Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS November 19, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 5:35 p.m., Tuesday, November 19, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Freddie Handy, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation this evening by the Reverend Fred Cook, Jr., Minister of the First Shiloh Baptist Church. If you'll remain standing, we're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND COOK. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Cook. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start a new format tonight. Fellow Commissioners, for a motion to be brought to the floor it must first of all be brought to the Chair's attention, be recognized, and then we'll make the motion the same way, with a second. Also, in the discussion, all the discussion will start with Mr. Todd and end with Mr. Bridges. We'll do two sweeps. Start with Mr. Todd again, and when it ends with Mr. Bridges, then we'll be voting. We won't have all the random discussion we've had in the past. I think this will help streamline our meeting, be much better for you. Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request for addition of two items: A zoning matter concerning the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Jackie Dixon requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a personal care home. Item 2: Discussion of the Employees Benefit Package. We have a correction on Item 53. It should have read consider approval of an option, not condemnation. We have a request for three deletions: Item 9 by the Planning Commission relative to a zoning matter, 448 Greene Street, at the request of the Planning Commission; and Item 57 and 58 at the request of the Environmental Engineer. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion by unanimous consent that we approve Item 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and that we move to the front of the agenda the delegations, the alcohol sub -- CLERK: Item 30 and 84. MR. TODD: -- Item 30 and 84. Item 30 deals with alcohol sub; I believe 84 deals with the reconsideration of the points for the hiring -- I mean, for the promotions in the Fire Department. And also I would like to move up the Project Manager on the appointment of a Fire Chief along with those items. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, you don't have unanimous consent on Item 2. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let me add back in Number 3, and Item Number 2 is what I should have left off, and I apologize. I don't have a problem with Item Number 3. CLERK: You're deleting Item 2 out of the additions -- your motion? MR. TODD: Yes, and adding Item 3 back in on the condemnation. That's my mistake. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: That was what I was going to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [A VOTE WAS NOT REGISTERED FOR MR. MAYS.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we have a roll call vote? I didn't see the one and I was trying to figure out who it was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays didn't raise his hand. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just as a point of clarification on discussion of employee benefit package, what -- because we've been through so much lately with insurance and packages and everything else. Just a point of clarification, what did that one entail? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we were going to -- MR. MAYS: What part and how specific? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to -- MR. WALL: It's my understanding that representatives from Foster and Higgins were going to be here, and perhaps they're here, I haven't seen them. But it would involve ratification of the life insurance that there's been a letter circulated around. The PPO package, the HMO package, and the LTD packages were to be presented. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might say, gentlemen, if we don't work on this it is going to throw us into next year, and it'll cost us approximately $100,000 per month if we drag our feet. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to amend that motion to add the life insurance only as far as the benefit packages go and call for a special meeting to be held at the -- no later than seven days, but at the Mayor's discretion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: And it's brief. That was the main thing that I wanted us to get to the forefront on. Because, you know, we've discussed a lot about this, but we're falling on that anniversary date, and I think that's something that's very important for the 26/27 hundred folk that we finally get to that. And that's what I wanted to make sure, that we were setting some time frame; if we were going to delay part of this tonight, that we weren't getting into a situation where it was not only going to cost us as a government but going to cost them and put benefits in jeopardy as well as their protection. So if we're going to do this within seven days, I don't have a problem in voting for the motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we won't discuss it today; is that what the motion is, Mr. Mayor? CLERK: The motion is just to ratify the polling of the Commission on the life insurance. MR. H. BRIGHAM: On the life insurance. That's the one we were polled on? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item is an overview from the Augusta-Richmond County Clean & Beautiful Commission. Ms. Black? MS. BLACK: Good evening. I'm Cathy Black, I'm the Chairman of the Augusta-Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Incorporated. We are a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving waste handling practices and preserving the natural beauty and environ-ment of the Richmond County and Augusta area. Our organization was first created in 1979 by the ordinance of the City of Augusta and Richmond County under the name of Clean Community Commission. Just last year we changed our name to Augusta-Richmond Clean & Beautiful. We are an affiliate of the national organization of Keep America Beautiful and we are also affiliated with the state organization, Georgia Clean and Beautiful. We operate by developing partnerships of business and industry, government agencies, and civic and neighborhood groups to bring practical solutions to community solid waste problems. We procure in-kind donations of volunteer labor, goods, and services for various projects. Last year we received nearly 11,000 volunteer hours and approximately $34,000 in donated goods and services. Some of the community programs and projects that we coordinated are newspaper and magazine recycling, telephone book recycling, Adopt-A-Highway, Adopt-A-Mile, Adopt-A-Stream, junk car removal assistance, Christmas tree recycling, paint/ motor oil recycling day, spring and fall into litter cleanups, home composting workshops, and the Augusta Canal Cleanup Day. Augusta-Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Incorporated is also a clearinghouse for educational material regarding waste reduction, landfill, and recycling services. A few months ago we became an incorporated, tax-exempt, charitable organization. We did this in the hopes of attracting larger private contributions, allowing us to take on larger projects. Therefore, it is our desire to have the Augusta-Richmond County Commission abolish the original charter, but yet continue its successful relationship with the new Augusta- Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Incorporated. We plan, with this increased private funding, to help pay for much needed cleanups of illegal dump sites, the planting of trees, shrubs, as well as the planting of wildflowers along our roadways. We also want to beautify our major thoroughfares coming into the city. We plan on doing this through a program called Gateway Beautification Project. Augusta-Richmond Clean & Beautiful has big plans for our community, but these plans can only be accomplished through the continued partnerships of business, industry, government, and neighborhoods. We look forward to 1997 as a very successful year working in partnership with the Augusta-Richmond County Commission and its citizens. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Black. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the report as information and refer to the County Attorney to look at as far as abolishing the old commission and reestablishing our relationship with the new. That's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The Metro Chamber of Commerce, reference to the Metro Augusta Vision Draft. Mr. Serotta? MR. DANIEL: Actually, Mr. Serotta is handing out the Visions. I am Warren Daniel, I'm co-chair with him of the Metro Augusta Vision Task Force, which is -- in explanation to you, is -- or was and continues to be 145 community leaders who have addressed areas of education, qualify of life, infrastructure, economic development, government, and private leadership as it has to do with a vision for this metro area. What we are asking is that you consider endorsing the Vision as an entity underneath the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Mr. Wall and I worked on a resolution today. Is that in their books? MR. WALL: Yeah -- well, it was faxed to everyone earlier today. MR. DANIEL: Okay. It so reads: Whereas it is the desire of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission to endorse the Metro Augusta Vision as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, now therefore be it resolved by the Augusta-Richmond County Commis-sion that the Augusta-Richmond County Commission will at a future date take the steps necessary to implement the specific elements of the Metro Augusta Vision under its jurisdiction and control and support the efforts to influence other members of the community to implement the strategies set forth in the Vision. This resolution shall be recorded on the minutes of the Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be put on there, and I hope that my fellow Commissioners will concur. And Mr. Wall and Mr. Daniel has worked on the resolution, and I would hope that we would move Item 82 up and I'd move that this be received unanimously and that we --and the other part of it was that when the new Administrator come along, that he be handed this document so that we can go forward with it. That's in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. [Item 82: Consider approval of Resolution endorsing The Metro Augusta Vision.] MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I certainly support the Vision statement. I enjoyed the morning a couple of weeks ago or several weeks ago over at the Sheraton and all the presenters. I think it's a progressive document that will move us into the 21st century. I certainly like the --I guess it's ITER, the experi-mental reactor that we're talking about, international reactor for SRS, and I'm going to support that initiative wholeheartedly, what we're talking about doing in education, et cetera. I think there is something in this Vision for everyone, but I would hope that we can also, as we go along, amend this Vision because there is possibly some additional input will come along as we have these public hearings, et cetera. And those are my comments. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And that's a good comment, Mr. Mayor, and if you want to put that as a part of the motion, I'll accept it. I think that's a good point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. DANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Thank y'all. Next item, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The next item is Item 30. A New Application: A request by Young Han for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Augusta Super Market located at 2117 Milledgeville Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the petitioner present? Do we have any objectors? MR. TODD: Let's have the objectors, Mr. Mayor, to hold up their hand, because I think we have some. MAYOR SCONYERS: Will all the objectors to Item 30 please raise your hand. [THE OBJECTORS RAISE THEIR HANDS.] REV. JOHNSON: You've got about 20 out in the hall, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Twenty more in the hall? Okay. MR. MEYER: Some over here in this committee room, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, this item went before the committee last committee meeting with no action taken and was to be brought before the full Commission today for the application. This location had a license denied February the 14th, which I have copies of the minutes from that meeting. And that denial was appealed on April the 11th and the denial was upheld at the appeal, and this is further action at the same location. And the department's position is this is a new application, will be handled as a new application, and does not meet the distance requirements from the church. And our position is, to approve this license the ordinance would have to be amended to change the distance license and then we would not be in -- distance requirements, which would then be in conflict with state requirements, so I don't see how we could do this. My position is this license can't be granted as a new license at this location because of the distance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Meyer. MS. HAN: Good evening, everyone, and my name is Young Han and I'm the owner of the Augusta Super Market. I was here last Tuesday with the 25 members of my neighborhood today. Please raise your hand from Augusta Market. Please, everybody, raise your hand. We have a little more than 30/40 people here tonight. I wish I could bring some more people down here to this court- room, but we had a problem with the transportation, as you know, sir. Okay. I'm there for my neighborhood. We been there for 27 years and this store has been carrying beer and wine for 27 years. And I have proof right here, and I could show it to you later, sir. Okay. And this morning we went to the police depart-ment -- this morning and this afternoon. We brought some report on our store which is just showing us -- that shows just theft. All we had, a theft on our store. We had about -- we got the report back in - - 20 years ago, and it shows on this report, says we just have theft. Okay. We had a incident before about five or six years ago. This man -- two men killed in our parking lot. Okay. This man is not even belong to our neighborhood. We have a witness here, she is the aunt, which she came here and she could speak out for us for that incident. Okay. Personally I really like to know from Mr. Todd -- Moses, I really want to know why are you coming so strongly against us for -- especially our store? Okay. I know you are one of the member of your church, but your church is way -- about 1,007 feet from our store, and the package store right next to your church, 307 feet from your church, and you never give them any hard time as you guys give us. I would like to know why. Please, I want you to tell us why. Okay. And one more thing I really like to know from Mr. Johnson, Andrew Johnson, from my neighborhood. As you been there for a long, long time, I want you to tell us, on my neighborhood, what have we done to our neighborhood? If you really care for my neighborhood, I really like to know in this audience -- this place. Okay. We are there for just our neighborhood, and especially -- as you could tell, my neighborhood, they hardly -- I mean, they don't have a car. Most people who come in our store, they need transportation, they need more education, they need a more better job, and they need more kind of basic education to get a better job. That's what I found, I mean, since I been work there for a long, long time. I used to run this place for -- 12 years ago, sir, and then this place failed by health inspection. We had to close down, it was too terrible. I mean, the building was so old. Building by self is 60 years old. And we had to do something, that's why we had to close down just one year to reopen up this store. So I had to spend some lot of money, but as you could tell, I'm not that old, and I've been spending almost 16/14 hours every day for ten years to earn this much money. I spent $120,000 for this store for my neighborhood. And everybody could tell their Commissioner, sir, my store is cleanest store in our neighbor-hood and prettiest store in our neighborhood. We are there for my neighborhood, not for the church members, sir. The church member, they just go their church. I'm sure most of member of your church, Mr. Anderson, they are coming from other town, not our town. As you could tell, our neighbor-hood, look at how they dress up, sir. They are just working people. They just work so hard. I mean, not like your members. Your members are wearing like ties and nice clothes. Look at my neighborhood. Look at my audience, sir. I wish you could do something for my neighborhood. I don't know why you are spending so much time just against us for just not having beer and wine. We are just there for them, not for your members, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Do we have a spokesman for the objectors? Reverend Johnson? REV. JOHNSON: My name is Reverend Andrew Johnson and I've been pastoring in that community for 21 years. I have on a suit, I have on a tie, and most of my church members are here. Our church vans and buses are on the yard, the church yard, not here. They saw a need also to come here. I didn't have to pay them, I didn't have to promise them any meals, but they are here on their own. MS. HAN: Okay. I -- REV. JOHNSON: There is drugs -- excuse me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am, he has the floor. REV. JOHNSON: There's drugs in our community, and we are fighting against drugs, crime, prostitution; we are fighting against what's going on at your place of business. You can go there now, you'll see drug addicts, drug pushers, prostitutes. Four young men have been killed on your property. Even an owner -- former owner has been shot there. That's why we're here. We want to save our community, we want to make it better, and we want this body to know that you can help us make it better. We are working with law enforcement officers now. We are the third eye. We see. And we are here asking you to help us save our community, and you can do it by turning down this request. I've been here three times and every time they reject it, and I hope it will be rejected today. Help us save our community. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Ma'am, just one moment. Did you have one other person? You've got two minutes, then this lady will have two minutes, and then we're going to vote. KIMBERLY: I'm Kimberly, I live at 1132 Tenth Avenue. I'm from the neighborhood. I've been there about 14 years. We're not asking for drugs, we're asking for beer and wine. Okay, I have right here in writing when Mr. Young -- when he went to court. Okay, right here in like writing: it didn't happen in the store, it happened in the store parking lot. It was just two drivers passing by. The altercation happened elsewhere and this led off the street into that store parking lot. Okay, we're asking for beer and wine. We're not asking for the drugs. If he -- I think if the Reverend is going to stop something, he needs to do something about the drugs out there. MS. HAN: If everybody who drive by -- excuse me. If anyone who is in this audience, if you guys drive by Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, everybody tell us, who got more people down there? I mean, Andrew Johnson, you have more people down to your church area and BB. That's the name of the package store. I brought the picture right here, sir. Even this afternoon and this evening right before we left from the store, I saw about 20/30 people was hang out from your church and liquor store. Why don't you make them, you know, stop carrying beer and wine if you really want to stop them to have -- you know, stop crimes or more -- like more -- less crime in our neighborhood? I want you to really do something about the liquor store right next to you. And I'm here this -- tonight, I would really want to know why you never give them such a hard time as you do give us. I do know another thing, sir. You have a lot of time to go out and have a drink with Mrs. [unintelligible]. She's there -- right there with the purple shirt with the black hat on. You have a lot of time to drink with -- [THE AUDIENCE BECOMES BOISTEROUS.] MS. HAN: Okay. You do have -- excuse me, audience. Please calm down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am, we've started picking on people now and your time is up. You've got two minutes. MS. CLARK: My name is Belle Clark, I'm president of the Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association, Incorporation. We come before you again with our plea that we are not in favor of this establishment being granted their beer and alcohol license. We have been down here several times before. We are representatives of our neighborhood association. We are licensed with the State of Georgia. My next-door neighbor on Seventh Avenue was slain on this establishment, along with another young man in -- on Ninth Avenue. This property is very bad taste in our area. We echo and we agree with every word that Reverend Johnson have said this afternoon and we back him 100 percent. The Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association really do not -- we are not in favor of these license. Mr. Commissioners, please accept our petition this afternoon. We request that these license for alcohol be denied today, tomorrow, and forever. Thank you. And will our -- Turpin Hill raise your hand, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. That's it, we're not going to listen to anybody else. Mr. Meyer, do you want to tell us one more time? I think you just told us that it was -- PUBLIC CITIZEN: That's not her neighborhood. She don't live in the neighborhood. That's not her neighborhood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. You told us it was -- did not meet the requirements; is that correct? MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, the alcohol ordinance, Section 1.63, Subparagraph (b), the distance from churches or buildings, and it's a specific method of measuring within the ordinance, is 100 yards. The plat furnished my department by the applicant, prepared by Mr. Bobby G. Price, Registered Engineer, states emphatically the distance at 188 plus or minus feet to Stevens True Holiness Temple Church. