Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS April 16, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 16, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd, and Zetterberg, members of 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. We apologize for starting our meeting two hours late, but we had some other important business to take care of today. We're going to have the invocation by the Reverend J. C. Trowell, Pastor of Gethsemane Baptist Church. If you'll remain standing after that, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REVEREND TROWELL. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have one deletion: Mr. Tom Scanlon, the Veterans of Vietnam War Post 8. Additions: Delegation, Mr. Tommy Boyles, Augusta- Richmond County Recreation Department, reference to the Olympic Box-off; a Delegation from the Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services; a Communica-tion from the Interim Attorney regarding a request from Metric Constructors for permission to obtain building permits in the Sandbar Manor development before final acceptance of the streets and drains; Consider approval for a proposed consent order and a contract in the amount of $45,000 for Rae's Creek and the EPD. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion we do them with unanimous consent except the one on the street approval, and I'd like to know more about that one and why we're doing it this way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you explain that, please? MR. WALL: This is a development down there that has a time frame -- a time limitation in which they're trying to move forward with the project and have it completed. This is basically an apartment-type complex, and rather than waiting until each individual unit -- I mean, they need to start on the whole process and get the building permit for the whole process and would like to start that before all the underground utilities and roads are in place in order to move forward with it. The bond is in the amount that will cover the entire cost of the underground utilities and the streets, and it will allow them to move forward with development of the project. And Mr. Murphy has been in contact with the people with Metric Constructors. We've allowed this sometimes in subdivisions; this is not technically a subdivision. MR. TODD: Yes, I understand, and that's my problem is we allowed it in the past with subdivisions and we somewhat got burned on them. I'm going to go on and do it if you feel comfortable with it. I don't like doing these things by unanimous consent where we don't have it in the package, we don't know about it. I think there's got to be a effort to let us know what's going on. MR. WALL: And I understand that it was not included in the package. It got buried after it was sent over here. MR. TODD: I'll also add that one in, Mr. Mayor, and we do them all by unanimous consent. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The first item is Mr. Tommy Boyles with the Augusta-Richmond County -- I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, at the request of Mr. Todd, he asked that Item 44 be taken first. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. CLERK: Consider approval of a request from J. W. Jones for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Malibu's Lounge located at 1557 Gordon Highway. There will be a Dance 2 Hall. Approved by Public Services Committee April 9, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the gentleman was here earlier at two o'clock and wasn't aware of the fact that we changed the meeting time because of other pressing engagements. And if it would please the Commission and the Chair, I'd like to go on and take care of this one. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of this particular item. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I have a second, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: By Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is that Sunday sales there? MAYOR SCONYERS: No Sunday sales; correct? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: No Sunday sales. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are there any objectors? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? None noted. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item: Mr. Tommy Boyles, Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department, with reference to the Olympic Box-off. MR. BOYLES: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, we thank you very much for adding us to the agenda at the late moment. I'd like to do three things. Number one, I'd like to introduce to you our representative in the Final 24 as the best in the United States in the Olympic Boxing, the amateur boxing. This is Mr. Brandon Mitchum. Brandon is a freshman at Augusta College and he's also a recipient of the Hope Scholarship. And he's a member of the Augusta Boxing Club and he will be representing us in the 147-pound welterweight category at seven o'clock -- I'm sorry, eight o'clock Friday night. I would like to introduce Mr. Woody Gregory. Woody is the ACOG representative, the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, who is here to oversee as our Competition Director. I'd like to introduce Mr. Doug Morrison. Doug is the Associate Director of USA Boxing. Doug is from, I believe, Colorado Springs, Colorado. These people have been coming in all day. And from Palm Bay, Florida, I'd like to introduce our attending physician, Dr. Frank Filiberto. And, of course, all of you know Tom Moraetes who, along with Chairman Mays at that time in 1994 in the County Commission, made this a reality. We started in 1974 trying to get an Olympic event -- and that's 1974. We started trying to get an Olympic event in 1994. After everything else had failed, we did get the Final 24 and the Boxing. And for that, we would just like to have Brandon present you, and maybe you can fly it over this Courthouse, the Olympic flag. Brandon, if you would give them that. And we present that to you and, again, we thank you for working us in. You have gotten our schedule for Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and I hope you will all be with us as you've been scheduled for certain events there. And we appreciate it. Thank you. MR. MITCHUM PRESENTS THE OLYMPIC FLAG. A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Thank you, Brandon. It'll be a great honor to fly it in front of the Courthouse. CLERK: Next we will have the Augusta-Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services. Mr. James Kendrick will be the spokesperson. MR. KENDRICK: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, distinguished elected officials, and the community as a whole, it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Department of Family and Children Services, along with the members that are present, Mr. Hugh Connolly and Dr. Williston Wrights. We have went through an extensive search to replace our long-time director, Ms. Pat Fitzgerald. We found a very capable person to replace her in Ms. Linda T. Johnson. Linda comes to us from Americus, Georgia; Sumter County. Before that she was in Peach County. Her home is in Savannah, Georgia, so she's a Georgia [sic]. It gives us great pleasure to present her to you. Her education, of course, started in Savannah, Georgia. She has a B.A. degree from Armstrong State and a masters from the University of Georgia. It gives me great pleasure to present to you and to the community at large the new Director of the Department of Family and Children Services, Ms. Linda T. Johnson. Linda? MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. Mr. Mayor, distinguished Commission- Council Members, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you. I thank you for giving us this opportunity to come. I will serve, with pleasure, the citizens of Richmond-Augusta, Georgia, and I am most happy to be here. As you see, I have my button on, and the button indicates Work First. And you see the HOPE symbol, and this stands for Helping Obtain Positive Employment. We at the Department of Family and Children Services are very pleased to embark on, as we have been for a number of months now, on a whole new philosophical change; that is, trying to help our citizens move from a state of dependence to independence. We invite and encourage the entire community -- as you have been very supportive, as I understand, in the past, I invite you to continue your support as we attempt to assist our citizens and our customers, as we call them, in moving toward achieving their goals. I have some pamphlets that I'd like to leave with you so that you will have more information. I'll be pleased to come back in the future to talk with you more. And thank you so much for all the support that you've given the Department of Family and Children Services that I'm quite aware of, and we appreciate that support and look forward to a continued successful working relationship. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. We're glad to have you on board. A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, at the request of the Planning Commission, Items 2, 3, 7 and 12 need to be heard separately, as per Mr. George Patty. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were all approved by the Planning Commission. Items 4 and 5 are to approve petitions; Item 8 is approve a petition; Item 9, approve with stipulations; 10, approve with stipulation; 11, approve a petition. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve them per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 4: Z-96-29 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert Striggles, on behalf of Everfaithful Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Oak Street and Sand Bar Ferry Road. (District 1) Item 5: Z-96-30 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Nordahl & Co., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Markwalter Road, 273 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Brown Road and Markwalter Road. (District 8) Item 6: Z-96-31 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Nelson Williams, on behalf of Don Elefson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 3B (Multiple-family Residence) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Payton Road, 380 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway (Old Savannah Road) and Payton Road. (District 2) Item 8: Z-96-33 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jay Willingham, on behalf of Dr. James L. O'Quinn, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Washington Road, 470 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pleasant Home Road and Washington Road (3313 Washington Road). (District 7) Item 9: Z-96-34 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with stipulations: 1) That the use of this property be limited to a retail maternity wear/uniform shop or those uses allowed in a P-1 zone; and 2) That the sign provisions of Section 25-B of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this property, a petition from William Fulcher, on behalf of Dr. Richard L. Clardy, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Druid Park Avenue, 52.6 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and Druid Park Avenue (1010-1014 Druid Park Avenue). (District 1) Item 10: Z-96-35 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a stipulation: 'That a 24.5 foot undisturbed natural buffer be retained along the south property line', a petition from Benjamin A. Jackson, on behalf of E. Louis Smith, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Alexander Drive, 146.7 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad line and Alexander Drive (1003 Alexander Drive). (District 7) Item 11: Z-96-36 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Troy Standridge, on behalf of the Georgia-Carolina Council of the Boy Scouts of America, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Richmond Hill Road, 143 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Lumpkin Road and Richmond Hill Road. (District 2)] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [NOTE: MR. BENJAMIN ALLEN REPLACES MR. WALL FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.] CLERK: Item 2: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ronald Eastman, on behalf of Dutch Ann Jackson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing transitional housing as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Greene Street, 224 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Fifth Street and Greene Street (448 Greene Street). MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Ron Eastman. I'm here again to ask the Council to reconsider my petition for zoning for the transitional house on Greene Street. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, you had your hand up? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I had a question. What is transition housing? Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't know what it is, but. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. The Veterans Administration has a program that allows the veterans -- they are no longer housed in the Veterans Administration building. They are all going to off-post housing or, as they say here, outpatient, and they need a place to put these veterans in. Now, I have [inaudible] from state, local, and federal government, yet it was disapproved. So I'm here to find out why and ask again for consideration. MR. BEARD: I would just like to know do we have any objectors here or what was the reason for the disapproval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a spokesman for the objectors? MS. McINTYRE: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I feel a little strange being on this side of the microphone. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Dana McIntyre, I am a member of the Olde Town Neighborhood Association's Board of Directors. I'm having extreme pollen trouble, so please bear with me. We in the neighborhood are trying to reclaim our neighbor-hood as a single-family, primarily, neighborhood. We are immensely overpopulated in Olde Town. If you look at the 300 block of Greene Street alone, you have approximately 200 residences in one block of Greene -- in one block of Broad Street if you count the Broadway Apartments. We are trying to reclaim as many of the properties that have been subdivided into apartments and/or offices into single-family. Barring that, we would prefer to have residences--rental properties; tenants; owner lives elsewhere, rents locally type things--so that we can continue with our effort to bring a family atmosphere down to Olde Town, which it had once many years ago. We have been having a Tour of Homes every year for six years. Money collected from the tour is put back into the community in various programs. If we continue to allow our neighborhood to lose its homes, we will no longer be able to do things like the Tour of Homes which we then are able to put back into the community. I don't know if some of you are aware of it, but many of us in the neighborhood have had great difficulty locating this house. The red Z has not been posted. If it was posted, it's not up there anymore. There are many members of the neighborhood association who've gone looking for the house and still have not figured out which one it is. I think I have a pretty good idea of which one. I think it's the red brick empire. A lot of people -- which is why I have no petition for you. We've been caught blind- sided in a lot of ways. Some of us knew that this was coming up, others didn't. A third factor is, this is one block from Houghton Elementary School. Do we want a transition home one block from an elementary school? Yes, these people are attempting to get back on their feet. Some members of my own family have struggled with this: fought, postwar, just growing up. It's difficult. But there has to be a better answer than to place a facility like this into a neighborhood a block from an elementary school. And unfortunately, which we're also trying to work against, it is a known drug area. Within three blocks of this house you could buy just about whatever you want, be it chemical, herbal, or human. And we're concerned that if you put people who are struggling to make themselves strong into an atmosphere that close, it's going to be detrimental not only to us but to them. Plus, is that going to bring the traffic even farther into the neighborhood? So we really hope that those of you who voted to deny this during the Planning Commission meeting will stick with this; and those of you who have not had an opportunity to vote, please remember we are trying to preserve our neighborhood. And it's the classic question I'm going to ask you: Please think, would you want this a block from your house or a block from your child's elementary school? Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Planning & Zoning and what the staff recommendation was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? While he's coming up, how many folks objected to that, so we can get a count on that. PUBLIC CITIZEN: We're the only two that were able to make this meeting, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. [NOTE: THERE WERE THREE OBJECTORS PRESENT.] MR. PATTY: First, I'd like to say that we did post a sign, as state law requires now. Normally we -- I personally go out and look at these a week or so after the sign is posted. And being familiar with this property, I didn't go to look at this one, so I can't tell you how long it stayed up, but all I can tell you is it was posted, per state law. As far as the substance of this decision, I certainly relate to what the petitioners are saying, and I would be concerned if I lived in that area. The other side of the coin is, unfortunately this property is located within a block that's zoned entirely General Business. Every other property on this block is zoned General Business, which would lead you to believe that the owners of this property also have a right to General Business zoning. And if they had General Business zoning, then they could put any type of residential use on this property that they wanted to--a boarding house, a fraternity house, or any other type of residential use--except the type of residential use that we're talking about that involves occupancy by handicapped folks; which is, in my opinion, very close to, if not a violation of the intent and spirit of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988. The staff recommendation was for approval for that reason. And that's not to discount the zoning issues. When this law was passed in 1988, we knew --we started looking at the application of the law through the courts and we knew that this time would come when we'd have to make a decision like this. It's a terrible decision to have to make, you can see it from both sides, but I feel like I need to advise you of our interpretation of that law. Like I say, the staff recommended approval. The Commission heard both sides and made a unanimous, I believe, decision to recommend it be denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Long? MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I'm Jack Long, I'm a lawyer. I have an office right across the street. Our objection to this change in zoning and this special use is that this is going to require this house to be put to the most extensive overcrowding of any house not only in Ms. McIntyre's neighborhood but in the houses that have been converted to law offices. As I understand the zoning request, they want to house, in a house with five bedrooms and five baths, twenty individuals, which will be four people to the bedrooms. They're going to have three employees plus the proponent staying there. There's not enough offsite parking for our building. We bought land on Ellis Street to build parking lots. And this is going to have overcrowding that no other building in that neighborhood has, and we think the Planning Commission was correct in their decision. We would ask that y'all do likewise. Thank you very much. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. MR. TODD: Your negative impact that you're saying the community would have -- and this is the only one I've heard so far that I think is viable as far as me making a decision if I'm going by the zoning statute for the State of Georgia -- is that it would have a negative impact as far as parking go? MR. LONG: It will have a negative impact not only as to parking, but it will have a negative impact as to congestion or overcrowding. There was -- Mr. Patty pointed out the Fair Housing Act -- an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case that came out of Athens where they were going to have one of these homes for 12 individuals, not 20. The Athens Council denied it, it was upheld on appeal. The Federal Court said it was legal to take that action based on a criteria such as overcrowding. So I think you can do it for overcrowding for parking, I think you can do it for overcrowding for people. I mean, you're talking about a --they want to put four people per bedroom/per bath. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we concur with the Planning & Zoning decision to deny. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In reference to the amount of people that are alleged to go in there, I'd like to hear from the petitioner if that is the strongest point of contention. And I do recognize that fact if that's true, but I'd like -- before we vote, I'd like to hear from the petitioner as to the amount of occupancy that they have planned for that particular unit. I think we should allow them that opportunity to decide whether that's a true accusation or not. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, sir. The building we're talking about is 7,000 square feet. It has nine bedrooms, five bathrooms. The amount we're asking for is correct, 20 persons at one time. It doesn't mean we'll have that at one given time, but at any one time, because they are in transition, there may be up to 20 persons in there. These are veterans who have served this country faithfully, they have laid their lives on the line for this country, and you are telling me that we cannot approve a place for them to stay. They come from all over the place, subject themselves to treatment. They will live there only at nighttime. Every day they'll be transported to the VA Hospital. Only at nighttime they'll be there. MS. LOVE: My name is Mary Love. Number one, the traffic -- we have our vehicles, there will not be traffic in and out. The veterans are only going to be there overnight. They're going to a day program Monday through Saturday. They will not be out on the street wandering around. The thing is, they just need a place to stay. So far as to the fact that what the gentleman said, there is not room, there is plenty of space: 7,000 square feet. So I understand. And the sign is still up, 448 Greene Street. MR. LONG: Well, as to the number of square feet, I have made ten copies of the record from the Tax Assessor's Office, and I'll be glad to hand over that to each member of the Commission, plus the Mayor a copy. This house only has 4,700 square feet, it has five bathrooms and five bedrooms, according to the Tax Assessor's Office. I'm sure that if this had 19 rooms, as alleged -- it has a total of 14 rooms, but five of those are bedrooms, five are baths. I'll be glad to hand this out. This is a public record of Richmond County, Georgia. It shows exactly what the area is of this house, and I don't think what they are telling y'all is factually correct, nor is it consistent with the County's own record. If any member of the Commission would like this, Mr. Mayor, if you'll permit, I'll be glad to pass these out. Would that be permissible? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. Absolutely. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve it with stipulations that they go no more than 15 individuals at any given time. That's in the form of a substitute motion. MS. LOVE: Excuse me, sir. The owner is here, she knows the size of her house. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd's motion dies for lack of a second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell's motion was to concur with the Planning Commission to deny. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES "NO". MOTION CARRIES 7-1-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion carries 7-1, with 2 not voting. Did I miss somebody's hand? MR. MAYS: I didn't, and I'll be recorded as abstaining. I was trying to really sort out the confusion, Mr. Mayor, as to whether or not this house had five bedrooms or whether it had nine bedrooms, and I've not gotten an answer on that. Because my question then was going to be to staff: If it only has five, then why would you recommend that for 20 occupancy? If it does have nine, then I don't see any reason why we couldn't go ahead and approve it. And I've really not gotten an answer on that, and for that reason I can't vote on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it's already been approved to concur with the Planning Commission. Next item, please. [NOTE: MR. WALL RETURNS TO MEETING.] CLERK: Item 3: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from C.S.S., Inc., on behalf of Knox, Ltd., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a two-way radio communication tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way line of Amsterdam Drive, 140.0 feet east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Madrid Drive and Amsterdam Drive. MR. PATTY: This petition involves a piece of property that the potential buyer would like to put a two-way radio station on. It's a substantial piece of property, I believe it's seven acres. I may be slightly off on that, but it's a large piece of property. It's currently zoned B-2; the property could be used for a variety of things. It would not be consistent with this neighborhood. It's my understanding that the petitioners only want to put this two-way radio station on the property. The Planning Commission recommended -- I actually attended the Administrative Services meeting which was going on concurrently with the Planning Commission meeting, so I don't really know the details of this case, but I do know that it was denied. There were substantial numbers of objectors to it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have objectors here today? PUBLIC CITIZEN: Yes, sir. [NOTE: THERE WERE 14 OBJECTORS PRESENT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: I move to concur with the denial. MR. TODD: Second. MR. SMEAD: I'd like to speak on behalf of C.S.S. in reference to some of the concerns that the citizens had in that area. One was interference that they feel was going to interfere with their televisions and their telephones and things of that nature. The type of equipment that we're going to be putting on -- we'd like to put on this tower is in the eight/nine hundred megahertz band range, which is way up here. Television is distributed on a lower amp and VHF, which it won't interfere. All the equipment that we put in there is going to have to pass FCC emission standards for interference. If we put something in there that's going to interfere, we're in violation of the law. That just cannot happen. The citizens are also concerned about reducing the land value. As Mr. Patty stated, this property is already zoned for General Business. What we presently want to do is go in there and clean up the lot. It's unfortunate that some people have come in and put garbage and other things on this lot and made it an eyesore, and we'll have to go in and clean it up and police the area and make sure that this doesn't happen anymore. We're going to establish a barrier, a natural tree line, between the persons that live on Madrid Drive and where the tower will be so the citizens wouldn't see the building and what have you off their back porches and things of that nature. The residents are also trying to establish a Neighborhood Crime Watch, which I think is admirable. And right now this lot is wooded; there's no telling who goes in there and who comes out. We'll clean it up, we'll clear it and open that area up, clean all the garbage out of there, and put in a tower that is not going to have a lot of traffic, not going to have a lot of people in and out. And we just feel like since the property is already zoned for that type of business, that we'd like to go ahead and see about getting approval. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do we have a spokesperson for the objectors? MR. HANKERSON: Thank you to Mayor Sconyers and to the elected officials. I'd like for the delegation to please stand: Barton Village Subdivision. Our local pastor, I'd like for him to come over with me. I think you also have over 200 signed petitions. I'm Pastor Bobby Hankerson, also the President of the Barton Chapel Progressive Neighborhood Association, also Chairperson for the National Weed and Seed Project that is established in the Barton Chapel area now. We meet on Monday nights -- the first Monday nights and first Thursday nights. Our community is participating in these meetings. We are very concerned about what is going on in our community. We are out to revitalize our community, reclaim our community. At the present time you wouldn't have a problem finding Barton Village. All you have to do is drive south and look for the tallest three towers. It points right in the neighborhood, right in the subdivision of Barton Village at the present time. Right now these particular towers that are located -- surrounding the subdivision cause interference with the television reception; also, we can hear FM radio on our telephones. The citizens have expressed the fear of these towers far as lightening, far as windstorms, because of the fact that these towers -- now the cables are running right at the edge of some of the residents' property line. When we drive down our streets, the only thing now we can see is tall towers. It's not like we are riding into a neighborhood as once before but now like we are entering a factory site. The citizens that are here today are 26-year property owners. Our association consists of 99 and 2/3 percent of property owners in Barton Village Subdivision, and we are concerned about our neighborhood. This rezoning site on the corner of Madrid and Amsterdam is almost located now in the subdivision. We already have problems with the communication, the fear of these towers and so forth. We don't want our community looking like a factory site. The citizens also are complaining about these towers will depreciate the value of their property. Who wants to buy a home with an antenna tower adjacent to their back yards? So this is our concern. And we are working strong with the Weed and Seed Program to weed out crime, drugs, and all unwanted things in our community to revitalize our community. The citizens are working along with the local agencies in Richmond County; also, the law enforcement. We are meeting and we are working together to revitalize and reclaim our community. So we are asking that you deny this request today, help us in this effort to reclaim our neighborhood, to revitalize our neighborhood, and make our neighborhood a safe and beautiful place to live in. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays that we concur with the Planning Commission to deny. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE VOTES "NO." MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: [Item 7] The next item is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from William B. Dye, on behalf of William B. Bye and the Richmond County Board of Health, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Balfour Street (3357 Peach Orchard Road). MR. PATTY: We have a request to rezone two pieces of property here: one that fronted Peach Orchard Road, and it was 175 feet deep approximately on Balfour; and a second piece of property which was formerly owned by the Board of Health. And what the Commission's decision was, was to rezone the front parcels from B-1 to B-2, but it reduced the area to be zoned from the petitioner's request, so that the second parcel was not zoned. So the agenda item is to approve, and that's correct, but it is not for the entire property, it's only for that piece of property that the petitioner currently owns and operates a business, which is a tool rental business. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. Is that just on the -- are we voting just on the property that's fronting Peach Orchard, and we're not taking into account the back? MR. PATTY: Right. MR. TODD: I guess my question is, are we rezoning the old Health Department property? It's my understanding we're not rezoning that? That's a question for Planning & Zoning. MR. PATTY: If I understand Mr. Powell's motion, you're not being -- the motion is not to rezone that property but to concur with the Planning Commission's decision, which was to zone the property that is currently being occupied by this business. MR. TODD: My main concern there is that we had to do something about the Health Department because complaints there by the residents, and I wonder whether there's any objectors here and whether there was any objectors at the Planning & Zoning Commission. MR. PATTY: Yes, sir, we had objectors, and there are objectors here today. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from the objectors, Mr. Mayor, if possible. MR. MERCER: Yes, sir, Mayor, Councilmen. I represent the objectors, the residents of the neighborhood, and -- CLERK: Can we have your name, sir? MR. MERCER: My name is Trent Mercer, I live at 2105 Balfour Street. We do not object to the present property that Mr. Dye has being zoned to General Business. Our complaint is with, as Mr. Todd said, with the old Health Department. We feel that the rezoning to this, which is a residential R-1A now -- it was exempt while it was a health department because it was a government agency, is our understanding, so there was no chance for us to ever oppose that exemption -- that zoning there. But we do oppose the zoning of the old Health Department at this time because we feel that it is definitely an encroachment onto Balfour Street and into our neighborhood. So we did oppose. And as Mr. Patty said, we were under the impression that it was going to be approved for the main lot, the lot that is occupied by Mr. Dye now, but to deny the rezoning of the old Health Department and leave it as it's zoned now, a residential 1A. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mercer, the motion that I made was to go ahead and rezone the property that he already occupies. The Health Department property is not even on here; it's not even being considered. MR. MERCER: Okay. The residents agree with that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about Mr. Dye, he's up here. Are you happy with that Mr. Dye? MR. DYE: Well, I'd like to -- my name is William Dye. I'd like to question why -- you know, that property has been a commercial property and been used for the County for 30 years. And if anybody had bought a house in the last 20 years, they knew it had been used for commercial use. And I can't see why it should be denied to extend my business back in that area. Which, I've had numerous break-ins because the County wouldn't clean up its property back there, because it was growed up. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that the Health Department, which is an entity in itself with sovereign, you know, separation from this Board, used the properties for a Health Department building, and that agency made that decision. That agency also made the decision as far as selling the property, et cetera, and they're exempt as County government, et cetera. I think that what I'm hearing from the community and the property owners in there is that this would have a negative impact on their property to continue this. They also led the fight to get the Health Department out of there in this situation, which led the Health Department to rent property on a commercial front --frontage property in a shopping center. So I think the answer is that we -- we corrected a problem of 30 years possibly in the last two years through working with the Health Department, et cetera. We budget the Health Department and that's how we've worked with them in this initiative, and I think it would be grossly unfair to turn around and put them back in the same situation that we just kind of helped them get out of. MR. DYE: Well, I'm glad the Health Department is out of there, too, but -- and I ain't planning on putting anything back in there like that. I just want to extend my business to where I can store my equipment back there and get it off of Balfour Street. I have to park some up there on Balfour now because I don't have the room, and that's the reason I bought it. I've got a piece of property I can't use for anything. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question, and my motion was to concur with the Planning & Zoning decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to concur with the Planning & Zoning -- or Planning Commission, excuse me, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS VOTES "NO." MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 12, please. CLERK: Item 12: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from David Lucas requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the southeast corner of the northern intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Byrd Road (3666 Peach Orchard Road). MR. LUCAS: I'm David Lucas, I reside at 4422 Wilson Road, Hephzibah, Georgia, and I'm petitioning the Council to rezone my property from B-2 to Light Industry. I've already got a proposal and a site plan approved by the County for a 40x60 building to be put up on this property. I had to tear down -- buy a demolition permit from the County and tear down a 25x30 cement block building. I've operated on this property with my equipment for six years, except for the last two years, and I'd just like to park my ten-tired vehicles back on my own property that's been there for six years. I didn't realize there was opposition to it till I come to the Planning meeting, but this time I'm a little more prepared. At that time, I understand it, there was 18 signatures on Byrd Road against it. Well, I have 16 -- excuse me, 21 signatures on Byrd Road that signed it "yes," 25 businessmen in my area, and 62 total. That includes renters, people that own property, and people that own a house but rent the land. There's a number of mobile homes directly behind my property, and all of them own their own land and every one of them signed it. So, you know, that's all I ask for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have objectors here today? MR. BYRD: My name is Charlie Byrd, I live at 3619 Byrd Road. This is the Gracewood Community out in the south part of Richmond County. Last week at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, by way of signature, I represented the neighborhood which is located off Highway 25 behind Mr. Lucas' property. As Chairman of the Gracewood Community Association, also by decision of the Community Association, we're totally against Mr. Lucas trying to rezone this piece of property. In the first place, there is an existing business he has leased out on this property. It's an auto repair shop/junkyard. The business there now, it makes the lot pretty crowded. He's wanting to erect another building that -- there's no room for another building to be built on this site. There's a big problem with access onto the property from Byrd Road, the main entrance. It's about 40 feet from Peach Orchard Road. There's no way traffic can come in from Highway 25 and turn into his business without almost causing collisions with traffic in and out of Byrd Road. The property now is an eyesore. There's not a fence around the business to shield the property and the junkyard at this time. As far as the landscape of the community, it won't enhance it one bit. Now, the petition he's got is of renters who are not property owners and businesses that have no impact on Byrd Road and the community. The community itself is -- you have to go down Byrd Road from 25 to get to the neighborhood. These businesses he's apparently got people to sign a petition, they don't impact this area. There are very few businesses along 25 and Byrd Road now. The renters who he's talking about, they're not property owners, they are trailers in the area. But the decision that I've got from the community as a whole, they don't want him to expand the business. It hasn't impacted on the area one bit to improve it, it's a deterrent, and I ask the Commission to disapprove it. MR. TODD: Mr. Byrd, I have a question, and basically it's, you know, what's -- we're talking about at the intersection of Byrd Road and Highway 25? MR. BYRD: That's correct. MR. TODD: What's the zoning along that area now on the Highway 25 frontage? I mean majority zoning; you know, average zoning. MR. BYRD: It's residential and some small businesses at this time. MR. PATTY: Let me kind of give you our perspective on this. The zoning pattern -- to answer Mr. Todd's question, the zoning pattern is predominantly commercial on the -- it'll be on the east side of Highway 25, the side that this property is located on, and there is a substantial amount of light industrial zoning, which the petitioner is asking for, on the other side of Highway 25, on the west side. The property owner came to us with a site plan. It was processed, it was approved by all agencies, and he does have an approved site plan at this time. It wasn't known to us at the time the full extent of what his use of the property was going to be. He's currently operating a auto repair business on the property, and it was only after the site plan was approved that we recognized that what he wants to do on the property does require light industrial zoning. Now, there's a gray area between all zoning classifications, and that's especially true between heavy business and light industrial zoning. And what puts the petitioner's request definitely on the side of light industrial zoning is the fact that he wants to store materials outside: pipe, the things that people that are in the well drilling business normally would store outside on the property, and that clearly makes it a light industrial zoning and he clearly needs it. And the site plan was approved. That means that they can provide the retention and they can accommodate the buildings on the site. The issue is not the site plan, the issue is the zoning. MR. TODD: Then you're telling us that he can find a use for his building under the current zoning that he has and continue to run repair shops, et cetera? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: But not the well drilling? MR. PATTY: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to concur with the Planning Commission to deny it, please. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Any discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 13: Consider approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council held on April 2, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 14 through 18 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on April the 8th, 1996. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those be considered as consent agenda and vote on all of those items at one time. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull Item 19 out. MAYOR SCONYERS: We stopped at 18. MR. POWELL: Oh, okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 14: Consider approval of a request from Community Development for designation of check signers and alternates in connection with the Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) Program. Item 15: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Human Resources Department to utilize Foster Higgins as the Benefit Consultant. Item 16: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Human Resources Department for the extension of Workers Compensation TPA Services (5-1-96 to 12-31-96) provided by Palmer & Cay/Carswell, Inc. Item 17: Consider approval of a recommendation to begin recruitment process for filling the position of Internal Auditor. Item 18: Consider approval of the vacation accrual policy of the Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual except for the portion regarding vacation and holidays for the Fire Department.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 19, please. CLERK: Item 19 is to consider approval of a recommendation from the subcommittee regarding vacation and holidays for the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. Communication from the Subcommittee on Personnel Policies and Procedures stating at its last meeting on April 8, 1996, the Administrative Services Committee appointed a subcommittee to study the issue of firefighter vacation and holiday leave. The subcommittee consisted of the Human Resources Director, the County Attorney, the Consolidation Project Manager and the Interim Administrator for Operations. The subcommittee was directed to present a recommendation on this issue to the Commission-Council at its regularly called meeting on April 16, 1996. Chief Maddox's proposal for vacation and holiday leave is attached hereto. The minimum, after 1 year of employment, is 4 days (24-hour shifts) of vacation and 5 holidays (24-hour shifts). The holidays provide firefighters with time off from work -- there will be no payment for time. The maximum, after 20 or more years of employment, is 17 days. The subcommittee made a comparison of time off for regular (i.e., non-firefighter) employees and time off for firefighters under Chief Maddox's proposal. For example, a regular employee with one year of service receives 6 vacation days (at 7.5 hours per day) or 45 hours in vacation leave time, and 10 holidays (at 7.5 hours per day) or 75 hours in holiday leave time. This totals time off for this regular employee of 120 hours per year, which is equal to 6% of their total work-time for the year in time off (37.5 hours per week X 52 weeks = 1950 hours during calendar year; 120 hours divided by 1950 = 6.15%). Under this proposal, a firefighter with one year of service would receive 4 vacation days (at 24 hours per shift) or 96 hours in vacation leave time, and 5 holidays (at 24 hours per shift) or 120 hours in holiday leave time. This totals time off for this firefighter of 216 hours per year, which is equal to 7.69% of their total work-time for the year in time off (117 work days per year X 24 hours per day = 2808 hours worked; 216 hours divided by 2808 hours = 7.69%). Chief Maddox reported to the subcommittee that he surveyed fire departments around the State, and that the leave provided by his proposal would equal or exceed that provided by 95% of the fire departments in Georgia. Finally, the Chief reported that he can implement his proposal with the men he has now on staff, plus the 15 men which have been budgeted for the department, and that no additional cost to the taxpayer will be involved. The subcommittee determined that it concurs with Chief Maddox's proposal and recommends that the Commission-Council accept that proposal and implement the accrual rate for vacation and the number of holidays as of January 1, 1996. This determination is based, specifically, on the following facts: (1) most fire departments in the State are operating under a similar system; (2) this proposal will actually give firefighters a greater percentage of time off from work than regular employees are provided; (3) this proposal will allow the fire department to man its stations with the number of employees Chief Maddox believes is necessary for the protection of the public; and (4) this proposal can be carried out with existing and budgeted personnel at no cost to the taxpayers. ACCRUED LEAVE VACATION AND 5 HOLIDAYS Vacation Holidays Total 0-1 Years @8.31 = 216 Hours = 4 Days + 5 Days = 9 Days 1-5 Years @9.24 = 240 Hours = 5 Days + 5 Days = 10 Days 5-10 Years @10.16 = 264 Hours = 6 Days + 5 Days = 11 Days 10-15 Years @11.08 = 288 Hours = 7 Days + 5 Days = 12 Days 15-20 Years @12.93 = 336 Hours = 9 Days + 5 Days = 14 Days 20+ Years @15.70 = 408 Hours = 12 Days + 5 Days = 17 Days This is the proposal being recommended for all Fire Department personnel who have a normal work day of 24 hours. We are proposing that all Fire Suppression personnel be given 5 Holidays each year plus the vacation days for their length of service. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve the recommendation of the subcommittee, with the stipulation that in the area of yearly accrual, that by 1-1-97 we -- no later than 1-1-97 we review that and make every attempt to equalize the vacation accrual between the Fire Department and the other employees. MR. BEARD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Beard. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve it with the accrual time being the same as all other County employees. We shouldn't have double standards. MR. POWELL: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have substitute motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. MR. MAYS: I'll yield to Rob. MR. ZETTERBERG: I do know that this went before a subcommittee who reviewed it. My question is, did the subcommittee project the leave times after the first year? Was that a consideration or was it just based upon the fact that the first year would have provided the number of days? MR. WALL: I can't say that the subcommittee focused on the rate of accrual. We looked at the beginning time in Year One as well as the amount of time in Year -- at the ultimate, the maximum, the 17 days. As far as the rate between that, we did not focus on that. So we looked at the beginning and the end, but really didn't discuss the middle. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Mays was next. MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, let me just say this for the record. And I voiced my opinion at the Administrative Services Committee even though I'm not a member of that committee. And where it won't seem like I'm a madman all the time, the only thing I saw, and I saw it printed, was that I said it was a crazy decision to go back, and that was not the intent of what I said and that purpose that day. That was one line out of what I said, though. I guess as, again I repeat, the senior citizen probably of this body, I've had the opportunity to work with the current Chief probably longer than anybody else. And I'm going to make something very clear, I think we have a darned good Fire Chief. I think we've got the best one working for us right now. And I've reiterated my position to him, I've reiterated it to firefighters, and I'm going to reiterate my position for the record today as it relates to consolidation as a whole. And I know you all are tired of hearing it, but I'm going to put it for the record. I said consolidation was not supposed to hurt. And I think some of the people that have been very strong and the pro proponent forces of this thing, where they've put us in a bind in some ways as a government is the fact that we've been so concerned about what a bill says, is that we've not really taken into, I think, the farsightedness of the fact that in the long run this government, which I think will work to do us fairly, which I think is going to do a good job in the long run, it is -- if it's going to be equal, we've got to take under consideration that in the short run it's going to cost us, and we've not taken that under consideration. And what I said at that meeting was it was not fair to place the Chief nor his men in the predicament of having to battle over an issue which should not be within that department. I think what we need to do --and I'm going to support the substitute motion for the fact that I've lived by good faith proposals as long as I've been in this Courthouse, and I came in nearly 20 years ago. And while I think that the Chief will act in good faith -- and not to denounce my colleagues, but I've seen us go by good faith efforts as boards, old City Council, old County Commission, and I hope that the new government will be different. But I don't put a lot of trust in good faith efforts. I think that the people who do the work, they can work it out. And I think that the Chief will do his darnedest to make it work, but I don't want to see it fall by the wayside. I think we ought to bite the bullet, deal with what it's going to cost in terms of equalization. I have to be consistent in my vote. I have not voted for water rate decreases that have put an increase on people in the urban service area, I have not -- I voiced my opinion what it has done for license holders through consolidation to raise it in certain areas just in order to make it equal, and I'm not going to be in favor of doing anything that's unequal in this situation. And I do plan to support the substitute motion, but at the same time I want it to be perfectly clear that I support the existing Chief of this department wholeheartedly, and I think I've said that to everybody on both sides of this fence in terms of the way that this has to be handled. And I think that he will do his darnedest in order to work this out, but I think as policymakers we ought to be the ones who work it out. We know what's unequal, we know what the Chief inherited, we know that we had two unequal departments going in as far as pay, and we cannot make situations equal by unequalizing them with what we do as policy. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I too want to see these yearly accrual rates equalized between the regular County employees and the firefighters, and the accrual rate that I think we should equalize it to is the one that caps out the vacation at 12, but I want to be able to know what it's going to cost me financially before I do that. I think I know what the proposal will cost. I think we're going to have an increase in cost to the taxpayers if we equalize that, and I'd rather know what that is before I vote to support that. And keep in mind, too, we don't have to wait till January the 1st to vote on that. We need to look at this right away, and we can -- if it looks like something we can go ahead and do, then we can go ahead and vote on that as well. But I, too, want to see these things equalized and provide the best for everybody concerned. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I support equalization of pay for law enforcement, for firefighters, and for anyone else working for this government. This is not the old City government, it's not the old County government, it's the new consolidated government. And I think that we in good faith said that we were going to equalize pay, and we should. In equalizing pay we should also equalize vacation time, accrual leave time, sick days, or any other days that we're giving in a benefit package to our employees. It is grossly unfair --in my opinion, it's against Fair Labor Standards to go in and give one one set of rules to go by, another another set to go by. We understand the firefighters and how they work versus a workday for a regular employee, but I think that our folks are smart enough as far as personnel go, administrators, Chief, et cetera, to man the engines. And if they're needing additional men to do it, then I think that's what I need to hear. We've given the Chief, I believe, 15 additional men. What I see happening, as far if we want to go back to the old -- we are maintaining a two, and I'm all for maintaining that two in the fire districts that have a two now. I don't want to go to a three, and I'm interested in trying to go to a one but to maintain that two. I understand that we have a five in the suburban, and most likely we're going to maintain that five in the suburban for now. I don't have a problem with that. I'd like to work towards a four or three or two at some point. I don't have a problem with that now. But if we want to look at who's making the sacrifices here, I think that it's probably the old suburban side if we're going to tinker with the vacation days, the leave days, et cetera. I think that we've got to be fair to all our employees, and if we want to be fair to all our employees, we wouldn't have voted here on 18. And 18 was pulled out of the package a couple of weeks ago. We wouldn't approve 18 and move to 19 and go on and deal with 19 in a different manner, we would've kept 18 and 19 and worked them together. And if we wanted to go to 15 years with everybody or 18 years with everybody or 12 years with everybody, where I feel it should be, then we would've done it in that manner. But we kind of isolated 18 out there, the rest of the County employees. A County employee is a County employee to me. I don't look at John Etheridge any different than I look at the guy that sweeps the street out there. They're the same as far as benefits go, as far as fairness go, et cetera. So that's my position on it and I'd like for my colleagues to support us on this one and do the right thing for once, either take everybody to 12 or everybody to 20. MR. ZETTERBERG: I wouldn't have any problem with doing that at all, except I want to know how much this is going to cost and I want to know where the money is coming from to do it. And I'm sure that the amount of money -- I don't think we can vote for anything until we know how much money it's going to be or where it's going to come from. I would like to just table it until the next meeting and we will make a determination where it's going to come from and if we can afford to do it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I certainly concur with several of my colleagues, and I said to the Fire Chief that I would support his fire days, and I also said to the men that I would support them. And I think the record would reflect when it came through Public Safety, I indicated then that my fight would be toward equalization, and my fight still will be toward equalization of pay. And I think that -- we are saying put it off, put it off, put it off, but I think that if it's going to happen we're going to have to make it happen. Nobody is going to make it happen. The people sitting around this table, until you decide in your mind that you want to do something to help these men, whether it's the Chief or the other men, you're going to have to help all of them, and I'm for that, but I do think that you cannot -- you ought not to help one on the back of the others, I think it ought to be an equalized sort of thing. Now, whether you table it or whether you vote to detain it or whatever the motion is on the floor, but I think it needs to be addressed. I think the record will also reflect that we asked at that time for them to come back with a study to the Public Safety Committee, give us their ideas and give us -- this was done over two months ago. Now, I don't know where it's got bogged down and where it is now, but we had a plan mapped out for them to do it. Then we got the subcommittee and they're bringing back their recommendations. But I think we need to look at it, I think we need to make a decision, and the procrastination is probably going to get us in more trouble than it's going to help us. MAYOR SCONYERS: One thing we might look at, too, gentlemen, if we're going to equalize everybody's pay, why don't we equalize the hours. If we're going to try to base it -- is that something we could do, John? I mean, everybody's talking about equal here. Can firefighters work eight hours a day? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yeah. Well, let me -- I think the Chief should answer about the eight hours, working on shifts. But as far as equalization, now, the salary equalization or disparities is a total separate issue from what we're addressing here. And we are currently working on that. We have completed the Sheriff's Department; we'll meet with him tomorrow. We've got some things -- we're going to be meeting with the Fire Chief, I hope, by the end of the week if not the first part of next week for him to look at. But that is totally -- has nothing to do with the vacation and holiday schedule. Insofar as the proposal that has been put together, the proposal as far as the vacation time increased the amount of time for the firefighters. They went from seven from the previous time to twelve -- CHIEF MADDOX: People on the other side went from seven to five. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, nonetheless -- MR. MAYS: No, I think you need to complete it. Don't go to nonetheless, now. Like Paul Harvey, let's hear the rest of the story now. You're before us, give us the whole deal now. Don't skip to nonetheless. Nonetheless is not going to vote. MR. ETHERIDGE: All right. The former County side had seven vacation days. Am I right on that? CHIEF MADDOX: That's correct. MR. ETHERIDGE: All right. And now the proposal is twelve holidays -- I mean twelve vacation days for everybody. And unless my mathematics is incorrect, if you take the difference of the two of those, that makes seven more vacation days than what they previously had. CHIEF MADDOX: Five. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, maybe it's five. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. We're going to vote on the substitute motion first. Do you want to read the substitute motion for us, please? MS. WATSON: The substitute motion is to approve, with accrual time to be the same as all other County employees. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all hear the motion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: No, I didn't quite understand it. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion was to approve, the accrual time is the same as all other employees. Is that correct? MS. WATSON: That's the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the substitute motion. All in favor of Mr. Todd's substitute motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: Would you read the motion again? MS. WATSON: The substitute motion is to approve the recommendation from the subcommittee regarding vacation and holidays for the Fire Department, with the accrual rate to be the same as for all other County employees. MR. ZETTERBERG: Can I abstain from that? Only because -- or a substitute motion, because I think that we need to look at the cost before we make any decisions on whatever policy we're going to -- this is a policy- making board, you should make policy without making financial decisions. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the other motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, we're voting on a motion right now, we don't need any further discussion. Let's get a count of the hands again. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. POWELL, MR. TODD, AND MR. MAYS VOTE "YES." MR. ZETTERBERG AND MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 5-3-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we go back to the original motion. Read the -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'll yield for the reading of the original motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what I was fixing to ask for. Thank you. MS. WATSON: The original motion was to approve the recommendation from the subcommittee regarding vacation and holidays for Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department, with the stipulation that the yearly accrual be reviewed and try to equalize no later than 1-1-97. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all hear that, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I've got one question just for the County Attorney. Are we discriminating by law by having two sets of vacation accrual, is all I'd like to know. MR. WALL: No, sir, you're not, because you've got two totally different pay schedules. The firemen are being paid under a 7K plan, which allows them to work a 28-day work period. Regular County employees are working on a 40- hour work week. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand the original motion? Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I want to ask one question. It was to wait until January the 1st, or could we do it prior to January the 1st if -- MS. WATSON: It was no later than. MR. H. BRIGHAM: No later than. All right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is the Chair going to recognize the gentleman that yielded down here or are we going to go around the world or -- you know, do I have to make a scene to be recognized? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you get recognized, don't you? Have I ever missed you? MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor -- MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Well, you've got the floor. Go ahead. MR. TODD: -- I haven't been recognized properly, and I would expect the Chair to go by some type procedure. And if the Chair want me to yield so the Chair can recognize someone else, then I would respect -- expect that respect from the Chair. MAYOR SCONYERS: You've got the floor. Go ahead. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my point is -- the bottom line is that we have double standards here, and we're talking about correcting a problem down the road that we can correct now. We say that the issue of equal pay is a separate issue of vacation time and accrual time, but at the same -- by the same token, we say it's a matter of financial policy and that we should have the finances in place before we make a decision. Well, if we're going to spend money to equalize pay, then certainly I think we can look at now, and we should have looked at two or three weeks ago, to spend money to equalize the pay and to tell us whether we can afford to do it or not or whether we -- just like they're going to tell us whether we can afford, Mr. Mayor, to do the equalization of pay or not. I think it's a matter of principle here. And I think the intent of this Board is as it always have been, and the old City government always have been, is to whatever means necessary not do what's fair to certain employees under our policy decisions, and I would like to see this change. I think that if we want to do right, we can do right, but I don't see any intent here of doing right because we've had plenty of time to have Finance to tell us whether we can afford the vacation, whether we can afford the equalization of pay, or whether we can afford anything else that we want to do. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. You're welcome. Now let's get back to the motion on the floor. MR. MAYS: Are we into discussion yet, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're actually voting, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: I thought when we had discussion it was on the substitute motion. I'm just asking. Because if we're going back to the original motion, we've not had discussion on the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did everybody understand what the original motion is? I was trying to get to that point. MR. MAYS: Okay. I'll yield to you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did we read that? Does everybody understand what the original motion is? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: What I was going to ask for, say for the record -- and I do agree with my colleague, Mr. Zetterberg, in terms of us knowing the numbers on any issue that we're talking about. And, Rob, I think you're absolutely correct, I think particularly for anyone that's just coming aboard this government or any government. But I do think -- and I am very much disturbed and I want it in the formal record. It does bother me, Mr. Mayor, that we sit here today and I kind of look at what I consider a clownish scenario when -- even when Rob was asking about the money. This is the third occasion when I have asked about the money and what it was going to cost. I asked it in Administra-tive Services, it has come to us in Public Safety, I have asked what it was going to cost on the floor of this Commission. The bill spelled out two departments that were to be consolidated. This is not news. Public Safety, the law enforcement side and fire, were the only two places that were named in the consolidation bill. We knew who the bosses of both departments were going to be. I really think it's a travesty when we have -- whether it's out of Human Resources or any other area, when we're at this point in time that many months past an election and we're still asking the question if someone can't tell us what it's going to be in terms of numbers. Now, we can make a decision to do or not to do, but to say we don't know what it's going to cost, I think that should've already been decided. We've had a task force made up of the old City, the old County, the Legislative Delegation; department heads have been meeting back and forth. If any department they ought to know what's going to cost something, it ought to be Police and Fire. And I agree with you, Rob, we ought to know those numbers, but somebody ought to be bringing them to us, too. And when I ask in Human Resources what they're going to be, I intend to get more than a joke. And I really don't appreciate it if that's the decision we're going to have to make, and I just wanted that as part of the record. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, the reason behind my dissent has really not much to do with the equalization. I believe equalization should occur. I've already articulated that my concern is where the money is coming from, but more importantly than that for me is I'm concerned about sloppy staff work. Here we have a case where we have at least two committees involved, one staff agency, or maybe even three staff agencies, and nobody talks to one another as a group and nobody lays out things completely. That's my big concern. We don't see the whole picture. We come in here and are not -- I find myself running out trying to be a staff officer in the County government rather than a policymaker, and I think that's a major problem we have. And hopefully downstream we can do a better job of looking at all the options, costing them all out, and allowing us to make the kind of decisions that the citizens expect us to make. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM AND MR. POWELL VOTE "NO." MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I abstained. I don't think I held my hand up on either. MAYOR SCONYERS: I said it carried 6 to 2. MR. MAYS: I abstained. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Next item, please. CLERK: Items 20 through 35 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee April the 8th, 1996. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept the Engineering Services Committee as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 20: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget and the execution of the Local Government Project Agreement regarding the North Leg Bridge Widening over CSX Railroad. Item 21: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget and Local Government Project Agreement regarding Bobby Jones Expressway (Wrightsboro Road - Gordon Highway). Item 22: Consider approval of a recommendation to let for bids the project of Kamell West Subdivision Drainage Improvements. Item 23: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding bid award of the Traffic Signals, Phase II Project. Item 24: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding a contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation for Wheeless Road Drainage Improvements Project. Item 25: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding the paving of various roads by County Forces. Item 26: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding a State-Aid Contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation for Boykin Road Drainage Improvements. Item 27: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 50 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 17-3:9, which is in the name of Margaret K. Godley, John J. Worsham, Jr. and Rose H. Silverstein. Item 28: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 4 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, Tax Map Parcel 24-2:30, which is in the name of Allen L. Teston, Kevin A. Teston and Marsha T. Barrett. Item 29: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 13 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, which is in the name of Pearl Schuchman. Item 30: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Parcel 2, Area B of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project, which is in the name of Midwestern Investors, Inc. Item 31: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 53 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II, which is in the name of Skinner Mill-Augusta Corporation. Item 32: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 8, Area A of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project, which is in the name of Julian W. Osbon. Item 33: Consider approval of contract documents regarding the Spirit Creek Road Sanitary Sewer Extension. Item 34: Consider approval of a proposal from EMCON Southeast regarding the installation of methane monitoring probes at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 35: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding the award of a repair contract for the Filter Plant Freight Elevator at the Waterworks Operations Department.