The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-03-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER COURTROOM 2 July 3, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 12:00 o'clock Noon, Wednesday, July 3, 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 Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Special Called Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond Commission-Council. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Dr. Anita Bozardt, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. Excuse me, this is the Regular Meeting, just at an earlier time. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND BOZARDT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might also say Dr. Bozardt is with the St. John United Methodist Church. I failed to say that while ago. Thank you, ma'am. REV. BOZARDT: I'm a professor up at Augusta College, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. That's Georgia State University now, isn't it? REV. BOZARDT: Augusta State University. MAYOR SCONYERS: Augusta State University, excuse me. Do we have any additions or deletions, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have two deletions from the agenda: Item Number 14 and the first delegation listed on the agenda, Mr. J. Conn Ellington, Easley, McCaleb & Associates. And we have four additions to the agenda: The first is an application for a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; the second is a communication from the Interim Internal Auditor regarding a report on the increase in water and sewerage rates; the third is approval of a real estate purchase agreement between River Restaurant, Limited Partnership, and Richmond County; and the fourth is an update on consolidation of the computer systems. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Move approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion -- MR. BEARD: I have a question when -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a -- you made me lose my line of thought. Who made the motion for me? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke. And it was seconded by Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Now, Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: Yes. Item 14, I was just wanting to know why was that being deleted. MR. WALL: That was at the request of Mr. Brian Watkins, who indicated that he had been employed to represent Mr. Forrest and requested additional time, and I faxed a letter to the Mayor's Office yesterday and made that request. It was at their request, not ours. MR. BEARD: Okay. MR. HANDY: And, Mr. Mayor, I have a question on the Pavilion. MAYOR SCONYERS: On what? On Item 3 on the additions? MR. HANDY: Right. Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, what's that? MR. HANDY: What -- I want to know. MR. WALL: Why you do not have the documents? The reason you do not have the documents is because they were delivered sometime after eleven o'clock this morning over to my office, and Mr. Revell has been handling that with them. This will allow them to go ahead and close out. This is a transaction that y'all previously approved in concept, and this is simply approving the documentation. MR. HANDY: Okay. And the update on the computer system? MR. WALL: This is a result of a meeting that was held yesterday. Mr. Zetterberg was in attendance, and we felt like that we needed to advise you of the meeting yesterday and what is being undertaken and just provide you with an update because some of the earlier time frames that had been given to you insofar as some information being loaded onto the computer is dependent upon the steps that are now underway. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS AND MR. TODD OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: First order of business, please. Do you want to go into a legal meeting? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I have personnel matters that I need to discuss, as well as several litigation and real estate matters that I need to discuss in legal session. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS AND MR. TODD OUT.] COMMISSIONERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL SESSION, 12:36 - 2:38 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will reconvene, please. Ladies and gentlemen, we apologize for the inconvenience of having to move today, but we didn't have any air conditioning, and we felt that it would be better for y'all to be over here because if we got all that hot air in that building over there it might explode. So we just felt that it would be better to have you over here, and the Sheriff and the Judge were kind enough to let us have this nice facility. What's our first order of business, please, ma'am? CLERK: The next item on the agenda will be the delegation from Foster, Saad Company, Ms. Saundra K. Jennings, Property Manager, Mr. Phil Robinson, regarding Damascus Road/Village Square property. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Ms. Jennings here? Do you want to come forward Ms. Jennings? MS. JENNINGS: Not really. I feel like a lawyer in front of alligators. Is this -- I'm sure everybody can hear me. I'm from Columbia, South Carolina; I represent the owners of Forest Brook Apartments. In November 1995 the owners took over management of Forest Brook Apartments in an effort to make improvements to the property and improve the living environment for the tenants. In our efforts to eliminate being tagged as a, quote, slum property and because of our efforts to clean up this property, we now have 50 vacancies. Twenty-nine of these are tenants who have skipped out, which is a term we use in our industry meaning a tenant who owed rent and, rather than paying, moved out in the middle of the night and is running from that debt. Ten tenants have been evicted due to non-payment or not complying with new policies implemented. We are trying to clean this property and attract tenants who will be proud of their home and feel safe in their residence. However, when our property is known as, quote, the property next to the old crack houses, how can we effectively lease apartments? And, in fact, we cannot lease 12 apartments that have the gracious view of this abandoned property that is infested with weeds and unsightly trash. We have been told by a recent military tenant that Fort Gordon Housing states that as long as you stay away from Damascus Road you will find decent housing. Enough on how this has affected us. How does it affect the County? Well, recently our property was appraised by the County for tax purposes for three and a half million dollars. We fought that appraisal. And because of the location, the occupancy rate, and the neglect in dealing with the demolition of this slum property, the County lost one and a half million dollars off of our appraisal. Our property has decreased in value, mainly due to our unsightly neighbors. We are losing money and now you are losing money. We've made major attempts to unload this property, however, it is evident from our standpoint that this property is not salable. And believe me, we have tried to unload this property. Unless we would take a one and a half million dollars loss, we need the County's help in keeping this property, cleaning up this area, and changing the attitudes toward Damascus Road. So I guess I'm here just to find out what has been done. We hear rumors. I've been, for the last month, trying to track down rumors that it's been bid out, they're going to tear it down, all this, that and the other, and we just -- we need to know what's going to be done about that. We are -- we're losing a lot of money on this property. And we don't want it to be a slum property. We don't want to have residents that's going to live there --and the residents that will live there, because of the location and who's going to be their neighbors, which is Village Square, we don't want to move those people in there. That's why we have so many vacancies now. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to ask, how long has Damascus Road been abandoned? The property that we own now we acquired because of the new government, but when the City had it you still was there. MS. JENNINGS: Well, my problem is I can't get any definite answers. I mean, I'm just -- all I want to know is -- I mean, I know that the County has made efforts and they're making efforts to do some type of demolition or sell it to a church -- I mean, I've heard so many rumors, and I have tried to get to the bottom of it. And we just -- we don't want -- we don't want to have that particular area known as -- we were known before as the tenants next to the crack houses, and that's why we have 50 vacancies. And I'm willing to take that loss, but we've got to know that the County is going to do something to help us turn it around. We can't move residents in there when they look out the back view and they have the view of Village Square. And we've got 12 apartments I cannot lease. MR. HANDY: Well, I don't still have my answer, what I'm talking about. This was -- this apartment was abandoned before this new government taken it over. Did you approach the City with this problem before now? MS. JENNINGS: We took over the property in November. MR. HANDY: Oh, your company. Okay. Well, somebody else had it prior to that. MS. JENNINGS: No, the owners -- I work for the owners, and the owners took over the management in November. MR. HANDY: November of last year? MS. JENNINGS: November of '95. MR. HANDY: Okay. Then who had it prior to that? What happened to those people, the management company? MS. JENNINGS: The management? We cleared out all management. Everybody was terminated. All vendors, all management, everybody's been terminated, and we have taken over the property and we want to clean up the property. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, I mean, we are doing something, and we have some plans under consideration, but we're not at liberty to discuss what we plan on doing right now, that I know of. But we are doing something and we are going to do something with it. MS. JENNINGS: That's all I want to find out. Because since November of '95 I've heard that there have been plans to do something and here it is eight months later and still there has been -- it's evident there has been nothing done on this property. Now, maybe, you know, that you're not at liberty to say, but I think as owners of the property that's next to y'alls property, that we should at least be told something. And, I mean, I've made phone calls, I've written letters, I've got nobody to respond. This is my last avenue. I want to know what's going on. I mean, that's all I'm asking. MR. HANDY: Okay. My final statement is that you said you heard rumors and you've been talking to people, but you haven't talked to us -- or you haven't called me that I know anything about, and then you haven't written the Mayor because he hasn't said anything if you've written him. So I don't know who you've been talking to, but we are the ones you need to talk to, not the rumors that you hear out in the street. MS. JENNINGS: That's why I'm here. MR. HANDY: Right, but I mean prior to this. MS. JENNINGS: This is what I was told to do. This is what I was told to do, be here. I mean, I'll be more than happy to come meet with whoever, but this is what I was told to do, that I have to write a letter and request to be here and be on the agenda, and that's what I've done and that's why I'm here. I mean, I'm in this, too. We're losing money every day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Jennings, let me get Mr. Goins to give us a little update as to where we're at right now on that project. Could you, Drew, please? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. As the Council members know, we had the asbestos survey done on the property several months ago. We took that information and incorporated it into a bid package, and the bids are to be advertised -- are being advertised now, have been advertised in the paper, and the bid opening will be on July the 16th, and at that point in time we'll have a recommendation for consideration of demolition of that property. And I've never heard from this young lady before today. MS. JENNINGS: No, I've never met anybody here, I just -- you know, I'm from Columbia. What do I need to do to find out some answers? I was told to be here. I'm not trying to cause any controversy, I just want answers, you know. I've heard all kind of rumors, and I don't believe anything until it comes from the horse's mouth, and all the horses are here, so I'm here to find out what's going on. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm glad you said mouths. Mr. Powell, do you want to say something, please? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we receive this lady's legitimate complaint as information and move forward as we've planned. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Did I understand the young lady to say that the ownership has changed or the management of the property has changed? MS. JENNINGS: The owners have taken over the management. The management has changed. MR. TODD: Okay. There was a gentleman here from New York, I believe, approximately a year/year and a half ago with some complaints, and what he wanted was to do something about the Damascus Road properties. He met with the old County government, and certainly we heard those concerns, and I think what the former mayor was trying to do was do something about that situation by shutting it down, moving everybody out. The big complaint then was the tenants of the Damascus Road/Village Square property, that they were the problem. I understand that there is a problem as far as the demolishing the property and doing something with it, and that's in the process, as we've heard. But I think the ownership know where to come. He's been here before, he's talked to us about the overall situation, and probably the reason that there's not tenants in those apartments now is because of the wishes of the ownership. So I certainly want to point that out, that the owners of this property is no stranger to this government, that they've been before us before. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MS. JENNINGS: No, I just want to add that Mr. Powers is the gentleman that he's talking about, and Jim Powers instructed me that this is what he did before in writing the letter and coming to the Council. And that's what he's done, and he said that he got -- the reason he was here last time was because of something going on across the street with some type of development and that he got some very good results. And, you know, like I said, I'm not here to cause any controversy, we just want to know what's going on. We have lost a lot of tenants, 50 to be exact since January 1, and that's partially due because of -- not only that property, but we'll take blame too because we are -- we don't want slum property and we have evicted some people. We've had 29 people move out. So I think if we work together and just -- if we could just find out so we can tell tenants that come in -- I mean, we're trying to direct the traffic to where they don't come off of Wrightsboro Road, I think it is, and come in the back from Fort Gordon. We've done that, that we can tell them as they come in that, yes, this is the property next door, but this is being done. I've been doing that for six months, and then I find out that it has not been bid and it's not being torn down, which makes us look like liars. And then tenants hear that it's not the truth. That's why we just -- I just want to know. And now that we find out July the 16th there's going to be a bid opening, and then it'll move forward from there; is that correct? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. There's an asbestos problem, that's why we had to wait. MS. JENNINGS: All right. Thank you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Would it be reasonable to say that Mr. Goins is going to know the status of that property for the next 90 to 120 days and that's who the young lady ought to be in contact with if she wants to know the status of it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. That would be great. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. And I would suggest that you get together with Mr. Goins with a telephone number and he'll take care of that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. MS. JENNINGS: So, in other words, y'all don't want to hear from me again; is that right? MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next order of business, please, ma'am. I think we were going to Item 1 on the additions. CLERK: That's correct. Item 1 on the additions to the agenda is a consideration of an application for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $340,754.00. Local contribution would be $34,075.40 over a two-year period. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Sheriff Webster is going to address that for us. SHERIFF WEBSTER: Thank you very much, and we're proud y'all come down to visit us. I'd like to hand these to the Commis-sioners and let them pass them out amongst you, if you will. I think we all know that, you know, we don't have too much money in the County, so I'm looking for an easier way to get some deputies to go to work. And this is a federal grant, it's a two-year grant which is worth $340,000, which is 90 percent of the whole cost of the grant itself. We have to put up 10 percent, and the 10 percent will be 34,000 over two years. That'll be $17,000 a year. I'm putting in for five deputies, four motorcycles, and equipment in road patrol for the Road Patrol, and also one secretary out of this, so I think this is one of the cheapest ways to get additional people on the Sheriff's Department for two years. And then I know that the County will have to pick up the responsibility then, but if you recall, the new jail will be built by then and we won't have to -- we'll have to add additional deputies at that time, but I don't see how you can go wrong with 10 percent out of a dollar having to pay it. And I've also talked to Butch McKie in regards to this and whether we can come up with these funds, and we found it in our budget to where it can be taken care of, so there won't be no additional funds as far as that's concerned. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Sheriff, is this for a particular program, and after the two years will you try to maintain that program through County funds or? SHERIFF WEBSTER: No, in two years this runs out. There will be no more federal funding after two years; the County would have to be responsible for it. But like I said, if we don't have the money then to keep this thing in progress, we will have to hire those new deputies because the new jail will be built. Less than two years from now it'll be completed, and then you're going to have to hire a lot of people then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I certainly agree with the Sheriff that we're going to have to man the jail. And we know we'll need a lot of folks, and it'll give him an opportunity to have some folks already trained. And I would hope that this is not the last grant that we look at, that -- there is the weed and seed grant and some other grants out there, and those grants certainly helps local government, so I wholeheartedly support it. SHERIFF WEBSTER: I would like to state this: I had two grants, but I was looking at the other one and it would be a 70/60/50, so you would be involved in a lot more money. And I figured that I'd -- y'all would approve this one here and then maybe a little later on when things get better, then I'll bring that one or another one to you. And I want to thank you very much and appreciate your cooperation. 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. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Sheriff Webster. Item 2. CLERK: The next item is Item 2 on your additions agenda. It's a communication from the Interim Internal Auditor regarding a report concerning the increase in water/sewerage rates in the urban/suburban districts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman? MR. PLOWMAN: Sorry I got this to y'all so late. It took a while to get all the information, and I know you haven't had a chance to read this. My report is pretty self-explanatory. I went through from the requests y'all gave me, looked at the computer system, the rates that were in the computer, the old County and the old City system. The rates all looked to be fine. We recalculated some of the bills, all that is working fine. We didn't see any problems with the rates that were adopted that were actually in the system and the way the bills were calculated. We do have some concerns with the internal controls of the computer and some access capabilities that we're looking at on an overall project with a lot of -- in conjunction with a lot of other areas, so we'll get to that and probably in a couple more weeks have a final report. So while we looked at the rates today, there are some things we want to look at because access control, people can be able to change them without, you know, necessarily proper authority. And we didn't notice any of that, but that risk is there. The two complaints we thought we heard the most of -- and I think we covered every complaint that was coming in. One was from the sewerage charges, and when people were watering their yards the rates were going way up. They're paying for the actual water usage, but the sewerage rate -- and it's divided out pretty equally between the old -- we did the south and the north, which is the old County system and the old City system. What we did, the Utilities Department ran a scenario. If you cap the sewer rate at 15,000 gallons, 18,000 gallons, and 21,000 gallons, they'd still pay for the actual water usage, but their sewer charges would stop on a per gallon basis once it reached that level each month. Therefore, you know, watering their yards and that kind of thing doesn't mean they're necessarily using any more sewerage. Okay, a summary of that is scheduled down here with an annual impact reduction of revenue. What we did is we took a '93 and '94 actual usage with the current rates. The '93 and '94 years, one was a really wet year, one was a really dry year so, you know, we got a good average usage. And the chart in the back actually breaks down how many users from each system under each year would be affected. The numbers aren't presented on the summary, it's just a average. Another set of complaints that we were hearing, and the only other kind really, was on a meter charge based on the size of the meter, one inch and larger, that primarily related to the old -- the urban service district customers. There was about 509 users, and I think 90-some percent of them were in the urban districts. They're paying for the actual water usage, but they got bigger meters because of more flow and needs for more water at one time. If that premium was the same or the premium was just dropped and it was the same as every other residential user using the three-quarter inch pipe or whatever size it was, that would have an annual impact reduction of revenue of about $94,000. And it would proportionately -- if you reduce that premium down to half of what it was, it would be half of the $94,000. You know, I realize you probably need some time to study this and maybe just take this as information just so you can kind of have an update on what you requested me to do, but if any of y'all got any questions -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Not to add to what we've already saddled on you, Kip, but that list that you've got, you're covering two areas. I can throw you probably some more on there if you need them. But I guess two or three things. One, I know you've gotten a lot of complaints because I've gotten them, too, out of the urban service area. And I probably can maybe say it, because it's nothing that I haven't said before, and I didn't vote for them when they came down, and the only one that I'm going to vote for is if when you come back with some plan that may reduce them in some type of way. But one situation that you have, and I know in the old City this was one thing particularly, regardless of whether you were on the Hill or whether you were downtown, that particularly in peak areas you're dealing with your oldest basic population in this whole community in terms of seniors, and that was a question particularly with a lot of people on fixed incomes. That's one other scenario I think that you can look at in there. Also, have you all had the time yet to figure in, since we've been running everything else parallel and we've not been able to take this whole government and make a cure-all out of it overnight -- and this is not to put you on the spot, but I think probably the figures that need to be considered in there is what type of impact, even though there have been increases, what type of impact was the immediate legislation of the bill which dealt with those immediate reductions even though we didn't do them retroactively. But I think when you look at what the bill called for in terms of putting some of those into effect -- and I know some folks told me when I voted against it then I might go to jail for voting against the bill, and I said well, hell, the bill could have been wrong, too. Because I think when you immediately put that type of effect to do a 30 percent reduction and you're going to do it right away and you're running everything else parallel, then you've got to decide in there at some point where you're going to get that revenue back from. And I think what a lot of people are saying is did the sewerage go up in a sneaky way, because you're making up for it now on what we reduced in the other area. And I know your department didn't have anything to deal with that, but I'm just throwing that to your list since it's kind of incomplete, that there might be a couple of things that you may want to add to it so that when we finalize whatever it is -- and I'm hoping something will come back to us, Mr. Mayor, to deal with this because obviously -- as I keep saying, consolidation is not supposed to hurt, at least not in some areas like it's hurt already. And I just hope that you'll take that into consider-ation, those two factors of population and with seniors, or maybe we need to do something particularly with capping out on some of those where you have a fixed income status to deal with it and what effect that that immediate reduction have on that part that was called for in the language of the consolidation bill. MR. PLOWMAN: Okay, I'll take a look at that. What we tried to do is look at some things that would alleviate a lot of the complaints without having a big financial impact. You know, there were certain revenue numbers that are needed, and if you make some significant adjustments and need to keep the same revenue, all you're going to do is allocate costs to another group. I mean, that might be something you want to do, but if you want to keep the revenue the same, that's what will ultimately have to happen. But this could be something where you could, I guess, maybe change something that was done and not have a large financial impact and affect, you know, potentially 20,000 users by reducing their bills slightly. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I think Mr. Bridges was next, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Kip, I've got a question concerning the volume caps. Is that the only scenario you looked at? Did you consider also maybe, as far as the sewerage charge, taking the average winter charge for sewerage and using that throughout the year as opposed to tying it to water usage and what impact that would have? MR. PLOWMAN: I was going to do that and I did not do that yet. I could if you wanted to. Again, that gets back to -- it could -- it would -- I guess I'm going to kind of speculate here now. That could reduce total sewerage down, and if you still wanted to get the same revenue, what could happen is the water rate per gallon would then go up. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to see what financial impact it would have. I'm not saying we'll go with that, but -- you know, if it's too much we certainly can't consider it, but at least we'd have something to compare to. MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. No, I'll do that, and the reason I didn't is because it was really -- I was thinking it was something shifting just from charging someone for sewer for more water, and I don't know if it would affect their bill that much. But I certainly could have them run that scenario. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to bring one thing up. I'd like to make a motion first that we receive this as information and that maybe we look at the aspects of mailing out the charts that we've been privilege to as far as the new water and sewer structures to let -- a lot of people really think that their sewer and water bill has went up, but in most cases, if you'll look at the chart and review it back to -- I know in the suburban district, if you'll look at the chart, the overall water and sewer rate has came down. If you'll get the chart that Mr. McElveen had presented to me with the current charges on it and maybe mail that out in the bills and let people see exactly what we're doing, I think that would clarify a lot of this in communication. It's probably, you know, maybe too late for it, but the people really need to look at what -- exactly what we done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want that part of your motion, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Plowman that when he comes back with some additional information, something that would be helpful to me is what is our operating costs: what does it cost us to stay in business, in the water and sewer part of it; what sort of reserves do we need to build up for extensions and so forth; and then how those rates relate to those numbers. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Certainly the phone calls I've had and the bills I've reviewed, even though I looked at what Mr. McElveen and Mr. Hicks presented, talked to Mr. Dillard about this situation, but I didn't see it as a increase in sewerage or decrease in water and the overall bills staying the same from last year to this year, or if you take a dry year or a wet year. Certainly the individuals that had bills that could go back, or from our records you could see a total difference, you know, in the costs going up, and that's what prompted the letter. And certainly I feel that what Mr. Kuhlke is calling for we need, because if we're talking about going out for a revenue bond on water/sewerage, et cetera, perhaps we would want to spread the cost out over a number of years for the revenue we need versus getting it all up front. It seems to me here that we're getting an awful lot of revenue up front versus spreading it out as far as the users go. I understand this is a enterprise fund operation, that it's got to be paid for, but there's more than one methodology of paying for it. And, basically, individuals in South Richmond had about a 40 to 45 percent increase four or five years ago for expansion, et cetera, then we get hit with this sewerage increase. And overall bills have increased in the suburban district; I'm told they have in the urban district. And the other issue is the one-inch water lines, and I feel that we need to try to address those issues before we do anything as far as a revenue bond so we'll have it figured in on what it's going to cost a citizen and taxpayer for the next several years out there on water and sewerage. MR. McKIE: Mr. Kuhlke, to answer your questions, all of those numbers are in the rate study book that was given out in February: the capital plan, amount required for reserves, the operating costs. To address what Mr. Todd said, revenue is going to be based on usage or sales on water and sewer. It's not designed to bring revenue in except on that basis. So if there's more sales at this point, then we will, of course, have more revenue. MR. KUHLKE: And that book was pretty thick, wasn't it, Butch? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah. And what I didn't understand at the time that that was presented is -- and the calls that I'm getting is that a lot of people's water rates have gone down considerably and their sewer rates have gone up considerably, and I want to see what -- I want to see the difference there. I understand that we've got to have so much revenue coming in, but I just want to see a summary of how that is without having to go back through that rate study. If you recall, we went through that thing about three or four times. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Kip, while you're looking at it, I know this is going to be a little farfetched, but look at the dollars and cents involved in the residential side of the surge and the number of accounts and see what it would be for a flat fee for -- MR. PLOWMAN: Okay. And by the way, I didn't mention that all this that I'm talking about is strictly residential. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. But just in the residential, I'd like to see what a flat fee on a -- what amount we would need for a flat fee month in and month out so we could generate the type revenue that we need to generate. MR. PLOWMAN: For water and sewer? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. MR. PLOWMAN: For just sewer? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Just sewer. I think water has got to be a variable rate. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be very quick. I'm going to vote for the motion that's on the floor, but I just would again like to remind my colleagues that, you know, an illustration is good as to how we've gotten to a point, but the bottom line is folk will read the numbers before they read the illustration. They know what's on the bill and they know what they are being required to pay, and I think that's where the difference is. And all of it -- and I think it may depend on who's calling who and where you may be getting some bills at, but I'm getting a lot of them where not only the sewerage has gone up but the water and the sewerage have gone up. Both of them have. And, you know, in a lot of cases folk who are retired and who are of a certain age, they don't really have a reason to have to tell a lie, the bill speaks for itself. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have that chart that I was talking about, and some of the Commissioners may not have it. But the average on 7,000 gallons of water in the suburban district -- they're working on the urban district now. We knew we had an increase in the urban district, we're not going to argue that point with Mr. Mays. But from the water and sewer overall, on the average on 7,000 gallons the bill -- on 7,000 gallons the overall bill came down. Although the sewerage went up, the water was reduced down to where the cost is 16 cents less on that bill. Now, you get into some instances on 20,000 gallons where the bill is $2.00 less on residential rates. So if the people had this chart to look at and compare their bills -- what I'm running into with people when they call, when we break it down and we go into how many gallons did you use, the people are using a lot more water this time. Naturally their bill is going to be higher. And that's what I'm finding. But as far as an average, it is less. Now, if people use more water, naturally their bill is going to be more. MR. PLOWMAN: And that is true. '94 and '95 it rained a whole lot. It's been pretty hot and dry here, so people are using a lot more water, sprinkler systems are going, so that's factoring into it. The urban district is -- you know, their total bills have gone up, so the people representing that -- the premium on those larger pipes for the larger meters, the annual charge on just that premium is $94,000, and that's paid by 509 users. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion -- do we want the motion reread, gentlemen? Do we know what we're voting on? MR. HANDY: I think it's all right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Everybody familiar? Okay. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1 under Finance, please. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of your agenda, Items 1 through 12 were all approved by the Finance Committee with the exception of Number 4, which was disapproved by Finance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to take off Number 1 from the consent agenda. I'd like to make a motion from the committee that the rest of that be approved as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's 2 through 12? MR. J. BRIGHAM: 2 through 12. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion -- I mean, excuse me, I need a second to Mr. Brigham's motion. That was Mr. Todd? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I got a second from Mr. Todd. I've got some hands over here for some discussion, though. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. Let me try to find it here, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to ask that Number 7 be taken off the consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Number 7? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Todd? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's fine. MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Brigham, Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. The question I want to ask, Mr. Mayor, was you said take Number 1 off until the next meeting or for how long? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I wasn't taking it off till the next meeting, I was going to vote on it separate, Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, just vote on it separate. Okay, I understand. Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is that also the case with the amendment with Number 7, just to vote on it separately? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just vote on it separate. Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee recommends approval of the other items that are on the consent agenda. MR. HANDY: I have one question, Mr. Mayor. What did we do with Item Number 1 in the committee meeting? MR. J. BRIGHAM: It passed in committee. MR. HANDY: Well, why would you want to take it off and separately? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Because I -- MR. HANDY: That's what I need to know. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think we need to discuss that. I don't think we need to go out -- I don't think we need to negotiate it, I think we need to go out for proposals, and that's why I took it off. MR. HANDY: But if the committee passed it, I mean, why do you want to take it off today? Why didn't you discuss it in the committee meeting? That's what I mean. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think any of us have a right to take it off, and this is the place to make the final decision whether or not we're going out for proposals or not. MR. HANDY: But the only way you can take it off, I have to agree, though; right? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, you don't have to agree. We've took off everybody else on a consent agenda. Anytime anybody's asked for an item to be taken off, we took it off. MR. HANDY: I still don't know why you're taking it off, though. Go ahead. We'll still work it out. Go ahead. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's make sure we know what we're going to vote on now. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We're voting on Items -- MAYOR SCONYERS: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12; is that correct? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. And that's brought to you in the form of a motion, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Todd's already seconded it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 2: Consider approval of declared surplus vehicles be sold at public auction. Item 3: Consider approval of a donation to Amateur Athletic Union "Team Augusta". Item 4: Consider approval of a request from Carbonic Industries for a waiver of the penalty and/or interest. Item 5: Consider approval of a request from R. Thomas Fuller for a waiver of penalty on behalf of Bruce and Martha Lyons. Item 6: Consider approval of a request from Bill Warfield of Brookside Properties, Inc. for a waiver of penalty on behalf of Augusta Equity, L.L.C. Item 8: Consider approval of an agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and the State of Georgia, Department of Corrections regarding reimbursement by the County to GDC for expenses incurred in providing two accounting positions to collect and process persons serving probated sentences from the State Court of Richmond County. Item 9: Consider approval of a retirement request from Marion F. Farr. Item 10: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Richmond County Board of Assessors regarding a refund for Raco Trucking and Raco Service Station. Item 11: Consider approval of a Franchise Agreement with Atlanta Gas Light Company. Item 12: Consider approval of accepting two historic preservation grants by the Department of Natural Resources for the development of design guidelines manuals for the Bethlehem and Summerville Neighborhood Associations.] MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee recommends the approval of Item Number 1. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve Item Number 1. MR. BRIDGES: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think this is an item that -- since this is a new government, I think we ought to look at receiving proposals from the various mortgage -- well, from the various bond brokerage firms to have everybody have an equal opportunity. I understand that some of our staff would prefer to negotiate this, but I think this is something that needs to be bid out at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly we're talking about professional services here, and I guess I led the fight to go competitive on the ambulance service less than two weeks ago, and it seems that the board decided that it was in the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers to take the advice of the other institution over there and not go out competitively. I'm hearing and have heard in the past even before this that on professional services for financial, that it may be in the best interest of the County not to go out for competitive. That's what was presented to us at the Finance Committee meeting, and I guess I bought -- I wasn't on that committee, but bought into their reasons for that. I think anytime that we stand to lose a great deal of money by going out competitive versus negotiating when it's not required or mandated, then I would lean towards listening to our staff and adhere to what they are recommending, so that's my position on this, and I will probably vote accordingly. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear again from the County Attorney and Comptroller as to the reasons they were giving to go out -- to negotiate this as opposed to seeking bids. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? Mr. McKie? MR. WALL: Let me speak to the legal aspect of it and let Butch speak to the financial aspect of it. First of all, we made a distinction in the committee between a request for proposals and a request for qualifications. A request for proposals I would not recommend in any fashion. I think it's extremely dangerous with this kind of situation because you run the risk of someone coming in with a low-ball figure and without the expertise/background to provide quality service. A request for qualifications was discussed in the committee where you first screen through a list of the people who respond to the request for qualifications and go through and determine those that are qualified and those that are deemed not qualified for that particular issue or project. And that certainly is an alternative, however, I think that the experience that Richmond County has had, we can identify the firms that have had a great deal of experience and qualifications insofar as these issues are concerned. The reason that I think that this is a particularly sensitive one and it is one that I would like to see us stay with someone who has had a great deal of experience is that you are dealing with a situation where this is the first issue for the consolidated government. There are questions that will arise on this that will -- you know, this will be the first time those questions are answered, and I would like to -- and in being selfish, I mean, I'll readily admit I think it is an advantage to Augusta-Richmond County to deal with people that we have confidence in and have a proven track record of understanding Augusta-Richmond County's financial situation, legal status, and this one in particular is unique being the first one by the consolidated government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: My reasons are virtually identical to Mr. Wall's. We can identify excess costs that we might incur by paying higher interest rates, paying higher closing costs, by virtue of accepting a low bid simply on placement costs. Someone could easily come in and low-ball that and not have the experience or the market for the bonds, and we would end up paying over a many-year period, and that's really a false economy. The firm that we want to negotiate with has served us well in the past, and our last venture, the rate of interest that we paid was the lowest in the bond market in 30 years with one exception. We had a lower closing cost or a lower acquisition cost than ever before, and this firm has worked with every governmental agency in the County: the Coliseum, School Board, City of Augusta, and Richmond County. They know us well, they know the County well, and that's very important in selling bonds and getting those bonds insured. In addition to that, it's more than one firm, so it's a co-brokerage deal. And, quite frankly, they're among the largest and best qualified in the southeast. So we don't know how we're going to get anyone else more qualified, and certainly their performance has been not excelled by anyone else in the bond market the last time. And with this being our first issue, it's very important, so I really want to dance with who brung me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I had one other thing. I don't know how many of you may have actually read the bond documentation, but there are certifications that I have to sign which puts my coverage and my assets on the line, and a lot of that has to do with the confidence I have in the attorneys who have prepared those documents and have reviewed the process. And this one in particular, I think there is a considerable amount of work and, frankly, more exposure than there is in the typical. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions or discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I believe Mr. Todd made the motion. Do we need the motion reread, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Would you please reread the motion, Miss Susan? MS. WATSON: The motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges, to approve legal and financial staff to negotiate with professionals of record for legal and financial services for the proposed bond issue. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 4, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the next item is Item Number 7, I think, and the committee recommends approval. In fact, this is to ratify papers that have already been approved by this Commission, if I'm not mistaken. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve Number 7 so we can possibly have discussion for the benefit of the individuals that did not attend the Finance Committee meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Todd that it's approved. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, the last time we went around on this thing I voted for it. I just wanted to make a comment or so. It appears, Mr. McKie, if I can address him, that we are now transferring most of our funds to Robinson-Humphrey, and what is the -- when we get through with this, what's the total amount that they will be managing for us? MR. McKIE: On the City side, the -- I'm not sure of the latest valuation on the plans. MR. KUHLKE: Just a range. MR. McKIE: It'll be somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 million. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And what I'd like to recommend -- I talked with Mr. Brigham about this, but that's a pretty big pot of money. There are different ways that you can invest those funds, and I'd like to recommend, Mr. Mayor, that you might consider maybe under the Finance Committee that you establish an investment committee of members of this board to at least look at these investments on a quarterly basis and from time to time maybe look for other areas where we might invest those funds. I don't think -- Mr. Brigham, am I correct that that's not really being done at this point under the Finance Committee? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Not under the Finance Committee, it's being done by the staff. MR. KUHLKE: But I just wanted to make that comment, that was the only reason I asked that you pull this off the consent agenda. I think it's a tremendous amount of money, it's some-thing that we need to manage very carefully. We need to have good people, and I'm not saying anything against Robinson-Humphrey, but there are other firms out there that we might need to consider from time to time, and I just make that suggestion to you. MR. POWELL: Mr. McKie, who had this plan before? MR. McKIE: Robinson-Humphrey had the City plans, which was some 50 million, I'm told, and Interstate/Johnson Lane had the two County plans. And they -- their manager actually was out of Atlanta. I don't recall that particular firm, but it was not managed locally. MR. POWELL: Let me just ask one question. When you made a change in this, did you give them an opportunity to turn in a proposal also? MR. McKIE: No, sir, we did not. They've had it for four years and their performance was not the same as Robinson-Humphrey's. And we were looking to put it all under one manager. But to address Mr. Kuhlke's concerns about everyone having an opportunity, Robinson-Humphrey has been instructed that on any transactions, for those transactions to be split as evenly among the firms in the County as we can. MR. KUHLKE: I think my point, and maybe Mr. Powell is getting to this, is that I'm not exactly sure how you evaluated the performance of everybody. I think some may have had equity, some may have had bonds, some may have had CD's, and obviously in that scenario the people with the equities may have performed better than people with CD's. So I just -- I think some oversight from this Commission needs to be put in place where we look at the investments, or it's something obviously the Internal Auditor could get involved in from time to time, but that's just a big chunk of money sitting out there that I think you need to -- in addition to having your professional manager, I think that you need to take -- we need to take a look at it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Beard. MR. BRIDGES: Just addressing this to Mr. Mckie, if I remember correctly, when this came before the committee the people -- comparing Robinson-Humphrey to the people that had it, Robinson-Humphrey's performance had been like twice as good as -- MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: And that's why we're recommending them? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. Most -- the people at Robinson-Humphrey are local and they are -- those are the managers. Our other firm has used managers who were out of the local area. Any transactions involving the funds will be handled through local brokerage houses, and that will be as evenly distributed as they can be. Now, the fact that some may be holding some bonds and CD's -- what we are measuring is overall funds performance, not -- we're not being critical of Merrill-Lynch because they may have been used to purchase and hold CD's at a lower interest rate at some previous time. The different houses are not being evaluated, just the manager of the overall funds. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I see nothing wrong with the sugges-tion that Mr. Kuhlke has made, and I think that you do need some type of consideration from this board to just do that. And it should be maybe outside of the Finance Committee because the Finance Committee has -- you know, they have their plate full on most of these issues. And I see nothing wrong with that, and if it is a suggestion or if it's a motion, whatever he want to make with that, I'll be glad to go along with that because I can see the benefit of that, just overseeing the investments of this group. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Certainly I agree with Mr. Kuhlke that it's the responsibility of this full board to oversee and review the investments. I argued and disagreed with the staff committee that's done a decent job with the retirement pension plan, but it's the -- per County code, each Commissioner is a member of the board of trustees for the pension plan. So I don't -- you know, we might have -- could have delegated that authority, but I never voted to delegate that authority. I think the way that we're doing it now with Robinson-Humphrey is the appropriate way to do it, to find a firm that have a high performance and this board, as we've already voted to do, give that money to them to manage and we do a quarterly review and we all should receive a -- some type statement of performance from Finance or from the firm that's doing the investments. The staff didn't do a very good job that we delegated the authority to as far as performance. I'm sure they done the best they could. I am not sure that I could do any better job. But I feel that if we give it to a firm and that we look at those performance and if we're not doing good there, then we may even want to make the decision to move all the funds to another firm to manage. So my position is that I support Robinson-Humphrey managing this money. I will buy into a review in 90 days, six months or annual or whatever, and I think what's important here is that we don't lose any money, we make the highest percentages possible. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: A quarterly meeting and review is part of the agreement with them and they will report to us on that basis, and we'll just have to schedule that so the Council-Commission can be a part of that. So that is part of the plan, to have that review and have the report. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further -- Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I'd just like to make one comment, that I support Bill's plan also and that I do believe, with that kind of money out there, Robinson-Humphrey know where we're coming from, they're going to be giving us some good advice on where that money should be put. Before we start moving it around, they're going to -- I think they're going to manage it real well. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Cook, did you want to say something? MR. COOK: Yeah, I do. I represent Merrill-Lynch, and as far as local management of money, the money that I manage for the City I've managed since 1988. I'm right here in Augusta, I live in Augusta, and I look at this from two points of view: as a Merrill-Lynch representative and also a citizen. I think if you're going to judge firms, if you're going to make a business decision to move money or any business from one place to another, you need to sit down and take a look at either the performance of the company or the money saving that you're going to make by moving money. The small portion that I manage is a very tiny bit of my business and a very tiny bit of the County's money, but we are very much restricted in what we do in managing the money. The money that I manage is nothing but a bond portfolio of invest-ment-grade bonds, and to give you an idea -- I don't think there will be a great deal of difference between any twice the performance of what I've done versus another fund. Last year -- and it's very easy to sit down and take a look at what's happened on a statement. It's right here. We send you a statement every month and one at the end of the year, and here's what you did in 1995. We began the year with 521,000 odd dollars in your account, we wound up the year at 562,000, and we paid you out $31,000. If you do the arithmetic, in a 12-month period of time that is a 13.86 percent return on investment-grade bonds, and I doubt very seriously that any firm doubled those monies using bonds only. If you involve stock, then yeah, you're going to have a different result. But what I find interesting is that none of the firms--Merrill-Lynch, Prudential, the Interstate folks--were advised of this. It was just an all- of-a-sudden thing: the money moves, here come the letters. I didn't even get a letter. And if you took the time to review these accounts you'd have these numbers. And if you did that, I'd like to see your numbers. I'd like for these people to see the numbers. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me, did you want to say something, Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Mr. Cook does have a portion of the portfolio of the pension plans, and all -- the portfolio will be moved out -- after all the money is accumulated in Robinson-Humphrey, moved back out to the other houses just like it was before. An equal amount will be moved back to Merrill-Lynch. It was a matter of accumulating it all in one place. And, as I said, the rates that we reported were overall for the plan. Certainly equities do return most of the time better than bonds, but we are measuring the overall performance of the plan and the manager who is responsible for all of it, not for a piece of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McKie. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it -- do y'all need the motion reread or do we know where we're at? MR. HANDY: We're all right. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're all right? Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 13, please. CLERK: Under Administrative Services on your agenda, Items 13, 15, 16 and 17 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on June the 24th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be approved. Also, on Number 17, I think they left off the -- this one, it was supposed to be brought back to the committee and that was left off on the minutes here on Number 17. MR. WALL: Mr. Beard is correct, and we are in fact doing that and it has already been sent over to be added on the agenda for next week, so -- the Administrative Services Committee. MR. BRIDGES: So Number 17 is deleted then? MR. BEARD: No. No, it's not deleted. MR. WALL: It just needs to be clarified so that rather than negotiate a contract -- MR. BEARD: That this was to be brought back to the committee instead of just giving them approval to negotiate the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you. I have a motion by Mr. Beard. Do I hear a second to Mr. Beard -- MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 13: Consider approval of the rental agreement for Fiscal Year 1997 for the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia d/b/a Community Mental Health Center of East Central Georgia. Item 15: Consider approval of proposed reprogramming of funds. Item 16: Consider approval of a contract extension with Field Asset Management Services. Item 17: Consider approval of authorizing the Interim Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development and the Interim Attorney to negotiate a contract for consultant services for Olde Town Properties.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Engineering Services, please. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 18 through 41 were all approved in the Engineering Services Committee on June the 24th. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we take Items 18 through 41 -- I thought it was 42, but 18 through 41 as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Is it possible that we can pull Item 36 out on the first reading of the ordinance for discussion separately? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, Mr. Todd, is that all right with y'all? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Sure. No problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to take Items 18 through 41, with the exception of Item 36. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 18: Consider approval of the installation of street lights and landscaping at the Daniel Field Parking Lot - Phase II. Item 19: Consider approval of a Quit Claim Deed regarding the 13th Street and Walton Way Intersection Improvements. Item 20: Consider approval for a Feasibility Study to be done for the proposed St. Sebastian Way Extension. Item 21: Consider approval of an execution of a "Memorandum of Understanding" Agreement between the Georgia Department of Transportation and Augusta-Richmond County for the Augusta Canal Multi-Use Trail. Item 22: Consider approval of the resurfacing of Various Roads, Phase IV. Item 23: Consider approval of Contract Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and Georgia Department of Transportation regarding Jackson Road widening. Item 24: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget for the General Roadway and Drainage Improvements, Phase I. Item 25: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment (3) for the Rae's Creek Channel Improvements, Section II Project. Item 26: Consider approval bid award to Nordman Contracting Company regarding the Kamell West Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project. Item 27: Consider approval of bid award to Mabus Brothers Construction Company regarding the Wheeless Road Drainage Improvements Project. Item 28: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget Amendment (1) for Sand Ridge Storm Drainage Improvements Project. Item 29: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget Amendment (3) for the Hyde Park Drainage Improvements. Item 30: Consider approval of the bid award to Blair Construction, Inc., regarding the Hill Creek Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project. Item 31: Consider approval of the bid award for the Replacement of Discharge Valves for Main Lift Pumps. Item 32: Consider approval of the ratification of the award of repair contracts to Mabus Construction Company, Inc. for emergency sewer line repair. Item 33: Consider approval of constructing a 12" sanitary sewer trunk line from the Hillcreek area to the Highpointe area in exchange for land needed for an elevated water tank. Item 34: Consider approval of a condemnation of a permanent storm drainage easement off Clanton Road on the property of Ruetgers-Nease. Item 35: Consider approval of a lease agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and AVN, Inc. Item 37: Consider approval of accepting a proposal from Conestoga-Rovers Associates, Inc. concerning Raw Water Pumping Station leaking underground storage tank. Item 38: Consider approval of a cross light at Glenn Hills Middle School and Glenn Hills Drive. Item 39: Consider approval of a traffic light and sidewalks on Barton Chapel Road and Glenn Hills Drive. Item 40: Consider approval of a cross light at Tobacco Road Elementary School and Tobacco Road. Item 41: Consider approval of a Resolution authorizing issuance of protective covenant on natural Wetlands on the proposed constructed wetlands system; implementation of Development Plan detailed on March 1996 document prepared by ZEL Engineers; lease to Ecosystems Institute.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 36, please. CLERK: Item 36 is to consider approval of an Ordinance to establish requirements regarding collections of grass, leaves, brush, et cetera. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. I think Mr. Mays had -- MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Under discussion on Item 36, and I've expressed this to the Attorney as well as to fellow Commissioners, and I'm not on Engineering Services, but I guess I ran a little renegade intrusion at their committee meeting a week or so ago in reference to some things that I had concerns on, probably more about the tone of the ordinance than the ordinance itself. Obviously I think we have to have one. I think it should be as uniform as possible. I was glad to see some work that I had the personal opportunity to witness this morning, and I think we have some good people involved. What I would like to have seen us do, as I said in that particular committee -- and I don't want to, you know, seem like the bull in the china closet about this particular issue, you know, but if that's the way that it ends up being, you know, then so be it. I've probably been called a lot worse from time to time, so that won't bother me. But, you know, I would like to have seen maybe to coincide with the ordinance, and from the tone of it, with particularly the comments and a lot of the negative publicity that we have received -- and even in some cases, as I expressed in that committee meeting, Mr. Mayor, some things I think that you particularly have brought forth in a positive effort from time to time maybe either that have been ignored or basically shot down in some cases that probably should have been acted on. Whether it been with substance or style, I think either one is better than doing nothing. But I think when we have a lot of mechanics that are in place -- you've got everything from -- we have the talents of an Urban Service Administrator, particularly where this thing is being directed, all the way out to the bottom line of where you deal with solid waste management. And in- between that you've got Director of Sanitation; you've got prisoner pickup in two different categories, from RCCI as well as the new Sheriff's patrol situation; and then your regular Public Works operations, of talents of people that have worked both on the urban and suburban side. And I just think -- as I said on that day, I think that the tone of it - - and maybe I was a little angry that day, but I think the tone of it seemed to have been a little bit more punitive than finding an actual cause for what we have out there in that service area. I've seen things that have come out of Mr. Beard's committee, you know, that we basically have not wanted to deal with there or we've dealt them in slight ways. We talked about the possibilities of the half-million dollars that was there, and I wouldn't say to take it and spend it because it's there, but I think some of it's going to require some money. And I think we can sit back and do the finger- pointing about what got us into this predicament in that district, but also consolidation got us hopefully to a new government with a new and different attitude. And everything that we've had from increase, licenses in many cases that were done with equalization that affected that particular district, everything that was done with equalization of water rates that have driven the sewer and the water rates up in that district, I just would like to have maybe seen a total comprehensive plan along with the ordinance, or at least a suggestive one, and particularly that would give you, Mr. Mayor, on a discretionary basis, the right to pull these people into a meeting, get a time frame on it, set a date with it and say come back to me, and I'm going to give you 72 hours or 5 days or whatever, with a positive plan of how we're going to move forward with it and what the cost is going to be, and then we take it and we march from the river through everything else that needs to be cleaned up, and then put the ordinance along with it. But I think setting the ordinance out here by itself gives that type of tone that we're more in the business of possibly about writing some citations and telling some people a different way of doing things maybe than they've been accustomed to doing for the last 45 to 50 to 60 years without doing anything positive in a on-paper plan about what we're going to have to do, and that's the only reason I wanted it discussed separately. I don't have a problem with the ordinance, I think Jim knows that, but I think the ordinance -- yes, it gives us something on paper, but what we actually plan to do about the problem, I have not heard that being brought together to do that type of formula yet, and I'd like to have seen maybe as much, you know, bulldozing and bulldogging about putting that together as we have done in terms of putting the ordinance together. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I've been in at least several meetings. I think we started out our first week meeting in January at Public Works on Marvin Griffin Road. Mr. Beard come in and discussed the situation as far as the inner-city and old inner-city, the urban service district, and the debris that was in the streets, mostly clothes, furniture, leaves and things like that, not necessarily a serious problem on picking up solid waste. At that time it was recommended that we send it to a committee, that we at least look at using inmate labor. The Warden was there and other individuals that had input, and certainly it took us some time to get the bugs out of everything and make it work, but I believe if you ride through the city -- the inner-city today, the old inner- city today, or the urban service district, you'll see 90 percent of the debris up out of the street. There's probably about a good 5 percent maybe that's been put back since and maybe a small percentage that we haven't got to or tires and things like that that we haven't figured out what to do with, so we have put something in place to take corrective action of the situation that we inherited. I was concerned before January 1 about the situation as far as the debris go; I'm concerned after January 1 when the consolidated government took over. Thirty percent of our problem is illegal dumping or violation of the old City ordinance and violation of this proposed ordinance, and all we are doing is asking folks, regardless of what the past practice has been, to come in compliance with the ordinance and help us manage this crisis. And I haven't had one phone call of a complaint from one individual from the urban service district and, you know, like I said at the last committee meeting, if they have concerns, if there is a problem, then please come to the meeting. This is what these public hearings is about, this is what the first and second reading is about, and certainly if they convey their concerns, then I will listen to them. The editor of the daily paper had written a editorial and referenced this. Well, he had his information wrong. We're not talking about punishing anybody for anything that's out there before we have the second reading on this, we're talking about only after, and we're talking about leaves, debris, et cetera, and that nature. I was somewhat charged with the responsibility, and other staffers, and there was all of the staffers or most of the staffers from both governments, the old City and the old County, was involved. And this is not a Moses Todd or J.B. Powell or Engineering Services Committee ordinance, this is a staffers ordinance on what they figure it will take to straighten this situation out. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Zetterberg and then Mr. Beard. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think that one of the things that we're going to have to eventually address is the fact that if we don't resource the Sanitation Department with the number of people that's required to do the job, it doesn't matter whether you have an ordinance or you don't have an ordinance, and I think that's the first order of business that we ought to really address. I think the ordinance is a little bit premature. There are a couple of things in the ordinance that I had received calls about, one is the bagging of yard waste. A lot of people have called me considering this is a hardship on them and that it is an increase in cost. And the ordinance actually does say that they are really going to get less service than they have been accustomed to, and so their taxes -- they're paying more money in taxes today for less service. And I'm also concerned -- there's some very strong enforce-ment things in here. And I'm all for enforcement of rules and regulations, but unless we resource Mr. Hartley with the right number of people to enforce this, we might as well not even put it in. And one of the problems we had in the last ordinance that nobody paid any attention to was the fact that he had one inspector, one trash inspector for the entire city, and you can't enforce rules with that kind of resourcing. So that is a problem that we all ought to acknowledge. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I can see a couple of things here. And I do concur with the ordinance. I have no problem with that; I think it's needed. I also have to concur with Mr. Mays in that there is need for an organizational structure here. We're doing a lot of hitting and missing in the urban area in picking up this, and I want to commend those people because they have done a good job in doing this. And I agree with Mr. Todd, it looks a lot better in that area. I think, as I talk to the people in Public Works, we're going to get some organization there. I think Mr. Powell and that group will work with them to see that this is done. I think it's going to take a little time to do that. We have a lot of places -- the people are just being hired back. The Sanitation Department is not up to staff yet, but I do think even in the Sanitation Department there is a need for organization. There's also a need for PSA's out to inform the public about what we expect of them. And I think when all of this come together -- and it may be, you know, a couple more weeks or another month when this come together, but I think it should come together. But I do think we need an ordinance in place so that the people will know what to expect and what to put out there, but we've got to also inform them also of what they can do, and I think if we do this we'll get there. Some people want everything instant, and like everything in the consolidation government, it's not coming that way, it's going to have to take some time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in the Engineering Services Committee one of the stipulations that was put on this ordinance was that we do the necessary public service announcements. I don't know what else we could do other than that, but that is a part of the stipulation, that the public service announcements will continue. I don't know if they've began yet or anything like that, but that is the plan, to notify the public in lieu of what's fixing to happen and let them know that we are going to be enforcing this as of such and such a date. That's the only way I would have supported it. I couldn't have supported it if we just wrote an ordinance and went out and started writing tickets. I think the public needs to be notified. But I agree with Mr. Todd, it's something that we have to address and it's unfortunate. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, did you want to say something? MR. HANDY: I just want to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Brigham had his hand up, and then we'll do it; okay? MR. HANDY: All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, could we hear from Mr. Dillard on this? He's the one that's been overseeing the day-to-day and I think we need to hear from him before we vote. MR. DILLARD: A lot's been said here today regarding that, I will have to reiterate that a lot has been done as far as picking up this material. Harry Hartley and the Public Works Department I think have worked diligently to get this material up, with the help of the Sheriff and the inmate crews, and I don't think that we were planning on writing any citations or making any cases until we did make a sweep through the cleaning up. And we have been through about 90 percent of the urban area to clean up. We've got some areas to go yet, but we're working on that and we're working to reorganize and restructure maybe some of our routes to be a little more efficient. Mr. Hartley is working on that now. We will continue that way. We look to put out these PSA's once the second reading is approved, and we'll be setting some dates shortly after that that probably citations will be given for putting out such materials as the ordinance states. But we now are making the sweep through, and I think there's been a lot of difference in it in the last two or three weeks. We are staffing back up, as the approval was given here several weeks ago. I think we've got about half of those now, and we are still interviewing for that, so I think it's come a long ways and a tremendous improvement has been made. And we do need to keep the staff up in that department to make sure we keep this material off the street. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, that was my question, was what was the status of the hiring of the employees, and he said he's at 50 percent right now, so that answers my question. MR. HANDY: And I call for the question. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is to Mr. Dillard. Mr. Dillard, under the new ordinance you're going to be asking the citizens to bag the yard waste, and then you bring it to the landfill, and then what happens to it? MR. DILLARD: It will be placed at the landfill either in the inert cells or -- MR. ZETTERBERG: In the plastic bags? MR. DILLARD: Uh-huh [yes]. MR. ZETTERBERG: So you don't have to remove the plastic bags at all? MR. DILLARD: Well, we're looking at that. It might be that a separation will have to be made as the landfill with the labor -- with the inmate labor there. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. There may be -- you don't necessarily have to put it in bags. It's bags or container. And as of October 1 there's a mandate that no leaves or debris other than sanitation waste can go in a Subtitle D landfill, we got to go to the inert. We're ahead of the ballgame on that. And all we -- you know, I don't buy the complaint that there is a increase in cost on putting the leaves in something. If they buy a container or take a container -- or maybe we would want to even buy them the container. You can give them a container easier or cheaper than you can give them a yard man to go along and rake up leaves and take a pitchfork and put them on the back of a truck. So if we're talking about supplying containers, I don't have a problem with that for leaves and grass. But I do have a problem with leaves and grass being dumped on the right-of-way in violation of the old ordinance and in violation of anything that anybody do anywhere other than maybe with the exception of North Augusta where they have the robotics on their truck where they come along and they pick up the leaves and you clean up what's left. And I don't think our folks should be doing a cleanup even when they pick up rough leaves. Ever what's left there should be left there for the landowner to pick up. MR. HANDY: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 42, please. CLERK: Item 42 is to consider approval of the Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant liner repair in Pond 2A. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks? MR. HICKS: Do you want me to address that or, Mr. Wall, would you rather address it? MR. WALL: It doesn't matter. MR. HICKS: Go ahead. You're up there at the microphone. MR. WALL: We met yesterday, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Armstrong and myself, to discuss this situation because there was concern over the fact that M.B. Kahn had the contract and the warranty claim and keeping it all under one umbrella, and we do not recommend that you take any action at the present time. A meeting is being scheduled, and I would ask that you allow Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hicks and, if necessary, me to pursue this and try and get the repairs made by M.B. Kahn. Additional information came out in that meeting, certainly for me and I think for Mr. Hicks, that leads us to that recommendation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we postpone. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell -- MR. HANDY: Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me, Mr. Handy. I'm sorry. MR. HANDY: That's all right. MR. POWELL: He's a little taller than I am. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: It's already coming apart down there. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think J.B. might have prodded him, I'm not sure. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Public Safety, please. CLERK: Under the Public Safety portion, Items 43 and 44 were both approved by the Public Safety Committee June the 25th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, they were approved, and we come to you as recommendations and we'd like to approve it. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question on Number 43. It was subject to the Comptroller's approval. Were those funds identified and budgeted for the repairs to the elevator? MR. H. BRIGHAM: That was the elevator over in the main building. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I guess we'll have to put that money on the heater over there now -- the air conditioner. It was identified? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe we need -- we ought to take off 45. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, we're just on 43 and 44. MAYOR SCONYERS: We haven't got to that yet. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just doing 43? MR. H. BRIGHAM: 43 and 44 right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on 43 and 44? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please. CLERK: Item 45: Communication from the Interim Attorney requesting consideration of proposals for electrical utility service at the Phinizy Road Detention Center. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: If I may, I put this on the agenda for the Public Safety Committee without a whole lot of information because I was being pushed by Precision Planning as well the contractor to work out arrangements insofar as temporary service at the Phinizy Road jail site. And we --there's been some discussion concerning the hiring of the rate consultant. Y'all had authorized me to do that. I contacted Precision Planning, Precision Planning gave me the name of an individual, that individual had a relationship with Oglethorpe Power Company and, therefore, was going to recommend another individual at the time that I left town to go on vacation. I left this with Harry to do while I was on vacation. We were furnished the name of Mr. Brooks and he was contacted, was furnished the two proposals by Jefferson EMC and Georgia Power Company and reviewed those, and when I returned from vacation set up a meeting with representatives of the citizens committee and the Sheriff's Department, and what I was attempting to do last week at the Public Safety Committee was simply act as a spokesman for that group. Bud Amerson and Larry Phillips are here from the citizens committee. I don't see Chief Toole, I don't know whether he's here or not. Mr. Brooks is here. Mr. Goudy is here from the citizens committee as well. And we reviewed those proposals from the pricing standpoint as well as some of the other information and heard Mr. Brooks' presentation. From the pricing standpoint, Mr. Brooks pointed out several things. One is that with Jefferson EMC you had a price guarantee during the period of time, which was a five-year period. Also, recognize that Jefferson EMC would not start to furnish the power until you had a 900 kilowatt load onto the system; so therefore, in essence, you knew what the costs were going to be projected out for -- let's say it takes a year and a half to complete construction -- six and a half years. You would know what -- six and a half years from now you would know what those costs would be. Insofar as Georgia Power Company's rate proposal is concerned, you had estimates of the real time pricing that would be applicable over a three-year period of time rather than a five-year period of time. And after reviewing that with the citizens committee -- Mr. Brooks, Precision Planning was in attendance -- from the pricing standpoint it was our recommendation that the award be issued to Jefferson EMC. I did point out that there were other issues that had -- that should be considered. One is the fact that with Jefferson EMC you are supplying from basically only one direction. They would have to run a line into the Phinizy Road site, and in the event that something damaged that line, interrupted service on that line, Jefferson EMC's only avenue of providing power would be to repair that or a generator would kick in and would run the unit. Now, recognize that a generator is not something that Mr. Brooks suggested. The Precision Plan original architectural drawings called for a generator. It called for an 1,100 KW generator. It was Mr. Brook's suggestion that that be upgraded to a 1,500 KW generator, and Precision Planning and the citizens committee is in the process of reviewing that and looking at that. Basically what that would allow the jail facility to do is to handle the entire load, and particularly the chillers, the air conditioner unit, which under the -- with the 1,100 KW generator there would be no cooling. And so that is an upgrade in the generator that was recommended and, again, the citizens committee and the architect are in the process of looking at that. An additional factor has to be the residents in the area. It would not -- it appears that Jefferson EMC's plan is to run the power on the opposite side of Phinizy Road from Georgia Power Company's since they were not able to reach an agreement with Georgia Power Company to run the lines on the same power poles that Georgia Power Company owns and runs their own power, which means that they would have to probably shift to the other side, run those poles within the County right-of-way, but there would be some trimming of the trees that would be necessary, with resulting complaints and objections of some of the residents in the neighborhood perhaps. And so those were the factors that were considered. Mr. Amerson is here from the citizens committee and, Mr. Mayor, I don't know whether he has any comments, as well as Mr. Brooks is here. And I would ask, Mr. Mayor, if they have any comments to supplement that. By the way, I had faxed to everyone yesterday a report by Mr. Brooks, I hope all of you received it, as well as some other information that I had received. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Amerson, come on up. MR. AMERSON: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, as Mr. Wall stated, we did meet and it's exactly as he has stated. We have all agreed, but there were some questions that Mr. Wall addressed that we did have insofar as any unknown cost insofar as the right-of-way. And there was a question about the temporary power that -- we're in badly need of temporary service at this time. But it was our understanding, as Mr. Wall had stated, that the 1,500 KWH generator was just a suggestion which Mr. Brooks had made. So basically Mr. Wall has stated exactly what was discussed and I have nothing else to add to that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I raise a question to Mr. Wall? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. MR. TODD: An interesting point I think you made in reference two- directional versus one. Will you explain -- is somebody here who can explain that and the benefit of the two-directional? MAYOR SCONYERS: I see Mr. Stone back there from Georgia Power. Tommy, do you want to address that? MR. STONE: Mr. Mayor, I was hoping Mr. Brooks would make a few comments and I wanted to follow him. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Well, maybe Mr. Brooks can tell us the advantage of multi-directional. MR. STONE: Since he has made a recommendation that he's talked about. MR. BROOKS: I guess I can start by saying what would you like me to further elaborate or comment on. As far as two directions of feed for industries and loads that are critical where continuity of electrical services is critical, there is advantage in having two directions of feed. Typically we see those installations having an automatic switch gear that instantly, in just a flicker, throws from one service -- from one direction to the second. I'll leave it to Georgia Power to answer if that is what's in the proposal. My understanding was that it's manual switching, normally open contacts rather than automatic. But in either case, I don't particularly see for a jail that has backup generation that can carry practically all of the connected load -- and the review that's underway right now by the electrical engineer who works under contract for Precision Planning, they're pursuing this path of enlarging the generator to carry the entire facility load. The main difference, as Mr. Wall has said, is that the chillers are not backed up by the generator in the contract documents that are in place today. So those facilities like the jail, hospitals, communication centers and so forth that have generators, when they lose power from the utility, the generator cranks immediately, it takes the full load. And that's what's on the table here, so I don't personally see a great advantage in having dual service to a facility that also has a backup generator. It's kind of a question of, you know, the more -- the more connection and power pack you have certainly is better, but quantifying it, you know, I don't see that it's a yes/no on that basis. Now, regarding my proposal, I guess I would add that in the electric business today there's kind of a bell weather opportunity here, a kind of watershed opportunity for the County, in that the electric industry is being deregulated as banking, airlines, trucking, telecommunications and so forth. All of the various retailing electric utilities in Georgia, of which there are over 100 cities, the EMC's and Georgia Power are adopting rate schedules and service contracts that are positioning them to be most competitive when this deregulation occurs. Georgia Power's real time pricing rate, where at four o'clock or by four o'clock each business day you're given guaranteed pricing for the next day, this is a step by Georgia Power that was begun some years ago, I think 1992 rate year, to position them to have a very competitive rate for customers that want to qualify and take that load. The EMC in this case has offered a guaranteed price for the energy consumption that they project for this facility for 60 months out, recognizing that the facility probably will not come on line as a customer until 1998. So as Mr. Wall said, you have six and a half or seven years of guaranteed pricing and that's, I think, a first for this area. There have been other guaranteed retail pricing contracts around the state, so this is a unique opportunity for you. The magnitude of dollars here, first year, is about $60,000 or more than 30 percent cost difference between the estimates of Georgia Power and the guaranteed pricing of the EMC. Thanks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Brooks, could you address -- Jefferson Electric has guaranteed us a price for five years. What about after that, what -- do you have any idea of the comparison between Georgia Power and -- after the five years? MR. BROOKS: No, I don't. It would be entirely speculative on my part. I personally believe that five years out we will have a deregulated industry where retail customers will be able to shop their suppliers. On the wholesale level, we are already seeing decreases in wholesale cost of electricity to Southern Company, in turn to Georgia Power, to Oglethorpe coop, in turn to their member EMC's. Now, at the retail level, when that same competitive pressure, you know, ripples on down into price rollbacks, it'd be speculative to say when that would happen. I did want to make the point in talking about using generators for those facilities like this building that have a backup generator, when you can shed load during the highest use hours of summer, like during the heat wave weekday afternoons like today, you're positioning yourself to get the most competitive power costs. And when we reach the market where you can shop your retail electric purchases just like any other commodity that you're buying, when the electricity truly becomes a retail commodity, those that can peak shave and shake their load will get the best price. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Brooks, I would like to ask two questions. Number one is, have you taken into consideration the cost it's going to cost to run the generator when you say that it could stand for a backup? And secondly, by adding the generator to the capacity to run the entire jailhouse, since the jail has been designed already, that's going to be a change order, and those figures have to be taken into consideration. MR. BROOKS: Okay, let's -- let me -- MR. HANDY: And the savings -- the difference in the savings. MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. Let me again make a clarification here. Running the generator for load management or the question of upsizing the generator, which the architect and electrical designer are pursuing at this time, is a whole separate discussion from choosing between these two proposals. You know, it's value added. In other words, the future benefit of today installing this generator in such a way to do load management and shake your electric load, that's a future payoff. But there's not a -- the recommendation for Jefferson EMC is not contingent on running the generator today or the next five years. MR. HANDY: But your proposal recommendation is that generator is included in there. MR. BROOKS: No, sir. Again -- MR. HANDY: I'm talking about the one that you just put before. You said the generator could be used for backup power so there's no need to have two sources of power. MR. BROOKS: You already have to have the generator whether you have two directions of feed or not. The Life Safety Code, the NFPA, National Fire Protection Code, mandates that you have a generator just like you do here. MR. HANDY: I understand that. I understand that. Okay. Okay, I understand that we have a generator. I understand that the generator is going to be there regardless. But by you saying by having the generator there we don't need two sources of power, to answer Mr. Todd's question when you was trying to give the scenario between why would you have two sources of power. MR. BROOKS: Yes, you do not have to have two sources of power. MR. HANDY: Right. Exactly right. But what I'm saying to you is that you're using the generator as not needing one, not the upgrade part as you were saying, or being able to use it; that's correct? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. Just like this building, if the utility power goes out, the generator comes on. And depending on type of structure, high- rise structures where you have emergency lighting, smoke fans, other critical loads, and jails, of course, doors that are electrically interlocked, you must have backup power regardless of whether you have multiple utility feeds into the building. MR. HANDY: I understand. I understand everything you're saying. MR. BROOKS: Okay, and your question then? MR. HANDY: Okay, my question is, the main reason you're saying that Jefferson Electric is good with one feed is because we already have a generator, and if anything happened to that feed, then we can use the generator? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Right. Generator as the 1,100 or whatever, 11,000. MR. BROOKS: 1,100. MR. HANDY: To upgrade the generator to take care of the entire building, then that will cost more money, but that part, you said, is not being considered whether or not the proposal for Jefferson Electric is the best proposal or not because you will have the generator regardless. MR. BROOKS: Okay. You don't have to upsize the generator to comply with the Life Safety Code. In future years, if you want to manage your electric load to be sure that you internally can control the load shave to get the lowest cost, it's of benefit to you in the future to upsize the generator today. Now, the electrical engineer will be meeting with the contractor, West Georgia Electric, here next Tuesday with the architect, and they desire at that time to review what cost increase, if any, that will result from this. But, again, that's -- changing the size of the generator, how it's installed, doesn't change the pricing that Jefferson EMC quotes. They're two separate issues. MR. HANDY: Okay. But finally, though, wouldn't you think it would be best to make all those decisions before we install the generator? For future use, what you just said is that in case -- to be able to use the generator to save money during peak hours, then to go ahead on and upgrade the generator and put it all in in the beginning rather than to come back later and change it? That's just a question I'm asking. MR. BROOKS: Yeah, my recommendation, my advice, would be that we evaluate this now, as the architect agrees and the electrical engineer agrees, and if it's appropriate to upsize the generator, and I think we all seem to feel that it is, that that be addressed now even though the need to run it for load management might be six years out. The benefit in-between time is that your entire facility is backed up with local power within your ownership, not just the connected load that's in the contract documents today. It doesn't include air conditioning and some other non-critical load. MR. HANDY: Okay, so what -- my final question is what makes the jail stand out so different from any other building that -- you were saying that two powers maybe would be beneficial to one facility versus this facility. And when the security of it -- and the doors you were saying about being interlocking, you must have extra power. So suppose for -- just suppose the power goes out with Jefferson Electric, the generator comes on, something happened to the generator. What next? MR. BROOKS: You're down. You're out until the generator is restored or utility is restored. And Georgia Power should accurately answer this, but as I interpret their proposal they do have two sources of feed, but it is a manual switch from one feed to the second that's required. So under that same scenario where Georgia Power is serving the load, a service call by nearest linemen that I'm sure can be radio dispatched, they'll have to go out and manually switch over to the second feed. That's the only difference in the two scenarios. MR. HANDY: But the second feed would be beneficial then if we had it versus one feed and a generator; right? MR. BROOKS: Yes. And in theory, a third or fourth and beyond, there is benefit to that. MR. HANDY: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brooks, what is the cost to increase the generator 400 kilowatts? MR. BROOKS: Okay, a ballpark figure for installed diesel generator systems that can peak shave is not over $300 per KW. That's fuel, switch gear, wiring, pad. We're looking at just the generator itself since we have our fueling system, we have a site for it and slab. It's probably on the order of $160 to $180 per KW, so just using that figure, we're looking at probably less than 80 grand, in that ballpark. Now, there will be deducts under the scenario that the electrical engineer is reviewing. You have actually four different feeds in the building, and the type of switch gear that you have resulting from that is perhaps more expensive where there will be some deducts there. So, you know, I think we'll know a lot more next week as to the cost difference and value of increasing the size of the generator. MR. KUHLKE: The generator is primarily there for emergency use; right? MR. BROOKS: That's the mandatory function, yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Right. But your suggestion is during the peak demand times, say during the summer when air conditioning is on, is to utilize that generator on an ongoing basis during those times to reduce your cost? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir, that can be done. Again, this is a future -- you know, projecting into the future or in this facility today. And this is widely done around the state. Literally hundreds of generators -- I'm sure Georgia Power or the EMC's can, and the generator vendors, can certainly detail out some customers doing that. Most of the hospitals in Metro Atlanta do this with their backup generators. I can't readily quote a detention center that's peak shaving in this manner, but it's quite common. MR. KUHLKE: And my other question is on the right-of-ways with EMC. I believe that the statement was made at your last presentation, and I believe confirmed by EMC, is that they feel comfortable that there will be no additional cost that the County would bear for the purchase of right-of-ways to bring this power in. Did you say that? I mean, did y'all say that? MR. FOWLER: That's correct. We feel we can build it on the right-of- ways. MR. KUHLKE: But, I mean, is that a guarantee? MR. FOWLER: Yes, sir. There's going to be some negative publicity out there from customers possibly, a couple of families, and that would be the only thing that we saw negative. MR. ZETTERBERG: You're saying it doesn't add to the cost of your proposal? Nothing? You're going to pay for that out of the -- MR. FOWLER: Right. I'm Dan Fowler with Jefferson Electric, District Operating Manager here in the Hephzibah district. And, in fact, I want to take this chance to thank y'all. I don't get to address this much of a distinguished group very often, so I may stumble a little bit, but we brought quite a few people today so we can answer any questions: Pete Fulcher is the Interim District Manager here in Hephzibah; Ophelia McCain is one of our Directors on the board; Mike Eadie is the Manager of Marketing; Dennis Zevosack, from Oglethorpe Power; Bill Blau is our Customer Service Manager. In addressing the right-of-way going down to the facility, the proposal stated that those figures are based upon building -- riding a joint-use line with Georgia Power Company, and we've asked them on three occasions to try to give us a cost of what it would take to do that and they've denied access to the line. So, in other words, we had to look at other ways to get there. I've looked at four different ways of getting there, and the only other way that's possible that we've got right now would be to go to the opposite side of the road, build a line on the County right-of-way, and go down to the site, turn in, and serve the site. And there's no additional cost to that effect. MR. ZETTERBERG: You're absorbing that all within this pricing structure? MR. FOWLER: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, then Mr. Bridges. I don't know who y'all want to direct your question to. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Brooks, it's my understanding the -- who is the service agent of this territory now? MR. BROOKS: The certificated geographic area for loads under 900 KW is Georgia Power. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is Georgia Power. Okay. And the reason that we can have this discussion is that we're over 900 KW? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay, that's the first thing. The second thing, your recommendation was based -- is it based on cost, that we have a levelized cost for five years, or is it based on the two-directional -- why have we got this recommendation? MR. BROOKS: Price is the predominant feature here. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And it's based solely on the fact that we'll have a cheaper cost over a period of time? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The total period of time. Not one given year or two given years, but over five years, in your opinion, the cost would be cheaper? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How much cheaper? MR. BROOKS: Well, if we take Georgia Power's best estimates, and we recognize that -- you know, we trust those are all done in good faith. They project a budget in their proposal of $188,000 for year one -- 188,000 and some odd dollars. The EMC's guaranteed price for the same six million kilowatt hours of energy is 122,000. So it's more than 30 percent savings, in excess of $60,000 year one. Now, a distinction is that that's a guaranteed price that the EMC guarantees for the 1998 year. Georgia Power's best estimate, their RTP pricing that's one-third higher, is -- and this was a specific question to them, which Mr. Brewer answered stating that they're using current pricing. So they're answering -- their projection of the three cents per kilowatt hour average or the $188,000 per year -- am I interpreting this correctly, that that's assuming 1996 pricing projections? So, you know, in a sense there's a double benefit here, as Mr. Wall had said, that we're looking out six and a half or seven years into the future. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'll address this to Mr. Wall. For the record, my understanding is that as far as franchise fees go, because we're a government entity there will be no franchise fee from either body; is that correct? MR. WALL: Well, that is correct, that we have never charged -- a governmental unit has never --franchise fees have never been paid on electrical service paid by a governmental unit. Georgia Power Company apparently in their rate proposal included the fact that the franchise fee was being paid, and so therefore they're asking that that money be backed out in order to give a fair comparison. But that is correct, the franchise agreement does not include governmental service. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Brooks, if you backed out -- is that 188 for Georgia Power, is that what the folks have backed out? MR. BROOKS: Can we direct that to Georgia Power? Because in my letter to Mr. Brewer, you know, I asked specifically about that, because this was orally discussed, I wanted to see it in writing that we're to take the 188,000 less four percent. So can we respond to that? MR. STONE: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate you letting me address all these things, and I'm glad Mr. Brooks went first because he identified four or five issues I was going to touch on. And since franchise is the thing that's just been mentioned, I think there's a lot of confusion about that and I consulted our attorneys because we were sure that Jefferson EMC was obligated to pay four percent on those revenues for that prison if they served it. From what I understand, it's not their call to say this is a government thing and it's excluded from the franchise. It's this Commission's call. If y'all want to exempt them from paying franchise on this prison, that's fine, but then I would turn around and ask for the same treatment with us. Y'all pay us three million a year on all the accounts that you have and we return to you 120,000, and I would suggest you give us the same treatment and we'll reduce our franchise fee 120,000. But that's the way I understand it. It's not their call on whether they pay it or not, it's this Commission's call. MR. ZETTERBERG: So are you saying that we -- you're already providing us and we're paying franchise -- or you're paying franchise fees? MR. STONE: All the accounts that we serve y'all. We just the other day added up all accounts Augusta-Richmond County has with us, and you pay us about three million a year in revenue. We turn around and give four percent of that back to you, which is roughly 120,000. Now, if you exempt them on this prison -- if you select them, and I hope you don't select them, and you exempt them from paying that franchise tax, we're going to expect you to exempt us from paying that 120,000, too. MR. BEARD: And you're going to do this on the jail? You're going to give us the four percent on the jail if you get the contract? MR. STONE: Oh, yes. And it's built in the numbers on our comparison. MR. WALL: If I can respond to that. Mr. Stone and I spoke about this. He had some additional information from when we talked. The franchise agreement talks about residential and industrial rates, it does not talk about governmental rates. That was the same franchise agreement and the same language that was in the franchise agreement that Georgia Power Company had with the old City of Augusta. At the time this issue came up insofar as drafting a franchise agreement, working out the terms of the franchise agreement, particularly with Jefferson EMC, the question came up as to whether or not they would pay a franchise fee on governmental accounts. Now, I contacted Mary Grady. What I was told by the City was that we did not receive monies on governmental accounts; street lights, for instance. MR. STONE: That's true. On street lights only. MR. WALL: All right. Well, what I was told was on governmental accounts. And I don't know -- I mean, maybe you're talking about buildings, maybe that's where the bill is being paid, but it was not broken down. I was told that it was not included, and that's the information that I relayed to you. Because the franchise agreement is specific. It says residential and industrial rates and not governmental rates. MR. STONE: Well, it does address government rates, it just doesn't mention it. But we've been in the franchise business for a long time; in fact, we invented it back in 1947, and we have always paid four percent on governmental accounts. We pay it on the City-County building, we pay it on -- and if you want to exempt them, that's fine, but then I would make a request that you exempt us from the 120 we return to y'all and give us the same treatment. But anyway, y'all have got to think about it. That's what I was going to call you about this morning where you'd have time to digest it, and you and I never were able to get together. But our attorneys told me that yesterday, that that's the way it is state-wide. But anyway, let me over some other things real quick. Dan mentioned the joint-use issue, and they would love to go on our poles. If I allowed them to go on our poles, that would give them a competitive advantage because it would reduce their cost in serving that prison, and the cost they incur serving that prison has an impact on their rates or their pricing, so I am not going to allow them to go on our pole and give them a competitive advantage. Now, there's a second reason. We asked to go joint-use with them a couple of years ago down on Tobacco Road. They refused it. And I'm sure he'd like to comment on that, but. The difference in that customer over on Tobacco Road and here is we had a signed contract with that customer for us to serve, and we said can we go joint-use and they said no. And, of course, they had their reasons for it, but to make a long story short, the customer was legal, it was over 900, and we ended up buying right-of-way off Tobacco Road and building down there with some real big costs, and actually had to use a generator to furnish temporary power. So hopefully that will let y'all know why I don't want to give them a competitive advantage by letting them go joint-use. Let me say a few other things. It was real interesting that y'all excluded a consultant who had connections with OPC. And we don't know Mr. Brooks personally, but we've seen him in our area three times. All three times he has strongly recommended Jefferson EMC. This is the third time. Once was in Thomson, once down in Jefferson County. Usually when you pick a neutral, unbiased consultant he'll sit down with both parties and get input from them before he makes his decision. He made a recommendation last week and he made a recommendation this week and actually did not talk to us, got absolutely no information from us when he made his recommendation, so I would suggest, you know, he may not be neutral. MR. BROOKS: I have to respond to that, of course. Is it appropriate to now or at the end of his talk? MR. BRIDGES: Just wait till the end. MR. BROOKS: Okay. MR. STONE: Now, when we look at his recommendations, there's something like $300,000 difference over a five-year period in the two estimates, and we totally disagree with that. And we prepared an analysis ourselves that we've delivered to all the Commissioners and we hope they've had a chance to read it. Our analysis says that you have to have a baseline when you make a comparison on cost, and our baseline is the prison that was designed by y'alls architect and engineer that called for an 1,100 KW generator. When you start comparing costs beyond that, you've got to go from there up. And I'll get into reliability in a minute, but you are going -- one thing I agree on, you need the 1,500 KW generator, and I'll tell you why in a minute. So when you have a baseline here, you've got to put the cost of the 400 KW of additional thing in the comparison. And you put ours in there and you've got to put the franchise in there, the effect of it. He totally ignored our standby generator rate where we will give you $11,000 credit every year. And I can go on, but when you look at our comparison to bottom line on what the cost is going to be to Augusta-Richmond County, we are $22,000 cheaper over the five-year period than if you accepted Jefferson EMC. But you have to put the generator in there. Now, they are real proud or real strong that this guaranteed rate is real important, and I want to question that a little bit. In the cover letter of their proposal signed by Ken Cook, their general manager, he says if we have to spend a lot of money on Phinizy Road building that line, these prices might not be guaranteed. But I think you said y'all would absorb it? MR. FOWLER: Yes. We'd go down -- MR. STONE: Well, why was that statement in the letter? MR. FOWLER: Well, at the time that proposal was made we didn't know whether we could even go on the other side of the road at that time and now we do. MR. STONE: Okay. And I would suggest y'all ride down there and look. From Peach Orchard Road to the railroad track there's a half a mile of big oak trees, one after another, and I don't believe those folks are going to let you cut them without -- I don't think they're going to let you cut them anyway, but if you are you're going to have to pay them some big bucks to cut those trees, so it's going to be very difficult. But anyway, I would suggest that if they do have large costs maybe that rate ain't guaranteed because they may have to roll it in. And also I don't understand, when they made their proposal they put these prices on there and they attached three rate schedules to it. This is on file at the Public Service Commission. The first one says we're going to call you in the summertime and over so many hours y'all are going to have to crank the generator and lower your demand. And I wonder, if they don't crank the generator and lower the demand, what's the rates then? Is it the same? The third thing -- they had another rate schedule on there that had to do with energy costs. If you look at their pricing structure, 70 percent of that money goes back to Oglethorpe Power, the energy cost. And that rate schedule basically says if OPC ups their energy cost, we pass it straight on to the customer, and I'd wonder did that indicate a rate guarantee. And then the third thing has to do with taxes. They have another rate schedule that said any taxes we incur, you know, on this customer, we're going to pass it on to you. So there's three rate schedules they attached to the proposal that they are given the right to do those three things I mentioned. Let me talk on competition and long-term pricing, and I would suggest to you that Georgia Power is in a better position than Oglethorpe Power to provide you with low- cost energy well into the next century. And I don't -- because we have not seen the data that led to his number that he says is different, we don't know what he has in it. But I will tell you our rates -- if we had made this bid three years ago we would've been bidding four cents, and we're bidding three cents now, and we've had others we've been down in two-something. So our rates are going down, our costs are going down, and if you get in a competitive environment I guarantee you ain't nobody going to be raising prices, they're going to be lowering prices. And I think the fuel -- the generation mix we have and a lot of other things we've got going, we're in a better position to provide you long-term, low-cost power. Now, let me give you my opinion of the reliability issue. We have a dual feed, we've got an 1,100 KW generator, and to us that's all you need to run that jail and have the reliability to -- if we lost our main feed, that generator would crank up just as quick as he said. It'll pick up your emergency lighting, a lot of emergency circuits, and that prison will go right on. And then we would switch it over within 30 minutes, you know, something like that, and you'd be back on and it would work fine and the jail would not be in any jeopardy. Now, when you talk about one of their proposals, they would have a 2.9 mile long line, radial line, feeding that jail. And for it to be considered as reliable as us, I agree with Mr. Brooks, you'd need a 1,500 KW generator because you'll want to run the air conditioning, you'll want to run everything in that jail. And in these operating guides where Jefferson will tell you we have afternoon thunderstorms that come through and wipe us out, we work all night long and usually into the next morning before we get everybody back on, you could have a tornado come through there and knock down 20 poles just like that and you're going to be out two or three days. So I would suggest to you that having to run that prison for one day, two days, three days, I don't know how long it'd be, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that. I would a lot rather have Georgia Power who has a second source, plus an 1,100 KW generator, as providing you service and reliability. I've been thinking about this for a long time, so I think I'm still nervous. The last thing I was going to mention is something about the franchise. And when we were thinking about consolidating this government there was a lot of conversation at Georgia Power whether we should support it because we knew right off the bat our franchise obligation was going to go way up. We were paying the City of Augusta 1.9 million, and in looking at the revenue county-wide, it was going to go to seven or more and our franchise obligation would be going up about five million. And I had some bosses in Atlanta that said I ain't so sure we ought to support that because we would have to absorb a five million dollar cost because of it. I went up there and sat down with them and convinced them that they shouldn't look at this as an expense like a tax, that they should look at it as an investment in Augusta-Richmond County, and that this Commission would take this additional funds, spend it wisely on services, infrastructure, and it would create growth. We'll get new customers, y'all will get, you know, a new tax base, and it'd be win-win for everybody. So I convinced them it was good for us to support it, and we are willingly -- we're going to pay that additional five million, and I will point out to everybody we're not going to charge it back to our customers. Now, another point is y'all passed these franchises, I believe, on March 19th, and we were really not obligated, and Jefferson wasn't either, to pay that franchise tax except from March 19th on. There was not -- that's a contract, and a contract starts when it's signed. I also, when I was up there talking to them, convinced them that y'all were very busy forming this government and y'all couldn't pass every ordinance on January 1, and that in good faith we should pay from January 1 till the end of the year. And they agreed to that and we will pay you from January 1 through the end of the year. If we had started it March 19th, there'd be about 1,250,000 less. But we're willing to do that because we look at y'all as a partner and that we want to grow with you and we want to work with you and do the things that are right. And I really think when y'all consider Mr. Brooks' recommendation, I think you should consider ours also because we stand by those numbers. He mentioned the cost of the generator. I have a generator specialist back here that tells me that the cost per KW is going to be more like $350 and not 180. And he said what you have to factor into it is not just the generator, you've got to have a full capacity piece of switch gear to pick that place up that you've got to factor in there on top of what the generator costs. So we think it's big bucks and our analysis, I think, shows that the cost to the County will be around 140,000, plus a larger tank, plus all the fuel and that sort of thing. But anyway, I have talked too long and I apologize. But I really do think Georgia Power is the best energy supplier for y'all, and especially going into the future, and I wish y'all would select us. And I'll answer any questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I just want to understand, we're not -- this is just to get some communication, some ideas for us. We're not voting on this today; is that correct? Because from what I understand from Mr. Brooks, there's other information that's still coming. MR. WALL: Well, the other information deals with upsizing the generator, which has -- really it's -- it got tied in with this, but really it's a separate issue. MR. BRIDGES: So we are voting on what's here today? MR. WALL: That's up to y'all. It came up at the -- before the committee that perhaps you may not want to, perhaps you may want to. I don't know what the situation is insofar as the temporary service is concerned. I know that as a result of the meeting with the citizens committee Doug Shaw has written a letter to Beers Construction Company and contact Georgia Power Company and proceed with the temporary power. The permanent power, in all candor, but for this temporary connection, doesn't have to be decided until some point in the future because we're not going to be tying onto permanent power for roughly 18 months, I assume. The issue came up because Beers Construction Company would like to deal with the same company on the temporary power versus the permanent power. At one time there was a cost being floated around of $30,000 that Beers Construction was going to incur; I since have heard the number $10,000. And Tommy is nodding his head, and I think that may be the more accurate number, the $10,000, that Beers Construction will have to incur to tie on to temporary power with Georgia Power Company. And Georgia Power Company, I think, would be willing to make that temporary power connection if they're given the permanent power. But, again, the contract documents with Beers Construction Company obligates Beers Construction Company for that cost, not Augusta- Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Stone, did you want to say something? MR. STONE: Yeah, let me just follow up on that real quick, and then y'all can ask your questions. If you select Georgia Power to serve the prison, we will build the temporary service in at no charge. If you select Jefferson, we have to charge. And we'll go on and do it just as quick as we can, but Beers will have to pay us the cost to install it and then later to remove it because it's not a permanent installation and we would not be able to put it in our rate base and that kind of thing. So if you select us, you'll save Beers $9,500. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, did you -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, I just wanted to clear up how -- I think Mr. Wall hit on it as to what happened in committee. We talked about it in the committee, and we got the report from Mr. Brooks and it did not come up -- we were under the impression we were going to have to vote that day, but we brought it to the full Commission and the full Commission, my understanding, would vote it up or down today as to Georgia Power. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, to echo what Mr. Brigham has said about the committee's indecision probably was correct. And let me say this, I don't have a dog in this hunt either way, but if the hunt goes wrong I'm one of the eleven that's going to get blamed for it. Now, this is probably -- and I say this with probably mixed emotions --probably bad because we've spent more in dealing with this jail than we've done on a whole lot of things for children in this community and a lot of other folk. But this is a reprogrammed project. I mean, we went through a lot of pain that many of you were here in terms of getting this thing pulled out of federal court, working with Georgia Legal Services, going to the judge, getting it reprogrammed, going through the controversy of where it is now, and still at the same time have a sales tax referendum hanging over our heads to get passed, which we did with 80-some percent of the vote. I think if we hadn't have gotten to a resolution, gotten it reprogrammed, we would have never passed that sales tax resolution. But we backed out and had to do some things properly that weren't done from the very beginning. Where we go personally with it, I could care less, but I think, number one, this is going to be a long-term situation. This is not knocking any company. The prison is going to be there for a while and it's probably going to get bigger than what it is. Hopefully not, but that's the reality of it. I think we need to look at every aspect of choosing a company from, yes, the price, and that should be very important in what we do. I think we are obligated as a government when we solicit and go out for bids or whether it's RFP's of some kind for professional services, that has to be first and foremost in it. But like any other bid or RFP request, it does concern me when it gets to the table at this point before everybody when there is a difference or dispute as to what the bottom-line figure may be. Now, in committee we were handed a situation which said that -- we were talking about, I believe, a $60,000 per year difference. You got in writing today from another company which you are saying that -- this is being said that that proposal is not correct, that their numbers can basically support a $22,000 proposal. One, right off the bat you've got a dispute about numbers. I don't know how close you are to having to make a decision, but, you know, it's been said we may get one or two complaints from out there. I can guarantee you this, you're going to get a whole lot of concern about -- and it may not be that the safety or the decision of those residents is important, but I think everything has to go in and be factored into this particular case. Now, where we go on this dispute about these numbers, I don't know whether that was discussed, Mr. Wall, when you and the citizens committee folk discussed this with Mr. Brooks, whether this proposal came afterward, whether numbers have been changed, I don't know that, but I do know we're looking at two legitimate and reputable companies that have got proposals out here. But obviously both of them are not right. One of them, in short and long, is going to be higher than the other one, and I think also we've got to consider the service factors in there. Now, you're saying we're going to have to make a decision today. If that's going to be the case, then personally I'm going to have to consider every aspect of what we've got. And I'm going to look at what I think in good conscience will be the best proposal, and that may not be the cheapest proposal. We're sitting in a cheap situation right now that we're paying for. We just built a 911 center across the street over there that probably should have been built over there from the very beginning. It was down in the water, and some folk went real cheap. And it took us 10 or 12 years to get it over there, but that's where we are right now. We were going cheap in the beginning with what we started with and it got three times what the cost estimation was going to be. We finally are getting to a situation where we're getting some numbers to come in two million dollars under what they were proposed and what we started with. We're in the right direction on that project. I would hope that whatever decision we make, that it is not made in haste or in dispute but that we're clear on whose numbers in this hunt are correct. And if we got to make it today, I'm going to have to personally consider everything that's involved and not just the numbers. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm in a position right now -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd was next, then I'll get you. MR. TODD: I'll yield to Mr. Zetterberg. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Good. All right, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: I found Mr. Stone's discussion and argument very convincing, but what it's convinced me to do is saying that we need a second opinion. I know that the price that Mr. Brooks -- or the evaluation of Mr. Brooks went on price alone on the contract itself, but I don't believe Mr. Brooks had all of the information, so I'm not faulting Mr. Brooks. I think we do need a second opinion against this, and I also think Jefferson Electric needs to look at Georgia Power's cards that they have laid on the table to see if it makes a difference in their proposal, too, in all fairness to everybody. Therefore, I'd like to -- is there a motion on the table? I'd like to make a motion that we table this for -- and to get a second opinion on the merits of both sides of the argument. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Yes, sir, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I know the Commissioners are aware of this, but I want to remind them, and I also want it to be on the record and for those in the audience who were not here when the last discussion concerning Jefferson EMC came up, that my firm has in the past/does presently represent Jefferson EMC, although I personally have never done any work. This was not brought up the last time. Harry Revell, my law partner, used to work for Georgia Power Company; did for a number of years until he went back to law school. And I want both of those facts on the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham and then Mr. Brooks back there. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since we've had all of these disclaimers and we might discover some more down the line, I move that we make -- we decide on this today up or down. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. A motion to table is non- debatable and the reason I haven't raised my hand again. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly, and I was going to make that point. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, do you want to say something back there? MR. BROOKS: Yes, I just for the record want to respond to the Georgia Power comments about three times I've been in their Augusta territory and three times I've recommended the EMC. The first was 1991, early 1991, when the McDuffie County School Board contacted me. Dr. William Barr, Superintendent, hired me at the board's behest to do an analysis for the Thomson Comprehensive High School. My recommendation, based on the two proposals, went with Jefferson EMC based on the rates and service offer that were on the table. Four years later, this was 1995, I was contacted by the Jefferson County School Board, and Mr. Tucker Vaughn, Superintendent, hired me to do a similar analysis. Basically the same rate structures were in place at the time and again the recommendation was for Jefferson. I guess I invite any of you to contact those customers and see if they were satisfied with my recommendation because I'm confident that they were. That's also the first time I got to meet several of these folks, Mr. Davis, Mr. Brewer, and some of the other Georgia Power people. So when I was contacted just recently about this, it's a different type of load, a different set of rates. If I was contacted about a school in the future, that's a whole other set of rates. So I don't -- I can't accept any inference that I favor the EMC's or I have something in for Georgia Power. I'm involved in utility issues, gas and electric, all over the southeast, obviously most in Georgia, my home state here, but there's not a bias there. As to this $60,000, that's not my calculation, that's the Georgia Power estimate of annual budget for that six million kilowatt hours of energy and that Jefferson EMC guarantee of their price for year one, which is some point in the future. One final comment on franchise, if I may take one more moment. I think it was very smart of the Augusta-Richmond combined governments here to expand this franchise fee county-wide in that in the case, for instance, of Georgia Power that serves a majority of the connected load in the state. Their entire rate base, if I understand, is basically subsidizing that four percent of the three million dollars of energy sold at retail here. Really it's just a matter of time till all the other counties which are in the same financial straits that you are here, till they all step forth and do ordinances and say, well, we want to collect a franchise fee, too. So the inequity here of the little player, Jefferson, sub-billing just their Richmond customers for that four percent adder or some part of that four percent adder, Georgia Power is absorbing it as a company. Mr. Stone just said, well, we won't pass that on. But when it goes state-wide, as GMA or ACCG probably will get ahold of this and suggest it, then we probably will see that playing field leveled. But right now it's -- I think Mr. Stone answered your question about where you stand on the four percent with respect to those two proposals. The final comment, my not crediting the Georgia Power proposal for the generator offer, in their proposal they said $2,000 savings if you took their generator proposal at Phinizy Road. At this point in time your contract documents don't allow for that generator to be used for load management. I think the $140,000 estimate by Georgia Power's generator expert, we'll see the real number -- with the change order adders by all the folks in the contract chain, we'll see that real number probably delivered to you as early as next week. So that is a separate issue. You know, that's kind of value added or additional benefit, as I think Mr. Stone agreed, you know, beyond the choice of who's the appropriate electric supplier. Basically you have about 18 months or so to make this decision if you're waiting to make the decision when the facility opens. If you desire to go ahead and decide today, then there's an advantage there too, I think, from a planning standpoint for the Commission here. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Now, we have a non-debatable motion on the table. If this is a debate, we don't have that, but we can ask a question if we want to. MR. BEARD: I want to ask a question. I want to ask it to Rob here who made the motion. He made a motion in reference in tabling this, and I want to know what kind of information are we -- is he seeking. Do you want another consultant as Mr. Brooks or do you want -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's part of debate, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD: Pardon? Are you talking to me? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, that's getting -- that's edging on debate, it really is. MR. BEARD: Well, it's a question. That's a question. I'm asking him what does he want. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if we could refer to the Parliamentarian, I believe we need a ruling. MR. WALL: This is -- you call it a motion to table. In actuality it's a motion to postpone because it's a motion to a postpone to a later meeting. A motion to postpone is debatable. A motion to table simply carries it to a later point in the same meeting, and that motion is non-debatable. And even though you made it in the form of a motion to table, since the motion was to bring it back at a later meeting, it is a motion to postpone, which is debatable. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So which motion did he make? Could I ask that? MAYOR SCONYERS: So now we have a debatable motion, is that what you're saying? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Finish your discussion now, okay? MR. BEARD: I just wanted to know what he had in mind when he's saying, you know, we come back at another meeting and discuss this. Are we going for another consultant in lieu of Mr. Brooks or whatever capacity he's serving in, or do we want more information from Jefferson Electric to debate whatever Mr. Stone and Georgia Power have presented to us this afternoon? I just want to know what we have in mind when we're saying that we need more information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you respond to that, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, yes. Frankly, I thought that Mr. Stone's argument was very, very convincing, but it also led me to believe that Jefferson Power [sic] wasn't representing themselves at this particular moment, and I think that we need to see all the pictures. As Mr. Mays said, this is not a short-term, five-year solution. We're talking about 40/50 years that that jail is going to be out there and we're talking about a long-time relationship and I just don't think that we know all of the information to make a decision. Mr. Brooks' point and his recommendation was based purely on price. Purely on price. But we've heard a lot of other arguments in there today that sound convincing. Well, when they sound convincing it throws a red flag up for me, and that's why I think we ought to spend a little bit more time thinking about this and understanding it. And a second opinion dealt with -- yes, I'd like to have somebody else other than Mr. Brooks now make a recommendation to us. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I have a two-part question. At whose cost for another consultant? And then the second part is that I would like to ask -- suggest to Mr. Zetterberg since he made the motion, that we go ahead on and approve the temporary work to keep the jail going for Georgia Power regardless of who gets the contract, and then try to work out the contract later. Because the jail has got to be built and we've got to have power, but if we table this, then nothing's being done, then we're back where we are. MR. WALL: Mr. Handy, since the contract puts the responsibility on Beers Construction to work out the temporary power, I would like to leave that there so that we don't run into a problem of Beers Construction coming back against the County for reimbursement of that cost if, you know, you were to go with one provider versus the other. And I think that needs to be a Beers Construction decision which way they go, so I would -- the contract document says it's their responsibility, and I would -- the first part of your comments I understand, but the second part about approving Georgia Power as the temporary power, basically they have to do that since it's within their service delivery area in any event. The question is who's going to ultimately bear the cost of that, and that ought to be Beers Construction's responsibility. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, then -- but the answer to my first part then, who's going to pay for other consultants? MAYOR SCONYERS: Who paid for the first one? MR. HANDY: We did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I guess we'll pay for the second one. MR. ZETTERBERG: You know, the price of a consultant just pales compared to the cost, the long-term cost, to the citizens of this county. I'm not trying to drag something out, I want to get to the truth. What is the best price and what's the best service reliability? And to spend a little bit more money on another consultant or however you do it to get a second opinion -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly, you know, I need to know the reasons for going for another consultant. Now, if I wanted to go for another consultant, my main reason would be that Mr. Brooks was referred to us by a gentleman that we first contacted that had a conflict with Oglethorpe, which is sitting in with the party here -- with Jefferson Electric, or at least a representative from there. And if we go out for another consultant, can we get another consultant that haven't done work for Jefferson Electric or EMC or Georgia Power? You know, where are we going? Are we going to Duke Power's area or, you know, Edison Electric or where? So I'm not so concerned about the consultant. I think that we probably got somewhat of a --well, I don't want to necessarily agree with Mr. Stone, but that's not the issue. The issue is not even whether the consultant have a conflict, the issue is whether the consultant's information that he's given was good information. He referred to certain industry and medical facilities as being in a critical area, and he didn't foresee -- and if I misquote you, then let me know --a jail where you have individuals in a captured situation, where you have a federal lawsuit hanging or a court order hanging over your head, where you have Georgia Legal Services involved and everybody else, to have the power down for a certain amount of time could be critical. And what if that generator don't kick off when you try to start it up? What if you have a problem there, a mechanical problem that takes you several hours to correct? Then I would want the two-directional power, and I would demand the two- directional power from Jefferson if I was going to give them the contract. And if they couldn't provide the two-directional, then I would give it to the ones that can. And I don't think I need more time to make that decision. I can make that decision today. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to -- MR. WALL: I think all you need to do is vote. I mean, I have a motion on the floor. All you need to do is vote on it, and if you don't want to approve that, then it goes to the next motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was going to ask for a reconsideration of that particular vote so we could vote it up or down. Is that the proper thing to do now, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, there's a motion on the floor which must be voted on, and that has not been voted on yet. And as a motion to table, it's going to be voted up or down. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we award the bid to the one that have the two-directional power, and that's Georgia Power. I haven't heard anyone else speak up. MR. HANDY: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy, a substitute motion that we -- I'm sorry, I haven't got to the discussion yet. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I was ready for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I guess I'm a little slow today. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I assume we're in discussion now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, we are. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I haven't said a whole lot in this debate. I plan on voting against the motion. I think that we have a 18-month decision that there's no need to be made today. It's not because I have a preference of one company over another. I think that the last time that I voted on one of these things I was on another political body, and that political body didn't even consider it till the institution was finished as to who was going to supply the permanent power source, and therefore I am going to vote to delay this until I have time to make my own considerations of what is the best interest of the public. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Fowler I believe it was? MR. FOWLER: Yes, sir. I just understood that maybe there was some questions that we were to address that you may not have understood. Maybe we can do that. We're here and got -- maybe we can do that now for you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think if you're going to do that, I think you ought to put it in writing just like Georgia Power did. MR. FOWLER: We'll, we've got -- what kind of questions have you got? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I have a lot of questions about the franchise fees, about all the other things that Mr. Stone brought up about the dual direction power. MR. FOWLER: Well, it's in the proposal. We made a proposal in black and white. It tells you about the price -- MR. ZETTERBERG: So you don't want an opportunity to respond any more to any of the -- you'll leave it on the table right now? MR. FOWLER: If you would like to have a list of question, we'll respond to them, how is that? If you make us a list of questions, we'll respond. The issue -- MR. ZETTERBERG: If you don't want to be able to ask questions, that's fine with me then. That doesn't make any difference. All I care about, the only thing I care about, is that the citizens of this area are best served at the best value to include price and levels of service. That's the only thing I care. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. That's all we all care about. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask a question. Can you do two- directional power? Do you have that in your proposal? MR. FOWLER: No, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Stone and the representatives of -- or maybe Mr. Brooks a question, because I'm sitting up here and I don't know very much about power. But I think that in representing the citizens of this community, what I hear Mr. Brooks saying, putting aside the generator, leaving it like it is, looking at the proposal that EMC made on the rate structure, you are suggesting that their proposal will save the County and the taxpayers $60,000 a year; right? MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. Guaranteed. MR. KUHLKE: And, Tommy, you are saying that's not right? MR. STONE: Well, I just disagree with the word savings because you haven't spent any money yet. I mean, you're going to spend X amount of dollars, and how do you call that savings, I don't know. MR. KUHLKE: But what I'm hearing, Tommy -- and I'm having a problem, okay? I hear EMC tell me that the rate that they have quoted is guaranteed for five years, that there are no additional costs for right-of-way that the County will have to pay for. MR. STONE: Their cover letter and their proposal does not say that. MR. BROOKS: Their answer to that, the cover letter -- again, there's a timing issue here. The cover letter says based on this assumption we don't perceive these costs going up, however, if altered -- you know, if there are additional right-of-way costs, that cost may go up. MR. STONE: That's correct, so how could it be guaranteed? Now, since that -- MR. BROOKS: The clarification that Mr. Wall sought in our group meeting, the citizens committee meeting which Mr. Amerson attended prior to our meeting later that afternoon last week, the contact by the County Attorney to Jefferson was, you know, is the guarantee a guarantee. I mean, the bottom line here is the price structure they quoted is fixed. So the dollar figures I'm making up, it's Georgia Power's estimate of current year RTP pricing versus guaranteed pricing. That's the $60,000 per year spread, 30 percent cost difference. That's the bottom line. MR. KUHLKE: Well, can you comfortably say that the $60,000 is absolutely what we're going to save a year? Can you tell me that considering purchasing the right-of-ways, the rate structure and everything? MR. BROOKS: Well, the only uncertain value there is what direction is Georgia Power's retail cost of electricity heading starting in the 1998 year. Do we expect it to be lower than their favorable -- assumed to be most favorable estimate today or higher? The EMC is saying we are guaranteeing this pricing. Personally, I think that the 1998 retail pricing will be higher than what's quoted in their proposal today. In other words, the $60,000 spread could be assumed to be greater, and an equal likelihood, on beyond into the third or fifth year. MR. STONE: I'd like to ask Mr. Fowler, one rate schedule that you have attached says that if OPC increased your energy cost you're going to pass it on. Now, are you going to use that rate schedule? MR. FOWLER: When we made the proposal we guaranteed the four rates in that proposal. The first three guaranteed that the energy cost recovery factor -- which you're relating to; right? That is value that we anticipate may go down. So if we would have guaranteed that and the County locked it in, they may spend more money than what they would if -- MR. KUHLKE: What if it went up? MR. FOWLER: Well, if we had a signed contract, we'll guarantee that, too. We'll guarantee the fuel amount. MR. STONE: You're going to ask all the customers in your territory to subsidize this one account? MR. FOWLER: Well, with what projections are with the cost of power, and you've got Oglethorpe here that sells us the generation and transmissions, that we see that possibly it's level and possibly it's going in a downward trend, so that's what we're going with. MR. STONE: Are you going to surcharge them for the franchise tax? MR. FOWLER: We don't pay any franchise tax to a county -- to a county - - MR. STONE: I think legally I can prove to Jim that y'all are entitled to pay four percent of this account if you get it. MR. FOWLER: Well, I've got a letter from Jim there, and I figure he's an attorney. And, you know, we haven't paid it for years to water and sewer or anybody, schools. MR. STONE: Well, I will say this, Jim, if you don't require them to pay four percent on that account, I'm going to ask you to let us withhold the 120 we're giving on ours. MR. WALL: Well, as I told you when I spoke with you, I was not aware of the fact that y'all were paying anything because I had been told that you were not on governmental accounts. And I don't understand what the difference between street lights and the Municipal Building is, why you would pay on one and not on the other one, but I will be glad to talk with you about that. Tommy, let me ask one question insofar as whether or not this matter should be postponed. As a part of your proposal, or the Georgia Power Company proposal, there was the jobs credit, and some of the information that we've looked at, it was said that that expired August 1. Is it going to affect the proposal if, in fact, it is not voted on today? MR. STONE: Charlie is my rate expert. MR. BREWER: Mr. Wall, we've refiled with the PSC to extend that jobs credit, and we have every reason to believe that it will be extended. It should be included in our analysis. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. We're going to run out of tapes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a call for the question, gentlemen, so we're going to ask Ms. Watson to read the substitute motion made by Mr. Todd back first, please. MS. WATSON: Motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy, to go with the proposal by Georgia Power. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, AND KUHLKE VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we can go to the next order of business, which would be Public Services. CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 46 through 49 were all approved by the Public Services Committee on June the 25th. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the Attorney may want to comment on Item Number 49, and I'd like to make a motion that we approve Items 46 through 48. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with the consent agenda; in fact, I'm going to vote for it. But I was wondering, since we had a public hearing, if we're going to receive anymore recommendations from our Transit Department on items that were discussed at the public hearing such as the 30- day passes and other things for the Transportation Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Johnson is back there. MR. JOHNSON: Sir, I can address that. If you do not know, I'm a one- man team at Transit right now, and -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: There's a lot of them right now. MR. JOHNSON: And I used to have a staff of four and now it's only two, and one is handling Para Transit Service. and myself. What I was proposing to do was at the six-month -- once we receive our six-month report for expenses, I was going to readdress those same issues to show our revenue and show our expenses. At the public hearing there was a lot of missed signals given at that hearing, and so I was going to bring it back up all at one time rather than to keep bringing back a piece here or a piece there. Out of the whole public hearing, this was one of the major factors that came up, and it came up again at a committee meeting, so that was the reason why I proceeded on this first. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, it's an answer and I'll accept it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, now that Mr. Johnson is known as the dime man, like the dime lady, I'd like to know how that went. MR. JOHNSON: It went fairly well. We rode that day -- 7,500 people that day. On a normal day we ride approximately about 4,500 to 5,000, it just depends on what time of the month. Normally on the first of the month when our ridership is the highest we only ride somewhere in the neighborhood of about 5,000 to 5,500, so that even on our best days we rode approximately 1,500 more riders. MR. TODD: Have you seen a percentage of increase from that promotion to now? Is there any increase or did they just ride that day and drop? MR. JOHNSON: I really haven't seen a real increase. Our increase has came on Saturday. If you --those monthly reports, if any of you notice those, for some reason our ridership has gone up on Saturdays over last year, so that is a good sign there, that the ridership has gone up on Saturday. On the weekday it is normally the same, but on Saturday, for some reason, the ridership has risen. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank Mr. Johnson for that information, and I'd like to say this. I think I've said it to him, and I'll say it to the full board, that there's golden opportunity in the Deans Bridge Road/Barton Chapel route with Wal-Mart's location opening soon, and I would hope that we would be able to look at that and maybe look at maybe even tying that in to Augusta Mall or something. I think there's potential there. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, to comment on that, that I spoke to the manager of the Wal-Mart store yesterday for to make arrange-ments to provide service there once they finish the roadway. Before that I was looking at possibly taking the Barton Chapel route on to Augusta Mall because we had some extra time, but if we are going to go through Wal-Mart now, that would really cut back on the time, which would make that approximately a 45-minute trip to get from Regency Mall through Wal-Wart, around through Barton Chapel, back to Augusta Mall. But we are planning on trying to do some surveys to see if the people in that area would be interested in it, provided that the -- and also to make them aware that the trip would probably add about 15 minutes onto that. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I just want to let him know that the Wal-Mart will be opening next week. We got the grand opening slip today, so if you're making some plans, you better get it going. MR. JOHNSON: Well, we have made some plans, but I can't drive that bus on that dirt road that they have right there yet, and I made the manager aware that as soon as they asphalt the road all the way from Deans Bridge Road all the way up into the shopping center that we would start the service. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is not a question but a comment. And I'm not hustling for anybody's job, you know, but I just think in the observance -- and I don't know what the time frame is when this particular department will come up for a vote on its permanency, but I do think that in the particular where we're looking at a department in many cases that has been deficit run, has had to depend on government for its subsidies and still provide a service, I want to thank the interim director as chairman of that committee for at least being innovative and bringing different ideas. We don't have to ask him and beat him and drag him to bring up an idea. And just like the Wal-Mart situation, he's been ahead of us in the game of trying to get his own department bettered and has not personally belly-ached in being in that position that I might add has the largest deficit from where the director was to where he is now of any department that came out of either one of the service districts but is still continuing to do his job. And I just wanted to put that in there for the record, because everything he brings in, it's either what it's going to cost us; if there's a problem, he's letting us know ahead of time; and if it's to try and do something positive to make something work, he's bringing that. And I haven't had him ask me one time when am I going to get some more money or when are you all going to vote. But I'm saying it as chairman of that committee for the record, that I think it ought to be brought out that he is continuing to do his job. And that one-man show, I don't think he says that in a negative way. That was cut in many ways before he took it, but he continues to be there doing is job, and I just want to put that in for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS; MR. KUHLKE AND MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 49, please. CLERK: Item 49: Consider approval of the RFP for Bus Advertising. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I pulled it out. It's gone through our committee for some time now. This was one of the hot items that was asked about during that particular public hearing that Mr. Brigham was talking about. It was something that we've been trying to put together from many different angles. We've kind of gotten to the point where, at least in detail, the interim director has gotten it to this point. Mr. Wall has been helpful in terms of overseeing the legal parts of it. We skipped the next committee meeting on purpose to try and get this thing to a time frame of some type of vote so that at least some of the things that the citizens asked us to do in that hearing, that we could go ahead and move on. All I'll defer to Mr. Wall to discuss where we are on that right now on the legal side of it. MR. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I want everyone to be aware of the possible ramifications of this action, although I support it. As many of you may recall, there was a good bit of discussion earlier this year concerning the U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning commercial speech and the broader protections that commercial speech was receiving by the Supreme Court as compared to earlier decisions. The RFP and the decision from the -- or the recommendation from the committee is that there be restrictions so that you ensure that the advertising is in good taste, and it's defined in there as far as the type things that would not be allowed. If challenged, I'm not sure that we can uphold that because you are restricting free speech, and that is commercial free speech. But I think it's a situation similar to the Seagram's advertising on television whereas for years they've honored that request. I anticipate that most of the advertising is going to be -- is coming from local businesses, and I think that by virtue of that, that they would honor the request of the Transit Department insofar as pulling any advertising that was distasteful. Another part of it that I do not know whether or not would withstand a challenge is the political advertisements. In fact, Macon, which tried to impose one a number of years ago, it was struck down. One argument that I think that you would have in upholding it is the fact that you have limited space on the Augusta buses. With you as Commissioners setting the budget for the Transit Department, with you making decisions concerning the operation of that Transit, and then if you were to run for reelection and have your campaign literature up there and your opponent not up there because there wasn't enough space to put his up there, then I think you've got a problem. So I think it's an appropriate limitation and I think it could withstand an attack perhaps based upon that type of argument which was not advanced in the Macon situation. So I recommend it for approval as is, with the proviso that we talked about this as far as the liability coverage include potential libel claims. But with that and with the understanding that if challenged you may have to pull all advertising in order to meet the constitutional requirements of free speech, that it be approved because I think it -- it's being done in other places, and I suspect because of the, let's say, public pressure on the businesses to conform to good taste advertising. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Move approval. MR. TODD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I didn't catch who made the motion. MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I've just got one question to address to Jim -- not really Jim, but you may have something to say after I ask Mr. Johnson. Who owns those bus shelters now? MR. JOHNSON: Shelter Ads, Incorporated of Greenville, South Carolina, owns the shelters. MR. HANDY: So we don't have anything to do with that? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. MR. HANDY: Okay. Because I know they've got political ads all over those things. MR. JOHNSON: Right. Now, they have -- they own, control, they have liability insurance, and they maintain -- if the glass breaks, it is their glass. If somebody knocks it down, it is their shelter from start to finish. MR. HANDY: All right. That's good. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Johnson, do the Transit receive a franchise or a fee from this advertisement company or is it in kind that you receive as far as a shelter provided for your riders? MR. JOHNSON: It is in kind service. And one way that we have the possibility of asking and -- or receiving benches, benches in lieu of revenue. Plus if any governmental agency wanted to have an advertising, that we could put advertising in any unused shelter. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I was in Atlanta just a short while ago. I believe I was there with Commissioner Handy, Mayor Pro Tem, and we seen advertisement on buses there. I think it's a good concept. If you don't have the ridership, then certainly the -- you know, your monthly fees, if you're making $50 a month for advertisement on it, that takes care of a lot of ridership fees, so I think we can, you know, help pay for the system with advertisement. If you look at some of the cabs around town, they're riding a little radio station -- and I won't -- my colleague is sensitive to calling other call letters of radio stations, so I won't mention the call letters. But I was talking to one of the cabbies and he told me that he's getting $50 a month to just ride that little advertisement around on top of his car, and I can see that working for our buses and to make a expense, you know, fee there by doing it, so I wholeheartedly support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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. POWELL OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50, please. CLERK: Item 50 is to consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council Regular Meeting June the 18th, 1996. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 51, please. CLERK: Consider approval of a Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolution for Saddlebrook Subdivision. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we approve it, providing that we have a staffer or someone can answer a couple of questions. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have anybody here from the staff? MR. TODD: There's nobody here. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the question I got, I just want to make sure it meets the County specs. Is anybody here that can answer that? MR. KUHLKE: Where is it at? MR. TODD: It's off of Morgan Road, I believe. And we also, Mr. Mayor, and the County Attorney can confirm this, it's my understanding that we had some problems in there and they put up at least a bond or something and we went on and approved some things, and I want to make sure that this is not the same situation and everything is in order. MR. WALL: I haven't had any discussion with anyone about that and, you know, so I can't answer that question about this particular subdivision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion that we postpone this till the next meeting. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. HANDY: Why don't you approve it subject to if everything is approved. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, that's the same thing. MR. HANDY: The next meeting is September. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The next meeting is July 16th. MR. HANDY: I mean latter part of July. I think if you're going to -- the reason why -- I meant to say August instead of September -- because of the next meeting, you know, the next out of town schedule. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll just withdraw my motion. And I'm sure that everything is going smooth in there, but I just wanted to make sure of that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did somebody else make a motion while ago? I didn't pick it up. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I made a motion to postpone. MR. BRIDGES: I seconded. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, by Mr. Brigham and Mr. Bridges. And you withdrew your motion, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 52 is the Consolidation Project Manager's discussion items. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll try to be as brief as I can, gentlemen. Items 52 (a) and (b) are there to provide you with a brief amount of information and seek any guidance or discussion you might wish to give concerning them. First of all, concerning the Equal Opportunity Office, the Human Resource Director is having some difficulty getting from other jurisdictions information on positions similar to what we believe it is your intent for this position to be. We have received some information from the U.S. Army, some information from Fulton and Dekalb County, but the position descriptions that we are receiving are for positions that appear to be somewhat different than what the concept of the Equal Opportunity Office in Augusta-Richmond is as we understand it. While we will use information from these other governments, it is our intent to base the position description for this function on two primary sources: number one is the consolidation legislation and the information and the description which is a part of the legislation; number two is our understanding that it is your intent to look to this position to carry out the responsibility of ensuring fairness of treatment and equity of service delivery in all aspects of the government's operations. If you would like to give some additional guidance or comment on that or discuss that any further, we invite you to do so. Our purpose was to report where we were in putting that position description together and to indicate what we expected to use as a basis for bringing you such a description. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to comment to Mr. Carstarphen that maybe what we need to be looking for in the sense that we have two initiatives here, one for equal opportunity, the other one is equal opportunity or a level playing field in vending, bid participation, et cetera, that we possibly need to look at SRS or Fort Gordon and what they're doing as far as their minority and small contractors -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: We have Fort Gordon's. MR. TODD: -- and take and do a marriage of those two equal opportunity and minority and small business participation, do a marriage of that as far as a job description. I don't see where it should be so complicated, you know. I think if we want it to work, it'll work. If we don't want it to work, it's not going to work. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We're not intending to say it's complicated, we're intending to say simply that we have not been able to find a similar position in our exploration of existing positions in other governments. And in light of that, we are and do have information from Fort Gordon, and I'm sure we will be able to get information from the Savannah River Site. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. BEARD: I'm sure with the information and the input that you heard in the past, that you should have knowledge of what this body talked about and what they wanted, and I'm sure that you can come up with something after reviewing other aspects and other organizations. I'm confident that you can come up with something that this body can accept. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We're certainly trying to. I just wanted to make sure I had as full of an understanding as I could of your thinking on this. And that understanding does include equal opportunity in purchasing, in contracts, equal opportunity in employment, equal opportunity in new business development, but it also includes a commitment to ensuring equity and fairness of service delivery on the part of all aspects of the government. And with those things inclusive, we will build a position description which we hope will meet your satisfaction. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. Just one other area you may look at, the City of Atlanta. Some of these came out of the ordinance that they had with the City of Atlanta itself. That may be another additional that you can -- I know Fulton has something. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I know we have made a request of the City of Atlanta. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. Right. That may be an excellent area to get something. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I was just going to ask, Mr. Mayor, since nobody, you know, in any of those other places could vote for me anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference about putting them on the spot, but where have we been seeking? You know, sometimes the answer you get, you know, sometimes depends on where you're looking at it from. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The Human Resource Department has been corresponding with other Human Resource Departments to get the position descriptions for similar positions within their governments. MR. MAYS: Well, I mean, I understand where they're going when they go to them, but I guess I'm being a little bit more candid. You know, have they been to Des Moines, Iowa? Have they been to Macon, Georgia, or? MR. CARSTARPHEN: They've been concentrating on governments within the state of Georgia. MR. MAYS: Okay. Because I know my good Republican friend, George Israel, put together one of the best offices of contract compliance right there in the City of Macon, and a young lady from Augusta, Georgia, was hired in the first job that was taken over there, and that one's still in operation. So, I mean, I know that one for a fact. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Okay. But the point I'm trying to make is that we're not seeking contract compliance officers or fair employment opportunity officers, we're seeking a broader that includes those things. And while we can get some of the specifics, we haven't been able to find a position that includes all of it. MR. MAYS: Well, I understand you there, and I'm not trying to, you know, debate the specifics, but what I'm saying is even in that one it's been broadened since the time of its inception to include other things, you know, that have been done. And I don't think you're going to find one in any place -- and let's be honest about it -- that may meet the political spirit of what we may need here, because we're going to have to end up approving whatever we do. But I think that when you talk about those marriages, there are some things out there that we can put together, as Commissioner Todd has said, maybe from other places, but I don't think that any one is probably maybe going to fit, you know, maybe what we want to do. But if we've got three, four, five that -- you know, or maybe need to, you know, give you some unsolicited help by maybe bringing a few to you if that's okay. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We'll take the best of what we get. I'm sure John would welcome any help from any of you to bring descriptions to him, and we will use the basis that I have described to you to develop a position description, which I certainly will come to you for review prior to final approval. MR. TODD: How about Greensboro, North Carolina, what do they have? MR. CARSTARPHEN: They did not have a position identical to this. The position that the City of Greensboro had was primarily in the equal opportunity and contracts and professional services. MR. TODD: Please get that one. I'd like to review it. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I have access to that one. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say we can -- if you don't mind we'll help you. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We welcome your help, and that's the reason that I wanted you to be aware of this difficult --this challenge we were having, so you could provide that assistance. MR. BEARD: Let's move to the next point, please. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Item (b) deals with the airports, and just a brief comment. While I have not completed by detailed review of the two existing operations, my preliminary analysis has suggested to me that there would be some opportunities for improved efficiency, for improved operations, and for perhaps an increase in revenue to the local government if the airports were operated under a single management and operation. As you know, they are currently almost completely separate operations, both in their operation, their maintenance, and also in that they have two separate advisory boards. I would like to explore the possibility of structuring the departments or suggesting to you that they be structured in a way that a single department is responsible for their operation and maintenance and a single board advises the staff regarding that. I'm aware, as is the case in a number of instances here, that there is a great deal of history to both of these airports. I'm respectful of that. I want to seek your guidance before beginning that process. If you are comfortable with this or think it is appropriate and timely to explore it, I will pursue it with some vigor. If you feel uncomfortable with that and do not feel that it is timely, then I would rather not waste our time and energy in that effort. So what I seek is some advice and guidance regarding that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we ask the Project Manager to pursue that. MR. TODD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think this is a good move, and there are some things that concerns me, including that the advisory boards is not reporting to this board. And I don't know how the old City government done it, but certainly six months into the year I'd like to hear something from the advisory boards. The other issue is a lawsuit that I understand has been filed on behalf of me per the aviation -- or at least the board from Bush Field, one of them, that I know nothing about or haven't been briefed on. And I may have misinformation there, but certainly I'm interested in what's going on if they are to report to us, and so I think it's a good concept to merge them and have some accountability. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on Mr. Kuhlke's motion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. Item (c) is listed at the request of the Mayor. I am now meeting regularly with the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, and at our last discussion the subject of the legislation as it relates to the Law Department was a part of our discussions, and we were requested at that time to provide each member of the Commission with a copy of that portion of the legislation and to place this item on today's agenda for any discussion that you might think is appropriate. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll go back again to the lawsuits and the unknowns. I'm not sure we are ready to go to a Law Department until we resolve some of the issues out there. It seems like we've been sued by employees and everybody else and their brother. There's legal issues that, you know, we are just being a notified of, a good example is the ambulance situation, and I'd like to get a better handle on the legal situation before I'm ready to turn it over to the Law Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might say this was brought to my attention from legislative body and that's the reason that I was instrumental in pushing it forward. MR. TODD: Well, certainly, Mr. Mayor, I can appreciate their concern, but they didn't put a time cap on it. For water rates they did, this there is not a time cap on, and I feel strongly that I need more time to get -- for our legal staff that's there now, whether it's the City or County side of it, to get a better handle on things as far as the legal aspects of what we have to deal with. We have things jumping up and biting us every day, and I think that we -- before we turn it over to somebody else we need to get it under control. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got to have a starting point somewhere, Mr. Todd. We can't just wait five years down the road and then all of a sudden institute an inhouse legal counsel. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, we're in the middle of a lot of things, and I'd like to make a motion that we appoint Mr. Wall our attorney and drop the term interim for the remainder of this year so that we don't have to deal with this subject anymore this year and we can go ahead with the business of trying to put this government together. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't see any problem with going ahead and instituting what the, you know, what the bill requires for because we're going to have to have Jim -- he's going to need to help them for at least six months just to bring them on board. And the bill calls for it, let's -- you know, let's go ahead and start seeking the inhouse attorney. And we're not booting Jim out of the door. We know he's going to have to be -- we're still probably going to have to employ him right along with this one for three months, six months, ever how long it takes for the guy to come on board, so I think that's the direction we need to head, not in reverse. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think this is a step in the right direction. I think that by doing this that whoever is the attorney should have some input into the selection and the recruitment of an inhouse attorney so that we do not have a cross of lines on any legal advice to us as opposed to inhouse legal problems. And I think that this is an appropriate move to make, and I think that once we make this move, I think we ought to have his input in the consulting of selection of an inhouse person if we're going to have an inhouse staff. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you have your hand up? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I wanted to at least say don't get me wrong. I think I was one of the biggest advocates of an inhouse attorney probably even when we were dealing with the issue of consolidation. We even looked at what Bullock County was -- not Bullock County but Statesboro was doing, et cetera. I just feel that we need to do it probably in the process that Mr. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke has mentioned versus in the process of going out and we're going to do an inhouse attorney. I and you and had some conversation on, you know, how we should phase this is and phase this out, and I think that certainly as far as core confidence go we need it known that we are solid as far as legal advice with having to deal with some of the legal issues that we're dealing with right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all need the question read, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Item 52 (d) is simply to confirm the work planning session that you have now scheduled for July 18th, to put that in the record and make sure we have the proper public notice, to let you know that we have reserved a room at the Civic Center and that we will have some assistance from the University of Georgia, and to suggest that in addition to discussing the Commission committee structure this might be an appropriate time for you to get an update on the recruitment process so far and the applications for the Administrator position and to talk further about the steps ahead in that regard. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. TODD: Second, that we accept it as information, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was Zetterberg and Todd. Discussion? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. What time are we looking at here? MR. CARSTARPHEN: It would be a morning meeting. I would suggest 9:00 and finish by 12:00. MR. BRIDGES: Okay, good. I think, you know, half a day is plenty of time for us to do what we've done in the past. MR. HANDY: I'd just like to confirm -- to say to Bill, Richard and Vivian confirmed it on yesterday that they are looking forward for the 18th. So they are on board, they're ready to come. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's all I have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you, sir. Any other discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 53: Consider for approval Rules of Procedures for the operation of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept the rules that have been presented by the County Attorney. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we accept the rules, excluding the rule that forces a member of the board to vote versus voting present. That's in the form of a motion. MR. HANDY: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on either motion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask for the reason behind the substitute motion. I would just like a clarification from Mr. Todd why that's a sticking point. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that a colleague have to give a reason for a motion. If the colleague wants to discuss the merits of voting for his motion, then certainly in the discussion he have the opportunity in the substitute motion or the original motion. MR. POWELL: I rescind my question, Mr. Chairman. It was just for a point of information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I have something that I would like -- and I don't know where this come in, but I would like to have something added to the rules, maybe from a legal standpoint of how that could be done. Because I see on page three here we have the -- we talk about the Chairman-Mayor and the Vice-Mayor Pro Tem. I would like to see inserted in this in the absence of the Mayor, you know, who is -- to spell out in the rules who would take charge and how would that be presented at that particular time. I think what I've seen here is just generally, but detailly, if the Mayor is out of town or wherever, he's not attending the function or that nature, can that be spelled out in here as far as who is -- the Mayor Pro Tem would meet this or is this all inclusive in the bill? MR. WALL: Are you speaking about other than at a meeting? MR. BEARD: Yes. MR. WALL: Okay. The charter defines the responsibilities of the Mayor Pro Tem. The more appropriate place, if you want to do anything beyond what's in the charter, is in the code that has been circulated insofar as outlining the responsibilities. These rules of procedure really are designed just to cover the meetings, not the matters that occur outside of the meetings. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question, and I'm not too sure it's covered in here, and if it is please tell me. It's on the way we do -- it's calling the question. On a number of other bodies that I've been associated with or heard of, calling the question is normally reserved for the chairman or the person conducting the meeting after full development of the discussion has been made in his opinion. I've noticed on this body calling the question is wanting to not allow full discussion of the subject, and I'm wondering if we make a mistake the way we operate. MR. WALL: If you will look at page -- I think it's page 18 where it says vote immediately, parens. call the question. It is spelled out, in other words, that when a Commissioner moves to call the question, that is, to move to end the discussion when it clear that further discussion is unnecessary, that motion does not require a second and no discussion on the motion shall be allowed. If there is no objection, then you have a vote. If there is objection, then it takes a majority to end the debate. So it's spelled out in here how that happens. MR. ZETTERBERG: And so that works better than what we have had right now. We haven't even been complying with this at all. MR. WALL: We haven't been complying with it. Robert's Rules -- this is by Robert's Rules. MR. ZETTERBERG: So what we've been doing is just calling the question and that's ended the discussion. I want to just make sure that we didn't do that. MR. WALL: I think we pretty well follow it. I mean, if somebody's got some further discussion, and we've heard Mr. Todd on many times say unreadiness, which is deemed to be an objection, and then typically discussion is allowed. And so I think we're following it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think my question's been answered. What it means is I didn't read this before we came here. Somehow I missed that one. I did read everything else, but this one I missed. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if I may question Mr. Wall as to the requirement of all members to vote on all pieces of information. Is that normal for most councils, commissions, and legislative bodies? I don't think it's the rule of the State House and I know it's not the rule of the Congress and I didn't know if it was a consistent rule of -- MR. WALL: I obviously haven't done a survey. You're correct, I mean, it's not a rule of the General Assembly, it's not a rule of Congress, it's not a rule of the Board of Education. One of the things that I think is somewhat different about this legislation, and it was also true of the County Commission, and that is somewhat unique is that it requires a majority of the board as opposed to a majority of those present and voting. And a lot of organizations operate on a rule that it is a majority of those present and voting, whereas this legislation as well as the legislation on the County Commission is specific that it had to be a majority of the board, which means in this -- and it spells it out here that it takes six votes. I don't think I've really answered your question, but I don't know the answer. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Even in the legislature on a constitutional question where they have a majority vote that has to be taken for a constitutional amendment, they still do not have a requirement that every member must vote. MR. WALL: I think that's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I mean, let's be honest, this is a self -- either way we vote, what you going to do to me if I break the rules? There's no provisions there, this is ridiculous. It's by a gentleman's honor, you know, to go by the rules. Certainly I've tried to go by the rules. We had this -- most of these rules come from the old County government with a few additions. And I'll refer to my good friend or good enemy over at the daily paper, the editorial page that referred to if Todd don't, you know, gag himself in a few weeks that we're going to -- you know, there's a threatened gag there. Well, whether we voted on the three-minute rule that was in the old or vote on the two-minute rule that was proposed, if I don't shut up, who's going to make me shut up? It's basically on us being gentlemen, of going by the rules that we set forth and trying to abide by them and conduct a meeting in a business- like manner. And I think everybody here, even though at times we disagree with one another, that we try to do that. And we try to respect the Chair, we try to respect our colleagues, and we try to conduct the business in a business-like manner. We just had a debate here that went on probably for an hour between two utility companies that's vying for the power, to give us the -- sell us power. Okay, we could have limited all the debate to two minutes or three minutes and limited them to two minutes or three minutes and we'd be sitting home now. But I think we thought it was important enough that we hear them all out, that each colleague have his say and we move on. I think some bad decisions has been made down here, and the reason for it is there was hidden agendas and no one, you know, blew it out in the open to what in the heck was going on. And there's a good example about that as far as this utility thing go with a consultant that was referred to us by a consultant that worked for the EMC's. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Any other discussion, gentlemen? I think we need the motions reread. The substitute motion first, please. MS. WATSON: The substitute motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy, it approves the rules of procedure for the operation of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council, but it drops the part that forces a vote rather than abstaining. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of that motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, KUHLKE, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MR. J. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Other business? Let's see, we've got Item 3 on the additions, too. CLERK: That's right. Item 3 on your additions agenda is to consider approval of the real estate purchase agreement between River Restaurant, Limited Partnership, and Richmond County. MR. WALL: Gentlemen, this is the purchase of Pawley's Pavilion. Y'all had authorized us to proceed with the purchase of it. The total purchase price was $390,000, of which Augusta-Richmond County would pay $365,000. The balance of $25,000 of the purchase price is being paid by the Augusta Rowing Club. We included in the one percent sales tax project $650,000 towards the purchase and renovation. The balance of the money, $285,000, will be used toward the renovation. The agreements, which consist of a purchase contract which calls for this to be closed according to those terms by August the 1st and also assigns the lease agreement back over to Augusta-Richmond County. And those repairs are -- the renovations are underway by the Augusta Rowing Club, which some of you may be familiar with because of the coming events. And I recommend approval. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, KUHLKE, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK: Item Number 4 on your additions agenda, to provide an update on consolidation of computer systems. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have somebody here to do that? MR. WALL: We met yesterday, and Mr. Zetterberg was in attendance, and we wanted to be sure that all the Commission-Council was apprised of the situation. New World Systems, which had the contract and license agreement insofar as the software for the City, has taken the position that once we consolidated they are requesting a new license agreement. We don't think that they are entitled to that, having a license agreement as is is broad enough; however, because of that uncertainty there is hesitancy on the part of Mr. McKie to put all the information over there because, frankly, the price is steep. And so he wanted to be sure that the Commission-Council was aware of the fact that some of the deadlines and self-imposed deadlines that he had placed on himself earlier in the year he's not going to be able to meet. And Mr. Wittke and I will be in touch with New World Systems to try to work out the differences over the existing license agreement and a maintenance agreement. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have one announcement. I have a birthday today and the birthday party is at T-Bones on Gordon Highway, and bring your own -- not bottle, money. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got one other thing, though, don't we? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. It's what I passed out. We need -- if anyone cares to make a motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve the early retirement package as presented. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. WALL: And severance package. MR. POWELL: And severance package as presented. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my only question is that this is not tailored around any individual, this is anyone that meets the criteria, qualify, can cash in on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: That is correct. Isn't that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That is correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Before we conclude our meeting, we have a new employee, our new GIS Project Manager, Mr. Terry Lambert is back. He's been on board since Monday. MR. LAMBERT: Since Monday. It's nice to meet you all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Lambert, it's nice to have you here. And don't take this as a normal type meeting situation. This is a short one today. MR. LAMBERT: My wife is waiting for me at the hotel, so I hope she's not waiting too long. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to know how long it's going to take him to set it up where we can vote from home. MR. LAMBERT: Mr. Todd has already got me busy, so I will -- I mean, I've been briefed with Commission meetings before, so this is no different from what I've seen back in Atlanta, so. But I'm glad to be here. I wouldn't have came here if I didn't see the potential of this area, this community, and everybody should be proud of that, and I look forward with everybody soon. It's a very promising project, so thank you very much. It's nice to meet you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Terry. Any other business? MR. HANDY: Yeah. Just remember, Mr. Mayor, I told him when I had a chance -- an opportunity to meet him that he must live in Richmond County if he wants a job here. He can't go to Columbia County. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's serenade him with Happy Birthday when we leave. MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all sing. Meeting adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:08 P.M. Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy 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 July 3, 1996. ___________________________________ Deputy Clerk of Commission-Council