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly we're in clear violation of the distance between the church. And I understand if this license had stayed in force like it had up to, you know, the time that it lapsed, that there's nothing that this Commission could do to revoke this license or deny this license unless there was a violation. But this license haven't stayed in force. It was out for approximately 15 months. It was inactive. There is provisions when one is doing renovation on a building and they need an extension on their license. They can come down and get a six months extension. I think we've even given them as long as nine months, and we've given like two and three. I've heard the economical argument that the petitioner has made, but certainly a building could have been renovated or bought or built for $120,000, the square footage, anywhere in this general area and been a safe distance from the church. The petitioner knew the issue as far as the license go and the church go. It seems to me that some believe if someone give permission, then we can come down here and vote and break the procedures or break the county ordinance. I took a oath. It's my intent to stick by that oath. It's a law, it's county ordinance, we shouldn't issue this license based on that, and I'm going to move that we deny the request for the -- from the petitioner, the liquor license at this location, and go with the recommendation of the License and Inspection Department and the Sheriff's Department. And that's in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, what's the next item of business, please? CLERK: The next item is a discussion to reconsider allocation of discretionary points by the Fire Chief. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we consider a vote to rescind the actions of the board -- previous action of the board and go back to the old methodology of the Chief allocating points. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that when we elect our new Fire Chief, whenever that is, that he be given or she be given the discretion of looking at the points. And I'll put that in the form of a motion, that we allow the new Fire Chief to -- MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a substitute motion by Mr. Henry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, are we discussing the substitute motion first or the original motion or both? MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to vote on the substitute motion first, we need to discuss it. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, certainly being a minority I want to do everything possible to enhance the opportunities of minorities, but not by denying opportunity or fair competition for minorities or the majority community. I feel that this effort to reallocate the points as far as the Fire Chief -- that the Fire Chief can give certainly was enhancing -- the motive was to enhance the opportunity for personalities to be promoted instead of percentages of minorities. I cannot support that in the sense that those minorities that could cut the mustard by the old standards, which has been tested by the courts, et cetera, will be denied the opportunity for promotions because we're not dealing with percentages now, at this point we're dealing with personalities, and that there were lists circulated in this community and put forth by a individual that's in the running for the Chief of the Richmond County Fire Department on an agreement with who would be promoted. I think that we are going backwards if we get into politics and political promotions as far as the Fire Department go. We should do it based on fair competition, with seniority, experience, training, education, and the score on a written exam, and not by any other methodology. And that's the reason why I think that we need to go back to the old system that we've operated under, that's been fair, and that most of the men in the fire services support, black and white, that a man make it on his merits and not on political favoritism. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Brigham? Mr. Mays? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I agree exactly what Mr. Todd said, except whoever is the new Chief should be given that same authority. I have no problem with whatever it is, but I say who it is. Whoever it is that gets it should have that and not go back before we get a new Chief. Whether it's today or tomorrow or somebody that's there or whether we go outside, it doesn't matter really, but I'm just saying that I think that we ought to give that person an opportunity to have some say-so into it, not we try to do it here now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Would you have them reread the substitute motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. Would you reread the motion, please? MS. MORAWSKI: The substitute motion was to give the new Fire Chief the discretion of looking at the points. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I can agree with Mr. Brigham in one regard. I don't have a bit of problem with the new Chief or the new Administrator reviewing any set of policies, however, I don't think we have to vote on that here today. We can ask him to do that as a Commissioner, ask him to review any policy, procedure, and bring his recommendation before the Commission. I think what we're trying to do here is we're trying to -- and I would encourage my colleagues to vote the substitute motion down, but vote for the original motion. I think we made a mistake previously when we went to the new allocation of points. I think we should -- these men, as they are hired, as they are promoted, should be based -- their qualifications should be on merit. I think giving the Chief increased points just allows for more -- the opportunity for more politics or favoritism, and I think these individuals should be judged by what they can do, what they know, their commitment to the county as employees. And I would encourage my colleagues to reverse the decision we made before, but what we need to do, I think, is vote down the substitute motion and vote for the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to -- since this issue is coming up and I think that there are a number of promotions that are on the table right now, I'd like to hear from the Chief, if that's in order, as to whether or not reverting back to the old system -- what effect it's going to have on going ahead and filling positions that I understand you already have available. CHIEF MADDOX: I think you're going to have to use the new system to go ahead or postpone the examination, which is scheduled for Friday. And one thing about the other system and changing it was the longevity given 15 points. That was certainly unfair to somebody that's been on the Fire Department five years and doing a good job instead of somebody that's been on there 20 years that's just hanging on. He'd always have that 10 point advantage. But that's up to the Commission. But we're advertising. We're supposed to have an examination -- written examination on Friday and go from there, so you would have to cancel that altogether if you change it tonight. And I would like to address what Mr. Bridges said as far as this Fire Chief. I got four more days, so I'm not going to be able to give a whole lot of points to anybody. So whatever he wants to do -- he's smiling, but I'll smile with him in four days and tell him the truth about the whole thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we went out and made a decision to change a policy. It was brought before us by a fireman -- a Fire Chief who -- a man who's been in the fire business longer than I've been alive, and I feel like that he made the best call that he could make for the fire service. I know a man that dedicates his life to a cause is not going to do anything to damage that cause or do harm to it, and I urge my colleagues to back the Chief on his move to change the -- well, to support the Chief by not reverting back and let the new Chief come in and make the decisions and the new policy decisions that he wants to make in order to run the new Fire Department after the first of the year. CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, may I add one other thing? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure, Chief. CHIEF MADDOX: Any Chief that would not consider education and longevity on giving his points, I don't think he ought to be the Chief of this department or any department. As far as going into the first of the year, in order to keep this type thing down, I would strongly recommend to this body and the new Chief that you go to the assessment center test. That takes the Chief out of it as far as putting him in and giving points. It's the most fair system and we've been looking at it. We used that on the old city promotions to a certain extent. You call in outside assessors from other departments that are certified, and they give the oral test as well as the written test. And I think your next Chief will probably look at that, but it would take about six months to get that in effect because the University of Georgia has to come in and make a survey of the Fire Department and the job related factors and so forth and go from there. But a lot of your departments are using that, and basically we used something similar to that under the old Augusta Fire Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I don't think time is the essence here. I think fairness is the essence here. Certainly I think that if we want to implement any type policy, that we can do it in a short notice. The procedure that we had in place was a fair procedure, and I would raise the question: if we wanted to let the new Chief have the input, then why did we change the procedure? This was a procedure that very few of us knew anything about it. It was brought forward by the Chief. I respect the Chief and his position as Chief, and certainly we don't agree on all issues and this is one where we don't agree, respectfully. I think that it's been changed for all the wrong reasons and that we have a fair promotion procedure that we were going by and that we need to revert to that procedure. And certainly I think it would be in the best interest of the fire services, the morale of the men, and the county and taxpayers and citizens of this community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me say first -- and I guess I've been through some probably bad days with both departments in terms of -- and I'm glad to see that both are not where they were. Obviously we are not where we ought to be or where we want to be, but we aren't where we were. And I wouldn't want to sit here, number one, and do anything as an individual Commissioner, first of all, that's illegal, but I do have to question -- and I'm going to say this about -- and this may not sit well with any of my colleagues, but, you know, I don't have a big fondness for either motion that's on the floor to a certain extent if we're going to get into what's fair. Now, I know I'm considered probably maybe the last of the old bleeding heart liberals that y'all got left here, and after November's presidential election I'll wear that label. I guess I'll get spanked for it. But, you know, if some of the things had been that great and that fair, whether it had been -- and I think one department's numbers probably were better than the other ones, but there are some things there that I think -- this may not be the perfect route of changing it, but politics, whether we want to admit it or not, basically to a certain extent shaped both of the departments, now one department, as to where they are now for the most part. So, I mean, we can't deny, you know, the parents of the child. The child is alive, and how it got there, whether it was through a legitimate means or through a illegitimate means, you got a department out there. And I think when you look at some of the things probably in terms of whether or not longevity, whether you're dealing with education, whether it's within fire service or whether it's on the outside of fire service. And I asked this question to some folk recently: what parameters were done to -- for the selection of people, whether they came out of old AFD or whether they were Richmond County's department. Who went to school, who made the decisions, who was sent, who was denied. I mean, we got a whole lot of things we can go into now if we want to get real fair about it, since fairness is what's on the table tonight. You know, I think we can talk about fairness. We can talk about how we got into a department, even then the old county department, because basically the county was probably the prime violator of the old CETA program. That's where a lot of the minorities were hired and placed in, under CETA. And I thank God for the wisdom of the late Bob Daniel that we averted probably a bad community issue, because when CETA ran out we found out that we had a lot of people in there--and I wasn't even a Commissioner then--that were hired under CETA, left under CETA, and folk who were non-minorities came in after some of those that had been there, minorities, for years and were given permanent positions. So, I mean, all that brought this thing to a head now ain't been so fair. So, I mean, you know, I think we're dealing with a strange animal that's on the table, period. And we can say we're being overboard on one had and we can say we're calling reverse discrimination on the other one, but I think the whole thing needs some looking into if we really want to get real fair about it. I'm not for just putting somebody up in any department that shouldn't be promoted, but by the same token, I think you've had some situations where you have had people that have been held back. I watched what happened as a member of old City Council, nothing to do with the Fire Department, but a court- ordered situation with APD for years. I've seen folk who went in and who scored on those tests very, very high that never went anywhere, and it took Anthony Alaimo to promote them. And they wouldn't have ever got promoted if that had not been done. So, I mean, we're not living on no record of having the best track record in the world about what occurred. Now, I don't think we can go back -- wind the clock back and correct everything that's been wrong. I'm not saying to do that. But I think at some point we need to look at where we are, and it ought to be for everybody that when you look around you in government, that if folk are doing some of the same work, I don't care what color they are, and if everything looks a certain way at certain levels in any department and doesn't ever change, then either something is wrong with the procedure and the leadership that's there or maybe you got some people that never will cut it, and I don't believe the latter. I think you got folks that are in there that can do it, and I think you probably have had people of all colors that have been victimized within this situation. I voted for it not on any situation of a quick fix of dealing with the Chief. I think the Chief will tell you that one of the first things I questioned in reference to even supporting the points change was on the longevity situation. Because not only do we have majority race firemen that have been in place for a long time, we got some minorities that have been in place for a long time that have never moved up either. I can remember where you got -- the second one that was hired on Augusta Fire Depart-ment. Very long length of service that's there. And what my main motive was, that we would not take the written test and take it lightly, but that probably we still would use it as a majority ratio figure in there to deal with it 60/65 percent. And I have no problem with figuring in where longevity will have a balance. I do say this as it relates to the Chief -- or any Chief, not necessarily William Maddox but whoever it might be. It's strange that every department in this county, whether it's headed up by an elected official or an appointed person, they basically make the decisions on who's going to be hired anyway by themselves. Regardless of what kind of education the applicant might have, where they're coming from, they hire them. They promote them; half the time they fire them with any disregard. If they ain't got a good case when they come before us, they don't win it. You've got two things that were ordered by the consolidation bill, both of them came in public safety: law enforcement and fire. You've got one where you've got absolute control. I ain't sitting here arguing about that. But I think if you've got one where you've got one with 20 percent of some leverage in there, or whatever figure you wind up with, it's still different from 100 percent of where it is in a whole lot of areas. And that's where I based my reasoning, not of any quick fix thing to do anybody wrong. Because I don't think you can get through any type of situation if you're going to plan it, whether it's going to meet Justice Department muster or whatever you're putting together. I think that's a divisive tool. I think it doesn't do us any good to get to that point. But, you know, when I hear the situation in terms of doing something for reverse discrimination, then I've got to say that if that's not a part of my agenda -- which it's not. My agenda is basically to be fair, and I don't think I had any unfair intentions of where we were. I personally would rather see a formula that maybe that was not 80/20, that possibly would be 60/20 and with a combination of those other 20 points in there that did not base on the written test, that maybe would be a combination of longevity and of education. But when we finally do it, I would like to see some guidelines for the future that people when they ask to further their education, that there be a guideline in there that those people are sent, that they are not denied, that there's not a picking system, some folk go, some folk don't go, whether it's dealing with fire service or whether it's dealing with any other type of education. And that's where I stand on it. You know, I think we don't need to really tear this department apart to get something done in here. And I'm almost at the point that if you can survive without promoting anybody this week, I'd be for it. But I think you're going to have to have some changes, because I don't think when you get out there and look at what you've got, where they came from and what the -- when you look at the makeup of that department, where the top levels are, what those numbers are, and for the length of time that we were supposed to be working and living in an integrated situation, then it doesn't look too good. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I almost forgot what I was going to say. Chief, I think what I wanted to ask you was this: I understood you to say that the examinations were scheduled for Friday? CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir, that's the written examination. I don't have anything to do with that. That's done by the Human Resources. MR. KUHLKE: All right. But if we reverted back to the point system that we previously had, that should not delay any -- it should not delay you in any way from the standpoint of going ahead with promotions after the exam - -the results of the exams are in, would it? CHIEF MADDOX: That would be up to the Commission decision, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. KUHLKE: No, sir, I'm asking you would that have -- what delays would be -- if we went back to the old point system and we can still have the exams Friday, is that going to cause any delay in filling the positions that you need to fill? CHIEF MADDOX: It would cause a certain delay, because then the supervisors that's under that particular Chief and so forth, he has to make an evaluation, too. He gets five points. That would take at least -- MR. KUHLKE: Can that not be done, you know, during the same period of time that you go through with the -- CHIEF MADDOX: We could try it. But you've got to remember, these people only work every third day, and it's hard even to train them under those situations. But I didn't create that, that's the way it is. I can try it. Whatever the Commission wants me to do, I'll be glad to try it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the Chief made one point that I'd like to respond to, and that was that any chief--and I'm sure he would--would consider education, longevity, and those types of things when he's promoting someone or considering the evaluation. And, you know, my thinking on that is, since that's going to be done anyway by any chief, what's the problem with having those things listed down with a set of points out there so the guy taking the test can know where he stands and where he's coming from as far as that evaluation goes? So if these chiefs are going to do that anyway, you know, what's the problem with putting it down in writing and letting the man know where he stands? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, do y'all want the motion read? Do you want to read the substitute motion back so everybody knows exactly what they're voting on, please? CLERK: The substitute motion, made by Mr. Henry Brigham and seconded by Mr. J.B. Powell, giving the new Chief the -- be given the revised discretionary points. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, MAYS, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 4-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we go back to the original motion, which was to reconsider the -- CLERK: To rescind the action of the board on October 15th, made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: So it stays like it is. Next item, please? CLERK: The next item, the Planning Commission recommends that you could take as a consent Item 2 -- Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10? CLERK: Yes, sir. [Item 1: Z-96-89 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sydney Carter, on behalf of Delta House, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a public parking area as provided for in Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Laney-Walker Boulevard and Phillips Street (1315 Laney-Walker Boulevard). Item 2: Z-96-90 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Minister Archie E. Waltower requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a mission as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 12th Street and Miller Street (916 & 922 12th Street). Item 5: Z-96-93 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, "That at such time as the professional use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to R-1C (One-family Residence)", a petition from Benjamin Allen, on behalf of Vernestine A. Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone P- 1 (Professional) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Laney-Walker Boulevard, 240.0 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Mill Street and Laney-Walker Boulevard (1328 Laney-Walker Boulevard). Item 6: Z-96-94 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Trent Whisenhunt, on behalf of Gene Vintson and Trent Whisenhunt, requesting a revision of an approved development plan for Colony Place Subdivision, Phase II, per Section 13-12 of the Comprehen-sive Zoning Ordinance, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Kendal Court (private), 383 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Gasmere Drive (private) and Kendal Court (Lot 40 of Colony Place Subdivision, Phase II). Item 7: Z-96-95 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mary R. Horton, on behalf of Marion L. Rourke and Mary R. Horton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Alexander Drive, 1449 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Alexander Drive (1069 Alexander Drive). Item 10: Z-96-98 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lee Bruker, on behalf of Judson C. Thornton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1D (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Alexander Drive, 849 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Alexander Drive (1087 Alexander Drive).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is there any objectors to any of these? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10? None noted. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 3, please? CLERK: Item 3 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from David Lucas requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an automobile paint and body shop in a B-2 (General Business) Zone as permitted in Section 22-2(b) of the Comprehen-sive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast corner of the northern intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Byrd Road (3666 Peach Orchard Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: We had some objectors to this. It's not consistent with the land use in the surrounding area, and we recommend it be denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Lucas? He's not here? What's your pleasure, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny this petition. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess this would be for Mr. Patty. Have we dealt with this location or was that adjacent or across the street? MR. PATTY: It was this one. It was -- the ordinance says that after six months they can come back for a different request, and it's six months and some days after that, so that's why we're here? MR. TODD: Thank you. That's the clarification I need. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to concur, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 4: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bernard S. Dunstan, Jr., on behalf of Plantation Acres, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) and approve plan for the expansion of Plantation Acres Mobile Home Park per section 27-2, on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Thornhill Drive, 335 feet southwest of the northwest corner of Karleen Road and Thornhill Drive. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell -- MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Yeah. The reason I asked you to pull this one out separately is at the Planning Commission meeting when I made the recommendation to approve it, I failed to read the two conditions that the staff recommended. And I've talked to the petitioner about this. He's in agreement with it. And those conditions would be that there would be no access to this property from Thornhill Drive, which is in a subdivision near Sand Ridge; and, two, that the rear yard provisions of the Augusta-Richmond County tree ordinance be applied to the east property line of the subject tract. The petitioner is in agreement with that. And they are not here; they left. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is to Mr. Patty. Is this in accordance with the land use for this location? MR. PATTY: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. MR. TODD: Per the Comprehensive Zoning? MR. PATTY: Yes. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8? CLERK: Item 8: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Charles D. Walker, on behalf of Robert E. Walker, Sr. and Ann B. Walker, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone A (Agriculture) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Richmond Hill Road, 142 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Marvin Place and Richmond Hill Road (3103 Richmond Hill Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, do you want to tell us about this? MR. PATTY: Yeah. The petitioner's got some horses in here. I believe it's 11. It's basically in his back yard, 1.49 acres. They've been there for a good while. I believe what precipitated this zoning action is the Health Department, for whatever reason -- we understand that there were complaints, but I don't know who complained or how broad the complaint was. In fact, there was nobody at our meeting complaining or objecting. But nevertheless, he's got 11 horses back there, and the Health Department -- their rules say that if the property is zoned agricultural, then the number of horses you can have is determined by the number of square feet per animal, but if it's in a residential zone, then you can have only five horses per tract or per lot, regardless of how large the lot is, so they referred it to us. Actually, they cited him. He sought to solve the problem by the rezoning rather than getting rid of some of the horses. We looked at it, it's spot zoning, there's no other agricultural zoning in that area, so we recommend it be denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a motion that we deny this one. I think that it's setting bad precedence that we relax zonings after there is complaints in reference a petitioner not being in compliance, and that's -- I'm going to go out on a limb and make a motion that we concur with the Planning and Zoning. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, if I may, you do have the petitioner here. MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to ask him. Mr. Todd got ahead of me a little bit. Yes, sir? MR. WALKER: My name is David Walker and I represent Mr. and Mrs. R.A. Walker, Sr. We've had them horses there for some 15 years, and the land they're on is about two and a half acres, maybe right around two acres, and the only complaints that have been filed is the ones for the rats coming out of the sewers up and down Richmond Hill Road. Now, I might understand my neighbors thinking it might come from the horses, but I don't believe that. Now, the land is landlocked. I cannot do nothing else with the land. I cannot build no houses on it or nothing. So the family decided to put horses back there as pets, and they've been back there some 15 years. Now, in compliance with the Board of Health under R-1A -- I didn't understand why that land would be zoned R-1A if it was landlocked. Now, I would plead with the board to give me the agricultural zoning so I can be in compliance with the Board of Health. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I guess this is to Mr. Patty. Mr. Patty, what -- how many acres are we talking about here and what borders his property? What's the zoning of what's on the borders of his property? MR. PATTY: I'm going to have to pull the map out to answer that specifically, but generally the road that goes back to the Green Meadows clubhouse back there is --would be the western -- southern boundary of it; and there would be residential property east of it, residential property fronting Richmond Hill Road to the east of it; and then behind it, I guess, would be the golf course or the Green Meadows property. MR. BRIDGES: So everything around it is residential then basically other than the golf course? MR. PATTY: Well, residential or the golf course. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. How long has this been residential? Was it ever agricultural? MR. PATTY: I'm sure, yeah, at some point it was. The current zoning ordinance was adopted in 1963, and the subdivision adjoining him was probably built in the late '60s. I lived in that area in the early '70s and it was there at that time. So, you know, the residential zoning has been in place for a long time, probably previous to the current zoning ordinance. MR. BRIDGES: What about as far as the comprehensive zoning plan; to make it agricultural, would that out of compliance with that or would that -- MR. PATTY: Of course, the reason the agricultural zoning is addressed in the comprehensive plan is because it allows mobile home residential development, and that's in that neighborhood or that neighborhood planning area, and it specifically precludes any additional agricultural zoning. As a matter of fact, it states that existing agricultural zoning should be reconsidered. MR. BRIDGES: It states what, now? MR. PATTY: That existing agricultural zoning should be reconsidered. In other words, R-1 zoning should be considered for those areas that are currently zoned agricultural. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask a question. You said there were no objectors at the -- MR. PATTY: No objectors. No, no objectors. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It seems like to me if there was no objectors and that's been there for -- how long you say, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: The horses have been there for exactly 17 years, since 1980. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to make a substitute motion that it be approved. If that was the only reason behind it, I'd like to make a substitute motion that it be approved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Henry Brigham's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Walker, would you agree to take out the -- or to waiver the rights to put a mobile home in there? Would that help solve the problem, George? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. That would be no problem. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I can see us sitting here -- and I would hope that this is being done in good faith where we're headed, but I can see us sitting here, you know, down the road with mobile homes in this area if the gentleman wanted to. And, you know, if it's zoned agricultural, then he pretty much can do anything that you can do on under agricultural zoning. I'd like to be corrected if I'm not correct here, that if he want to put hogs on there, he can put hogs and billy goats and chickens, et cetera, on there. And, you know, we got to be careful about what we do as far as relaxing zoning. We're in a area where we just -- a similar -- you know, close to a area where we just dealt with a issue where we had to revert zoning, and I think that this certainly helps that case when we turn around and rezone agricultural. And those are my comments, and I guess the County Attorney would know more about, you know, what this do to us than anyone else. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't believe that we sat here a year ago and adopted a comprehensive planning ordinance and plan and Mr. Patty stands up there and tells us that the neighborhood doesn't want this and we're going to turn around and reverse ourselves. That doesn't make any sense to me. You know, I think what his -- MR. WALKER: There haven't been any objectors whatsoever. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think that what his problem is can be resolved if the Health Department would either set a number of horses per acre or something like that. I don't think we need to be down here changing the zoning ordinance. MR. WALKER: The Health Department codes go by what Planning and Zoning has told them. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Health Department sets their own codes. MR. WALKER: That's not what they told me. They told me specifically that the Planning and Zoning set their codes, that's what they enforced to me, that's why I'm down here. MR. PATTY: If it's zoned residential he can have five -- up to five horses on the lot, on the one parcel. There were no objectors at our meeting, but there were objectors -- or there were people that objected to the flies and whatever they objected to that called the Health Department, but they did not show up at our meeting. MR. J. BRIGHAM: George, where does the five acres come from? Is that a zoning law or is that a Health Department law? MR. PATTY: That's a Health Department law. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. So they have a Health Department ordinance for that? MR. PATTY: That triggers from our zoning ordinance. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. Based on the type of neighborhood, whether or not you can have horses? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Now, obviously there's some reason that you can only have so many horses for so many square feet from a health standpoint, I would think. MR. PATTY: I can think of some. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would think that his problem is trying to get the Health Department to redo their ordinance and not for us to be changing the zoning. MR. PATTY: That was why we turned it down. We look at the zoning side of it, and the zoning side of it going to agricultural was just a bad move, in my opinion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I seconded the motion simply to get some discussion on it. I don't necessarily know that I'm going to vote for the motion that I seconded. But my problem is turning down a request where there appears to be no objectors visible. And, of course, I agree with what Mr. Brigham is saying also, but it puts us in a right bad shape. MR. PATTY: I didn't tell you to run for that seat. MR. KUHLKE: Huh? You didn't tell me to run for it? MR. PATTY: That's what land use planning is all about. It's trying to make decisions that conform to plans and not looking at specific situations. MR. KUHLKE: Would you reduce your horse population to five? MR. WALKER: Pardon? MR. KUHLKE: Would you reduce your horse population to five? MR. WALKER: To five what? MR. KUHLKE: You've got eight now? MR. WALKER: No, I have 15 altogether. MR. KUHLKE: Fifteen horses on an acre? MR. WALKER: Two acres. And if the Health Department wants to use 200 square foot per horse, I meet that and then some. But under R-1A law, they're trying to get me to separate them on different lots, when I have plenty of room for all of them. And they told me, well, if you can get it zoned agricultural, then it wouldn't be no problem. Now, if I can get either agricultural or a special exemption on R-1A, either way. The horses have been there 17 years, the land is landlocked, and the consideration -- I would hope for all of y'all to vote for this unanimously. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, the issue is whether there is objectors. We had public hearings when we dealt with this comprehensive zoning act or plan, and at those hearings the public had input. And if we live by the comprehensive zoning plan that they approved of in those meetings and gave input in, then it's not a need for the public to run down here every time a issue come up. You know, that's the guidelines. Those are the rules that's set forth. And so I think that argument can be made, too, you know, that I don't think there was anyone at those public hearings when we dealt with Fleming's that said that they wanted to have agriculture in their communities. I don't remember any and I was at that Fleming's hearing for South Richmond. MR. WALKER: Well, that land was purchased by my grandfather in 1927, and at that time it was agricultural. And the land across the expressway is now zoned R-1A since last year, but the year before that it was probably agricultural because it was farm land. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Do you want to reread the substitute motion, please? CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve the zoning petition. To approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: And that was made by Mr. Henry Brigham. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham, and seconded by Mr. Bill Kuhlke. MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw my second, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we don't have a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, which was Mr. Todd's. CLERK: Was to deny the petition. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 10: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lee Bruker, on behalf of Judson C. Thornton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1D (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Alexander Drive, 849 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Alexander Drive (1087 Alexander Drive). MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, didn't we vote on that? Number 9 is the one we're supposed to be on. CLERK: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, it was taken out. My mistake. Well, we need to take Item 1 on the addition agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about Item 9? CLERK: We took that out, didn't we? That was deleted. Item 9 was deleted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. So we're -- CLERK: We're at Item 1 on the addendum agenda. That's a 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, on property located on the south right-of-way of Pepperidge Drive. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: You had asked us to look into the other personal care homes in this area -- or look for other personal care homes in this area and determine whether -- if they exist, whether or not they're legal. And we only located one that's licensed with the Health Department, and that's located at 3435 Linderwood Drive. We believe that there may be others in the neighborhood that are not licensed, they're not -- they have not -- they don't have business licenses. We were not able to locate any specifically. If there are others in the neighborhood and they've got two -- you know, one or two residents, then they legally can be there without zoning. We really didn't know how to approach it other than go door to door and ask if they had -- if they were personal care homes, and that's really all I can tell you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Patty. MR. WARD: Mr. Mayor, there are at least four in that area that Ms. Dixon is aware of. CLERK: Can we have your name for the record, sir? MR. WARD: My name is Richard Ward, I'm an attorney for Ms. Dixon. One of them is located at 2168 Ramblewood Drive, another one is at 3514 Hilltop Drive, yet another is at 3435 Linderwood Drive, in addition to Ms. Dixon's. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we comply with the Planning and Zoning and deny, and in this motion order our enforcement officers to visit the locations of these other illegal personal care homes and bring them in compliance. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to his motion? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Under Finance, Items 11 through 15 were all approved by the Finance Committee on November 11th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Bonner, wasn't that 11 through 16? CLERK: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. 11 through 16. [Item 11: Consider approval of recommendation from the Tax Assessors regarding refund for Picture Show #4593; Pines Associ-ates I; In the Pines II; John L. Harley and Benton Express, Inc. Item 12: Consider approval of a supplemental agreement with Precision Planning, Inc. for additional design and engineering services related to the Belle Terrace Senior Center. Item 13: Consider approval of University Hospital ambulance billings for reported periods with applicable credits. Item 14: Consider approval of the extension of the existing KMC Franchise Agreement to county-wide. Item 15: Consider approval of a request for waiver of 1996 taxes on properties owned by Whole Life Ministries. Item 16: Consider approval of a request for payment of 1996-97 membership assessment dues from CSRA Regional Development Center.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee would move this as a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges -- I mean, Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question for the Attorney on Item 5. I understand that the percentage there is five percent, everything else we charge is four percent. Is there any conflict or any -- MAYOR SCONYERS: What item, now? MR. BRIDGES: Number 14. I'm sorry, did I say Number 5? I understand that that's five percent franchise fee there and everything else we've done, the electrical, gas, whatever, is four percent. Are we getting into any kind of legal tight spot here with having different percentages or should we be consistent? MR. WALL: There's no problem with it, in my opinion. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess when we go to the League of Cities there is a opportunity to get some additional information on this communication act. And I'm just going to caution us that we can do it, but we're most likely going to find ourselves modifying and charging one fee for franchise rights. And the other concern I have is whether this is going to have a negative impact on the franchise revenue that we anticipate, and I've raised that issue several times. I'm not up on it like I should be. I had the opportunity to attend a ACCG seminar that the National Association of County Officers brought someone in, and I think it's something that we need to be mindful of in that we may need to have to make some adjustments down the road. And that's just my comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] CLERK: Item 17: Overview from the CSRA Regional Development Center on programs and activities. Mr. Maund? MR. MAUND: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Let me pass these out. And while I'm doing that, this has a copy of my remarks in it. It also has some information on the Area Agency on Aging, some information on our loan development corporation, and also some other information regarding the CSRA. The CSRA Regional Development Center is now governed by House Bill 215 or Georgia Law 50-8-30, which says that each city and county in the state of Georgia shall be a member of a regional development center. It also specifies that we do certain types of planning. We serve also as the Area Agency on Aging, the Economic Development District, the Unified Development Council, and we do A95 review under the Bureau of the Budget for circular A95. We operate loan programs sponsored by federal agencies. Last year in Richmond County we funded eight loans for a total of 1.6 million dollars, creating 45 jobs. Some of the information I gave you will show that number to be a little higher, but there were a couple of applications that were approved but did not close. We anticipate approximately the same number of jobs and dollars this year. We also have in our region an area called the Enterprise Community. It's one of the poorest areas in the state of Georgia, and we are the sponsor of a 3 million dollar program to improve this part of the Augusta trade area. We also, as a part of that program, manage a $500,000 micro loan program for the EC area. As the Area Agency on Aging we plan and administer 3 million dollars in aging funds that go into several agencies in the CSRA and Augusta- Richmond County. $972,000 of that money comes into this particular city- county. In the area of historic preservation, we have a responsibility from the state and we provide assistance to those engaged in that activity in this county, Historic Augusta and also the Richmond County Planning Commission. We have some responsibilities in reviewing the Augusta Canal since it was designated by the state as a resource of regional importance. As programs come along there, we have to review those to be sure that they are in keeping with the state plan. As an Economic Development District, this city-county is eligible for a 10 percent bonus in any EDA grants that it applies for, particularly those related to industrial development. We anticipate making a request for those funds sometime during this fiscal year. Last year we used the program to help Augusta Tech to build their manufacturing technology center, or actually to double the size of it. We operate a Geographic Information System for the past -- operated one for the past eight years. We provide some training and innovation and support activity in that area. We've talked to various department heads and various Commissioners about that. We've assisted the Chamber of Commerce and others in providing maps and industrial development activity. We also have a web page that we allow local chambers to get onto; also, city and county governments have that opportunity as well. We also have a program called Chambernet. The 14 Chambers of Commerce that make up the Governor's Development Council in our area, under a program through the Governor's Development Council that we sponsored, now have computer capability and they are connected to us and pretty soon will also be connected to the Internet. We will go online next month with industry, trade, and tourism in their trade department so that we can promote inter-national trade and prospects throughout the world. The future will be tied through this network. We did that one time this past year. We also have worked out a program to provide ortho photo quads. Anybody know what that is? That is a corrected picture, so that when you look at it on a -- if you look at an aerial and you go to it on the ground, it's exactly where you think it is, within three feet. And that will be very useful in planning in the region. And I know that you have some more current maps and you're working on that here in Richmond County, but when you get outside of Richmond I think this will be very useful in doing some of your transportation planning. All of the plans that we have done, including Richmond County's, was done by the Richmond County Planning Commission, and we digitized that. It's available, and all of that will be on this Internet. We have tried to establish our office as an information center because of all the planning work that we've done and the questions we've been asked. And we have an awful lot of inquiries from new people moving into town, small businesses asking for information, and we have prepared a large number of maps using our GIS system to give you a picture of the data that you ask for. In the area of financial reporting, we received a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting the last three years from the Governor's Finance Officers Association. And our financial officer, who is a CPA, is a Certified Financial Manager designated by the Association of Governmental Accountants. He's known as an expert in this area. We serve as a forum for cities and counties to work together on a regional basis, and we provide professional information and assistance to cities and counties on various projects. Any questions? I had five minutes, I hope I didn't go over. If you have any questions of the reading material you've got there, my office number is 737- 1828, my home number is 736-7817. Call me anytime except between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Maund. Do I hear a motion we accept Mr. Maund's report as -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. The question might have been raised, but I guess other than accept it as information, what do we need to do and how may we help you implement what you have planned for us? MR. MAUND: You have Henry Brigham here that's on our board and a member of your group obviously, and we stay in contact with the Mayor on certain projects. There are a couple of projects that we've got floating around that we hope will come up for discussion sometime in the near future. So far, the staff of the county and Commissioners and working with Commissioner Brigham, we've worked that out, and with the Mayor. MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for your report. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Under Administrative Services, Items 18, 19, and 20 were approved by Administrative Services on November the 11th. [Item 18: Consider approval of 1997 Holiday Schedule for employees of Augusta-Richmond County. Item 19: Consider approval of the reorganization plan for the Tax Commissioner's Office pending funding. Item 20: Consider approval to extend the present contract with McLaurin Parking for parking management for the Radisson Parking Deck.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that 18 through 22 be considered as a consent agenda. CLERK: No, sir, 18, 19, and 20. Items 21 and 22 were not in committee. MR. BEARD: Okay. 18 through 20 then. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 21, please? CLERK: Item 21 and 22 are requests for -- consider approval of a list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement Program and to consider approval of the retirement application of Ms. Helen Norris. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I move that those items be approved. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: On these items that -- individuals where they have an effective date of January 1, '97, I would ask that that be amended to December 31, 1996. MR. BEARD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 23 through 29 were all approved by Public Services on November 12th. [Item 23: Consider approval of all 1996 Alcohol Licenses for renewal for 1997 with the exception of The Comedy House. Item 24: Consider approval of Transfer of Application request by Dalton Rendell Lowery to transfer the retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Foodmax located at 2115 Windsor Spring Road. (Formerly in the name of Todd Hartley) Item 25: Consider approval of officiant contracts for the Recreation Department between Augusta-Richmond County and Timothy H. Allen, Shermia Williams, Kisha Luckie, Michael Norton, Michael Pletcher, Joseph Chavous, Barrion Lyons, Travis Givens, Dustin Shinkle, Ronald Lee Yeater III, Chris Baxter, Frank J. Maddox, and Bryan K. Moody. Item 26: Consider approval of bid award of Electrical System Upgrade for Daniel Field Airport to Alrich Electrical Co. Item 27: Consider approval of providing Transit Service to Fort Gordon. Item 28: Consider approval of bid award for Bus Advertising to Ace Advertising. Item 29: Consider approval of a lease agreement between Augusta Aviation Commission and Morris Communication.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items that we handled in committee, which were so listed and read by the Clerk, be approved. The only thing I wanted to ask, we've taken -- I notice in 23 we approved with the exception of. Is that going to be heard today, Mr. Mayor? CLERK: We said at the next meeting. MR. MAYS: It won't be then. Okay. All right. Okay, I'm sorry. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, on the other -- on Items 24 and 25, do we have any objectors? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to Item 24 and 25? None noted. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like the record to note that I voted no for the Sunday sales items on 23. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to note that I abstained on the Still Caribbean Restaurant on Item Number 23. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all get all that? CLERK: Well, Mr. Powell was -- MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, he's -- put him down, too. MR. POWELL: Yeah, for no Sunday sales. That's right. CLERK: No Sunday sales. Okay. Yes, sir, we've got it now. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1, ITEM 23. MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 24 THROUGH 29. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, Item 31: Reconsideration of the denial of the alcohol beverage license application of Mr. Chong Yi, owner of Kim's Pantry, 2502 Lumpkin Road. Disapproved by the Commission September 3rd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor, this license was denied, as stated by your Clerk, and the applicant is now appealing this decision to deny the license. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir? MR. JACKSON: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ben Jackson, I'm here on behalf of Mr. Yi. He is requesting the Commission to reconsider. Quite frankly, he came alone up here several -- well, back in September, and I just feel like the Commission needs to know a little more information about him. Basically, he had his license to sell wine and beer revoked in April of 1994, so it's been revoked for two and a half years. He moved here from Korea in 1988. I don't know if the Commission recalls him speaking, but quite frankly, Mr. Madison Woo has to help me understand a lot of things that he says. I don't think he understood what happened that day or, really, a lot of things that are going on today. He purchased this business, I believe, in 1991 -- in 1991. It was revoked because he had sold to minors. As I said, it has been revoked for two and a half years. He is 36 years old. He's owned the business about five and a half years. He is married. He's been married three years. He has a two year old daughter, a one year old daughter, and his wife is currently pregnant. His wife speaks practically no English. She is out running the business right now. It is him running it and it is her running it. It is open seven days a week. It's open from 8:00 in the morning, 8:30 sometimes he says, till 9:30 or 10:00 at night. He tells me that when he lost his wine and beer license it's cost him approximately $3,000 a month, so if you figure that over two and a half years, about $90,000 it's cost him. He basically is here to ask for mercy. He knows what he did was wrong. He came from a different culture, from Korea. He has learned. He is a hard worker, I mean, there's no question about that. And he, quite frankly, tells me that the way his business is now he can't afford to pay anyone else, so only he and his wife can work there. And I just ask the Commission to show some mercy and give him one more chance at trying to run his business. Is there anything you'd like to say, Mr. Yi? Is there something you'd like to say? MR. YI: My name is Chong Yi. Already Mr. Ben Jackson, he's explained to -- I need your so mercy this time. I'm try going out some looking for another job or --and then -- I reflect myself a whole lot. I say what's wrong do I this county. I have no choice now, I need just your mercy this time. If I have trouble, I'm try to best to take care of business, and then -- that's it. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: One other thing he mentioned to me was he would do like the grocery stores in town do and require that everyone show him some identification, if the Commission would see fit to help him. Now Mr. Madison Woo is here on his behalf. MR. WOO: Gentlemen, I ask that you reconsider your decision. This man has been a good friend of mine for several years. He's an honest, hard- working man who's well liked by his customers. And, frankly, without the beer license he is facing the possibility of selling his store and going to work elsewhere. He acknowledges he made mistakes, but that was about two and a half years ago, so we hope that you would reconsider and give him a chance to show that he can abide by the regulations. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Woo. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I guess I'm addressing this to anybody with the Sheriff's Department that's here, or Mr. Jackson, maybe you could answer me. I understand that he sold to minors on three different counts. Was that three different occasions or was that three minors at one time? MR. MEYER: Three different occasions, Mr. Commissioner. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that the law certainly give us the latitude to deny on the grounds of selling to minors or to approve. I think that also that this establishment was put on probation before this license was revoked. And certainly my position is the same as it was previous, that this owner haven't been a good steward to the community. And we all know what happen when our children is sold -- or youth is sold alcohol. Usually when you mix alcohol and gas together, you know, you see these markers up and down the road. But also when we're talking about being a good steward and moral turpitude, this same individual, the petitioner, at the same location, dumped what is estimated to be, you know, maybe a hundred or more gallons of gas in a sewer line that wreaked havoc on a community up and down Lumpkin Road. And I'll agree with his statement that that he don't understand English or speak English that well, because I think I was on the phone that night trying to get someone from the Oriental community that could at least interpret, and they come up with someone at the police department that could interpret for them. But I do understand that the petitioner is bright enough and understand our culture, you know, to try to subterfuge this Commission in attaining a license by doing a transfer of property or allege a transfer of property from his name to another relative's name in less than -- or approximately a year ago or so or maybe a little more, that he allegedly or didn't even suppose to own this business and, you know, it was supposedly sold to another relative. So I'm concerned about two issues here, and one is that he haven't been a good steward, that the license was put on probation--we usually put them on probation before we revoke them--and that it seems that that pattern continue. And I'm going to make a motion that we comply with the recommendations and deny, and that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Turnage, how many -- this was three different occasions over what period of time? MR. TURNAGE: I believe it was like probably three years. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Three years? Once a year for three years or? MR. TURNAGE: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And was he probated each time? MR. TURNAGE: The first time it was verbal, it wasn't a written warning; the second time it was probated by the Commission; and the third time he was - - the license was suspended for six months. MR. MEYER: Let me give you a brief history, please. January the 13th, '93, it was placed on six months probation. April the 13th of '94 it was six months suspension. August of '94 there was an application for a license by a Stanton Beamus, who supposedly bought the business. The request was approved by the Commission, but during the process of background investi-gation and search of information by the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Beamus never opened the business. He would not furnish the source of money or other things required. A license was then issued December the 21st to a Jung-Kok Yi, and that was December the 21st, '94. Then supposedly he sold the business back to this person, who applied for a license July the 19th of '95, and the license was denied, and then has come back for application now and denied again. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I seconded it to get it on for discussion from the standpoint that -- you know, I realize he's got the violations there, but I guess what I'd like to know is that if you've got a clear case -- and maybe I'll direct this, you know, to his representative. Just in, I guess, playing devil's advocate and trying to give the benefit of the doubt, if it's a clear case of a hardship of a language barrier, has your client or friend ever thought from the standpoint of -- particularly with that many violations, now, of dealing with somebody in there? And I realize under the hardship if he can't, you know, generate certain types of income that's going to cause a problem maybe in hiring somebody outside the family. But as a compromise in this situation in there, I don't think he can continue if the language barrier is going to be that bad between he and his wife. And we got a law to uphold. Somewhere in there a medium is going to have to be struck, that if you're going to deal with it on a hardship, I think you're going to have to have some agreement that somebody's going to have to run the place who can understand what's going on in there. MR. JACKSON: I agree, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: And I think it's incumbent upon him or you through him to make that case to this Commission if there's going to be a sympathetic type situation in case of a hardship. And, you know, I can sympathize with anybody having a hardship. But I mean, you can't, you know, from the standpoint -- I guess the best example, you know, I had the federal government to tell me, you know, you can't deal with ignorance of the law, you know. So, I mean, you get to a point of where we got to enforce what's there. But in getting somebody in there, you know, to help him to run it if he was going to be able to generate that type of income. I don't think he can get in there and say, well, I'm not making enough money and then here I am again. This is the fourth or fifth time. And particularly if you end up with a case generating from it from that one in a million chance of vehicular homicide or something of that nature where you do sell it, you know, to an underage child, and we have that responsibility. So I think it would have to be something almost in writing and in a probated state to where you'd have to see a different management level and somebody else in there. MR. JACKSON: And I think he would accept both of those. In fact, what we're talking about, the sales of alcohol goes back a little over two and a half years ago now. I think he has improved in his knowledge and understanding. I think if the Commission would see fit to give him a license, then he would be able to hire someone who could run the place better for him. I think Mr. Woo has been here very helpfully for him during this whole time. I think -- quite frankly, what I see is a very -- I guess called a male dominated culture in Korea where whatever a man wants to do, he can do, and now he has come over and learned that the rules here are more rigid. And, quite frankly, hitting him in the pocketbook for $90,000 has gotten his attention probably more so than just about anything short of going to jail. MR. MAYS: I was saying I was playing devil's advocate in there now, but I mean, you've got a lot people within the Korean community that's running stores and selling alcohol now. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays -- I mean, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, certainly with the number of Oriental businesses in the Fourth District I tried to at least educate myself to some of the problems and concerns that that community have, you know, and fortunately we have four churches there on -- well, with Gordon Highway, I think, and Korean Presbyterian on Barton Chapel, United Methodist Korean on Barton Chapel, and a Pentecostal Church over across from our road. And it's incumbent upon me to try to learn some of their culture, et cetera. And what I've learned, that--you know, and I don't think this is the situation here--is that on counting to age 21 they start at conception. And that, I understand, is not the problem here; that we had clear violations where there wasn't a issue of whether the person was 20 or 21 but, you know, a lot more; that ID in most cases was never even checked; that in most cases I feel that the petitioner knew that they were selling to minors. It wasn't a situation where it was a clerk in the store that done it, you know, that was possibly reprimanded, et cetera. It's a clear-cut violation as far as I can tell or determine, that there was no intent of complying, that it improved the profit margin to sell to minors, and the message that we got to send to individuals that do this, that we're not going to tolerate it. And I don't think that this is the only store where we revoked a license where we haven't reinstated the license. There is others from the majority community, et cetera. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: The next item is on the addendum agenda. Item 2: To ratify the polling of the Commission on the life insurance on November 8th to Provident Life. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would move that we accept the vote that was taken on this particular item. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham -- MR. BEARD: I'll second it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that I have seen that in the -- I would like for the Attorney to read -- I don't know what that -- is this strictly life insurance or does this include the long-term disability? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: The letter is addressed to Mayor Sconyers. This is to authorize the award of the proposal for life insurance by Provident, subject to a contract being approved by the Commission and the County Attorney. And it bears six signatures. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: When I was approached in reference signing -- well, doing a phone poll. You know, I indicated that I thought the proper way to go is to do the signatures versus a phone poll. I think that to ratify this basically -- and I would urge my colleagues to ratify this. My signature is not one of the six signatures on the letter, but I perceive six signatures on the letter -- on a letter to be the will of the Commission and I will certainly honor that and vote in support of the ratification even though my name was not one of the original signatures on the letter. And those are my comments. And I think that if this disability is not -- if we have a overall savings and if this disability -- long-term disability we're speaking of is not going to have a negative impact on our employees--and if it is, I'd like to hear--then I'm certainly going to support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was going to say I did not sign the letter and I have no intention -- no insult to my fellow Commissioners, I realize this is going to pass today, but I think it was the wrong bid, I think it was inappropriate, and I have no intention to ratify it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, under the Public Safety Committee, Item 32 and 33 were approved by the Public Safety Committee on November 12th. Item 32: Consider approval of medical services contract to CMS for Jail, Stockade and RCCI. Item 33: Consider approval of an engineering proposal from W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. regarding the Fire Department Training Facility.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, they were approved and I move approval for the -- ask approval from the entire body. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 34: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 47 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project. MR. POWELL: Move that we approve it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I just raise the question to the Public Engineering Services -- I mean, Engineering Services Committee chairman. Can we do all of the ones that where they come in, you know, at the appraised value at once, and maybe we can take the condemnations separately? And that's just in the line of discussion maybe we could do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, they haven't -- none of them have been approved in Engineering Services and that's why I was trying to take them one at a time. Just in case we had someone that was opposing it here, I was just affording them an opportunity. MR. TODD: Will the chairman of the committee accept a motion to take all of those that come in at appraised value? I think the rest of the Commission understands that we did not have a quorum at -- or you did not have a quorum as chairman because I wasn't there, and maybe we can dispense some time by doing it. MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Todd, I can accept that motion. But, again, I was just trying to give everyone the opportunity in case there was some opposition. MR. TODD: Yes. I'm going to so move -- may I amend that motion or make a motion, a substitute motion if it's necessary, to take all the items that's dealing with acquisition of property where they come in at appraised value or the County Attorney don't have a problem with it in a consent agenda? And that's a motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion, too, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Now, I don't think we ever dispensed with the original motion on Item 34, did we? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: We got into discussion and kind of got ahead of ourselves. Mr. Powell, do you want to withdraw that motion? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Now, do we know which items we're voting on? CLERK: Items 34 through 46. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we ought to let Mr. Wall tell us which ones. MR. WALL: Item Number 34 is an option with $122; Item Number 35, $104; Item Number 36, $100; 37, $110; 38 for $115; 39, $140; Number 40 is $190; 41, $700; Item Number 42 is $250; 43, $625; 44, $100; 45, $140; and 46 for $25. And the appraised value and the option amount are the same on those items. MAYOR SCONYERS: So it's down through Item 46? CLERK: Yes, sir. [Item 34: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 47 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Gynell M. Sapp. Item 35: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 1, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Charles N. Utley. Item 36: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 46, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Leon and Verlee Williams. Item 37: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 234, Tax Map 87-2 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Fred O. Calloway and Willie Mae Calloway. Item 38: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 51, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Mamie Lou Coleman. Item 39: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 160, Tax Map 87-4 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Jeff Holmes. Item 40: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 15, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Charles Kelly. Item 41: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 45, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Andrew Bogan. Item 42: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 162, Tax Map 87-4 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Lizzie Hazel. Item 43: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 233, Tax Map 87-2 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Harvey Davis. Item 44: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 3, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Norma H. Roberts. Item 45: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 159, Tax Map 87-4 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Annie W. Grider. Item 46: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 7, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Everleen E. Jones.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Discussion on Mr. Todd's motion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve down through Item 46, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: At the request of the chairman of the Engineering Services, he'd like to discuss Item 74: Discussion on county maintained unpaved streets. MR. BRIDGES: Mayor Sconyers? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I had this placed in there. My district, the Eighth District, has something like 52 percent of the dirt roads that are on the list as county maintained dirt roads, and quite a few of these roads -- sometimes, you know, I wonder how we got in the business of scraping them. One that I want to bring today is McNutt Road, which is off of Bennock Mill. McNutt Road makes a U on Bennock Mill. It comes off of Bennock Mill, makes a U for about two and a half miles, and comes back out on Bennock Mill. There is not a -- nobody lives on that road. There's no mailboxes there. I've checked with Planning and Zoning, there's no homes there. The same owner owns the property on either side of the road, and I want to make a motion that due to the -- I mean, it serves no public function at all. There is no public benefit to this to continue to maintain this road, and I want to make the motion that we revert ownership of the road back to the original owner. MR. POWELL: I'll second that motion, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I certainly think that there is a procedure for doing this, and that procedure is that you at least hold a public hearing to abandon a road or right-of-way back to the owner, and I would certainly urge my colleagues to -- and this is, I guess, referred to the County Attorney. Is that so? And I'm not saying that I wouldn't have a -- I would have a problem with voting against it -- I mean, for it. I think I can support it, but I want to make sure we go by the proper procedure and the procedure that we followed before in abandoning right-of-ways back to property owners, and that's just my concern. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, you are correct, however, the first step in the process is to declare that there is no public purpose. If that's the decision that is made tonight, then it will have to be advertised, a public hearing will have to be held, and then it will have to be brought back to you for a further resolution. So it's a three-step process, and this is -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'll be glad to support my colleague from the Eighth on that, on getting this first step started. And I want him to know, as I'm so supportive since he's got most of the dirt roads in his district, I got most of the city-owned lots and overgrowth and everything else in my super district, so I want him to be just as sympathetic to me when he understands what I'm talking about, about all the mess that we got when you leave here if you don't hit Gordon Highway going home to the south side. So I can support you wholeheartedly in that, Mr. Bridges, but just be just as sympathetic when I bring up about the trash and rubbish and everything else, and filth, that we need to get rid of in some of the other places, too, so we can take that manpower that ain't scraping that road of yours and I can use it to get some stuff cut down, whether we own it or somebody else owns it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item? CLERK: Mr. Attorney? Item 47. [Item 47: Consider approval of the counteroffer option for easement on Parcel 35, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Annie Pearl Fields.] MR. WALL: Item Number 47 is a counteroffer option. The appraised value was $1,354.50. The counteroffer option is $2,446.50. The reason for the increase is the underestimation of the cost to cure the -- from the -- well, it's not in here, but it was the cost to cure on the septic tank that was formerly there. I recommend approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion, please? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 48, please? [Item 48: Consider approval of a Deed of Dedication/ Easement for the sanitary sewer and water systems which have been installed in the St. Barts Subdivision.] MR. WALL: Item Number 48 is a standard deed of dedication of a sanitary water and sewer line, and recommend approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, the next item, Number 49, it's necessary to request condemnation in order to clear title, and recommend you give us authorization for condemnation. [Item 49: Consider condemnation of Parcel 44, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Harriett and Solomon Dunbar.] MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. WALL: And Item Number 50, likewise, is to authorize condemnation in order to clear title. [Item 50: Consider condemnation of Parcels 36 & 37, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Richard Dunbar.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd [sic]. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand --excuse me, Mr. Brigham. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 51? [Item 51: Consider approval of condemnation of Parcel 196, Tax Map 87-2 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Elenora Davis.] MR. WALL: That is a request to authorize condemnation. The property owner has refused to grant an option and is opposed to the project. We ask for authorization. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 52? [Item 52: Consider approval of condemnation of Parcel 50, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Margie G. Brooks.] MR. WALL: Item Number 52, likewise, the property owner has refused to grant the easement, and ask for authorization to condemn. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 53? [Item 53: Consider approval of option for easement of Parcel 102, Tax Map 32-2 of the Council Drive and Donald Road Improvement Project which is owned by Nina B. Inman.] MR. WALL: Item Number 53 is to approve an option, and there's a correction which y'all approved earlier. The option amount and the appraised value are $3,960, and ask for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Need a motion, gentlemen. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. I need to know, Mr. Mayor, from the County Attorney what justify the option and what percentages. MR. WALL: The appraised value and the option amount are the same, $3,960. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 54? [Item 54: Consider approval of authorizing the Attorney to proceed with a survey and condemnation of access through property adjoining Flagler Road.] MR. WALL: Item Number 54 relates to a group that came here from the Buckhead Subdivision earlier this year, and it also is some litigation that we've been involved in, and what I am requesting is that we be granted the authority to move ahead with a survey and the condemnation of access through property on Flagler Road. Now, Flagler Road -- this would not be in the subdivision, it would be between the railroad and the Belair Estates Sub-division. This would grant access across the property to basically two borrow pits. One of them would be the borrow pit that is currently being used by Force Trucking. With this access, the trucks could go out --rather than through the Buckhead Subdivision, could cross the Georgia Vitrified property and exit out onto Flagler Road, across the railroad track, be on the Gordon Highway, and would not create traffic through the subdivision. At such time as the Belair extension is constructed and if it is necessary, then there is a second borrow pit that is currently being accessed somewhat through the subdivision. This would provide an avenue for them to exit out without going through Belair Estates. This is the only solution that I have been able to come up with to get the dump trucks out of the residential neighborhood, and I'm asking for approval to proceed with that project. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: You know, I guess we've discussed this one, and this has been a thorn in Mr. Zetterberg's side and I realize that. But I'm concerned that when we're removing a problem, you know, whether we're creating a bigger problem, you know, from one neighborhood to another. And it seems to me that it would be incumbent upon us, and we may have already done this, I don't know, to talk to the community association president for Belair Estates and to --if we need to have some type of courtesy hearing, public hearing, so we can have some input and everybody know what direction we're moving and why. So -- and I'll raise that in the form of a question. MR. WALL: There has not been any public hearing, there's not been any contact with the Belair Estates. However, the thing that I want to emphasize is, the piece of property as you cross the railroad track, the piece of property immediately to the right before you get into the subdivision, it would be through that piece of property. And there are no houses that would be impacted by this. The probable route that would go through there is basically through the middle of an eight-acre tract of land, which would be before you got to the Belair Estate Subdivision itself. And we could put signs up. There are currently signs up in Belair Estates to prevent the trucks from turning right as they went out going into the Belair Estates. They would have to turn left to go out, cross the railroad tracks, and come back out on the Gordon Highway. MR. TODD: Yes. Perhaps with those stipulations there I could support it. As I try to visualize, we're turning and going back -- is that Powell Road? MR. WALL: I'm not -- is it Powell? Yes. MR. TODD: Okay. I possibly could support this, but I think that certainly we're going to -- I don't know what the ordinance requirements are, but certainly we need those Trucks Entering Road because a lot of the individuals other than live in Belair Estates that's going from Fort Gordon to west Richmond County use that road and we're going to create somewhat of a problem as far as a negative impact as far as traffic go, even though it may not be going through the neighborhood itself. And I'd just like consideration to be given to that and to make sure that we have those signs where they set them out when they're using that entrance or right-of-way into the road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg, then Mr. Beard. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to hear from Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, and to the Attorney, I think what he may not know is that that land outside of the signs of the Belair Hills Estates belong to property owners. He would have to go beyond -- south beyond to the railroad tracks to get out of that area. And in the same vein that Mr. Todd spoke about, you're creating a problem for Flagler Road. You may be minimizing the problem for another neighborhood, but you're also creating a problem for the Belair Hills Estates there in that when those trucks -- and they do come through that area, Flagler Road, at certain times, and I don't see how you're going to keep them from going up. Although those signs are posted, the people in that neighborhood are still complaining about those trucks going up Flagler Road and there are plenty of signs there saying don't go up there. And I know the Sheriff doesn't have that type of monitoring device that they can stay out there at all times and monitor those trucks. I think that we're going to have to find another solution to that, and maybe in that area going into Powell Road and then exiting to the Gordon Highway, and they may have to go as we go across the railroad tracks there from that subdivision. But I think you're going to create another problem here and you're going to have another neighborhood down here seeking the same type of assistance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, do you want to say something? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I had this action moved onto the agenda because of the intolerable situation occurring in Buckhead right now. I certainly don't want to cause a problem for the Belair Estates property, and maybe I might be remiss in not understanding what the access was going to be. We need to take a look at it, we need to solve this problem. We don't need to impact another community with the terrible problem that Buckhead has right now, and I would certainly like to enter into discussion with the County Attorney and with the Engineer to see if there is possibly another solution here. But I would have a hard time supporting anything that would impinge on the Belair Hills Estate area, but I understand the problem the County Attorney has got. But we may be -- we're really in sort of a check situation right now, and it's a terrible situation for Buckhead. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I was very cognizant of the fact that we did not want to impact the Belair Estates Subdivision. I mean, they have been down themselves because of truck traffic. We have enforced the county ordinances out there to keep the truck traffic out of that area. I met with Mr. Murphy, we reviewed the tax maps and the property; Mr. Murphy went out there and looked at the property itself. As I recall, we talked about trying to cross the railroad track itself, but you've got to get consent from the railroad to have a crossing. They simply -- my experience with them is that they're not going to grant you another crossing. I don't think that that is a realistic possibility. This -- rather than lining up with what I call a -- what's been referred to as a paper street, which is a street that was part of Belair that has never been developed, we've actually moved the street further down, or the proposed cut further down toward the railroad tracks. I think that conceivably it actually might benefit the Belair Estates in the sense that the trucks that are currently exiting out of that pit that are going through, they would then have an access down on -- closer to Powell Road in order to exit out, and conceivably it might even help that situation. But I am like you, I mean, I don't want to move a problem from neighborhood to another, but this frankly is the only solution that I could figure out. [MR. BRIDGES EXITS THE MEETING.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'm going to go out on a limb and make a motion that we approve this with the contingency that the County Attorney meet with the president of the Belair Estates Neighbor-hood Association, and if there is a problem, that he work it out or bring it back to us. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I can understand the dilemma that we're in, and I think that everybody have good intent and is operating in good faith. We just don't want to transfer a problem from one community to another. And it may be if we're planning with Belair Estates and with the other subdivision--and I know we're planning with the other subdivision--that everybody may buy into it and we have a win-win situation. So that's basically the purpose of the motion, and hopefully my colleagues can support it. And I'm sure that if it's not suitable to Belair Estates we're going to know about it and we're going to know about it in short order, whether it's this motion or whether it's a motion to approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Well, I just vary from that a little bit on Mr. Todd's motion. I don't think we should approve this, I think we should order the Attorney to meet with the people at Belair prior to -- and then bring it back, and maybe they can help him work out a solution. But why approve this now and then you go back and in a couple more weeks they're going to be down here and we're going through the same problem. Why not work out a solution and then bring it back to us. I would see that as better than possibly going on and approve this, then they're getting on the agenda next -- at the next meeting coming down here. But I think that would facilitate a lot. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I accept that amendment to the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I'll accept it for the second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, with the amendment, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, 55? [Item 55: Consider abandonment of the alley behind Map 45-2, Parcel 344, and Map 45-2, Parcel 342, to Fatsville Enterprises, Inc.] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this involves abandonment of two small pieces that were part of an earlier alley that the city abandoned much earlier. These are -- one piece is completely landlocked by property that's owned by Fatsville Enterprises, the other is sort of in the middle of property that they own and, again, the city had earlier abandoned other portions of that alley, but this has simply never been conveyed. And, again, this is the first of the three- step process to declare that it has no public purpose, to be followed by a public hearing and then brought back. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. I need a second, gentlemen. MR. TODD: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess I need a location. We're talking about Laney-Walker? MR. WALL: Talking about Laney-Walker. The old avenue would enter in off of Chafee Avenue. This is not the section that is -- directly fronts on Chafee Avenue, but there's one property owner between Chafee Avenue and the property that we're talking about. MR. TODD: And this is the first step of the procedure? MR. WALL: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 56, please? [Item 56: Consider approval of acceptance of Deed of Dedication for water main extension on Luke Road.] MR. WALL: Again, this is simply an acceptance of a deed of dedication on a water main extension and recommend approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 59? [Item 59: Consider ratification of an Emergency 6" Water Line Replacement on Koger Street.] MR. WIEDMEIER: Following the second major water main break in several months on Koger Road, we went out for emergency bids. The low bidder was Mabus Construction for $100,504.88, and we're asking your approval for ratification of that contract. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is coming out of renewal and extension funds? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, just on a clarification. Is that on Koger Street or Koger Road? MR. WIEDMEIER: Koger Street. Off of Olive Road, back behind Josey Stadium. MR. MAYS: That's Koger Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yeah. I guess the question I wanted to ask there, because I thought it was a different place, the work that's been done on that creek passage stuff on there, do we anticipate -- because I know we had done some stuff in one percent over in that area. Do we anticipate any further problems with some of that new work going now into the old -- in that passageway or possibly this -- maybe not on Koger Road but in that general area of having some problems? Because we've got some strange mixes throughout that area. We've got some places where you've had some larger sewer work done and it's having to go through some other areas where you've had nothing done, and then it skips over to some areas where you've done something larger in. And I really think we maybe need to take a strong look at that, Mr. Chairman, you know, in that overall area. And I'm going to vote for the motion that's on the floor, but you've just got a maze of stuff in there that's kind of been spot done, and I think consolidation will help take care of that, but you've got some places in there where it jumps -- in that whole area in there where you go from big pipe, little pipe, big pipe, little pipe. So, you know, I think you probably need to do a real close look at that general area over there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume that's a request and I would assume that that's as far as sewerage go, as far as bottlenecking and jumping back up. Is that my understanding of my colleague's concern, that we're talking sewerage? MR. MAYS: Well, I think part of it happened when you had some work done in there. I mean, we've done some in the old county side, I think you had some when the city did some annexing across that side on Olive Road. And you started work in that whole general Kissingbower area back of Josey, Wooten Road, Koger Road, and you've got stuff that's just been, quite frankly, spot done. You might skip over one side of a subdivision and go to huge pipes, then you got little stuff in the middle. And I'm just saying I think while we got some companies maybe that have already done some work in that general area, maybe some of them need to be called back into the picture from the point of some responsibility. Because we spent a bunch of money in there out of two governments back and forth with stuff in that area, and I don't think this is going to be the last you're going to see of where you're going to get some up water jumped in that area. I think we've got to correct this one, but I think you're probably going to see some more. That was my concern in there, not an objection to what we're doing. But when he mentioned where it was, I just think that that's -- that needs to be examined in there. Because we got some folks -- maybe not of any negligence, because they went where they were sent and they went where different governments voted to send them to go. But I think we need to look at that before we start wasting a lot of money and maybe comprehensively get through with that whole area, whether it's in part of that -- and I know George can address that when we get further out, whether you're even going towards Gordon Highway with it. But you've got some strange mixes in there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like, if it's okay with the chair-man of the Engineering Services Committee, to make a request that Mr. Wiedmeier bring us a report back to the committee on that area and that we look at it at a later date in the near future. MR. POWELL: I have no problem with that, Mr. Todd. I was planning on suggesting the same thing, but that's fine. [MR. ZETTERBERG EXITS THE ROOM.] MR. WALL: We don't have a quorum. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I was just going to say we don't have enough people to vote now. [MEETING RECESSES BRIEFLY UNTIL QUORUM IS RE-ESTABLISHED.] MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion -- MR. KUHLKE: What was it? MAYOR SCONYERS: It was to ratify the emergency six-inch water line on Koger Road. MR. POWELL: With the amendment that we do away with the Tenth District. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, 60? [Item 60: Consider ratification of a contract for Water Line and Sewer Force Main work on Columbia Nitrogen Drive Box Culvert Project.] MR. WIEDMEIER: The next item is water and sewer relocation in conjunction with the Public Works project where they're constructing a box culvert on Columbia Nitrogen Drive. We're asking that the Public Works Department's contractor be allowed to do the water and sewer relocation, and the cost is $40,800. MR. POWELL: Move approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 61, please? [Item 61: Consider bid award for Highpointe Trunk Sanitary Sewer.] MR. WIEDMEIER: Item 61 is requesting approval of bid award and execution of the contract for the Highpointe trunk sanitary sewer to the low bidder, Blair Construction, $181,472.35. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please, 62? [Item 62: Consider bid award for cleaning and painting of Georgetown and Belair Road Elevated Water Storage Tanks.] MR. WIEDMEIER: 62 is requesting approval of award and execution of contracts for the cleaning and painting of the Georgetown and Belair Road elevated water storage tanks. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, maybe we want to make an amendment to this motion that we add the new Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government symbol on the side of those tanks, and I'll offer that as an amendment if I can get a second. MR. POWELL: I think that's already in the plan, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: That's in the plan? Okay, great. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 63, please? [Item 63: Consider approval of Change Order No. 1 for Engineering for Greenland Road Elevated Water Storage Tank.] MR. WIEDMEIER: The next item is a change order for the engineering contract. When we had to relocate the site of the Greenland Road elevated tank, the extra engineering work was $3,388.26. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 64, please? [Item 64: Consider approval of various Emergency Water and Sanitary Sewer Road Cut Repairs.] MR. WIEDMEIER: The next item is award of contract to C&G Contractors to pave various water and sewer cuts in the amount of $26,647.92. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 65, please? [Item 65: Consider approval of Hydraulic Network Analysis Report by ZEL Engineers.] MR. WIEDMEIER: 65 was just presentation of the hydraulic analysis report, and I don't guess there's any specific -- CLERK: Receive as information. MR. WIEDMEIER: For information, right. No specific action. MR. POWELL: Move that we receive it as information. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I wonder if Mr. Wiedmeier would take just a few moments and go through this book in detail. MR. POWELL: In 100 words or less. MR. KUHLKE: I'm kidding. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need to -- CLERK: No, Mr. Murphy will address the Public Works items, starting with Item 66. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do we need to take a vote on that last one, Mr. Mayor? CLERK: Yes, we do. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move we accept it as information. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. MURPHY: Item 66 is the creation of a new project. It's a drainage project in what is known the Fish Village Subdivision. You'll remember in September of 1995 these people were flooded pretty severely, and this project is proposed to alleviate that flooding. We ask you to approve this capital project budget total in the amount of $247,800, with an engineering fee to PM&A for $16,800, and the funds will come from Phase II recapture. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? MR. MURPHY: Item Number 67 includes the proposed two signals: one on Old Waynesboro Road, which is two school flashers that needs to be put at Goshen Elementary, and the other is on Barton Chapel Road at Old McDuffie. It'll be a stop-and-go. Both of these signals will be put in by our in-house personnel. Phase II recapture funds in the total amount of $14,300 is recommended. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move to get it on the floor for discussion. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I was thinking, Mr. Murphy, that we were getting somewhat more than a stop-and-go. When you're saying stop-and-go, are we talking about a state approved traffic light or are we -- MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. TODD: Okay. And it's going to be synchronized with the other two lights on that road at Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge to help with the traffic situation? MR. MURPHY: They ultimately will, yes, sir. MR. TODD: Yes. And do we also have traffic lights going in at Glenn Hills Drive and Barton Chapel? MR. MURPHY: The signals will be put in after the construction of the intersection itself. MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I want to commend the Public Works Department. This has been a project that we've been waiting on a long time and it's becoming a reality and we certainly appreciate it. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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. MURPHY: Item Number 68 is another signal project, but it also includes some construction, too. State Route 56 at Phinizy Road has attracted a lot of attention from people that can't get out of Phinizy Road. We anticipate unless we pay attention to the intersection there's probably going to be some bad accidents there. We've talked to the Georgia DOT. They have agreed to permit for us to install a signal there only if we would five lane the throat that comes out of Phinizy Road, and we propose that we do this. A capital project budget in the amount of $240,500, with ZEL doing $9,500 worth of engineering, and this will be Phase II recapture funds. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I don't know whether it's appropriate to discuss this on this issue, but I've received a petition from some citizens that's concerned about Highway 56, Tobacco Road, I believe, and Old Waynesboro Road, and I'll bring that and supply it to the committee chairman at the next committee meeting. I think they are interested in a left-hand turn coming towards town to cut down on accidents. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. MURPHY: Item Number 69 is to -- for a capital project budget amendment using Phase II recapture funds in the amount of $8,184 to do geotechnical work on a proposed dam that is to be constructed for a detention facility on the Crane Creek Project, and we recommend approval. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 70? MR. MURPHY: Bids were opened on October the 30th for Paving Various Roads, Phase V. Four bidders. APAC was low at $1,062,060.25 This was ten percent under our estimate. We recommend approval. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to show that I abstain. I have some property that borders one of those roads, I think. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. MR. MURPHY: Item Number 71 is to approve the deed of dedications and maintenance agreement and road resolution for Woodlake Subdivision, Section III, Phase 2. There are no wetlands involved, and it's been approved and constructed with county standards. MR. POWELL: So move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. MURPHY: Item Number 72 is similar, but for a different subdivision, Amberlake Estates, and it's the same. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. MURPHY: Item Number 73 is for a change order on Louisa Road. You'll remember we added as part of our contract the addition of a water line system that went up to the bridge. This change order now will put the entire project with the availability of water. The total cost of Change Order Number 1 is $34,528, and we recommend approval. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Where is Louisa Road, Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: It's off of U.S. 25, goes over to Mims Road. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 75? CLERK: Item 75: Appointment of Acting Public Works Director. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bridges added this item onto the agenda, and I'd like to make a motion that we table it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Postpone? Table it until later or -- MR. POWELL: Well, we'll postpone it until the next meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell. Who seconded the motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to postpone until the next meeting, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, Item 76 and 77 is consider approval of the called meeting October 25th and the regular meeting minutes of November 5th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 78, please? CLERK: Appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Tax Assessors Board to fill the expired term of Mr. Bert Thomas for a four-year term ending April 24, 2000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate Mr. Bert Thomas for that position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that nominations be closed. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second, if it's necessary. CLERK: Is that a second for Mr. Todd's motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, second for the nomination. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Then we have a motion that the nominations be closed by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of both motions, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. CLERK: Item 79 is the Second Reading of an Ordinance changing the date for the submittal of the budget for calendar year 1997. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 80, please? CLERK: 80: An Ordinance to amend Ordinance Numbers 5868 and 5876 establishing severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta- Richmond County. MR. WALL: This would add Mr. Hayes from Daniel Field. And I know all of you are going to ask me how we overlooked him, and I don't have an answer. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. CLERK: Item 81 is to consider approval of a Resolution declaring that any public meeting of a committee or subcommittee of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission may be called to order by any Commissioner present once a quorum is obtained. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I had this drafted. What my real -- the real intent was that this particular meeting be called on time. I understand the wording is -- was confused. Mr. Wall was out of town at that time. I think we can vote on this, but the real intent is to see if we can provide some order and discipline and get the meeting moving, and when it says five thirty or two o'clock, that we have that meeting started. We have provisions in the rules, I understand. I've reread those, and it gives the authority of the Administrator to call for an election of somebody to represent from the Commission once -- from the quorum to begin the meeting, and I strongly recommend that we comply with the rules that we have established for ourselves. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I -- Mr. Zetterberg, did you make that in the form of a motion or did you not? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I did not. I tried to explain what it was, but I could make a motion that we approve this for commit-tees and subcommittee meetings, but we already have a rule that takes care of it. It's been pointed out to me that our rules do provide a provision for calling the meeting at a certain time. MR. KUHLKE: Is that right, Mr. Attorney? MR. WALL: There is a provision in the rules that y'all have previously adopted calling for the election of a temporary chair in the event of the absence of the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem. And if a quorum is present, the Administrator has the authority to call for the election of a temporary chair who would preside over the meeting until such time as the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem arrives. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second Mr. Zetterberg's motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Zetterberg didn't make a motion. MR. KUHLKE: I thought he did make one. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I will make a motion that we approve the committee and the subcommittee resolution. MR. KUHLKE: And I'll second your motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR SCONYERS: But, gentlemen, you've got a chairman and a vice- chairman. You've only got four members, so if you -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: If you don't have a chairman and a vice-chairman you're not going to have a quorum. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's right, you won't have a quorum. That won't work. Isn't that right, Jim? MR. WALL: That's correct. I mean, you would have to have one of the two of them there in order to have a quorum. Unless you had a -- I mean, that's true insofar as the standing committees. If you had a special committee and you had some different membership, then you could have a situation where the chairman and the vice-chairman would not be there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: On most special committees, whomever show up carry out the business of the special committee, and usually it's the staffers anyway. Occasionally a Commissioner will be on a special committee and will call it to order, but I'm sure that if there was a group of staffers that showed up, that they would conduct the business of that special committee. And that special committee would have to report back to the subcommittee and the subcommittee report back to the full Commission. I fully understand the intent of this was to get us on track as far as a time go and starting in a timely manner the regular meetings, and I also understand that there is provisions to do that. And in cases where the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is here and there is a quorum -- and I believe the legislation states that a quorum is seven individuals and not necessarily six, as I read in the daily paper, and that a majority vote is six to pass any ordinance or resolutions. And I think that there is provisions in the rules also when the Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem is present or the Mayor is present and we don't have a meeting starting on time, that a motion can be made from the floor to suspense -- I mean, start the meeting. So I'm certainly in support of the intent of this resolution. I think that we should start all meetings on time and that we should be here to all meetings, and I apologize for missing the Engineering Services Committee meeting, but I was caught in a situation at work where I could not get away. And I would just urge my colleagues in the future when there is a lag time waiting on certain individuals in order to start a meeting, that someone make a motion if there is a quorum here to let's start the meeting and we vote it up or down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I think to keep this tidy, what I'd like to do is withdraw my Item 81, and if all of the members here -- we all understand what the rule is now, that in the spirit of orderliness and good discipline, that we make a very conscious effort to start the meetings exactly on time. It's in our best interest, it's in the interest of the citizens, and I think that we can do it. And so if we all understand that, I certainly will be willing to lead the charge to make sure that the next meeting is started on time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: No, Mr. Chairman. I was -- I don't know if Mr. Zetterberg was making that in the form of a new motion or if he was withdrawing his original motion. But if he's withdrawing the original motion, then I have no discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my only comment is you've been the only Mayor of this new government, you're the first one, but I've sat where you're sitting now as the next to the last Chairman of the County Commission, and you succeeded me. I'm going to take you a little bit off the hook on that. I think maybe what you ought to do is that --that pendulum kind of swings both ways. And I think Rob is right for bringing that up, but I think what may clear it up -- and I know everybody can get into a business situation or a work situation. Most of the time we've usually called the Clerk of Council, or if it's a time when Ms. Bonner is already set up, and it may be one of the other ladies in there and say, well, Lena's already started that meeting, that so-and-so is en route, I'm five minutes away, or that kind of thing. But I think what will help that, where it doesn't look like you as our executive officer aren't starting, then maybe the way to do that, and it'll just let chips fall where they may, Mr. Mayor, you can come in and hit the gavel and if there's no quorum, nobody here, then we have the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and then take a roll call of who is here then and we deal with it like that. Because, I mean, you know, it's not always the presiding officer. I've been in that position sometimes where you're still waiting on folk to come in and to be there and to hit it and out of courtesy you're waiting till everybody assembles and you get enough folk in here. So sometimes the person in charge is here. Sometimes we may not be here. And I think that's a thing that can swing both ways. And in fairness, if we want to be that strict about it, then just let the Mayor come on in and hit it and we see who's here. Pray, salute the flag, if there ain't but three folks here, then -- you know, set a time limit on it, and if we don't get here by that time, then we call the meeting and take a note of who ain't here and who is here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Item 82? MR. J. BRIGHAM: We already did 82. MAYOR SCONYERS: 83? Ms. Beazley? MS. BEAZLEY: Yes, sir. With the permission of the board and the Mayor, I would like to address the items that Mr. Carstarphen had placed on the agenda and convey his statement to you that he has serious illness in his family and he did not wish to be absent today and he's asked that I address these matters so as not to delay the process because it has been moving steadily along. And on 83 he has Appointments Status, and I'd like to start with the first and address each one of these as he has so indicated today. We had a very lengthy discussion, and I'll try to convey his thoughts. On the status of the Purchasing Director, he said there appears to be some confusion about whether or not it was to remain inside advertisement or to go outside. He placed it on the agenda for the sole purpose of getting some direction from the Commission as to what to do with this particular position and would like your vote on what it is you want done with this position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think the historical records and the -- and if we have a problem, we have a court reporter here. The historical records should clearly state what the action of this Commission was as far as the issue of going outside or staying in-house with the position of the Purchasing Officer. I understand that some make the argument that they feel that we don't have a qualified person in county government. Well, the criteria that we put on basically was that they would have a college degree or they would be grandfather-claused in by virtue of their stature of being a department head. It's clear in my mind what we discussed and what we voted on, but the good thing about the Nixon legacy is that we're taping the meetings. And if we need to play it back, then certainly we can play it back as far as this issue go. And I think that when you are going to put something on the agenda to discuss, then certainly you give me the historical record as far as what you have written, and if that's not enough to convince me, then you have the tape ready to play. The position, as I understand it, was that we would stay in-house with that position and that we would promote one of the three individuals that we were told had a degree. I don't think that we -- you know, some of us may want the individual to have 100 years in Purchasing, but that's not the criteria that we set forth. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MS. BEAZLEY: I think too, Mr. Todd, those records would reflect basically what you have said. That was looked into. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to make another motion then on that, we're just going to live with what we decided. It was a no action, from my understanding, which kept it where it was at. MS. BEAZLEY: That is correct. And I didn't discuss it with Mr. Wall, but I -- MR. WALL: That is correct. I mean, on September the 3rd is when the action was taken insofar as four departments, those being Recreation, Fire, Finance, and Purchasing, and those would be advertised from within. Then there was a motion that failed later that would have -- at a later meeting that would have provided for advertising outside. MS. BEAZLEY: The second appointment was the Housing and Neighborhood Development Director. Mr. Carstarphen says that the recruitment subcommittee has already looked at the candidates. They have come up with the three final candidates, although those names have not been presented to this body. But the recruitment subcommittee is ready to name the top person that they want to recommend for that job or position, and that if you so chose to do that tonight, that the Mayor could possibly name that person. MR. TODD: Mister -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: I thought they had -- I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. TODD: I'll yield to my colleague to my right. MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, that's all right. Go ahead. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I certainly think it's time to start the process of naming and that we should have the committee's recommendation. I regret the fact that the Mayor Pro Tem is sick and the other member have a sickness in his family, and that we be given the -- I think the appropriate place to do this is in an executive session for personnel matters, that we be given the resumes of all three and we be given the nominee that's recommended by the Mayor and the committee. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, that's -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, Mr. Brigham. Go ahead. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, that's basically -- the last part was what I was talking about, Mr. Todd, that normally we don't discuss them out here, just throw it out, but we discuss them and then. Because I think on that first one, seem like to me there was an issue--and I was not on that committee--there was an issue of a missing application somewhere on the Purchasing, and I don't know if that has been cleared up. MS. BEAZLEY: I think that's been cleared up on that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: But I think that the names, in my opinion, Mr. Mayor, we ought to discuss that in -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got a legal session just as soon as we get through all these and we can do that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. MS. BEAZLEY: But that's the status of that. I think the Fire Chief is a moot point and I don't think we need to discuss that. On the Citizen Services & Information Director, Mr. Carstarphen said that he had prepared a draft position description and had distributed that to each member, and that if there were no objections from any of the members, that outside advertisement would proceed immediately. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody have an objection to that? MR. KUHLKE: I move that we direct the Project Manager to proceed with the advertising. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Beazley? MS. BEAZLEY: Yes, sir. On Animal Control Director, he indicated that there was authorization to advertise inside. He felt that that had been completed, and I did not have an opportunity to ask John Etheridge that, but it was possible that you have the candidates and that you may want to present the person for that position. And if that's the case, you can do that in the legal meeting also. On License & Inspection Director, he put this on here -- he said although Mr. Meyer has been appointed and will serve through December the 31st, his sole purpose for putting it on here was to point out that Miller's intent is to retire and he needs some direction as to whether you want to authorize another advertise-ment and whether you want it to be an internal advertisement or go outside. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we go outside with advertisement for License & Inspections. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, that we go outside. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MS. BEAZLEY: On Central Services, he stated that his intent was to -- what his intent was with regard to this position is to get some direction from the Commission. There has been very little discussion about the Central Services Director and some discussion of privatization of some of those areas, and he needed some direction on what to do with Central Services Director. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we post it in-house. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham, that we do it in-house. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me just suggest -- I don't know what Mr. Carstarphen has in mind about some consolidation and so forth, but I would just suggest that maybe before we advertise for this position, that we might get a report back from the Project Manager to see what his ideas are in regards to this particular area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, would you withdraw your motion so that -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is this position on our organization chart? MS. BEAZLEY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I think that we created a position that wasn't necessarily on the organization chart with Trees & Parks, and we transferred part of that responsibility to Recreation as far as cemeteries, et cetera, and I don't see a reason to not move ahead with Central Services. And if we don't know what Central Services is about -- I'm sure Mr. Kuhlke do, he's chairman of the Space Allocation Committee. It's about all the buildings that we own and it's about all the underground tanks and things like that that we have to deal with, and pretty much county properties with the exception of the vehicles, et cetera, and to some extent a recorded record of all the vehicles, et cetera. And so I think this is an important, you know, function and position as far as county government go. This individual or position takes care of all the construction as far as public buildings go, as far as the budgets for the jail project, et cetera. And in my experience in working with this department, that it's an important function for county government. And we've taken some less important functions where we probably should have done some things and we did not. Now we want to take something as important as this, you know, and stall on it, and I'd urge us to go on and approve this and let's start the process. And I think that if we're talking about the Print Shop and whether we're going to still do the Print Shop, the Print Shop is a minute function or part as far as Central Services Director go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Are we making an assumption that we have -- when we're going in-house, that we have already determined that we have adequate applicants for the job within house? MS. BEAZLEY: Are you asking me that? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. I'm asking somebody. That's the process, isn't it? MS. BEAZLEY: That would be the process. MR. ZETTERBERG: And so what we're saying -- is Mr. Carstarphen stating that we have adequate personnel? MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Carstarphen didn't make a recommendation at all. He's asking this body for direction because he's had little or no direction as to what he should do regarding Central Services. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I would have -- if the Project Manager doesn't know, I don't know how I would select somebody to do something that Mr. Carstarphen has no idea what to do with. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I'd point out that the process is for the recruitment committee to review that and then to come back and make a recommendation whether it be in-house or outside. And I don't know whether y'all discussed that. I mean, that's the process, for y'all to review it first. MR. ZETTERBERG: And if that's been done, then I think we can move on Mr. Todd's motion. But if it has not been done, and there doesn't seem to be anybody jumping up and down indicating that it has been done, I think that we should table that particular one. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think certainly when the committee don't act, that we should react, and I think this is the tone and manner that we should react. And certainly there is influences there as far as the committee go, and if the committee haven't had adequate time to act, then I would want to hear that from the representative that's here from the committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: I suppose you're talking about me, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Without getting into personalities, Mr. Mayor, yes, I'm afraid that's you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, what Ms. Beazley said is true. Mr. Carstarphen hasn't got around to Central Services yet, that's why we haven't acted on it. MR. TODD: Well, then it seems that Mr. Carstarphen, Mr. Mayor, needs to go to the committee instead of putting it before this board. So I'll withdraw my motion and would urge Mr. Carstarphen, which we pay some $80,000 a year, to get on the ball as far as doing his job. And he have my deepest regret and sympathy that he have a sickness in this family, and if that's the reason he haven't got to it, then I'll excuse that. But I don't think it should be on the agenda otherwise, on needing directions and not sure what to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess -- and not to violate any of the procedures that we set forth, but I guess I'm asking this probably of Mr. Wall. On the positions where we've decided, I guess for lack of a better word, in-house or out-house, haven't we made that decision on everything that we've done thus far? MS. BEAZLEY: Yes. MR. MAYS: I mean, we've made that decision on which way to go; right? MR. WALL: The Commission has been the one to make the decision. Now, I don't know that you have made the decision -- you obviously have not made the decision on all of the departments. MR. MAYS: Okay. But I guess what I'm asking for clarification, and we've been through so much, has that originated by us to stay in-house on any department or the committee's decision to say first where it wants us to go and we ratify it? It seems like to me we've been making the decision, not on ratification but on a motion vote. MR. WALL: Well, it has been on a motion vote, but it's been on a recommendation from the recruitment committee that it be either in or out. MR. MAYS: So we don't have anything to move on then. MR. WALL: No, sir. If you follow the process, then it should come from the recruitment -- MS. BEAZLEY: Maybe y'all need to pass a motion for it to go to the recruitment committee then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think once Mr. Carstarphen -- you know, once he gets back I don't believe we'll have a problem. Same thing with the Municipal Court Judge, we haven't discussed that. MS. BEAZLEY: That's true. And -- MR. MAYS: I guess the only thing I'd like to say, Mr. Mayor, and I'll be real quick, if in this particular job -- and I don't mind -- Mr. Todd's already withdrawn his motion. I was going to support it if it stayed on the floor. But if we're going to stay with the procedure, which I have no problem with, I would hope -- if what I'm hearing from Ms. Beazley from Mr. Carstarphen, that if he is basing that direction on things that may or may not happen versus privatization or outsourcing within that particular department, I would hope that he would be relying on somebody then that's doing something right now. And I'm not going to take that any further because I think that crosses into personnel lines. But if he's basing that on what we're going to do in the future with privatization through that department, and that is already winding up this year, I would assume that those things are going to be done. Even if it's massively done, it's not going to be done right away. And I think -- you know, I think we can live with that period, Mr. Mayor, and I don't have any problem with you all dealing with that. But I just would hope that if he's that vague on that in that statement -- I know he had to be general in it, but I hope he would do the consulting with the parties that are involved in the current running of that department, particularly if we're talking about some unknowns that may be out there at this point. And that's where I hope y'all would take that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard, did you want to say something? MR. BEARD: I guess it was along the same line that Mr. Mays is talking about. Because it appears to me, and maybe I missed something here, that we made several decisions here as a body on two or three of the others here, and then -- Animal Control and License & Inspections, we made those decisions, and we were just going through the whole thing unless I'm mistaken somewhere along here. And it appears to me that if we made them on those, why not as a body - - if we want to continue that, we should be able to do that on the others here. But now here we're changing -- it's almost like changing the rules here and saying that maybe not, some we can make the decision here, others we have to wait on the committee. And, you know, I don't know how long we're going to wait on the committee. We don't have --we have a committee of one, and that's the Mayor, with Mr. Carstarphen gone and Mr. Handy sick. Are we going to appoint another committee to do this or are we going to wait two or three more weeks until these people get in a position to come back here and do it? So I think we ought to either move on them or do something, but it just is kind of strange here that on certain ones we stop here and others that we move forward on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, we've met on the Housing and Neighborhood Development Director. MR. BEARD: I'm not talking about those; I'm talking about the ones that I mentioned, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've met on Animal Control. MR. BEARD: You've met on -- you've made a decision on that one? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: And License & Inspections? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, no, because that just came up tonight. Ms. Beazley just brought it up. MR. BEARD: That's what I'm saying. But we made a decision on License & Inspections. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. We took that from before when we advertised, so this is a whole new deal now with License & Inspections, and y'all just made a motion to go outside. MR. BEARD: Yeah. MR. TODD: Yes. But, Mr. Mayor, if I'm following the -- excuse me, if I'm following the Attorney's reasoning on it, then that motion was out of order or inappropriate, too, because you guys haven't decided or brought us a recommendation. And my position is -- and, you know, and I hate being the heavy here, but my position is that when the committee is not functioning, it's incumbent upon this body to function. And if there's a reason like illness, and it seems that this is the situation, and this committee may be out of function for some time, then this body should, you know, supersede the committee or whatever and go on and do what needs to be done. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think License & Inspections stands alone in that we've already appointed a director at one point in time. Now we're going to have to come back and appoint another director. Wouldn't that be right, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: My recollection of the -- at the time y'all adopted the procedure, that it was for the initial appointments only. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. WALL: And so, therefore, when the motion was made to go outside -- I mean, conceivably the motion could have been refer it back to the recruitment committee. But the process dealt with the initial appointments only and not any subsequent appointment, and this is a subsequent appointment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. And that would take care of License & Inspections. The rest of them have to come before the committee. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd just like to reiterate one more time, I wouldn't know whether it's go in or go out. MS. BEAZLEY: Why can't you do both, catch them all at one time? MR. ZETTERBERG: I think when you go out, that does not exclude somebody from within from applying. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly we've talked about and we have made a lot of appointments here, and I've argued for some of those appointments, you know, that was, let's say, in the other community or across the aisle and made some of the heaviest arguments for those appointments. And when we've dealt with those appointments we took consideration of the competence as far as the individual when we were making the decision to go out or not. If there was qualified individuals and -- a qualified department head at present and qualified individuals in county government, the criteria was that we would not go out, that we would do it from within. And when you put somebody's job out there if you've got a competent person in the position and qualified individuals in employment, then you're giving that person a vote of no confidence in a sense of the matter. And if we want to get into naming those individuals that I went out on a limb for -- I didn't go out on a limb for, I believe they are well competent, well qualified individuals -- I can name them. And I made those arguments, you know, where it wasn't in maybe my best interest every case to make that argument, but I tried to do what was fair for that department head and for this government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to say something? MR. KUHLKE: I don't think so, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we're down through -- MS. BEAZLEY: We're to Municipal Court, Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Municipal Court. And we've not met on that one, so -- MS. BEAZLEY: You've not met on that one. And his response was that since this is a judge that will report directly to the Mayor and Commission, he wants to know how to proceed to make the appointment permanent -- or the permanent appointment. You can think about that. And then Item 9 was effective dates of appointments. And it seems that we've got a problem because some of our newly appointed department heads have been appointed and the department head that's presently there may be there for a number of weeks, and there is some question as to the effective date of the appointment. And it was Mr. Carstarphen's recommendation that the effective date be January the 1st, 1997, unless the department head leaves prior to that time, then the effective date be the date of the departure of the department head. MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. That makes more sense than anything else he sent down here. MS. BEAZLEY: I did that in his name. MR. TODD: Well, thank you, I'll give you the credit then. MS. BEAZLEY: Well, we did discuss that and there was no effective date, and I realized it when we did that, but we had a lot of discussion and I didn't want to bring that up at the last meeting. We'll go on to Board Appointed -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me ask you one question for clarification. Maybe Mr. Wall can help with this. Everybody we're replacing is an interim department head. Once you appoint a new department head you don't really have a department head, do you? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's right. So the effective date would be the date the person is appointed, wouldn't it? MR. WALL: That would be the date unless you specified otherwise, because once you made that department head -- made that appointment, that then became the permanent department head. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. I just want to make that clear for y'all so you'd -- we'd all know what's going on. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: If we set that stipulation in there, that department head that's sitting there now can remain the interim department head until the effective date, could he not? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. But you don't want to have two department heads in one office, do you? MR. KUHLKE: No. But I'm just saying that if we specify that the interim department head that is in that office now would remain the department head until they leave, in which the new named department head would be in charge, could we not do that just from a clarification standpoint? MS. BEAZLEY: I think that's what the motion was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, help us out, Mr. Wall. That gives us two department heads technically, doesn't it? MR. WALL: The motion that was made back earlier this year to have the interim department heads was until a department head was appointed. Now, on these departments where you've got an existing department head who's planning on retirement but has not yet retired and you go ahead and appoint a new department head, absent some language that would indicate that that was not effective until the first of the year or until that existing interim department head left, then the effect of the appointment would be to make him the permanent department head as of the time that he's appointed unless there is a future date specified. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it would seem to me that the Administrator would write a letter to the existing department head notifying him that at the time that he exit or she exit, that the permanent -- the interim -- that the permanent department head will take the duties and request that they do a soft transition, you know. And I don't see, you know, why we're sitting here discussing this. This is --you know, I've been accused of micro-managing, but, you know, I think this is kind of getting into it and it's mountain out of a mole hill. MS. BEAZLEY: Well, it's causing a problem because you've got two bosses pretty much sitting there, and there's got to be -- there needs to be an effective date. MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. And I think when you appoint a new department head, that person should take charge. Now, the other guy could be an assistant to him until he retires, but I don't think you can have a department head that is not going to be totally in charge. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's a job for the Administrator to do. We have two capable Administrators and they should be able to handle that situation. If not, then maybe we need to sit down and talk about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with putting in an effective date if that's causing a problem, because you do have some people leaving on different dates. You have an effective date, I believe, on an Administrator coming aboard as of December 1 or the first week in December, whatever it might be, and you have some people that are coming aboard on January, and I think if it's just -- I agree with Mr. Todd, that can be, I think, simply determined really by a letter from either you or the Administrator, you know, to have that just as a point of clarification of where they stand. But what I wanted to do before -- I need to ask Mr. Wall something before we move away from this list here. And I realize that the committee has not -- we talked about what the committee had not taken under consideration. I had a question and I wanted to comment for the record, and I guess it's concerning Municipal Court Judge. You all have not gotten and made a decision on that yet. But what I wanted to ask Jim in terms of that gray area -- and I don't know what, Lee, you all were doing on the city side in reference to this particular situation, but you've got an abolishing or abandonment of charter voted on in the old City of Augusta and this consolidated government. But in the current Municipal Court Judge -- and since that came out of old city government, per se, formerly Recorder's Court and now into Municipal Court, was the current judge on a prescribed term of office set aside as some had been? MR. WALL: Frankly, I was not anticipating the question. I don't know the answer to it. MR. MAYS: Okay. And I guess my reason for bringing that up, because when we went through the transition from Judge Jolles into Judge Brown, and there was a set term set to run basically parallel, whether it be with the Mayor or with Council Members, and I don't know what was done -- CLERK: Parallel with the Mayor's term. MR. MAYS: Okay. In terms of the old Mayor's term. Okay. And then that's not here or there, but I guess one thing that that committee needs to do -- and this is not critical of anybody, definitely not of the committee, Mr. Mayor. But what I think needs to happen there, at least in some of y'alls discussion, is that I think there needs to be some clear definitions as to what functions Municipal Court clearly, along with what's parallel in the consolidation bill, is going to do and what's going to be the functions of that court as well as where its clerks and employees fall. Because I see that somewhat as probably one of the biggest drop and starts, maybe close to Texaco last week. I mean, you got folk not knowing where and what they may be doing over in there, from the clerk's standpoint and even from the judge's standpoint. And I think there needs to be some defining that that committee -- and I think there's some things there that y'all can work out privately with all the parties concerned in there. But I think probably where it can move smooth whenever it does come back to this full Commission, I suggest that really it's not so much who is going to be there but what they're going to be doing, and how it's going to be defined with their job will help us out here a whole lot. Because that's one that's really floating out there right now in terms of its responsibility and in terms of what weight, territory, cases, everything else that's going to be handled. And I just wanted to make that for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor -- anything else, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'm through. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. I just wanted to back up a little bit. On December the 1st -- we have two people, in my opinion, could have taken this county and acted as Administrator of it. Unfortunately, they were not elected. We're bringing on a new man on December the 1st, so then we'll have three Administrators. And I think that we are going to have to some place down the line, in all fairness to them -- and I know they want to stay on and they're loyal and do whatever, but I think it's going to be a real cumbersome thing if we don't know just what they are. And, Mr. Wall, I don't know how the legality of that is going to actually set. Because personally -- I mean, I think they know I would like to see all of them stay, but the majority has voted on something else and I just don't know how we're going to be able to handle it. MR. WALL: Well, I think that at the time -- that's something that the Commission obviously has got to decide, and I assume that it would decide with input from the new Administrator as far as what role the former Administrator for Administration and the former Administrator for Operations, what role they are to play and -- during the transition, and I think that that's something that both he and the Commission are going to have to look at. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to comment on two of those. It goes back to the possible time element, and I think we've probably gone through this a couple of times here tonight about when is -- what is going to become effective and -- but I just truly believe that once that a person is elected to that position they should be given that full authority to do that, and I think that we need to pass that back to the committee of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and Mr. Carstarphen to come up with something reasonable with that as to when people are to leave and present that back to the body here so that we can vote it one way or the other. Because I think, as we see here tonight, that is going to bring a lot of confusion, and it has brought, as to when people are leaving, how many in the position, who are the employees going to look to when you got three or four people in a position there, who are they going to, and this will create all kind of chaotic conditions in a workplace. So, you know, I think that we should -- well, I think I'll make that in the form of a motion, that we have the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and -- the committee, that's the committee of Mr. Carstarphen, and those bring us something back here at the next meeting as to when these people will be relieved of their duties and how this would be effective in that. And also in that motion I would like to see on the Municipal Court Judge, that they be entitled to meet with whoever is in authority and see what position that we're going to have on that and what is going to be the activeness of the Municipal Court Judge. I would like to see a recommendation on both of those brought back to the body. MR. POWELL: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion on that motion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I can support the motion, but I'm not going to play the political game. We know that when it come to Municipal Court there are some that's already tried to give the Municipal Court a slow death by bleeding it to death. Cases has been transferred, we refused to act on that, on what the function of Municipal Court was going to be. You know, Municipal Court is hemorrhaging in the sense that it's not given any importance, and I think that we need to make it a important position in this city government or we should ask the legislative delegation to abolish it. But to, you know, delay, play games, and talk around the real issues as far as the courts go, I think it's a disservice to the Municipal Court. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] MS. BEAZLEY: On Board Appointed Directors Status, it appears that Mr. Carstarphen was asked to do some research on the Planning Director position, the Library Director, the Elections Director, and the Chief Appraiser, and it is his recommendation that none of these directors need to be reconfirmed by this body. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: If I can address that issue, because he spoke to me a week or so ago as to these, and to include the Bush Field and the Daniel Field managers. And those six positions are filled by the respective boards. In other words, the Planning Director is selected by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Library Director by the Library Board, Board of Elections by the Board of Elections, the Chief Tax Appraiser by the Board of Tax Assessors, and the Bush Field and the Daniel Field by the respective aviation authorities. And he just wanted something in the record to clarify that so that, you know, it'll put the matter to rest. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. MS. BEAZLEY: Under Consolidation Project Manager Work Program, he indicated that his contract calls for him to do two items that he has not completed, one being the Organizational Strategic Plan. And he was to develop a strategic plan for the community and has indicated that the Chamber of Commerce has already initiated this project. He has talked with the new Administrator, Mr. Oliver, and asked his input on this particular part of his contract, and Mr. Oliver wants Mr. Carstarphen to immediately begin a strategic plan for the organization as an alternative to the strategic plan for the community. And as to the Interim Management Resources for departments impacted by early retirements, basically that was a plan for an efficiency program. He's talked with Mr. Oliver at length, and Mr. Oliver requested that Bill Carstarphen meet with Mr. Dillard and myself and those department heads that have already been appointed to come up with a list of names that they can use in the interim for input on new positions and asked that that be an alternative. And he requests that these two alternative plans be substituted for the two items that are in his contract presently. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Beazley. MS. BEAZLEY: Are y'all going to vote on that or not? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that we have an amendment of the contract? MS. BEAZLEY: It would be an amendment. MR. TODD: And I think that's an appropriate action for the County Attorney, so I'm going to move that the County Attorney amend or draft up and bring back to this board that contract. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MS. BEAZLEY: The last item that he asked me to bring before you was a request that he be authorized to take leave from the 13th of December, and he has discussed this with Mr. Oliver. It's during the Christmas holidays. And that he would come back on January -- the week of January 6th and January the 13th and work with Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Oliver has agreed to this, and that would put him coming back two weeks in January rather than working the last two weeks in December. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when does Mr. Carstarphen's contract end? MAYOR SCONYERS: December 31st. MR. TODD: December 31st? So is that an amendment to a contract also, that he swap out two weeks in December for two weeks in January? And if so, then we need the County Attorney to amend his contract to that effect, and I'm going to put it in the form of a motion that we do that. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we go into executive session to discuss personnel matters and other legal matters. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, considering it's nine o'clock, gentlemen, do y'all want to have a special called meeting to discuss the insurance maybe Thursday afternoon and then we could do all this at one time? MR. TODD: We're talking Thursday evening, Mr. Mayor, or Thursday afternoon? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, give me a time. Five thirty Thursday afternoon? MR. TODD: Five thirty Thursday afternoon, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that suit everybody? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I also would like to make a request that we forward to the Clerk of Commission our legislative agendas and that we discuss them at that time, too, if possible. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I think since -- I mean, if y'all want to stay here, I'll be willing to stay. But we're missing two of the Commissioners for the appointments, and I think we ought to have all the Commissioners. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I agree. But I would like to also discuss legislative -- legislation, and I think that if we're going to have a called meeting, that that would be an appropriate item to add to that agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: What time is good for you, Mr. Todd, Thursday afternoon? MR. TODD: Five thirty is good, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Five thirty Thursday afternoon. Ms. Bonner, will you make the necessary special announcements? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, what will be on the agenda at that time? MAYOR SCONYERS: The benefit package, the insurance, and we're going to name these personnel. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: The people from Foster and Higgins asked that they -- for some lead time and some coordination, and I trust that they will be available Thursday afternoon. I don't know whether -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Can we find out in the morning before Lena sends the message out? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. If not, can y'all do it Friday afternoon? MR. TODD: Friday afternoon is better, Mr. Mayor. Anytime Friday. MR. ZETTERBERG: Not for me. MR. KUHLKE: Not with me. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a commitment on Friday. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let's shoot for Thursday afternoon. Is that okay? I just think when we're making the appointments it'd be better if we had all ten Commissioners here. Any other business, gentlemen? Move we adjourn? MR. POWELL: So move. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 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 19, 1996. _________________________ Clerk of Commission