Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS April 2, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 o'clock P. M., Tuesday, April 2, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of the Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commission-Council's Regular Meeting. We're going to have the invocation by the Reverend John W.P. Oliver, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church. If you'll remain standing after that, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND OLIVER. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, we have three requests for additions: Consider approval of Resolution authorizing the submission of Grant Applications to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources concerning Bethlehem Design Guidelines Manual and Summerville Design Guidelines Manual; to consider approval of a request from a Mr. Ronnie Brown to withdraw his alcohol license application for property at 2546 Deans Bridge Road; consider approval of a Resolution regarding the Augusta Canal Project. No deletions. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Move that we accept the items to be added to the agenda. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, in reference to that withdrawal, I need a clarification that we didn't vote to turn that down when we considered it a meeting or so ago. And if we can get that clarification from Mr. Miller Meyer, then certainly I'd be for adding to the agenda. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, if I can respond to that question, we did turn it down on February the 20th; however, a notice of appeal was filed and it was scheduled to be heard today although it's not on the agenda. There is a letter of explanation that -- MR. TODD: Well, my position is that in order to consider it -- before we can consider letting him withdraw, then we would certainly have to rescind the action of denying it a meeting or so back, and that's my problem with it going on the agenda. I don't think you can take a action, then let someone else take a action without rescinding that motion. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if there's objection to it going on the agenda, we can bring it through the committee and bring it back. MR. TODD: Is the intent to rescind the action of whatever date? MR. WALL: The intent is to free up the property since that location cannot reapply for one year. The lease has been terminated for that property. It would allow the landlord to lease the property to another individual and bring it back without having to wait for the one year. MR. TODD: And there were no objectors to that applicant; right? MR. WALL: No, this is the application -- well, the Sheriff's Department objected to the application. MR. TODD: Yes, I mean other than the Sheriff's Department based on criminal background. I don't have a problem if the maker of the motion amend the motion to rescind the action -- the previous action and to allow him to withdraw. MR. POWELL: I'll accept the amendment. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that okay with you, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY ABSENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move some things around to help clear our room out. We're going to move Item 39 forward. So, Ms. Bonner, if you'll read Item 39. CLERK: Item 39: Consideration of the matter regarding the Lawton B. Evans School property. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, that was in the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee tied on that, but I'll make a recommendation that we -- I'll make a motion that we give all of our interest in this property to the Richmond County Board of Education. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Might I ask the County Attorney something first, please, before we go into debate? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: It is legal for us to do that? MR. WALL: In my opinion, it is legal for you to do that. The reversionary interest that you would be giving up -- if you wanted to take a reversionary interest, you could do so in the Davidson Fine Arts property, but basically that reversionary interest has little or no value. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see if the maker of the motion would agree to an amendment that the funds be used for Davidson Fine Arts and not for the general fund of the School Board; and, also, the second thing is that we get the reversionary interest in the School Board -- I mean, in the school. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Todd, would you accept the second on that? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: I guess, Mr. Mayor, my only concern is why we need to do this here today if the City Council took this action a couple of years ago. And I just see it as a formality, you know, that basically -- it seems to me if they voted to do it in the previous government, that whether you have a written contract or not you had an agreement; therefore, you had a contract. So I don't think that we are -- I don't really think we have much of a choice, that's just my opinion, and I think we need to go on and do it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Fletcher is here, and the Superintendent. I was wondering if the amendments that was read are agreeable to those and they understand exactly where we're coming from. And maybe we can have a word just from them if they wanted to. That would help us a lot with this decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Dr. Long, would you like to comment on that, sir? DR. LONG: Mayor Sconyers, that's the agreement. Every penny would go toward Davidson construction. Every penny. MAYOR SCONYERS: Other discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 12 is a discussion of vacation and holiday for the Augusta- Richmond County Fire Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Chief Maddox? CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Chairman, after we get through with this item I think the whole room will be cleared. MR. TODD: May I be recognized to make a motion, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we're going to let Chief Maddox present his side. We've already started with it. MR. TODD: Well, if we can make a motion we may be able to save a little time here, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, Mr. Todd, go ahead. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the Chair will recognize a motion, I'd like to make a motion that we table Item 11 and Item 12, send it back to committee and we work on them. That's in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If the maker of the motion -- and I do plan to vote for it -- if he would, would you specifically mind putting in the parties that need to, to be included in that motion, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'll accept any amendment my colleague would like to make, or any colleague would like to make. MR. MAYS: Well, I think we basically know the parties involved, but I think if the reason we're tabling it is so that we can have better dialogue on it and fully get to the bottom of this whole thing of trying to work a workable situation for everybody concerned, then I think we probably need to make sure that all parties are included in it. And we say "back to committee." Will this be going back to Administrative Services Committee or is this going to Public Safety in terms of dealing with it? Just as a point of clarification. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is going back to Administrative Services Committee in the sense that the committee -- that's the committee that's responsible for personnel issues. And I don't have a problem with accepting amendments to the parties. I think it should be the stakeholders: the Chief, the representatives for the firefighters, the Personnel Director, the Administrative Services Committee, the -- possibly the County Attorney, the two Interim Administrators, et cetera. MR. MAYS: And Comptroller, if you don't mind, because it's going to get -- money is going to be the bottom line of this, period. MR. TODD: Yes, the Comptroller and any other amendment that anyone would like to add. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Todd if he would accept the amendment -- make the amendment to his motion that we accept all of the Policy and Procedure Manual excluding the vacation accrual policy, on Item Number 11. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'll accept that amendment, and that's the vacation accrual policies for fire services and non-fire services employees for Richmond County -- or the consolidated government. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just need some clarification. I thought the Fire Department came under Public Safety. MAYOR SCONYERS: It does. MR. KUHLKE: And if that's the case, I can understand Item Number 11 going back to the Administrative Services. But Item 12, if it's going to be carried back, appears to me that it should go back to the Public Safety Committee, not Administrative Services. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond. The reason that I want to send it back to Administrative Services -- and I don't have a problem with it going to both or going to Administrative Services and coming out of Administrative Services to Public Safety, but I don't think that Public Safety should set administrative procedure as far as personnel, dealing with leave, et cetera, and I don't think -- you know, and I don't think that Administrative Services should set Public Safety, you know, agenda. So it may be that we need to go back to Administrative Services, then what come out of Administrative Services be passed on to the Public Safety Committee for approval in the sense that we may be dealing with Public Safety, too, as far as manning the stations, et cetera. So I'll say to both of them and we'll cover that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me say something to y'all, too, gentle-men. Evidently the mikes are out, so when y'all speak, how about standing up where we can hear you, okay, please? Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say the same thing Mr. Todd did, that this is a personnel matter and it should go back to Administrative Services. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to reiterate that Number 11 does not need to go back. That was passed by the Administrative Services and approved. And if we could, that has nothing to do with the firefighters. And I realize that Number 12 does need to go back to wherever we're going to send it, but Number 11 could be considered and I don't see any reason why that could not be considered under Administrative Services today. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's a personnel matter, and I'd rather not get into a open, public debate as far as how it affects the overall unless we're in an executive session dealing with personnel. And I think that surely it needs to go back; that we need to look at the overall policy for accrued leave, vacation, sick leave, et cetera. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, what do we need to do on that, please? Can you give us a ruling on that? MR. WALL: The personnel policies and procedures, I think, properly come under the Human Resources Department, which falls under Administrative Services. If the staffing of the stations is at issue, then that issue could be addressed by the Public Safety Committee. So I think that to some extent maybe it does overlap the committees, which is what I think Mr. Todd last spoke to, but overall the personnel policies and procedures comes under Human Resources. MAYOR SCONYERS: But since this had already been voted on and approved? MR. WALL: But if the motion is to send it back to the committee to do further study, I mean, I think it's a proper motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that's what I wanted to get clarified. Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, could I say one thing? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. CHIEF MADDOX: I hope this will be settled right shortly, because this has been going on a couple of months. We've got firemen that's waiting to take their vacation; also, we kind of hemmed up on our holidays of what we're going to do. And we're going into April now, which is a quarter of the year already passed, so the quicker we can get this solved we're going to kind of cut down on the morale problem. And we don't need to keep passing it time and time -- this is my third trip down here and, to be honest with you, I'm tired of wearing this hot coat, so I hope you'll make a decision right shortly. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is a delegation from the Richmond County Board of Health, Dr. Rumph and John C. Bell. MR. WALL: We were going to move that. CLERK: You're going to move that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, that's going to the end of the -- I'm sorry, we were supposed to consider the one about the Canal now. CLERK: Okay. The next item is to consider approval of a Resolution regarding the Augusta Canal Project. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, we have a package ready to be Federal Expressed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeking a reconsideration of the order denying the rehearing. That must be in Washington tomorrow. Part of the reason for the FERC's decision to dismiss the application, I think, was because there was a feeling that there had not been a showing of good faith by way of the funding that was necessary to do the necessary studies. I have prepared a resolution, and hopefully -- with the exception of two Commission members it was faxed out this morning, and I've since delivered copies to them. This, I think, shows an intent on the part of this Commission-Council to fund the studies if in fact the application is reinstated, and I would ask that you approve this resolution. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second, please? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is Reverend Earl A. Thompson, Sr., Southgate Fellowship of Christian Churches, in reference to a Liquor License for Johnny's Supper Club. REV. THOMPSON: Mr. Mayor, I'm Earl Thompson, the Pastor of Victory Assembly of God located at 2030 Olive Road. I am the Chairman of the Southgate Fellowship of Christian Churches. We come to you today to, biblically speaking, ask you to reverse the curse, but from the vernacular, we've come to ask you to consider something that you gentlemen have done that we believe is a devastation to our community. I'd like to give you some facts, and then I'd like to call on a Sister Quarterman to come, a organizer of crime and drug abuse -- a fighter in our community against those things, and then the Reverend Robert Brown from Victory Deliverance Temple to speak concerning the issue since he has firsthand knowledge. I know that Johnny's Supper Club, according to the law, may be grandfathered in and I have reservations to that, as I've talked to the District Attorney. But it lies about 210 feet from a church, and the state law requires it be 350 feet. Johnny's Supper Club is about 1,000 feet from one of the larger HUD housings in our area -- in our city that you recently placed iron bars around and armed cops in at night because of the drug problem, the prostitute problem, and the alcohol abuse problem. It's very close, about 1,000 feet from one of the larger high schools in our community. The License Department told me, through the Sheriff's Department, that they recommended that you do not give this man a license again to reopen, as far as liquor. The investigating officer told me personally that he wrote a letter requesting that y'all deny him a license to reopen with the liquor situation. As one of the ministers in the local community, I can attest to the fact that there are many people -- and I'm talking about 15 or 20, that's many to me -- that will not travel to church on a week night or a Sunday night because of the drunks and the crime, things of this nature, concerning Johnny's Supper Club. One of the things I understand that Mr. Johnny is trying to do is have the traffic -- one traffic light removed from in front of his business. Although that might be a help. My mother was accosted three years ago as she stopped at that light on the way to my church by one of his drunks. She doesn't come to church on Sunday night anymore because of that. But if you allow him to remove that traffic light -- the traffic there now in front of that HUD housing is 50/60 miles an hour, sometimes faster, and if you let him move that light I'm afraid we'll have to have a child dead before we'll reconsider that option. We believe his opening back up as a liquor-selling establishment, as a nightclub -- you don't come down on Olive Road Saturday nights nine, ten, eleven, twelve o'clock, or during the week, or back when it was open on Sunday nights. And it's bad. The problem is grave, and we're asking you to revoke his liquor license. We believe it was a mistake and we believe that you're a godly representation and that you should be big enough to admit you made a mistake, as the Southgate Fellowship of Christian Churches believe you have -- comprised of about 15 churches in that immediate vicinity. I have the Reverend Robert Brown here, and Sister Quarterman. These two people can speak directly to the devastation of our children, our community. Brother Brown has an instance that he wants to tell you about. If you would be so inclined to give them an ear for just a brief moment, I would appreciate it very much. Brother Brown, would you come and share? REV. BROWN: To the Mayor and to the Committee, one of the things that I'm concerned about is that I've been in that particular area seven years now and my church is about two doors from the club, and during this time I have put up with a lot of things concerning the traffic coming from the club and in my church. There have been several times where the gentleman next door have confronted Mr. Johnny about the traffic running over into our area, into the church parking lots and other areas. I am very concerned about our children and our young people and our teen-agers who this type of establishment will have a great influence upon them. On one particular incident we were having a church car wash, and the drug addicts and -- kind of holding a gun against some of my people because they was in the area where they was dealing, and they ran them out of that area and told them not to come back during that particular hour. I believe that this establishment will bring a considerable amount of people into that neighborhood that will cause a lot of crime, a lot of problems, and a lot of other things that is happening there. There is approximately five churches within the area of one block there, and this one club sits in the middle, so it kind of put a damper on the services and on the community there. So I really appreciate if you all will consider reversing the alcohol approval that have already -- I believe have already been approved. The only reason that I have not come forth before, I was given some erroneous information. I was told that -- they passed a letter around to my church, and in that particular letter it was stating that if I did not sign the letter, that the alcohol privileges would not be approved because I was the closest to the establishment. So I refused to sign the letter at that time, thinking and under the impression that that would be the end of it since I did not sign the letter. Well, evidently I was wrong. I didn't know about the other clauses and the other things that governs that particular establishment at that time. But I will ask the committee and you all to please reconsider your decision concerning that neighborhood. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first of all say that as far as Public Works or Engineering Services moving a red light, that's something I don't think is going to happen. We have a lot of red lights that we need and we have enough trouble getting them, and rather than taking one out, we'll be putting them in. Second of all, this establishment, if I'm not mistaken, before the alcohol license are approved they have to post that they're going to be selling alcohol. Am I right about that, Mr. County Attorney? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: And no one was down here when we approved this, and I know that the poster had to be posted because that is a law and they go out and take a picture of it to make sure it's there. I'm going to move that we receive this as information and -- I'm going to leave it at that, I guess. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion, and I have some comments on the discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, please? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I recall this license, and probably -- I'm sure I voted for it. At the time, the grounds for voting for it was that the club was there first; starting, I guess, with the old Lions Club and then the Johnny's Supper Club before the church was located there. And the gentleman applied for a license, did not have his construction finished or something like that, and applied for extensions on several occasions. Now, those extensions -- the last extension might have lapsed, if I recollect correct, by a month or two, and I may be wrong on that, and there was some question of whether he had a right to the license as far as grandfather clause based on the fact that there was extensions granted and he had intent to license the business. And the opposition was from the Sheriff's Department based on a criminal situation or complaints, which I don't -- if I recollect correct, some of them didn't even happen on the establishment and most of them wasn't directly linked to the business. What we do we have to do based on the law, what the Court say, et cetera, and what we can defend in court. I don't recall the License & Inspections recommending that it not be approved, but the gentleman is here and he can comment to that, and I'm sure the minutes will reflect the Sheriff's Department did object. The Sheriff's Department has objected to a lot of licenses being granted, and there's times that I've voted against what the Sheriff's Department was recommending based on the fact that I can't do it from emotions, I can't do it based on whether I like the applicant, I have to do it based on what the law say and whether I feel or the County Attorney, et cetera, feel that it'll hold up in court. If Johnny's Supper Club makes such violations that would warrant revoking his license, or anyone else in this community, I will vote to revoke that license as I have in the past. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we rescind the previous license granted. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a substitute motion made by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Ulmer Bridges. Any discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd like a legal reading on it. Because if I'm voting on something that's going to land me in court as far as the taxpayers and as far as myself as a personal liability, then I certainly want to know that I can legally rescind this license without having grounds for doing it. If this place become a nuisance to the church or is a nuisance to the church, then I think the proper place is the church to make complaints to the Sheriff's Department, that we document those complaints, then we shut the place down based on the facts and evidence, not based on whether I, you know, want to favor one side or the other. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Wall, do you want to give us a reading on that, please? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, it is my opinion that it would not be appropriate for you to vote to rescind that license today. Clearly the license holder is entitled to notice and a hearing. At that time all the facts could be brought out and consideration could be given. But it is my opinion that it would not be appropriate to do so, because the license holder has absolutely no notice or an opportunity to be heard here today. MAYOR SCONYERS: So that would make the substitute motion void; right? MR. WALL: It would be out of order, in my opinion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Do you want to withdraw that, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll withdraw it and I'll make a motion that we have a hearing on the revoking of the license. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about that, Mr. Wall? MR. TODD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute, let us get a -- before we do all these motions, let's make sure we're doing what's right. MR. WALL: That'd be appropriate, to give him notice and a hearing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, before we vote on that I'd like to comment on that, in that the fact that we were able to issue a license after it had expired previously without doing -- without going through this process. I think that we ought to at least have a hearing to revoke it now, that it should have been -- the license should not have been granted, in my opinion, at the time because it was already expired and did not meet the minimum requirements, is my recollection of the previous hearing on this license, and I want to stay with that. And I voted against it at that time and I'm planning on voting against it in the future. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is there anything else we need to know, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I think we're going to find, according to what Mr. Meyer says, that it now meets the distance requirements. But, I mean, all this can be flushed out in a hearing at that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We're going to vote on the substitute motion first, gentlemen. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, would it be possible if Mr. Wall could go ahead and set a time frame to have that hearing, whether it's before us or whether it's through Public Services Committee, so that we make sure we're on a legal time frame in terms of due notice, due process and that kind of thing, if we're going to have it? Because, I mean, you know, it's no need of wasting the residents' time and then you end up with a situation on technicalities. And this thing could -- we could probably be dealing with this particular situation till next year, you know, whatever we do with it. Because, I mean, you know, we've had it and we went through a round that day through committee. But I'd like to say this before we vote. One of the things that does help us move faster when we are confronted with these items -- and I know this is hindsight, but I think in terms of whether it's neighborhood association, whether it's churches, whether it's just individual residents who are concerned, staying really on top of these type of situations in terms of objectors -- and one of the things that probably helped it to maybe, I'd say, go through before -- they say sometimes silence gives consent --is that probably maybe we didn't have the type of opposition they may be mounting and to put this thing maybe finally to rest or to get it in that type of quarter. So if we could maybe handle it through our committee in terms of bringing it back, but I want to make sure it's handled properly in order to give both sides in terms of equal process in there and that we don't get caught up in anything technical, whether it's dealing with opposition or whether it's dealing with the petitioner and the license holder. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, similar to what Mr. Mays is saying, I'd like Mr. Meyer to tell me whether the Supper Club has violated anything since they got their license. I mean, is there -- do we have a reason to bring them to a hearing when we've already had the hearing? Unless they're in violation. MR. MEYER: No, sir, none that's been brought to our attention. If there is, the Sheriff's Department has it. I know of no violation. As a matter of fact, he has not reopened. He has 180 days from the date of granting the license to reopen, and at that point, then the license is null and void anyway. But it was granted December the 12th, and that -- MR. BEARD: Mr. Meyer, how long has that club been closed? Hasn't that club been closed a long time? MR. MEYER: They have a '95 license, and I reckon -- it was opened and closed and opened and closed and opened just for a weekend or a day or two at a time. MR. BEARD: But in the last two years the club has not been open, has it? MR. MEYER: I couldn't tell you that. MR. BEARD: I'm stating a -- I'm thinking what I assume. I haven't seen the club open in the last two years. MR. MEYER: I haven't either, but I haven't been by to check it. MR. BEARD: So how could it be violating anything if it's not open? MR. MEYER: How can it -- it hadn't violated anything. I didn't say it had. MR. BEARD: I'm not talking to you specifically; I'm making statements. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let's finish with Mr. Kuhlke, he didn't finish his yet, before we walk on one another here, gentlemen. MR. HANDY: And then remember that I called for the question about five minutes ago. MR. MEYER: And as we measure for distance, the club meets the distance requirements. It's measured from the entrance to the club, the front door, out to Olive Road -- that's the nearest traveled artery -- north on Olive Road to the property line of the church, and this is 450 feet plus. The requirement from a church is 100 yards to 300 feet, so it meets the distance requirement. Of course, under the old ordinance -- right now it's nine months grandfathered under the new ordinance, but under the old ordinance the location was good for a year, would be my interpretation. And, of course, he reapplied within a year. The license expired December 31st, '94, and at that time the owner was in bankruptcy procedures and was not financially able to apply, and he then reapplied. I think we received the application October the 25th. I don't have the file with me, but it was in October. And then we began to process it and you heard it December the 12th. MR. BEARD: Well, my question would be, if there is no violation, the club has been closed for two years, why are we going back into a hearing? It doesn't make sense to me. I think we need to vote on it -- MR. WALL: The motion was to rescind the license. I agree with you, if they have not been in violation or if the license was not erroneously issued in the first place, then it should not be reconsidered. The motion was to -- for there to be a hearing. At that time the issues could be brought up. But according to what Mr. Meyer is saying, if it meets the distance requirements, which is --the objection was that it was somehow grandfathered in. According to what Mr. Meyer has told me, it was treated as a new application, it was posted, so therefore it met all the legal requirements. I don't think that there's grounds to rescind it, and certainly there's not grounds to revoke it. But if you want to have a hearing to consider it, I mean, certainly you're entitled to do that, but I don't think that there's any grounds been shown so far that would authorize you to either rescind it and certainly not to revoke it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think certainly that I would like to see some things in writing when we have this hearing, you know, in reference to what the Sheriff's Department agent had to say, in reference to what the D.A. says. I'd like to see some letters or I'd like to see some statements from those individuals or have those individuals at the hearing. I mean, if individuals is going to second-guess my policy decision, then certainly I think they should give me the courtesy of putting it in writing. MR. WALL: Well, I would submit that you could not go back and go into the qualifications of the applicant. The only thing that would be considered on the rescission is the single issue of whether it was erroneously issued in the first instance because of being grandfathered in or not grandfathered in, and apparently that's a moot issue, from what Mr. Meyer is saying, in that it was treated as a new application. And I don't know that there is any grounds, but I don't think that we can go back and open up all the qualifications of the applicant because that issue has been decided; he's got a license. If you want to do that, then you have to charge him with violations, current violations of operation, and give him an opportunity to respond to that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, if I remember correctly, we allowed this fellow to purchase a license at the end of the year after having granted several extensions, of which he did not make. And if he purchased a 1995 license, he purchased it in December, not January. If we hadn't have granted those extensions, he would not have a license. If he did not have a license, then he would not meet the minimum qualifications or would not probably get a license. At the current time I don't know that; that's what I want a hearing over. I think we played with the rules last time when we had a hearing on this issue. MR. MEYER: The establishment had a 1995 license. The exact date it was issued I don't know, but it wasn't the end of '95. He was issued his current license in December of '95 -- excuse me, let me back up. He had a '94 license that he did not renew in '95, and then he applied for renewal in October of '95, and this is -- and you had a hearing December the 12th and the license was issued. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, we're going to vote on the substitute motion first. Do y'all know what we're voting on or do I need to have it read for you? MR. MAYS: Read it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Miss Susan, would you read it, please? MS. WATSON: The motion was to post notice and have a hearing on the license. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all understand, gentlemen, what we're voting on? MR. POWELL: That's the substitute motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the substitute motion, right. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we'll go back to the original motion, which was Mr. Powell's motion to receive it as information. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD VOTES "NO." MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 3, please. CLERK: Mr. David Steele, in reference to Broad Street Parking. MR. STEELE: I'm afraid it looks like this room isn't going to clear out no matter what you do today. My name is David Steele, I'm the owner of the Window Gallery at 1129 Broad Street and also a co-owner of Augusta Millwork at the corner of Third and Hale Street. It was very gratifying today to see your decision with Davidson Middle School, that you respected a decision of the previous government. The issue that I'd like to bring before you deals with that same matter. When we moved our business to Broad Street five years ago we were promised unrestricted parking in that area of Broad Street. At the time that we located there, there was not a traffic problem because there were very few business in that part of Broad Street. In an effort to get us to locate our businesses on that end of Broad Street, the previous mayor suggested that we have unrestricted parking in the median. I would not have located my business on Broad Street if that were not the case. Now, in December of this year there was a meeting of the merchants that was held because we were experiencing congestion in parking. At that time, Samm Fusselle was asked to circulate a survey and that Homer Moore also was asked to circulate a survey. I wrote a letter to Mr. Kuhlke on the 5th of January asking that he bring this matter up before the new consolidated government. Because the problems that we were experiencing as merchants occurred after the election and prior to this government taking office, we really lost about a month during the Christmas season. During that time, many merchants had trouble with parking in our blocks. There were two primary concerns. One was that the parking from the Federal Courthouse was taking up a lot of parking in the 1000 block and also that the location of Osbon Medical or the growth of Osbon Medical was requiring a lot of parking in the 1000 and then consequently in the 1100 block. At that time we requested that Mr. Kuhlke bring this matter up, and we were expecting a response. The response that we got was that two-hour parking signs went up all over Broad Street about three weeks ago. Now, that caught many of us by surprise because we were expecting that there was going to be some dialogue and public comment. Let me say clearly that the intent of the merchants that I've spoken with is to ensure that there is customer parking on Broad Street. That is our foremost concern is that our customers who come downtown to park have a place to park. However, we're also concerned about employee parking. And we realize that in certain parts of Broad Street there is, if not adequate parking, there is at least some substantial amount of parking. In the upper part of Broad Street very few businesses have parking lots behind their buildings. Also, those that do have them are afraid for their safety. There have been cars stripped, there have been cars stolen, there are people that are afraid to park in the back for fear of their safety. Now, what we have today is we've presented a petition to you that's been signed by 70 operators of businesses in the 1000, 1100, and 1200 blocks of Broad Street. What we are requesting of you is that you rescind your previous action and take down the two-hour parking restrictions on the median only in the 1000, 1100, and 1200 blocks of Broad Street. We did not have a parking problem until your action was taken about a month ago. There was plenty of parking for customers and for employees that did not have off-street parking. Now, there was some temporary congestion caused because of the situation in the 1000 block. Osbon Medical has provided parking now for about 80 percent of their employees off the street. The Federal Courthouse will be quickly moving back to their property on Telfair Street. It is our suggestion that in order to have a comprehensive plan for parking on Broad Street, that we make a short-term action today, which is to restore unrestricted parking on the medians. We believe that that will prevent the problems that we're having now where employees are having to go out and jockey their cars around every couple of hours. So we'd like that as a short-term solution. We would also request that you have strict enforcement of two-hour parking on the curbside. And then we would ask that the Engineering Services Committee launch a committee that would further study a long-term plan to solve the parking problem in the downtown area, and specifically on Broad Street. With the introduction of the Golf Hall of Fame and possibly a James Brown Museum and other growth in that end of Broad Street, we have a serious problem that we're going to have in the near future. We believe that there are good-will people. Some of us want two-hour restrictions everywhere. It's our opinion that the majority want that strictly enforced on the curb, but we want, for the short-term, unrestricted parking on the median. So we present that to you today. We ask that you take actions that will encourage the revitalization of Broad Street. Mr. Osbon made a point to me the other day that he does not have to have his business on Broad Street. I don't have to have my business on Broad Street and neither do a lot of other people that are there. When I first moved there five years ago it was a ghost town. There were very few businesses. Most businesses were boarded up. We would like to have an opportunity to see that part of Broad Street come back. The action that was taken by this group has hindered that, so we would ask you today to rescind that action and also to appoint a committee under the direction of Mr. Powell's committee to further study this problem. Thank you very much. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, that's already been addressed in Engineering Services. I have Mr. Dillard and Homer Moore looking into the possibilities of us using the existing parking deck as a solution for some of this parking, and I move that we receive this as information. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a couple of clarifications. The Engineering Services Committee had this problem brought to us by the staff -- the Traffic Engineering for the Urban Service District, et cetera. We dealt with it in a committee with merchants, with employers, et cetera, at that meeting. So short of -- it was passed there and went onto the agenda and was dealt with as an agenda item at the next regular meeting. I can understand that some individuals could've been left out of the loop, so perhaps what we need to do before we take a further action is have a public hearing on parking on Broad Street in that there is two different opinions, it seems. I understand that Mr. Osbon has about 150 employees. And certainly we want to make it employer-friendly down there, merchant-friendly down there, et cetera, and the only thing that I can think of, short of the long-range plan now, is to perhaps issue parking permits for some employees that would give them the right to park temporarily and maybe that would be, you know, one of the dispositions to the problem, and give it to them for 30 days at a time until we can work out the long-range problem. I feel the employer and the employee is responsible for his and her parking, not the local government. MR. STEELE: Mr. Mayor, may I respond? MAYOR SCONYERS: Please. MR. STEELE: Mr. Todd, the previous meeting where the decision was reached was held without any notification. We have had a survey that was sent out by Samm Fusselle, and also one by Homer Moore. The recommendations of those surveys did not point towards the action that was taken by your committee. As we understand it, a merchant did come down and he brought quite a few supporters, and I've been told by members of the Council that he represented that he was the spokesman for the merchants. The reason that I got involved -- and this has really been a big distraction to running my business -- is that after sitting through other meetings I knew that that was not the case; that the vast majority of the merchants in that end of Broad Street did not want two-hour parking all over that end of Broad Street. What we wanted was two hours on the curb. And so we think you took a hasty decision. I understand you dealt with it once and you don't want to keep having to bring it up, but this has been an issue that's been fought out on Broad Street for the last 30 years. We were told when we located there that they were going to have unrestricted parking to encourage businesses like mine to come back downtown. And so my point is that we did not have a public comment period, we did not have an opportunity to give input; that an individual came and pretended to represent us. Now, I have 70 signatures on a petition of people that run businesses in the three blocks that I'm here to discuss today, so I think you'll find that the vast majority of the merchants do not like what you've done. We don't want this just to be taken under advisement. The parking deck is out of the question. There is no way that people who work in the 1200 block of Broad Street who come and go -- my employees are sales people; They come and go three and four times a day. They cannot deal with having to go to a parking deck, you know, seven/eight blocks away. That's not going to solve our problems. So, you know, we think you need a long-term solution and we would like to help in that. There are people in this room -- Mr. Kaplan has been on Broad Street for a long time. There are a lot of good, creative ideas about possibly having decals, there are other things like that that could be done, but we need some short-term relief. While you're studying this issue, I can't afford to have my employees getting up every two hours and moving their cars, and there's a lot of other merchants down there that are not in a situation where they can stand that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make an amendment to the motion that we authorize the Urban Administrator to issue parking decals on an individual basis for the employees down there as a temporary solution. That's in the form of a amendment if the maker of the motion will accept it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the problem automatically -- I mean, right now just fix it for you. Unfortunately, that's something that we're not going to be able to do. And I won't be able to accept that amendment. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to you because I know this has been brought to your attention, and with all due respect to my colleagues on Engineering Services -- and I'm not on Engineering Services and I don't have a problem with that because everybody can't serve everywhere, but I guess from -- if you want to take something, I guess, from a senior citizen, this is something that I had to deal with, even though some of the faces have changed, but parking is still a problem downtown. I was confronted with it as a member of the old City Council when we were dealing with it 16/17 years ago. Some things have changed uniquely. Some of the people are gone, some have remained; we got some new businesses there that are trying to make it. I think if nothing else other than courtesy, that Engineering Services needs to do two things: I think, one, you need to revisit it, at least in terms out of consideration, and consider the alternative proposal that's there before you; I also think that the long-range part of it does need to be studied. And I guess as Public Services Chairman I'm going to throw in a little indirect plug for Transit. Because when you start talking about that parking deck over there, that's been a boondoggle for a long time. And before we start cutting some other things, maybe in terms of alternative parking, when you get an overload, if there was a reasonable way to shuttle folks from it and provide safety for it, then that might be an alternative of doing it. But I think on the short run we need to consider what's before us from the merchants at hand and work with them, and I don't think we ought to dismiss in the long range utilizing that deck; not necessarily for what you all are talking about as merchants, but the fact that if it's there, then it can be a means, I think, if it's ever worked properly, to use it. And I'm going to make that in the form of a substitute motion, that this consideration goes back to Engineering Services to at least consider the proposal that's there. Because a shotgun approach has never solved it for Broad Street. If that had been the case, parking would have been able to be solved 15/16/20 years ago. There were many alternatives that had to be used before you could come up with something that even halfway worked. And I think we've seen what may be the quickest thing that's happened in consolidation -- it probably surprised me -- was the quickness of the signs popping up and the quickness of the tickets being written. So if anything has worked real quick, that certainly has worked real quick, but I don't think it's worked to our advantage from a PR standpoint, nor has it worked for the comfort zone of those people who are in business there. So I make that in the form of a substitute motion, that Engineering Services reconsider that action that they've taken and to meet with those persons again. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mays, rather than make that as a substitute motion, if you'll make it as a friendly amendment I will accept it. MR. MAYS: It's friendly. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Steele -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, point of order. MR. KUHLKE: Is that out of order? MAYOR SCONYERS: We've only got one. His was a friendly amendment. MR. KUHLKE: His was an amendment. Mr. Steele reported to me that after the action was taken, that within a matter of a couple of days the signs were up and none of the merchants knew anything about it. My substitute motion would be that we rescind the two-hour parking on the median all the way down Broad Street and make two-hour parking on curbside all the way down Broad Street. I've talked to the Sheriff about it, he sees no problem, but he wants consistency from one end of Broad Street to the other. So I offer that in the form of a substitute motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke -- who seconded that? Two of y'all did it at one time. Jerry Brigham? Okay. Any other discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. I don't have problems with being downtown-business-friendly. I think I made that point at the first meeting. But who is to tell us that we're not going to have the original group come in and say you guys changed what you done before? You know, how am I supposed to know who represent the groups downtown? And I think it's essential that the groups downtown get together if they expect me to set policy in their best interest. So, you know, that's where I'm at on the issue. I feel that the Engineering Services Committee handled it properly. We dealt with it as an agenda item; we had individuals from the downtown community; individuals had talked to the Mayor. We at least put it on the agenda, we dealt with it as an agenda item, we took recommendations from the Sheriff's Department, from the Engineering Services staff as far as Traffic Engineering, et cetera, and I think we need to get together with everybody down there and know that we're singing from the same sheet of music and not have one group coming in undoing what the other group come in to do. I believe Mr. Steele is a non-resident of the county and we have that to deal with, so certainly -- and I don't think that have -- you know, it might say -- you know, the question might be what that have to do with it. Well, certainly when I'm dealing with a resident versus a non-resident, you know, it has something to do with it. And I'd like to see them go down and get together and maybe bring back, you know, a group of folks that when we're going to vote on this from Engineering Services and vote on it again as far as the Commission go, that we have everybody singing off the same sheet of music. MR. BRIDGES: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, he called the question on us there. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just had a question; I'm not calling the question. I was just wondering, is there anybody in the room here right now that has a dissenting opinion from Mr. Steele's opinion? Just curious. PUBLIC CITIZEN: I'm not dissenting, but I'm a resident of the county. I've been down there on Broad Street for 13 years. We went through the City Council and got that median clear 10 or 12 years ago. We had to do it. They just -- they didn't go through all this mess, they did it. That's all, they did it. And it is going to bother our businesses. It's so simple to just take those median signs down. It doesn't cost a dadgum cent. MR. STEELE: And you created the problem quickly, we can solve it quickly. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we're going to have a vote right now and maybe we can solve everybody's problem. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have just one more comment. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're going to vote on this. We've done beat this thing to death about five different times. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there was two individuals held their hand up. Can we hear from the other individual? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, we'll be here all night. Now, we've got motions on the floor, let's work on the motions. That's the way you solve this. We have a substitute motion on the floor by Mr. Kuhlke to remove the signs all the way down Broad Street from 5th to 13th; is that correct, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: In the median. MAYOR SCONYERS: In the median, right. The sides will still be two-hour parking. MR. KUHLKE: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSR. POWELL AND TODD VOTE "NO"; MR. HANDY ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Consider approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission-Council on March 19th, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. CLERK: Item 4. You have a motion right here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the motion. CLERK: To approve Item 4. MAYOR SCONYERS: By who? CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham to approve the minutes. Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY ABSENT] CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, Item 5 through 10 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on March 25th, 1996. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull 8 out and discuss it separately? MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8. MR. TODD: 9 and 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: So what we're going to do then is 5, 6, 7. Is that what you want to do, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: We probably need to discuss 13 also, I assume. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, right now we're just going through 10. We were through 10, but Item 5, 6 and -- we're going to do Item 5, 6 and 7, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Yes. Those items were approved, and they wanted to pull out 8, 9 and 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to just go on and vote those and go as we go down the list? CLERK: Yeah, they can just go ahead and do consent on 5, 6 and 7. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I move that we accept them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham -- MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- seconded by Mr. Todd, that we approve Items 5, 6 and 7. Discussion, please? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 5: Consider approval of the award of the facade restoration contract for 982 Broad Street to Chic, Inc. in the amount of $14,250. Item 6: Consider approval of the award of the facade restoration contract for 984 Broad Street to Chic, Inc. in the amount of $14,250. Item 7: Consider approval of a Resolution designating April 1-7, 1996 as National Community Development Week.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8, please. CLERK: Item 8: Consider approval of the Augusta-Richmond County Summer Youth Program '96. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve it. MR. HANDY: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I hope we don't approve this. I recognize -- whereas I recognize that this may be a well-intentioned proposal by some of the Commissioners, I think that this can become a perk for political allies of Commissioners. I think to -- in a period when we're trying to downsize our government, improve and streamline it, I don't think adding additional people on it, even for a period of six weeks, is appropriate. I think the $38,000 could be better spent. As an example, when we did the budget we cut several different departments. In the D.A.'s office alone we cut $40,000 out of salaries and wages because we said we just couldn't afford it, but now we're going to come back and we're going to add $38,000 in expense for really what? I hope we do not approve this motion, and I ask the other Commissioners to vote against it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I voted for this at the beginning and I would vote for it now. The only thing I have -- problem that I have with this is that I think we need a criteria for selection. And I believe that if we can give $750,000 to Davidson, I think that we can give this to the youth of our city. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I want to echo what Mr. Bridges has said. I think that we're in a period of downsizing, I think this is a perk that's given to the Commissioners to give jobs to young people during the summer, I think we've got enough employees to take care of the work of the government, and I think it's the wrong message to send out to the taxpayers that we are going to employ 66 people this summer. And I'd like to ask the maker of the motion if he would amend the motion that the number be cut to 60 on my behalf. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you hear that? MR. TODD: Yes, I heard the maker of the amendment, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if we want to talk about perks -- you know, one of the individuals that I appointed to this program or was appointed to this program on my behalf was the young lady, last name Singleton. We all know that her brother ran against me for reelection. I appointed her last year. If she's still in school, she can be appointed as long as she's in school. She is a youth of this community. I do nothing political. I don't accept perks. The first time I used county gas was this year when they cut the expense that we got for local expense, and now I fill up with county gas one time a week to take care of county business. I think this is a issue of our youth as far as our community go, putting them in --involving them in something productive. And if we want to talk about perks, let's talk about the perks that we give the nonprofit organizations in this community at a tune of a quarter of a million dollars a year. And if the maker of the amendment want to, I'll accept the amendment that we cut out all perks; that's nonprofit perks that you guys support, that's the jobs program, and that's any money that we're not giving to county government to operate a department. I heard the D.A.'s war cry at South Augusta Pride and Progress. I'd rather not comment on that because I know we fund that department well and I know that we'll continue to fund that department. He requested money from the crime money, or at least from the drug money that they take in, to give some folks some healthy raises, and I think that's possibly what this is about. And we can debate his budget if he want to make his budget -- he want to make a budget issue, but the place to make a budget issue is not at Pride and Progress South Richmond County, the place to make a budget issue or reconsideration of budget is down here before the Finance Committee and this Commission. So if we want to cut out all perks, I'm for it, let's cut them, every one of them, the quarter of million dollars we give nonprofits. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a point that we do have a budget for this year. We have approved a budget. Before I vote on another budget item, what I would like to have us do is to turn it back to committee and reprogram the funds to find the place where we're going to take that money from. We're going to hear a number of issues today. We're going to be asked to vote to spend money that we are not budgeted for. And I have no problem with this or the Little League situation as long as we go to a reprogramming action, but you can't keep spending money --we've got about 200-and-something more days this year and we will have probably at least 30 more meetings, or 20 more meetings, and we'll have more and more people coming and asking us for money. So before you spend money, you have to figure out where you're going to take it from. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, last year we operated this program. To the best of my knowledge, at the end of the year we did not spend all revenues that were budgeted for salaries. If we're going to operate this program, I don't see any reason why we cannot operate it and stay in the current salaries. We've done it in the past, I think we can do it in the future; therefore, I'm going to support this program. As for the political insights on it, I found six people I thought were interested in work. I found three of them that made it and three of them that didn't. I'm personally going to look at the high schools in my area and other people. Last year I had one lady, a student that called me and asked for work that was interested in working. If we've got a student that is that interested in finding a job and we have a position, I think we ought to owe it to them to go out and fill it. And, therefore, I'm going to support this motion. I think it's a good program. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, did the maker of the motion accept my amendment? I don't know whether he did or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm not really sure, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I did not. Any individual that don't want to make the appointment don't have to and the money stays in the budget. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, did you have your hand up? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: He had his hand up. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is for Mr. Jerry Brigham. Have you implied that the money is in the budget to support this? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Zetterberg, it's my opinion that there are monies that have been budgeted for salaries, and that's where this money should come from. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think that question can be quickly answered. I mean, this is not -- even though we're in a new government, this is not a new program, this is not a reinvention of the wheel. I think it's almost an indictment on the youth of our community. We're talking about what we're doing in terms of downsizing. During the summer months when workload has picked up in some departments, this program and others have actually saved the old city government money, it's saved the old county government money, because we've used young people to fill in in a lot of those positions to tide us over until after that summer period was over with, you know, and it seems as though we're getting into a battle of the budge about the crumbs of a budget. And again I repeat, consolidation was not supposed to hurt. This is nothing new. And if we're going to start dealing with services on the basis of where every time you look that they are people-oriented, and I don't care whether it's Public Transit, whether it's Summer Youth, whether it's dealing with some other things that I won't call because I may lose one or two votes when I say it, but I think if that's going to be the case, then maybe we ought to revisit everything that we're doing. And as was mentioned about one particular department -- and the D.A. is a good friend of mine, but the D.A. has also worked summer workers out of this program, too, and I think he would attest that the ones that's been sent to him have worked very well. MR. POWELL: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MESSR. BRIDGES, KUHLKE, POWELL, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE "NO." MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8, please -- excuse me, Item 9. CLERK: Item 9 is to consider approval of a policy for establishing control of authorized positions. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to at least hear what that policy is. MR. BEARD: We're going to ask Mr. Etheridge to do that, but for Mr. Todd's information, I think the problem was recruitment from within. That was removed from there, according to the minutes, if that's what he -- CLERK: No, that's Item 10. He wants the authorized positions on 9. MR. BEARD: Oh, you're on 9? CLERK: Yeah, we're on 9. MR. TODD: I'm going to go on and make a motion that we approve that one, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did anybody else want to revisit Item 9 before we vote on it? Mr. Todd made a motion that we approve it. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion, please? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please. MR. TODD: I guess that's the one where I needed clarification on what the minutes said versus the action we took before and the direction we're headed now. CLERK: Item 10 is to consider approval of a recommendation regarding the recruitment process of the new Utility Department Director. Go ahead, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concern is whether we're deviating from what we voted on as a board here. And I know we took that action after Mr. Carstarphen gave a report, and it's my understanding that that motion was that we appoint the Mayor, the Mayor Pro-Tem, Mr. Carstarphen, to head up a committee, to do a committee of personnel directors from the community of a select number, to bring qualified folks to us, and that we would recruit community-wide -- or at least there was a great deal of debate on what community-wide was. Now, if we are changing that, you know, like going back to a committee and changing that and coming back to this board, then I think it's essential that we rescind that action before we vote on this action to do it differently. Once we pass a resolution, I think we should live with it until we rescind it. That's my position on this issue. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I might be able to help clarify this. I will certainly try to. I have provided each of you with a memorandum, and I have some additional copies here, that attempts to describe the decisions that the Commission made at the meeting of March 19th at which this was discussed, and perhaps it would be helpful if I went over that with you at this time. And I'll simply -- I'll read the memorandum, but I'll provide copies to the Clerk for the minutes. It's a memorandum addressed to the Mayor and members of the Commission from myself. The following is a summary of the recruitment and selection process for department head positions in the new government. The procedure is based on recommendations presented earlier by the Consolidation Project Manager and on discussions by the Commission at its meeting of March 19th, 1996. The process will be utilized in filling all department head positions currently occupied by interim appointees, as defined by the resolution approved by the Commission on March 5th. Action initiating recruitment: The recruitment process for each individual department will be initiated by a motion of the Commission following (a) presentation by the Consolidation Project Manager of recommendations for the reorganization of the affected department and (b) actions by the Commission approving the new organization structure for each affected department. Section on educational requirements: Candidates for all department head positions will be required to hold undergraduate degrees. In those instances in which the interim appointee occupying the position does not hold an undergraduate degree and submits an application as a candidate for appointment to the permanent position, then in that instance the requirement for an undergraduate degree for appointment will be waived for that candidate only. Recruitment process: Recruitment for each department head position will be a open recruitment process unless it is determined by the Commission- Council that a significant pool of qualified candidates exists within the new government organization. When such a determination is made, the recruitment process will be limited to candidates from within the organization. And this is the part that I think you are concerned about, Mr. Todd. Prior to each department head recruitment process, a committee consisting of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Consolidation Project Manager will examine the adequacy of the potential candidate pool from within the current management employees and make a recommendation to the full Commission-Council that the subject recruitment process be restricted to current employees or that candidates from outside the organization be considered as well. The recommendation of the committee will be presented to the full Commission- Council, which will make the final determination as to open or closed recruitment. Following this determination by the Commission-Council, the recruitment process will be initiated and managed by the committee with staff support from the Human Resources Director. And I'll continue with this, and then we'll come back to make that decision. The selection process: The three-person recruitment committee: the Mayor, the Mayor Pro-Tem, and the Project Manager, will identify and invite to participate in the candidate evaluation process a subcommittee consisting of up to six professional personnel and human resources managers from within the local corporate community. It will be the objective to ensure participation by a minimum of two members of this subcommittee in each department head selection process. The reason for that is we recognize that these are volunteers and all six of them may not be able to participate in every instance. Potential candidates will be invited to indicate interest in consideration by submitting, in writing, resumes and qualifications. The qualifications of the candidates responding will be reviewed by the recruitment subcommittee, supplemented by participants from the corporate personnel directors. In each selection process, the subcommittee will evaluate all candidates' resumes and qualifications and select a small number of candidates for personal interviews. Following completion of personal interviews, the subcommittee will identify and recommend to the full Commission-Council a minimum of three individuals who are considered to be best qualified. Appointment: Following review of the recommended top candidates by the full Commission-Council, appointment of the selected successful candidate will be made by a vote of the full Commission-Council. Final paragraph concerning consultant and retirement agreement options. In those instances in which the selection process results in the necessity to reassign an individual currently occupying an interim department head position, the recruitment subcommittee will consider the interest of both the new government and the former department head in determining the most appropriate new assignment for the individual involved. In addition to the appointment to a new management responsibility, the process may also include the option of a consultant contract for a period of time no greater than 12 months and/or negotiation of a retirement agreement. Any such consultant contract or retirement agreement will be reviewed and recommended by the Consolidation Project Manager, the Human Resources Director, and the Attorney. All decisions concerning the reassignment of former department heads and the approval of consultant contracts or retirement agreements will be made by the full Commission-Council. Following the Commission-Council's approval of any such agreements, they will be executed by the affected individual and the authorized representative of the new government. I have copies -- in fact, copies of this have been placed in each of your boxes. I'll provide a copy to the Clerk and would request that it be entered in the record so we are clear. I believe that addresses the concerns that were raised. I hope it does. If it does not, I'll be happy to address any questions. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have one question. Have y'all appointed the six membership? MR. CARSTARPHEN: We have not made the appointments. We have had some contact from individuals who have expressed a willingness to participate, and Mr. Etheridge is working with the corporate human resource community to identify as many as six. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we rescind the actions of the previous meeting so we can adopt the recommendation that's made here today. And I make that in the form of a motion. MR. POWELL: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, do we need to -- did that motion adopt that or do we need to make a motion to adopt that now? MR. WALL: We need a motion to approve it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. I believe, Mr. Mayor, you can report on the meeting of the subcommittee with regard to the Utilities Director. Or has that already been taken care of? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, not yet. You're right. We met this morning and agreed that we would recruit from within. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is in the form of a recommendation to the full Commission, and you will need to vote on that at this time to give us direction. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, did we have a motion and a second? MR. POWELL: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. What we're doing now is accepting the recommendation as far as the structure go, as having a Utility Director that would be in charge of all utilities in Richmond County; is that correct? MR. CARSTARPHEN: No, sir, you've already approved that in the organization of the department. What you are voting on today is the recommendation of the subcommittee which consists of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro- Tem, and the Project Manager, that in the instance of the Utility Department Director, that our recruitment process be from within the organization. On each subsequent recruitment process that comes to you, you will have a chance to vote on whether or not it should be an open recruitment process or one that is limited to employees within the organization. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES "NO." MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 13 is to consider approval of the Health Central Wellness Program. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we reject the proposal of the county paying for membership in the Health Central Wellness Program, and I'd like to speak on it if I could get a second. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, what this appears to do is pay for membership in Health Central here downtown for county employees. It's paid for by the taxpayer, and I just think this is not the function of government; it's not something that we want to get into as far as the taxpayer funding this. I can understand and I can appreciate the economics of this. Healthier employees don't lay out as much and aren't sick as much, I can understand that, but neither do employees that don't drink or smoke, and are we going to pay for, you know, those that don't drink or smoke? You know, what are we looking at here? How far can this go? And in essence, too, what we're looking at here is a raise for those that will participate in the program, and those that don't don't get a raise. But my concern here is that the government should not be -- the county government or any government should not be funding this program, it should be something that the individual wants to do themselves. And I don't think it's something that is proper for us as taxpayers to be funding and I hope the Commission will vote against this. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly all of the employees of Richmond County have opportunity to participate in this program. This is something that the private sector do. I was chairman of the Insurance Committee a couple of years ago and realized the savings that we realized through wellness. I think that we should stress wellness instead of sickness, instead of -- you know, and fitness instead of being unfit and having the situation that unfortunately happened to the umpire in a major league ballgame. I think that we probably have less injuries and less, you know, other type sickness, et cetera, because of this. I would even go as far as that we probably should require -- and the private sector is doing this also -- all employees to go out and do some type minor exercise every morning before they go to work, whether it's just stretching or whatever. So I strongly support it, and I'm going to make a substitute motion that we approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's substitute motion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I'll second it. MR. ETHERIDGE: Can I say something? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Everybody else has. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor, I want to say something very briefly. This is a program -- I mean, this isn't nothing new; we've been doing this. The reimbursement schedule that I proposed to the committee is new, and that's the only new thing about it. We've had a wellness program here, which includes smoking and other type wellness programs. Insofar as giving an increase to people, everybody has the same opportunity, so it's not -- I mean, you can't compare, in my opinion, an increase to anybody from that standpoint. But I encourage you to approve it because a wellness program will pay for itself within a brief period of time. We've had very good success with it and we want to encourage more people to be in the wellness program. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Etheridge there. We've had people coming in from University Hospital and they've shown us the savings over a period of time that we can gather from this. And this is not a perk, but this is offered for our employees, and I think it's time that we give something to the people that they can utilize. Also, it would be helpful for us, and I move that we -- well, a motion is already on the floor, I believe, so I'll call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're going to vote on the substitute motion first, which is Mr. Todd's motion. Does everybody know the motion we're voting on or do we need to have it read? MR. POWELL: Could I have it reread, Mr. Chairman, for clarification? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MS. WATSON: It was to approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, it's to approve Item 13; that's the Wellness Program. So all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSR. BRIDGES, POWELL, KUHLKE, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE "NO." MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Could we move Item 50 next, please, so they can go practice at Little League? CLERK: Item 50: Consider approval of $200,000 expenditure from reserve funds for capital improvements for Masters City Little League and West Augusta Little League. Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 1996. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the action of the Public Services Committee. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I have some concerns over how this is going to affect our reserve funds. I believe we are getting very close to the minimum requirements of the reserve funds in the consolidated government for both the city and the county, and I would prefer that we look at another funding source for this rather than the reserve. And I believe Mr. McKie is willing to talk to this item also. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to offer an amendment that we reimburse the reserves at a later date from one-penny sales tax. I see the County Attorney shaking his head, Mr. Mayor, but certainly if I -- don't the law say, Mr. County Attorney, that you can borrow money, then pass a one-penny tax, and then repay that money you borrowed? This tax is already passed, and we have Recreation in this tax as far as capital outlay go. MR. WALL: The resolution that was passed when the sales tax was put on the ballot called for the funding of certain projects that were included in the capital improvement plan. If one of those projects came in under budget or if a project proved to be not feasible, then you can reallocate those monies first within the category, such as Recreation, for which the money was budget-ed. But at this point, no determination has been made that any of the projects are not feasible, nor have any of them -- monies been identified as being under budget, so I think you've got to complete the capital improvement plan that's been put on the ballot before you can take sales tax monies and reallocate it. MR. TODD: I'll agree with you and I'll amend my motion to state what you said. If there is money recaptured or if there's more brought in or if we cancel a project, that we give first consideration to reimbursing the reserve. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think we're running into the same situation again. We have built a budget for expenditure this year, now we're all of a sudden deciding to spend 200,000 more of monies that we have not identified in the budget. I want to make sure everybody understands I'm not against Little League, but I'm against spending money we haven't -- we don't have. I am against spending money that we don't go out and try to reprogram. If we have to do it within the one-cent sales tax money or we have to do it within the budget itself, but I will not be party to any action that approves the expenditure of money that we don't have budgeted for. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Zetterberg, I believe our conversation with Tommy Boyles indicated that this year he would not have the funds to put into it, but beginning next year there would be funds available through the Recreation budget from the one-cent sales tax that you could do some reimbursement or either some additional funding for the Little League programs. And I thought that that was our conversation in our committee meeting to assure ourselves that those funds could be reaped out of the Recreation budget in the capital improvement program. So, to me, this -- this is a project where you got volunteers that are servicing almost, I think, seven or eight hundred kids that the county cannot take care of. These people have borrowed money, they have borrowed up to $100,000 over in West Augusta and probably a similar amount out at Masters City, and we ought to be very thankful. This is pretty cheap compared to some of the things we do. MR. ZETTERBERG: I would agree with Mr. Kuhlke, it is a worthwhile effort. All I'm asking to do is that we go back to the budget and reprogram those dollars and that we don't wish it away to next year under Mr. Boyles' one-cent sales tax money, and that's my position on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, did you want to say anything? MR. KUHLKE: Be careful. MR. McKIE: I'm always careful; sometimes not careful enough. MR. HANDY: It's all right, Mac. MR. McKIE: We had talked about trying to reprogram some of Tommy's Recreation budget, roughly five and a half million dollars, and over four of that is salaries and utilities, hard fixed costs that we cannot change unless you're going to lay people off. So for program supplies, that leaves him about one and a half million dollars, and if you cut 200,000 out of that, you know, that's a good 14 percent cut; which, quite frankly, they couldn't stand. They'd have to drop their own baseball program or some other program to do that. Now, if you want to take 200,000 out of the combined 80 million dollar budget, you know, then certainly we can go back to the drawing boards, but that's going to require some sacrifices somewhere along the way. MR. KUHLKE: The six million dollars you're talking about is an annual budget for the Recreation? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, for Recreation. The operating budget. MR. KUHLKE: You're not talking about the one-cent sales tax money? MR. McKIE: No, sir, I'm referring to the annual operating budget. MR. KUHLKE: Annual operating. And I understood that. I understood that. MR. McKIE: Right. So if we throw the entire general fund budget open to review -- MR. KUHLKE: Can you find it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's like asking any accountant can he find the money when he's got a majority of the Commission -- he's going to say yes, and when it comes time -- MR. KUHLKE: Well, that's what I want him to say. MR. J. BRIGHAM: -- we'll all get crucified. We'll fire him for finding the money that we gave him instructions to, and we're not going through that process again. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we're not talking about going through the process of several years ago; we're talking about transferring $200,000 from the reserves, deciding on some projects later, and we know they exist in the one- penny sales tax. We're doing a multiple purpose complex out in South Richmond between three districts and we're probably not going to need some complexes that's out there now. So it's fairly simple. We program the money for this project now and we reprogram it back into the reserve budget. And, you know, if we hadn't done this before at the tunes of several million dollars I'd be probably sitting here agreeing with most of the folks, but I believe that we done something similar to this for the golfers' Hall of Fame, we done something similar to this to the Port Royal and projects that you guys stole from me out there in South Richmond -- and I want to rub that in again --and certainly I think it's time to call for the question. If you look at what you're saving the County by these two fine entities doing this, I think it's approximately, between the two of them, about 1,400/1,500 kids with what they're adding on this year, and we're turning kids away that got to go to them, that per capita it's real cheap. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Todd, there's somebody else wants to speak over here. Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Powell. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to reiterate what Mr. Todd said. Basically this is cheap for us. These guys are doing this on a volunteer basis. We cannot afford to have these kids come into our program. We certainly couldn't -- it's certainly going to be a lot more than $200,000 for all these kids to come in our program. We just can't afford it now, we probably can't afford it two years from now, so I think they're doing us a favor. I think if we can find the money in our budget, this is a good program, we should go with it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to let everyone know that I'm in total agreement with this. As far as the influx, we would not be able to handle it in our Recreation Department. And with that, I call for the question. MR. HANDY: I got one thing I need to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, y'all better get Mr. Powell to retract his call for the question because we're fixing to vote on something. MR. HANDY: Oh, no, I did that five or six minutes -- times -- three times today and I didn't get no cutoff yet, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to retract that and let him speak? MR. POWELL: I'll retract it, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Okay, Mr. Handy. Mr. Handy, then Mr. Brigham, then we're going to vote. MR. HANDY: I appreciate that. I was going to say something one way or the other. Anyway, I just want to remind everyone something Mr. Bridges just said. I'm going to vote for this, but he said kids and this is important. A few minutes ago you was going to cut the work program out. We're still talking about children and we're still talking about helping our youth, so just remember that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think Mr. Handy has probably said what I was going to say. If Mr. Bridges feels that we can -- this is not a perk to help these folks out here, and I don't mind doing it, but those 66 youngsters, they are kids, too. I just want him to realize that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSR. J. BRIGHAM AND ZETTERBERG VOTE "NO." MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: To consider the delegation from the Richmond County Board of Health. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, since I think part of the discussion involves the location or possible locations for this site, a real estate matter, I would suggest to you that it's appropriate to discuss it in legal session. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I so move that we go into executive session for discussion of land acquisition, real estate. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second that we go into legal or executive session. Any discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, do we have -- are we fixing to go into that now, or do we have enough that we could do on consent agenda to finish what we are doing with everything else? MR. BEARD: We need to go now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, actually, pretty much everything else is on a consent agenda. It should wipe it out. MR. MAYS: That was the only thing I was wondering. I mean, I can go either way. We're going to be here the same length of time, but I was thinking since you're taking those that had delegations or may have been debate, why not just go on and finish the whole agenda and then -- MAYOR SCONYERS: To let these people go home? MR. MAYS: Yeah, I mean, and just go on into that, you know, as a last item. We've delayed them here all day now. MR. BEARD: But you have people waiting in the delegation like you have others. These people are waiting to go -- they've been here for a while also. So we asked them to come back and -- MR. MAYS: Okay. Well, I didn't know you had promised them before. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to go into legal session or executive session, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [OFF THE RECORD, 4:12 - 5:06 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting is back in session. Madame Clerk? CLERK: Items 14 through 32 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee March 25, 1996. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept Item 14 through Item 32 as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. 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 14: Consider approval of a plan regarding Solids Handling Improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 15: Consider approval of bid award regarding the Wetlands Treatment System, Phase I, at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 16: Consider approval of ratification of emergency expenditures to replace the 6" water main and fire hydrant serving the National Science Center at Fort Gordon. Item 17: Consider approval of Change Order #1 for the Turpin Hill Roadway & Drainage Improvements, Phase II. Item 18: Consider approval of the acceptance of off-site utility easement from Boardman Petroleum, Inc. to Richmond County on property shown on Tax Map 43-4, Parcel 15, Project Reference 82-030. Item 19: Consider approval of the authorization of condemnation of Project Parcel 18 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 17- 4:39, which is in the name of Herbert L. Howard, Jr. et al. Item 20: Consider approval of the option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 1 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 24- 4:1, which is in the name of Stuart H. Prather, Jr. Item 21: Consider approval of the authorization of condemnation of Project Parcel 48 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 17-4:39, which is in the name of Allen M. Alex. Item 22: Consider approval of one option on Project Parcel 46 (along with two letters pertaining to this parcel for your information), and three counteroffer options on Project Parcels 34, 35 and 56 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II. Item 23: Consider approval of a recommendation to maintain the present policy regarding the discontinuation of Augusta-Richmond County's responsibility to hang banners in various locations throughout the area. Item 24: Consider approval of a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst to perform surveying and engineering services regarding plans and specifications for the project concerning Entrance Improvements for the National Science Center's Fort Discovery. Item 25: Consider approval of a request for authorization to have property appraised regarding the Pedestrian Walkway & Handicapped Access Ramp at Sixth Street and the Levee. Item 26: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 2 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 24-4:2, which is in the name of John Maddox Nixon and Nelson Alexander Nixon. Item 27: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 59 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 18:366, which is in the name of Woodbluff Property Owners' Association. Item 28: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 60 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 18:9, which is in the name of Charles Lee Smalley, Jr. Item 29: Consider approval of bid award regarding the Goshen Industrial Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. Item 30: Consider approval of Change Order #1 with Southern Partners for additional surveying regarding the sanitary sewer project from the Kimberly Clark property. Item 31: Consider approval of Change Order #2 with M. B. Kahn Construction regarding the expansion project of the Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 32: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding the method of handling change orders by the appropriate Administrator concerning the construction of the Joint Law Enforcement Center (Fourth Street and Phinizy Road locations).] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 33, please. CLERK: Items 33 through 38 were all approved by Finance Committee in meeting March 11, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, the Finance Committee brings these to you as a consent agenda and recommend their approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to reflect that the specs that was presented to the bidders on the Garage be the items that they're responsible for as far as the repairs. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: I offer that as an amendment to the motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We'll accept it. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about the seconder of the motion; Mr. Handy, do you accept that? MR. HANDY: What do you want to do, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Make an amendment that the specs as far as the Garage project go, the bids -- the specs for the bids be the items that they are responsible for repairing. That's pretty much what they bid on per the contract. MR. HANDY: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, would that affect the contract in any way? MR. WALL: Well, a contract will have to be drawn up to include all this, which would include those specifications. But, I mean, it's all going to be included in the contract that ultimately will be presented to you for approval. MR. McKIE: That's in the RFP as well, Mr. Wall. MR. TODD: Yes. My problem is I haven't seen a contract yet, and I know there was some debate on what they're supposed to repair and not repair before, and certainly I think it's appropriate that if it was in the specs and they bid on it, then it would be -- and it was in the Request for Proposals, then it should be in the contract. But I haven't seen the contract and that's what I'm doing here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that okay, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. Item 33: Consider approval of a request from Landrum Supply Company regarding a waiver of penalties for taxes on certain parcels of property. Item 34: Consider approval of the abatement of taxes on property located at 602 Taylor Street which is being leased by Augusta-Richmond County. Item 35: Consider approval of a request from Joseph C. Garrison regarding waiver of the penalty on property of Rose Hill, Ltd. Item 36: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding the establishment of the positions of Coordinators, Assistant Coordinators and Secretaries related to the Crime Bill of 1995. Item 37: Consider approval of a request to purchase prior year services for 1977 Retirement Plan from Benny R. Pennington, Water and Sewerage Department. Item 38: Consider approval of a recommendation for bid award to MLS regarding shop maintenance; to include the amendment that the specifications presented in the Request for Proposals will be the items that are to be repaired.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 40, please. CLERK: Items 40 through 43 were all approved by the Public Safety Committee in meeting March 26, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval, these were voted on, and vote on them as a consent item on the agenda. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 40: Consider approval of the appointment of Deborah Foster, Safety Manager at Nutrasweet Company, to the Augusta-Richmond County Local Emergency Planning Committee to replace Bill Foster, Nutrasweet Company, at the request of the facility manager. This is a three-year term appointment. Item 41: Consider approval of Change Order #1 up to $10,000 regarding Renovations - Third Floor City-County Building. Item 42: Consider approval of Alrich Contracting Company, Inc. as the vendor for inspection, cleaning, repairing and/or replacement of 18 HVAC starters in the Municipal Building. Item 43: Consider approval of an Equipment Maintenance Agreement (EMA) with Landis & Gyr for the System 600 software and hardware. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 44, please. CLERK: Items 44 through 49 were all approved by the Public Services Committee in meeting March 26th, 1996. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, these were approved in committee and I make a motion that they be approved by the full Commission-Council. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors to any of these licenses? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, on Number 46 I'd like the record to show that I vote against that due to Sunday sales. Other than that, I vote for the others. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that so noted? CLERK: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. POWELL: Also note the same for me, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell wants to be noted the same way. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is there any objectors in the audience, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors in the audience, please? None noted. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 44: Consider approval of a request by Ramon Rodriguez for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Caffeine LC located at 730 Broad Street. District 1, Super District 9, (A.N. 96-12). Item 45: Consider approval of a request by Mike Smith for a consumption on premises liquor and wine license to be used in connection with Dizzy Chicken located at 1327 Augusta West Pkwy. District 3, Super District 10, (A.N. 95- 15). Item 46: Consider approval of a request by Mike Smith for a 7-day special event license to be used in connection with Dizzy Chicken located at 1327 Augusta West Pkwy. The event will be held at the Double Eagle Club located at 2603 Washington Road. This establishment is currently licensed for consumption on premises beer and Sunday Sales. District 7, Super District 10, (O.D. 96-13). Item 47: Consider approval of a request by Carolyn Anne Tyson for a Game Room license to be used in connection with Copperfields Lounge located at 1365 Gordon Highway. District 1, Super District 9. Item 48: Consider approval of a request for matching funds between the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council and the Georgia Department of Transportation for asphalt rehabilitation of specific areas at Daniel Field Airport. Item 49: Consider approval of contracts with Ramona Sue Taggart and Jeffrey Harrison Shugard regarding their participation as officiants in various sporting events sponsored by the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation and Parks Department. MOTION CARRIES 10-0 ON ITEMS 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49. MOTION CARRIES 8-2 ON ITEM 46, WITH MESSR. BRIDGES AND POWELL VOTING "NO." CLERK: Item 51 is to consider approval of a Resolution related to a Deferred Compensation Plan. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this does not identify the individual by name but by position. This is for the Project Manager and it's in order for and under the contract that we have with him that allows him to participate in this plan, and I recommend approval for the resolution. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, what we're doing here now again, we are -- MR. WALL: There's no cost. He will pay the cost into the retirement plan, but it just allows him to continue in the plan that he's currently participating in. But this governing body has to adopt a resolution. MR. TODD: And this is the pension plan? MR. WALL: For Mr. Carstarphen. MR. TODD: And this is to participate in the Richmond County -- MR. WALL: No. No, no, no. This is to participate in the one that he currently is a member of in the city that he left from. MR. TODD: Right. No problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: [Item 52] To ratify award of contract to perform emergency water line repair on Walton Way Extension to Mabus Construction Company in the amount of $12,500.00. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by who, please? CLERK: Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. This has already been repaired and we're ratifying it; correct? CLERK: Uh-huh [yes]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's [sic] motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of Resolutions authorizing submission of Grant Applications to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources concerning Bethlehem Design Guidelines Manual and Summerville Design Guidelines Manual. MR. POWELL: So move. Move for approval, I mean. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell. MR. TODD: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear more about it. CLERK: Mr. Paul DeCamp was here. There's a letter attached to your addendum. Is that -- you need more information than that? MR. TODD: Okay, we can go on. I'll call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is there any local funding attached to this grant request? MR. WALL: The letter points out that the Summerville Neighborhood Association has agreed to provide the matching funds of $4,800.00. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Wall. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: I think that's it. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about the hours -- MR. POWELL: The landfill hours, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you want to bring us up to date on the landfill hours to make sure we've got the correct ones? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, we're taking this under Other Business? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I believe, Mr. Mayor, the agreement with all the parties involved -- I talked to Mr. Dillard about it -- is that we extend the hours on Saturday only, from three o'clock to five o'clock on the Saturday before Easter, which is for Masters -- to give them a opportunity to bring the waste to the landfill: leaves, limbs, for Masters cleanup; and also possibly do it the Saturday after Easter also for purpose of spring cleanup. And I talked to Mr. Powell about this, and also to Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith is here to address the issue if we need to hear the cost for this operation for approximately two days. I believe the cost was estimated for a Saturday and a Sunday at approximately 15/16 thousand dollars, and in changing it to Saturdays -- well, we'll let Mr. Smith address it. MR. SMITH: Mr. Mayor, Commission-Council, the cost would be approximately $1,500 for both days, but we are cutting this back to just Saturday for concerns that were voiced to y'all previously. And at this request we will ask for volunteers to stay over and pay them the overtime for these extra hours on Saturday to allow this cleanup of the area. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Smith, that was on purpose, to sell that possibly. MR. SMITH: Good job. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is there any other business? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just report out the Information Committee finished their work yesterday and we have a technical solution that's been agreed upon by the information managers to the satisfaction of the individuals on the Information Committee. The proposal is to move the automation equipment that formerly belonged to the city, to move it to the annex building, and they're going to start that move probably within the next two weeks. In addition to that, it looks like a potential in the consolidation -- the potential is a savings of approximately three-quarters of a million dollars. MAYOR SCONYERS: Over what length of time, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: That's in the first year. And then savings on that, I believe they're around $60,000 a year after that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Great. Good report. Thank you very much. Further discussion on anything, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a non-debatable motion. Thank you, Mr. Todd. This meeting is adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:18 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council held on April 2, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council