Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS December 3, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:16 p.m., Tuesday, December 3, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; Randy Oliver, Administrator; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation this afternoon by Dr. Gene R. Swinson, Pastor of the Graceway Church. If you'll remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SWINSON. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move a couple of things up to help relieve some of the crowded condition. We're going to move Item 42 and 43 forward; is that correct, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any deletions or additions? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request for three items to be added to the agenda. Item 1 is a communication from the Housing and Neighborhood Development regarding the 1997 proposed budget; a communication regarding approval of the 1997 Consolidated Plan; we have a request from the Par Four Restaurant for a beer, wine, and liquor license, on-premises consumption. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure gentlemen? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items be added to the agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, is there a absolute necessity to add all three items to this agenda? And I'd like to know why Housing and Urban Development was late with theirs, and I need some additional information on the other. We have an agenda that is about 47 items, and -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, can you answer that, or Mr. Beard? CLERK: Mr. Beard will address the Housing and Neighborhood. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem, Mr. Mayor, with Par Four. MR. BEARD: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Councilman Todd -- I mean, Commissioner Todd, as you know, that the Neighborhood and Housing Development was cut in their budget 53 percent. We had to go and rework the budget, and most of the staff agree with the cuts that we have made. And it's necessary that we get this in before the first of the year, and the only way we can do that, if we address that now at this meeting. Otherwise we may lose all of it, and I'm sure we don't want that, and therefore this is why it was added to the agenda. And you may note that it wasn't late, but it was just one of those things that happened. We just got that information on Wednesday of last week. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I would want some debate over, you know, how we're going to spend 200 -- I mean, 2.5 million dollars approximately and, you know, I'm just not ready to move on this. Maybe we can have some discussion and I'll be willing to add it to the agenda later on at the end of this meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: You know, we can maybe have another called meeting next week and, you know, get it over with if you want to do that, but I don't think most of the Commissioners would want to come back for a called meeting. You approved most of this at the last meeting. The only thing that was added here -- and I'm sure the Director will inform you of the cuts that were involved when this is presented, but I think that it would be to our advantage to get this on the agenda because we are losing money if we don't. But if you could explain to the people how we sit around and going to lose another 2.7 million dollars, well, maybe that'll be fine. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll agree to add it on the agenda at the back end and -- you know, if we want to table this until the back end of the meeting after I've had time to review, then I will, but I don't move on something of this magnitude with the threats that we may lose it all. I'll review the budget and I'll be ready to move on it at the end of the meeting before we leave here today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it's going to come at the end of the meeting anyway; right, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Just a question to Mr. Beard. Later on in the session will you be able to identify where the cuts were made and what they were? MR. BEARD: Mr. Zetterberg, I just informed you that the Director of Housing will inform you of the cuts and where they were and the percentage that was used. But I think this must go on the agenda today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reiterate what Mr. Beard has said, the chairman of that committee. This is something that we're already late on and I see no reason to delay it. If Mr. Todd would like more time, then he has the entire afternoon to review this, but I think we need to go ahead and -- instead of just going back and revisit and revisit whether we can put it on the agenda, let's revisit whether to vote it up or down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, does this take unanimous consent? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We won't have it then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let's vote it up or down. All in favor of adding it to the agenda, raise your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-3. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: It won't be added to the agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't have a problem if I had time to review it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you don't have to explain now, it's already over with. Move forward, Ms. Bonner, please. Item 42. CLERK: Item 42: Consider approval of renaming of Olive Road to Essie McIntyre Boulevard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? Is Mr. Patty here? Do we have a spokesperson for the folks who wanted to rename it? Mr. McIntyre? MR. McINTYRE: Mr. Mayor and members of this great city's Commission, and to the fine citizens of this community, yesterday I found out that there was some opposition to the naming of this street -- renaming it, and that there would be a lawyer to represent those who are opposed. My wife called me and said maybe you need to hire a lawyer. And then I said to her there is no need for a lawyer because we're not discussing right and wrong, we're not discussing good and evil, we're talking about a humble Christian who, if she thought that there was going to be a whole lot of opposition, would have called her son from heaven and said forget about it. When I was five years old they took me to the hospital to see my mother for the last time. As I left the room, she came and whispered in my ear -- and this is about all I remember about this occasion. She said, Edward, don't worry, Mama will be home again. She came home. It took her three years to recover from that sickness, and every day I saw my mother reading the Bible all day. Never saw my mother with lipstick or rouge on. That's something that was always strange about my mother, she never put on any kind of makeup. She just read her Bible, went to church, taught Sunday School, sang in the choir, did all those things. And then one day she said to me that--and to others--the Lord has called me to preach his word. And so she took 17 people, 7 of them children and 10 adults, and moved into an old abandoned house that had been abandoned for years. They took the children and the 10 adults and swept it out and cleaned it out and started service, and they paid my mother one dollar a month as a salary. This was 1940, and according to all the history we can find, my mother was the first female Baptist pastor of a church not only in this state but probably in this country. A few years after that -- and I just want to tell you about my mother and y'all do what you want to do about the street. A few years after that they tried to buy that old abandoned house, and it was old property and nobody could find out what it was, so they couldn't buy it. So an old Jewish friend of ours named Leon Getter, the late Leon Getter, came to my house and said, Miss Essie, I got a lot on Sunset Avenue I will sell you. Those 17 people bought that lot in six months. And then my stepgrand-father started a garden and sold vegetables and got enough money to buy an old abandoned house, and they took that house from Wrightsboro Road to Sunset Avenue, torn down, in little homemade wagons, Mr. Mayor. Homemade wagons. Children and women. They had one carpenter, and they built this little church, and they called it Good Shepherd. My mother, through all those years, preached all over this country. Brought thousands of souls to Christ. Kept families together when they were about to divorce. Did not restrict her religion, her counseling just to black folks, but anybody who was a God-fearing child who wanted to come to my mother for something, they came. And she listened and she gave them the best advice that the Lord gave her. I think my mother truly exemplified what Christ-like living is all about, because in my whole life I never met a better Christian than my mother. I'm not down here to ask you to name this street -- or rename it Essie McIntyre Boulevard because Essie McIntyre was my mother, because that's not the reason. That's insignificant. It has nothing to do with renaming a street. I'm asking you to do what I think would be pleasing in the eyes of the All Mighty for one of his humble servants. For on the day she died there was no forecast of bad weather, Brother Zetterberg. There was no forecast of bad weather, but on the day they had her funeral the sun came out and it got very hot; and then it turned within a half an hour and got very cold; and then it rained; and then after the rain, snow came, as big as a hen egg. The next Sunday one of the ministers from the pulpit said that, you know, I think that was the Lord's way of welcoming Miss Essie home because she had done so much for so long and she was just tired. My mother did what Jesus asked her to do, for when she saw somebody hungry, if it took the last dollar out of her pocket, she fed them. She saw somebody naked, she clothed them. She saw somebody who didn't have a home, she provided a home for them. And then if she saw where somebody was about to divorce, she would tell them that that's a curse, we got to find a way to keep this family together. She believed in education, educating children. She started a ministry at the prison. She started a Sunday School in South Augusta. And from that small seed of 17 people, now the church that I wish one day she had gotten a chance to see before she passed has 1,800 members and will start construction next year on Olive Road, a multi-million dollar church in this community, starting from a little lady who was 5 feet 2 and most of her life weighed 98 pounds. I don't know -- I did check out -- and I'm going to close with this. I did call a staff member at the Planning and Zoning and said to them can you find out if Olive Road has any historical significance. And I waited several weeks and I called back, and he said we can't find anything. But, to me, Olive does not have any historical significance. Olive can apply to thousands of Olives in this country. If it was Olive Jones, Olive Robertson, Olive Zetterberg, Olive Beard, then yes. But it's my understanding that these streets in that area was named by the family that developed them, and they named all of them. So I feel that it would be a great honor and be the right step for this community. If we took Button Gwinnett off Gwinnett Street and named it Laney- Walker Boulevard, a signer of the most important paper that is the foundation of this country, then surely a name that applies to thousands of ladies, Olive, does not have the significance of one of God's soldiers who did his will by the name of Essie Mae McIntyre. Let me close by saying this: If there's going to be a whole lot of controversy and a whole lot of arguing about this, let's just forget about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. Is Mr. Patty here? I just wanted George to address that for us. George, y'all did a background and everything, and you did a campaign to see who wanted it and who didn't want it? MR. PATTY: No, Mr. Mayor, we sent -- we went through the proper notification process so that everybody that owned property or occupied property on the street would be aware of this hearing today. We have not gotten into that. I gave you a -- you know, you asked me yesterday to do what I could to find out what the history of the name of the road was, and I have, and I'll be glad to share that with you. It's not complete, but it's the best I could do in a day and a half. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, why don't you do that, and then we'll have a spokesperson from -- MR. PATTY: Okay. MR. PLUNKETT: Mr. Mayor, we would like to have two people. We will not take any more time, but we would like to have more than one person speak. MAYOR SCONYERS: That will be fine. MR. PATTY: Okay. Really all I was able to do was talk to some people that I thought might know some history of the road, the naming of the road, and also look at some maps -- historical maps to find out when it appeared on maps and what information we could get, and I'm just going to read you a couple of paragraphs here that I think will summarize that. It says that Olive Road was not shown on any of our maps prior to 1930, when it was shown as an unnamed, unpaved road. A 1934 map shows the road in the name Olive Road for the first time. 1939 Sanborn maps also include Olive Road. Millard Gooding said that when he went to work for the county in 1946 Olive Road was in existence in its present location. The section from Wrightsboro Road to Milledgeville Road was paved in 1946 and the rest, from Milledgeville Road to Old Savannah Road, was paved sometime soon after that. Marty Koger told me that his family owned considerable acreage on Olive Road for several generations and the road was named for his grandmother, Olive Koger, and a 1941 City Directory lists Olive M. Koger as a resident of 2303 Milledgeville Road. If I had more time I could have dug deeper, but I think those are the salient facts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Plunkett or Ms. Koger? MR. PLUNKETT: Ms. Mason wants to speak just briefly, Your Honor, then I'll go. MS. MASON: My aunt, my mother's sister, wrote this letter Thanksgiving Day. She remembers when my grandfather named the road for my mother, and I'd like to quote her: "My father, John Thomas Miles, owned much of the land on either side on what is now Olive Road during the late 1920s and early 1930s. This area extended from near White Road to the present Gordon Highway. In about 1929 he gave the right-of-way for a road to be cut through his farm land. When the question of a name for the new road came up, he discussed it with Arthur Luckey, a real estate agent friend. Mr. Luckey suggested that the road be named for my father's oldest daughter, Olive. My father thought that an excellent idea, and that is how the name of the road came to be Olive Road." And this is the one who wrote it, my aunt Mary Cheslik. And I'd like to turn this over to our cousin, Paul Plunkett. MR. PLUNKETT: Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak on this. My good friend, Ed McIntyre--and I think he'll tell you we are friends, been friends for a long time--preached a pretty good sermon here today. I'm not making -- belittling that at all. I knew his mother -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plunkett, go back to the mike, please, sir. Some of them can't hear you. MR. PLUNKETT: I'm sorry. Well, I'll start over. My name is Paul Plunkett and I am an attorney here in Augusta, been here for a quite a number of years. Can everybody hear me now? I listened to Mr. McIntyre with some interest. His mother was a friend of mine. He is a friend of mine and been friends for a long time, and regardless of what this group does today we'll be friends when we leave here. He talks about the trauma of this situation as far as his good Christian mother is concerned. And I will agree with him that she was a good Christian lady, but I will also say this, that the lady for who this road was named, Olive Plunkett Miles Koger, was just as good a Christian that has ever breathed the air in this town. She was a member of the Hill Baptist Church. She has a large family, all of them are good Christians. A lot of them are here today. Her sister, Mary Miles Cheslik, is here. I defy anyone to find someone that is a better Christian than that lady. But we are not talking here about religion. We are talking here about people that have had a road named for a member of their family for probably 75 years or more. And I have some documents -- I didn't do like Mr. Patty did. I went to the courthouse, I went to the fifth floor -- and it wasn't a day and a half or two days. I went down there this morning and got the information. The predecessors to this group, the County Commissioners -- there is a plat on record in -- what date is that? This is 1925. The record is right there now. I got it this morning. I didn't look for it yesterday or the day before because it's right down there for everybody to see in the records that's maintained by this county. And this notation was put on that plat: The subdivision of J.T. Miles and F.R. Miles, as shown by the plat, is hereby approved and ordered to be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, as required by law. The plat -- the original plat is so damaged that it's hard to tell anything about it. Somewhere back down the line some Clerk of Court had a photostatic copy made of that plat. Now, they talk about '30s and '40s. This is 1925. It's there for anybody to go down and look at, and it's there, and it doesn't take long to find it. Just a few minutes, that's all it would take. That has been there for that. Now, this family has suffered as a result of this thing to go in and remove their sister, their mother, their friend from the calendar -- from taking it off. It's not a question that we want to be in opposition to Ed McIntyre or his deceased mother. That is not the case at all. This has been there at least since 1925. This plat refers to Olive Road. It refers to Olive Road several times. I ask anybody to go down and look at it. Now, I'd like to submit to this body a drawing here that's colored in orange showing the property that the Miles-Koger family owned at the intersection of Olive Road and Milledgeville Road back in 1929. And if I could submit that to somebody, I would appreciate it. They have sold off a lot of this property, most of this property, but they still own considerable property today, and I submit another drawing showing what they own as of this time. There are many other instances of -- many other instances here now. I was talking to Mr. McIntyre the other day. When my family and my friends here asked me to come down and speak for them, I called him as a matter of courtesy and told him I would be here. I think I'm the attorney that he was referring to. He had said to someone that he couldn't find who Olive was. Now, he said that if they -- they ought to have been Olive Jones, Olive Smith, Olive somebody else. I don't know if that's the case or not. And I don't know whether all the streets in Augusta and around here have names, but I know Johns Road up there. I don't know if it's John Smith or John who. But there's a lot of roads in here, McIntyre, McIntosh, and a lot of roads and streets that we have that certainly don't have two names. And I'm sure that a lot of those roads mean nothing to you, nothing to me, but I'm sure that they mean something to the family of those people named. Here's a deed, I believe, in 1948. If you wanted to know who Olive was, there's a deed here to the Boardmans where the Skyview Theater was later located and where Mrs. McIntyre plans to build -- Ed plans to build the new church that one of the grantors in that deed is Olive Plunkett Koger and her brothers and sisters. The only thing that we want is, in effect, to be left alone. We didn't come here and ask to take something away from the McIntyres, they come in and asked to take something away from us, and I don't think we ought to sit back and let them do it. Olive Miles Koger was just as good a Christian as ever breathed the air on this earth. Now, it's very difficult to argue something against Christianity, and I am not going to argue. I'm certainly not the Christian that Mrs. McIntyre was and maybe that Ed was, but I am a Christian and I'm proud of it and I say it to everybody anytime I can. And it has been very difficult for this family. Mary Miles Cheslik here is eighty -- what, seven years old? -- eighty-seven years old, and she is a retired schoolteacher. She taught history all over this county, particularly at Tubman High School. Her brother, Frank Miles, who -- I don't know if anybody in this group remembers Frank Miles, but he was certainly a leader in this community for many years. He served on the County Commissioners, I think, for 12 years. Prior to that he served on the Board of Education. These people have been good for this community. I admit that Mrs. McIntyre has been good for this community, but we have also been good for this community, and we just -- and we're not asking to take something away from Mrs. McIntyre, they are asking to take something away from this family. And you can see this group of people that are sitting here that are interested in it. A lady came up to me just before this meeting and said that she had been out there for so many years on Olive Road and she didn't want the name changed. She has no kinship to the Miles, the Kogers or anybody. It would be a -- certainly would be a slap in the face to these good people that have always been good, abiding citizens working for this community to come in at this date and say we do not want to honor Olive Plunkett Koger any longer. I don't think that Ed would come here ten years from now and say, well, my mother's been dead ten years, let's take her -- let's put somebody else. No, you do those things for perpetuity, to honor these people for years and years to come, and we respectfully ask that the motion to rename this street be denied and that it continue as it has been. And we certainly would not object to some other thing being done for Mrs. McIntyre. I don't know of any church -- there may be a lot of them, but I don't know of any church that has the road named for a person. I go to Warren Baptist Church, that's my church, they're on Washington Road. Are we going to change the name of that to Warren Road from Washington Road? Same thing applies to First Baptist Church and churches all over this city and this county, and we don't think that we ought to disturb these long-standing traditions on bases on which I think society prevails. And I thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Plunkett. Gentlemen? I need a motion from somebody. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept it as information and make a decision at a later date. That's in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'll make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we leave the name Olive Road as it is and as it has been in the past. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen, on the substitute motion first? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I sympathize with the people that the name is -- the road is named for. I can certainly understand the sentiment there. And I'd like to address Mr. McIntyre. I understand the significance of your mother. She was a real champion in this community. I'm having a problem changing the name of the road with the expression of interest in Olive Road at this point, and I'm just wondering if maybe there may be another alternative that we may be able to honor your mother and put this particular issue to bed without making one side mad and the other side happy. I'm not so much interested in that, but maybe to work something out, but it's sort of rubbing me the wrong way to arbitrarily take a road where it was named for someone else and change it at this point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute to the substitute, that we honor the request and name it for Mrs. McIntyre. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I'd like to hear from the Parliamentarian whether another motion can go on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to ask him that, Mr. Todd. I don't think we can; can we, Jim? MR. WALL: No, sir. You need to deal with the motions that are there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Zetterberg would be next. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like to say that the reason I seconded Mr. Todd's motion is because I would like to see the situation settled for both parties. And there are compelling arguments on both sides. And I certainly was not privileged to know Mrs. McIntyre, but I have been a citizen of this city long enough to know of the historic influence that she's had on the community. And I also understand that names are important. They're important, and maybe it's somewhat ironic today that we've got all these young people who I assume are skateboarders around here. But names are important. The history and the city that we live in, it's important, and I would hope that somehow that we could defer this vote. There are numbers of streets in this city. I can hardly believe that these two Christian women who have been mentioned today would want this to happen, and I can just see them standing up in heaven today right now talking to each other and shaking their heads and asking -- wondering why -- probably praying for this Commission that we make the right decision. I don't know what the right decision is today, and I would like to see it removed and that we could seek wise counsel. Maybe what we need to do is sit down and pray about it and see what would be. Maybe this would be a great opportunity for our community to recognize our history and our heritage and the influences of people of both races and color. Maybe it's not just ironic we're having this discussion today at this time -- at this place and time and the year we're in and over the issue itself. And I would hope that my fellow Commissioners could support Mr. Todd and my motion to defer this, take it for information, move it on, and see if there's some way that we can find a compromise position that would be of credit to both parties and to -- and to the Lord. So that's what I've got to say. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that maybe I might have a solution to both problem -- to the entire problem here. Since we've talked about Christianity and we've talked about the two ladies that are involved, my suggestion is going to be, if the two Commissioners would withdraw their motion, I would make a motion that we divide the Olive Road up. You have a portion from the railroad to Milledgeville Road there, and the church will be on that side over there. Why not divide it and share it? You were talking about two Christian ladies who possibly would not --and I know would not get in an argument over this, and I think that if that would be -- to me, would be a solution to it. If both parties would be agreeable to that, and if the Commissioners would agree to withdraw that motion, I would so move in that direction. MR. MAYS: I'd second it if that floor is clear. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just express my views on this. I have the utmost respect for Mrs. McIntyre and I also have the utmost respect for Mr. Ed McIntyre. He's be a lifelong friend of my family. I also have a lot of respect for the Koger family. They've been friends of my family for many years also. I wish that there was some way we could reach a compromise on this. And I don't know what the answer is, but out of no disrespect to Mr. McIntyre or his mother, I feel like this road has already been named after Mrs. Olive Koger. I'm convinced of that. And it's troubling to sit up here and have to make decisions sometimes when you have friends on both sides of an issue that you have to make a decision to vote either way. I wish that we could reach a compromise. I don't know what it is, what the compromise could be, but I'm going to have to side with the Koger family because the road has been named after the Koger -- Mrs. Olive Koger for a long time now. I wish that there was some other solution to the problem, but I don't see it. Maybe we could find another location to honor Mrs. McIntyre or maybe some other means to honor Mrs. McIntyre. That's not the issue here. The issue is to take from one and give to another. And there's obviously deep feelings on both sides of this issue, and I just hate the fact that I've got to sit up here and make a decision to go against two of my family's lifelong friends in either form. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw the for-information-only motion and that'll allow the compromise motion to go on the floor. My reason, Mr. Mayor, for making that motion was to give us time to -- both sides to maybe get together to give thought to it. And I think certainly the compromise motion is a good motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, your motion was to -- do you want to restate that again for me, please? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that the portion of Olive Road from the railroad track to Milledgeville Road be named Essie Mae Boulevard [sic] and the other portion from Milledgeville Road to the Gordon Highway retain its name. MR. MAYS: And I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Mays seconded it? MR. MAYS: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? We'll start to the left now and sweep around. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only concern would be to the County Attorney. With the original motion withdrawn, I would assume that the last motion is made as a substitute motion and the other motion become the original motion -- the first substitute? MR. WALL: Well, I think the first thing we have to decide is whether or not there's any objection to the original motion being withdrawn. I don't know if that question has been asked yet. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I didn't. You're right, I didn't ask it. Is there any objection to the original motion being withdrawn, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we can't have the second motion then. MR. WALL: Then you'd have to vote on whether or not to allow the motion to be withdrawn. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we call it to a vote -- voice vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Gentlemen, the motion is -- or the discussion on the floor is to withdraw the original motion, and we need to vote on that. Is that correct procedure, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Make sure we do this right. All in favor of withdrawing the original motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, POWELL, & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to withdraw the original motion, and then we'll take Mr. Beard's motion that has been read. Any discussion on Mr. Beard's motion? I guess before we do anything on this we need to see if it's agreeable with the two parties; don't we, Jim? MR. WALL: Yeah. I mean, that would appear to be -- the focus of the motion was if that was acceptable to both parties. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. If they're not agreeable to this, there's no need in -- MR. PLUNKETT: We are not agreeable with that, Your Honor. MS. MASON: My mother lived between Milledgeville Road and Cook Road, which is the side that you're considering changing, for 82 years. She loved that land and she always said don't sell the land. We did sell off some land, but that's where she lived her whole life, between Milledgeville Road and Cook Road, and I'm not agreeable. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. McIntyre? MR. McINTYRE: Mr. Mayor, when I was asked that question earlier, could we reach some kind of compromise and probably name a part of the road Essie McIntyre Boulevard and let Olive Road retain its position on another section, I said no. But I -- there's too much Christian in me not to accept a compromise like that. I would like for this body to know, although it is not my original desire, I really think it was something that my mother would accept and I think the majority of the people in this room would accept, being Christian, God-fearing people, that that's a decent and a proper compromise. MR. PLUNKETT: May I make a statement? To me, to come in to a governmental body such as this and take something that has been in existence for 75 years and say compromise it out because I'm a Christian -- and I resent Mr. McIntyre saying I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian. I am a Christian just the same as he is, and he knows that. He knows that. He knows we are Christians. We're all Christians. The question before this body is not whether Ed McIntyre is a Christian, whether his mother was a Christian, whether I was a Christian, or whether -- is she a Christian. That's not the issue here. The issue is that when you establish a name for a road and people live and exist on that road, do you come back and take part of it away from them? You know, who -- why should we give up something for them? There are other ways to honor Mrs. McIntyre. And I like Mrs. McIntyre. I don't have anything against her or Ed, either one. But it's just not right. It's just not right. It's wrong to come in and take a name like this away from these people. That is just as wrong as anybody can do. We may have had wrongs here along that line before, but it is still wrong. There are new roads, there are roads that's named -- there's Sunset Boulevard where her church has been located. Why don't you change that to her name and honor her? We would second that motion. We would like for that to happen. But to come in and take our road that we have worked with for all of these years is just, in my opinion, absurd and a travesty of justice, in my opinion. And that's my humble opinion, and I don't even have the permission of my clients to say that, but that's the truth. Some things are right and some things are wrong. To change this name is wrong. To do something to honor Mrs. McIntyre is right, and I like right and wrong. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Plunkett. Starting with Mr. Todd, we'll sweep around. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think the decision whether we change the name of the road or not rests with this body, a majority of this body. It's always nice to know what the citizens on both sides -- representing both sides of the issues think, and certainly it helps me to make a decision after I hear from the citizens on both sides of the issue. But I think the decision is the decision for the board to make, and I think that -- I would think that everybody sitting here on the board would want to make a decision that's fair to both sides. I see the compromise as being a fair compromise. I've been in this community approximately 18 years. I know one family pretty much through their business, Koger Oil, and dealing with them here. I know the other family, you know, pretty much through the church. And I'm sure that both ladies was very nice, outstanding ladies, and I'm sure that both ladies would prefer a compromise here versus one side or the other having to be a loser. And this can be a win-win situation for everybody involved. And the road has pretty much been divided up in this compromise 50 percent, and there is -- I don't think one end of it is any greater than the other. You know, we have citizens of this county living on both sides, we have churches on both sides, we have business on both sides, we have taxpayers and residents on both sides, and I just urge my colleagues to support the compromise. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to explain my vote. I think I have a right to do that. I think the first thing we needed to do today was we didn't need to postpone this. The reason I voted the way I did, I think we need to make a decision. I don't really know at this point right now for sure what I'm going to do, but I know this, I am going to make the best decision that I know how to make given the set of circumstances. I do not think that either one of these ladies, if they were present, would want us to sit here and argue over this the way we're doing it. I would think that both of them would probably tell us to name it for the other, because I suspect they were both very genteel ladies that would think that high of each other. But I think that we are going to be forced to make a decision, and I don't like the method that this decision is coming in, but I'm going to do what I have to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'm going to support the compromise measure, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, help me a little bit here. We don't really have a compromise because one party just said they didn't want a compromise, didn't they? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, that wasn't -- that wasn't my motion. My motion was for us to make a decision. I said if the parties that made the motion agreed to that, and I was talking about my fellow Commissioner, Mr. Todd, then -- you know, that's what I was referring to. But I think that the people have a right to explain whether they want it or not, but I think it's up to this body, and that was my motion. And I call for the order of the day. MR. HANDY: After I speak, Lee. I got something I want to say. MR. BEARD: Oh, you want to speak? Okay, I'll withdraw that. But that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: We're sweeping around, so we're all right on that. Okay. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I just wish I wasn't here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm going to leave with Mr. Kuhlke. But, no, I think that if we are going to have a compromise, that's perhaps the next best thing. You know what motion I made and I stand behind that. And I know the people in the oil company just so happen to be in a district that we represent a portion of it, but that besides, I think that the compromise, if we can agree, the majority can agree, I think that would probably be the best. And I'm kind of like some of the others, I don't like to get backed into a corner like this where we have to pick and choose, but sometime you just have to do that, and certainly when the time come I'll have to vote my conscience on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, since I am here and since I would like to compromise position, I'd like to make a substitute motion that the one street, Sunset, where Mrs. McIntyre ministered for 56 years be designated the Essie McIntyre Street. And I offer that as a substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, we can't have another motion, sir. We have two on the floor now. MR. WALL: In essence, the original substitute became the main motion, and then Mr. Beard's motion is now the substitute. MR. ZETTERBERG: All right. Well, then I'll -- can't make another motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw mine in the interest of Mr. Zetterberg's motion. MR. WALL: But now we've got to see if there's any objection to Mr. -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Is there any objection to Mr. -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have at least a point of information from the County Attorney. I would think that motion would be out of order in the sense that we haven't had public notice, et cetera. We've had public notice on this issue, Olive Road, and either way we do it I think that we can do it, but we haven't had public notice on Sunset. And I wouldn't think there's anyone there named Sunset, but I -- there may be, and I want to have a public hearing, et cetera. MR. BRIDGES: That being the case, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to keep my motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Okay, coming on around, Mr. Beard, did you have anything? MR. BEARD: I made the motion, Mr. Mayor, and in the interest of time we'll just move on to the next Commissioner. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Powell? Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Since we're compromising -- and I heard the person that's speaking for Koger-Walters said Cook Road. The corner of Milledgeville Road and Olive Road is part -- in the district that I represent, and we must come to a head. And I don't mind making a suggestion-- I can't make another substitute motion--that we take it from Gordon Highway to Cook Road, to encompass all of the land that they are referring to, and then we take it from Cook Road to the railroad track for the Essie McIntyre Boulevard. Now, that's the best that I could do, and I think that's the best that we could offer anyone. They was talking about Cook Road, and we can take it to Cook Road--it's only about a half a block away--and I don't think that would bother any of them. I think that would be a good compromise. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to speak in support of my original motion. I didn't know Mrs. McIntyre. I recognize Mr. McIntyre by sight and don't know him real well either. I'm sure that they're -- you know, everything that's been said about them today is true. But what we're discussing here is a gentleman that owned property along there, and I understood it was field roads and trails and that kind of thing, and it stretches from -- the property that he donated the right-of-way from, as my understanding, stretches from -- what is called Olive Road today, from the railroad tracks to Gordon Highway. And we're talking about a history here, and we're talking about a gentleman that donated the right-of-way to this property for public use and named it after his daughter. There is a history behind that road. It is important to us as a community, it is important to the family who formerly owned that property, and I don't think it's proper -- considering the opposition that has come about as a result of changing this road, I don't think it's proper for us to say we want to go -- we don't want -- we don't care about the past, we don't care about the history or the traditions of the family or where this came from, we want to make a change here. I'm hoping that we can do something else, name a road or whatever that Mr. McIntyre would find in his heart and mind to do in honor of his mother. I think she should be honored, but I don't think we should take away from somebody else whose family has contributed so much to this community and who contributed their property and would like their family name to remain a part of this community, so I ask the Commissioners if they would support just maintaining the name of Olive Road as Olive Road. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Beard, to compromise; is that correct, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [VOTE TIES 5-5] MAYOR SCONYERS: Split five and five. I want to be with Bill, I want to leave this room. But I think Mr. Zetterberg, or whoever made the motion about Sunset, I think that that's -- I think that would be well within the right thing to do. Because I myself had a road named after, and I paid to have that road built and then I gave it to the county, so -- I know what it means to me, so I can appreciate what the family goes through. So I will vote with the -- to not compromise. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL, ZETTERBERG, AND MAYOR SCONYERS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Going back to the original motion -- do we need to go back to that now? We do, don't we? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was made by Mr. Bridges, and that was -- do you want to read that original motion, please? CLERK: To retain Olive Road -- to remain Olive Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. CLERK: No, Mr. Bridges. It was -- Mr. Bridges' motion was to remain as Olive Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges' motion, pardon me, to leave it as Olive Road. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, excuse me, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS & TODD VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So there's no action on there, it'll stay like it is. The next item of business, please, ma'am. CLERK: The next item on the agenda is to consider approval of an Ordinance to prohibit the use of skateboards and skates on any street, sidewalk, park, median or parking area within the area bounded by the levee and Walton Way between 15th Street and 4th Street; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other purposes. Approved by Public Safety Committee on November 26th. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I anticipated somebody from the Sheriff's Department is here -- CLERK: Lieutenant Vinson -- or Captain. MR. WALL: Okay. It was prepared at the request of the Sheriff's Department. If we can ask him to address it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have somebody here? CLERK: Yes, Lieutenant Vinson -- Captain Vinson. State your name for the record, sir. CAPT. VINSON: Captain Larry Vinson. CLERK: Could you address the ordinance, please? CAPT. VINSON: Yes, I would. I'm here representing the Richmond County Sheriff's Department. We asked that this ordinance be enacted based mainly on merchant complaints from downtown merchants and also from our department not making much headway in dealing with the skateboarders. We were basically getting no where except confrontations with them. I'd like to state, first of all, that our main concern in this issue is safety: safety for the skateboarders, safety for the motorists, and safety for the pedestrians that they come in contact with. In the last several months, couple of years, we have had numerous, numerous complaints of -- from the merchants and as well as citizens of property damage. You know, when I say property damage I'm talking about private property, public property, and even government property. Numerous complaints of vandalism: spray-painting windows of certain businesses downtown, spray-painting insignias on walls. There are a number of merchants here today, I've recognized a few of them, and they've actually got a laundry list of different areas that have been damaged or vandalized. The last thing I would like to say on the issue is it's not the Sheriff's Department's intent to make a lot of cases against somebody. That's not -- you know, we don't have time for that, but we are spending a lot of time dealing with this issue and we're making no headway at all. So our reason for asking for the ordinance is so that we don't have to deal with it. If it's against the law, if they're not allowed to do it in the downtown area, we would start off by making verbal warnings, and then if it persisted we would make cases, but I don't foresee that happening. That's basically my presentation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do we have a spokesperson for the -- MR. HOUCK: My name is Perry Houck. I'm owner of Augusta Sporting Goods, 210 Eighth Street, Augusta, a store that's been in business 71 years in the same family, same location. The condition developed in the area from Riverwalk to Greene Street back when Ray Gun first opened, and Orwell's Cafe and the place called the Capri, an old cinema building on the corner of Eighth and Ellis. I have a copy of a petition that was given to the Augusta City Council shortly before the consolidation took place listing a group of violations that were instigated by skateboarders and people that were attracted to those businesses. During the weekend of September 16th and 17th, a gas line was torn apart behind Covington Credit on 752 Broad. The gas company said that if the leak had not been discovered before business hours, an electrical spark could have caused a major explosion. On the night of September 20th, two panels of marble storefront were broken at 224 Eighth Street and 230 Eighth Street by skateboarders. A fire was set in front of 210 Eighth Street on the night of September the 18th. On two occasions following a music concert at the Capri theater building, autos parked in the Richmond garage on Ellis Street were vandalized: 16 autos were vandalized on one occasion, 6 autos on another occasions. Windows were broken, hoods and trunks were pried open. The Ellis Street entrance of the Johnson Building was vandalized following another gathering. A roof door was forced open on the Johnson Building. Teen-age youths were running up and down the roof on the Johnson Building and Broad Street buildings adjacent to the Richmond Summit, throwing beer bottles and cans. Buildings on all the area around that area have had graffiti sprayed on them. Some of the wording has been vile, has had to be covered up, particularly in the parking garage on Ellis Street. Drug needles and other paraphernalia have been found on the alleys of Ellis Street after these get- togethers. Groups of 20 or more teens can be spotted gathering in unlit alleys off of Ellis Street at night. Beer bottles, soft drink bottles, cups, trash in streets gatherings. On one occasion, the gutter drain on the corner of Eighth and Ellis was completely full and required city workers to open it up. Skateboarding teens have barely missed elderly persons departing the businesses in front of Eighth Street. Late in the evenings skateboarders completely block auto traffic on the street. An employee of the city repairing broken bricks on Riverwalk advised that major damage had been done to Riverwalk and new brick and concrete borders on the center of Broad Street by skateboarders. Also, if you look on the south footing of the Confederate Monument you'll see vandalism done by these same skateboarders: cracks in the footing and markings by skateboards on the Confederate Monument. A door on the second floor of the Richmond parking garage was vandalized after one gathering. Not all the teens that are attracted to these establishments are causing property damage and vandalism, but sufficient numbers of teens gathering at these businesses on the streets are causing such destruction that I think the business licenses of these institutions ought to be suspended. I have two pages of business owners and property owners that have signed this petition. I want to leave a copy with you, if I may. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. HOUCK: Thank you, gentlemen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you the spokesperson for the -- MS. CARLTON: Well, I'm not necessarily an appointed spokesperson, but I do have something to say about it. For one thing, I'd like to know -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Name and address, please? MS. CARLTON: My name? My name is Gail Carlton, and I don't even live in Richmond County, but I do have a son who is skateboarder. And I would like to know, for one thing, just listening to this gentleman that was just talking, he was talking about the Capri and concerts. Is this skateboarders or concert-goers that are perpetrating this -- MR. HOUCK: Same group. MS. CARLTON: The same group? Well, no, that's not -- I don't believe that you can make generalizations like that. What I would like to know also is, the specifics say not even on private property, as in someone's parking lot. If someone gives someone permission to skateboard in their parking lot, then where is the problem? PUBLIC CITIZEN: They are not staying in the parking lot. MS. CARLTON: I beg your pardon? PUBLIC CITIZEN: They are not staying in the parking lot. MS. CARLTON: Well, no, that was not my question. My question was what's the problem if someone gives permission. Then how -- PUBLIC CITIZEN: There's no problem if they stayed where they are assigned to stay, but they are not doing that. MS. CARLTON: I mean, I can appreciate not wanting damage to public property and that sort of thing, but my question is, you have a place right now -- there is a place on Fifth Street where people are invited to go. They've built things specifically for these kids to go. These kids could be out taking drugs, these kids could --people whine, oh, our children are watching too much television; oh, our children aren't getting enough exercise. Well, my kid is. He's skateboarding, and he's not vandalizing anything. And I know several skateboarders personally who also are not vandalizing anything and are skaters, and I think it's wonderful that they have an interest that promotes their physical well-being. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, address that private property, please. MR. WALL: Insofar as the parking lots are concerned, if you have permission from the property owner to skate there, then obviously there would be no violation. However, this would allow the law enforcement officers, in the event that they were -- permission had not been obtained, they were not to be there, it would give them the right to cite them under the ordinance. PUBLIC CITIZEN: The property owner or -- the owner of the property or the business owner? MR. WALL: Either the property owner or the business owner who might be leasing the premises that has possession of it. I might mention that that parking lot provision is in the existing ordinance that was adopted by the city insofar as parking lots adjacent to Broad Street, so there's no change. The only thing we're doing is extending the area to Riverwalk to Walton Way, 4th Street to 15th Street. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question, ma'am? MS. CARLTON: I think so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Batson? MR. BATSON: Yes. I'm Jack Batson and I'm representing some of the businesses downtown who'd like to see some kind of reasonable accommodation to accommodate the skateboarders, to see if there can't be some areas worked out where they can skateboard, so the rules are defined so that people aren't constantly arguing and there aren't bad feelings back and forth between the two factions. I'd like to see if we could have some more time to see if we can set up some meetings and find some areas that would be agreeable to all the parties. Some of the businesses who want to see these things go are the new businesses, the young people, the people who may be able to revive downtown. That's how these things start. If you look at different areas in Atlanta, you had artist shops, you had restaurants, people coming in who started new businesses, hung in there a long time, and the next thing you know it's an established business. You look at the Cafe Du Teau: 1977/78 it was a bunch of hippies running a restaurant. Now you've got poor old Mr. Du Teau who's my age and gray-haired and making it from week to week, and that's one of the places to go when people come in here for Masters. So you need new blood, you need new businesses, you need people who are in touch with the new people who are going to be in this city and who are going to make this city grow the way it needs to grow for the future. We can't just stay in the past, we've got to move forward. And these young people are taking their time, their blood, their sweat, their tears, and their money starting businesses down here. I'm down here on behalf of the Infernal Racket, the Subway, Joe's Underground, The Haven, Ye Olde Grocery, the Amoco on Broad Street, Orwell's Cafe, Paul's Place owned by Faulkner Warlick, second generation Augustans starting businesses, Extreme Graphics, Tre Bon barbecue place--you may not like to hear that--Ray Gun, Nacho Mama's -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I've eaten there. MR. BATSON: -- and the Soul Bar. So there are businesses who have an interest in getting it together. The bad blood -- things that have happened have been because there have been no laws, or at least that's been the interpretation by the skateboarders. And when somebody says you're cutting into my freedom, it's an American way, you stand up and say don't cut into my freedom. I'm sure some of the people have been immature in their responses. Not everything that's happened has been right. But there are independent laws which can be enforced against that kind of vandalism, and I'm here today saying that I think we can work something out so that we don't have an area that's excluded from a significant portion of the population, we don't round up all the skateboarders and throw them in the camps. That's not what America is all about, it's about working out a way of getting freedoms for everybody, respecting their rights, and finding something that's going to work. We've got land aplenty, space down here that something creative needs to happen to. And the more creative every square inch we can have between the river and Walton Way, the more likely it is this is going to be a place that people are going to want to move to and visit, and that's what this whole thing is all about. Let's make it a place for the future. Thank you. MR. PRINCE: Mr. Sconyers, my name is Bill Prince, I have a package store on the corner of Fifth and Broad. It opened up in 1932. I believe Mr. Batson is talking about the new people. How about the people that supported the City of Augusta for 64 years? We've got people here at 72 years: Mr. Houck with Augusta Sporting Goods, in business downtown 72 years. Most of these skaters' parents wasn't even born back then. Most of them, their grandparents were just being born. We've got another party back here: Georgia-Carolina Restaurant Supply, 42 years on the 500 and 600 block of Broad; Command Uniform, 20 years on the block of Broad -- 500 block of Broad Street. Now, he was talking about new businesses being creative. The skateboarders are being creative, all right. They painted up both my phone booths on the corner on my lot, painted them up completely. They've had a four-letter word painted across the front of my whiskey store two different occasions. I've got a window that's got two holes in it that's been shot into it. I've got another building which is being repaired, and I had barricade outside that's had the same four-letter word sprayed all over it. I've had to take black paint and cover it up. Now, if that's his idea of these skateboarders being creative, I don't think downtown Augusta really needs it. And we're also talking about skateboarders on his property. If y'all are not familiar with Fifth and Broad, this property that he's talking about is probably, from the building to the sidewalk, probably 20/25 feet at most. Eleven o'clock at night there's 20/25/30 adults -- these are not kids out there. The reason I know that is I'm there eight o'clock in the morning and I stay till eleven thirty every night six days a week. That's 93 hours a week. I know what's going on on the 500 block of Broad, I'm down there. These kids that -- some of these parents want to call them kids. I don't call a 23/25 year old a kid anymore. He's old enough he should be working. You know, responsibility. They come in my place of business and they purchase alcoholic beverages. That's fine, they're old enough and it's legal and that's what I'm there for. But one thing I've tried to talk to the police department about is these same adults that these parents are calling kids taking these same alcoholic beverages right back across the street, and God knows who they're distributing it to. So I'm sitting there really like on a powder keg. If one of these kids that's 25 years old runs out there or maybe an 18 year old runs out there and gets run over with a car and he's got alcohol on his breath, you know what's going to happen. They're going to say Bill Prince sold me the alcohol. They not only -- you can't have skating on 25 feet of property. The gentleman that owns the company, he built them a skating semi-circle, I guess, on the end of the building. Well, he leaves about six o'clock in the afternoon. If he's so concerned with these kids skating, why does he lock his little semi-circle up? He runs a board across it and a chain so they cannot use it. That forces the people out in the street. I've seen them -- I've called the police numerous times. They're in and out of traffic on the 500 block of Broad, they're in and out of traffic on the 500 block of Fifth Street, intersection of Fifth Street, in and out of traffic on Friday and Saturday night. The police has been called. They're disrespectful to the policeman when he shows up. One police officer went over there and talked to them, come back across the street, before got across the street they was back out in the street again. They're trying to do -- and I can understand what these skateboarders want. You know, how many times do you get a kick out of jumping over something that's three feet tall? The next thing you know they want four feet, then they want five feet, so then they're trying to do tricks on these skateboards. When they do the trick, everything's fine if they're on this 25 feet of property. But when they miss the trick, the skateboard is free. The skateboard is this high [indicates]. They have no control over that skateboard. If it goes out there in the street and hits a car, there's damage to a car. If it hits an elderly man or lady walking down the sidewalk -- she's 70 years old, a broke hip, she'll never heal. But they're being creative. I mean, that's just -- it's wrong. I mean, you know, my father always told me when I was a kid that you had rights as long it didn't interfere with somebody else. When it starts interfering with somebody else's rights, then something has to be stopped. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Prince. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. Just for my clarification, it sounds like we're now talking not the area that was delineated by the ordinance, not from Riverwalk to -- I mean -- MR. WALL: Walton Way. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. It sounds like the problem is localized in a -- is that true? MR. PRINCE: Well, what happened is, when the skateboarders was up on Eighth Street, for three years the retailers up there had the same problems. The skateboarders moved down here at the first of this year and we acquired the same problems. And I know the police department -- like he said, they don't have time to run down there every time I call up. They skate -- they want to skate on my lot. I started having this vandalism when I went out on the lot. I just -- I have to speak up. I talked to some people on the 500 block of Broad. They don't want to come here because they're afraid something is going to happen to their building. Something might happen to the building again. It might, but I can't just sit there and let people just write whatever they want on my building, and me paying taxes and then I can't -- the police can't be there 24 hours a day. But the same group of people left Eighth Street and come to the 500 block of Broad and the same problems occurred immediately, and so something needs to be done. I mean, like I think the attorney said, he said -- you know, he's talking about businesses. We're not complaining about Tre Bon's. Tre Bon's, I eat there, too. It's a nice place. We're not complaining about Joe's Underground. There's no complaints. We only have one complaint and that's this group of people that's disrespectful. They don't want to obey the laws and they're getting by with it, as simple as that. They're disrespectful to your policemen as well as ours, and I just don't think that this body should allow that, that's all. We're not complaining about any new businesses. You haven't heard anything mentioned about any new business. I'm concerned with what's happening down there on the 500 block of Broad, just like these people are. Is there any other questions? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. If their behavior was appropriate, would there still be a problem? MR. PRINCE: Mr. Zetterberg, I can answer that like this: You can ask everyone up here representing them right now and not one of them will tell you they've done anything wrong. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, no, I'm not asking -- I'm just asking your opinion. If their behavior was appropriate, would there be a problem? MR. PRINCE: Yes, sir. There's a problem with safety as far as somebody flying up and down the sidewalk, there's a problem with the skateboards, you know, flying up in the air into the street, and there's a problem -- you know, if you want to take behavior -- and the only way they can really have behavior where you're talking about safety and everything is they're not there. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm confronted with a resolution that we might as well say that we shouldn't have teen-agers downtown. I mean, that -- MR. PRINCE: And that's not what we're saying. MR. ZETTERBERG: But, see, if you look at the resolution, it is so broad in scope and geography it just -- MR. PRINCE: If you had a place of business downtown -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I don't -- I'm not arguing about that, I'm arguing about the problem that we're having because the way the resolution is drawn. It is very broad, and I don't think that I could support voting for that. If you go to San Diego and go down to the riverfront, or what looks like the riverfront in San Diego, you would see them rollerblading, skateboarding, jogging, walking, strolling, and you see all of those things, so to -- I think this thing has to be better defined. And certainly if you have a problem downtown I want to help you. Because I would agree with you, the purpose of our downtown is to generate -- it's a business location, but it also has to be compatible with the quality of life in our community. So somehow we have to figure out really what the problem is, and I guess that's why you're here, to help us define what the problem is. MR. PRINCE: Well, sir, we've got joggers. We've had joggers for years that come from the health center. No graffiti, no problems. We've got bicyclers that ride down the street. No problems. They stop with a red light, they go with a green light. They stay in the street, no problem. They're not all over the sidewalks and they don't -- what the problem is, is like I said -- it's hard for y'all to picture. When you mention skateboarding, you think of an 11 year old. These are not 11 year olds. I'm telling you, they're not 11 year olds. You don't see any 11 year olds in here. PUBLIC CITIZEN: They're in school. MR. PRINCE: You don't see them on Saturday and Sunday either, sir, from eight o'clock in the morning till eleven thirty either, I'm telling you. An 11 year old shouldn't be out, you know, eleven thirty or twelve o'clock at night on his own anyhow downtown. But that's -- see, the point is -- the question is, it's the safety and the businesses downtown. We're not -- I mean, everybody's trying to throw something else in the picture. It's really a simple question. It's the safety and businesses downtown being abused by a small group of people, that's what it comes down to. And we are here because -- we can call the police every hour. The police gets there in 10/15 minutes, the skate-boarder is gone. You know, they come up at twelve o'clock at night and they paint your building. The policemen can't sit there, or I can't stay there any longer hardly than I'm staying there. MR. ZETTERBERG: Are we saying it's skateboarders who paint the buildings? MR. PRINCE: I'm saying the same problems came with the skateboarders they had on Eighth Street for three years. MR. ZETTERBERG: So it's your belief that it's the skateboarders have the behavior problem that's created the business problem for you downtown? MR. PRINCE: Yes, sir. Not every one of them, but as a group. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, then Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'm not sitting here saying that I don't believe we have a problem. I believe we have a problem. I believe it's a problem that we can work out, and I'm going to offer a couple of suggestions. But I'm going to say this, hopefully as a name-clearing statement in the sense there is accusations made that some of these kids are shooting up drugs with needles. I'm looking out there, and I think I know a drug addict when I see one, and I don't see kids that look like they are drug addicts or that would be shooting up when I look in the eyes of some of these kids and young adults. The crime problem, I guess if we ban skateboarding downtown and ban it throughout the county we would solve the crime problem. I'm not going to believe that either. And I don't want to slam the homeless and the street folks, but I would assume that some of this, you know, can be spread around. I'm not saying that the skateboarders haven't done any of it. Graffiti, I'd have to pretty much look at the graffiti. I'm not an expert at graffiti, but I try to make myself a expert at graffiti that's put out by certain gangs, et cetera. I would certainly like for us to take in consideration that what we are about is diversity, and that's our youth also being included, and that we try to come up with a place, whether it's a public built arena -- if we can build a bike track up and down the canal, we ought to be able to build a skateboard arena or whatever, you know, in this community. I'm not saying that I will not support this ordinance. I feel that we probably need the ordinance. But other than putting a ordinance on the kids that say that they can't do something, we need to give them the environment and the means of going out and enjoying themselves and enjoying their youth. I wouldn't be caught dead on a skateboard, but certainly I can appreciate those that's creative enough and is willing to take that risk to have that fun, and I think that in the long run it will certainly put some of those folks that we want downtown back downtown. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we adopt this ordinance, but also at the same time that we work through the Recreation Department and Mr. Beck to see what provisions we can make to accommodate these young people that enjoy this sport, and do that as quickly as we possibly can. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If I might, and I probably should have raised my hand before Bill, but I think the ordinance first is kind of a reactionary position without really discussing it. And I have no problem with sending that to Recreation and Public Services as its chairman, but what I think that we ought to do in the issue of fairness -- I think you had a lot of accusations here today, and I know people on both sides, but I think some of the things that probably when you make accusations -- and I hear some of the things that have floated around in reference to some of the damage and other things. You know, I'm wondering whether or not you've got situations you want to pin on for it, particularly vandalism of cars and things like that, whether you're talking about crackheads or whether you're talking about skateboarders. And, you know, I think you ought to be realistic when you spread that type of blame around as an accusation. You know, I live in what's considered a very high crime area, too, and I'll be glad to swap any night probably some skateboarders for -- you know, for camping out of prostitutes, you know. So, I mean, if you want to switch out, you know, I'd much -- I can put up with that a whole lot better than I could some of the things that have been going on. I don't think skateboarders, particularly with them traveling on wheels, would have come by and stole two or three of my tags in the last year that I had to replace, you know, and such, cutting them up in half, that nobody's been caught. But, you know, I would like to make a substitute motion that you actually send this to our committee--and I've spoken to Mr. Beck about it- -and that we get an opportunity to discuss this in full. I don't think it's going to cure all the problem, but I think everything from talking about designated areas as well as some compromise within the proposed ordinance that's there, I think some things, particularly as they relate to everybody's right in terms of sharing a sidewalk, I do think -- and I say this particularly for the young people, I think that's important so that we deal with the safety issue there, particularly if you've got elderly people there. But I think there is some room in there for a lot of compromise, and I think if we fight it totally from just putting up an ordinance, then we're actually throwing a brick wall at that particular problem. I understand clearly what Bill is talking about in that situation, and I think he's illustrated both good sides of it. Because that 25-foot space in there obviously, if it's filling up, then what you have, you have a recreational need that's quite completely outgrown the access that's been provided. Maybe it doesn't need to be there at all. But we have some areas probably, if nothing else, other than securing them, that maybe would be a lot better secure if you had somebody visibly there and doing something on it than it would be in terms of just leaving it totally abandoned, whether it's the old Summit parking lot over there, whether it's the one that we own right now -- and I hope it doesn't stay totally vacant forever. But I think there is some room for creativity, and I would hope that before we pass the ordinance and then say let's deal with it -- I think it gets back to some other ordinances that we have passed in the past from both former governments where we provide a law and then we decide later on we're going to go back and doctor up that law so that it meets the needs and the objections and whatever we need to fit. Why not leave it and then let's try and discuss the situation. I think you've got some people here from the business community, law enforcement, as well as businesses and the young people that support what you're trying to do, and I think if you plan with people in doing this as opposed to planning for them by putting a total law up there, every generation -- and I don't think any of us, I hope, have not gotten so old yet that every generation -- to where you provide only resistance to what may be going on, then oftentimes that resistance is met with resistance. And I think we should be broad-minded enough that while we have been blessed by a one-percent sales tax, as Mr. Todd has said, to do a lot of these creative things, then, you know, let's maybe look at being able to expand that area and deal with some designated places, and then have some input into the ordinance of what's there and define it so clearly then that folk know what they can do, what they can't do, but at the same time give them the opportunity to be able to deal with what may be as a group or personal in their recreational needs. And I'll make that as a substitute motion of sending that to our committee without the ordinance being intact at this point. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion. MR. REDD: Mr. Mayor, if I may? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I'm going to allow two more people, one for and one against. MR. REDD: Okay. My name is Chef Redd, I'm involved in a business at 544 Broad Street. Back a few weeks ago I had started talking to the skateboarders down there and working with them on the very problems that we're having right now. What we have been talking about was not ignoring the fact that there is a problem down there with a few of the people creating graffiti on the walls. There's a problem with some of the skateboarders trying new tricks out by the street and the skateboards flying away, so there is a danger there. But what we had talked about was, for example, some of the empty buildings downtown like Sky City, getting these kids together and actually forming an indoor skateboard arena. Turn around and let these kids pay to come in, a couple of dollars, set up a concession stand in there where they got a place to eat, set up your video games where they got something to do, then you've eliminated the problem. They're off the street, they are inside a building. If it's cold outside, they're still inside a building. Instead of the city fully funding that, these kids can help fund that building themselves by utilizing the concession stands, by paying a couple of dollars to come in and use it. Then you can build the competition ramps, you can build the intermediate ramps, you can even build ramps that these young kids can learn how to skateboard on, then you've eliminated the problem of them being in the street. Because there is a problem with them being in the street, not just with the pedestrians but with some of these young kids themselves getting hurt. And if we looked at something like that, you've basically eliminated the whole problem and you may turn around and use one of the buildings downtown that nobody else has been able to figure out a use for all in kind of one motion, and that's what we're working on now. We have actually kind of formed a group in working on putting something together to present to the city at this point. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. SLAVENS: My name is Brad Slavens, I live at 335 Broad Street. I wasn't sure if there was an ordinance against skating in Council Chambers, so I did remove my skates before entering the building today. But I'm a responsible adult, I'm not a vandal; I am also a responsible voter. I have voted in every election since I registered to vote nine years ago. I use skating as a means of transportation in downtown. Many of you, I know, fight for parking spaces at the Municipal Building and in downtown. You don't have to blame me, because I didn't take up your parking space. I think it's time that we realize that skating--I haven't heard many people talk about inline skating, I think all the discussion here has been limited to skateboarding--is a legitimate form of transportation just like cycling. I think what we're doing in an outright ban is using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. I think it's definitely too broad. We have laws which deal with vandalism, with drug abuse, and those are the major complaints I think we've had. That has nothing to do with skating. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Any discussion, gentlemen? We were going to allow two more. MR. HANDY: That's it. We need to go. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's it; wasn't it? MR. HANDY: Yeah. We need to go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, do you want to say something? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I would like to say something to the young folks. I hear your applause for people in support of your argument, but I think you have to look at the merchants downtown and put yourself in their position. They are trying to make a livelihood down there. Your group has been associated now that you have brought the problem into their business district from one location to another. Regardless of how this works out today, it's obvious that you share in the responsibility of that. Whether you are the individuals who do that or you're not, there's somebody that is associated with skateboarding and rollerblading that is causing these merchants problems, and so you need to police yourselves. And if you don't, sometimes you end up getting hit with a sledgehammer when people are out trying to kill ants. So out of due respect to these merchants, I suggest you go on a public crusade yourselves, within your own group, that you start policing yourselves and anybody that you might get caught up with or somebody who might be using you, and that you cooperate with the police, because they have their jobs to do. And I would hope that we would defer this at this particular time to find a constructive solution to that, but I as an individual don't want this to go away, and I want you to know that you are responsible. Whether you're doing anything or not, they have a problem, and you can do something about that. And I expect those things to cease today or else you will end up with a regulation that you can't live with. And I would hope you as businessmen could give this body a little bit of time to work out a solution that will work in your best interest and work in the best interest of the youth of our community. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Well, Mr. Bridges had his hand up, so -- MR. HANDY: After Mr. Bridges then, we call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. HANDY: Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to ask the deputy does he think this ordinance will help alleviate some of the problems he's having with calls to the Sheriff's Department, crime, whatever. CAPT. VINSON: Yes, I think that it would. And I'd also just like to add that I think Chef Redd has got a good idea. The problem that I have, that if you're going to put it somewhere like the parking plaza at Ninth and Ellis or Sky City and you don't have this ordinance, you've just displaced the problem, you've shifted it. The ordinance is -- we don't want to make cases against these skateboarders. You know, there are some good people out there. Some of them I've known for years. We've had head-on clashes lately, but, you know, there are some good kids there; there just happens to be some that are destroying a lot of property and they have no respect for people walking or driving down the street. So, you know, the Sheriff's Department says we don't want to make cases, but if you transfer this to another location, you'll just transfer the problem there. PUBLIC CITIZEN: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen. Gentlemen, we've -- ladies and gentlemen, we've discussed this all afternoon and I think the Commission is ready to move forward on it. I think it's time that we do that. We have two motions on the floor. We have a substitute motion by Mr. Mays, that was seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham, that we refer it back -- CLERK: To Public Services Committee for review and to be redefined. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion carries. It'll be referred back to the committee. CLERK: Public Services Committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Next item, please? Do y'all want to take a short recess? Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a five-minute recess. [RECESS, 3:59 - 4:16 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: The meeting will come back to order, please. The next item of business, please? CLERK: The next item is our delegations. Mr. Charles Utley, Hyde Park Community, reference to the proposed Browns Field Industrial Park. MR. UTLEY: Good afternoon, I'm Charles Utley. I would like to just share with you for a few moments -- it's been a long day for you, but it will only take a few moments. What I'm about to propose has been a sore eye for a long time in our area and in our city, and what I'm proposing to you this afternoon is a proposal of support which deals primarily with a Browns Field initiative. Browns Field's initiatives came about about two years ago with Carroll Brunner and the EPA. It's an EPA initiative. What it does is eliminate or it tries to provide a means for contaminated areas where they may become productive areas in the cities. And I'm looking at this in -- probably in three different ways. One way is that regardless -- just for a moment let's look at it as the location of this particular property. It's located on Doug Bernard Parkway. You have the Gordon Highway, we have 520, we have both railroads on both sides, and it also has the Bush Field Airport, making it an ideal park or an ideal place where there needs to be some type of project going on. So I'm looking at it as there are primarily three different things that we are asking that will take place if this body adopts it as a part of its organization. The stakeholders in this endeavor would be, quite naturally, the homeowners, industry, EPA, and the city. And we look at the financing -- I know that's always on someone's mind is how it's going to be financed. We're looking at EPA, HUD, industry, and the city. Again, how are you going to finance it? Well, we're asking that you look at the one-percent that you've delegated for Hyde Park for the cleaning of the ditches, for the paving. We're looking at the ones that -- from HUD. FEMA will save money from flooding. EPA will be the one who initiate it, so they're going to automatically put their monies into it. Now, when we think about all of this we say, well, the beneficiaries, what's going to happen, what are you really saying, Charles? What I'm saying is that the homeowners, for number one, will be relocated, which has been a sore eye for this county and for these neighborhoods. You've had these people living in contaminated areas, and this is for the first time that they may have an out. With not only that being, but the city. What will the city gain from it? The city will gain that sore eye out of your eyes. That thorn in your side will be gone. The city will also have new industries coming in and making use of the properties that are in that area. The city will have increase in revenues. The city will have employment increase. And, also, the city will have an opportunity to develop and reuse a contaminated area. Okay? EPA? What is it going to do for EPA? It's going to do -- number one, it'll save EPA's face with the community, because EPA doesn't have any faith -- I mean, the community has no faith in EPA. So, quite naturally, EPA wants to save their face. The opportunity also will have EPA to be able to clean up a contaminated area. And, also, it will provide for EPA where they may --where they will not have to pick up the entire cost of the project. Case in point, they're picking up the tab for Pensacola, Florida: 358 families are being relocated in Pensacola as we stand here today. That's all EPA's money. So what they are saying now, they would love to take a joint venture where it takes industry, city, and the community working cohesively together to solve one particular problem. Now, industry -- I guess you're wondering, well, why would industry be interested. Why not? We are already in the surrounding area of chemicals, but yet there are companies there, they can expand. Companies will have an opportunity to relocate with new companies that will be looking for areas where they may be able to come into a city and redevelop. And one nice thing about it, the liability for contaminated soil is lifted on those companies coming in because EPA has cleaned it up to -- from residential living to industrial living, which means that the cleanup is now at an industrial area, not a residential area. So what you've done, you've created -- as they have in all the other major cities in the country. Chicago, for example, has 1.4 million dollars a year that they generate from their Browns Field sites. Atlanta has them. They have them all over the southeast, but Augusta needs one. And not only will Augusta have an opportunity to be on the map for an initiative that will save Hyde Park, save the area, at the same time they have also put together something that is going to be feasible. Not only will it be feasible for them to live in, but it will become a productive individual place where everyone can profit from it. And, gentlemen, all we're asking today, EPA would like to know whether or not you would like to join in on this initiative. We have talked with EPA. EPA says we will be happy to talk with this board, but we do need a letter of recommendation or a letter saying that we support a Browns Field initiative for the Hyde Park project. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Utley. Mr. Beard? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard had his hand up first, Mr. Todd, and then I'll come back to you. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say to Mr. Utley and the delegation from Hyde Park that we surely appreciate the effort that you've done in this and we applaud your effort, or I do as an individual committee person. And you brought this before our committee last week, and we thought it was a good idea that you bring it here to the body and inform all of our committee -- the Commissioners as a whole. So we applaud your effort and surely, if I'm in order now, I would recommend -- I would move that we support the project and the letter of recommendation that you are requesting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, the Browns Field initiative helps remediate areas that are contaminated by downgrading their use, the use of the land. And the perception is, regardless of what the reality is, that Hyde Park, Virginia Subdivision, by virtue of Southern Wood Piedmont and some other industry in there, is contaminated. And if the perception is there, then that means that it is never going to be suitable for habitat for residential because the fear is always going to be there in the minds of the folks that live there now and in the future that they have contaminants in the soil, et cetera, that's hazardous. We do know that whether we do this or not, that the property values is down. There is --some property owners cannot buy insurance. I got involved in this initiative with Mr. Utley approximately two years ago on a Chamber trip where we took this initiative to the congressional folks: Congresswoman McKinney -- I believe it was a little better than two years ago because Don Johnson was still there. And we've talked about this initiative with Congressman Norwood, with Senator Nunn, and with other individuals on trying to get an amendment to the superfund reauthorization bill, then the EPA reauthorization bill. As Mr. Utley said, this has been done in other areas. We would possibly share in some of the costs, but not to exceed monies that we already have slated for the areas. And those monies could still be spent in developing the plan of the area for industrial park for light and heavy industrial, and it would be suitable with what's already in there. I believe the school board has announced that they're going to merge Jenkins Elementary School with Levi White, that that school would be leaving if the courts approve it. There's a Court Order that, you know, disallowed them from closing it down several years ago. And there's a good possibility that we could locate industry in there that is not necessarily clean industry that we would not want in some of our other industrial parks, and I'd like to see the County Attorney draw up a letter of intent to in good faith look at this initiative, get with Industrial Development Authority, et cetera, and get all the parties involved that would need to be, including the county's environmental engineer and other engineering. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my problem with this right now is the commitment of funds to a project that we don't know. While I know we have funds committed to the area and I fully support using these funds in that area and I could possibly support using this project, I would like to know greater details of how this project is going to work and the future funding of it. I have still some reservations on doing -- on this government purchasing any areas for relocation. I think that that's got to be addressed as to who is going to do it. I would also like to know that we -- before we go out and create another industrial park, we got several, I would also like an idea of any potential industries that would be interested in locating in this area and hopefully a commitment out of one of them that they would be more than interested in locating in this area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. I think Mr. Beard wanted to change his motion maybe. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: In reference to the legal aspect of this, we're going to receive it as information. I would like to change that motion that we receive it as information until the Attorney has had the opportunity to look into this and then we can move forward after that, because I do understand there may be some legalities in this -- involved in this. But I think this will also show that we do support it, but it's just a matter of getting -- making sure we're on legal ground and sound ground as we move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Todd, is that okay with you? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion, but I'd like to point out that we're doing a letter of intent, we're not committing any funds. We're not doing anything but saying to EPA we are interested in this. And I think in doing that letter of intent we could even say to them, after we start negotiating this, that we want you to do a Texarkana, Texas, with us; we want you to go in and do the whole nine yards versus our participation. We got to get that letter of intent to them in order to cash in on the opportunity to be selected as a Browns Field site, then we can work out the other. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Randy, did you want to say something? MR. OLIVER: Yes. In concert with the legal part of that, we would like to do an economic impact to provide to the Commission what the potential contribution may be. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead, Bill, while we're waiting on Mr. Mays? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only comment is that obviously I'd like to know more about the project. But as I read through the material I have here I see the word leverage, and I don't know who the person or the people or the firms are that do the leveraging, and I think it would be appropriate for our Attorney to take a look at it, along with our Administrator, and come back to us with a recommendation in this regard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question -- and I'll yield to Charles because I think he needs to answer something that -- probably some of the fears that have been going on probably since the old County Commission of us having to get involved with some things that the community, quite frankly, has never really asked, but it's been a fear, a hidden fear, that the governmental body would have to deal with probably since the situation occurred at Savannah Place. And I think, Charles, you can clear that better. MR. UTLEY: Yes. And, also, I'd like to remind you that EPA is telling us that the application deadline is the 13th of January, and they are saying that they are well committing themselves. And you have to realize EPA is picking up millions on the Pensacola project, and this is an opportunity where everyone can go ahead and get exactly what they have been asking for the last seven years. HUD is saying they are tired of spending money. That's from HUD's office in Washington. Cisnero's office is saying if you will commit yourself, I'll help you with the housing. I don't see what more commission you want. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: That was what I wanted him to explain, because obviously the neighborhood has had to be the prime group in moving with this, and probably until, as Commissioner Todd has said, on that last Chamber initiative. But one of the things that I think would help, you mentioned Industrial Development Authority, you mentioned Chamber, and we've recently talked a lot of talk about the new vision, a new vision for this government and this community, and I think the only thing that you're trying to do there is to make sure that you don't get a one-eyed or cockeyed vision when it comes to Hyde Park and they get totally left behind. And I think a lot of it is strictly fear, because if we can get the Chamber involved in being supportive of trying to help clear it out -- not so much from a monetary standpoint, but their level of support. And I've said it probably over the last six years that we dress up, we go with our initiatives, and until very recently it was never even breathed on the agenda. And what has to happen now, just as we fight for those things that are tangible and that we believe are good -- I think anywhere that involves people happens to be good and we fight for whether it be Fort Gordon, SRS, and all the good things that are there. We also can fight for this being a good project. And those things that we have fought for in the past have not been things that have cost this government any money, but we've been out on the limb with them, we've passed resolutions, we've taken votes, and some of them have not even been in our state, but we've been supportive of them because they've been good, positive things, and I think that's all that this situation does. But we're probably going to have a new HUD director, and I think the longer that we lag behind getting on with the program of joining it, whether it's addressing the question of what we thought we were going to get in federal money all the way down to getting into dealing with this particular situation here on Browns Field, the further we're going to be behind with what we do. And I don't really see where a commitment letter or a resolution or support from this group after it has been examined by our Attorney -- and I have no problem with that, but I would hope that that would be dealt with in the first meeting in January since we have, you know, a deadline in order to deal with it on. And I can respect that going with Mr. Wall in terms of doing that, but I think we ought to at least be ready to move forward with it and contact our friends in private whether we want to deal with it publicly or not, but tell some of them. You know, the Chamber representatives, Industrial Development folk, hey, they need to be on board with this thing, too, and I think this is something that we can get on behind us. Because the reality of people not writing insurance on these homes, that is real. Folk can't get fire insurance, they can't get other types of damage insurance over there, they can't get anything, so a lot of them are caught in no-man's land. But we are not waiving any type of tax bills going to that area, they're still coming, and I think that that needs to be considered. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. MR. BEARD: If you would add that, Mr. Mayor, to -- I would add that to it, at the next meeting, so that the Attorney and the Administrator can have that ready for our next meeting. I will accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's December the 17th? MR. WALL: He said January, the first meeting in January. You said next week. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you have it ready by the 17th, Jim? MR. WALL: I don't know. I haven't seen the paperwork, and I -- MR. UTLEY: We can provide you with the law. MR. WALL: Well, I'm talking about the paperwork and the -- that you mentioned is what I want to take a look at. MR. UTLEY: We can provide you with that, with the law that excuse the liability for companies as well as the EPA's commitment. MR. BEARD: If we can attempt to have that at the next meeting. MR. WALL: All right, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to make that part of your motion then, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Coming on around, anybody? Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Utley, did you include Virginia Subdivision in that also? You're saying Hyde Park, but that's part of it also. MR. UTLEY: We are looking at the entire area, yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Okay. So that needs to be in your paperwork, that's to take care of Virginia Subdivision also as well as Hyde Park. MR. UTLEY: Yes, sir. It will take care of everything but Southern Wood Piedmont plant itself, because we cannot go on that plant. MR. HANDY: Okay, I'm not worrying about that. Because of Virginia Subdivision is the reason why Hyde Park is contaminated, from -- MR. UTLEY: Yes, sir. And that same reason for Oregon Park. MR. HANDY: Right. Okay. So that means from Southside Baptist to the railroad track on the other side of the Gordon Highway is what you should include in your proposal. MR. UTLEY: Yes, sir. From Highway 56 all the way over to Highway 78, including Oregon Park. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Would y'all like the motion reread so you know exactly what it is? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you, please? Thank you. CLERK: To receive this report as information and to report back at the first meeting in January, a report from the Attorney and the Administrator, with a letter of intent. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was amended. MR. BEARD: I said the next meeting. CLERK: You said next week? Oh, okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: To the 17th. CLERK: The 17th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand now? It's the 17th of December, not the first meeting in January. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. UTLEY: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: The next item is the Augusta-Richmond County Library, review of needs and operations. Ms. Juanita Burney, President of the Library Board, will address the operations and the needs of the -- MS. BURNEY: Good afternoon. Present here with me today is Mr. Richard Leach, who is Director of the Richmond County Library, in the back of the room; also a fellow board member, Dr. Jack Hudson; and also a former board member of the Board of Trustees of the Library, Attorney Steven Shepard. We'd like to thank you very much for allowing us this opportunity to come before you this afternoon to discuss and address the needs of the Augusta-Richmond County libraries. The Augusta-Richmond County library system is composed of the main library, four branches, a library for the blind and physically handicapped. In 1998 we will celebrate 150 years of service of the Augusta-Richmond County libraries to this community. We want to make sure that as we approach that milestone, that we indeed have a lot to celebrate. Unfortunately, the libraries in this community are suffering a great degree of erosion in a lot of areas, and we feel compelled to bring this plight before you this afternoon. Our infrastructure needs a lot of work. The library provides books, periodicals, pamphlets, videos, audiotapes, research assistants, electronic information resources, access to the Internet and to the statewide Peachnet resources, and we even have our own home page on the World Wide Web. The libraries are an important community resource and asset that benefits the community, business, industry, government, residents; and the mission is to provide services to meet educational, informational, cultural, and recreational needs for the citizens of this great county. We are in great need of additional financial support in order to eliminate some of the erosion and to continue to grow. We get absolutely no local funds for materials, and it is important for libraries to be well-stocked in terms of resources and materials. We have also found ourselves in the situation where we depend greatly for survival on regional funds that come from the State of Georgia, and those funds have to be shared not only with the libraries in our county but with all of the libraries that are in the counties that make up our region. And, therefore, we are falling short from local support, and we are here to ask for more local support. I also would ask you to keep in mind that there are many of our students who will not be able to tap into the information age and get the skills and experience they need in dealing with technology and information other than at the library. Not all can afford their own resources and computers at home. Unfortunately, our library system has the lowest per capita expenditure on libraries of any system in Georgia, and we want to ask your assistance in trying to get this corrected. Because of limited time in my five minutes I will not articulate every particular problem. There is a brief synopsis that I will leave with each one of you for your perusal. However, we do need greater support from our local government in funding the library for materials, for infrastructure, for operating expenses, for the staff. We also have a federal grant of $42,000 for a new Book Mobile. If we cannot get matching funds by September of '97 we're going to lose that, which we don't want to lose because we need a new traveling Book Mobile that can service the community. We also need assistance in looking at the one-cent sales tax money that's going to be given to the library and some revamping and perhaps renegotiation and when we can get some of those funds to help us with some of our needs. We are not just here today asking for a handout. We are here because we need your assistance in a partnership. We have an organization called the Friends of the Library that's working very hard to assist us. We've been very motivated by the fact that this year there has been an outpouring of concern from the citizens of the community regarding the plight of the libraries and our need to improve our library system and come forward. And I would like to say that we do feel, the Board of Trustees of the Library, that the library is an integral part of this community. It is part of the infrastructure. And I do think that unintentionally sometimes the library is forgotten about, but we need the library and the library is very important. In your vision for government, for the -- in your new vision for the government and for the community, we need you to remember that the library is a part of this community and libraries need to be a part of the vision for this new government, and so we are here today to ask for your assistance because libraries are important. They are important. They are important. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to accept her proposal as information until we can study it more and see where we can find some money in order to help her in some way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Do I have a second to Mr. Handy's motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, please? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. Mr. Leach, is it appropriate at this time -- because somebody will read it in the papers. I want to let you know that Project Success has been awarded a grant for $5,000 to help in the Laney- Walker area. I saw some good things about Main Street, and I just hope that they would come on out to Laney-Walker. But if so, then we will do some special things for you with the 60 youngsters that we have on the 20th of January, and the parents are behind it and we'd hope that the total community would. I want the folks to know it and I want the Commissioners to know it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Other comments or discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we have limited resources, and I guess we just got some bad news that we've been cut in the Community Block Grant funds. It seems to me that, especially with your downtown branches, that you could look at Community Block Grant. We have money in one-penny. Those funds was prioritized and scheduled, and certainly everybody is coming to us and wanting us to reprioritize or at least reschedule. I've been one that haven't supported that initiative because I strongly feel that if we get off track, then we're going to stay off track, and God knows where we're going to end up with the one-penny. The monies that's there, they're designated for certain branches to an extent, then after that I guess it's up to the board on what you do with the money. The schedule is there. I understand your need, I hear your plight, but certainly I think that this board should look at Community Block Grant, see whether that's a legal expenditure as far as Community Block Grant go--it would seem to me that it would be--and that we could possibly do some renovation to the downtown branch. I know that we done some things as far as automation go down there. And I would also say that if we can't get money from the Georgia Lotto for computers for libraries, I don't know, then certainly we should be pushing for them to be in every school. In the schools that I'm involved with I'm pushing for them to be there, and at least that's a outlet for the children that can't afford to hook up to Internet at home. And I hear you. I want to work with ever who is working on it to try to do some things to help you, but I don't want you to leave with false hope that we're going to redo the one-penny and change the schedule, because that's what everybody that's come down here that's on the one-penny has come seeking. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, one thing that I think Ms. Burney hit the head on, they've not over the years --they probably have not been as worrisome as they should have been, particularly with the need that you're talking about, you know, in our library system. I do think that there are some creative avenues out there, but all the time the creative avenues don't necessarily lead to money and they don't lead to it very quickly. And I would just hope that -- and while I agree that we've got to stay on a schedule with our one-penny monies, I would hope though that where we have matching fund situations, the possibilities of losing certain programs, that if they are eligible and if they are legal, that we would not be so totally written in stone that we could not at least do some partial move-ups in those areas. Because, I mean, if we're doing them -- and I chair Public Services, and we're having to possibly deal with some juggling there even though all of it is staying in Public Services. But while we're doing that big of juggling, I hope that we would not be so rigid that we actually cut off our nose to spite our face in terms of what we could do for the system and be able to get some things there. It doesn't mean that we would have to necessarily give them all of their funds for it, but there will be certain things of smaller increments that could come out of those totals, and I think you're going to be looking at some of that in 1997. I hope that as we consider other groups and other things, that we also would not rule them out. And sometimes we get caught in so many meetings over here until I don't see many of them myself at all, but they do a good job. And, as stated, they oftentimes don't come here. And I think one of the misconceptions about the library is the fact that where state funds are involved, sometimes we forget the fact that they are still serving local needs. And these are our children and adults that still have to be serviced by the library system, and even though there may be a large amount that's coming from another source, we still -- if we are finding creative ways to do other things, I just hope that we don't forget about that particular system while we are making those creative changes, whether it's from one- percent or whether it's from any other pot of monies. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Coming on around. Anybody? MS. BURNEY: May I make one additional comment, sir? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure, go ahead. MS. BURNEY: One other comment that I'd like to add in reference to the library is that -- back on materials. We're going to be deeply appreciative of whatever support and help we can get on this endeavor, but back in the spring there was a government official that said perhaps additional resources and funding could be found for the library if the usership increased, more citizens attended. We have a great usage of the library now, but I would like to remind everyone that the library is an entity where, if the materials and the resources are not there, you do not draw the citizens. It is not in the response where the citizens are going to come and wait for us to eventually get the materials that they need to work with. It's the materials that are drawing cards for our services in the library, so we would ask that you keep that in mind as you deliver your assistance to us. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. We have a motion by Mr. Beard -- CLERK: No, Mr. Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, excuse me. By Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham, that we accept it as information. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Under Finance, Items 1 through 8 were all approved by the Finance Committee on November 25th. [Item 1: Consider approval of recommendation from the Tax Assessors regarding a tax refund for Lubertha Greene. Item 2: Consider approval of the reprogramming of 1-cent Sales Funding for the Shiloh Comprehensive Community Center. Item 3: Consider approval of an amendment to Ordinance No. 5501, the 1945 City Pension Plan. Item 4: Consider approval to declare 226 Holloway Drive surplus property. Item 5: Consider approval to use Consolidated Grant Monies for salary equalization study. Item 6: Consider approval to adopt the phase approach (Schedule B) to a pension conversion plan with no commitment to any firm. Item 7: Consider approval of the purchase of prior years service for Robert M. Sharp, Don W. Bryant, and Luann S. Staulcup. Item 8: Consider approval to close purchase of prior years of service on December 31, 1996.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Finance Committee will recommend a consent agenda on Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I think the other two items we need to vote on. MAYOR SCONYERS: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8? CLERK: No, 1 through 8, sir. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, now, Mr. Brigham took some of them off. Didn't you, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I took Item 2 and Item 3 off. I don't think that we ought to do an ordinance through a consent agenda and I don't think we ought to do a reallocation of sales tax through a consent agenda. CLERK: Okay, you took Item 2 out? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR SCONYERS: And Item 3. CLERK: And 3? Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Finance Committee would recommend approval of the remaining items. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please? CLERK: Item 2: Consider approval of the reprogramming of 1-cent Sales Tax Funding for the Shiloh Comprehensive Community Center. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Chairman recommends -- the Finance Committee recommends that we do this. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, my concerns remain the same. I know that we were told that we possibly was going to take in a million dollars or we're a million dollars ahead on collections, but I understand that when we collect the 165 million or the five years, that we got to stop. So by virtue of being a million dollars ahead don't mean that we're going to collect 166 million dollars, it means that we're going to have to stop at a point maxed out on years or maxed out on money. I certainly have some concern here on moving the money up on schedule, and I will probably vote in the negative on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we've got several items on this agenda that's already taken place about reallocating sales tax funds. In light of that, we've asked the Comptroller, and I would like to add the Administrator to that, to come up with a policy or recommendation of a policy as to how we're going to change this. This was done in Finance Committee, and it's supposed to be on our next agenda and I'm sure it will be there, so hopefully we'll have some idea of how we're going to do this in the future. As we all know, we're having numerous groups come forth and ask us for one-percent reallocations. And I don't know how we're going to do everybody's, it's near impossible, and I think we've got to address it through a policy decision, and hopefully we'll have that to y'all in mid December. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Coming around, gentlemen, any other comments? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say I agree with Mr. Brigham that we need a policy on this, but we also at the Finance Committee felt that this was a deserved one, and hopefully that the Commissioners would agree on this particular one and vote to pass it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: We call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 3: Consider approval of an amendment to Ordinance Number 5501, the 1945 City Pension Plan. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends the approval of this first reading on this ordinance. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item is a communication from Mr. Steve Baxter of the Pollock Company regarding an official bid protest concerning the RFP for copier services. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, I've had an opportunity to talk with staff on that, and we have reviewed that. While we believe that the letter of the law was met, we do not believe the intent of the law was met in that this particular company provides services to the government currently, and so therefore we are going to recommend that these bids be rejected and that they be rebid. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we've got a couple of representatives from the Pollock Company. MR. BAXTER: I would just like to say one thing. I appreciate what you're doing here, but I would hope when it's brought back it would be brought back as two bids, because a print shop and copiers are two separate things. I took the time to go and talk to some printers. They said they would have bid it if it was printer -- printing work. There are other copier people that would bid it if it was just copies. So I was just requesting that you separate it into two bids. MR. OLIVER: We'll take that -- we'll make it a mix or a match, yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think that we certainly should bid it in the manner that it saves the taxpayers the greatest deal of money. And I wouldn't have a serious problem with bidding it both ways, having a optional bid, but if it would save the taxpayers money to bid it all together, then I wouldn't want to bid it, you know, separate. I support the initiative to the rebid because I feel we met the legal obligations, but I agree that we probably could do it a lot better, and that's just my thoughts on the separate bids. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Todd, what we will do is we will bid it for -- my suggestion to Purchasing will be to bid it as (a) for one type of services, (b) for another type of services, and (c) in total. So we will take the lowest combination, whether it be (a) plus (b) or (c), and then that way we will get the greatest return for the taxpayer. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I just have one point. I would like to -- as long as the Administrator is going to take it back, you may want to take a look at the potential or the possibility of a joint procurement between counties or cities to see if we can get the best pricing that we possibly can get. MR. BAXTER: I would like to bring up one thing that I think is most important. If you combine this bid, then you are only going to deal with out- of-state companies. There are no local companies that are going to do this, yet you have plenty of qualified printers and qualified copier people. If you combine it, it's going to cost you more in the long run and you'll deal only with out-of-state people. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Baxter, what I am proposing is, is that we bid it as if we are buying two different products, and a bidder will have the right to either bid on one of the product, the other product, or both products. And in that manner we can then choose, as a Chinese menu. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: 9(a): Discussion of the authorization of check signing. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I had this item put on the agenda. I have asked the Acting Internal Auditor to prepare a memorandum also on this, which he has done. I would basically like to ask right now that we have a policy recommendation be made to the Finance Committee at the next time. I would like to see the Administrator, the Comptroller, and the Internal Auditor to get together and make a policy recommendation to us so we can forward it on to the Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I need the motion reread. I'm sorry, I didn't get it. CLERK: He asked that the Administrator, the Comptroller, and the Internal Auditor establish a policy regarding check signing authorization. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would -- I'd rather to rephrase it, that they give a recommendation to the Commission that we establish a policy. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I asked for. CLERK: That's what he asked for, a policy. MR. ZETTERBERG: I thought you said that they would establish a policy for that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I asked for a policy recommendation. MR. ZETTERBERG: That they are going to recommend a policy. All right. CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. J. BRIGHAM: That concludes our business, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Items 10 through 18 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on November 25th. [Item 10: Consider approval of the recommendation of the Interim Administrator of Administration regarding status of temporary employees. Item 11: Consider approval of amendment to the Project Manager's Contract. Item 12: Consider approval of the 1997 ARC Employees Holiday Schedule exempting fire suppression and law enforcement personnel. Item 13: Consider approval of an application for Tier #2 facade grant in the amount of $15,000 for 1030 Greene Street. Item 14: Consider approval of facade restoration contract for 952 Broad Street to United Concepts in the amount of $21,484.00. Item 15: Consider approval of the Interim Director recommendation to re-bid 982 Broad Street. Item 16: Consider approval of bid award of facade restoration contract for 984 Broad Street to McCord & McCord in the amount of $15,000. Item 17: Consider approval of the Interim Director recommendation to proceed with RFP's regarding Olde Town Properties. Item 18: Consider approval to enter into a month to month management contract for Olde Town Properties.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 10 through 18 be considered as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard. Do I hear a second to Mr. Beard's motion? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Items 19 through 32, with the exception of Item 25 and 31, were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on November 25th. [Item 19: Consider approval of a contract with Landgas Development Corporation for landfill gas extraction at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 20: Consider approval to accept and authorize work by Conestoga-Rivers & Associates for oversight of the removal of underground storage tanks at the Central Shop at cost not to exceed $6,640.00. Item 21: Consider approval of recommendation from ARC Utilities Director regarding Inspection, Repair and Maintenance of the 42" Raw Water Line. Item 22: Consider approval of 6th Street Improvements. Item 23: Consider approval of contract documents and proper bonds for General Roadway and Drainage Improvements, Phase I Project. Item 24: Consider approval of proposal from James G. Swift & Associates regarding Kimberly Clark Well Field Analysis of Treatment Plant Site. Item 26: Consider approval of option to purchase easement on Parcel 9, Tax Map 88-1 owned by Joseph Lawrence. Item 27: Consider approval of option to purchase easement on Parcel 47, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Cleveland Jones and Rosa Mae Jones. Item 28: Consider approval of the list of roads for the 1997 LARP Program. Item 29: Consider approval of Final Change Order for Inflow Equalization. Item 30: Consider approval of Change Order for Kissingbower Road Area Sanitary Sewer Extension. Item 32: Consider approval of the recommendation of the subcommittee regarding the waiver of fees for neighborhood cleanups.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve it as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry? MR. HANDY: I have a question on -- I just needed some information on 25. CLERK: We're going to pull that out. It's pulled out. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: On Item 28, just for clarification, is there a list of roads that will be provided or has that been provided? CLERK: It was provided in your committee agenda book. MR. TODD: It should be in the book, Mr. Chairman. MR. ZETTERBERG: It is in there? It's not in here. CLERK: It was in your committee agenda book. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we're talking about the LARP program? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. MR. TODD: Okay. The list is in the book. The roads is usually inspected by the state and Public Works Department engineers, and usually it's the roads that need it the worst that's chose. And we don't have, as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, a lot of input on whether they pay for them if we do them under that program. We can preempt their action and go on and do roads from one-penny sales tax or other funding sources. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 25: Consider approval of condemnation of access through property adjoining Flagler Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, we're asking y'all not to take any action at this time. We're still looking for a solution. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we accept it as information. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard, did you want to say something? MR. BEARD: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the recommendation of the subcommittee on the matter of privatization of the Sanitation Department. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the recommendation. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, first of all, I'd like to thank the chairman of Public Services, Mr. Powell, for appointing the committee. I've served on the committee with Mr. Jerry Brigham as its chairman. We're not realizing a great deal of savings at present as far as outsourcing the sanitation pickup of the urban service district. What we are accomplishing here is containers where you won't have the trash put out in the street in garbage bags or leaves piled alongside the street, that there would be containers for this, and it would certainly improve the environment as far as sanitation and trash, et cetera, go in the inner-city. I'd also like to point out that this committee accomplished, through going through the --bringing it back to the subcommittee -- or the subcommittee bringing it back to the committee and then bringing it back to the full board and getting authorizations to go out for proposals and bids, that we accomplished to at least have 50 percent through competitive bidding proposals go to local contractors, or over 50 percent of the bids when you look at Augusta Recycling and Disposal and their joint venture with some other smaller haulers, like one-truck and two-truck haulers, and also CSRA, which is a small business, too. We had a couple that was from out of town. We feel that we got -- and I'll let the staff comment on this, but we feel that we got a good deal for what we're, you know, going out for in service delivery, and I would urge the -- my colleagues to support this. We also in this bid requested that certain haulers pick up, you know, some of our employees. We feel that we can accomplish this with all of those permanent employees. We have approximately 16 employees that we hired this year as temporary help. I think that in the sense that we're dealing with small businesses it would be grossly unfair to request that they pick up temporary help. And those are my comments. I also feel that we need to revisit the issue of the Housing Authority and their sanitation pickup. We're working on a contract that was signed some 40 or 50 years ago that's costing us approximately a quarter of a million dollars to take care of their waste, and we need to go back and renegotiate with HUD and work that out, and that could be approximately a quarter of a million dollar savings. And those are my comments and I'll yield to my colleagues. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Coming on around. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while this outsourcing didn't do everything that I had hoped it would do, I think it did a good job for the city in future expenditures that we will not be saddled necessarily with capital costs. I think also that we will have a cleaner city by the using of the container methods. I believe that there will be no reduction in services that the taxpayers now get, and I think it's a win-win situation not only for the consumers but for the government by accepting this proposal. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I want to applaud the members of that subcommittee and the committee for the time that they have put into this particular venture. I admit going in I had some reservations about some things, and I probably have a couple of questions about some today and any one of the members of that committee or staff can answer. But I guess, one, I'd like to know what will be your date of first implementation on your total -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Our target date was the first of January. I don't know if that's going to be completely feasible right now because we've got to get it approved and then we've got to get a contract signed, and that may delay that happening that quick. February is what Mr. Todd is saying, but our initial implementation date was January, but we do not appear to be online for that at this time. MR. MAYS: Okay. I'm glad it's not January. Of course, that still doesn't mean that I -- and I think it's going to pass. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for it, but I would hope that in your planning -- and since you've moved up the February date, maybe what I was going to ask you already had it in mind, is that particularly with the denseness of population in a lot of your urban territory -- and while I'll agree that your container method, that that is a positive and it does good things, and I think that you're looking at some good things here, and I think all the intentions that you all have put into this are good and well taken. But I would hope that in that extra 30-day period that you have, that your communication, be it with tenants or landlords, particularly with the high amount of rental property that you've got in a lot of these areas, that you work that out as to who is going to directly assume that responsibility. Because you have a lot of different mixtures inside the urban area as to whether or not some people are going to assume that, put it in rent, whether they're going to leave it to the tenant, and I think it doesn't need to be left up to chance that some people are going to automatically go over to paying and dealing with the particular garbage bill. Now, if you've got that worked out, then I don't have a problem with it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mays, that is going to be funded as it is funded now. It's going to be a collection that's going to be coming out of the urban services tax revenues. It is not going to be an individual situation where individuals, whether they're tenants or landlords, that are dealing with this company. This company has a contract -- is being offered a contract to collect refuse and deliver it to a point at our direction. That's basically what the proposal is. It will not be where you're dealing with an individual sanitation company or anything else. It will be no change in any operation that is now existing. MR. MAYS: Okay. So you will still operate on the old urban formula; the only difference, that it'll be privatized? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MR. MAYS: Okay. So y'all came back down to earth on that one. I'm glad to hear that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, that was always the committee's proposal. MR. MAYS: Well, not the original parts that I heard of it. And -- no, I debate it not. I'm glad that you are on that, but that was not what was originally being discussed, and I think the communique within the community -- and that's why I say I'm glad you got the extra 30 days, because that needs to be communicated. You still have got people in this county that when you go into the old suburban area are wondering when they're going to see a garbage truck. That's part of a communication problem, because they thought they were going to get trash service pickup. So I'm saying that while your intentions are good and I applaud that, that your communication needs to be spread so that people will know exactly what you're doing in that, and I'm glad you got that time frame in order to do it. I would also hope that you have a better possibility than a probability of picking up particularly those permanent folks and getting them placed with these private companies. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, may I agree with my colleague, that initially we had a department head that thought we should do a reimbursement of ad valorem taxes and let everybody contract their own waste. That was one individual's opinion, it wasn't ever a committee opinion as a whole. And I believe that that department, at least -- the gentleman is retired, but that department and that gentleman did initially buy into -- or bought into later the concept that we presented and that Public Works Department is on board there in what we are doing. Okay? Thank you. MR. MAYS: I'm through, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Coming on around. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to make the comment that this is a change, this is going to privatization, and I would hope that we would make every effort to publicize what we're doing. And in publicizing this change, that we also advise the public on, if they have problems, who they need to contact to register any complaints. My only question to Mr. Brigham is how long --what is the duration of the contract? MR. J. BRIGHAM: 24 months, I believe. Is that right, Drew? MR. GOINS: It's a two-year contract with two one-year options. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I guess mine -- and I think they've done a good job of this. We tried it in the county side for some years and never could get to this point. And we're probably going to have to go back and revisit it once some of our colleagues out there find out that -- they view it as the people in the old city get their garbage picked up free, and somewhere down the line -- I think Mr. Mays and Mr. Kuhlke has talked about this, but we are going to have to really get that message out, that it is not free, and this is how they are going to look at it. Now, I just want one clarification on the word sanitation. Does that include the leaves, that includes the garbage, or that -- and I'm sure it's in here somewhere, but I think for the record, for the people who are here who may live outside of the city limits probably need to know. If either one of you would address that, I would appreciate it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would prefer to let the staff address it, but the bids was basically two-fold, one with leaves and the other one sanitation. Then we done a group all with both, and -- Mr. Goins, would you cover that? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. We bid the contract out where we had the refuse collection separate from the leaves and limbs, and then we had a combination thereof, so -- but the proposal on the table is for refuse collection two days a week and yard waste collection one day a week. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And this yard waste collection, is that sofas and -- MR. GOINS: Leaves and limbs is yard waste. There is also an item in the contracts for white goods, which will be picked up on a demand basis by the government. They will write a work order for the contractor and he will pick that up, and that cost will be carried on to the consumer. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I try to address the issue of the propaganda or grapevine information that went out during the consolidation efforts? Anyone that wants to become a service district and petition this Commission to become a service district, I'm sure that there is someone on this board will make a motion to do such and we'll vote it up or down. But when they become a service district, they also will pay a service district tax, and that's the same millage rates that the urban district is paying less the millage they are paying for the indebtedness. And I don't know how many mills that is, but if it's four mills, then they'll pay four mills, you know; if it's -- whatever. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg had his hand up. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Obviously each one of us are sensitive to this issue after last year's fiasco. One of my concerns is, does this have an impact or are we going to now change the ordinance that we put out on how we package the refuse and what the -- MR. GOINS: No, sir. The ordinance you're referring to is the yard waste ordinance, and that is intact and it's part of this contract. MR. ZETTERBERG: It's part of the contract. That does not include containerizing, putting the leaves in the containers or -- the containers are strictly for garbage? MR. GOINS: That's correct, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: So people will have to put things in bags? MR. GOINS: The ordinance does not change. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Goins, the bid that we are accepting here, does that include them furnishing the containers? MR. GOINS: That's correct, they furnish the containers. It is their cost for furnishing the containers; it's also their cost for maintaining the containers. If they become damaged or misplaced, it is the contractor's responsibility to replace that container. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 34: Receive as information a report from the Public Safety Committee regarding the Haz-Mat Issue. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor and to the Commissioners, the only thing that's left in this, there was a lengthy discussion, as you probably read in the papers, between the past Fire Chief and the person in -- dealing with Haz- Mat. But it's my understanding -- I talked with her just a few minutes ago, and with the Acting Chief, and it's my understanding they said that they will work together. He is here, he can answer for himself, that they will work together where it's possible, and if they get beyond a point where they cannot work together they'll come back to this. And Chief, if you want to say something else -- MR. ATKINS: No, Commissioner, I think you had it just right. Pam and I have had conversations the past couple of days and we have agreed to meet, and I think these issues can be resolved and we can work through those. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And there is a letter, Mr. Mayor, in there where Clarke County has placed a portion of the Haz-Mat under the Fire Department. That's just for your information. With that, I move approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, Haz-Mat has always been a part of fire services and is handled by fire services. Law enforcement, as far as emergency management, has always been a part of law enforcement and handled by law enforcement, but sometimes coordinated through the Emergency Management officer or department head. I listened to a great deal of the tape from Public Safety, and a lot of the talk was response time on a fire, a house fire, industrial fire, institution fire, whatever, on certain type alarms. I think the issue here is Haz-Mat and how we handle chemical situations, and I'd like to see us not get this confused. And I'd also like to see Ms. Tucker and whomever the Chief is to come back to us with a response time and that that time line be as good or better than the time line for responding prior to January 1, 1996. And if you do that, then certainly you put any concerns this Commissioner have to rest. If we don't do that, then certainly I'm going to have those concerns when it come -- as far as public safety go and chemicals go, et cetera. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further -- MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Zetterberg had his hand up. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one question. Does meaning that you and Ms. Tucker are going to work together, is that an admission that we do have a Haz- Mat problem? MR. ATKINS: No, sir, it's not an admission to a problem, but if there are any perceived problems, then I think we can address those issues. I think it's a communications problem myself, and I'm willing to sit down with her and discuss these issues. And like I said, she and I both talked yesterday and today. Matter of fact, she was here today and she was standing with me and will say the same thing. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if it is -- if there is -- if it's more than just a communications problem, I would hope that you would work with dispatch to correct it. MR. ATKINS: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Next item, please? CLERK: Item 35 through 40, with the exception of Item 39. The petitioner has requested that this item be deleted from the agenda. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to also ask that because we didn't do a total on the consent add-ons that we allow the addendum that was presented on the Par Four Restaurant, particularly with the timing of the year that we're involving, that it be added on to Public Services. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, that we add on. All in favor of that motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: I need to know what we're adding on about Par Four. CLERK: On-premises alcohol -- liquor, beer, wine, dance hall license. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 35 through 40, with the exception of 39, were approved by the Public Safety -- Public Services Committee on November 26th. [Item 35: Consider approval of a contract between Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and Augusta-Richmond County as amended. Item 36: Consider approval of officiant for the Recreation Department between ARC and Katie Lawrence. Item 37: Consider approval of placement of a residence for a permanent caretaker at the Lock and Dam Park. Item 38: Consider approval bid award (all low bidders) for equipment at Bush Field Airport. Item 40: Consider approval of the reprogramming of funds for the Indoor Aquatics Natatorium from Tier II SPLOST - Phase III to Tier I.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that they be approved, and also thank the vice-chairman, Mr. Kuhlke, for chairing that committee on that day that I was out sick, and I appreciate it. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we ought to pull off Item 40 since we are reprogramming sales tax funds, in particular since we -- having done that, I think it's a necessity. MR. MAYS: No problem out of me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm going to support it, but I think we need to vote on that individually. MR. MAYS: No problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to vote on 35, 36, 37, and 38; is that correct? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 40? CLERK: Item 40: Consider approval of the reprogramming of funds for the Indoor Aquatics Natatorium from Tier II SPLOST - Phase III to Tier I. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, this is one I can support in the sense that it's a recommendation from Recreation and agreement from the Commissioners that's involved as far as the projects go to do it, and it's going to enable us to bring the Georgia Games, hopefully, here in 1998 -- '99. I want to get them here a year early. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I was, as I said, not at that committee meeting. Mr. Beck and I have discussed this verbally by phone on several occasions. And I just want to say for the record of thanking him previously as being our assistant director and monitoring these particular funds out of one-percent and now as our director for particularly being cognizant of the fact that you can go back and make these changes without making damaging changes within the program. And I think he should be applauded for that, that we were able to move around, still be able to get this done without doing any serious damage to those program events that we still have on board and to be able to have still projected funds in order to cover them. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, coming on around, is there anybody else before we get to Mr. Handy? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval for an alcohol -- on- premises liquor, beer & wine license for Par Four. Albert Ramsey, 3609 Coventry Drive. There will be a dance hall. MR. RAMSEY: I'm Albert Ramsey, 3609 Coventry Drive, Augusta, Georgia. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors here? MR. WALKER: This application meets all the requirements. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT] CLERK: Consider approval of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission regular meeting minutes of November 19th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by -- who seconded the motion? CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 43 is a Second Reading: To consider approval of an Ordinance to amend Ordinance Numbers 5868 and 5876 establishing severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta-Richmond County; to provide an effective date; and to provide for repeal of this ordinance on a certain date; and for other purposes. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham, Jerry. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 44 is to consider approval of a supplemental Bond Resolution for the 1997 Water and Sewerage Bonds. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Mr. McKie has passed out some information concerning the pricing of the bonds, and I don't know whether Butch is still here or not, whether he wants to discuss this in any detail, but basically, as all of you know, we got a favorable rating approximately a week ago. The bonds were priced yesterday, and you have a summary of those. This resolution adopts and sets those purchase requirements and authorizes the Mayor and the Clerk to sign the bond purchase agreement pursuant to the information that Mr. McKie has furnished to you, and I recommend approval of it. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yeah. Tried to. MR. HANDY: Thank you, Bill. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: 45: Discussion of the Incubator Project and grant application with the EDA. MR. WALL: I had this placed on the agenda, and, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Jerry Brigham, do y'all want me to discuss it or do y'all -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: You can do it. MR. WALL: All right. Earlier this year a pre-application was submitted to the federal agency Economic Development Authority for an 18,000 square foot building that would be constructed out on the Augusta Tech property, and it's proposed that there would be a purchase of the property by Augusta-Richmond County from the Richmond County Board of Education. This would be for an incubator process to establish businesses. We have been -- received a letter from EDA indicating that an application -- or asking us to submit an application. This does not necessarily mean that we will get the grant, but it is a pretty good sign that we are ahead in the race to get the funds. It's a 1.1 million dollar grant, and there would be a $400,000 commitment. The original date for submitting the application was by December 9, however, as a result of difficulty in getting a meeting set up with the EDA officials out of Atlanta--they've got a couple of acting directors--we need to request an extension until January 21 in which to submit the application, and we need authority to proceed with the processing of the application. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to also make an amendment to that motion, that we include in our proposed budget a $400,000 local match so that we can be aware that it's got to be in there, and to proceed with this project it's going to require a $400,000 local match. I think it's about one third -- one to one third. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I accept the amendment. MR. HANDY: It's okay with me also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by -- MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear it reread, Mr. Mayor, if I could -- the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Reread the motion, please. CLERK: 45: To proceed with the application allowing for the $400,000 local match grant to be included in the budget. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand the motion now? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Consolidation Project Manager. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, before the Consolidation Manager come forth, I wonder if we could revisit the two additions to the agenda. I would just like -- after my colleagues have sat for a long time, I was wondering if they would reconsider this. It is of urgency that we get those in, and maybe we could take a little time and let the department chairperson explain those. And even -- I think we should take them separately, 1 and 2 there, because both of these are necessary, and where some people may have had a problem with 1, I think maybe they would not have had a problem with 2. So if we could take just a second and revisit that, it would be appreciated by the Neighborhood and Housing Development Committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, do we need a motion to add these to the agenda? If so, I'll make a motion that we add all three items to the agenda. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my reservations is the same. I put up with this through Economic Development with the county for approximately three years of crises management. Now, if this budget was done yesterday, they should have been able to get it out to us last night before we left the budget hearing. I was here till approximately nine o'clock. I have some reservations about some changes here. I understand that we had to cut this budget by 53 percent. My concerns is where we are cutting, and we have monies going to places where I'm told, well, there's no one-penny money going there. Then when I request information, additional information, I learn that there is $185,000 -- you know, and we can deal with it straight out. Savannah Place. I don't think that we should be spending any money on any projects with these funds shrinking where we have one-penny money we can use and where we have revenue bond money that we can use from the Water Works. We should use this money for what it's supposed to be used for versus all these other items, and I have some concern there. And certainly I respect the fact that the chairman of the committee and the staff got together and they put a budget together in a timely manner, maybe as timely as they could, but perhaps they didn't have all the facts or perhaps they don't understand the priorities when it come to Community Block Grant money. I've had a problem with how it's been used in the past, I have a problem with how we're doing it now, and especially when we're not looking for projects to spend excess money and we've been cut 53 percent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, does that mean you're not going to vote for the motion? MR. TODD: Not on the budget. We can vote on the others if they want to separate them out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: We would like to vote on the second one. If he's not going to vote for it, then we -- I assume -- Mr. Attorney, if he doesn't -- if we don't get a unanimous vote on Number 1, we can't move forward on it? MR. WALL: It can't be added to the agenda, that's correct. MR. BEARD: Okay. Well, then we'll look at Number 2 then and see if we can move on that one, because that would be necessary. I also would like to remind Mr. Todd that that -- we didn't change anything, we just cut some things. We approved this a couple of weeks ago, for his information. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that we approved a budget a couple of weeks ago when we had approximately 5 million dollars plus. Today I understand that we have 2.2 million dollars, and some of the frivolous things that we were enjoying or maybe doing in the 5 million that we can ill-afford to do in the 2 million, or 2.5 million, when we have other funding sources for those projects. Street lights, there's a mechanism for doing street lights in this city. One of them is through taxes, the other one is through street light districts. And we could go on and on. I think that we got to establish our priorities and look at where this money should be spent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think all we need to know is are we going to have a unanimous consent to put it on. If we're not, we're wasting everybody's time. MR. BEARD: Correct, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Todd, how about reconsidering Savannah Place and let's move on, and then we'll talk about it. Please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we also move the funds from street lights and also move any funds from any sewer projects that we have in it? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'll just withdraw Number 1 and ask for you to do Number 2. There's no need of just sitting here all night on this one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Without a long discussion, can everybody vote unanimously to Number 2? If not, just say yes or no. Has anybody got a problem with Number 2? I'm assuming that's unanimous, so all in favor of Number 2, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 2: Consider approval of the 1997 Consolidated Plan. Mr. Mack? MR. MACK: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I think this letter dated December 3rd is basically self-explanatory. This is a planning document that outlines the local strategy to address the needs in the area regarding community development, economic development, housing, and homelessness. And this is basically a planning document that outlines how we will address those particular issues to HUD, and we ask for your approval. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I do see a lot of paperwork. Have I seen this before? MR. MACK: No, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: And it's written on the 3rd of December? MR. MACK: Let me explain some things. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Before you explain some things, my understanding is that the letter is written on the 3rd of December. When do you have to have this to HUD? MR. MACK: From my understanding, according to HUD -- and, of course, you all know that I was just appointed as director of this position; okay? This document should have been to HUD by November 15th, so this document is late getting to HUD. MR. BEARD: But we also have to take into consideration that we had to go through the communities and we have had town meetings on all of this, and we are running a little late on all of this. And Paul DeCamp knows, put this together, and this is why the urgency is of both of these items that we get them to HUD before we get a letter of reprimand. MR. ZETTERBERG: But in all fairness, you're asking us to approve something we haven't read. Is that true or false? MR. MACK: Well, it was gotten to you today. I don't know whether you've had time enough to read it or not. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I understand that, I'm just trying to qualify this. And this is a significant document; correct? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'll tell you what, my crisis is not yours, you know, or your crisis is not mine. I wouldn't vote for it. If we're late, we're late, shame on us. If we don't get the program, shame on us. But I would like the opportunity -- I've already made one action that I didn't read, so I'm not going to do it again. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. MACK: May I explain one thing about this budget and my conversation with HUD the other day? We just got information on this -- on the figures, and for the most part, this is not what you -- what we call a budget cut. From my understanding, what HUD did was gave you all -- or gave us some preliminary figures for planning, and that preliminary figure for Community Development Block Grant was about 5.5 million dollars. Now, when they appropriate this money, they appropriate it in one bash and that money has to be divided up among communities. Communities go, communities come, you know. And there are a lot of factors that are involved in this thing, and as a result of the factors that have been involved in it, our allocation -- our proposed allo- cation is 2.9 versus 5.5. So this is not what you might in terms call a cut. They basically gave us a planning amount. MR. TODD: Mr. Mack -- Mr. Mayor? In the sense you're making that comment, can you tell me what projects on your revised budget or your original budget that was actually south of the Gordon Highway in the sense that you did have hearings, you know, in those communities and there were, you know, proposals, et cetera? MR. MACK: Mr. Todd, at this moment I cannot tell you that. And the truth of the matter is this -- for the most part, I did not have any planning or any input at all in this budget until yesterday, for the record. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Since we are not going to deal with -- obviously deal with Number 1, even though it's probably been partially discussed and flip-flopped on, very briefly, I would hope that since it's not going to be discussed, that in conjunction with some other meeting or it by itself, that we can at least maybe set very soon a date to deal with this, because you as well as other Commissioners will probably be at National League of Cities in terms of some dates on the end of this week as well as dealing with next week. Mr. Carstarphen -- and a few things I maybe disagree with Bill on, a lot of them I've agreed with him on, but one of the first things early on that we paid him to do and to suggest was in terms of us putting a director of permanency in that particular office of where we're dealing with. No finger- pointing time, but I think I would be remiss from the standpoint -- and I'm not saying this because I voted for the current director. I want to first applaud the chairman of that committee who may have made a motion with somebody else but saw the urgency of working with the new director in trying to get something to present to this Commission, and I thank Mr. Beard and Mr. Mack for doing that. But I think we'd be very remiss to turn around here tonight and ambush the messenger that has not been a part of putting the message together. And we're getting here of what's trying to be presented to us. We've had a Project Manager, you've had some of us that have cried in the wilderness the whole year to get somebody over there in that department and do this probably first and ongoing. It's been the only creative area that we've had for funds. Now, we've taken for granted that we were just going to automatically get X number of dollars, and that's basically what we were doing that on. But at some point, gentlemen, whether it's tonight or another night or another morning or full day and a morning this thing is going to have to be discussed. I'm not saying I would vote for what's been put together in the package, but I think to get it to an area of discussion has to be done at some point and at some time. And if we disagree with what's been put together on it -- we can't get it by not discussing it. It won't come through osmosis, it's going to have to be debated on this floor, and that's the only thing I want to say before we take a vote, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Matter of fact, we already voted. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move with the order of the day, please, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Brigham, would you yield one point? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't think we're going to change anybody's mind. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about something else. MAYOR SCONYERS: We already voted anyway, gentlemen. Mr. Brigham, go ahead now. MR. H. BRIGHAM: In conjunction with what Mr. Mays is saying, in order not to have this scapegoat again, Mr. Todd, I'm on your side, so believe me. I think that -- and I don't know whether Mr. Carstarphen -- I asked him the other day does he have the privilege of going on filling his vacancies. If he does, then I think that when he come back with some problems like this, we ought not to try to have to do it, but he and the staff would do it. Plus, we have a committee that is set up to review these. When do those go into effect, Jim? We had a committee set up to -- MR. WALL: Y'all have approved the committee. There have not been any members appointed to that committee yet, and that needs to be done. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And, Mr. Mayor, whatever mechanism we need to use to find out what are the vacancies over there and get those vacancies filled, and then certainly I will be the first one, the next time it comes around, that -- you know, it ought to be done. But at this point certainly I think -- Mr. Mayor, can I -- it's a motion, or what do I need to do? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think everybody -- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, there's no need of discussing this any more. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're through with that, right. I was just letting him -- MR. BEARD: I move we move on to a point of order. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think what he was asking Mr. Carstarphen was does Keven have the right to appoint his -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Staff. MR. BEARD: Well, that would come from the new Administrator, I would think. MR. H. BRIGHAM: All right. Well, does he have that -- MR. HANDY: Why would that come under the Administrator? Everybody else is appointing their staff. MR. BEARD: Because we just hired one on Monday, that's why it would come under him, and we didn't have one before Monday. MR. OLIVER: I will be meeting with the department directors Thursday morning at 8:30, and at that time I want to get from them what they see as issues facing their department. Obviously that's one that's facing this particular department, and we'll take and bring back whatever actions are necessary to make things work more smoothly. MR. H. BRIGHAM: As far as this department is concerned? MR. OLIVER: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Thank you, sir. MR. BEARD: I call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're fixing to move on. Ms. Bonner? Or, actually, I think Mr. Carstarphen is next. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I have three items. I'll be brief. The first item is to present to you the proposed organizational structure for the new department of Citizen Service and Information. You have as attachments to Item Number 46 in your agenda a copy of the proposed organization chart, and I would ask you to turn to that at this time if you would. You have previously approved the position description for the Citizen Service and Information Director. As the chart as it is proposed indicates, we are proposing an operation that would ultimately include five positions. We are suggesting, however, that you begin with emphasis on the Citizen Service component, which would be a director and two customer service representatives. While you have authorized us to prepare an open recruitment for the Citizen Service and Information Director position, it would be my hope and expectation that you would be able to fill the customer service positions from within your existing number of employees. And, indeed, utilizing people who are familiar with the organization and familiar with the community would be an asset. The two other positions that are represented in the organization chart, the media and publications technician and the cable television technician, would be positions that would come later as you develop your program of citizen communications and complete your negotiations for a revised Cablevision contract and have the resources and the need for those positions. I would say in commenting briefly about this department, the two objectives that you need to keep foremost in your mind as you develop this department are two that I have heard on a couple of occasions today in your discussions and which I have heard during the last 11 months that I have been with you repeatedly. And those two are citizen service, the function of making sure that citizens who have needs for service, who have complaints about service or who have questions about service, have a simple, single place they can call and get an answer within a designated period of time professionally and efficiently. And secondly, communications. And as I heard Mr. Mays comment today and others of you about the problems that communications pose for us in making sure that citizens understand how the government works and how they can go about getting services. And the two functions of this proposed department are to provide customer service/citizen service to individual citizens and, secondly, to on a continuous basis get out information about how the government works, how services are provided, and what you are doing so your citizens understand it and can respond intelligently and effectively and, in fact, can help you cooperate in providing whatever service that is. I will not go over it in detail, but I have also included in your background information some information on a Municipal Citizen Service and Information Center which has been up and operating for some years. This happens to be in Charlotte, North Carolina, but I would call to your attention the volume of inquiries and citizen service requests that they are handling. I would call to your attention the fact that they are automated and use a computer-based system to make those decisions more efficiently. I have included some examples of some service request forms that are used and indications of the volumes of calls that they handle. In this operation they handle from a low figure of a little over 8 thousand 2 to a high figure of over 14,000 calls per month, and this is an indication, I think, of the amount of need that citizens have for better information, for better service, and for a quick and professional response. Are there any questions about this? I would ask that you approve it following any questions you might have. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Carstarphen, my question is, your cable television person, is there a need for that in the sense that we are not -- we are charging a franchise fee, but we are not regulating cable television. Now, the old city opted to regulate and, I think, file paperwork, et cetera. The old county never did, and we haven't adopted the old city policy. If we were regulating them, then we would be -- per, I believe, FCC rules, we'd be able to get a percentage of their gross versus a percentage of their base rate. And if we are opting to do this, if that's the will of the Commission, then I don't have a problem with that department. If we are not opting to do that, then it don't do us any good to take complaints if we don't have enforcement authority, which regulating them would give us, and would give us additional revenue. And I just thought I'd throw that out there for everybody to think about. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Todd, this anticipates that as a municipal government you will franchise and have some obligation to regulate the franchisee. These are matters that have not yet been concluded, and you will be dealing with your attorney on concluding them. The position is represented as -- if you have this position, in my opinion it should be a part of this department. But whether or not you have that position is a decision that you will make in the future as you conclude your negotiations relative to the franchise, and I'd yield to Mr. Wall concerning that. MR. WALL: Well, and I'm in agreement with that. There had been one analysis done indicating that the cost of administering and monitoring the franchise -- or not the franchise, but the Cablevision rates did not justify the establishment of a section to control, monitor, and have that enforcement authority, and I think that's a policy decision that the Commission is going to have to make at the time it's brought before them. MR. CARSTARPHEN: My point here is simply that if you have this position, it fits best in this department. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, for the sake of discussion, I would like to know where that recommendation come from. Did it come from the League of Cities that, I guess, proposing a contract with us that they handle this for us or did it come from the former manager of Jones Intercable here in town that told us here in a meeting that it wasn't worthwhile? MR. WALL: Are you addressing the question to me? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm addressing it to the County Attorney. MR. WALL: It came from Butch McKie. Butch had done a memo to me, I think at the Mayor's request, basically analyzing the potential cost of it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly other cities is letting the League of Cities and Municipal Government in the State of Georgia look at their situation, and I would rather have a outside source. And I think if we're looking at the Municipal Associ-ation or the League of Cities, they are far ahead of everybody else in this arena. And I believe that's where the city turned to when they opt to regulate and charge a percentage of the gross versus the basic service rate, and I think that the money is there. MR. HANDY: Can we move on, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Zetterberg wanted to ask something. MR. ZETTERBERG: I may be confused. We are talking about the cable television technician; right? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, I believe that's what Mr. -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Isn't this -- wasn't the intent for the government to use a channel, a TV channel, to broadcast information for the citizens, and that's what that position is about, not about -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: The Cable Television Communications Act of the United States does provide for this and anticipates local governments -- MR. ZETTERBERG: But that's what this position is about? MR. CARSTARPHEN: This position anticipates you making that policy decision in the future. As I understand it, that matter is still before you in the sense that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: But the position itself is about getting to use a cable TV channel to broadcast information? MR. CARSTARPHEN: No, this position would be the individual, as I contemplate it, who would handle complaints and deal with the citizens who are affected by the franchise that you grant. If you make a further policy decision to activate a local government access channel which is fully programmed with governmental information and live meetings, then you will have to establish a staff to do that, and that will be, I would imagine, a number of positions. This position is the first -- MR. ZETTERBERG: All along I thought that that's what that position was. MR. CARSTARPHEN: If you operate a full functioning cable channel, you'll need a staff of considerably more than one to operate it. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I don't know. Aiken does the same thing and it's run by a secretary and the City Administrator. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, you have to make some decisions about how active you want to be in that regard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, aren't you asking us to approve this chart, but not to fill in the boxes right now? I mean, this is an expandable chart -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'm asking you to approve the chart and that the first three positions that will be authorized are the Director of Citizen Service and Information, which you have already authorized, and the two customer service representatives, which I hope we can fill from within the organization. MR. KUHLKE: I move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if you're going from left to right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: If we're approving the chart, Mr. Mayor, then certainly we're probably approving slots or positions for a lot more than the two individuals -- or the three individuals. I don't have a problem with what's under Citizens Service Center and the customer service representatives, the two there, and the one -- the person over that. I think that when we do any more than that without going the extra step to assure that the funding is going to be there from cable television -- and from what other cities has done, it's my belief that there's enough funding out there to fund everything that we have here. But without taking that other step, if we approve those other two positions, then we're going to have folks coming back to us wanting to approve the funding to put personnel in those slots, and I'm concerned about that, and I'd rather, you know, just approve the one and we grow from there if we're going to grow government. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The proposal before you does not include the cable television technician nor the media and publications technician; it only includes a position which you have already authorized, the Director. It does include the two positions of customer service representative. MR. TODD: Right. And anything else I'm looking at on this chart we're not approving as far as -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: You can consider that preliminary and it's not approved at this time. MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, no further questions. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I can support this, but I would much rather see those two slots come from existing positions, if we can do that, and I would much prefer that they be transferred from another department to this department through Human Resources. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is the expectation and that will be the objective, and if you want to condition your approval on that -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I think it needs to be conditioned upon that. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I would be very comfortable with that. I believe it can be staffed from within existing approved positions. MR. KUHLKE: Let me clarify my motion, if I may. I move that we approve this organizational chart, and that the two customer representatives be filled by existing employees, and that the media and cable television technician positions are fictitious positions at this point that can be filled at a later date at the discretion of this Commission. MR. HANDY: And I accept that, Bill. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: The second item, I'll be very brief, about five months ago I gave you a summary of the first six months of consolidation actions. I have attached an 11-month summary, and I will simply call to your attention the period between July and November of actions that have been taken regarding consolidation. It is a matter simply for your information and I present it for that reason. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final item I have under other consolidation items is simply to let you know that national advertising has appeared on the positions of Director of Public Works, Director of Equal Opportunity, and Information Technology Director, and that we anticipate receiving applications; in fact, probably have already begun to receive some. That concludes my items. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. Item 47, please? CLERK: 47 is to consider approval of the list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement Program, with an effective date of December 31st. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. WALL: Those that were indicated with January 1. CLERK: January 1st. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy -- MR. HANDY: What was that you added on there? CLERK: Those that indicated January 1st, the Attorney is asking that that be December 31st. MR. HANDY: Correct. Thank you. CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I have a second? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item? CLERK: Item 48 is ratification of the letter rescinding the action of the appointment of Butch Murdock as Acting Fire Chief and to ratify the appointment of Dennis Atkins as Acting Fire Chief. MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Chairman. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is, and I'll be as brief as I possibly can because I know we've been here for a long time. But certainly, you know, the last special called meeting when this board took a action and we all left here after voting on it and taking a public action, it gravely concerns me that we would rescind that action by a -- through a secret letter that I would assume that was wrote to the Mayor by the Mayor in the sense that it was on the Mayor's stationery, prepared by the County Attor-ney. It's my belief that legal counsel, as I indicated to Mr. Wall this morning, represent the entire Commission and that legal counsel shouldn't participate in a secret letter, and certainly when that legal counsel put my name on the letter as one of the positions to sign and no one giving me the opportunity until a copy of the letter was put in my book to decline or sign it. And I believe in the principle of when there is not a action taken by the board or there is a necessary emergency action to be taken, for the Mayor or whomever to generate a letter, get the signatures of intent, and possibly, if we hadn't already took a action, to execute that action of intent. But in my opinion, it's strictly illegal, the process that we took as far as generating a secret letter, keeping that letter concealed from certain Commissioners to a point, and executing that letter before it's ratified by this board and -- at a regular or a called meeting. The Mayor have within his discretion the authority to call a meeting at any time, and I think that's unfair to this board, my colleagues, to the public, and it violates not just the letter of the law but it violates the law as far as the Sunshine Act go, and I want to just go on record as that being my position, aside from my position as far as what we should do about this issue on who should be Interim Chief or whether we should waive the education requirements or go out for, you know, national adver-tisement. I have respected the process and I have worked within the process, and I don't believe in coups, gentlemen. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham wanted to say something. After he says it, then we'll -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need a ruling from the County Attorney whether or not we can only -- if we can rescind an action other than in a public meeting. MR. WALL: I don't think the Commission can take any formal action outside of a public meeting. This letter was worded saying the intent to rescind, recognizing that it would have to come before this Commission, and that's the reason that the wording was there. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe the letter said it was to rescind. MR. WALL: Our intent to rescind the action of the Commission taken. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. The other question I would have -- MR. HANDY: Read the letter. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I still have a question of the County Attorney. Under our rules we cannot rescind a previous action if it's already been implemented; is that correct? MR. WALL: Under the rules that you have adopted, that is correct. If action has been taken, as a result of the action, then a motion to rescind would not be in order. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then if we had voted in public session to place a motion in effect of naming somebody to a department, can we rescind that by a letter if we cannot --by a letter? Do we not need to rescind it in a public meeting? MR. WALL: I think you do have to rescind it in a public meeting. I think any formal action has to be done in a public meeting. This was -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Then my next question is, if we had a motion and a direction of things to happen, then can we even -- should that action not have followed the motion that was made in a public meeting? MR. WALL: Let me see if I'm answering your question. I'm going to try to. The motion was made in the public meeting to name Chief Murdock as Acting Chief, effective upon the retirement. There was no other action taken, to my knowledge, to implement that. There was no directive from the Mayor or to -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: But he was to take place upon the retirement? MR. WALL: That is correct. That was the motion that was made. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That retirement had already been previously approved? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And did that not happen as of November the -- as of December the 1st? MR. WALL: It was to take effect at the end of November or December the 1st, yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The application that was approved for early retirement as of December the 1st? MR. WALL: I think that's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then it would follow that -- logically that Chief Maddox [sic] would have been Chief on December the 2nd? MR. WALL: Yes, but I still take the -- it's my position that something further had to be done. A letter had to go out from either the Administrator's office or from the Mayor's office. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is not a majority vote of this Commission a final action? MR. WALL: It's a final action, but the Mayor is the Chief Executive to carry out -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Does he not have to follow our direction? MR. WALL: He has to follow the direction -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Of a final vote in a public meeting? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, but -- MR. HANDY: Well, somebody's going to have to wait until somebody finishes talking. There can't be answering questions and talking at the same time. MR. WALL: This was the intent to rescind that action and for the Mayor -- and instructions to the Mayor as far as what to do to follow a majority of the Commission's wishes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But shouldn't that not be changed in a public meeting and not done by a private letter? MR. WALL: And again I fall back, it's not final until it's voted on in public. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. So it's not final, so then, in other words, according to our rules we can't rescind an action that we've already took. We've took an action and now we're going to rescind it, but we didn't follow through with the action that we were -- that we instructed the people to do. MR. WALL: There was -- the only thing that was done was the motion was made and passed to name him. There was no further action that would bar, in my opinion, rescinding that motion and naming someone else as Acting Chief. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like to qualify something for the record. I wanted to make sure that when we went out to vote for a Fire Chief, that we went out on a national search for the Fire Chief. I personally did not believe that being a college graduate was an absolute requirement for a Fire Chief's position. I didn't believe that in the beginning and I don't believe it today. Likewise, I was more than willing to vote for Pam Tucker to be the Emergency Management agent without having a college degree. Frankly I'm a little embarrassed, because after I read the letter that I signed, it does narrow it down to a National Fire Academy attendee. If that had any intent to narrow the selection process to one individual, I don't want any part of that. In reality, from my experience, the base of my experience and the years that I spent in the military, normally when somebody retires or leaves their post, the second in command takes responsibility for the organization. It was my impression that Mr. Atkins was the second in command of the Fire Department. I never knew that he wasn't, and I think there are probably some other people here who admit that there is a possibility that they thought Mr. Atkins was. In all reality, I believe that Mr. Newman should have been selected because he was the next available person that was not retiring. I understand there was another chief that was going to retire. It would have made all the sense in the world to have Mr. Newman. I do not believe that I would be prejudice because Mr. Newman was the chief because I'm insistent on going out to get the very best public servant that we can to be the Fire Chief for Augusta-Richmond County. That's where I stand. I want the very best, and I'm not going to be -- if I don't know what -- if I'm embarrassed, then I have to withdraw my vote from that, if I can withdraw my vote, but the very fact is we want the very best we can. If Dennis Atkins in the final analysis is the best applicant for that job, then I will vote for Dennis Atkins. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I want to address this issue, too, and probably spend some time on it, at least more than I normally do. I have some grave concerns with the letter. I also want to just start out saying that the purpose in Butch Murdock being the Interim Chief was because he didn't want the permanent position. And I don't care what anybody says, if you're an interim you have -- if you're an interim department head, you have a leg up on anybody else that might be -- might meet your qualifications. You know, unless they exceed the qualifications that you have, you have a leg up in that position because you're already there and there is the intent on the governing body not to remove anybody that's functioning properly and meets the minimum qualifications. What I see here in this letter with a waiver of the educational requirements that we've required for all other department heads, I see this as a dumbing down of the educational requirements for this position. I think that's a mistake and I think that's wrong. Now, there has been politicking in the past with these other department heads for the people that we voted to go in those positions. We've never politicked with the standards -- with the educational standards. In this case there has been politicking going on with the educational requirements, and I think that's bad. I don't have a lot of trouble with politicking for people. There's different ones of us prefer different people for personality or chemistry or whatever, but I think it's wrong for us to be politicking to dumb down the educational requirements for this department. Another problem I have with this letter is that this thing requires an attendance at the National Fire Academy. Now, I understand that the National Fire Academy is either in West Virginia or Maryland or somewhere and it's kind of hard to get into. From what I've been able to determine, the same kind of training that you get at the National Fire Academy takes place at the Georgia Fire Academy or Georgia Fire Institute here in Forsyth -- in Forsyth, Georgia. And basically when this thing requires attendance at the National Fire Academy, it doesn't give how long you have to attend, what grade you have to make. But these classes, I understand, go from two days to one week to two weeks at this academy, and that's good, and I think men should have training. But what we're talking here with the Fire Chief is not somebody that's ready to don a suit and run into a blazing building that's burning down, we're talking about somebody that's going to be over a 13 million dollar budget. So a college education is a good thing. We want a manager, we don't want just a firefighter in this position. He's got 300 men under him to fight the fires. We want somebody that can manage a 13 million dollar budget; we want somebody that has hopefully had some experience with personnel problems, even with legal problems; we want somebody that can be a manager all the way around, not just to be putting the wet stuff on the red stuff, as some of the old hats say. But I think that we can have the best and the best educated. I think it's possible to do both, and I think this minimum standard is reasonable. I think it's -- to have a college degree has been consistent with everything we've done. I think it's a mistake now for this -- in this position to leave -- to drop that requirement. I think it's important. And the last thing that I -- problem I have with this letter is the last sentence which says, by the recruitment committee, is to come back with a recommendation for the permanent Fire Chief at the December 17th Commission meeting. After today we're going to advertise nationally for this position. We're going to advertise -- if this is approved, we're going to advertise that it's been dumbed down, and then we're going to get these applicants in, we're going to review them, and we're going to pick a permanent -- recommend a permanent Chief. I've discussed this with the Human Resources manager and I asked him is that enough time, is two weeks enough time to do this in, and he felt very uncomfortable that it was. And if he's here, he's welcome to speak to that. But I think this is a push, push, hurry up. I think it's been politicized. I don't have any problem with the individual that's named up here personally, I think he'd make a fine Chief. That was not my purpose in voting against this, not an individual. My problem with this is the educational requirements and the time you're allotting here to do it. You're not allotting enough time for review and receipt of applications and to get the most qualified person for this, so I would recommend to my colleagues if you would vote against this and just maintain what we originally did at the previous meeting. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall wanted to comment, I think. MR. WALL: Let me clarify a couple of things because questions have come up. First of all, again, it only states the intent to waive the educational requirements. This is not action waiving those requirements, so therefore it is -- and that is a separate item. It's Item Number 49 that -- insofar as dealing with the educational requirements. Secondly, insofar as the advertising -- and Mr. Bridges and some other Commissioners in conversation with me have commented about advertising nationally. So far y'all have made the decision that it would be advertised in-house and that it would not be an open recruitment, so the decision would have to be made to make it an open recruitment if you wanted to advertise on a regional or national basis and go outside. The third thing insofar as the National Fire Academy is concerned, I like you had concerns about excluding anyone. And the two top candidates, the names that have been mentioned, both show attendance at the National Fire Academy as I interpreted their resumes and, you know, they attended classes that were put on by the National Fire Academy. So it was not written to exclude either of the two top candidates or any other candidates. But waiving the educational requirements, it was the feeling of the Commissioners that were giving me instructions that there needed to be some type of criteria other than just length of service. But the two top candidates had that criteria. MR. BRIDGES: It's my understanding, Jim, that we went out on this, that this isn't just advertising internally. MR. WALL: Okay. I'm sorry, I thought that was in-house. MR. BRIDGES: This is a national search, or regional, whatever. I don't think it's just an internal search. CLERK: At the called meeting. MR. BRIDGES: Pardon? CLERK: At the called meeting it was approved that it go outside. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Okay. MR. WALL: I stand corrected. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Go ahead, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: Would it be in order to make a substitute motion that we go out for a national search for a Fire Chief? MR. BRIDGES: That's already been done. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, then let me say one other comment. I think that the comment of -- I'm sure Mr. Bridges, if he reflected on calling this dumbing down of the position, has certainly given tremendous insult to the employees in Richmond County and also to the Commissioners here who do not hold a college degree. And I feel like I probably have more advanced education than many, but I don't think that puts me in a superior position, nor does it automatically make me the most qualified person to sit on the -- to be in any position. And I think that we have made some mistakes along the way, and I think if we can change things we would be better off and today we could recognize the fact that we have competent individuals from within. And we have an opportunity to upgrade the Fire Department and we ought to go out and look to see if there is anybody else that can work in it. I don't think there is anything that we have done that cannot be reversed in the best interest of the citizens of this community. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up. Then Mr. Mays, and then that'll be it, we'll vote. MR. KUHLKE: All right, sir. All I wanted to do was maybe amend my motion since 48 and 49 sort of go together, and I would like to include my -- in my motion that we approve Item Number 48 and 49. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'll try and be real quick. I'm not going to comment on the educational reversal or redoing or eliminating portions of it, I think I dealt with that pretty lengthy last week and I made my personal points clear on it. They have not changed. And I don't think it was for a reduction of any educational requirements, but it was to relook at what we had done as it related to fire service. And I think to relook does not downgrade that in any way, because I think to get a person with a four-year degree to apply as an applicant but may have no relation whatsoever to fire service does not necessarily, you know, make that position any stronger in terms of you getting that type of applicant. So I don't think we're downgrading in any way in terms of doing that. It was a revamping and totally looking at what we had, and I voted for that and I supported it. I do want to clarify this, because, Mr. Mayor, I called in to the Clerk, at least my secretary did, the day of the committee meeting that Mr. Kuhlke chaired, and I think I need to say this publicly. You know, I got diarrhea and everything in the world got called out on me. You know, I got missing in action, killed, dead, you name it, you know, not wanting to deal with a particular issue. I want to say this: regardless of what we deal with with the letter, I don't know how everybody else was handled, I do know that you had a letter that was there. If I had been here to chair my committee meeting I would have voted as I did on the first motion that was on the floor, which we did not have enough votes to deal with an Interim Chief, which failed on a 5-4-1 vote. And I want to correct some things that were written. It was not a 4-6 vote, it was 5-4-1, of which you were not in a position from the votes of the Commission in order to break that particular tie, and I voted for Chief Atkins on that vote. I also made it very clear that I did not want to see us, because of what our Attorney had--and I hope I'm not overstepping the line, Jim--had ruled in legal session, that even though we had an acting person, that we were to name an interim. What I didn't want to see us, and I hope I expressed at that time, that we were not leaving us hanging. We put Chief Atkins' name out, it did not get enough votes, so we had to have somebody that was going to be running the Fire Department because there were not enough votes there. I, in turn, defected to deal with Chief Murdock where we would have someone who would be in charge. I had no problem with what's there on that letter. If the technicalities are wrong in it, I think the intent -- people know what they are. I really think that the longer we drag this one, the more prisoners you're going to take, the more damage you're going to deal with in the department. The final analysis vote, regardless of what we put out in the application for a new Chief, is going to still have to be voted on again. And I did know from the Clerk and by way of her that that letter was out, so as far as I'm concerned you did not have a secret letter out. I did know about it, and had I been here I'd have signed it. But I'm prepared to vote for that particular ratification, and I'm going to vote the same way I did in terms of dealing with the educational requirements as I voted two weeks before. And I don't think that's a downgrade, and I do think we need to look at it, and I think we'd want to make some changes in it so that if it expands the level of how it directly deals with fire service. I have no problem with us doing that, but I think to restrict it totally, as I said a couple of weeks ago, to deal with just a four-year degree and not relating as to inner fire service works would be a mistake. And it wouldn't be the first time that this Commission has made a mistake. I think the one part about being human, it's just like a pencil, it's got an eraser on the end of it, Mr. Bridges, and I believe you have an opportunity to wipe that out. And we are not all perfect in the things that we end up doing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Handy had already called for the vote, gentlemen. I think we've done beat this to death enough. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of -- MAYOR SCONYERS: No, Mr. Todd, we're going to vote now. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm not going to accept a motion. MR. TODD: -- that the board decide whether the unreadiness vote position stands or whether the Chair rule. And I believe, Mr. Mayor, that's within the rules. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were in the process of voting. MAYOR SCONYERS: We are. I'm not going to accept Mr. Todd's motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? We had, Mr. Mayor, another item added to this issue that we've been discussing. And I'll call on the Parliamentarian, Mr. Mayor, for the rules on whether this board decides whether we vote or discuss the issue further. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, gentlemen, do you want to call the question or not, yes or no? MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MR. POWELL: Call the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have a vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Why don't we do a roll call vote, Ms. Bonner. I don't want to miss anybody. The vote is to see if we can go ahead and vote and quit discussing this, gentlemen; isn't that right, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Whether to continue discussion or whether to call -- have the vote called. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we were in the processing of voting. After the vote is taken, if Mr. Todd wants to turn the vote around, then he can do it by seven votes, but we were in the process of voting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. No debate. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, are we ready to vote then? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: What are we voting on now? Explain that. MR. WALL: The rules provide that in the event that there is an objection to calling the question, then it takes an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission to cut off the debate and have the vote taken. MR. BEARD: And have the vote taken. I vote to have the vote taken. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I vote to have the vote taken. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Present. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I vote to have the debate continue. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So the debate is dead. We can have our vote now. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I have the motion read again, please? Well, is he putting -- are you putting both of them together? Is that what he's doing? CLERK: Well, the motion was to approve the ratification of the letter rescinding the action and the letter waiving the educational requirements. 48 and 49. The ratification of 48 and 48. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: I'm going to vote present. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're not going to take a present tonight, Mr. Todd. You're either going to vote yes or no. A present is a no vote. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, how do you get it out of me? I voted present. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I'm going to declare it as a -- MR. TODD: Mr. Parliamentarian? MAYOR SCONYERS: You can tell him, Mr. Wall, he's going to have to walk this line tonight. We're going to walk it right, and he can plan to vote yes or no. MR. TODD: Mr. Parliamentarian, we need a ruling. MAYOR SCONYERS: A no vote or a present vote or an abstention is a no vote, and we can rule that; right, Mr. Wall? I just went to school on that. MR. WALL: Well, let me find the rule. There was a lot of debate about that at the time, and that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Robert's Rules of Order says a -- MR. WALL: Robert's Rules says that it's a no vote; however, if I remember correctly, a provision was put in here to allow an abstention. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I think I seen six hands, and I believe that makes a motion carry. MR. WALL: Yeah, it does. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, did I miss -- I'm sorry then. So we're good to go then, we don't have to worry about his vote, do we? CLERK: No. It was 6-3-1. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. MR. TODD: That's correct, though, then we have someone want to be a dictator. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, I'm sorry. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your apology. MAYOR SCONYERS: I wish to hell I could be one, we wouldn't have the problem we got today. You got a problem -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Are we voting on 48 and 49? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, it's over with now. We're already through. CLERK: It's over. It was 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 6-3-1. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a -- I'd like to have a -- in Other Business, I'd like to request that the County Attorney draft an ordinance that all personnel policies have got to be done in open -- all personnel promotions will have to be done in open meeting. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, won't that take a unanimous consent to add that to the agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: You got it. MR. POWELL: Well, you don't have that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. This meeting is adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 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 December 3, 1996. _________________________ Clerk of Commission