Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 19, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 19, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell and Todd, members of Commission- Council. ABSENT: Hon. Rob Zetterberg, member of Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council Regular Meeting. We're going to have the invocation by the Reverend Richard Holland, Pastor of the Westminster Presbyterian Church, and then if you will remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HOLLAND. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, we have two requests for additions to the agenda: approval of notice to proceed regarding construction of the jail facility on Phinizy Road; to discuss imposing a moratorium on off-premises signs. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good. Do I have a motion to the effect we accept those, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move Item 7 up to number one. Ms. Bonner, if you would read that first, please. CLERK: Item 7: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the stipulation 'Subject to a revised development plan that retains the masonry wall along the south property line,' a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of Yuba Jane Hewitt, requesting a Plan Modification and a modification of the condition placed on the earlier rezoning in 1995 (Zone 95-100) to a Zone R-1E (One-family Residence) per City of Augusta Ordinance 5790, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Kissingbower Road, 163 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Marschalk Road intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Kissingbower Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: If I can, I'll bring you up to date on this. This is a zoning case that the City Council heard toward the end of 1995. It involves a five acre, approximately, piece of property between the railroad and the properties that front Marschalk Lane and Kissingbower Road. The property is currently zoned in a single-family residential classification, and the petitioner wanted a higher density single-family classification. I presented a plan which was consistent with the development around it. Around the area are other similar developments in the area. A point of contention became the section of the zoning ordinance that requires a masonry fence to be placed around such properties zoned as the petitioner requested this one to be if they abut R-1 zoned properties, or single-family zoned properties. And the line between this property and the properties that front Marschalk Road, obviously there needs to be a masonry wall as the ordinance requires. The railroad, which is the other property, the northern boundary of the property is zoned R-1, so technically a literal interpretation of the ordinance, they would have to put a masonry fence -- or wall, rather, along that property line, too, which is pretty long. And also some of the properties that front Kissingbower Road, the ordinance would require a masonry wall. City Council, in making their decision, chose to -- in spite of the fact that that wall was required by the ordinance, chose to make it a condition of the zoning that the wall be placed around the entire property. What that accomplished was it would -- under normal circumstances the petitioners could seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to that section of the ordinance that they thought was not befitting the situation. And especially I'm talking about putting the wall on the side of the property facing the railroad, which they want relief from. The Planning Commission's decision was to approve the requested change, which would eliminate the conditions for the wall except for that portion of the property that's between Marschalk, which is the only residential property -- single- family residential property this property actually touches, and the adjoining property, release them from the requirement to put the wall around the remainder of the property. That would allow them to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and seek relief there and let them make the decision, which is, you know, the proper way that it would be -- the way that it would normally be handled. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Williams. I represent the applicant, together with my law firm. I'll answer any questions that anybody has about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody have any questions of Mr. Williams? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. Bill, did I understand Mr. Patty correctly, that you are asking for an approval from us so that you can go before the Appeals Board? MR. WILLIAMS: That's what we plan on doing. As he described the property to you, the northern boundary is adjacent to a railroad track. Part of the eastern boundary is adjacent to B-2 property. I've got a copy of the tax map if -- MR. KUHLKE: I understood that. I'm just wondering, if we approve this request here, then you still have to go before the Appeals Board before you have final approval; am I correct? MR. WILLIAMS: As far as the masonry wall, that is correct. MR. KUHLKE: Right. Is that right? MR. PATTY: That is correct. MR. KUHLKE: Now, if we approve it and the Appeals Board approves it, you can go ahead? Or do you have to come back to us? MR. PATTY: No, it would not come back to you. My understanding is, they're only considering seeking relief on that part that fronts the railroad and these commercial properties on Kissingbower. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. We've agreed, and the Planning Commission passed it on to y'all, with the condition that the boundary between -- the southern boundary that abuts the property on Marschalk Road would have a masonry wall, and we can't get relief from that, nor do we want relief from that. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: And, you know, the only thing we want relief from is having to put a masonry wall along the railroad track, which, you know, to us is cost prohibitive. I mean, the project we're talking about, if you're interested, are single-family detached dwellings that will sell in the neighborhood of 65,000 to 80,000 dollars. And you're in the construction business, you know what a masonry wall would cost if you had to run it several hundred or a thousand feet. Now, we're going to do that on the southern boundary, but we just think it's cost prohibitive and to some extent foolish to put a masonry wall along a railroad track. MR. TODD: Mr. Williams, is there going to be any kind of wall or fence between the railroad track and the residents? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. What we would propose, if the Board of Zoning Appeals approves of it, is a privacy fence, a wooden privacy fence. We wouldn't be able to market the property without a fence there to start with. Folks, you know, won't abut to a railroad track without some privacy. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy to approve, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors present, Mr. Patty? OBJECTOR: Yes. Our spokesperson couldn't be here today. What do they plan to do about the west side of the lot, from Marschalk Road across to the railroad track? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Williams, could you answer that, please? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure about the west side. It comes to a point -- this is what I refer to as the southern boundary, which is along Marschalk. OBJECTOR: Yes, I know that. But from there to the railroad track, what do you plan to do? There's a quite a ways through there. MR. WILLIAMS: There would be a masonry wall all the way along this boundary, and then if it's approved, there'd be a privacy fence along the railroad track, a wooden privacy fence. OBJECTOR: What do you call a privacy fence? MR. WILLIAMS: A wooden fence. OBJECTOR: Just a wooden fence? MR. WILLIAMS: An opaque fence; you know, one you can't see through. There was some question before, Mr. Mayor, about the maintenance of it. This will be a subdivision that will have a homeowners association that will have responsibility for maintenance after the developer turns it over to them. MAYOR SCONYERS: I see. Further questions? MR. TODD: Yes. Along those lines, is that privacy fence going to tie into individuals' yards or properties with other fences or just a fence that's back of property that possibly no one would have sole ownership of or? MR. WILLIAMS: Each yard will be fenced in. MR. HIERS: No, it won't. Just close proximity. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. It will be a boundary fence, it won't be an individual yard fence. MR. HIERS: Individuals will have the opportunity, according to the covenants, that they can fence their back yards in if it's approved by the architectural committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think you've got a lady wanting to speak. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. CLERK: Can we get you to state your name, please, and your address? MS. OLDHAM: Mamie Oldham. I live at 1817 Kissingbower Road. Now, I want to know what's going to happen to me, because he even took my water meter. I don't even have a water meter. He's asking me if I could use the water till he got through with it, but I don't have a water meter. He put a line up there and they took my water meter. And I've only got ten foot around my house. So I want to know how am I going to get in and out of there? MR. HIERS: That line will be -- there will be a water connection, a different line ran. And at this present time we are paying for her water service. MS. OLDHAM: Well, I know you are, but what's going to happen in the future? And what's going to happen to my driveway and all in the future? You tell me I can use it, but then I don't know this. MR. HIERS: Well, you -- Mr. Mayor, she'll be able to use what property she has as far as her driveway is concerned. I sold this piece of property to her with the intention -- she knew that I was going to put in this development. MS. OLDHAM: I didn't know that. When he took -- I didn't see -- I didn't see nothing in black and white -- MR. HIERS: That's incorrect. MS. OLDHAM: -- until after it was all settled. I used your attorney, that's where I messed up, and I'm sorry, but now that's the way it goes. I don't have but one driveway, and he's even in that one. He's come into that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MS. OLDHAM: What's he going to do about my fence? MR. POWELL: Mr. Williams and Mr. Hiers, which piece of property is this lady talking about? Is this one of these lots that's being developed here? MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. MR. HIERS: No, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an out portion of the property. It's -- you'd better see it on the tax map. It's not part of the development, it would be this out portion right here. MS. OLDHAM: Are you going to have a fence behind my house? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. MR. HIERS: Yes, ma'am. MR. POWELL: And as far as the water meter, I just don't understand what she's talking about as far as the water meter. Are you using hers for construction? MR. HIERS: No, sir. We haven't started any construction whatsoever. At the present time, which she was aware of, until this is approved or disapproved we have just -- we're paying her water bill with that one meter. Which adjacent to that is a duplex which I also own, and when that was put in -- this is a duplex, which is also -- and it's, of course, different from the rest of the property as far as the zoning is concerned. So the water meter sits out here, and there's going to be a complete line ran, which I'm going to run the line and pay for, which she'll have a separate meter. At the present time she has no water bill, and until this is approved, that line will be ran by me and turned over to her in her name. MR. POWELL: And a tap put there? MR. HIERS: Yes, sir. And I'm paying for the tap. MR. POWELL: Okay, sir. That's all I wanted to know. MS. OLDHAM: And what I'm trying to tell you, the street -- he took the second street side driveway and put it in -- the water meter is hooked up in there, see? I don't have a full street sidewalk. MR. POWELL: Well, what I was looking at, ma'am, is Kissingbower Road. It looks like your property joins Kissingbower, and I think what he's talking about doing is re-routing that water line around and you would have your water at the front of your house at that time. MS. OLDHAM: Well, I don't know why he's done [unintelligible]. He didn't have no water meter because it's too close in the driveway when you drive in, unless he's going to put it under the ties. MR. HIERS: No, it's actually an easement going to run right along that adjacent property like any other normal piece of property with a new water line, paid by me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my concern is the privacy fence, which is very much needed between the property development and the railroad track. But my concern is how we're tying this in to the individual ownerships of lots where they're going to have a responsibility for upkeep and maintenance, and not that it wind up on a county easement where the county would have a responsibility for the maintenance. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it won't be on any county easements, it'll be the total responsibility of the homeowners association to maintain it, and each member of the homeowners association will be a person that owns property in there. And the homeowners association would have the power under the covenants to assess -- to make assessments for any necessary maintenance or repairs. It won't ever be the county's responsibility. MR. TODD: Will the maker of the motion, Mr. Mayor, accept that as an amendment to the motion? MR. HANDY: I will. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. HANDY: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate the accommodation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. CLERK: Item 1: Mr. Anthony L. Johnson, Rae's Creek. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Anthony Johnson. We reside at 3626 Wrightsboro Road, Augusta, Georgia. Approximately four years ago a Class 1 dam was built behind my house. Since the building of this dam my family has suffered a tremendous amount of psychological problems. If anybody's familiar with the incident in Toccoa Falls a few years back, then they'll know what I mean. We asked the county, or we approached the county prior to this dam being built to question the engineers why this property that they were building this dam on, why was it going to be purchased by the county? Nobody could give me an answer; absolutely nobody. I'm going to let my wife talk. MRS. JOHNSON: We're wondering why our property wasn't bought out and property on the other side of the creek was that didn't get any water at all in the house or on their property. We had six feet of water in our house. Every time it rains we're up wondering if it's going to happen again. This last rain we had water come all up in the yard again. And what we want, we'd like for the county to, you know, tell us why we wasn't bought out, too, with this dam behind us. We're down by the dam and then by Wrightsboro Road. That's what caused our house to fill up with water the last time in '90. And we're just -- you know, why wasn't we bought out? Why is that dam behind us and why did they pay -- the people that lived next door to us who didn't get any water, they bought them out. And we just don't understand it. We want -- you know, we want to be bought out. We don't want to live in front of that dam. We don't want to have to worry if we're going to wake up in the middle of the night and have water in our house, if we're going to have to swim out again, if we're going to lose everything we own again. We just -- we want some answers as to why their property was bought and we weren't. And they never work that creek on my end. They don't do anything to try to keep it from flooding us. The people down on Chelsea Drive, that's because -- the reason they keep getting flooding is because the end up there where we're at, there's never anything done to it. Hasn't been. We sold an easement to Richmond County to work that creek and clean it up and do something. They have not been out there since they bought it, and they bought it, I believe it was '91 or '92; I'd have to go back and get my records. But I want something done. I'm tired of living in front of that thing. I can't give that property away. Nobody will buy it. Who wants it? Who wants something with a dam behind you? We can't sell the property. We want to be bought out. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add something to it, I think. The rain we had last week, the engineers came out and looked at it. They assured me that the dam wouldn't break. I'm sure that's their job to say that. I mean, I appreciate what they did. It's not going to stop the psychological effect that dam is having on us. Mr. Zetterberg is the only one that's come to our aid. I can't talk anymore. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, don't you have a -- Mr. Zetterberg is not here today, but I think Mr. Wall has a letter from Mr. Zetterberg. MR. WALL: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. He contacted me yesterday and had this letter delivered to my office and requested that I read this to the other members of the Commission-Council and to the Mayor. "Dear Jim: Regrettably, I must be out of town all this week and will be unable to participate in Tuesday's Commission meeting. I am writing this letter in support of Mr. and Mrs. Tony Johnson. The Johnsons live directly in front of the earthen dam constructed on Rae's Creek on Wrightsboro Road. After the recent rains and flooding, I visited with the Johnsons and found a number of troubling conditions. One, the water rose very near to the top of the dam and an unidentified county engineer told the Johnsons they never expected the water to raise that high. Two, a significant amount of water collects between the front of the dam and the Johnsons' house. The Johnsons reported that during the storm water appeared to be bubbling up from the ground. Their concern was the footings to the dam could give way and release the water directly on their house. Three, during construction of the dam a house owned by the O'Donnell family, that was situated adjacent to the dam, was purchased by the county. This house, in my opinion, was less threatened than either the Johnsons' house or a house owned by Paul Starnes, both which are located directly in front of the dam. I recommend the fair market value of these properties be established and that the county and you" -- directed to me -- "begin condemnation action. Sincerely, Rob Zetterberg, Commissioner." Mr. Mayor, if I might also, after I received this letter yesterday I made some inquiry concerning the situation -- not all that I hoped to. First of all, this dam was constructed after the Toccoa Falls incident that you referred to, and the State of Georgia instituted, following that incident, an inspection program. The dam out by your house, in fact, is scheduled to be inspected next week. It's inspected on an annual basis. It is a Class 1 dam, which means that it was constructed according to State specifications. It does have a core in it; there is no seepage through the dam; there are footings in the base of the dam to keep it from giving way; and it is used as a detention facility. The property that you own, I am told, was some six feet under water back in the 1990 flood. I'm also told that since that time your property has not been flooded. I also understand that the O'Donnell property, which was ultimately purchased or condemned, and I'm not sure which at this point, was not originally scheduled to be purchased. But at some point, because of the construction activity that was occurring there, a decision was made to purchase that property. Exactly the circumstances concerning the O'Donnell family, I don't have all that information right now. MR. JOHNSON: I don't either, sir. I agree, since the dam has been built the flood water in our yard has been somewhat less. I don't dispute that one bit, and I appreciated the engineers coming out and explaining that to me. It doesn't stop the psychological effect that that dam is having on my family. Every time it rains you can't stay -- you can't go to sleep, you've got to get up, you move around. It's horrible. You know, I tried desperately to sell my property after the dam was built. We couldn't give it away, sir. The county must know something, too. They came in and dropped my assessment to $19,000. You can't even buy a trailer for $19,000. You can't buy nothing for that. Why would they drop it so low? I mean, I've got the papers right here, Your Honor. It's unreal. I don't know why they bought O'Donnells' dam -- I mean, property. I can tell you what I was told by the engineers. If you'd like to me, I'd be happy to explain what they told me. That he was a Vietnam veteran; that he had threatened to kill the assistant attorney -- County Attorney and also Pete Calvin. I believe that's his last name, the engineer. I don't know. I'm a double Vietnam veteran, so, you know, I don't think me being a Vietnam veteran should have any weight whatsoever on the fact that the county should purchase my property. The property should have been condemned prior to the dam being built. I don't believe there's a Commissioner or anyone in this room that would want to live in that house, believe me, with the psychological effect of that dam directly behind you. You know, the engineers told me truthfully that the dam didn't have -- you know, stood a very slim chance of breaking. But in the same breath that same engineer told me, "But if it did you'd have more time to get out than you did last time." I can't live with that kind of answers. I mean, the same engineer that built the dam told me that. I'm sure the people in Toccoa Falls thought the same thing. I'm sure the engineers up there told them, too, it's a core dam, you know, the possibility of it breaking is slim to none. There's about 25 people laying in a grave up there because of something Mother Nature did, not something that a human being did. There's not a man in this room could tell me that that dam won't break. Anything will break. Anything can be destroyed by weather. All you have to do is watch the news, you'll see that. You know, I'd be happy to sell my property. I'd be even happy to take Pam and Doug's house in trade. They've never had no water on their property, Mr. Mayor and the Commissioners. They've never had no water on their property. None. And there's nobody in this room can tell me why that property was bought. Nobody. Nobody in county government can tell me why it was bought. And the houses that was directly in front of the dam, they wouldn't even talk to us about it. And I've tried -- you know, I talked to you Mr. Sconyers; I talked to Mr. Brigham. I tried to talk to Lee Neel. He was my Commissioner; he wouldn't have nothing -- he wouldn't say nothing to me. Absolutely nothing. Finally, thank God, we got a good County Commissioner in Rob Zetterberg. Not saying that the rest of y'all are not good, but in my district we've finally got somebody up there that will talk to us. And I'm not asking for a million dollars. But, you know, when you work and pay for your home and think that you're going to live in it the rest of your life, you know, it's not fair. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put in the form of a motion that we take this information that we just received and turn it over to our Public Works Department and give them authorization to contact whatever engineering firm they need to in order to try to find out some answers about this dam. I'm familiar with the O'Donnell property a little bit when I just first came on the Commission, and I remember when we was involved with that dam. The dam was built when I came in, and as he went along with his speech I realized where this particular property was located. I don't think we can sit here and make a decision based on listening to him and not getting our Engineering/Public Works Department into it and try to come up with a solution. And if we have to go out and necessarily look at purchasing the property -- well, we can't make that decision like this today, so we just have to accept this as information and turn it over to our Public Works Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Handy's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll second it if he'll amend it to using an engineering firm that's assigned to that creek. MR. HANDY: It doesn't matter about who we use. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you understand what he said? Use an engineering firm that's already attached to that creek. MR. HANDY: That's fine. I said it doesn't matter. Okay. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, I wonder if you wouldn't mind amending again your motion and let's put a time limit on it so that we can get back with Mr. Johnson and not let it drag out on this. MR. HANDY: How much time do you need, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I don't know. About 30 days? MR. HANDY: That'll be sufficient. The next regular meeting. The second meeting in April or the first meeting in April? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. HANDY: Okay, second meeting in April. That'll be fine. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my question is -- and I understand the gentleman's concerns 100 percent, but I'd just like to know roughly what dollar figure we're looking at as far as a buyout, and then what dollar figure we're looking at as far as going out there and doing the engineering study. We may pay more to do an engineering study than we'd pay to buy the place. MR. H. BRIGHAM: My question is along the same line, that -- I know we can assume that the attorney is going to be involved, but I'd like to see the attorney be brought on too, Mr. Handy, if you don't mind. I think we're assuming that he will be, but I think he ought to take kind of the lead on that since there could be some legal problems involved in this. MR. HANDY: That will be fine, Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham is that okay with you? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's certainly fine with me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, the O'Donnell property was purchased for the same reason this gentleman is requesting that this property be purchased, that there was reverse condemnation -- at least the O'Donnells felt -- by virtue of the dam being built there. And this is the first that I've heard from the Johnsons. I read my mail; I've never heard this story before. And I think that there was probably a more appropriate manner to deal with this, but being that we are here, I think we need to authorize the County Attorney to look at this, along with the other entities that we -- the individuals we've mentioned, and see whether we have a case of reverse condemnation. And if so, we simply condemn the property or buy the property. But I don't think this should go out as a message that we're going to buy everything on Rae's Creek. I think this is a separate issue than the flooding of Rae's Creek, Hollywood Subdivision, Hyde Park, et cetera. And I know there's some things that's going on, you know, even at the congressional level now that Rae's Creek has become a issue, to do a buyout where some of the same individuals two years ago when we debated Hyde Park didn't want to have a reverse mandate on the federal government to do something for local citizens. Well, I'll support the overall objective that they have going now as long as we put everybody into the same basket as far as dealing with the issue, but I just wanted to, you know, reemphasize this shouldn't be perceived as that we're going to buy out everything up and down Rae's Creek. This is a reverse condemnation case, as I see it, and I think the County Attorney and the individuals should look at it and we should take action from there. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to insert something if it's possible. I don't mind the study, engineers coming out and looking at it and everything. But I can tell you one thing, they did a study that cost the county $5,000 on the O'Donnells' property. It didn't do a bit of good; they still bought the property. I mean, you can check your records, they wasted $5,000 to do a study on the O'Donnells' property and they still bought the property. And I'm not asking for an ungodly amount of money. I want enough money that I can get out of that piece of property and buy me something, you know, so I don't have an ungodly mortgage bill. I know I'm going to have a mortgage, but, you know, we've lived -- my wife's owned that property for about 26/27 years and it's paid for. I mean, any way you look at it we're going to lose. Anyway you look at it. There's no way to gain out of it, I know that. I'm not asking to gain. I don't want Mr. Todd or anybody else in this room to think that if anybody was confronted with the same problem that we're confronted with, I hope the county buys their property, too, because I wouldn't want them to have to go through what we're going through, by any means. And I apologize for getting emotional, but I can't help it. You know, I worked for this county for a long time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I just want to, for clarification, let Mr. Johnson know that he made a statement earlier about his property has been decreased to $19,000. Well, this Commission doesn't have anything to do with that, that's the Tax Assessor, and I don't want you to think that we had something to do with it because of the flooding. MR. JOHNSON: I know that. I know that. I know that very well. MR. HANDY: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: But it just, you know, makes you feel bad to think that your property has decreased in value that much, you know, and nobody can explain to me why. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do we need the motion reread, gentlemen, or does everybody understand what we're voting on? MR. HANDY: I think everybody should be set. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, under Planning, Items 2 -- the Planning Commission recommends approval for Items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Handy. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like Item Number 8 pulled out of that for some discussion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll amend my motion to delete 8. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, that'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: So it's going to be Items 2, 4, 5 and 6. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 2: Z-96-20 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corp. on behalf of Wycliffe C. Capps, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 370 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Maddox Road and Wrightsboro Road. Item 4: Z-96-23 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Nola Hickey requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way of Crescent Drive, 326 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Crescent Drive (1514 Crescent Drive). Item 5: Z-96-24 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mac Johnson, on behalf of Grace Garrett Walker and Jack Hudson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Pine View Drive (3110 and 3118 Deans Bridge Road.) Item 6: Z-96-25 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a stipulation 'That if any additional structures are to be erected, a site plan must be submitted to the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission staff for approval,' a petition from Ralph S. Newman requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 1,666.38 feet southwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Parham Road and Gordon Highway.] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 3: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sonya Granger, on behalf of William Fulcher, requesting a change of zoning from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 686 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of North Leg (McDuffie Road Extension) and Milledgeville Road (3337 Milledgeville Road). MR. FULCHER: Mr. Chairman, I'm William Fulcher, and I would like to request permission to withdraw that petition at this time. And I've submitted correspondence to Mr. Wall and Mr. Patty to that effect. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. You want to withdraw without prejudice; right? MR. FULCHER: I don't care. Either way. MR. TODD: I'll so move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to withdraw, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 8: S-227 P - Pepperidge Pointe - Section I - Final Plat. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Georgia-Carolina Surveying & Engineering, on behalf of Pepperidge Pointe Development, Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval for Pepperidge Pointe, Section I. This section is an extension off Ramblewood Drive in Pepperidge Subdivision off the west side of Hwy. 25 and contains 44 lots. MR. FINDLAY: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jimmy Findlay. I represent that group of individuals, or corporation, that finds themselves owning that piece of property. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, did you have anything to say on this? MR. PATTY: No, sir. It was approved by all the review agencies. They've done everything that the development plan required them to do, and this is the final plat, which allows them to sell lots. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, I believe you asked to have this pulled? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Findlay, I have some questions that I would like to just get an answer on before I vote. We've been having some severe flooding problems and stuff like that in a number of these subdivisions, and I want to make sure that you're not proposing these lots in a flood plain and that we're okay on that. I just don't want to buy another white elephant. MR. FINDLAY: Well, as I stand here before you gentlemen, I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's in a flood plain if I knew something to the contrary. So far as I know and believe, there's no problem, and there's certainly been Corps of Engineers studies been done, engineering has been done. And, again, so far as I know and believe, there should not be a problem with that. Am I incorrect in any way, George? MR. PATTY: There are no 100-year flood plains on this property; no designated flood plains on this property. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. MAYS: George, I just wanted to ask on that, and it probably was in reference to the call that I had yesterday, and you all may have clarified it, but on the access coming out of that -- and I know, Jimmy, that's something that you all can't always control as developers, but in terms of -- will they still be using just the entrances that are going into Pepperidge at this point or will there be any access to accommodate this additional growth that's there? And that was one of the questions that I got some calls on the night before. MR. PATTY: I'm going to ask Joe Holland, the project engineer, to answer that. I don't see any other access on the plat. MR. HOLLAND: [Inaudible]. MR. PATTY: Just through that one entrance. MR. TODD: When you're saying one entrance, there's two entrances to Pepperidge; correct? MR. PATTY: That's right, there are two. MR. TODD: So there's two. And, you know, I don't have a serious problem with this development; I am somewhat concerned about what effect or impact that this will have down on the Butler Creek/Monte Carlo Drive side of it and whether there's -- and I would assume that our engineers, et cetera, have made storm drain drainage, or plans for that. And pretty much it's all on a hill area, isn't it, to my recollection? MR. PATTY: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. TODD: I don't have a serious problem with it. Certainly at some point we would hope to see a access or entrance from the Tobacco Road side of some of that development, and I understand that may be in the working at some future development as we go along. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. My question, I guess, is for Mr. Gooding or Mr. Murphy, whoever handles this particular situation or particular type situations. Are y'all convinced that this is not going to bring us another drainage problem, these 44 lots, or have you looked at the drawings on this? You have, Mr. Leiper? MR. LEIPER: Yes. There is -- they have complied with all the drainage requirements and the Richmond County ordinances. MR. POWELL: Okay. Are you convinced that this is not going to create us another drainage problem? MR. LEIPER: Yes. MR. POWELL: Okay. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a motion yet. We need a motion. MR. HANDY: I so move. MR. TODD: I'll second it, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to concur with the Planning Commission, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 9: Consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta- Richmond County Commission Council Meeting held on March 5, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Motion for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Henry Brigham -- seconded by who, please? CLERK: Todd or Handy, either one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Items 10 through 15 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on March 11, 1996. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 10 through 14 be approved, and Item 15 be -- because of the calls that I've had in reference to this, that maybe it be brought back and revisited by the committee at a later date. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 10: Consider approval of the CONCERN: Employee Assistance Program Contract. Item 11: Consider approval of the retirement of Mr. Harold E. Lents from the License & Inspection Department. Item 12: Consider approval of a recommendation to use Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton (HRH) as the Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator and the placement of all newly hired employees on the urban salary matrix. Item 13: Consider approval of a recommendation to establish priorities in hiring practices during the consolidation of departments process. Item 14: Consider approval of a recommendation to have all applicants complete employment applications at the Georgia Department of Labor, subject to all applications being forwarded to department heads or administrators.] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Items 16 through Item 33: 16 through 33 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on March 11, 1996. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, these items have already went through committee with approval, and I move that we accept this Engineering Services as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: So move -- second, rather. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 16: Consider approval of a recommendation to establish the solid waste user disposal fee for the urban services area at $27.00 per ton for the 1996 operation year and its adjustment thereafter on a yearly basis. Item 17: Consider approval of a rail crossing agreement between Richmond County and International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. Item 18: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 29 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, owned by Gustave H. Dugas, Jr. Item 19: Consider approval of counter-offer option on Project Parcel 36 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, owned by Staci E. Story a/k/a Staci E. Story Masline. Item 20: Consider approval of settlement agreement and releases of Richmond County with Ralph and Debra Bietz pertaining to White Owl Forest Drainage Improvement Project. Item 21: Consider approval to proceed with processing of Change Order #2 regarding a deduction for unused allowances regarding Heaton Stadium Construction. Item 22: Consider approval of a recommendation to modify the contract with the Augusta GreenJackets Club to allow reimbursement for the installation of running hot water in each of the four public restrooms. Item 23: Consider approval of a recommendation to institute mitigation measures regarding the loss of certain acreage involved in the Constructed Wetlands Treatment System. Item 24: Consider approval of a bid award to Caldwell Tank, Inc. for the Greenland Road Elevated Water Storage Tank. Item 25: Consider approval of a recommendation to let to bid the Glenn Hills Bridge Safety Fence Project. Item 26: Consider approval of a recommendation to approve the Capital Project Budget with funding and engineering proposal regarding the Sand Ridge Storm Drainage Improvements. Item 27: Consider approval of a recommendation to proceed with a study concerning the utilization of the Parking Deck at James Brown Blvd. and Greene Street. Item 28: Consider approval of the engineering and surveying proposal for the extension of the National Science Center Sanitary Sewer across Gordon Highway and the CSX Railroad. Item 29: Consider approval of a Final Change Order with Parsons Engineering Service, Inc. for additional services required for the Aquifer Study of the Kimberly Clark Well Field Development. Item 30: Consider approval of the ratification of emergency road repairs on Highway 25 near Howard Road due to rupture of water main. Item 31: Consider approval of the ratification of award of emergency bid on Highway 25 sewer and road repairs to Mabus Construction Company, Inc. Item 32: Consider approval of the proposal from Hudson Grassing Company regarding participation in the application of agricultural lime to land application sites. Item 33: Consider approval of the bid award for emergency repairs to Boy Scout Road. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Items 34 through 41 were all approved by the Finance Committee in meeting March 11, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make -- at least, Mr. Mayor, I'd like for Number 41 to come out and be dealt with separately. MR. HANDY: And also Number 39. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, as chairman of the committee, we recommend the rest of them be passed by consent. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd, that all items -- 34 through 40, with the exception of 39 and 41. Discussion on those items, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 34: Consider approval of a recommendation for a refund from the Richmond County Board of Tax Assessors for Reaby Shepherd. Item 35: Consider denial of a request to abate the outstanding taxes for the years 1989 and 1990 on property now owned by St. Stephens Holiness Temple. Item 36: Consider approval of a recommendation to waive a penalty as requested by Robert R. Collier of Hunters Run Limited Partnership. Item 37: Consider approval of a recommendation to waive a penalty as requested by Kathy Rafoth. Item 38: Consider approval of a recommendation to install an ATM machine in the lobby of the Municipal Building. Item 40: Consider approval of a recommendation for the abatement of outstanding taxes against certain properties.] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 39: Consider approval of a recommendation of a 3 1/2 percent cost of living increase for the 1945 Pension. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled off after some discussion with some of the members of that plan, and based on the recommendation of our Finance Chairman, who recommended 5 percent. And I'd like to put in the form of a motion that we accept the recommendation from our Comptroller to give 5 percent instead of the 3 1/2 percent. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second it to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think anytime that you're increasing a cost of living for a pension plan, as trustees we need to know what the actuary is saying about it. And, basically, I would want to see that report. I haven't seen a report authorizing or okaying 3 1/2 percent or 5 percent, and I'd like to see that. And I'm not ready to support it or vote on it knowing that we, in the past, have delegated our authority to a committee, a retirement committee it's so-called. And I know that we're not, per se, covered per RICO, et cetera, like some of the union pension plans, but I think the pension plan is something we got to take serious and that we got to, if we're going to make a decision, we got to make it based on financial facts which the actuary -- if I'm pronouncing it right -- is paid for and paid to do versus Finance or on the whim of whether I'd like to give individuals a 5 or 15 or 25 percent increase. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Comptroller McKie. The people who are involved in this '45 pension plan, it was recommended at a 5 percent increase. Are the funds available to give this 5 percent increase? MR. MCKIE: Yes, sir. We do not have the written actuarial report in yet. However, we've spoken with the actuary and the excess funds are approximately $1.4 million, and the assumptions in the plan are based on a 5 percent increase. MAYOR SCONYERS: Say that again, Mr. McKie, where everybody can hear you, please. MR. MCKIE: The assumptions in the actuarial plan are based on a 5 percent increase every year. So each time we go under that, then that adds more excess funds to the pension plan. And currently there's roughly $1.4 million in excess in the plan, so there's sufficient funds to do this. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, as I understand, it's a 5 1/2 cap, but what was brought up in committee concerning this was that out in industry the yearly increases are running between 2 and 4 percent. And we just felt if we're going to run government like a business, as businesses are being run, that a 3 1/2 percent would be a good compromise with what we can expect out there in the work force. We believe that 5 percent would probably be above what the rest of the population would be getting as far as yearly increases. I'd recommend we stay with what the committee arrived at. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I want to ask a question. About how many people are involved in this? Then I want to make a comment if I could. MR. MCKIE: I believe there's about 15. We're not talking about a lot of people. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It seems to me if we have 15 people that's going to share in this amount, then we ought not to try to do anything else but help them. If they put it in, for the most part, that they should be the ones to reap the reward on it. I suggest that the 5 percent is not -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, another question for Mr. McKie. This retirement fund doesn't cost the county anything; am I correct? MR. MCKIE: Yes, sir, that's correct. The excess funds have been available for a number of years. I don't think we've made a contribution since about 1990. MR. POWELL: All of these funds that have been acquired then have been put in by the people who are in the pension plan; am I correct on that? MR. MCKIE: Well, no, sir. There were matching funds put in by both pensioners and county, plus interest earned on those investments, so it's a joint contribution plan. MR. POWELL: It's a joint contribution plan. If all 15 of these people who are left in this plan retire today, would there be enough money to -- MR. MCKIE: Yes, sir. That's the 1.4 million excess, so they could be paid out today and you'd have basically that much left over. MR. POWELL: And what happens if this money should not -- should all this not be spent on the retirement plan, where does all this money come back to? MR. MCKIE: Well, it stays in the plan until the last person dies. MR. POWELL: Okay. And then what happens to it? MR. MCKIE: And then it would go back to the government. MR. POWELL: Okay. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. McKie, how much money are we talking about? MR. MCKIE: The difference between 5 and 3 1/2 percent? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. MR. MCKIE: I'd say it'd be probably less than 15,000 a year. I don't have an exact figure, but I mean, this is not a big amount of money we're talking about. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I wonder whether Mr. Handy would accept an amendment to the 5 percent motion, that based on the receiving of the actuary report. I have a serious problem making decisions when I don't have the facts. And, you know, I'm sure that this committee and other individuals have talked to them, but if you had worst case scenario, I'd want to know how this fund is invested, what's the possibility of taking a major hit that would possibly cost the county or having to, you know, kick funds in, et cetera. And I think all those factors has got to be considered. I think we have a hefty fund here, a hefty investment, I'm sure, but I just need the facts. MR. HANDY: I'll accept that, Mr. Todd. And also I'd like to say, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. McKie, Mr. Todd's been asking these questions ever since one coming up, so the next time you bring up a retirement or anything, make sure you have all the information ready for him. I appreciate it. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion -- first of all, does everybody understand what we're voting on? Do we need the motion reread, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like it reread, please. MS. WATSON: The motion was for approval of a 5 percent cost of living increase for the 1945 pension, subject to receipt of a written actuarial report. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all understand that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 41: Approval of a recommendation for a bid award to MLS regarding shop maintenance. Approved by the Finance Committee March 11, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested this one be pulled because we have a protest letter from one of the bidders, and I haven't seen a response from our staff in writing to that protest letter. Now, I know there's been some statements made that we're comparing apples and oranges here, but I think that the gist of the letter, as I read it, that the -- one of the bidders felt that they were bidding on apples and oranges when the other bidder was bidding on oranges. And I think we've come a long ways by going out for bids, it's the proper thing to do, but I think that we shouldn't have it hanging out there as we approve this thing -- the concern and protest letter. I'm concerned to the point that Purchasing has been involved, et cetera. It seems that we say that we want to put everybody on the same playing field, and I'd just like to have reassurance that everybody's on the same playing field as far as the bid process. And I'm going to make a motion that we table it for one meeting until our staff can prepare the response in writing, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion? MR. TODD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: You're right, excuse me, Mr. Todd. There's no -- it's a non-debatable motion. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 4-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got 4 to 4. Who didn't vote? Did I miss somebody's hand? CLERK: Mr. Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, that's not enough to table or not to table. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's exactly right. We go on with it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It would take six. I suggest we go on with the agenda, unless somebody else wants to make a motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that would put this back on the Comptroller. I think that what Mr. Todd's concerns are, and I couldn't discuss it, but I think Mr. McKie has already addressed your concerns. And I'd like to hear from him, if it's all right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. MCKIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Powell. A copy of that letter, the protest letter, plus our response, was given to the Finance Committee. Of course, it was addressed to you, Mr. Mayor. We addressed each of the issues in there. The primary issue was the objection by TECOM that they bid on vehicles and equipment and MLS did not, and that was an outright untruth. Not only did it state very clearly in the MLS bid that they bid on vehicles and equipment, but that question was asked at the pre-bid meeting, did everyone understand; did everyone understand that the list of vehicles and equipment, including an RFP, were all inclusive. They stated at that time they did. When the bids were opened, we made sure that everyone there bid on the vehicle list and understood that we were talking about 1,550 vehicles plus equipment. So it was just -- the letter was simply not true. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept the Finance Committee's recommendation. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make sure that we are complying with our bidding process like Mr. Todd asked, and it would not hurt, if everything is in order, to wait until another meeting. Because if the bidding is okay and what Mr. McKie said and everything is satisfied, then next week would not make any difference. This contract doesn't run out until after April the 15th anyway, so -- our next meeting will be before April the 15th, and it would not hurt if we just make sure we get it clarified to make sure we're all together and that's all. That's something we need to think about. One meeting will not hurt it. We're not planning on not -- denying the thing, we just want to make sure that all the questions that was raised are answered properly, that's all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the problem that I have, you know, is trust, you know? At what point do certain individuals regain my trust. I was told approximately a year ago that when the MSI come up from Columbus, Georgia, and signed a -- they was in a bid process down there and signed a sweetheart deal with this county, that they were a sole-source bidder. And that's -- it was legal in that sense. We had the situation, you know, occurring this year where we were going to go out and sign a contract extending the county contract and adding on to it the city contract without going out for bid. And even after we forced it out for bid -- this Commission unanimously, I believe, voted to force it out for bid. We have a protest letter coming in, and there's things that's been said that's not in this protest letter to the extent that individuals from our government helped prepare the bid for this contract, or possibly, visa versa, MSI helped prepare the specs. And I have some legitimate concerns here and, gentlemen, all I'm requesting is that we get it in writing from our staff. You know, I'm not on the Finance Committee. I have the privilege to go to those meetings; I didn't option to do that. But there should be a response letter in this blue book in reference those charges. And I cannot make an objective vote on -- and uphold the bid statute of this state without having the facts or having it in writing. And it's not good enough for individuals to verbally give it to me when the complaint or the protest is in writing. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute motion to postpone this until our next regular meeting, after we get written response back from the letter that our Comptroller sent out to the other bidder, to make sure everything is in order. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion on that? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say that, you know, I agree with what Mr. Todd is saying, but it looks like in order to move on from this -- and I think he should have all of that information, but is it -- if he gets the information, and I don't know if Mr. Handy would approve this, but if he gets the information, why is it necessary to bring it back to this group? If the information is favorable, why can't we move on from that? And whatever is gotten there, that they can go on and act on this at that time. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would accept that as an amendment in my motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't see what the big debate is over. We're trying to award the contract to the lowest bidder meeting specs, and if what we're trying to do is throw out the low bidder so we can award it to a higher bidder, I think we'd have to have a reason to do that. And I don't understand why we're having a big debate over what the letter said, unless there's been some challenge to the integrity of the bid process, and I don't see that particularly in the letter that I got from TECOM. Now, maybe I'm misreading this stuff. I don't think I'm going to support the amendment to the motion. If Mr. Powell will accept it, I'll be kind enough to second it as his second, but I don't -- I'm not real happy with it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That was not yours, that was -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was somebody else's? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I thought it was mine to start with. CLERK: To refer back -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, but that's the substitute motion. CLERK: It's a substitute. MR. HANDY: We can't have two substitute motions running without clearing one of them out of the way. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we don't have but one substitute motion. MR. HANDY: Okay, I didn't accept Mr. Beard's then. We just have one substitute motion. So we're going to leave it as it is until the next meeting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, the substitute motion is first. Why don't you read the substitute motion so there won't be any doubt in anybody's mind as to what we're voting on. MS. WATSON: It would be to postpone approval of the bid award to MLS until the next regular meeting, with a response letter to be provided to all the Commissioners. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand the motion? MR. BRIDGES: I didn't hear that, Mr. Mayor. MS. WATSON: Okay. To postpone the approval of bid award to MLS until the next regular meeting, with a response letter to be provided to all the Commissioners. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you hear that? MR. BEARD: No, I didn't. I'm sorry. Can you read it again? MS. WATSON: Sure. It would be to postpone the approval of the MLS award until the next regular meeting, and a response letter will be provided to all the Commissioners. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was Mr. Handy's motion. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll go back to the original motion, which is Mr. Powell's motion. Do we need Mr. Powell's motion read now, which would basically be to award the contract; is that correct? MS. WATSON: To accept the recommendation from the Finance Committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all hear the rest of that? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I thought that we killed the other motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: 5 and 4 doesn't kill it. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. Is Mr. Mays' hand up? MR. MAYS: I vote present. MOTION FAILS 4-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've still got a deadlock, gentlemen, so I guess -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I suggest we go on with the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that's the only thing we can do, gentlemen. CLERK: Items 42 through 48 were all approved in the Public Service Committee March 12, 1996. MR. MAYS: Items 42 through 48 were approved in the Public Services Committee, and I make a motion that they be approved. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors to any of these licenses -- oh, that's the wrong committee. Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself. MR. BRIDGES: What was the question, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is there any objectors to any of these licenses. MR. BRIDGES: I'm going to object to Sunday sales on Number 44. MR. POWELL: Likewise, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: What was that again? MR. BRIDGES: Object to Sunday sales on Item Number 44. MR. POWELL: I'd like to object also. Vote no on 44. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 42: Consider approval of a request by John Taylor for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with J's Place located at 2979 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. Item 43: Consider approval of a request by Man Yoon Hong for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Hong's Miracle Market located at 2301 Lumpkin Road. Item 44: Consider approval of a request by Ronald R. Maher to add wine to his current liquor, beer and dance hall license for the establishment known as VFW Post 649, located at 2430 Windsor Spring road. This establishment also has a Sunday sales license. Item 45: Consider approval of a request by David F. Sandbach for a six month extension on opening the business known as the Pumping Station located at 3546 Deans Bridge Road. This request is due to a delay in road construction by the Department of Transportation. Application approved on October 10, 1995. Item 46: Consider approval of a Resolution to authorize the Chairman-Mayor to file applications for Federal Transit Administration funding and to file necessary documents and assurances as part of the application. Item 47: Consider approval of sealed bids received February 22, 27 and 29 for the purchase of airport equipment. Item 48: Consider approval of a request to establish a Transit Advisory Committee.] MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE "NO" ON ITEM 44. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 49: To consider approval of settlement of claim of Steven Gibbons, who was injured at the recycling facility in North Augusta, South Carolina. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move if it's in line with what the County Attorney wants to do. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 50: Consider approval of settlement of workers' compensation claim of Marion C. Raborn. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. WALL: This will be on a no liability stipulation for $13,000. I think the minutes need to reflect that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 51: Consider approval of a resolution to adopt a Mission Statement and to provide the citizens of Richmond County with a statement of the beliefs of the August-Richmond County Commission Council. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by who, please? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: It was seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we hear from Mr. Carstarphen? I think it would be appropriate to what the -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that need to be read, Jim? MR. WALL: It is in the book, and if the Mayor desires, it would be appropriate to do so, although I think it's been available to the press if they wanted to see a copy of it. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor, I would only commend the Commission for its hard work. I think it's an excellent product, and I have copies of it for any members of the media or members of the Commission who would like to have a copy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 52 is a consideration of approval of a request from the Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services regarding an agreement for maintenance in lieu of rent. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move to get it on the floor for discussion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. I guess what I need to know is that when we're talking about maintenance work, we're talking about repairs versus the housekeeping maintenance, I would assume. MR. WALL: That's correct, Mr. Todd. And this is an annual agreement that is brought before the Commission each year. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. No further questions, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Wall. You say this is annual. Are we agreeing to this every year or is this the first year that we're agreeing to maintenance in lieu of rent? MR. WALL: No, this is a -- this has previously been agreed to. It's been agreed to for a number of years. I can't tell you when the first such agreement was entered into, but for the last several years we've used this same procedure. MR. BRIDGES: So the Department of Family and Children Services maintains the building rather than pay us rent? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I guess from the County Attorney. The Public Facilities Board, this meets their approval? Have they had the opportunity to meet on this, or has there been any changes since last year? MR. WALL: No changes since last year. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 53: An Amendment to a Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta regulating the sale, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages within Augusta- Richmond County; to provide for the operations of Brewpubs and Breweries under certain conditions; to establish license fees for Brewpubs and Breweries; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is the second reading of this ordinance establishing a license category for brewpubs and breweries. $500 would be the license fee for each category. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we approve it. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 54: An Amendment to a Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta regulating the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages within Augusta- Richmond County; to repeal conflicting provisions of the Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta providing, inter alia, for the license and regulation of the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is the second reading of the ordinance dealing with special events. And, again, this is from the original version, but it was changed prior to the first reading. We've gone to a $25 fee for both non-profits and for-profit organizations. We've had at least two meetings -- I'm trying to think if there was a third one dealing with this -- with members of the affected industry, and it meets with their approval, too. I recommend approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second, please? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 55: An Ordinance granting permission and consent to Georgia Power Company, its successors, lessees and assigns, to occupy the streets and public places of the City of Augusta-Richmond County in constructing, maintaining, operating and extending poles, lines, cables, equipment, and other apparatus for transmitting and distributing electricity, and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could we take 56 also. They're similarly the same. CLERK: Item 56: An Ordinance granting permission and consent to Jefferson Electric Membership Corporation, its successors, lessees and assigns, to occupy the streets and public places of the City of Augusta- Richmond County in constructing, maintaining, operating and extending poles, lines, cables, equipment and other apparatus for transmitting and distributing electricity, and for other purposes. (Second Reading) MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, I notice in both of these -- I'm hoping it was a typo. One of them said 5 years and one of them said 50 years. It's supposed to be 5 years; isn't it? MR. WALL: No, sir, it's supposed to be 50. MR. BRIDGES: In the Jefferson Electric it says five on the numerical. MR. WALL: Oh, it says 50, but -- okay. I'll correct it. MAYOR SCONYERS: We wouldn't grant anybody a 50-year franchise, would we? MR. WALL: Well, when this came up originally, they have 36 years remaining under the existing franchise agreement with the City of Augusta, and what they -- this came up in the discussions with Georgia Power Company, that they would be willing to agree to a 50-year franchise agreement county-wide without any dispute. So, yes, it was given up to 36-franchise -- 36-year franchise that's already in place and would be going to a 50-year franchise agreement for both Georgia Power Company and Jefferson EMC. MAYOR SCONYERS: Doesn't that sound like a long time, though, gentlemen? MR. WALL: A long time. MAYOR SCONYERS: It sure is. 50 years is a long time, I'll tell you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do we have a motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, not yet. We need a motion. MR. TODD: I'm going to so move that we do it for 50 years. This is part of the franchise agreement. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, it's quite common, isn't it, that between governments and between governments and entities like franchises that you do 50-year agreements? I may be wrong and the County Attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you have a option of doing the -- one is 30 -- or one is 40 maybe, or 30, and the other is 50, and you can actually get a percentage more by going to 50. Does that have anything to do with it, Mr. Wall, on the 4 percent versus a 3 percent? MR. WALL: I'm not sure insofar as the shorter time periods. I mean, they were paying 4 percent under the existing franchise agreement, which had an additional 36 years to run. And, again, rather than doing it for 36 years, they were willing to commit to a 50-year term at the 4 percent, which was the maximum amount. And that is the same franchise agreement that was presented to Jefferson EMC. MR. TODD: Jefferson EMC has also agreed to the 50? MR. WALL: Well, they have not formally agreed. There is a board meeting tomorrow, at which time I expect them to agree to it. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? 50 years is a long time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 57: An Ordinance to establish water and sewer rates for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Water and Sewer System; to establish an industrial waste surcharge; 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. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I thought as far as the date goes we settled on April the 1st as far as the ordinance becoming effective. MR. WALL: That is correct. And I have a revised ordinance where I've made that change, and it did not get in the book. I would also point out that subsequent to the last meeting when this water rate was approved, if you look at the commercial rate structure, there was not intended to be any minimum charge. They would pay $6, commercial users, in the 5/8 inch; and the 3/4 inch would pay $6 plus 97 cents per 1,000 gallons; and on the sewer charge would pay $9.90 plus $1.10 per 1,000 gallons. And Mr. Hicks brought that to my attention after the last reading, and I provided -- prepared a revised ordinance. MR. BRIDGES: So that's in the book, though, right? I mean, I'm looking -- that correction is in the book? It's what's in the resolution in the book? MR. WALL: No, sir. If you'll look at the top of Page 2, if you'll delete the first line on the meter size -- MR. BRIDGES: I understand. Okay. MR. WALL: -- and delete the reference to greater than 3,000 gallons, so that it would just read 5/8 inch to 3/4 inch, without any reference to any gallons usage, would be the $6 plus the 97 cents. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do we have a motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Not yet. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we accept this as the second reading, and the amendments. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I still think we ought to make this retroactive to the 1st of July, and do not plan on voting for this ordinance. The 1st of January, I mean, not the 1st of July. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Item 58: Approval of a resolution from the Children in Youth Coordinating Council Grant Application for a local Community Enrichment/Outreach Program. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is a grant. It's a flow through grant, and it's an order. This was done last year, and I recommend approval and ratification of this. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion from Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second, please? MR. TODD: I'll second to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, please? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there any county matching funds or city matching funds? MR. WALL: No, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. No further questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: One other question. I would like to ask, would this preclude any other non-profit group from applying for such a grant or this kind of gives a monopoly to this group? I would hope that it would not. MR. WALL: I have no reason to believe that it does, but I can't truthfully answer that question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: What do they do? MR. WALL: I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. MR. KUHLKE: Is this just federal funds or state funds that flow through? MR. WALL: State funds that flow through. MR. KUHLKE: But you don't know what they do? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Looks to me to be federal funds. MR. HANDY: It comes through the juvenile services. One of the juvenile officers is handling this program, and we on the county side approved it for them last year. It's just a pass-through and it's for this particular probation officer to work with troubled youth, over and above his regular duties. I could get you in touch with the person who's handling it and maybe he can enlighten you of the program, if you'd like. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I just was curious. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe this is a federal program, the way it looks to me. It says the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program. MR. WALL: Well, it's a state agency that -- I'm not sure. I thought it was a state agency. MR. HANDY: It may be a federal program, but state is handling it, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 59 is to receive an update from the Project Manager. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I'll try to be brief. First, with regard to the mission statement process, you will recall that at our last informal working session you expressed a desire to schedule an additional working session for, I believe, it was April 18th, at which time you asked me as Consolidation Project Manager to bring you initial recommendations on the overall structure of the new government, which I have begun working on and will make that a very high priority. You will recall that the staff from the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, which worked with us on the mission statement, also has indicated a willingness and an availability to work with the Commission to take that mission statement and to move into setting goals and priorities. I have had a fax from Mrs. Ashley at the Institute of Government today indicating that they have available Monday, April 1st, as a date which they could work with the Commission if you desire to do so, in addition to the April 18th date, which I intend to ask them to be present at as well. I simply bring this to you for your information. April 1st is a fairly quick date, and it would be my intention, unless you instruct me otherwise, to focus on the April 18th date and not ask you to meet again on April 1st. But I did not want to do that without sharing that with you. Do you have any direction? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to suggest that we meet April the 18th or sometime thereafter. If April 18th is already set in concrete, then I guess I'll have to live with that date. We're spending an awful lot of time for part-time individuals, including this meeting which was changed back to 2:00 o'clock to please the media, I guess. And we agreed that we were going to do them at 6:00 p.m., and I'm somewhat concerned about managing my time. And I think one day would be good enough, that we'd meet on the April 18th date and we would take care of the people's business on that date and possibly meet another date in the evening or weekends to finalize it. And that's just a thought, and I'm going to put it in the form of a motion that we don't meet on April the 1st, that we meet on April the 18th to do this. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion. MR. CARSTARPHEN: You will recall that the April 18th meeting, while it is an official meeting, it is a working session in which you were scheduled and which you had asked that we focus our time on the structure of the new government. MR. TODD: Yes. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll be happy to convey that back to the Institute of Government. I don't know whether that was in the form of a motion. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it was. And I think that if there's something that we need to look at or work on between now and then, that they can simply fax it to us or send it down for our review. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, that's the 17th, not the 18th. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Excuse me, I stand corrected. The 17th. MR. TODD: Well, I'll amend my motion to that effect. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I amend my second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Do we have any discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Bill, is that scheduled for a whole day meeting or a half-day session? Do you know right now, Bill? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I believe it was a half day, finishing up by 1:00 p.m. Starting at 8:30 a.m. and finishing up by 1:00 p.m. MR. MAYS: I was just asking because I know we've been in somewhat direct and indirect sponsorship doing, you know, Olympic box offs, and you're looking right smack in the middle of that period of it being here on an NBC televised event. So, I mean, some of us are going to have to cut away if it's going to be a full day event. I know I will. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding we're talking Wednesday, April the 17th. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. POWELL: And the time is from 8:30 to 1:00 o'clock? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Correct. MR. MAYS: What days, Tommy, do we have -- MR. BOYLES: Mr. Mays, the banquet is that night, Wednesday night, so you would not be involved until probably 6 o'clock Wednesday night. MR. MAYS: That's why I was asking was it going to be an all day or a half-day situation. Because if you start talking about 6 o'clock, if you're going to be there till 3:00 or 4:00, then it does get to be an all day affair because you wouldn't be coming back home. MR. BOYLES: We would probably need him, as chairman, probably at lunch time at the latest. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. At the meeting of March 5th you will recall I made four requests of you. You acted on that first request on March 5th by approving the resolution implementing Section 13-F of the Consolidation Act. The second item that I presented to you on that date was a memorandum recommending a procedure for the selection and appointment of directors of new consolidated departments. I asked at that time that you give me feedback and suggestions on that, and I thank the members of the Commission who took the time to call and discuss this with me. A number of suggestions came back to me. I sent to you by fax yesterday a revised procedure, and subsequent to sending that out had further feedback from the Commission, which I again thank you for. That revised procedure recognizes the fact that the interim administrators may themselves be candidates for some of the positions that are affected by the recruitment process and, therefore, removes the interim administrators from that process and focuses that process on the Consolidation Project Manager, the Mayor, and the Human Resources Director as staff support, not as a participant in recommending but in providing the staff support which is necessary for a recruitment and selection process. Some members of the Commission indicated that perhaps in addition to the Mayor someone else representing the Commission itself might also participate in that process along with the Consolidation Project Manager. I am very comfortable with that, and if the Commission sees fit to identify the Mayor Pro Tem or someone else representing the Commission to participate with the Mayor and the Consolidation Project Manager, with staff support from the Human Resources Director, in evaluating candidates and bringing recommendations for action to the full Commission, then I am certainly comfortable with that. If each of you would like copies of the revised procedures of yesterday, I have copies with me and would be happy to distribute them. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, just one question. If the Human Resource person is on this committee, does that preclude him or does that assume that he's already in a position in one of those slots, or would that preclude him from being a part of the process? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, I think certainly you would want to consider him as a candidate for the permanent Human Resource Director position. That is the only position I would anticipate an application from him on. The role he would play in this process would be one of staff support only, which means he would handle the correspondence, scheduling the meetings, doing the staff work that would be required to support a recruitment and recommendation process. But in answer to your question, the assumption in my mind was that the interim Human Resource Director, if he is a candidate for any position, would be a candidate only for the Human Resource Director position. And when it came to that process, we could exclude him from everything. MR. H. BRIGHAM: But at that point, or at this point, if this is accepted today, he could then become a candidate for only that position, not one of the others if he so chooses? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, actually I think that's probably up to him and you, but that was my assumption, that he would be only interested in the position which he currently occupies. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I concur with most of this, but I would just like to add another little twist to this to see if possibly it could be accepted and put in this. I definitely think that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem may have a part in this, but I was just wondering if we could not also go outside of the government and possibly look at the possibility of possibly getting possibly four or three other management people or personnel people in the community to add to this committee, and with the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem working with them and the Project Manager, and only if the Human Resource person is used as a support person, and I think that's all that he should be used as is as a support person. I'm just wondering if this could be considered, and maybe this would satisfy the community and also our elected officials if we couldn't add just a couple more people from the community and have some community representation on the committee that is going to do the selecting process, and after that maybe giving the three --let's say three top candidates, presenting them to the Council for voting upon and selection. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I support Mr. Beard's concept, and I haven't talked to Mr. Carstarphen, I've talked to Mr. Beard briefly, and this is the way that we went out and recruited the Human Resource Director, Mr. Etheridge. We used professionals from personnel departments throughout the county. I think it's important that those citizens, or at least the citizens of Richmond County -- I think that if we're going to get away from the good old boy system -- and some of you don't have a problem with it, and I do, and maybe, you know, I shouldn't. But if we're going to get away from the good old boy system, we've got to get the politics out of the selection methodology. And I would seriously -- I would probably buy into what we're putting together and the combination of things, but I seriously would like to see the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and the Human Resource Director pick four to six individuals from personnel departments throughout the county to do this, and no politicians be involved until we come down to the point where by law we got to pick one from the final three and make announcements who that is. And I think that's when the political should, you know, interfere or be involved and not in the selection of the narrowing it down to three. I think that put us right into the good old boy politics of things, and I would certainly hope that we could be objective in that. So I'm going to make a motion that we -- that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and the Human Resource Director pick at least six individuals from the private sector that have expertise in personnel, to bring the selections down to three, and use the staff and the resources of the Human -- the Personnel Department to do that. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Any discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I've got one question. In this time of downsizing governments and all this, if we go outside and we advertise for all these new positions -- well, in the bill it plainly states that no employee will lose his job. Are we downsizing or are we upsizing by doing this? That's my question. MR. BEARD: Well, to possibly, since I suggested all of this, possibly the answer to Mr. Powell's question is that I think we would be downsizing. I don't see any addition there. The only thing that I was asking in this was include the community involvement in this. I have no problem with the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem participating in the selection process, but I just think that it would be nice to have the community represented in this also. So this doesn't, to me, take away from anything, it's just making the selection process open and giving the citizens a chance to participate, that's all. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with what Mr. Beard's proposed. I think it would be good for the citizens to become involved in the process. But what I would like to see is that the -- Mr. Carstarphen, the Mayor, and the Mayor Pro Tem be the one that actually picks the three that you bring back to the Commission rather than the citizens committee being an actual voting body. I think they can bring recommendations and help with the expertise that they have. That would be my only objection to what's proposed. Other than that, I could support that. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to exclude the citizens from the process at all, and I think that if you want to set up a subcommittee or something on that order of getting a recommending body, I have no problem. But ultimately this government is responsible. Ultimately the Mayor and this Council are going to have to answer to the people. And I think if we make a bad decision, we're going to be held accountable. And also one other question I have is, in Mr. Beard's motion, who is going to pick this appointment committee of citizens, or how are we going to go about that process? That's my question. MR. BEARD: Mr. Powell, I would think that the Project Manager, the Mayor, and the Mayor Pro Tem would get together. I think that was stated, that they could get together and make a selection of professionals, possibly professionals in the personnel department. We have many of those available throughout the county. And you may not want that many involved, but I would think you would want from three to four people involved in that process, along with the other three members who would be representing the government, and basically I see nothing wrong with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Before we vote on it, Mr. Carstarphen, we are not necessarily voting on your full recommendation on the selection committee -- I mean, selection process, right now; are we not? The motion is only for the structure of the committee. The reason I say that is that there is -- I have a little -- I'd like a little bit more information in your Section 3 in regards to retirement agreements and so forth. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We can divide that up and just act on the committee structure now, and then come back and discuss that if you'd like. You would actually be voting on Step 1 and Step 2 at this time, but then we'll discuss Step 3 before you -- excuse me, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, but not the last paragraph. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand what we're voting on now? MR. POWELL: I'd like the motion reread, Mr. Chairman. MS. WATSON: The motion was for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and the Project Manager to choose at least six outside human resource individuals, to bring a selection of three individuals to the full Commission. And then Mr. Carstarphen said that you would actually be approving Steps 1 through 3 of his presentation, omitting the last paragraph. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, to the motion, can you make an amendment that the actual three that are doing the voting will be the Mayor, Mr. Carstarphen, and the Vice-Mayor? Is that acceptable? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm the maker of the motion and that amendment is not acceptable. If we do that, then we just as well forget about the committee and let the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and Mr. Carstarphen go out and bring us back three candidates for each position, and that's not the intent of this motion. The intent of this motion is to de-politicize. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The portion of the memorandum which Mr. Kuhlke asked that we hold out and discuss further involves a final paragraph which, if you like, I will read to you and then we can discuss it. The paragraph reads as follows: "In those incidents in which the selection process results in the necessity to reassign an individual currently occupying a department head position, the Consolidation Project Manager, Mayor" -- you might add Mayor Pro Tem -- "and Human Resource Director and Committee will consider the interests of both the new government and the former department head in determining the most appropriate new assignment for the individual involved. In addition to appointment to a new management responsibility, the process may also include the option of a consultant contract for an indefinite period and/or negotiation of a retirement agreement. Any such retirement agreements will be reviewed and approved by the Human Resource Director and Attorney. All decisions concerning the reassignment of former department heads will be made by the full Commission-Council following recommendations from the Consolidation Project Manager, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Human Resources Director and Committee." MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, when you talk about a retirement plan, are you talking about a retirement plan that would be consistent throughout the whole government? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. In order to comply with the legal requirements that we would be operating under, and to ensure that the government would not be subject to litigation, I think that any such option should be available for a certain period of time and should be uniform in its application to all those who choose to avail themselves of it. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And my second question is, it would appear to me that that plan should not -- should be reviewed by the attorney and the head of the Human Resources, but should be approved by this body. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I agree and would be very comfortable with that, yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve this last paragraph, with the changes as far as the Mayor Pro Tem, Committee, and those two items that I just mentioned. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- and a second by Mr. Brigham. Mr. Wall, did you want to say something, sir? MR. WALL: Well, yes. Just so that there's no misunderstanding, I mean, even though that there would have to be consistency, you have individuals that fall under different retirement plans. I mean, the city has several, and I'm not sure how many, and the county has several, and different individuals are going to fall under different retirement plans, so I just want to be sure everybody is aware of that. MR. CARSTARPHEN: My point, Jim, I think is not so much our standard retirement plans, but if there are some --if there is a recommendation that comes back whereby we may want to provide some incentives for people to retire, whatever that may be, that they all be consistent. It would be outside of our regular retirement plan if that comes about. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have somewhat some concern. You know, I think at the retreat I certainly encouraged buyout packages, et cetera, but my concern is on this consultant situation. And we're talking indefinite, and I think we've got to have a time cap on how long we would keep a consultant on. I don't think that we can afford to go indefinite. And I certainly can't support the motion in the form that it was made, and I don't think we addressed the consultant side of it. And I would hope that we would seriously look at what we're doing, the possible negative impact. Anything that we're doing here, gentlemen, should have, from a personnel cost, a positive impact for the county taxpayers, not a negative impact. MR. CARSTARPHEN: If I might comment just briefly. My purpose in using that indefinite period was a recognition that the Commission may want to place a limit on the amount of time involved. You may want to give that some thought. From my point of view at this point in time, and in other experiences that I have had and been made aware of, a period of up to 12 months is not out of the question insofar as other similar situations that I'm aware of, but that could be tailored to meet the individual circumstances. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion -- well, I'd like to at least ask the maker of the motion to amend the motion to the effect that the consultant time be a maximum of one year. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll accept it as a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Does not all contracts have to come back to this Commission for approval? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Even if it's less than -- even if we set a one-year maximum? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Each individual agreement would have to come back to the Commission for approval, as I understand it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And we don't have to approve any of them if we choose not to? MR. CARSTARPHEN: The Commission can do what in its wisdom it feels is best. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MR. BEARD: Before he goes any further on that, I'd just like to add one other thing to this that I think we need to consider on this, and this is the educational requirement. This has come up on a number of occasions and I think we need to address this since we have made all of this other progress in this. And at this time I would like to -- well, I'll just go on and put it in the form of a motion and you can deal with it, that an undergraduate degree be considered for all candidates who are applying for head of the -- department heads, and that if the Committee recognize those people who are presently employed in those positions, if they qualify, that they be grandfathered so that they could become a candidate for that position. MR. TODD: Is that a motion, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. MR. TODD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question. Mr. Beard, are you saying even if the person is in that position now does not have the undergraduate degree, he would be considered for that position? He'd be grandfathered in regardless of whether he had the degree or not? MR. BEARD: Yes. If he is deemed a candidate or one of the candidates for that or if he wants to apply for that, they ought to be allowed to apply for that and selected along with other people. And if they have done that type of job, that the Committee feels that they should recommend them to this body, then I think they should have that option. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to say, with Mr. Beard's motion, is to say that this particular department head or this particular position, if it ever be vacated, whoever comes with it have to have that degree in order to get that job. MR. BEARD: That was my first motion, that the qualification would be for all department heads to have a degree, but the other stipulation was the grandfather. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have another concern to this, too. Also, what if we have -- like if something happens to the department head and then we have someone there who's competent to take and run the job, are we going to make this person have the requirement to serve as interim until we get one, or -- what I'm scared that we're trying to -- we're not intentionally trying to do here, but I think we're trying -- we're trying to do the right thing, but we're going to exclude a lot of people who are competent to do these jobs, and I think that we should have an amendment into this motion, either the degree or equal time doing this job, or experience let's just say. MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Powell, the reason that I'm saying this is because, you know, if we're going to run a professional organization, I think we need professional people. And I think we're going to be paying the type of money for a department head that would go along with this and be equated with this. And I think that in being compassionate we are giving these people at this time the opportunity to apply and be accepted through grandfathers, but I think after that we ought to look for those professional people. But I think this is -- my motion was one where are being compassionate and we are giving people an opportunity at this time, those people who have served us and they have done a good job, and I think we've given them that opportunity. We're opening the door for them, and after that I think we should go for qualification and professionalism. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute. I'd like to offer a substitute that this be redone when we rewrite all the job descriptions so that everybody starts on an equal and square footing. I think we need to look at the individual jobs to see whether or not it is necessary to have a college degree in all jobs. I do not think that is completely true in this city, especially on the management side, and therefore I offer the substitute. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Do I hear a second to his motion? Hearing none, the motion fails for lack of a second. Go back to Mr. Beard's initial motion. Do y'all need Mr. Beard's motion read, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by -- MR. BRIDGES: I'd like it to be read again, Mr. Mayor, just so we understand it. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's all right. Thank you. MS. WATSON: The motion was that all department heads would be required to have an undergraduate degree. Those that are already in the positions would be considered to be grandfathered in so they would be eligible to apply for the positions, but after that, if a position is vacated, the person applying would have to have the degree. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand the motion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. CARSTARPHEN: There were two other items that I discussed with you, one was a recommended interim organization for the organization effective probably now May 1, but could be earlier. You will recall that I pointed out that your existing structure perpetuates the division of responsibilities along the urban/suburban lines, which are parallel to the former City of Augusta and the former County of Richmond. In fact, we are attempting to create a unified, consolidated new government and utilizing both the skills of the existing administrators and taking a step away from that old division along the boundaries of the previous jurisdictions. I recommended to you that you consider an interim organization chart in which you use one of the administrators to handle primarily administrative functions and that you use the other interim administrator to handle primarily operational functions. And I presented the chart, which I have here, and I apologize if some of you can't see it, as an indication of the types of assignment of functions that could be made under such a proposed organization. I also received feedback from members of the Commission regarding this. The specific request which was made -- suggestion that was made, and which I would concur with and I'm very comfortable with, is that the landfill be considered an Operations responsibility and that rather than assign to the interim administrator for Administration, it be assigned to the interim administrator for Operations. I think that's a logical assignment. As I pointed out to you, these are not exclusive. Obviously some of the Administrative functions also involve Operations and some of the Operations functions also involve Administration, but it is a line of differentiation which we think is appropriate, which is used in permanent capacity by a number of organizations, but in this instance I was recommending it to you as an interim arrangement pending approval of a final structure. And if the Commission has questions or would like to discuss that further as amended, I would ask you to do so at this time. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor? Bill, there's two things also that -- License & Inspection as well as Central Shop. License & Inspections, inspections involve -- it should be in should be in Engineering, in my opinion. And Central Shop, that don't have anything to do with Administration. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, may I comment on that? Just from an observations point of view, you have before you a proposal that would essentially contract for the operation of your shops. And if you -- you already have one of your shops being operated by contract, and it is the possibility at least that you would have both of them. When they go under contract, they become a contract administration function. You really are out of the business of operating a shop. What you want to make sure is that the contractor who is operating it for you administers the contract fully and completely and gives the value to the government. So I would simply offer the observation that, at least from my perspective, the Central Shop contract administration properly would be in Administration. And I can understand if you feel that the License & Inspections operation should be on the operating side, we can certainly make that change. MR. HANDY: What about Central Services? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Central Services is generally considered an Administrative function. It is a support function to the rest of the organization insofar as maintaining the offices, the buildings, and the various types of support, mail service, et cetera. So I would suggest that that properly is an Administrative function. MR. HANDY: Okay. The reason why I asked that, and maybe we have it worded wrong or -- because on the other side, on the city side where they have carpenter shop and all of that, that's on a different level, so. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, let me emphasize to you that these terms used are functional terms that I picked up off of the interim chart. We will look at each situation and make an initial assignment in our best judgement, and certainly the Commission has the authority to revise that at any time. MR. HANDY: Okay. So I don't have any other problem with that. I would like to know your answer as far as License & Inspection. MR. CARSTARPHEN: If it is the Commission's wish, that can be -- certainly be moved over to Operations. MR. HANDY: That's not your wish, though? That's what I'm asking. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We had initially, and this was the -- these groupings were made to some extent involving the two interim administrators and myself, and these were initial thoughts. They are not cast in stone, and I am comfortable with your reassignment as you are proposing. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to go out on a limb a little bit. Is it a possibility that as far as the landfill go, that the operations side of it could go under Operations and the Administrative person would be responsible for permits, EPD, et cetera, regulations? I don't know whether that's possible or not, but I'm somewhat concerned in making this change after two years of struggling to come from under a Consent Order. And unofficially -- this is where I'm going out on a limb -- we're out from under that Consent Order. We haven't received the documentation from Atlanta yet, and I'm somewhat concerned that we do this at this time. And is there any way, Mr. Carstarphen, that we can assign the operations -- truly it's operations, probably 90 percent. Can we do the operations on one side and the administrative, as far as keeping up the permits, environmental regulations, et cetera, on the other or would that just confuse things? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Todd, I would hate to divide any baby in half and assign one to one and one to another. I would say either leave it under Administration or move it to Operations, but do not subdivide the department. We have too many, I think, in my opinion, divided functions as they are. MR. TODD: Thank you. I would somewhat agree, and I think that I would rather see it stay in Operations, because truly we are a service delivery entity and Operations would probably be the appropriate place then. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I might also say that I think the landfill staff and the Suburban Services Administrator have done an excellent job in moving that facility from a troubled facility that failed to meet standards to one which I think is one of the better landfill operations in the state. MR. TODD: Thank you, and I concur. And especially the last -- the chairman last year, Mr. Sconyers, and as Mayor this year, Ms. Beazley and that staff, and Mr. Powell this year -- Mr. Powell this year has had the latitude to appoint a special committee or a standing committee that consists of urban and suburban folks that has worked on environmental issues, and certainly that's helped. So thanks for the compliments on their behalf. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, do you want to say something? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I was going back to License & Inspections, Mr. Carstarphen. I think that -- why should that not be Administrative? I don't see where we get into the technical side of that, and I'd like your explanation of that, please. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Again, we viewed License & Inspections as a service, but one which we initially assigned to the Administrative manager. It has been suggested by a member of the Commission here that it would be more appropriate in the Operations section. That is a judgement which you certainly can make. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, in respect to what Mr. Handy had added, the License & Inspection function is basically a construction type function. The Public Works Department is a construction type function. Even Trees and Parks are somewhat construction oriented -- construction and maintenance oriented. And I think we should put all these departments that are construction oriented, or engineering, such as the engineering for the landfill with the environmental regulations and stuff, I would like to see all that moved over closer to the engineering side of our government. And later we may want to look at these operations and see how functional they are. Maybe some parts of them could go to Administration, but I think for the time being all the engineering or construction and maintenance-type functions, I'd like to see them over under the Engineering Services, because at times they require engineering also. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concern is over the fact that the License Department is also an agency that does not necessarily get into inspections but also gets into enforcement, and I would prefer it to stay in the Administrative side. And I think that it's not necessarily -- I'm concerned that all of License is going -- I think business license is not a part of construction; I think that that's a part of the side that comes under administration and enforcement. And I think that there's ample justification to leave it under the Administrative side rather than move it to the Operational side. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we table this issue till the next regular meeting. MR. HANDY: When did you say you want it to go into effect, Mr. Bill? MR. CARSTARPHEN: When we originally brought it to you we were suggesting an April 1 effective date. Based on the point at which we are today, I suggested May 1. MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, so I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, then Mr. Kuhlke. MR. POWELL: I'd like to make a substitute motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the motion was to table, or did I say something -- did I intend to say something and not say it? MR. POWELL: I thought that motion died for lack of second. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Mays came back and -- MR. POWELL: I didn't hear it. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's my fault. I guess I went to sleep during the time they were trying to come up with a second. That is a non-debatable motion. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to table, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we're right back where we started. It dies for - - MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Mr. Carstarphen's recommendations with the exception of moving Landfill and License & Inspections over to Operations. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to ask the maker of the motion to consider accepting Mr. Carstarphen's recommendation as he presented it. We could always change this thing. There obviously has been a lot of discussion, we've had a lot of discussion on this. If it doesn't work we can change it. MR. TODD: Is that a motion, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I asked Mr. Powell if he would amend his motion. MR. POWELL: Well, Mr. Kuhlke, I'll tell you, I'm not going to accept the amendment because I think we --you know, we haven't had really a part in this discussion other than the administrators talking to Mr. Carstarphen to draw this up. Once it was presented we went back and talked with Mr. Carstarphen about these recommendations as far as moving these departments, and he said he had no problem with it, so I'm going to go ahead and shoot for it. If it goes through, fine; if it doesn't, we'll just go back to square one, I guess. But I just think we keep revisiting this stuff too much. MR. BEARD: I would just like to say that I would like to see this moved on, because I think we're wasting too much time on this. And we just only talked about two items, and I know they're important to everybody, but I just wish that we could get a compromise here and move on, because I don't think we need to let him bring this back at another meeting. I think we need to move on this, and I think we need to make some concessions here and move on. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mine was just in the form of a question. Mr. Powell is indicating the -- he used the word a couple times of a License and Inspection. Should we -- is that assumption then that they could be divided at some point, Mr. Powell? Is that what you're indicating? MR. POWELL: No, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's what you're recommending or had that been suggested at some point? MR. POWELL: Not at this present time, Mr. Brigham. I think it's something we should visit at a later date as we move forward, but I think that with the construction orientation of it and the engineering orientation of the landfill, they really need to be under the Engineering Services. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think what Mr. Kuhlke had to say is in line either way, whether we go with the recommendation or go with Mr. Powell's motion, that we can come back and change it if it don't work. And I thought earlier that maybe we needed a little more time to, you know, discuss it, but I can support the motion on the floor. I seriously feel that we need to go on and probably do something. We've made a lot of headway today and maybe we can go on and do this one, too. MR. BEARD: If Mr. Powell would accept this substitute motion, that we move the two items to the Operation and revisit that at a later date; if it doesn't work out, then we come back and do it, and let's move on. MR. POWELL: I'll accept that as an amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's an amendment to Mr. Powell's motion; is that correct? Okay. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final item that I suggested to you was the proposed new service mark. I would request, if the Commission is comfortable with it, that you by motion adopt or approve the service mark and that you ask the City Attorney in that same motion to file a application with, I believe it's the Federal Trade Commission, to reserve that trademark uniquely to the Consolidated Government of Augusta-Richmond. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. I'd like to discuss that, gentlemen. I was up at MCG today and I saw their logo, if you want to call it, or service mark, that dated back to 1882 -- or 18-something, I don't remember the exact, I should have wrote it down. But we're the second oldest city in the state and I think we should look real hard before we come up with a new service logo that doesn't incorporate something that's real strong about our heritage. So that would be my comment, and I think you would really look at it real hard before you do that. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding that yourself and others had worked on this even before we, you know, met for the first meeting and that the Old Government House was to be a strong statement about our heritage. So am I missing something somewhere? MAYOR SCONYERS: You've seen the new proposed service mark? MR. TODD: Yes. Well, it's the Old Government House; correct? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, but it's kind of put in the background; I don't think it's predominant. You need something predominant, I think. That's one man's opinion. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. You know, I would like to see something altogether new, but the -- you know, I'm buying into this something, you know, from history in the Old Government House. You know, I love what Columbia County has and I'd like to see something progressive like the New Horizon, et cetera. But as I look at that, the only thing that -- if we're going to put on vehicles, et cetera, on stationery, I'd like to use the color versus the black and white. I know you've got to have the black and white, you know. And I don't have a serious problem on waiting, but I think that we need a logo and we need something out there. When I'm coming in from Carolina I see Augusta-Richmond County and that's basically it. And State of Georgia, I guess, on the top side of the sign. And we need something. I don't have a problem, Mr. Mayor, I can wait and do it at a later date or we can go with what we have now, but it don't make good sense if we're going to change it to spend money with the attorneys and registering it, et cetera. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, why couldn't we just go ahead and put the established date on that? If it's -- I can't read it. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The proposed service mark carries the three dates of 1736, which I believe was the original founding of City of Augusta; 1777, which was the date of the county's founding; and 1996, the date of the establishment of the consolidated government. MR. KUHLKE: Is that what you're talking about, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, there again, personal opinion, I just don't think that shows enough of our heritage. I really don't. I look at that, I look at the side of a truck or something. I'm being honest with you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we table this item and come back with a suitable plan for everybody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Powell's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. That's a substitute motion. That's a non-debatable motion; we're going to vote on that first. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We'll go back to the original motion, which was Mr. Handy's motion to adopt. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion -- MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me ask one thing on that. Is that to go on everything that we own? Everything we own? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Generally the use of a service mark would be on all of your equipment, except your public safety equipment, and on stationary, business cards, et cetera. MR. MAYS: That's right. That was my question about everything that we own. You know, if we're going to do it -- you know, we own a lot of public safety vehicles. You know, it seems like we're going to establish, you know, one new set for every way that we're going, and that's the majority of what we've got rolling, then I guess that was my question, is it going to be on everything that we own or about 40 percent of what we own? If it's going to be 40 percent of what we own, then why establish it? Just let everybody go with their own thing. It looks like that's what's happening anyway. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I could support a delay if that delay was going to include the citizens, the schools, et cetera, for coming up with suggestions on what it's going to be, and that we're not just dealing with heritage, but we're dealing with, you know, future, et cetera. So I wouldn't have a problem with that, but, you know, we've had this presented to us now for approximately 30 days and I don't totally 100 percent buy into it, but I think that in cooperation and meeting consensus that I felt that I could live with it and go along with it. If that's the reason that, you know, we want to delay, then certainly I can support it and buy into it. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to withdraw my motion. I didn't know that this would be this controversial over a logo. So we'll talk about it, but this time we're going to make sure that those who want to participate, give them an opportunity to participate. The next time I see a logo, that's the one we're going to try to pass. Thank you. MR. POWELL: We have no motion on the floor, I take it, Mr. Chairman? MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have one now, no, sir. MR. POWELL: I make a motion that we table again. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, that we table this. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I have one other item for Mr. Carstarphen -- a question for him. And that is, I would like to ask him if he has a problem with -- and I need this for information -- appointing directors as we consolidate each department. And since we have established criteria here today, do you have a problem with, after we get the committee going, to going on and appointing those directors -- not appointing them, but recruiting those directorships that have been consolidated? MR. CARSTARPHEN: There were two prerequisites to actually hiring the permanent directors that I submitted to you earlier. One was that the reorganization of that department be carried -- the structure be proposed to you and that you approve it, and that the second condition was that the consolidated department -- that you have approved the actual consolidation of that department. So I would expect them to be done in increments. I would not expect them to be all done at once. I don't think the committee that you established today would be capable of going through that many recruitment processes, so I would expect them to be done incrementally as the Commission approves a reorganization structure and authorizes the recruitment process to begin. MR. BEARD: That's basically what I wanted to know, because I didn't think we're going to let this hang out there until we got all the things completed and then try to hire all these people. And one other thing for you and that was that, as many of the Commissioners know, that HUD was in town this past week, and we -- they came over and discussed some things with the Mayor, and we had committed to development. We are in need of some directorship over there, someone in charge over there, and I was just wondering if we could possibly appoint -- and this is not to you, this is to the Commission -- to appoint someone who is presently working there as an interim director there until we're able to hire someone in our Community Development Department, because we don't have any. Would you make any recommendations in that area since you have looked at that and you were there at the HUD meeting? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I do think it's important, particularly in light of the possible additional resources that the new government will be allocated through the community development block grant process, that that department be given a high priority in restructuring and getting a permanent director on board. I would be happy to give that a high priority if the Commission would like that that be done and come back to you as quickly as possible with both an interim recommendation and a proposed permanent organizational structure. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that this Commission consider the Project Manager's recommendation. I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. Were you through Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this may be out of order and it may be somewhere I might have missed it, but in several of those meetings we talked about the possibility, along with the logo, a motto. And, Mr. Carstarphen, I'm wondering could you address that somewhere? Is that dead now, is it inappropriate, or when could it be brought back up and looked at or could it be looked at in conjunction with what we're doing here? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think the discussion you had of a motto was in connection with your mission statement, and I think a motto would be an asset to the organization. I would suspect you might want to -- now that you have approved that mission statement you might want to give that a little thought, and perhaps at our meeting on the 17th we try to make a decision or to at least consider possibilities. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's not a dead issue, though, as far as the motto is concerned? MR. CARSTARPHEN: It's not dead as long as the Commission wants it to be considered. MR. H. BRIGHAM: All right, sir. CLERK: Item 60 is to consider appointments to the Hospital Authority. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this was brought to everyone's attention back in February to give everyone an opportunity. This would be 15 names that would be submitted to the City of Augusta Hospital Authority. In order for them to move forward with their bond issue, they need a sitting board, and hopefully everyone's had an opportunity to come up with some names. It would be three names for each of the five positions, or a total of 15 names. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we ready for nominations? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need to submit those in writing, Mr. Wall, or how do we need to go about that? Have it nominated around the floor? MR. WALL: However y'all want to go about the selection process. I don't know whether -- MR. POWELL: Would it be out of order, Mr. Chairman, for us to go back and use the talent banks and maybe get some people to turn in some talent banks so that we would have some qualified people to sit on this Authority? MR. WALL: If I can respond to that. I think that there was a request - - Susan, correct me if I'm wrong, this was posted. I don't think there were any names turned in. Am I correct? MS. WATSON: [No audible response.] MR. WALL: And here's the situation. They need to move forward with their financing. They took the liberty of getting a resolution passed by the Development Authority. That's going to cost them an additional $90,000 -- in excess of $90,000 if they have to go that route. And if y'all don't want to appoint a board, I mean, that's y'all's prerogative, but they're sort of behind the eight ball and need to move forward and desperately need the names. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that -- well, I'd just like to request that we go on and deal with 61, take a five-minute recess to maybe deal with some names. When we're talking about the city Hospital Authority now we're not talking about the old city limit lines, we're talking about this new government line, and we need to keep that in mind. And certainly we need to look at the criteria for individuals to serve, you know, et cetera. And I'd like to suggest that we skip 60, go to 61, and take five minutes recess and come back with a list of names to at least get them going where they have enough to have a quorum. And I'll make that in the form of a motion if I need to. MAYOR SCONYERS: We also have 62 and 63, don't we? CLERK: We have two additions. MR. TODD: Yes. Handle 62 and 63 also, the additions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by -- that was a motion; right? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 61 is a discussion of the illegal use of the Augusta- Richmond County computer system and warrant for the arrest of the former Internal Auditor, David Rollins. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as you know, I had this put on the agenda. And basically my intent here -- and also I wrote you a letter. My intent here is to ratify your actions that you've taken already. I think that you acted the same day, and I'm sure that you had already intended to act. And I know the language may sound a little hard, but I think that in searching out what we need to do and what we can do, I understand that we would need an investigation if this is going to turn into a felony. If it's going to be a misdemeanor, then it's not necessarily -- an investigation would preempt the warrants. So I'm just going to make a motion that we ratify the Mayor's action that he took -- I believe it was on the 12th or 13th, somewhere thereabouts -- as far as calling for the Sheriff's Department to investigate this incident, and we authorize him to take the appropriate action once the Sheriff's Department's investigation is in. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I understand, and I know in terms of trying to be cooperative with what we are doing, but it has concerned me and I hope that some directives have been given. I think the investigative process for one thing. But I think whether they have been silent or whether they have been in verbal contact with normal citizens or whoever, that -- particularly with the combined workforce, and I'd say the same if they were old city employees or old County employees. With the start of a new government, I think that the direction and the tone that we are setting with this, the concern that I have picked up is the fact that this has been a clear termination. And I think that anyone, whether they've been terminated or not, I think the problem that a lot of them, particularly in rank and file as we like to say, those employees that may not have so much of a voice, the concern has been is that what would have happened had they reentered, period, the premises of any of these places and whether or not law enforcement would have been called immediately to deal with this. My second question is in terms of -- we discussed long hours one of our previous meetings about putting somebody in charge. And I hate to use this question, I'm glad as hell that maybe we didn't put anybody in charge if that's the case. Because if this happened on more than one incident, then the question is, should someone have been notified in this courthouse to give direction as to what should we do with a terminated employee on our premises and dealing with type of action and whether or not we need to take any record and file action against people who were in charge of that particular department on those occasions and to put those in that file. I think something outside of an investigation needs to be said by this Commission to those employees who do work for us at this point and to what happens when people are terminated. Because I think all of them that work for us over any period of tenured time know what has been the feeling, know what happens with government when people have been fired, and basically that line has been clear. And I think it's time to a point that we separate and we carry out. And no one should be, I think, victimized because they have been in an elevated position, but by the same token, I think we have to set the tone that all sacred cows at some point are dead. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 62: To consider approval of Notice of Award to proceed regarding construction of a Jail Facility on Phinizy Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, Beers Construction Company was the low bidder, and they have been interviewed and checked out. And I think it's appropriate that the Notice of Award be issued to Beers Construction Company, and I would make that recommendation. MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote against this motion. I'm not -- I want the record to show that I'm not voting against a lower bid, I'm voting against the jail and its location. I want to take the opportunity to commend Mr. Kuhlke and the citizens group for bringing the price of this jail down from 40 million to 16 million. But, once again, my vote is not against the lower bid, my vote is cast in opposition to the jail being located in the near proximity of established neighborhoods and families, and I'd like the record to reflect that. MAYOR SCONYERS: So noted. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm glad to see this project finally going out for bid. Beers, I guess of Atlanta, is a reputable company. They've done a lot of work around Augusta, including the addition at St. Joseph, et cetera, and I think that we're fortunate to have such a calibre of companies bidding and coming in low with all the Olympic work going on in Atlanta. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 63 is a discussion of imposing a moratorium on off-premises signs. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, we learned a couple of weeks ago of an unexpected impact of consolidation. It had to do with the location of off-premises or billboard type signs in the interstate system. Our zoning ordinance on the interstate system parallels the state regulations. It actually yields to the state regulations. And the state, in unincorporated areas, has pretty restrictive regulations on the location of billboards in relation to the ramps and the interchanges on the interstate system. But when we incorporated the entire county, this was unknown to us at the time, the state doesn't have nearly as restrictive regulations in the incorporated areas, and all those rules regarding the location of billboards around the ramps no longer exist and are no longer in effect. We've probably approved 15 or 20 billboard locations in the last few weeks, and we finally figured out what was going on in talking to the state. I don't know that we want to preclude those locations from billboard siting, but I think we need some time to look at it to figure out how many new locations there are, what would be appropriate. Right now on the arterial highway system we have a 750 foot spacing standard on the same side of the road and a 300 foot radius. All we've got on the interstate system right now is 500 foot spacing requirement, and at 65 miles an hour those signs are almost on top of each other. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we adopt our previous standards till we can have an opportunity to have an ordinance drawn to address this situation. MR. WALL: The only problem is, Mr. Brigham, if I could get you to clarify your motion, the existing standards defer to the state and the state has no regulations for incorporated areas, and that's the reason that it was presented in the sense that -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: My motion was to adopt the standards as a unincorporated area till we can have an opportunity to address this through ordinance of our local government. MR. PATTY: Mr. Brigham, our regulations are found in the zoning ordinance, and the zoning procedures law -- state zoning procedures law has a defined advertisement period and various things that have to be done before we can amend a zoning ordinance. And that's really what you're talking about doing is amending the zoning ordinance, so we could conceivably do that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to give you some direction of what we expect and suggesting that you amend the ordinance and bring it back to us. MR. PATTY: Okay. But I promise you one thing, now that we've talked about this, if we don't declare a moratorium everyone of those locations is going to be permitted before I can get back to you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I'll amend my motion that we declare a moratorium until we can have a new ordinance then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that what we need, Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I thought what we wanted to be in a consolidated government is a bigger and better city, and that come along with the territory, the billboards. But I'll go along with the moratorium on the billboards if the Commissioners that's sitting on this board that still have signs out -- political signs out all over the county get them up, I'll vote for it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to declare a moratorium on the signs, please let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: No, sir, that's it. Oh, you're going to take the five minute recess and come back to take up Item 60. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go to legal meeting first? MR. WALL: However you want to do it. I do have a need to discuss several matters in a legal session with you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Gentlemen, Mr. Wall needs a short legal meeting, so could I entertain a motion from someone that we go in -- MR. HANDY: So move. MR. WALL: To deal with real estate matters and one litigation matter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion, please? MR. HANDY: Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by -- MR. TODD: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [OFF THE RECORD 4:57 - 6:03 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to reconvene our meeting after a short recess. The only order of business we've got now is the names, isn't it? CLERK: Right. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I think the easiest or the fastest way to do it is to have each member submit a name, with the Mayor to appoint an additional -- now, Mr. Zetterberg is out of town, and if you don't submit it by --put a deadline on it, then the Mayor and the Vice-Chairman will fill the names. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Wait a minute, there's only ten of us. We're going to submit one and the Mayor is going to submit five or what? MR. WALL: Yeah, that's what I was going to -- or any other way y'all want to do it. I don't know that it matters. MR. TODD: So we've got to submit 15 applicants, and then they pick 5 out of the 15? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: And if they think none of them is worthy of being picked, they -- MR. WALL: I promise you, they'll find five that they deem to be worthy. CLERK: So the motion is to do it by five o'clock? MAYOR SCONYERS: Five o'clock; is that good, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a motion to that effect? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Yes. And Mr. Kuhlke seconded. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Henry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. [Item 60: Consider appointment to the Hospital Authority.] MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: This concludes our meeting. Do I hear a motion for adjournment? MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:05 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council held on March 19, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council