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 36, please. CLERK: Items 36 through 42 were all approved by the Finance Committee on April the 8th, 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need to pull 38 out, don't we? CLERK: That was consideration of a financial report that Mr. McKie gave. He indicated at the meeting that he had additional information to give you today. He's passed it out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, good enough. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in that I haven't had time to review the additional information -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee accepted the report as information, and it would be the committee's recommendation that we accept all these items as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: I'll second it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 36: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding a refund of taxes to Harold V. Woodward. Item 37: Consider approval of a request from Georgia Bank & Trust Company regarding the waiver of a penalty for the late payment of taxes on property located at 3133 Washington Road. Item 38: Consideration of a review of First Quarter Financial Reports. Item 39: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding Change Order Policy. Item 40: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding Consolidated Banking Services. Item 41: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding Purchase Order Policy. Item 42: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding the leasing of the 800 Series Radios for the Public Safety Departments. ITEM 40: MOTION CARRIES 9-1. [MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINED] ITEMS 36-39, 41-42: MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 43, please. CLERK: Item 43 was approved by Public Safety on April the 8th, 1996. [Consider approval of a recommendation regarding bid award to Emergency Equipment Company for SVP 100 Watt Sirens for the Sheriff's Department cars.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Was this the low bid? MR. KUHLKE: No. MR. TODD: Well, then I'd like to know what we're doing. If we're not doing the low bid, then we're doing the best bid? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there somebody from the Sheriff's Department that could answer that? MR. KUHLKE: Maybe I can answer that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Todd, it was presented to us -- it was about $800 difference, I think, in the price. The reason for going with the second bid was that the second bid would supply temporary equipment in the case of a breakdown at no cost to the County; and the low bidder, it was about a four or five day turnaround. You had to ship the part out, get it repaired and send it back. And as a result of that, a car would be down for that number of days, and we felt like it was prudent to go ahead and award the bid to the second bidder from the standpoint of having as many vehicles as we could on the road at one time. Does that answer your question? MR. TODD: Yes, and I can support it as best bid versus low. What was the total dollar amount? MR. KUHLKE: I think it was 17 -- 17, wasn't it, Susan? 17,240. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please. CLERK: Items 45 and 48, please note there will be no Sunday sales. 45 through 53 were all approved by Public Services Committee on April the 9th, 1996. Items 54 and 55 were placed on probation for 90 days. That was approved by Public Services on April the 9th, 1996. Items 56 and 57 were for revocation of licenses. Those were also approved on April the 9th, 1996. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell we approve. Do I have a second, please? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: We need to -- I think, Mr. Mayor, on Item 48, Mr. Meyer wants to address that particular one. If we could pull that one out, Mr. Powell, if that would be okay, because there's some other information he needs to add to it today. We need to pull Item 58 off as well. There needs to be a correction in part of the equipment concerning that motion at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that's 48 and 58 we're going to pull out? MR. MAYS: 48 and 58. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out 55, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: 48, 58, and 55. Any others we need to pull out? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we voting on them individually? I know we're doing it as a consent order, but I'd like the record to reflect that we're considering them all individually, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 45: Consider approval of a request from Dan D. Troutman for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Treybon, Inc. located at 520 Reynolds Street. District 1. (A.N. 96-16) Item 46: Consider approval of a request from James A. Lewis for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Harpo's Lounge located at 2864 Deans Bridge Road. There will be a Dance Hall. District 2. (A.N. 96-17) Item 47: Consider approval of a request from Dorothy Inez Williford for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Depot Food Store #133 located at 1494/96 Jones Street. District 1. (A.N. 96-18) Item 49: Consider approval of a request from Donald Clay for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Shop & Gas located at 1738 Old Savannah Road. District 2. (A.N. 96-20) Item 50: Consider approval of a request from Mary Ann Pope for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Pope's Grocery Store located at 830 Stevens Creek Road. District 7. (A.N. 96-21) Item 51: Consider approval of a request from Ronald R. Russell for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Corner Store located at 1801 Marvin Griffin Road. Formerly in the name of Kyu Choi. District 2. (A.N. 96-22) Item 52: Consider approval of a request from Sandi Watkins for a one-day beer license to be used in connection with the Sports Center located at Ellis & Monument Street. District 1. Item 53: Consider approval of a request from Kyu Choi to transfer the retail package beer & wine license from the Corner Store located at 1801 Marvin Griffin Road to the S & S Food Store located at 2657 Barton Chapel Road. Marvin Griffin Road, District 2. Barton Chapel Road, District 4. Item 54: Consider approval of a recommendation to place on probation for 90 days the beer license of Susan Griffin for the Jade Palace located at 2064 Gordon Highway. District 3. Item 56: Consider approval of a recommendation to revoke the game room license of Tom Nguyen for the C K Game Room located at 2852 Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Item 57: Consider approval of a recommendation to revoke the game room license of Tom Thuan for Joe's Game Room located at 2326 Lumpkin road. District 2.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 48, please. CLERK: Item 48: Consider approval of a request from Louis Joseph Anthony Fruehauf for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Rio Bravo Cantina located at 2821 Washington Road. MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, when this came up before the subcommittee -- this is a restaurant and they will have to have a regular business license as well as the alcohol license. Part of the requirement for the business license is for them to give us a projected annual revenue, which is what the license will be based on. And they furnished my office some figures by phone that were transcribed on a message. Evidently in our office we made a mistake, because they split these figures -- which they didn't have to; we wanted total gross. But they gave a figure for food and a figure for liquor, and we reversed these figures in my office. And this appeared to the committee that they were going to sell more liquor than they were food, and this is in error. Their projected figures for gross revenue -- can I give them? -- MR. WALL: No. It's confidential information. MR. MEYER: -- are in reverse. And the figures that they project, if these are the actual sales figures or close proximity, would be about one- third alcohol, two-thirds food. And as was presented to the subcommittee, they were reversed. This is a legitimate restaurant, seats 163 people. They have other restaurants in other locations, so I think they are well aware of what they're doing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve it. I was involved in the discussion the last time and I think there was some confusion about their numbers. Even though the numbers may be confidential, I've seen them, and I think they were based upon another city, and that was a concern, too. And I recommend we approve it. MR. MAYS: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Meyer, did you tell me there were Sunday sales on that or is it -- MR. MEYER: They were requesting Sunday sales, but because of this discrepancy or misunderstanding with the numbers, this subcommittee recommended that the Sunday sales be delayed or deleted or whatever. And, of course, the restaurant is asking that because of the error, that it be reconsidered and that, like any other restaurant, they be granted Sunday sales. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the motion was to allow Sunday sales. They have everything else from the action before, but we couldn't act on Sunday sales because, one, we had a situation where we didn't know whether those numbers was right and, two, we didn't know whether the Fire Department was going to approve it. So I need to back up and say with the same stipulations of the regular sales, with the approval of the Fire Department, and Sunday sales. MR. MEYER: There is still construction going on. The Fire Department will not sign off until the construction is completed and they then inspect it, and we will not issue the license until the Fire Department signs off on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: In his motion he is giving them Sunday sales. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, including Sunday sales, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE "NO." MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 55: Consider approval of a recommendation to place on probation for 90 days the game room license of J. B. Newberry for the LO Game Room located at 3625 Deans Bridge Road. Approved by the Public Services Committee April 9th. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I had that particular item pulled off, and I'd like to make a substitute motion to drop the 90-day suspension but let Mr. Newberry know that if he gets caught doing anything out of the ordinary because of this particular thing, then we will be -- possibility to revoke his license instead of putting him on 90-day suspension. And I'd like to put that in the form of a motion. MR. BEARD: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, is that something we can do? MR. WALL: It is discretionary with the County Commission as far as what action is taken insofar as the violations are concerned, and this Commission has the right to consider that, yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we were within our right. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MEYER: I need a verification. I was under the impression we had 90 days probation, not suspension. MR. WALL: And that is correct. He can continue to operate, he'll just be on probation. MR. ZETTERBERG: Right, continues to operate. MR. HANDY: But I want to drop the probation, period. That's what I'm asking. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to drop it; is that correct? MR. HANDY: Yes. Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: Let me clarify something, Mr. Handy. In essence, at the end of the 90 days he would be off probation and would continue to operate. What you're saying is that -- MR. HANDY: I don't want him put on probation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Is there anyone here from the Sheriff's Department? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a representative from the Sheriff's Department? No, sir. MR. TODD: Is the Sheriff's Department aware of the fact that this is on the agenda today to approve the committee action? CLERK: Yes, sir. They received an agenda. MR. MEYER: I think they're aware that the -- everything that leaves the committee does come to the full Commission for final approval. I wasn't present, but I think they were present in the committee meeting. MR. TODD: I don't have any further questions other than to make a statement, and I had some concerns about this one when we were taking the action and had some reservations about whether we should be taking the action we've taken. I had no choice but to go with the Sheriff's Department operator or undercover officer at the time that we had to take a action or needed to take a action, and I'm most likely going to reverse that vote today. I think I made the motion. I'm going to reverse that vote and vote with the license holder in the sense that the Sheriff's Department don't have a representative here, and I'd like that to be stated in the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if we're going to reverse one of these, why don't we just reverse all of them if we're going to be about fair and equalizing everything. MR. HANDY: I'll accept that as an amendment, and Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's not a request for an amendment. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would have a serious problem with doing it with all of them in the sense that I think that the other folks had a hearing and they didn't say that they had any problems with what we were doing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. BRIDGES: I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to remove the probation, let it be known by raising your hand. MSSR. J. BRIGHAM, BRIDGES, KUHLKE, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE "NO." MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we concur with the decision -- with the recommendation here on the agenda. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second by Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke that we concur with the agenda. Discussion? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we table it until we have a representative here from the Sheriff's Department. If the Sheriff's Department -- and that's a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: I'll second that one. MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, if we're open for discussion -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, a tabling motion is non-debatable. Isn't that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. TODD: Correct, Mr. Mayor. MR. WALL: Well, this is actually -- we call it a motion to table, but it's actually a motion to hold it until the next meeting, and that is a debatable motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All right, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I'll change the wording of my motion, Mr. Mayor, to the next meeting. Mr. Mayor, I think we all here want to do what's right and want to support our law enforcement agencies, and I'd like to know their explanation for not being here. I think the records will reflect that there were some words between the applicant and the representative of the Sheriff's Department last week at the committee hearing. They know the process. It's not like having the City folks, you know, being before us where they think it's taken care of in the committee. And I'd like to hear an explanation from the Sheriff's Department whether the full faith of the Sheriff is still behind the suspension of this applicant or whether that has changed, whether they've done an investigation as far as the accusations that were made last committee hearing, et cetera, and that's the grounds for tabling this until we can get a representative -- I mean, postponing this until we can get a representative here from the Sheriff's Department or a letter from the Sheriff's Department as far as their position on this applicant. I would like to think that all of our undercover operators are scrupulous, but, you know, that's probably like thinking that there's a tooth fairy. MR. BRIDGES: I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All right, the substitute motion first. That's Mr. Todd's motion that we table. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 4-3-2. [MR. POWELL ABSENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to Mr. Bridges' original motion that we concur. Is that correct? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. And I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion we concur with the recommendation from the Public Services Committee, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. HANDY, AND MR. TODD VOTE "NO." MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. [MR. POWELL ABSENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll just pull it off the agenda and bring it up next week. Thank you, gentlemen. CLERK: Item 58 is to consider approval of a recommendation to purchase three small Para-Transit buses and two large ELF Transit buses. This item was approved by Public Services April the 9th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Johnson, I believe, can better explain that. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. As you know, Transit is trying to downsize our vehicles, and basically what I'm asking is that we go with the three Para- Transit vehicles, which we can purchase off the contract with the State of Georgia. On the ELF buses, I've contacted some of the references and they aren't too pleased with the performance so far of that vehicle. So basically I'm asking that we delay the action on the two ELF buses but to proceed with purchasing those three smaller vehicles off of the contract with the State of Georgia. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these Para vehicles, are these 15-passenger vans? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. These are actual beefed-up Transit vehicles that will hold 16 regular passengers and will have two wheelchair positions. They will be ADA approved, Federal Motor Vehicle Standards approved, all the federal guidelines that we have to go by. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we don't have a motion yet. MR. HANDY: Oh, you don't? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir. We need a motion. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Todd. I stand corrected. I couldn't read my writing over here. We have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke to approve the purchase of the small buses. CLERK: And to delay purchase of the large ones. MAYOR SCONYERS: And to delay the purchase of the large ones. Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 59, please. CLERK: Item 59: Consider approval of a settlement of claim of James Young and Kathy H. Young. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission-Council, this is one that I have previously discussed with you. Essentially, we had a spouse of a County employee who was injured in an automobile accident; there was limited insurance; she received severe injuries. Because the spouse was not willing to sign the reimbursement agreement, none of the medical bills have been paid. There are approximately $117,000 worth of medical bills; there's only $100,000 worth of liability coverage. The proposal and the settlement that we would recommend is that the County would be reimbursed -- I'm sorry, that the County would pay $58,000 worth of medical bills, the medical providers have agreed to compromise some of their bills, and the County would be reimbursed $10,000 out of the liability coverage. And out of the $100,000, I might mention that some $11,000 has been paid for property damage. And this is consistent with the earlier discussions that I've had with you, and I recommend approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT] CLERK: Item 60 is to consider approval of a contract with Beers Construction Company for the Phinizy Road Detention Facility. MR. WALL: This is really a formality. The contract was a part of the specifications. Y'all previously have given approval insofar as notice to proceed and would like to get formal approv-al of the contract. And they were supposed to have been brought here this morning, but I have been in discussion with Precision Planning, and they are in order and I recommend approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES "NO." MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: We're going to consider the addendum item: The communication from the attorney regarding Metric Constructors for permission to obtain building permits in the Sandbar Manor development. MR. WALL: As I indicated at the beginning of the meeting, this is basically a project that will consist of 80 units on approximately 16 acres. This is one that came before the County Commission sometime last year insofar as approval of it. What they would like to do is to post a bond in the amount of $460,000 to cover the cost of the site improvements on the projects. As you know, normally they would not be allowed to get building permits issued until those improvements were in place. This would allow them to work concurrently on both the site improve-ments as well as the buildings themselves. And the performance bond has been reviewed by me; Mr. Murphy has been in contact with them. As far as the time deadlines, he knows that better than I do; I just know that they do have some time constraints insofar as getting the projects completed. And it's in order and -- MR. MURPHY: Metric Constructors is trying to complete the project under some kind of agreement with the HUD people by the end of summer. This is a contained unit, and it's a long-term lease rental proposition. And it's unlike a subdivision, but we see nothing wrong with going ahead and allowing Miller Meyer to issue building permits as long as we have a $460,000 bond. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my discussion is going to fall along the line it did approximately a year ago. I think it's a violation of the Environmental Congestion Act or the Presidential Order, et cetera, to place 80 units or two or three hundred or maybe more folks in this area, and that's my position and that's why I will vote no. This is in a gray area as far as environmental go at best. We got all the chemical plants down there; we got situations with having to possibly get folks out of there if we have a situation. I know we have better technology now than we had a year ago with the assistance from SRS, et cetera, but I think it was bad plan a year ago, I think it's a bad plan today, and I will let the record reflect my vote and comments. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to know, just where is this area we're talking about? MR. MEYER: It's on Lovers Lane off of Sand Bar Ferry, between Laney- Walker and -- MR. MURPHY: It's on the South Carolina side of Bobby Jones Expressway. MR. BEARD: And we're putting how many units there? MR. WALL: 80 units. 80 houses on 16 acres -- 15.95 acres. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask Mr. Murphy -- and I know we've been down this road before with it, Jack, because I had some questions when this thing initially came up. How is this impacting on our Phase III situation-to-be in this area of East Augusta? MR. MURPHY: Drainage, I think. Our East Augusta drainage project has been far removed from this development. MR. MAYS: Well, you're the expert, but I mean -- well, let me get in -- I'm like the cop on Sanford and Son. It may be far removed, but I guess what I'm getting to is the closeness to 520, and with us now embarking upon doing further drainage work in East Augusta -- bottom line is, we're adding more people to that area, and I know already what we're doing is in conflict with what has been recommended by Planning & Zoning for us to do anyway. I mean, that question has already come up, but -- and I know I'm beating a dead horse because this one passed the County Commission last year, you know, and it's here now for us to go ahead with the completion of it. We probably would be against all kind of civil laws if we turned around and tried to reverse it at this point. But what I'm trying to get, since I'm stuck with it, Lee, and you're inheriting it and we share the representative votes of that district, I am concerned that we are not through with that area in terms of what we are doing with overall drainage. And I guess in terms of from folks when they read this -- and I know we've sent out some good PR in terms of what we're going to continue to do in that area, but I guess what I wanted to know in terms of that overall impact of these additions, is this playing into what we're doing and at the same time trying to complete 520 in that area and getting these folks building at the same time and then us going into a new phase of drainage work. And if we're stuck with it, what I'd like to see us do, whether it's delay or speeding up, if we're going to have to have it, I'd like to see some kind of way that some of this stuff could be done simultaneously as opposed to the digging and redigging. And I'm green when it comes to that, but I know what it's like when you dig up the same place two or three different times having to do some work. Because we know who's going to get the call. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to -- this is kind of new to me and I would like to have a little more information on this before I can vote yes, on how it impacts on this in that area and just what the results are going to be. MR. MURPHY: Keep in mind that what we're presenting to you is a request to accept Metric Constructor's bond for the street and storm drainage system that they're constructing now. And if you accept it, they're simply going to go to Miller Meyer and get the building permits to start on the housing units. It has nothing to do -- and this is old stuff you're going over with now about the zoning and the impact. See, the drainage has been calculated. We are requiring detention ponds on the site of this facility right here. We've taken into consideration all of the necessary requirements for drainage. What they're asking you to do here is to simply accept the bond so he can get his building permits. MR. MAYS: The translation worked; you got out what I wanted to hear in terms of you putting it in the record. That's why I brought drainage up from the very beginning. You're right, I'm stuck with it. You're right, it's old hat. And I believe we probably would be sued and probably would be whipped with it, you know, if we tried to reverse anything at this point with it. But I just wanted to make sure what they are doing at this point to proceed is in total agreement with what you have to work for that overall area, because we are not through. And if we're adding something to the lowest elevation point in this county, then I think we ought to be comfortable, starting with Public Works. I know we got to go, Freddie, but I know if it floods down there, I know I'm going to catch hell about it, so I'm going to finish hearing this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you comfortable, Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: If I may give you my own opinion, once this is done, from what I've seen in that area, I don't believe you need to develop any more in that area. MR. WALL: The problem that we've got -- and I see you, Mr. Zetterberg, saying then why are we doing it. It's because it was fought over, it was a controversial issue, and the County approved the plan. They can build it, it's just a question of what the sequence is. Are they going to have to go forward with the road improvements and the underground utilities and delay the project and then come in once that's approved and then issue the building permits maybe at the end of the summer, or are you going to allow them to go ahead? But the County has approved the project. We're stuck with it. Whether it was the right decision or not, that was the decision that was made. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we go ahead and approve this thing since I didn't have anything to do with the initial decision and I won't be in any trouble. But it seems to me that we're talking about something that's already been approved and I don't know why we need to talk about it much anymore. MR. ZETTERBERG: I would agree with Mr. Kuhlke except for one thing, that a member of the Public Works Commission just told me that he wouldn't build on there. And that just threw a big red flag up on me, and I can't vote for anything -- because this city has been in trouble -- MR. MURPHY: That's not what I'm saying. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, what did you say? MR. MURPHY: I said I would not allow -- if it were up to me, I would not allow any additional. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Any more. MR. MURPHY: Any more. MR. BEARD: After this. MR. ZETTERBERG: You mean we're at tilt now? MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, this project is ongoing, it's going to be built, it's just whether we allow them to do the -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this a good place to build or are we going to end up having the same kind of problems that we've had year in and year out in this town? Eventually somebody's got to say no to something. And if he's telling me this, frankly, I'd like to see more staff work done on the issue. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Zetterberg, if I can respond to that question. That was debated, and I don't remember what the votes were. Mr. Mays was very vocal in his opposition to the project being down there because of the water; Mr. Todd was very vocal in his opposition because of the proximity to the plants, as I recall. As I also recall it, I think Engineering came in with a recommendation that they felt like that with the detention ponds that were being proposed in the project, that it would handle the drainage. I don't remember the other comments that were made, but those points were addressed and debated. And the vote was there to approve the project, and the preliminary plan was approved and they're underway. The only thing now, the reason this is being brought is they're asking to be allowed to proceed with building the units, getting the building permits by posting a bond as opposed to having to complete the site improvements before they get the building permits. The project is going to happen, and like Mr. Kuhlke said -- I mean, it's been approved. Y'all may not have participated in that, but I would encourage you not to stop the project now because you will have a lawsuit on your hands. MR. ZETTERBERG: I understand the issue better now. I misinterpreted Mr. Murphy's -- MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard has called for the question and I think it has been debated enough. All in favor of the motion to -- I think it was made by Mr. Handy. Is that correct, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS, AND MR. TODD VOTE "NO." MR. BEARD ABSTAINED. MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. [MR. POWELL ABSENT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we going to continue with the agenda or are we going to try to resolve this one? It's my opinion that we need to let them go through the normal process. You know, we've done this before, and I feel more comfortable, even if it's going to happen, that they go through the normal process. CLERK: Is that through committee, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly it should go through the committee, but I need reasons why they want to, you know, jump-start this thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we put this on the committee for next Monday's meeting. That'll be Engineering Services; is that correct? MR. MURPHY: It was headed that way. In fact, I have the letter written right here for it to go on Engineering Services Committee. The people -- the sister company of Metric Constructors, who is Regent, in conversation with me, I went over the time factors. Engineering Services Committee won't meet until the 22nd of April, you won't meet again until the 7th of May to consider this, and the time limitations on these people -- and I'm just telling you what they're telling me -- is killing them. That's the reason they're asking for that. And this is nothing unusual other than speeding up the process. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are we still discussing this item? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think so, yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can I ask my question now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Murphy, you said that this was not a normal subdivision. Are these going to be public roads or are they going to be private roads? That's my question. MR. MURPHY: The road system will be accepted by the County. The units are long-term leases -- or they are rented that way or leased that way and managed. It's a managed-total unit. MR. MEYER: What makes it abnormal is the density, but it is still in compliance with your zoning ordinance for an R-3C or some zoning to where you have got reduced lot sizes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Since these are public roads, it's my understanding then that if we approve these bonds they can go on and start construction of the units themselves while they're building the roads; is that -- MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was the purpose? MR. MURPHY: That's exactly -- that's all it is. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. That was what I was trying to find out before we voted. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we reconsider this item and approve it. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Brigham and Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS AND MR. TODD VOTE "NO." MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of a consent order for the EPD Raes Creek Sewer Line and also approval for a contract to proceed with the study necessary for this at a cost of $45,000. These items were both funded in the Urban Services District Budget. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Under Other Business, Jim, did you want to bring this up about Mr. Johnson? MR. WALL: If I can. Mr. Murphy and I were asked to make a report insofar as the detention pond on Wrightsboro Road. I have a letter from Mr. Murphy that I'd like to pass out to everyone. Basically, Mr. Murphy and I went out there and made an inspection of the dam. The dam, in our opinion, is extremely well constructed; do not see that there is any potential danger to what Mr. Johnson describes as being his property being located below that. You have attached to that report an inspection that was performed within a week after we were assigned the task of making this study. I will also point out that -- you will recall that Mr. Johnson made the comment that his tax appraisal had been reduced down to $19,000. In fact, according to the records, Mr. Johnson does not own the property. The property is owned by someone else. There was a reappraisal of all properties in the area, and some of the properties were reduced. His was, and in conversa-tion with the Tax Assessor's Office, it had absolutely nothing to do with the dam but was just part of the overall process. We do not recommend condemning this property. We see no danger whatsoever to him. And I submit that by way of a report, and I'll be glad to answer questions either now or later. Y'all might want to review this, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you at some future time. MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, I guess being that we're discussing it -- is Mr. Murphy still here? You know, certainly I can't see any liability in the dam. I think that the dam -- you know, the pipes coming out of the dam is sufficient enough for the water to come through. If there was a problem with something breaking, if you had enough water it might be Wrightsboro Road, but certainly not that dam. And that dam is there just to kind of delay the water on Wrightsboro Road from a previous flood. I know some of the concerns is about why we bought the properties or condemned the properties adjacent to it that was not directly in front of the dam. If my recollection serves me correct, you know, we were sued on that one and it was kind of a settlement situation. I think -- you know, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation from the staff and the County Attorney and accept it as information and take no further action unless we have a suit filed against us, then we look at the possible liabilities at that point. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [VOTE NOT COMPLETED, SEE PAGE 115] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have one thing, if Mr. Wall don't have another, that I'd like to bring up at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? Do y'all want to put something else on the agenda? MR. TODD: We're not putting anything on the agenda, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I know that we're here to take care of County business, but I have another appointment at seven o'clock and I need to be excused. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we can excuse the gentleman, we're not adding anything to the agenda. We do have a problem as far as staff reports go. We've had some good ones, we have some not so good. But when I look at License & Inspections, Mr. Mayor, if I'm looking at what the distance from a church, I don't see nothing or I see we requested the information, or if I see it's on the plat, then that's not telling me anything. We're getting incomplete reports and incomplete information, and I think that we need to address some of these issues and deal with them as far as the staff go by ever what means necessary. I think this is a opportunity as far as additional business or unfinished business or whatever business to address some of the problems that we see as we go along in these meetings. So those are my comments, and I'm not requesting to put anything on the agenda to vote on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Are you going to do the Consolidation Manager's report? MAYOR SCONYERS: No. He's already gone, I think. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I think that there was some confusion about whether or not there was an announced count on the last vote to receive the report on the Wrightsboro Road pond. Was that a unanimous vote? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. MS. WATSON: We had a motion and a second, there was just not a final count. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I think we got off on another subject, didn't we. MR. WALL: It was unanimous. CLERK: Yeah, it was unanimous. They all voted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need to vote now? CLERK: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: We got the vote? MR. WALL: We got the vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn. All in favor of that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I did not vote. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor -- CLERK: Mr. Mayor, would you go ahead on and vote again, call for the vote on the Wrightsboro Road pond? Mr. Zetterberg said he didn't vote. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one question on that, if I might, Mr. Mayor. There is a reference here on the purchase of the O'Donnell property, and it -- we have no comment regarding the purchasing of Mr. O'Donnell's house and the property. Since this action was a decision by the Richmond County Board of Commissioners, I'd like to just say for the record I would really like to know why we did buy O'Donnell's, and I'd like the staff to pull out that paperwork so that we can see it. Because I have conflicting opinions on why that was done, both verbally from high-level officials, and I'd like to get to the bottom of it. MR. WALL: Do you want me to address it? Because I did pull the file in order to review that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, please. MR. WALL: It was not the -- it had nothing to do with the pond itself. There were some instance in which deer rifles were pointed at some of the construction workers -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Would the Chair like me to withdraw my motion to adjourn? It's a non-debatable motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I don't think we ever finished up, because we were trying to get a vote here. We never voted on the previous motion. MR. TODD: Would the Chair like for me to withdraw? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, Mr. Todd, please withdraw your motion. MR. TODD: I'll withdraw the motion, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to go by the process. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. MR. WALL: There were threats made; there was concern and threats of a lawsuit because of the earth-moving equipment and the shaking of the dirt. It was obvious that that was going to escalate into a situation that someone potentially could get hurt. It had absolutely nothing to do with the project other than as opposed to fighting a battle with someone who had violent tendencies. The recommendation was apparently made and the decision of the Board was to condemn the property to resolve the problem. MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess Mr. Johnson's problem, then, was that he wasn't violent enough early on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now can we vote on the motion, please? The motion was to receive it as information; correct? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to receive this as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES "NO." MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE, AND MR. POWELL ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, Mr. Todd, if you would be so kind as to make the motion to adjourn. MR. TODD: I'm going to give someone else the pleasure, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Move to adjourn, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. I have a motion by Mr. Bridges to adjourn. Do I have a second? I think that's a non-debatable motion, too, isn't it, gentlemen? Meeting is adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 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 16, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council