Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS September 17, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:19 p.m., Tuesday, September 17, 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, Interim Attorney; and Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We're going to have the invocation today by the Reverend Johnny R. Hatney, Pastor of Good Hope Baptist Church. If you'll remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REVEREND JOHNNY R. HATNEY. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request for a deletion of Item 21. Additions: Delegations: A presentation to the Commission-Council, a 1996 National Trails for Tomorrow award; a request by Mr. James A. Bethea, reference to the mission of the government. A communication from the Attorney regarding approval of a contract for Belle Terrace Senior Citizens Center. A communi-cation from the Attorney regarding approval of a proposed lease agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and the Department of Natural Resources, together with the Boat Ramp Operations and Maintenance Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. I have a serious problem with folks not meeting the deadlines and not having legitimate reasons for not meeting them, then come in and expect to be considered or get consideration on meeting day or a few days before. The deadlines for getting things on the agenda, which apply to me and all of the public, is Thursday morning by 9:30. The Thursday morning before the Tuesday of the meeting by 9:30. I'm going to vote for this one, but we have a tremendous work load, and we -- trying to manage the agendas and put things on them where it's workable, where we can give full consideration and we don't have to rush through the work load, and it would certainly be helpful if the public would at least try to help us manage that agenda. I think most of the complaints have been from the public or the media as far as the lengths of the meetings, et cetera. And I have no further comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Members of Commission-Council, we would like at this time to consider Items 45 and 46. Is a representative from T.W. Josey and Westside present? [Item 45: Consider approval of the renaming of the section of White Road between Olive Road and Fifteenth Street as "Eagle Way" to honor the T.W. Josey Eagles 1995 AAA State Football Championship. Item 46: Consider approval of the renaming of Stelling Road as "Patriots Way" to honor the Westside Patriots 1995 AAA State Basketball Championship.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we change Stelling Road to Patriot's Way. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [MR. J. BRIGHAM PRESENTS AWARD TO T.W. JOSEY REPRESENTATIVES] MAYOR SCONYERS: It's my understanding the street sign will be up tomorrow; is that correct? The street sign will be up tomorrow? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I certainly hope so. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to also make a motion that White Road be changed to Eagle Way in honor of the 1995 State Class AAA football champions, Josey Eagles. MR. HANDY: I'd like to second that, Mr. Mayor, since that's part of my district. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I, being the other part, say I second it also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [MR. MAYS PRESENTS AWARD TO WESTSIDE REPRESENTATIVES] MR. MAYS: We also, Mr. Mayor, if the young man there -- we've got part of our Richmond County family here. Leon Grant, who has been rated, I guess, the number one defensive back in the country this year, and -- the State says so, but we say country -- also worked with us during the summer in Richmond County Recreation and Parks, so we have one of our own here with us this morning. And Coach Starr, if we can keep going like we're going we'll just switch over and put six on this other side and -- as long as you don't give me too many more heartaches like we had the other night. Congratulations. COACH STARR: Okay, Mr. Mays. We appreciate all of this. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: Next we will consider the presentation to Commission-Council, the 1996 National Trails for Tomorrow Award. Ms. Kuhlke? MS. KUHLKE: On behalf of the Richmond County Recreation and Parks Department, along with Andy Jordan, who is right over here, and the Augusta Canal Authority and Walton Rehab and all our other sponsors, we'd like to present the 1996 Trails for Tomorrow Award. We had a bicycle ride on June 1st, which Mayor Sconyers was a part of. It was a groundbreaking with North Augusta. We had our groundbreaking on our side and North Augusta had their new greenway opening over there, so we got together and we called our group the Georgia-Carolina Connection. We had over 400 participants in the ride, and it was a huge success, so we decided to apply for this award. There was hundreds and hundreds of applications for this award along the country, and we were --out of the hundreds we were one of the ten to receive the award. And we received $500 in cash along with $2,000 worth of merchandise for our next event to promote the Augusta Canal. So on behalf of that, we would like to present this to you and the Augusta-Richmond County. [MS. KUHLKE PRESENTS AWARD TO MAYOR SCONYERS] MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. It's a great day for Augusta. We had a lot of folks riding up and down the Canal, I'll tell you that. CLERK: We will now consider the Engineering portion of our agenda. Items 27 through 38 were all approved in the Engineering Services Committee on September 9th, 1996. [Item 27: Consider approval to ratify a contract award to Bekel and Company for emergency repairs of a leak in the Filter Plant's west reservoir. Item 28: Consider approval of a recommended adjustment of water and sewer bill for Kendrick Paint and Body Shop. Item 29: Consider approval of the Augusta-Richmond County Contract for Jackson Road Widening. Item 30: Consider approval of the Augusta-Richmond County Contract for Perimeter Parkway Improvements. Item 31: Consider approval of payment of an invoice from Southern Partners, Inc. Item 32: Consider approval of the subcomittee's report to solicit RFP's on privatization of the Sanitation Department. Item 32A: Consider approval of the subcommittee's recommendation of bid award for the demolition of Village Square apartments. Item 33: Consider approval of condemnation of easement of property of Earth Grains Baking Companies, Inc., formerly known as Colonial Baking Company of Augusta, Inc., in connection with Glass Factory Avenue Sewer Separation Project, Section III. Item 34: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement on Project Parcel 33 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Tony Diamond. Item 35: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement on Project Parcel 54 of the Sand Ridge Estate Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Ralph and Mary G. Hall. Item 36: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement on Project Parcel 44 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Linda K. and Larry L. Brewer. Item 37: Consider approval of an easement from Augusta-Richmond County to Southern Natural Gas Company. Item 38: Consider approval of Change Order No. 1 for Pines Heights Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept those items as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to pull Item Number 38 for discussion, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: 38? Okay. So that's going to be Item 27 through 37. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 38, please. CLERK: Item 38: Consider approval of Change Order No. 1 for the Pine Heights Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Powell, my only question on that, that's a change order, Number 38. And my question is on the second page of that change order where in the second item on there, the $44,000 item, and I want to know if I'm reading this correctly that the additional cost proposed to extend sewer line to service seven lots is $44,000? That sounds astronomically high to me, unless there's some circumstances that I'm not aware of. MR. HICKS: No, that's for about 1,900 feet, I believe it is. It extends along Lumpkin Road going toward Highway 56. MR. KUHLKE: Would that -- Mr. Hicks, would that in the future be available for service for other development out that way or is this strictly for just seven houses? MR. HICKS: It's really a business area. It's along where there are business. And all the rest of the houses and businesses in that area are served, so that's just to pick up those that are remaining unserved. But all the rest of them have sewer service out in that area. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we approve it. MR. KUHLKE: Is that your district? MR. TODD: No, sir, it's not. And I don't think it's relevant that my colleague asks the question whether it's in my district. MR. POWELL: I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. There is pockets throughout this county where we have a situation where we don't have sewerage. And I certainly think whether it's South Richmond, West Richmond or Central Richmond, where those pockets exist we should try to give those citizens that sewerage service. And I think what we need to look at is the payback and whether it's cost beneficial to do it, cost it out. If the return is there in several years, then we certainly should go on and do them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Next item, Mr. James Bethea. MR. BETHEA: My name is James Bethea, I live at 4232 Bath Edie Road, and I'm a member of the Georgians Need a Raise Coalition. Right now the minimum wage is $4.25, and what -- some economic realities here in Richmond County: there are over 18,000 families that pay 30 percent of their income for housing; there's over 22,000 kindergarten through 12th grade students that receive free or reduced lunch. The present minimum wage and the projected increase of 5.15 is not a liveable wage, and we're asking this body to support the actions of the Georgians Need a Raise Coalition. The Commission has gotten together and they have stated that their mission is to provide all of the citizens a cost effective, high quality government service, an environment which enhances the economic well-being and quality of life in the Augusta metropolitan area. It doesn't matter what district you're from, you have constituents in each of these districts that are not receiving a liveable wage, and we're trying to gain support in order to bring that wage up to a liveable minimum. There will be a public rally this Saturday, September 21st, at 11:30 at the Area II office community center, formerly known as Sunset Homes, 1964 Hunter Street, and I would like to see our government representatives there to help us support this initiative. There's a lot of people that want to work. We're not looking for a handout, just a fair hand, a liveable wage. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bethea. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept Mr. Bethea's statements as information. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: The only thing I'd like to say to Mr. Bethea, I guess I'll have to end up being there, I'm one of the panelists. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The Planning portion of our agenda, it's the recommendation of the Planning Commission that all items could be taken as consent, with the exception of Items 1, 2, and 7. Item 1: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Joyce L. Brown, on behalf of Eula and Marshall Holmes, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26.1. Item 2: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Barbara Reeves requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home. Item 3: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Gloria G. Wheeler requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26.1. Intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Eastside Court. Item 4: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Pastor Drake P. Barber, on behalf of South Atlantic Conference Association, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church as provided for in Section 26.1. Intersection of Shirley Avenue and Olive Road. Item 5: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from J. Willard Hogan, on behalf of McDonald Georgia Builders, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church. Tobacco Road and Mack Lane. Item 6: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Sandra N. Howard requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home. Old Waynesboro Road and Pine Log road. Item 7: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Van A. Powell requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home. Intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Wylie Drive. Item 8: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charles V. Davis, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential). Seaboard Coastline and Belmont Avenue. 9: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from William G. Wingate, Jr., on behalf of Clifford H. Pryor, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B- 2 (General Business). Intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Melrose Drive. 10: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve with the condition "That only business on this property shall be a florist" and that at such time as this use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence), petition from Melvin and Sarah Elstein, on behalf of Amanda Frazier. Britts Lane and Fenwick Street. Item 11: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Carolton McDonald, on behalf of Nuite, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General business). Intersection of Tobacco Road and Windsor Spring Road. 12: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from W.R. Toole Engineering, on behalf of Southeastern Communities requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One- family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) and requesting plan approval for an expansion of an existing mobile home park (Emery Hills). Barton Chapel Road and Glenn Hills Drive. 13: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from W.R. Toole Engineering on behalf of Southeastern Communities, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on Barton Chapel Road and Glenn Hills Drive. Do you want to take the final plats or do you want to do the -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it may be confusing in the sense that she read all of them, but she said we was going to take 1, 2, and 7 separate. CLERK: Take 1, 2, and 7 out. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? I'd like to -- I've got a question on Number 3 as well. It may just -- may not be able to pull it out, I've just got a question concerning it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve, with the exceptions, the actions of the Planning Commission, with the exception of Items 1, 2, 3 and 7. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do we have any protests of anybody of any of these items? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have anybody that has any objections to any of the above items? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that we do have folks here from a couple subdivisions that have objections to us going against the approval of the Planning and Zoning, and I guess that my concern would be that is the petitioners here and do they have a problem with us taking them as consent agenda, the rest? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any petitioners here? PUBLIC CITIZEN: One. MAYOR SCONYERS: What number? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Number 1? I think there are some people here for number 12, also, I believe. Some for number 12? MR. TODD: Yes, I'll accept that amendment, Mr. Brigham, if that's what you would like, for Number 12 to also be taken separately. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're going to take out 1, 2, 3, 7, and 12; is that correct? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're voting on 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13. MR. H. BRIGHAM: 12 and 13. MAYOR SCONYERS: I thought you wanted to take 12 out. CLERK: You took 12 out. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's my understanding that they go together. CLERK: You want 12 and 13? You want to take out 13 as well? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Why are we taking them out? If the petitioner is not here to object to a consent agenda, then I don't see a reason to take them out and deal with them separately. If the petitioner is here, then certainly -- and if it's the wishes of the petitioner or his or her agent, then I -- you know, then I would respect that and deal with them separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a representative from Southeastern Communities or Toole Engineering here? MR. TODD: And I believe at the other hearing Attorney Williams was their attorney, so. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a representative here. Do y'all want to pull it out or let it go? MR. TODD: Let's let it go, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're pulling out 1, 2, 3, and 7. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm just voting -- because I wasn't clear on exactly what Mr. Todd's motion was. MAYOR SCONYERS: It was to concur with the Planning Commission. MR. TODD: With the exception of 1, 2, 3, and 7. Those were pulled out, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change my vote to a yes vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a unanimous vote. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Item 1 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Joyce L. Brown, on behalf of Eula & Marshall Holmes, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal day care home. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who wanted this item pulled? CLERK: It was at the request of the Planning Commission. MR. PATTY: Mr. Chairman, this -- or Mr. Mayor, this was a denial. We had a lot of objectors. It was a typical subdivision house, and I assumed that the petitioner would be here to contest it is the reason I asked that it be pulled. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is the petitioner here? Joyce L. Brown? MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm here. Good afternoon. My name is Joyce L. Brown. I'm a young entrepreneur with a business plan to become one of Augusta's most honorable, respected, and reliable personal care home provider. I have a purpose. Helping Hands PCH will provide superior service for our clients, remembering that each client may be a tremendous source of referral. Helping Hands PCH will also provide activities for our clients, which will include reading, trips to the Senior Citizens Council, and trips to the park and the Riverwalk. My goal, to be known throughout the CSRA as the family personal care home with a warm, friendly atmosphere and, most of all, well-trained staff. My commitment to the Windermere Subdivision is to join the Neighborhood Watch and help keep up the beautification of the neighborhood. I also have with me a petition from some of the neighbors saying that it's okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we deny and stay in compliance with the Planning and Zoning decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have second by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield to my colleague. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was just wondering, those folks that may object to it, if they have some -- it seems as if the young lady presented a good plan and she has a business plan for it, and I was just wondering what were the objections to it. I realize that -- if we could hear from the objectors that might would help, but if there's no objectors I'm going to make a substitute motion that we approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we have some objectors right to the right, Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. MS. HULSE: My name is Sharon Hulse, I live at 3520 Windermere Drive. I live in the residential area that she's concerned about, as well as I am the neighborhood association president. Our concern -- it varies. This is our fourth meeting and -- concerning this. For the lady that is standing with her in the green is a member also of the residence that we live in. Now, she's been in this property area for -- she and Ms. Brown, and neither one have made a point, and we have put out fliers for the neighborhood association meetings, we have told them what the agenda was going to be, neither one of them has tried to come and join in. So when they're talking about being part of the residential area and the community, we haven't seen it yet; okay? Number two is that our main concern is that we've had some -- we've had two of the personal care homes in -- we have a small subdivision. It's only 60 homes. The last time we also brought petitions. I don't know where these names are coming from, but we brought petitions. Over one-third of the residents had signed that were homeowners in that residence. But anyway, the second personal care home, the gentlemen, his name was -- and we're not saying that all of them are going fall on this scale, but we as a community are saying that we need a regroup time away from this concern so we can get on with some other agenda in our neighborhood. But this gentlemen was convicted of raping a client in a personal care home in our small subdivision. So that fear runs rampant, and we just don't want a potential Polly Klass or anything coming into that residential area. And I've heard about trying to respect the main -- the characteristics of professional areas and professional business centers. We feel that as taxpayers and homeowners that we need to be taken into consideration about our own development, our homes we have chose to invest our money, raise our children. Now, one thing that was brought out the last time was that we were just concerned about the money. Well, let me assure you that this is why Ms. Brown is going into business in a residential area. It is the money. It's a business. This is not where her home is. This is -- if she is concerned, let her make her best -- her house of taking care of these people in an area that she's invested in, where she's raising her children. That's some of our concerns. CLERK: Can we get your name for the record, please? MS. HULSE: Sharon Hulse. CLERK: Thank you. MS. JONES: My name is Lydia Jones. As she so far put it, yes, I do live in that neighborhood, and every time that you have had a meeting I've been working; okay? You just got together and established to elect new officers. Okay, you're right, we have had several meetings on this. I do not feel that by having a personal care home in that area is going to take from the neighborhood. You were concerned about the traffic. Well, I don't think with six or seven people there as elderly, I don't think all the families are going to visit at the same time as you would have at a nursing home. We have a lot of wild parties out there. I mean, people park on both sides of the street, in the yards. And, you know, we have -- we are right next to Fort Gordon, so we have traffic in and out of there all the time. And we do not know, and I'll bet you do not know of either, the people that come in our neighborhood. We have strange cars. So it's not going to take any more, you know, by having a little bit of extra traffic in there. It's not going to take from the neighborhood. Yes, it was a personal care home in that area. That personal care home was run down. That personal care home does not exist in that neighborhood anymore. So I do think this is very necessary, because we have a lot of elderly people who do not have anywhere to go. And a lot of accidents have been caused because of the elderly because of their sight and because of their poor muscle control and taking care of themselves. I do think this is very necessary. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd certainly like to comment on the motion that's on the floor now, and then if a substitute motion makes the floor, then I'll comment on that. From what I've heard is that the personal care home would have a negative impact on the residential value or property value in the sense that you would have a commercial use and commercial zoning inside of a subdivision. I think if this was out on Deans Bridge Road or Windsor Spring Road or almost any other road that concern wouldn't be there, it would be in a commercial district. It's my position that when it cause a conflict in the community, per my understanding of the statute, that we have every right to deny the rezoning for special exception for commercial use, personal care, or any other special exception. It's also my understanding that any individual can keep up to -- is it four? two? -- two individuals in their home without getting a license to do it or to establish a commercial personal care home, where in a residential community if someone wants to take care of their parents or a couple of seniors they may do it without going commercial. But what we have here is a petitioner that's wanting to go commercial in a residential community, and based on the zoning act, et cetera, I think that this board have the obligation and the right to deny this petition. And I call for the question, that we should go on and comply with the Planning and Zoning recommendation to deny. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy wanted to speak, and then after that we'll call the question. Mr. Handy? MS. HULSE: Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: One moment. Mr. Handy has the floor. MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to just make a general statement. There has been other zoning that we have approved. Matter of fact, we approved some here today of the same nature. But my question is, if this to be a personal care home, where can you establish a home but in a subdivision? Are you going to build a commercial building in a different area? A home is a home, and if the home is in a neighborhood, I don't know where else it could be. So we have sat here and -- just hold on a minute, you can talk when I finish. MS. HULSE: I haven't said anything. MR. HANDY: No, no, I know -- I know who I'm talking to and he know who I'm talking to. Also, is that why are we approving any homes in any subdivision if it's wrong for this subdivision? We should establish a policy here today and say we're not going to put any homes in any subdivision, because if you're going to treat one subdivision one way, you should treat them all the same way. You shouldn't have any subdivision getting different preference than others. So all I -- my statement is that a home is a home. And if it says a hospital, then you go build your commercial building. But if you're going to put a personal care home, you have to put it in a home, and that's where a home is already established. MS. HULSE: May I just say this, Mr. Sconyers, and this is where we stand. That this is not someone that has vested in the neighborhood. They came into the neighborhood looking for a site to make money. We have chosen that area for our homes. We're vested in there, ranging from -- that subdivision is only 23 years old and we have residents have been there from that time and are still there. The bus picks up the students right there in front of that house. Also, is that I say again we had the last problem with this other personal care home. We are a subdivision. We are a small subdivision. We're just asking for these considerations, that they be taken in. She lives in a residential area. I'm sure there may be a place there in her own area -- in her own neighborhood that she could be -- that she's already vested in and could have her business there. But to come into a residential area just to make money, I'm sorry, we did not choose that residential area and invest all these years for that. MS. LAWSON: Mayor Sconyers, and to the decision-making body, I am Mattie Lawson. I own the Spice of Life Personal Care and Respite Center. I would just like to say something about four of the things she just said. She don't live in that neighborhood, but someone living in that neighborhood asked her to do this because no one in that neighborhood wanted to do it simply because there was too much partying in that neighborhood. That's one of your questions you said. What is the difference between a motel and a personal care home that's helping the persons that live in that neighborhood? One other question you said, the school bus is right there, picks up the children right there. If some of you all remember, when I came down to apply for my personal care home someone said the school bus picks up children right on the corner where my personal care home. I want you to know, darling, that that is happiness for those young people -- for those elderly people. They enjoy watching the children get on the bus. That is a time span for them. Yes, I own all of the Spices of Life Personal Care and Respite Centers here in Augusta, and I have a waiting list. And I plan to transfer the waiting persons to Ms. Brown's Helping Hands simply because I know she's going to do like Mattie Lawson. And anybody knows that I built the Spice of Life from the ground up, the first one to be built in the City of Augusta from the ground up for that purpose. And Ms. Brown is going to do likewise. It's not going to be a rinky-dink personal care home like that one that was vandalized out there. It really wasn't even a house. So I'm asking you all to give her a chance. That's what's wrong with our young people today, you won't give them a chance. So give them a -- give her a chance. That's what I'm asking, give her a chance. It's 40 persons in that area wants this home. What happened to the other ones? I think I'm just looking at about seven over there, so what happened? It's the partying ones that don't want it out there. Thank you so much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, what was the staff recommendation on that, please? MR. PATTY: The staff recommended that it be denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Zetterberg, did you want to say something? MR. ZETTERBERG: For my edification, Mr. Patty, there are for-profit personal care homes in residential areas all over the city, or are there none? If I was led to believe by Mr. Todd that having one in a residence was contrary to -- MR. PATTY: The answer to that is, yes, there are. Let me just give you a little bit of history to help you make your mind up on this maybe, and I'll try to keep it brief. We got into this business in 1986 when the Health Department, which had licensed personal care homes previously, decided that there needed to be some evidence of zoning compliance. And so our staff initially, and eventually the Commission, was asked to consider whether these were proper in the neighborhoods where all of them wanted to be. The nature of them, as Mr. Handy says, is they're homes, and they want these people to be located in somewhat residential home environments. Initially they started out being situations where somebody would keep two/three/four elderly people in the house with them, but it became a purely business arrangement, which most of them are today, where someone will -- on top who's got a knowledge of these type facilities will find homes throughout the county and pyramid these things where they'll have a home -- they'll rent a home in a neighborhood and put five/six-plus people in it. Apparently somewhere over four is the break even point, and so, you know, they all want five and six people. So gradually it's become more and more offensive, for lack of a better word, in neighborhoods and we've had more and more problems when these things --when people want to site these homes. I've been talking to Mr. Wall. His staff has done some extensive research because there are legal issues here obviously, Fair Housing Act Amendment and others, and we're trying to come up with a better way to do this to help you make these decisions. But as of right now the only guidance I can give you is to -- Mr. Todd was wrong on one thing. We're not asking that these be rezoned now. This property would not be rezoned, it would be a special exception. It would not change the base zoning, it would only give them a specific right to do what they're asking to do in addition to the rights they have in a residential zone. But once this is granted it would be basically forever under our present zoning, so. MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess my concern is that we have at least four or five of these cases on the agenda today. This problem is not going to go away. We have an aging population. It seems to me sooner or later we're going to have to, I guess, belly up to the bar and take a real long hard look at this, because if we excluded -- because I hear the same reasons. People have been in before and they seem to have the same complaints, school bus stops, this is a community, a residential area, and then I hear the other side come in and pose an argument that there really is not a big problem and that these are nice old people that need a place to live and it's good to have them in a residential area. Both arguments seem to be quite valid. MR. PATTY: The only guidance I can give you -- and we spent a lot of hours thinking about how to write criteria for these things. The only guidance I can give you is to think personally would you want it next to you in your neighborhood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all need the motion read or do y'all know what we're voting on? MS. HULSE: May I just say one more thing? MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: The substitute didn't get a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I know. No, we're just voting on Mr. Todd's motion. CLERK: To approve. MR. BEARD: I'll make a substitute motion, if I'm in order. MR. J. BRIGHAM: You done called the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion was never seconded. MR. BEARD: I'll second that substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think the time's expired on that. MR. BEARD: Well, I'll make another substitute motion that we give Ms. Brown the opportunity to establish a personal care home in that area. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Discussion on the substitute motion. Mr. Patty, my question would be what do the statutes say or the ordinance as far as having harmony in the community, and is that justification for denial? MR. PATTY: Well, of course, the general provisions of the zoning ordinance call for harmony in the community and things that, you know, would add to the public health, safety, and welfare and those types of general statements of well-being. I don't believe that in itself would be reason for denial unless there's some specific relationship between what's being asked for and those statements. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I heard it alluded that there's a motel there in this subdivision, and I guess that there -- adjacent to the subdivision, I believe it was there before, and it was zoned commercial before the subdivision was there, commercial property out on the road frontage. If we were debating on whether we should have a personal care home on the road frontage I don't think it would be a debate, that it would certainly be a suitable place for it. The motel that's been there for a while is Gordon Motel and the Quarters I, I guess, which is a semi-residential motel situation. I don't think that's relevant to this issue of inside the subdivision that's zoned residential -- one-family residential. In my contacts with the community and their concerns, they feel it it'll have a negative impact on the community, on the property values, on traffic, et cetera. I feel that's reason enough to deny this rezoning. I think there are proper places for personal care homes, and we've approved personal care homes where there was no opposition to them, there was harmony in the community, where it was not in a subdivision, and I feel strongly that that's the proper place. Yes, it's a good business plan. Yes, we're all going to be seniors one day, and certainly I want to do things to help seniors. But, no, we shouldn't do things that's going to have negative impact on property values because those individuals in these subdivisions are the ones that pay the property taxes that run this government. Then within the law I think we should do everything we can to protect that interest and not to okay personal care homes for individuals or parties of individuals that's from outside of those communities. And I urge you to go along with the recommendation of the staff of the Planning and Zoning and deny this petition for rezoning, special exception of a personal care home. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MS. HULSE: I have a concern. MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute now. Mr. Zetterberg, and then we're going to have the vote. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just one question. I know that there are six or seven protesters here, but did I hear you say that you have a petition signed by 40 members of the subdivision? MS. HULSE: What happened to our petitions? MR. PATTY: There it is right there. MS. HULSE: No, our petitions that we brought for the last two meetings. Where's those? MR. PATTY: I've got it right here. I've got a seven-page petition in opposition to it. MS. HULSE: And I have one question. We were told by Mr. Austin in Planning and Zoning that there was a time period before one would go down and another one could come up to be established within a certain period of time, and we were wondering about that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, can you address that for us? MR. PATTY: Yeah. We've got a 1,200 foot spacing requirement between these type facilities to try to protect neighborhoods from them being inundated. And we received information after we took their request that there may be one operating legally within that area or may have been one that operated in that area within two years. And our information with the Health Department is that it was not, that they have a legal right to ask for this zoning. MS. HULSE: One at 3010 Cromwell. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, where it won't think -- anybody would think George and I were passing any secret notes, I'm going to tell you what I wrote on the note and asked him. I came in contact with this -- Commissioner Handy, who normally represents Planning and Zoning for this Commission, I sat down on last week to represent him. And one of the questions I asked Mr. Patty, I know in previous times on two years when I had served, whether it's been with personal care homes or whether it's just been in zoning where it may have been controversial, whether or not the parties involved, the petitioner as well as the objectors, have been asked in any time period to meet with each other on this particular situation. Now, what happens, I think, in the absence of a clear law is that, quite frankly, you get into a petition signing beauty contest with these things. Now, it was -- I encountered it the first time on last week, and at that particular meeting where the only guidelines probably, and this is bad to say, that it's happened over the last few years with these situations and with some others has been the respect of the neighborhood one way or the other. Now, we've also had these similar situations where you've had split neighborhoods, where you've had as many who may have wanted it or maybe some who wanted it and others who didn't want it. And that was my reason for asking George where in some cases where we have reverted maybe a situation by a previous owner does not constitute the same behavior as one who's asking for something at this particular time. And in those cases we've asked the petitioner as well as those neighborhood association people to meet together, and then if they couldn't work out a solution, then we vote a situation up or down. But I was just wondering whether that had been done in this particular case at all, and particularly since you've got divided groups of petitions that are here. Because at that particular meeting the objectors had the petitions, which the neighborhood association president so correctly stated. Those petitions were there at that time. Now, at this particular meeting, which is a different scenario, you've got people that are for it that are there in the neighborhood. And in the absence of a clear law you boil it down to, quite frankly, as I said in the beginning, a petition signing contest because that's what it amounts to for the most part and where you respect what is given in a neighborhood. So, I mean, I don't really see how you've got a legal situation that you're standing on, quite frankly, either way. I think it would be good and harmonious if they were on an accord, and sometimes that can work out, and that's why I was asking Mr. Patty, Mr. Mayor, whether or not they had had any relationship with each other. And I know in the past we have sent petitioners as well as objectors maybe into a particular period where they can sit down together, find out the specifics of what a change of zoning is going to amount to, what they may have for a particular area, and sometimes in a lot of cases it's worked. In some cases it hasn't worked, but I think at least it gives us a little bit more clarity in terms if that's done. MS. HULSE: May I just say one more thing, sir? I don't know if this holds water here, but it held water with us when we bought our property, that there was a neighborhood covenant that we thought that protected our rights because of it being on a highly potential commercial area on Deans Bridge. And we did have a covenant, and everybody is pretty well aware of it, that says that, you know, hopefully they would stay residential with special exception of the majority of the lot owners signing a petition or whatever. And we worked hard to get out there. I'm trying my best not to take personal offense to the lady that got up because I do want to give her her due respect. But she doesn't know us. We are not the party people, we are just - - we all are raising our children and our grandchildren out there. You know, we can't -- what we try to do is keep a neighborhood watch on an area. If there is somebody that's having problems out there, then they need to make it aware of the law. But we are not the party -- quote/unquote, party people, and I do take offense at that because she doesn't live in that neighborhood and she's making blanket -- and we don't want anybody to get the wrong idea of our neighborhood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Let's vote it up or down one way or the other, gentlemen, right now. Substitute motion made by Mr. Beard? CLERK: Mr. Beard, and seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham, to disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the petition from Ms. Holmes for a personal care home. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CLERK: Item 2 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Barbara Reeves requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home on the corner of -- intersection of Ruby Drive and Fleming Drive. MS. REEVES: Good afternoon. I'm Barbara Reeves. I was turned down by the Planning Commission because I have a small home. I would just like to say that no one lives in the home but my husband and I. And I have one bedroom that is fixed for infants; my dining room has no real furniture in it, it's fixed for children. I have a little table and toys. And I am prepared to provide adequate day care to six small children, five and under. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Okay. Now, this is a little different because this is a day care home as opposed to a personal care home. In other words, they're going to provide day care, one step up from baby-sitting services, within their home during the day for children. The Commission felt that it is a small home. I believe it's 900 square feet. We felt that keeping six children -- up to six children in a home that small in a neighborhood would be an inconvenience and a hardship for the neighbors and recommended you deny it. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion, but I need to cut the amount down from six to whatever would be acceptable to Mr. Patty. What could we accept, please? MR. PATTY: Well, the State has standards for these and they affect the, you know, number of square feet per child and bathrooms per child and all that, so. MR. HANDY: Okay. What's the least amount she can get? MS. REEVES: May I say one more thing? The lady from the childcare licensing agency has been in my home and she has approved my home. That's the reason she sent me to the Planning Commission. And our figures for the square footage is 1,300 foot on my home. MR. HANDY: Question, Mr. Mayor, before I make my substitute motion. Do we have any objectors? If not, I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve it. That's in the district I represent, and if we had any objectors I'll be listening to the objectors. But since we don't have any, so I feel that we -- I would like to make a substitute motion to approve it. CLERK: It's a motion, Mr. Handy. Do you want to make a motion? MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. Motion will be fine. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Handy's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: [Indicates affirmatively.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, my concern would be whether we are in compliance with the State law as far as the square footage for the six versus four versus three, and certainly I'm not going to be able to support it until I have a clear understanding that we are. And I think that it's fairly clear as far as the plat for the house. There should be documents, et cetera, that would show the square footage versus taking one's word for what the square footage is. I'd like to hear from Planning and Zoning what the square footage is and whether this keeps us within the law. MR. PATTY: Okay. Two comments: one, the square footage on the Tax Assessor's record was 900 --approximately 900 square feet. I do not have that number in front of me. As far as the State, the State's powers would exceed ours, and they would be the ones that would determine whether they had adequate area and adequate provisions for cleanliness and sanitation, that sort of thing, play area. And regardless of what you do -- what we do here today, you know, they would have the right to, you know, enforce their ordinances and laws as they saw fit. Our role in this is really to look at how it fits in the neighborhood, not the concern for the rights of the children that would be kept. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, your staff recommendation was to deny it, Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: The staff recommendation was to approve it. The Commission voted to deny. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, is there any number of people -- any number of children they could keep without getting zoning? MR. PATTY: Two. 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 ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Next item, 3: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Gloria G. Wheeler requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a personal care home at the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Eastside Court. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I had a question on that, George. What was the reasoning for denying it? This lady called me a couple of times and it seemed like she was doing everything in order. She had a petition from the -- she said, from the neighborhood around her that they had no objection to it. Can you shed a little bit more light on the denial? MR. PATTY: Yeah. We had a misunderstanding on this, I believe, and as a result of that misunderstanding I don't think the petitioner is here today. She had -- in checking with the State, the State regulates the family personal care homes. They allow them to have from between two and six children, so on the form that she filled out with us she put from two to six children -- I mean, two to six persons, I'm sorry. I don't believe, based on my conversations with her after our zoning meeting, she ever intended to have more than two. And she is not here today contesting the zoning. She is intent on having two elderly people in the home with her after this hearing, and she can do that legally. And I believe that we did have -- we did have opposition in the neighborhood, and I think that probably a lot of it stemmed from this misunderstanding that I'm describing to you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: My question would be is there any objectors here today? MR. FINDLAY: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jimmy Findlay. Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir. But I'm Jimmy Findlay and I represented the people at that hearing last week and I'll be glad to answer any questions if there were any questions. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, did Mr. Findlay -- Attorney Findlay represent the petitioner or the objectors? MR. FINDLAY: I represented the objectors in that case. MR. TODD: Okay. I'd like to know -- I'd like to hear from you then on their reasons for objecting. MR. FINDLAY: I think you have to take each one of these cases separately and distinct from the previous case or any other case. This particular house has approximately 800 square feet of heated space. It has one restroom area, or bathroom area, and has three bedrooms. Under the statute, that person would be allowed to have as many as six people in this small house. This road was developed in 1953 for the purpose of residential. Since then there are probably 50 houses on both sides of this road leading down to Highway 25. This piece of property is 125 feet from Highway 25. And because of the police powers that we think you are granted, we think you've got an obligation to protect these people as well. This house also has a swimming pool in the back yard, and we assume when people become senior citizens that it might be injurious to their health to have a swimming pool in such close proximity. And especially to a house with so few bedrooms and with so few bath facilities, we thought it would be unhealthy for the community to have a situation like that. At the time of the hearing wherein I represented these people, we had petitions which have been filed in objection to it, and in addition to that probably as many as 30 people attended. Most of those people had gray hair, some of them had no hair at all. They were upper senior citizens themselves, and they felt that they had established this neighborhood through their hard work, and they acknowledged that it was an area that was free of burglaries, free of crime, but they themselves had made it like this and they wanted to keep it like this for their remaining years. This is not the same situation you were talking about in case one that you spoke of today. Because of health requirements and because of health needs, you certainly have every right to vote this down as opposed to saying that you must confer upon them their rights as property owners. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a motion, gentlemen. MR. KUHLKE: I move that we accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like another -- George, once again, this lady can have the two that she originally intended to have without this motion; is that right? MR. PATTY: That's correct. She can have two, and it's my belief that she never intended to have over two. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, I think that's my understanding as well. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I'm going to vote for the motion to comply with the Planning and Zoning, but I don't see any difference in this one and the one before. I respectfully disagree with counsel on that, that I think for the same reasons that would apply to all, and I'll support the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to concur with the Planning decision to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 7: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Van A. Powell requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home. Mike Padgett Highway and Wylie Drive. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who pulled this one? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Is Ms. Powell here? MS. POWELL: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I pulled this off the agenda. I had a conversation with Ms. Powell, and the reason that I did it, in talking with Mr. Patty, that there were no objections to this request. Ms. Powell's husband is the one that made the presentation and wasn't that familiar with really what they were trying to do, and Ms. Powell asked if she could have just a few moments to answer a few questions in regards to what the Planning Commission wanted to -- the information they needed. So I'd like to ask Ms. Powell if she -- would you mind coming up here, Ms. Powell? And I'll kind of start it off, and then if I get bogged down I'll ask Mr. Patty; okay? But I think that there were questions asked of your husband that he could not answer, and it's that what type care you would be having there. Is it going to be 24-hour care? Do you have a plan established? And would you have certified people working in the facility? Any relationship with VA? Those kind of things, if you could maybe speak to those. MS. POWELL: Yes, to all those questions. But first before we had a plan to give you specifics, we thought we had to have zoning before we went any further. And we've had Rudy Morris with the Health Department come out and do a preliminary overlook of the house, and we've met all the requirements needed for State licensing. And after we get fire approval, then we can get the State -- MR. KUHLKE: Certification? MS. POWELL: Right. MR. KUHLKE: How many people are you talking about? MS. POWELL: Our limit would be six unless we put in a sprinkler system. And the house is large. It could be six bedrooms. The neighbors are all pleased that they won't have rentals with kids stealing and breaking car windows and vandalizing, so they are all cheering us on and helping us paint and getting the thing going, so. You have the Health Department to satisfy, and then you have the State to satisfy, so we would be governed by all the rules and regulations. And certified people -- you have to have a background check, a criminal background check, so it wouldn't -- it wouldn't cause any problems. And the house is too big for the neighborhood in the first place. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Mr. Patty, was this recommended by the staff? MR. PATTY: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: It was recommended? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we reject the decision of the Planning Commission and allow this personal care home to be located. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Ms. Powell, do you -- are you going to operate the home? Do you live in the neighborhood or -- MS. POWELL: No, we don't live in the neighborhood. We've owned the property for several years and it's just been a source of problem trying to rent it because it's so big. I mean, when I say so big, it's bigger than the other houses around it. And, therefore, you get multiple people even though you rent to one. And it has caused problems in the neighborhood and -- because of the size of it. So it's laid out perfectly for a personal care home and it's improved. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to ask are there any objectors to this present that would like to speak? NO OBJECTORS PRESENT. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to reject the decision of the Planning Commission and to approve this, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, could we take all the final plat approvals together? MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am? CLERK: Could we take the plat approvals together? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. 14 through -- CLERK: I'll read the caption. Item 14: Amberlake Estates, Phase I, Final Plat; petition from Southern Partners. Item 15: Woodlake Subdivision, Section III, Phase II, Final Plat; James G. Swift and Associates. 16: Pinnacle Place Subdivision, Phase IV, Section IV, Final Plat; James G. Swift and Associates, petition-ers. Item 17: Lancaster Subdivision, Final Plat; a petition from W.R. Toole Engineering on behalf of Nordahl and Company. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's pull 15 and 16. I would assume there's someone here from Public Works? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, we've got somebody here. 15 and 16, so the vote is 14 and 17. Do I hear a motion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 15, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we approve Item 15 to get it on the floor for discussion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? CLERK: Okay. Mr. Todd, we need to change tapes, please. [OFF THE RECORD MOMENTARILY] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. As far as Woodlake go, I guess my first question is, is this in a flood basin or are we going to have any drainage or flood problems, or all that's been worked out? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, can you answer that for us, please? MR. PATTY: Yeah. All these have been approved by the Public Works Department. There are no flood plains located in any of these subdivisions. MR. TODD: Yes. And is Woodlake going to tie into Woodlake Drive in this on Tobacco Road? MR. PATTY: I'm going to have to look at the plat to -- no, sir. MR. TODD: No? Okay. I have no further questions, Mr. Mayor. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL AND MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Item 16: Pinnacle Place Subdivision, Phase IV, Section IV, Final Plat. MR. TODD: I guess it would be the same question in reference drainage problems, et cetera. Public Works okay with everything there? MR. PATTY: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. TODD: Thank you. I so move that we approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Todd. I need a second, gentlemen. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. Mr. Patty I'm wondering if there'd be a possibility that the staff could provide a checklist of all the items so that we don't have to ask these same questions over and over again. And when it says approved by the Planning staff, it is approved, and so we don't have to ask the question and we can see it visibly. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that would be helpful. And I think that probably the reason these questions is coming up, that we've approved -- somewhere less than six months after approving them we're having to go back in and do major improvements with one-penny tax. And I can name some subdivisions, but I won't. We'll just, you know, let them stay unnamed. This Commission know where they're at and what kind of problems we run into, and certainly somebody dropped the ball. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS AND MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 18: Update from the Augusta-Richmond County Coliseum Authority. MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm here to answer your questions. I think you asked me to come and give a brief summary of what we have done and what we're doing and what we expect. The most important thing that has occurred since I was down here the last time was that the Civic Center members on August the 20th passed the following resolution which was introduced by Mr. Phil Christman. It was the restart or research for a new general manager, with the personnel committee to serve as a search committee. The search committee will, not later than August the 25th, commence advertising the general manager's position with a closure of the application process to occur on noon on October the 25th, after which no further application will be received. By November the 19th, the search committee will present to the Authority the names of the top three candidates they have chosen, with their recommendation of the top candidate. And the top three candidates will have been interviewed by the search committee, and the candidates will be chosen for a qualified individual and professional management companies also applying. So this is in the process and we have received numerous applications. Another thing which has occurred -- and I call to your attention this was passed unanimously, which is rare of the Authority, and we are looking forward to that. And I have brought with me three members down to answer -- help me answer your questions. We have Mr. Christman and our attorney, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Wright. And then we have Billy Holden, who is a producer, and he will comment -- might give a report to you of the present conditions of the production business in Richmond County. Another important thing which we have done, last year the legislature had a bill which they were going to introduce, and included in that was a ethics code. Now, we have no code whatsoever to operate under except the code of Robert's Rules of Order, and we are in the process, subject to our attorney's approval, adopting this code of ethics, which I think will help a lot. Some of the things which are not too rosy, which Mr. Wright will bring to your attention, is that since I've been down -- appeared before Your Honors, is that we had to put a new roof on the Coliseum for $70,000. And then at our meeting today it was brought out that the lighting system had to be replaced, and that was going to be $40,000. Our revenue has not increased, but we have high hopes and expectations of doing so. Now, any questions that you would like to ask me, and I may refer them to the appropriate committees, but we do hope to have a manager in place and operating by the end of this year. Now, I know some of you will say, well, why haven't you adopted plans to make the Coliseum operate without any funds from the county, and I respectfully submit it's never been done since I've been on the committee since 1975. And maybe the new manager can do it, but I think it would be futile for us to make permanent plans until we obtain a manager. So I'm ready to have any questions from the authority. Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: So you haven't made any kind of financial plan since we met last here as far as any kind of one year or two year or anything like that? You're waiting on the manager to come in? MR. CALHOUN: Manager. Because that is why we are endeavoring to get a manager, and that's what we are hiring for, Mr. Bridges, is to lay out the best way to save money and increase the attendance of the population. And as this Commission well knows, we got a manager, but he was elected by a one vote majority, and with the unfavorable publicity that we have received he refused to go. But I think it would -- I don't think it would be constructive to do that until we had a manager to lead us and advise us what to do. MR. BRIDGES: What about as far as events, that type of thing? MR. CALHOUN: What, sir? MR. BRIDGES: What about as far as future events, planning of events or promotion of the Civic Center, as far as that? MR. CALHOUN: Well, we are endeavoring to do, but the summer is the most -- the poorest time. And I would like to call on a gentleman who makes his living by doing that, Mr. Holden. Billy? MR. HOLDEN: Yeah. MR. CALHOUN: Now, tell Mr. Bridges what the present condition of the shows are. MR. HOLDEN: We have -- this is the slow time of the year, which it is every year, it's nothing unusual. But, I mean, she's booked some shows. She's booked some big shows. Vince Gill is coming; there's several other ones just kind of holding. Now, you know, that's -- but, you know, we talked to her this morning and she seems to think that, you know, plenty -- she's getting plenty of calls, you know, wanting to rent the building. We've got a list of confirms about three pages long. Now, they're not all concerts, and that's the thing. We make our money -- big money off of the concerts. Now, we've got a lot of shows that -- you know, smaller type shows in the Civic Center and it stays pretty well busy, but the big concerts is what -- of course, like I say we've got Vince Gill coming and -- but outside of him, he's the only one we've got confirmed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. HOLDEN: But she says she has got a lot of interest in the building. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Calhoun, I see Mr. Christman back there, but following up a little bit on what Mr. Bridges asked, could you give us a little information, financial information, on -- as of, I guess, through the end of August? MR. CALHOUN: I can have -- we've got a report of the last four years, and Mr. Christman's right here, and I brought it for him to present to this Commission. This is Phil Christman. I think all of you know him. MR. CHRISTMAN: If it pleases you, I've made a number of copies. I'm just going to start right here and pass them down. MR. KUHLKE: I think probably while he's doing that, Mr. Calhoun, one thing that probably concerns us all is the reduction in revenues, the increase maybe in expenses, and also from a personnel standpoint maybe an increase in the number of personnel during the period of time that things were not very good, and I'd be interested to know where we stand personnel-wise today compared to where we were a year ago. MR. CHRISTMAN: Mr. Kuhlke, we have this report here, and if I may, I'm going to ask you to flip to the second page of the report since the last question had to do with the wages and related expenses. Anyway, for the period of '94, '95 and '96, and our fiscal year end is June 30th, you will note that it was about $702,000 in total personnel expenses for our last year as compared to the prior year of 851,000, and the year before that was 755,000. So we have that moving, we think, in the right direction. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Christman, has some of this improvement been made in the last two or three months? MR. CHRISTMAN: It actually started before I came on, so -- I did not become a member of the Authority until July, I think it was. So that had occurred, I think, mainly in the six-month period from January through our fiscal year end in June. MR. CALHOUN: I might add to that, it really started last fall. We were hiring a lot of temporary workers, and we have discontinued that and the cost of that has almost been negligible since then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: I'll wait. MR. CHRISTMAN: I have passed to the Commission the first page of this. This was prepared by Harry Dolyniuk, our CPA. This is a summary of the operating revenue and expenses and non-operating revenue and expenses for the last five fiscal years. I just call your attention, if we can, to the total revenue, which is about the sixth line here, and if you'll note very easily the downward from 1992 through this past June in the revenues. And I think you can address those various categories of the revenues yourself there. One thing that has been brought to my attention, that since the Civic Center complex was put into it's present form over 20 years ago we have had come on stream other facilities that have competed with us for different types of functions, not just necessarily bigger arena events but other functions, and I think this is what Mr. Holden was alluding to a moment ago, resulting in a downward trend in our revenues. Now, I'd like to mention expenses. Expense control is absolutely a must, particularly in situations that exist currently. But you'll see drawn right here on either side in the margins an arrow and, again, look a those totals. Those are total operating expenses before depreciation for the last five years, and the difference between them in 1992 is $1,409,000 versus this past year of $1,448,000, roughly $40,000 difference in operating expenses. So over five years the expenses have been able to be controlled at that point. We are extremely hopeful that we will be able to identify quickly, and certainly no later than the dates mentioned in the motion that was approved, a general manager who will come in. And this could be an individual or a professional management group to give us the guidance, to allow our Authority to set policy and let them manage. And we have great hopes and expectations that this will occur and will result in a more favorable statement. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MR. CALHOUN: Yes, sir? MR. ZETTERBERG: Recently you had a great concert there, the Reba McIntyre concert. Can you tell me about how much money was made by the Coliseum on an event like that? MR. HOLDEN: I haven't got the figures right in front of me, but we made between 25 and 30 thousand dollars on that one event. And the same night we also had an event at the Bell: Bernie Mack. It was a comedy show, and it was a real successful event. I mean, it didn't sell out, but it came within -- you know, we sold two-thirds of the house. That night was a real -- between the two shows, that was a real big night for us. And that's what it takes. I mean, it's just that simple. If the people will come through the doors, we can make money. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if Reba McIntyre will come to Augusta, why can't we book more shows like that coming in? MR. HOLDEN: Well, they'll all come. Vince Gill is coming. Like I say, he's confirmed to come. But, you know, it's just you get tired of seeing them over and over and over, the same people, too. That's another thing, you know, you can't keep bringing them every year. Reba's come either three or four years, and I think this past year she didn't sell out. It was a good night for us, don't get me wrong, but she didn't sell out. She sold out every year before, and the year before she sold out in two hours. So, I mean, you see, you can kind of saturate the market, too, so. And a lot of these videos and stuff is hurting us. It's a lot of different things hurting. But we've also, I want to say, we also commissioned Georgia State University to run a survey and just to try and find out what the people want to see, why they've quit, you know, attending events down there. Because like Phil said, it's been going down steady. It didn't all of a sudden happen. It's been going down steady, you know, since 1990 -- what did you say, '92, Phil? MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: I do know one problem that you have, and that's the telephone system. I spent all day long trying to get tickets to the Reba McIntyre show and couldn't get tickets, and then I was told the answer was on a billboard outside of the Coliseum lists eight different numbers. Now, there ought to be -- and those were different cities that you could call, 800 numbers. But the general public does not know that, and I would suggest that maybe some of the reasons that Reba McIntyre show didn't book out was the fact that people can't even get a hold of you. And so I think you need to work on that particular problem. MR. HOLDEN: I'm sure we've got a lot of things, but they had a month to make their way down there. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's a huge problem for you, though, a big problem. The second thing is one time we asked you about looking at a management company. You've got two operations over there. MR. CALHOUN: We have been doing that. Along with considering a manager, we have conferred with -- I'd like to ask Mr. Nicholson to comment on that. We have been considering several management companies in lieu of hiring a manager. Sir, would you -- MR. NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. Commissioner Zetterberg, we have been talking with Volume Services who has the food service agreement contract with us, and they have done the management in other facilities where they provide the food service and we're asking them to take a look at our facility to see if they would be interested in taking over the management of it. The only caveat to the professional management is that our bonds -- we are financed by tax exempt bonds, so I have some reservation as to whether we can enter into a full-scale privatization agreement. However, I don't think that would preclude us from entering into an agreement with a management company based on a fee and a percentage, certain percentage, for them to take over the management. But those discussions are ongoing, and we're hoping to hear something back from them within, you know, the next week or so. MR. ZETTERBERG: This is the entertainment side or food side? MR. NICHOLSON: Well, they have the food side now, Volume Services. We're asking them to look into the administration and the entertainment side of it, to take over the full management of the building. But that's ongoing. MR. CHRISTMAN: They would be a candidate. MR. NICHOLSON: Yeah, they are a candidate, right, along with all the other people who would apply for the job. That's not to say that they're going to absolutely get it, they will be considered along with everyone else. Let me say since we've came back before to y'all about two or three months ago that there are new Authority members. And like Mr. Calhoun, our chairman, said, there's an effort to establish rules to go by, there's an effort to establish a code of ethics for the Coliseum Authority members to abide by, and we're making significant progress. There is dialogue between the different factions of the members, something we haven't had in about a year or so, and people are starting to work together. And I can sincerely tell you that with no reservation because I've been through the whole situation and I've seen the problems we have, but I can state to you that they're getting better, and we should something resolved by the November date that Mr. Christman had just referred to. I would ask you and urge you not to decrease the amount of money that is given to the Civic Center until we have a full opportunity to get these things accomplished that are underway and currently ongoing. I certainly appreciate it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: To the members of the Coliseum Authority, I think the last time we met was approximately three months ago, 60 days ago, somewhere between 60 days and three months. I had a list of questions that I posed, and number one and number two was in that order because I feel they're the most important. What is your five year plan? I'm understanding you're telling me that you haven't done one, you're waiting on a manager. And I would probably differ -- and I'm not going to try to micro-manage this Coliseum Authority, but I would think that that's something that the policymakers should do, and maybe you would need some assistance from a manager or a management team or whomever. And number two is your comprehensive plan, your 20-year plan, you know, to try to become self-sufficient or break even situation, and I understand again that you don't have it, you're waiting to bring a manager on board. Well, I'm not going to comment other than that my position is the same as the position that I held the last time we met. My vote would be the same if there's a motion made. I won't make a motion. If there's one made I probably will second it. And I am not pleased with the report here today as far as not having a five-year plan, not having a comprehensive plan. Certainly the management that's down there is being paid, so that management should be working with the Coliseum Authority as far as generating a five-year plan for sure and hopefully a comprehensive plan. Thank you. MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Todd, I'd like -- and you asked us to bring up a plan where we would be self-sufficient and not have to come to the county for money for funds from the beer and motel tax. And it's my opinion, and I've been on there since it started, I don't think if you got -- you would have to resurrect Houdini from his grave to do that. I think it's a possibility -- if you think that we can operate without any money and be self-sufficient, I don't think -- I think that goal -- I just -- I don't know a way to do it. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Calhoun, I just want to say I would -- it looks as if y'all are starting to work, and I think that's what we needed, that that's what we asked for, and I know it's going to take time. And, Mr. Mayor, I would just like to move that we accept this as information coming from the Coliseum Authority. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we've got to have a little further discussion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that if -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we deny -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let me take care of the first motion first. We've got a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Brigham; is that correct? CLERK: Uh-huh [yes]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we cut off the funding at this point as originally proposed. I have seen nothing and heard nothing today to indicate that we would have any indication that this will change any time in the near future. It seems to drag on and on and on. Every time we get these people before us they ask for another 60-day extension. Now, we are being held accountable to make things happen, and I think they ought to be held accountable to make things happen. Also, I think we also have other items on this list of questions that was proposed that have not been addressed. There are things that the Coliseum could have done, should have done already. It is nothing -- it does not entail the spending of money. If they want to address these issues of ethics, they could already had a vote on that. It doesn't take another 60 days to do that. If they're going to ask to come under our authority, it does not take another 60 days to do that. There are times that this Coliseum Authority needs to move on and address some issues that they can address that don't cost the spending of money, that are simple, that we can show this community that we are trying to move down the road and not just continue to stall out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Mayor, may I comment, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, please? MR. WRIGHT: May I comment? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, please. MR. WRIGHT: My name is Jordan Wright, and I'm chairman of the Building and Grounds Committee. Mr. Brigham, if you cut our funds you might just as well lock the doors. For example, I'd like to make a correction from our chairman over there. That roof cost $200,000, not $70,000. We currently have coming up an expense of $72,000 just for a power panel and system, which is a dimming system within the building. We also have a approximately $33,000 cost coming up for a new PA system within the building. Now, these are all hazards as they are now and we're trying to get them straightened out. If our funds are cut, we don't have anything to operate. That building is 20 years old. For example, last month we spent $5,000: 2,000 on a pump, 3,000 on an air compressor for the air conditioning system within the offices. And these are the things that we encounter. Now, maybe you think that we're not doing anything. We are doing the best we can. As far as personnel are concerned, we're down to the bare bones. If you would come over there one time -- in fact, the whole Commission would come over there one time between one of the large events such as something in the Bell Auditorium or after a circus or a dirt event over in the Civic Center, you would see that with the seven -- four is eleven -- with the 12 people that we have to take care of this, we're down to the bare bones, and that's the reason why at times we have to hire extra people to help us. We recently lost an assistant to our engineer over there who is responsible for handling these personnel, and now we can't hire or we won't hire an assistant for him. He must maintain all of this by himself, and it's virtually impossible, sir, and that's the reason why we asked your indulgence in this. Now, you've made the motion, and if that's what you want to do we will have to close the doors. No ifs, ands, and buts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, right now I would have a problem supporting either one of these motions, frankly. But before we get into that, you said your year ends June 30th; is that correct? MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Phillip, would you have available what your outlook for the first two months from a financial standpoint looks like? MR. CHRISTMAN: Our first two months, yes, it is available. MR. KUHLKE: You don't have that with you now? MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes, and it is very sad looking. MR. KUHLKE: Very sad? MR. CHRISTMAN: Right. MR. KUHLKE: It's worse than last year? MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes, sir, it is. But, again, please bear in mind that we're operating on a fiscal year end of June 30th as opposed to a calendar year, and the summer months, with the notable exception of the Reba McIntyre event, are our worst months. But I do have a operating statement to date, and that is available right here. And we had a negative -- excuse me, a total revenue of $39,000 for the first two months of this fiscal year against operating expenses of $313,000, which includes $116,000 in depreciation, so the net is -- you take the 116 off of that and, quick arithmetic, that's $158,000 loss. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Mr. Brigham, if I could just speak to your motion. The problem that I'm having is that if we cut the funds off we're going to have to take the Coliseum on by ourselves probably, based on what Mr. Wright said, so I've got a problem with that. I've got a problem with Mr. Beard's motion because he suggested we take this as information when I think that there's some significant progress that can be made, but he makes his motion with no time to come back to us and give us a report. So I would like for all of us to kind of consider those things. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Kuhlke, as far as my motion is concerned, if the Coliseum Authority members think it's unfair, they can resign and we can appoint replacements for them. MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke, if you have an amendment to my motion as a time line, I'll accept that. MR. KUHLKE: I would like to ask Mr. Beard if he would amend his motion that we accept this as information from the Coliseum Authority, that by December the 1st the Coliseum Authority come back to this Board and submit to us a comprehensive answer to every one of these questions that were posed to you three months ago. And I will tell you, gentlemen, that if there isn't significant progress made on every one of these items, I will vote to cut the funds off. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, and then Mr. Mays. MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to make a statement. The last time they came before us about cutting the money off I voted against it. And I will say today that one of the problems -- I said it in our other meeting with the Coliseum -- is that it's not large enough. And when it was being built we had certain citizens in this community short-sighted enough to cut away and not make the building as large enough as what it needed to be. And I would hate to come here today to pull the money and we be short-sighted in seeing what's going to happen to that building. Just taking the money away is not going to make it make any more money, but by leaving the money there it's a possibility that it will come out of the hole. That's all I have to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. So that these members and the general public will know exactly where I'm coming from, let me say first I don't plan to vote for the substitute motion to cut it off, almost as I wouldn't vote for a motion a few weeks ago that we deal with a similar situation in our Transit program. But I hope you will take this, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Wright and others, as probably more --not so much a criticism but really as a suggestive question. A couple of things that you mentioned in the report, and particularly what you were saying, Billy, when you talked about -- it may have been Sam that brought up Value Serve in there when you were talking about food. But I guess what concerns me most, in this period, and if the motion with the amendment passes, that you'll come back and discuss this in two to three months. In your search for -- be it manager or management group or a combination thereof, I would hope that you would explore --and there are some that I don't think you have to, you know, go 1,000 miles to run into, but some of the partnerships that have been fairly successful, that probably have started off on governmental properties, whether it's been the Lakewood Project in Atlanta where you've had sharing in there, and of working with people who maybe have some of that level of expertise and are not searching to gain that level of expertise by trial and error but have actually accomplished it, maybe of having some dialogue with some in that manner. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't, you know, to this point, but would I hope that you would in that realm of people that you're looking for. The other area that I see, and you mentioned -- and I pride myself with liking a lot of different kinds of music. Probably why I listen to my own CD's and not so much to radio. But I think that you all well know that you probably have a gap in some areas of your marketing in terms of being able to attract shows thus far. And one of your things I think that you've been hampered with is that you're caught between a big market in Atlanta, you're caught between a larger coliseum there in Columbia, and so you have with a promotional problem, I think, in there that a lot of people say why waste some money on the Augusta market. I think you're going to have to do some creative things in that area, and I think if you're not going to get that help from government -- because you're already looking today at maybe losing your funding that you do have -- I think you're probably going to have to deal with some semi-partnership things that will work under the legal guise of the law that can get us off of that movement. And the other thing that I would just like to see you do probably is on a centralization basis, and this could happen with all of our businesses, households or anywhere else and including this government, is of having -- and you may already have this place or may already be thinking about it, but a one- and two-tier type of idea situation of projects that you want to see come into that building. You mentioned something a minute ago about other venues that have been opened up since that building was built. The best example, we started off this meeting with two state championship teams. Can't play football indoors, but you certainly can play basketball. We're the largest so-called metro area in the state of Georgia that has never had a Georgia High School Association tournament to be held in our Civic Center or Coliseum. That's something that happens every year. It goes on. We are now sending from this city in travel expenses, be it buses, be it motel rooms -- our calibre of basketball has got folk now coming down from cities snatching players. You see evidence of that in the new of what's happening. Those are the type of events, I think, in some ways too that we're going to have to shoot for and make those targetable events. It makes no sense when we walk from restaurants to get to Augusta College to see a region basketball tournament that's packed out when our facility is not hosting it. We've got to get in that business of attracting that market. That's with seeing parents, that's students, that's a built-in market that can draw thousands of people there anytime you want to. Anytime you've got -- start off your state ranked teams -- and you've got basically three girls teams ranked for the last two to three years, three boys teams ranked for the last two to three years. That in itself is something that will draw that you've got there. I think calendar centralization on certain events to go after would help a whole lot in doing that. And I think you could get this body's support, I think you can get the Board of Education's support in it, but I think we've got to come together and do it. I don't think we can leave you out there by yourself in that PR method of doing it. But those are just some of the suggestive things I personally would like to see you do in working on as you search to do this between now and December. And I can vote for the amended motion that's there, but obviously everybody is not going to think that way, and what I hate to see is that we cut off our nose to spite our face in this event. I think it can work. I think it can be workable, and whatever I can do personally to help you with it, I'll be glad to do, and I can support the amended motion that's on the floor at this time. But those are just some of the things I would like to see you do in that two to three month period that I think can help get us a little bit further along. Because we can put in all the suggestive measures and forecasts we want to, people have still got to come through those doors in order for you to sell tickets and for you to be able to make concession monies, and that's the bottom line of what keeps the doors open and the lights on and be able to keep stuff coming into this area, and I think that's where we're going to have to get to. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Powell and Mr. Zetterberg had their hands up, and after that we'll have the question. MR. HANDY: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I feel that everyone here wants to cut the cost of the Coliseum. Both the citizens want it cut, the Coliseum Authority wants it cut, the Board of Commissioners wants it cut. I think we're all in agreement on that. What can the Board of Commissioners do to help you achieve that goal? And that question is for Mr. Calhoun. MR. CALHOUN: When I first became chairman, I wrote each one of you gentlemen a letter and requested --said that I would come to see each one of you and to get any suggestions how we could improve the operation of the Authority, and not one of you answered that letter. I wrote Mayor Sconyers. I said what can we do to make it operate better. I think all of you admit you got that letter, and nobody -- MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Calhoun, I think this whole body met with the Authority after you were elected chairman, and so we sat in here and I think that you had the benefit of what we wanted to say. We didn't come see you personally. MR. CALHOUN: I didn't ask to come -- I said I would come to you and receive any suggestions. MR. KUHLKE: But I think we did that -- I think we did that as a body. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor? Mr. Calhoun, I think we did respond to that letter. MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe that I'm -- MR. TODD: Or at least I responded by -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MR. TODD: I will yield if I need to, but there was a statement made by Mr. Calhoun. I was just trying to answer it if the gentleman -- my colleague would yield to me a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just hold on a minute. Mr. Zetterberg was next. Let him -- MR. TODD: Okay. MR. HANDY: And then I call for the question after Mr. Zetterberg, also. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: My concern is that I don't -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't through with my part of the questioning either. I mean, I would like to get an answer to my question from Mr. Calhoun, and it has not been answered. What can we do to help y'all? Does any Authority member want to answer that question? MR. CHRISTMAN: Let me, with Mr. Calhoun's approval here, state this: that I understand before I came on the Commission, I heard this business about defunding the beer and hotel tax revenue from this Authority and all of the reasons why. Now that I have been there for a while I have a better grasp for the problems. We -- and I'd like for you to go back to -- and it's about -- started about the time that I came on back in July. We were extremely divisive, as Mr. Nicholson said, on certain issues. In our job search -- excuse me, our search for a person to fill the general manager's position, once we finally got it down it was a vote of six to five, not a resounding commitment to that person who was expected to pick up his family and move from a very fine position in Norfolk, Virginia and come to Augusta for a two-year contract. Also, he was aware of the possibility of defunding. So for those two reasons he nixed the whole thing. So we've had to restart. We have had a lot of communications going on, a lot of discussion that was in the long run probably the best thing that could have happened to us in an odd sense, and we have, I think, developed a more cohesive attitude to this. Now, at our Finance Committee meeting yesterday and a little bit this morning at our regular Authority meeting, we discussed the need of having a person or a group come in and manage this auditorium and the Bell satisfactorily. As a board we get out of the micro-management business and so forth. We set policies, say this is what you're supposed to do, these are the things we want done, these are the goals, and this is what we want you to achieve; and have a contract and let the persons do it, monitor them through the financial systems and other ways that is appropriate and all, making sure that we subscribe to the necessary legal things that we have to abide by. And then we won't have to meet but once or twice a year, and hopefully we will be moving forward. The worst that could happen right now, while I understand and respect what Mr. Brigham has said, is for us to have this arm behind us, this leg cut off, and say, well, we may give you a two-year contract, but we may not have this revenue coming in and we may have to terminate the contract. I mean, that is the worst thing that could happen. So I understand what Mr. Kuhlke has said, and we will meet as frequently as you want us to meet and we will stand and give you whatever reports you deem appropriate. But the whole thing is to get somebody in here, a management -- a professional, competent, capable management. That is our single worst problem at that Authority and that center right now: management. I don't know if I've answered your question, but -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm going to pass now. MR. HANDY: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Roll call, please, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, we'll have a roll call vote. CLERK: Roll call vote is on the substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham to cut off funding, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MOTION FAILS 7-3. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to amend the initial motion to accept it as information, that we cut off their funds on December 31st if they don't bring back a plan. This is only six months now. CLERK: Mr. Beard made the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, would you accept that? MR. BEARD: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a comment, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we debating the original motion now? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're not debating. I just asked him if he would accept that because it's all over with anyway. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. We voted on the substitute motion and the substitute motion was voted down. It would appear the Chair would now entertain the discussion and vote on the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I am, Mr. Todd. We don't have to have anymore discussion, we've discussed it enough. Hell, if y'all don't know what's going on by now, we don't need to be sitting up here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I discussed the substitute motion and not the original motion, and I'd like to respond to Mr. Calhoun's comments in reference his letter and not answering the letter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, we're going to vote on the original motion. You're going to vote it up or down and that's it, that's the bottom line. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there's unreadiness. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? Read the original motion, please. CLERK: Original motion is to receive as information, accepting the amendment by Mr. Kuhlke that the Coliseum Authority will come back on December 1st and submit a comprehensive report and an answer to every question asked. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, AND TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Next item, please. CLERK: Items 19 through 21A were all approved by the Finance Committee on September 9th, 1996. [Item 19: Consider approval of Calendar for FY 1997 budget process. Item 20: Consider approval of an abatement of $364.35 in 1996 ad valorem taxes on property of the Estate of Leroy H. Simkins, Sr. which was purchased by Richmond County on August 30, 1996. Item 21: Consider approval to declare property located on Eustis Drive as surplus property to be sold at public sale. Item 21A: Consider approval of the subordination of the first mortgage of Cotton Exchange Building.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends approval of these items. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a 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 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 22: Actuarial report on the City's 1949 General Retirement Fund. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen, this report was prepared by William Mercer, the actuary for the retirement plan. This will be Item 22 in your book and is a letter. We have full copies of the entire report for you if you'd like to see it, but this encapsulates it very well. Key results of the 1996 actuarial evaluation are as follows: Under funding, the minimum contribution for '96 under the Title 47 of Georgia code is zero. The market value of the assets is 150 percent of present value of accrued benefits. And the actuarial value of assets, excluding any future contributions by employees, is currently 102 percent. What they're saying is that the city will -- in all likelihood will never have to -- or the consolidated government will never have to make another contribution to this plan. Under the GSB-5 disclosure, which is a slightly different evaluation, the valuation of plan assets under that methodology of calculation is 135 percent, and therefore meets all require-ments for that. The value of the plan actual benefits is in excess of $60,000,000, and as I said, there is no required funding. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess my question to Mr. McKie, is this the same plan where there is employees has come in and been concerned about more than a cost of living increase from the plan? MR. McKIE: No, sir. That was the county '45 plan. MR. TODD: '45, not '49. Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we receive this as information. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell. That was Mr. Powell, wasn't it? MR. BRIDGES: Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry. Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got one question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, go ahead, Mr. Handy. MR. HANDY: Okay. I'd just like to know, this William M. Mercer, who hired him? MAYOR SCONYERS: Where is Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: William Mercer is the actuary that has been employed by the former City of Augusta for some time. They were not retained by the consolidated government because this report was prepared under the auspices of the old city, or requested by them, the evaluation date 1/1/96. MR. HANDY: Right. I only asked the reason, I'm not against it. But this letter is dated September the 4th, and -- but it is addressed to Ms. Mary Grady as Acting City Comptroller and they've got it CC-copied to the Mayor Charles DeVaney, and that's my question, that's all. That's all. MR. McKIE: Pretty dumb, but I can't explain why they did it. I don't know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, according to the minutes of City Council I believe Ms. Grady is the Acting Comptroller of the city, and that was passed by City Council last year. MR. McKIE: Correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's the reason she got the acting -- also, is not Mr. Mercer also the actuary of also the other plans or not? MR. McKIE: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: No? I thought he was, I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, I guess there is in the sense that he's not the actuary of both. And in the sense that everybody's on all plans now, wouldn't it make sense to have one actuary for all plans? MR. McKIE: Two things that we wanted to do this year with respect to our plans was, one, the early retirement which we worked through and, secondly, during this fall prepare for your review a move to possibly one plan, and that we have begun working on and will have for presentation sometime around November. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Items 23 through 25 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee September 9th, 1996. [Item 23: Consider approval of the Guidelines for the 1996 Economic Development Loan Program. Item 24: Consider approval of the proposed reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant funds. Item 25: Consider approval of a Resolution to amend Consolidated Strategy and Plan which includes amendments to the 1993, 1994 and 1995 Final Statements of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be approved by Council. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT] CLERK: Item 26: Consider approval to accept the recommendation of the Internal Auditor regarding Employee Compensation Analysis Proposal. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, the reason why this was brought to the full Council is because there was some question among committee members, including myself, in reference to it was going to cost a considerable amount of money to do this at this particular time. Number two, is that possibly Human Resources people can do this at a later date and possibly of funding this. And in my estimation it may be something that we can do at a later date, but we would like for you to hear from the person who made the report and you can make your own decision on that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman? MR. PLOWMAN: All right. I assume everybody's got a copy of the report. This was brought up, I guess, when I reviewed the equalization of the fire and the police departments. I realized that you could equalize salaries on a number of different bases: current pay, and then there's a lot of varying benefits. Vacation pays are different, retirement pay is different, health insurance is different, retirement health benefits are different. Some people have cars, phones, a lot of different things, and I thought it would be a good idea to get all the compensation and get a current value by employee so you can compare apples and apples before you make any other adjustments. After I made that recommendation, a proposal came in that essentially did that. During the Administrative Services Committee they asked me to review this particular contract, so what I did is I went through and addressed issues I thought you should consider in making the decision. Basically, do you need this kind of report? I think you do; I think there's a lot of value in it. I think you'd want to have an objectively prepared report. Maybe employees could do this in the future. They're getting a system, I believe, in 1998 that will allow them to keep doing this. To get a good report now would provide you the information you need before you make any other changes. It would give them the information to key into the system in '98. You'd be able to give each employee basically a piece of paper telling them what the different benefits they receive are Timing: Should you do it now? Should you do it six months? In a year? I think it would be important to do now. You could do it later. It's going to cost you some money. I think the cost of this report, for all the information they've got to do and gather, certainly would be valuable to you in making a decision. And I couldn't quantify it for you, but I'll bet you it would save you a lot of money in making a better decision on the multi-million dollar pensions and all the different things that you're going to be doing. But, again, I couldn't quantify and tell you you're going to save this much money if you spend this much, but I think these are the things you should consider in making a decision. If you've got any questions, I'd be glad to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Plowman, how long would it take to do this? Do you have any idea on that? MR. PLOWMAN: Well, indirectly what they were telling me is depending on how quickly and easy they could get the information -- they were expecting a lot of it to be on different computer data files, but they'd have to read all the benefit plans, and I would expect it would probably take -- I'd imagine it takes a couple months. But I think I saw Bill Lee, who is doing it, was here. He might be able to answer you better. MR. LEE: One to two months, depending on how quickly we got the information. MR. KUHLKE: And a question maybe for Mr. Etheridge is what is your opinion of a study like this? MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Kuhlke, I think this is a good thing to provide -- MR. BEARD: John, go to the microphone. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Kuhlke, I think this is a good statement to provide to all employees once a year, maybe twice a year. MR. KUHLKE: What would it do for us as we went through the budget process? MR. ETHERIDGE: I don't quite understand what you're asking there, Mr. Kuhlke. I know that this particular program would cost us anywhere from 25 to, I'm going to say, 32 thousand dollars to do it. And I expressed two concerns in it in the outset, and that was the timing part of it because we are changing our benefit program right now, and then secondly, I don't have any money in my -- in the Human Resource budget to pay for this, was concerns that I expressed. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, since there are no other questions -- or are there any other questions on it? And if there are none -- Jim? MR. WALL: One thing that John said that I just want to be sure all of you are aware of when you make your decision is that he commented about we're looking at the benefit package, and y'all approved for Mr. Etheridge to go out for bids insofar as health insurance and -- you know, the total health insurance package, and those bids are coming in at the end of September. Those benefits will be uniform among all employees, assuming that y'all award some new contract by January the 1st. The other thing to point out is that the personnel policies and procedures have now been adopted so that within each department, let me say that, you have a uniform vacation and holiday. Now, certainly from one department to another, and particularly I guess the one that comes to mind, the Sheriff's Department and the Fire Department, because of their different schedules, you know, that information might be useful to you. But I just wanted you to be aware of the health insurance particularly. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the biggest thing, since the question of how is it going to affect us comes to mind, is when we stopped with the consolidation of the fire and police departments and equalization of their wages, the equalization of wages did not go away. We've got Public Works, we've got courts, we've got a bunch of things that we're going to have to equalize wages in. I get a call at least once a week from Municipal Court wanting to be equalized with Magistrate's Court. And I think that we've got to look at all salaries and all classes of people, and I think this report will provide some of that information that we need to consider. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll make the motion that we accept the recommendation of the Internal Auditor, and that we approve this employee compensation analysis subject to identifying the funds and also subject to the benefits package being finalized at the end of September. MR. HANDY: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: No, sir, I was going to make a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Wait a minute, I don't think -- did we get a second on that? No, we didn't get a second on that. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, Mr. Handy was the second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke, did you do that? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, I think. MR. HANDY: I'm not going to comment on that. CLERK: Oh, you -- okay. Okay, we'll move on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Next item is Item 39. That item was approved by the Public Safety Committee September 10th, 1996. [Item 39: Consider approval to allow the Attorney to enter into negotiations with WRDW-TV regarding a lease agreement for tower space on WRDW's tower in North Augusta and also to work out arrangements to bring the existing contract to date.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that this item be continued. The Attorney indicated that he's gathering -- CLERK: Did I interrupt the vote? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Is that right, Number 39? CLERK: Well, they tell me I interrupted the vote. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, I'm sorry. CLERK: You want to carry the vote just for our record, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, go ahead. CLERK: Yes, sir, would you carry the vote on Item 26? They told me I interrupted the vote on Item 26. Just carry the vote. You have a motion by Mr. Bridges to accept and second by Mr. Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I thought it was seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. I'm sorry, that's who I had wrote down. By Mr. Handy? Okay. We did vote on it, didn't we? MR. BRIDGES: Ten to zero. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information, I thought it was unanimous. I certainly voted on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. It was a unanimous vote, right. CLERK: Okay. Item 39. MR. H. BRIGHAM: If I'm in order, I'd like to move that this item be approved. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Items 40 through 42 were approved by the Public Services Committee September 10th. [Item 40: Consider approval of bid award for the construction of FAR 107.14 security system command center offices to R.B. Wright Construction. Item 41: Consider approval of a new application for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Firehouse No. 1 located at 1145 Broad Street. District 1, Super District 9. Item 42: Consider approval of a new application request by Frances W. Rhodes for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Squeaky's Tip Top Lounge located at 2596 Central Avenue.] MR. MAYS: Move that it be approved. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-1, ITEMS 40 & 41. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEM 42. [MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Next item, 43: Consider approval of a new application by Miriam B. Cummings for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Cardinal Sports Bar located at 2900 Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday sales and dance hall. No recommendation from Public Services. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, this was sent forward with no recommendation. The consensus of the committee was to approve the alcohol license, but the reason I think for sending it forward with no recommendation was the Sunday sales. It is the opinion of the License and Inspection Department that the -- as per our ordinance and the planned operation of this establishment, it does meet the requirements of the ordinance for Sunday sales. There was an objection to Sunday sales from the Sheriff's Department and quite a bit of discussion, and that's why it came forward with no recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. What was the comment from the Sheriff concerning Sunday sales? MR. MEYER: That the primary business was not that of a restaurant. And I think, you know, it's not for me to decide. MR. BRIDGES: The Sheriff recommended no Sunday sales? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. That was their objection was the Sunday sales. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: We requested that the petitioner get together with the information that the Sheriff's Department was requesting, and I'd like to hear from the Sheriff's Department at this time and hear from the petitioner. The application that I was reviewing certainly didn't say it was going to be a restaurant, and I think there was an amendment at the eleventh hour. And I would like to support this, but I need to hear from the parties that's involved and whether they were able to get together and resolve the conflict of the intent here. CLERK: Your name, sir? INV. BERRY: Roderick Berry, Investigator with the Sheriff's Department, Richmond County. The Sheriff's Department recommendation was -- we didn't have a problem with the alcohol license itself; it was the Sunday sales. We don't really know what the primary business is, but the primary business should be a restaurant to get a Sunday sales alcohol license. The license that we received was bar and grill, dance hall, game room. What's the primary, you know? We couldn't figure it out. You know, the primary should be restaurant. You go back and change the name, that don't change what you're planning to do in the beginning. And the name's been changed to whatever, but our recommendation is that the Sunday sales be denied based on we found out basically. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'll reserve my other question till later, I guess, because the Sheriff's Department representative is here now. In reference to the committee meeting and the instructions, I guess, or the intent to find out, was there any clarity from the committee meeting on that day? As to this point, has -- and I guess I'm following up on Mr. Todd's question. Is anything different from that day to this one? Because with the number of -- and I share this for the other members of the Commission who weren't there. In reference to the number of applications that were put before us, Mr. Todd mentioned the affidavit that was there, but I think also was brought in question as to whether or not the original one, the second one or whatever, had on it, you know, restaurant that was there. We were looking at two to three different things on that particular day, and I think we probably spent about a half hour, Mr. Mayor, in discussing this particular item. And two of the things that I think left that meeting -- and I stand to be corrected by Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Todd or the Attorney -- was that, one, we had asked to try and get some clarity with the petitioner and the Sheriff's Department in reference to what the actual intent is of the business. And, also, there was a question in reference to what the law specifically said and as to whether or not there was some difference in what State law read. And it is -- I believe the Attorney can attest to the fact that our law is probably stronger in that area than what the State law actually says, and there's no further information to bring to the committee or to the Commission that's different than what the law actually reads in its own wording. And if you have something different, I guess two of the committee members are asking has anything been done since the committee meeting because of that clarity. INV. BERRY: Well, I have a copy of the State's. The State says the term bona fide full-service restaurant means an established place of business. That's a new business, I guess it's not established yet, but I don't have anything really new about what we discussed in the committee meeting, no. MR. MAYS: Okay. Because one of the questions that came up, and I guess when you get that vagueness of bone fide and established -- and I made the statement in there, you can get -- like interpretations of the Bible, you can get ten people to read one verse and preach a different sermon. You know, we have to go by I don't think what we may intend or may want a law to be, we've got to go by what a law says. And I think you gentlemen -- for the rest of the Commission, I guess really to cut to the chase on it, one of the discussions that came up was in reference to where it was prepared and how it was prepared, and there is nothing in that law which deals in any written clarity which so states that. And I think that if that's the objection -- and I said in the committee meeting that if we are not pleased with the law, then we ought to change the law, but we can't expect people to apply under what a written law is and then change it because of what we would like to see it or what we interpret it to be on something else. And that's what brought us into a monumental amount of discussion in that particular meeting, what the law actually said and what was written into it. And I've been informed by Mr. Wall that neither one of them, our law or the State law, says anything any different than what it said last week, and I think that was the reason License and Inspection approved it. I do think the Sheriff's Department may have been put in a little bit of a disadvantage from the standpoint that with the changing of those applications and that amount of confusion that came in there, then that's why some of us are asking whether there is any clarity or any -- we met with anything to change that at this time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess I would have a follow-up question to Mr. Wall. What the code say in reference established restaurant? Is it saying that you've got to have a restaurant that you're operating before you can apply for Sunday sales? MR. WALL: No, sir. MR. TODD: The intent has got to be to operate a restaurant in order to obtain Sunday sales? MR. WALL: The ordinance says the serving of the meal shall be the principal business conducted, and that's the issue between the Sheriff's Department and the License and Inspection, as far as whether or not this is primarily a bar or primarily a restaurant. In the Sheriff's Department eyes it's primarily a bar, or there's nothing to indicate that it's primarily a restaurant since they've listed multiple things in the -- License and Inspection, they've looked at it, and in their opinion they have viewed it as being -- qualifying under this as being a restaurant. MR. TODD: I guess my other question would be to the applicant. Do the applicant understand that 50 percent of the total sales Monday through Sunday has got to be food? MS. CUMMINGS: Yes, I do. I'm Miriam Cummings, Cardinal Bar and Restaurant, 2900 Deans Bridge Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Cummings, what's your business plan? What kind of a food sale projections have you predicted? MS. CUMMINGS: Half of them. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Half? MS. CUMMINGS: We are going to be a restaurant. You know, the intention for us in the beginning was to be a restaurant, and later on we decided there are -- you know, add liquor sales. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is your business plan developed on the idea of having 50 percent food sales to get a Sunday sales license or is your business plan actually 50 percent food sales? Which is it? MS. CUMMINGS: I'm not understanding the question. Would you repeat it again? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you telling us you're going to have 50 percent food sales so we'll issue you a Sunday sales license or is that your real business? MS. CUMMINGS: That's our real business. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So you're planning on selling -- you're planning on operating a restaurant and you're planning on selling half of your business in alcohol? MS. CUMMINGS: Well, we want -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm asking the question. That's what you're telling me. MR. HANDY: Jerry, I think you're confusing the young lady. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, you ask it to her in a way she can understand it. MR. HANDY: No, I don't have to. You can ask it, but you can ask it a different way. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I thought I was very plain in what I was asking, Mr. Handy. I asked if -- MS. CUMMINGS: I am not under intentions of trying to get a liquor license for Sunday sales just to have a liquor license. You know, I have full intention of having a full-scale restaurant. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I was trying to get at. But you only project your food sales to be at 50 percent? MS. CUMMINGS: I project my food -- I want our food sales to be more. It's going to be more. That's what I predict, our food sales will be more. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, that's what I asked you to start with and you said it was 50 percent. MR. KUHLKE: You just want to make sure it's 50 percent, don't you? MS. CUMMINGS: Yes. I want to make sure, you know, everything is going to be done right and legally. You know, all I want is a chance just to be able to operate my business and provide the community with a good, decent business, you know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, gentlemen, we always have the right to reject it if it doesn't meet the 50 percent criteria; isn't that correct? MR. MEYER: That's what the ordinance says. They have six months to prove their sales, and they'll be audited in six months. And it doesn't say they have to be 50 percent prior to issuing it, it says they will be audited in six months and must have 50 percent at that time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Meyer, we had no objections to this; am I correct? MR. MEYER: No, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And your department recommends it? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir, we do. MR. KUHLKE: I move, Mr. Chairman, that we approve this application. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I would at least like to amend that motion, that the License Department make sure that that initial application that's filed, or the amended one that go forward, say that this is a restaurant. We've already been warned by the State as far as our Sunday sale license go, and I certainly don't want to get in the situation where the State comes down on us as far as Sunday sales. And I understand that there needs to be some housecleaning between the committee meeting and this meeting, and we need to make sure, gentlemen, that that housekeeping is taken care of before we sit here and approve something where the application don't say it's going to be a restaurant. MR. MEYER: Mr. Todd, two things: number one, we will amend the application, but I was not going to amend it in the middle of the stream, so to say, while we were having a controversy. But I will point out that there are several establishments in Richmond County that have Sunday sales and do well over 50 percent in food sales and restaurant is not in their name structure whatsoever. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, that's what the State man is on us about, and we -- and all we're trying to do, the Sheriff's Department, this Commissioner, I think other folks that are concerned, to make sure that we don't continue down that road of doing things wrong as we have in the past. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Meyer, the memo that I have from you dated September the 12th, the application that is attached to that memo says Cardinal Restaurant and Sports Bar. Is that not the application that we -- MR. MEYER: That's what they're going to name it now, yes. MR. KUHLKE: And this is duly executed? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. But if you notice, it hasn't been -- this one has not been signed off on. That's what it would being changed to. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. But you are going to satisfy Mr. Todd's request? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, one other question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, go ahead. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Cummings, I was told that you're going to operate a full-service restaurant. How are you going to do that without cooking facilities? MS. CUMMINGS: We have cooking facilities, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What kind of cooking facilities do you have? MS. CUMMINGS: We have the freezer and the microwave and the -- we're getting a steamer and -- we were told what the Fire Department -- MR. MEYER: Mr. Brigham, this restaurant will utilize prepared food. It will not be cooked from scratch, it'll be frozen food. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I -- I was curious. MR. MEYER: And the menu, I think you have a copy of the menu in the package that was given to you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I looked at the menu. MS. CUMMINGS: And the menu is for microwaveable foods also, so everything that I prepare will be microwaveable. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to say before we vote, I hope that the last comment on there --and that's what really got us into the discussion before, that of the preparation, where and how. And I think we either need to do one of two things. if we want to bring the law into the 21st century, then those objecting ought to propose something different or they ought to accept the fact that everybody in 1996 does not prepare food the same way. And the law does not state that, does not require it. It is not in the State law, it's not in Richmond County's law, and people who want it to be different ought to get it changed in writing or they ought to quit trying to interpret it. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to allow it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK: Item 44: Appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Jim Williamson. Term expires February 1, 1997. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I make the motion that we appoint Hugh Fulcher, Jr. to fill the term of Jimmy Williamson. Mr. Fulcher is -- he's retired with the electrical utility in Richmond County, he's active with the Briar Creek Soil and Water Conservation, he has the time he can devote to this, and I recommend that he be approved. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close nominations. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I was going to move to close nominations, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, it's important that we put this member on, because if we hadn't have put the last member on we wouldn't have had enough for a quorum for the last meeting over there at Planning and Zoning. And I think it's essential that we get this board back up to par and maybe even some of the other ones. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Fulcher, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Next item, 47: Consider approval to discontinue any efforts to purchase Regency Mall. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. I'd like to know how this item got on the agenda, number one; and if it's been put on the agenda to censor me from talking about the Regency Mall or any other building or facilities that's feasible financially for the taxpayers of Richmond County, and if someone's tired of hearing us talk about it, I suggest they buy them a damn good pair of ear muffs. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I requested that the item be put on the agenda, and what I was fixing to say before my colleague made his comments, we are having a negative impact on the merchants in the mall, perspective merchants for the mall, by having it lingering for six months or since the first of year, prospects on us buying the mall. The mall is not a good, sound buy, not for operating a shopping area and certainly not for operating a governmental facility. You have too much open space to heat, you have a tremendous roof to -- area to roof, you have all your renovations that you would need to set it up. And, secondly, we shouldn't be in the real estate business, the commercial real estate business, we should be in the public service business and not renting to other governmental agencies or anyone else. That should be left for the private sector commercial real estate folks to do. Thirdly, certainly we probably shouldn't be in negotiations with a real estate broker, commercial real estate person, to negotiate the sale of a mall or any other properties. That's why we have a county attorney. I put it on the agenda so we can kill this issue maybe for once and for all, and I'm going to make a motion that we discontinue the efforts to buying the Regency Mall on those grounds. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Powell had his hand up. MR. POWELL: I'll yield to Mr. Bridges. I think he had his hand up before I did, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. And then Mr. Zetterberg. MR. BRIDGES: I'll yield to Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: I take exception to the wording of this because as best that I can determine there has never been an effort by the Commission to buy Regency Mall. It's a myth perpetuated by the media. There has been an effort by one or two individuals to do this. And so I find -- I couldn't vote for that because we've never even had an effort to buy Regency Mall, but there's not a citizen in Augusta or Richmond County that knows that, so I'd like to go on the record to say there is no effort by this Commission as a body to buy Regency Mall: none today, none tomorrow, and hopefully none in the future. So, therefore, I could not vote for this, and please don't misconstrue the fact that -- or the thought that I want to buy Regency Mall by my disapproval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think this has to be one of the first -- it has to be a first, because the Commissioner that put this on there, it's the first time I've seen an effort to discontinue debate on any topic. So to me that's a first. But I welcome the opportunity to address this, if for any other reason, as Mr. Zetterberg has said, we should not limit any kind of debate on any building; we should consider all options. And I appreciate his comments concerning -- the news media has stated several times that some of us are trying to buy the mall. We're not; we're trying to have a study done to see if it's feasible to buy the mall. Those are our efforts. And let me just make a few comments concerning some of the negative aspects that's out in the public concerning Regency Mall. In the first place, we hear the argument that we don't want to get into the real estate business. I'm here to tell you, you're already in the real estate business. We lease buildings for this government now. I think we've got -- we've got approximately ten leased buildings; we've got almost 30 locations, I think, of buildings that we own outside of the Greene Street building. And so we're already in the real estate business. The problem here with these leased buildings that we have, we're sending taxpayers' monies out to pay for these buildings. What we're looking at with a situation like Regency Mall is a partnership between the government and private business to make that a success, and that's done -- I know it's a new way of thinking. Sometimes we have to shift the paradigm of our thinking when we -- when we consolidated we certainly shifted the paradigm of our thinking, and we need to do it in other areas as well. We need to -- in changing that thinking we need to keep in mind downsizing, we need to keep in mind economy. But the mall over here behind us, right now the -- I think it's the Army and some private industry is involved in making that a Discovery Center. So it's nothing new for government and private business to go in partnership to make something a success. I keep hearing this argument that, well, how in the world are you going to heat and cool the center of that mall? Well, according to the -- what I have is a year-to-date operations analysis of the mall through April, and I just carried it on out through the end of the year based on the first four months. The utilities for the central area of the mall would be 216,000 by year end. The rent from the existing tenants in that mall is 872,000. I mean, you're talking about a situation where you've got more money coming in than going out if you consider utilities. So if you consider all the expenses that are paid -- that are expended out for the central area of that mall, you're looking at 1.1 million dollars. Those are my numbers. So when you consider that you've got some tenants in there that are paying 872,000 just on their rent, not including the fees they pay for upkeep of the central area of the mall as well, and we've got one tenant --for those of us that have wanted to consider this idea, we've got one tenant that wants 50,000 square feet willing to go in with us. You know, I don't know what kind of rent we would charge for it, but that money would be additional to it. So basically what you can say is the tenants in there would pay for the operation of the mall. Or you might even could look at it another way. You could say the income provided from the tenants in that mall would pay -- over about a seven-year period of time, the monies you'd get from them would pay to purchase the mall including interest. There are several different ways you can look at that, and based on the square footage that's in the mall -- you've got about 331 [sic] square foot. By the time we move those government offices, just the ones that move, not the legal, not any of the others, just the ones that we know that would move and could centralize and be located there, we've got about 37,000 square feet left in the mall. In other words, you don't have any room left to move another large government complex into the mall. So I think the idea is feasible. I think there are other things concerning the mall that make it a plus. It's centrally located as far as the population goes. We are a consolidated government; we don't necessarily have to have the office downtown or anywhere else, and I think it would be to the benefit of the citizens to provide them that courtesy to have access -- easier access to their government. We're discussing carpooling as a means of saving some money, and right now right here we don't have the space to carpool. Our employees take the cars -- you know, the Crown Victorias that you hear so much about, they take them home at night. We just simply don't have the parking space. There that would not be a problem. But there are other additional positives about that location. It already meets all the fire and ADA codes. We're spending -- we're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on some of these buildings we've got to bring them up to fire and ADA standards. I think there's a lot of positives in that location that needs to be considered. I'd like to see it be considered. I'd like to look at other locations as well, but this is certainly one that we need to see if it's a feasible --something feasible that we can do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, and then Mr. Powell. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor -- and that was a good speech, Ulmer. MR. BRIDGES: Thank you, Bill. MR. KUHLKE: What I would like to do -- I'm not for cutting off debate on anything really that we need to talk about. I do think that as a prerequisite to begin talking about additional space is for us to complete our organizational chart; determine what, if any, new space do we need; and that - - the problem that is facing us from a pressure standpoint with Regency Mall is that if that mall became available there is a window of opportunity that you might want to take a look at. I'm under the impression from the newspaper that the mall is sold. So I don't want to limit debate. I certainly think it ought to be included to look at, but I think it would be terribly premature for us as a body to go out and buy any facility, including Regency Mall, at the present time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we receive Mr. Bridges' report as information. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to read what's on the agenda under Item 47, or at least have the Clerk to read it, so we know what's on the agenda. CLERK: Item 47: Consider approval to discontinue any efforts to purchase Regency Mall. MR. TODD: I don't think that says anything about debate. I think putting it on the agenda certainly affords the opportunity for debate on this issue, so I think my colleagues is misconstruing what the intent is here. But certainly when my colleagues say that there haven't been any discussion on the mall issue, I can assure you if we were keeping minutes in executive session as we're required to when we're dealing with real estate matters, you would have minutes reflecting that there's been discussion in executive session on the mall issue. I won't go into the details or breach that confidentiality as far as the mall go. There are some folks feel, you know, that we can't have candidates' names that we're considering for administrator because, you know, we might have a Commissioner or two that would let the names get out. I don't believe in that and I don't buy into it, so I won't breach that. But certainly we've discussed the purchasing or possible purchasing of Regency Mall in executive session; certainly we have authorized a real estate person to look into it and we had contract discussions. So, you know -- and if I'm wrong, if I'm so wrong here on my line of thought and recollection, then, you know, maybe I need to be up there in Milledgeville instead of sitting here. But I can assure you that I don't think I should be in Milledgeville, I should be sitting here, and as I stated it, it's fact, and we have discussed the purchasing of Regency Mall as a body in executive session. And the other thing that I was saying that's related to this, it's about high time we start keeping minutes on real estate issues and those minutes should be made public after we've closed the acquisition or decided not to do the acquisition. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I guess I've been called a liar. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And I guess I'd have to join you because I don't know what Mr. Todd is talking about. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I don't know about that. I normally don't speak up like this, but I'd like to tell the citizens of Augusta and Richmond County that we are not meeting in executive session. And if any talk about Regency Mall, other than one time a realtor came in, it has -- we have not discussed the issue, unless I've been absent, and I believe I've been here more than Mr. Todd has been here. So I'm not too sure where Mr. Todd gets his information, and I respect Mr. Todd, but I think he's beating a fire right now that just isn't out there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my other question would be have the County Attorney been authorized to draw up a paper to obtain signatures as far as buying or moving ahead on the mall? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to also correct Mr. Todd. And I agree with Mr. Zetterberg, this has never been discussed in legal session that I've been in. And I'd just like to know how much a bus ticket is for Milledgeville. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. I think we done beat this horse to death. We've got a lot of other important things we need to do. MR. ZETTERBERG: Which question? Which question, that's the problem. MR. HANDY: Anything concerning the mall. MAYOR SCONYERS: We had a substitute motion and then we had a regular motion; is that correct? CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. J.B. Powell was to receive Mr. Bridges' comments as information. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the substitute motion is not related to the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just reading that, Mr. Todd. Thank you. Jim, how do we want to handle that, because it's really not relevant to the motion -- I mean, to the -- MR. WALL: It really is not relevant to the question as stated on the agenda. I think that motion is out of order. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. CLERK: Go to the original motion? The original motion was to consider approval, made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion Mr. Todd made to discontinue the efforts to purchase Regency Mall, please raise your hand. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & POWELL VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG OUT. MOTION FAILS 4-5. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we should continue with the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. CLERK: Item 48: Confirmation of the polling of the Commission-Council on September 6th with regard to adding certain department head positions to the approved September 3rd list of positions to be advertised from within the organization. MAYOR SCONYERS: What do we need to do on that one? CLERK: You need to affirm the -- MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. I have a motion by Mr. Powell. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: What was the motion, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Move to approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: To approve 48. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? I'm a little confused because I don't remember us ever approving any advertising from within of any of the department heads at this point. I know there was some discussion after the meeting last time, but I don't think we've took any actions to advertise within on any of the department heads. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. I believe we did approve at the last regular meeting to advertise in-house. I recall voting against it on at least four or five department heads, and I guess this initiative here is to, and the polling, was to add four or five positions to that. And I polled in opposition to it, and I will vote in opposition to the motion, but I'm just trying to help my colleague with recollection. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: That is correct. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN. MAYOR SCONYERS: How many did we have? CLERK: 8 to 2. Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Brigham -- Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote to make sure the count is right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, am I to understand we're just voting to confirm this here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. Add the other names to the list. CLERK: Will you recognize Mr. Wall before I do the vote? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I think that insofar as looking at this, the Elections -- I mean, that is an independent board, they choose the executive director, and I think that it would be inappropriate to include that as one to be filled. I mean, this board does not have the authority under the legislation that creates the Board of Elections to deal with that department. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, is it in order for me to say something? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure, go ahead. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I think that as a result of consolidation, that one of the opportunities presented to this community and this body is for us to look at who may be attracted to really every position that we have available. I'm not saying that to reflect on anybody that's already in our government. We've got good people. But I think that this is one of those times that we will probably never have again to represent the citizens of this community in trying to put the best possible people we can put in every position. And so I have no problem -- I may be a little bit misunderstanding on this thing. I don't have any problem of adding these people, but I think that we are doing a disservice to this community by not trying to look on a more regional basis to see what may be available to us, and I just wanted to say that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: A point of information, Mr. Mayor. The way I understand it, all we're doing is voting to confirm the vote on this. We're not voting - - MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: We're not saying that we're going to accept it or come back later, we're -- and we're just talking about these four positions: Transit, Trees and Landscaping, Corrections, and Human Relations. MAYOR SCONYERS: That is correct. MR. KUHLKE: And that's to do it within; am I correct? Is that to fill these positions from within? Is that what we're voting on? MR. BRIDGES: We're voting on the -- we're voting to confirm this ballot, as I understand it. I mean, that's all we're doing is confirming the way we voted. MR. KUHLKE: To do it from within. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: It's my understanding that we voted to do it from within on hiring four to five department heads last meeting. The Project Manager or whomever wanted to add four or five to that. There were a poll taken by the Clerk of Commission-Council in reference whether you support that initiative or not, and right now we're ratifying that poll. But if there is six individuals saying they want to do it that way and they don't change their mind, it's going to happen that way regardless of how you polled, and I think there is a majority in that poll that said they want to add those four individuals. I have a problem with it and I'll vote accordingly. But I think that we should probably go on and vote on whether we want to do it from within, and if it fail, that would mean that we would advertise nationwide. The problem I have with advertising nationwide in one sense, and I have -- you know, and I'm pretty much torn as far as which way to go, I agree with Mr. Kuhlke, is that when you put a person's job up for advertisement that's there and is not going to retire, then you're giving that person, in my opinion, a possible vote of no confidence. That's a concern. Now, the -- and I don't know which outweigh the other, you know, to make sure we get the best qualified person available or keep that core confidence in the individual you have in place. It's my opinion also, and the County Attorney may want to comment on this, that the correction officer is not an appointment that this board would make but is an appointment -- we may have some, you know, recommending authority, but this is done by the State Commission of Correction. MR. WALL: Well, I -- we're talking about RCCI. We did vote to include him as a department head that was affected by the consolidation, and so therefore I'm of the opinion that he is affected by this. Y'all would be the appointing authority subject to the confirmation. I think you've already made the decision to treat him as a department head by virtue of the enhanced early retirement and the severance package, and to be consistent I think you've got to treat him the same way here. MR. TODD: Yes, but we understand, Mr. Mayor -- I guess to the County Attorney -- that the State authority supersede ours. And if we nominate him or appoint him and they say no, we're going to send someone else to Augusta, Georgia, it's kind of like being a message, you send who --or, you know, you accept who they send. MR. WALL: Well, I think that the actual procedure would be that if they rejected it they would send it back for another recommendation. I don't think they would arbitrarily send somebody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, then Mr. Bridges. MR. POWELL: Mr. Wall, do I need to amend my motion to that effect, insofar as Corrections and Board of Elections? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, you need -- insofar as the Elections, you need to delete them. I think Corrections is appropriate to do so because of the way you've treated that as a department head position. MR. POWELL: Okay. I would like to amend my motion to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I guess a point of information from the Parliamentarian. When we voted last time to do in-house with all the search I wrote the Mayor a letter and asked him to extend that on certain departments. Would this be the proper time to make that motion that we do an extended search on some of the departments that we originally approved for strictly in- house? MR. WALL: Well, I mean -- yes. I mean, the first thing you would have to do is make a motion to reconsider that action and then have that passed and then bring back the original topic. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question on Item 48 and then we can go from there. CLERK: Roll call. Mr. Beard? MR. BRIDGES: Hold it just a minute. All right, I'm confused. Jim, could we still go back and reconsider the actions we took last meeting? MR. WALL: Yes. You would need -- you've got a motion on the floor that deals with these new positions. After that motion is voted on, then if you wanted to go back and deal with the other ones, then you would need to make a motion to reconsider that prior action. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: She's fixing to do a roll call vote now, Mr. Todd. 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: Madame Clerk, I'm going to vote yes. I still have the concern that I thought we had eliminated one of those departments. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, to add those names to the list. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to make the motion that we reconsider the actions we took at the previous meeting concerning going strictly in-house for the four departments selected there. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd certainly like to vote for that motion, but I'm having a hard time following voting to add four more or five more to the list to do it inside, then turn around and -- we want to go outside I guess now with everybody, is that my understanding, or just out with the ones that we voted to go in with the last time? MR. BRIDGES: We're reconsidering what we did two weeks ago. We're not reconsidering what we did today. MR. TODD: Okay. I'm going to vote for the motion because I strongly believe that that's the direction we should go. I don't think we have the votes, Mr. Mayor, to do anything about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question for the Parliamentarian. Is that motion in order? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, in my opinion it is. I guess I did misspeak. I said a motion to reconsider. Technically it's a motion to rescind under the rules that were adopted, so it would be a motion to rescind, but I spoke in error. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I may be the only one in the room that is a little bit confused. MR. TODD: Not this time, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: [Inaudible] but I have a hard time remembering what I did an hour ago, so would you -- Mr. Bridges, since you do know what you're saying, would you please expand on that? MR. BRIDGES: Well, my understanding of what I said is this: We're going back -- we've approved these positions that we did today; we're saying we're going in-house with them. We're going back to reconsider going strictly in-house, you know, within the government, to hire the department heads that we approved two weeks ago. That's the Comptroller, that's the Fire Department, that's Purchasing, and Recreation. And what I'm asking that we do is that we reconsider that, because some of those departments I'd like to do a regional search on. And I think those department heads are critical positions. I think it's something that we need to get the very best person that we can. I don't think we need to do the extensive search or time-consuming search that we've done with the administrator, but I would like to see particularly -- I'd personally like to see Fire, Recreation, and Purchasing, a regional search to fill those department heads. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Before we would be able to vote and make an intelligent decision, is it any particular department of the four that Mr. Bridges has a concern about or all four of them? MR. BRIDGES: Those are the three that I'm concerned about. MR. HANDY: Which three? MR. BRIDGES: The Fire, the Recreation, and the Purchasing. Those are the ones I feel we should go outside with. Now, some of the other members may have -- you know, they may want to consider that, and we can look at that as well. But those are -- I mean, those were -- MR. HANDY: Okay. On one, if I can remember, I may have Alzheimer's today, but our consolidation bill says that the Sheriff of Richmond County will be in charge of law enforcement and the city Fire Chief will be in charge of the Fire Department. That's what the bill said. So we are not here, I don't think, to appoint a Fire Chief because he's already there. MR. BRIDGES: No, we're not -- MR. HANDY: Okay. So how can we send out something for a Fire Chief when the bill already states that he is the chief? MR. BRIDGES: Well, it doesn't say, you know, that position will be there forever. I mean, you know -- MR. KUHLKE: He's appointed. MR. HANDY: But he was appointed in the old city government. But the bill doesn't say about he appointed now, so that's -- so we need clarification, Mr. Attorney. MR. WALL: You have treated the Fire Chief as a department head to be appointed by this body. And, in fact, I think that -- the consolidation bill clearly did make him in charge come January the 1st so that there was no question about who was in charge on January the 1st insofar as the Fire Department is concerned. However, it does say that all department head positions were vacated as of March 31st. And y'all took, by resolution, an action to appoint all existing department heads as interim department heads, and I think that included the Fire Chief. And I do think that insofar as the Fire Chief is concerned, that he is a department head. He is clearly included in the enhanced early retirement package that was passed last meeting just like the RCCI Director. So I think to be consistent you have to recognize that he is a department head and that you do have the authority clearly to appoint him or to appoint someone different at this point because he was an interim by virtue of that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Bridges if he would amend his motion to include the Director of Finance. MR. BRIDGES: My understanding here, Bill, is that right now we're just considering -- we're considering reconsidering what we did two weeks ago, and we need to vote on that and then we need to vote on those departments. MR. KUHLKE: But I think Finance was involved. MR. BRIDGES: That's right. That's right. MR. KUHLKE: And I'm asking you -- I'm not -- was it four positions? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: I think Mr. Bridges is -- the point he's making is -- I recognize that he did delete the Finance Department, but technically they were voted on as a group. The motion to rescind would be to rescind that action, which would affect all four positions. That motion would have to be passed and then a new motion made if you wanted to narrow it to three of the four or two of the four positions to be considered. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Would then you have to reappoint them as interim managers? MR. WALL: No. I mean, they're still serving as interim managers because that has not been taken away. Until you appoint somebody new, they continue to serve as interim department heads. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. You know, I know what the bills says and, again, we're getting into, I think, a lot of intentions. We're talking about department heads, but I would hope that we would keep in mind the fact that below those department heads we've got a lot of good people working in departments from top to bottom. And I'm not plugging for a situation either way, but I would kind of hope that out of 2,600 folk, that somebody somewhere along the line in some of these places could be able to run this government, particularly since we're saddled with a bill that's calling for reverse downsizing. It's the only merger of this size probably anywhere in the United States that's been voted on, passed, bought, purchased or leased whereby you are not downsizing a workforce. Everybody in it's got a job. So, now, I just want to remind you when you start this big search for all the folk that you're looking for -- and I'm not saying that you may have to change some number twos and number threes or whatever to find who you're looking for, but, you know -- sometimes, you know, like Dorothy, you know, you can find some good things at home if you look hard enough and if you work hard enough. Because if you're going to continue to keep the folk on the payroll who are guaranteed a job by the same bill that you keep referring to and you're going to get this big massive search that you got -- and I'm not going to put any names with any faces today. That'll be wrong to do it. But I get a real cold feeling from the message that we're sending out at this point on what we've got with our workforce. Now, if we can examine that and there are still some problems, I think we still reserve the option to do otherwise. But I would hope that since probably a decision has been made -- and I don't think that the people at the top would mind me saying this at this point. If we've gotten down into a selective process of dealing with the top person that's going to run the job, and whoever that person might be, I think somewhere along that line you're going to find out who can cut the mustard and who can't if you're going to pay any attention to that top dog that you hire. But I think to basically start going on a wholesale message out here that we don't have anybody that can run something -- I'd hate to be working for y'all for 15/20/25 years and to think that somewhere there was not an upward mobility spot in there that I could attain if I was a man or woman working for this county, and I just want you to consider that before you get into all these reconsiderations. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well said, Mr. Mays. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I would reiterate what I said earlier, that I guess you're dealing with the core confidence of the folks that's there and you're possibly not giving them a vote of confidence to do this. But I think certainly when it's -- when it's a foregone conclusion that certain folks is going to retire and they indicated that they're going to retire, that we possibly consider looking outside for folks. And that's not saying that we can't hire from within. Everybody's going to have equal opportunity this time to participate in the process. And if you advertise, you know, community wide and it turn out that you got the best qualified person sitting there, then certainly you could appoint or hire that best qualified person sitting there. But there are some areas that I have some concerns, and I'd rather not get into that here. I think the place for it is where it's at on the agenda to discuss personnel, and I'll do it at that appropriate time. But I'm going to stay consistent and vote the way that I was told and the way I was -- I voted last time. And I don't expect to win this one, but I'll call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of -- I forgot who - - CLERK: Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Reconsideration -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Bridges' motion to -- CLERK: To rescind the actions from the September 3rd meeting, advertising from within, the positions of Fire Department, Recreation, Finance, and Purchasing. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS, POWELL & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 49: Discussion of the Administrator's selection process. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that this item be put on the agenda, and I think I alluded to the fact that certainly I feel as Commissioners that we should have seen the five names or possibly eleven names, the applications, et cetera, and haven't seen that to this point. And I had conversation with several of my colleagues. I am concerned about whether the process that we outlined was deviated from and whether the responsibility that we have as far as assuring equal opportunity has been breached. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I assure you it hasn't been breached, but I'll let Mr. Carstarphen address that. Mr. Carstarphen, do you want to address that for us, please? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'm not sure what you're asking for, Mr. Mayor. I didn't place the item on the agenda. But if you can indicate what you'd like for me to comment on, I'll be glad to. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, do you want to just give him one of these or do you want to comment on that? I think that's what he's looking for. MR. CARSTARPHEN: You're referring to the minutes of the August 6th meeting? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's exactly right. MR. CARSTARPHEN: All right. Let me distribute those. The Mayor asked me to make copies of these available to each of you. MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES MINUTES TO THE COMMISSIONERS. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. MR. CARSTARPHEN: If there are any questions concerning these, I'll be happy to answer them. I think, for the Commission's information, there are three dates you need to keep in mind. One, on July 22nd you had a memorandum from the Consolidation Project Manager that outlined the process that you had agreed to or that you had discussed earlier. That process referred to a screening committee and a reduction of the number of candidates to either 15 or 5. Subsequent to the memorandum of July 22nd, the Commission met in a special called session on July 24th. At that time, following discussion by the Commission, you revised that procedure and instructed that the screening committee was to screen the number of candidates down to five and that the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Consolidation Project Manager were further to bring to the Commission three. The third date you need to keep in mind is August 6th, and that is the regular meeting of the Commission, the minutes of which you have in front of you --at least a portion of those minutes. And if you'll refer to those minutes, you will recall that I appeared before you to update you on the Administrator selection process and that I called to your attention the fact that in your work session of the 24th you had approved a process. There was some discussion. Mr. Todd, who was not present at the work session, raised questions about the issue of the number of candidates that would be brought to the full Commission. There was discussion about whether or not that number was 15 or 5, and if you'll follow through on the several pages that you have of the minutes you can follow that discussion. On Page 2, I responded to Mr. Todd's inquiry indicating that primarily, with the objective of speeding up the process, the step that originally presented for consideration of narrowing the number to 15 and then to 5 was eliminated in order to, I thought, based on the Commission's expression, achieve a quicker time frame. Mr. Todd again discussed that issue and expressed his opinion that he would like to see 15. Mr. Brigham joined in that discussion - - and I'm on Page 96 of the minutes now. On Page 97, Mr. Bridges participated in the discussion and said "I'll make that in the form of a substitute motion that we go with the recommendation of Mr. Carstarphen and that the Commission- Council only look at five recommendations." There was further discussion after that, and in order to attempt to clarify the situation I asked "Would you like for me to go over the process as it was transmitted to you in my memorandum of July 22nd and confirmed the special meeting of the 24th?" And in response to that I then again reviewed the fact that you had started out with the number of 15, you had reduced it to 5 to be brought to the subcommittee of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and the Consolidation Project Manager, and that that committee was to bring three to you. I once again clarified that, and I indicated on Page 98 in the minutes that I recalled that you actually voted on that and approved it at the special meeting of Wednesday, July 24th. There was some discussion between the City Attorney and myself concerning whether or not that vote was recorded and, continuing on Page 99, after that discussion Mr. Bridges again said, "Let me reinstitute my motion to accept the recommendation as given here and that the Commission review three candidates presented by the Mayor." That motion was seconded by Mr. Powell and the vote carried eight to two, with Mr. Beard and Mr. Todd voting in the negative. If there are any questions concerning that, I'll be happy to respond. MR. TODD: Yes, there is. And I guess the -- not necessarily concerning the process, but did the -- what was the process as far as who the citizens committee interviewed? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think it would be helpful, Mr. Mayor, if you would also like for me to distribute the instructions that went to the subcommittee, I'll be glad to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES MINUTES TO THE COMMISSIONERS. MR. CARSTARPHEN: What is being distributed at this time is a copy of the agenda for the -- what was called the recruitment subcommittee. It has also been referred to as the candidate screening committee. But it is the committee of several citizens -- I think there were 11 or 12 of them in number, their names are attached as a part of this -- who were appointed by the Commission for the process of screening the 105 applications for the Administrator position that had been received and carrying out the directives that were confirmed in your formal meeting of August 6th to screen that number down to five to be recommended to the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and myself, and subsequently the Mayor to bring to you three. As you can see, this first page is simply the agenda of that committee's first formal meeting in which the Human Resources Director and myself met with them and explained what their purpose was and offered the assistance. The second item in this attachment is the approved Administrator selection process schedule that was then in effect, and it reflects the fact that on August 6th you confirmed the change in the process. And you will see step two of the committee's responsibility was to screen applicants and identify the 15 best candidates, and then to reduce the applicant pool to the 5 top candidates, and that further on down in the process the Commission comes in when you conduct interviews with the three that are presented by the Mayor. The final item there is simply a list of the members of that committee. Some of you had expressed interest in that. That committee, in my opinion --and the Human Resources Director and I attended most of their meetings. The committee conducted itself in a very businesslike way. It reviewed on paper -- saw or had the opportunity to see all 105 applications. Through their deliberative process they narrowed it first all down to a group of about 30. They further refined it in an effort to get to the next step, which was 15, and when they had done their evaluation process the number they had was 12. And as I recall, there was some discussion by the committee of weren't we asked to reduce it first to 15, and the committee concluded that they had 12 that they thought were very good. They would look at those 12, and if they needed to come back after they looked at the 12, if they rejected some of the 12, and add some more, they'd do that at a later time. But in light of the time constraints which had been imposed upon them and the fact that they were pretty much in consensus about the 12, that they would go ahead and work with the 12. One of the 12 subsequently indicated that he was not available for interview at the time, so he was removed and the figure came down to 11, and the committee then arranged video interviews, remote video interviews, with each of the 11. And, in fact, that number went back up to 12 when an individual who had not been a part of the initial review process was added to it, and all 12 were interviewed by video. And the committee then subsequently reduced that number to five, which were transmitted -- the identities of which were transmitted to the Mayor. MR. HANDY: One part of that was wrong, Bill. It was 11, went to 10, then went back to 11. It never got to 12. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Excuse me, I'm corrected. You're right, it went down to 10 and then back up to 11. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, then Mr. Beard. MR. TODD: Yes. I only have one question, then I'm going to listen to other folks. But my question is that if they had have done 15, is it a possibility that some local folks would have made the cutoff as far as the interview cutoff? Is it a possibility that a female would have made the cutoff as far as the interview cutoff? Is there a possibility that a minority or additional minorities would have made the cutoff as far as the interview cutoff? MR. CARSTARPHEN: If you're addressing that to me, Mr. Todd, I can't speculate on that. I have no way of knowing what the committee might have done. MR. TODD: And, in my opinion, they didn't follow the process. And without -- with not knowing that, I can't assure that there was fairness, and I haven't been given a good enough reason for them to not take 15 individuals and interview them versus 11 or 10 or 12. I have no further comment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Carstarphen, I have just a little problem with the process myself, because I think if you will reflect in those minutes that you talked about I was one of those who said that we're following the procedure. The procedure that I had in mind was that -- what we had discussed in the work sessions and what we had discussed at other meetings, that when we got down to the 15 that the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and two members from the committee would make the selection. And that's the problem I had, and that was -- to me, that was never actually followed. The other thing that I possibly have a problem with is that we talked about the fluctuation of numbers there. They were given 15. I think that this committee made several decisions there which should have been made maybe by other people than that committee when they start narrowing it down. You hear all kind of rumors that certain questions were asked to people that were not asked of others; that the committee made decisions on things when we got down to 10 or 11 or whatever we were supposed to have there; that people were late getting information. I've heard all kinds of rumors like that, and that those decisions was made by the Human Resource person and possibly -- I don't know whether the committee or the committee chairman or who, but I think that certainly some of those decisions that were made by this committee, the committee that we had gathered, should not have been made unless they were cleared by a majority of this body. And this is the problem that I have. And one other question is that will this committee be making anymore recommendations to this body in reference to anything else. MR. CARSTARPHEN: By the process you approved earlier, this committee will be used in any instance in which you elect to have an open recruitment process for a department head to perform a similar screening process. It has currently undertaken the process with regard to the candidates for the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development and has transmitted, I am told, by the chairman to the Mayor its five top candidates for that position, which I assume we will begin working with in the near future. MR. BEARD: Well, since there seems to be some disgruntleness in reference to some of the things that the committee has taken upon themselves to do, I would hate to see them continue this. And I would like to go back to the process wherein the Project Manager, the Mayor, and the Mayor Pro Tem, and if there are other people from the community, go back to that process of utilizing two people to make the choices of anybody else that we have to go outside to do. And I so move. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion to get it on the floor for discussion. MR. BRIDGES: What's the motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what I'd like to know. What is the motion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a substitute motion we receive this an information. MR. POWELL: I'll second the substitute. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear the reading of the original motion so that individuals that don't know what the motion is will know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the original motion. CLERK: Mr. Beard, could you restate what your intent was? MR. BEARD: I move that we, because of some of the confusion that was created by the committee -- and I think that we ought to thank the committee for doing a good job on electing the three -- five people for the service -- for the Administrator, and I think that we should terminate their services at this time. That was the essence of the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. -- I'm sorry, we've got a substitute motion by Mr. Bridges to receive this as information. Is that correct, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: [Indicates affirmatively.] MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & TODD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes? MR. TODD: If I may be given the privilege just for a second. One of the concerns I have, too, is that I would hope that when we are appointing a citizens committee that it's the understanding we're talking about citizens of Richmond County and that we're utilizing citizens of Richmond County to make decisions that's going to affect Richmond County. And that is no, I hope, unfair criticism of anyone, but certainly when I think of citizens I think of citizens of this county. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I would like to remind the Commissioners that y'all selected the people we put on the board. Where they came from is y'alls problem. Now, let's move on with the motion. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL, ZETTERBERG, AND MAYOR SCONYERS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Item 50, please. CLERK: Number 50: Organization structure of the Richmond County government. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I apologize for not being present at our last meeting. These are the items that were scheduled for consideration at that time. I'd like to start off with some good news. I have a typed chart so you don't have to squint at my hand-printing, which is not very good. I'd like to distribute that chart, and maybe ask the Interim Administrator for some assistance in doing so. MR. CARSTARPHEN/MS. BEAZLEY DISTRIBUTE ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS. MR. CARSTARPHEN: There are copies available. Also, this is the chart that has been reviewed I think twice now at working sessions and represents the comprehensive organization chart for the organization. I can take as much time or as little time as the Commission would like to explain this or comment on it. Let me just very generally indicate that this represents the divisions of the organization insofar as administration is concerned into four groups that conform to the existing committee structure of the organization. It also recognizes the constitutional, judicial, and elected officials which report to elected department heads and their relationship to the citizens of Augusta- Richmond. And it recognizes the six departments that the Commission has previously decided should report directly to the governing body. As is indicated under the Administrator, there are four departments that report directly to the Administrator: Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology, and the proposed new department of Citizens Service and Information. And the other functions of the government, some 30 to 35 functions plus the more than 70 affiliated agencies that you work with, are organized into three groups, again, that conform to the committee structure of the Commission. One grouping of essentially the Operations and Public Works and Engineering functions, which are on the left and include Public Works, Recreation and Parks, Transit, Utilities, Aviation, License and Inspections, and Trees and Landscaping. And a second group which conforms to the existing Administrative and Public Safety Committees and includes the Fire Department, Central Services, Human Relations, Corrections Institute, Purchasing and Contracting, the newly established department, the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development, the Library, and the Animal Control operation. And then the final or third group in the administration are the community agencies and your partners in the intergovernmental field as well as the several judicial agencies and the liaison and coordination function that relate to them. Now, all this is set out in more detail in the second attachment in your agenda which lists the individual departments and their divisions as approved in your final work session and their relationship to the committee structure -- existing committee structure which you have confirmed of the Commission. And that is in the attachment in your agenda which follows the handwritten organization chart, the new chart of which replaces that. It's identical to it, but I believe it's a little bit more clearly legible. So that attachment defines each of the departments that I have just identified and the divisions within them. It groups them into the three categories of -- excuse me, four categories: first, Public Service and Engineering Services; second category, Administrative Services and Public Safety group; third category, Finance and Information group; and a final category, Community, Intergovernmental, and Judicial Partners group. And you will see a detailed listing of each of those groups, which is attached. The final attachment, which is also in your agenda packet, relates those departments as proposed to the existing committee structures and identifies the committee members that serve on those committees. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess the question that I have, that if the golf course and the cemeteries is going under Recreation, then why do we have a need to advertise from within or wherever for department heads for Trees and Parks? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Under the organization as you informally approved it, the Trees and Parks department is renamed the Trees and Landscaping department, and it does have a specific responsibility which does not include cemeteries but does include the extensive parkways, landscaping, and beatification program that has existed for some time within the old city and which a number of you have commented about extending into the new jurisdiction. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, could that not work out of another department such as Public Works, Engineering Services, or somewhere else? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, can you answer that? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, my recommendation to you was that clearly one of the most unique and attractive aspects of Augusta-Richmond is the extensive tree cover, beautification, and landscaping. In my discussions with each of you and in my visits in the community, a strong expression has been put forth that what we need to do is to continue that type of public right-of-way enhancement that has made the Garden City what it is and, in fact, extend it into the county -- what was the county and now is a part of the new consolidated government. I think that can most effectively be done by an independent department that has that principal responsibility. You are fortunate, in my opinion, to have a well trained, professionally trained staff, core staff, in that area. It is my belief that if that was put into the Public Works department it would gradually be deemphasized and fall victim to the more basic functions that the Public Works department correctly has to focus on such as paving streets, fixing potholes, putting in pipes, and doing other things. And that if you included it in Recreation and Parks, you would really be merging it with two -- with another function that, when you think about it, is really not similar at all. Recreation and Parks deals primarily with managing athletic programs, with maintaining those programs in certain open space, but it does not focus on the beautification and community and neighborhood enhancement efforts that Trees and Landscaping have historically, and I think to the benefit of the community, focused on. So my recommendation was that it be a separate department. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I agree that one of the things that Augusta is known for is being a tree city. When you look in your national book, certainly we're one of the oldest ones, you know, there as far as being a tree city. I don't -- you know, I don't necessarily disagree that we don't have a professional. Mr. Smith, if I may say, is a professional that is highly educated in this field. My concern is whether we need a department head there or whether this is something we can merge somewhere else. When we're talking about deemphasizing, I didn't fight the effort to put the landfill back under Public Works because I thought this was about consolidation, even though just a year before we had pulled the landfill out from under Public Works because we didn't think it was getting the attention that it needed, or at least the State was telling us that it wasn't, and we put it as a stand-alone. So I think that certainly this department and probably other departments can be merged under another responsibility as far as department heads go. We supposedly was going to do some things as far as attrition go. Well, I can assure you that this volunteer retirement incentive package, the other things that we're doing, none of it's going to save the taxpayers one dollar. We're going to have to do some things whether we like it or not. And I didn't like it when we put the landfill under Public Works, but I accepted it because it's supposed to be about the spirit of cooperation, consolidating some things, and moving on. But actually we've grown a department, you know, and --well, we've grown at least a couple of departments, and I think at some point we got to merge some departments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, didn't we have about 60 departments to start with? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. You've reduced -- it's difficult to talk in terms of departments. I visited in excess of 60-some functions. We have reduced that considerably in this organization structure, but those are decisions that you have made. For example, I think I recommended that Purchasing be a part of Finance and you felt it would be more -- better to have it as an independent department. You have made some decisions as we moved along, but we have reduced the number of agencies considerably in this process. Incidentally, what I have just passed out to you are the organization charts for the consolidated government of Columbus and Muskogee and the consolidated government of Athens and Clarke County. I do that simply as a reference so you can compare if you would like what you are considering to what exists in the other two consolidated governments within the state of Georgia. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Carstarphen, isn't it true that there's only one new department really, and that's the Citizens Services and Information department reporting to the Administrator. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I would say as a brand new department, yes, that does not exist in any way today. MR. ZETTERBERG: And that certainly meets a need and a demand in this community. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think it would be an excellent addition. I think it would be very beneficial to the Commission and I think it would help citizens a great deal. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I just have one question about the Pendleton Park. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Excuse me? MR. HANDY: Our park over there on Kissingbower Road. You were saying about where parks fit in and where parks don't fit in. What is Pendleton Park considered as, under Recreation or not? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, those decisions haven't been made in the -- that would normally be made when we review that department. If you're asking my opinion, Pendleton Park is an example of the type of park which I think probably should be maintained by the Recreation and Parks department, but those are decisions that have yet to be made. MR. HANDY: Okay, but right now Trees and Landscaping is doing that. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, it is. But those -- MR. HANDY: That's why I asked the question. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yeah. Those are the types of decisions that we would make as we got into the departments that you approve and finalize their structure and responsibilities, which the process calls for. MR. HANDY: Okay. Just something to think about. I think Mr. Todd brought up the question about where it could be merged into. If there's similarity to what he's doing in this park, then why couldn't it be in Recreation and Parks versus Public Works when they're going to be doing the same type work? That's just something to think about. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that's a question y'all have to decide. I gave you my thoughts on it and be happy to discuss it in as much detail as you'd like. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Carstarphen, one other point to follow up what Mr. Handy was talking about. In the old county they had a similar person or group of people doing Trees and Parks. In this proposal, is there a proposal to merge that group or where would those people go who are out there? MR. CARSTARPHEN: If you're referring to the -- I think there was a crew within the old Public Works department that did a small amount of landscaping in the county. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's is correct. MR. CARSTARPHEN: In my proposal, that would be a part of your new department of Trees and Landscaping. I think you need to put all of that resource together so you can extend that beautification out into the previously unincorporated area and so that you can have a uniform system and so that you can begin, for example, enhancing the entrances to the county, all the major highways that enter the new jurisdiction. It would be nice if they were attractively landscaped so that a citizen and a visitor recognize that they were coming into the new consolidated jurisdiction. But those are the types of activities which I think represent a unique asset, and that is one of the reasons why I think you should maintain a department of Trees and Landscaping for that very important function. It's one of the things that truly makes this community unique, and I think if you consolidate it with another department it will be subjugated to the other pressing objectives of that department and I think you will lose the opportunity that you have to make a distinctively attractive community. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I was -- I guess I'm a little late on it. It was just on a point of clarification. And I don't know whether Mr. Carstarphen knew it or not, but in reference to Mr. Handy's question on Pendleton King, I think you still are going to have multi things there as far as one on the upkeep side and then another one as far as what functions may go on in terms of what may be coordinated by Recreation and Parks. But I think to answer the question probably of how it got there was that because of the trust foundation that was there when we had two separate governments, that was one that had to be left under the auspices of the old City of Augusta and -- until we changed that or it gave up its charter and voted in consolidation. Now, what we do with it now can be whatever we basically do with it, but until that time, that was why it was never put into the park system when they were merged. And I believe Tommy knows and you all can --you all have been here longer than me and backing me up on that one. That was how that came about and why that one was left on the outside of it, because of the legalities of that trust. But the City of Augusta no longer exists, so therefore it's up to us to place it now. But I just wanted to clear -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's why I say that those are matters that we need to look at as we do a more detailed review once you approve this overall structure. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, then Mr. Beard. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Carstarphen, just as a point of clarification, I've heard it commented we are not going to achieve any downsizing of the government because the bill had said that nobody would lose their job. Isn't it in reality, through the enhanced early retirement package, that that will draw off jobs or people out of the organization, there will be opportunities for right-sizing within the organization itself, and so therefore we should be moving towards and can achieve a net decrease in jobs in the organization without any other enabling legislation? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I will leave the interpretation of the bill and how you apply it to the elected representatives. But I think this organization chart, combined with the attractive early retirement program that you have put in place, will present opportunities for restructuring and perhaps reducing the numbers of total positions. MR. ZETTERBERG: Absolutely. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Carstarphen, after reviewing this a little bit, I'd like your thoughts on this. I know at a former meeting, I think we talked about Human Resources. And after just looking at this -- and I guess it's a little better since I got this last thing. I was looking at the Assistant Administrator on the right here where we moved this Human Resources from down here and took him up here. I'm just looking at the supervision that the Administrator is going to have at that point and what the supervision that the Assistant Administrator is going to have on the right here. Also, with Risk Management involved, that aren't we asking for a whole lot if we continue with Human Resources up here under Administrator? Isn't this going to -- with Risk Management involved in that, isn't that going to create quite a problem -- not maybe a problem, but isn't this giving him a lot of things to do here when we could equalize this? And I'm talking from a point of equalization here and supervision. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'm not sure I know how to answer that question, Mr. Beard. I know that there are -- there was discussion about whether or not the Human Resources Director should report directly to the Administrator, and you recall my initial recommendation was that it report through an Assistant Administrator. After talking with Mr. Etheridge and after considering it, I changed my position because I do think the control of personnel, together with the control of the budget, are the two most important functions that your Administrator needs to have direct control over. And that was a major reason why I subsequently recommended and you concurred on August 27th in the informal work session -- or the Commission concurred that the Human Resources department be moved from reporting through an Assistant Administrator to reporting directly to the Administrator. And I would stand behind that. I think that's a good decision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the organizational chart that has gone for nine months, the same length of time that we have a baby, and that we also adopt the supplemental information that's included in the agenda that goes along with the organizational chart. MR. ZETTERBERG: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think the baby is a little premature, but I agree and I support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got the most wonderful medical center in the world to take care of it. Further discussion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I just want to know whether the baby's a boy or girl. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got to get a sonogram. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only concern is the number of department heads. I'm going to support this, I think you got to start somewhere, but I would hope that we can get more like Muskogee or Athens-Clarke sometime in the future and I think we can work that out somewhere along the line in the next three or four years. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I've got one other question. What did we decide on Trees and Landscaping, leave it as it is? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is the way it is proposed. MR. HANDY: And that's what we want to do? MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to vote for the motion that's on the floor, I just wanted one point of clarification. In the middle -- and I know there was a lot of discussion in reference to that naming. Was that what we finally decided on in reference to the Assistant Administrator that was in there, whether we were going to go with an Administrator in that slot, Bill, or was that to be a slash-liaison type situation when we start looking at all those agencies that we went on and extended that to? MR. CARSTARPHEN: As you recall, there was discussion as to whether or not to use the title of Director or Assistant Administrator or Assistant to the Administrator. In your meeting of August 27th it was the consensus that you would like to use the title of Assistant Administrator for all those positions. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 51: An Ordinance -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Just quickly. I think Item 50(d) you have already dealt with, Item 50(e) you have already dealt with, and I believe that you have a legal session later this afternoon. I would also, just as a final matter, like to call to your attention something that I think you'll appreciate. Augusta-Richmond is getting some national exposure in the Nation's Cities Weekly which, as you know, is the weekly publication of the National League of Cities. The September 9th edition, there is an article entitled -- and I think you will appreciate this -- "Georgia City-County Consolidation Progressing Rapidly," and it focuses on the new Augusta-Richmond consolidated government. In the unlikely event that you might have missed that, I have copies for each of you which I will be glad to distribute, and also to the local media representatives which I hope will take note of it. I'm proud of what you're doing. MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe we're on target; right? I think it's important for everybody to understand that this was the plan, and we have done what we said we were going to do. It was planned, it was deliberate, and it reached a nine to one vote. And I'm very proud of everybody for their participation in it, and I applaud Mr. Carstarphen's effort, and I think that the public ought to know about that, Sylvia. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. Item 51, please. CLERK: Item 51 is an Ordinance to amend the Consolidation Act, 1995 Georgia Laws, pursuant to Section 15 of said Act and pursuant to the Home Rule provisions of the Georgia Constitution, so as to change the name and designation of the Board of Commissioners, to change the name and designation of the Chairperson-Mayor and Vice Chairperson-Mayor Pro Tempore and of the Commissioners-Councilpersons; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think it's appropriate that we do this now that we've taken care of everything else. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 52: A Resolution authorizing the execution of a Lease Agreement between American Equipment Leasing and Augusta-Richmond for maintenance equipment for the Augusta-Richmond County Golf Course. MR. WALL: This is a resolution which would approve a leasing agreement that y'all had earlier approved going out for the purchase or leasing of equipment to maintain the golf course, and it's in order and I recommend approval. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 53 is to consider approval of the minutes of the September 3rd regular meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. MR. TODD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: We will consider the items on the addendum agenda. Item 1: Communication from the Attorney regarding approval of a contract for the Belle Terrace Senior Citizens Center between Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and Continental Construction Company, Inc. MR. WALL: These contract documents were hand-delivered to my office this morning. The contract signing is scheduled for September the 24th at 2:30 p.m. here on the eighth floor. The contract -- y'all had previously granted the award to -- what's the name? -- Continental Construction Company, and it's in order and I recommend approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second? MR. BEARD: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Beard. MR. TODD: My question would be are we under budget or at least at budget? MR. WALL: We are under budget. The budget was $500,000 and the contract amount is 471,579. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 2 is a communication from the Attorney regarding approval of a proposed Lease Agreement between Augusta-Richmond and the Department of Natural Resources, with the Boat Ramp Operation and Maintenance Agreement of same. MR. WALL: These documents were delivered to my office yesterday. Tommy is anxious to get started. These are the individuals that have been here to petition to get that boat dock, and the agreement is in order and I recommend approval. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 54 under Other Business, finance matter. MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I had Ms. Bonner to place this on the agenda, and purposely down near the end of it where it wouldn't look like I had anything of any political reasons in order to put it on here. I talked with various members of this Commission, talked with our Finance Committee chairman, as well as our Comptroller. And my reason for putting it on -- and I'm going to be very brief with it. I'm not looking for us to get any type of action out of what I have to say today. But when I sat in on the Finance Committee's meeting a few weeks ago and the Comptroller gave his mid year report, there was a lot of information that had been given and sent to us in print, there was a lot of things discussed that I think had a very serious impact that was jammed in what I think into a very, very short time span. I remember mentioning it casually to Sylvia, we were sitting next to each other, I said we got a lot of stuff going by us today in a short length of time. Right after that -- and I'll be the first one to say, Mr. Mayor, I don't -- I look at cartoons and editorials and the other stuff. I think you have to have thick skin to deal with that, all of us politically, but those are things that happen to all of us, but we pass them on. But I think when we, gentlemen, have a story that goes into the news media, print or electronic, that gives an impression to parts of our population that we may be dealing with a major tax increase -- and I've basically been assured that that's not going to happen. I think that when that happens and we continue on with our regular daily activities that we're doing -- and I know we have a lot to do, Mr. Mayor, but I would think that at some point -- and I do plan to make a motion in reference to it. I do think at some time at your discretion, because you're the leader of this council, I think at your discretion and in working with our financial officer, that we need some time to seriously dedicate -- I mean, we've had a lot of retreats and I don't diminish what we've done with retreats, but I think we need to seriously prior to budget hearing time deal with a clearing of the air on any questions that we may want to ask, whether it's mid year report, whether it's any forecast about the future, whether it's the clarity surrounding tax situations, whatever it might be. I think we need to dedicate a day and a half or a day or evening, something that hopefully all of this Commission can attend, and deal with this thing and ask our questions and get it totally behind us. Because I think when you -- whether you get letters from citizens or not, whether it's just folk that may greet you in the middle of 5,000 folk going to a football game and want to know, Willie, when are my taxes going up 50 percent, I think some type of response is needed. And I think in order to get to that, I think we need to seriously hear what our Comptroller is saying. I mentioned to Henry the other night -- we probably are two of the old timers from the disastrous year of 1990. I got here and 45 days later, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to go back home. We had a major flood and we hired a new chief financial officer. We had less than $100,000 on hand in this county that we were able to spend in cash assets. And I think we've come a long way since that day and that particular time, but I think when those type of forecasts are there, whatever they are, then we need to really have a little bit more time, whether it's to ask questions, whether it's to digest it. Because we've been flooded with a ton of material, and probably other than Ulmer and Jerry maybe with their own professions of digesting all the numbers that we've been hit with, then the rest of us basically -- you know, I think we've had to take it on a fast track, and that's one thing that I don't think -- I think maybe that track needs to be slowed down a little bit so that if we need to get back and maybe deal with that on a day or two. Now, like I said, I reemphasize the fact I've been assured that that's not the case of where we're heading, but I think that when it appears in that type of realm and we basically move on and have maybe not addressed it, put it to rest and dealt with it, then I think we leave a lot there that's hanging. And I'm going to make a motion that at your discretion and in working with your financial officer, that sometime in the very near future prior to our budget hearings that we have such a financial retreat. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I wrote a memorandum to Mr. McKie in reference to what I thought we should do, and I'm sure that the Commission won't agree with me on everything, but certainly I think it's a start. And I would hope that everybody would bring some ideas to the table on if we have a projected deficit of X dollars, a way to at least get back down to a balance for FY '97. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 55: Legal meeting to discuss personnel. MR. HANDY: Motion to adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion to adjourn? We need a motion to go into a legal meeting. MR. HANDY: So move we go into a legal meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I have a second? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 6:30 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 17, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council