Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS September 3, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:20 P.M., Tuesday, September 3, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We're going to have the Invocation today by the Reverend Steve Murell, Pastor of the National Hills Baptist Church. If you'll remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND MURELL. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request from the License and Inspections Department to add ten items of discussion for alcoholic beverage licenses. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all we have? CLERK: Yes, sir. No deletions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am? CLERK: No deletions. MAYOR SCONYERS: No deletions. Do I hear a motion that we accept the additions? MR. KUHLKE: I move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess my concern would be what happened that we didn't get them on the agenda that went out to the general public? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I think, Mr. Todd, that there was some misunderstanding that we were going to a committee of the whole at this meeting and, therefore, the -- Mr. Meyer missed the committee meeting the last time. MR. TODD: Okay. Were there any objectors? Well, I guess we didn't have a -- were there any objectors -- did any objectors show up at the committee meeting? MR. KUHLKE: Not that I recall, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer is here, Mr. Todd, if you want to ask him anything. MR. TODD: The, I guess, ten items or ever how many that we're adding, alcohol beverages, to your knowledge, are there any objectors or are there any controversial -- MR. MEYER: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO; MR. HANDY AND MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION FAILS 7-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, now. You weren't opposed to adding those to the -- were you? MR. ZETTERBERG: I was opposed to adding them as a consent. I did not realize -- I know there is an objection to one of them that I will have to personally abstain from, but I do know there is an objection to one of them. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it possible that we can withdraw that one or pull that one from the ones we're adding and do the others? MR. ZETTERBERG CONFERS WITH MAYOR SCONYERS AND MR. WALL. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to request a copy of that addendum also; locations, et cetera. MR. J. BRIGHAM: [Inaudible.] MR. TODD: We have it? Thanks, I have it, Mr. Mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to change my vote to affirmative. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, why don't we vote again on that just to make sure. All in favor of adding the items to the agenda, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Delegation: Mr. George Cunningham, in reference to new government structure. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen-Commissioners, I stand up here today -- and I picked up the agenda this morning when I came in. Ms. Bonner told me I'd have five minutes, and when the agenda -- picked up the agenda and had it in writing that I'd have five minutes, and I felt like that maybe I was in the wrong place. I know this is the right time, but if I'm in the right place I need more than five minutes. Now, if I'm not in the right place and y'all see fit to refer me, I would like to meet with the Commission as a committee of a whole, as a whole, if I'm not going to be allowed any more than five minutes here today, because the five minutes will not accomplish what I want to accomplish. Now, what I want to accomplish is to take and thank y'all for what you've done up to this point and to tell you that you just haven't done enough. And I want you to know how important it is and how long I've been trying with this thing. In August 1972 I wrote this to the Chamber of Commerce, an open letter to the Chamber: [Reads] I have met with numerous public officials to arrive at these conclusions. The City of Augusta has been allowed to deteriorate due to a lack of effective management of most of its operating departments. The Fire Department and Bush Field are the only bright spots to be seen. The city has not properly cleaned, permitted --has not properly cleaned, permitted trash to clog storm drains. Trash and garbage is not properly removed. The parks and playgrounds are poorly kept. The public lands and buildings suffer from neglect. Much of this deterioration has occurred over many years and is not necessarily the fault of those now in office. It is hoped that the new mayor will have the fortitude to manage the city more effectively so that the suburbs will want to be a part of a progressive city. The suburb in Richmond County is probably the most populous area in the United States trying to operate under this form of government. The present Commissioners, as well as former Commissioners, have given up in disgust. Our state legislative delegation has not assisted the Commission to get the necessary governing authority. A former delegation went so far as to sponsor legislation to prevent formation of other cities in Richmond County. Now, that was dated August the 24th, 1972, and was a open letter to the Chamber of Commerce. I have in my hand the Chamber of Commerce publication of October 1974. At the time, Mr. Richard Daniels was the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the address on this is six-something Greene -- 624 Greene Street, so it was before anything was done to Broad Street and the Chamber of Commerce. And Mr. Daniels writes this letter concerning the election of 1974, an open letter to the membership: [Reads] The November elections are close at hand, and we the electorate have determined --will determine who will lead our community in 1975. Businessmen have traditionally shunned politics, and particularly in government, yet politics and government play an increasing role in the operation of business. I urge you to examine the issues facing our community. Local government is big business. Practices -- is big business. It should be operated on solid business practices and procedures. Talk with candidates, question the candidates, challenge the candidates, let them know of your concern as businessmen and women. Our greatest need is for leaders: men and women who, once elected, will initiate and support what is best for our community. Your Chamber of Commerce strongly believes that the future progress of our community depends on at least three factors. They are: a single modern government for Richmond County; continued progress and balanced economic development of a total community; improvement of our community environment as a good place to live and conduct business. If the candidate is reelected -- if the candidate is for reelection, determine what he has done in these three areas. If the candidate is for election, how does he or she plan to move ahead in these areas? And most of all, do these plans make business sense? I urge you to seek information, vote, and encourage your association -- your associates to vote. You can make the difference. T. Richard Daniels, President, Chamber of Commerce. Now, as I stand here before you today, that's the footing, the background, that I can give you as to why and how long this thing has been going on. You folks -- and thank God for you. I'm happy that the people that are here are here, because you had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and run for these public offices in spite of these adversarial situations that had been existing for many, many years. I'm sure they existed before this, but I came along about that time and Mr. Richard Daniels and some others came along. And if you'll think about it, 1972, and I was born in 1925, I was 27 years -- what was I? -- 20-something. Anyway, I was a young fellow, and I was out there full of -- and I've been fighting it ever since. And you fellows have got a job to do, and if y'all will not get together and do it, then we have to put plan B into effect. Now, the 1st of September was the last day that any of you could have been strucken down by death or got tired and quit and that kind of thing and we could have had another election. In other words, there's five of you - - five of the Commissioners and the Mayor up there, that if anything happens to you, you've got to take and -- this body has got to put somebody else in there that they think are qualified. And I don't know who you're going to get that's going to take it under those -- these conditions. I think -- I mean, really y'all were foolish for doing it. I don't know anybody that I'd put it on, you know, to put in there. So we've got to depend on y'all, and -- but we've got -- y'all have got to do some things that's got to be done, got to be done quick, because come around -- right now we've got a national election on our mind, which I've tried to put in the background and haven't got involved in, but after the election -- and when these tax bills go out that you hear all this talking about, people are questioning it. People need facts, figures, you know, how they stand. We don't have a code to operate by. The things that y'all approve for five minutes me standing up here, I don't know whether to take that serious or not, because I get up here and take five minutes and try to tell you what I want to tell you and the next man comes along here spends five minutes wanting to tell you what he wants you to give him because he deserves it, you know. So I've been at all of your committee -- I've been at just about every committee meeting. And several years ago Sylvia Cooper sitting down there told me, said "George, they don't pay no attention to you, what are you talking about?" I said, "Well, someday they will." And today's the day. If y'all don't want to pay attention to this, then y'all are going to have to confront me on another level right down the line. Now, the last thing that I want to do is get involved in the courts because the courts are no more capable -- are not as capable as the people that have got it messed up. The people that have got it messed up have got it messed up because they depended on the courts or they depended on somebody else to do it. This community -- y'all have got to take a hold of this community and run this community and agree within yourselves, and let's -- some of you have said, and I've said many, many times, six of you can do anything that you want to do as long as it's reasonable. But when you come out with something that ain't reasonable, then them other four is going to be fighting you. And there's a small line between six and four, because it only takes two votes to change it. So I could stand up here all day long and elaborate on different things, but each one of these things have to be taken one at the time. And I've sat in committees, I've sat right out here, and I'm sure before the day is over I'll see some more. They are simple. They've been done before. It's not new ground -- it's not virgin ground, if a fellow wants to call it that. They're not new ground, they're not strange, they're mess- ups by human beings that can be straightened out by human beings. But you hired Mr. Carstarphen to come in here and do it, and it looks like he ain't making no headway to taking and getting this group together. I mean, I sit in these meetings and I hear people got all kind of problems. Y'all have got to get together. It don't make any difference whether it's fixing the cemeteries -- if you want to hang something on the ex-mayor and put him in jail like they did McIntyre, he's supposed to keep that cemetery clean down there. That's one of his jobs, to keep the cemetery clean, and he didn't do it. So I mean, you know, if you're looking for something -- like Al Capone, the only thing they could hang on Al Capone was income tax evasion. So I guess y'all have heard enough of me to know who George Cunningham is and where he's coming from, but I want everybody to know I told the lady, I said, "Lena," I said, "put me down there as past master of Social Lodge Number 1, F&AM, Augusta, Georgia. I see she didn't do it. But I did it to serve a purpose, that I'm a man of determination; I've worked for a received a masters wages; I've been tried and never denied, and I'm ready and willing to be tried again. So if y'all want to try me, just let's go with it. I appreciate y'all. Don't none of you resign, because the rest of you will have to appoint somebody to replace them. I say none of you, there's five of you here that could resign and we could have another election for the ones that's got a little time. But don't leave, just learn to get along together, for goodness sakes. Now, have I ever told any of y'all anything any different from this? I've told every one of you this over and over again. And you've got to get along. I'll guarantee you that there's people right in this room that are just waiting to suck blood, to clip you, and so you've got to get along. I thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Mr. Cunningham's comments as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Item 1: Consider approval of a request for payment of an invoice from King & Spalding. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we refer this back to the County Attorney, for the County Attorney to do an assessment and possibly negotiate it. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO; MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please. CLERK: Items 2 through 15 were all approved by the Finance Committee on August 26th, 1996. [Item 2: Consider approval of purchase of prior year service for Helen A. Norris. Item 3: Consider approval of purchase of prior year service for Billy M. Eubanks. Item 4: Consider approval of purchase of prior year service for Thomas E. Price, Sr. Item 5: Consider approval of purchase of prior year service for Jack F. Murphy. Item 6: Consider approval of a list of business and personal property accounts to be declared insolvent. Item 7: Consider approval of a list of expired city tax accounts for years 1984 through 1988 to be declared insolvent. Item 8: Consider approval of Abatement on taxes on government owned property. Item 9: Consider approval of a request to hire Mr. John Brown to write specifications for fire escape renovations for the District Attorney's Office. Item 10: Consider approval of payment of invoice from the architects of Lake Olmstead Stadium. Item 11: Consider approval of annual operating budget for the Food Stamp Distribution Program. Item 12: Consider approval to request RFP's for utility bill audit service. Item 13: Consider approval of a tax refund for Cheryl C. Maddox. Item 14: Consider approval of a request from KMC Southeast Corporation for an extension. Item 15: Consider approval of a request from Mr. Jimmy Findlay regarding partial waiver of demolition charge for Map 61-2, Parcel 169.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Finance Committee would like to submit these as a consent agenda and ask for y'all to approve these items. I've had -- MR. HANDY: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I've had no communications from anybody to discuss any of them individually. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Items 16 through 26 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on August 26th, 1996. [Item 16: Consider approval of a grant for the Ronlyn Corporation for relocation of its headquarters to the Historic Laney-Walker corridor. Item 17: Consider approval of a request from the Tax Commissioner requesting consideration of filling the existing position of Bankruptcy Clerk. Item 18: Consider approval of the rebidding of 982 Broad Street and 984 Broad Street facade restoration projects. Item 19: Consider approval of the recommendations from CD Director regarding revision to the Facade Rehabilitation Grant Program Guideline concerning Lead-Base Paint removal and restricting the number of Facade projects per contractor. Item 20: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $15,000 for 658-662 Broad Street. Item 21: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $15,000 for 822-824 Broad Street. Item 22: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $30,000 for 519 Greene Street. Item 23: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $15,000 for 1030 Greene Street. Item 24: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $30,000 for 1102 Laney-Walker Blvd. Item 25: Consider approval of the CD Director and Architect recommendations to approve an application for a Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $30,000 for 415 Seventh Street. Item 26: Consider approval to accept a grant to continue the HOME program for the Suburban Area from The Georgia Department of Community Affairs.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take this as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's 16 through 26. I have a motion by -- MR. HANDY: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item Number 16 for discussion, please. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 17. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to pull Items 16 and 17. So you're going to take 18 through 26; is that correct, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm missing a page out of my agenda, so I -- I stop at 9 and go on to -- start back up at 22, so I don't have that. THE CLERK PROFFERS AGENDA TO MR. POWELL. MR. POWELL: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Item 18 through 26. I have a motion by Mr. Powell. Do I have a second to Mr. Powell's motion, gentlemen? CLERK: Mr. Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy seconded it? Okay. MR. HANDY: Yeah, I seconded. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I had a question on Number 18. Just a question. Did something happen to this contractor that did this work? I mean, does he get put on a black list or is he -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: On this particular case, he bid it, he was not able to get the bond and the insurance that was required. It goes back to February, so we're asking that you take this action -- MR. ZETTERBERG: So it dealt with the bond, not just his timing? MR. PATTY: Right. To answer your question, no, I think he could bid another job. But if we had the same problem, we'd do the same thing. But I don't think we could blackball him from the program. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, he sure put us through a lot of inconvenience, though, and stopped progress. MR. PATTY: It's your call. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. I guess, Mr. Mayor, my concern would be are we talking about the performance bond and insurance, and is this a small or minority business where we've made some provisions to do some things along the line of helping small and minority businesses? MR. PATTY: Okay, to answer your question, I believe that it is a minority business. And we do have a provision on certain jobs that are not complicated, that are covered with unknowns -- keep in mind these are facade restoration projects. We allow those type of jobs to be bid without a bonding requirement. But on the ones that are complicated that the owner won't agree to that, then we do require a bond and insurance, and this is one of those. MR. TODD: Right. And I guess my other question, can you share briefly some of the -- gist it for me the position of the firm that we're taking the work from. Do they have a problem with it or do they understand or are we looking at litigation or? MR. PATTY: I doubt that there will be litigation. Like I say, this was bid in February, and we started worrying and talking to them daily in April and we've just not been able to get anywhere with them. We've tried to work with them. MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Item 16: Consider approval of a grant for the Ronlyn Corporation for relocation of its headquarters to the Historic Laney-Walker corridor. Approved by Administrative Services August 26, 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I read the short letter, and I understand that this is an amendment to a UDAG loan note, and I don't really understand all of the details. I see Mr. Allen here, who I think is representing the firm, and I'd like a little further explanation. And, Mr. Allen, before you say anything, I think my concern here is that, and from the way I understand it, is that this was a loan made by the previous city government to your client. There were some other promises that I understand that the city administration had made to your client that did not come through, and that there is a request to convert this loan to a grant. And I worry about that setting a precedent in doing this, so I would appreciate any information that you may give to me. MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. You are correct. There were certain statements made to the Ronlyn Corporation about monies, and one was to give a $100,000 loan, and presently that loan is being serviced by Ronlyn. The other one was to give Ronlyn a $100,000 grant. Now, all of this is going in the Laney- Walker corridor, an area that this Commission and I think this community believes to be one that needs to be developed, and Ronlyn Corporation is moving its corporate headquarters there. And as I've explained to the Commissioners before, this is not a fly-by- night operation. This is a multi-million dollar corporation that has been in this community servicing contracts, food service contracts, for over ten years; has the food service contract out at Fort Gordon; did work with the Olympics this past Olympic season; has headquarters -- has an office in Atlanta. So we're talking about a, you know, small minority firm that has a great track record, wants to remain in this area here, wants to be in the Laney-Walker corridor. And we believe by this Commission going forth with what the subcommittee said last week, the subcommittee talked about -- and they expressed some of the same concerns that you have about forgiving an existing loan. and there were members who talked about giving to Ronlyn a grant provided two things were met, the first thing being that it was to be given out of funds that were available to service the Laney-Walker area. My understanding, there are funds available that will -- from monies that could be made available to Ronlyn that are earmarked for the Laney-Walker area. And, also, it was my understanding that the subcommittee indicated that if there was a need, which being the second prong of the puzzle, then if we could show that there is a need to do certain things in that area, then the money would be made available, a new grant. Now, that was my understanding that was coming out of that subcommittee. You know, so we're no longer talking about redoing the existing $100,000 loan, we're talking about fulfilling the requirement of a new $100,000 grant. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Item 16. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we approve it -- second that motion to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I have a couple of questions. Probably one would be, if we're talking about UDAG money, then can we -- you know, the question would be can we reprogram and do a forgivable loan? I don't have a problem with doing a forgivable loan -- I mean forgivable loan or grant, because that's what UDAG money is supposed to be about. From my understanding of the scope of how UDAG money is used, it's for blighted areas. Certainly the Laney-Walker corridor is a blighted area. I think that probably over the years that we've probably misappropriated a lot of money--community block grant money, UDAG money--in the sense that it didn't go to true blighted areas. And even when we would have the meetings here, I guess the former government and the community, and decide that we were going to target areas that was blighted areas, we would come back and we would reprogram those funds to a area that wasn't necessarily a blighted area, or we would do things in political interests depending on what the political season was. Certainly we want revitalization in the urban service district, the downtown area, whether we're talking about from Broad Street to Laney-Walker, and I've heard a commitment from many of us that the community block grant money and the UDAG money is not just going to be spent, you know, east of Greene Street. I would hope that we would live up to that commitment as far as where those funds go. I don't think that anyone in this community has objected to other UDAG funds being spent on Riverwalk. We understand the necessity of Riverwalk. We're trying to do a revitalization of the Laney- Walker corridor. There was money put in the one-penny sales tax for a new health department that's going in there; there was money put in the one-penny sales tax for the Laney-Walker museum; there was money put in the one-penny sales tax for Immaculate Conception, which is a Catholic school that's operating in that community; and there was money put in the one-cent sales tax for other projects in the Laney-Walker corridor. I think that where we may not all agree that we should give grants, there's grants been given in the past, there's forgivable loans been given in the past, or they've been so close to a forgivable loan that they'll probably never be paid back. And I'm not going to rehash my argument over the loan that I mentioned last time that will probably never be paid back as far as naming the personalities and the entities. That will probably never be paid back, because they're obligated to pay us 20 percent of the net and most likely they will never have a net, and this is several million dollars. We're talking about a mere $100,000 to a company that employs over 300 individuals in this community from time to time, that do work in this metropolitan area, both sides of the river, and in other areas of this state. And I think it make good business sense regardless of what the previous mayor may or may not have promised, regardless of what the previous government may or may not have promised. We're, you know, fixing broken promises almost daily down here, and certainly, you know, we're going to continue to do some. But regardless of what was promised, if it make good business sense to locate a multi-million dollar operation, small business, minority business, in the Laney-Walker corridor, and if we can do it for $100,000, then I think we should do it. We certainly --when we're dealing with new industry, I've sat here and spent a great deal more than that to bring in 150 jobs or 200 jobs through industrial development authority, et cetera. If we're going to do economic development, let's do economic development. And if there's opportunity here to do something in a blighted area, then let's for once do something significant in a blighted area. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. I have no problem supporting the development of the historic Laney-Walker district. I do have some concerns about the way this was -- how this money came into being. Is the $100,000 loan -- we are co-signed with that note; right? Or we loaned that money? MR. ALLEN: The money -- now, you're talking about a separate animal now. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm not talking about the grant, I'm talking about the $100,000 loan. MR. ALLEN: That presently Ronlyn is servicing, repaying; is that what you're talking about now? MR. ZETTERBERG: Right. Now, is it the intent, if the $100,000 grant was given for the Laney-Walker corridor, that Mr. Brown would be paying off that loan? MR. ALLEN: He's going to continue to service that loan according to the terms that are in effect now. MR. ZETTERBERG: Does that mean there's now $200,000 that we have given downtown, one through a loan and one through a grant? MR. ALLEN: That would be correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Now, why would we do that? MR. ALLEN: Why would you do that? MR. ZETTERBERG: When the intent was only to give one $100,000. MR. ALLEN: No, no, no. The -- in the beginning when Ronlyn went before the mayor and City Council, what was requested was the $100,000 loan that he is -- that the company is presently paying off now, plus there was supposed to have been a $100,000 grant. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's the first time I've heard that. I'm not saying that that's not incorrect, but that's the very first time I've ever heard that. MR. ALLEN: That is the way it has been explained from day one that we have come before this body. Now, when we originally came before this body and what we originally requested was that we had negotiated with your attorney to do -- basically say, well, convert the existing loan a forgivable loan. Now, that's what -- you know, we just said, well, let's not get into a lot of legalese, let's just resolve the dispute that we have and let's do it this way: instead of having $200,000 dangling out here, let's just have one $100,000 dangling out here and convert the existing loan to a forgivable loan. But there were those among you who indicated that you could not live with that, and so basically, you know -- and the question was put to us were we willing to pay the existing $100,000 loan. Yes, we're willing to pay it. We will continue to service that particular loan. MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess my question was I never knew that it was a $200,000 loan. MR. ALLEN: No, no, no, it's not a -- it is not -- it is not -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I never knew it was $200,000, loan, grant, or anything. I thought it was $100,000. And I was against forgiving a legal contract that somebody had entered into with full knowledge of doing it, probably under the advice of counsel, and that I didn't want to set a precedence for the mayor thinking -- or any mayor thinking that he could make these kind of idle promises and hold our feet to the fire of doing it. So I was concerned. Now I'm finding out it's $200,000, one forgivable loan and one grant, and I just have a question about that. MR. ALLEN: No, no, no. No. That's not correct. That's not what we're saying. That's not what we're saying. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if I'm mistaken -- MR. ALLEN: Yeah. That's not -- that is not what we're saying. We're saying that presently Ronlyn is servicing a $100,000 loan. That is not a forgivable loan; we are paying that money back. We have no problems with paying that money back. We want to continue to service that loan. We think it make good business sense to continue to service that loan and pay it out over the period of time as specified in that particular loan contract. MR. ZETTERBERG: But we loaned it; is that true? MR. ALLEN: It was loaned through the community block grant department. So you -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And it was always intended to be $200,000? MR. ALLEN: That is correct. It was supposed to have been that particular loan that we're paying off plus the $100,000 grant. Now, when we initially came back before you all with our compromise that we had worked out, there were those who indicated that you could not live with the compromise, so we started all over from square one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Allen, I'm a little confused. In our agenda book, the letter from our attorney, Mr. Wall, is to convert the existing UDAG promissory note to a grant, which is in a little bit of a conflict of Item Number 16 which says that we are going to give you a grant. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other, is it not? I mean, if we convert the existing promissory note to a grant, then there's no other money involved; right? MR. ALLEN: If it's done that way, that is correct. MR. KUHLKE: There's no other money. So isn't that what you are requesting, that we basically convert that promissory note to a grant? MR. ALLEN: Let me tell you what happened. Let me tell you what happened. Initially you're correct, but that was almost a month ago that when we came before this body with a proposed settlement, this body rejected that proposed settlement, sent it, you know, back to committee, and then in committee -- the committee last Monday decided that what it would prefer to do was to give a new $100,000 grant and just leave alone the $100,000 loan that is being serviced by Ronlyn. MR. WALL: May I -- MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: Mr. Allen, I was not at the committee meeting, and I realize the minutes are not verbatim and, frankly, from reading the minutes I'm not sure exactly what was done. Because the motion was made to send it to the full Commission, that was seconded, and then Mr. Mays commented "This Commission can make a decision if the funding source is there and if the merits of the project deserve having grant money out of a legitimate legal funding source. I think you do have both a funding source and a need." And Mr. Brigham accepted that amendment, and then the Chairman, "We can add that as an amendment based upon the availability of funding and the need," and then that motion passed. So it's not clear to me whether the motion was simply to send it to the full Commission for a decision or whether it was to be a grant. And let me expound on what you've said about -- in response to Mr. Zetterberg's question. Perhaps we've done a poor job of explaining it. But initially when the situation presented itself through George Patty's office and through Mr. Allen and Mr. Brown there were two pots of money: one, a $100,000 loan that was in place -- he had that money and it had a repayment schedule. But there was an indication that there was a second pot of money, $100,000 that was to be a grant to come from sales tax funds. That second pot of money was never delivered in December by the former City Council. It came then through the discussions. I have some concerns about giving $100,000 out of sales tax money out of Phase II sales tax for this project. We then met. Since you've given him 100,000, 100,000 has to be paid back. He would wind up with a net of $100,000 when all is said and done. If we simply made the loan agreement, changed it to the same type of forgivable loan that has been done on other projects where if he complies with certain requirements--that is, creates a certain number of jobs, et cetera--then he would not have to pay that loan back. He would wind up in the same position ultimately, if he met those terms, of having a net of $100,000. So therefore, through the discussions with Ben, that's what was drafted was an amendment to the loan document basically saying that if he fulfilled those conditions -- it's not automatically a gift to him. He's got to meet the loan conditions of creating a certain amount of jobs, et cetera. And if those conditions are met, then like many other UDAG loans, those monies do not have to be paid back. Now, these are UDAG funds. They go back into a revolving loan fund that are there to either make loans to other businesses or to make grants to other businesses. And so this was an effort to use the existing money that had already been paid out, the $100,000 that he already had, not pay any additional money out. So it didn't cost the city or the consolidated government any additional funds by way of current expenditure, but simply provided that if he met those conditions that loan did not have to be repaid, such that when all is said and done he would wind up in the same position as if the loan had been repaid and the grant had been made. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, the committee decided that the Ronlyn Corporation met those requirements that were stated in the last meeting, and this is why we approved this in the Administrative Services Committee, and this is why it was put on the agenda as Item Number 16, and I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I still have not heard a funding source identified. If it's to be used for historical purposes -- I doubt whether or not this would be a historical item and, therefore, I don't think sales tax money can be used. If you're going to give $100,000 grant, I need to know where it's coming from before I can vote on this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. McKie in the room? Can you get him for us? MR. BEARD: As I understood it, Mr. McKie stated at the last meeting that it was available. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, do you want to go ahead while we're waiting on Mr. McKie? MR. MAYS: Yeah. You know, I -- I don't know, maybe we just could play the tape back from the original meeting. It sounds like I'm going back over something that we were over when we made the motion in the original meeting. We put this off during that regular meeting, and it was tabled in the essence of time and we came back to it at the very end. And at that particular time Mr. McKie was in the meeting and he said it would take about five minutes to get it, and as my colleagues remember, we moved on from the table and -- in order to get that identifiable funding source. For those who were not at the committee meeting -- and I'm not a member of that committee, and I want to say that I was just as much not in favor of striking the compromise as I was in terms of trying to get this whole thing pushed through in a legitimate way and keep the integrity of the project as it started off. Now, the funding source -- this has been about the third time that I've heard a request about the funding source. In committee, which I'm not a member of, and I probably helped to shape the motion that came out of that committee even though I didn't have a vote, but I argued from the standpoint of two purposes. It was said by committee members that were present, and other Commission members, that we forget about what had occurred in the past, let's deal with it on its merits. So I put up the argument for the merits, and the merits were at that particular time did we have a funding source that could be identified that was legitimate and legal. It was stated that it so was. It was stated at the end of this meeting on that day where the funds were found. Not only was it stated that day, it's been stated four to five months ago where they were identified at. Now, in the committee meeting on last week it was so stated again that they had been identified. Now, there's a difference of philosophy in there, and there may be a difference of what we deal with legally. And Jim is the only attorney that's sitting here, but he read for us at the meeting before when -- he was not at committee meeting, but he did read for us what was on the 1992 ballot as it applied in the suburban area, and which I made a point of, and I believe he said I was right, and I stand to be corrected if he didn't say that I was right. That inside the urban area, which was the old City of Augusta, that they did have different sources that were, right or wrong, illegal or illegal, that were on their ballots at that time which was worded different from what was done in the rest of the county. You had a split wording of what was there, and there was allowed a provision to deal with those historical things, to deal with those museums. That was how a lot of stuff that got north of Broad Street got created was through that particular provision. And it was done and sold to people inside the city limits so that --and particularly in Laney-Walker and predominantly black areas -- that they would support the sales tax, which in many cases they had only seen remnants of what had been done in the others that had been passed. So that was the reason of how that came about and where that provisional funding source came from. So we, in turn, dropped whatever had been discussed with former-mayor DeVaney and said move ahead with whether or not you have a legitimate funding source. That's where I thought we were when we left committee the other day. There were members who were not on that committee that were there and were sitting there present when that dis-cussion was made. Now, maybe they didn't understand that again, and with all the confusion that's gone on I can see how it has been. But I would think -- and I drifted back to this: what was the original proposal that would take to make that project work. That was what was most important. That funding was laid out. It also should be pointed out, which it was in committee, which was pointed out on this Commission floor, that it was not a fully government funded project. Hundreds of thousands of dollars by the president of that corporation have been put into this particular project, and it was going to take that grant provision in order to make it work. If it didn't make it work, they were going to have to go out and deal with something else, which they were willing to do. But if it had been promised, if there was a funding source, if it was legal to do, that's the only thing I think that Mr. Brown has asked from the very beginning. He basically got caught up in the compromise of this thing so that it could basically disappear. He's still going to have to pay back the $100,000 or will only net 100,000 that was in there and basically feeling that that was all he was going to get was what was brought to this table at the very beginning. But I objected to that myself, and I told Ron that. If the original project was so stated that it should have been two sources of funding and they could be identified, then it should go back to the original project, and I still support that. I think that committee passed that the other day. The sources were identified, and I think if they need to be reidentified -- and if Mr. Wall needs to make a verification on what was stated in '92 as to whether or not the former City of Augusta, right, wrong or indifferent, had been using those funds on other projects in order to deal with the same thing out of sales tax, I think that ought to be brought out. But the only thing I said from the beginning, lay everything on the table so that there's nothing to hide with it. Just like when I called for the motion to bring the people down here on the riverfront project a month ago, and to bring them there so that we could bring that one to a head. Not that anything was wrong, but that it ought to clear the air. And I think when we cleared the air everybody felt better about it, so we ought to clear the air on this one. And I think the sources have been identified, and I think it's just a matter of whether this Commission has the will to go ahead and say you have a legitimate funding source that's there and you have a legitimate project which improves blight, which corrects an area, and which improves -- I would debate the factors as to whether or not it's not a historical building. It was the first bank that was moved out in our area since Penny Savings Bank closed down during the Depression, and it packed up and left. And at least it was out there, but it left us without even not an instant banker, and which would be another big building sitting on Laney-Walker Boulevard growing grass and something else for somebody to throw bricks through the windows with. So I think it's a legitimate project. So I think that's what we have to make a decision on, not so much what the other government did but whether or not it's legitimate, whether it's legal, whether there's a funding source, and I think those things have been done. I think they've been done more than one time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. McKie is here. Do you want to ask him again, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, in your opinion, can one-percent sales tax be used in a historical district or does it have to be used on a historical building? MR. McKIE: I can't answer that. As I understood it, it's for historical purposes. I mean, I'm not sitting here looking at the -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm not either, and I'm going on staff recommendations. MR. McKIE: That's a question for Mr. Wall. If it's legal to spend -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I know there's money for historical monies, but has it got to be used on a particular type building or does it have to be used -- can it be used in a historical district, that's what I need to know. MR. McKIE: As I recall, and Mr. Wall is looking at the language, it was for historical purposes, I believe. But all he has to do is read it right there. MR. WALL: The language of the referendum says for historic project within the city limits of Augusta for museums and Golf Hall of Fame, is the language here. Now, there are -- Mr. Mays, in the committee meeting, the funds that were available, as I read the minutes, were UDAG funds, and there are UDAG funds available. And I would prefer, if you're going to make the grant, make the grant out of UDAG funds. Because with museums, Golf Hall of Fame, the type businesses -- or type enterprises there are non-profit organizations. Here you're talking about making a grant of sales tax funds to a for-profit business, and I think that that is extremely dangerous. Money is available through the UDAG funds. If you're going to make a grant, I urge you to do it out of UDAG funds and not the sales tax. MR. MAYS: Will we take back those that have been -- that the City of Augusta has formerly used, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, I don't have the information as far as what has been done by the City of Augusta, and we can't respond to that. What we have to do, I think, is make decisions based upon the resolution, the interpretation of that, and what we view to be the proper thing to do. I don't know whether or not any was given for for-profit businesses, grants from sales tax funds or not. Perhaps it was. Just because it was done doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do, and I urge you not to do that. MR. MAYS: Weren't we the monitoring source overall for it, the County of Richmond? MR. WALL: We were to be the monitoring source. MR. MAYS: No, I'm not asking were we to be. Weren't we, since 1987, the monitoring source for whatever the city did in reference to sales tax, whether it was under a gentleman's agreement or a different written portion of the ballot? MR. WALL: You are correct. By law we are the monitoring source. MR. MAYS: So if they screwed up, then we were the monitoring source that ought to have caught it? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. MAYS: Okay. All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Allen, I believe, if my information is correct, that the loan made to your client was made from recaptured UDAG funds; is that correct? MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And when was that loan supposed to begin amortization? MR. ALLEN: It's already begun. MR. KUHLKE: When was it? MR. BROWN: Once we finish construction, which construction has been put off pending this here for almost ten months now. MR. KUHLKE: So you don't have to start repaying until you complete all your work? MR. BROWN: That's correct. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MR. ALLEN: You know, just for a little bit more information about construction, it's about a $500,000 project on Laney-Walker. About $300,000 of private funds are being placed into the project, a $100,000 loan, and then this $100,000 grant that we're asking for. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. But I think probably what I'm getting at, sort of along what Mr. Wall is talking about, that the source of funding for this and the grant that was proposed was really to -- the reason the funds came to you, there was some attempt to look and see if there was any sales tax money left in the city and there wasn't any, if I'm not mistaken, and so they had to go to the refunding of the UDAG loans to make this loan to you. MR. ALLEN: That's not exactly -- MR. KUHLKE: That's not right? MR. ALLEN: That's not exactly right. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my question was following up with what Commissioner Mays has said. If we cannot -- if we cannot do it through sales tax funds, is there any funds that are available under whatever legal mechanism, if it's CD or whatever that's left there, is there any there to do it? And I think that was what you brought us back, saying that there was some funds available somewhere to do it; is that not right, Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: [Inaudible.] MR. WALL: I talked with Mr. Patty this morning. There are sufficient funds in that account, from what you told me this morning; right? MR. PATTY: That's correct. And I'm confused at this point, as I suspect everybody else is. What they're asking for is simply a suspension of the payments over the life of this loan. And they've already got the money. I mean, it's already theirs, and the question is do you convert it to a forgivable loan from a payback loan. And that's gone, that's out. MR. KUHLKE: That's where I'm confused, though. The way I understand it is that they want to keep the 100,000, repay it, but they want another 100,000 grant. Am I off base there? MR. ALLEN: No, you're not off base. Let me tell you -- and what has happened is this thing has been discussed, rehashed, we've gone forward and then we take ten steps back, we go forward five steps and then we take another twenty steps back until we just got everybody totally confused. Originally when Ronlyn went before the governing authority with this project it was a half million dollar project: $100,000 loan, $100,000 grant, and $300,000 of Ronlyn's money going into the project. That's what we went before the governing authority for. Now, because of the transition between being a separate city and separate county and being a consolidated government, somewhere along the line $100,000 wound up missing, and that was the $100,000 grant. There were some discussions between Ronlyn and the Commission legal authority about resolving the dispute about this $100,000 grant, and one of the things that we brought back before this Commission several weeks ago was the idea about converting an existing loan to a forgivable loan, but that idea was turned down by this Commission. This Commission said no, no, no. And so we say okay, we'll start all over again. Then what we need is the $100,000 loan and the $100,000 grant if there's a way to make the grant possible. Because this Commission had problems with dealing with things that may have gone on with the city prior to consolidation. And so in order to get around that problem so they wouldn't have to just deal with going back and forth calling each others names about who promised this, who promised that, and so we could forget about it, let's say let's start all over again. Let's just say we want a $100,000 grant. Is there a funding source for a $100,000 grant to deal with the Laney- Walker corridor? Now, my understanding, there is money available to deal with projects in the Laney-Walker corridor. If that is so, then we have a legitimate business coming before this Commission asking this Commission to do something that this Commission should have done maybe a long time ago: look at projects in areas that are blighted that needs to be taken care of. We take care of everything else. You know, we take care of everything else. You know, we've gone to different areas in this community and we've taken care of certain projects. You know, I don't have to stand here and be specific about those projects that we've taken care of. And the only thing that we're asking you to do here is that we have a small minority business, a business that has been in business for more than ten years, that has employed more than 300 people, that has been a -- not only in business here in Richmond County but has done business outside of Richmond County when you consider Aiken County, have done some business in the Charleston, South Carolina, area, have done business in the Atlanta, Georgia, area. And, you know, we're going to be in business. Whether you all assist with a project that's worthwhile or not, we're going to be in business. But we're coming before you asking you to fund something that is legit, to do something that you do all the time, you know, and we keep bouncing back and forth, back and forth. You know, the bottom line is, gentlemen, let's go ahead and make a decision. If you want to go ahead and fund the $100,000 grant, let's go ahead and make a decision about that. And if we disagree with your decision, then we have a decision to make. But let's go ahead and make a decision. Let's not bounce back and forth and get everybody confused about what is going on and what should be going on. We know what is on the table, you know, and -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, then Mr. Kuhlke, then we're going to vote. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the maker of the motion to accept an amendment that the funding source be UDAG, Urban Development money. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That was Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: I have no problem with that. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Have we got an amendment to the motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. They amended it to make it UDAG money. MR. KUHLKE: All right. I wanted to ask -- and, Ben, I'm not trying to make it -- I'm confused and that's why I'm asking these questions. But if a motion were made that we take the existing loan and convert it to a grant, would that accomplish what you want? MR. ALLEN: Not really. Let me tell you why it really won't. Let me tell you why it really won't. MR. KUHLKE: You don't need to. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do y'all need the motion reread now? Do we all know what we're voting on? Would you like to have it reread? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MR. HANDY: Rereading it might get confusing. Let's leave it like it is. MR. ZETTERBERG: I can tell you I won't vote on it if I'm confused. MAYOR SCONYERS: Basically what the motion was was to approve with the money coming from a UDAG grant. Is that correct, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to -- a point of order. I requested a -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry, a roll call vote. MR. POWELL: A roll call vote. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question, Mr. Mayor. It would help me make my decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: When you all came forward, my understanding, Mr. Allen, is that you really wanted $200,000, and you accepted a $100,000 loan, and you're asking for the fulfillment of a $100,000 grant. MR. ALLEN: That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. MR. BROWN: That's how the proposal was put together in the beginning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, are we going to do a roll call vote? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Let's start on this end this time. CLERK: Okay. Mr. Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bill Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Just a minute. Can I ask one question of Mr. Patty before I vote? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Patty, do we have the funds available through Community Development in the UDAG area to make this grant? MR. PATTY: The answer to that question is yes, and I hate to say any more because of the confusion it might cause. But when -- at the end of the year -- these funds were previous to the end of the year. These funds were handled by the city's economic development program. When that program ceased to exist and it was rolled under the community development block grant program, we attempted to freeze the funds because there had been no guidelines for the use of those funds, and until a responsible program was developed we didn't feel that anymore loans or grants should be made. So the money is there, you have the right to access it if you see fit, but I would want to make that statement. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke, yes? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. CLERK: William Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. Finally. CLERK: Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Moses Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 17, please. CLERK: Item 17: Consider approval of a request from the Tax Commissioner requesting consideration of filling the existing position of the Bankruptcy Clerk. Approved by Administrative Services on August 26th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, one of my -- one of the fellow Commissioners made the statement one time that the hardest thing about this job is being consistent, and this is one of my problems I have with this Number 17. I voted for this in committee but came up with some more information after that. Maybe one of the administrators could answer it for me or, Mr. Williamson, maybe you can. This position that we're considering replacing is the Bankruptcy Clerk. My understanding is, the information I got afterwards, that that position was deleted because we thought it would be taken care of by some computerization or modernization that we were doing in that department. Could you comment on that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir. No, sir, that's not correct. This position has never been deleted from the department. It was -- at one time the government, as you know, the county government, was in some financial straits and the position was vacated by -- the person who had it left the Augusta area, and we were asked not to refill the position. So we've made do the best we could without filling that position, but the increase in bankruptcy cases has just got us sort of in a tight. And please understand that when we initially set out to try to refill this position the whole concept was that we wanted to fill it with someone who the government would consider to be surplus by virtue of the consolidation. In other words, we were hopeful that maybe we could be of some -- we could assist ourselves but assist someone else by filling this position with someone who was already on board but was considered surplus. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Williamson, I'm sure in agreement with you on the surplus. And I think that we outsourced the Internal Auditor's position, and there was at least three or four folks over there. And I understand some of them have been placed already, but at least there's one individual, possibly two, that haven't been placed. And I'm going to sit here and tell you that I'm not going to vote to go out and hire somebody when we have somebody that's well qualified already on board that can do this job. And, gentlemen, we can grow government. You know, when we consolidated we said we was going to grow jobs. Well, about all I can see that we've grown is grass out there on the right-of-ways, and possibly we've grown government. And we can grow government and we're not going to be looking at a four million dollar deficit in 1997, we're going to be looking at a ten million dollar deficit. And I think it's time that we come to the realization that we just can't hire folks because departments want them to hire; that we should at least cost it out, make them justify it. And if there's justification there, we do the hiring; if it's not, we shouldn't. And it's my opinion that we have a individual or individuals already in county government that can move over -- be transferred over and occupy this position, and we don't need a action by this board, all we need is the two administrators and the mayor to get together, and the department head, and move this individual or individuals that's out there drifting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Williamson, so what you're saying then, there was no computerization or no, I guess, technological advances made in that department to replace the -- MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, yes. Yes, there were. We did computerize it to the extent that we now have access to the Bankruptcy Clerk's office and the records, but you still have to have someone to do the computer work as well as everything else that goes with it. And unfortunately we've had in the meantime to have someone do it on a part-time basis and, quite frankly, it's just not enough. We just don't have the time to really do it the correct way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, we were told in the committee that this would be a movement within the government, and I'd like to make a motion at this time that we consider the Bankruptcy Clerk provided that it's -- the hiring come from within and from not without, that it be a transfer and not a direct hire. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Beard to make one more amendment: that that position, when it's filled from within, that it's not refilled by any other outside employee. MR. BEARD: You mean that position that is being transferred in? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MR. BEARD: Okay. I accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that so noted, ladies? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 27 through 39 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on August 26, 1996. [Item 27: Consider approval of a request to solicit proposals for Emergency Expenditures of Maintenance Funds for Hydro Seeding 11-A, 11-B Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 28: Consider approval of a request from the Environmental Engineer regarding the disposal of the contents of drums currently stored at Central Shop. Item 29: Consider approval of execution of contract documents and proper bonds for the Paving of Various Roads Phase IV (Louisa Road). Item 30: Consider approval of bid award for Resurfacing of Various Road, Phase IV. Item 31: Consider approval of deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolutions for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 12. Item 32: Consider approval of a recommendation from the ARUD for water bill adjustments for G.D. Searle and Company. Item 33: Consider approval of bid award for Liner Repairs in Pond 2A Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 34: Consider approval of the Downtown Parking Subcommittee recommendation regarding downtown parking. Item 35: Consider approval to ratify the Real Estate Contract between Richmond County and the Simkins Estate for the purchase of approximately 359 acres and the exchange of 9 acres to be conveyed to the Simkins Estate. Item 36: Consider approval of Change Order #2 for the Turknett Springs Basin, Phase I Project. Item 37: Consider approval of bid award for Rae's Creek Channel Improvements, Section II. Item 38: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment No. 1 with funding and letting project out for bids for Council Drive & Donald Road Improvements Project. Item 39: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment No. 3 and supplemental agreement concerning Barton Chapel Road Improvements, Phase I Project.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I would like to just pull 34. MAYOR SCONYERS: 34? Okay. MR. BRIDGES: I had a question on 34, Mr. Mayor, but we'll discuss it when it comes up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on 33. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to pull 33? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to take 27 through 32, skipping 33 and 34, and then 35 through 39, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 33, please. CLERK: 33: Consider approval of bid award for Liner Repairs in Pond 2A Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approved by Engineering Services August 26, 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. My question on 33 was why don't -- why aren't we going out for competitive bid on that one. And I think one of the things that I've seen all too often in this body is too much sole sourcing and not enough competitive bidding, and I think that we ought to have a policy that everything that this government does, it does on a competitive bidding purpose -- basis. MR. HICKS: Okay. Originally this item came before this body on June 18th, and at that time we had gone out for competitive bids. Bids came in from M.B. Kahn and Construction Perfected. We recommended at that time that the contract be awarded to Construction Perfected in the amount of their low bid of $84,482.92. At that time the members of the Commission expressed the interest that, to avoid a conflict of interest -- not conflict of interest but a situation occurring where we would have two contractors working on the same project, that we go back and try to deal with the prime contractor, that being M.B. Kahn, and see if they would do the repair -- the liner repair for the same amount of money that Construction Perfected would. We did that, and the -- we met with the attorney on one occasion, the engineer and I did, and then we met with M.B. Kahn with their representatives. And they did agree finally to do it for the $84,482.92, so we then recommended that it be awarded to them. But that was the lowest price that we received. MR. ZETTERBERG: So it was done through a competitive bid, but the problem was that nobody reading it would know that except you. MR. HICKS: Okay, I can agree with that. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion we accept 33? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think this is the most appropriate way to take care of this issue. I certainly would not want to be in a situation or put M.B. Kahn in a situation where someone else is coming in there and doing partial work on something that they got to guarantee for a year and be responsible for as far as the bonding of it, et cetera. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 34, please. CLERK: 34: Consider approval of the Downtown Parking Subcommittee recommendation regarding downtown parking. Approved by the Engineering Services Committee August 26th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any particular problem with this, but in the committee there was something in reference to Seventh Street, and I would just like to ask the chairman of that subcommittee, whoever is chair there, I do recall in that committee that they had also recommended that the - - that there would be no parking on Seventh Street. And I don't see this in here, and I was wondering just what was the reason for pulling that off of this, or was it pulled off, or why wasn't it given here to the full body. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, can you help us with that? MR. POWELL: Mr. Patty was the chairman of that subcommittee. He might want to address that. MR. PATTY: It was discussed at the committee meeting and it was part of the recommendation of the committee. I believe that there's a problem with a business that's affected by that parking out there, and I believe it was taken off of the recommendation because of that. MR. BEARD: Well, I would like to see that on here if the committee made a report back to the Commission. I don't think it's up to any one individual to pull that, so I think that it should be voted on along with this other. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee is still intact and we intend to keep the subcommittee active until we get a final plan together on this parking. This is not the end of it, Mr. Beard. We're still working. And there's a lot of areas and streets in the Augusta area that we're going to have to address, and I'd like to just leave it on the subcommittee and let them come back with a recommendation to us on that particular street. I think they were wanting to break it down, you know, on each street. MR. BEARD: But if they had it in the committee meeting, Mr. Powell, I see no reason why it shouldn't be given to the full Commission here to vote on. They didn't ask that they extend this, this was something that they said that they had and they had made a recommendation, so I think any recommendation that they made should be heard here. That was the purpose of it, and I don't see why, you know, someone should decide that that recommendation shouldn't be brought forth to the full Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I hear Mr. Beard's concern, and I also heard Mr. Powell state that the subcommittee will come back to us with some recommendation on Seventh Street, but at this point I'd like to move that we accept the recommendation of the subcommittee in regards to parking on Broad Street as outlined in Mr. Patty's letter of August 16th. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: As I read that, that the median parking between 6th and 11th Street will be designated for two-hour parking. That's what the committee is recommending; right? MR. PATTY: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly one day when we have the 1.5 million folks going to the Discovery Center that we were told that would be coming there when this project was stolen from District 4 and moved to District 1, I may support -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: And District 5. MR. TODD: -- I may support no parking on Seventh Street. But for now I don't see a problem as far as the traffic on Seventh Street go. We can possibly do no parking on both sides of the street or something, you know, at a later date, but I think that, you know, you can get in and out there. If someone is obstructing traffic or blocking the street, then the Sheriff should be called on them, and if they don't move it they should be towed off. It's just that simple. As any street, you're obstructing traffic. Other than that, I think that it's appropriate to have the parking and we move on until we have that 1.5 million folks coming down to Riverwalk to see that wonderful Discovery Center that we was promised we were going to have those folks for. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I just want to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard and then Mr. -- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think -- you know, I don't particularly care which way it goes on this, and I have no problem, but I think the point is that when a committee is instructed to do something and they bring it back to the body -- that's my point, not whether we have a -- you know, remove the parking sign or what, but I think this is a bad precedent to set, that when a committee goes out, then someone is going to tell them that they can't do the whole -- you know, what they can present back to Council. That's my point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to add to what the Commissioner from District 4 said. They also bypassed a nice place in District 5 to come downtown also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 40 through 43, items were approved at the Public Safety Committee August 27th, 1996. [Item 40: Consider approval of bid award of "best bid" for two-hundred (200) ballistic vests for the Sheriff's Department. Item 41: Consider approval to hire three (3) Sheriff's Deputies to supervise inmate labor crews for cemeteries. Item 42: Consider approval to terminate the three (3) existing medical contracts at the three jail facilities on December 31, 1996 and solicit proposals for a consolidated contract. Item 43: Consider approval to hire two (2) deputies for the Marshal's Department.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, Mr. Mayor. These items were voted -- discussed and voted on in committee, and I move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there was one that I wanted to discuss, and give me a second to catch up. Okay, Item Number 42, I'd certainly like to discuss that. And I would prefer to pull it out and deal with it separately, but if not, I can discuss it in the consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, is that all right with you? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, that's fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're going to vote on 40, 41, and 43. MR. TODD: Hold on a minute, Mr. Mayor. Let's do 41. That's the one that we're pulling, 41, not 42. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, 41? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Other discussion, gentlemen? Okay, Item 40, 42, and 43 is the items we're voting on. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: 41: Consider approval to hire three Sheriff's Deputies to supervise inmate labor crews for cemeteries. Approved by Public Safety Committee August 27th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I requested that this one be pulled off because I guess there's been a disagreement with some members of the board on how we should do the service delivery for the cemeteries and the perpetual care. I believe the daily paper, you know, quoting the former mayor, said we should be able to take approximately eight men per cemetery and do the cemeteries without any additional help. I'm not so sure that that methodology will work, but I do know that what we have now is not working. I am not for hiring eight men and growing government, so the first of the year after we consolidated I pushed for hiring -- at least hiring the crew guards, or the guards for the crews, to take care of sanitation, to take care of cemeteries, to take care of trees and parks and some other areas. But as I look at what we have for the different cemeteries: Cedar Grove, we have six individuals over there; Magnolia, we have eight; Westview, we have five. Certainly when I ride through the cemeteries with individuals I see that we either are sitting down on our hands in this situation -- it's a deplorable situation, I don't debate that. It's disgraceful in some areas. And my question would be what the supervision for those folks are doing, and that's from the administrator down to the department head to the foreman that's in charge of those crews, and to the individuals that's over there working. And I'm not going to bite my tongue on this issue. I think that this situation is not working because some individuals don't want it to work from the time the city made some cuts in personnel back in 1995. And the message that I'd like to send, Mr. Mayor, you know, that the individuals is not dealing with the old city government. They either get off of their hands and get their jobs done with the help that we put over there as far as the inmate crews or we should advertise their jobs, fire them or lay them off -- fire them, advertise their jobs, and hire some folks to do this work. I'm tired of taking the heat for somebody not doing their job, it's just that plain and simple, and that's why I want to discuss this issue. I think that if we want to look at cost avoidance, the way to do this job is with inmate crews to the extent to assist any extra that we need to do that is not happening from these crews, but I expect to see better management as far as the individuals go that's in charge of this work. And the idea or concept "because it's not working for me and I can't get it to work, that I want to transfer it to someone else, I don't want to be responsible for it," that is not going to get it as far as I go either. And I speak for the individual that represents District 4, not anyone else, but I can assure you when I can get five other votes -- thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. It's not on this particular item, but did we approve Item Number 44? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we haven't gotten to that yet. MR. HANDY: Okay, we pulled that one, too? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we didn't get to it yet. MR. HANDY: Okay, good. Good. Okay, then, thank you. I don't have no questions on this one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make one comment in regards to Mr. Todd's comments about growing government. I don't think any of us want to grow government, but we do need to apply the resources appropriately. And when the old city did away with the -- or sliced the number of folks in the cemetery, we need to augment those things. I have no problem with voting to hire three sheriff's deputies as long as the Sheriff fully understands that this board is hiring them to operate under the direct supervision of the administrator of the government and that we will tell the Sheriff exactly where these folks will work, and then we expect him to comply with it. And if he doesn't comply with that, then we only have one source -- one choice and that's possibly take the money back from him. But we do need to ensure that the Sheriff fully understands that these three people are going out to work to support those cemeteries and nothing else, and that he needs to designate his representatives in the Sheriff's Department and we will designate a representative in the government, and those two will coordinate the daily place of business for those prisoners. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly don't have a problem with that, but I'd like to note that when the cuts was made last year, that also departments was combined: Trees and Parks and Cemeteries. And I think I've let it be known at the beginning of this year where my priorities are. My priorities is not the golf course, gentlemen. My priorities is not out there in the medians or the parks and trees. My priorities is in the cemeteries, because we have a moral obligation to the cemeteries, to keep them up, and we have a financial obligation because we've accepted perpetual care money from families of the deceased out there in the cemeteries. And I think when other folks' prior- ities is put in the right perspective we can get things done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. I need a motion, gentlemen, on this item. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: My motion is to hire three deputies, not what Mr. Zetterberg said. I don't have nothing to do with that. That's not in my motion; right? MAYOR SCONYERS: No. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we hire three deputies, with the instructions to the -- the record reflect that those guards operate under the -- be used by the city and priorities be established by the city for the guards. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg -- a substitute motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think that the -- just for the point of clarity, and the two people who just made that motion are on Public Safety as well as myself and Mr. Henry Brigham, but I think that that is the language that came out of our committee on the substitute motion side, because we would set those priorities. And I believe it was established that the administrator for urban services would be that person that would handle that priority list. So rather than for it to be a fireworks dispute about the two motions being on the floor, I think that's in line with what was made and what came out of that committee. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's correct, that was what was discussed. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make sure that this record reflects how we had said that we would allocate those resources and who would be responsible for it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Zetterberg. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to coincide with the exact thing that was done in the committee meeting, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 44, please. CLERK: Item 44: Discuss contract employee for CMS/MIS Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Could I have a recount just a moment, please, on 41. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, why don't we do a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, that'll be great. Thank you. CLERK: Okay, roll call. We'll do it alphabetically this time. MR. KUHLKE: What are we voting on? CLERK: We're voting to accept Mr. Zetterberg's motion that the guards be contingent upon what was voted on in committee, that they be prioritized and be under the supervision of the administrator. MR. HANDY: Do we have the minutes that reflect what was done in the committee, before we vote on it? How do we know that actually the minutes says that. MR. MAYS: You already voted on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a dispute on the count here. We just want a recount, gentlemen, is all it is. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. I think we have a -- probably a super majority on that count, but I'm for a roll call vote. I never made a vote that I was ashamed of. I try to hold my hand up high and I don't mind saying it loud. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Okay. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: For the motion, whatever Mr. Zetterberg said. Yes. CLERK: Yes. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Zetterberg. CLERK: No, we're going alphabetically. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I said -- MAYOR SCONYERS: No, he's voting for. CLERK: Oh, you -- okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Present. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Present. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: The next item, Item 44, to discuss contract employee for the CMS/MIS Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham or -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. This particular position is the result of one employee quitting work here, the other one being on extended medical absence, and the very fact is that we only -- we don't have anybody to operate this system. And to ensure the security of the system, the integrity of the data, it is extremely crucial that we have somebody take charge and operate that machine. And it's on a temporary basis. It's a highly skilled employee, somebody who just doesn't want to work for an extended period. But until we can fill the gap, make sure that this is properly taken care of, I'd like to move that we accept this. And it is under an emergency basis. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg. Do I hear a second to Mr. Zetterberg's motion? MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. I've got -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Zetterberg, what kind of -- what are the arrangements of this as far as how much is --what's the cost for the individual, how long will he be in contract, and -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Ms. Bonner, do you want to -- MS. BONNER: This is just truly a temporary position right now, and it's contract work at $25 an hour, not to exceed 150 hours. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, and then Mr. Powell. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I am sincerely concerned about our computer system, whether we have the proper safeguards to keep folks out of it, whether there's been fraud in it, et cetera, and I understand that the Internal Auditor is possibly looking at some things there. And certainly I think if we're going to hire someone, we shouldn't so much think about the dollar, we should go out for someone that can come in and write us procedures and put those safeguards in place where we know that we have a system that's -- the safeguards is built in. I don't want to say any more other than I'm gravely concerned about the way this -- one side of this system has been operated in the past. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, and then Mr. Jerry Brigham. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I would support Mr. Todd's position on that. I think it's important that we do move quickly to hire this individual, get him on the site, and make sure that we are doing what we really should be doing with the system. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I too can support this employee on a temporary basis. My concern is I would like an update at some point on exactly where we stand with merging our computer systems. I mean, I haven't heard anything since day one on an update of where we're at. MR. ZETTERBERG: We can make that available at the next Commission meeting or at a committee meeting or at a special meeting. We'd love to do that. Good point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham, please? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my question is -- I'm a little hesitant to ask this, but I've heard the term contract employee and I've heard temporary employee. Which is it? Is this going to be a temporary employee that's on our payroll or is this going to be outsourced? MS. BONNER: It's going to be a contract employee on a temporary basis. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this going to be a truly independent contractor? MS. BONNER: Yes, it is an independent contractor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And it's for a definite -- no more than 150 hours? MS. BONNER: That is what we wrote into the contract, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. My concern is how long Mr. Lynn Wittke -- do anybody have any idea how long he's going to be out? That two weeks was last week, so this is another week. That's more than two weeks now. MR. ZETTERBERG: It's been extended for two more weeks. Been extended for two more weeks, so it'll be a total of four, and then maybe even extended -- potentially extended beyond that because I believe that there is significant -- MR. HANDY: The reason why I asked, if he's going to be extended on leave and you say in the contract you have no more than 150 hours, what if we go over the 150 hours? I mean, why would we put a cap on 150 hours and then you still need this person while Wittke is out? I mean, why don't we just leave that, you know, open instead of trying to lock it in? Because then you're going to have to come back here and we're going to have to reapprove it all over again, because we don't know how long he's going to be gone. MS. BONNER: Right, but we have put some procedures in place to go ahead and get some folks on the CMS staff on the county side cross-trained on the city's computer, so we do believe that we can meet that deadline and also get the people trained that need to be cross-trained in both systems within that 150 hour time frame. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, that's better. That's not what I heard, so -- that's what my concerns were is that we don't know how long he's going to be out, and why leave yourself open for 150 hours and it may take more than 150 hours. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly appreciate the staff person clearing it up, but I think basically what a individual would be entitled to that may be out on sick leave is the sick leave days that they have banked, vacation time that they have, and then after all that, Family Leave Act time, and that is pretty much it. And I think that if we need to recontract, then certainly we can do that. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I have one other question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Zetterberg. He said we will let you know at the next meeting. My question is that is Mr. Carstarphen putting the MIS together or Zetterberg putting it together? Because we are -- the Mayor and myself, along with Carstarphen, is on a committee and we haven't heard anything about putting the computer system together. And Mr. Zetterberg said he'll have a answer for us we can put on the next meeting, and I wanted to know how he's going to do that and I don't know anything about it. MR. ZETTERBERG: All I'm saying is that the CMS would give the briefing. We haven't done anything with the computer system, although we have some recommendations. The committee has not brought forward exactly what those recommendations are. And I believe that I was given the opportunity to -- if I'm mistaken, Mr. Brigham, through you, given the authority to deal with the computer side of the situation. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That is correct, and bring it back to the committee. MR. ZETTERBERG: And certainly if we're going to have any major operational changes, any significant outlays of money, that we would bring it back before the full Commission. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's correct. That's right. MR. ZETTERBERG: Maybe Mr. Handy would like to explain why he even asked the question. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Todd wanted to say something, then we'll do it. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say that, as I understand it, that the -- that Mr. Zetterberg is chairing a special committee, and it seems to me that it would be appropriate that that committee would report back to the standing committee, then the standing committee would report to the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Mr. Carstarphen as far as any personnel go. I sit on a couple of special committees, and that's the process that we take. And we don't deal with the personnel side as far as who's going to be in charge, we just deal with the mechanics, and that was my understanding how this is supposed to work. So certainly I'm sure that there's a process where it can work. And I'd like to commend Mr. Zetterberg for his knowledge in that field and at least, you know, taking the initiative to head it up, because I -- well, some folks question whether I'm literate, but I can assure you I'm not computer literate. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? Just for clarification, at this time I'm a committee of one, and prior to this particular point we did have a citizens' review committee come in and make some recommendations for us, and we have not significantly deviated from any of those things at this point. And I think it's very timely that we come in and brief the Commission on where we're going, and I appreciate the initiative on the part of the Commission to ask us to do that. I can assure you that nobody on this Commission has been beating me over the head on wanting to know what we were doing up to this point. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most of them ran away from it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to give Ms. Bonner the right to contract an employee, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please. CLERK: Item 45 through 47 were approved by the Public Services Committee on August 27th, 1996. [Item 45: Consider approval of bid award for construction of a connector taxiway at Bush Field Airport. Item 46: Consider approval of a Resolution for the 1997 Application for the Transit Division of the Recreation and Park Department. Item 47: Consider approval of bid award to B/T Design Group, Inc. for professional services relative to renovations to Gracewood Park and Jamestown Park.] MR. MAYS: Move they be approved. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I missed the Public Service Committee meeting, so I guess in terms of what we're doing at Gracewood and Jamestown, is that in concrete or is there a possibility for going some other directions? MR. BOYLES: I'm sorry, I don't understand. MR. TODD: Well, maybe I need to look at -- MR. BOYLES: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. MR. TODD: On the -- in the Public Service Committee there was, you know, issues on there in reference Jamestown and Gracewood. MR. BOYLES: Right. Correct. MR. TODD: And I guess my question is would that be in concrete? MR. BOYLES: Well, these are the design engineers that have already made the plans and drawn up the proposals, or the proposals and the plans to go ahead and do the work out there. You know, now is the time that the one-cent sales tax is really starting to show in Recreation, and it's going to probably -- you're going to probably have one of these almost a meeting from now on out, it seems like. MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 48: Consider approval of bid award for lease of golf carts for the Augusta-Richmond County Golf Course. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: This was a simple low bid. It was sent to this body because we could not get enough votes in committee. The bid was clear, the low bidder was clear and apparent. We had one member that was absent, we had two of us that had to abstain because of relatives that were working at a particular company. We wanted to make it fair and legal, so that's why it's sent to you with only the recommendation of the low bidder, so someone else will need to make a motion on that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I do not have anybody working out there. I move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I have a second, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my discussion would be, staying with my priorities, cemeteries or golf courses, do we have the proper equipment for the cemeteries? MR. MAYS: The only thing I can answer on that is that the only reason it's not under Public Services is because technically it's -- cemeteries is not under Public Services, but I think you'll see further down that, in Item 49, I believe, we're going to vote to ask this Commission to approve that particular equipment amount that's allocated to cemeteries. And I wouldn't be voting for -- I wouldn't bring up 48 if 49 wasn't on here. MR. TODD: I guess my question then would be, Mr. Mayor, is the funding there for the equipment for the cemeteries? And anyone can answer that, Mr. McKie or administrator or -- CLERK: Yes, sir. A letter was sent to Mr. McKie to be prepared to identify funding sources for that particular equipment. MR. TODD: Is there anyone here, Mr. Mayor, from Finance? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. McKie back there? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I remember us discussing this at budget time and allocating money for golf carts. Whether it was this amount or not, I do not remember. CLERK: Oh, the golf carts, he approved that. He said that the funds were available to do the golf cart leases. I thought he was talking about 49. Mr. McKie told Mr. Dillard and I both that the money was available for the golf cart leases for a three-year period. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And that was correct also, Mr. Mayor, in committee meeting, that funding would be available. That was a part of really the motion that was made, too, that the funding would be available to do what's necessary, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I just noticed the other one is under a different heading, and do we have anyone here from Trees and Parks? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Smith is over here. MR. TODD: Well, then my question is to the department head from Trees and Parks. Is there money in the budget for the equipment for the cemeteries? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's on a separate item, Mr. Todd. I think we need to take care of 48 first. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, then I'll make a motion to table Number 48 until we hear Number 49. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does somebody want to get Mr. McKie down here, or somebody from Finance, please. Call him, Miller. MR. HANDY: It's five after 5:00. I hope he hasn't gone home. MR. POWELL: We can pay him overtime, I'm sure. CLERK: He's out there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that what we're doing with the golf carts, to an extent, is allowing Mr. Smith to spend funds that is generated at the golf course, but there is not enough funds to cover this entire package from what's currently being generated at the golf course. What was generated at the golf course in years past and appropriated to the extent that those individuals that was governing at the time seen fit, you know, that's not my concern. My concern is funding now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's why we're going to get Mr. McKie down here to straighten this out. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie is on his way up, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we go ahead and table that or something -- CLERK: Mr. McKie is here. He's here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, you're a most needed person. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll rephrase my question. My concern, Mr. McKie, we're looking at -- we're debating, I guess, Item 48, to lease this equipment for the golf course, and my concern is the cemeteries and whether there's funds available to buy the equipment for the cemeteries in the capital outlay for the cemeteries or any other source. MR. McKIE: The expendable -- we have two funds for caretaking of the cemeteries in addition to general revenue from the General Fund. One of those funds is a non-expendable fund, which means that you can spend only the interest off of it, which is some 20 to 25 thousand a year, and that's budgeted. The other is an expendable fund, which has a balance of some $450,000 and can be spent to take care of the cemeteries, and there are those funds in -- that amount of money in that fund. MR. TODD: So we have roughly $400,000 that we can use to take care of the cemeteries. Are the payroll for the cemeteries coming out of that? Then when we look at the 19 men and other costs, is there sufficient funds left to buy the equipment? MR. McKIE: The payroll comes out of the General Fund. Now, in the past the city has hired extra people and charged them to that fund. The golf carts are funded by the enterprise fund for the golf course. MR. TODD: Yes. Which I understand there's a shortage. I don't have a problem there. Mr. Mayor, I don't have any further unreadiness as long as I know the money is there and we can buy the equipment for the cemeteries also. MR. McKIE: What's the amount of the purchases? CLERK: The memo I sent you, the 18. MR. J. BRIGHAM: 18,000. CLERK: 18,000, yeah. MR. McKIE: Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Well, I just -- I mentioned 450, I just wanted to make sure there hasn't been a change. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to Item 48, gentlemen. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve the lease of the golf carts, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE AND MR. MAYS ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 49, please. CLERK: Item 49 is to consider approval of maintenance equipment for the Cemetery, Trees and Parks Department. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I guess I'll direct my question to Mr. Smith. We're talking about the three deputies we just hired. That will be 18 people; is that right? I mean, I know you've got 30 to 40 workers here, but I thought that would be six inmates per deputy. MR. SMITH: No, there's more like 10 -- 10 to 12 per deputy. MR. BRIDGES: Oh, really? MR. SMITH: That's what Sheriff Webster told me. So it's equipment for 30 to 40 people. MR. BRIDGES: I got you. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, let me just ask one thing in there. And I fully support what we're doing on here, but are we covering ourselves enough, Mr. Smith? I know we mentioned the fact about the equipment where prisoners were in there, and we did not have enough equipment for those inmates many times when they were brought there. But, now, are we covering just enough to cover the three inmate crews or are we covering enough for equipment that is needed in those cemeteries for the workers who are there where you've had the complaints that a bunch of that equipment is broke down? I think while we're at the trough we need to decide, you know, what the menu is going to be and how much is going to be served. MR. SMITH: This particular equipment is to accommodate the inmates, but when they're not in the cemeteries we can also use it by the employees that work there. So to answer your question, this is not going to get us fully stocked with equipment, but some additional equipment in the '97 budget will be requested. MR. MAYS: Well, let me -- I appreciate what the motion is on the floor, and I'm kind of a little bit like Mr. Todd in here. I raised so much hell that day I might have forgot all that I raised and left some of the fire behind. But, you know, I thought in making up this list for equipment -- because, you know, we want to see equipment in the inmates' hands if they are there and they are working, but it does no good that if you still got folk there who don't have anything to work with, whether they're inmates or whether they're regular people that are working for the cemetery. And I think if we're making this list -- and I'm hearing the funding source. And I'm not trying to be the pied piper of eating up the money, but, you know, it gets us back again to whether or not we're going to have folk standing and watching. The complaint was you had prisoners watching our folk. Now, if you don't have equipment, will we have our folk watching the prisoners do work with nothing in their hands? I think we ought to have something for everybody's hands, and if there's money there to deal with this source, then I think it's much better to expand that list. I'm going to vote for it, but I think we need to maybe come back with enough to cover everybody who's going to be working, your 19 folk that's there; that if there's broke down equipment in there that can't be fixed -- and obviously we had some problems with some of that that was turned over to Shop. I think we need to get all of this corrected in that area while we are correcting if the source of funding is there and if we can afford to do it. And what I'm hearing is that -- if we've allocated this much for 30, then certainly whatever the deficient amount should be within the few 19 that we have, we should be able to cover that, which shouldn't be but a small amount over. But I just want to make sure that we're getting enough, because it's going to be crunch time on a lot of things, and I don't want to see us get into a necessity department in here and then it get caught up and really get beat over the head and you not be able to get what you really need. MR. SMITH: Well, as it stands now, the only other equipment are much larger, way more expensive mowers, and they were all repaired within the last three months. And each mower that the employees of the cemetery -- they're like fifteen thousand to twenty each. So they've just been repaired, and this is adequate equipment for a while. MR. MAYS: Okay. So we're covering both sources now? MR. SMITH: Right now we're good. MR. MAYS: Inmates and regular employees? MR. SMITH: And employees. Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Powell had a question over here first, Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I just want to put one thing out for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, I'm going to vote to support you getting the equipment, but I want to see you put some form of equipment management into effect. We had a lot of equipment that the taxpayers bought that showed up in the newspaper, and I don't want to see that in the newspaper like that again. We want this equipment maintained also. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50, please. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and the Chairman of Public Services, if it's okay, can we take the addendum agenda with the alcoholic beverage licenses under Public Services? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. CLERK: Okay. Item 1 is a new application, 96-53. [A.N. 96-53: A request by George Hickey for a consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with Williams of Augusta, 3160 Wrightsboro Road. This establishment currently has a beer & wine license. District 5, Super District 9.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. George Hickey in the house? MR. HICKEY: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to this? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the license. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think you have to -- don't you have to read it out first, Mr. Meyer? CLERK: He said all I had to do was give the application number. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I mean, doesn't he have to -- CLERK: Oh, yes, sir, he needs to give us his name and address for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. MR. HICKEY: My name is George Hickey; my address is 2961 Bridgeport Drive, Augusta. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer, it meets all the qualifications? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We had a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Do I hear a second to Mr. Brigham's motion that we approve? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: By Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please. CLERK: Item 2: New Application, Number 96-56. [A.N. 96-56: A request by Barry Blackston for a consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with Nacho Mama's Burritos, Inc. located at 976 Broad Street. District 1, Super District 9.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Barry Blackston? PUBLIC CITIZEN: He just left to go to the restroom. He should be back in a few minutes. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to go to Item 3 then? CLERK: Yes, sir. Application 96-60: Mr. William J. Cooney, consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Broad Street Diner located at 1102 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1, Super District 3 [sic]. I think that's the garage as well. MR. COONEY: My name is William J. Cooney; my address is 3210 Montpelier Drive, Augusta, Georgia, 30909. MR. MEYER: Are there any objectors to this? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: The applications meet the requirements of the code, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Meyer, do they plan on operating a full-service restaurant? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. The reason for two licenses, if you want to go into it, is the configuration of the building does not meet the contiguous requirements of the code, but the same kitchen is between the two locations and food would be served into each side from the same kitchen. But because of the building configuration, it requires two licenses. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Both sides is going to do Sunday sales? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. And the applicant is aware that when we audit, that the -- both sides could lose their Sunday sales if the food supporting both sides and the alcohol supporting both sides don't work out. MR. TODD: Okay. I just didn't want to come back and argue that one later. MR. MEYER: We've already discussed that with them and they are aware that it's possible to lose both sides if the audit so states. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: 4: New Ownership, License 96-57: A request by Myong Katic for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Short Stop Convenience Store located at 1714 15th Street. District 2, Super District 9. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to this? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MS. KATIC: My name is Myong Katic, 3725 Kingsgate Drive, Hephzibah, Georgia, 30815. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, the application meets the requirements of the ordinance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion that we approve? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question -- MR. MAYS: Where exactly is that, Miller? MR. TODD: Give me an intersection or something this is close to. MR. HANDY: Is this right across the street from Josey High School? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: In the existing -- MR. MEYER: Existing building. PUBLIC CITIZEN: Old Smile station. MR. TODD: Old Smile, okay. This is a new application; right? MR. MEYER: Yes. New owners, but it's been a -- MR. TODD: New owners? MR. MEYER: They've had sales there in the past in the location. MR. TODD: Yes, I understand that. I guess I want to know what our ordinance say when one business go out of business and another buy it as far as -- is there, Mr. Wall, something in the sense that if it done business in the last 12 months we can do it -- extend it, or where are we at there? PUBLIC CITIZEN: It never ceased operating. It was continuous. MR. MEYER: It never -- it hadn't ceased operation. PUBLIC CITIZEN: It's a nine-month period. MR. TODD: So this is a transfer of a license? MR. J. BRIGHAM: You can't transfer to a new owner. MR. MEYER: No, it's new owners -- new ownership, but the location has been -- has not been out of operation for nine months. And I think the ordinance states nine months, so the location still qualifies. But it's a new ownership, it's not a transfer. MR. TODD: Well, I'm most likely going to vote against it because there's a school across the street. And I understand what the law says, but -- and I'll call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go back to Item 2? Is Mr. Blackston in - - Barry Blackston here? PUBLIC CITIZEN: He hasn't come back in yet. I saw him go downstairs, so I know he's in the building. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, let's go to Item 5 then. CLERK: Item 5 [A.N. 96-58] is a new ownership: A request by Mr. Fun Cheng for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Yin Yin Restaurant located at 2525 Washington Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the gentleman here? MR. CHENG: My name is Wai Fun Cheng; my address is 3109 Trafalgar Drive in Augusta. MR. MEYER: Are there any objectors present? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: There are none, Mr. Mayor, and the application meets the requirements of the ordinance. MR. KUHLKE: Move approval. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, I have a second by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 6, please. CLERK: New Ownership [A.N. 96-59]: A request by Mr. Chong Yi for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Kim's Pantry located at 2502 Lumpkin Road. MR. YI: My name is Chong O. Yi. Address, 2458 Tobacco Road, Hephzibah, 30815. MR. MEYER: Are there any objectors? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, this location has had problems in the past, and the license was revoked under a previous owner. And the recommendation from the Sheriff's Department is no recommendation. They are not addressing it one way or another. A representative of the Sheriff's Department is here. The license does meet -- the application meets the requirements of the ordinance, but if you'd like to hear from the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Stoney Turnage is present. MR. TURNAGE: I just want to bring it to the Mayor and Commission's attention that this is a location that a license was revoked in '94 on three different counts of selling alcoholic beverages to minors. This applicant here is the person who was the previous license holder. I discussed this matter with the Sheriff, and we felt like we wouldn't make a recommendation on this count, we'd leave it up to y'all. But if y'all do, in fact, approve this license, we feel like there ought to be some stip-ulations put in there regarding the sale to minors and if it were to happen just one more time again what the conditions could be. MAYOR SCONYERS: What kind of conditions would you like to see, Mr. Turnage? MR. TURNAGE: If it happens again, I would suggest a permanent revocation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is one that I'm certainly concerned about. I think we have, you know, revoked it for selling to minors. We don't revoke on the first offense; I think it's usually the second or maybe the third. And my other comments here is that I was called one night in reference this location in reference trying to get someone from the oriental community that could speak, you know, Chinese or Korean or whatever it was, to talk to the owners of this establishment about some gas that was dumped in some sewer lines and how it got there. And I think that when we're dealing with a license we can deal with moral turpitude and other violations, and there was quite a bit of gasoline pumped from a tank into a sewer line that wreaked havoc on Emergency Management, the Fire Department, et cetera, a little better than a year ago or maybe a year and a half ago. Also, I know that on the other charges, you know, there's a time cap, but I also see that there is a violation of law, possibly misdemeanor, as far as, you know, consumption and driving under the influence. I don't think this is a good candidate to reissue a license to. I think that on several occasions there's been an attempt to circumvent the Richmond County alcohol beverage code and obtain a license for this location, you know, as far as, you know, saying that this business was sold, that the individual that's standing before us today did not own this business but he had sold it to someone else. And the history go on and on as far as the problems go as far as this location go, and I certainly don't feel that in good conscience that I can support this petition for a license. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges, and then Mr. Handy. MR. BRIDGES: Stoney, this present owner that's standing here has been - - he's violated this -- the license requirements in the past and sale to minors? MR. TURNAGE: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: More than once? MR. TURNAGE: On three different occasions. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Is there a motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we need a motion of some kind. MR. HANDY: I need to say something first. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Go ahead, Freddie. I'll yield to you. MR. HANDY: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I was just only going to say that I would concur with Mr. Todd. I was going to bring up some of those same items there, because this is right around the corner from my house and they had us all scared that night with all the gas running down the middle of Lumpkin Road and running from the sewer from this same building. And we have had trouble, and this is one of the licenses that we pulled when we had -- I think we gave it a six-month suspension. This is on the old county side. And Mr. Todd is correct that we have had problems at this particular location, and my position is that if they don't have a license now, I hope we don't give them any. That way we can keep all the trouble down. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny this license based on the problems we've had in the past. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 7: New Ownership [A.N. 96-61]: A request by Ae Sun Tae for a beer license to be used in connection with Frank's Food Store located at 3184 Skinner Mill Road. MS. TAE: My name is Ae Sun Tae; I live at 2681 Barton Chapel Road, Augusta, Georgia. MR. MEYER: Are there any protestors to this license? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, the application meets the requirements of the ordinance and is in order. MAYOR SCONYERS: This is District 7. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd -- I mean, Mr. Brigham, excuse me, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. This is a motion to approve. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 8: New Ownership [A.N. 96-62]: A request by Jerry Bailey for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Gate 5 Gasthaus located at 2960 Old Highway 1. MR. BAILEY: My name is Jerry Bailey; I live at 4316 Warwick Avenue, Hephzibah, Georgia, 30815. MR. MEYER: Are there any objectors? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, the application is in order and meets the requirements of the ordinance. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second? MR. BEARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the Sheriff's Department on this one. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was seconded by Mr. Beard. Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Gate 5? MR. TODD: Gate 5. That's Number 8, is it, or 9? Well, let me just tell you the things that I'm concerned about, Mr. Mayor, and things that we can use to decide on whether issuing -- to issue a license. And I'm concerned about what's in item number 7, and I would assume that I'm on the right application. MR. POWELL: This is Number 8. MR. HANDY: Item 8, but he said item number 7 on the application. Item 8. MR. TODD: Am I on the right application, Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Jerry Bailey's item 7, DUI and concealed weapon? MR. TODD: There's a series of charges there, and I'm concerned about whether all of them from 1993 or one of them from 1993 or what the situation is there. And I do know that this is things that we can deny on, whether a person has had even misdemeanors as far as the moral turpitude of the individual, trying to judge the character of the individual, and whether the individual would go by the ordinance or possibly, you know, break the ordinance, et cetera. And certainly that's in the code, and it's -- I'm going to make a substitute motion that we deny on those grounds. We usually don't look at anything that's more than four years -- is that right, Mr. Wall, that we can look -- MR. WALL: Five years. MR. TODD: We can look back for five years? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: And certainly this is within that five years. And I wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues. You know, it's up to this Commission, the discretion of this Commission, on whether we consider those charges, whether they was, you know, reduced to other charges or not, you know, the initial charges that the individual was charged with. And I think that we've looked at these --charges similar to this in the past and denied based on charges similar to those. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. I'm going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we deny on the grounds of what's in item 7. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we don't have a second, Mr. Todd, so -- Mr. Handy, do you want to say something? MR. HANDY: Yeah, I want to -- I would like to say to Mr. Miller, did you state that the application was in order in our ordinance? Does this take precedence over what's going on here? If it's in order, doesn't all these -- this particular write up in item 7, does that still qualify him to be -- MR. MEYER: Yes, sir, unless you decide otherwise. I think being reduced to reckless driving would be a misdemeanor. The other charge was reduced to failure to register a weapon. But that's back '83 -- excuse me, '84 and '86 which, of course, is longer than five years. '93 is within the five years. And, yes, sir, this -- being a misdemeanor, it's not something that's automatic. It's not a felony. MR. HANDY: Right. Well, I don't have a problem with it, but the only difference is, somewhere along the line we're going to have to believe in the individual and forgive. So I don't know, I don't want to deprive a man of his business, but we also should put some kind of stipulation on there and let him know that if he violates the law in any kind of way that, you know, he -- there's a possibility that this license may be revoked and it will not ever get licensed at this particular building again, and this is something that he needs to consider. But do we have a recommendation from the Sheriff's Department on this particular item? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. The Sheriff's Department recommended that it be approved. MR. HANDY: Well, he's going to have to be the one to govern it, so I don't have a problem with it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question on both motions. This stuff here doesn't have anything to do with selling alcohol. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we only have one motion on the floor. MR. POWELL: Well, I'll call for the question then. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Point of information. I'd like for the County Attorney to read the ordinance, that code section or section that deals with those things such as misdemeanors. MR. WALL: This falls under the general category Additional Considerations, and basically what you have is, one, the applicant's reputation, character, trade and business association or past business ventures, mental and physical capacity to conduct this business. And you have -- as far as the -- those types of offenses, it falls under that particular paragraph. But in other places where it talks about where they're strictly ineligible, it allows the five-year criteria, and so therefore we've interpreted that to allow you to go back and consider those offenses over a five-year period. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Meyer, have we had any problems with this location in the past? MR. MEYER: Not that I know about recently. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Not that's in the -- Mr. Turnage, is that true? Have we had any problems in the past with this location? MR. TURNAGE: No, sir, not recently. MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is an existing location, I assume? MR. TURNAGE: Right. It used to be the Omni Lounge. MR. J. BRIGHAM: With a new ownership? MR. TURNAGE: Yes, sir. It used to be the Omni Lounge. You've got new owners coming in now and they're going to make a German restaurant out of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please. CLERK: Item 9: Transfer Application, 96-63: A request by Charles Thomas Mann to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Econo Lodge Lounge located at 2051 Gordon Highway. MR. MANN: My name is Charles Mann; my address is 103 Windsong Way, Augusta, Georgia. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, the application -- excuse me. Are there any objectors, please? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: The application is in order and meets the requirements of the ordinance. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please. CLERK: Discussion [A.N. 95-40]: A request by Robert A. Prescott to add a dance hall license to his current consumption on premises liquor & beer license for Robbie's Sports Pub. This establishment also has a Sunday sales license. MR. HANDY: What's the location? MR. PRESCOTT: Robert A. Prescott, Jr.; 1371 Brown Road, Hephzibah, Georgia, 30815. MR. MEYER: The location is 2834 Washington Road, Mr. Handy, if you asked that question. MR. HANDY: Thank you. MR. MEYER: This is merely adding a dance hall to the existing operation with the existing alcohol licenses, and the application request is in order. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Meyer, you realize we've had numerous complaints, not about this vendor but from another vendor up there in that general neighborhood. Is he well aware of that? Because if I get complaints again I'm going to be back to look for his license to be revoked if it passes today. MR. MEYER: I think he is aware of the ordinance and all the requirements, and he has signed off to that effect, that he is aware. MR. J. BRIGHAM: There's an area of senior citizens right behind this shopping center that does not like loud noise and will and has complained to the Sheriff's Department numerous times. I've received calls myself. And I'm going to vote to allow you to operate, but if I start getting complaints I'm going to make sure that we have the Sheriff investigating, that we do something about revoking this dance hall license. MR. PRESCOTT: This is not our place of business you're speaking of, is it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, it's not, but it's the same shopping center. MR. PRESCOTT: Okay. It's a good ways away from where you're talking about. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If I get complaints on that one I'm going to do the same thing, but I'm just warning you up front that, you know, we want a nice quiet dance hall as possible. MR. PRESCOTT: I'm listening. I'm listening. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second? I need a second to Mr. Handy's motion. MR. TODD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: I'm sure we're talking about a conventional dance hall? MR. PRESCOTT: Yeah. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MR. MEYER: Mr. Blackston is back in the audience if you'd like to go back to that one. CLERK: Go to Item 2: Mr. Blackston. [A.N. 96-56: A request by Barry Blackston for a consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with Nacho Mama's Burritos, Inc. located at 976 Broad Street. District 1, Super District 9.] MR. BLACKSTON: My name is Barry Blackston; I live at 1002 Broad Street, Apartment B, in Augusta. MR. MEYER: Are there any objectors? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. MEYER: There are none. The application is in order and meets the requirements of the ordinance, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Back to Item 50: A discussion of the Jefferson Electric Franchise Fee. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that this item be placed back on the agenda. This item was on the agenda and was discussed approximately 30 days ago or maybe a little better. It was to come back up, and I wanted to make sure for the point of discussion and this Commission doing a disposition on this issue that we put it back on the agenda. As most of us know, Mr. Mayor, that when the County Attorney drew up the ordinance dealing with the franchise fee for the new reorganized government, the franchise fee was believed would be paid by the utility companies, such as Georgia Power pays the franchise fee. We've learned since that when we're dealing with coops or non-profit entities, that that's not necessarily the case, that they pass on to the 13 to 15 thousand customers in Richmond County three percent of the franchise fee and one percent on to their customers in their service district, which includes counties in addition to Richmond County. The argument is made by constituents and others that a certain percentage of the utility poles is not on the county right-of-way, they're on private property, and is there -- pretty much there legal, per Jefferson Electric, with agreements that dates back probably, you know, a good 100 years, or close. Also, I'd like to point out that most of the constituents in District 4 that's affected, and others, believe that this is a direct three percent mean tax that's brought on by consolidation or reorganization, whatever you want to call this government. It's my position that we should do something to give some relief as far as that go. I've even talked in terms of a possible compromise and using those funds in this service district and declaring it a service district as far as street lights go, beautification, et cetera. It seems that it's not the will of this Commission to do anything that may jeopardize the three million dollars or so that this government receives from Georgia Power, and I can tell you sitting here today that this issue, whether we resolve it here or not, is probably not the last time we're going to hear it. We're probably going to -- I think there's already an effort to petition the Public Service Commission to -- for individuals to come under the -- another utility where they won't have to pay the three percent. It's not that the users out there that's talked to me have a problem with the service provider that they have now. They feel that Jefferson Electric do an outstanding job other than the area of this franchise fee or mean three percent tax that this government has forced Jefferson Electric to charge the citizens in District 4. And I'm going to make a motion that we repeal that franchise fee, and that's in the form of a motion on behalf of the approximately 15,000 citizens in South Richmond County that use Jefferson Electric. MR. MAYS: I'm going to second that to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion gentlemen? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: As I pointed out, I believe, in earlier discussion concerning the Jefferson EMC franchise, the law, in my opinion, requires that the secondary suppliers be charged on the same basis as the primary supplier. In this case the primary supplier is Georgia Power Company because they have the majority of the customers within Richmond County. Therefore, under the law you are required to charge the same amount to Jefferson EMC. And the statute is explicit that has to be charged on the same basis, so I don't think that you can revoke it as to Jefferson EMC without also revoking it as to Georgia Power Company, and I don't think that's what you want to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. As I said, I second it to get it on the floor. And I guess it goes back to one of those things that I probably keep saying, that --maybe from somebody that didn't get on a soapbox and just really gung-ho support this thing, but it's here, and I'm doing my able best to try and work with it. But I think what we maybe should be a little clear about doing, if nothing else, and the very least through our newsletter -- and it would help maybe in clarification in terms of what the media prints in reference to the net earnings that this government is going to get. One of the things that was highly touted was the amount of franchise fees that we would be able to get. Now, I think if that results in a tit-for- tat situation whereby you have people who are actually directly picking up that charge -- and as Commissioner from District 9, the super district which does include a lot of those people that Mr. Todd is talking about, I second to get it here at least for the point of discussion. Now, I agree with Mr. Wall that that's probably not what we want to do in terms of getting into a thing of where we wreck totally the funds that we've got, but I do think it's worth some effort of discussion of moving it forward, at least of being honest of saying, you know, if you're getting this on one side of the fence in terms of franchise fees, then it's at least a costly franchise fee. Because if it's being picked up by residents, then in the overall effect of what you've done with the government, this is not one of those win-win situations. It may be a washout that's being absorbed by a lot of people who are dealing with that service, particularly if it's being passed on by one entity and not being passed on, you know, by the other. And I stand to be corrected if it's being passed on by everybody concerned. But I think that's something that, at least in our own clarity -- because we touted franchise fees. We talked about what we were going to get in those numbers. And I think that the money coming in, I think it's good and it can be used for very good purposes, but I do think that you have a pocket of folks out there, if they are being affected directly, then at least we owe it to address the fact that this is not one of those win-win situations of the new government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concern is if we're going to take and allocate franchise fees on a service district, I would have -- I would suspect that something's wrong when you can allocate one person's franchise fee to a service district and then you take another person's franchise fee and apply it to the entire county. That is not a right situation and should not be. If we're going to do one, we're going to do all. If we're going to appeal, we're going to appeal all. I don't think we can afford to appeal. I'm not planning on voting for this motion under any set of circumstances. MR. MAYS: Well, I think when you correct certain things, Mr. Mayor -- I believe we had written into the bill to correct certain inequities of the charge of years for dual water rates, and I can see why people were outraged in terms of doing that. We just dealt with a situation recently to try and correct what was placed in that bill, because it was, again, one of those situations which consolidation did bring some hurt. In the process of equalizing water rates, we may have reduced them into a particular area which a lot of my colleague, Mr. Brigham, serves. I have no problem with that argument and dealing with it. But while reducing it in some, to the oldest population that exists in this city, we increased it on them in order to be able to equalize it in some other parts. So we did -- we have done already some selective correction. It may not have been through franchise fees, but we did it directly through what was placed on the ballot. So, I mean, some things you get it up front in writing, and I guess some you get it through the back door. You know, whether it's -- you know, whether they kiss you or not, you get it. And if they're picking it up on their bills, then it's a direct. But I do agree with you, Mr. Wall, that I wouldn't vote to go out and to repeal it because, I mean, you've that type of money. But I think to dismiss it by saying that it's not a direct I think is an absolute falsehood and we ought to, at least through courtesy alone, spell that out if people are being affected by it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, just from the little information that I've gotten, I think we need to be very careful. And I'll caution my colleagues in this regard, that before we start cutting potential income into this government we'd better consider what sort of additional expenses that we're going to have as we go forward. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges had his hand up. MR. BRIDGES: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Okay, Mr. Todd's motion was to rescind -- was that it, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Repeal, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Repeal the ordinance. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES YES. MOTION FAILS 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 51, please. CLERK: Items 51 through 58 are all second readings for ordinances. I'll read them and we can vote on them -- you can vote on them collectively if you like. Item 51: Consider approval of an Ordinance to establish Water and Sewerage rates for Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government. 52: Consider approval of an Ordinance to adopt "The Uniform Act for the application of building and fire related codes to existing buildings", enacted by Georgia Legislation 1984. 53: Consider approval of an Ordinance amending the 1949 City Plan to provide for Enhanced Early Retirement. 54: Consider approval of an Ordinance amending the 1949 Plan to restate certain provisions. 55: Consider approval of an Ordinance amending the 1987 Plan to provide for the Enhanced Early Retirement and to restate the plan, as amended. 56: Consider approval of an Amendment to the 1945 Plan to provide for the Enhanced Early Retirement. 57: Consider approval of an Amendment to the 1977 Ordinance to provide for Enhanced Early Retirement. 58: Consider approval of an Ordinance to establish severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta-Richmond County. All ordinances were approved on August 20th. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who seconded it? MR. HANDY: Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, okay. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I wanted to ask Mr. Wall a question. In the early retirement package, severance pay and so forth, there was some discussion that there would be some restriction on people that took those packages being able to come back to work. I don't remember seeing -- maybe that's in there, but I -- and maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing that, and I'd like some clarification. MR. WALL: That language is included in the ordinance. It reads basically as follows: Any participant electing enhanced early retirement shall be required to execute a covenant not to sue in favor of the City of Augusta, Augusta-Richmond County, its officials/agents, for any and all claims arising out of the employment and agreeing not to seek or accept any further employment by Augusta-Richmond County or its constitutional and elected officials. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you. I just missed that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I also have one question for Mr. Wall. What is the difference in the new ordinance on the water and sewer rates versus the conflicting ordinances? Was it a large amount of stuff, and will it affect the rates that we've set, and the tap fee? MR. WALL: Well, the ordinance put into effect the rates that y'all approved where everything that --all meters are treated the same insofar as sewer; it's not based upon meter size. And so that's the effect of it. Now, there was also discussion concerning new residences, and where there's not a previously established usage for that, then the monthly residential sewer charge is set at $15.50. You know, at some point we talked about doing an estimate, et cetera, and that was changed to $15.50. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, for everyone's benefit, I wanted to point out that insofar as Item Number 55 is concerned, which is the '87 plan, a letter was received on Friday from Georgia Municipal Association asking for certain technical changes. It did not change in any way the effect of the ordinance, but I have incorporated that and made the necessary revisions. And, again, there are no substantive changes, but I did want to let everybody know that there were some minor modifications in the wording. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Am I assuming that this is the second reading on most of these -- on all of these ordinances? MR. WALL: On all of them. CLERK: All of them, yes, sir. MR. TODD: And am I also assuming that we're saying that we amended the new residence to $15 per month minimum sewerage versus the lowest rate from the previous person, or we're talking about a new residence -- newly constructed residence? MR. WALL: We're talking about a newly constructed residence that has no prior usage. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MR. WALL: Do you agree with that? MR. HICKS: Okay. Well, even if you have a new person move in -- for instance, if you had an existing residence, and you might have had a family in there that had four children, and then if a single person or an elderly couple moved in and had a lower water use, the way it states now it would be -- in other words, they would not have --that particular family wouldn't have a prior December, January, and February history at that residence; therefore, they would be charged a minimum of $15.50 or the sewer charge based on their water use, whichever was lower. So, you know, that family might move in and they might have a use of only, say, 3,000 gallons a month, and they would be charged on that basis. And we added that, so that's the change, Commissioner. So that would take place so that an elderly couple wouldn't move in and then be tagged with either 15.50 or the prior customer's use. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what's the implementation date? MR. HICKS: Okay. To my knowledge, a date has not been set. However -- I see that Ms. Bonner is not here right now. We had planned on the implementation rate --or date being the bills that went out on Thursday; that is, day after tomorrow. That's what we had aimed at. There has been a trial run made, or test run made, on the suburban system, there is a test run being made even as we speak on the urban system, and I've been assured that it would be ready to go so that if you desired that it take effect with the bills that went out Thursday, that it could take effect. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend the motion on the water rates, that it be at the soon as possible billing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Right. But we took them all in one, so we can pull that one out and then go on and approve the rest of them, and then we'll have to do that one separately. But it's all right to do it that way, but we didn't do just the water rate alone. MR. WALL: Well, I would point out the ordinance has effective September 1 included in there as far as the effective date of the rate, so it's covered. MR. TODD: I'll withdraw the amendment then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 59, please. CLERK: 59: Appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Dennis Williams. Term for three- year period beginning April 1st, 1996 to April 1st, 1999. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. TODD: I don't think we have a talent bank person in for the person that I'd like to appoint, or at least nominate, and I think this is keeping in line with going by districts per the local boards and commissions. And District 4 is not represented on the Planning and Zoning board, and what we're trying to do is to obtain representation for all districts. I know that District 8, I believe, had a gentleman to resign recently, and we've got to deal with that one also. I believe all the other districts is somewhat represented if we're talking about super districts or others. At this time I'd like to nominate Mr. Richard Colclough. He is a resident of District 4; he lives in Pepperidge Subdivision; he's a Civil Service employee at Fort Gordon; he is active in his community association; and, also, he is president of the South Richmond County Community Association Alliance. And I make that in the form of a motion as a nomination. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going back to what I've said earlier about the appointments, and I bring this up each time, and that is I thought -- and somewhere down the line it appears that I was told that we had, I guess, a committee or a couple of people looking into this and was going to give us some type of report on where we stood with committees and authorities. And I just have a little problem with this appointing people, and as Mr. Todd just stated, that, you know, we may be getting too many from one district. But I thought we were at that point, and I would like a clarification on that, that whoever was supposed to or whatever committee was supposed to look into that, I would just like to have some information on that and where we are on getting all of these outlined as to where we were on this and where we are going with this appointment of committees. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you know who was supposed to be on this committee? CLERK: I think Mr. Wall was handling that. I've been dealing with Mr. Wall on the restructuring of the authorities and boards and commissions. MR. WALL: It's my understanding that Mr. Handy is working on that. I prepared a list of the committees and I've had a recent discussion with him, and if I'm supposed to be doing something I need some direction. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I can appreciate my colleague from the 1st District -- which is well represented on the Planning and Zoning board and at one time had maybe two or three representatives from there -- his concern, and I also share those concerns, and I think there's others on this board share those concerns. But we have a Planning and Zoning Commission that it's our responsibility to keep it functioning, keep folks on there, and certainly it's not to the point as far as without representation that it's not functioning. But I can assure you, as far as District 4 go there is a concern about the lack of representation on boards and authorities. I, you know, got beat to death over the Coliseum Authority, and I'll just tell you, hell, I'm glad I did. I don't have anybody I'm responsible for on there. But certainly this one is a important appointment to District 4. And I don't have a problem with doing all the other ones now if we want to get them out here and do them, but I don't think we should hold up this appointment to decide what Mr. Carstarphen is going to do or what another committee is going to do, because we need to have representation from District 4, as the bill called for, on Planning and Zoning. And, yes, we have others that we're going to bring up, too, that we need representation. If you look at all your boards, all your authorities, I reviewed them all, and I don't think District 4 is represented on anything with the exception of possibly the Human Relations Commission. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Todd's nominee. MR. MAYS: I'll move nominations be closed. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, do you have the name? CLERK: Mr. Richard Colclough. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman? Point of information. You know, we don't have any documentation here, and I hate to dispute Mr. Todd's word, and he may be right as far as not having representation, but I'd like to look at the list before we put anybody else on because, you know, we all may need representation on those boards. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we look into all these boards and authorities and go ahead and reappointment like we're supposed to according to the bill. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I think that we have able and capable staff if there's any doubt about who is not represented. I think we know who is represented. Let's not play this game. Every Commissioner sitting here know who represents them on Planning and Zoning whether they inherited that person or whether that person has been appointed since they've been here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell, we didn't -- I need a second to Mr. Powell's motion. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like a clarification on what J.B. is trying to do here. Are you suggesting we, I guess, delete these people from these boards and turn around and reappoint for each district, or what are you suggesting? MR. POWELL: I'm suggesting that we take and go through all the members of each board, make sure that everyone on this board up here has a representative on each board, and reappoint those members as necessary -- or reappoint new members, either one. MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't have a second to Mr. Powell's motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, just continuing discussion on the motion here, the problem we've got here is we're in -- you know, we're in September now. We haven't appointed anybody to these boards. And I'm like Mr. Todd, I've got some people that are in the 8th District that -- he had to resign because he's a county employee, and yet I'm not able to appoint somebody in his place. I think if we're going -- I think what we need to do is just say, hey, come back at a future meeting maybe and say, you know, these are the appointments we need to make, and we need to agree whether it's going to be by district or how many people are going to be on that board. But for the time being, I'm in agreement with Mr. Todd, we need to go ahead and be moving along on these boards and doing something. And I think he's got a -- I think what he's doing is constructive here, but I agree with Mr. Powell as well, that the appointments for the boards needs to be moved along and we need to go ahead and get this organized, hopefully within the next few weeks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I -- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, it's not my concern where these people are coming from, and I think we ought to get over this thing of talking about, you know, this person is in this district. We ought to go according to what is being said. And I don't think my question has been answered. I thought we had appointed someone to look into the boards and commissions and kind of give us where we stand on that and what they are to do and this kind of thing, and where they're coming from, and make an observation here as to what is needed. I don't have a problem with someone coming from the 4th District or the 1st District or the 3rd District or wherever they are, but I think we need some type of organization here or some kind of order as to how we're going to appoint these people. And every time we come into a meeting we're appointing somebody to some board or some commission, and I keep saying that we just need someone to look into that and design a plan of how we're going to do this. These boards have been functioning all this time, for seven months, and I think they can function two more months until we get it straight. That's all I'm asking. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Clarification: As the representative of Planning and Zoning, we are short one person. Mr. Dennis Williams left and went to New York. He was a VA employee. That position needs to be filled. Mr. Williamson is a county employee now. He was a contract employee. That position needs to be filled. Now, it was my intention -- I took it upon myself, I asked the Attorney for the list of all the appointments to make sure that I'd be able to look at it because we had so much going on. As Mayor Pro Tem, I thought I would help facilitate the process by looking at what appointments that needed to be made, come back with a list, let the Mayor look at it, if it was okay, give it to the rest of the Commissioners. There is no committee been formed to look at this. I took it upon myself because I knew it needed to be done. And this is something that had to be done, and I was working on it, and all of a sudden one Commissioner hollering I want to put my man in. There's nothing wrong with that. Another Commissioner wanting --don't want to do anything. I was - - my intention was to have all this information sometime in October or November, by the first of the year we would have all the new boards and everything ready with the new government. Now, we do need to replace the Planning and Zoning, but we do not need to go into all of the boards trying to find out who need to be on them. We need to come up with a plan and have it ready for the first of the year. And that is all I have to say about the committee and the boards. But if anybody here want to go ahead on and suggest someone from their district to go on any board, they feel free to, then get a talent bank and do so. But we must do things in order, and the order of the day is, if you don't mind, let me finish doing what I'm doing, and then I'll give you a list of the things that need to be done. And if you do mind that, I'll stop what I'm doing now and you can handle it any way you like. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call for the question on the motion on hand, which was a motion to close nominations, which all this discussion is non-germane. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. We only had one nomination, didn't we? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's nomination, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 60, please. CLERK: Item 60 is to consider appointment of Mr. D. Hugh Connolly to the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, just one question. Did we ever get any other applicants for this? I don't even know if this position was ever advertised. And how long has Mr. Connolly been on this board? CLERK: There's a letter in your book from the Department of Family and Children Services. It was a recommendation from the board. MR. J. BRIGHAM: All it says is he'd like to re-serve; it don't say how long he's been there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy -- I mean, Mr. Todd? Excuse me. MR. TODD: I'll yield, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Beard. You might have been looking my way while he asked for attention. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, it's going back to what we're saying. I just said a few minutes ago that, you know, we need to -- if the Mayor Pro Tem is going to do this and get all of this in order, we ought to let him do it. This is coming back around again, appointing someone that we know -- you know, to a board that we have very little information on. Why not let him do this? And if I'm in order, I would like to move that the -- we give him that authority to go on and work on these boards and commissions and bring us back a report. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Last meeting I think it was an addition to the agenda that I objected to. There was two: one was hiring some men and the other was this appointment. And the reason I objected to this appointment, I wanted to get some additional information about what this was all about and I didn't want it in a situation where it's been added to the agenda versus going out and the general public see what's on the agenda. Since then I've had the opportunity to visit with DFACS. We was over to a Weed and Seed Program -- Mr. Mayor, I think you had to be in Atlanta that day and could not be there -- and had an opportunity to talk to the executive director of DFACS. Certainly I'm concerned when a individual has been on a board as long as the gentleman in question and whether maybe we need some new blood. But there was a strong urging to have this person to come back in the sense that they are dealing with millions of dollars over there and they are at times dealing with issues or regulations, et cetera, that deal with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of folks in this general community. And I understand the urging to do this appointment. This gentleman serves on other boards, he's done an outstanding job, and in many cases we're talking about boards where other folks are not willing to make the commitment. You know, we have someone that's retired here. The other balance that they are trying to obtain here is a racial balance; they're trying to obtain a gender balance, et cetera, and someone from the business community. That was stressed, and Mr. Connolly is a former banker. And it would be my position to urge that we go on and make this appointment. I'm sure if for some reason we wanted this gentleman to step aside at a later date so we could reorganize that board, he would probably be glad to do so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a point on Mr. Handy's doing the committee -- or working as a committee of one to do this work. I'd like to see him be given a suspense of 15 September to have it in our hands so that we can start looking for people to fill the boards. And we'll never get it done if we don't set a date for it, and I think 15 September would be a very reasonable date. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to appoint Mr. Connolly, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 61, please. CLERK: Consider notice of appeal of the denial of the alcohol license of Mr. James V. Fenimore. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, you may recall that an appeal was filed, and this came before the Commission-Council back on August the 6th, at which time there was a lengthy agenda. And at that time an agreement was made with Mr. Batson, as reflected in the minutes, that the -- it would come up at the first meeting in September. Mr. Batson was here when that announcement was made, and I personally did not send any further notification of it. But, again, he was present when the announcement was made. Apparently he is not here today. I'll restate, as I did the first time, that I think that the denial of the appeal is appropriate -- well, yeah, he did write a letter to that effect, but subsequent to that I had written him a letter telling him that it would be at the first meeting in August. He contended that he was somehow grandfathered in, however, the license was suspended on July the 12th, 1994, based upon the conviction. Thereafter, his brother Tom Fenimore filed an application in August of '94. However, in September of '94 when this application was received, I notified Mr. Batson that that application would not be processed nor considered so long as James Fenimore's license was still in effect since it had only been suspended and had not been revoked. Thereafter, in October 1994, Mr. Batson advised that he was withdrawing James Fenimore's application and, therefore, to proceed with Tom Fenimore's application. Of course, Tom Fenimore's application was denied. I'll also point out that the alcohol ordinance prohibits the issuance of an alcohol license for sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages in adult entertainment establishments. The application filed in this case is for an adult entertainment establishment, and so therefore I recommend that the appeal be denied. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I have a couple of concerns, Mr. Wall. Other than the last meeting and relying on them to remember -- and I know we have an attorney that he paid to remember -- have they been served with a registered letter or a certified letter notifying them that they're going to have the hearing today? MR. WALL: No, sir. As I stated at the outset, I did not send any further notification because he was present at the time it was continued, and it was continued by consent to the first meeting in September. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? I guess my other question, Mr. Mayor, have the County Attorney had any communication other than written communication with the attorney representing Mr. Fenimore? MR. WALL: I wanted to clarify, Lori was here last week, and according - - she indicated to me that she had spoken to Mr. Batson on Friday and indicated that it would be today. Now, I personally didn't have that conversation, but she's reported that to both me and to Lena, so. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there any legal requirement that we notify them in writing of a hearing? MR. WALL: There is the legal requirement that he be notified. That was done prior to the August 6th meeting. By consent it was continued. There is no legal requirement that any further notice as to a postponed hearing that was postponed by consent, that any further notice be given. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the County Attorney know why I'm raising these concerns. Certainly it's my position to give the person that's appealing the decision of this board every opportunity to come here and show cause why we shouldn't -- why we should approve or deny, and that's the basis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS VOTES NO; MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. CLERK: Item 62: Consider approval of an Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and Macuch Steel Products. MR. WALL: You have this agreement in the book. It is an -- Macuch Steel wishes to build on part of the right-of-way, and this is an indemnity agreement that would protect the county. In fact, I think they've already encroached on one previous occasion, but the addition would go over some additional pipes. And the agreement is in order and I recommend approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. What kind of structure are we talking about? MR. WALL: A building over a water line -- storm drainage. MAYOR SCONYERS: Like a shed-type structure, isn't it, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Butler building. MR. HANDY: It's over -- Augusta Avenue. It's over by your place, right behind your place. MR. TODD: Butler building? I just hope there's good records kept that we're okaying this, because I think we got burned on one before, and I won't get into that, but I most likely will vote against it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 63, please. CLERK: Consider approval of a Resolution declaring intent to create a single Aviation Commission and requesting recommendations from the General Aviation Commission (Daniel Field) and the City Aviation Commission (Bush Field) regarding said single Aviation Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a substitute motion to table this for 30 days. I've spoken with both committee -- someone from both airfields, and Mr. Carstar-phen, if I'm not mistaken, stated -- we can pull the records and see if he has spoken -- or had a meeting with both airport authorities and they came up with this recommendation. And the person that contacted me had no knowledge of this, and we'd like to have some more input and maybe even have a public hearing right here with both committees and both managers and come up with a decision rather than to go ahead on and form this thing. For some reason or another, I hear a lot of negatives about putting both airports together. And at first I was in favor of doing it, but when you have complaints or people asking, then I think we should be able to listen to them and then come up -- so we can make an intelligent decision. And I think if we do what we're asking here today, we may be more harm than good, so I ask for a 30-day delay until we meet everybody together and come up with a decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Handy's -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to discuss -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Be right with you, Mr. Todd. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if the original motion was voted on, I would vote for it, but I think that Mr. Handy -- if he has some concern about the general public knowing what we intend to do here, I have no problem voting for his substitute motion. However, I would like to see this come back to -- within 30 days to this Commission, and that if we do have a public hearing, that we have it within that period of time, and that we instruct Mr. Carstarphen to get with both managers of Daniel Field and Bush Field to fully make them aware of what our intentions are. MR. HANDY: And the committee also, Mr. Kuhlke -- committee members. The Commission, rather. MR. KUHLKE: That would be fine. But I want you to understand, Mr. Handy, you've got two separate committees there. They're both going to have different ideas. And I think the approach that we were taking, that both of those commissions would be abolished and we'd form a new commission. So I want them to be informed, but -- and I want them to speak to us, but I think if we are going to consolidate this government we can't drag our feet and sit back, we need to do something. MR. HANDY: I agree with you, Mr. Kuhlke. And I think Mr. Carstarphen said that we will not abolish both commissions at first, we will put them all together and then we'll start weaning them out. That way we will have someone on both sides till they learn the other. MR. KUHLKE: That's not the way I understand it. MR. HANDY: Okay, then. Well, even more better then to have what I want done down there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, and then Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the magic date that I can think of is, I guess, September 31st -- what's the date that we're going to have everything consolidated? I just want the general public to know that it's the, in many cases, special interests that's holding up the consolidation of things and not the Project Manager and not this board. And I know that both -- special interests from both of the commissions has been busy over the last few weeks or since this proposal was made. This is not something that we heard about yesterday, it goes back to three or four weeks. Gentlemen, I hate to be the one to tell you the sky is falling, but we're not going to make that date if we go 30 days delaying this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mayor Sconyers, I hope that we would vote against the substitute motion. I think we need to get on with consolidation. I'd have probably supported this if it had come on, say, March or April or something like that, but, you know, I think we're under the gun here. We're under a deadline. I think this resolution is reasonable, and it's what we discussed in our open and public meeting, and I think it's something that we can support. And I might point out that this is the first reading. We'll have a second reading at the next meeting, and any -- you know, now is the time for discussion whether we want to do this or not, and at the next meeting at the second reading. But I think we need to move on with this and pass the original resolution. MR. WALL: There would not be a second reading. MR. BRIDGES: Oh, really? Okay. I've been corrected, there won't be a second reading. My thoughts still stand. I think this is what -- I think we need to move on with consolidation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to clarify that? MR. WALL: Only ordinances are the ones that require the second reading. This would not. And this is only a statement of intent to consolidate. You would still have to come back with an ordinance, which would require two readings, to either consolidate the two commissions or to create a new commission and abolish the existing commissions. MR. HANDY: And that will be past the 30 days if we're going to have to do all that, past September the 30th, because we won't be meeting but one more time this month. MR. WALL: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I can live with either one of the motions that's on the floor, but the only thing I find a little bit amusing is that we're dealing with people who are utilizing private time to work with these boards and commissions. And while I think we should make sure that everything involving aviation is brought into the 21st century, I also think that, you know, it's kind of ridiculous that we have very important departments that may or not be that we have a direct say-so over that are not going to be in line by that date. We've got one that I've talked about till near nine o'clock when we got out of here the other night that's going to have to oversee approximately seven million dollars in new money where it's understaffed and no director, and yet now it seems as though there's a mad rush to deal with a board and commission where people are basically going and utilizing their time and efforts to put into it. I think that that might be the ultimate goal, to bring these two together, but I think the tone of it basically says to the general public, and particularly to the people serving, that maybe you might, you know, be doing something wrong, we got to get you out by September the 30th, and do it. I think maybe if we take care of a little bit of the business that we're supposed to be dealing with and directly overseeing and kind of let those folk run basically two departments, at least for another 30 days or three weeks, to where -- to the standpoint other than what maybe that old government dipped in and did with some money, I think they've pretty much been abiding by some pretty good rules in what they've been doing and have done this city good representation. I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be consolidated, but I just think we have a lot more important business that we have a direct say-so over other than trying to get in and maybe get on a brow-whipping date by two boards and commissions to bring them in one simply because we've been reorganized as a government. Maybe that's an ultimate goal to get done, I don't know, but I think there's a lot of things that we're going to have to do in terms of department heads and everything else other than getting that deep into a mad rush, that I don't think two to three weeks is going to kill us. And has anybody other than the Project Manager maybe had even a conversation with the people who serve on those boards? Maybe some of you have, I don't know. But I think the tone that goes out from it is a little bit mean- spirited. MR. BURTON: Mayor Sconyers, my name is Terry Burton -- and Commission members. I, in fact, serve on the Daniel Field airport commission. I guess we're at a loss because, you know, this was pretty much the first thing we heard about it. Mr. Carstarphen has not approached many of the commission members. He, in fact, may have approached Bob Hayes. But I stand before you as somebody who's served nearly seven years on that body. I have no interest -- I come off December of this year -- have no interest in serving any further on it. I have tried to work hard in that seven-year period of time, like other commissioners have, and we were surprised to see the intent to consolidate the two bodies and really wanted some direction from y'all. You know, what was the intent -- what was the written intent or the obvious intent besides, you know, just brief intent to consolidate the two bodies? What actually is that intent, you know, to do so? What's the background or the purposes for doing so? Neither one of the commissions, as I understand it -- or at least Daniel Field airport commission doesn't cost the city a thing. None of us serve for any money. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen is not here, and he's got all the pertinent information that we need. Unless Mr. Wall -- Mr. Wall, do you know what his intent was? MR. WALL: No. I mean, I'm aware of the fact that he came before this Commission approximately two months ago and asked whether or not that was something that the Commission desired that he look into, and he was directed to proceed. I know he met with me insofar as getting copies of the applicable ordinances from the city code and that type of information insofar as how they were structured, et cetera, and I furnished him a list of the members. And I --you know, beyond that I don't know what meetings he's held or has not held. MR. BURTON: Well, I guess I'm just surprised to see that there is an intent to consolidate the two when, in fact, the boards that advise the two, or the committees, doesn't know anything about it. You know, it's kind of like consolidating two companies or merging two companies together and not talking to the board of directors. You know, we don't see what the basis for consolidating the two governments are -- I mean, two committees. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Certainly you make a good point, but I guess if we can consolidate this government and the city and county not talk coming up to the process, you know, we probably can consolidate other boards and commissions. And I'm not saying that, you know, to be sarcastic, but certainly we've done that. It's my understanding that Mr. Carstarphen's reasons for consolidating them is that we have a large gamut of boards and authorities and commissions, and he feel that we can consolidate some of them -- and this is not the only one -- to make it a little easier to manage. And his other concept, if -- I'm thinking out loud. From what I understood him to, you know, be concerned about is management of the boards and authorities and reports by those chairmen of the boards and authorities back to the Commission and have a somewhat focus on what's going on versus a distance, you know, quasi, you know, government-commission but arms length; that he wanted to draw things in a little closer so we as policymakers would have a broader understanding of what's going on and how it functions, et cetera. I don't think there's any intent to do -- to have a negative impact. I don't think there's necessarily an intent to save revenue in the sense that the members are not paid, but just to have -- consolidate the management and the policymaking decisions where when it come to us, that we're not dealing with two separate aviation commissions but one. MR. BURTON: Right. Well, in fact, you know, they are two different airports. Their functions are two different functions. It's like apples and oranges, you know. A decision for Bush Field would impact -- could adversely impact Daniel Field. The same thing, one made for Daniel could impact Bush. So I guess we just don't see the basis for this, not yet, and we -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? I'm sure, though, that there would be individuals on the new board or commission from industry. There would be individuals on there from recreational aviation, there would be individuals on there from general aviation, and possibly just economic development, et cetera. We understand the importance of Daniel Field when it come to the Masters coming to town and bringing the Signal Corps out and Fort Gordon to help them handle the traffic. That's economic development. We understand that when we're having the -- the fly-in, whatever it's called. I have a -- MR. BURTON: Sure. Yeah, the -- yeah. MR. TODD: Okay. And the impact there. And certainly I don't think this board would do anything to have a negative impact on the operation. We also understand the importance as far as industrial development in industry and economic development of Bush Field. And I think that we can bring them together. If we can come together in every other area, I think some of the boards and commissions and authorities can come together where they have a common interest, and that's just my thoughts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We've got Mr. Perry out there that wants to say something over here. MR. PERRY: My name is Bill Perry; I live on Cardinal Drive behind the Daniel Village Shopping Center. I'm a pilot; I'm very interested in the airport. I have a plane based at Bush Field. I disagree with most everything that Mr. Burton has told you today. He wasn't at the meeting Tuesday. I'm not a commission member. Mr. Beard is a commission member, but because of his other business he hasn't been in attendance since consolidation. There are times when you don't even have a quorum to make decisions at the meetings there. Mr. Burton was not at the meeting on Tuesday. The chairman of the commission is named Bob Moore. He's well aware of what you people are attempting to do down here today. He approves of it. He does have knowledge of it, so does Mr. Hayes. I don't know where Mr. Terry -- where Mr. Burton got the information that the airport commission was not aware of all this. They are very much aware of it. You have conflicts of interest at Daniel Field, including Mr. Burton. You also have some safety problems that need to be addressed. There's a lot going on up there that could cost the county lots of money if something were to happen. I'm glad to see you people get interested in what's going on at Daniel Field, but I would like to remind you that both Daniel Field and Bush Field until 1974 were operated under one commission and it was done so successfully. I would like to tell you also that you have a land grant use act between the government --your government and the federal government, the FAA. Under Mr. Burton's chairmanship it was violated many, many times. I've got a file here four inches thick on violations of this. I would like for your language -- when you do resolve these issues, to learn about and include this in your language that these items should not be violated. These people have done mostly what they wanted to. You've had some very, very important corporate citizens turned down on items that they should've been approved simply because it was a little clique, a little club, and that's all we have at Daniel Field. We spend money -- Mr. Burton told you that it was self-sufficient. That's not true. Bush Field paid $268,000 last year for improvements at Daniel Field. You have a blue ribbon commission at Bush Field. You have people that know what they're doing, you have experienced businessmen, and you have management in place. You have layers of management that are trained. They know how to run airports. This group at Daniel Field does not know how to run airports and haven't attempted to run airports. This thing about it not costing us money, I think the person that's more knowledgeable of what it does cost you would be the attorney for the city, would be Paul Dunbar, and I think he can tell you of some attempts to even pave private land at Daniel Field and private contracts. It's really very serious, and you do need to address it. And you don't need to wait 30 days to address it because we have a fly-in coming up here very shortly. One lady who is a commissioner is paid by this fly-in, receives a salary from the fly-in, and she's arguing that they shouldn't supply insurance coverage to protect us in the county. And if something happens up there, these commissioners aren't going to pay out of their pockets. You're going to pay out of your tax dollars, and that's where it's coming from. And, Terry, I don't know what you're doing here, but Bob Moore, the chairman of the Daniel Field commission is very much aware of what's going on down here and does approve of it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My biggest problem with consolidating is that I really don't know enough. I am not representing any special interest in this, I just want to make a good decision, and I just don't have any information. I heard about consol-idation of the two airfields probably on the second day we were in office, and it was just -- why do we have two commissions? Well, I still don't know why we have two commissions, and I don't know if there's a good reason or a bad reason for having two commissions. And I think that the public would be well served if we had a dialogue about this and then we make a decision, but I don't like to make decisions based upon information I really don't know anything about, and I won't either. MR. BURTON: Sure. Well, I appreciate that. And this is not the opportunity to respond to Mr. Perry, but he does this quite often, and in time I will respond to everything that he mentioned today. But, in fact, for y'all to say that you have the intent to consolidate these two bodies, I don't think anybody on this board knows enough about the two airports to know if it's good or if it's bad, as you just stated. We need that opportunity. It's hard to stand before a body who's already made a decision with the intent to consolidate these two commissions, so therefore what I'm asking for is that 30 days, at least, so there can be some dialogue, some discussion of the pros and cons. I've been in touch with that airport commission, our airport commission; I've yet to find anybody that wants to see them consolidated. So, you know, I guess a lot of people are at a loss as to where this is actually coming from. Nobody I've run into yet wants to see this happen. Obviously somebody does, we'd just like to identify who that is and their reasons for it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman-Mayor and Mr. Zetterberg, would you folks like a petition with information to answer your question? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm not accustomed to making decisions on things that I know absolutely nothing about, and I'm not here to just listen to -- I appreciate what you're saying, okay? And I certainly appreciate what he's saying. But I'm accustomed to having people do staff work, give me the pros and cons of it, the advantages and disadvantages, and then I can make intelligent decisions. In this case I can't make an intelligent decision. MR. PERRY: I understand that. Would you like for me to -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Obviously you and Mr. Burton don't agree on anything. MR. PERRY: Absolutely not. Would you like me to -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Somewhere the truth is in the middle then. MR. PERRY: Would you like me to supply you with some documentation? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like somebody to give me information. MR. PERRY: Well, my question is would you like for me to supply you with documentation? MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't know if I want to. I want to talk to the commissions, the boards. MR. PERRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do y'all need the motion read, gentlemen? Would you read the substitute motion, please? MS. WATSON: The substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg, to postpone for 30 days. The original motion made by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Kuhlke was to approve the resolution today. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Handy, to postpone for 30 days. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's do a roll call and get it over with. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're getting it now, Mr. Todd, just hold on a second. CLERK: That was to include a public hearing. Mr. Handy's motion was to include a public hearing within that 30 days. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So which motion are we voting on? CLERK: Mr. Handy's substitute motion, which tables the action for 30 days and to hold a public hearing between that time period. Alphabetically, we'll start with Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: For my own motion, what do you think? CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE, AND MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE YES. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 6-3-1. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call the order of the day, to go to the original motion and do a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what we're fixing to do, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, this is back to the original motion to approve the resolution. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Here. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MR. HANDY AND MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 64, please. CLERK: Under Item 64 -- Mr. Carstarphen is not here. The Mayor would like to address, under 64, Item D) Department Head appointments for the following departments: Recreation, Fire, Finance, and Purchasing. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have talked about these, and this is to expedite the matter some. This is what Mr. Carstarphen wanted to do today, but he's not here. And all this will do is to allow us to go ahead and get it on the agenda for the next meeting or as soon as possible so we can go ahead and make these appointments. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we going to do these from within; is that what we're saying? That's the recommendation from the committee? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I plan to vote for it and don't have any problem with it. I was one of the people that talked about that the other night. But does he have a -- are we doing these on a scheduled breakdown, three to four of these at a time, or -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we're going to do these four at one time. MR. MAYS: I guess what I'm more concerned about is probably part of the other ten. I think it was --well, the number was 14 or 15 that's in there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we actually had, I think eight. We have this four, and then we're going to do four the next time. MR. MAYS: Okay. So week by week, I guess what I was -- four per week? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. KUHLKE OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to address Item E. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, go ahead. MR. HANDY: Did the committee give us our five names today; do you know? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, they're in the office. MR. HANDY: Okay, then. That's good. Thank you. That's all I have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. POWELL: I have one question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: My question is, where is the Project Manager? MAYOR SCONYERS: His mother and aunt are real ill, and that was -- did we hear from him this afternoon? MR. POWELL: I just wanted it for information purposes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. CLERK: The City Attorney has requested a legal meeting under Item 65 -- 66. MR. WALL: I've got one litigation matter that I need to -- MR. HANDY: Which attorney? CLERK: City-County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do I hear a motion for a brief legal meeting? MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. MR. TODD: I'm going to second it. This is for possible litigation or litigation? MR. WALL: Pending litigation. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 5:52 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council held on September 3, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council C E R T I F I C A T E G E O R G I A RICHMOND COUNTY I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 203. I further certify that I am not a party to, related to, nor interested in the event or outcome of such proceedings. Witness my hand and official seal this 10th day of September 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER