Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS November 5, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:13 p.m., Tuesday, November 5, 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. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Bryan Matthews, Pastor of the JAM Ministries, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND MATTHEWS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request for deletion of Item 57. We have a request for an addition: Lewis Acres, Phase II, Final Plat, request for a concurrence from the Planning Commission; number two, appointment of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Director. For a point of information, Items 20, 21, and 22 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee rather than Finance. Items 59 and 52 are the same -- 22 -- 59 and 22. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I move, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Hold on one second, Mr. Mayor. 57 -- CLERK: Alcoholic beverage license. MR. HANDY: Okay. Also, and could you read me those additions, please, again? CLERK: Item 1 is a final plat approval from the Planning Commission; Item 2, appointment of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; and to note that Items 20, 21, and 22 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee rather than Finance as listed. MR. HANDY: On Item Number 2, I'd like to pull it until we go into our legal session, then come back with it if I get the answer I need. So you don't have unanimous decision to add Item 2, but you do on the rest of them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like an update from the Internal Auditor added to the agenda concerning the overbilling of the University Hospital ambulance service, Rural/Metro. I'd like that put on the agenda so that we can get a clarification on it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the maker of the motion will accept those changes, I'll accept it as the second of the motion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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: Item 1: Mr. Andy Cheeks. MR. CHEEKS: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Commissioners, I come to you today representing the Rollins Area Neighborhood Association, an association composed of seven subdivisions and nearly 1,000 homes and families. We are here today because we are concerned about our way of life in our neighborhood and maintaining what has become an established building block of this community, an area where people have gladly contributed to the well-being and the improvement of our community in the form of taxes and labor. We are here because we have done our job as a neighborhood association. We have researched, we have met, we have discussed, we have planned, and now it is you that we ask for help, because we cannot carry this battle any further without you. You have on your table a handout of some documents that I will go through detailing a letter that has been sent to you from Mr. Patty that is requesting consideration for the reversion of the property that will hereafter known as Richmond Hill Commons. The letter on the reversion is the top; the ordinance stating the reversion that exists in the zoning and planning ordinance; the request we originally made to Mr. Patty; the original zoning minutes from 1971 in which this property was changed from single-family to multi-family; the ownership of the property is the document that follows, an affidavit that this was owned by Mr. Tiller's wife up until it was sold just recently; and, finally, the sale of the property -- a document that includes the sale of the property to F&D Properties. In that document you will also notice that there is a provision made for an easement from Highway 25 on Mr. Tiller's property through to Richmond Hill Road. Our neighborhood is about 60-40 demographically. We have three generations coming back home to live in our neighborhood. We are very proud as neighbors to work together. We still walk the streets at night safely. Our children still walk to school in the morning and home in the afternoon. We look after our old folks, we take care of our young folks. We have many retirees in our community that have their nest eggs tied up in their homes. Recently the property was purchased, 4.88 acres. We were told -- I'll get to that in a moment. 4.88 acres for a multi-family development. For many that lived in the neighborhood as long as 30 years, this was the first mention that we had multi-family dwelling zoning, R-3B, within a few feet of our homes. This property was zoned in 1971. Before that it was farm land and forest. It is farm land and forest still. The development of our subdivision, in which I was riding a bike in 1971 up and down these very streets, our subdivision was neglected from the posting. There was no posting or there would have been a public outcry that said, "No, we don't want this in our backyards." But that was not done. For 24 years this property has sat idle with no development on it. They gave us three options: buy the property, and which we began looking at it in good faith to buy it; accept what they planned to develop in our neighborhood; or fight it. There was not a good-faith effort made in the purchase of the property in that we were told we would have to buy the entire 12-plus acres. Well, they only owned the four acres. We are here to fight, and it is your help that we need. Gentlemen, we are asking you to consider, one, blocking the road. Richmond Hill Road, if it continues through to Highway 25, will pose an unreasonable traffic burden on the people of our community. The roads are not designed for that type of through-traffic. It will be a thoroughfare from Regency Mall all the way through to Highway 25 if that is opened. There is precedent within our community. This has been done before when developers have access to public roads by other means, and they do, by way of their easement. But more importantly, we are here to ask you for a historic move: the reversion of this property back to its original single- family status, which will enable us, the neighbors of our community, to maintain our neighborhood as it is where single-family homes and families come in and live, where we as neighbors work together. If we allow this development to go in -- we have a handout here Mr. Buck will pass, and it'll show you the difference between what is proposed and what exists. Also, he'll follow that with the blueprint of the subdivision that shows you our neighbors will have three fee-common -- fee-simple townhouses in their backyards. We were promised a 20-foot buffer between the development and our neighborhood. Well, the 20-foot buffer is the county easement that runs literally through our neighbors' bedrooms and, therefore, this property will be built 42 to 43 feet door to door from our existing homes. Gentlemen, the history is very long of this type of development decreasing property values. Many of our elderly have their nest eggs tied up in these homes, and we must preserve that nest egg. If we do revert this back to single-family status, it will not only help us but it'll help the rest of Richmond County, because behind every broken neighborhood is this type of careless development. We need you to act on this. We will provide legal assistance in the fight. We have some of the finest research staff that I've ever had the pleasure of working with. We will do research. Gentlemen, we have done our job as citizens, and we're asking you to help us. Help us to fight this battle. Help save neighborhoods that are the building block of our community, of which ours is a good example. We must decide whether we want to continue to have neighborhoods like ours or for-profit. Are we going to allow them to be destroyed? So I ask you today to consider the reversionary process. It is completely consistent. The general purpose statement of the planning and zoning ordinance talks about traffic, it talks about sensible development, it talks about building a community that is strong in the future. These are the things that we have and we don't want to lose. These are the things that should be built upon, not torn down. And so, gentlemen, it is in your hands, and we ask your help. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've attended several of the meetings that this neighborhood association has had and -- several of the Commissioners have, and listened to their concerns, and we think they're legitimate. And I appreciate them for turning out today. And I'd like to make a motion that we as Commissioners ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to institute the reversionary process to establish the property in question back to the prior zoning classification of R-1A. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. MR. DUNSTAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I represent the owner of that property -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Come up here, please, sir. Give us your name and address, please. MR. DUNSTAN: My name is Barney Dunstan and I am a principal in F&D Properties and represent it, and I'm not exactly sure of the validity of this whole procedure. We were given no notice, we were not invited to speak, we have seen none of the handouts with which the Commissioners have been furnished, and I would think that simple Democratic principles would at least entitle the Commission, before voting on this motion, to hear from us. [MR. CHEEKS PROFFERS DOCUMENT TO MR. DUNSTAN.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. CHEEKS: Y'all have been invited to every meeting. MR. DUNSTAN: We knew nothing about -- I've never spoken -- I'm not going to debate with Mr. Cheeks. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the process would simply be that you would institute the reversionary process. At that point notice would be given not only to the neighborhood but to the property owner, and it's at that point that Mr. Dunstan and his clients would be given an opportunity and you would go through the consideration at that point. MR. DUNSTAN: So am I being denied an opportunity to present our side of this to the Commission today? Because I would vehemently disagree with some of the statements that Mr. Cheeks just made. MR. WALL: No, sir, you're not. You had suggested that there was no notice, and I was simply addressing that. MR. DUNSTAN: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to continue to speak? MR. DUNSTAN: Yes, sir. I'd just like to put it into perspective from our standpoint. And I'm not here to debate with Mr. Cheeks. But for approximately an 11-month period Peter Franklin, who is the other principal, along with my brother and I in this company looked for some property in South Augusta to develop as single-family patio homes. We did all of our research very extensively. We finally became aware of this piece of property. We didn't run out and just buy it, we checked the zoning. This property has been zoned R-3B since 1971 -- 25 years. But we didn't even rely on that. On July the 11th, prior to closing the purchase of this property, we obtained a letter from the Richmond County Planning Commission that recites the property is zoned R-3B, and under it's current zoning we were permitted to build up to 17 apartment units per acre on the project. We then negotiated a contract with Mr. Tiller, or Mrs. Tiller's estate through Mr. Tiller, to buy the property in two phases. The first phase was an initial takedown of 4.88 acres. On August the 7th that was done. The contract provides that we have the option within 24 months to take down an additional six or seven acres. It's a total of about 11 acres that we're buying. Contrary to the statement that Mr. Cheeks made and a review of the deed will indicate, we do not have an easement through to Highway 25. Mr. Tiller, as part of the negotiations, insisted that on the second phase the road be stubbed out and, at his option, he would have the option to tie into the road to 25. That is not in our interest, that's just part of the contract as negotiated. We closed this transaction on August the 7th. We paid for the 4.88 acres. We immediately engaged -- in fact, we had engaged an engineer prior to the closing, but immediately had the appropriate plans prepared and presented to Planning and Zoning. I would point out that in Mr. Patty's letter, a copy of which I got yesterday afternoon, it indicates that we submitted our plans for the approval process on September the 20th. I think if you will check again with Mr. Patty, that we submitted them on or about the same time that he evidently received this letter from Mr. Cheeks. The ordinance upon which Mr. Cheeks and the neighborhood association attempt to rely, I understand, was enacted in 1983. Not once in 13 years has it ever been implemented. Now, I'm going to suggest to the Commission that you cannot selectively apply the law. Mr. Wall can answer that question better, but I don't think a piece of property that's been zoned 25 years, we get a letter about 15 days before closing from the appropriate governmental authority telling us what we can do, I don't think you can then go back and pull out some obscure ordinance that's never been utilized in 13 years and revert the zoning. It's inverse condemnation. The second point I would take -- one point I need to raise, we have never offered to sell this property to Mr. Cheeks. It is not for sale. It is not for sale, let me make that clear to everybody. We have never offered to sell it, so I take -- I vehemently disagree with his statement that they have attempted to purchase the property and we've discussed it in bad faith. The property is not for sale. I would suggest to the Commissioners to -- you know, all we want is we want equal treatment under the law. We're not asking for something special. And I would just suggest to you that if you enact this reversionary process that's never been utilized in 13 years on a piece of property that's been zoned for 25 years, and after we checked and got in writing a representation as to the current zoning, it sends a very bad message from this government to developers. And that's all I've got to say. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. CHEEKS: Mr. Mayor, may I follow up on that, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just a quick follow through, then we're going to vote. MR. CHEEKS: Our document was submitted before their document by a matter of about eight hours. Their document -- our document states, in compliance with the reversionary clause, that any property--it doesn't say all property--any property that is unzoned for 18 months, which there are no plans submitted of any kind, can be reverted. That's what we're asking. And as Mr. Dunstan said, it's been 24 years plus that nothing has been done. You have the right as Commissioners, I believe, to act in the interest of the community, to preserve the community when you think that conditions exist that are detrimental to the health of the community, and that's what we're asking you to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cheeks. Discussion from the Commissioners? MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd had his hand up. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question for the County Attorney. It's my understanding per the ordinance that we can enact this reversion of the property -- the zoning of the property. MR. WALL: The process is in the ordinance to institute that, then the public notice would be given, and you would go through the same process as though you were rezoning the property, and at that time you would consider whether or not to revert it. Now, action today does not change the zoning classification, it simply institutes the process. MR. TODD: Yes. Do we have a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, we do. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to start the process to revert it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'd like to thank all of y'all for coming down and taking the time to do your patriotic duty. And I sure am glad to see so many folks with a voting sticker on out there. MR. HANDY: Just make sure you voted right, that's all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's call our meeting back to order and have Item 2, please. CLERK: The next item is an overview of the board's operations and needs from the Aviation Commission, Bush Field. Mr. Skinner? MR. SKINNER: Mr. Mayor, fellow Commissioners, I wish to thank each of you for allowing us to come speak to you today. I'm not sure just what we're looking for, but I would like to tell you a little bit about the Augusta Aviation Commission, which is responsible for the operation of Bush Field. For those of you that might not know our commissioners out there, we have Mr. Frank Dennis, who is here today as chairman -- or vice-chairman; and we have two former mayors, we have Mayor Newman and Mayor George Sancken; we have Charlie Presley, we have Bernie Silverstein, and Ben Mason. And I am chairman, so I've been out there for a number of years, and most all of the commissioners at Bush Field have served for quite a number of years out there. Our charge is to maintain and operate one of the best airports that we can for a city our size. We've been very fortunate in having good managers out there in Hamp Manning and now Steve Atha, and we've gotten recognition not only from the community but I think we have recognition nationally and internationally for the type airport we run. If we don't run a good airport, obviously it would show up in the entire community. Because if you don't have a good airport and you don't have good transportation, we don't have anything to offer to new business, existing business, and I feel it's very important that we continue the proper operation of Bush Field. We have been very fortunate in keeping jet service for a city of our size. We could name you many cities larger than Augusta that does not have jet service. They have prop jets, they have feeder airlines coming in that would feed some hub somewhere hundreds of miles away. We've been lucky in keeping Delta, we have USAir in here, and I think that's because of the fine airport that we have at Bush Field. Right now I think the question is do we combine both commissions. I think the timing is terribly inappropriate. We have a lot of things happening at Bush Field. I can't speak for Daniel Field; I think their representatives are here. But we are losing Steve Atha to retirement, we're losing one of the accountants that's been out there for years and years, we probably could lose the operation manager, and we're losing the Fire Chief. We're now in the process of taking over the hotel out there that has been a question for us for a number of years, so the commission is taking that hotel over and we're in the process of trying to find someone else to come in and take the franchise for that. We've got hangar modifications going on and the possibility of building a new hangar out there. We cannot put a high-tail airplane in any of our hangars at Bush Field, so our goal is to improve the hangar operation at Bush Field. I think if we make changes now it would slow some of this progress down, and I'm not sure that we could continue the forward motion that we have right now at the airport. We've had a good relationship with the air-lines, as I said earlier. We provide good service, and it's our challenge to provide the proper service in and out of Augusta for our citizens and the people that are coming in to visit with us. I would hope that you would give it serious consideration, that we leave the commissions as they are. Now, that doesn't say there isn't a better way. And maybe sometime down the road you might want to rethink it again, and it might be that at that time it would be better to combine the operations and run one commission to run two airports. But right now, in the opinion of the Aviation Commission at Bush Field, this is not the appropriate time. And I feel it would be a terrible problem for us while we're trying to find a new director and we're trying to find some replacements for the senior management at Bush Field, we're trying to find an operator to run an airport hotel, which we feel is necessary to any good airport, and we're also trying to get the hangars completed in an appropriate time. So I thank you very much for the opportunity to visit with you, and if there are any questions I might could answer for you, I'd be happy to. And as I say, Frank Dennis is here and Steve Atha is here that could also help if we need it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any questions from the Commissioners? Do I hear a motion we receive this as information, please? MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I know that we've got the related items, 47 and 47(a), under Public Services Committee that relate to the consolidation of these two committees that are here. And I was wondering, in the essence of time and since we have the board members here, both of these authorities are represented here by board members at this time, that maybe in the spirit of cooperation -- I don't know whether the Project Manager is here at this time - - that since they are so far down the agenda, if we might not be able to take Items 47 and 47(a) at this particular time and move them up into the discussion period. And if so, I'll be happy to make a substitute motion that we go ahead and act on those particular things at this time. And if 47(a) -- if the Project Manager wants to make his report. Because I think they are here, they are ready to answer any questions we ask, and during the committee meeting it was very emphatic that people wanted to hear from boards and their operations. Well, the boards are here. And basically I guess today maybe silence is golden, and if we're satisfied I'm glad with that, because I'm pretty much prepared -- I know where my mind is, I think everybody here knows, and I'm prepared to make a motion that we not try to reinvent the wheel or fix something that isn't broken. But, you know, I'm prepared to hear from the Project Manager if he wants to have something different to say at this time, but I think while these people are here, there's no need of going through this whole long, drawn out agenda to get to 47 to get an answer and get this thing one way or another, up or down, and behind us this afternoon. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We were going to let that be 3(a), as a matter of fact. MR. MAYS: I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. This is to accept it as information, that's all we're doing; okay? CLERK: Ms. Marcie Wilhelmi for the General Aviation Commission, Daniel Field. MAYOR SCONYERS: We didn't finish our vote. CLERK: Oh, I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: All opposed likewise? We didn't have any -- it looked like it was a unanimous vote, but let's make sure we do this right. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Now, Ms. Wilhelmi? MS. WILHELMI: We're trying to speed up your meeting here, Mr. Mayor. On behalf of the General Aviation Commission, we want to thank you for the public forum to discuss these issues and to tell you a little bit about why we feel two commissions are absolutely essential to maintaining aircraft operations in the Augusta area. The General Aviation Commission itself was created in 1974 to correct the severe neglect that Daniel Field experienced under one commission. And, in fact, this mirrors a national trend. When you have a one-commission system, inevitably the general aviation interest suffers. And just to give you a little bit of an idea of how much of a red-headed stepchild -- an unwanted red-headed stepchild Daniel Field was, we actually had trees growing up through our runways. We had no taxiways, we had no night lights, no rotating beacon, nothing to protect the neighborhoods that surround Daniel Field. And with the establishment of that commission under Pop Newman's administration, you had seven citizens who served in this capacity at no expense to the public and who have in the past 22 years corrected many of the problems. Just to give you an idea of what has happened, their task was to prudently plan for, execute, and maintain Daniel Field in a safe operating condition. In those 22 years we have seen overlays and taxiways installed on both runways -- pardon me, overlays and runway lights on both runways and taxiways, a control tower to handle the extra traffic that our airport experiences during the Masters, a large asphalt apron to accommodate transient traffic; we did get our beacon; we've got weather reporting systems and navigational aids to ensure safe flight operations at the field; and most recently--Mr. Beard served on our commission while this took place--we corrected an asbestos problem that was existing in our two pre-World War II hangars. We did a complete facelift encapsulating the asbestos. We installed new plant materials and lighting and expanded the parking lot, and I think it's now a facility that we can all be proud of. The commission has also worked hard to make sure that we have the best fixed-base operator possible for our city. Today Augusta Aviation enjoys an outstanding maintenance department, a terrific student pilot program with extremely skilled instructors, and probably most importantly to the city, we have a charter service that's available. It's extensively used by the Medical College for transplant programs, for bringing in organs in a timely fashion to the Medical College area. I don't believe there is an operator in all of the state of Georgia with better equipment and better trained pilots than Augusta Aviation. The crux of the issue is this: air carrier operations have entirely different FAA regulations governing them. When you're dealing with Deltas and USAirs you get a different ball of wax than you get with Arnold Palmers and recreational pilots. Your focus of your commissions subsequently are quite different, and that is, in a nutshell, why Daniel got moved to red- headed stepchild status. It's a lot easier to play to Peoria when you've got Delta Airlines paying the bills, and that really leaves anybody that's not a rich boy or a rich airline to go down the tubes with them. We mentioned earlier Daniel Field, just for the record, is a self-sufficient operation. We expect to finish this year under budget. We will have a surplus, and this is put aside and not spent frivolously. It's utilized to continue to maintain the airport and to plan for future capital improvement needs. General Aviation commissioners certainly don't receive any compensation. I believe every last one of them is here today, along with about another hundred pilots. There is absolutely no saving that would occur were you to combine these two. We'd be merging two boxes into one on a piece of paper. In the past two years -- we were asked today to please bring our needs to this body. In 1996 we had two terms expire, and so we went from seven commissioners down to five. Mayor Sconyers at that time asked Chairman Bob Moore to hold off requesting any appointments. We've operated with five commissioners and maintained -- tended to what we needed to, but basically we've been in the proverbial holding pattern for 11 months. We are on the brink of some very progressive long-range plans, among them looking into the possibility of the Damascus Road parcel, which you all take up on occasion, for enterprise zone possibilities, and Mr. McKie has done a fair amount of research in that vein already. But the upshot on the whole thing is, we need a full -- we need ten members. We are currently lacking commissioners from Districts 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. We have names that we'll be delighted to submit, but we really would like to have your input. You know your districts better than anybody. So a full board would be essential. Another thing would be the continued wonderful relationship we have with our existing city-county departments. Most notably: Trees and Parks, the electricians departments. Engineering has been fabulous. Dave Whittington is here. Whenever we need him, he's johnny on the spot, and we would like to be able to continue to count on that kind of assistance. And thirdly, before the Year 2000 we have approximately two million dollars in work to be done at Daniel. The good news is the city's portion of that is only five percent, and this is due in large measure to prudent planning on the part of the General Aviation Commission. You all receive systems schedules detailing the types of work to be done. The total expenditure in the next five years is less than $172,000. This is not possible when you have somebody tied up looking at major airline needs. It takes prudent stewardship to maintain these things. So we feel we're very blessed to have both of these assets, and I think we're additionally blessed to have two public bodies of public servants who are not compensated who are willing to do this work for the city. If you have any questions -- we have never yet received an answer on where the wisdom was to merge these two bodies. Are there any questions we can answer for you to turn you to our way of thinking on this matter since both commissions are strongly in favor of leaving these bodies intact? Mr. Carstarphen's not here yet either, so. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to accept it as information. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Would you see if Mr. Carstarphen is back there? MR. BRIDGES: He was over there earlier. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Bill Carstarphen over there? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's take 47(a) next, and then we'll go back to 47. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to rescind the resolution declaring the intent to create a single aviation commission. MR. MAYS: Second. MR. TODD: Well, I think we ought to hear from Mr. Carstarphen, gentlemen, and then we'll come back and do the motion; okay? Let's go ahead and do the courtesy of having him come out and make his presentation. CLERK: 47(a): A report from the Consolidation Project Manager with reference to his recommendation to consolidate the aviation commissions. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Do you really want to hear this? I think the question was the basis of the initial suggestion that the Commission consider consolidating its aviation operations, and I think that there are really three choices you have: one is to leave things as they are; a second is to consider merging your commissions and your administrative structure; and a third option is to leave your commissions separate, recognizing the different functions of the two airports as they currently exist but consolidate your administrative staffs. And I thought that in response to your inquiry I would outline the general considerations that were in my mind at least that prompted the recommendations. With regard to the consolidation of the two commissions, in the opinion of this individual that would give you about a half a dozen options or opportunities or advantages. One, by consolidating the commissions I think you could create a unified, comprehensive aviation development policy for the community. You may feel that you have that today, and you may very well have it, but as I visited with the commissions and with the operations, they are distinctly different and sometimes competitive. Secondly, by having a single commission I believe you could better evaluate the benefit to the public of maintaining and operating two separate airports. Thirdly, if you are interested in--and I think you should be--considering private contract management of either or both of the airports, I believe you could attract a more competitive proposal from a private contractor for management if the operations were viewed as one aviation operation rather than two separate ones. Fourthly, I think that you could assure the most efficient utilization of two rather valuable community resources if you were relying on guidance from one advisory body as opposed to two. Fifth, I think you could eliminate the possibility of this Commission receiving conflicting recommendations on aviation policy if you were dealing with a single commission rather than with two. And finally, I believe that with one policy group managing both airports you probably would have an opportunity to increase revenue production that you may not have at this point in time. In the area of consolidating your staffs, and that is an option which could be taken either with or without the merger of the advisory bodies, I would suggest that there are also about five advantages in looking at a merger of your staff operations. First, I think it would improve the utilization of some limited and expensive resources and specialized manpower and equipment. Currently you have an excellent staff. Most of those staff members are dedicated to Bush Field. I believe that there are many occasions when the development of Daniel Field could benefit by the engineering, legal, financial, and operation expertise which exists at Bush Field. Secondly, I think with a merged department you would have the ability to shift support and resources as demand and circumstances require. That may be possible today, but I think it would be more efficient and more effective with a single department of aviation. Thirdly, I think you would improve the capacity of both airports to react to emergency situations by joining the resources that exist at both. Fourthly, I think a unified and coordinated staff would have a more unified contact with the federal and state aviation agencies that you have to work with. And finally, I believe a unified staff would give you more effective budgetary and financial control over the operating expenditures and the capital improvements which are a major part of maintaining two competitive airports, whether they are general aviation or commercial aviation. These were some of the factors that were part of my basis for recommending you consider this. I want to emphasize that the job of a consultant is to bring you ideas, to propose, and the job of the elected representatives and the people of the community is make final decisions and sometimes dispose of those proposals, and that's very well understood and appreciated. If there are any questions that the Commission has, I'll be happy to respond to them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, are you aware of any city comparable to our size that has two airports and that have consolidated the commissions? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I did request and Steve Atha was able to share with me a list of about 20 to 25 cities that have multi-airport systems. They operate each with somewhat different arrangements, and I would imagine some have single aviation commissions, some have separate commissions, some have no commissions at all and operate the aviation department as a department of the city or county government. But I do have a list of those. I can share those with you if you would like. There are about 25 of them. I have not investigated the details of how they operate, but it is my impression that a number of them operate with a single department or single commission responsible for all aviation functions. Some operate as many as three fields. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say first, I voted to consolidate the two commissions. I probably did that prematurely, not knowing as much as I needed to know about it. But I would like to -- is Mr. Zetterberg's motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Not yet. MR. KUHLKE: But I would like to make a motion that we take the steps to rescind the action of the Commission from the standpoint of consolidating the two commissions, but that we would like to ask -- and I think the idea of this Commission is that we're going through a process of we're trying to streamline this government. We don't want to mess up something that's good, and both commissions do a good job for us. But I do think as we go down the road, that we as a body need to continue to look, not just the aviation commission but other things in this government, whereby we can make them more efficient, do a better job, and my idea is that we would count on both commissions to assist us as we go through this process. It's not an easy process and we're going to make some people mad occasionally, but I would like to make that motion with that caveat added to, that we don't necessarily not continue to look at better or more effective ways that we can do things, including the aviation commissions. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold on just a second. We've got Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Brigham, then Mr. Mays. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Carstarphen, the area I want to address is combining of the staff. Do you think we could have separate commissions and yet have the staff at Daniel Field reporting to -- you know, as a single department head, to have the staff consolidated? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, I think it would require a clear understanding with the director or the manager in charge of that department as to what the responsibilities of that department are, which would be to support the operations of both airports and the policies which the Commission is comfortable with it; as it stands now, one airport operating as a general aviation airport with its attendant policies and one airport operating as a commercial aviation operation with its attendant policies. I think that is possible or I wouldn't have recommended it. But I think the advantages are that you can more efficiently shift resources based on need, and I think both airports could benefit from that. MR. BRIDGES: My concern there is we've run up on several single departments and department -- just one person as a department head in consolidating this government. I don't want to see us to leave one out there, and that's what we'd be doing if we kept the commissions separate and the employees as well in these two things. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The fact that currently Daniel airport has only one employee dedicated to it -- and that gentleman has to do a pretty effective job of begging and borrowing assistance from a number of agencies, which have cooperated. I think most of those resources are available at Bush Field. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Kuhlke, I wonder if you'd accept an amendment to your motion, to amend it so that the staff -- we still make efforts to combine the staff of the two airports, yet keep the commissions separate. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bridges, I don't know that I want to amend my motion today. I think what I said is that we should continue to look at better ways, more effective ways to do this. With what Bush Field is going through right now, I really think to instruct the staffs -- to try to put together the staff for both airports would be totally confusing at this point, so I can't amend my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I guess mine was more in the form of a question. I think Ms. Wilhelmi mentioned that they had some vacancies, but I was just wondering if some of these -- the perception that I have found in the community that we may not have the representation that is possibly needed. Maybe we don't have many of our folks that's flying and all of that, and I can realize that, but I was just wondering could these boards be brought up to par with how many do you have and how many vacancies do you have. I think you indicated over this side. But I think this is crucial at this point to help do some of the things that you're talking about. They can help get that message out and that it's not just a -- kind of a closed sort of thing. So I wish that would be considered, and if you would accept that as a part of it, I'd appreciate it. MR. KUHLKE: To go ahead and fill the positions? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess while Bill has loaded that baked potato up with a lot of things on there -- and I'm going to take your caveat word to take your caveat off. I still have got a problem, and my substitute motion is going to be simple. I'll vote for yours if it's the only one on the floor, but I still think it's not sending the clear message that we need to be sending. We've, in my opinion, quite frankly, to a certain extent -- and I appreciate the board members coming, but I'll say what I said in committee: I think we did a knee-jerk reaction, basically unfounded, without evidence, not knowing any information from either one of the boards, and we came up making a decision. While we basically have not taken the buzz word of consolidation, we've probably taken and put a buzz saw to a lot of things and we've not done maybe in consolidating the things that we need to consolidate as a group. I don't have any problem with Mr. Carstarphen doing his job. I've never been one to down the messenger for bringing back a message. I think he came back to do a job, even though I don't agree with the message that came back. And I think his words of wisdom have been quite noted, and I'm glad that he knows what the role that a consultant is supposed to do and what the role of policy-makers is to do. I'm going to make a substitute motion that's very clear, that we rescind the action that we took in terms of consolidating the two boards. I think that -- I won't hit with a caveat in there, Bill. I'm going to leave it, I think, to the wisdom of the people that are serving on these two boards that volunteer time to make decisions that I think will be in the best interest of this city, to come together when need be; and things that cross the Mayor's desk and the new Administrator's desk that can be vital to aviation in general, whether it's at Bush Field or Daniel Field, to leave it to their wisdom if they need to meet together, if they need to meet with us. So my motion is very simple -- and that we immediately fill those vacancies that are needed to be filled. And if we want to do some tampering, bring them up to speed by giving them the citizen participation and filling them up to 100 percent capacity, put that on the agenda, deal with that, and that's my substitute motion. MR. HANDY: I second the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like a -- I guess I'm simple, Willie, I need to know what the substitute motion is cut and dried. How is it different from Bill's? MR. MAYS: The substitute motion is very simple, we undo the damage that we tried to do when we didn't know what the hell we were doing. That's what it does. And it simply says that we fill out the board with the number of vacancies that are there and that we leave it to the wisdom of those two boards to operate and function as they have been functioning. MR. BRIDGES: Well, basically that's Bill's motion then. MR. MAYS: No, no, no. See, that caveat turned into one of those caviar type words. It still leaves an air hanging out there that you've got over those two boards and commissions as though to a certain extent they still don't have sense enough to know what they are doing. I don't think that those people are going to work in the selfishness of serving on a board that doesn't pay anything, that deals with their time, which is understaffed, and at the same time they have to meet and make sure they are there in order to make a quorum and show up 100 percent of the time. If something crosses the Mayor's desk first, he's going to be -- he's going to have a new Administrator that's available to him, three assistant administrators. If a beauty project comes along that needs to be done in terms of aviation, whether it's building a new airport, whether it's expanding Daniel, whether it's expanding Bush, if the two need to meet together for coffee, lunch or whatever, get together in a retreat -- and we've retreated enough to be fighting a war -- we can go ahead and do that. And we still -- we've been 25 minutes three meetings into this thing occupying folks' time that are there. And every-thing that was under the word of consolidation wasn't necessarily meant to be put together. Bill and I can build a big old house and put everybody's family in it. It doesn't mean that we're going to get along. Some of us need to stay where we are and do what we're doing, and that's what my motion does, it leaves it alone. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. The substitute motion first, that's Mr. Mays' motion, and I think it was eloquently explained. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & KUHLKE VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's let our meeting resume, please. The next item, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and the Commission, the Planning Commission has recommended that we could take Items 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and the addendum item as a consent agenda. For the benefit of the audience, I'll read part. If there's any objectors to it, they can be acknowledged at that time. Item 2 is a request for concurrence to deny petition from Bill Cooper on behalf of J.F. Clements; Item 3 is to approve a petition from Jim Davis requesting a change of zoning; Item 6 is a request for concurrence to approve, with the condition that the zoning of this property shall revert back to Light Industry; Item 7 is a request for concurrence of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Hub L. Ash on behalf of Rudy Bohler; Item 9 is a final plat approval for Montclair additions, request for concurrence of a petition from H. Lawson Graham & Associates -- [Item 2: Z-96-82 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Bill Cooper, on behalf of J.F. Clements, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One- family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Rosier Road, 128.0 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Cadden Road and Rosier Road. (District 6) Item 3: Z-96-83 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim Davis requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence), with a Special Exception to allow patio homes not to exceed a density of seven (7) units per acre per Section 11-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Reid Road, 410 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Lake Forest Drive and Reid Road (1211-1217 Reid Road). (District 3) Item 6: Z-96-86 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition "That the zoning of this property shall revert to LI if the petitioner does not close the purchase of the property by June 1, 1997," a petition from Enterprise Mill Partners, on behalf of Triarc, requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of 15th Street and Greene Street (1450 Greene Street). (District 1) Item 7: Z-96-87 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Hub L. Ash, on behalf of Rudy Bohler, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) with a Special Exception to allow the expansion of an existing surplus military vehicle sales operations per Section 24-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County, on property located on a Bearing N 88 55'20" W and being 660 feet, more or less, east of the east right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway and also being 1240 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Payton Road and Mike Padgett Highway (3210 Mike Padgett Highway). (District 2) Item 9: S-537 - Montclair Additions, Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from H. Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of Scott Higgins et. al., requesting Final Plat Approval of Montclair Additions. This subdivision is an extension of Chatham Road south of Crane Ferry Road and contains 41 lots. The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by the Engineering Service and the Development is in a floodplain. Addendum Item 1: S-479-II - Lewis Acres Phase II, Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of C.M.S. Group, Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval of Lewis Acres Phase II. This subdivision is an extension of Alden Drive on the east side of Mike Padgett Highway (Highway 56) and contains 41 lots. The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by Engineering Services and the Development is not in a floodplain area.] MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy -- MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, did I understand that Item 9 here was part of that? CLERK: Yes, sir, for the consent agenda. And I was going to add Item 1 on the addendum agenda as well. MR. BRIDGES: Well, it says here on Item Number 9 that this development is in a floodplain. I don't want to approve something in a floodplain. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's pull Number 9. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we'll do 9 by itself. Mr. Handy, did your motion include Item 1 on the addendum? MR. HANDY: It did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Did we have a second to Mr. Handy's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I was going to second it, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Is that with Item 9 pulled out? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. That's correct. I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 1: Z-96-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Jackie Dixon requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the south right- of-way of Pepperidge Drive, 104.12 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Stoney Brook Road and Pepperidge Drive (2142 Pepperidge Drive). MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Ms. Dixon here or her representative? MR. WARD: This is Ms. Dixon. Mr. Mayor, my name is Richard Ward, I'm an attorney, and I represent Ms. Dixon. Ms. Dixon owns and operates a personal care home in the Pepperidge Subdivision. In that personal care home she keeps six elderly people who, but for her or someplace like hers, would have no place to stay. The alternatives would be nursing homes or such similar operations. I have asked -- or Ms. Dixon has asked that Mr. Michael Stratford from Supportive Living also address the Commission on this matter because he has a great deal more knowledge and information concerning the alternative types of housing that are available for these people. If I could ask Mr. Stratford to speak at this time. MR. STRATFORD: Thank you. If I appear nervous, I am. I don't usually do public speaking. Personal care homes are an important part of our community. And the reason is, is because if these residents don't have personal care homes they end up in nursing homes if they are disabled or not ambulatory or at Georgia Regional, which costs the taxpayers between three and five hundred dollars a day to keep them there. That's about $9,000 for just one resident. At a personal care home -- you should hang your heads, as I should, on what they get paid to maintain these people. These people have the misfortune of being mentally retarded, they have a mental illness, or they're just old. Their families sometimes have abandoned them; sometimes they provide just financial support for them. But other than that, these people have nobody except the personal care home provider. Personal care providers make sure that these people take their medicine, make sure they have a spending allowance, make sure that they get to their medical appointments on time, make sure that they live a normal, active life just like you and just like me. And some of these people actually go out and get jobs and they work. What they're looking for in their condition is emotional independence. They can't get it in an institution. I don't particularly know why Jackie has been singled out, because there are approximately four other personal care homes which are not part of Mental Health in her neighborhood. I handle two of the clients that live in her home. Personal care home providers are a lot different than you and I, I think, in that they're very caring and they have a very big hole or a big void right here and the only way they can fill it is by helping other people. Don't think they're getting rich off this; they're not. The money they make allows them to give a lifestyle to these people that no other institution can provide for them. It allows them to become semi-independent. It allows the home care provider to become a person who feels good about themselves. These people do not cause problems. They generally never break the law. I don't think anybody can find one person in this room that can tell me that a client in a personal care home has violated a law recently. If they did, I would know about it. They're honest, they vote, they live in the best supportive living situation that they can based on their disability. It would be a shame to close them down. If you close down personal care homes, what are your options? The taxpayers are going to have to pay for these people to be in institutions, and like I said earlier, that's around $9,000 per person. Are you ready to pay all that? I don't think so. I know I'm not. I've been with Mental Health since 1984 and I've worked with personal care homes off and on as a counselor, and now I'm the manager of these personal care homes with the Supportive Living Program, and I can tell you that these programs benefit the community immensely. It's not like a business where a shade-tree mechanic hangs up a shingle and says he's going to be a mechanic in a residential area. There are no shingles out in front of her house. It looks just like a normal home. And these people are treated with the dignity and respect that you would want your parent or your child who, if they were in that position, you'd want them to be treated like that. And that's basically all I have to say. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess I have a question for the gentleman. Do most of these personal care homes first operate illegal without zoning, then come in for zoning? And the other question is, the ones -- the other three or four that you cited, are they zoned properly or not? MR. STRATFORD: I can only speak for the ones that I am in charge of. They are permitted by the State of Georgia. They're inspected by the Fire Department annually and by the Health Department annually. So they are legal. MR. TODD: The one in question now, in your opinion, is that one legal - - operating legal as we speak? MR. STRATFORD: Ms. Dixon's? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. STRATFORD: As far as I know. I have a copy of her permit and her paperwork in her file. MR. TODD: Well, I guess my other question would be then, what is the need to be here if they have proper zoning and is operating legal? MR. STRATFORD: I don't know. You tell me. MR. TODD: Maybe Mr. Patty can answer that. MR. PATTY: They don't have proper zoning. In 1986 the state, which is the licensing authority, started asking for certification from local government that they were properly zoned, which we -- that's when we got into the business of considering these personal care homes. We amended the ordinance to consider them, and we've been doing it since then. Now, about two years ago the state, not wanting to get embroiled in the issues of local zoning, changed their policy and they no longer ask for certification to whether the property is properly zoned. For a while after that they would advise the applicant to notify the local governing authority, and I don't think that they do anything now, so we're on our own as far as finding these operations and enforcing our zoning laws. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there anyone here can tell us whether they have a business license or whether they're required to have a business license? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: At one point they did have a business license that was issued erroneously, and they were cited in Magistrate's Court. The Court put the case on hold pending this special exception application, and so the Court has not ruled upon that, but they were cited. They applied for a special exception, if I'm not mistaken, and were turned down, and then opened despite the fact that they were turned down, were able to secure a business license, as I said, which was issued erroneously. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Patty, I notice the Planning Commission denied this request. What was the recommendation of the staff? MR. PATTY: The staff recommended it be denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I'd like to ask Mr. Patty a question. We have had several of these, and maybe I need some clarification on this, because it look like every meeting we have one of these with personal care. What is the status or how is this different from any of the others that were down here a couple of meetings ago? We had the same type thing and same problem. How is this different from those which we have given permission in the past to do this? MR. PATTY: The only way I can answer that is that on these decisions, as any zoning decision, you've got to conduct a balancing test and determine whether the impact on the petitioner is greater or less than the impact on the surrounding area. There are no specific criteria other than they've got to be 1,200 feet apart and the numbers that they can have under state law. We do not have any objective criteria to make these decisions. MR. BEARD: Maybe this should go to the Attorney then. Are we going to have anything that we can actually make a sound judgment on these or are we just -- as they come before us, we listen to the people who are making the presentation and draw up something on that? Because I would like to be clear on a lot of this, because I would hate to make a judgment for either side, not knowing -- and sometimes we're going to do it and sometimes we're not going to do it. MR. WALL: Mr. Beard, Mr. Patty, Lori D'Allesio, and I have talked about this on a number of occasions. We are continuing to monitor the court decisions that are coming out. We have looked at what Athens-Clarke County has done insofar as putting a limitation on the number. At this point in time it is our feeling that the ordinance that we have in place, which simply provides a balancing test and you look at it on a case-by-case basis, is perhaps the best system that we can come up with until there's further clarification from the courts as far as what type of restrictions beyond what we already have in place may be upheld as being valid. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, were you finished? MR. BEARD: Yeah, I'm finished. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: What I guess I wanted to ask George or Jim, would it not help -- and this may not solve this situation today, but would it not help if -- and we have these governmental legislative delegation meetings every year and present our wish list to our legislators, and I know they're only one delegation, but would it not help -- because I seem to sense a missing link in this process that brings it to where a person in that type of business, neighborhood association people and residents in terms of everything from property values and even other complaints if you've got some that may be bad that are in operation. But most of all, Zoning, and this body as a follow up to have to make a decision, would it not be better if we could maybe ask our delegation -- and it may fail on a statewide basis, but it seems as though there is no linkage to Zoning being in the process of the applications period. Because if you've got folk that are in business and they are getting approved by the state, they're getting monitored by groups such as the gentleman that just spoke, and yet we're dealing with Zoning on the tail end. It seems as though the state needs to make as a part of the process on a local level, that that be one of the requirements, that it conform to local zoning and that that become state law so that we aren't chasing that tiger once it's out of the cage. Because what you're doing, in essence -- I mean, gentlemen, for instance, it's saying -- and probably you may have good and reputable people in the neighborhood, but -- we're dealing with one today, but then if you've got others that are approved by the state and in business, it seems as though we're going to be into dealing with several court situations possibly down the road. And I'm prepared to support what you all have done over in Planning and Zoning in order to deal with where you have a situation there with the neighborhood, but I think it would serve us best with -- as soon as these folk get through running this evening, that we add that to our list that we may want them to present so that we get some clarity. Nobody else around the state may not be having a problem, and I'm sure they are, I'm saying that sarcastically, but I think that Zoning is being totally left out of that process and that it's on the tail end, and that's the worst place that it could be. Because you may have a perfectly innocent person, they may be highly reputable, they may be the most caring, and they come in and conform with whatever the law and then totally be disruptive according to whatever neighborhood plans that you may have designed or even whatever covenants that persons have purchased those homes under, and that's in clear conflict, I think, Mr. Wall. I think that maybe that's what we need to do as a secondary step. It may not decide and resolve this totally, but I think maybe it's time that Zoning be put into the process and that we ask our two senators and the members of our legislative delegation that -- I mean, I think if they can change around a whole government and didn't get our permission necessarily to do it without a, you know, vote from either body, I'm sure they can present a situation to deal with Zoning. And that's what I would recommend, not necessarily in this forum today to do it by a motion, but to put that on our agenda when we have that, Mr. Mayor, to deal with them, and I think that'll go a long way to helping George. I think it'll also go a long way to helping License and Inspections, because they're totally vulnerable. As you said a few moments ago, Jim, this case has gotten into court because of an erroneous license thing. And thank God that they caught it, but at the same time it's placed people now at the mercy of the Court of having to go either way, and I think it could have been corrected if Zoning was a part of that process, and I think that's something we're going to have to do. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the objectors and what they have to say, and at that point I'll be ready to make a motion. MR. WARD: May I -- I have not finished. I'm sorry. May I finish my presentation? MAYOR SCONYERS: How much longer do you have? MR. WARD: Three or four minutes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. WARD: I'm sorry if I misled you. I had asked the other gentleman to speak because he could speak generally on the status of personal care homes and their place in society, but I would like to address this particular personal care home now. You heard him say that the average to keep people in nursing homes, in various hospitals, is three to five hundred dollars a day. Ms. Dixon gets $529 per month per person. She has six people in her home. Out of those six people, that comes to something like 38 or 39 thousand dollars a year. For that she gets to maintain a four-bathroom, very large home, keep six people in it, care for them and feed them, all out of that 38 or 39 thousand dollars. Yes, she makes a profit. She makes a very small, modest profit. It is a business and she advertises. This is the extent of her advertisement [shows a flyer]. She puts these up in various businesses once in a while when she has an opening in her home. This is, in fact, a home. It is a home, it is a family. It is a family of eight people, two of whom are related by marriage, Ms. Dixon and her husband. The other six people are not related either by blood or marriage, but they are, in fact, a family. This home is in every respect a single-family residence except that there is no blood relation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can I get a response from Mr. Wall on the criteria, you know, as far as the law go on how many adults unrelated an individual can keep in a home without having zoning? MR. WALL: Two. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you hear the response? MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to hear from the objectors, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Were you finished? MR. WARD: That will be fine. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MS. SIZEMORE: I'm Frances Sizemore, I'm president of the Pepperidge Neighborhood Association. And I'm going to leave it to the hands of the experts, and Mr. Colclough is one of them since he's partly in the business of placing people in personal care homes, but I just do want to give the County Commission a copy of the petition that we sent to the Planning board. I understand Ms. Dixon has 50 people that have signed a petition stating that they didn't care if there was a personal care home in their area, but we have the block captain here today that surveyed that area and he said they got all but two names. So I don't know if after our literature went out and we, you know, said it was a business license with the exception, if they changed their minds or what, but we have 250 names here. I'm going to let Mr. Colclough have it. MR. COLCLOUGH: My name is Richard Colclough, and I'm a resident of Pepperidge and I'm the past president of Pepperidge Neighborhood Association. In response to the gentleman from personal care home -- the Supportive Living Program, I'm also a discharge planner at Georgia Regional Hospital, so I know exactly what it takes to keep a patient in the hospital and I know exactly what it takes for the patient out of the hospital. We are aware -- I was the president of Pepperidge for at least four years and I'm aware that there are at least four other personal care homes in the community, has been for a long time. None of those personal care homes have came forward to rezone their property as a business. All the personal care homes that are operating in Pepperidge at the present have two people, and they're also licensed for two people. So in terms of changing the zone of the neighborhood to create a business in our neighborhood will also open up our neighborhood for other businesses to come in, and that is what the neighborhood associa-tion and the residents of Pepperidge are objecting to. We do not wish to open up our neighborhood for businesses to come in. Ms. Dixon, before she changed her home around from 1,000 square foot to 4,000 square foot, did have two people in her home. We knew about that. No one bothered her; okay? It was only when she put up the rezoning sign for a business that the neighborhood came forward in protest, you know, and this is why we are down here today. MR. WARD: Mr. Mayor, could I just respond? There has been, I think, some erroneous information given out. And Ms. Dixon is not here asking for you to change the zoning, all she's asking for is a special exception. If she were here asking for a change in zoning, then the neighborhood would be right to be up in arms, because then you could have shade-tree mechanics and beauty parlors and that sort of thing. Ms. Dixon isn't asking for that, she's simply asking for a special exception. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we deny the special exception. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, apparently from what I can understand, that this has been somewhat of a illegal operation, and I think in the sense that they attempted to rezone once before, if I understand that correctly, that it's intentionally an attempt to run a illegal operation. I think that one must be a good steward in a community when they are coming to a community and it's neighbors for -- their neighbors for a special exception. My understanding of the zoning statute of the State of Georgia, special exceptions, you know, should at least have harmony as far as the community go, or at least that's one of the criteria, and I stand to be corrected there if I'm wrong. I don't feel that the individuals that's attempting to rezone has done so in good faith, you know, as far as the operation -- the existing operation there, and I would urge my colleagues to vote with me in denying the special exception. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, then Mr. Beard. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one question that I'd like to bring up to Mr. Colclough. You say you got four of these operations in your neighborhood? MR. COLCLOUGH: There is four in the neighborhood. MR. POWELL: And we're going to deny this one the license? What are we going to do with the other three? MR. COLCLOUGH: The other three has not come forward. They have been operating, from my knowledge, for a few years without -- they have the state license, but they have not tried to change their zoning. They only have two people in their homes, and that's legal under the law. MR. WALL: They don't have to have a special -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard -- excuse me, I'm sorry. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: They do not have to have a special exception and do not have to go before Planning if they're just keeping two unrelated family members in the home. And the others that he's talking about in Pepperidge only have the two, so they are -- they don't fall within the definition of a personal care home or a family care home such that they have to have the special exception. MR. BEARD: And you would have no objection to her remaining with the two people? MR. COLCLOUGH: We have no objections to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could I make a substitute motion and let George Patty and his staff go check those other four houses out just to see what's in there and what's not in there, and then we come back and make an intelligent decision before we try to deny her what she wants when I think there's more people than two in the other houses? And it would not hurt and it would not change anything, but we would give her -- we would be fair to her and give her an opportunity to make sure that we're doing the right thing rather than to make a hasty decision and not know and still there's other people out there violating the law. So if all of them are violating the law, we'll just close them all down and then we'll be right. And I'd like to put that in the form of a substitute motion, just till the next meeting to come back with a recommendation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I'm not sure that the substitute motion is germane to the motion, and I'd like a ruling from the Parliamentarian. MR. WALL: Well, I think, in essence, the motion is to postpone a decision on this one until further information has developed, and I would think that it would be in order. MR. HANDY: Thank you. And if it wasn't worded right, whatever words that need to be put in it that still mean the same thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, on the substitute motion. Mr. Mayor, we have a zoning compliance division that's responsible for enforcing code, and that if there is codes being violated or not enforced, then it's their responsibility to do so. And I can agree with my colleague, the Mayor Pro Tem, that the code should be enforced, and if we gain information here that would indicate that there is more than two individuals living in those other four households out there that's unrelated, then certainly I think that we should tell our enforcement folks to go out and make cases against those individuals or investigate. But I think that the -- what the other ones is doing has nothing to do with this case as far as what this individual has done, is doing, and wants to do, and I call on my colleagues again to support the original motion in denying. And certainly as a policy-maker and as a keeper of my oath to enforce the laws and to do it, you know, equal-handed pretty much--equal protection under the law--I would support letting our enforcement folks know to go out there and check those other ones. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [VOTE TIES 5-5] MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm going to vote with Mr. Handy that we'll postpone it for a week -- or till the next meeting. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, MAYS, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-5. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. J. BRIGHAM: While we're inspecting personal care homes, are we going to inspect all personal care homes in this county? MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't think that was a part of the motion, but I'm sure that we can -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I think that we're being discriminatory if we don't. MR. POWELL: If we don't check them, Mr. Brigham, we're going to be discriminatory. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sure that can be done, but that's not a part of the motion, so let's move on, please. CLERK: The next item, Item 4: Z-96-84 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Loweta Stevenson, on behalf of Peter A. & Robin L. Murphy, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Seago Road, 1375 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Wesley Road and Seago Road (4357 Seago Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Murphy here? How about Loweta Stevenson, is she here? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could we make a motion to postpone till the next meeting? We've got a lot to do and a lot more issues to see. MR. PATTY: You may have some objectors here. But just generally, they wanted to keep six elderly people in the home with them on Seago Road, but when we got them to the meeting they contended that all they ever wanted to keep was two. And then they started thinking on their feet and said, well, maybe we want to keep three. So there was some confusion at the meeting, and they may not be here because they may know that they can keep two and they didn't want to pursue the six, which was what we had on the application. But it was denied and there were objectors. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we go along with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning board. MR. BEARD: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Beard. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: The next item, 5: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Yuni Flakes, on behalf of Korean Senior Citizen Association, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a non-profit club in an R-1A (One-family Residence). [Z-96-85 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Yuni Flakes, on behalf of Korean Senior Citizen Association, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a non-profit club in an R-1A (One-family Residence) Zone as provided for in Section 8-2(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Karleen Road, 406 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the centerline of Tobacco Road intersects with the centerline of Karleen Road (3610 Karleen Road).] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we concur with the Planning Commission. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. I would certainly like to know whether the petitioner is here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Flakes here? MR. TODD: I call for the question then, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 8: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sam G. Roney, on behalf of D. Ramon Walters and Gordon E. Walters. [Z-96-88 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sam G. Roney, on behalf of D. Ramon Walters and Gordon E. Walters, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One- family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Gatewood Drive, 115 feet, more or less, northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Bungalow Road and Gatewood Drive (Lombard Acres Subdivision).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Roney? MR. RONEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners. I'm Sam Roney, I'm an agent with Sherman & Hemstreet representing Drs. D. Ramon Walters and Gordon Walters. Gentlemen, we feel like we've been placed in an unnecessary catch-22 position here. The homes that we were proposing to build in this R-1 subdivision are not mobile homes, and the only reason we applied for the mobile home status was because the Planning and Zoning Commission advised us to do this. And we believe that they were incorrect in advising us, but we went on and accepted their view because we thought that they were supporting us on the situation. Well, that may have been misconstrued, but we came to the meeting a couple of weeks ago and they did recommend against us. The homes that we are proposing to build are fully qualified, in our opinion, for an R-1 subdivision. They're HUD approved by the federal government as permanent housing. They are manufactured homes, but they are built on a permanent masonry foundation. They are as different as any other homes throughout various subdivisions. The pricing we were proposing was from the upper 50's to the lower 60's. These prices are right in line with recent comparables in that subdivision, so we were not debasing the price structure of the area at all. On the contrary, we were probably improving it. This subdivision has gone largely undeveloped for a number of years. There are only about three or four homes on the front of the subdivision, two in the middle of it. There are 43 lots that have just laid there for a number of years unable to be sold, and several various big companies have attempted to sell them without success. The reason we're able to sell them now is that the manufactured housing offers us a slight reduction in the cost of constructing the home, but in no way does it compromise the structure or the standards of the home. These homes, as I mentioned, are HUD approved. The VA and FHA will give 30-year long-term financing on them because they are permanent structures. They will not do that if they're not permanent structures. The insurance people will give us insurance on these homes at the same rates as other stick-built subdivisions. We feel like we should have been allowed to go in and build these homes under the existing R-1 status in the subdivision. We think some of the folks who were against us was because they saw the word mobile homes on the rezoning sign, which we were just surprised to see as anybody because we thought that status that the Planning Commission recommended to us was something in-between. It should not even have had to be an in-between situation. These are permanent homes. They qualify under -- even other cities in Georgia have recognized that they are qualified for R-1 permanent home status. They've been tested in the courts. Coweta County took this to the Georgia Supreme Court, they lost, and supported our viewpoint. These homes would add 43 new homes in a subdivision that largely has not done anything for many years. It would give you an existing tax base increase of considerable dimension. And most importantly, it would offer my client an opportunity to sell the property, which he's been unable to do, and it would also offer 43 new homeowners, generally low income types, an opportunity to achieve the American dream in a subdivision where they could purchase new housing. There is no new housing currently in South Richmond County that can equal this in price. And that's all. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Roney. MR. RONEY: I would like to say one minor thing. We really don't care about having this approved as a mobile home subdivision. We would like to see the Planning Commission re-examine what we were talking about and see if they can't reach a different decision about letting us build under the current statute. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. LOVETT: Yes, I'd like to speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning as a representative from my -- of my community. CLERK: We need to get your name, sir. MR. LOVETT: My name is Thomas Lovett. CLERK: And your address? MR. LOVETT: And I live at 2198 Bungalow Road, Augusta, Georgia. Which I did get a petition on this and only was able to get 50 signatures on it, not because no one refused to sign my petition that I approached. It's not the point that we're against low-income people or people that's not able to buy a higher priced home. There is several homes for sale in our neighborhood right now that are under $59,000 that are equal or better than the mobile homes -- or trailers is what they really are. If they weren't trailers, then --all the information that had been given to me by Mr. Handy even much says they have metal frames, a hitch, and wheels. Well, that's the definition of a trailer. There's only -- right now there's only three residents or three owners in this subdivision. Now, we were give protect covenants when we bought our property, which I also included in with the petition and recommendation for denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It specifically says no trailers, so all we're asking is that you would please deny this for the simple reason that they are trailers. And we're against the rezoning of this property. We would like to keep this R-1A. If they build small homes -- a 12,000 [sic] square foot home is not asking too -- we're not asking too much. That's a small home. We're not asking for mansions, all we want is just small homes. These trailers, they all look the same. They're different colors. Square, rectangular, it's just --thank you. Please deny it is all we're asking. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, in Planning and Zoning it was given to us that these were trailers, and something needs to be clarified here because our Planning and Zoning decision was based on trailers, not homes sitting on a concrete slab. So, George, could you help me there? MR. PATTY: Yeah. This is another one that the Attorney and I have been talking about for a long time because there is some court decisions that we're aware of. But under our ordinance, if it's delivered on its own chassis on wheels, whether those wheels are removed or not, if it's ever sitting on wheels it's a mobile home and it requires specific types of zoning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: It's a trailer. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we go along with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 9: It's a Final Plat Approval for Montclair Additions. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from H. Lawson Graham & Associates, requesting a Final Plat Approval for Montclair Additions. [S-537 - Montclair Additions, Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from H. Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of Scott Higgins et. al., requesting Final Plat Approval of Montclair Additions. This subdivision is an extension of Chatham Road south of Crane Ferry Road and contains 14 lots. The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by the Engineering Service and the Development is in a floodplain.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges was first. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, maybe this is a misprint, but that last sentence there says that "The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by the Engineering Service and the Development is in a floodplain." Is that a misprint? MR. PATTY: Let me correct that and thank my staff for putting that on there. A small part of this property is in a 500-year floodplain. The Corps of Engineers did computer models of all the stream flow in Richmond County and they identified the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains based on those models. And none of this property is within the 100-year floodplain; some of it is within the 500-year floodplain. Mr. Leiper asked that they model it as if it were in a 100-year floodplain to see if there would be any flooding under any circumstances, and he's here, but I think the answer is that there wouldn't be. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: George, isn't this the lots that we just approved this summer? MR. PATTY: Yeah, you approved the development plan giving them the right to go in and do the streets and do the improvements. And they've done that, everything's been approved, and they're coming back now for the right to sell the lots. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding that when we dealt with these lots, you know, we had some folks down that was concerned about the size and, you know, the siding or the store-front, whether there's going to be, and there was restrictions put on the siding as far as that go. And we discussed whether there was going to be any units built in the floodplain, and it was my understanding that there would not be units built in the floodplain. Did something change between then and now? MR. PATTY: Well, for all practical purposes, there isn't any floodplain. Because when we talk about floodplain from a regulatory standpoint, we're talking about 100-year, and there is no 100-year. But none of the units will be in the floodplain at all. MR. TODD: Okay. Now, there is some green space then left there or some floodplain lots or acreage that would be in the 100-year? MR. PATTY: No, not on this property. MR. TODD: Well, I'm talking about adjacent property owned by the same individuals or the same entities. MR. PATTY: I don't believe so. MR. TODD: Were there any improvements in the property that would take it out of the 100-year floodplain status? MR. PATTY: No. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges, did you want to speak? MR. BRIDGES: No, that was what I was going to do. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: George, I may be thinking about the wrong piece of property. I was under the impression that there was already building in the Montclair area. Is that a different area? MR. PATTY: This is right behind the tennis courts. MR. KUHLKE: This is behind the tennis courts? MR. PATTY: Right. Yeah. MR. KUHLKE: And were there any -- was there any revision to the development plan? Were there any additional lots added to the development plan? MR. PATTY: I think actually there's one less lot in the original plan. MR. KUHLKE: It is? MR. PATTY: I believe so. There's one less lot than the zoning allows. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And the neighborhood was properly notified of this particular action that we're having to take? MR. PATTY: No, we do not post notice when a final plat is approved -- or to be considered. But they're in compliance with all of our rules and regulations, the conditions that were put on the property. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And there have been no changes in the development plan since the initial approval? Because I've had some calls where they said that some things that -- MR. PATTY: There's some question about development of the 25-foot strip that may or may not be reserved under state soil erosion law, and the answer to that question is that they got the proper variances from the Department of Natural Resources. They got them verbally, but we've verified that they did get the variances. They did do some work in that 25-foot strip. It was necessary to connect to the sewer that's in the middle of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: George, make me sure that I understand that we are not in the floodplain. MR. PATTY: There is no 100-year floodplain. Your flood ordinance that was adopted in 1979 only regulates development in the 100-year floodplain, and there isn't any. We made them test it -- the 500-year floodplain -- do you want me to get into this? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yeah, I really do. MR. PATTY: The difference between the 100-year and the 500-year floodplain sounds like a lot, but it's really not vertically. So we asked them to test it, the area that's within the 500-year, assuming that it's in the 100-year and test it, computer model it, to show that the impact wouldn't result in damage to surrounding properties. And that was done and it showed there would not be any. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How many lots are in the 500-year floodplain? MR. PATTY: Two, according to Mr. Graham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What is the potential of us having a 500-year flood? MR. PATTY: One in five hundred, I guess. I didn't do very well in math. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the Environmental Engineer in the since that he was involved in figuring the floodplains, or at least -- is he on board? MR. LEIPER: When I initially received this set of plans I had question marks about whether this would actually flood or not, so I asked the -- I took a look at the insurance maps and I noticed that there was the 500-year floodplain shown on those maps, so I asked the engineer to delineate the entire watershed upstream of this area and provide a runoff coefficient and model it for the 100-year floodplain. The results of that model showed that all the water for the 100-year storm stayed within the banks of the stream. And that basically was the answer that I got. I didn't necessary like, but that's the answer I got. MR. TODD: I guess we'll have to live with it then. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Items 10 through 19 were all approved by the Finance Committee October 21st, 1996. [Item 10: Consider approval of a request from Margaret Mollohan for purchase of prior years of services. Item 11: Consider approval of list of excess equipment to be declared salvage. Item 12: Consider approval to receive as information the Third Quarter Report. Item 13: Consider approval of November 7, 5:00 p.m., Commission Chambers for Budget Workshop. Item 14: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Tax Assessor regarding refund of taxes to Edna Green Wright, Karen L. Oliver, Eddie F. Hughes, and Barbara & Franda Elmy. Item 15: Consider approval of a proposed Ordinance changing the date for the submittal of the budget for calendar year 1997. Item 16: Consider approval of a proposed "Agreement of Resignation, Appointment and Acceptance" whereby NationsBank is allowed to resign and SouthTrust Bank of Georgia becomes Successor Trustee, Paying Agent, Registrar for certain bonds issued by The Downtown Development Authority of the City of Augusta, Georgia. Item 17: Consider approval of a list of Enhanced Early Retirement Program Requests. Item 18: Consider approval of a request from JAM Ministries regarding the waiver of taxes at the Racquet Ball Center Building at 2805 Wylds Road. Item 19: Consider approval of the amendment to increase the seating capacity at the Belle Terrace Swim Center.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee would recommend approval of these items. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Items 20 through 22 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on October 21st. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items, 20 through 21 -- CLERK: Through 22. MR. BEARD: Yes, but we need to -- Item Number 22 needs to be -- we need to pull that one and we need to add something to 20. And I believe the -- Ms. Rogers would add to 20, an addition to 20. And we need to -- I would like for the Attorney to go over the resolution that he put in for the citizen advisory committee to the body. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wouldn't it be simpler just to take them one by one? MR. HANDY: Yeah, one by one, that'll take care of that. CLERK: Okay. Item 20: Consider approval of the 1997 Proposed Emergency Shelter Grant Program Budget. It was approved by Administrative Services. Ms. Rogers, he wants you to state the amendments. MR. BEARD: We'll just ask Ms. Rogers to -- there's one amendment to that and we would just like to notify the body of that. MS. ROGERS: We do not have any amendments to Item Number 20. There are some amendments to Item Number 21. MR. BEARD: Okay, I'm in error then. 21. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve Number 20 and get it out of the way. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. MR. KUHLKE: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Go ahead. MR. KUHLKE: I see on here that we are funding Georgia Legal Services $6,000, and my concern there is Georgia Legal Services is the one that has sued us and making us build a 24 million dollar jail. Why in the world do we give them money? MS. ROGERS: Because they provide services to the homeless population. MR. KUHLKE: And prisoners. MR. WALL: They're no longer representing them. MR. KUHLKE: I know that, but they did. Okay, I can appreciate the homeless part of it. I just -- I don't understand, so I'll just -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly the plaintiffs sued us and Georgia Legal Services was the legal services for the plaintiffs, and I believe right now they have -- the plaintiffs in the jail have a different attorney, and we're probably going to have to do business one way or the other with him somewhere down the road. And I don't take the lawsuit personal. I think that Georgia Legal Services do a vital service in the community in more ways than filing suits against this government, and I just wish that this government would try to maintain a position where we wouldn't have to be sued. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion on Item 20 to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Next item, 21: Consider approval of the 1997 Proposed Community Development Block Grant [Program Budget]. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that that be approved, with the addition that Ms. Rogers will add to the body. MS. ROGERS: The staff has gone back to review this, and we looked at the housing development and we do not feel that we're going to be able to do three projects in '97, so we would request an amendment to include a fire station in the amount of $425,000 -- delete 425,000 from the housing development and put a fire station on Barton Chapel Road in the amount of 425,000. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the original motion? MR. BEARD: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, okay. Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, certainly I think it makes sense any time that we can do a fire station out of funds other than the fire tax, because we have a cap there. That sounds reasonable. And I'm not sure that I object, you know, to the amendment as far as the $400,000 go, but I am serious about doing more with Community Development as far as housing and less as far as public infrastructure. And I think in this case I can support it because we have a cap on fire tax and certainly overall it's going to help fire services. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to say that next time we have an amendment to anything we need to -- the amendment needs to be passed out and not just held and read to us. That's all I have to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to hear from the Fire Chief if he needs a fire station where we're wanting to build one. I mean, we're going to build him a fire station here, but he hasn't told us he needs one there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the Fire Chief here? MS. ROGERS: We did receive two proposals from the fire station. Both proposals were in the amount of $425,000, so it does appear that they need a fire station. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think he's asking where; right, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. Well, I appreciate it, but I wasn't privileged to that information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Powell, I think that there was a proposal that we extend the lease at the corner of Wrightsboro Road and Barton Chapel Road for a year, that that particular fire station was not adequate, the rent was too expensive, and the Chief early on had requested that we take a look at this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I realize it did come before the Public Safety Committee that the Barton Chapel fire station was -- you know, need to be moved, but I thought at that point you was saying the possibilities of moving further up by the Dairy Queen there. But this proposal has been in all the time? MS. ROGERS: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I wish he was here to mention something or another about that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the Fire Chief outside? MR. HANDY: He was here. MR. POWELL: I think he's right in there. MS. ROGERS: I wish I could speak for the Fire Chief, but I can't. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I can understand. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've sent to get him, so it shouldn't take but a moment. CHIEF MADDOX: Are y'all calling me? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Front and center, sir. CHIEF MADDOX: What can I do for you? MR. BEARD: It's a question, Chief, that we had allocated through Community Development Block Grant some money for the Barton Chapel fire station out there, and I think you had talked to us at one time about that. CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: We are allocating that, and they wanted to know if there is a need for that. CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir, we need it, because that station has got to be moved. We've got about seven more months on that contract. And we're looking at a piece of land right up the road from there, and we're going to have to relocate that station. MR. BEARD: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MR. POWELL: Satisfies me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Everybody? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 22 and Item 59 is essentially the same matter. It was approved in the committee to appoint a citizens advisory committee for the CDBG Block Grant Program. The Attorney has drawn up a resolution establishing a Housing and Neighborhood Development Advisory Committee. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this was approved and I think wherein -- I have no problem with the citizens advisory committee because I think I was one of those who requested that. I'm only looking at the language of the resolution, and part of this resolution is stating that they would have the opportunity -- the advisory committee would have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Council, and I think that should come from the staff. If we're going to have a director over there and a staff, then they should make those recommendations. And if we're going to appoint a citizens advisory committee to have the power that this resolution is giving them, then we don't need a staff over there. And my only question with this is to approve the advisory committee, but to let the Attorney draw up a more appropriate language for the advisory committee, and that's a motion. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: If this resolution was in draft form, we're here to see what's in it, not to approve it to be as it is written right now. And that's all I got to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I perceive an advisory committee to be just that, an advisory committee that would give advice, would do nothing other than give advice, and the staff and this policy board can reject that advice. My only concern about it, if we're setting up an advisory committee, that we stay in accordance with the consolidation bill and do it from each district throughout the county. Other than that, I wouldn't have a problem. I don't have a problem with not having one as long as we're having hearings that affects or at least is geographically suitable, you know, in each district, and I think we've had those and I think the staff has done a good job there. It's a first, and I think they're doing a better job, and I can support either/or. MR. BEARD: Well, I think we're only asking here -- there's not a question about whether we should have it or not. I think all of us are in agreement that we should have it. It's the language, and that's all we're asking for is that the Attorney go back and get a more appropriate language for the resolution that he's presented. Part of that is fine. He's representing each district, which I think is fine. But the language and the authority that he's giving that advisory committee, I think it needs to be looked at, and I would hate for us to pass that today with that type of language. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in the sense that the staff is here, can we hear from the staff or my colleague on what part of the language we have a problem with? And there's a possibility that we can amend the language right here. The County Attorney give us legal advice. Sometimes we are bound by that in the sense that we are not attorneys, but, you know, we don't necessarily have to take that either, we can amend and go on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who is the spokesman for the staff? MR. PATTY: We saw an initial version of this -- and Jim Wall may be the appropriate person to address that actually. But we were concerned, as Mr. Beard is, of the initial language in that resolution, and I was under the impression that it had been resolved after my conversation with Jim, and I think it has. MR. WALL: Well, I incorporated some changes, and I don't know whether - - did you see the -- MS. ROGERS: I have not seen it. MR. WALL: Okay. I told her the changes that I was going to make, and I had assumed that she had seen the revised copy and she obviously has not. But we did make the revisions after receiving some communication from Ms. Perkins and George's staff, and basically -- I mean, what I was trying to draw up was what I understood the committee wanted, and if I misunderstood I can certainly revise it. MR. BEARD: Jim, we only have -- I think most of us would have a problem with the last paragraph there, and that is the one on the authority that you are giving the advisory committee, and I think that needs to be looked at. And I think that you could work that out, and this is all that we're asking. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges was next, and then we'll take the question. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, the first full paragraph on the last page just basically says that the advisory committee, with technical assistance from the Housing and -- from our staff, is to recommend to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission an allocation of these funds. So what it's doing is putting the committee between us and the staff, and I think that's what Mr. Beard is trying to correct, and I think it should be corrected. And I think the recommendations should come from the staff and the committee should be, you know, maybe recommending to the staff. And I hope we'd support this -- Mr. Beard's resolution. MR. TODD: If we need to wordsmith it, Mr. Mayor, can't we do that and move on and pass this thing? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I think that I can solve the -- if on the fourth line of that paragraph that you're concerned about, "To evaluate and recommend to the Housing and Neighborhood Department for recommendation to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission annually a proposed allocation of CDBG funds anticipated to be awarded to Augusta-Richmond County and for recommendation to the Commission a proposed allocation," so that the recommendation would come from that department. The advisory committee would recommend to the department, the department would recommend to the Commission. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's -- I mean, Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess a point of information. That's with the amendment that Mr. Wall just mentioned? CLERK: Mr. Beard accepted. MR. BEARD: Yes, I accepted that. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 22(a): Consider approval of the Employees Benefit Package as recommended. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that 22(a) and also 22(b) be approved. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My concern about Item 22(a), and I may be misled on what you would expect us to do, but there are no cost figures in here, Mr. Etheridge. We don't know what the cost per person is, what the total package is, and you all want us to vote a benefit package for employees without costs. MR. ETHERIDGE: Now, that we provided in the committee when we first went to the committee with it to get approval. And I believe -- no, I may be wrong, but I thought you were there, Mr. Zetterberg, when we did that. MR. ZETTERBERG: But I wasn't there when we put it for a vote, and I'm not a member -- I'm not even a member of that committee. I didn't have a chance to do that. My question in here is, how are we supposed to make an intelligent decision without the appropriate paperwork that says how much this thing is going to cost per employee and how much is it going to cost as a total package? And second of all, I know it's a great plan because you said so yourself in here, but my question is, is it a competitive plan? As a businessman I don't provide benefits to my employees without knowing what the cost is going to be. And second, I don't provide more benefits than I have to provide based upon the competitive nature of the business. I provide benefit packages not because I want to be a good guy but I want to keep employees. I don't see how you can ask us to make a recommendation on approving a benefit package without knowing what the cost is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you have an answer, Mr. Etheridge? MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, I can give him the cost now, you know, the overall cost, but, you know, I don't know if that's what you're wanting. You know, let me make this statement -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, you're not going to get my vote today without my seeing it or looking at it and my asking the questions. MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the Internal Auditor looked at some of this, and I'd like to hear his report on what he has to say concerning the cost. MR. PLOWMAN: I could give you some ballparks on the cost. I think they're estimating the overall contract. You're not going to know what the exact cost is going to be because it's based on how sick everybody's going to get. Ballpark, it's going to be in the seven to eight million dollar range. I mean, would that be pretty fair? MR. ETHERIDGE: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. PLOWMAN: So you don't know the actual cost until you know how sick different people are going to be. What you've got is, University HealthLink is a PPO. It's half owned by University Hospital and half owned by 350 physicians. They put in a proposal that basically they agree to charge you a certain charge for each procedure that you have, each hospital visit that you go to. Because you're so big and have a whole lot of employees, they have given you a discount. Now, while this proposal is very good, I wish we could offer it to our employees, there's a cost factor that comes with having a choice of a PPO and an HMO. You've got two different plans. HealthLink offered a complete replacement package which didn't give a HMO choice, and I've prepared some little summaries that -- it might help you to look at this and demonstrate what I'm talking about. But basically they've given you two different kind of discounts. This whole process, it's kind of confusing. You know, we do a lot with health care, but PPO, HMO, capitated, gatekeeper, all these different terms -- that's the wrong one. That's a little bit later. MR. BRIDGES: That's the ambulance, Kip. CLERK: Well, they've got to have it anyway. MR. PLOWMAN: That's right. MR. BEARD: To the body and Mr. Mayor, we have had the Internal Auditor look at this, we've had the Human Resource Director and his staff to look at this, we've had a subcommittee to look at this, and we've had consultants to look at this. And I think at this point, Kip, I guess what Mr. Bridges is asking you at this point is that are we moving in the right direction and is this something that we can accept. Because we've seen so much of -- many phases of this, and this is the recommendation that I guess everybody came up with. MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. When you did your RFP you asked for two types of benefit plans, health insurance: one was an HMO, one was a PPO. You wanted to offer the employees a choice. With that choice -- when HealthLink did their proposal, they gave you just a PPO but gave you bigger discounts. That means they agree to -- if you look on the second page. If you didn't offer an HMO and offered only a PPO, you would have larger discounts on all the fees. They would offer 35 percent discounts versus, say, 20 percent under this proposal. This is a good proposal, but it doesn't come with the same kind of discounts that if you gave them more volume, I guess, is what basically it boils down to. It's kind of maybe the difference between buying something at a convenience store versus buying something at Sam's. Maybe that's oversimplified, but -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I'm buying and if the county is also participating in this thing, then I want to shop at Sam's versus the convenience store. I certainly feel that we should try to get the best deal possible for the employees, and I believe that as far as choice go, that the old plan -- if you're within -- if you were outside a 50-mile range, et cetera, then there is an exception to the plan that -- you know, who you can use. And I think that we made an exception as far as females go as far as delivery, et cetera -- Mr. Mays was very concerned about that -- and a person being able to stay with their doctor for delivery and go to the institution that -- facility that do the delivery versus having to go somewhere else where, you know, it would make them feel more or less like they were warehoused. I don't -- you know, I'd like some questions like who was the consultant that advised us on this and when did we hire him? I know we voted to hire a consultant to deal with indigent care, and I know that never happened, and maybe this is something that I went to sleep on up here, I don't know. The other issue is can we afford choice. Do choice cost more? And I think that we need not -- I would advise us to not act on this today, to try to garner more information on what this is all about, you know. And I'm not on the committee. I had every opportunity to attend the committee meetings, I understand that, but I don't have enough information to make a intelligent decision. Now, one of the -- as far as the institution or entity that we use now, University Hospital, I think one of the best products that we get from them is this preferred provider deal with University. And that's my comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we table this for further review. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second it. Mr. Mayor, is that postpone? Now, table would be at the end of the meeting we would have to bring it up. MR. POWELL: I'll rephrase that, Mr. Todd. I'd like to make a motion that we postpone this so that we can give it a little closer look. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if we could hear from the Human Resources Director. Can we afford to do this at this time? Is the other one going out or do we need to act or where are we on this? I would like to hear from him on this before we -- MR. ETHERIDGE: Please before you table this I would like to address that part of it. You know, we set out in February of this year to put together a consolidated benefit package. At that particular time we went out and we hired a consulting firm, Foster-Higgins, who specializes in benefits, and they have -- you know, they've done their job and the HR Department has done their job. In doing so, we've brought back an excellent benefit package for our employees. We gave them enhanced benefits without increasing the cost. As a matter of fact, we've reduced the cost overall, I know, by two percent. Not only did we provide the choice of every hospital provider in this area, but like I say, the benefits that we're going to receive from the enhanced portions of it will give us even further savings that we cannot measure at this particular time. But we have the -- Foster-Higgins has done the actuary work on this, and we feel very comfortable with it. We're offering both a PPO and an HMO, which is --of course, the HMO was fully insured. MR. BEARD: Mr. Etheridge, and to the Mayor, I was just wondering if Mr. Powell would put a time table on his motion. I think what we need to do is get the consultants and Mr. Etheridge and the -- and Kip there together. And I think we're running on a deadline and that's why I was asking. I think we are up against a deadline, and if we could have a time line on that and maybe just call a meeting where those Commissioners who are not sure about this, and a lot of us are not sure about this, could come in and we would have time to ask the questions and really find out about it and get on with it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Etheridge, when is your time line? MR. ETHERIDGE: We -- December 31st. And I want you to take this into consideration, we've got to have open enrollment to sign people up for 2,500 people, and it is now November. MR. POWELL: What about Monday afternoon after the committee meetings? MR. ETHERIDGE: All right. But let me ask this, does that mean that we have to come back in here at the next Commission meeting to get approval in December or late November? MR. HANDY: Yeah, you do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham was first, then Mr. Zetterberg, and then Mr. Bridges. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I served on the Insurance Committee. This is the first time I've seen this proposal. The last time I met with Mr. Etheridge we had to give 100 percent to University Hospital. I think he should have brought it back to us. I think we ought to postpone this till we have an opportunity to meet on this and discuss it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My question was purely from cost. When you deliver this thing back to us I want to know how much this is going to cost per person, how much it's going to cost to the aggregate -- to the taxpayers. We are the steward of the taxpayers' money and we're not -- we don't necessarily have to gauge the benefit or the success of the benefit package because it's a great deal for the employees. It has to be in the best interest of the taxpayers. MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Well, I think this is. And, also, as far as - - MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I don't have a problem. I believe that you know the information, but I believe that we do not have the information. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, as far as the time line too, now, if we do not do, you know, our life insurance, our life insurance will be cancelled December 31st of this year for our employees, and we run the risk of that. MAYOR SCONYERS: John, how soon has this got to be enrolled? I think that's the whole question here. What's the deadline? How soon? MS. HAMILTON: In order to do enrollment meetings, process the employee cards, and have everything in place by January the 1st, we'd need to finish this process by December the 15th. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. When do we need to start to finish it by then? MS. HAMILTON: Tomorrow. MR. ETHERIDGE: And Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, you know, I'm not trying to hide anything. I mean, you know, I don't want y'all to think that and not have confidence and trust in me as being the HR Director. MR. ZETTERBERG: Seven million dollars. MS. HAMILTON: Last year it was eight. MR. TODD: Where is the actuary report, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you say last year it was eight million dollars and it's seven million this year; is that correct? MS. HAMILTON: Well, no, it's -- it'll be about 7.9 in 1997. MR. ETHERIDGE: Could we hear from our consultant? They're here today for that reason. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, then we're going to listen to your consultant. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to accept Mr. Beard's amendment, and I'm going to leave it up to the Mayor to set the time on the meeting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: If we hired consultants, I certainly think that we should hear from them. MAYOR SCONYERS: I agree with that. After we hear from them, can y'all meet tomorrow afternoon? MR. HANDY: No, I can't. You know, I'm going to the hospital. I'd rather vote on this after I get out of the hospital -- so I know what benefit I have, what I need. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't we listen to the consultant and then maybe we can resolve something, and if not, we can do it next week. Go ahead, please. MR. FORTON: Thank you. My name is John Forton and I'm with Foster- Higgins. I'm a regional manager. We're based out of Atlanta, but we're a worldwide firm. We've worked with your staff for -- all year long collecting data, looking at claims, looking at your plan design, looking at what's competitive, and so it's been a lot of documentation, a lot of detail. Unfortunately, it hasn't all, you know, bubbled up to where it needs to be so that you can make an informed decision, and we apologize for that. We can give you whatever you need. There's more than enough documentation, that's not the issue, it's just getting it in your hands. We feel real good about what we've obtained from the marketplace, because had you not done anything, had you just merely allowed the current situation to go into next year, you'd have had a very significant increase, on the order of a million dollar increase in cost. Medical trend goes up. Your life insurance claims have been poor. A lot of issues are going to increase your cost over time. Fortunately, by going out for bid we found very significant cost savings. We've gotten deep discounts from hospitals, from physicians, from drug companies, from third-party administrators, claims payers. We've gotten three-year rate guarantees. So that's all in place, and the employees come out ahead because of very significant enhanced benefits, you know, the new drug card and so forth. There are a variety of new benefits. But we've shared the cost in terms of what we suggest and for the sharing going to the employees and going to the employer. Having said all that, one question is can you afford choice. In our opinion, choice costs less in your particular situation. University Hospital is a fine institution, but their costs are high costs compared to other hospitals in town. Their costs are high costs. They can give you a discount -- I think the gentleman quoted, you know, a 30 percent discount, 25/35. They can give you a discount and they still may be higher in costs than their three competitors. Okay, that's one issue. So we've got very excellent insured HMO rates which would cover the other three major hospitals in town. Fully insured where they take the risk. So by having a horse race, University and the other hospitals in town, we think it's to your advantage in terms of cost. Your employees can vote with their fee. You know, in terms of if the costs at University are lower next year, great, they can go in that direction. If the costs are lower at the other three hospitals, they can go in that direction. But by giving them a choice, we'll create a horse race. In terms of your savings, if you should go forward, whether it's voting today or voting tomorrow, we can save you $100,000 a month. Now, to put it another way, if you wait a month it's going to cost you $100,000 a month. Okay? So -- MR. HANDY: No, we'll be even. MR. FORTON: So have your operation today -- tomorrow, but we need to really move on this very quickly because of the timing. In fact, I'd like to ask you, if the only issue today is medical, I'd like to ask your approval to go forward on the life insurance and LTD. That doesn't seem to be contentious. The life insurance and LTD, if you can make that decision today, and then in a day or so if we could get back to the medical side. So that's one idea. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: So the medical would be the HMO and the PPO; right? MR. FORTON: Correct. MR. BRIDGES: And that wouldn't involve the life insurance. All right, the question I've got, too, is --part of my decision is based on if we stay strictly with the PPO. There's the other option of having a PPO or an HMO. How many people are going to choose the HMO; do we know that? MR. FORTON: No one knows. MR. ETHERIDGE: We could take the demographics and that we already have and make a projection on that. MR. BRIDGES: Could we ask your -- MR. FORTON: Your HMO quotes are very competitive, premium rates. And since they have broad access, rich benefits, low premium rates, a lot of people will join that HMO option. MR. BRIDGES: But we don't know what percentage. Our level of discount is determined by -- you know, if half the people are going to take the HMO, then, you know, if I'm looking at the Internal Auditor's numbers right, you know, we lose a lot of discounts. MR. FORTON: We've signed proprietary statements with each of the hospitals in town and we can't disclose what the bids are. We can't say this is giving this level and this is giving this level. I can't do that, it's illegal. But I can tell you that the other hospitals are significantly cheaper in cost. MR. ETHERIDGE: It'll also eliminate the choice. That's based on 100 percent steerage to University Hospital, those discounts. MR. BRIDGES: But if you eliminate the choice and it's cheaper -- I mean, you know, we're going to go with what -- the cost. I mean, that's what we're going to do. MS. HAMILTON: What about the other hospitals? MR. BRIDGES: Pardon? MS. HAMILTON: What about the other hospitals in this community? MR. ETHERIDGE: What about employees that go -- MS. HAMILTON: And what about the employee that wants to use them? MR. BRIDGES: Well, what have you done there? Yeah, what have you done in that area? Did you look at the other hospitals as well? MS. HAMILTON: Yes. Right now there are two plans. The HMO basically, the way we've looked at it, has three hospitals in it; the PPO would have one. Because right now, remember, we're dealing with two groups of people. We're dealing with two medical plans right now that have two different hospital systems in them, so what we were trying to do was to maintain that. They have not had choice. They've not been free to move among them because they've only had one option with the medical plan, so what we're trying to do is give them choice. And as John said earlier, the HMO has a fixed, guaranteed cost. MR. FORTON: Basically, if the employees just have the University PPO, you'll basically have to go to the University Hospital for your treatment. MR. BRIDGES: What I'm hearing, though, is that if we go with choice it's going to cost us. I mean, that's what I'm hearing. MR. FORTON: No, it'll save you. It'll save you. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, because I think the longer we debate this out here we're getting more confused. If we could have you appoint that meeting and call for the question as it was before, I think we could settle this and move on. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, the meeting will be set for Thursday afternoon provided it passes. Okay? MR. POWELL: What time, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: What time is that meeting, five o'clock? MR. WALL: We've got a budget meeting at five. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we need to set it at three o'clock. Do you think we can do it in two hours? How much time do y'all need? MR. TODD: I was thinking there was budget meetings. MAYOR SCONYERS: The budget meeting is at five o'clock. MR. BRIDGES: That should be ample time, I would think, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll set it at three o'clock Thursday afternoon. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the consultants will be there? MAYOR SCONYERS: Can y'all be here Thursday afternoon? MR. FORTON: I have a conflict with another client that covers 159 counties in the state, not just one county, and so I might personally need to honor that prior obligation if I can't rearrange my schedule with them. But another consultant who's worked on this case all year long will be there, and she has all the facts and should -- in fact, she did all the work, so you'll come out ahead either way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thursday afternoon, three o'clock, provided this passes. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to postpone till Thursday afternoon, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 22(b), please? [Item 22(b): Consider approval of a list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement System.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that 22(b) be approved. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Jim? MR. WALL: As on Number 17 where in committee they changed the effective retirement date to December 31, I would ask that those that show January 1, 1997, be changed to December 31, 1996, as we've done with everyone else and as the ordinance requires. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you make that a part of the motion, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 23 through 44(a) were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee October 31st. [Item 23: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 46, Tax Map 139:334 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project owned by James Lee and Joan Lee. Item 24: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 5, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Robert C. Bradley and Florence W. Bradley. Item 25: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 8, Tax Map 88- 3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Leroy Glover, III. Item 26: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcels 11 and 12, Tap Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Cordia R.H. Moore. Item 27: Consider approval of the construction costs and agreement between the Georgia Department of Transportation, Central of Georgia Railroad Company, and Augusta-Richmond County concerning the Old Savannah Road (SR 56) Project. Item 28: Consider approval of Change Order #1 for the Wheeless Road Drainage Improvements Project. Item 29: Consider approval of contract award to Mundy for the removal of four Underground Storage Tanks at the Central Shop. Item 30: Consider approval of the installation and maintenance of street lights in various locations. Item 31: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment #1 for Pepperidge Drive Intersection Improvements. Item 32: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget with funding, the engineering proposal and the right to let bids on the Willis Foreman Road Drainage Improvements Project. Item 33: Consider approval of bid award of the engineering contract for Horsepen Branch Truck Sewer Extension. Item 34: Consider approval of topographic plan preparation and volume calculations for the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 35: Consider approval of the use of alternative daily cover at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 36: Consider approval of option for easement on Parcel 4, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Arlena E. Williams. Item 37: Consider approval of sampling, analyzing and profiling aged compounds formerly utilized at the Municipal Golf Course to be paid from Risk Management Fund. Item 38: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 5, Tax Map 87 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Bowles Estate, Inc. Item 39: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 2, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by James Lumpkin and Junette Lumpkin. Item 40: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 49, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Mattie M. Harden. Item 41: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment #1 with funding schedule and the right to let for bid for Hillwood Circle/Whitehead Drainage Improvement Project. Item 42: Consider approval of the contract award for the Tennis Court Resurfacing at the Newman-Augusta Tennis Center. Item 43: Consider approval of change order #1 for the Greenland Road Elevated Water Storage Tank. Item 44: Consider approval of bid award for General Roadway and Drainage Improvements, Phase I. Item 44(a): Consider approval to fill positions of Road Maintenance Superintendent, Roads and Bridges and Engineering Technician, Public Works, vacancies due to Enhanced Early Retirement Options.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept that as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please? CLERK: Items 45 through 49(a), deleting Item 47 and 47(a), which we've already taken, were approved by the Public Services Committee October 22nd. [Item 45: Consider approval of officiant contracts for the Recreation Department between Augusta-Richmond County and Antonio Lee Watkins, Dorothy Ealy, William Fennoy, Anthony Brooks, Sr., Anthony Brooks, Jr., Cherae Hardge- Golatt, Daniel Vaughn, Rodney Wright, Dionne Sailer, and Lee Boyd. Item 46: Consider approval of the consultant selection for the preparation of the design guidelines for the Bethlehem Historic District. Item 48: Consider approval of a request by Wanda Carter for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in con-nection with Fazoli's Restaurant located at 2910 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10. Item 49: Consider approval of a request by Mark Mulich for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Caffeine LC Restaurant & Lounge located at 730 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1, Super District 9. Item 49(a): Consider approval of bid award to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company for Daniel Field Airport Runway Safety Overrun Area Paving.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be approved as a consent agenda, with those relating to alcohol licenses, 48 and 49, be done to check and see if there are any objectors to those two, but they were approved unanimously in committee. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do we have any objectors to Item 48 or 49? There appears to be none. Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 48; MR. BEARD OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2, ITEM 48. MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 45, 46, 48, 49 & 49(a). MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50, please? CLERK: Items 50 through 52 were approved by the Public Safety Committee October 22nd. [Item 50: Consider approval of the professional services contract with Precision Planning for rerouting of underground conduits at the JLEC. Item 51: Consider approval of the bid award to Meco in the amount of $35,275 for a 5,000 gallon tank to be used as an alternate of emergency power at the 911 Operation Center to be paid from 911 fees. Item 52: Consider approval of the Trane Company to tear down the Chiller at the JLEC at a cost of $5,000 for possible emergency repair work.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. 