion, please? All in favor of the motion to deny, let it be known by raising your right hand. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. KUHLKE ABSTAINS, MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 67 was denied by the Public Services Committee. It was a request by Mr. Ronnie Brown for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Harambee Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Rd. There will be a dance hall. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Brown here? CLERK: Is Mr. Brown present? MR. MAYS: I think they might be in that hallway, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brown, if you're present, will you please come in? Mr. Brown. Ronnie Brown. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we deny it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham to deny. Discussion? MR. WALL: He's not present. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that that motion to deny was based on falsifying a application, and per the Code that's grounds for denial. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to deny, let it be known by raising your right hand. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 74 was to deny the request of Mr. Brown for a Game Room license to be used in connection with Harambee Lounge & Game Room. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we deny it. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell to deny. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to deny, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: We can go back to Number 1 now. CLERK: Item 1: Mr. Charles N. Utley to appear before the Commission from the Hyde Park Improvement Committee regarding community concerns. MR. UTLEY: Good evening everyone. First of all, let me just say thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come and greet this new board with due respect. And we want to work with you and not against you, and we just want to present a few facts to you that hopefully that will fall on fertile hearts and not stone minds. And it's just a few items that, for the new members of this newly formed board, that we would like to bring to your attention. Just a few of them, and I'm not going in any particular order. There still is a problem with the drainage in our area. And I know we talked about removing some of the signs with Ms. Tucker, but the drainage that we are interested in are those that have been cleaned supposedly by Georgia EPD, the ones that has the lining in them. We're asking that they consider cleaning those with the proper equipment, and also they can use the haz-mat equipment for the workers at the same time. So we're asking that things like that take place. We're also concerned about the new services that this board will be implementing. We're not quite sure what is going to be done in these areas, and I'm speaking of the Hyde Park, Oregon Park, Virginia Subdivision. There's a lot of questions as to what will be the new services. And some of the things that we are looking forward to or hope that this board will address is that in the area there is a great need for keeping the area clean, so if at all possible we would like to see one of the dumpsters put in a permanent place. If this is going to be a part of the new configuration for the garbage collecting or whatever, we would like to have one of those put in the community where this can be of service to the people also. We would like for Dan Bowles Road -- there's a great concern with the number of car tires on the Dan Bowles Road entering Hyde Park. We want to keep it looking just like any other community, when you enter into it, you don't get this first impression that it's just a slum and you don't want to be a part of it. We want to have the same atmosphere when you're coming in that area as any other area, so we're asking that the litter patrol really take note of Dan Bowles Road between Doug Bernard Parkway and the railroad track. It's atrocious in that area where you have car tires both sides of the road, so at some point we need to address something that will help alleviate this problem. Hyde Park has its share of drugs. You can see them being dealt with openly. I was told as of yesterday within -- across the street from Clara E. Jenkins a young lady put her car hood up, jumped out, left her children in the car, ran down to make a drug deal; it was such a good one that the companion in the car jumped out and went and met her. Now, we're saying anything like this need to be stopped, and we appreciate our Sheriff and his efforts, and it's been a great deal of things that's taken place to alleviate some of the drugs in the area, but there's still too much. We still have too many young children on the streets and you have too many guns firing and just hanging on the corner. I think that if the City has a ordinance against loitering, let's move them into Hyde Park. We're the residents, we want it stopped. If you can put the signs up saying No Loitering, put them up. Because we don't want them hanging on the corners, we want them to be doing something productive. And, also, I have in my hands -- and I'm here more or less to get some information on this. It kind of puzzles us because it says -- and I'm going to pass it around. This map indicates that on the other side of Clara E. Jenkins, the Gravel Pit Road, contaminants exceed what has been expected in the area. And I'm quite sure you all have a copy of it because it was addressed to you, and it has the County as the owner of the road that has exceeding amount of toxics and chemicals in that ditch that you are now preparing to open up to Doug Bernard Parkway. I know a lot of it say that there isn't anything in the area, but we still contest the fact that -- we can't understand the number of respiratory and circulatory diseases, birth defects in these communities, and when we get something like this it makes us think that someone is still deviating from the truth. And these communities are -- they're watching you, and it's time for you as a new board to stand up and take a seat, explain to them what does this mean. Because I don't know, does this mean that you take responsibility for those contaminants that Georgia EPD has now said that's over there that's exceeding and they're going to put on the register for high toxic waste areas? We need to address that. The community needs to know. I think it's their right to know. So I'm asking that you consider these things. And believe me, we want to work with you, but we need to know how can we work with you. We understand the old board, and they worked with us to a certain point, but now we want to be able to pick this board up, and that's why I'm addressing you today. I want you to know where we stand and what we're about. And we have to all live together, and we can all respect one another, and all I'm asking is that respect Hyde Park, Virginia Subdivision, irregardless of their socioeconomic status. They get up, they put on their pants one leg at a time just as you and I, and I'm saying just treat them equally and give us an answer and work with us. That's all we're asking for is to give us -- as I was talking with my son on fractions, just give me my share of the pie. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Utley. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the gentleman's comments -- Mr. Utley's comments as information and that we assign to the Environmental Specialist Committee that the Chairman of the Engineering Services Committee appointed last committee meeting the task of looking at the environmental issues. As I understand it, that the Georgia EPD, if I'm correct, supposedly was going to do the remediation of the ditch line and we had earlier assigned a -- voted at a meeting last year to give them a easement right to do that. So that's in the form of a motion, that we accept it as information and pass it on to the respective authorities whether it be the Sheriff's Department, the special committee that Mr. Powell appointed to take care of environmental issues, et cetera. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. As, I guess, Vice-Chairman of Engineering Services Committee, I think that we can clear up what is going to take place as far as solid waste management go. Other than the urban district, there is going to be no change, per my information and understanding, in the solid waste management in Richmond County. We will not have dumpsters like Burke County or some of the rural counties have; we are a urban county. We do have a dumpster at the landfill that's available to any citizen that want to haul household waste, with the exception of shingles, to that location -- and with the exception of car tires. And I think that I can share that information with you now, and until the Board of Commissioners vote to do differently, that's the way it most likely will be. I don't see any difference unless a individual petition to become a service district and become a service district like the urban service district as far as having your waste picked up or other provisions. So, Mr. Mayor, I thank you for the opportunity to at least clear that one up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Planning on your agenda, Item Number 2 and Items 5 through 10 were approved by the Planning Commission and they are requesting your concurrence. [Item 2: Z-96-7 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) That a 50 foot natural buffer be retained along the east property line; and 2) That the area to be rezoned be reduced by eliminating the narrow strip along Skinner Mill Road, a petition from Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Skinner Mill Road Extension, 520 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Walton Way Extension intersects the northwest right-of- way line of Skinner Mill Road Extension. Item 5: Z-96-10 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Interstate Highway #20 and Walton Way Extension. Item 6: Z-96-13 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) That the number of lots not exceed 15; 2) The minimum square footage of the dwellings will be at least 1,350 square feet; 3) The exterior composition of the homes will be a combination of brick, stucco, wood or vinyl, with a limited use of vinyl siding; and 4) The minimum lot size is to be 9,500 square feet, a petition from Henry R. Smith II, on behalf of James C. Bible III, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R- 1B (One-Family Residence) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Greenway Drive, 120.0 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairwood Drive and Greenway Drive. Item 7: Z-96-14 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Estelle G. Martin requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of 12th Street, 250 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Florence Street and 12th Street (1236 12th Street). Item 8: Z-96-15 - Request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That the area to be rezoned is limited to the .46 acre tract that AAA Motor Club owns,' a petition from John T. Brown, Architect, on behalf of AAA Motor Club, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Walton Way Extension, 190 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Wheeler Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Walton Way Extension. Item 9: Z-96-17 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Connie S. Walker requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the west right-of-way of Peach Orchard Road intersects the centerline of Collins Road extended (4953 Peach Orchard Road). Item 10: Z-96-18 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) That the manufactured home is to be a minimum of 1,800 square feet in area; and 2) Only one mobile home will be permitted on this property; the lot will not be subdivided, a petition from James T. Wortham, Jr. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Old Barton Chapel Road, 640 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Old McDuffie Road and Old Barton Chapel Road (2319 Old Barton Chapel Road).] MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 3 [Z-96-8] is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That a 7,500 square foot natural buffer be retained at the eastern end of the property where Skinner Mill Road and Skinner Mill Extension intersects,' a petition from Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Skinner Mill Road Extension, 20 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Skinner Mill Road intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Skinner Mill Road Extension. MR. PATTY: The reason I asked you to pull these out separately is the owners and the potential objectors that live in Conifer Place and others had met and agreed on the conditions that you see before you. And they apparently met sometime this morning and I found out in the last hour that there had been a slight change in the conditions that they wanted to see approved, and these would -- there would be no reason not to approve them. They involve reducing the size of this natural buffer that's called for from 7,500 square feet to 3,750 square feet, and it also involves moving the line --Cases 3 and 4 involve the triangle between Skinner Mill Road and Skinner Mill Road Extension and Walton Way, and basically what they involve is moving the zoning line between the commercial zoning on the front and the professional zoning on the back toward Walton Way Extension so less property is zoned commercial. We're talking about moving the line from 500 feet from the right-of-way of Walton Way Extension to 300 feet from the right-of-way of Walton Way Extension. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? MR. AMERSON: Mr. Mayor, I'm Bud Amerson and I'm representing the Conifer Homeowners Association. And it's not really an objection, but it is a request that we would like to bring before the Commissioners in reference to this zoning request, and I can address it now or when Mr. Patty is through. And if I may -- go ahead. MR. KUHLKE: It's not an objection to what Mr. Patty has just said, but -- I mean, is it going to have a bearing on how we're going to vote? MR. AMERSON: Let me explain it and then I'll let you decide. Conifer did have some questions regarding this rezoning request. We have worked with the Planning and Zoning, we have worked with the Nixon Estate, and we have resolved all of the questions that we had with the exception of one, and that one is a curbed, planted island at the intersection of Skinner Mill Road -- the old Skinner Mill Road and the new Skinner Mill Road Extension and the entry to Conifer Place Subdivision. Since this intersection and this extension was designed we have had some questions that has come before the Commissioners previously, and we hope we've got it resolved. But by you granting this zoning request today, we would like to ask you to so instruct the Engineering Department to get on with getting a curbed, planted island. And let me explain why we're asking you gentlemen to do this, is because this intersection is a very dangerous intersection. I think everyone agrees that it's a very dangerous intersection. I think if you'll check, we've had four accidents already at that intersection. We think by curbing and planting this island, that it will reduce the chances of having what we consider a very serious accident, that someone is going to get killed at that intersection shortly. Now, the approaching traffic today is getting confused and they don't really know which direction to go because, as I say, it's a -- you don't -- you aren't confused until you get to the intersection. But we feel -- and I say we -- Conifer Place, the Nixon Estate and, I believe, the Planning Commission. When they approved it, I believe they signed off stating that they agreed that we needed a planted, curbed -- a curbed, planted island there, but it was out of their jurisdiction to do so. So we're asking the Commissioners tonight if they would, by granting this request to rezone, also to instruct your Engineering Department to proceed with the curbed, planted island. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve it, and I'll also incorporate in that motion that Engineering Department review the agreement that we have with the homeowners association and I guess it was Golden or someone else with Amoco in reference to what the configuration would be there and bring us up to date on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Todd can we make it a little stronger and rather than saying looking into it, to go ahead and do it? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I feel that one is unrelated to the other. The zoning issue is a zoning issue, and per the State planning and zoning statute we can't tie them together. So basically what I'm -- I'll yield to the County Attorney. I know we have an agreement that set the conditions. I'll yield, Mr. Mayor, to the County Attorney. MR. WALL: Mr. Amerson has spoken to me on several occasions concerning the accidents up there. I have passed those along to Jack Murphy. I understand that Public Works is in the process of coming up with a cost estimate to put in a planted island there, and at such time as those cost figures are determined and there's some -- determined whether there's a method to fund it, then I think that that will be brought back before the Commission- Council for consideration. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If there is a traffic hazard there, maybe something we ought to do is refer this back to the Engineering Services Committee for us to look at the safety of this intersection. It may be something that we may want to go back and change at a later time. I just wanted to add that to it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think that's pretty much what the motion called for. I didn't want to tie the rezoning to a non-related issue. I didn't hear that it would have a negative impact unless -- well, I guess I did hear it would have a negative impact, but I think there were an agreement, a earlier agreement of '95, dealing with the issue that Mr. Amerson had discussed and I didn't want to tie it into the rezoning. So I'll accept that amendment that we turn it over to Engineering Services and that they correct the situation. MR. AMERSON: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Todd. We did have a signed- off agreement between the County and the Nixons and Conifer Place, and that's the only thing we would like to do is to go ahead and complete the project in accordance with our agreement. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Amerson. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 4 [Z-96-9] is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of Walton Way Extension intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Skinner Mill Road Extension. MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, what you did in 3 was increase the area that's going to be zoned professional within this triangle, and that automatically reduced the area to be zoned commercial, and that's what 4 does. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Administrative Services, Items Number 11 through 19 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee in meeting February the 12th. [Item 11: Consider approval of the modification of an agreement with Southeastern Security Systems to retain the provision for dispersal of funds on a quarterly basis with a proportionate reduction in the number of employees who will be offered training. Item 12: Consider approval of a proposed set of guidelines regarding UDAG and CDBG loan programs. Item 13: Consider approval of recommendation to reject bids opened December 27, 1995 for the sale of a 1994 Buick Park Avenue Sedan. Item 14: Consider approval of award of bid for a 1996 Sedan. Item 15: Consider approval of HRH for Workers Compensation coverage for Augusta-Richmond County government. Item 16: Consider approval of Safety Review Committee. Item 17: Consider approval of Risk Management Policy Manual. Item 18: Consider approval of hiring of secretary for JLEC as a full-time position with benefits. Item 19: Consider approval of First Amendment to the Home Housing Rehabilitation Program Funding Agreement.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out Item Number 13 and deal with it separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're going to take Item 11 through 19, minus Item 13; is that correct? MR. TODD: Yes. I so move that we do it in a consent order. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve Items 11 through 19, minus Item 13, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. VOTE: 9-1. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, that's basically against Item Number 14. I would be in favor of all the rest of them. MOTION CARRIES 10-0 ON ITEMS 11, 12, 15-19. MOTION CARRIES 9-1 ON ITEM 14. CLERK: Item 13 is to consider approval of a recommendation to reject bids opened December 27, 1995 for the sale of a 1994 Buick Park Avenue Sedan. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we give the vehicle to -- well, sell the vehicle to the highest bidder, which I understand was a Mr. Rhodes. And this is action taken by the Augusta City Council that was passed on to this Board, but from my understanding, that if he meets the minimum bid and he outbidded the individual that was bidding for the vehicle, then he certainly should receive the vehicle. And we're talking about approximately $19,000. A Crown Vic or whatever, LTD, can be bought for approximately 15/16 thousand dollars, so the County certainly would gain there, and I don't think we should continue a vendetta that was started by a previous administration with a citizen of this county because it's the wishes of a former mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who actually seconded the motion? Jerry Brigham? Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to explain to Mr. Todd possibly why this was approved by the Administrative Services Committee. Because it was brought to our attention that this body has the right to accept or reject any bids, and also that the car was being considered for use for one of the administrators that we previously had and that person was in need of a vehicle at that time, and that's -- I think that is one of the reasons why this was approved by the Administrative Services. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly appreciate my colleague informing me why, but I think it come a time when we should get about doing what's right, what's fair, and what's just. I don't understand why he want to spend $19,000 for this car, but I took a interest in this car because it was running around town the latter part of last year with a private tag on it versus a City tag and inquired into who owned the car, et cetera; then I heard there was a deal being cut to allow the former mayor to purchase this car in a bid process. And I don't want to criticize that bid process because it was conducted by another government, but I think that while we have the right to reject all bids, that the gentlemen met the minimum bid requirements, if there were one, that he outbidded the individual that was bidding for the car or was hoping for a give-away, and I think the citizens of this county expect us to do the right thing and honor that bid process. And if we can't honor this bid process, then how can anyone, Mr. Mayor, trust us on competitive bidding on anything else? MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: May I ask a question, please, sir? Is it not true that this car, the vehicle in question, is used now by one of the administrators of the County? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's true. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That is true? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And this all was done prior to this administration; is that right? I mean, this bidding and all of that as far as the car was concerned, that was done in the other administration. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, do you -- MR. BEARD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: This was done in the other administration. Seems like to me we ought to close the book on all of that and let things remain as it is, in my opinion, that the vehicle is being used by one of our persons now. A lot of times we tend to cast disparity on other governments and what other people are doing, and I think that's -- I think we may need to look at that. And I will certainly hope that if the vehicle is being used by -- MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Brigham, maybe we want to go and buy the administrator a new car. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right, I think that we ought to -- if it's already closed and he's using it, then it's been justified how it's being used. And if -- I'm sure somebody had to give him that permission to do it, and I think we ought to respect the administration and some of the things that they've done, in my opinion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say that I think aspersion has already been cast on that issue. The public thinks that the gentleman who had the high bid on it was cheated out of it. I think a card laid is a card played, and I think that we should move to approve the sale of that vehicle to the gentleman. And a second note is I don't think we need administrators driving around in Buick Park Avenues. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think if the previous government had only had one bidder they would have accepted a below-market bid for that car, and I think we ought to be able to accept an above-market bid for that car, and I am intending on voting to award that bid to that gentleman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I'd just like to know whether or not Mr. Rhodes is still interested in the car. Has anybody checked? MR. J. BRIGHAM: If he's not interested, we'll keep it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think we should let the -- MR. HANDY: Well, I don't have a answer yet, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a answer yet. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think we should let Mr. Rhodes make that decision. We award the bid to the highest bidder; if Mr. Rhodes don't come up with the money in a certain amount of time, ever what the specs was, then he loses the car; then the County keep the car. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: That's my answer? MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't know. You know, he's not here, what are we going to do? MR. HANDY: I mean, everybody keeps talking about the bid but, I mean, has anybody -- has Mr. Rhodes came before himself personally, or the public talking about the bid and came and said that he was still interested in the car? This is what -- this is the question I'm asking. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I don't think anybody can answer that. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might on this. I have no problem voting for the motion that's on the floor, but would the maker of that motion -- and maybe this is not the proper time, maybe we can deal with it later, but I do think if you've got a person that's riding in that car -- and like or not the policy of whether you put folks in this town that work for City or County in vehicles, some of it's been done and it's a question we've swapped back and forth in prior government, but some of them are incorporated with cars in lieu of what has been done in salary or otherwise. Now, I think in all fairness, if you got somebody in that car -- I don't have a problem with going ahead, dealing with the bid process and honoring that, but I think if you got one administrator on one service district being serviced with a vehicle, then I think what you need to do, whether it's Crown Victoria or whatever car it is, then we need to go ahead and to honor the bid. And if we're going to get a net of $45,000 -- but at the same time, simultaneously I'd like to see us go ahead on and honor the -- what we have been doing in terms of providing that person with a car if that is what has been put in that particular job description that has been given that as far as in lieu of salary with that car. Because, I mean, you could go through this thing and open up a million cans of worms about who's riding and who's not riding and who's getting compensation. But I think if you're going to deal with, for this time being, two service administrators -- and you do have one that has a car, and I think justifiably so. It didn't just start with Linda getting a car. Her predecessor had one, and there were cars provided before, and you've probably got some throughout departments maybe where folks got them and never crank them up and drive them after they get to work. But I think if you're going to take one away, then I think while we're honoring the bid process -- which I'm going to vote for your motion, Commissioner Todd, but I do think in terms of the fact that you've got a service district administrator that is being provided with a car, then we need to go ahead on, whether it's a cheaper vehicle or not, and honor that by putting that in place. MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. Beard: If we sell the car, are we going to have to turn around and buy the administrator another car? And if we are, did we not approve something a little while ago where we're buying a car that we're having to spend $30,000 on, and this car is 19,000? I'm just asking the question. But it doesn't make much sense to me to sell the car if we've got a need for it, and you can't buy much of a car for $19,000 anymore. Can you answer that, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Kuhlke, I would think that as administrator of the urban district, that this person would need some type of transportation at this point, and I assume if he has to vacate this vehicle there's a possibility we would have to find him some type vehicle at this point in time. But that's my opinion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we're fixing to do an item back on Item Number 79 on this agenda where we're fixing to receive a car back from the Project Manager. I think we can put the individual in question in that car and not have to purchase any cars, or maybe we can find one of our other surplus vehicles. MR. HANDY: That car is already being used. That's the spare car for the whole county, Mr. Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's obviously not a spare car if it's assigned to somebody. MR. HANDY: Well, I think Ms. Beazley might have something to say about that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: She might have, but might not, too. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just wanted to assure Mr. Kuhlke, after just coming out of the car market looking for a car, that one still can buy a car for less than $19,000. MR. KUHLKE: All right. I'm not arguing with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you want to say something? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And it really, like a lot of the other discussion, maybe don't have a lot to do with this issue, but certainly I have enough luggage that I'm bringing over from the old County government that I don't need to inherit luggage from the old City government, and I think this is a opportunity for us to dispose of that and deal with our luggage on trying to correct -- take corrective action with ours. And I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to reject the bid and turn it over to the gentleman that bid the highest, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm confused about -- that was not Mr. Todd's motion, was it not? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, it was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wasn't that it? MR. BRIDGES: Would you read that one more time then? CLERK: It was to -- yes, to give the bid to the high bidder. MAYOR SCONYERS: Highest bidder. MR. TODD: The car to the highest bidder. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. VOTE: 5-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, put me on the spot, don't you. Thanks a lot. Charles, I guess you can ride to work with me; okay? I'll have to cast my vote to go along with the group to give it to the highest bidder. MOTION CARRIES 6-5. [MAYOR SCONYERS VOTES YES] CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items Number 20 through 26 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee in meeting February 12th. [Item 20: Consider approval of award to bid to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. regarding East Augusta Drainage Improvements Project. Item 21: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two in the amount of $71,000 for Doug Bernard Parkway (State Route 56 Spur). Item 22: Consider approval of recommendation to equip the Traffic Engineering Department with needed materials for continuation of street sign and street name upgrading in the suburban area. Item 23: Consider approval of the paving of a list of various dirt roads by County forces. Item 24: Consider approval of a County Contract Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation certifying the right-of-way and committing the County to future maintenance of the Boykin Road Drainage Improvements Project. Item 25: Consider approval of a Contract with Gregory Bridge Company for the Lock and Dam Road Bridge Replacement at Butler Creek. Item 26: Consider approval of a County Contract Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation certifying the right-of-way and committing the County to future maintenance of the Wheeless Road Drainage Improvements Project.] MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I make a motion for acceptance. MR. TODD: I'm going to second that motion, Mr. Chairman, with pulling at least one item out, and I'll let Mr. Powell address -- well, two items out, I think, and I'll let Mr. Powell address one. I yield. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion made by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to pull the water study once again -- the water rate study off the agenda again and send it back through committee. The water rate study -- or water rates that we're voting on have not gone through committee. This is a new water rate. MR. ZETTERBERG: What item is that? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I also -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. That's not on this, is it? Did I miss something? MR. WALL: Item 46 is the -- MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: But we're just going 20 through 26 right now. MR. POWELL: Oh, okay. I thought we were going with the whole consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, no, because we had -- 27 we've got to pull out. MR. POWELL: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 20 through 26. Further discussion on those items, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 27 is an oral update by Mr. Jack Murphy regarding Albion Acres Drive Drainage Project. MR. MURPHY: The suburban district of Engineering Services was asked to evaluate the feasibility of going on and completing the Albion Acres improvement. Keep in mind that Albion Acres is right next to Glendale Subdivision. Glendale Subdivision improvements are identified as a Phase III Project for this year. Cook Road is the only Albion Acres road that needs improving in the total Albion Acres Subdivision. What we are recommending is a concept whereby we would take Cook Road, which is listed in Phase III in 1998, move it up to this year and couple it with the Glendale Subdivision improvements. We would thereby finish all the work off of Olive Road, in that area, and probably get a better price for Cook Road anyway. MR. POWELL: I move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 28 through 45 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on February 12th. [Item 28: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget for the paving of Louisa Road from Mims Road to Peach Orchard Road. Item 29: Consider approval of repairs to the centrifuge at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Item 30: Consider approval of a maintenance agreement for laboratory equipment at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Item 31: Consider approval of improvements regarding solids handling at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Item 32: Consider approval of a request for a variance on public right-of-way at 1461 Ellis Street owned by Osbon Medical Systems, Ltd. Item 33: Consider approval of Change Order No. 1 for the replacement of the existing sanitary line in the Turknett Springs Sewer Separation Project, Phase I. Item 34: Consider approval of an environmental survey by CSRA Testing and Engineering Company at Village Square Apartments. Item 35: Consider approval of repairs of the Oates Creek Trunk Sewer. Item 36: Consider approval of a request from the General Supt. of Waterworks Operations for additional personnel. Item 37: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement on the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, known as Tax Map Parcel 17-4:13 (Project Parcel 54). Item 38: Consider approval of the sale of surplus property, triangular in shape, at the corner of Oak Street and Azalea Avenue. Item 39: Consider approval of a request for the relocation of the composting site operation and equipment from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the Landfill. Item 40: Consider approval of a request to advertise for bids the Castle Pines/Timbers Sanitary Sewer Extension. Item 41: Consider approval of a change order with Blair Construction on the Hephzibah-McBean Road and Henderson Road Water Main Extension Project in the amount of $3,107.50. Item 42: Consider approval of a change order with Blair Construction on the IFF Water Main Project in the amount of $7,642.40. Item 43: Consider approval of bid award to the second low bidder (Best Bid), Johnson Utilities, for the Spirit Creek Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Project in the amount of $204,882.30. Item 44: Consider approval of a request from Kevin Shea to finalize participation for the Mattel operations facility in-line pump in the amount of $41,082. Item 45: Consider approval of a request for authorization to offer monetary compensation for an easement through private property in the Turknett Springs Basin, Phase I Project.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a concern about Item 36 and would like to pull it, so I make a motion that with the exception of Item 36 we do a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to pull Item 34. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items to pull, gentlemen? So we're going to take 28 through 45, with the exception of 34 and 36. Do I have a motion to that effect that we accept that, please? MR. TODD: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 34 is to consider approval of an environmental survey by CSRA Testing and Engineering Company at Village Square Apartments. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Goins: In reading the report, you estimated that if we had to -- it could cost up to $3,400, I think, a unit to do the environmental work if asbestos was found. How many units do we have up there? MR. GOINS: There are approximately 100 buildings with four units in each building. And when I'm speaking of unit, I'm speaking of a four-unit block. MR. KUHLKE: Four-unit? Okay. So we're talking about the potential of 340,000, I think is what you had in there, that it could cost us if asbestos is discovered in all those buildings? MR. GOINS: In all the buildings, in all the potential areas such as floor tiles, ceiling, any type of wrapping on piping, the potential is there and I wanted to make you fully aware of the total potential. I do feel like that is a conservative estimate; in other words, it would be less than that amount, but I did want to advise you of the full potential. MR. KUHLKE: And so there was no environmental study done prior to purchasing that property up there? MR. GOINS: There was a Phase I study done. And the Phase I study basically had a random sample taken, and that random sample showed that there was no asbestos, but it's just a matter of they didn't pick the right piece to survey. MR. TODD: You say they didn't pick the right piece to survey possibly? MR. GOINS: A piece of floor tile. We have taken additional tests and there are some floor tile that does not have asbestos, there are some roof tile that does not have asbestos, but there's some that is. What I'm requesting here is that we quantify what has asbestos, what does not, have it certified, and then have the areas that do have asbestos removed by certified asbestos removers. MR. TODD: Once we remediate the asbestos, then can't we save money by the method that we use to dispose of it, that we can use it for filler material in areas close by? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. And I have alluded to that as to other options that we can go with. But the first step is to have the asbestos removed, and that's my intent. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Goins, I understood that this was a motion to have these items surveyed and to bring back a report as to what asbestos was actually on site? MR. GOINS: That is correct. My request -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: At a cost of about $4,000? MR. GOINS: $4,880 to do the survey. MR. J. BRIGHAM: $4,880? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve this item. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 36 is to consider approval of a request from the General Superintendent of Waterworks Operations for additional personnel. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would stand to be corrected if I'm in error, and we have a large volume of information to deal with, but it was my understanding in the Engineering Services Committee -- and perhaps we need to really look at minutes -- that this was one where it wasn't approved and come to the full Board not approved, and when I read this I see that we approved it. And if I'm incorrect, I stand to be corrected. MR. HICKS: You're right, Commissioner Todd. This was defeated by a 2- to-2 vote. There were two votes taken and each time it was 2 to 2, so it was not approved. MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, to refer this to the capable Human Resources department head, Mr. John Etheridge, and let him bring it back to the full Commission. MR. HICKS: We appreciate that, and that's real good. We're already working with him. We have a meeting scheduled for Thursday afternoon to do that very thing, so we appreciate that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made the motion, Mr. Mays seconded it. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 46: Communication from the Interim Attorney submitting an Ordinance to establish water and sewerage rates for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Water and Sewer System in the Urban Service District and the Suburban Service District; to repeal conflicting Ordinances of the City Council of Augusta; to repeal conflicting Ordinances and provisions of the Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve that ordinance, with the rates as established by the Engineering Services Committee that voted unanimous for them one week ago. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we transfer this back again to the Engineering Committee. We've found some new numbers that we're looking at some of us are confused over it and we'd like to look at further. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who seconded that motion, please? Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bridges -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if in all fairness to the public, if somebody could explain the problems that we're having. Just broadly, not going into any of the proposals. But they think we should have done this on the 1st of January and we're holding -- and now it's almost March and we haven't done anything yet. And the fact is, we're not dragging our feet. People are working very, very hard to do that. Maybe, Mr. Powell, you could explain that. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, the problem that we've been incurring with the water rates is we have two budgets that we're running. We have an urban budget and a suburban budget for the entire remainder of this year. The first proposal, we had a million dollar shortfall in revenue on the urban budget -- on the urban water district; the new proposal that we came up with, the second water rate, had a shortfall of revenue on the suburban district. And we'd like to go back and revisit this because when we set these water rates we want to set them one time to the public, we don't want to keep going back and forth, and we want to make real sure that we've got an accurate account of exactly what those rates are going to be. And we don't want to -- we don't mean to add confusion to the public, but we just want to make sure that we're exactly right on what we're doing. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, my only comment would be on this is that I hope the committee would look at the retroactive aspect of this because -- and I know they are working diligently to do this as quickly as possible, but I'm hoping that they look into the possibility of not having this retroactive, because some of our older citizens would -- it would create a burden on them if this is retroactive. I don't know if it could be or not, but I wish that the attorney and the committee would look into that when they finally establish these rates. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, on the retroactive, that's called for in the consolidation charter as passed for by the public. It says as of and on and after January the 1st that all water rates and all classes will be equal and the same. MR. BEARD: But it also said as soon as possible. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was before -- that was instructions to the Task Force, that was not instructions to the new government. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as I look at the rates and the dollar amount, I don't think it's going to create a hardship on any one individual as far as the percentage of increase and the dollar amount. We may be talking -- well, we're talking -- if we had done it January 1 it would've cost them the same thing. And we may be talking ten dollars, you know, and I think most of us can deal with that. My only concern about retroactive increase is that I would have a problem paying it, but, you know, I guess it's all up to a legal interpretation of whether we can do it. I think we need to look at that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add a point of clarification. The bill that's been sent down from Atlanta has Home Rule powers. With seven votes, anything in that bill can be changed by seven members of this Board. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I read well what Mr. Brigham is saying in terms of equalization. I'm not on that particular committee, but I'm speaking now as a resident in the urban district, as a former resident -- former Commissioner from District 1, and probably with as many or more people that reside in the current urban district as anybody else does. Now, I would hope that that committee --and I have no problems with you gentlemen bringing those rates down out in the West, and I have constituents that vote directly out in the South, but I would hope that in all of this equalization, that -- every time that I hear something, whether it's coming from the Task Force or part of this new government, that the increases seem to be going in one select area. Now, ten dollars may not mean much to a lot of folk, some of the percentages may not mean much to a lot of folk, but to a lot of those folk who are paying them, when you look at age groups and economic standing of them, those percentages can get to be very high. And I just hope that when you are doing all this equalization, when some of the equalization goes down into the double figures, that even if it's still in single digits, where it's going up it's still going up. Going up is going up any way that you put it. And I think that when you talk about what a better government ought to be, we ought to get efficiency, but it ought not hurt to make it efficient. Now, we've done something with licenses where it's gone up in one government, or the former, gone down in another one. I'm hearing this about the water rates, and it's all been basically what's in the West and totally in the South. But you've got an area in there that I might remind you that -- I know that it's been said that they charged in that former government for that water and they used it in lieu of raising taxes, but by the same token, a lot of those people that came out of that urban district, they also paid double to be City -- former City residents. So while water may have been high in one area, they also paid an additional price to be inside that former incorporated area, so they didn't stay there just dirt free. So while you go back to that committee and deal with those numbers, I would hope that your equalization, somewhere in that formula, can deal with equalizing it without making it go up on those folk in there who also voted to be a part of the consolidated government. I'm not on your committee to deal with that, but I just hope that it doesn't just keep going up in one former place with everything that's done. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, they keep talking about West. I want them to understand that we're talking about water rates. These water rates were what they refer to as West or over in the suburban area that is north of the Gordon Highway, and that includes areas other than in West Augusta that were not in the former City. It affects more than just my district; it is not just me. I think it affects most of our districts except for maybe one or two of us that only represents south of the Gordon Highway, but it's not just West in these water rates that they refer to as West, there's an area north of the Gordon Highway that was not in the suburban district -- in the urban district, excuse me. The other thing, I don't care what the water rates are, I want them equal. If we want to reduce them all down to the City water rate, that's fine. There's some other gentlemen up here have a money problem concern. And I don't care whether we raise them all to West Augusta, I think we need to get on with this and do whatever we're going to do and quit going back to committee. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. I think that was said and done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell wanted to say one thing, then we'll call for the question. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in my comments I don't recall saying West or South or -- I used urban and suburban. That's the water systems that we have and that's what we're going to have to deal with is urban and suburban. I just want a point of clarification of that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be very brief. I was just sitting here doing some math and I believe there's eight individuals sitting here that have constituents south of the Gordon Highway. Just for information. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Ulmer Bridges' motion to send it back to committee, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 47 was approved by the Finance Committee in meeting February 12th. [Item 47: Consider approval of a lease agreement between the State of Georgia and Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council regarding the lease of Building #1, Unit #1, to be used for the Motor Vehicle Tag Office.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: We bring this to you in the form of a motion. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? That motion was made by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 48 through 52 were approved by the Public Safety Committee on February 13th. [Item 48: Consider approval of proceeding with development of Fire Department Training Facility. Item 49: Consider approval of award of bid in the amount of $11,960 to K and W Services for the correction and repairs of the HVAC System at the Richmond County Mental Retardation Service Center. Item 50: Consider approval of a Surplus Equipment Listing for a sealed bid auction to be held on March 11, 1996. Item 51: Consider approval of appointment of Chief John Sheridan, Fire Department, to a three-year term on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), to fill vacancy created by the resignation of Chief Butch Murdock. Item 52: Consider approval of Henry Brigham, Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council, to a three-year term on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), to fill the required "Elected Official" seat on the Committee.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval of these items. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham made the motion to approve. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I want to pull out 48 and 49. I've got some questions on those. MAYOR SCONYERS: 48 and 49. So we're just going to do 50, 51, and 52; is that correct? We're pulling out 48 and 49? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go ahead and vote on 50 through 52. Any discussion on those gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 48 is to consider approval of proceeding with the development of the Fire Department Training Facility. MR. BRIDGES: What -- I don't know who I'm addressing this to, I reckon the chairman of the committee. What kind of money are we talking about there? What was addressed there? MR. ATKINS: Commissioner, what we're looking at is hopefully getting $60,000 this year to start with the training facility. We've got ten acres of land out at Phinizy and Old Louisville Road that's been designated for training, and we're looking to do most of this work in-house and working with Mr. Gooding and Mr. McElveen. MR. BRIDGES: So you're talking about $60,000 for this year? MR. ATKINS: Yes, sir. We were asked by the committee to come up with a plan, and we gave them a three-year plan trying to develop this training facility for the Fire Department. MR. BRIDGES: Suits me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, you know, that we somewhat have a cap on, you know, funds as far as the sources go. And, Fire Department, have you guys looked at the possibility of a State grant and for training for the CSRA versus just Richmond County? MR. ATKINS: No, sir, Commissioner, we haven't. To my knowledge, I'm not familiar with any State grants for this type of facility. We've talked with other departments all over the state, and I'm sure if there was one out there we would have heard about it, because we've been trying to get this for a number of years. MR. TODD: Yes. I'm going to support the training facility; you know, I even tried to get it as a one-penny or doing something joint with another government. We didn't succeed there, but I certainly think that we need to also look for State funds and maybe do some training for the volunteer fire- fighting entities around, et cetera, and that's -- I'm going to make a motion that we approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges, you seconded that? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Great. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm supporting the motion. I think this may answer Commissioner Todd's question on the grant side on the State. One of the reasons they probably have not sought it is the fact that even amongst County Commissioners Associations -- and we've begun to address that -- and the Fire Department, Fire Marshall's Association is now taking a more active role. We're inviting them to all those meetings trying to bring them on the same level of which we have done with law enforcement, because Fire pretty much has been treated somewhat as a stepchild on that ladder. So basically there has not been a real source to turn to in terms of getting those funds, so that's in developmental stages and hopefully the legislature will look at that soon in order to do it. But there is nobody to turn to other than the locals in terms of real money in order to get it out, Moses. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just make one comment and applaud the efforts of Chief Maddox on the initiative they have taken driving down the cost of that training facility and the innovative way they're going to go about doing it. I think the taxpayers will be well-served. Hopefully that may in the long-term help drive down some fire code ratings and we'll all benefit in our pockets. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Where will this money be coming from, this $60,000? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, can we find that for him somewhere? MR. McKIE: Yes, Mr. Mayor. As you will see in the budget later on, we have a sufficient amount of General Fund contingencies to handle this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McKie. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve the training, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 49: To consider approval of award of bid in the amount of $11,960 to K and W Services for the correction and repairs of the HVAC System at the Richmond County Mental Retardation Service Center. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, as I understood that, are we going to be recapturing those funds through a lawsuit or what -- did I understand the backup and the paperwork right? MR. WALL: That is something that is being evaluated, and I'm not prepared to recommend at this point that a lawsuit be filed, but it is certainly being considered. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my only concern is this was the low bid. It did go out for bid or proposals or for emergency bid or whatever? MR. WALL: Mr. Johnson handled that. I'm reasonably confident I've seen more than one bid, but I can't address that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Todd, in committee they did take bids on this work. There was evidently initially some faulty work done. The architect in charge did the engineering work for it to go out for bids. The committee recommended to Mr. Wall that he see what sort of action we could take towards the contractor that installed it; and, also, since the architect that designed the facility also designed the repairs, that there should be some conversation with that firm also. MR. TODD: So what we have here is not a competitive bid for a proposal? MR. KUHLKE: We had two bids on the work, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: And this is the low bid? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Okay. I want to make sure my motion states it was awarded to the low bid. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Did we ever actually get a motion on that? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, a motion and a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I put my quotations down there in the wrong spot. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 53: To consider approval of a DOE Proposal to Augusta- Richmond County for Meteorological Monitoring. It was received as information by the committee. MS. TUCKER: I'm not going to ask for any approval today. The project - - do you all have a copy of that? It's from Savannah River Site and there's three main components to it. Mr. Zetterberg mainly wanted me to let you know what it is we're doing. We've been working on this with SRS for about a year. Meteorological monitoring would provide three weather stations at our cluster chemical areas and provide us with computer information on puff plumes which would show the direction of a chlorine cloud or whatever chemical cloud, projection, which direction it's going, and what population would be affected by it. While this technology is being offered, it's not totally free. There is some cost, so I'm not coming to you today for that. I want to let you know that the $20,000 it'll take I'm going to try to get from the chemical industry. We have 34 facilities total located in the areas that we're looking at, the concentrated chemical companies, and a letter has already been prepared by the Local Emergency Planning Committee and we're going to be going to them to get the funding to do this. Once I procure the funding, I'm going to come back to you. You will be the ones to sign the final agreement. And the agreement pretty much just says they'll do, you know, these things and we'll do the other things, which is mostly providing the money that I'm getting. And then, of course, the Emergency Management Agency will have a computer in our new Emergency Operations Center and also the Hazardous Materials Response Team which is located at the Engine Company 18 on Windsor Spring Road will have a computer modem and they can also hook into the information. So if we do have an accidental chemical release, we're going to have data that we've never had available to us before. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we authorize Ms. Tucker to secure funding and go forward with this project. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second the motion. MR. TODD: I think it's important that we do this. This is one of the efforts of technology transfer from SRS and certainly DOE. We're in support of that. We have it going on now at the landfills and some other sites that we're working on remediating, and dollar for dollar it's a cost benefit to us. MS. TUCKER: Yeah, if we had to pay total what this would cost, it would probably be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So even the 20,000 is real minimal, but I believe the chemical facilities will work with us on that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Tucker. We had a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 54 through 57 were all approved by the Public Safety Committee on February 13th. [Item 54: Consider approval of Change Order No. 4 for the E-911 Facility. Item 55: Consider approval of the ratification of the Rural Fire Defense Memorandum of Understanding between the Georgia Forestry Commission and Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. Item 56: Consider approval of the Crossing Guards Agreement between the Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council and the Board of Education of Richmond County, Georgia. Item 57: Consider approval of a request from Mr. Sydney Carter regarding the release of $9,000.00 as payment to subcontractors for work on the Georgia State Drivers License Building.] MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. My only concern is Item 54, when we're going to go on line. Looks like we're running behind schedule. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you address that, please? MR. WALL: I'll do the best I can. A firm date has not been decided. Motorola is putting their equipment in now, Southern Bell is putting their equipment in now. I do not yet have a proposal from Southern Bell insofar as the ANI and ALI systems are concerned, however, but everyone knows that we're trying to get all the equipment in by roughly the first week in March. However, there's concern that they want to, they use the term "burn it in," which means use it/train on it for a period of time prior to actually using that as the sole source for 911. But then as you bump up against Masters week, there is concern that they do not want to go into the new facility on the eve of Masters, so I guess the final decision has not been made as far as whether or not everything will be in place and people will have had sufficient time to work out the bugs prior to Masters. And Southern Bell's personnel will be tied up for a couple of weeks in advance of Masters running lines to the Augusta National, and so it will either be toward the end of March or it will probably be sometime after the Masters. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT] CLERK: Under Public Services, Items Number 58 through 65 were approved by the Public Services Committee on February 13th. [Item 58: Consider approval of recommendations from the Acting Transit Manager resulting from the reduction in FY 96 operating assistance. Item 59: Consider approval of recommendation from the Acting Transit Manager regarding the procurement of capital projects items. Item 60: Consider approval of recommendation from the Acting Transit Manager regarding purchase of vehicles from Statewide contract. Item 61: Consider approval of recommendation from the Airport Director at Bush Field regarding a proposal for the mitigation of the loan from Bush Field to the previous City of Augusta. Item 62: Consider approval of contract between Augusta-Richmond County and Marion Ware III and Robert Utley regarding their participation in sporting events sponsored by the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department. Item 63: Consider approval of a request for the installation of air conditioning systems at Julian Smith Casino and Julian Smith Bar-B-Que Pit. Item 64: Consider approval of a contract between Augusta-Richmond County and Blair Construction Company for drainage improvements at McDuffie Woods Community Center. Item 65: Consider approval of a 1996 Georgia Department of Transportation agreement regarding a continuation of the Section 18 Transit Program.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve them all except Item 61 and pull it out for discussion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges that we approve them all except Item 61. Further discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If we could, I'd like to pull Item 58 out as well. MR. TODD: I'll accept that as an amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 58 and 61. Other than that, any others? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 58: Consider approval of recommendations from the Acting Transit Manager resulting from the reduction in FY 96 operating assistance. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council, basically what has transpired is that our operating assistance from the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year FY 95 was $597,000. We have received our FY 96 operating assistance and now it's $313,000, so that we had a loss of almost $300,000 worth of operating assistance. And in my letter, basically what I tried to do was to try to come up with a ways or means of trying to offset that loss in operating assistance, because basically this was unexpected, and so I just felt that it was my job to try to make a recommendation as to how to offset it so that basically the Transit system will be operating off of the same amount of funds that we operated off of in 1995. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? We need a motion. MR. KUHLKE: I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of Mr. Johnson. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'll yield to Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Johnson, what kind of negative impact would this have on your overall system with the cuts that you're doing? And, you know, I've sat on the other side of this corner and argued, you know, why the previous government resubsidized, and we did subsidize you, now we're cutting again when we were told that we would not have to cut. You know, we knew there was going to be a shortage of federal funds. So what kind of negative impact would this have on the ridership, or is there some other areas that could be cut versus this route? MR. JOHNSON: Well, Mr. Todd, going over this list, what I tried to do was to try to affect the riders to a very minimum. Out of all of the recommendations, there will only be one less vehicle on the street, and that will be on the Central Avenue route, which it will cost us approximately $117,000 for to operate that route. In 1995 we were only able to receive back into revenue $17,000. So basically we expended the 117, but we only received back the 17,000, so that was my recommendation for the Central Avenue. Also, you have three routes that run in conjunction with each other. Central Avenue runs in the middle of the Augusta Mall route which runs up Wrightsboro Road and the Walton Way route which runs up Walton Way. The service area as dictated by the Federal Transit Authority states that there is a half a mile service area to each side of a route, so therefore it is assumed that riders will walk a half a mile for to get to a bus stop for to board a bus. So therefore, if you look at the distance of Central Avenue in-between both of those routes, that would be within that half a mile walking area. MR. TODD: Are will still running a special at certain times from Augusta Mall to Fort Gordon? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Johnson, in -- and I think my comments were made pretty loud and clear the other day in committee, and this item comes to us on a two-to-nothing vote. and I want to make it very clear that I applaud Mr. Johnson in terms of very early bringing numbers to our attention. I jokingly said the other day that I left him there in the old City government, and I think I made the motion to hire him when he came on board. And now we're back again, and every time we've always had a numbers problem, but it's not the fault of the messenger. I think the messenger brings us a good message, but the messenger also, gentlemen and general public, brings us a message pretty much out of a history of fear from the standpoint that where he was in the old government, that department has always been one that's been under the knife or the threat of the knife for various reasons. They had to turn to us over the last two to three years in the old County government for the first subsidies that were given in the last two years under my chairmanship and Mr. Sconyers' chairmanship, and I'm thankful that the County Commission in those years provided that help. I'm very much concerned, though, and I wanted this to be a matter of this public record. And this is no reflection upon our acting chairperson. He needs to bring us numbers. Maybe if somebody had brought all the numbers in the old one it would've been a lot different. But while we bring these numbers to us, I'm concerned, as I said in committee, about the image that we set in this new second largest city in Georgia and what we send out with it. It's true that this will not affect us other than that one particular route, but I also made the comment in committee that public transit is not the only free lunch that's floating around this town. Now, what I would hope and what I would like to see us do is that, in doing this, that we try and get our own spin to the general public about what is happening in Transit. Mr. Johnson knows how out of proportion if the wrong message is sent that can go out before we have public hearings regarding Transit. I think he's made it very clear to us. But what is already taking place has been the negative comments; just as you said, Commissioner Todd, about here we are now and we start the cuts. And as I said, consolidation should not hurt. We promised a lot of things, and some of them I don't think we can deliver on, and I warned about that. And I don't think that we can be all things to everybody, but I'd like to see us -- and he has some good ideas in it, but I'd like to see the ideas come along with the proposal and the cuts. We've talked about downtown, East Augusta, blending that route with Broad Street so that those areas can tie in. I would like to see us, before we talk about eliminating Central Avenue, show basically from a PR standpoint how Wrightsboro Road and Walton Way can tie in with parts of the elimination of Central Avenue. Much of Central Avenue goes into your Medical College area, into your Paine College area, and to a lot of the ridership that's in there. I've not reached that age where a half a mile is that important to me; some have reached that age and passed it where half a mile is very important that's in there. And I think that while we are doing that, I want to make a substitute motion that we receive the report from the Acting Transit Director as information, that we bring back and do our PR program to show what the full effects will be on some of his ideas that he plans to do in terms of implementing these alternative routes. Also I mention in reference to it, we talked about -- part of that, if you've read your letter, contains three to four different parts: one about the child box fare and what we would cut off there and then with the one-child effect in terms of doing that. I think we've got a Print Shop, Mr. Mayor. We print cards for everybody; we print out paper that goes across this courthouse. We can get a little creative down there where, if it doesn't infringe on rights, to put a bunny character or some other things on there. But give kids a part of government. Let them get a child's identification card to ride a Transit bus. I think if poor folk come up there and they just happen to have four children, you know, I don't necessarily think one ought to ride, you know, and we do something with the three of them because you may happen to have four kids and you're trying to determine that. I think that can be done and put into that program. And the only thing I'm saying is Mr. Johnson is definitely sounding the horn at the right time. He's been on the hatchet block for a long time of knowing what it takes in Transit. I've said it to him in private, I've said it to him in public, and he knows I support him with it. But I want to see us, so that the message doesn't get out wrong, that some of those things that he wants to do creatively with those routes and that the full effect to the general public can be seen, that we allow him to do that, and before we get into a public hearing stage where folk are shouting back at each other, trying to find out what's going to be done and what's not going to be done, that we come with the whole package and get some good PR on it so that as we move toward this big new government and deliver these better services, that we do it in a way in which it doesn't look as though those things which affect a lot of the people that depend on them in the least way, that it looks as though those are the items that we are starting to cut first in a new government. And I make that in a substitute motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the substitute motion to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded my Mr. Todd. Mr. Zetterberg, did you want to say something? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. I'd like to just applaud Mr. Johnson's effort for bringing a solution to the table. I can't make decisions without information. I think this needs to have full disclosure in a public meeting and we should know what the impact is. I have great empathy for Mr. Mays' position. I don't ride the bus, but I understand a lot of people do and are totally dependent on it, and I just want to make sure that everybody understands that we want the public involved in this decision and then possibly with that information we'll be able to make a better decision for the public. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Following up on what Mr. Zetterberg said, I too applaud Mr. Johnson for being innovative and coming up with these ideas. But I understand, Mr. Johnson, that there will be public hearings on this, that there is a possibility you'll have to go before the Public Service Commission, and that we may be looking at some maybe 60 days before these new policies would be implemented. Am I correct there? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And, you know, I hate to see a department head come back to us with a valid recommendation that we're going to have the opportunity to have public input, and I would like to see us go ahead and support this man for the good job that he's done; and then there's nothing to say that if we get some negative feedback and it's valid feedback, that we can't change. But to delay what he has done, an awful lot of work, to me just doesn't sound right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to hear the revised motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Can you read the revised motion, please -- I mean, the substitute motion? CLERK: The motion was to receive it as information and to do a public relations program to show the full effects. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just for my information, is there -- isn't the protocol to have this go before a public hearing? MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you explain that, Mr. Johnson? MR. ZETTERBERG: Is my understanding that the substitute motion is to bring it back for more deliberation by this body? MR. MAYS: What I basically was trying to get out of it, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Zetterberg, was on the time factors of us doing our own spin as opposed to it coming out just as a cut. What has traditionally happened at public hearings have been some of the worst situations in the world. Because usually at a public hearing of any sort dealing with local governments, it's been where decisions have basically been made either because of policy or because of funds or both and at that point the general public basically is there for a listening ear, and somewhat the decision has been made and they come to listen, maybe to voice some opposition at that point. What I was saying was that since you've got some time span to look in there, start talking it up in terms of what he wants to do. And all of it does not involve cuts. He has some creative things in there to blend some of those routes, but the only thing basically we've talked about is that Central Avenue has been the focal point, cutting has been the focal point, dealing with the elimination in terms of your box fare situation there with your children. Some of the things in there are good that other cities are doing, such as the non-transfer cutoff. MARTA is the only one that's doing that; they have no problems with that. But I just want to see us be a little bit creative in there. Our children who do not vote, and particularly those that are very much under age and ride the Transit system, it's something that they could have from this government. They're in K grades and they're in the low grades that's in there, they have a piece of it, it's got their name on it, it's a part of Augusta-Richmond Transit; then we are doing something in there that's positive. And I think that if you have to make a cut, then you've fully informed that public, and when you get to a public hearing it's not a shouting match in which 40 to 50 people want to speak, and most of the time justifiably so, and they leave at a point where they're unhappy. Both of the old governments, I think, have gone through that experience, and if we're going to deal with something new, then I don't think it's going to hurt. Because the federal government sounded its horn. They said what they were going to cut. We knew that even when we provided the subsidy last year, that they were coming with a major cut in mass transit. And we cannot run it on what the old City government provided, and even with the bit that we kicked in in order to do it, if we're going to be able to be that big city that we say we're going to be. If we're going to talk that talk, then we ought to walk that walk, but I think we ought to be efficient when we walk it. But we ought to send the right message when we do it that everything does not come out as though we're rolling it back. Because I've already had the calls in a lot of cases to say, hey, you know, everything that I'm hearing is what you're cutting or what you're not going to do; is it anything that we're going to be getting out of it? And I think we ought to listen partially to that message. Sixty days won't kill us. It gives him a chance to develop his program and to get some of the monkeys that that old City government left on him and, quite frankly, that his predecessors left on him, gives him a chance to get a start in there and to do some things. And like I said, I'm not knocking what he's bringing to us. He's bringing it to us both out of efficiency and out of experience and fear, because he knows that's always been the hatchet block. Whenever anything had to go, it's been over there in public transit. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, would the maker of the substitute motion accept an amendment that we have an informal, friendly meeting with the stakeholders in transportation for suggestions, advice, et cetera, before we have a formal, legal, required meeting? And I'd offer that as an amendment to the motion, then maybe we can go on with the process and satisfy both the first motion and the second motion. MR. MAYS: Mr. Todd, as much as I've been beat on this one in the last three to four years, the old riverboat gambler will take whatever things he can get on it. I'll accept it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. We're going to vote on the substitute motion first. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a comment. I don't know what we're afraid of. I have a great deal of trust in the public's judgment, I think we ought to listen to what they've got to say. All we're going to do when we hear them is come back and we're going to debate it within ourselves, and that's what you're going to ask to do now. You're just sending it back to committee, we're not getting anywhere. The whole purpose of us voting in committee two to nothing was to move it out of committee. The whole purpose is to create momentum from this body to the public, let the public say what they've got to say, and then we'll come back and we'll make decisions on what's in the best interest of the public. I don't know if Mr. Johnson's proposals are good or bad. I want to hear them. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I see nothing wrong with taking this to the public and taking his ideas to the public and letting -- and then coming back and deciding. I see nothing wrong with that as long as we don't start cutting and not going to the public. But it's my understanding, and I hope I'm correct in this, that we have to go before the public anyway before we do anything, but I would like also for him to take -- I would like to hear it myself because I haven't heard it -- a lot of those proposals and his ideas to the public, let them react to it, and then bring it back. And I think that's what -- I don't know if that's what Mr. Todd was including, but I would like to have that done. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, before we vote I'd like to have the motion re-read, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. The substitute motion first, please. CLERK: It was to approve receiving it as information and to do a public relations program to show the full effects of the changes, with an amendment to include an informal, friendly meeting with the public to get their ideas on what they would suggest. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did everybody understand the motion, please? MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't understand it. What's conduct public relations? Let me tell you, I have a problem with this. Unless we spell these things out, we won't have the slightest idea of what we're doing and we'll go back in and all of a sudden decide what public relations is. I think that we ought to -- I stand on we ought to get this thing out to the public and let them talk about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's what Mr. Kuhlke's motion did. Isn't that right, Bill? MR. KUHLKE: Yeah. I don't know what we're talking about. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're voting on the substitute motion, which is Mr. Mays' motion to receive it as information and then do some public forums on it. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 7-2. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we go back to the original motion, which is Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve Mr. Johnson's recommendations. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 61 is to consider approval of the recommendation from the Airport Director at Bush Field regarding a proposal for the mitigation of the loan from Bush Field to the previous City of Augusta. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve it with one amendment, and that is that we request that the FAA do their audit that they have threatened us with. I don't have anything to hide and I don't want it to be perceived that I do as a commissioner that inherited a problem again from a previous government. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got some questions on that. It looks like to me we're going to be out two million dollars whether we pay the cash or we give it up in the value of the property. You know, I'm like Mr. Todd, I want the audit done, too, and I think it's best it be done by the FAA. A second question I have on this is, this property was considered for the jail and it was rejected as suitable for a jail site due to it being wetlands, yet the Bush Field is telling us that they're going to put a runway strip to hold DC- 9's on it. You know, I question whether it can be used for that and I question whether we should give this property up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Dillard here? Excuse me, Mr. Kuhlke, go ahead. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bridges, the information given to us by Mr. Atha was that the runway would be built up above the wetlands area. Some of that property, even though it would be on each side of the runway, would be utilized as wetlands. And I see Mr. Wiedmeier there; I guess he can speak to it better than I can. MR. WIEDMEIER: We have compared the airport's master plan with our wetlands project, and when they build that parallel runway it will be impacting one of the 12 wetland cells. There is land to rebuild that cell on another part of the property, so I think the two uses can co-exist. MR. BRIDGES: Following up on that, Mr. Kuhlke, you know, I don't understand, if they're able to build that wetlands up for a runway, why can't we build it up to put the jail there and get it away from the neighborhoods that apparently it's going in on Phinizy Road? MR. KUHLKE: I don't know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wouldn't it be in the way of the master plan for the runway? MR. BRIDGES: Not if we don't give them the property. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think the airport probably has, what, a 25/20- year master plan or something; isn't that what Mr. Atha told us? And that property is involved in that. MR. DILLARD: 20-year plan. MR. WALL: I don't know that anyone looked at it to say that it could not be built up for a jail. The property was looked at by Precision Planning, as well as a number of other sites, and cost obviously was a major factor in looking at sites. And, you know, that would be a considerable expense to go in and make that site a viable site for the jail, and it was deemed not to be practical to do so. But as far as a detailed engineering study, no, that was not conducted to determine what the cost would be to build it up. MR. BRIDGES: Well, my concern there, too, is -- I understand it'll be a cost to build it up for a jail site; it's also going to be a cost to the neighborhoods that the jail goes near if it goes to Phinizy Road. I mean, you know, we know what it's going to do to some of the property values there. But I just question if there's an option here that we can satisfy these neighborhood associations that don't want a jail going near them and they don't want the effect it'll have on their community or on their property values. If there's an option here that we've got, I don't want to see us get rid of this land, you know, just now under the promise that, you know, there'll be no audit or for any other reason. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, it's interesting, and I thought we would be in a position now to tell the residents out at Phinizy Road once and for all that that's where the jail is going. But if that's not the case, I'd like -- if Mr. Bridges is willing to make a motion that that go into study, I'd be willing to vote against it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'll tell you what, gentlemen, I think that we need to -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute. I agree with Mr. Zetterberg, we need to solve this jail situation once and for all, and there's no need in us sitting up here and acting like a bunch of sissies. The jail is going to be built on Phinizy Road and there's nothing we can do about that. That land out there that we're talking about can be used for wetlands, it's going to be used -- Mr. Wiedmeier, can you explain how that thing is going to be? It's cells to do away with the Waste Water Treatment Plant? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, sir. We're going to be constructing 12 wetland cells that are going to perform the additional treatment we need out at the plant. MAYOR SCONYERS: And that's a master plan that's already being done right as we speak almost, isn't it? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. TODD: My question, Mr. Mayor, would be: Are we going to have the odors or this is going to be odor-free? MR. WIEDMEIER: I hope it's odor-free. MR. POWELL: Good luck. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. POWELL: I'd like to re-read the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Sizemore is coming to the microphone. MS. SIZEMORE: I didn't come down here for this because I didn't think this came up, but it seems to me like -- I represent -- just for the Pepperidge Neighborhood Association I represent 1,000 people, and it seems like they're not being considered. They're voters, they're homeowners, they've got an investment out there. I'm not talking about the other people, I'm not talking about the people at Mt. Vernon, but we deserve some recognition for our problems, too. I mean, the airport may be -- they might have a 20-year plan, but there's a lot of us -- well, I don't, but a lot of them have 30- and 35-year mortgages they've got to consider, and property values, and it just does not seem like that if you're a homeowner or a voter or a taxpayer in this county it means worth a flip. MR. ZETTERBERG: Ma'am, I have great empathy for you, but we have had hearings. It's gone on and on and on. Sooner or later we have to make a decision to build the jail. And I understand what you're saying. Really. MS. SIZEMORE: We've also offered some alternatives to do a little decision-making on this. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, like I said, I think Mr. Bridges needs to make a motion. Is that fair? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the issue that's on the agenda is the airport, and what we're discussing is not the jail, it's the airport and the money and the audit. I think that we are, you know, not in accordance with the procedures when we deal with the jail project. If someone want to deal with the jail project, then we should put it on the agenda, bring it down here and deal with the jail project as a delegation or as a commissioner or whatever. And that's the only problem that I have with this. My main concern is that we don't cut a deal to not do a audit that the FAA apparently thought we needed to do in communication to this county or to this government and to the former government. I don't have anything to hide. I don't cut deals, you know, to call off the dogs. You know, let the dogs come on. Let's do the swap if it's a good deal, and I've been told it's a good deal, have the audit, and get this over with. MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. MR. HANDY: I need it to be read. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you please re-read the motion. CLERK: The motion was to approve the recommendation of the Airport Director with the amendment that the FAA perform their audit. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this: Mr. Atha, in making his presentation to our committee, made the comment that the last thing that he wanted to see happen was to have to go through an FAA audit. I believe I'm correct, Mr. Atha. I'd like to hear from him to find out why he said that. MR. ATHA: First, you may remember from reading in the paper that this matter of the infamous two million dollar loan was audited. The previous City hired Cherry, Bekaert & Holland to go through, and we balanced to the penny as far as money is concerned. There was the question of whether or not the land adjacent to Daniel Field was an appropriate use of the money generated at Bush Field. Those are the things that the Inspector General's Office would look at. In doing so, they turn over every stone in the city. It just takes an immense amount of staff time, management time; I don't doubt that they would talk to you. I've seen two other such audits in communities around the country, and it's just an immense amount of people use. They constitute a team from the Inspector General's Office to come down here. It takes weeks. And if there was a claim of wrongdoing, that would be out of my purview to comment on, but I haven't really heard that. They are concerned about utilizing airport revenues for purposes that were not allowed in the grant document itself. Certainly you can do that if you have those concerns, and I really can't address that. All I was looking at is my experience and knowing that this really takes a monstrous amount of people time: our staff, City staff, the Finance Department. And, you know, there has been no claim that, for instance, our previous mayor took two million dollars and went to the Bahamas. You know, it's just a question of whether or not the funds were appropriately utilized. And yet when you sic an independent -- you know, the Inspector General's Office, these people come out of probably a windowless office somewhere inside the Beltway in Washington. You know, they don't know Augusta, they don't know any of us; they just come in with a clean pen and an inquisitive mind, and they're going to turn over every stone in this city. And it's an unfortunate thing to have to put the staff through if there is no real evidence of that kind of wrongdoing. But, again, that's only a staff recommendation, so. MR. KUHLKE: Would they do that for us with the garage? MR. ATHA: Well, you know, the FAA is the one who asked or will be asking for this kind of audit. I doubt it, but I wouldn't put it beyond them. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just had a question for Mr. Todd. Was something done incorrectly? Was there -- do we have information that says that we went out and got two million dollars fraudulently? MR. TODD: I guess I'd like to -- you know, someone asked the question, "Where is the Mayor?" I understand he's in Europe, but -- you know, no pun intended. Let me try to answer that. There is correspondence between this government, the Bush Field, and the FAA that I haven't been privileged to. Then when I read in the newspaper that we're going to make a deal to avoid a audit, then certainly that concerned me. And I don't want another garage situation. I'm tired of scandals. You know, since I've been in this community, I guess from the dog food scandal on up --most of us probably don't go back that far, and I guess some go back to the Yazoo scandal that involved several -- two or three states. And I'm ready to go ahead with this new government to get all the scandals aired out and behind us, I don't really care how much time it costs or what it costs. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, that's my only problem, I do care what it costs. I'm not trying to avoid a disclosure, I'm just wondering if it's worth doing. You know, there's some things that are just well off by not doing anything if it's going to cost us too much money. There's enough rumors flowing around this town now that we could investigate a thousand things. But I think we ought to call for the question, and if it's there we'll find out. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a second call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do we need the motion re-read? Do we know what we're voting on? They've called for the question; I'm sorry. Two of them called for it. PUBLIC CITIZEN: May I speak? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. We're calling for the question; we're moving on now. Do y'all want the motion re-read so you know what you're voting on? MR. HANDY: Yes, please. CLERK: It was to approve the recommendation of the Airport Director and ask the FAA to proceed with their audit. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK: Item 75 is a communication from the Interim Attorney requesting approval of an Ordinance to provide a code of ethics for members of boards, commissions, committees, panels, authorities, or other entities appointed by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council; to provide an effective date; to provide for a hearing on violation charges; to provide a notice of hearing; to provide for removal of a member from such board, commission, committee, panel, authority, or other entity; to provide for filling of vacancies; to provide for judicial review; and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the reading, the second reading. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. [LATER CHANGED TO 9-1] CLERK: Item 76: Communication from the Interim Attorney requesting approval of an Ordinance adopting a code of ethics for government service; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, raise your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. [LATER CHANGED TO 10-0] CLERK: Item 77: Communication from the Interim Attorney requesting approval of an Ordinance providing for the appointment of members to certain boards and authorities; to provide qualifications for appointment of members to certain boards and authorities; to prohibit appointment to more than one board or authority; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Revised Ordinance) MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Pat Timmerman wants to address us about this, please. It's some information I think you might need to know. MR. TIMMERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Pat Timmerman, I'm Chairman of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and being in that position I'm a member of the Board of Directors. I think there are some things that you gentlemen need to be aware of before you vote on this particular ordinance. The make-up of my particular board, and I feel sure there may be some other boards in town that have the same type of make-up, we have members on our board that are put in their position by an enabling ordinance which states that each of certain entities supply a board member; i.e., I'm a member of the Port Authority first, and being such, the Port Authority has the ability to appoint a member from the Port Authority to serve on the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Now, this has some basis because this is -- when the Port Authority put on all the water events in town, they needed to have some sort of input into what and how and when the marketing of these events was done. I think that was for good reason. Another case in point would be that the Coliseum Authority has an appointee on the Convention and Visitors Bureau. That appointee comes from their board, serves on our board, and helps in the decision-making process as to what happens at the Coliseum Authority and how the Convention and Visitors Bureau can dovetail or keeps communication lines open there. Those are two instances. And our board also has members, two from the County -- two County reps, one City rep, the Port Authority, and the incoming President of the Chamber of Commerce. Now, for instance, Pat Blanchard is the incoming President of the Chamber of Commerce. Pat also sits on the Historic Commission; okay? Pat, in his Historic Commission position, under this ordinance could not serve on the Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Chamber of Commerce presidency is not appointed, it is an elective office through the Chamber. So, therefore, you can see some of the implications that we get into here, and we urge you to think about this and to consider it before you go and pass this ordinance. I think sometimes we concentrate on one area or item and fail to look around and see the rest of what's going on or what the impact could be. Thank you, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I come in here prepared to vote against this ordinance, and as -- you certainly helped me in the sense that we're talking about the Commission appointees, not other boards appointing a member, and we certainly don't have anything to do with what the Chamber do. So you've made it a lot clearer to me on what I'm fixing to vote on, and I'm going to support this ordinance in the sense that we have -- we're saying -- this ordinance is basically saying that this Board will not appoint individuals to two different boards. Is that my under-standing -- is that the understanding of the ordinance, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. TODD: And I think that give a clarification as far as you're concerned, maybe you just gave that clarification, that we're not concerned about who the Chamber appoints to a board, if they have an appointment; we're not concerned about who the Grand Jury appoints to a board; and certainly the State boards, et cetera, we're not concerned about those; we are just concerned about who the Commission appoint and that the Commission don't appoint one individual to two or three boards. And with that thought, I'm prepared to support it, because I think that the other issues is not relevant. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, I think perhaps you misunderstood. The Commission- Council is the one that makes the appointments, they just make it from a defined group of people: the Port Authority or the Coliseum Authority, et cetera. But you as a member of the Commission-Council are the ones who would make the appointment, so it would affect the situations that Mr. Timmerman has addressed as the ordinance currently exists. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, can we not structure certain boards and commissions so that people can serve ex-officio by virtue of their positions when we're drafting these ordinances? MR. WALL: Certainly. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can we not address this situation by establishing the fact that ex-officio members of the board are established by virtue of their positions when we draft these ordinances? That's what it sounds like to me. It's like saying that the Hospital Authority will have so many members and that by the fact that you are a member of this organization you will be a member of this other board over here on the other side. I see no difference in that and the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Coliseum Authority, the Port Authority, or any other organization. If we're going to establish a position when we establish that board by virtue of that position, what's the difference? It's not our appointment, they are holding that job by virtue of that position. Whether they're on another board or not, we have established that when we established that board. What I think we're saying in this ordinance is that we will only appoint one person to one board. That's where we make appointments. It doesn't say that you cannot serve on one board and be on another board if there is a reason this Commission, when they established that board, feels like there is a need for an interlocking relationship at that point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, did you want to readdress that? MR. WALL: Well, the ordinance that was drafted creating the Convention and Visitors Bureau, you know, gives the appointing authority to this Commission-Council. Obviously you can change that, designate someone by position or by title, and then that agency would be the one that would designate the person to represent that entity on the Convention and Visitors Bureau. That's not the way it is currently set up, however. The Convention and Visitors Bureau is one of the entities that will have to be addressed under the consolidation legislation anyhow, so that board is going to have to be restructured. And so I guess what I'm saying is, you can write it however you want to write it, within certain guidelines obviously. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I move the adoption of this ordinance. MR. BEARD: I just wanted to make a comment on this, because there are many questions, and I have some particular questions myself on this one because I think it should be more inclusive, even to the point of where people are residing in this if they're going to be appointed to boards in this county. And I would just like to suggest that since we're going to be together one day this week, why not let us put more input into this and discuss this particular item at that particular time when we meet together and maybe we'll answer a lot of questions and clear up a lot of things in a lot of our minds. MR. ZETTERBERG: I've received a number of calls on this, and I just think we ought to move cautiously. I applaud Mr. Brigham's effort to try to put some rules and regulations that are in the best interest of the City- County government and the people, but I really think at this time we ought to just pull this one back, let a member of the staff see where the conflicts might be, where it might not be in our best interest to do certain things, and then we can craft an amendment or a new ordinance that really meets out needs. MR. BEARD: And I would like to offer that as a substitute motion. MR. POWELL: I'll second the substitute. MAYOR SCONYERS: We never did really have a motion, so Mr. Beard made a motion, Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I want to go back on Item 75 and 76 and change my vote to yes for those two. Item 75 and 76. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Did y'all pick that up, ladies? CLERK: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? Gentlemen, in an effort to open these committees up to the general public, who I have a great deal of faith that we can find qualified people to serve on these boards, I will make a substitute motion that we adopt this ordinance as originally read. MR. TODD: Second it to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Todd. We've got a motion by Mr. Brigham, a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, perhaps -- I've been here three years and I don't recall making appointments from the Port Authority or from the Coliseum Authority over to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. I had a little visit over to the Convention and Visitors Bureau and studied that structure well. So maybe it was our counterpart, the City, that had that -- those appointments, and maybe that's where I'm lost at in this debate, but I don't see how that affects the ordinance as I, you know, try to understand what we're doing and what we're talking about. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. The substitute motion first. The substitute motion was to approve Item 77 as it is. All in favor? MOTION FAILS 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we go back to the original motion. That was to delay it until we can discuss it. All in favor of the motion to delay, raise your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 78 is a communication from the Interim Attorney submitting a Policy for Establishing Control of Authorized Positions. MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Mayor, I would like to address that, please. That policy is in your book, and I'd like for the members to adopt that policy with the exception of Section 5 because those numbers will change after the budget is approved, and at that time we could come back with the number of authorized positions. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 79: Communication from the Interim Attorney submitting an amendment to the Project Manager's contract. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I understand that as a result of a meeting between you and Mr. Carstarphen that the request was made to remove the provision whereby the government would provide Mr. Carstarphen an automobile, and in lieu of it he would be paid $350 per month. This was an option that was discussed with him when we were negotiating the contract, and so that's one of the changes. The second one is the health insurance, and Mr. Carstarphen has elected to stay under the City of Greensboro policy and so the obligation to provide health insurance benefits was deleted. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 80: Communication from the Interim Attorney submitting a proposed Franchise Agreement between Georgia Power Company and Richmond County. MR. WALL: You have in your book a franchise agreement, which is essentially the same franchise agreement that the City of Augusta had. There were 36 years remaining on the City of Augusta' franchise agreement with Georgia Power Company. They have requested that in a new franchise agreement they be given a period of 50 years. As presented, it is 50 years. There was some discussion concerning some other provisions that Mr. Dillard had recommended, but for a number of reasons those could not be incorporated into the agreement. And I recommend it for approval as the first reading. This would be an ordinance, and this would only be the first reading and would require a second reading. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question for Mr. Wall. Is the four percent figure cited, is that state-wide? MR. WALL: Four percent is the maximum. It can be negotiated downward, but four percent is the maximum. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions? MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, is this including all power utilities or just Georgia Power? MR. WALL: This is just Georgia Power Company. You have on the agenda as a later item the Jefferson Electric. MR. TODD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Well, I guess my other question is, when will we start collecting? MR. WALL: It doesn't become effective until it's been adopted. MR. TODD: Okay. And that's for city-wide? MR. WALL: Well, the City ordinance would remain in effect, and so you would collect within the urban service district under the existing franchise that the City had. However, to collect -- I say county-wide, but obviously you excluded Hephzibah -- would not become effective until this ordinance is adopted. MR. TODD: Thank you. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 81: Communication from the Interim Attorney submitting a Resolution requesting that a vote be taken on Senate Bill 546 so as to allow the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council to restructure the Coliseum Authority. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Now, this is calling on the Senate or the local delegation to restructure? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you address that, please? MR. WALL: It's asking the General Assembly to take a vote on that Senate Bill. Right now it is up there and has not been voted on, and it's requesting that they take a vote on that bill. MR. TODD: Is there any changes in this one that would -- this don't affect the enabling legislation for consolidation in any way, it keeps all that intact; correct? MR. WALL: Correct. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is it not true that -- we voted on this, I think, some time ago, a similar motion to this, but is it not true that the legislators are already doing something as far as the bill is concerned? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you address that, please? MR. WALL: As I understand it, this Senate Bill is in a committee there and this is an effort to get it out of the committee, get it on the floor in order that it can be voted on. And this is a part of what the Richmond County legislative delegation is proposing -- or some members of it; I wouldn't say all of them, obviously. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So what we're being asked to do is to lobby the legislators to move faster or? They already have something that is -- you know, that they're going to deal with, is my understanding. MR. WALL: This is the piece of legislation that the legislative delegation has put together; it's just that it is in a committee, as I understand it, and this is an effort to try to get it on the floor to be voted on. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, this is the Senate version, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Brigham, I think they're working on something in the House part of it, but it doesn't look like they're moving very fast. MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, is this resolution calling for the Senate to go to the full Senate, or we're talking about the local delegation as far as the two senators go? I want to know what dog fight I'm getting in, the full Senate, full fight, or the two senators to get together and -- MR. WALL: Well, I think that's a fair question, and I think you're getting in the middle of a dog fight. Because -- MR. TODD: Well, my vote certainly is going to be not a yes. MR. WALL: Because as I understand the Senate rules, if both senators were in agreement it wouldn't be stuck in a committee. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right, they wouldn't have to come back to us then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? VOTE: 5-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I'm going to cast the sixth vote, so that'll take care of that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you don't have that pleasure because I'm abstaining. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, you got to take the opposition vote. You have to take the opposition vote. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in our rules of order an abstention isn't something that we can do unless there's a conflict of interest. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, or Parliamentarian, I think we don't have any rules at this time. We opted not to adopt the rules, and so I don't know what rules we are supposed to be going by, but I'm certainly abstaining. That's my position. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Todd is incorrect. All the rules from the former County government do fall over, if he'll read his bill. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, can I change my vote to abstain? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, if you want to. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think we can move on to the next item, Mr. Chairman. MR. WALL: If he withdraws his vote, then you only have four. You need to take the vote again. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, that's what I was thinking; I just wanted to make sure. Okay, all in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. VOTE: 4-4-2. MR. MAYS: As representative-at-large from District 9, I don't think the senator from the 22nd has signed. I've not communicated with him, so there is a conflict, and I guess conflict can be determined like the Bible, so I abstain as well, so there's no tie. NO ACTION, VOTE: 4-3-2. [MR. TODD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's move on to Item 82 then. MR. ZETTERBERG: You know, Mr. Mayor, I think nobody knows what's going on out here. In all fairness to the people, I think maybe it ought to be explained to them what the issue is. What the Commission is trying to do is take control of the board issue. I think -- Mr. Brigham, would you be willing to explain what's going on and why it's going on? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Zetterberg, I wish I could explain the legislators. It's my understanding there is several bills up there and this is one of many that is stuck in committee or stuck in the delegation. And it is an effort by some of the members of the delegation to get us to try to get a bill on the floor so maybe we would have some action on the Coliseum Authority one way or another by one House or the other House. Maybe if one House was to pass a bill, maybe the other House could make some compromises and we could find out what was going to happen, if anything was going to happen to the Coliseum Authority. I think that's what this was about. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, the only reason I brought it forward to this is because there's a lot of controversy and this Commission is being blamed for doing nothing with the Coliseum Authority. What you've just demonstrated is some people are trying to do something about the Coliseum Authority, and I think the vote has just shown that we won't do anything about the Coliseum Authority yet. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think for the record that -- and I can be very honest and pointed about it -- is that Mr. Zetterberg is right. We don't need to skirt around the issue, but I also think that the issues shouldn't be dictated from Page 4, the editorial page. If you want to talk about where the real dog fight is and where it's coming from, that's what's pushing it, and it's a conflict there that's tearing this community apart. And I think for one day if it could print the cartoons, the obituaries and the sports that it could tell the truth about and deal with that, then the delegation and some other bodies might be able to get some work done, but it's being very divisive and it's causing people to take positions that are not dealing with the business of it. But that's where the dog fight is coming from. And if you want to know the pointed reason of it, people want to know where it's originating from, that's where it's originating from. So if you want to get the truth about it, maybe bring the daily editor over here and let him explain what it's about. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we going to go to the Senate floor and have a dog fight every time we have a piece of legislation that this community want passed? I'm not going to side with one senator or the other. They can get together, they can work it out. And if you're going to take the position that you're going to have a dog fight, then as long as this particular senator that's involved in it, or the two that's up there, the people sent them up there, then you may have a dog fight on every piece of legislation that go up there. And I'll get into personalities. If Senator Walker want to have a dog fight with Senator Cheeks on the Senate floor, let him take it to the Senate floor. I'm not going to encourage it. If Senator Cheeks want to have a dog fight with Senator Walker on the Senate floor, let him take it to the Senate floor. I'm not going to have a part in it. I have to work with both gentlemen to get legislation that's in the best interest of this community. It's incumbent upon them to work their differences out up there and legislate, not for me to send non-binding resolutions up there calling on one to take on the other. CLERK: Item 82: Communication from Mr. Doyle L. Keefer regarding the Richmond County Code 12-263, Ordinance 91-16. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, didn't we vote on this last meeting? MR. POWELL: No, sir, it was taken off the agenda last week. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Keefer here? MR. KEEFER: Right here, Mr. Mayor. I've noticed a lot of times, being a truck driver, that laws get enacted without first consulting with the people that these laws are affecting. This particular law is parking of trucks in excess of one ton in residential areas. Now, essentially all we're wanting, myself and these other drivers that are represented here, are wanting is to be able to drive our trucks home. Now, we put up with where we can put the trailers, as is quite obvious in any shopping center you want to go by, there's going to be three or four trailers sitting in there. That tractor has to go someplace. And it's just the driver wanting to get home. He comes home at late hours. Now, if he's got to leave his truck down here at this shopping center -- he probably paid more for that truck than he paid for his house. I know I did, and I'm fixing to trade it in on one more expensive than it. That means I have to leave this high-dollar piece of equipment sitting down here where some junkhead that's wanting a fix can break in there and steal my electronics out of the truck, my TV, my CB, my stereo; or some dude on a bad trip with a can of spray paint in his hand can go down there and just screw it up all together. Now, this piece of equipment cost me a lot of money, and I've got to leave it there. Okay, I leave it there. I come home at two o'clock in the morning, that means I have to call my wife someplace for her to get out of bed and come pick me up. Now, in my particular case, no big thing, my wife can do it if she happens to be home when I get home late at night, as long as I don't come home during the daytime when she's at work. But some of these drivers got small kids at home. They've got to call home and get their wife up, their wife has to get those small kids out of bed to come pick him up. And the opposite is true when he has to leave out in the small hours of the morning. Where if he could take that truck to his house and park it, at least it's going to be somewhat more secure there than it is down in the shopping center. He can keep a little bit better of an eye on it, keep people from messing with it. If he has to leave it there and he's coming home on a Friday, he may have anything from a 500 to a 5,000 dollar paycheck in his pocket. Now, this pothead wanting a fresh fix, you know, he sees this trucker down there getting out with this money in his pocket, you know, that puts the trucker at jeopardy. I've heard the arguments about taking these things into the housing areas: they block traffic. Well, in my neighborhood there's motor homes and boats blocking more traffic than my truck will. There's multi-car families that got more cars parked out in the street than I would with my truck. I'll park my truck in my driveway, that's fine with me, I don't care, but I want my truck secure, I paid a lot of money for that truck. I've also heard the argument that it's unsightly. I've seen a lot of junk cars that look worse than my truck, sir. All I'm asking, for myself and for these other drivers, is that we be allowed to drive our truck home without disturbing our family to get our families up. Now, I have polled my neighbors that live in the immediate vicinity of my house, and none of them have a complaint about my truck being there. In my particular case, completely surrounding me are single-women parents and they appreciate that truck there because they say it's a sign there's a man in the neighborhood. And that's all I've got to say. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we've had numerous complaints about this problem with the trucks in the neighborhoods. I meet the second Saturday in every month with the neighborhood associations in my area, they do not want the trucks in the neighborhoods. They have many reasons, as the man has one over some of them. And I move that we receive this gentleman's -- receive this as information. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Handy, did you want to say something? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I just want to say that that ordinance was put in for a reason why those trucks should be in the neighborhood. MR. POWELL: Shouldn't be. MR. HANDY: And, also, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Just because other people park their boats and everything, that don't mean that you have a right to park a truck in there. I can sympathize with you with the money you got spent in your rig and everything, but those type vehicles is not allowed in residential areas, that's as simple as that, you know. So you're asking us to go by -- we had a situation out on Lake Ontario, out in that area, a truck, same way, pulling in the neighborhood giving people hell. I mean, he's coming by at nighttime right by his window, making noise. There's no truck that you all drive that do not disturb people coming in at two o'clock in the morning. You know, there's no way that you're not disturbing anybody, you know. MR. KEEFER: Those complaints, sir, could be taken on a one-on-one basis. If you've got one butthead coming in there raising hell, then handle that one butthead, but don't generalize against all drivers. MR. HANDY: Right. No, we're not doing that, we're just setting a set of rules and that's going to --covers everything you're talking about. And then you're going and saying that potheads and drug addicts and all that, everybody is not -- potheads and drug addicts, not all of them are bad. I mean, there's a reason why people go out there and do certain things. So you can't put the community as potheads, they're going to tear up your truck or spray your truck. In your yard or on the street, he can come still and spray your truck, so it doesn't matter where it's parked at. If he got it in his mind that's what he's going to do, he's going to do it. MR. KEEFER: If he does it at my house, my dog is going to get him before he gets away. MR. HANDY: Then you'll be liable for letting your dog get to him. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we got three people that had their hand raised, so let's take Mr. Todd first. MR. TODD: I want to at least comment on some of the problems that we've had other than a nuisance: noise; trucks tearing up the roads where the roads are not constructed for the 18-wheelers or the bobtails; the tanks on the trucks hitting in low places and having major fuel spills where in some cases Ms. Tucker don't get the information on what truck it was or a license number and the County is stuck with the cleanup. And we do have to do those cleanups and you guys are familiar with all that. So there are several concerns why we would not want to change the ordinance. Now, what we may be able to do is, through DOT, is look for some grant money or look for something jointly with a truck stop or something to provide a parking place in security. Many of the shopping centers, you know, as you stated that you park in, is complaining about trucks, you know, and some of them put up signs. And I understand your concern. I've had a lot of truckers to talk to me, a lot of neighborhood folks to talk to me about their concerns, and I think it's a long range -- certainly we're going to have to look at long range and try to come up with something, but I don't think we're going to get a repealing of this ordinance. I know I would not vote for the repealing of this ordinance, but I'm willing to work with you looking at DOT or looking at the private sector and seeing what we can maybe work out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir, do you want to come up to the microphone, please. MR. CLAYTON: Yes, sir. I'm Jack Clayton, live on 1810 Windsor Springs Road, right down the street from you, Mr. Sconyers. Twenty years I parked my trucks out there, no problem. Now, the gentleman here said he had complaints. How many people, individuals, complained or how many people got on the phone and made 100 phone calls a day? You don't have names and faces to put with these complaints. My neighborhood, three-fourths of the people around there are involved either with driving or with the trucking industry. And suddenly, through somebody's whim, they don't like trucks and we get moved out. Is this right? Let's put it to popular vote. MR. BRIDGES: I just, I guess, need a point of information, I guess from Jim. As I understand it, this is a County ordinance. Even though the neighborhood association may not have any covenants against the trucks, it's a county-wide ordinance? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is just how long has this been an ordinance? MR. CLAYTON: I think Mr. Keefer has the date on it. MR. KEEFER: November of '91. MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to receive it as information -- that was correct, wasn't it, Mr. Powell? -- MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 83: Communication from Mr. Thomas L. Lamb regarding the smoking restrictions in restaurants. MR. LAMB: I had planned about an hour speech, but in view of the late hour I'll try to condense it down to about five minutes. Mayor Sconyers, Gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Commission-Council and address the County's policy which bans smoking in public buildings and restaurants. According to my information, the smoking ban in public buildings has been in effect for some time now; and since 1 January 96, 74 percent of the area in restaurants has been banned from smoking, and effective 1 July 96 all smoking is scheduled to be banned in restaurants. The stated purpose of the ban was to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. We now know that these harmful effects do not exist. First let me say that I believe the County Commission and Health Department thought they were acting in good faith when they adopted this policy. In January '93 the Environmental Protection Agency published a report in which they stated that environmental tobacco smoke was a Group A carcinogen which posed a substantial health hazard and caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in non-smokers. They went on to mention similar figures for other diseases. Sometime later OSHA, the Office of Safety and Health Administration, applied this EPA information to reach their conclusion that there was an equally grave hazard in the workplace from environmental tobacco smoke. The medical community and government officials all across the country believed that the EPA report was based on reliable information. No one suspected that EPA would lie about something this serious. About a year later, in May 1994, two doctors in the Congressional Research Service were testifying before a subcommittee in Washington and they were asked about the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Dr. Gavell and Dr. Zimmerman both testified that scientific research did not appear to support any harmful effects of cigarette smoke on non-smokers. What a shock this was. Here we have the EPA and OSHA telling us that non-smokers are dropping like flies from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, and two eminent scientists in the Congressional Research Service say that there's no scientific evidence that there were any harmful effects. Representative Henry Waxman, a strong anti- smoking advocate from California, almost had apoplexy when he heard this testimony, and he requested that the Congressional Research Service conduct in-depth studies to determine the harmful effects of secondary tobacco smoke. Perhaps I should take a moment to clarify the terms used in talking about tobacco smoke. EPA refers to it as environmental tobacco smoke, and others refer to it as passive or secondary smoke, but what they're all talking about is smoke from a burning cigarette which passes into the air. After 20 months, the Congressional Research Service released the results of their study. In a report to Congress on 14 November 1995, they concluded that EPA had falsified the findings in the 30 studies that they considered. And after reviewing these studies and four newer studies, they found no scientific evidence that passive cigarette smoke caused cancer in non-smokers or any other significant harmful effects. Gentlemen, I have given Mayor Sconyers a copy of the 75-page Congressional Research Report, and I believe all of you have received copies of my letter and the newspaper clippings which describe how EPA blatantly lied in their report, so much so that their own scientists couldn't even recognize the report when it was published. I would like to take a moment to point out the drastic impact that this smoking ban has had on the people in Richmond County and all across the nation. First I'd like to talk about your County workers here in Richmond County. I'm sure each of you have gone outside this building and seen the County employees standing out in the cold rain taking a smoke break. What kind of policy is this? AIDS is the most infectious disease in modern times and people with AIDS can move among the population at will, spread the deadly disease to anybody they're so inclined to, and yet we're isolating smokers. Secondly, this ban impacts both smokers' and non-smokers' ability to earn their livelihood. Statistics show that most smokers are blue-collar workers who work and support their families. But now, thanks to EPA, we have attached such a stigma to smoking that employers are reluctant to hire smokers. Now, this puts 50 million people in jeopardy of losing their jobs. And I don't think we want to add productive people to the welfare rolls, which are already burgeoning. But this is only half of the story. We're also banning smoking in restaurants, and both the owners and employees have seen their income reduced by this ban. I'm sure that the owners and their employees can give you more concrete data on the exact amount of this reduction. We also have an effect on the tourist industry. Richmond County relies heavily on tourists who flock to Augusta each year and spend their money. In New York and California the smoking ban has cost the tourist industry millions of dollars. On the other hand, it has flourished in Texas where the state law allows the owners of restaurants to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. The National Smokers Alliance indicates that most local governments are electing to accommodate smokers and non-smokers since EPA's lies have been disclosed. In closing, there is one study which I found particularly interesting that I would like to bring to your attention. The International Technology Corporation of Torrance, California, scientifically analyzed the air in restaurants and offices in Dallas and New York City. They found that a non-smoker would have to remain in a restaurant for 398 continuous hours in order to inhale the equivalent of smoking one cigarette. An office worker would have to work six and a half 40-hour work weeks to incur the same exposure. There is no longer any justification for banning smoking in the workplace or in restaurants. Employers and restaurant owners should have the freedom to accommodate their workers or customers in a manner acceptable to all the parties concerned. Gentlemen, you now have the facts before you, and you're the only ones that can rectify this injustice which EPA has inflicted upon the people of Richmond County. I thank you for allowing me to speak out on this important matter, and I wish each of you success in your tenure as the first Commission-Council members. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept it as information. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke, thank you very much. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question, Mr. Mayor. Are you proposing that the 1 July ordinance of no smoking anywhere be -- MR. LAMB: Modified to benefit smokers. MR. ZETTERBERG: Modified. Are you saying that people ought to be allowed to smoke in restaurants anywhere they want, or do you think there ought to be some restrictions? MR. LAMB: I think it should be the owners' prerogative to determine what smoking areas and what non-smoking areas. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, now that I understand what he means, then take it for information. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify something. I've been here for three years and I don't remember voting on anything about smoking. That come out of the Health Department, and I haven't -- I don't have anything to do with that, that's the Health Department. They govern those. We've never had anything come before this Commission since I've been here talking about smoking, because I'm a smoker myself. MR. LAMB: I beg to differ. The Health Department doesn't have the prerogative to restrict smoking in public property, so it was -- MR. WALL: Yes, sir, they do. MR. HANDY: I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, then we're going to call the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a couple of years ago I was summoned to Atlanta by one of my state representatives and possibly a state senator to talk about the proposed, I guess, 60-40 ordi-nance that the Health Department was fixing to pass, and they were telling me that I could have some input and I could influ- ence that decision. Well, my influence is about the same as any private citizen. They have sovereign authority over smoking issues in restaurants and we don't have it. I learned that fast. And certainly I'm sure that a lot of folks wish that we did, but we don't. This issue need to go to the Richmond County Health Depart-ment, and whatever they decide, I got to go along with it just like any other private citizen, and I don't have any say on the matter. As far as smoking in this building go, if the Health Department don't ban it, then I'm glad to vote any time to keep that ban on. And I'm not a anti-tobacco person. I grew up in tobacco fields and worked in the last 12 months for Brown & Williamson in Macon where they give you two packs a day to smoke, and I chose not to accept them or smoke them, but I'm not anti-tobacco. MR. LAMB: I was told by the Health Department they were just a recommending body, that they recommended to the County Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Lamb. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about go to the addendums now. Engineering Services, please. CLERK: The first is to consider approval of a proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. regarding Borrow Pit Grading at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. MR. LEIPER: Gentlemen, this item is to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for the 93-acre borrow area which is used to obtain daily and intermediate cover for the landfill. During a recent inspection by EPD, they raised some concerns about operations in the borrow area and the potential for offsite migration of sediment from this area, and requested that we prepare something to show them that we were going to prevent offsite migration of sediment. In order to -- well, the preparation of the design and operation plan didn't provide for an erosion and sediment control plan, so I requested that Southern Partners prepare a price to provide this plan to present to the EPD. And we are trying to do this on a emergency basis since EPD's concerns need to be met in the near future, and I'm requesting approval of Southern Partners' proposal. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we accept the recommendation as an emergency proposal. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: How much do we plan on spending on this? MR. LEIPER: This is $18,900. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: What's the emergency? I might have missed something. MR. LEIPER: The landfill has not been in the best of graces with the EPD historically, and in order to win their favor we're trying to provide their requests as quickly as possible, and this is something of a serious nature that I want to try to get behind us as quickly as possible. MR. ZETTERBERG: So there's no threat to the public, it's a threat to the EPD? MR. LEIPER: Correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Finance, please. CLERK: Approval of the adoption of the 1996 Permanent Budget. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of Commission-Council. After our budget meeting on Saturday we had several issues to address concerning requests and recommendations for new personnel and some other funding matters. We've attended to those since that time, and for this permanent budget we have, based on those discussions, included the following new personnel: In the Fire Department, 15 positions phased in over three quarters, second, third and fourth; the cost to be approximately $220,000. Funding is from the contingency. The Sheriff's Department, a phase-in of 23 positions; 11 on March 1st. Five of those would be for the community cleanup, community action plans, and the remaining 18 in three six-man strike force teams. This funding of some $300,000 comes from other cuts in the Sheriff's Department. Engineering: two assistant engineers, approximately $68,000 funded from contingency and allocation to other funds. We have addressed the budget problem that we had with Central Services by eliminating some duplicate entries and use of other revenue, and that problem is taken care of. We had overlooked two mandated renewal and extension programs in the urban water and sewer water fund. These two projects were the Raes Creek Sewer Modification for a million-fifty and the Vineland Sewer for 520,000. Those are both mandated required and we funded those by adding those amounts to the proposed revenue bond to be issued this spring. I would also recommend at that time that we also examine our suburban capital program and our projected cash flow over the next few years and see if there are not some problems or some opportunities that we can take care of with some additions to that fund as well. In general, though we've talked about the concept of the budget several times, if I could refresh your memory, it's basically been to hold budgets as they were essentially for last year and to maintain as large a contingency as we can going into this year to be prepared for any unknown factors that come up, additional personnel that may be needed after the Human Resources study, and to provide for capital projects that are mandated necessary to keep up equipment pools for Public Safety and those things which are essential for consolidation. That having been done, if I could address and invite your attention to about six or seven pages into the major operating budget, we have a summary of governmental fund types and a brief discussion of our position versus last year. MR. ZETTERBERG: Which page? MR. McKIE: It's about seven or eight inside the cover. MR. ZETTERBERG: Permanent budget? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what page is the Comptroller on? MR. HANDY: What's the title of it? MR. McKIE: Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government 1996 Permanent Budget, Suburban and Urban Service District Funds. MR. HANDY: There you go. I'm there. MR. McKIE: We've grouped the funds into their governmental types and have shown you in this schedule the urban and suburban separately, how they're added together, and the comparison with the 1995 budget versus this year. The General Funds combined have decreased some two percent, eight percent in the urban area, and a gain of two percent on the County side -- suburban. Special Revenue Funds are down principally in the suburban area because of the completion of the baseball stadium in a prior year and payment for that, and that, of course, has not been replaced as an expenditure item. Capital Project Funds, the 65 million consists principally of special purpose local option sales tax, of which we are now spending from three different phases. Phase I still has some projects ongoing, Phase II as well, and we will begin Phase III projects this year. The Enterprise Funds are those of the Water Works and Landfill, and those are down as well principally again because of capital projects. Internal Service Funds are up slightly at one percent. And the Fiduciary Funds, which are those which are held in trust by elected officials and pensions and so forth, are up 21 and 61 percent respectively. You have a loose sheet in front of your book which will summarize for you the contingencies that are available in this budget. In the General Fund, on the urban side 1,803,000; 272,984 for the suburban area. If you'll read down that column you can see that that provides the necessary funding to provide for the estimated cost of the pay disparity in the Public Safety area. We do not at this time have a good number on any other pay disparities in the County or how much that will cost, which is one of the reasons for trying to hold larger-than-normal contingencies. Water and sewer operations have a heavy capital program, and we'll be using some prior year fund balance reserves to pay for that. Landfill has a small contingency. Airport continues to do well. Transit, while it has a small contingency, did require support by the General Fund. Canal Authority, of course, is doing well. And Capital -- these are Capital Replacement Funds. Again, we are trying to hold a larger-than-normal number here in order to provide for any unknown: 600,000. All other funds, some negative 210,000. So our budgets in total are roughly $259,000,000 for the year. If there are any questions in particular on anything that we might have discussed on Saturday or -- yes, sir, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I guess the question I have, that you have controls in place that will keep the urban and suburban budgets from going into a deficit. I mean, if we're doing something to -- that's heading us towards a deficit, you're going to alert us, or is there something -- MR. McKIE: I'll certainly tell you, yes, sir. I always have. MR. TODD: Right, I know you always have on the suburban. MR. McKIE: We have separate ledgers and we will have separate budgets which we will consolidate. Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: I just have one question about the cleanup people. Now, you're allocating how many? Five? MR. McKIE: Five from the Sheriff's Department, yes, sir. MR. BEARD: This is a permanent fixture and not, you know, six months down the road we're talking about these people could be pulled back and we'll have to go through all this again or? MR. McKIE: In speaking with the Sheriff, we spoke of them as permanent jail personnel who would be assigned to this project. MR. BEARD: And they'll be working on cleanup permanently? MR. McKIE: Right. MR. BEARD: I just want the record to reflect that these people are permanent and their assignment would be the cleanup. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Mr. McKie, while we're on the cleanup here, have you got any money appropriated for some programs as far as advertising and stuff like that, some community awareness programs that we may be wanting to institute for some of this cleanup? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, we have some small contingencies for such as that. When we had talked about it earlier and the committee approved that, we did set aside some funds for it. At the time I don't recall exactly how much, but we do have funds set aside for that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to revisit this permanent eight-man -- I mean, five guards that's going to supervise or guard eight-men crews for permanent cleanup. I thought when we were debating this that we were talking about possibility of Trees and Parks or using them in the cemetery, you know, different areas. And I wouldn't -- you know, I pushed for this, but I wouldn't want to get locked into if we're talking about the five guards and the forty inmates that they would be supervising would be designated permanent cleanup, quote/unquote, versus where we need them. And I'm for this initial cleanup, but I don't see a need to have that kind of manpower out there from now on doing cleanup. MR. McKIE: I think it would probably evolve into a maintenance of sites rather than constantly going back cleaning up the same areas. I think you would see that. MR. TODD: Yes. But, you know, when we started talking this, and I don't think everybody was on board, we were talking about for Trees and Parks, cemeteries, you know, and doing things other than just cleanup. Those five -- I would assume we're talking about five inmate guards that would be supervising eight men each per crew, which would be a total of forty men. And we talked about areas of using those men other than just cleanup, and I wouldn't want them just designated for cleanup and cleanup only. MR. McKIE: Well, I think at the last committee meeting, if I'm correct, the committee asked the Mayor to form a committee to bring that program together and, you know, make those assignments. MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd, I think you would have to have some type of organizational structure here. My contention in that would be that, you know, I just didn't want to have these people -- I'm saying permanent because I want them to work wherever they are needed and not, you know, six months down the road we say we don't have anybody to have the inmates out there. But I think you need some organizational structure, and this has nothing to do with the five people that we're talking about, because I think we can organize that in some other manner. But I think we're talking about the whole city, and if I refer to this, we're not only talking about the downtown area or any particular area, but there should be some organization here where these people could be designated to work wherever needed and supervise the cleanup of wherever it's needed within the city. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify something for Mr. Todd, and we went through it in Engineering Services about this. These crews will be replacing, I think, 27 full-time paid employees, these prison crews. MR. BRIDGES: Butch, just for the record, there's no increase in the millage rate in this budget. MR. McKIE: Thank you for bringing that up. I usually say that. There is no increase in the millage rate in this budget. And I think probably when we get the Tax Digest in the middle of the year, we will do our usual mid-year review. This time we probably should be a little more thorough in it so that we can evaluate needs that may have come up in the meantime. And I think we can support any services that are required with the budget and can end the year on a favorable note. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I move the adoption of the budget. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: Yes. I just want to say one thing to Butch. That question just came up about that millage rate, and I don't want it to be like it used to be in the old days. You need to raise taxes, you'd better raise taxes. That's just a thought, you know. I don't want to call no names; you know what I'm talking about. That's all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question. I thought we were going to have before the Commission today a hire of a GIS manager so that we could get some momentum in that program. I didn't see it on that. I was not able to be here on Saturday. I do know you said that there's still room for us to make those kind of proposals. MR. McKIE: Right. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, there are. We have some one million dollars set aside for contingencies. MR. ZETTERBERG: I won't need that much. MR. McKIE: Good. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask a point of clarification, not being a member of that committee, J.B. But on the assignment of those guards in terms of that supervision, with everything else as we currently have it per se coming out of RCCI and whether they are assigned over into Recreation or into other departments, now, will these be -- these guards be assigned to the jail department or are they coming -- going to be hired out of the Correctional Institute where the prisoners are coming from? MR. POWELL: Mr. Mays, these people will come from the Sheriff's Department. Warden Leverette has crews out there; this will be in addition to his crews. And they're housed at the Sheriff's Department, and they'll be picked up from the Sheriff's Department with a van and returned back to the Sheriff's Depart-ment. Also, I'd like to clarify one other point. These inmates that will be used to clean up in neighborhoods and stuff like that will be screened very carefully and they will have no convictions of burglaries or anything like that in their record. It's going to be a very careful screen process. MR. MAYS: I just wanted to get that clear, because I mentioned to the Mayor the other day and I meant to mention it to you that part of the publicity that went out through some of the areas, particularly in the inner- city where those folk were working last week -- and even though that was only a drop in the bucket, but a lot of the stuff that was moved out were items that had been there in some cases for months and months. And that just got part of it started, but I think it was a positive thing in terms of seeing some actual cleanup going on in those areas. But I just wanted to get it clear in terms of where they were coming from. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. Because when we first started talking about this, the Economic Development Agency said that they could possibly fund a couple of persons. MR. McKIE: That would be in addition to this, Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That would be in addition to this. All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, may I pat the Finance Department on the back, and the staff, for a minute. MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. I think you should. MR. McKIE: We may stumble over each other and fuss occasionally, but these folks really came through when we had to, and they worked some long, hard hours. And over the weekend we had things spread out all over the floor. The Grand Jury, unfortunately, came in this morning when we had things spread all over the floor and asked if the government wouldn't buy us furniture, but we explained to them what we were doing. But I think we're probably one of the few consolidated governments to get a budget together this quickly, but for the folks in Finance who did the work, I'd like to say thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think y'all should be commended for what you did. MR. HANDY: Butch, that also goes to you since you had part to do with the City and the County. That's why we got so far. Don't take that all away now, there's a reason why. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to go to Other Business now, please, ma'am. MR. WALL: We've got Jefferson EMC. CLERK: It's approval of a proposed franchise agreement between Jefferson Electric Membership Corporation and Augusta-Richmond County. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is the franchise agreement. I did not have it in time to get it into your package. It is verbatim, the same provisions as in the Georgia Power. And I would also ask that the minutes of this meeting reflect the fact that I had previously advised most of the members, not everyone, our law firm is on retainer by Jefferson EMC, and I have disclosed that prior to any discussions with Jefferson EMC, attorney in connection with this franchise agreement. But, again, if there was such a thing as a copyright violation from the printed Georgia Power Company franchise agreement, this would be one because it's verbatim, same terms, and I recommend approval. MR. TODD: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Under Other Business, gentlemen, we need to -- we have a personnel matter we need to discuss. Do y'all want to take a short break before we -- MR. WALL: You need to have a motion to go into -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I was going to ask them that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we take a short break and when we return we go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. MAYOR SCONYERS: Great, thank you, Mr. Todd. We have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. HANDY: I'll second it, but make sure it'll be a short break. MAYOR SCONYERS: All those in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. RECESS AND EXECUTIVE SESSION, 9:22 - 10:27 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being patient with us. I apologize for keeping you here so long, but it's just as trying on us as it is on y'all. Our meeting will be reconvened now. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that Mr. David Rollins be removed as the Interim Auditor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Zetterberg's motion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion that he be put on administrative leave and removed from administrative -- is that what I'm understanding, Mr. Zetterberg, that he be put on administrative leave? MR. ZETTERBERG: My motion is that he be removed as the Interim Auditor. MR. POWELL: I second Mr. Zetterberg's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Powell, that the Internal Auditor be put on -- I mean, be removed from the Internal Auditor's position. Is that correct, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Any discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to introduce a motion that this body direct the District Attorney, through the Grand Jury, to revisit the garage situation and to come back to this body with further recommendations in regards to what wrongdoings have been -- have taken place out there. MR. MAYS: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, gentlemen? If not, this meeting is -- MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to ask, although we don't have any jurisdiction over it per se, but what could we do about the Goodyear person and getting paid for stuff he did not deliver? Since we are looking at everything else the employees have done, what can we do about him? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, isn't that covered under Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. HANDY: Will that come under your motion, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I would hope so, Mr. Handy. MR. HANDY: Okay, good enough. I thought your motion was just for our employees only. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, gentlemen? If not, finally this meeting stands adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of City Council held on February 20, 1996. ___________________________________ Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council C E R T I F I C A T E G E O R G I A RICHMOND COUNTY I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 167. I further certify that I am not a party to, related to, nor interested in the event or outcome of such proceedings. Witness my hand and official seal this 29th day of February 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER