Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS August 20, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:20 p.m., Tuesday, August 20, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council. ABSENT: Hon. Kuhlke, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and LeAnne M. Lovering, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regular meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We will have the invocation by the Reverend Richard Holland, Pastor of the Westminster Presbyterian Church. And if you will remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REVEREND HOLLAND. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Before we get started I'd like to remind my fellow council persons that whatever we do needs to be addressed through the chair. If you want to be recognized please address the chair and we'll recognize you. That way it's going to make it a lot easier for the stenographer. Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Five minute limit for delegations. MR. ZETTERBERG: Want to mention that Bill is not here; where Bill is at? MR. SCONYERS: Commissioner Kuhlke is not going to be with us today. He's in Portland, Oregon caddying for his son in a special golf tournament; is that correct? MR. ZETTERBERG: Right where he ought to be. That's a positive. MR. BEARD: I'll pass that along. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request for an addition. A real estate sales contract from the city attorney. To consider approval of bid award of "best bid" for two-hundred (200) Ballistic Vests for Sheriff's Department. DHR Appointment. Consider approval to hire eight (8) temporary laborer positions to be assigned to the Cemeteries Department. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: If the chair would recognize me, I'd like to make a motion that we approve them by unanimous consent with the exception of number 4 and number 3. And that's the Department of Family and Children Services appointment and the hiring of the four temporary -- eight temporary laborers. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anyone second Mr. Todd's motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Then we have a motion by Mr. Todd, a second by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion gentlemen? MR. POWELL: I would like Mr. Todd to reconsider the eight temporary laborer positions to be assigned to the cemeteries. I think that this is something that's very crucial to the Trees and Parks. And I'd like Mr. Todd to consider taking that Item off. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I have two things that -- I'm not sure that Mr. Zetterberg understood what Mr. Todd meant because I think we need to discuss number 4, if nothing more. I think it's important enough to discuss it. And I would like to see number 4 at least remain on the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm in agreement with that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you need unanimous consent. And I think the place for this is in committee meeting. I think that if we have a problem with the sheriff's department using the men -- the five guards and the one, I guess, spare and the inmates to do this work, then we need at least have a sheriff in here to discuss it in a committee meeting. And we need the department head et cetera. We are adding men to this new government that I don't think is necessary to add. And I don't want to get into the debate over whether the sheriff is doing his job or whether the department is doing their job on coordinating it. But certainly it will not go on this agenda today and we will have a committee meeting whether it is a special meeting or whatever to resolve this issue. This first started with the waste pickup. They couldn't do the job of getting the limbs and leaves out of the street. That they had to have additional men when we had the deputies -- the guards and the inmate crews doing this, doing that function. So I want some answers and I'm not going to agree for it to go on the agenda until I get some answers from the sheriff, from the department head or from somebody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like also to say that I'd like something too Mr. Todd and it's not answers. I'd like some action. MAYOR SCONYERS: Without unanimous consent we can't put it on there; isn't that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: So the vote is going to be for Item 1, 2 and to delete Item 5. All in favor of that raise your hand, please. Do we need to count that again? Did I miss somebody? I don't believe we had enough hands, did we? Do we need a roll call? Now, his motion was to do 1 and 2 but to delete -- so we can forget the addendums and the deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about the first delegation? CLERK: Yes, sir. Ms. Lynn Reed, Buckhead Neighborhood Association in reference to the Buckhead subdivision. MS. REED: Hello. I have some handouts for everyone so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. It gets a little complicated. We have a subdivision, Buckhead subdivision, off of Old Belair Road. Are you familiar with that? We also have a new subdivision called Asberry Hill. This whole area is being currently developed at a speed faster than light. At this point there's an entrance to a sand pit that divides the two subdivisions, as you can see, by Crowell's Road. Otis Crowell is developing this area back here. Dr. Sims has sold some property. I've talked to Robert Zetterberg about this several times. And I've been told that there are some possible solutions to this situation that are ongoing. But we need to come to some resolution of this problem because right now dump trucks that are going back to the sandpit have had to divert their route so that Otis Crowell can develop eight lots and connect these two subdivisions. Our problem is that the diversion of these trucks goes right through our backyards. And, literally, dust and noise and danger to our children and those kinds of things were not taken into -- what's the word I want? MAYOR SCONYERS: Consideration? MS. REED: Consideration when the subdivision and everything was developed because it's been happening so quickly. And I really can understand what happened. The Force Trucking Company back there have been very understanding and very considerate of our situation and have tried to, and tried to, over the last -- I think we've been working on this two years. I was in touch with councilmen before Rob Zetterberg came into the commission. But anyway I just want you to listen to some of the other people. We have some really nice young families with little tiny children in this area. People working really hard to improve their lives and have --you know, are devoting all of their energy to making something nice for their families and it's being ruined. So I have some other people here who would like to speak. This is -- come on up here and introduce yourself. MS. WOODWORTH: Hi. I'm Marianne Woodworth. I live on Camak Drive. It's about two streets over from where all the noise and commotion is going on. In our covenants we have a thing that tells us that we are not allowed to have any nuisances or noises or obnoxious activity going on. However, these trucks are going through a main road in order to get across. And even where I'm living I hear the beeping of the trucks. I hear the rumbling, the vibrations, and everything. Also, again, we are on septic. How is this going to affect our septic systems in the future? You know, all these trucks rumbling through these people's backyards, literally. MS. REED: And our property values? MS. WOODWORTH: And our property values? And, again, we're a residential community. Why should we be open through commercial traffic? MS. REED: That's right. Thank you. MS. HADLOCK: Mr. Chairmen and Mr. Mayor, I'm Cynthia Hadlock and I live in Buckhead subdivision. I happen to be one of the few who live on a dead-end cul-de-sac and it's called Dearing Drive. Now, as it stands with this Crowell progression, now I have forklifts, I have frontloaders, I have dump trucks making a left turn in my back yard. And I do mean at the actual convex of my backyard. Now, all of this is to expand and connect Crawfordville Drive -- Crawfordville Road to Asberry subdivision. None of us want to be connected. We enjoy the privacy. We have state acknowledged handicapped children living in that area. They have been playing in this cul-de-sac. We have toddlers who have been playing in this area. Their lives are now in danger. These dump trucks that are fully loaded with sand and gravel cannot see these children because they're coming -- there are no stop signs. There is no indication. They are cutting from a cutoff of Old Rifle Range Road directly across our subdivision and they're coming right into people's driveways. They are backing right up and it's less than a ten foot easement. Now, these people are in serious danger. Not only the roads -- but our roads, because we're so plateau up there, we don't have any underbed. It's all sand. So somebody is going to have to fix the roads when all of this is over with. Who is going to do that? So they are not only destroying the quality of our lives and our safety but they're making more work for the county. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MS. REED: I also wanted to say that this area that's being developed, this is not going to improve the area at all. And it really is a very unsafe situation for the children. The truck goes right across the street and it looks silly. I mean, if you come out there -- I invite you all to come out there as our commissioner has and see the situation. I really hope that we can come to some better decision. Mr. Powell? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL: Yes, ma'am. Have y'all contacted the License and Inspections Department to see if there's any kind of law or ordinance that when construction -- during a construction area or around a construction area they have certain rules and regulations that contractors have to go by. Have y'all contacted them to see if there is any violations there or have they came out and looked? MS. REED: The only thing that I would say is this is not a contractor situation. This is an ownership of a sandpit in the back. This has nothing to do with the actual construction. This is just a by-product of real fast development of an entire area. And this has been an oversight is really the way I see it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really appreciate the fact that Ms. Reed and the people from Buckhead subdivision have come out here. We have been working now for the last, I think, two months with Mr. Wall seeing if we could resolve this situation in your favor. We have communicated with all of the parties. At the moment we don't have an ability to legally go in and stop what is happening but we have discussed that. And what I'd like to do is let you all know from Mr. Wall, our attorney, who has been leading the negotiations with all the parties -- to discuss the particular situation now. MR. WALL: Ms. Reed, I understand your plight. I have been out there on more than one occasion and it is a mess. Unfortunately, I have not found a way that the county can do anything at this point to stop it other than try to get the parties together that are involved and try to resolve it. That has been done. It's ongoing. As you, I know, are aware there is an injunction in place, in so far as -- which basically is forcing the trucks through your neighborhood. And the Force Trucking owns an easement up there to that road. You're exactly right. The county is going to pick up the bill for fixing that street that the dump trucks are crossing over because those streets have been dedicated to the county. And it is an unfortunate situation and a mess and we're working on it. And there are discussions going on and hopefully they will lead to something in a very short order. I had hoped that it would have been resolved before now but it has not been. MS. REED: Me too. Thank you. MR. ZETTERBERG: It's my understanding, Mr. Wall, that there is no way legally that we can stop Force Trucking from moving through that area. And if we did that, there would be -- they would just file an injunction against -- MR. WALL: That's right. And we'd wind up having to buy the sandpit. MR. ZETTERBERG: So this is a situation that, frankly, can be probably be best settled the way we're trying to operate right now and maybe we can get the parties to agree. But certainly I don't think this is good advertising for any of these parties to be involved in that situation. As in regards to the Park -- Crawfordville Ave. to be developed, Mr. Patty, I wonder if you could just take a look at that and see if that is a requirement or could that be stopped -- that action to be stopped? MS. REED: Is George Patty here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: I'd rather Jim commented on that. Let me say, we've got the plans in our office and we're not being any more active in reviewing those plans than we have to be. And I just hate to say anything else. MR. WALL: I have advised them not to approve that because, until there is a final injunction, it's my position that the question of whether or not they can cross that property is still open. We're probably going to wind up being sued on that too. More cost. MS. REED: Who -- can I ask you? Who made the decision initially to okay this trucking company from -- who gave them that property to begin with and approved that as a cut through through a subdivision like that? Was that a county decision, Roads and Bridges? I've never asked this question before. I was just wondering. MR. WALL: At the time, I don't believe there was a subdivision there. The trucking company purchased that easement in order to always have access out of the sandpit. I think it was their belief that ultimately some other resolution would surface. MS. REED: That was just a stopgap measure? MR. WALL: Apparently. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: How is the property where they're mining the sands zoned? Industrial? MS. REED: I didn't hear the question. MR. PATTY: No. It's not zoned industrial. It's been mined for years and years. And they're in there on a nonconforming right that they have to mine that sand. MR. TODD: So I'm hearing that they're not under the proper zoning for mining the sand that they are going on past practices? Or what situation? MR. PATTY: The property is not zoned. If you wanted to buy a similar property and start mining sand on it today, it would have to be zoned heavy industrial and you'd have to have a special exception, I believe. But this property has been mined -- it was being mined prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance in 1963. At least we have no way to prove that it wasn't. The property has obviously been mined for years if you've been out there and seen it. And Jim and I have discussed, you know, the zoning status and we don't believe we could stop it on that basis. MS. REED: In the ordinances here -- in our ordinances. This is from Crowell & Company July 23rd, '91. So this was after the road had been sold to them. It says oil and mining operations, no oil drilling, oil development -- you know, the usual -- of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any lot. Nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels, mineral excavations or shafts be permitted upon any lot -- those kinds of things -- maintained or permitted upon any lot. Does any of this have anything to do with us? I mean, can we use any of these things? Are they useful? MR. WALL: Those are covenants that go with the subdivision that you have. MS. REED: Doesn't Crowell have to check those things before he sells us -- those ordinances? MR. WALL: He's the one that drew them up and submitted them as a part of the overall development. But the excavation and the mining and everything is not being done on the subdivision property. It's being done on another piece of property. The trucking -- MS. REED: Actually, it goes right through our subdivision though. MR. WALL: The trucks that are hauling to and from the pit are coming through the subdivision. Force Trucking actually owns the easement up to the point that it intersects with Rifle Range Road. MS. REED: Rifle Range Road. MR. WALL: Rifle Range Road is a county road. MS. REED: Right. And that ends right at the back of my property. Boom. And then they brought it from there back. Can't the county tell them they can't excavate through that area and use Rifle Range Road? MR. WALL: Uh-uh [no]. MS. REED: Although I'd hate to see that because those are very hard working people back there and I don't want them to lose their jobs either. MR. WALL: Ms. Reed, what I'm trying to do is to get it resolved without getting in more litigation. That the chance of prevailing is not good in my opinion and expending more county funds fighting battles we can't win -- MAYOR SCONYERS: We have one more gentlemen. MR. JARRELL: I live at Asberry Hill subdivision at 2531 Winterville Drive. And the reason why I came here today was just because the additional traffic connecting the two subdivisions together -- even though I don't live on that road, would invite people to ride through. Maybe people taking a short cut down the street. And just like she said, there are a lot of young children and things like that. And it's just -- if they make it into a circle it will be a nice circle and a nice area to live. But I think if they connect the two together that it will just bring a lot of extra traffic from one subdivision to another or invite people to ride through more so -- more frequently. MS. REED: We're concerned about there even being a cut through to Belair Extension in the near future, too, on the Asberry side of Crawfordville. So that's a consideration that's a possibility; that it would just go straight on through. Because you can notice the road on Crawfordville Drive on Asberry side does not end. It has plans of being extended on out and we feel very strongly that that will end up on Belair Extension. And in that case it will just be one huge cut through. People will be able to cut through from the Fort right through our subdivision. Run over our kids, you know. I mean, it's also something else that we didn't bargain for when we bought in the county. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Reed. MS. REED: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we receive this as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, I have a second? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion let me know by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Next, Mr. Andy Cheeks, Chairman of the Augusta-Richmond County Human Relations Board. MR. CHEEKS: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I'm here today to talk to you about the Human Relations Commission, your Human Relations Commission. The Human Relations Commission was founded years ago because, frankly, people didn't communicate and things existed between the different peoples that caused a great deal of problems. In fact, we had a very large riot in Augusta years ago. This commission has evolved through the years and it's ironic that we hear these comments from these neighborhood association today because a lot of the things could be addressed by the Human Relations Commission through it's mission statement that we have yet to develop. And as chairman, it is my intentions to develop our board to its fullest potential to handle a lot of these problems before they come to this floor. The Human Relations Commission, and I provide you with a handout that's before you, is a bridge that's chartered by the former government. It's a bridge between the government and people. It's also a bridge between the many peoples of our community. It's also an educational resource to help teach people about the evils of discrimination and limited access and unequal access. It's a catalyst to resolve conflict. And as we've begun having community wide meetings -- we have another scheduled for the 24th -- we will begin dialogue between our people and bring people together to discuss issues and resolve conflicts. It is an independent investigating body for complaints of discrimination and harassment. Actually, public relations is done and should be done through the Human Relations Commission. We review state, federal, and local complaints. Our investigators are trained in federal law and state law to handle these complaints. We are a legal body for resolving these conflicts. On page two you'll find that we have a situation now where we've had two resignations from two very hardworking board members: Mr. Trey Coleman and Ms. Sharon Caldwell. They leave a large vacancy in our organization and we need these positions filled. Page two contains the guidelines for maintaining the racial balance on the board, the terms of office. Currently we are unrepresented in District 1, District 8, or District 7. We have two positions. How you choose to resolve the filling of these positions is in your court. We need board members that will be there that are experienced and willing to contribute to the community and work. On page three, as our charter stipulates, the board has several recommendations to make for our operations -- to smooth our operations. That these board positions be advertised publicly to draw the most qualified applicants. And that qualification in service and public service history be a high priority for selecting new board members. And thirdly, that you add that any board member missing three consecutive meetings would be off the board. We need people willing to work and participate; not just show up to meetings. Other suggestions the board would make is there is a tremendous lack of education in the community about human relations issues and discrimination laws and equal opportunity laws. We are currently developing a pamphlet that we'd like to see put in the business license package that is handed out to business to help head off a lot of problems that occur when people don't understand the law. Observations from me, the chairman, we need to move towards fulfilling the full mission of the Human Relations Commission. And as you'll see on the following two pages it is broad in scope. We need to bring all government entities under the same laws that the people are under and private sector businesses are under -- under state and federal and local human relations and EEOC laws. It is my opinion that we should combine county-city HRC EEOC functions into one entity. And that that entity operate separately from the government and therefore not get caught up in governmental affairs and the day to day functions of the county government. In this day of six and seven figure settlements for sexual harassment and discrimination suits, we cannot afford to have someone involved in local government affairs and day to day operations and unable to do a fair assessment of the situation. This entity being combined, would also be responsible for community and government education, provide training for county employees and local business to handle investigations as it has. And by the way, the investigations also come with federal funds when we handle federal and state cases. They also pay us to do that. And to develop community outreach which is something that has been sorely lacking today. I urge you gentlemen to reaffirm the Human Relations Commission and it's mission. We've got a lot of work to do and we're working and moving in the right direction and we need your support. The last two pages outline the duties and responsibilities for the Human Relations Board. I apologize for the quality of the copy. But it is indeed broad in scope. And if you will take the time, through the many things that you have to read, and look this over you'll understand how I feel. In that we are chartered to do a lot of things that we haven't been able to fulfill because we're short of personnel. Gentlemen, it is important that we move this community forward and move it forward together. The bridge that can be provided by the Human Relations Commission can take us in that direction. Many, many of the things that we are seeing repeated in other segments of our government should be handled by the Richmond County Human Relations Commission or the Augusta-Richmond County Human Relations Commission or however we chose to title it in the future. I would suggest that if we are to create positions or add personnel that we add them to Mr. Frank Thomas' staff. In that we -- instead of having two agencies or departments that are not completely staffed, that we have one that is able to fulfill its mission to its entirety. And that we give it the resources to do the community education and outreach that will bring our community together and move us forward together. This is one meeting that I'm having with you to give you an update on where we're at. It's my intentions to keep you abreast of the situation. And as chairman, I will come to you and report to you. You will not have to come knocking on my door. Also I'd like to say, Mr. -- the director of the Human Relations Commission is one of the fairest and most competent administrators I've ever had the pleasure to work with. And I'll hope you'll consider this my personal endorsement for him in that position in the future. Thank you very much. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I'd just like to offer a comment or two. Certainly, Mr. Cheeks, we appreciate you coming in as chairman. And I thinks it's the anticipation of the new commission-council to have all chairmans of commissions to come in and do reports. I'd like to commend you on that, that you come in, you know, yourself versus being called in. But we intend, if the other ones don't come in, to call them in hopefully. I commend you on your report. I have one question and I don't believe you mentioned subpoena power in your recommendations. Were there any discussions of subpoena power for the commission and the commission decision being a final decision? MR. CHEEKS: We discussed -- small businesses don't come under federal and state guidelines and that is generally where most of our problems lie. We have problems receiving documents from small businesses to help either incriminate them or clear them in any case. That is a suggestion being made by the board. I wanted to develop it a little bit more before we brought it to you. But you don't want to create too much government control over the private sector but then again we need the right to get information to resolve these cases and frankly right now we don't have that right, under law. I don't think -- maybe I didn't answer you Mr. Todd. We do need some form of control whether it's limiting business license or something to get people to cooperate. This board is made up of average citizens and it is truly a color blind board. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Cheeks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. I hear a motion that we accept it as information? MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: A motion by Mr. Todd, second by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Next, Mr. Thomas Watkins. MR. WATKINS: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, commissioners, Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen, I guess it's that time of year that you've decided to have a giveaway. I suppose because the law allows it. But I submit that you don't have to do everything the law allows. America is the most generous nation in the world without government taking their money and deciding how generous to be with it. It may make you feel good to have the giveaway power with all the lobbying and attention it brings to the political arena. I hope not. And in fact, I don't think, hopefully, there are any commissioners here presently on this commission that think that way. But I submit that what you're saying to your constituents is this: sorry, we don't trust you to give. So we will take your money and we'll decide for you. Gentlemen, this is an elitist concept and you know it. Your constituents give millions away every year to endeavors that have far reaching positive impacts on the community. If a charitable organization is noteworthy it will be supported by the private sector. It will have to be accountable and sell itself to the private sector. If it fails, why should you step in with our tax money. Churches do a fair job getting contributions, do they not? Then you have the problem of what the law says and how that is interpreted. That seems to be a gray area. If you get contributions from the people you vote to donate to, then we get into all sorts of cross-pollination and significant ethical issues. The long legal arm of our county government loves gray areas but I would encourage you not to consult the judicial arm in this case. They've been entirely too highly profiled as it is. And remember that when the music stops. gentlemen, they always have a chair to sit in. I would encourage you to make the right decision on your own. Then there is the dilemma of the big nose versus the big toe scenario. Which is more important? Which group is worthy and which is less worthy etc cetera. This is impossible. The which-group debate can go well beyond 11:00 p.m. -- by the way which I admire you gentlemen for staying that late because it shows that you have grit, desire, and the heart to do what is right. Yes, I admire your desire to accomplish something by staying late but you need to work smart; not necessarily long. The problem is you will not follow success by using other paradigms which are proven. And that is because you will not give anyone the power to make a difference. Gentlemen, is this an experiment to develop a completely new paradigm for county government all over the country? If it is, you're in trouble. The first rule of success is to realize your own limitations which we all have individually and collectively. I would encourage you to follow success. Learn from others mistakes. Why do you insist on making all the errors others have made before you? Put someone in charge and give them the power to lead and make decisions. I heard a few snickers from the county employees last meeting when a freshman commissioner - - for lack of a better term -- I can't call you new because you're not shellacked yet. And not only that, new may imply inexperienced and I feel like the freshman commissioners here do have a vast array of experience in being successful. Particularly, successful fathers number one, and successful business people. One of the freshmen asked that he not be expected to vote on a matter with such little information that was given to him. The implication was, doesn't he know they don't want him to have all the information? I would certainly hope to see the new administrator representative sitting with or ahead of the judicial representative. Last but not least is the moral problem I hear you're having with county employees. Can you blame them when their co-worker can stay out sick for weeks to get sick pay and others can't bring themselves to do this because it is not the right thing to do. If you are out that long you are disabled and you do not need to be replaced. It is time you brought county employee benefits into line with the people who pay for those benefits. Thirty to forty percent, these are your figures I get from Human Resources. Thirty to forty percent benefits above salary is obscene, arrogant, and ostentatious. That's not counting the automobiles we still see at the golf courses, the restaurants, and the grocery stores. How about a reward, gentleman, of $1,000 for abuse of the -- and the employee pays the fine and the fine is given to the person who finds the abuse. You could go to medical savings accounts in which the people who do not run to the doctor every time they have the sniffles are rewarded and get money back for not using the benefit. You could privatize the entire Human Resources Department and diminish their political posture that they have to protect the employees within your organization and not protect the taxpayers from abuse. The taxpayers did not intend to create a monster with county government. Gentlemen, give yourselves and county employees the power, the ability, and the motivation to make significant decisions. The power to see a difference, sell a difference, and make a difference. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the gentleman's comments as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Got a motion by Mr. Todd and a second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please? MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please. CLERK: Under the planning commission items this could be taken as a consent agenda. Mr. Patty said that there was no objectors or any controversies concerning these requests. [Item 1 is a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission decision to approve a petition from Rex Baker, on behalf of the Interstate West Office Park, requesting a change of zoning from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone B-2 (General Business. Item 2 is a request for concurrence to deny a petition from Patrick Hawkins requesting a change of zoning from a Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) and a Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property on the southwest right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road. Item 3 is a request for concurrence to approve a petition from New Life Church of God in Christ, Inc., on behalf of Belair Construction Company requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church. Item 4 is for a Final Plat Approval to concur with their decision to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc. on behalf of Kenneth McCumbers, requesting Final Plat Approval of the Cedar Ridge Farm, Section IV. Item 5 is a Final Plat Approval petition from Georgia-Carolina Surveying and Engineering Company on behalf of Scott Higgins, requesting Final Approval of South Park Commons Subdivision Phase I.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Second by Mr. Mays. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question on 4 and 5. Maybe Mr. Patty can answer it. I just want to verify that neither of those subdivisions are within any flood plain areas. MR. PATTY: No. No flood plains in either of these subdivisions. MR. BRIDGES: Is that something we verify and check before this comes before the commission? MR. PATTY: Yes. You know, we verify that everything that they propose to do -- if it's in flood plains. And there are certain things you can do within flood plains that conforms to our ordinances. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is there any objectors present here today for any of these? Apparently not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 6? CLERK: Under Finance, items 6 through 8 were all approved by the Finance Committee on August 12th, 1996. [Item 6: Consider approval of Excess Vehicles - Supplement List. Item 7: Consider approval of Travel Expense and Reimbursement Policy. Item 8. Consider approval of a request to solicit RFP's on Copy Services.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee brings this to y'all in the form a consent agenda and seeks y'all's approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham and a second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on Item 7. It asks that we approve the travel and the expense reimbursement policy. But all I had in my book was an extraction out of the tax laws. Is that the policy statement of the county or is there a policy that -- CLERK: I think, thirty cent per mile reimbursement and the higher per diem rate that was in the book. That's what he -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, that's a change to the policy. CLERK: Yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's not approval of the policy. So I think it's misread and I think that -- well, I know that myself, I would like somebody to provide me the travel policy itself. Could we pay a little bit more attention that when we develop the items that the book that we get is complete? I have no other comment on that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: The only thing that was changed -- approved in committee was a rate change. There was no policy change that was approved. The rate change was from the 28 cents per mile to 30 cents per mile. The per diem was adopted that was in the federal publication of per diem that was allowed throughout the country based on location that the normal people of federal travel would have received in these areas. And that was the only changes to the policy. It was only a rate change. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my only question would be what was the justification of the rate change? I think the rate change that we adopted approximately a year and a half ago dealt with what the federal government or IRS was allowed. Have there been an increase there and that's the reason we're doing this additional two cent? MR. J. BRIGHAM: The 28 cents a mile was actually about four years ago and the 30 cents a mile is the current rate. The 30 cents a mile is the current rate. It was adopted about a year ago by the IRS. The per diem rates change from year to year. What we did was we adopted the federal publication as the policy is what we did. So we wouldn't have to do a rate change every time there was a rate change. MR. TODD: Yes. My recollection -- I think I have a pretty vivid memory because I was questioned by a county grand jury on everything. And it was my understanding that we were at 21 and we went from 21 to 28. And I was just trying to determine that other 2 cent. I don't have a problem with it. I can support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please. CLERK: Item 9 and 10 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee, August 12th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 9 and 10 be used as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to take number 10 out and vote on it separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can we separate those, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's vote on 9 and then come back to 10. Okay? CLERK: Okay. Item 9 is to consider approval of the schedule of the neighborhood meetings and public hearings with regard to the 1997 Community Development Block Grant Funding cycle. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: We have a motion by Mr. Beard, second by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'm going to vote for the motion. The only thing I was going to say. We may want to, just for the records sake -- because I think what's in the book doesn't reflect the two that were added on there. CLERK: There's some additional meetings. MR. MAYS: We have one tomorrow night as well as the one Thursday night. And just for -- CLERK: Fleming and -- do you have those dates? MR. PATTY: Gracewood School Cafeteria, I believe, on Wednesday night and Fleming Center on Thursday night. CLERK: Thursday night. MR. PATTY: 7:00 o'clock. Both of them 7:00 o'clock. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I guess that my question will be, and I'm sure we went through the proper channels, that there was public notices put out and our citizens have been alerted that this is an opportunity for them to get involved. As far as the Community Block Grants and the UDGA monies go and how they'll be granted in the future years? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I attended all five meetings last week and they were fairly well attended. And we want to thank Mr. Patty and his staff for the very good job that they did on handling this. And to answer Mr. Todd's question, there were ample PSAs sent out and I think everybody was notified in time for them to attend. And the attendance was fairly good for this time. And I think that they got a vast amount of information during that interim. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All approve Mr. Beard's motion to approve let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please. CLERK: Item 10 is to consider approval to amend the UDGA Promissory Note and Loan Agreement which was previously executed between the City of Council of Augusta and Ronlyn Corporation. Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, second by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since I asked that it be pulled off, I think we need to have a little more -- I think we just need to go over it one more time: why we are amending the grant from a loan to a grant and I want to make sure that I understand it correctly in my mind. MR. BEARD: This was done in the committee meeting and we explained that and a lot of people were there, a lot of the members were there. We explained why it was done. We understand, as from a former member of city council, that this was a promise to the Ronlyn Corporation. And also other members of the council at that time had heard the agreement that this was a verbal agreement. And plus what it's going to do for the enhancement of the Laney Walker area. And also the number of people that are going to be employed there. And it's nothing new that with these type grants that people be given forgivable loans if they are employing people and if they are enhancing the community. And I think that this is doing both in this area. And it has been done before many times and I see no reason why it shouldn't be done at this time. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a serious question about that. My understanding is that this note was executed between the government and the Ronlyn Corporation in writing, signed by all parties. There is nothing in the contract that says that we're going to make this a grant. No understanding whatsoever. I make significant contributions to communities that I do business with and nobody gives me free money. I think that if this is the case then I'm going to start banking with the city of Augusta. I mean this is ridiculous that we would even come in and ask for this to become -- they never should have signed. The city never should of signed a loan agreement. Nor should Ronlyn Corporation ever signed a loan agreement on the basis of some promise by somebody who has no power to execute that promise. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd. MR. ZETTERBERG: And that's just hearsay anyway that somebody approved that agreement. MAYOR SCONYERS: May I say that I provided each -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Unless I'm mistaken. It just sounds like fantasy to me. And I'd be more than happy to have somebody stand up and defend it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I provided each commission-counciler with a signed note from Mr. Brown and a promissory note. Each one of y'all have it in front of you. Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to get away from what the promise of the former government was or is or should have been, and let's deal with the merits of the grant. UDGA money, we understand, is money to enhance economic development in areas -- blighted areas for inner cities, that's what it's for. Have we always used it for that purpose? The answer is no. Have we used it per what their requirements call for? We probably have skirted into gray area quite a bit there. We've used it, yes, on Riverwalk. We've used it, yes, probably on Reynolds Street, Broad Street, and some other areas. The intent of those funds is to be used in blighted areas. The old Georgia Railroad Bank Building, now, First Union Bank Building on Laney Walker Boulevard that's been closed down is in a blighted area. This company -- let's look at Ronlyn. Ronlyn employs several hundred folks in this community of all races on both sides of the river: South Carolina and Georgia. Some of their endeavors is Maryland Fried Chicken, others is contracts at Fort Gordon, Georgia. And also contracts with the federal government, as far as Department of Agriculture go, and I would assume those are Feed a Kid Programs et cetera. Do Ronlyn make a significant contribution to this community as far as employing citizens of this community and the regional area? The answer is, yes. Have we given similar grants, unforgivable loans, and loans to other individuals in this community? The answer is yes. Have we given it to industries that have already, you know, made a significant stir? The answer is yes. We debated not too long ago the riverfront properties and what we are doing there. Well, gentlemen what we have there is a forgivable loan. They don't have to pay anything back to this government until they make a net to the amount of 20 percent. Well, there's a 20 percent -- they pay us 20 percent of their net. They are never going to make a net. It's not in their best interest to net anything. So it's a forgivable loan to riverfront properties. I have a colleague that sat on this commission that have an interest in riverfront properties. I have -- the owner of the daily paper is a partner in the riverfront properties. And there is many other well to do community leaders that receive federal funds through UDGA and other grants and unforgivable -- forgivable loans that's -- you know, live in this community. Is it worth the impact that they have -- that it have -- that investment have in this community? I think the answer is yes. And I'm probably running out of my three or five minutes so I'm going to end it there. I support this initiative. And if we're not going to do it for Ronlyn then we shouldn't do it for anyone. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I voted for this in committee. It seemed pretty cut and dry at that point. And then as the issue made the paper I was contacted by the former mayor of the city and he disputed a lot of the presentation that was made during committee. I invited him to come and speak before the commission and he declined. But I see the former city attorney is here and I wondered if he would like to comment on this loan? MR. DUNBAR: I can give you a little history as to what the terms of the loan was. We originally received a letter to Margaret Armstrong, who was then chairman of the Community Development Committee, recommending -- stating that Ronlyn had requested this loan for a hundred thousand dollars at four percent per annum for fifteen years. Mr. Brown has made application for grant. Will be applying for funds for the one cent local option sales tax money available for historical Laney Walker improvement. This project, that is the hundred thousand dollar loan, will create twelve new jobs for low to moderate income persons for the community and create additional activity at the corner of 11th street and Laney Walker Boulevard. That was presented to the Community Development Committee which Item 7 says, communication from economic development director with reference to a loan request. The business is Ronlyn Corporation, presently located in the Trust Company Bank Building. The purpose of this loan is to relocate their corporate headquarters to 1102 Laney Walker Boulevard. Should this request for a hundred thousand dollars be approved by the Community Development Committee, the funds will be drawn on our UDGA Recaptured Loan Fund account. In other words, that's a fund of UDGA money that is rolled over, lent to people as it's repaid, then it is lent to additional groups -- new people to further develop the community. It's a revolving fund. As is, I might add, the seven million dollars that was lent to finance the Radisson Hotel. All of that money will have to be repaid back to the city. That was all federal money and then it will be lent out again to other projects who -- and you continue to circulate the money. Chairman Armstrong said, this is with the Ronlyn Corporation who is going to move the Laney Walker -- move to the Laney Walker community. And I believe every thing is in order. They will be putting in about $300 thousand themselves plus creating new jobs within the inner city particularly for the young youth in the summer. It will be good for this community. I move that we approve this loan. Second. It was passed. We then prepared a loan agreement which contained all of the terms and provisions of the loan. Had it been a grant or a gift then there would have been no need to have a mortgage or a loan or a promissory note or a loan agreement signed. Contained in the terms of the loan agreement, which I think you said you had a copy of, I wanted to make particularly sure that these twelve new jobs were actually going to be created. In other words, the consideration for this loan was the creation of the new jobs. I wanted to make sure that twelve low to moderate income people would in fact get jobs. You know, any business has certain turnover and if twelve people quit and you hire twelve more you haven't created any new jobs. So attached to the loan agreement was a list of all it's employees, all it's current job positions, and he was to create twelve new jobs in addition to those. And all of that is attached to it. There was a security deed or a mortgage given to secure the repayment of this loan and it was all approved by city council. I read in the newspaper that, you know, there had been some agreement that this was to have been a grant rather than a loan as though there had been some error in the way the documents was drawn up to indicate that it was a loan. As you can see from the minutes, from all the correspondence -- and I'll be glad to furnish everybody with a complete copy of this file -- there was never any proposals entertained by the city for this to be anything other than a four percent loan to be repaid over 15 years and that's what the documents say. Now, if you want to change that to something else then, you know, I guess you can do that. But you shouldn't do it on the basis that there was any other agreement with the city because obviously it wasn't. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Dunbar, my understanding was that he would -- I don't have a problem with the loan. My understanding was he was promised a grant for historical building, meaning the First Union Building which meets all those requirements. He was never given that grant. In essence the -- he was going to get a $100 thousand loan and a grant of $100 thousand. What he's asking for now is -- he's not asking for the grant now. He's asking for the $100 thousand loan be changed into a grant. In other words, he's -- as I understand it, if those promises are accurate then the county will be out no more money by granting this. MR. DUNBAR: Well, I mean, if the county wants to make a grant of $100 thousand then I -- and the county has got some money that they can legally give away. And you can't legally give away tax payers money. You might have some federal money somewhere that you can give away. But this was a revolving UDGA loan that went to the appropriate committees, was voted on, approved as a loan, and there was no misunderstanding about what the intent of this was. I don't know anything about any grant because that never came to me. And I don't know whether there was or not but -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question deals with strictly the language of the agreement that was signed, is the difference between a loan and a grant. And I beg to differ with what my colleague -- who says that the money for the riverfront and the -- that money is not going to be repaid, because it is going to be repaid. MR. DUNBAR: That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: And because the deal that was cut that we're not going to be getting money until it reaches a certain percentage happens to be in writing in an agreement, we shouldn't have any problems with that. We might not like the agreement but at least it's in writing. This particular loan -- this particular document was signed as a loan. I have a great deal of respect for the Ronlyn Corporation. They've done a lot of great work out on Fort Gordon and here in the community but I can't imagine them signing a loan agreement and not expecting to have to repay it. MR. DUNBAR: I don't think there is any question about the meaning of that loan agreement. In fact, it's got capital letters at the top of it that that's exactly what it is, loan agreement. It's not a grant. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Mays. MR. BEARD: I was just going to ask Mr. Brown -- we have Mr. Brown here and I think he should give his version of what took place involving -- because I too heard that there were two different monies that we're talking about. MR. BROWN: I guess I was just -- you know, I'm going to tell it like it is. If you don't like it the hell with it because I'm a year behind on a project. Paul got amnesia. The mayor is not here because, you know, he's not enough man to come in here and stand up in front of you where he done made that commitment. George Patty have heard him. Skip Platmon have heard him and several members on City Council passed -- where he sat there on December the 28th or 29th; told Skip Platmon I will call you and have you cut the check for the $100 thousand grant before the day is over. Skip is sitting over there, ask him. And the loan that you were talking about, right, is a loan that we were going to pay back. We also asked and requested a $100 thousand grant that -- money that was set aside for the Laney Walker area. We never received that. We came to Mayor Sconyers, explained it to him after the mayor disappeared after telling us over and over, we'll get the money. I'm going to call Skip. I contacted Skip. Skip called me. I haven't heard from him. He told me he was going to call. So after going to the mayor we said well, let's try to work something out. Since then Mr. Wall researched and said, well, hey, we don't have the money. So what can we do to compromise? The compromise was, since we can't get the $100 thousand grant or you don't have the money, let's make the $100 thousand we got. Instead of giving you 200 thousand we'll take that and make it a forgivable loan. Originally, and to this day, if you come up with the other $100 thousand that we were promised, we'll still pay that loan off. I never said, not one time, even in the last meeting that this loan here --that it's the one told me it was a forgivable loan. We are requesting that it was that. The newspaper prints whatever they want to print. But they don't print that y'all gave --the governing body gave Billy Morris a $20 million loan down there that he don't have to pay back a dime on for 20 years. But yet when somebody else gets something it's wrong. That's the truth. Check your records now. That's the truth. But again, I'm back to my point, I did not tell anybody. And they printed in the paper that I said this was a loan -- that they were going to convert this loan to a forgivable loan. I did not say that. That was the deal that was worked out in order to -- because we couldn't get the $100 thousand grant we did not get that was committed to us. And there have been numerous people in city government that have stood up even in the committee meeting and vouched that they heard this commitment. And he's made this commitment in front of them even all the way up to December the 31st. I have nothing to lie about. MR. ZETTERBERG: Then in principal, you don't have anything wrong with what I'm saying? MR. BROWN: I have nothing wrong with what you're saying but I have something wrong with someone telling me that I can't have a piece of the pie when I'm investing into an area that there's an incentive to invest in, number one. Now, if you want me to pay that $100 thousand loan back, give me the $100 thousand grant I was promised. It's just that simple. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think that we should explore that part. MR. BROWN: I have no problem with it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think they are two different things. Okay? MR. BROWN: I agree. But if you got a $100 thousand grant for that area that I was promised and due, give me that. I'll pay that loan back with no problem. MR. ZETTERBERG: Sure. I don't have a problem with that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays was next. Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I thank Mr. Brown for probably doing the Paul Harvey thing and telling the rest of the story. Maybe probably telling the right story in what happened. And I think what needs to be talked about -- I mean, since it's gotten this far. And I'm not on that committee but I've been very familiar with it, is that maybe we need to talk about -- maybe we do need to talk about the sources of money. Because if in that old city government there was a certain amount of funds that were set aside in that sales tax for that historic corridor, whether they are going to Ron Brown or whether they are going to anybody, the bottom line is they didn't get to anybody. You know, I think that's what ought to be said. And when we trace the drawer down, if they had not been used, then the bottom line is they should have still been there. Now, I don't think it's his fault that he's having to be worked into the so called compromise. I think if the money was gone, Paul -- and I hate that you are the one having to be here in representing the old city government. But I think the bottom line should have been that if it never was spent in Laney Walker then it ought to have still been there allocated for Laney Walker. Whether it went to somebody or whether it disappeared or whether it zeroed out when the time of financial hardship started but it didn't get out there. Now, I don't -- you know, this thing here, he shouldn't be held that victim in it. The new government, basically in terms of trying to do something and to reach a compromise, I think it ought to be clear that he's not trying to skirt around a particular loan. If additional funds were available to do that, and then we want to hold the loan true as to what it is, then that's up to you gentlemen to do. But I think then what maybe we ought to start when this meeting is over with, that the financial minds that be ought to retrace where the particular money went. And if it was not spent in that area, then my question is -- then where in the hell did it go. Now, it ought to still be there or it ought to went to somebody and it ought to be spelled out. So, I mean, the bottom line is, he would have not gotten into that debt over in that area or what has already been committed. To basically come into an empty bank that left us almost with nothing there for awhile other than an automatic teller in that whole area. For somebody to come in and to improve it. And I've seen us make commitments whether it's been to what I call the Brooks Brothers boys who come in. We don't have to necessarily pick on what has been done at the river. Those are good projects at the river. But at the same time, dollars still speak. And we made commitments to folk come in -- that I understand in some cases, now they may not be able to pay them back or to come back with what they promised for job incentives and everything else. At least this is a thriving business. At least it wants to go, to a certain extent, in no man's land, as a lot of folk want to refer to it, where nobody else wants to go. And have already made certain commitments financially and everything else in order to return to that area to help to try and improve it. So what I'm saying is, if you're not going to deal with it on that basis then what I think you ought to do, you ought to send our financial folk back and find out then what did our old sister government do then with the money that was supposed to go to Laney Walker? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. DUNBAR: My only purpose was to clarify the fact that the article that appeared in the paper -- that there was some error in the loan documents that were drawn up and that the $100 thousand loan was in fact supposed to have been a grant. Mr. Brown has acknowledged that that is certainly not the case. That the loan documents are correct as they were written. That the $100 thousand was to have been paid back and that's a requirement now. As far as trying to find out, you know, what happened to all the UDGA money that the city ever had, you'd have to get a team of auditors, I guess, to go do that. But I don't think anybody would seriously question the fact that there is not any money there. But you would have to do a big audit to find out -- MR. MAYS: We wouldn't have to go -- I hate to cut you off, Mr. Dunbar. We wouldn't have to go very far. If it was specifically designated for one particular area in an historical corridor then it's very easy to find where it was spent. There's not too much out there that it could have or would have been spent on. So it wouldn't have gone but basically in one corridor. That is not a hard job and you do not need a team of auditors to do that one. Maybe we didn't find -- and the bottom line was that it was at zero. And maybe that is why this young business man is being put in this compromise today to make him look like the darn thief and a robber in there because maybe you didn't leave any money in that corridor. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Brigham over here. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we send this back through the committee. And maybe ascertain from those people who's name have been mentioned -- and I think we need to look into this. And I think this would be the best point at this time to come back to the committee and ascertain from those people that names have been called as to exactly what happened. MR. BRIDGES: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that a substitute motion, Mr. Beard? MR. BROWN: May I have a request, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Beard and -- MR. BROWN: Give me a vote. Okay? My project right now -- I don't care which way it goes. Give me a vote because I have -- I'm already over $200 thousand in debt on this project. Before I even proceeded, I sat down face to face and talked with the mayor. He said, go ahead acquire the property it's a done deal we just have to work it out. All right? I went on and committed $200 thousand to purchase that property. I am already eight months behind construction which means I'll have to -- when I rebid this project or sit down and ask the contractor now to do this work, it's going to cost me 10 or 15 percent more. I'm getting -- I'm just tired of it. I'd rather not go into the area if that's what y'all want to turn this into. And hell with it, I'll go to Columbia County like everybody else. I'm tired of it. I employee 300 people full-time in this town. I've been in business 18 years. I had 300 people working in Atlanta, Georgia this summer. Our business is a growing business but I'm just tired of the run around. I've been put off for eight months and I'm tired of it. It's frustrating. I'm tired. I've got to make some decisions. I've got a contractor waiting for me to give him an answer today. I can't keep going back and back to the drawing board. Now, if somebody is not going to be a man enough to do the right thing, just do what's on your conscience and I'll live with the consequences. But I don't want no more committees, I'm tired of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. Brown a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do what? MR. BRIDGES: May I ask Mr. Brown a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brown, he wants to ask you a question. MR. BROWN: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Brown, I talked to the former mayor. I understand that your original project was to be located in the old Pilgrim Health Community Building. MR. BROWN: The project we're speaking of, if you check your Community Development -- MR. BRIDGES: Yes or no? MR. BROWN: I'm answering your question. Because, like I say, he got a real case of the amnesia. Okay? I'm going to tell you what -- you can check for yourself. Go to Community Development -- Economic Development. It was submitted in writing, address and all, what this project were going to be located, how much funding was requested and everything is in writing on file. I don't have to tell you. He don't have to tell you. It's on file in your department. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Brown, you -- MR. BROWN: Mr. Patty is aware of it. No, I'm -- see where was -- the beginning it was going to be located was -- the money we requested was for this project at 1102 Laney Walker. We didn't request it for nowhere else. MR. BRIDGES: Thank you, Mr. Brown. That's all I wanted to know. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Brown requested that, I'll withdraw my motion at this time and I move that we vote on -- I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. I believe we've had enough discussion on it. Does anybody need the motion reread? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'm in disagreement with Mr. Brown. I think Mr. Brown would be well served to let the committee take a look at it again. I was elected to make right decisions. I'm not trying to make a wrong decision, Mr. Brown. I know what the difference between a loan and a grant. And if you were promised grant money then maybe that's what we need to do, is fulfill an obligation to look for grant money. I'm very confused of what my colleague down here says about, where is the money. Is it saying that you never received any of those monies? MR. BROWN: That's right. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if that's the case then why should I forgive something that you've never gotten? It's very confusing and I think that we need to know, in order to make a good decision -- and we're faulted constantly in the decision making process. I would like the opportunity to work with you. MR. BROWN: I'll waive to you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I mean. I certainly would agree if Mr. Brown wants to vote today that's fine. But I think it also points out the fact that we need to establish a policy, a clear cut policy regardless what has happened because I think his will be resolved. I hope it will be. But I think that we are coming in to a new year and folks are saying we don't know what we're doing. We need to, even if it goes back to committee or wherever it goes, I think we need a clear cut policy what's going to happen in that area, what's going to happen in some of the other areas. Because we're coming in probably going to have some UDGA grants or some funds next year coming up. And I'm almost sure -- but I'm going to be the one on the record as saying we ought to do something in Laney Walker corridor. Because I thin if you do it someplace else it's no better out there than done in some of the other places. So in that vein I certainly would like to see it go back to some committee even if Mr. -- you know, whatever happens to Mr. Brown. Would you accept that Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: If you make that a motion Mr. Brigham, I'll second it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I so move. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Just one second, Mr. Todd. I'm assuming this is going to be a substitute motion; is that correct? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. BEARD: And that's what you're saying, sir? Give you some direction? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we had an opportunity at the first of the year to set policy. The old city policy was pretty much -- and I'm not being critical here but what I -- the observation at the time that I made a motion that we send all monies through the finance department, the controller's office. The methodology that we use to disburse money is not a good one in the sense that there is no checks and balances in it. And we're using the same one that the old city government used. I think constructive criticism is good, Mr. Mayor, and I think that all funds should go through the comptroller and through the accountants office. And that we shouldn't have individuals with the power to promise or sign off on monies, whether they are federal monies or county monies. We went through that debate. I lost on that one. So if we're talking about where the money went, well, we're going to be talking about that probably a year from now or five years from now because we don't have a good program to manage the finances of the UDGA and Community Block Grant monies. We need to send all sources of funding or funds through the comptroller's office and through accounting. MR. MAYS: -- that reflect upon that account in sales tax, that was dedicated in the Urban Services District for that amount, I would hope that that committee would let that be its motion to approve it so that it can deal with this project. Inasmuch as the person has admitted that they wish for the loan to stand, if the grant is going to be given. I think that legally satisfies what you're dealing with the loan. No language has to be changed from that. And if the money is still there in that particular account, and I made what I said in a statement earlier, Mr. Mayor, to make a point, and the one that I've been saying for the last few months. If it's there, and in that source, since it has not been disbursed, and if you want to ride out through there, if anybody can show me where you've spent that much money out there, and I say that to my old sister government, it's obvious that is has not been, maybe other than the exception of one or two corners, then I think it ought to come out of that source which still remains there if it's there. And I would hope your committee, Mr. Beard, would look first into that source so that we could clear this particular monkey up and wouldn't identify the person who is trying to make a difference in that community as being the victim and the villain, rather than somebody who's coming in to try and develop and area that everybody else has basically written off. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion -- no, sir, we're going to vote now. We've drug it out long enough, that's it. MR. BROWN: I need a time -- I need a time table though. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's it. We're through now. We're going to vote, win, lose, or draw. Substitute motion first. Do y'all need the substitute motion read, gentlemen, or do y'all know what we're voting on? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Susan, could we have the substitute motion read, please? Thank you. MS. WATSON: Substitute motion made by Henry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard, to send this item back to the committee to establish a policy. And if the amendment was accepted -- was Mr. Mays' amendment accepted by you, Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. I was hoping my colleague wouldn't tie old into what we're trying to do. Now, that was my only -- I'm with you. MR. MAYS: I wasn't trying to tie it, but I think he's been victimized by what is old. And it's up to the new to either straighten it out or either hang him in it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: But I think we'll probably have -- in my opinion, we'd have a better chance of letting this item stand on its own and try to move it forward. MR. MAYS: The only thing he was asking for is a time frame. If we're looking to send it to committee -- are we looking at up in September? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, we go Monday. The committee meets Monday. We meet Monday, Mr. Brown. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, can I ask the Comptroller then, since we're here. We're face to face. Let's get this mess over with. Which do -- can we identify those funds from that old urban district in any account? Can we get the balance of that account that's in there? MR. MCKIE: In about five minutes. MR. MAYS: In about five minutes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Finish reading the motion. We're going to vote. We're not going to wait five minutes. We've done drug this thing -- we've got other people waiting here and a lot of other things to do. Let's move forward. MR. MAYS: Well, then I'll make a substitute motion then. MR. POWELL: We've got two motions already. MR. MAYS: We don't have but one. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got motions on the floor already. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my original motion. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we table this till the end of the meeting. MR. MAYS: And I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Let's move forward next item. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do we have a vote on the table? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, there's no need to vote on it if you've already tabled it. I mean, you know, we've killed so much time already this afternoon. Let's please move forward and get something done. Item 11 please. CLERK: Items 11 through 26 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee August the 12th. Item 11: Consider approval to execute contract documents and proper bonds for the Boykin Road Drainage Improvements. Item 12: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two with funding and the right to let for bid for Perimeter Parkway Improvements Project. Item 13: Consider approval of the Deed of Dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Eagle Pointe Subdivision. Item 14: Consider approval of the Deed of Dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Country Place, Section IV. Item 15: Consider approval of the Deed of Dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 11-C. Item 16: Consider approval of option to purchase right-of-way known as Tax Map Parcel 31:9.1 of the Skinner Mill Road Extension & Agerton Lane Roadway and Drainage Improvement Project owned by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church of Augusta. Item 17: Consider approval of an agreement between Augusta Richmond County Commission-Council and Stallings Financial Group, Inc. Item 18: Consider approval of a request to advertise the contract for paving of various streets. Item 19: Consider approval of bid award to Meco for storage tank tightness testing for thirty-seven (37) underground storage tanks. Item 20: Consider approval of bid award to Polydyne for Polymers for Final Clarification. Item 21: Consider approval of a feasibility study to the Greene Street location of the proposed St. Sebastian Way Extension Project. Item 22: Consider approval of a proposal for engineering planning and surveying for 2nd Street Outfall Improvements. Item 23: Consider approval of a proposal for repairs to the pipe which traverses Willow Creek Subdivision. Item 24: Consider approval of the State-Aid Contract List. Item 25: Consider approval of a contract for Perimeter Parkway Improvements. Item 26: An Ordinance to establish water and sewerage rates for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Water and Sewer System; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we take Items 11 through 26 as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if Mr. Powell would be willing to pull 26 out and hear from Mr. Hicks on that? MR. POWELL: Be no problem with that. I restate my motion. Items 11 through 25. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I accept the amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All those in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 26, please. CLERK: Item 26: An Ordinance to establish water and sewerage rates for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Water and Sewer System; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August the 12th.) MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks. MR. HICKS: The reason that, I'm sure, that Mr. Wall wanted this pulled out was that I had contacted him yesterday -- or this morning, perhaps the first thing this morning -- and asked that one portion of this Ordinance be changed. You remember we had said that the residential sewer charge would be $15.50, if there was no prior record for December, January, and February for a residence. We felt that that might penalize, say if you had an older couple, or a single person that moved into a home and they only used 3,000 or 4,000 gallons a month, then it would penalize them. And there are a number of customers who use that small amount even in the summertime. And so it would penalize them. So we ask that the wording be changed to say that, "In cases where December, January, and February consumption is not previously established for that address, the monthly residential sewer charge shall be the lesser of $15.50 or the amount calculated for actual water usage for that month." This would cover that foreseeable event. We didn't want, you know, to right off the old bat have somebody getting a water bill higher than they had been getting because they didn't have a December, January, and February use established. So we feel that this would prevent that amount of confusion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the amendment. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: No, sir. Mr. Todd went ahead and so that's okay. I yield the floor to him. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 27, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. When will the citizens see it in their bill? MR. HICKS: This was, to my understanding, the first reading of this ordinance. The second reading will take place at the first Commission meeting in September. We will have the calculations made by that time. The Computer Management Services is already working on it so we'll have the data ready to go. Just as soon as it's read and becomes an ordinance after the second reading, we'll be ready to go. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's September? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. It'll be -- MR. ZETTERBERG: The September bill? MR. HICKS: The September bill. In other words, after the first meeting in September, we'll be ready to roll with it. MR. ZETTERBERG: They'll get one more bill at the high rate and then it'll go down. MR. HICKS: If everything goes the way it is right now, yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's the aim. That we will be ready by the time you vote on it for the second ordinance, I mean, the second reading. So I don't think anybody will get two bills between now and then, that's the only thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Max. Item 27, please. CLERK: Item 27: Consider approval of bid a bid award for the Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant liner repair in Pond 2A. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee, July 22nd.) MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we send this back to committee. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 28. CLERK: Item 28 was approved by the -- Item 28 through 31, those items were all approved by the Public Safety Committee, August 13th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that these be approved. This is the first reading for Item Number 28, and there's a second reading that would come to this if there are any changes that need to be made. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second? MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on 29, or least a comment. In that bill we were -- a geographical information system was a component of the grant. I understand that grant went forward on the 15th, prior to our approval date. But what I've asked the Sheriff's Department to do is since we already have the assets to provide him a geographical information system product, that when he's in --when they're in discussion with the grant authority, that they substitute that portion of the $20,000 so we're not going out and buying something that we really don't need. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 32, please. CLERK: Items 32 through 45 were all approved by the Public Services Committee, August 13th, 1996. Item 32: Consider approval to purchase a refueler from Texaco for Bush Field Airport. Item 33: Consider approval of bid award for a forklift and tow tractor for Bush Field. Item 34: Consider approval to reject bids for construction of a connector taxiway from runway 17 - 35 to apron at Bush Field. Item 35: Consider approval of a contract between Augusta- Richmond County and Emanuel Bryson regarding his participation as an officiant in sporting events sponsored by the Recreation Department. Item 36: Consider approval of a new application request by Yeon Ok Lee for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Lee's Grocery Store located at 2029 Old Savannah Road. District 2. Super District 9. Item 37: Consider approval of new application request by Michael Shepis for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with The Pizza Joint located at 1032 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. Item 38: Consider approval of new ownership application request by Melissa Rene Hudson for a liquor, beer, and wine license to be used in connection with Holiday Inn located at 2155 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. Item 39: Consider approval of a new ownership application request by Su San Van Eeden for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with the Chinese Deli located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9. Item 40: Consider approval of a transfer application request by Barrett F. Pennington to transfer the retail package beer and wine license used in connection with Depot Food Store #133 located at 1494 Jones Street. Formerly in the name of Dorothy Inez Williford. District 1. Super District 9. Item 41: Consider approval of transfer application request by Patricia J. LeBlanc to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with O'Shea's Lounge located at 2701 Washington Road. There will be a dance hall. Formerly in the name of Richard A. Carter. Item 42: Consider approval of a request by Ivey Thomas to add wine to his retail package liquor and beer license used in connection with Kim's Package Shop located at 2228 D, rosier Road. District 6. Super District 10. Item 43: Consider approval of a proposal from BT Design Group for professional services to design the improvements for Hephzibah Park. Item 44: Consider approval of bid award for emergency roof repairs at the Belle Terrace Community Center. Item 45: Consider approval of recommendations for repairs at the Lock and Dam boat ramp as proposed by the Recreation Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 32 through 45, after checking to see whether or not we have any objectors to those that relate to alcohol, be approved, and that those be shown that -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? MR. MAYS: I had one -- he was in my ear sidebarring, Mr. Mayor, I apologize for that. On those we need to pull out Item Number 34 to handle separately because that one is going to need to be voted on to go back to committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did we have any objectors to any of the items? Okay, pulling Number 34, all in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 34. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like the record to note that I voted no on 38. MR. POWELL: I'd also like the record to reflect that, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell and Mr. Bridges. Is that so noted, Lena? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: A point of information. Item 34 is actually Item 5 that was deleted, and we shouldn't be taking action on it one way or another. MR. MAYS: Well, we didn't delete it. It's still here, and that's the only reason I pulled it out. Because after consulting with the Airport director and our attorney, that one really needs to come back to our committee, and I would so move. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I thank the corrector for correcting the corrector. MAYOR SCONYERS: I've got a motion by Mr. Mays. Do I have a second to Mr. Mays' motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 46. CLERK: The next Item 46. 46 is to consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Council-Commission meeting August 6, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So moved. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Henry Brigham. Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Second by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 47. CLERK: Item 47: To consider approval of the termination of Alphonzo Forrest from the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee, June 24th) MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: So moved. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. WALL: Brian Watkins is here on behalf of his client. I think he's outside. Mr. Etheridge is going to get him. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. WATKINS: Good afternoon. All right, we're here on -- what, we already reached the item on the agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, we have. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Point of information. I'd like to withdraw my second until I hear from the employee and his attorney in the sense that they wasn't in the room when we made -- when the motion was made and seconded. I respectfully withdraw my second to the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, do you want to withdraw your motion to this? MR. H. BRIGHAM: That'd be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All right. Go ahead, please. MR. WATKINS: Thank you. My name is Brian Watkins. I'm representing Mr. Alfonzo Forrest on this issue. I need some clarification on appellate procedures. It is my understanding that this is strictly an appellate procedure. This is not an issue that will be taken afresh, or that any additional evidence or testimony will be heard at this proceeding; am I correct with that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall. MR. WALL: Yes, Mr. Watkins, that is correct. The Personnel Board has heard the witnesses, and heard that, and so it's for the purpose of reviewing the decision that has already been made by them after they heard the evidence. MR. WATKINS: Okay. On behalf of Mr. Forrest, I'd just like to take exception to that, in order to protect all of his rights at this particular proceeding. We're trying to find somewhere to rely upon that, some type of policy or something within the court or the Charter, that would designate that this would be strictly an appellate proceeding and not something heard de novo. So just based on that, in order to preserve his rights, I must do so as his attorney. My understanding is that the Board is here to determine whether or not the termination of Alfonzo Forrest from the Richmond County Fire Department was proper based on the following reasons as I have reviewed the taped transcript from the Personnel Board hearing. It is improper because the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Personnel Board, and also was the proper procedure utilized in informing Mr. Forrest of his rights. Gentlemen, our United States Constitution says a government cannot deprive a man of his property rights or his civil rights without due process. A good name is a property right. A good reputation is a property right in our country. The substance abuse policy manual also gives an employee of this government rights to maintain his employment, except when it is proven that he has failed a drug screen by testing positive based on -- and this policy manual, from my understanding, is based on the federal rules regarding the Department of Transportation employees. That's where these rules, the substance abuse policy manual, is adopted from. Now, let me give you a little bit of background into this information. Mr. Forrest is a native of Augusta. He's been a fireman since 1989. He's married with children who, at one time, may still be attending private school. He also worked part time as a school bus driver with the Richmond County Board of Education transporting children back and forth, not just locally but also to other areas, other states. On the morning of May 10, 1996, he took a random drug test as required by Richmond County. Six days later, on May 16th, he was notified by Chief Maddox that the test results were positive. Subsequently, after first talking with Chief Maddox, he then had an interview with the medical review officer. Later on, he requested a hearing before Ms. Linda Beazley and John Etheridge, and after that a hearing before the Personnel Board. At the hearing before the Personnel Board there were a couple of witnesses, namely Dr. John -- excuse me, Mr. John Etheridge and I believe a Dr. John Pollox. I'm not sure how that's spelled. He was the medical review officer. As well as other members of the Personnel Board, including members from the fire department. Mr. Forrest maintains that the decision was erroneous, number one, based on these reasons: The medical review officer lacked foundation and knowledge to testify as to the finding of the laboratory because the medical review officer knows nothing about the testing lab or its procedures. He also knew nothing about the chain of custody, which is required by the substance abuse policy manual. Number two, the decision was also erroneous because the proper procedures regarding how Mr. Forrest's case was handled were not followed. Unfortunately, the Personnel Review Board would not allow Mr. Forrest to explore how his case was handled. If you review the tapes you will find out that their determination, or their opinion, was they were only to make a decision as to whether or not the lab results tested positive. Number three, the County cannot rely on this particular drug test. Number four, the County produced no one from the lab to testify as to the positive lab result. And finally, and most importantly, Mr. Forrest was never given a chance to clear his name. The policy manual requires the following in order to have a positive, or make a finding of a positive drug test. It must be a random drug test, properly conducted. It must be an initial specimen. The specimen must test positive. Then a confirmatory test. There must be review and confirmation by the medical review officer. There then must be a meeting between the medical review officer and the employee to determine if a valid medical reason exists as to why the test results may have come back positive. Then and only then can the medical review officer, who first sees the report, then reports his findings to Risk Management, and then Risk Management after that communicates it to the department head. Was this test properly conducted? A properly conducted test means a trustworthy test. Mr. Forrest was subjected to a random drug test which means that he was not tested for cause. If you check his record, you're not going to find any indication that Mr. Forrest had had a wreck, and therefore he had to be subject to a drug test, or that he was acting inappropriately. Nothing to indicate that this was a test for cause. It was a random drug screen. There was nothing in his record, again, to indicate that this was a test for cause. A trustworthy test means trustworthy laboratories and trustworthy employees. At the hearing, the Personnel Board hearing, the medical review officer knew absolutely nothing about the lab or the testing procedures. He couldn't tell us what city the lab was located in, he said he believed it was Herndon, Virginia. He did not know the qualifications of the person here in Augusta that drew the sample. He didn't know the procedures used to draw the sample. He didn't know the percentages of false positives for this lab in Herndon, Virginia, or what a false positive was. He didn't know the testing procedures that they utilize. Nor did he know what the chain of custody was for this particular lab sample once it got to this lab in Virginia, or if a split sample method was used. None of this information was testified to by the medical review officer employed by the County. Now, this is very interesting and very important. And the reason it's important is because a medical review officer must do more than recite what is contained in a lab result. The lab result speaks for itself. But it is the veracity of the lab report that the medical review officer scrutinizes. This lab in Virginia -- how many drug tests do they do a year? That question was never answered. This laboratory has done over 80 million drug tests, over what period of time I can't tell you. And what percentage of those 80 million drug tests have ever come back positive -- or false positive, we don't know. That goes to the veracity of this particular laboratory. And, again, unless you know the veracity of this particular laboratory, or know the reputation of the individuals at this laboratory, or what batch or batch samples that were being tested may have had some false positive indications, then we cannot testify as to the veracity of this particular lab sample. The substance abuse policy manual in Section L-2 states, "A medical review officer will verify all positive tests." Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 40.29(g) states, "That a Department of Transportation contemplates that the medical review officer and the laboratory should have some sort of working relationship." For example, under the Code of Federal Regulation guidelines, the medical review officer has to get a certified copy from the lab, as well as certify other information from the laboratory that this was a good and proper sample, that this was a good and proper batch, that was used or that was conducted on this particular specimen. The medical review officer should not just rubber stamp some report that flies across his desk. And if you listen to the tape, that's what you're going to find, that this was nothing but a rubber-stamping of some report that comes from somewhere in Virginia, that this medical review officer cannot testify as to the veracity of it or not. I could have printed that lab report up for all we know and given it to the medical review officer. So, again, we do not know the veracity of this particular test. Chain of custody. How important is the chain of custody? You must account -- the Substance Abuse Policy Manual says that you must account for the integrity of the urine sample by tracking it from its origin to its final disposition. Who collected the sample? It's not contained in the record. Who tested the sample? Where is the sample now, and was that sample part of a batch that was improperly handled? We don't know. The Substance Abuse Manual also defines, also requires, that a chain of custody form be used from a time a specimen is collected till the time it arrives at the lab, and an appropriate laboratory chain of custody be used from the time the specimen is collected and arrives at the laboratory through processing. At the minimum including the date and every individual who handled this particular sample. We don't know that. The County does not know that. And the County did not put this information forward at the Personnel Board hearing. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 49.29(a) (2) states, "Laboratory's chain of custody procedures, in order to maintain control and accountability from specimen receipt through completion of testing, must have each individual who handles the chain of custody documented." Proper procedures were not followed here. The Substance Abuse Policy Manual mandates, gives a right to an employee, that after the test comes in, that the medical review officer is supposed to be the first person who sees it. That is in order to maintain the good name of the individuals and all the employees, because no one wants to be stigmatized by a positive drug test. However, what you will find if you review the record is that the medical review officer was the last person to know about a positive drug test. Apparently, either the Department of Resources knew about it first and then secondly the fire department, and then not until Thursday afternoon around 12:30, did Mr. Forrest get in contact with the medical review officer over the telephone. More importantly we cannot rely on this particular test. What this Commission should do is compare the reputation and record of Mr. Forrest versus a random drug screen. Again, we don't know anything about this laboratory in Virginia, so therefore our knowledge about the lab and the reputation of Mr. Forrest becomes even more important. Now, if you can consider what are the odds of -- given the fact that Mr. Forrest has no indication from anywhere that he uses drugs, what are the odds of catching a random drug user with a test, with a random drug screen? 12 percent of Richmond County employees are subjected to a random drug test on a periodic basis. That means the same individuals may be tested time and time over again. Mr. Forrest has been working with the City and County since 1989. This is the first time he has been subjected to a random screen. Therefore, unless we know what the positive or the false positive ratios are at the laboratory in Virginia, which we don't know. And what the likelihood is that we can get a false positive reading. We must then compare that to the likelihood of catching someone using -- a casual user on drug tests on a random basis. Which one is more? Alfonzo Forrest was never given a chance to respond and clear his name. This is very important. There was once a time when employees in this area were subjected to drug screens. You go in, maybe 11:00 o'clock that afternoon. The next morning you'd get your test results back. According to the medical review officer cocaine remains in your blood for two to three days. Now, if Mr. Forrest had been notified the next day of his drug screen, he could have immediately went to a medical doctor, got another drug screen in order to compare it with the drug screen issued -- or the test issued by the County. You can't wait until six, five or six days after the drug test in order to give someone an opportunity for a second chance. Again, the medical review officer testified the drugs only remain in the system two to three days. However, Mr. Forrest was not notified until six days later that the test came back positive. By that time his chances for a second test with his own independent physician were gone. There's no excuse for -- to send these drug tests out of the City when we have qualified, capable laboratories in Augusta to handle these drug screens. We cannot sacrifice accuracy for cost. If it is necessary for employees to pay for their own drug screens at the time in order to have them tested in the area, then maybe that is something that this body should consider in order to protect the reputation of these employees. Again, the local lab results can have -- a local lab can have the results within 24 hours. Finally, the Policy Manual, at Section 2(g)(3) states, "A laboratory shall have a qualified person available to testify in administrative or disciplinary proceedings against an employee when that proceeding is based on a positive urine result." That wasn't done here. Now, again, what we're looking at is the burden of proof and the burden of proof rests with the County. And until the County complies with all the requirements that's stated in their Policy Manual, then it cannot take the good name of Mr. Forrest away from him. What do we do? Well, this Board can consider a few things. Either it can remand this back to the Personnel Board for further consideration with the thought in mind that he will never get another bite at the apple because months have gone by since the drug screen. Or, secondly, it can overturn the Personnel Board's decision because the Personnel Board, and other departments, did not follow the procedures as set out in the Substance Abuse Policy Manual. We think the latter should be done by this Board, it should overrule the Personnel Board's findings because there's no way you can unring this bell. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I might just summarize the evidence that was presented to the Personnel Board and explain the process that was used. First of all, the screen -- the random screen is done initially and only in the event that that screen shows that there is cause for concern and is above the cutoff level, do you go to the confirmatory tests. So there are actually two different tests that were run. The first test showed that there was a need for a confirmation test. And that confirmation test was done which showed a cocaine level of 259, where the cutoff level 150 nanograms per milliliter. It was that confirmatory test that was used to -- as the basis for termination of Mr. Forrest. Mr. Watkins is correct in that there were several days that lapsed between the initial testing and the results of those tests, and that was by necessity because it takes the lab those several days in which to process the test and to render the notice of that testing. There was some dispute about whether or not Mr. Forrest was notified by the MRO. The MRO will testify that he attempted to reach him on several occasions, was unable to do so. Finally did bring him in. There was some conversation about what other health medicines for weight lifting and other things that may have been taken. In any event, the MRO testified at the Personnel hearing -- testified that when he first learns of a positive result, he examines the chain of custody documents, which he did in this case. Satisfied himself that a proper chain of custody had taken place and had been documented. And that there was no explanation for the positive result other than there was cocaine in the system. And he testified positively that there was no doubt in his mind that cocaine was in the system. Mr. Forrest was aware of the policy and was aware that it applied to him. The testimony was that he did test positive both on the initial screening and again on the confirmatory testing. So those are two different tests, both of which showed. But it was the confirmatory test that was actually relied upon for the termination. And there is no medical explanation other than the ingestion of cocaine into Mr. Forrest's system for the test to have shown the positive that it did. And it was on the basis of these facts that the Personnel Board upheld the termination. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, then I think that it was clearly there. As to the process that was used, and the due process, all through the system Mr. Forrest was notified of his right to contest the charges. He appeared with counsel at the Personnel Board hearing. Challenges were made and questions were asked of the MRO review officers. And I submit that a proper case was made out, and the proper procedure was followed, and that cause exists for the termination of Mr. Forrest as found by the Personnel Board on the evidence submitted to them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Watkins, do you want to say anything else? MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir, thank you. First of all regarding notification of Mr. Forrest. Mr. Forrest has a pager. He has an answering machine at home. He wasn't contacted until Thursday, or at least there's nothing to substantiate the claims of the medical review officer that he tried to contact Mr. Forrest. Especially when we have all these other electronic devices that would track Mr. Forrest down. Secondly -- and he also states that he was working at the time with the Board of Education so he could have been tracked down. Secondly, as far as an initial or confirmatory test, if you all review the lab report for yourself, you're going to see one number on there, and that one number says 259, but it's not for certain whether or not that 259 is referring to the initial test or if it is referring to the confirmatory test. And that is -- and again, that goes straight to the foundation and knowledge that the medical review officer has as to how this particular laboratory reports its results. He cannot tell you that because he doesn't have the knowledge or foundation that he knows anything about this particular laboratory. As far as him stating there is no other medical explanation for a positive reading, what about a false positive? Some tests come back with a false positive reading. That is a fact. And that information is even stated in the Code of Federal Regulations that a laboratory has to designate and set down the findings of how many false positives they have. As a matter of fact, they have to run a certain number of tests to purposely try to make a determination what percentage of false positives that a particular laboratory will have. And, again, that could be a reason for this particular finding of positive with Mr. Forrest. Again, we're dealing with odds here. What are the odds that we're -- you're going to catch a casual drug user with a random test versus what are the odds that you're going to have a false positive reading from a laboratory that handles millions and millions -- and 60 percent of the Fortune 500 drug testing in this country. The odds may be even. And if the odds are even, then the County, again, hasn't proven its case -- hasn't carried its burden of proof. And you then can't turn around and take this man's good name away from him and threaten his livelihood for the remainder of his working career. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you have anything further? MR. WALL: Nothing further other than to say that the testimony from the MRO officer was that false positives are extremely rare, and there was no doubt in his mind but what this was an accurate test and a positive result was found. And he testified unequivocally that there were two separate tests done. One insofar as the initial screening and then the confirming test, which is the 259 value alluded to. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I guess my first question would be what was the time lapse between the first test and a confirmatory test. And two, was there one sample given or more than one? MR. WATKINS: I don't think the record will answer your question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we postpone this hearing for 30 days to get additional information. I am, too, concerned about the medical review officer, and I think that I was one of the strong supporters of hiring a medical review officer. I, too, are concerned about the veracity of labs. And I, too, is concerned about the chain of custody. And I think that we need to attempt to answer those questions and concerns that the former employee has before we make a decision on this. I don't think it would be fair to either the former employee or the Personnel Board or this Board to make a decision without having all the information or information that's been requested. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. MAYS: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? I have a motion by Mr. Todd to delay for 30 days. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Wall never answered Mr. Todd's first question. I heard his -- the other attorney answer it, but is there any indication as to what the difference is? MR. WALL: Well, as far as days, I mean, it's the same sample, and it goes through an initial screening, and then if that shows that there is a need for a further confirming test -- I mean, it's the same sample that is used. They split it. Yeah, I mean it's split. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: It will be delayed and brought back up in 30 days. Next item, please. CLERK: Item 48 is legal meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion that we go into a legal meeting, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: So moved. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can we do the rest of these -- the rest of these items before we go into legal session? MR. WALL: I need to -- there are some things that I need to -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Or do some of them? MAYOR SCONYERS: Again, I said, do I hear a motion do we go into a legal meeting? MR. HANDY: So moved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear second to Mr. Handy's motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Henry Brigham? Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. For what purpose, I guess, would be -- MR. WALL: Personnel, legal advice. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add one item to that, a prospective industry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? MR. WALL: Also a real estate matter. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [COMMISSION-COUNCIL GOES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 4:10 P.M.] [COMMISSION-COUNCIL RECONVENES AT 5:20 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order, please. Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Item 48A: An Ordinance to establish a due date for Ad Valorem Taxes for Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; To establish the rate of interest and penalty amounts for delinquent Ad Valorem taxes for the Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; to establish a discount for early payment of Ad Valorem taxes by residents of the Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission-Council, August 6, second reading.) MR. J. BRIGHAM: So moved. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion by Mr. Brigham, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 49, please. CLERK: Item 49: An Ordinance changing the name of the Commission- Council, changing the designation of the Chairperson-Mayor, the Vice- Chairperson-Mayor Pro Tempore, and of the Commissioners-Councilpersons. MR. ZETTERBERG: So moved. MR. WALL: Let me comment if I may, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. WALL: My recommendation is that this be done pursuant to Home Rule provisions, and I would ask that rather than voting to approve this, that if this meets with some general consensus, that I be instructed to prepare the requisite notices, have it duly advertised, and bring it back for a vote in September. But I was asked to put this on for y'all's consideration to see if that's something that you wanted to do. MR. TODD: Who have problems with what we're being called now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, he says who has a problem. I raised my hand. He asked the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what those concerns -- MR. ZETTERBERG: It wasn't rhetorical, was it? MR. TODD: -- are or the problems that the individuals have with what we're being called. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who wants to respond? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I guess since I asked to put it on the agenda, I'll do that. I think that we need to get out of the political correctness and go on and call ourselves what we are. If we're a mayor, we need to call ourselves mayor and not mayor-chairman. If we're a mayor pro tempore, we need to be mayor pro tempore, not mayor pro tempore-vice chairman. If we were going to be commissioners, we need to be commissioners and not commissioners-council people. And I think we ought to go on and straighten out this part of the bill and do it now. And if we can't do this, heaven help us. We need a whole lot of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say I've been called worse. MR. HANDY: And will be again. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just one more comment, isn't it not true that if you go back to Atlanta in January, they go up there and change it again? Isn't that not true? That's what I was wondering is if we kind of clear up the hurdles, then it would show that we had some continuity while we're trying to do something. You know, I have no problem with it, but it looks like to me that all of the -- we didn't name ourselves, they named us. So it appears that we ought to go back and say something to them that we're going to probably do this. They may have something else in mind they want to call us. MAYOR SCONYERS: I suspect like Mr. Powell, we probably have been called a lot of things. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm sure we have, yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I have a comment or two. Certainly I know that there's some that, you know, leans more towards a city government and municipality than they do county, but I just raise a couple concerns. I think that one, it's within the wisdom of the legislators to name us, and the people voted on it. And I believe to change anything it would take a super majority, and I don't know whether that's here or there. But basically I'd like to remind my colleagues of a couple of points. If you want to be a city government, city governments can't pass resolutions for 1 percent sales tax, collect and disburse 1 percent sales tax, you know. So that's one of the things that you may want to think about. I don't know where this is headed towards, you know, leaning towards -- more now towards city government or what, but I certainly feel that we, you know, probably should go on through this year and let the legislators change anything unless it's hindering us from doing our work or duties. And I don't see that problem. And certainly I've been called worse. I've just recently, I guess, been called lazy, or a do-nothing, or whatever. But this -- we have a lot more important initiatives and ordinances to deal with than what we're called. And that's just my comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Other comments? Mr. Wall, it's your suggestion then that we just sit on this? MR. WALL: Well, I'm looking for direction. If you want me to move forward with changing the name, then I think it would be appropriate for somebody to suggest a motion that the attorney be directed to prepare the necessary notice to put in the paper and bring it back. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg made the motion, and then we got into discussion. Do I have a second to Mr. Zetterberg's motion that we do just what Mr. Wall suggested? MR. BRIDGES: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Discussion, Mr. Beard, you had your hand up? MR. BEARD: I was going to say this is one of the few times I find myself to dare agree with Mr. Commissioner Todd. We have too many other things to do than sit here and spend 30 minutes on name change. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? We have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg that we change the names, seconded by Mr. Bridges. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. HENRY BRIGHAM AND MR. TODD, NO, MR. BRIDGES ABSTAIN.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50. CLERK: Item 50: An Ordinance amending the 1949 City Plan to provide for enhanced early retirement. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this ordinance and the ones that follow -- well, let's take them one at a time. This ordinance provides for the enhanced early retirement package pursuant to the action and instructions that were given in the July 3 meeting. This will put that into effect. It's been duly advertised, advertised on August the 7th, August the 12th, and yesterday August the 19th. This will be the first reading. Final adoption would be on September the 3rd. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I make a motion that the ordinance be accepted. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 51, please. CLERK: An Ordinance amending the 1949 Plan to restate certain provisions. MR. WALL: This ordinance has been passed out. Essentially it makes some technical corrections and changes the name to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council, and also changes the membership of the trustees, and the Investment Committee, and the Pension Fund Committee to be the whole Commission-Council. MR. HANDY: Vote for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 52, please. CLERK: Item 52: An Ordinance amending the 1987 Plan to provide for enhanced early retirement and to restate the Plan, as amended. MR. WALL: This ordinance does the same thing. Again, it provides for the enhanced early retirement, same benefits as with the other plans, but also restates the Plan in its entirety to bring all the amendments forward and to change the terminology to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. MR. HANDY: Vote for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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 OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 53, please. CLERK: An Amendment to the 1949 [sic] plan to provide for the Enhanced Early Retirement. MR. WALL: Again, the same thing, same benefits, and it has been duly advertised under the Home Rule provisions. MR. HANDY: Vote for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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 OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 54, please. CLERK: An amendment to the 1977 Ordinance to provide for enhanced early retirement. MR. WALL: Again, that was done by ordinance. It was not necessary to be done under the Home Rule provisions, but has been advertised so that the public will be aware of it, the participants would be aware of it. Provides the same benefits. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. 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 OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 55, please. CLERK: An Ordinance to establish severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta-Richmond County; to provide an effective date; to provide for repeal of this Ordinance on a date certain; and for other purposes. MR. WALL: And I would substitute a copy for the one that's previously been furnished to make some technical corrections and would recommend approval. This is the other part of the severance package for the department heads only, displaced department heads only. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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 OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 56, please. CLERK: Consider approval of a contract for financing environmental facilities between Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority and Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council. MR. TODD: So moved. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I have little -- just a short, maybe from Tom, of what we're doing here. I see $6 million down here. I hate to vote on it so quick. MR. WIEDMEIER: This is the loan for the first phase of the wetlands project that's under construction now. And it's providing additional treatment out at the plant. MR. BRIDGES: How many phases of that is there in the -- and does the $6 million -- is it just for this phase of it? MR. WIEDMEIER: For the first phase, yes. After a two year monitoring phase we'll proceed with the construction of the second phase, which is probably about $4.5 million. We'll start that in '98 or '99. MR. BRIDGES: But this is to handle part of the sewage, it's to be sewage treatment; right? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, correct. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Also, is it my understanding that we loaned the wetlands project money out of another fund and this will -- that was to repay that? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 57, please. CLERK: Consider approval of a proposed property exchange between Augusta-Richmond County and Brandenburg Properties regarding 3.65 acres on Riverwatch Parkway and properties adjoining the Canal, including Warren Lake. MR. WALL: This was brought up in one of the committees earlier to possibly declare as surplus some additional right-of-way that was purchased at the time of Riverwatch Parkway construction. This is right-of-way that would be almost -- would be across Riverwatch from where Alexander Drive comes in to Riverwatch Parkway. At that time the Mayor indicated that he had been informed that the Canal Authority was anxious in acquiring additional properties from Brandenburg. You have the appraised value. It's in the book. This would allow for an exchange whereby the two parcels, totalling about 3.65 acres, would be transferred to Brandenburg Properties. And in exchange we would get what's called Warren Lake, as well as approximately 17 acres that lies east of it. And would also impose a covenant on the 100 foot strip that would surround Warren Lake and also extend down the canal across Brandenburg Properties. We met with the Canal Authority. We, being the Mayor, and Charles Dillard, myself, and George Patty. I'm not sure who all else. Drew Goins. And it has the support of the Canal Authority, and I recommend approval of it. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Handy, second by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion by Mr. Handy, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 58, please. CLERK: Consider approval of a proposed Resolution declaring that alley fronting on Laney-Walker Blvd. and extending between Parcels 297 and 299 of map sheet 45.02 has ceased to be used by the public, and that such alley should be considered for abandonment. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, there's no objectors to this, I would assume, and that - - MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? None noted. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: Let me comment in response. It will be advertised and a hearing will be held, and if any objectors are known then it would be brought before you. So this is just the first step. MR. TODD: Yes, sir, but we don't have any now in the talking phase? MR. WALL: Not that I'm aware of, no. I think everyone is supportive of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion by Mr. Handy, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 59, please. CLERK: Consider to receive as information the renewal of a Lease Agreement between Richmond County and Pinetucky Skeet & Trap Club, Inc. for a ten (10) year extension of the lease. MR. POWELL: I so move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you make the motion? MR. POWELL: Yes, I think so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, this is a good project. It's a good alternative land use for property around the landfill. The Public Works Director initiated this several years ago but I strongly support it. And there was an argument, I guess, at one time that this was pretty much a private entity, but certainly today this is a private, nonprofit entity. It's open to any and everybody, and I think we should strongly support other initiatives around the landfill as far as land use. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 60, please. CLERK: Item 60 is to discuss the Fire Chief job description. MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Mayor, John Etheridge asked me to fill in for him, and he was filling in for Bill Carstarphen. So you have before you in your books a job description for the Chief of the Fire Department. It has been reviewed by the Chief. It's also from -- Mr. Etheridge advises me that it was passed out to all the Board members, and anybody that had any recommended changes, they were considered and incorporated into the job description. And they are presenting the job description to you today, and ask that you accept and approve this description. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Handy, second by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I have no problem with Ms. Beazley standing in, but we're paying Mr. Carstarphen enough money that he could show up at these meetings, now. That's all I want to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm sure that Mr. Carstarphen works adjacent to your office and communicates with you. And maybe you can tell us why he's not here in the sense that that comment's been made. MAYOR SCONYERS: It was my understanding that he's going to be back this afternoon, but I guess he didn't make it back in time. He's at the University of Georgia. He'll be back in town for our meeting Thursday afternoon. MR. TODD: We need to reschedule that meeting, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're going to keep that Thursday afternoon at 5:00 o'clock and we'll have you out of here by 6:45. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that won't put enough time in my schedule to do the things I need to do and be where I need to be. And we need the Clerk of Council to coordinate with the Mayor's office, and the Project Manager, and other departments that schedule meetings to make sure that we don't have those kind of conflicts, you know, as far as meetings go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, the Clerk of Council was instructed by the Project Manager, Mr. Carstarphen, to issue the time and place where we'd have the meeting. It will be Thursday afternoon at 5:00. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to encourage my colleagues to make an attempt to get there. We are going to try to see if we can move the reorganization of the government along. We believe that we can complete it by 20 September. We believe that we can have a short meeting. I encourage you to look in your boxes to get a letter written by Mr. Carstarphen on reorganization. And there is no reason in the world that if we get some cooperation, this job can be done. We set a task. We said we were going to finish by 30 September and we can finish by 30 September. And there are groups in this town who have been spreading rumors that we are a do-nothing commission and I resent that because that's not true. But if we don't get posthaste right now we will be a do- nothing commission. And we have a chance of a lifetime and we ought to do it right now. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I will support whatever my colleagues decide down here. My priorities for Thursday night is in south Richmond County at a first ever community block grant UDGA funded meeting and that's where I'll be. But I'll assure you that I won't slow you down. Whatever you decide Thursday night, I will support. I think that basically I've supported most of the initiatives that's come up from the project coordinator of consolidation. I don't think that this commission has slowed things down. And if we had a plan to vote on today, I'm sure that I could support it and vote on it. Put it in front of me. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thursday night. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Thursday afternoon, not night. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: I would just like to say that, you know, I guess maybe some of us will be in South Augusta, however, because I had planned to go out there, too. But we talk about moving the -- you know, speeding up the process. And I'm one of the first to agree that it should be some speed -- and some deliberate speed there. But who is instructing the project manager? Because he has sat on 31 applications for the last two months from Community Development and that has not been acted on. He's out of town today, you know. And he's going away -- I understand and I'm not sure I'm correct, but from some memo he's going to be gone for the month. So who is going to put this government together? We keep hollering about getting on task and moving forward. But who is going to move the project manager? MAYOR SCONYERS: We are. MR. BEARD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope we can. MAYOR SCONYERS: We are. Any other discussion? Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: I'm going to try my able best to make both meetings. But I do take exception to what is being anybody's importance. I don't have a problem with Ms. Beazley or anybody else standing in for Mr. Carstarphen. Evidently, it was important that he be where he was or is. But I also think it's important that when we set schedules --is this government, too. I think it's important when we go as an old government from $2 million, to the possibility of collecting between 5 an 7 million in community block grant meetings. As of last Monday, until the eve of the meeting on Thursday that Mr. Carstarphen has sent and I got it from the clerk off of my fax machine, I will have attended 13 public meetings. I'm glad I had the energy to go to them. And on some days it's been two and three and I'll try and make both of these. But I think out of respect, when we start talking about importance it ought to be checked with a central calendar that -- if that is good for everybody to be on. Now, if he instructed the clerk to do that because it was important that Thursday be that date, then I think it should be also important to respect the times of the other people. I will try, as I have when there have been two and three meetings, to be at the 2 and the 3. And I will so tell him when he gets back that importance and respect is a two way street. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please? MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item B? MS. BEAZLEY: That is the job description for the equal opportunity director which has also been reviewed by the members and any recommendations that might have been made were incorporated into this description. They are asking that you accept it, approve it, and authorize this position to be advertised. MR. TODD: So moved. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: The tabled Item now? CLERK: Item 10. MR. TODD: Which one are we going back to? CLERK: Item 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10. CLERK: To consider approval to amend the UDAG Promissory Note and Loan Agreement which was previously executed between the City Council of Augusta and Ronlyn Corporation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we refer it back to committee. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to ask, when we made the motion to table there was a question that came up in reference to the time. And I believe that I may have asked the question in reference to the funding source out of that particular urban district account that applied to sales tax, particularly that may have related to historical purposes that were outlined in the ballot portion of sales tax. I specifically probably referred more readily to that which was talked about in reference to the historic corridor, and that being the Laney Walker district. As to whether or not a commitment of those funds had ever taken place and whether they had not. I believe we received a handout since that particular time and I think that the bottom line is that that committee or this commission or anybody else, when a finalization is made, all of us want to be, I think, legal. We want to be prudent. And we want to, I hope, be fair. I think the bottom line is that if anything is done other than a loan then it has to be done from a funding source. And I agree with my colleagues who questioned whether or not we should be converting one language from one situation to another. But I also question whether or not, in the intentions of those monies, as to whether or not that had ever been done. And in as much as I guess amnesia was raised, not by any certain members of this commission but we heard a lot of talk surrounding that. And I think the integrity of that project -- I think the deadlines are important. I think it means a lot to that particular area and it's not as though there has been some freebie company that has flown in; not committed any funds to an existing project already. Now if it's going to go back -- there was a question when we cut off the dialogue. I don't know whether the attorney for that particular company is here or not but if it's going back to committee I can support that if there is not a time frame for derailing that project. If that is meeting a danger zone then I do plan to make a substitute motion and that the funds be taken from that particular account. That they be identified and that we deal with that on a grant basis as others have been done in terms of historical projects through that sales tax amount. And that the loan remain in place as is under the terms of the loan and it be paid back as such. And I need to know -- Ben, do you know whether or not that time frame has a derailment on it? Because this thing has gone on for months and months. MR. ALLEN: Yes. There is a problem with the project now in terms of the time frame. In fact, it's going to cost a little bit more money because we were hoping that the project would have been completed by now. We're going to have to go back and rebid the contract based on the slowness in getting this particular monies worked out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: I'd like to amend that motion that it goes before the committee on Monday and comes back at the next commission meeting for voting. MR. POWELL: I'll accept that friendly amendment. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I think we instructed the comptroller to go and get us the information as far as funding sources and I'd like to hear from the comptroller and hear ways of this -- possibility of this being doable. We talk about, you know, how long it takes us to do things and we want to speed up certain things and other things we want to shut down. This is either a worthy project or it's not. Based on the merits of the project and what -- in the area, etc cetera. And Mr. McKie, I'd like to hear from you on possible funding sources and what we could possibly do. MR. MCKIE: Gentlemen, in the correspondence I identified fund 340 of the Urban Tax District which is special purpose local option sales phase 2 for the city as having sufficient uncommitted funds in it's balance for a historical project of this size. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Phase 2 sales tax did not -- the resolution that was adopted by the county commission at that time, and that is the one who had to put in place the special purpose local option sales tax, was for road improvements and drainage. It did not include historical projects. The county commission did not have control over what the city did. You now have control over the expenditure of these funds by virtue of this. And when the question was posed to me earlier this year about whether or not Phase 2 special purpose local option sales tax could be used to fund this project, it is my -- was my opinion and remains my opinion that that is not a proper expenditure of those monies. And I think all of you need to know that that is a limitation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: My question would be to our able county attorney is that, is Phase 3 sales tax funds a proper expenditure per the resolution of the referendum? MR. WALL: Phase 3 sales tax funds could be used for a project like this. However, I would point out that this is not one that was identified. But on the city side there was some very general categories and I think that it could be made to fit within those general categories. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my I ask Mr. Wall? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: I agree with what you've read in reference to what the county commission of Richmond County did on that particular phase but was there not a different wording which came forth on the city side of that particular sales tax ballot for allowances? And I realize who supervised that particular amount of money. And I think whether it was to get votes from people in the urban district to approve the sales tax or not, that there was an allowance made there for a difference of types of projects than there were in the suburban area. Now, whether that was written into the ballot or not, that was done. And I believe there has been a release of funds by the old city of Augusta in order to deal with those type of projects. And I just want to know whether I'm right or wrong on that? MR. WALL: Well, you are right. I guess I narrowed it too much. I mean, there were museums, Golf Hall of Fame, Science Centers. Those were authorized purposes under that. But there is nothing insofar as historical preservation or anything that would extend -- that I can make this project fit in under. MR. MAYS: We're getting to the bible now. A minor interpretation and it's going back mighty far. MR. WALL: Well, I don't have it in front of me because I wasn't aware that question was going to come up but I do remember looking at it earlier this year. I mean, I -- under the phase 2, I don't think it qualifies. Under phase 3, I think it does qualify. MR. MAYS: Well, we won't box about somebody else's old business. I guess that committee is a place to handle it. But I think if we're going to definitely get in to that, there have been expenditures that have been released. Now, whether an old building was named a museum, whether it was just named an old building or an antique or historic structure or whatever might have been the technical name for it, there were funds that were released under that sales tax. And that provision was so granted so that those entities that you did name downtown --that maybe it didn't go any further south than Reynolds Street -- were allowed to go under it. And then when the political repercussions occurred and other folks started hollering, then that's when the provisions were made for Laney Walker Boulevard and for other places. And what my question was earlier today, whether any of that money ever trickled out that way and ran south. And if it was still there and hadn't been used -- then if it hadn't been, that can be an identifiable source of funds in order for it to come from. But, I mean, you know, I'm not going to argue with us about it. I think we inherited that deal. But I do think that it's fair to say that there have been releases of sales tax money for things other than what have been defined in the county's portion of that ballot. Whether we want to go on phase 1, 2 or the one coming up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I want to do what the referendum called for in the sales tax. I think that I've been there, I've been consistent with that and I'll remain there. And if there referendums say that we can look at phase 3, then certainly I'd encourage the committee, which I'm not on, to take a strong look at phase 3 and see what we can do. If it say we cannot use phase 2 then regardless of what we've done in the past, and I know we've done some things that have been in gray areas -- or some have, I'd encourage us not to do that. Because five years is a short time gentlemen. And we're going to have another referendum, probably, on one penny. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The only thing I say is, Mr. Todd is absolutely correct. And those who didn't get and still ain't getting will certainly remember further than anybody else. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. MAYS, NO, MR. TODD PRESENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Is there any other business? Any other business? This meeting stands adjourned. COMMISSION - COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNED. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council held on August 20, 1996. ________________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council