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 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Next, Item 53 is a presentation/overview from the Community Corrections Corporation concerning electronic monitoring. MR. LONGFELLOW: I've just been requested to hold it to five minutes. I don't -- MR. ZETTERBERG: If you can't say it in five, it's too long. MR. LONGFELLOW: Well, I can give it a shot. We had counted on fifteen, but I will do it at five. MR. HANDY: Not today. MR. LONGFELLOW: I know, and I appreciate your patience and I understand where you're coming from. With that I'll go ahead and get started. This is a -- kind of a repeat of a presentation that we made to the Public Safety Committee. One thing I'd like to clarify really quickly, you will hear a little bit about two different agencies in this presentation, CCC and BI. CCC is a Georgia-based company that provides misdemeanor probation supervision to over 25,000 misdemeanor offenders throughout the state. BI is a Colorado- based company that is the world's largest provider of electronic monitoring services and equipment in the world. These two companies have merged and combined resources to hopefully attempt to fix a criminal justice system that oftentimes appears broken. I'll move on to the overwhelming problem not only in this community but also in the country, and that is jail overcrowding. Jail overcrowding is not unique. Crime is the most -- is the largest social problem, the most expensive social problem, something that drains our patience, it drains our budgets, and at times it drains our sanity: 5.6 million offenders currently under supervision nationally, growing at 10 percent per year. Causes: irresponsible offenders obviously and a congested court calendar that doesn't ever seem to get taken care of. Instead of focusing on that problem, without sounding cliched, let's focus on the solution. The solution that I'm talking about is something that I presented to the Public Safety Committee, is a supervised jail release program. Supervised jail release is a controlled release of eligible offenders into a jail release program using a combination of both personal reporting and personal supervision and electronic monitoring. By controlled I mean controlled or determined to be suitable for release by a risk assessment team that would be established later. A lot of people have concerns: well, you're going to let people out of the jail that should be in the jail. We're talking about offenders who are suitable for release. What happens when they get released? First and foremost they are held accountable for their actions, both in their -- through personal supervision and through the electronic monitoring. We're talking regular supervision, we're talking weekly reporting, we're talking regular drug and alcohol screens if that is necessary, we're talking mental health evaluations if that is necessary. That can be combined with intensive reporting, which is daily reporting, regular drug and/or alcohol screens -- complete home lockdown, for that matter, that can be accomplished, monitoring of alcohol consumption in the home through using our equipment. Instead of sitting in jail when they don't necessarily need to be there, being supported by our tax dollars, being fed by our tax dollars, they can be released back into the community to, one, work and support their family and/or their dependents, work to pay for the cost of their own supervision so the taxpayers don't have to pay anymore, and alleviates the county from supporting the offender while in jail if it isn't necessary while still being held accountable for their actions. The cost, if you'll notice in your pamphlet, the cost -- and these were numbers that were supplied in the paper -- approximately $30 per day and line up pretty well with national averages. The jail release cost, with your current costs, would cost you approximately half a million dollars every six months for 100 offenders. The jail release cost through personal supervision/electronic monitoring is $7.50 a day. And let me clarify one thing, is that in all possible cases, when it's possible, that this be borne by the offender when possible. If it is not, as I explained in the Public Safety Committee meeting, that if it is not, a fund can be created by the county to pay for those offenders who are not able, as determined by the Court, to pay for their supervision. Potential cost savings for the county can range anywhere from a half a million dollars to a million dollars conservatively on an annual basis. You can use that money obviously for whatever you want to, to build a fire station or to give people raises, whatever. I know money is a touchy issue, and it's something that always comes up, especially when it's funded by the taxpayers. I will refer to Greg Goble. My five minutes is over. I hope I didn't speak too fast and nobody fell asleep, but -- Greg? He's going to tell you a little bit more about BI itself and then we'll come back to one closing statement. MR. GOBLE: Like Eric said, BI is the oldest and largest manufacturer of electronic house arrest equipment in the world. We were incorporated in 1978. We have over 600 employees, half of which are dedicated towards direct customer support. BI works solely with law enforcement agencies and correctional agencies nationwide. Our largest customer currently is the U.S. Courts, through whom we monitor about 3,000 offenders on a daily basis. Those are federal probationers and pre-trial detainees. We're currently doing business with about 1,200 other county and state- level agencies, again, monitoring their offenders -- primarily for the same reason we're here today and for the need that we see in Richmond County with the current overcrowding problem you have and the Court Order that's pending. Our dominance in the marketplace is attributable to several reasons: reliability of equipment, reliability of monitoring services, easy use of the equipment, and the experience and reputation of BI and CCC in this marketplace. I wanted to very briefly just touch on the products, show them to you, let you look at them. It shouldn't take more than about two minutes. What I have here, this is the transmitter that actually goes on an offender. Basically the way the system works in a nutshell, the offender is given a schedule, a curfew schedule, by the Court or the supervising agency. The equipment is installed on the offender and in the offender's home. This transmitter sends a radio frequency signal pulse every 11 to 29 seconds just saying I'm here. This unit here is called an FMD. It's installed in the offender's home, just simply connected to the phone line. That monitors the transmissions from the transmitter and, in turn, reports to our host computer. The one that would work in Richmond County is actually in Anderson, Indiana. It's all done over the phone line via 800 phone service. Important features of the transmitter -- I don't want to get into a technical discussion here, I know you guys aren't really interested. Essentially what it is, it's a multi-level patented tamper detection device utilizing proximity tamper and a strap tamper. In a nutshell for you guys, what that means is you can't get it off your leg without us knowing about it. It's waterproof to 15 feet. Offenders can shower and bathe, and the case and the strap are hypoallergenic. I'm just going to pass this around and have you guys take a look at it. The important features of the FMD are: it's got adjustable range, the program can be customized to each offender's home. Some people live in big homes, other people live in very small homes. It keeps people from going outside the home when they're not supposed to. It has a 12-hour battery backup should someone mess with the power supply. Should an offender mess with the power supply, the unit continues to do the monitoring job as it's supposed to. For an added level of supervision we offer the county a product that's called a 9200 React. In essence what it is, it's an in-home breathalyzer that allows the supervising agency again to subject an offender to random alcohol tests, up to six a night. If the Court lays down a zero tolerance for alcohol policy towards offenders, this is a great way to monitor it. In short, what it does is voice ID an offender in his own home, and then prompts him through tests where he then blows into the unit. We collect a deep lung sample and actually return a direct BAC reading right through the phone lines to the supervising officer. MR. TODD: Are you telling me I can't get my buddy to blow into this thing for me? MR. GOBLE: No, you really can't. What the -- that mask has proximity sensors in the face. Once you start the test you can't remove it from your face or it'll fail you on the test. Again, our latest product is called the Transmonder. It's for use in domestic violence cases for enforcement of protective orders and also just for stalking cases. I've included in that pamphlet you've gotten a case study or a profile of an agency in Hamilton County, Ohio, that's using this to relieve their jail overcrowding problem, and I would ask the Commissioners when they have a spare moment to just look that over and realize that the cost savings are tremendous. In addition, the way this system works is an offender is put on house arrest, regular house arrest. This unit is placed in the victim's home. Should that transmitter ever come within range of this unit, BI Monitoring is notified immediately, who in turn then also notifies local 911 and we roll units out to the scene. Again, it's great protection for a victim. I don't like to say it's protection, but it's added to the security for a victim of domestic violence. We also give her a -- if it's a her -- a help button that she can carry around the house. Should she ever see the perpetrator, she can activate the unit that way. In closing, I'd just like to say two words about BI Monitoring. We currently operate two state of the art monitoring centers: one in Anderson, Indiana; one in Boulder, Colorado. We monitor all the offenders 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The system is currently monitoring 13,000 offenders and has seven million offender monitoring days as testimony to its reliability. That was a really brief introduction to BI equipment. I would encourage you to please call the references I have included in the packet. I find that working with correctional agencies nationwide, they generally don't like to take my word for it, they like to talk to their own colleagues in different parts of the country. This is the solution to current overcrowding problems. It's one that's going on -- it's being implemented nationwide, and it truly is a possibility for Richmond County. MR. LONGFELLOW: And in short, we are essentially ready to go when you are. I mean, we can begin monitoring people -- I know you're under a time constraint on your Court Order. I don't know what they expect out of you, but we are ready to begin meeting with people to form a risk assessment team with people in your community, the Sheriff's Department, court solicitors, judges. We are prepared to begin immediately. I don't know what other time frame you're under, but thank you for my five minutes that I know I adhered to. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be, do you guys feel you can sell the Sheriff and sell the judges and the prosecutors on this product? MR. GOBLE: Well, if I can address that by saying that throughout the state of Georgia the system is in place in about 16 counties now, so there are judges in the state of Georgia that have been convinced. I don't know in Augusta whether that's the case. We were told that a good place to start is here at the Commission. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. HANDY: I have one question. At what cost for your monitoring service? It's a basic price or per person? MR. LONGFELLOW: Yes, sir, $7.50 per day. And that -- MR. HANDY: 7.50 per day, not per prisoner? MR. LONGFELLOW: Per inmate per day. And, again, that cost we would like to be borne by the offender if at all possible. That's the way we normally operate. We do it both ways, but if you can defer it to an offender- paid program --and we did have some discussion about people who can't afford to pay and we, by law, cannot preclude someone from having services because they don't have money. That's where either the county-funded program or different sliding scales can come into effect to actually create a fund that will pay for people that can't afford the program. MR. HANDY: That's still cheaper than what it costs us to keep them in jail. MR. LONGFELLOW: Yes, sir, considerably less than $30 a day. MR. ZETTERBERG: I had asked these gentlemen to come and to demonstrate -- give us a little talk on it. I had initially said when we came under the Court Order that the Commission only can do so much. The real test is if the judges and the courts and the Sheriff's Department feel that this is a way to go, I think we could probably demonstrate a willingness on our part to fund -- you know, create a program for this alternative sentencing method. So I think that all we can do is -- maybe our representative, Mr. Kuhlke, on that independent committee can bring you before the court and before the Sheriff and take a look at this and see if we can go on with it, because there are significant savings to our community. MR. LONGFELLOW: Without compromising the accountability of the system. MR. GOBLE: I'd just like to tell you of some programs I've been working with very briefly. The cost of --let me just state one program in particular. They have currently 64 people out on house arrest. It's a significantly larger community than Augusta, but they currently have 64 people out on house arrest. They are looking at saving one and a half million dollars per year with prisoner housing costs simply by supervising those people outside the jail facility. There are significant cost savings to this, and also allowing people back into the community to work and provide a tax base and provide support for their families. It's not just the initial -- it's not just the incarceration cost, it goes far beyond. There's a tremendous social and economic snowball effect as you go down the line. MR. ZETTERBERG: What you have demonstrated is primarily the electronic monitoring part of it, but the offender management part, the probation part, you really haven't discussed at length. There are an awful lot of misdemeanor folks in our jails who could very easily be out on probation and be under a monitored probation system, but our courts can't handle that. Our probation system isn't large enough to do that. MR. LONGFELLOW: We were prepared to do both, to use a combination of both, and that's what CCC specializes in. We currently, again, supervise about 25,000 misdemeanor offenders throughout the state of Georgia and Tennessee, so that is part of what we're offering. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. We thank you for coming. I think Mr. Zetterberg introduced you to this group. The committee basically unofficially concurred that this is a program we need to look at and pass on, and I think the thinking was at that time that we would ask the Mayor and I think Mr. Kuhlke or whoever to talk with the other powers that be and try to set a meeting with them. I believe that's what it was, Mr. Mayor, and he's going to try to get to do that. And I would hope -- and if a motion would be in order just to receive this as information and proceed with that, and if the Mayor would set a time that we could meet with the appropriate people to pass this word on, I'll put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I plan to vote for the motion, but just as a suggested time - - and I know how schedules can be, but we are getting ready to get into budget season. Everybody's going to come with their hand out for money, and I think it may be very appropriate that some of the parties be scheduled along the same time frame so that the schedules can be set so that they don't interfere. And then while they're coming to ask for the appropriate figures that they're going to need to run their departments, that if we need to meet collectively, that maybe it can be done on the same day so that it will not inconvenience their schedules, and at the same time we might be able to get everybody under the same roof at the same time in a very gentlemanly fashion, and that way nobody escapes what we're trying to do. Just a suggestion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. TODD OUT] CLERK: Mr. Mayor and the Commission, while we're under the Public Safety agenda items, could we please accept the addendum item, an update from the Internal Auditor regarding the overbilling of ambulance service from Rural/Metro? MR. PLOWMAN: Okay, I'm back. I handed out the analysis on the ambulance billing. The Finance Committee had received six months worth of bills from University Hospital for their ambulance billing. The six months worth of bills netted $632,000. Last year's annual charge for all 12 months was $752,000. They wanted to know why is it rising and what's going on. The -- you know, just that six months to 12 months. What happened is six months worth of bills came in all at one time. The chief financial officer at the hospital, John Calhoun, was concerned with the monthly charges, so he pulled them all, held all six of them, had their internal audit go through and recalculate all the bills. We then went back in, reanalyzed everything. Their total charges for the first six months were 1.298 million dollars. They then issued you credits for $666,000. Those credits are for cash collections they received from patients that used the ambulance. They bill you and then several months later they collect, so depending on how good the collection efforts are. Prior to us going in to do the internal audit, as you'll see on the second page, they issued you a credit for $268,000, which represents the cash they collected for period 8, 9, and 10. Which they're on a 13-month period, so that's really July, August, September, for 268,000. They've still got some receivables out there from patients. They are anticipating to collect some more. They couldn't really give me a good number. They felt there would still be a substantial amount of money they'd collect, which then would all be credited over to you. They estimate with your new Rural/Metro contract--I think began July 8th--had a maximum charge of $50,000 a month, and what they've done is reduce those monthly bills by these credits so you're not paying as much. The net cost for the year, they anticipate, is going to be about $632,000 for the year, credits plus the additional billings for the Rural/Metro for the rest of the year. Are there any questions? MR. ZETTERBERG: Is that less than last year? MR. PLOWMAN: Well, I think budgeted was 700,000 roughly, and last year was 752,000 actual and this year, I think, was budgeted at 700. So, yes, it's down from what was budgeted and down -- they anticipate it will be down from last year's actual, too. Part to do with better collection efforts and part to do with the renegotiated contract with Rural/Metro. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we receive this report as information. And I just want to make one comment. I'm glad that we have so many experts out here that go out on a limb and do this creative accounting, but the actual facts show that we're saving money, and I just want to defend my position on that. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. TODD OUT] CLERK: Item 54: Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting October 15th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. TODD OUT] CLERK: If we could skip Item 55, that was an item Mr. Todd had requested to be placed on the agenda. We'll go to Item 56: Discussion of a request for proposals for space allocation. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. HANDY: Are we coming back to 55? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Who's missing? Todd? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, there's a request from the Space Allocation Committee -- and we did not have a quorum in our meeting last week, but we did have four Commissioners there. But we feel like that probably the Space Allocation Committee has gone about as far as it can go from the standpoint of identifying what the city owns, what they lease. We've pretty much finalized the organizational chart of the new government, and we feel that it would be in the best interest of this government if we were allowed to go out for RFP's with consulting firms that have expertise that could come in, take a look at our situation, take a look at where we anticipate we'll be ten years down the road, and to provide us with some input on how we will provide space for the government in the future, considering that the possibility exists that this building will eventually become a judicial center, that we'll need space for the administrative part of the government, looking at the makeup of the government, how departments maybe should be clustered to better serve the citizens, and we don't think that we on the Space Allocation Committee have the expertise nor the time to do that. So we bring it back to the Commission for their input and suggestions and to see if they would approve us at least going out and getting some proposals from firms that have this expertise. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: We'll go back to Item 55: Discussion of the rescheduling of committee meetings. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council, you know, we talked early on in the year about whether we could do the committee meetings in one day or whether it would take two days and, quite frankly, I haven't made some committee meetings on committees that I serve on and haven't made as many of the committee meetings as I'd like to as far as other committees go. And I think that if we change the day from two days to one day -- and if you'll look at the proposed change on Item Number 55 you'll see that there is two schemes there, and I could live with either one. But I feel that we're wasting time in the sense of time management on coming down two days. Some of us are fortunate enough to be on committees where all our committee meetings is on one day. There's others that's having to come down two days, the second Monday and Tuesday and also the fourth Monday and Tuesday. So this is basically the proposal that we go to one day, and I can live with either scheme. So I'm going to make a motion that we go with one day per week, and that is the second Monday and the fourth Monday of each month to do the committee meetings starting at either twelve o'clock or one o'clock, and I'll just say starting at one o'clock, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Beard. CLERK: Effective when, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think probably we need to at least do it at the first of the year. And also while I have the floor, would like to apologize for the typo on the -- being the from the Commissioner from the Sixth District. I am not trying to take over the Sixth District. That should have been Fourth District. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to ask Mr. Todd to amend his motion to be the last Monday of the month. Some months we have five Mondays and that we end up where we have a week without committee meetings prior to having Commission meetings. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem with that. I certainly think that the staff need to be on board with it, because it's up to them to get everything ready and sometimes it gives them a little extra time. CLERK: Yes, sir, we appreciate that. That was the consensus of the staff, that we go with the second and fourth Monday, because a lot of times the fifth week gives us a lot of times to prepare and to catch up, to prepare, but, you know, we could go either way. But our preference would be the second and fourth. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I support Commissioner Todd on his move, and particularly as it relates to him in there in terms of splitting those days in there. Out of fairness, I think that's something that we can do. On the time of implementation, I do think that there's one committee probably there in Public Services, which he serves on, that if we're going to do this in this month, probably License and Inspections, particularly as it relates to alcohol, needs to be notified immediately. Because you do have persons that are on that one that have to come through committee and in terms of notifying objectors that may be there, and that process in some cases for the next month may have already started. And, you know, I just think that needs to be internally worked out. It's not a big thing, but we need to make sure that's correct so that we don't have --in those cases with the licenses, Moses, where we've got some lap overs, even if we have to go to December on it. In January? Okay, if it's January, there's no problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I support this, and I think Mr. Todd said that it would begin in January, and I can support that January date. I think we'd only have one more month left, a couple of months, so I would support that January date. And I think it's a good move because some of us do have to come down twice, Monday and Tuesdays, on these off weeks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item is to consider approval to hire five (5) additional Sheriff's deputies to fulfill the requirements of the Court Order. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is consider approval of the Administrator's contract. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. I think at this time if Mr. Randy Oliver would come forward we could introduce him to the public and sign the contract and be through with it. MR. HANDY: We're through with him? MAYOR SCONYERS: I said be through with it. MR. HANDY: Oh, be through with it today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Almost. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Randy Oliver -- Charles R. Oliver. He's our new County Administrator. [MR. OLIVER RECEIVES A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.] MR. OLIVER: Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need to vote on this -- well, actually, he hasn't signed the contract yet, so I guess we need to get him to sign the contract before we vote on it. Wouldn't you say so, Jim? MR. WALL: [Indicates affirmatively.] MAYOR SCONYERS: This is a monumental day for Augusta-Richmond County. MR. HANDY: Randy, you'd better read it first. MR. OLIVER: Jim and I have been through this several times. MR. POWELL: Sometimes things change between the front door and the back door, though. MR. OLIVER: He didn't think I was going to read it the first time. [MR. OLIVER SIGNS THE CONTRACT.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve the contract hiring Mr. Oliver, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Okay. At the request of the Mayor, we'll move Item 63 next. MR. OLIVER: Thank you very much. I look forward to working with each and every one of you. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Would you like to say anything else? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, would it be -- excuse me, Mr. Oliver. Would it be appropriate to move that we unanimously approve hiring him in the sense that we didn't do it initially? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we just did when we all approved this contract. MR. TODD: Okay. So that would take care of that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. OLIVER: Thank you very much. I look forward to working with each and every one of you to develop a plan that we can together serve the citizens of the Augusta-Richmond area and meet the needs, because I firmly believe that this is a service organization, the only difference is they can't go to somebody else for the service. So with that, I look forward to that, I look forward to the challenges, and my wife and I are very happy to be here. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Randy. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to -- Randy, your wife is present here today? MR. OLIVER: She's out looking at real estate, to be honest. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, we would just like to give her the opportunity to be introduced also. MR. OLIVER: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. It's Item 63, legal meeting. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd that we go into a legal meeting. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: I think the purpose ought to be stated: real estate and personnel. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING, 5:15 - 6:48 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: I appreciate y'all being patient with us. We apologize for the delay, but maybe we can move along rather rapidly now and get y'all out of here. Ms. Bonner, the last item of business is the report from the Recruitment Committee. CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: And I would like to read you the report. For the Corrections Institution -- excuse me, for the Corrections Institute Warden, that would be Robert Leverett. I'd like to read all these, gentlemen, then we can vote on them individually or however y'all want to do. For the Warden would be Robert Leverette; Finance Department Comptroller, Albert B. "Butch" McKie; Human Relations Director, Frank Thomas; Recreation and Parks Director, Tom Beck; Transit Department Director, Heyward Johnson; Trees and Landscape Director, Barry Smith. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve them individually, but I'll make it in one single motion that we vote on each one individually. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Do I hear any discussion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question on the first one. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, are we still in discussion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: If I might ask Mr. Todd for a right or one personal privilege. I need to vote in two different places in ten minutes. Can anybody voice an objection as they do on a consensus vote on whatever item they want to vote no on if you allow us to go ahead on and vote as a group? MR. TODD: I would think that the Chair can do that. Mr. Parliamentarian? And I'll change the motion to do a consensus vote. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We can do that all right, can't we, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider the point allocation and we do it by unanimous consent to add it to the agenda. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd -- MR. TODD: And that's for Fire Services, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If it takes unanimous consent, you don't have that. MR. WALL: It would require unanimous consent. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could we adjourn, please? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We had some other things to bring up. Do y'all want to just put it off to the next meeting? MR. HANDY: We have some other matters? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. MR. HANDY: What are they? MAYOR SCONYERS: We had a report from Mr. Carstarphen. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw that motion to adjourn. MR. HANDY: Go ahead. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Carstarphen, please? MR. CARSTARPHEN: There were a couple of other items under Item 61. You've taken care of Item 61(a). 61(b): The report of -- the Recruitment Committee is recommending that an open recruitment process be initiated for the Purchasing and Contractor Director position, and I believe also the Mayor would like to suggest that an open recruitment be initiated for the Traffic Engineer position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that we had a problem in the Personnel Department on a resume and a application that was turned in for Purchasing, and I'm looking at a letter that one of my colleagues has just handed me in reference Human Resources and I haven't finished reading it yet. But, you know, I would say tell me it's not so that a subordinate of Mr. John Etheridge had a application and a resume applying for a position in the Personnel Department and they didn't channel it or push it through to the committee: Mr. Carstarphen, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Mayor. And if this is so, then I certainly think that we should consider the person for the appointment and that we should not go outside. If the person is qualified, we should give the person the position. This is what we just debated, you know, on one -- on another issue inside there. I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I concur with that wholeheartedly. I think that there's been an error and mistake by the Human Resource Department, and I don't think anybody -- the applicant should be penalized for that, and I think that that person is being penalized. It's not fair, and I think that that person who applied and whose application or whose resume did not get into consideration by the committee should be considered and they should continue with an inhouse application and adhere to that. And I also -- we've had several incidents of this, and I think I've alluded to them in my statement that I made to my fellow Commissioners, and I think that it is time that we abide by what we said we're going to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question of Mr. Carstarphen. How many people other than the one that they're talking about here -- and I'm not following what's going on here really, but how many people meet the qualifications that have applied for the Purchasing position? MR. CARSTARPHEN: There are seven applicants for the Purchasing position, and that does include the individual that is being discussed here. A application was received late, but it did go to the committee and was considered. The committee's recommendation was that -- the committee believes that the need for a Purchasing Director that can lead the department and improve its performance is such that experience in Purchasing as a director would be a great asset, and the committee recommended therefore that you consider a supplemental open recruitment to determine if such candidates are available to you. And the basis of that recommendation was not any single applicant, it was rather that in the opinion of the committee the community and the public would be better served if you were able to find a trained Purchasing Director who was willing to come in and be considered for appointment here. None of the applicants --while a number of the applicants have worked in the Purchasing Department and have worked with the Purchasing Department, to my knowledge, none of them -- and their applications indicated none of them have previously served as a Director of Purchasing. MR. BRIDGES: That department, what really is specifically needed that we don't have in the applicants? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, in my opinion, you have a purchasing operation which is out of date, which is not automated nearly to the extent that it could be, which is less than efficient in its operation, and which does not really truly give the organization the benefit of a professional centralized purchasing operation. While there are a number of good people who work in the department and a number of good people in your organization who would like to head that operation, in my opinion, none of them have the experience that would enable them to lead this department to an efficient, professional, and effective in achieving the lowest cost for your purchases operation. And that was the basis of, I believe, the committee's recommendation that we consider a supplemental open recruitment process to see if those people were available. MR. BRIDGES: So what you're asking for is someone that is now a -- I guess as an example, would be Purchasing Director in another location that meets the educational requirements? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Either in the public or the private sector. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Carstarphen, I don't think there's anyone sitting here that wouldn't want to overhaul and bring the Purchasing Department up to today's standards as far as fairness doctrine go and as far as being professional. I think I pushed for, you know, a committee to go out and revise the procedures and do it like VA do it or SRS or Fort Gordon. I think that there was some work done along those lines, but the bottom line is that we set forth the criteria and qualification. If you're telling me that the person didn't get the application in on time, I can live with that. If you're telling me that the application was in on time and a subordinate of Mr. Etheridge, you know, sat on it, then I can't live with that. I think that this subordinate needs to be severely reprimanded and that we need to deal with this situation as far as going on and giving consideration to this person. That's my position on this issue. I'd rather to go into executive session, but I don't see a chance of that happening to discuss this issue. Probably if we did, you know, we'd probably be bouncing off the walls in there in a few minutes. But the bottom line is that the fairness doctrine is not applied here, and it seems that more times than others it's not applied when we're dealing with a individual from the minority community, and I tell you to tell me that's not so. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I can't answer those questions. I think you'd have to ask the Director of Human Resources. All I know is that all the applications that were received, and that includes all seven of them, were forwarded to the committee and the committee reviewed all of those, and that was the basis of the recommendation which we brought to you. And in answer to your question, three of the seven applicants have college degrees. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, we end up with the same old same old all the time: applications getting misplaced, they're not all acted on at the same time, and I think that, you know, it's just time we stop playing the games. We make certain exceptions for certain departments, we let other things slide at other times, and I just don't think we're being fair in this whole procedure in dealing with the Purchasing Department. And I don't think you can bring back an application once that you didn't consider them with all the others. There have been too many improprieties there to do that. And I think just maybe we need to regroup on that and look at the people and select the person who's best qualified from those three. We did it in there a few minutes ago. We're saying that these are the people who applied, this is what we said. Now, if we're going to go outside on this one, then let's look at the others and go outside on some of the others. Because we sat right there a few minutes ago and said these are the people who applied, we have to select this person. And we didn't go outside on the others, so why all of a sudden now we're going to come up with the recommendation that we got to go outside on this one? Now, we had ample people there, people who have had the experience, they are meeting the requirement, so let's select from the seven that you have just like you did the others in there. Now, hell, if you want me to call the names in there, I'll start that. But we ought to be like we're doing and do the proper thing on everybody, and we're not doing that, and the committee didn't do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you saying you don't approve of the committee, Mr. Beard? Do you want to change the committee? MR. BEARD: No, I'm just saying that the committee didn't do that as far as reviewing those applications all at the same time. MAYOR SCONYERS: We reviewed the applications, didn't we, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Last Friday. After we got it Thursday, we reviewed it Friday. But our decision was made prior to receiving that -- to go outside prior to getting that application, because we didn't have the application, so we didn't know another application was out there. MR. BEARD: That's what I'm saying, you didn't know about that application. MR. HANDY: Right, we didn't know there was another one out there, so we couldn't change the decision --you know, make a decision and we not know an application is out there. MR. BEARD: Your decision was made on the six and not on the seven. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? If the Chair will recognize me, I'd like to make a motion that we stay inhouse on the Purchasing Officer, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. BEARD: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & POWELL VOTE NO. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, BRIDGES & ZETTERBERG DID NOT REGISTER A VOTE; MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION FAILS 3-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we don't have enough either way, so let's go on - - MR. J. BRIGHAM: I guess we go to the next item, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Stay like it is and we move on to the next item. Thank you. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor, did you want to suggest, I believe, that the Traffic Engineering position be approved for an open recruitment process? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: What was the position, Mr. Carstarphen? MAYOR SCONYERS: It was Traffic Engineering. We don't have one; Mr. Moore is retiring. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That'll be fine. MR. HANDY: And the one we had before that one resigned and went someplace else. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, that position, we haven't had one for a couple of years; is that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. CARSTARPHEN: And this is not a department head position, it's a professional position. As proposed, it's a division of the Public Works Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Matter of fact, the State of Georgia wrote us a letter and asked us to do this because they need some help. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think the Mayor simply wanted to inform the Commission of this recommendation and make sure you were comfortable with it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: Also under 61(a), the committee recommended that an internal recruitment process be authorized for the position of Animal Control Director. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: Item 61(b) proposes a schedule for the open recruitment process, which is something you have previously authorized but presents a schedule for the open recruitment process for those positions listed. I have a copy of the advertising schedule, would like to pass it out to you. In connection with that item, I would also like to pass out to you a draft of the position description for the Citizen's Service and Information Director, ask that you look at it and that if you have any suggestions or comments, that you get them back to Mr. Etheridge or myself. We will bring this back to you for final approval at your next regular scheduled meeting. And I'd like pass out both of those now, and in the absence of any objection from the Commission, we will proceed on that basis. And I'd like to delete Item 61(c) from the agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to accept it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: This is the information that Bill is passing out now? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd also like to make a motion that we, by unanimous consent, delete Item (c). MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second that we delete Item (c). MR. HANDY: Wait a minute, let me see what Item (c) is. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what Bill just said he wanted to delete. MR. HANDY: Right, but I want to see what it is. What is it, Bill? MR. CARSTARPHEN: It was a continued discussion of the structure of the Information Technology Department which you had at your last meeting but didn't approve. MR. HANDY: Okay. That's good. MR. CARSTARPHEN: And on the basis of the department head's request, we'd like to delay it until she has a chance to make a presentation at the budget hearing. MR. HANDY: Which department? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Information Technology. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to delete, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we adjourn. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you finish passing the stuff out yet, Bill? Let's give him time to pass his information out. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I believe that's it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we'll have the motion to adjourn. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:07 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on November 5, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission