Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 21, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 21, 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 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Interim Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We will have the Invocation by the Reverend Timothy R. Greene, Pastor of the Jenkins Memorial C.M.E. Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND GREENE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would like to request that an item that comes under the Public Services that Ms. Bonner has be added to the agenda. And the reason for this request is that the lady that is making the request showed up at four o'clock. If you'll recall, we had changed the times, but she was not notified of that, and we asked her to come back to the regular meeting today. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion that it be added by unanimous consent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: The only question I'd like to ask is, what's it in reference to? MR. TODD: It's in reference, Mr. Mayor, a flea market license on Gordon Highway at one of the old car dealerships, and it's been approved by Planning and Zoning. We would normally have our Public Service meetings at two o'clock [sic] on the second and fourth Monday -- or Tuesday, excuse me, and we had it at two o'clock because we had another function, I believe a meeting with the Mayor or a working session or something on that day. And all of the individuals that had applications then wasn't notified, and at the time we adjourned the lady arrived for the four o'clock meeting. And we thought that we had communicated with the staff that that one would be added on to the regular meeting without going through the agenda, and somehow it has fallen through the cracks. MR. HANDY: Thank you. I accept. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need to read them all? CLERK: It's just one item. It's a request by Charlene M. Nay for a flea market license to be used in connection with Highway 78 Flea Market located at 3179 Gordon Highway. District 3, Super District 10. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I've got one addition, if I may. As far as an emergency authorization to do certain testing up at the Central Shop, would be an addition; and then as a deletion, by agreement, the applicant, Donny Perryman, Item Number 72, and with our consent, we'd request that that matter be carried over till the June 4 meeting --72 and 73. MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, can we authorize the testing and the corrective action in the sense that we know approximately what the dollar amount should be? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. That's what I'm asking be added. MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I so move by unanimous consent that those be added as an amendment to the first motion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I have a question on 72/73. Jim, could you explain that to me, please? MR. WALL: I have spoken with representatives of the County as well as Mr. Perryman and Mr. Caddell, and by agreement of everyone we're requesting that that be postponed until June the 4th. Mr. Caddell and -- MR. HANDY: Did they give you a reason? MR. WALL: Well, it's really at our request. Because of some documents that were turned in late, we need additional time. They have no objection to it, and -- so that's the nature of the request. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that it's in the applicant's favor that we delete and delay versus hear it now because I believe they may be having some problems -- and I don't think they're here -- they may be having some problems getting the information together that is needed. MR. KUHLKE: And, Mr. Mayor, let me add that there was no action taken in committee on those two items. MR. TODD: Correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 8-1. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got one against. Does that mean we can't put it on? CLERK: Can't put them on. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to do then is to pull the amendment for the postponement and see would my colleague have a problem with the rest, if we hear the one on the license. The deletions stay on, but the additions, you know, whether he can support the additions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, can you do that? MR. HANDY: That'll be fine. My vote is against the license, not the additions. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [MR. WALL AND MR. HANDY CONFER] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider the addition and deletions of the agenda. MR. HANDY: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the addition and deletions to the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please. CLERK: Item 1: Mr. Thomas F. Adkins, Associate Chief, Richmond Ambulance Service, in reference to ambulance service in Richmond County. MR. ADKINS: I'm Tom Adkins and I'm Associate Chief of Richmond Ambulance. Thanks for letting me come before you today. About two weeks ago this body received the first substantive change in ambulance service recommendation since about 1971, September 23rd of 1971. While not meaning to be the actual template, I think that you could reword that recommendation by University as being after almost 25 years. University does agree that it's in the County's best interest to have the ambulance service operated by a fee- for-service organization. That's what Richmond's been doing for about 20 years in this same market. I want to second the motion by University that the ambulance service be evaluated. After all, the industry as we know it, when the original resolution was passed was in its infancy. And to my knowledge, since 1971 that contract has not been updated, and it's always been up to University's expertise to operate the ambulance service and indigent care and things. While Richmond is not the only alternative to this, having been in this market for almost 20 years and transporting almost 350,000 patients from Richmond County and all but about 1,000 of those with no subsidy, we've proven that it can be done. As the second largest city in Georgia, Augusta-Richmond County will no doubt generate national interest, as Rural/Metro has demonstrated here. My request is that before you vote on the recommendation in its present form, that there be a competitive process established so that you can fully evaluate offers from all firms. Contrary to the current proposal, Richmond desires to continue in the primary provision and operation of ambulance service here in Richmond County. I think that there ought to be a clean break from business as usual where there's no insider trading and a completely arms-length operation given. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be to Mr. Adkins in the sense that we've discovered that we only own two of the ambulances as far as the engines that's at University, and I don't know what other equipment that in his proposal or Richmond's proposal to take over the ambulance service. Would that also include the purchasing from the County those two ambulances, and would it also include the subsidy being phased out or stopped altogether at once or what would be the proposal there? I don't think I've seen a written proposal from Richmond to Richmond County. I've seen a letter of interest from Richmond Ambulance Service to Richmond County. MR. ADKINS: You're correct in that Richmond has an interest in this, but Richmond has not made a proposal to the County as far as the specific evaluation or operation of ambulance. All Richmond is asking this body to do is, before any real change is made in the way things have been going here for about 25 years, is that we have a competitive process before we reallocate the spending of public funds such that everyone's interests are protected, primarily the citizens here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we go out for competitive proposals on ambulance service delivery for Richmond County government, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: I would point out that we currently have a contract with University Hospital. The proposal by University Hospital is for subcontracting that work, and I think the question has to be resolved first whether or not you're going to approve the subcontracting and then you will have to look at the terms of the original contract. But there is in existence currently a contract, and what University Hospital has approached the Commission-Council about is to allow them to subcontract. So at this point I think that something would have to be done insofar as that contract, either terminating that contract, negotiating a termination of that contract, or approving some kind of subcontracting arrangement. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my motion is to look at the proposal -- go out for a competitive bid for proposals on contracting the ambulance service delivery in Richmond County, and I think it received a second. Now, it's highly questionable whether we have a contract or not with University Health Services. Now, I understand that we have, through the Hospital Authority, arrangements or possibly a contract to deal with ambulance service delivery with University, the nonprofit side of it or whatever. I also understand for at least two to three years we've been trying to get -- at least open up those discussions as far as that contract go and the subsidy, et cetera, to no avail. We run into the same problem for a long time on indigent care. I would assume that University will blame this body for, you know, its problems if we, you know, are successful here like they're blaming us for the cut in the doctor training from MCG as far as the cuts of approximately 2.5 or 2.7 million dollars in indigent care over there. I seriously hope that this board, you know, don't have the wool pulled over its eyes, so to speak, as far as ambulance service go, the indigent care side of it, et cetera. And I'd like to see that contract and I'd like to be able to review that contract because I don't think that there is a binding contract, that there is not a option to opt out there, and it's time for us to go out for proposals for the contract. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion, if I could, that the proposal made by University to this body, or presentation, that it be brought back to the Public Safety Committee for further review and to develop complete understanding on what they are proposing to us, and at the same time for the Attorney to make us aware of what the existing contract we presently have with University concerning ambulance service. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was wondering, Mr. Kuhlke, would you mind, or would that be the appropriate time for Mr. Adkins or any other vendor to bring information to us? If we could broaden it at that time, if this motion prevails, would you object to that? MR. KUHLKE: I have no problem. You're offering that as an amendment? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: I have no problem. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That Mr. Adkins or whoever else that would want to come and bring it back before the Public Safety Committee, then that would be it, if this prevails. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that we have a very apt Attorney, very capable Attorney, and I can't believe -- you know, you're not going to convince me that he did not prepare himself on this issue as far as the contract go with this going on for a couple of weeks, and I certainly would like to hear from the County Attorney now on what the contract say. And if he's not prepared now, then I'm ready to make a motion that we table this issue until his office can provide him with the documentation so we can deal with what the contract say. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Todd, I appreciate it. I spoke with the Mayor last evening following the meeting about this matter, and at that time it was my understanding that we were to take the University Hospital through the Public Safety Committee. And I have -- and the letter is on its way over here, enclosing a copy of the earlier contract with University Hospital as well as the correspondence. I knew that you were going to be receiving a presentation today from Richmond Ambulance, but I did not come prepared with the contract in hand, nor prepared to address the various reorganizations of University Hospital or the Hospital Authority and the possible impact on that contract. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm in agreement with that process as outlined by the County Attorney, so I'm going to withdraw the motion that I have on the floor; therefore, the substitute will become the original motion and we can go on if the maker of the substitute will accept an amendment that the process the County Attorney outlined would be the process we'd go by as far as dealing with it through Public Safety Committee. MR. KUHLKE: I have no problem with that, Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, there was an oversight in the addition part of the agenda. Mr. Utley from the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association had made a request that they be added to the agenda. They have a delegation here today. Could we get a motion to have them added? MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I certainly would like to limit that presentation to the five minutes, and with that I don't have a problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to add it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Is Mr. Tom Scanlon -- if not, we'll here from Mr. Utley. MR. UTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and all of the Councilmen. We're delighted that you would add us to the agenda. And being a Baptist, I think I can present it in five minutes or less. I just want you to have your attentive ears on because we do travel at quite a high speed. With that in mind, Ms. Jordan has some things also, but we'll keep it under our five minutes. I want to first of all say thank you for some of your staff, and I'm speaking in particular to Mr. Charles Tant over at the Clean and Beautiful Committee for working with us on our cleanup, providing bags for us and doing the other things that were necessary that we have a successful program. There's also a young man, Mr. Walter Hornsby, who's a real gentleman and who also is always there when you need him. And there are some things that we still need to get done and things that we are about. Keeping in mind that Hyde Park is still the place where no one want to come, no one want to stay, but no one want to deal with it, and that is the contamination that -- we brought that up to you last meeting, not the one -- the last meeting that we were in attendance that dealt with a letter that was received from DOT in response to the Doug Bernard Parkway that you're building which has some specifics in there about the contamination. We're still interested in what your pledge is on that, and we're asking what effect does that have on Hyde Park. There are a lot of things that's taking place in the Hyde Park area. One of them is not as pleasant as all of them because we still have death and diseases from the contaminations and we want you to address it. There's also a relationship that we're building with Chief Hatfield who came to our cleanup committee and cleanup program on Saturday, and we'll continue to ask him and ask this board. We need our streets clean. We want the drugs gone on the corner of Goldberg -- I mean, on the corner of Goldenrod and Dan Bowles. We had some visitors come in for the environmental justice meeting. They were actually coming up to the cars and asking those people, due to the fact that they were strangers, to buy drugs, and they came right on in the meeting and told us. But if they'll come to those people, they'll come to anyone else. We do have children in the area, and children are our number one priority and we want them protected. We want them to have a good working relationship with the enforcement, and that's one of the things why we're asking Chief Hatfield and his department to work with us. The children need to know that they're an asset. The children need to know that the officers are their friends. And as I stated a few moments ago, we did a cleanup. Well, you know, it's nice to clean up, but when you have industries around you such as Goldberg's, you're constantly not cleaning up. We want those laws enforced that we talked about in our last meeting here, some of them that were on the books, and we just want them enforced. You've done some patch work on the road in front of Goldberg's, but we're asking that you pave the whole neighborhood since you're saying it's not contaminated. Go ahead and pave it and get it looking good. The people are saying, well, until you move us we're going to have to stay there, so let's make the streets passable for them. And all of these things we're going to put in writing to you because, as I said, we have a lot we want to cover. We want to work with you, and that's the main thing. Isolated, we can't do anything on our own. So the people here representing the Hyde Park area and representing Virginia subdivision, some are in the hallway out there, we need your support. We don't want Mr. Todd's support, we don't want Mr. Mays and Mr. Handy and Mr. Beard and Mr. Powell; we need every sitting board member here to come and see. It's nice to talk about something, but you need to actually go. When those people tell you the dust is falling at night and they get up in the morning and their cars are white, you don't have a perception of it until you're actually there and it's happening to you. A lot of people say it's only happening to you, but this is happening all over. It's only happening to a few people in your neighborhood, but you need to take a look at it. And all we're asking is that you be men and women and be God-fearing people and get up off of that large muscle that you're sitting on and go out to Hyde Park, Virginia Subdivision, Oregon Park, and look at it. Look at it. It looks like worse than some parts of Vietnam when I was there. I had a outdoor toilet in Vietnam, I have one in Hyde Park. That doesn't need to be here in 1996. We need to get about taking care of God's people, and God's people are everyone who is sitting here. And let's erase the color stain. Though 90 percent of them out there are lower, poor, economically deprived, let's start dealing with human beings. That's the issue. Either we're going to either work with them or we're going to deny them. And I say if you deny them the service, deny them their tax dollars. But you don't. I get an assessment and I get a bill. Let's let those people live to the fullest potential of their lives. I'm going to put all of this to you in writing, and we're asking that this information that's coming to you, don't let it fall on deaf ears. We're asking that it fall on fertile hearts and that you do something. Do something. Now is the time, because time is ticking on those people. We're asking that you get up and take a stand. Maybe it's an unpopular one, but nothing you do for anyone is going to be popular all the time, but we have to stand for what we know is right, and ladies and gentlemen, this is right. And I thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think if there is not another speaker, certainly I would like to make a motion that we accept this as information from the Hyde Park representatives. MR. HANDY: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all have another speaker? MS. JORDAN: Yes, sir. CLERK: No, Mr. Utley was the spokesperson for the group. MS. JORDAN: We'll accept that. We'll put all the information in writing and send it -- we did send a fax in for the meeting and we were not corresponded back with. MR. BEARD: I think that we could take the time and hear Ms. Jordan. It's only a few minutes. Ms. Jordan, we'll hear you. MS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard was my first boss in the school system. To the Mayor and the Council, our desire in coming here today is to let you know what we expect from you as our elected officials. All we're asking for is equal, fair, and just treatment as citizens of Richmond County. Mr. Utley has gone through the things that we don't want in our neighborhood, and we don't want it there for a lot of reasons. We don't care if the people live in the neighborhood, but a lot of them don't live in our neighborhood. So we don't want any undesirable elements in our neighborhood, we want it out of there, and that's what the system is supposed to do for us. Our children are getting ready to get out of school, and they have to live with these kinds of situations. We want it taken care of. The staff at our community center is complaining because workers and clients come to transact business, they can't get down the road, they're afraid of maybe being cursed or threatened or insulted. We want these elements out. There are elderly people who are being intimidated, and that is not fair to them. They've earned their right to a comfortable and peaceable life, and they should have that. The majority of the taxpayers and homeowners in Hyde Park are law-abiding citizens. We work, we pay taxes; we want the same things that you want for your kids for our children. Mr. Sconyers, when I pass by Sconyers Way and look how beautiful you have your house sitting on the hill, I would like for my neighborhood to look like that. But since 1998 [sic] the prisoners have not been allowed to clean our ditches because they say it's contaminated. But our kids are allowed to walk in the ditches, in the water, pick up fish, because they don't know any better. There aren't any signs posted. Someone put a fence and stopped it right where the children come from school, go down in the ditch. You drained the ditch and left debris. Now contaminated dust is flying, and there's trash there. This is not right. If you don't want to do it for us, do it for the future of Augusta. We are killing the children in our area. We have a house that was given to us by a couple of attorneys. We're willing to turn it over to you and let you place a substation there. We want the children to have a good working relationship with law enforcement so they can grow up being law-abiding students -- citizens. I'm a former teacher, so students come into mind. And with Mr. Goldberg, I'm sure that Mr. Goldberg's house is protected. It's beautiful, you patrol his area, yet he comes into our neighborhood, he has police sitting on his property every night while things are going on in our area, and we get the butt of being called down for calling the police. We want the same treatment. The only thing that we're here for today is to say we as taxpayers of Richmond County-Augusta, Georgia, ask you to do what you said that you would do when you were elected: to serve us and to do a good job in serving us. We're not asking for handouts, because you can't tell my dollar from Mr. Sconyers' dollar when you get ready to spend it. We're asking for the services that you owe us, we deserve, and you promised us that we would get. I have a lot more that I could say and I want to say, but the greatest thing that you can do is to serve your county well and to serve your Master well, those who believe in a higher power, and to let Him look at your record in being honest and doing a good job in serving His people, and being able to hear "Servant of God, well done," and being able to say you were a good Council member. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we open for discussion? MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion to -- MR. TODD: Yes, sir, we have a motion, Mr. Mayor, and a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. TODD: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor, as being one that was kind of drawn into this situation early on a couple of years ago when we vied for a Superfund EPA buyout for Hyde Park, I have some comments, and some of them is probably going to be supportive and some of them is not. But I want to delegate the authority or responsibility where it's supposed to be, and that is, the law enforcement side is clearly a function of the Sheriff's Department. And I can't think of any time greater than now to go to the Sheriff and tell him what you want because he's going to tell you in a few months, I think about July in the primaries, what he wants and he's going to want you to vote for and support him. So there's not a greater opportunity than now to do that. I've heard the law enforcement -- cries for law enforcement for several months. Mr. Goldberg requested that he have the right to hire special-duty officers to protect his property, but I don't think he have the right, or anyone else have the right that's under a consent order in Hyde Park/Virginia Subdivision, including Thermal Ceramics under a consent order, Goldberg under a consent order, Southern Wood Piedmont under consent a order, to not take those corrective actions and continue to contaminate ditches. I think the responsibility for those violations is with EPD, and my friends from Hyde Park and their attorneys know EPD well. That's where you get most of your information, and I don't have a problem with that, but EPD is responsible for the Clean Water Act, EPD is responsible for Clean Air Act. If there is kaolin, which has been used at Thermal Ceramics for probably 20/30 years, is sailing in the air, I think there is responsibilities there. I don't have a problem as far as the paving of those roads, and we'll either do a motion here or a motion on the Engineering Services Committee where I serve if we need to pave those roads. We talked about the cleaning of those ditches. I recall going out there a year and a half/two years ago when we got a phone call that there was obstruction to us cleaning those ditches and finding one of the wives of one of the attorneys that represents the citizens of Hyde Park -- to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected there -- standing in front of a grade-all refusing to let them clean the ditches. So I'm for fair play, but I want you to know where those other responsibilities -- the citizens out there have some responsibility, too, other than just building a lawsuit. I supported the buyout, I continue to support the buyout and feel that the buyout is just as important as the buyout along Rae's Creek that some of my colleagues support now and some of the Congressional Delegation support now that did not support or felt that it was an unfunded mandate to support the Superfund buyout of Hyde Park. I'm doing everything I can to be fair, but I'm certainly getting tired of being kicked for everybody else's responsibility. I would hope that when we come back, that we would just bring what we are responsible for; then if you are wanting help, to go to the State folks, the Congressional folks, folks, or EPD on the others; then certainly I would be glad to champion that cause and to offer you that assistance. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to receive it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 2 through 17 are requests by the Planning Commission for your concurrence with their decision in approving the following petitions: Item 2, a Special Exception for Crawford Avenue at Franklin Lane; Number 3, a Special Exception for Boykin Road/Peach Orchard Road; Item 4, a Special Exception for establishing a parking lot for Parrish Road; Item 5, a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home, Watkins Street and Crawford Avenue; Item 6 is a zoning request, Telfair Street and Second Street; 7 is also a zoning request for Mira Mar Avenue and Delmont; 8 is a zoning request for Crescent Drive and Wrightsboro Road; Item 9 is a zoning request, Stevens Creek and Claussen Road; 10, a zoning request, change of zoning, Washington Road and Beverly Heights Drive; Item 11 is a change of zoning request for Vandivere Road; 12, a concurrence of a zoning change, Windsor Spring Road; 13, sign control ordinance; 14, a request of a zoning from the Good Hope Baptist Church, 200 Magnolia Avenue; 15, a zoning amendment for billboards; 16, a concurrence of a petition for final plat approval, Barts Subdivision; Item 17, Hudson Trace, Final Plat. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, let's pull Item 13 out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, out of that consent agenda I'd like also for Item Number 7 to be pulled, Item 12, and 14. And there was one that I need some additional information on in reference to establishing the park, as far as who would be responsible for the establishment of that public park after the exception, whether this is private funded, public funded, et cetera. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve all the other items except the ones that was pulled. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to see if we have any objectors to any item that has not already been discussed before. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to any of the items? Which one, ma'am? MS. GROW: Number 5, the day care center. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other objectors to any of the items? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd ask that Item 5 be pulled also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. You got that, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we hear from the Director of Planning and Zoning as far as the park go? Because I may not have a problem with that. MR. PATTY: Which item is that? MR. TODD: Hold on a second. May I get some help from the Clerk on the special exception for the park? CLERK: Special -- church parking? MR. TODD: No, that -- well, maybe I'm ahead of myself then. I thought it was read out, but I didn't see it. No problem. No problem with church parking. CLERK: Okay. So that's Items 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14 has been asked to be pulled out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, was your motion to -- MR. HANDY: To accept all the others. MR. TODD: Do we have a second? If not, I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you have a person in the audience who had his hand up. PUBLIC CITIZEN: What do you mean when you pull a item, please? CLERK: They're going to address them separately. PUBLIC CITIZEN: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 2: Z-96-38 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Trefz and Trefz, Inc., on behalf of Edward W. Schwall and Helen M. Johnson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a public parking area per Section 8- 2(d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way of Franklin Lane, 368 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Crawford Avenue and Franklin Lane (Rear forty (40) feet of 1826 and 1828 Jenkins Street) with the following condition: That a six (6) solid board fence be constructed along the north, east and west property lines of the proposed parking lot. (District 1) Item 3: Z-96-39 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Pioneer Outreach Church of Augusta, Inc., on behalf of Hugh E. Avery, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-2, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 257 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Peach Orchard Road (3759 Peach Orchard Road.) (District 6) Item 4: Z-96-40 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Janie Peel, on behalf of William A. Trotter III and W. R. Belangia, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing church parking as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Parrish Road and Elkdom Court. (District 7) Item 6: Z- 96-42 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Water A. Dobbs, on behalf of Tiga Group, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Telfair Street and Second Street (200-202 Telfair St.) with the following condition: That the use of this property be limited to a Laundromat or those uses allowed in an R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) Zone. (District 1) Item 8: Z-96-44 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Frank Lawrence requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence), Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 63 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Crescent Drive and Wrightsboro Road. (District 3) Item 9: Z-96-45 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Douglas D. Batchelor, Jr., on behalf of Interstate West Office Park, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Claussen Road, 1305 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Claussen Road. (District 7) Item 10: Z- 96-46 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from A.L. Ferguson requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Beverly Heights Drive (3125 Washington Road). (District 7) Item 11: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Scott Higgins requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) on property located where the south right-of-way line of Damascus Road intersects with northwest right-of-way line of Vandivere Road (2121-2123 Vandivere Road) with the following condition: That no more than 171 units be allowed on this property. (District 5) Item 15: ZA-R-98 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 21 (Neighborhood Business) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County, thereby modifying the current spacing regulations for billboards in Augusta-Richmond County made necessary by the consolidation of the two governments. Item 16: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of ATC Development Corporation, requesting Final Plat Approval of St. Barts Subdivision. This subdivision is located off the east right-of-way line of West Wheeler Parkway south of Wheeler Road and contains 33 lots. Item 17: S-527 Hudson Trace - Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission Staff to approve a petition from H. Lawson Graham & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Whisenhunt Children, Inc., requesting Final Plat approval of Hudson Trace Subdivision. This development contains an office complex, single-family attached fee simple units (25 lots) and single- family detached units (57 lots) all joined by a common private street system. This subdivision is located off the southwest right-of-way of Stevens Creek Road, 414 feet, more or less, northwest of the intersection of Claussen Road.] MR. KUHLKE ABSTAINS ON ITEMS 8 & 17. MOTION CARRIES 8-2 ON ITEMS 8 & 17. MOTION CARRIES 10-0 ON ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, & 16. CLERK: Item 5: Z-96-41 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Donna Jackson requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Crawford Avenue, 141.6 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Watkins Street and Crawford Avenue (612 Crawford Avenue). (District 1) MR. PATTY: What she's requesting is to be allowed to have a family day care home where children will come into her home. She could only keep -- well, six would be the maximum number she could keep in the home under these circumstances. She's got access from the alley in the rear for parking, ingress and egress, and you've got commercial uses in the general area, so, you know, we approved it; we saw no reason not to. We did not have objectors at our meeting, I don't believe. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am, I think you were the lone objector. MS. GROW: I am an objector. CLERK: Would you go to the mike, please, and give us your name and address, please. MS. GROW: My name is Peggy Grow and my address is 616 Crawford Avenue. I was not present at the other meeting due to a misunderstanding on my own part about the time of the meeting, but I am speaking for some of the other people in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is comprised of quite a few elderly people and the feeling is that establishing a family day care center in the neighborhood would subtract from the quality of life in that neighborhood. The residences are quite close together. The lots on which homes are built are large enough to have the home built on them and that's it, and so we're very close together as far as being in proximity to each other. It's been our understanding that three clients can be taken by the petitioner without having to actually go through this process, and we feel that the addition of that number is the limit, so I would ask you to reconsider. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, is the petitioner here? MS. JACKSON: Yes. My name is Donna Jackson, I live at 612 Crawford Avenue. We were interested in applying for a family day care home to take care of six kids or less, basically during business hours, to provide low child care --low-paying child care for low-income people. Basically, our house is bordered on the left by an empty lot and on the right by a rental house that's unrented. We have a fenced in yard. We were not planning on getting a large number of kids, just a small number, because we really couldn't manage a whole lot. But basically that's all we wanted, just six kids or less. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to accept the recommendation coming from the Planning Commission. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question to the petitioner, do you anticipate most of the children that you'd be keeping coming from the community or general community? MS. JACKSON: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 7: Z-96-43 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Albert Jones requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Delmont Street, 75.0 feet southeast of a point where the southeast right-of- way line of Mira Mar Avenue intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Delmont Street (211 Delmont Street). (District 2) MR. PATTY: This petitioner is currently living on this property. He's got a house that's got some serious structural problems. It's pretty obvious when you look at it, the roof is sagging, and he's got to do something. And he wants to put a mobile home on this property -- tear the house down and put a mobile home on the property. It would not increase the density on the property, he simply wants to replace the house that he's got with a mobile home. There are other mobile homes in the area. It's a hodge-podge of zoning, and I don't think -- I'm not aware of any documented environmental problems in the area that would preclude doing this. There is public water, too. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. I'm always concerned when we're going from one-family residential to mobile homes, and I know that some would argue that it's better to be in a mobile home than a structure, but usually those structures are renovated or whatever homes. So I'd be interested in, in the sense that I don't know the area, what area of town that we're talking of. MR. PATTY: This is known as Lombardy Subdivision. It's over there south of Babcock & Wilcox. MR. TODD: Okay, south of Babcock & Wilcox would put us in Hyde Park or Virginia Subdivision or somewhere in that neighborhood? MR. PATTY: Actually, I think it's Lombardy Subdivision. They're right there together in this same area. MR. TODD: Yes. I take the position that we shouldn't do anything to enhance the opportunity for folks to stay there, and I'm going to be opposed to this, as I've been to adding to Hyde Park or anywhere where the Superfund cleanup is going on. I think that we should be encouraging individuals to look for other more suitable areas for habitat. And that's my position, gentlemen, I just wanted to state it for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS AND MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 12: Z-96-48 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Solomon G. Barnado requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B- 2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road, 682 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road (2445 Windsor Spring Road). (District 4) MR. PATTY: I think this is a fairly routine request. This is north of the old skating rink on Windsor Spring Road. MR. TODD: Okay, then it don't intersect in any way with Meadowbrook then; you have between Meadowbrook and this location the store and then the shopping center? MR. PATTY: Right. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem with it. My concern was the Meadowbrook, you know, area and whether we was going further up from the corner where the old hardware store used to sit there. Okay, thank you. I so move, Mr. Mayor, it be approved. MR. HANDY: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to concur, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 13: Z-96-49 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by designating a corridor 1,000 feet wide on either side of Bobby Jones Expressway extending from its inter-section with Doug Bernard Parkway in a northerly direction to its intersection with Georgia-South Carolina boundary line as an SCA (Special Sign Control Area) District under Section 25-B of the Ordinance. MR. PATTY: In our zoning ordinance we have a section that is a special sign control district. It provides pretty strict regulations for signage and it's been applied to several areas like the Riverfront, River Watch Parkway, and several other locations, and I think the suggestion was made that this sign control ordinance might be applied to this new section of Bobby Jones due to the unique environment of the area that the road is going to pass through. And I don't know how many opportunities for billboards there are in that location because the State does own a good bit of it, but I suspect there are several, and so we advertised this and recommend you approve it for that area. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept it, with the amendment that the sign control area will stop at Laney-Walker. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. MR. BEARD: I was just going to -- I had a question I was going to ask Mr. Patty. Now, are we talking about billboard signs along the new section? MR. PATTY: Yeah, this would be a 1,000 foot corridor on either side of the new right-of-way that would prohibit billboards and strictly regulate onsite signs. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Patty, would the 1,000 feet from Doug Bernard going -- is it going towards Laney-Walker? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Well, the 1,000 feet wouldn't go to Laney-Walker, would it, from Doug Bernard? MR. PATTY: Well, it would be a corridor on either side of Bobby Jones from -- MR. KUHLKE: I know, but it wouldn't -- the 1,000 feet would not extend all the way to Laney-Walker, would it? MR. PATTY: It's a corridor -- MR. KUHLKE: Parallel corridor. MR. PATTY: Yeah, parallel. Parallel. I'm sorry. 1,000 feet on either side of Bobby Jones from 56 to Laney-Walker, all the way around it. And it would basically end at Laney-Walker; it wouldn't follow the terminus around. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we say we're for a bigger city, we're for commercial growth, and then the very thing that help enhance commercial growth we want to limit or restrict, and I have a problem with that. And I also have a problem with these dark highways out there, where if you had a street sign they're going to put a light on it so you can see it. So I would hope that if we're going to pass this amendment -- and I would think that we would need to have a first reading and second reading to amend this ordinance. We're talking about an ordinance here. But if -- and I guess we can get a ruling from the County Attorney there. But I would hope that if we're going to pass this amendment, then we certainly would make some provisions to have lights, because it seems that's the only lights that we get along these stretches of freeways or whatever, four-lanes, is the lights that's on the signs so you can see the sign. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know why they recommended that we go all the way to the river. MR. PATTY: We debated whether to end it at Laney-Walker or go to Sand Bar Ferry or go all the way to the river, and I think that -- you know, the project ultimately, of course, will go to the river and hopefully on across the river. And, you know, I guess it's easier or more efficient to do the whole thing, but I don't have a problem with it being stopped at Laney-Walker because I think it's logical that there will be development from Laney-Walker on around to the river. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Can I have a reading from the County Attorney, as I somewhat, I guess, requested? MR. WALL: Well, I do think that you want to have two readings of it, if that's the question. MR. TODD: Yes. So, Mr. Mayor, then I assume this is the first reading and that certainly we would have opportunity then for the commercial folks to come in and voice their concerns. Thank you. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know if there is anybody here that's in the sign business that wants to say anything right now. MR. ADKINS: Mr. Mayor, may I say just a word? I'm Dr. Jim Adkins, a taxpayer of Richmond County for a number of years, and if this is going to be a 1,000 foot right-of-way on either side of Bobby Jones, the U.N. already owns 21 areas in the United States of America for biospheres. Now, if this is a scientific project, you're taking a tremendous amount of land away from public consumption and public use just to establish something that's called a scientific area. I wish you'd give serious consideration to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, isn't that land pretty much in a nature walk area? MR. PATTY: Yeah, all this is is sign control. This is -- I didn't quite understand the gentleman's comment, but this has got nothing to do with the use of land except for signage, the type signage you could put within that 1,000 foot -- actually, 2,000 foot corridor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Patty, is this something you have -- the same type you have on River Watch Parkway; right? MR. PATTY: River Watch, yeah, Calhoun Expressway. Gentlemen, this is an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. We do it routinely. I don't know what your rules of procedure are, they may require you to do this twice, but State law does not require this to be advertised -- to be heard twice, I can assure you of that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would think that in the sense that this is a ordinance or amending a ordinance, that we would have to do a first and second reading. I think that's -- pretty much we call for that by ordinance, that we have first and second readings. I'm not sure that we shouldn't have a informal hearing or contact individuals that's in the sign business. I do follow somewhat what the gentleman is saying as far as the taking laws go, that if this property is owned by private concerns, then we're restricting their use of it as far as signs go because we have possibly some tree-huggers that, you know, like to see the trees versus the signs. And I don't have a problem with tree-huggers, you know, we passed a good ordinance here for them as far as planting trees. But I think that when it come to the taking laws we need to be careful as far as what restrictions we put on the private land owners, and this is a restriction as far as the use of their property. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if this is an amendment to the ordinance, I believe all these are amendments to ordinances and, therefore, all of them would require two readings, so I don't see any difference. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question. We've beat that horse to death right there. MR. POWELL: That's my line. MR. HANDY: Well, I'm going to borrow it today. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to let it end at Laney-Walker, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. TODD: I'd like to qualify my vote, Mr. Mayor. After this, the best that we can get, to protect those individuals that own land up to Laney- Walker, I'm going to support it. MR. HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Todd. CLERK: Item 14: Z-96-50 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rev. Johnny R. Hatney, on behalf of the Good Hope Baptist Church, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Cedar Street and Magnolia Avenue (200 Magnolia Avenue). (District 1) MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve it. MR. HANDY: Second. I'd just like to know why was it pulled. MR. TODD: I think the ones that I requested, Mr. Mayor, was 7, 13, and 14. MR. HANDY: This is 14. MR. TODD: Oh, this is 14? Okay. Thank you. It was a mistake. I have it marked up as consent agenda on my markup, but it's on two pages. And I think I had a question about 15, and -- possibly a mistake. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 18 through 20 were all approved by the Finance Committee May 13, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept these as consent agendas. MR. BEARD: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Which items are we taking? 18, 19, and 20? CLERK: 18 through 20. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 18: Consider approval of Lease Purchase Agreement with G.E. Capital regarding 1996 Police Vehicles. Item 19: Consider approval of a Resolution designating certain properties as being exempt from transfer of tax execution and providing for a public hearing thereon. Item 20: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding a refund of taxes to Patrick A. Barnwell and Jill Wagner, Inc.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 21: Consider approval of recommendation from the Interim Comptroller requesting that all Pensions be vested with Robinson-Humphrey who is the present City Pension Investment Manager. MR. McKIE: Currently the Robinson-Humphrey Company is the investment manager for the pension funds of the City of Augusta for it's 1949 pension plan. We are proposing that the pension funds of the 1945 and '77 plans of Richmond County be included under their management. We have another firm who is managing the equity portion of that, which consists of some 30 percent of our pension funds. The remaining bonds and/or cash are managed by the Finance Department and we'd, quite frankly, like for us to be out of the investment business as we are not professionals in that regard. And over the years since 1992 when Richmond County's plans, the equity portion, went to professional managers, Robinson-Humphrey has demonstrated an average growth of 20.5 percent per year with their management of the City plans. Ours has been roughly a third of that and, consequently, we -- had we experienced that same growth, we'd be roughly one to one-and-a-half million dollars ahead of where we are right now, which is 17 million dollars in these combined plans. The fees would be the same; that would be 62 basis points on all assets under management, but for Robinson-Humphrey that includes trades as well. In our case it did not include trades, so there have been additional costs in ours. Now, the cost of those trades, of course, have not shown up as a fee, but they have shown up as a diminution of the return on the investment. Again, we're simply asking that we combine everything under one leadership and one management firm. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for Mr. McKie. First of all, I want to know the pros and, second of all, I want to know the cons as far as how is this going to affect these people in these pension plans. MR. McKIE: Well, I would expect that the pension plans in and of themselves will experience a greater degree of growth. However, the pension plans that we're referring to are all defined benefit plans. The employees in those plans have been promised certain benefits as defined by the plans themselves; those benefits do not change whether or not the plans have excellent growth or poor growth. The fact that the management of the plans is in the hands of a company that provides the type of excellent growth potential we're looking at means that our government does not have to fund out of general operating revenues its contribution to the plan. So it's a neutral position insofar as the plan participants are concerned. MR. POWELL: I've got one more question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. McKie, how is this going to affect -- I remember a few months ago we voted to increase the amount for the people that were on, I think it was the '45 pension plan. I think we gave them five percent. How is that going to affect us if we put it under new management as far as going back if we want to give these people an additional five percent at a later date? MR. McKIE: Well, you cannot promise in the future what's happened by the past. It's certainly no predictor. However, this management team has produced growth and benefits which were some 50 percent higher than our current team and current methods, so I would expect that, should that be considered -- or be continued, rather, then you'd have the ability to regrant those benefits in the future. MR. POWELL: Who would have to do that, us or the -- will we have to go through this management firm to do it? MR. McKIE: No, sir. They manage the funds; the Commission-Council acts as the sole trustees of these two plans. No decisions are made without your action as a whole. This is simply investment of the funds. MR. HANDY: Mr. McKie, the information that you just gave us, that's just whatever -- you're reading off whatever someone told you. Why weren't we furnished with some information to say those percentages that you're telling us about? MR. McKIE: Well, it's really just two numbers, Mr. Handy. I thought it would be just as easy to tell you as it would be to give it to you on a piece of paper. MR. HANDY: Okay. And my second question is, since we're deciding whether we want to combine the City and the County pension plans into one company, why wasn't we given the opportunity to see which company is the best and who can offer the same that this company is offering, since we're using two different ones now, to decide whether we'll get Robinson-Humphrey or not? I mean, there are other people out there. So that's just a suggestion from you or how did Robinson-Humphrey come about? MR. McKIE: Well, it's a suggestion from me. And as you say, the world is full of people who'd like to manage a pension plan. The suggestion is from me because, number one, these people have done an excellent job. They have performed well above the S&P market index over the period. They are local; you can pick up the phone and talk to them at any time without any trouble. It's a nationally recognized finance company, so there should be no fear about the fiduciary responsibility of the company. And if you go out for RFP's, then what basis are you going to use for evaluation? It certainly can't be entirely cost, because we could hire someone off the street who could charge one-tenth the price of a national company but have a poor track record of performance. These people have a combination of both, excellent performance and a fee schedule which is lower than we are paying now. MR. HANDY: Well, the reason why I asked you this, Mr. McKie, you just stated that information about how great they are and what track record they have, but I don't have the informa-tion. See, you deal with them daily by being in your position, but it would be nice if we had some information on that to back up what you're saying, and that way we'd all be familiar with it. Because, see, you know these people; we don't. And you're the Comptroller, so what we need, or what I need, is some information to substantiate what you're saying versus just telling me about how good somebody is and the only person knows that is you and them. MR. McKIE: Well, if you don't trust me to tell it to you, you probably wouldn't trust the numbers I give you either. MR. KUHLKE: Butch, did I understand that over the last three years that your average return is 20 percent? MR. McKIE: 20.5, yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And with the other fund it's been -- MR. McKIE: 14.7. MR. KUHLKE: 14.7 And are you recommending that we combine all of the funds under Robinson-Humphrey or leave the funds that you have under another firm there? MR. McKIE: I'm only recommending that Robinson-Humphrey manage all of the separate funds, but they would manage our two funds as well as the one they had from the City. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Now, are there any funds outside of that that would be managed by another firm? MR. McKIE: No, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I call the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd had his hand up. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mayor, I think that most of us realize in the last three or four years that there's a lot of pension plans that's gone belly up because of poor investments, managements, et cetera. I see a good solid number here with a good solid company that's a national company. I certainly think that it's a great deal better than the 6.2 percent or one-third of the 20 percent. And I've had some concern for some time about the management methodology and the delegating of authority and responsibility to a pension committee to carry out the functions and duties that this board is responsible for per the County code as far as trustees of the pension plan. I made the motion or seconded the motion because I feel very strong about this move. I would assume that the actuary will approve this transferring the management of this plan to Robinson-Humphrey before we would -- even though we ratify it, before it's actually carried out. Would that be the case, Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Yes. MR. TODD: And with that, I certainly don't have a problem with this. I think it's a sound company, and I know that by law, I believe State law for sure, that it limit the risk that a entity can take with a public pension plan as far as investing. I know the other entity that we're doing the investment through, the committee is not delivering what they promised. They promised a higher percentage and delivered lower. I understand that it was good in those years probably to get anything as far as a profit for most investments. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Items 22 through 62 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on May 13, 1996. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I don't know if this is regarding this vote, but I think we're in a situation in the City -- we can carry that vote, but I'd also like to ask a question about the status of trash removal in the urban area. And I believe Mr. Hartley is here, and he might comment on that if you'd allow that question to be answered. MR. HARTLEY: I didn't hear your question. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, the question is, in the urban area, certain sections of it, especially in District 3 right now, it looks somewhat like a war zone out there with all the shrub and the grass cuttings and everything piling up, staying up there for weeks on end, and I'm just wondering if you can tell us what the problem is and what we can do to help you or what the solution is. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, sir. Well, the problem now is it's that time of year where everybody is pruning and putting stuff out for their spring cleanups, and what we're doing, we took this week and next week for a special cleanup. We're taking every truck we have and we're picking up everything as we go to try to get the urban district back clean like it should be. And, plus, we are using some inmate labor now to even help us get some of this debris off the streets and get caught back up. MR. ZETTERBERG: Do you have enough people to do the job? Are you properly budgeted to do it? MR. HARTLEY: To be truthful, no, sir, we're not properly budgeted and we do not have enough people to carry out the functions that we have to do as far as the household garbage, the leaves and limbs, and all this bucket trash that we have on the streets. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question in reference to a update for Mr. -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you through, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. TODD: When you're finished, I have a question. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. Well, I think, Mr. Mayor, we're going to have to address this issue right on, because it's not going to go away and it's only going to get worse. I think this is a good stopgap measure that you're taking to relieve the situation, but it's just not going to go away and I think we have to take some positive action and address it head on. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess fortunate or unfortunate, I serve on the Engineering Services Committee, and what I'd like to do -- and I know this is just a update during the discussion on the overall consent agenda on Engineering Services, but I'd like to, you know, at least that we bring it back to committee and work with Mr. Beard and his committee on a proposal as far as methodology on cleaning up the limbs and leaves. You know, right now there's no reason why we should be doing the chipping and composting of everything at the landfill when you can buy a truck where you can haul ten times as much by running it through and chipping it, on small limbs and leaves, and pretty much grinding it and composting it right there on site. And I don't know that we need to throw more money in personnel, which is going to be a long-range thing, and I'd like to at least bring this back to committee and we work with Mr. Beard on a methodology versus personnel. I'm sure that everybody here that's a department head can use additional personnel. And so I'd like to make an amendment to the motion to pass as a consent agenda this item, that we send this to the Engineering Services Committee and the Engineering Services Committee or special committee coordinate with Administrative Services Committee that Mr. Beard have, and that's dealing with the cleanup, and that we work it out as far as the best methodology of long-range taking care of this. And that's an amendment to the motion if it will be accepted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I don't really think this is an item, this is just something Mr. Zetterberg asked a question about. We don't have this on the agenda that I know of. MR. TODD: Yes, it's just a update that he requested. So I'll just say then, for information purposes, I'll take it up with the chairmen of the Engineering Services Committee and the Administrative Services Committee and we'll try to get one of the special committees we have over there to, between the two of them, to work it out and try to come up with something long range. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, and to Commissioner Todd, we are -- and thank you for that -- we are working on that, and we have a proposal that should come up in the next week that we think will alleviate a lot of the problems that they are having up at the Public Works and -- that they're having at this point. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Mr. Zetterberg, did you want to say something else? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I'm very satisfied that the Administrative Services Committee is taking care of this because the issue is very large, it's a problem for Mr. Hartley to handle now, and it's a constant complaint by the citizens, at least in my district. And I thank Mr. Beard for addressing that issue, and hopefully we can resolve it within the next 30 days. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 22: Consider approval of first and final change order on the Brown Water Main Project in the amount of $24,394.24. Item 23: Consider approval of a request from the Director of Consolidated Revenue recommending the placement of a Night Deposit/Drop Box in the Municipal Building. Item 24: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Suburban Public Works Director regarding approval of the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolutions for Walton Meadows Subdivision, Section II. Item 25: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Suburban Public Works Director regarding approval of the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolutions for Woodlands of Goshen, Phase II. Item 26: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Suburban Public Works Director not to accept any more commercial development detention/retention facilities into our system for maintenance and that the Interim Attorney draft an ordinance on the maintenance of same. Item 27: Consider approval of a Capital Project Budget and Engineering Proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. regarding Forest Park Subdivision Drainage Improvements. Item 28: Consider approval of a Capital Project Budget and Engineering Proposal from Brian G. Besson and Associates, P.C. regarding McCombs Road, Section I. Item 29: Consider approval of a deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for the Pepperidge Pointe, Section I. Item 30: Consider approval of a Capital Project Budget and Engineering Proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. regarding Cook Road and Glendale Subdivision Improvements. Item 31: Consider approval of a request for Public Works Director to begin communication with Georgia DOT regarding Gordon Highway Guard Rail Improvements. Item 32: Consider approval of a Capital Project Budget and Engineering Proposal from Brian G. Besson and Associates, P.C. regarding Hillwood Circle/ Whitehead Drive Drainage Improvements. Item 33: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding bid award to Allsteel Products for Glenn Hills Bridge Safety Fence. Item 34: Consider approval of a recommendation regarding four traffic signal applications with the Georgia DOT for Bel Air Road (Jimmy Dyess Parkway). Item 35: Consider approval of contract documents and the proper bonds for Traffic Signal, Phase II, Pleasant Home Road at Crane Ferry and Laney-Walker Boulevard at East Boundary. Item 36: Consider approval of a recommendation to withdraw the Old Waynesboro Road Drainage Improvement Project from the Special One Cent Sales Tax, Phase III list and recaptured funds be used on future suburban Public Works projects. Item 37: Consider approval of a recommendation to reduce the speed limit on the Doug Bernard Parkway. Item 38: Consider approval for abandonment of Jones Street Courtyard. Item 39: Consider approval of proposed Deed of Dedication for Tindon Street and Hire Street. Item 40: Consider approval of a Contract Administration proposal from ZEL Engineers regarding constructed Wetland Project. Item 41: Consider approval of bid award to Mundy Construction for excavation and demolition services at White Road Service/Fueling Location. Item 42: Consider approval of a proposal from Conestoga Rovers regarding White Road Fuel Area Contamination. Note: There is no Item 43 on the agenda. Item 44: Consider approval of a proposal from Freeman & Vaughn Engineering, Inc. to perform UST Site Assessment - Central Shop. Item 45: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 22 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvements, Phase II Project which is owned by Brynwood Swim Club, Inc. Item 46: Consider approval of condemnation of Project Parcel 8 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement, Phase II Project owned by Jean Margot Schedel. Item 47: Consider approval of condemnation of Project Parcel 20 and 45 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement, Phase II Project owned by John Fleming. Item 48: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement from Lydia C. Bliven and Thomas J.C. Smyth, Jr. known as Project Parcel 6-A of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project. Item 49: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement from Anthony A. Prestifilippo known as Project Parcel 15 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project. Item 50: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project on Parcel 3, Area A, owned by Northeast Georgia Presbytery, Inc. and Augusta Korean Presbyterian Church of Northeast Georgia. Item 51: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project on Parcel 1, Area A, owned by Lucia B. Esperanza and Herminia P. Julian. Item 52: Consider approval of an option to purchase Project Parcel 9 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement, Phase II Project owned by Paul Edward Filpus-Luyckx and Mary Patricia Filpus-Luyckx. Item 53: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement known as Project Parcel 16 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II in the name of Doris Evans Gramling. Item 54: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project on Parcel 4, Area A, owned by Korean Presbyterian Church of Augusta. Item 55: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way from Donald Rae Ford, John Loran Ford and Perry Maureen Lokey known as Area D, Parcel 3 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 56: Consider approval of an option to purchase Parcel 49 of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement, Phase II Project owned by Merrick Place Partners, L.P. Item 57: Consider approval of counter-offer option to purchase right-of-way from W.W. Zealey, Jr. known as Area D, Parcel 7 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 58: Consider approval of counter-offer option to purchase right-of-way of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project on Parcels 5 & 7, Area A, owned by The Lifsey Group, Inc. Item 59: Consider approval of counter-offer option to purchase right-of-way from Elsie D. Harmon known as Area D, Parcel 10 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 60: Consider approval of sale of surplus property at 2443 Windsor Spring Road to William Howarth. Item 61: Consider approval of recommendation of bid award to Mabus Construction for sewer line repairs - Raes Creek Line at Boy Scout Road. Item 62: Consider approval of improvements and funding source for Municipal Parking Garage.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 63: Consider approval of Change Order #1 for East Augusta Drainage Improvement Project. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that because it was deadlocked in committee, as you say, because we had some complications. What we were going to try -- what Public Works was recommended to do was take the Change Order #1 off the East Augusta project and create a Change Order #2 to prepare Lumpkin Road on that same job. What Public Works has agreed to do is to just submit for Change Order #1 and come back with Change Order #2 on the Lumpkin Road project, which would now be a work order instead of Change Order Number 2. That's for the Lumpkin Road project. MR. HANDY: But if it's approved on 63 now, why would you want to separate them? It's approved now. MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, but it's Change Order #1 being approved. Originally it was Change Order #1 and Change Order #2, and I was just clarifying for Change Order #2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, let me make sure I understood this. We're approving all change orders on this item? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion back and tell him what we're doing, please. MS. WATSON: Motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy to approve Change Order #1 for East Augusta Drainage Improvement Project. It's in the amount of $162,309.50. The Lumpkin Road project will be addressed in a work order that will be brought back to the Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. I guess the concern is by some of my colleagues in the sense that their recollection in committee that Change Order #1 was Lumpkin Road, Change Order #2 was the East Boundary situation, that we are going to do the East Boundary now and that we'll do, through emergency process, Lumpkin Road later. And if that's the -- that's the intent of the maker of this motion, that -- and also that you -- if that information is correct, then the Change Order #1 definitely should be the project, you know, that the funds was earmarked to. MR. POWELL: That was the intent of the motion, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me just ask a point of clarifica-tion on that, because I was not on your committee, but I was there when you all deadlocked that day. And you have it still referred to, on the whole thing, as East Augusta Drainage Project? MR. POWELL: No, sir, we've taken the Lumpkin Road part that was -- the part that was the deadlock, Mr. Mays, we've taken that off and we're going to go back -- MR. MAYS: That's the 110,000; correct? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, that's right. MR. MAYS: So only the remaining portion, which is the smaller percentage, is in actual reference to East Augusta then. MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: That's the point that I wanted to clarify, that it was the change order in reference to East Augusta. Then it's not $162,000, it's 162 minus 110. MR. POWELL: That's correct. MR. MAYS: Okay. Then I think that needs to be for the record that you're not attributing a 162,000 change order to East Augusta. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion to delete from Change Order #1, Change Order A, and that we approve Change Order B and C. That's -- B is Aiken Street and C is Kentucky Avenue/Aiken Street. And do I need to say the dollar amounts? The Kentucky to Aiken Street is $35,629.50; the Aiken Street is $15,682.00. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does anybody else want to comment? MR. MAYS: I just wanted to ask, Mr. Powell, y'all have work for the other 110, though; right? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays, that's correct. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I thought I understood this, but I think I'm getting thoroughly confused on this. MR. POWELL: Mr. Beard, I'll just get Mr. Jack Murphy up here and let's let him clarify it for you. Maybe we're being -- adding to the confusion. MR. MURPHY: What we're asking you to do is to approve Change Order #1 on the East Augusta Drainage Improvement Project, which would include Aiken Street to Espinoza, $15,682; plus Kentucky Avenue to Aiken Street, piping the ditches behind those streets, that total amount. We're going to take Lumpkin Road improvements out and bring it back later. That's all we're asking. We want to move on with the ditch piping in East Augusta with the approval of the Change Order #1. East Augusta drainage improvement only. We're going to bring Lumpkin Road back to you later. MR. HANDY: There's nothing wrong with that, Jack, but, see, that's not written down here. That's in your head, not on paper, and that's not what we voted on last week. MR. MURPHY: The only other thing, if you don't do that, we're asking that you just delete this and we bring both of them back separate later. MR. HANDY: Because, see, we was under the impression that what we deadlocked on were both of them, and this says deadlocked and we're not voting on both. See, you all have decided to separate them but not telling us that you're going to separate them. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm getting old, my recollection is not what it used to be, but I was thinking that when we deadlocked that we separated them and voted on the East Augusta projects only. I would have to refer back to the minutes of the committee in order to confirm that, but I'm just going strictly on my recollection MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Just a point of order. If you're calling for the question and you're that confused, I do think it needs to be clarified then. Because I think what he hasn't brought out, nobody's brought out, is the fact that there was a source to do the East Augusta projects, and the question that came up was there was not a source to do the other, even though Lumpkin Road was necessary to be done. But you were taking East Augusta's from reprogrammed money that was left from projects in East Augusta, so there was a source. So that was not to be delayed, or should not be delayed, when you've got 300 and some thousand dollars there in reprogrammed money in surplus. So that shouldn't be delayed on that part. Now, if you're going to delay something, I think you need to delay where you don't have the money from, but if the money is laying there in surplus, then I got a problem with you delaying both of them. Maybe we need to clear what is the motion on the floor. MR. BEARD: I think that would be fine, Mr. Mays, and we need to do that. Because if the motion on the floor is to go on with the East Augusta project -- and I thought it was and that's why I'm saying I'm getting totally confused, but I thought the motion was that we would go on with the East Augusta project at this time and come back with the Lumpkin Road under emergency funds. I believe that was the essence of the motion, and if that is, then I think we should move on and that would clarify everything. MR. HANDY: That's the motion that I called the question for. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that's the motion, that we go back for emergency proposals on Lumpkin Road at a later time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand what we are about to vote on? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 64 through 66 were all approved by Public Safety in meeting May 4, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, they were voted on in committee and approved, and I recommend approval by the full Commission. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 64: Consider approval of a Mutual Firefighting Assistance Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department and the Grovetown Department of Public Safety. Item 65: Consider approval to purchase (1) surplus school bus from the Richmond County Board of Education for $1.00 for the Sheriff's Department. Item 66: Consider approval of acquisition of county owned property for relocation of the Augusta-Richmond County Animal Shelter.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 67 through 78, with the deletion of Items 72 and 73, were all approved by the Public Services Committee in meeting May 14th. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, have we got any objectors to any of the liquor licenses here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to any of the licenses? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like my vote to be no on 69 and 70 due to Sunday sales. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like my vote recorded the same as Mr. Bridges, and I'd like to pull Item 76. MAYOR SCONYERS: Pull Item 76. Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 67: Consider approval of a request by David E. Greenfield for a consumption on premises liquor & wine license to be used in connection with the Limelight Cafe located at 1325 Augusta West Pkwy. District 3, Super District 10. Item 68: Consider approval of a request by John Sullivan for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Amerisuites located at 1062 Claussen Road. District 7. Item 69: Consider approval of a request by Scott Ronald Zwilling to transfer the consumption on premises beer & wine license used in connection with Hooters of Augusta located at 2834 Washington Road. Formerly in the name of Roger Gondek. There will be Sunday Sales. District 7, Super District 10. Item 70: Consider approval of a request by Timothy F. Carley to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Spinnaker's of Augusta located at 2031 Augusta Mall. Formerly in the name of David Jacobi. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3, Super District 10. Item 71: Consider approval of a request by Alice Redfern Mason to transfer the consumption on premises liquor & beer license to be used in connection with Snuffy's Tavern located at 2610 Peach Orchard Road. Formerly in the name of Richard Wayne Redfern. District 2, Super District 9. Item 74: Consider approval of recommendations from the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation and Parks Department regarding professional services for One Cent Sales Tax Projects. Item 75: Consider approval of contracts between Pamela E. Hills, Tiese D. Herrington and Thomas D. Roe and Augusta-Richmond County regarding their participation as officiants in sporting events sponsored by the Recreation Department. Item 77: Consider approval of bid award to Howard's Uniform Unlimited, low bidder for Transit Uniforms. Item 78: Consider approval of Concession Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and the Greater Augusta Arts Council. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEMS 69 & 70. MOTION CARRIES 8-2 ON ITEMS 69 & 70. MOTION CARRIES 10-0 ON ITEMS 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, & 78. CLERK: Item 76: Consider approval of the proposed organizational chart for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Department of License and Inspections. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we receive it as information. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke; we have a substitute motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, the intent here is to consolidate and do it in a timely manner, and I think that indirectly or directly I've been accused or some of us have been accused of delaying, blocking, doing about-faces, or crawfishing. This is something -- this is a proposal that come from two department heads, you know, or at least three department heads, three different department heads: Ms. Attaway, which unfortunately she can't be here, she's ill; Mr. Meyer; and Mr. Walker. This come to the committee. This committee, you know, reviewed this in a public forum, commented on it, debated it, and approved it and sent it to this board. And if what I'm hearing or understanding that there is a, you know, effort not to do this now because we are possibly looking at having two departments out of three instead of one department out of three, I think that my -- I would urge my colleagues to not let this happen, that we move on with the consolidation of this government and of these departments. And that's going to be my comments. I'm not going to get into a further debate over it, that's point blank. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Powell, could you tell me your reason for wanting to delay this? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke, I sure can. First of all, I didn't know the department heads were supposed to be drawing up organizational charts. I thought that was the job of the Project Manager. And number two, it's not under the Project Manager, and I really would like some more information from him before I vote. MR. KUHLKE: Well, if I could speak to that. This is an effort on the part of both Interim Administrators, the department heads, and the Project Manager was fully involved in the development of this organizational chart, and it passed unanimously in our committee, so I would highly recommend to my colleagues that -- this is good work, this is the kind of work we want to see in our government, and I would hope that they would support Mr. Todd's motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke, my problem with it is this, I think that we need to review that whole situation of License and Inspection. We have inspectors in a lot of departments and I think we need to give it a honest study to see if we can possibly put all of our inspectors in one department. We have road inspectors, we have utility inspectors, we have building inspectors; why don't we look at the possibility or the feasibility of putting all our inspectors under one department rather than having each department have inspectors. And that's some of the questions of mine that have not been answered, and in the spirit of trying to consolidate in a feasible manner, I urge my colleagues to put this item off until we can give it a little more study. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kuhlke had said that the vote the other day was unanimous. I was in Albany, but they had my full support. He's vice-chairman of that committee. And had I been here, which I was overdue for a rail passenger meeting and everyone knows that, where I was, but I would have supported it at that time. I think that down the road if there is going to be an effort -- because I don't think you have some things that are permanently written in stone about this government that can't be changed. But I think when you even look to the back of the room, even though Ms. Attaway is not here, but three people, and particularly the two present, I think is very much a prime example of part of the discussion that we've been rambling over for the last two to three weeks of what happens when you'll leave folks alone and allow them to do their job. I think you have two people that came from two separate governments that are showing they can work very, very well and that are pleased, at least at this point, at what has been done. And I think in some of the areas, if you're talking about making a mess, that right now it's enough out there under the roofs that it's on to say grace over. And I think if they are capable of, at least at this point -- and maybe we might even need to use it as an example in some other places and let it work for a while. And I would hope since this committee basically has tried to stay within the confines of its own committee and they have been able to work out and at least get some semblance of organization, particularly since the old City side moved from this courthouse and is now out on Marvin Griffin Road, and those people are trying to work and to do a good job, that you would support the committee, that you would support the people that have been placed there. And if we decide to do something at a later date and make some semblance of order out of where there may be some confusion in some other places -- and, granted, this one may not be perfect, but at this time, since they have done something, at least allow them to proceed in the order that they put together. And this committee does have unanimous support and we hope that you will support us with it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a comment somewhat in support of Mr. Powell. I never did hear from the department heads who did the organization - - the reorganization of the department. They did not, I don't believe, consider taking the other inspectors out of the Public Works Department to put into that department. I never heard that. I was a member of the Public Services Committee that voted on that, and I'd like to hear a comment on that. I just don't know yes or no. MR. MEYER: It did not come up in the committee meeting, but I can tell you that in the meetings with the administrators and the Project Manager and the department heads this was discussed, and the consensus was that these are code enforcement inspectors and they are not the same as Public Works inspectors who are specifications and quality control inspectors. And I just -- all people involved didn't feel they should be separated and that the Public Works inspectors should answer to Public Works and the building inspectors should answer to the Building Inspector. But it was discussed. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I guess Mr. Meyer possibly answered -- I'm not on that committee and I did not hear the discussion, but I think he partially answered it. You're saying that these inspectors cannot be cross- trained in any way, they got to be just doing exactly what each -- MR. MEYER: They're cross-trained within the department, or will be, and some of them are already certified in more than one area. And we are doing it as funds are available. We have money for training budgeted each year, and I think it was set up on a five-year program. But the cross-training would be within the code enforcement area within building inspections, not utility inspections, not public works, not quality control or specifications. We look at a building code, not building specifications. MR. KUHLKE: And that's being done now? That is being done now, the cross-training? MR. MEYER: Within the department, yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Mr. Meyer, my question is for you. In order words, all you enforce is building codes and you don't -- and your crew does not enforce quality control? MR. MEYER: Quality control as far as code compliance, but we don't have Public Works specifications and we don't have somebody watching every piece of pipe being put in the ground. We don't watch every piece of your electrical wire run or your plumbing. We look at it -- at the initial stage, a rough in and a final. Your other inspectors are on the job every day, eight hours a day, watching everything that's done on that job. And that's -- if you want to get it done right in that area, that's where they'd better be. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just found the argument interesting when Mr. Powell addressed it to me because he does have supervision, or committee supervision, over the Public Works area. One of the very first times I've been involved in government when somebody was willing to give something up for something. And I think his interest was in the public's interest to do that, and all I'm doing is trying to find out is it really in the public interest to put all the inspectors in one branch. I'm not necessarily supporting putting the inspectors in a separate branch. I'm more than willing to let you have all the inspectors. MR. MEYER: My personal opinion is all I can give you. We are dealing with two different animals and I don't think they need to be -- personally don't think they need to be combined. I don't think Public Works needs building inspectors and I don't think Building Inspection needs Public Works inspectors. I think they are too diverse. What they are there for is so different. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm willing to hear a discussion about it. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Zetterberg, I see the function of this Inspection Department entirely different than Public Works. I see that there needs to obviously, as we move on, needs to be a close coordination between this Inspection Department, the Public Works area, Planning and Zoning, Engineering. They all have contact with the public, they all need to be accessible to the public. They need to work together, but I think that they are separate and distinct on their specific job duties. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll certainly defer to Mr. Kuhlke on that because I'm not in the construction business. But as I understand it, Mr. Powell, there was a special reason why you wanted to do that. I'm wondering if you're willing to say that. MR. POWELL: Mr. Zetterberg, I'm more than willing to say it. I think in the spirit of a checks and balances system it may be the best interest of the taxpayer. And second of all, if we are molding our government after other governments, why would we have a License and Inspection Department that's together when you can call Savannah, Atlanta, and just about anywhere else in the state, even Greensboro where Mr. Carstarphen come from, they have separate inspection and license departments. So why all of a sudden do we have to be a License and Inspection, why not a License or an Inspection Department. We need two different departments, they're two different functions, and I just wonder why we would make recommendations on such that would be so much different than everywhere else. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all know what we're voting on now or do I need to have the motions reread? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Please have it restated. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do you want to do the substitute motion first? MS. WATSON: Substitute motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges, to receive as information. And then Mr. Todd made the original motion, and Mr. Kuhlke seconded, to approve the organizational chart for License and Inspections. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, we're going to vote on the substitute motion by Mr. Powell first. That's to receive it as information. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MSSR. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, AND POWELL VOTE YES. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion; that's Mr. Todd's motion. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MSSR. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council meetings held on May 7 and May 14, 1996. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 80: Proclamation for National Trails Day in Augusta, being accepted by Mr. Tom Robertson. MAYOR SCONYERS: This is for National Trails Day. It's to promote -- hopefully people will, like on the nature trails up at the Augusta Canal and this type of thing, promote the green spaces. It's to make you get out and be among nature a little bit. This is basically what this is for, and we want to present this to Mr. Robertson on behalf of Augusta-Richmond County. MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. I'd like to make a brief comment if I could. National Trails Day is June the 1st, which is a Saturday, and it's a good opportunity for us in the Augusta-North Augusta area to celebrate the receipt of some federal funds that are ICTEA funds used for bikeways. On that day North Augusta is going to cut the ribbon on their bikeway along the old rail right-of-way and then bring tools across the bridge, so to speak, and allow Mayor Sconyers to break ground on the Canal bikeway, which was also funded by the same pot of funds, and that work will begin later this year. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Robertson. CLERK: Item 81: Communication from the Consolidation Project Manager: 1) Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department, director selection update. MAYOR SCONYERS: Since the Project Manager is not here, we intend -- the Project Manager and the committee intend to have ready for the next meeting the selection for the department head of the new public utilities. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept your communique as information. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 2 and 3 will be addressed by George Patty and John Etheridge: Housing and Neighborhood Development, director position open recruitment authorization; Geographic Information Systems, director selection update. MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, if possible I'll address Number 2. This has been approved at least once by the full Commission, and all we're asking for today is the authority to begin the recruitment process on that. Mr. Etheridge I don't believe is here. He had another engagement. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just comment on this action. This is a very significant action for this program. It's been stalled for years without getting the appointment of an experienced manager in this area, and with the appointment of getting an experienced manager we are certainly going to see very significant growth in this area. And this is the right thing to do, and I'd like to applaud Mr. Hornsby for taking the bull by the horns and getting this initiative moving. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Let's do 2 and then we'll do 3. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Part 3 now. CLERK: GIS system. MR. HORNSBY: Under the GIS, what we've done in this is, we are trying to move forward, and beginning Thursday of this week and Friday of this week we will be doing interviews with potential candidates for a GIS project manager. That's where we are in the GIS program. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept as information the report from Mr. Hornsby. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all don't want to go ahead and start the process? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding -- a point of information. It's my understanding that he's telling us the process have begun. MR. HORNSBY: It is; it's begun. We have advertised and we have resumes in. We've received those, we've reviewed them, and we've selected six candidates and we'll be reviewing soon. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Hornsby, what process -- was that a national advertising or local or where was it at? MR. HORNSBY: Regional and -- well, some of it was national because some of it was done on the Internet. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, do I have a second? MR. HANDY: I seconded that. MAYOR SCONYERS: That we accept it as information. MR. HANDY: Right. I've just got one question. Would those names -- would the committee give them -- would they come back through our selection process or it would bypass that system that we have set up or how would we get that? For the director, that's the question I'm asking. MR. HORNSBY: We'll be directed by you. We will inform the Mayor and the Commissioners of what has actually transpired, whether we have been able to make a decision, come back to you for that individual's appointment. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would think that we would use the selection process that has already been established, and we've already established an electing process. MR. HANDY: But my question -- Mr. Beard, I don't think Mr. Hornsby is aware of that. And then what I'm asking is whether they're going to submit three names or four names or just come back with just one person and say this is the one. That's the question I'm asking. MR. HORNSBY: We hope -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold on just a second, Mr. Hornsby. Jim? MR. WALL: I guess perhaps we need some direction from the Commission- Council. This process initiated last year with the Board of Commissioners, and so the advertising and everything that was done was done under the guidelines that were prescribed by the Board of Commissioners. The GIS system is not a depart-ment head position. And in the meetings that we've had it has been my understanding, and if I'm in error you need to correct me, is that this committee would come back before the full Commission-Council with a recommendation or with a number of names that they would recommend and the Commission-Council would approve the recommendation or ratify it. But this is not a department head position as it has never been treated as a department. And, again, it arose under the old Board of Commissioners. MR. BEARD: Okay, so we are -- you're still talking about Number 3. MR. WALL: The GIS, yes. MR. BEARD: But Number 2 would be different. MR. WALL: Number 2 is different. That's absolutely correct. MR. BEARD: Okay. I just wanted to separate those two. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that was my understanding, that the process started last year and we're talking about a director, not a department head. And in those cases, even under our new rules that we are, I think, going to approve in a few minutes, that the Administrator and subordinates of the Administrator would pick those individuals and appoint them and we wouldn't be involved in the loop there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to receive it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 4 is departments suggested for the next organization review and recommendations: Human Resources, Finance Department, Purchasing Department, and Fire Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: What we would ask, gentlemen, is to go ahead and open the recruiting process for these so that we can move forward to getting a department head for each one of those. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 5: Administrator's authority and responsibilities, discussion and direction. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the markup that the County Attorney faxed to all of us today from last night's meeting. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess that the date on that should be May the 21st, to make sure we don't get it confused with some of the other drafts. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think if you look at the time you can tell he did it rather late last night. MR. HANDY: Mine's got 12:31 p.m. MR. TODD: Okay. Well, the 12:31 p.m. draft. It's good to know the County Attorney is working late, burning midnight oil. MR. WALL: Well, I set the computer. The computer worked after I went home. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Next item: Consider approval of a proposal for electrical utilities for Phinizy Road Detention Center. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, it is my recommendation, after the discussions that I've had with the people that have had an opportunity to review the proposals, that we need some expertise. Possibly Precision Planning has that expertise inhouse. If not, I would ask that I be allowed to get a consultant to review these to determine which of the two bids is the better bid and come back at the next meeting with a recommendation. We're not prepared at this point to recommend either proposal. MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is a request by Charlene M. Nay for a flea market license to be used in connection with Highway 78 Flea Market located at 3179 Gordon Highway. MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, this application complies with County code requirements to bring before this Commission a request for a flea market license at this location. MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Is the individual here that -- MR. MEYER: Sitting right over here. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Meyer, it's my understanding that there's stipulations on this license that there be no outdoor vendors as far as tables, et cetera, set up; that this is solely a indoor operation, and that's a restriction on this license. MR. MEYER: Not unless that restriction is put on it, no, sir. At this point there's no restriction on it. MR. TODD: Well, I think I was told that last week, so at this time I'd like to amend the motion to restrict the flea market to a indoor operation only and not to have any outdoor tables or vendors. Will the maker of the motion accept -- MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that, Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Is that all right with you, ma'am? MS. NAY: Sir, am I to assume that it is all right for us to have outside tables? As it is now, I have 28 stalls in the building, they're all rented out, and I've got a list of 12, possibly 14 people waiting for people to move out of the building so they can move in because there's no place outside. But I was told that they couldn't have anyone outside, and if we could have someplace outside for them just to set up during the day and then close it up and leave, you know, that evening and then come back the next day -- not permanent, you know, just tables outside, that would be great because we have a big demand for people coming in. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the stipulation that Mr. Todd just put on it, not to have it -- wasn't it not to have it outside? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'll just make a substitute motion then that we deny if the -- if she have a license for a indoor operation and what she's seeking is a outdoor operation. We've seen in the past what these outdoor operations do to the commercial strips, and this certainly is not in the right location, in a commercial strip along Gordon Highway or off Gordon Highway, to have a outdoor operation in a parking lot where it's hard to enforce that day to day. I think you either have a outdoor or you don't have a outdoor. So I make a substitute motion that we disapprove the outdoor operation. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to accept what the motion on the floor says, and if she needs a outdoor, she need to come back and apply for an outdoor. MS. NAY: That's what I was told the first meeting I come to, that if I was to make it outdoors I'd have to have a surveyor come out there and do blueprints and all. That, to me, is not really an outdoor because he'd be putting permanent buildings out there and it'd be like indoor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Meyer, are you telling me that this is no restriction on this; this is outdoor or indoor is what she applied for now? MR. MEYER: If you approve it as a flea market, under the ordinance that she applied for there would be no restrictions, that's correct. MR. TODD: Right. Yes. My amendment stands. I didn't get a second to the substitute, so -- MR. MAYS: I'll second the substitute. MR. MEYER: She has met all the requirements to have a full-fledged flea market, outdoor sales, everything. She has -- the plat has been furnished, the legal ads have been run, and if you don't put restrictions on it, then she can have outdoor sales, she can rent stalls outside, she can do the full nine yards. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, but it's my understanding that the applicant already have a indoor license. MS. NAY: No, sir, I don't. MR. TODD: Well, okay, you don't. So you're operating a -- MR. MEYER: No, she's not operating. She's got spaces rented, but she's not operating. MS. NAY: It's not even open yet. It's been holding since the ending of February and I've been having -- it's been on hold since then. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question then on the motion and the amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: The amendment or the substitute motion? You and Mr. Mays got a substitute motion on the floor. MR. TODD: Well, I think that I'd like to withdraw the substitute motion in the sense that I don't want to deny a license if she don't already have a license for a indoor operation. I think in keeping with what we've tried to do to police between the other merchants on these commercial strips and the flea market operations, that we restrict it to indoor, and I think that's appropriate. So I don't want to deny the indoor; I don't have grounds for that and would not want to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, is that all right with you? MR. MAYS: Fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're back to the original -- Mr. Kuhlke's original motion. Did you accept the amendment on that, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MR. POWELL: Point of information, Mr. Chairman. Could I get that motion reread? MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Miss Susan, before you read it, what was your question, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My question, as a point of clarification, do we have flea markets that have already --we have denied them outside stall -- MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. MS. WATSON: The original motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy, was to approve the flea market at 3179 Gordon Highway with an amendment, which was accepted, to restrict to indoor sales only; there will be no outside vendors or tables. MS. NAY: May I ask a question, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am. MS. NAY: How does 56 and 25 do this, then? I mean, they've got people coming in on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, set up and then leave, and they're outside. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, and Milledgeville Road. And those was before we started placing the restriction on them as far as outdoor. And we've had hundreds of complaints about the strip along Milledgeville Road, which is not too far away as far as the outdoor operations. We can't do anything about those until they turn their license in and not renew them, from my understanding. The County Attorney may want to correct me there. MS. NAY: So I still can go ahead and survey it and do a blueprint and maybe add on to the building later on? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume to the building, with everything approved, but it would have to be indoors, everything added on. MR. MEYER: She could add on to the building. MS. NAY: Buildings added on to that building, yeah. Fine. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That was my question, whether you would consent to maybe add on to it if you had to. Because I live out in that area and -- MS. NAY: Well, if I had to. The first meeting I came and they said that. I was saying okay, that's fine; in the future, maybe two/three years from now, I'll add on to the building and have it still indoors. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I live in that area and I haven't had that many people saying it was a -- you know, not in that particular -- I was just saying that I live in that area and I have not had anybody calling me saying that that was a big -- you know. MS. NAY: I've got a big sign out there and it's got my phone number, and my phone's been ringing off the hook. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. On the original motion, Mr. Kuhlke made the motion and I accepted it. How did the amendment get on there? MR. KUHLKE: I accepted Mr. Todd's amendment. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll put the substitute motion back on the floor. MR. HANDY: I seconded it and no one asked me whether I wanted it added to it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I apologize. I assumed that since Mr. Kuhlke accepted it, you would. Will you accept the amendment? MR. HANDY: I would rather let Mr. Todd do his substitute motion. Because if she's already had the license, we've been holding off since February, I don't see the use of putting a restriction on it. MR. MEYER: She doesn't have a license, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANDY: No, no, I'll take that back. She's been waiting ever since February. We haven't had any problem -- we can always go back if we've got a problem with that area, cancel her license, let her know that she's got to move inside, but why deprive her of something that we don't know how it's going to work or whether we need policing done or not. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Kuhlke was fixing to say something. MR. KUHLKE: It's my understanding that you do not have a license now; right? MS. NAY: No, sir. But I've been waiting since February. MR. KUHLKE: You do not have a license at all? MS. NAY: I've been putting it in since February. MR. MEYER: There's an advertising period of 30 days and all that you have to go through, just like for an alcohol license. You have to have a plat, have to run ads in the legal gazette, and the property has to be posted. So the coordination to get it before committee and to get it in here before the full Commission sometimes does take 45 days or longer, depending on the timing of the application, so this is pretty much a normal holdup for an application of this nature. MS. NAY: Even so, before then it wasn't even zoned for a flea market, it was zoned for a bar, and I had to have it rezoned to begin with and that took a while. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think anyone opposed the rezoning at this level and other folks out there because we've somewhat established a policy that flea markets would be indoor operations. And certainly I feel in this commercial strip where you have other businesses that we need to be concerned about the appearance of this area and that we shouldn't allow or permit outdoor tables. You know, we pretty much know the experience of that and what it brings. Usually there is no enforcement ability to have them to carry the tables inside; they're usually built out of the cheapest material possible; the tables is usually coming apart in a short period of time; there is all kind of debris around. So I certainly, for one, feel that we need to stick with the policy of not going outdoors, restricting it to indoors, and eventually the ones that is licensed, you know, is going to fade out, then we're an indoor operation. Now, if she want to be anything but a flea market, she should be able to set up vending temporarily outdoors per the ordinance to do day sales or whatever. One operation, the A-1 Flea Market at Deans Bridge and Meadowbrook, changed their operation from a flea market to a mini mall, which allows them to do some things outdoors. MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did we ever decide whether or not we had an amendment on the motion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we deny. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jim, what would be the ruling on that? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I need Susan to -- we had a substitute motion and there was a second, and there was an amendment offered and a second to that amendment. The ruling would be, Mr. Mayor, you would have to take a vote on the -- that would be treated as a motion to amend the original motion. You would have to vote on the amendment first and then vote on the motion as amended. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the reason for withdrawing the second motion was with the belief that I -- the amendment was in on the first motion, so that's why the substitute motion was taken off. If the Chair feel that I need to remake that motion and get a second again for that substitute motion, I certainly would be glad to offer that. If it's the ruling of the County Attorney that that motion would still be on the floor as far as the substitute, then I would accept that, either way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, if you would tell us what to do where we can move on, I would greatly appreciate it. MR. WALL: You had an original motion by Mr. Kuhlke, which was to -- MR. HANDY: To approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: To approve, right. MR. HANDY: And then Mr. Todd added on that stipulation not to have outside tables. MR. WALL: And that was accepted. MR. HANDY: No, I did not accept it. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I think that you still have the -- you have an amendment which is on the floor which needs to be voted on as to whether the original motion has been amended. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that was my question. Now that gets it back to the point we can vote that up or down. MR. WALL: You vote the amendment up or down and then you vote on the original motion with it either amended or unamended, depending on the vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you. Now, do y'all understand what we're fixing to vote on, gentlemen? That's going to be Mr. Todd's amendment to put a stipulation for no outside sales. MS. NAY: I'm sorry to be such a bother, but I don't know if this gentleman knows the area he's talking about. If he says that we're going to ruin the area, let me tell him there's a race track on one side and a bar on the other side and nothing across the street. MAYOR SCONYERS: I understand that. Let me try to get this motion -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, thank you, Mr. Todd. By God, you've been speaking all afternoon; how about letting somebody else speak, okay? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: When I get around to it, we'll have it. All right, gentlemen, what we're going to vote on is Mr. Todd's amendment. All in favor of Mr. Todd's amendment to limit outside sales, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we don't -- we have an amendment on there; right? MR. WALL: You now have a motion to approve with that amendment that it be restricted to indoor sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion with the amendment to restrict outside sales, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, let me have a roll call vote on that, please. I didn't see the hands where I'm looking at them. I see some hands stayed down. I saw some hands stay down, so could I get a re-call vote? MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a re-call vote, gentlemen. All in favor of the motion to give the license but restrict the outside sales, please let it be known by your voice vote. MR. TODD: Todd, aye. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm in favor of it. MR. MAYS: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. BEARD: Yes. MR. POWELL: No. MR. HANDY: I heard a yes, but I didn't see a hand, so I accept that. I'm satisfied with it. When you call for a voice vote you hear more things than you see. Thank you. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can we move forward now, please? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I had asked that it be added to the agenda to authorize testing to be done of certain drums at the Central Shop and to allow the County to contract directly with Freeman & Vaughn to do the necessary analytical services for determining what steps need to be done to address those drums that are located up there. The cost of this would be $52,000 and would come from Risk Management. MR. TODD: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would ask for an opportunity to discuss several real estate transactions as well as litigation matters in legal session. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MEMBERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL SESSION, 4:25 - 5:15 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order, please. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I recommend that you approve the real estate contracts between Richmond County and Oliver Owens, Paul Davis, and Bobby Meybohm for the purchase of approximately 200 acres for a purchase price of $814,360. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Do we have any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD AND MR. HANDY OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. Was that it? MR. POWELL: Move we adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion for adjournment, do I hear a second to that? MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD AND MR. HANDY OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:16 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 May 21, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council C E R T I F I C A T E G E O R G I A RICHMOND COUNTY I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 126. I further certify that I am not a party to, related to, nor interested in the event or outcome of such proceedings. Witness my hand and official seal this 24th day of May 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER