Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS December 17, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 17, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; Randy Oliver, Administrator; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Hellen Revelle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We'll have the Invocation by the Reverend Larry W. Hudson, Pastor of the Bethel AME Church. If you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HUDSON. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Hudson. Do we have any deletions or additions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request for deletion of Item 43. We have a request for an addendum to the agenda from the Attorney regarding a condemnation of a 15-foot sanitary sewer easement on the property Tax Map 19, Parcel 15; approval of a Subordination Agreement securing deed to the City Council of Augusta to the new mortgage loan by Georgia Bank and Trust Company; communication from the Attorney regarding a Supplemental Resolution for the bond issue; and approval of the 1997 Tentative Budget; with a correction on Item 44, that it reads 3144 Wrightsboro Road. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we add these additions by unanimous consent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: The first item is a delegation: Mr. James Rouse, President of the Belair Hills Neighborhood Association, reference to neighborhood concerns. MR. ROUSE: Good afternoon. Thank you all for allowing us this opportunity to come before this body once again. We have been here several times in the past pretty much for the same concern, so we are back under a new government with our same complaints, and we hope that this body has foresight to understand, to listen and hear what we have to say about our community. I've been in Belair Hills for eight years, and I'm proud to be a resident of that area, but we do have some concerns that I want to present to you today. One of our main concerns is drainage and sewerage. This has been mentioned in the past under several bodies of the County Commission and we have not gotten any satisfactory return on our request. We have supported the one-cent sales tax that we understood would help get us some drainage, and it hasn't happened yet, so we are making the request again today that we be provided the service of sewerage and drainage in Belair Hills Estates. I don't know what resource or revenue that you all can do, but we need some sewerage and drainage system in Belair Hills Estates. That's the first concern. Our second concern is that we have come before this body asking you to help us with some street improvement out there that the county has ownership to. We have not gotten any progress on that area -- in that area either. We have one street out there that construction has begun on it some time ago and it's been botched, and it's making our neighborhood look bad. We were hoping that this body would come out and finish the job that they started. At this time we have no way of communicating with the County Commission or their various departments because we had no idea that Caroline Street that I'm speaking of was going to be constructed there. Had we known, then I would have thought that we would've had some input on what's to be done on Caroline Street. The other thing is that, my understanding now, that in order to complete Caroline Street it's going to cost a lot of money. When this project was undertaken in the beginning, I don't know whether that thought was put into plan at that time, but at this time it is causing us some problems because people are using it to go back in there and dump trash and all that kind of stuff. We would hope that you all would come and complete the job that you all had started. Along that line, there are some other streets, you all call them paper streets, but we have property owners who owns those properties on those streets. I believe that they pay taxes on those streets. I think they deserve the right to get to their property when they want to. If they want to develop it, if you have ownership to it, then I think you all should provide means of getting these people to their property. The next request is that we request that you all make improvement on streets out there in Belair Hills Estates so property owners can get to their property. We are trying to get some water in some areas in Belair Hills Estates. I've talked to the department that I thought is responsible for that, and I'm getting some positive feedback on it, so I won't go, but I want what I'm saying to go into the minutes and on record, that we need your help in Belair Hills Estates. We need some services, and we feel that you all are the people who ran for election to do a job and we are looking for you all to do that job, to give us some help in servicing the Belair Hills Estates. Thank you. I have one person, if you don't -- if you can give a few moments that wants to say something. MS. RUFF: I am Joan Scott Ruff, I am M.M. Scott, Sr.'s daughter. He is the founder and developer of Belair Hills Estates. I'd just like to say a few words on his behalf and our behalf. My father had a vision. Belair Hills Estates Subdivision was his dream. This dream began over 40 years ago during the dark days of segregation. There was no place for African-American citizens to move to in the city. He envisioned a place where we could own land and build homes on this land if we desired. He, along with my mother, Mamie E. Scott, and four other friends formed Pioneers, Incorporated. This was not an easy undertaking in those dark days. There were many struggles facing them and many obstacles to overcome along the way. Through tenacious, hard work, blood, sweat, tears, and many prayers, that courageous group never gave up, they persevered onward. My father passed away in 1981 after having lost his sight a few years earlier. He never got a chance to see how his dream has flourished, but we here bear witness to his dream and will not let it be destroyed. To allow you to carry out your diabolical plans of dismemberment would dishonor the memory and struggle of that noble spirit who was my father. I feel his presence here today. He is standing with us. My father loved poetry. This is one of his favorite poems, it is titled A Living Faith: "I dreamed many dreams that never came true. I've seen them vanish at dawn. But I've realized enough of my dreams, thank God, to make me want to dream on. I've prayed many prayers when no answer came, though I waited patient and long, but answers have come to enough of my prayers to make me keep praying on. I've trusted many a friend that failed and left me to weep alone, but I've found enough of my friends true blue to make me keep trusting on. I've sown many seeds that fell by the way for the birds to feed upon, but I've held enough golden sheaves in my hands to make me keep sowing on. I've drained the cup of disappointment and pain and gone many days without song, but I've sipped enough nectar from the roses of life to make me want to live on." Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. MR. ROUSE: Mr. Mayor, I have one other thing. I would like to introduce residents of Belair Hills Estates, and the support that we got here today is for the attempt to make an access road into Belair Hills Estates. But if Mr. Zetterberg would, for the record, go and state it that this has been abandoned, so -- for the record, an attempt to make an access road into Belair Hills Estates. I'd like the residents that's supporting this effort to stand, please. So we are here to ask of your intentions on those items that I spoke of earlier. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a couple of comments. Certainly there is no action being taken at all to put the -- an access road out of that location in any proximity to Belair Hills Estates. We're looking at other alternatives. Hopefully your adjacent community of Buckhead will get some relief, but right now, unfortunately, trucks are rolling not only through their neighborhood but right through the back yards of some of the people in Buckhead. An unfortunate situation. The Belair community has been longstanding. It's been an established community for over 20-something years. There are -- the county had accepted the road network out there. I have no idea why the funds were not allocated in the one-cent sales tax money for the drainage problem, because that was supposed to be a high priority in the city and they should have been, and I cannot find anywhere why they were taken out except that apparently there was a vote by the Commission when they prioritized all the lists not to include that. I would hope that within that pocket of money, if there are residual monies left over, possibly from underfunding some other projects or projects not requiring as much, that we could address that. As far as the Caroline Road situation went, I have no idea why anybody even attempted to put Caroline Road in where they did, because there is a huge drainage problem out there. And so what I did is I asked the engineering people to go out and get an estimate, and they hired a contractor to come in and to look at that, and it was going to cost 800-some thousand dollars to take the water off the top of Belair Estates down into the drainage basin below there down around Belair Road. There were no monies in there to do that. We have agreed -- I believe Mr. Murphy -- is Mr. Murphy here? MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: Then Mr. Murphy had met with myself and Mr. Rouse, and we have agreed to attempt through city funds or county funds to do some drainage work on the lower part of Belair where it runs right through the center of one gentleman's property. And we've also looked, I believe, at Mr. Roundtree's property and we've had discussions out there on that one. But we have facing us an $800,000 project, but I would like to see the rest of the, quote, paper streets, that we could take a look at those. Hopefully with the help of the Belair community we could prioritize those and put those in the budget for opening up. They were accepted by the county, I feel now the county has an obligation to do that, and we should get on with the program and we should have a time line and we should be able to demonstrate that we can do that work. And I would like to take this for information -- make a motion that we take this for information and ask the Engineering Department to go back and take a look at what roads need to be put in, what the cost of those, what the priority are, and how we can fund those. That's besides the drainage problem we have, because I don't think that we're going to find the money to do the drainage problem until we finish up -- until we get to the next one-cent sales tax money in five years. I just don't see that happening, but it is a possibility that we could. But we stand -- what we need to do is develop a plan and resource that plan and get on with it, and I think the Belair community has been more than patient and I think they'd be willing and be patient to see over the next four years that road work and that work completed. And if we could do that, I think that we ought to go about getting it done. But it is a very difficult situation. And I don't blame the Belair community for being very disturbed over this because they, for years, have asked the government to do this and nobody's ever done anything. And then there are things that have been done and nobody's ever told them why they've been done. And it's very difficult -- there's no paper trail at all to find out what the problem is. So I thank Belair community for coming in today, and hope-fully the Engineering and Public Works people can take this and develop a plan within the next 60 to 90 days under Mr. Oliver's guidance and we'll see what we can do about resourcing it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion if my colleague is making a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. That was a motion, wasn't it, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, that we take it for information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, the time line is 60 to 90 days? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what he said, yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: 60 to 90 days to develop a plan, determining what the resourcing is, and then we'll see how it can be funded. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was just kind of amazed that the funding was not there. Mr. Wall is looking now to research it. Because when we talked about that -we've worked on this for years, several years, and I thought it was somewhere in there, but where along the line it got dropped from that, I think we need to reconstruct that somewhere down the line because -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I've attempted to reconstruct it. I can't. I've talked to Mr. Sherrouse. I'm told that the Commission voted that that not be included in the -- it not be included as a funded part of the sales tax program. And that's the best that I -- and I believe I've also been told that by the Public Works people, that it was an unfunded requirement. I have no idea why it was unfunded. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay, it's in the list then, we found that much. But what we're saying here is there was no money allocated to it. MR. ZETTERBERG: There was no money allocated to -- for sales tax money, and -- but there are two different projects: one would be the sales tax money, the drainage problem; the other one would be the completion of roads that we committed to complete. Those are two different actions that need to be done. Am I correct, Mr. Rouse? MR. ROUSE: Yes. And let me just say this here. You know, I kept this paper here because I knew that it probably would come in handy again. This was dated March 24th, 1991, and it lists some of those streets and things that you all said that you was going to do here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. First, let me thank the current representative from that district. You know, I'm not into a finger-pointing contest now, but I want to thank him for at least probably being more responsive in the short time that he's been here maybe than his predecessor or predecessors were in all the time that they represented Belair Hills. I probably can answer the question to you, Rob, as to where the money went and how that got shifted. Unfortunately, when you're in a district process -- and I know, for instance, when I represented the district that Mr. Beard has now, and probably being the lowest point elevation in this whole county with East Augusta and the downtown, any water projects. What happened was each Commissioner went through a ranking system within his own district of prioritizing what was to be done in each district of his own and brought to the table. One of the problems we had in that particular system was that -- Rob was not here, but the person who was evidently, in our scoring match of putting everything together of all the combination projects, rated it. And it's very hard if a sitting district Commissioner rates his own project in his own district very low. Now, that's how it -- we might as well be honest, that's how it got rated low and got put down in there and probably is why it's not on a upper ranking system now. So, you know, I thank the current representative, you know, for being fair and in trying to move on, and we're not going to leave you hanging with that one in terms of support. I hope within the information motion, that as it goes back to Engineering Services, that we can do a short and long range situation, one on some type of update combination plan. Because you have water that's a concern in there, you have road work that's a concern, on some things that I don't necessarily think have to wait for one-percent sales tax to take its course on. You got a normal operation of sales tax money, you got a Public Works Department. Some of that should be able to be handled through there. I think the massive overall drainage project is going to have to be done. We've seen a movement to move projects, we've seen them to reschedule them, and I think probably in that -- it may mean that within that particular district or close proximity to it, that we may have to take a second look at reprioritizing what some of those things were done and correcting that particular mistake, and we may have to give the Commissioner who is concerned at this point of doing something in his district some help in trying to do that where previously that was not a concern. And I don't mind saying that in the non-presence of the Commissioner because so many of us caught hell in trying to convince him to do some things prior to that. So to answer the question as to how it got shifted or shafted, that was what went in when it went into the ranking system, and the sitting one there ranked it very low. So obviously if you had to compete with other districts and in their priorities it was not going to rank high, because if I'm dealing with Eastview and other areas of low drainage, quite frankly, it's probably going to be one of my number one priorities of where I rank mine. So if it was not going to come out of that district as high ranking, then when it got in the overall mix it was going to be low, and that's exactly what happened. But I don't think we ought to leave this one as Rob's problem to deal with because it's one that's been there for years. And we may have to try, whether it's through some state help in dealing with it on some participation in there. We have various DOT meetings, Mr. Mayor, and there may be one that we might be able to -- if we can get a large enough portion, maybe not for Belair Hills but be able to get Jack some help for, say, an adjoining project in that district and pick up enough state help and money so that we can release some of the one-percent money and be able to shift it in order to deal with the $800,000 problem, I think that would be the best method of trying to do it. I don't think within that residential containment you can probably get the state help, but I do think there are some adjoining projects that may be on road sides that are highway connected that we can get a better partic-ipation on and free that up so that Rob can get some of that over in his district to get inside the residential area, and I just hope we can move to that point within that 60 to 90 day period. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor and residents of Belair Hills, I just want to say a couple of things. I was hoping in that motion that we would have a committee formed to work within that framework of that, and I assume that that is what was the construction of the motion meant, that we would have some framework or some committee. Because I've heard many things down here about the problems that you have out there, and I know you all are aware of the problems and you've been very patient. And as an ex-resident of Belair, I understand your problem out there and I know what you're going through and I know what assistance that we have not received from this area when I was living out there. And I just hope now that we're not doing a lot of rhetoric here and just doing a lot of talking, but I think until we define this and get a committee working with Mr. Rouse there -- and I think that maybe should be defined, whether it's Public Works or one that Mr. Zetterberg is forming, and I wasn't clear on which one he was talking about and maybe he'll make that a clearer to me a little later on. But I do think that until we define what we're talking about and what we're going to do out there within that parameter of the 60 to 90 days and get some idea, because I think you're really going to have to get out there and do it. There are a lot of problems out there and I can sympathize with all of you and I know your problems. And I think, as Mr. Mays said, we are willing to help, but you've got to find a means and method of helping, and I hope that with Mr. Zetterberg's help and with the Public Works there, maybe we can get something done out there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think we voted on that last year on the County Commission to -- or it may have been the year before, I'm not sure. But anyway, we voted on this thing, to go out and start clearing the roads with -- because there wasn't any funding, we started doing it with inhouse forces, if I'm not mistaken. Well, the project had gotten too big for the inhouse personnel to do it. We possibly could clear the roads, but it's not going to help the drainage problem. What I'd like to see us do is send it back to the Engineering Services Committee and let us put together a sub-committee to look at it and see how we're going to approach it. Funding is going to be the problem, and -- now, I don't want to sit here and mislead these folks with this 60 and 90 day business. I don't think we're going to make that deadline, and I'd like to be clear on it because there's a lot of other major projects going on too with the same problems that you have that have already been funded. So funding source is what's going to have to be identified for this, and we're going to have to go back and look at it through Engineering and see what cost it is. We don't even know exactly what the cost would be. So that's the route I'd like to see this take. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I just wanted to add to what Mr. Powell just said. But somewhere in the records it's already on record that any time if someone is building in Belair Hills on one of the streets that is not passible, that we have permission to -- all they have to do is call in and we can open it up. Now, we did that about a year and a half ago. We had taken the paper street off, we accepted the roads, and it's in the minutes. And that's where that Caroline Street you're talking about got done, and over by -there was another one taken care of last year over by Mr. Blount that just passed. MR. ROUSE: Scott Street, sir. MR. HANDY: Right. Okay, that was opened up. And I initiated that along with the other Commission about a year and a half ago, that you do not have to come down here when you want a street opened that someone is in the process of building. That's already in place that that street must be opened. That's already been passed, so that's on record. Mr. Green knew about it, and Mr. Gooding is gone now, but everyone in Public Works is aware of it. But like Mr. Powell said, it's finding the money. But you don't have to come before us to ask about a street. If someone is in the process of building, you need to let the Public Works know, and then that street should be opened automatically because that's already on record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? Coming back around. Moses? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. ZETTERBERG: Could I qualify on the motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to restate the motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. What my intention was, to turn this over to the Administrator to develop a plan that eventually would work it through to the Engineering and the Finance Committee, that would identify what the resources are that are required, a priority of the job, and give some indication of when this would be done. And I realize the entire thing is driven by dollars, but we have no plan out there and there's nothing we can identify. And, frankly, unless we put it down in writing, with a plan, with some suspense dates on it, nothing is ever going to be done and 20 years from now we'll come back and still we'll be in the same situation. So I think that we need to -- that the Administrator needs to take it and develop the plan. So I'd like to make a motion that the Administrator return to the Commission a plan on opening up the roads and fixing the drainage problems in Belair Estates and that report be returned in 90 days. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the second is in place. I would assume that's an amendment to the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Rouse. MR. ROUSE: Thank you all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Next item, please? CLERK: Ms. Kiysha Preston, President of Kiysha Designs, Inc., 968 Broad Street, reference to an economic development low interest loan. MR. ROUSE: Let me -- before you get into another issue, I think some of these people wants to leave now so we won't disturb you. Give us a second or two. Thank you all kindly. [OFF THE RECORD MOMENTARILY] MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you ready, Ms. Preston? MS. PRESTON: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. Thank you. MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon. My name is Kiysha Preston, President of Kiysha Designs, Incorporated. I've been in business seven years, I'm a graduate of Hampton University, and I'm a single mother. I did not come here to point fingers or cast blame, I came to present to you a small business that has outgrown me, and I'm in need of funds to expand to become a major training center, retail barter outlet, and manufacturer of textile products. I applied for a low interest loan in June of 1994. I got approved from Gary Bussey in September of '94 and was sent to the Business League to package the loan and disburse the funds. I got lost in the political shuffle. I experienced many false hopes and promises from the top to the bottom, and when it came -- and when I came I brought two contracts with me: ACMI and Fort Gordon. I needed renovations, equipment, personnel, materials to sew the contracts. I lost both contracts and credibility lost in the shuffle, but I kept moving, piecing my sewing room together. I purchased 25 machines and have set up 12 of them, had them wired on my second floor, and trying to still piece it together. I'm not a quitter, I am a fighter. I cannot understand the disparity that I have faced with this loan from the city and grant programs. I was told that there was a freeze on loans in October of '95, but two loans were granted in December of '95. Loans were given to businesses that never even opened their doors. Millions were given to others in projects -- for special interests and projects. Loan were given for special funds -- out of special funds for downtown merchants, and when I inquired about these funds they said the programs did not exist. I can acquire new contracts, I can train others to do as I do, but I need equipment, renovations, trainers, and time to get my feet back on the ground to make Kiysha Designs the business it can be. As a small business, I contribute to the community by providing services and sewing, alterations, fashion shows, Career Day participation; I provide uniforms for four high school bands, dance groups; I work with over 500 youths in fashion shows and modeling workshops. I took 18 youths to Washington, D.C. to perform in fashion shows. I've completed commercial contracts for suppliers, designed and made costuming for gospel groups, recording artists, major hair companies, and selected as a featured designer in the Weddings for Us Fashion Show in Atlanta. I average over 175 weddings a year and over 200 prom dresses as a one-woman operation. All I need is some assistance in taking my business to the next level. I have most of my commercial sewing room completed, but I am still in need to work with programs like Work First, JTPA, and rehabilitative services. I am requesting a low interest loan in combination with a forgivable loan of $300,000 so that I may train others and I can build my business to the next level. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Mack, would you address that for us, please? MR. MACK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I spoke to Ms. Kiysha Preston this morning regarding her needs and made one or two telephone calls, one of which was to the Regional Development Center to try to assist her with her business. And I assured her that in lieu of the things that happened in the past, that we were going to make every effort to try to help her. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question for Mr. Mack. MR. MACK: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: In lieu of the fact that we haven't approved a budget for the Community Block Grant, et cetera, this year, there is not a possibility that we can look at the contingency of funds there and the overall funding and do something, if this was a broken promise from the former city and if we have the historical documents showing that this was? We've done something similar for another business that's had problems, and my concern is that we de- politicize the grant money and do it on merits and what a person is doing in the community versus who a person know or who a person's family is. And apparently, you know, that if this person has had this kind of success and have this kind of operation going, that they are hiring folks and they are contributing economically to this community. So that's basically my question, is there anything we can do within the funding that we have for Y97? MR. MACK: Unless we amend the budget that you all have before you today, that's the only possibility that I see, Mr. Todd. But, again, we are making efforts to help Ms. Preston, and I mentioned some things to her this morning that we're going to try to do to help her. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to do this, I'm going to move that this be accepted as information, and within the same motion I'm saying that we allow Mr. Mack to work up a plan and possibly present it to the committee and see what we can do with this. Because I don't think we can go into defining something here today, but I think this is going to have to be looked at. And I'm well aware of Ms. Preston's -- her sincerity in trying to do something, and I think there has been a disparity in this over the years, but I don't think we can figure it out here. I think we have to work with this. This is a new government, we have a new director, and I think this can be worked out, and that is in the form of a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Starting back to the left, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I maintain my position. If there is historical documents that this government, including the former government, did not live up to its promises, then I think that we seriously should look at that before we approve the budget for Y97. Now, if there is not historical documents that back up what Ms. Preston has said, then certainly I would be interested in, you know, looking at other options, et cetera. There is -- we're doing expenditures here that there is other funding sources for out of Community Block Grant. We have one-penny money and we have Community Block Grant money in some cases going to the same public facilities or the same projects. And I guess I've been unfriendly as far as this process go from day one because certainly I think the methodology of the expenditure of the money, the sign off, it not going through Finance, not going through Accounting, et cetera, bothers me. But we ran a shabby operation, and when I say we I'm talking about past and present government, as far as Community Block Grant funds go, and we need to de-politicize Community Block Grant money and use it where it's supposed to be used, in the blighted areas, instead of some of the things we are doing. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're at this process I would like to get Mr. Beard to also have Mr. Mack go through all of the records. We don't need another one of these in another six months come up where somebody's been promised a loan. We need to know about all of them. I don't think we need to do these one at a time. MR. BEARD: I'll accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I was going to suggest to Mr. Beard's committee just briefly that they may want to look at is the fact that under the old county government, which -- and I laugh about it because we call it a link deposit system, and my only problem with it, it never really linked up to anybody. And we spread money out in two to three different financial institutions, and a lot of that money has basically been dormant because there's been, for the most part, no program or no real ordinance enabled to deal with those small businesses to put it in. What I think you may look at in terms of a shifting, and this would still keep those operations legal, maybe within that budget that Mr. Todd is talking about those projects that are there that are labeled Public Works or Public Works related that could legitimately come out of those sales tax monies which are now laying dormant in some of those financial institutions which, for the most part, have not adopted any of these neighborhoods or any of these businesses in any type of way, and that would then possibly free parts of that budget in order to do some of these types of projects with out of your Community Block Grant monies and thus keeping it legal on both sides. You have the sales tax then that could work on your Public Works side, thus reducing it out of your Community Block Grant budget, and then be able to do economic development things out of the money that you have, and that's just a suggestion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to suggest to Mr. Beard that as he goes through this process I think it would be appropriate to have people that were within city government, including the former mayor, and ask him to appear before this body so that we can get the full story. We are not a banking institution here and we need to get all these things cleared up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: Yes. I have a letter here from Mr. DeVaney which I'd like to read into the record because I think that the letter states the issues fairly well. It's addressed to Mr. Wall. "Dear Jim: At the request of Ms. Kiysha Preston, I'm writing this letter on her behalf concerning a loan request that she has made for her business at 968 Broad Street. While I was mayor I talked with Ms. Preston on several occasions and wanted to help her in her business. She has a number of contracts and needed to expand. At that time I suggested that she approach the CSRA Business League, but she did not get her loan. She requested $50,000 at a low interest rate to be fully repaid. Considering that several other loans and grants have been made recently, even to some who claim that I had promised them, I would like to support Ms. Preston's request. I might add that while no one called me on the other recent loans, I did tell those who asked that no such promises were made. In this case, however, I do feel that Ms. Preston deserves further consideration since she does not have an ongoing business and does have a number of orders to be filled. Any help or direction that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. If I can answer any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, Charles A. DeVaney." The letter, in my opinion, states that Mr. DeVaney may have recommended or suggested that a loan be approved for this particular individual, but I don't believe that any formal authorization was made by the governing body at that time to grant such a request. Mr. Wall may like to comment further. MR. WALL: Well, we have met with Ms. Preston and met with Ms. Rogers and others in an attempt to try to document the fact that if, in fact, a promise had been made and by whom it had been made, et cetera. The other situation, in my mind, I was convinced that enough had heard a promise made insofar as the loan that came up earlier this year that was in a position to recommend what we've done here. In this case she gave us the name of two individuals, one of which was the mayor. The mayor has written a letter and, you know, he -- in my opinion, too, he did not -- he stopped short of saying that any promises had been made. And, Ms. Preston, I have attempted to reach -- or Lori has attempted to reach Ms. Bussey and, you know, we have not been able to reach him to get some kind of confirmation documentation so that all the facts could be presented to the Commission, and at this point we have not seen any documentation or any substantiation at the time. Now, after the fact, yes, I think some people were made aware of the fact that supposedly the loan was to -- was in the process or whatever. I don't know that anything approached a promise that the loan would be forthcoming. MS. PRESTON: Well, Gary Bussey called my store in September of '94 and told me that the loan had been approved but the funds would be channeled through the Business League, so I had to go to the Business League and pay them to put a package together, then they were going to work out the terms. And the persons that worked on those terms was Gary Bussey and Noble Benefield. MR. WALL: And the Business League turned the loan down is the problem. MS. PRESTON: No, they didn't turn -- no, they were not putting a package together to submit a loan. They were putting the package together, and the package was put together for the city to disburse these funds. But they said that the disbursement and the approval of the loan and all was from the city. They gave the package back to the city after they completed it in November of '94. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's finish going around, Mr. Todd, and then we'll come back to you. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this was the essence of my making the motion before: I think we got a new director, I think that he can work with this, I think he can bring back a recommendation for this body, along with working with the Administrator on this, and I think we can come up with a amicable solution to this problem. But that was the essence of my motion at the beginning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Coming on around. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, it may be of interest to go on and subpoena some folks, you know, on these loan promises and maybe get a deposition where they wouldn't be able to crawfish or, you know, get out of telling the truth. But my position is that when we say we're going to look at RDC and see what we can come up with or put together we're side-stepping the issue. The issue is that this body is responsible for the Community Block Grant funds. This body is responsible for low interest loans, you know, grants, et cetera, and there is approximately $200,000, if my recollection serves me correct, in the contingency fund. Certainly we may not be able to help Ms. Preston to the extent that she would like, but there is funding available to do something if this is a legitimate business and meets the criteria of Community Block Grant. And if she don't, if this entity don't, then we should look her in the eye, tell her she don't meet the criteria and we can help her. But I'm getting sick and tired of the promises and that we're going to try or we're going to work on something and nothing ever work out for folks that's legitimately trying to do business in the blighted area downtown on Broad Street which we're all supposed to be committed to doing a revitalization of. And that's - - those are my comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming on around. Anybody? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just still want to reemphasize I hope that within this process we will revisit some of that money that's still sitting and not linking, and I think some creative, legitimate, legal shifting can be done. Because I don't think you're probably going to ever get a real minority business ordinance for women and minorities that we probably saw fizzle down the road two years ago and that was supposed to be worked on again that somehow rode off into the sunset and has never more been discussed. And I think the only way that we're going to be able to deal with some of these small businesses, regardless of what color the operator is, is that if the financial institutions aren't stepping up to the plate, then we're going to have to be bold enough to take monies that are laying over in there that are not being utilized, move them out, deal with Public Works projects with the sales tax monies, and then take the Community Block Grant monies and create the programs that we need to create. And that's my suggestion to Mr. Beard and this committee. If not, the banks will continue to sit on that money. It will continue to sit over there and it will never link up to anybody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Coming on around. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would support the chairman's suggestion that we give the director a chance to look at it, and there may be other funding sources there that we can legitimately dispense. And I agree with what he said, but I do think that we need to look at it and look at the entire thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Powell. I have a motion by Mr. Beard. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY & MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission for a consent agenda, Items 1 through 13, with the exception of Item 3, 6 and 10, could be considered as a consent agenda. And for the benefit of possible objectors, I will read the location of each zoning matter. On Item 1, it's a request to approve a petition from the Macedonia Baptist Church for a Special Exception at 1827 and 1829 Wrightsboro Road. Item 2, to approve a petition from the Catholic Diocese of Savannah for a Special Exception for establishing a church, Highland Avenue and Hawk Street. 4, to approve a petition for a Special Exception to allow a vehicle parking area with the stated stipulations. On 5, to approve a petition on behalf of the Servants of God Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for establishing a church on Martin Luther King Boulevard, intersects Koger Road and Martin Luther King Boulevard. 7, to approve a petition of a change of zoning from an R-1A (One-family) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on the intersection of Center West Parkway and Bertram Road. 8, to approve a petition from Dr. Louis Scharff III on behalf of Gracewood Federal Credit Union requesting a change of zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business), 2048 Tobacco Road. 9 is to approve a petition on behalf of Pakmerica, a zoning change from a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on Stevens Creek Road and Claussen Road, with the stipulation no alcoholic beverage business license be allowed. Item 11, a plat approval for The Town Homes of Alexander on Alexander Drive. A final plat approval for Walton Meadows, Section III. MAYOR SCONYERS: 13? CLERK: Oh, Item 13. That's the final plat for Sand Bar Manor. [Item 1: Z-96-99 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Macedonia Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right- of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 123.26 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Wilson Street and Wrightsboro Road (1827 & 1829 Wrightsboro Road). (District 5) Item 2: Z-96-100 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Calvin A. Rouse, on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Savannah, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Highland Avenue intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Hawk Street. (District 5) Item 4: Z-96-103 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Charlie Hall, on behalf of S & H Enterprises, requesting a Special Exception to allow a vehicle parking area as provided for in Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Hopie Road, 485 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Milledgeville Road and Hopie Road (1914 & 1928 Hopie Road) with the following stipulations: 1) That the area subject to the Special Exception be limited to the rear forty-five (45) feet of 1914 Hopie Road and that a six (6) foot solid fence be placed at that location; 2) No additional security lighting be placed on the subject properties, nor placed on the other properties owned by the petitioner for the purpose of illuminating the subject properties; and 3) No access to Hopie Road. (District 5) Item 5: Z-96-104 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of the Servants of God Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located where the southwest right-of-way line of Koger Street intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. (District 2) Item 7: Z-96-106 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corp., on behalf of Wyck A. Knox, Jr. et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Bertram Road Extension, 990 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Center West Parkway and Bertram Road. (District 7) Item 8: Z-96-108 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from Dr. Louis Scharff III, on behalf of Gracewood Federal Credit Union, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Gracewood Drive and Tobacco Road (2048 Tobacco Road). (District 8) Item 9: Z-96-109 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from H.S. Chaudhry, on behalf of Pakmerica, LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Claussen Road, 1,018 feet, more or less, northeast of the northeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Road and Claussen Road (1052 & 1054 Claussen Road) with the following stipulation: That no alcoholic beverage business license be allowed for occupants of this property. (District 7). Item 11: S-387-IV - THE TOWN HOMES OF ALEXANDER - FINAL PLAT - A petition from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, on behalf of Alexander Commons, requesting a Final Plat Approval of The Town Homes of Alexander. This subdivision is located on the west side of Alexander Drive behind Alexander Commons and contains 21 lots. This subdivision has been approved by all review agencies and conforms to all rules, regulations, and ordinances of Richmond County. Item 12: S-498-III - WALTON MEADOWS - SECTION III - FINAL PLAT - A petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Co., requesting Final Plat Approval of Walton Meadows, Section III. This section is located off the west right-of-way line of Bassford Drive south of Willis Foreman Road and contains 102 lots. This subdivision has been approved by all review agencies and conforms to all rules, regulations, and ordinances of Richmond County. Item 13: S-521 - SAND BAR MANOR- FINAL PLAT - A petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Regency Partners, requesting a Final Plat Approval of Sand Bar Manor. This subdivision is located on the east side of Lovers Lane south of Sand Bar Ferry Road and contains 80 lots. This subdivision has been approved by all review agencies and conforms to all rules, regulations, and ordinances of Richmond County.] MR. MAYS: Could you pull 13 off? CLERK: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we do those items in a consent agenda. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like Item 12 pulled off for discussion, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 12, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items, gentlemen, that need to pulled? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is there any protesters on any of the other items? MAYOR SCONYERS: I was fixing to ask that. Do we have any protesters -- objectors, excuse me. Not protesters, objectors. [None noted.] MR. KUHLKE: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: For the County Attorney? MR. TODD: And that is Item Number 9. Mr. Wall, Item Number 9, we have a stipulation on no alcohol beverage license, and I didn't think that we could tie one into the other when we're dealing with planning issues and I'm just concerned about that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, do you want to address that, please? MR. PATTY: The only thing I can add to what's on the agenda is that this part of an office park out there off of Center West Parkway, and the front part of the property is owned by someone and the back part is owned by someone. The front part we've already zoned with this stipulation and that owner was agreeable to it, and this owner is agreeable to this stipulation also. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding from the County Attorney that we can impose restrictions, even alcohol beverage licenses, when we're doing land use planning and zoning, so I don't have a problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 3 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Pheotis Upshaw requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Lyman Street, 569 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Lyman Street (2559 Lyman Street). (District 2) MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? Is the owner here, or the petitioner? [No response.] Do we need to hear from Mr. Patty? MR. BEARD: I would like to know why is this being denied. MR. PATTY: This gentleman wanted to -- he owned or was going to buy a duplex at this location and wanted to convert it to a personal care home for six elderly people. There were no objectors. It's -- we've talked to the Sheriff's Department and it's a high crime area. It's got a lot of drug problems and other problems that Mr. Strength verified when we called and asked after we put the sign up and looked at the appearance of the area. The ordinance specifically states certain conditions that would allow us to deny a request, and one of those is related to crime, and I think the conditions are there in that neighborhood to legitimately deny this request. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, my comments is that we need to close all those down in Barton Chapel. We have several -- that's Barton Village. We have several personal care homes in there, and that's going to be my only comments, and we approved them over the years knowing that we had a problem. I think that it's incumbent upon the Sheriff's Department to get out there and get rid of the crime problems, and this is situations in areas where we should be approving personal care versus approving personal care homes where folks is making $100,000 investments in homes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do I hear a motion, gentlemen, that we concur? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I know that Mr. Upshaw is not here, so I won't deal a lot with that, but I do think that at some point in time we're going to have to follow the same regulations and the same pattern for everybody when we get into this. And I've heard many times in the last few months about personal care homes and where they should be and where they should be located, and I don't know that much about this one, but I think sometimes just to deny things because of a crime area or what have you is not sufficient, and this one I think I will just vote against. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the Chair will recognize a motion, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we approve it. MR. HANDY: And I'll second that, Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a substitute motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy, that we approve it. Discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Did it meet all the other requirements, George, size-wise and everything else? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you gentlemen familiar with where this is? MR. HANDY: Yeah, this is right across the street from the Curtis -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hillcrest Baptist Church. MR. HANDY: Yeah, Hillcrest Baptist Church. That street down there, right. There we go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Have y'all looked at those buildings? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: If the Chair will recognize me. If there's renovation requirements as far as the buildings go, it's the responsibility of the Health Department, et cetera, and the state as far as that criteria go. We're dealing with a land use issue here, which is the -- it's the zoning and whether we're going to do a special exception. And the -- what the building look like is not the issue, or what the crime situation in the community, in my opinion, is not the issue. If we have a crime problem, we should put the pressure on the Sheriff's Department to do their job and get rid of the crime. We've given the Sheriff suppression teams, he's wanting another 68 men, and I'm sure that he's going to get them to use in road beats or the other methodology, suppression teams or whatever he wants. We have condemnation authority if the buildings is not suitable for the use that they are intending to use it for, but our responsibility here is to decide a land use issue, and I think that if we decided on anything other than the merits of the land use issue in the comprehensive zoning plan, then we're violating the person's rights and we're violating the takings law. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Patty, did you say you had any protesters on this? MR. PATTY: No, no objectors. MR. J. BRIGHAM: No objectors at all? Why did the crime issue -- who brought up the crime issue? Was it your staff or was it the Sheriff's -- MR. PATTY: No, some of our commissioners did. And we were asked to ask the Sheriff's Department, and we got an overwhelming response that it's a dangerous area for anybody. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I'll pass for right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Mays? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Brigham? Mr. Zetterberg? Mr. Beard? Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? The substitute motion first, gentlemen, made by Mr. Todd, for approval. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, J. BRIGHAM & KUHLKE VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Item 6? CLERK: Item 6: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Lucille Kyler, on behalf of Beatrice Bargeron, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehen-sive Zoning Ordinance, located on the northeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road [140 feet, more or less, southeast of the northeast corner of the intersection of Dunham Court and Windsor Spring Road (1829 Windsor Spring Road) (District 8).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Okay, this is an old historic house -- well, actually it was a historic school building that is located adjacent to the present school in Windsor Spring Road. We did have a significant number of objectors to this. The consensus of my board was that the location adjacent to the school was bad for both the school and the potential tenants of the property. It was unclear whether it was going to be veterans or just generally elderly folks or handicapped folks, and it was denied. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to concur with the Planning Commission, please. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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: Item 10, please? CLERK: Item 10 is a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to amend Section 25-B (Special Sign Control Area) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance thereby allowing variance requests to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. PATTY: Okay, this is a text amendment. You've got a section of the zoning ordinance under signs that designates certain areas as special sign control areas that have special significance, historical, environmental or whatever, and presently that ordinance does not provide for any variance consideration. Everything else in the zoning ordinance has a safety valve. The Board of Zoning Appeals allows them to consider appeals from decisions made by staff and also to make variance decisions, and this -- the variance procedure was specifically written out of this section when it was written for the city back 10 or 12 years ago. And we've -- Jim and I have discussed it and we don't feel that it's reasonable not to have any variance process, and we would recommend that you make this change. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I would assume that this was properly advertised, legal notice? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we -- I assume we appoint the people to the Board of Zoning Appeals? MR. PATTY: [Indicates affirmatively.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 12, please? CLERK: Walton Meadows, Section III, Final Plat: Petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty Development, requesting final plat approval of Walton Meadows, Section III. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure for the record, and that it's on the record, this is the south side of Willis Foreman Road? MR. PATTY: That's correct, it is the south side. MR. POWELL: I just want it in the minutes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 13? CLERK: Item 13: Sand Bar Manor, Final Plat Approval: A petition from James G. Swift, on behalf of Regency Partners, requesting final plat approval of the Sand Bar Manor. This subdivision is located on the east side of Lovers Lane south of Sand Bar Ferry Road and contains 80 lots. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. -- I'm going to yield to the Commissioner that represents that district. I'm sure he have some of the same concerns. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I asked that it be pulled to be voted on separately. I know we're at a point of no return on this one, and I'm not beating up on Swift and those because you got it from an inherited state and it's in its final stages. It's up and basically is on go. What my question is at this point -- and I guess it's in reverse. Normally we ask is everything ready within these type developments for final acceptance. Inasmuch as we've got Interstate 520 on one side of this project, we still have to get through Phase III of the East Augusta drainage project. Is there anything that we're going to be doing -- and I guess I ask this of Public Works. Is there anything that we're going to be doing that by accepting this final plat situation is going to impact from the standpoint that we may have to end up taking on some responsibility inasmuch as this thing that we're doing is not completed. And we're in one of the lowest elevations in this county, and I think even when this was approved Planning and Zoning had basically recommended in its overall plan that no more residential growth go into this. I think our Public Works people were against it, however, it went through anyway. And I'm going to vote against it today just for the formality. It's going to pass. And Jim knows and he's instructed me that we were going to be sued from the standpoint that if we voted in majority and when it came up at that point that it would probably win, but I'm going to be bullheaded enough to vote for it again just like I probably have the other three times. But I'd like to know from Public Works, inasmuch as we've still got a heck of a lot of drainage work to still do, I want to make sure that when we accept it that we aren't going to have to go back through and pay for something in a project basically that's sitting flat on the ground, one side with a cemetery, one side with a totally flat road, one side with interstate drainoff, and that's what you've got there. How is that going to impact us? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Murphy or Mike, one of y'all want to -- MR. GREEN: Mr. Leiper -- is he here? He reviewed that. Have you looked at it, Jack, much at all? MR. MURPHY: We looked at it when it came to Public Works. The drainage in Sand Bar Manor is compatible with our drainage system, and I do not see a problem with what we're going to do in Phase III or any future drainage -storm drainage system down there where we would have to go in this particular subdivision. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Patty, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is being accepted -- the streets will remain private. There's a notation on the plat to that effect; is that not correct? MR. PATTY: That's correct. MR. WALL: All right. And we have -- I have talked with the developer about that, and I would hope that the county would honor that restriction that's on there, that the county not accept it. They basically have asked that it be private in order that they can put a gate up, and there's no way it can be a public thoroughfare with a gate across it, and they've asked for that. But I did want that in the minutes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I do understand that, and while I respect their wanting to put a gate up and then that privacy, we usually don't get contacted about being sued about water flooding the street, we usually get contacted when it starts running over into the units. And what I'm more concerned about is the fact that -- the streets don't bother me with them staying private, it's the fact that you've got 80 units down there sitting on the ground. And if we had -- we've been able to maintain, and I agree we've done a good job with what we've had, but I just want to make sure that we aren't taking on an additional financial impact or do we need to improve on something. And if Jack and those say, you know, we're safe with that, then, you know, I guess that's what's going to fly. It's not still going to change my mind about voting for it because I've had my reservations about where it sits and what the details are on it, and I just think you've got too much water, too many folk, and you're going into that same area down there. And unless you were going to build them on stilts or get them off the ground, that's the only way I can figure out that you're not going to get some water down in there at some point in time. So while the streets may remain private, the houses -- if they are flooded, you'd best better believe the first call that the Mayor or the Administrator of this city is going to get, or the Commissioners from that particular district, is that we got water inside our units, and that's all I'm going to say for the record. MR. MURPHY: Let me say this. You remember that I made the comment when I was asked about this particular Sand Bar Manor before, it had gone so far then that we couldn't turn it around, but I made the statement that we do not need to allow any more development in that area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I sat here for a whole year, and each time I hear about what the city has done and how we did it up so bad, so I think I got the opportunity this time to say how could the Commissioners sit here and give a permit for them to stick those 80 units down there in that area where you had been told that there shouldn't be any units down there at all, and you sat here and you did it. So don't complain to me any more about what the city has done in the past, because you've done something probably worse when you stick 80 -- it's more than 80 units, I believe, down there. I went down there and saw this. This is the worst thing that could have happened to that district, and you sat here and did it. I'm going to vote no, too, Willie. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Coming on around. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I voted no and made the argument against it, and the historical record will show. And in response to Mr. Beard's concerns how we done it, it was some heavy pressure and influence from some of our colleagues -- former colleagues from the city side that was on Planning and Zoning. And it was a poor land use plan, and it should have never happened for that reason, being a floodplain pretty much, in my opinion, but also in a chemical zone, and you don't add, you know, to a situation like that. And that's basically what happened. It may not be in the historical record on who influenced it, but I think if you go back and see who voted for it in Planning and Zoning you can pretty much figure out who influenced it on this side. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: I'd like to ask one question, and I know I'm coming in late to this issue. Have we modeled a maximum four-hour five and ten year storm event on this site? MR. LEIPER: When this plat -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Come up to the mike, Mr. Leiper, please. Thank you. MR. LEIPER: I don't remember the development plan exactly, but typically when the plans are submitted I make sure that there is no increase in runoff. The engineer who worked on the development plan may be able to answer that. MR. OLIVER: Well, just because there's no increase in runoff doesn't necessarily mean there isn't going to be flooding that occurs, and that's the reason I asked about modeling a typical five and ten year four-hour storm event. MR. LEIPER: This came through about six months ago and I don't remember this site that far back. MR. HARGROVE: Jim, I can answer that question. It has been modeled. It's been modeled by -- CLERK: Sir, can we get you to come to the mike? Identify yourself, please. MR. HARGROVE: I'm Bill Hargrove with Jim Swift & Associates. The area has been modeled by a local firm that did the engineering work for the outfall ditch down there, and they were approached and asked about this project and they said there was no problems with it, so. That was a prerequisite to getting the approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: I know I should probably sit down, but I would like to say one thing. I want you to keep in mind that there were very few decisions to make on this. And I agree wholeheart-edly with you on the land use issue, but this property was already zoned. There was a tiny corner of it that wasn't zoned, was the only decision that we ever made. Everything else was based on what -- you know, the ordinances that were in effect and whether or not the project met those ordinances. And there is no designated floodplain on this property. And that doesn't mean that, you know, development of the property won't exacerbate flooding problems or the ponding -- ponded water won't stand on the property, but it is not in a designated floodplain. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. To add to those who have concerns, in the record -- all this came up when we voted on this in the County Commission side, and the developer stood up and he said -- it's on the record that he will be responsible for any extra flooding, the question Mr. Mays asked about 520 coming across there. Because all these questions were asked about a year and a half ago, so it's on the record if we can pull it. So anything happen down there at those units, if one of them decide they want to float away into the graveyard, it's already taken care of. That belongs to the developer. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [VOTE COUNT 5-5] MAYOR SCONYERS: Did I count five and five? MR. WALL: We don't need to buy ourselves a lawsuit. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? MR. WALL: We don't need to buy ourselves a lawsuit. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, I'm going to cast the deciding vote for approval, so that will make it six to five. MESSRS. BEARD, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS & TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, under Finance, Items 14 through 18, with 19 being disapproved, all were approved by the Finance Committee on December 9th. [Item 14: Approval of the recommended Policy regarding rescheduling of Phase III SPLOST Projects. Item 15: Approval of the recommended Policy regarding Payroll deductions. Item 16: Approval of the recommended time line regarding the implementation of the Policy on check signing. Item 17: Approval of the recommended adjustments on the Urban 1945 Pension. Item 18: Approval of the recommendation of the 1977 Pension Plan for new hires. Item 19: Approval of a request from David R. Fogle for waiver of 1996 penalties and interest on tax bill.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee would ask the Commission to approve this. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 20 out, please. CLERK: That wasn't in the consent. No, we went through -- Items 14 through 19. MR. KUHLKE: Oh, okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve Items 14 through 19, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 20? CLERK: Item 20: Award of additional one-time compensation to full and part-time employees with at least one year of service and direct that no changes be made in the employee compensation plan until the classification and compensation study is completed. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I know I'm going to be hated by everybody that works for this government, but I think as we go through -- as we go into the new government, that I really think that we are setting a bad precedent by adopting this one-time bonus, for lack of a better word, at this point as we go through the process of trying to put together our budget, and as a result of that I will be voting against this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: 21, please? CLERK: 21 is approval of a request from the Program Developer of Aging America regarding their request for funds for their Operations Independence Program. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: I second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, there was never any funds identified for this. The only funds that were identified was Amendment 73 funds, which I do not believe this qualifies for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, Mr. -- I'm sorry. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield till the second round. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the way I understood this when this came up before the Administrative Services Committee, we instructed some of the staff to go back and see if they could provide funds from other possible sources. I think Mr. Oliver recommended some places we could look at, but there were no - - we did not say go ahead and give $14,000. That was to be looked at from other funding sources that fund this type of program. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is not a project that would qualify under Community Block Grant funds? That's a question to whomever. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mack? MR. MACK: Commissioner Todd, this is a program that will qualify. MR. TODD: It seems to me, Mr. Mayor, that instead of going to General Funds for this funding--and Amendment 73, let's keep in mind, is General Funds--that we would look for ways, if this is a project that we should fund, to do it from the Community Block Grant funds versus General Funds. And if it's not, then we should look them in the eye and tell them you don't qualify and we're not going to fund you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think that we need to be very -- I don't have a problem with the funding out of Community Block Grant if there's funds available there. I do have a problem with going to the General Fund for this type program. We've got a number of these programs and a number of agencies that will be looking to us for funding, and I don't think that the General Fund is the appropriate place to fund these at the present time. And if there's going to be some kind of recommending process, I don't have a bit of problem with that, but I'm very concerned about the implications of all the federal programs that are being cut. And we cannot make up everybody's deficit, and I am very concerned about that. We've got to learn to say no and mean it or either we've got to learn to direct them where funds are available, and when those funds are gone, say no and mean it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Coming on around. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield to Mr. Beard if he has a recommendation from his committee. MR. BEARD: The only thing I was going to add, Mr. Kuhlke, was that asking Mr. Handy if the -- we approve this provided the funds are available, and we can look to alternative resources for that, and Community Block Grant could be a possible source in that. MR. MACK: Let me -- can I just mention this also? That in the proposed budget that we have for the Community Development Block Grant, that there is an amount of $40,000 that's proposed for the Area Agency on Aging for this-- are these the same modifications? MS. JONES: I beg your pardon? MR. MACK: Are these the same modifications that you all are requesting? MS. JONES: Those are the same modifications -- not the same project modifications. We are trying to complete some modifications that we've already began. MR. MACK: Oh, okay. MR. BEARD: If Mr. Handy would accept that, I think that would take care of it. MR. HANDY: I'll accept that, but it came out of committee saying the same thing you're saying, Mr. Beard. We didn't have any money and we did not identify any, we would only approve it once the money would be identified, and that's the way it came out of committee. That's the way - my motion was to approve it the way it came out of committee, to look for the money. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke, were you finished? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. Well, my comment is that - is for it to come to committee with a recommendation on how they can fund this through Community Block Grant funds and not out of the General Fund. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I want to make sure I understand what we're voting on here. If I understand Mr. Handy's motion correctly, this is not to take 14,000 out of the General Fund, this is to take the committee's recommendation, which -- to see if that money could be provided from other sources such as Community Development Block Grant or Mr. Oliver once again, or maybe it was Butch, recommended some additional opportunities that we may have through federal funding, but it was not to come out of the General Fund. Am I understanding that right, Butch? Was that -- wasn't that your recommendation? MR. McKIE: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. KUHLKE: Is that what his motion is? MR. BEARD: Yeah. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, subject to finding the funding -- that's correct, right, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, it is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: 21a? CLERK: Approval of the 1977 Buy-Back requests. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, in light of all the - cutting off of the application process, is this the final list of people that's going to be eligible to apply or what is this? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you answer that, sir? MR. WALL: I think the cutoff is December 31st. Now, I suppose somebody can make a request and it would be acted on in January. MR. McKIE: That's correct. That list is those that we currently have. And if we're going to cut it off on the 31st, someone could come in and apply between now and then. We wanted to list those names so there's no question about who was on the list at that time. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I'm making sure of. MR. McKIE: There may be one or two more that come in between now and then. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that we have some process in place to make sure that everyone's been notified about the deadlines on these buybacks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, would you come back forward and restate what you said in the mike, please? Thank you. MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, the list that you have is the current list of people who have applied for buy-backs. And we have not calculated anything for them, nothing's been done, but they have indicated an interest. They've not made formal application, and so our proposal was that they have sufficient time to carry that out. Other people have already made application and we're currently in the process of computing those things, and they likewise would be given till January 31st. For those people who made no application, they still have the rest of the month to do so. The list is given simply to -- as a point of reference, those people who have applied at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: The cutoff date is December 31st? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: Mr. McKie, let me ask one question. Do you know if Mr. Etheridge has employees sign any kind of statement advising them of their rights in this regard? MR. McKIE: No, sir, I do not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm still not quite clear on -- with Mr. McKie exactly what I asked. What I want to know is are we -- do we have some process in place to notify all the employees of this buy-out and the availability of it and the deadlines of it. And I'd like to know, if we do, what it is. MR. McKIE: Mr. Etheridge is going to notify through the payroll -- distribution of payroll checks this next time about the deadline. But there's been no other formal notification, although much general discussion about it. MR. POWELL: So, in other words, it's the 17th now, and we're going to have a deadline on the 31st, so we're giving people 15 days to buy in? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. They've had three years to buy in prior to now. MR. POWELL: But they haven't been notified, is my question. MR. McKIE: That's correct. Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe we voted in Commission two weeks ago that we were going to do this on the 31st, and I think that would have been -- they've had a little more than two weeks notice. MAYOR SCONYERS: But I think Mr. Powell's concern is they were notified; isn't it, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I mean, some of these things may come up to being a substantial amount of money, and you're only giving people 15 days to buy into the program. And they're just going to get notified about it, so, you know, it may take some people longer than 15 days to maybe get loans or whatever they deem necessary to buy into this system. MR. McKIE: They won't need the money by the 31st, they'll only need to make a decision. It may take a week -- I'm sorry, a month to go ahead and process the applications, so it could be four to six weeks before they actually need the money. MR. POWELL: Okay. Well, I just felt like it was fair for 30 days, and if that's the process you're going to take, I have no problem. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. I think Mr. Todd has his hand up over here. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Powell, and I think it's essential that we put it in the information with the checks on the 20th that they only need to do a application and they don't have to come up with the money. Because if you give me a notice that I have a cutoff, it's going to be in my mindset I got to have the money, and I think that need to be articulated to the employees when the notice go out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 22, please? CLERK: Items 22 through 33 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on December 9th. [Item 22: Approval of the execution of contract documents for Paving Various Roads, Phase V. Item 23: Approval of option to purchase easement on Parcel 188, Tax Map 87-2, of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Bracy Enterprises. Item 24: Approval of option to purchase easement on Parcel 158, Tax Map 87-4, of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Terry Thompson and Eva D. Thompson. Item 25: Approval of option to purchase easement on Parcel 13, Tax Map 88-1, of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Johnnie Mae Walker. Item 26: Approval of condemnation of Parcel 176 of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Lonnie Moore and/or Aaron Ware. Item 27: Approval of condemnation of Parcel 161 of the Hyde Park and Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Robinstine Stokes. Item 28: Approval of bid award for the National Science Center's Fort Discovery Entrance. Item 29: Approval of an Engineering Proposal for 20" Water Line along Barton Chapel Road. Item 30: Approval of a proposed Policy for the Extension of Water and Sewer Service. Item 31: Approval of Sanitary Sewer Extension to Pineview Baptist Church. Item 32: Approval of a Hydraulic Network Analysis report by ZEL Engineers. Item 33: Approval of an invoice for the Highpointe Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we take that as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 34, please? CLERK: Item 34 is approval of the 1997 Emergency Shelter Grant Projected Use of Funds. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that that be approved. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I assume that funding source is the Community Block Grant funds? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yeah. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor -- MR. MACK: Let me clarify that, Mr. Mayor. These are funds that are designed to help improve services to homeless individuals. The Community Development Block Grant is separate from this. MR. TODD: Yes, but it's federal funding coming from HUD. MR. BEARD: It's federal funding and it's coming from federal fundings; okay? MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 35, please? CLERK: 35 is an agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and Sherman & Hemstreet for management of the Old Towne Properties, providing for month to month cancellation. MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 35a? CLERK: Approval of a Resolution authorizing the filing of the 1997 Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds and a Resolution authorizing the submission of the 1997 Consolidated Strategy & Plan. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that that be approved. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess that I've raised my concerns about the Community Block Grant funds. I feel that, one -- and I'll say this for the record. That, one, the RDC funding that they were requesting for the Aging Americans probably should have been not cut and funded out of this funding source, and there's probably some other grants or loan applications that rolled over from the old city that was applied for the old city should have been taken care of if they met the criteria or qualification before we approved the other ones. And I know that we're dealing with the Consolidated Plan pretty much and the allocation of the funds, and I want to get it in for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 35b, please? CLERK: Approval of the 1997 Community Development Block Grant proposed planning allocations. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that that be approved. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Approval of the list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement Program, effective December 31st, '96. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that that be approved. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 37 is approval of an officiant contract for the Recreation Department between Augusta-Richmond County and Derrick Hacker. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known -- I mean, Mr. Bridges' [sic] motion, by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, excuse me, I've got a question on 36. You moved it back to 12/31/96 instead of the 1/1/97? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, all of them have to be done -- that was a printing mistake, wasn't it, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, yes, that was -- the way that Lena read the agenda item was effective December 31. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: 38, please? CLERK: Approval of bid award in the amount of $42,000 to Southern Environmental Services for demolition of Hangar 2 at Bush Field Airport. MR. ZETTERBERG: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion? CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask, the funding for this demolition, is this part of the hangar construction that we approved earlier, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes. This is part of the lease agreement -- MR. KUHLKE: Part of that budget? MR. WALL: Part of the lease agreement with Morris. And, yes, we'll be reimbursed, and that cost will be amortized over the term of the lease. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 39, please? CLERK: 39 is a communication from Jones Intercable with regard to the transfer of the City of Augusta cable television franchise to one of its affiliates. MR. WALL: Mayor and members of the Commission, this just needs to be received as information. It does not require any action on the part of the county, it's simply a notification that Jones Intercable is required to do under the existing franchise agreement. Recommend that you receive it as information. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. Wall a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this for both franchise agreements or is it just for the one? MR. WALL: This is the City of Augusta franchise agreement. I think we previously approved one, frankly, on behalf of the county, same thing, earlier. MR. OLIVER: If I may, we just also -- they reorganized it again and we just got another one in not more than a day or two ago for both entities. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please -- or to receive it as information, excuse me. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 40? CLERK: We're going to ask each applicant for a beer and wine license to come to the mike, please, and give your name and address. Item 40 is approval of a new ownership request by Yang Nan Han Choi for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with The Station House located at 2419 Peach Orchard Road. MS. CHOI: My name is Yang Nan Han Choi. My address is 3722 Walton Way Extension, Apartment 110, Augusta, Georgia, 30907. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [None noted.] This application meets all the requirements of the alcohol ordinance. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. MAYS: Move it be approved. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Mays [sic]. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 41, please? CLERK: 41 is approval of new ownership, a request by Jong Soon Nathanson for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with The Big Tree Grocery located at 3104 Wrightsboro Road. MS. NATHANSON: My name is Jong Soon Nathanson, living in 2921 Foxhall Circle, Augusta, Georgia. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, if there's no objection. MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [None noted.] This meets all the requirements of the alcohol ordinance. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: 42 is approval of a new ownership request by Brian Patrick Brittingham for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Red Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way Extension. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Brian Patrick Brittingham, 2428 William Street, Augusta, Georgia. MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [None noted.] This meets all the requirements of the alcohol ordinance. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, but we need to make a correction: Walton Way instead of Walton Way Extension, because my district doesn't go out to the Extension part, if the district is right. CLERK: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: Item 43 was deleted. 44 is approval of a transfer application by Pedro Gallegos to transfer the liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Vallarta Mexican Restaurant at the following locations. There will be Sunday sales, both formerly in the name of Jaime Negron Cruz: 3144 Washington Road, 2808 Washington Road. MR. WALKER: There's a correction. There was a misprint, it should be 3144 Wrightsboro Road. CLERK: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. GALLEGOS: My name is Pedro Gallegos, my address is 2221 Heritage Apartments. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion to approve. MR. WALKER: Any objectors? [None noted.] This meets all the requirements of the alcohol ordinance. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 45, please? CLERK: Approval of a transfer application, a request by Damiano Esposito for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with Roma's Pizza located at 1325 Augusta West Parkway. Formerly in the name of Mark E. Enfinger. MR. ESPOSITO: My name is Damiano Esposito, I live at 3008 Rae's Wood Drive, Augusta, Georgia, 30909. MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [None noted.] This meets all the requirements of the alcohol ordinance. MR. MAYS: Move it be approved. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Approval of a transfer application request by Estelle P. Furlow for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Depot Food Store located at 1494 Jones Street. Formerly in the name of Barrett F. Pennington. MS. FURLOW: My name is Estelle P. Furlow, 2208 Highland Avenue, Suite 173, Augusta, Georgia, 30904. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [None noted.] This meets all the requirements of the Richmond County-Augusta alcohol ordinance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: 47 is a discussion request by the Internal Auditor for April Nelson to show just cause why her Sunday sales privileges used in connection with Comedy House Theater located at 2740 Washington Road should be revoked, suspended, or placed on probation for the violation of Subsection 1.15(a) of the Augusta-Richmond County Alcoholic Beverage code. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: The Internal Auditor is here. It was audited by the Internal Auditor and found to -- food sales averaged 40 percent. The ordinance requires 50 percent. For some history, on the -- it was audited -- the same place was audited on September the 22nd, '93, it was 30.7. It was given six months probation. Reaudited July the 19th, '94, 31 percent, was given an extension. Audited April '95, it was 50.89 percent, and then the audit a couple of months ago it was 40 percent. And we have the owners -- MR. BRICK: Jim Brick, I'm managing partner of the Comedy House Theater Enterprises. Ms. Nelson is our manager; she's with me. The liquor license is in her name. We've taken steps to correct this. In the last three weeks our sales are up to 54 percent of -- the food is 54 percent of overall sales, and 22 I'm implementing a position which will be a full-time banquet sales position. In case you're not familiar, we are only open at night. We have -- we're open from 7:30 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and from 7:00 Friday, Saturday, and on Sunday from 7:00 as well. And we've found that in our Savannah organization -- we have businesses in Savannah, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina, as well, all Comedy House Theaters. In the Savannah club we've implemented a position which is a full banquet sales position, which allows us to make money during the course of the day, and this is for civic -- like the Civitan organization, the Rotary Club, this type of thing, hold their banquets in the club during the day when we have no other business. And it's all banquet sales and, thus, it's all food sales, and we have never had to appear before the folks in Savannah for this problem because our sales stays at a constant 55 to 60 percent. This is a position which we're now implementing here. We've had a management -- two management changes in the last six months which we feel were direct problems which resulted in our dipping down below 50 percent. And we just want to let you know that we're aware of the severity of the problem and that we will do everything within our corporate powers to see to it that we get back to 50 percent, obviously higher, and so that we do not have to come back and ask you for any help in this matter. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we put them on six months probation and that we do a reevaluation in six months. 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, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 48, please? CLERK: An Ordinance to amend the 1945 Augusta Employees Pension Fund. MR. WALL: This is a second reading and is designed to correct what I think was an error in the ordinance when it was originally drawn and to clarify the wording -- correct the wording. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second? MR. BEARD: Yeah. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges or Beard? MR. HANDY: Both of them. MR. BEARD: Either way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 49, please? CLERK: Approval of the proposed five (5) year Lease Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and the Department of Agriculture. MR. WALL: This is a lease agreement. What it has, it's a five-year lease agreement. There's an escalator insofar as the renewals are concerned. There are two -- I'm sorry, three extension periods. The original rent for the first five -- I'm sorry, for the first year is $5,500 per month, $5,610 for the second year, $5,722 for the third year, $5,836, and goes up to $5,952, and this is for the records retention as well as the Georgia Extension Service. Recommend approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Wall, initially we talked about a ten-year lease, and I think -- MR. WALL: They would not agree to it. MR. KUHLKE: Huh? MR. WALL: They would not agree to that. MR. KUHLKE: They wouldn't agree to it? Okay. All right. And my other question is, did you ever get a copy of the lease with the senior citizens group? MR. WALL: No, sir, I did not. I had requested that from Louis before his illness. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. That needs to be cleared up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor, and I don't remember the discussion in the committee, the answer to this. I think they did discuss it, but is that -since that's going to have our records in it, is that a climate controlled area where the records will be kept? Drew, do you know? MR. GOINS: Modifications will have to be made to the building for the climate control. I'm not clear as to what the requirements for climate control are. It's my understanding that we're supposed to be getting some documentation on that from the state. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if it'll help my colleague, we have -- I had the opportunity to tour the building and there is at least two to three big freezers and coolers in there, and certainly in those situations it's going to take very little to do the climate control. Usually you're talking about adding a humidifier or -- one way or the other. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: In response to Commissioner Kuhlke's question, the current lease that we have with the Senior Center provides for a -- what I call a quarterly extension through 1997, which means that we have to give them 90 days in advance of the date that we're going to move. So if we wanted to move as of April 1st, for example, we would need to notify them by December 31st. I've already corresponded with them and told them that we would be terminating our agreement on that space sometime in the spring and that we would honor the provision of that agreement. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50, please? CLERK: A recommendation from the Attorney and Administrator with regard to a "letter of support" for The Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. MR. WALL: We have drafted a letter and passing out copies of the now proposed letter and would recommend approval of the letter as written. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only question is - I'm in support of this, but can anybody tell me whether as we go down the road and you get involved in this program, what's it going to cost us, if anything? MR. WALL: We're not committing to any funding at the present time. MR. KUHLKE: Maybe not at the present time, but does the program eventually come back to us for funding for anything? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may try to answer that. From the information I have on Brownfields is that, one, we would have the opportunity to buy into or deny opportunity to buy into a federal funded initiative through EPA. We would also have the opportu-nity to negotiate what those -- what the participation would be, the level of participation, as far as whether it would be in money or, you know, other in-kind services or infrastructure, et cetera. It's my understanding that the money that's already committed to the drainage improvement in Hyde Park or Aragon and Virginia Subdivision would be appropriate funding for the project as far as leverage funding if we were changing it to a industrial use or light industrial use. If we're doing -- we can remediate the contamination or the perception of contamination by the land use standards that we would change -- you know, as far as changing the land use and therefore wouldn't have to spend up money on -- spend the monies on cleanup that would possibly be spent on cleanups in a Brownfield area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke, did that answer your question for you? MR. KUHLKE: I got Mr. Todd's in one ear and Mr. Oliver's in the other. I'm okay now. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the -- all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 51, please? CLERK: Jim, why don't you do 51. [Item 51: Accept Deed of gifts from Developer of Walton Woods for approximately 42.4 acres.] MR. WALL: Item Number 51, when -- and I want to correct something. I sent it over as Walton Woods, but since then I understand that Walton Woods is on the south side of Willis Foreman Road, and so it -- I'm sorry, on the north side. It's Walton Meadows and Walton Landing that are on the south side and along the creek. This was originally presented by the developer because the land is in the floodplain, it cannot be developed, and he wanted to donate approximately 42 acres to the county. At the time the original proposal was made, I met with Mr. Leiper and Mr. Murphy and reviewed the situation from the standpoint of the potential liability to the county, the potential for having to maintain that property, et cetera. Mr. Leiper has always expressed a desire to have this property as an additional buffer to the landfill but was not insistent upon it. We left it up to the developer as far as whether or not he wanted to proceed with it with the Commission. That was much earlier this year. Within the last couple of weeks the developer has indicated that he intends to donate the property to a conservancy group. With that in mind, we do think that it is appropriate for the county to accept this property, and with the understanding that the landfill would be responsible insofar as the maintenance of it, and it would provide an additional buffer from the landfill and would not be developed, and recommend approval of accepting the deed to approximately 42 acres. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. County Attorney, are you going to do the assurance as far as if there is any existing environmental situation, that the previous property owner would be responsible; right? I don't know of anything and I don't think there is anything, but you're taking care of this? MR. WALL: It's wooded land. There's not a problem with that, but I'll take care of that, yes. MR. TODD: Right. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Jim, the only concern I've got here is, if we accept this property -- sometimes governments accept property or gifts from other people or entities and we get on down the road and we find out we've got a liability there and we have to pay a lot of money out. Is there any -are you aware of anything that, as a result of accepting this gift -- I realize what it does for the buffer for the landfill, but is there any other danger that we might be overlooking that we may have a liability out there years down the road if we accept this property? MR. WALL: I was concerned about primarily two things. One is it's behind people's houses, it's wooded area, there are going to be people that go out there and hunt. There's no getting around that, and I was concerned about it from that standpoint. The second thing is that you've got a large area that's behind a subdivision and at least the potential is there for people to dump trash and have the responsibility insofar as cleanup of the property is concerned. However -- you know, I'm not suggesting that this be done immediately, but there's been discussion insofar as possibly fencing the property so that you limit access to it. Overall, I think that the benefit to the county insofar as accepting it to provide the additional buffer rather than having a conservancy group own the property immediately adjacent to the landfill outweighs the possible problems. And we're going to have immunity insofar as anyone hunting out there, and -- that's the best way I know to answer the question. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. All right. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further comments or discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 52, please? CLERK: Approval of sale of property abandoned pursuant to the Resolution dated August 20, 1996 to Maurice Steinberg and/or Clay Boardman. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. TODD: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, is this a second reading and have we had the appropriate hearings or are those hearings to happen? MR. WALL: We have had the appropriate hearings. This was voted on one time back several months ago insofar as declaring it to be available for abandonment in the sense that it was no longer used for any public purpose. There was subsequently a public hearing held. There were no objectors present. The adjoining property owners were all notified in writing, and the two property owners that are particularly interested in it have agreed upon a division of the property and a purchase price. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 53, please? MR. WALL: Item Number 53 is to authorize additional condemnation of property on Skinner Mill Road. As you come east on Wheeler Road, insofar as the proposed building of Skinner Mill Road Extension and the intersection of the Skinner Mill Road Extension with Wheeler Road, there is concern about the stacking lane and being able to handle enough traffic that might turn left from Wheeler Road into the Skinner Mill Road Extension to be constructed. This would move that intersection such that you would be allowed to stack more cars and realign that intersection, and I recommend approval of it. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, the Attorney will take Items 1, 2, and 3 off the addendum agenda. MR. WALL: Item Number 1 is seeking authority to condemn a 15-foot sanitary easement. This is in connection with the Double Eagle Club up on Washington Road. They have agreed to pay for the sewerage and to allow adjoining property owners to tie into it. The Health Department has denied them a permit to open. They would like to open -- have this completed in time to open for the Masters. The property owner involved is in China and we've been dealing in negotiations with -- it's either a son or son-in-law, I'm not sure what. But we need to move forward and get authority to condemn. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, Jerry, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, is this a situation where we should be involved or is there a possibility that the property owner should do the acquisition for the property for the sewer line? Is this sewer line going to serve more than just this individual? MR. WALL: Yes, it is, and I'm told by Mr. Wiedmeier that it is a good project, one that probably would have been recommended to the Commission in a year or so in any event. The property owner involved has agreed to pay the full cost of installing it, however. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I've had numerous complaints from this area looking for additional sewerage. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem with it if we're not doing a individual situation and using the power of government condemnation to do it, so I will support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2? MR. WALL: Item Number 2, in September you approved a subordination agreement for a two-year period of time to a new loan to be made by Georgia State Bank. This was subordinating to -- the original subordination agreement or the original second lien position was created by virtue of a loan of $300,000 that was due to be amortized over a 15-year period. The two-year limitation in the subordination agreement that you approved proved to be unworkable insofar as Georgia Bank and Trust is concerned, and they have requested that -- a longer period of time. The borrower has agreed to pay $25,000 advance payment on the principal, which would reduce the original balance of 150,000, which has now been reduced through monthly payments to approximately 126,000 down to roughly $100,000. If it is not paid in the first two years, then the $300,000 indebtedness would be amortized over ten years. And there is a loan that is dependent upon this transaction. That loan is due to be closed at the end of the week. And I recommend approval of this subordination agreement. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 3? MR. WALL: Item Number 3, the insurance company issuing the insurance in connection with the water and sewer bond has requested an additional resolution setting forth the conditions in their policy, and I recommend approval of this. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Are there going to be any additional costs on that? MR. WALL: No. The policy was already a part of it, this just sets forth the conditions of that policy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wall. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 4? CLERK: Approval of the 1997 Tentative Budget. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, as required, we've completed a tentative budget for 1997. Obviously I've had very little input in this budget at this point, having been here two weeks. It's my understanding, however, that it's required that a tentative budget be adopted at this meeting to meet the requirements of the government. It is also my recommendation, then I'm going to turn it over to Mr. McKie, that for the next budget process, that we start the budget process in July so that we can approve a final budget by January the 1st or by December the 31st, because I think going through a tentative budget is something that we could all better be served by having a budget document that we're going to run the government by prior to that adoption. With that, I would turn it over to Mr. McKie to highlight the issues that we see that are going to face us in this upcoming budget year. MR. McKIE: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. The budget document that we've presented for you today is a continuation of one that was presented some one month ago. All of the funds are balanced, as required. There are some contingencies that are in the General Fund budget, which is our largest, some $72,000,000 this year, which is up 5.8 million from last year, and in these documents we have a schedule which will illustrate those incremental changes from last year, which is Schedule A. This budget is a project of major influences, both from consolidation and known future events which will begin to impact policy in 1997 and continue on after that. The major items that we have addressed so far are new and expanded programs such as additional staffing, wage equalization, a new jail. On the revenue side we've picked up considerable fees in the franchise area, however, we have given up water transfer fees of some 1.5 million dollars. The net of those is an increase of 5.4. Our sales taxes/ad valorem taxes have been budgeted at this year's rates, as required. We've had a modest increase of some 4.2 percent this year, which is less than the state but better than what we've experienced in the past. There are no plans for ad valorem tax increases in this budget. In the way of expenditures, if we could look at Schedule A, which is three pages over, I'd like to address these as incremental items from 1996. So these are changes, additional revenue and additional expenses, and which are significantly more than what we had planned for last year. As you can see, franchise fees will generate 6.9 million in revenue. We expect an increase of some 591 in ad valorem, sales tax 737. We show the decrease in water and sewer transfer, and all other items combined show a net decrease of 310,000. And those are a number of small items. Principally, we no longer collect some forms of taxes from the state, and that's where the major areas are. In terms of expenses, we've broken it down into a large category of new products -- I'm sorry, new programs and departments. The Equal Opportunity Office, Citizens Service and Information, and Assistant Administrators are new departments and programs that, to some degree, are discretionary on your part. There have been no funding commitments to these at this time, no facilities constructed for their use. The next group would be the facilities that we have constructed, bricks and mortar things that we've put in place and are now beginning to fund through operations. That would be the Belle Terrace Swim Center, Community complex, Soccer Complex, Riverfront Pavilion, and those total some $291,000. You can see that we have a provision for a proposed State Court Judge for 175. That's an item that's in our contingency. 1996 personnel additions to Public Safety and the Sheriff's Department total 1.3 million, and the salary equalization for the Sheriff's Department is 525. Additionally, airtime charges have increased by 159,000. That's the new 800 system when we brought both Augusta City Police and the Sheriff's Department on the same system. So the total increase from last year in new programs and departments and personnel is 2.7. Now, we have provided in this budget for roughly six months of employee wage and salary and equalization, and to be quite honest, this is an estimate. 1.5 million is what we believe will be six months worth of those salaries. The figure for the new jail again is an estimate. That represents one quarter, three months, of hiring employees, equipment, uniforms and so forth for the jail start up. And our normal contingency, which we did not have on the county side last year. So that's a total of 5.9, so new programs and expenditures have taken away all of our new revenue except for the 500,000 on the bottom. That gives us a number of opportunities for additional review of our budget before the permanent budget is approved, and for next year. Because, remember, the salary number that we have, 1.5 million, is only half of what we can expect next year, along with the jail costs, which we'll have a full year of that next year, and we will not have another large increase in revenue because of the franchise fees. They should continue about the same as they are. So we are balanced, have a large contingency for this year, but we've got to lay the foundation in place in this budget in order to meet the known expenditures for next year. Schedule B, the next schedule we have -- MR. OLIVER: If I may, Mr. McKie, add one thing to that. That 1.5 million dollars for wage equalization, we do not know what that figure is going to be. That money is -- we are going to ask you to put that money into reserves, and actually it will -- that salary comparability study will come back to you and you all will decide the direction you want to go because there is some latitude in that study. The reality is through the consolidation we have situations where we have people from the former city and from the former county that perform the same function at different rates of pay. What the salary comparability study will do is to tell us what types of classifications we should have, and let me give an example. In Utilities, for example, we have a Laborer and a Construction and Maintenance Worker which perform substantially the same duty. What will happen is they will come in and determine if perhaps we need a Groundskeeper, a Laborer, a Construction and Maintenance Worker I or Construction and Maintenance Worker II at more skilled levels. So consequently there will be some adjustments. Some will go up, some will go down, and we don't know the magnitude of that, and to try to adjust those in a piecemeal fashion would be unequitable to the organization. As in a previous action that you've taken, we have frozen the current pay plan with the exception of promotions. So we will not be looking at individual compensation because we know that there are inequities within the system, however, we want to correct those inequities as fairly as we can. And if we corrected them in one area and didn't correct them in the other area at the same time, it would be perceived, in our opinion, by the employees as being unfair, and I just wanted to say that. MR. McKIE: Our Schedules B and C will, I think, help demonstrate what Mr. Oliver has referred to. Schedule B is the salary impact of the early retirement plan. Now, these salaries are budgeted for in the budget, and it's balanced with those. So the policy that you've adopted today and the degree to which you replace these people can have a significant savings both on this year and next year, and that will interplay with the wage and salary study. Schedule C is an analysis of our contingency at this point in time, and this will demonstrate where we have put these lump sums for salary and wage equalization. As Mr. Oliver said, we can't identify specific jobs at this time or specific departments, so as opposed to unfairly making some estimates and addressing departmental budgets on that regard, we have estimated the total amount and put that in our contingency reserve. We've done the same with Jail Operations and the Internal Landfill charges, whereby the landfill is now or will be charging other departments on a cost basis, and that's something we have not done in the past. This is done to fund the landfill, at least through cost, from county operations. And, again, the proposed State Judge, the cost for that department is in the contingency. So the total of that, 3,375,000 are major items that we expect, and then we have our regular operating contingency of some 742,000. So if all of those things come to pass exactly in those amounts, then we would still be left with a balanced budget with a contingency of 742,000. The next schedule is an addendum that we added at the request of several Commissioners, is a listing of all agencies that we have budgeted for support in 1997 and a history of what those agencies were given in '95, budgeted in '96, and requested in '97. For several years we've recommended a strictly enforced policy on agency disbursements. There are many areas of duplicated services, redundant overhead expense, state or federal support which may or may not be required by law, and a general lack of budgetary control by the Commissioner over many of these agencies. These agencies many times have their own goals and they at times do not coincide with what the Commission has chosen as goals for the community. Therefore, any support of their goals at the expense of ours would divert funds from areas that you might decide could be better used here. We've seen an unprecedented number of requests this year, and some of those are marginal, and we believe that if we are going to control expenditures in this area, only a clearly defined and enforced policy will help us in that regard. We would recommend that we work on that and have such a policy before approval of the permanent budget in February. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess I have one question, and in the sense that I guess you are making recommendations to us on the budget, you said that the Equal Opportunity Officer and the Information Officer was discretionary. I believe the Equal Opportunity Officer is called for in the legislation that brought about consolidation and the other one is discretionary and was the decision of this board. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. You have approved an organization chart which shows the Assistant Administrators as well, so in our currently adopted organization that's really not discretionary, but, you know, it's something that you can change should you desire to do so. That's our presentation on the General Fund. The total -- yes, sir? MR. ZETTERBERG: Just one item of interest, and that was on the GIS system. Three or four years ago the county had approved a significant amount of money to the support of the GIS system, and since Mr. Lambert has been here he's been attempting to free up some of that money so that we could make some progress. Is that included in the '77 [sic] budget or is that unfunded? MR. McKIE: That will be a part of our capital budget, which at this time we have not addressed in detail. That will be brought to you between now and February. This is the operating budget, exclusive of capital, so there are no capital items -- MR. ZETTERBERG: But there were personnel in that budget, though. There were two people approved or three people approved in that budget that I'm not too sure have been included in here. MR. McKIE: I will have to check -- you know, to be honest, I don't know. MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like you to go back and look at what was approved for the GIS system and see that that's carried forward into the '77 tentative plan budget. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, we can do that. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's if that's possible. MR. McKIE: Well, that's possible. Mr. Lambert -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I mean, we've got a significant capital investment in this program and we can't make progress without giving them the money that they need to operate with. MR. McKIE: At this time I believe Mr. Lambert is working on a comparison of what we have asked for in the budget with what the original plan was as adopted by the Commission. MR. ZETTERBERG: Right. There are some adjustments. MR. McKIE: Right. And so we're looking to see what those adjustments are before we made any permanent changes in here. And whether or not we put the people in there I really can't answer until I look at the detail, but we do have plans to include those by the permanent budget. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the tentative budget. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I'd like to just ask one other question. This is the tentative -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Starting over here. MR. H. BRIGHAM: One question, Mr. Mayor -- that's all right, go ahead on over here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll pass. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, did you say that on the addendum that you're probably going to recommend before the permanent budget is fixed somewhat of a clearinghouse on this group of activities? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry I didn't mention that. That has been part of our proposal, is that we adopt some form of oversight committee, whether it be a 501-C-3, a subcommittee of the Commission or whatever, but a central control of these organizations, and perhaps in some way a reduction of adminis-trative costs, so that we'll be able to bring these things to you at one time. You'll be able to get a report on what activities are being done to try to eliminate redundancy, and perhaps through elimination of overhead cost redundancy you might be able to address other areas in the community that need support and we haven't done in the past. So it's an effort to centralize management of these areas. MR. ZETTERBERG: Could you tell me what will now happen between the approval of the tentative budget and final approval of the budget, and what will be the degree of our participation in that program? MR. McKIE: We will send the details back out to the various departments, they will make recommendations or ask for reconsid-erations. Those we will bring back to you. We will be supplying you with detail, line item budgets for your review. We have those some 20 budget issues that we addressed earlier. We'll have probably at least two more budget meetings with you and show you where those issues were addressed in here and to what degree and ask for your guidance in several areas. MR. ZETTERBERG: The reason I ask that question, Mr. McKie, is that I was a little uncomfortable. Because early on in my participation I thought that we were going to have a meeting of the Commissioners and talk about budget priorities, and that we would establish some budget policies that would be implemented, and then there would be budget hearings that we would participate in. And now I find that I'm in a position where I'm given a tentative budget and have not had an opportunity really to participate with my colleagues in developing a tentative budget, unless that was not the intention in the first place. But I would say that we need to have full dialogue if we're going to do it by February to approve it. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, that was our intention. MR. ZETTERBERG: And this is -- basically this is probably the most important document that we work on and, frankly, I don't think any of us have spent very much time on it at all. MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Zetterberg, might I suggest, what I am used to--and I'd like to get the Mayor and Commission's opinion on this--is that we schedule a workshop deal with the full Commission with the budget, and it'll be devoted totally to the budget where each department comes in and makes a presenta-tion regarding their budget needs and that type of thing, and we more clearly delineate the budget process, and we schedule this for between the 10th and the 15th of January, depending on your calendars, so that we can get a better understanding of what the budget items are. MR. ZETTERBERG: In order to do that, would that take a motion or a substitute motion that we approve that? MR. OLIVER: I don't believe so. If that's the will of the board, I'll just go ahead and work with the Mayor to schedule that. MR. ZETTERBERG: I mean, right now I know it's my will. I don't know about the rest of them. So does it need to be -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Todd? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would just like to participate in the process rather than having it delivered to me. And I appreciate Mr. McKie's fine work on -- and the hard work goes into this, but I really believe that it's incumbent upon us to be involved. MR. McKIE: We had wanted more involvement, but circumstances hadn't permitted those meetings in the last two or three weeks, but we -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And I understand that. MR. McKIE: And we certainly encourage this process to go forward. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, probably over the three years I've been -- or four years I've been here, with the exception of this year, three of the first four years sat in on every budget hearing probably for every department and probably made some arguments for the department, and some perceive that as being micromanaging. I understand the Sheriff was somewhat upset in the sense that there was no Commissioners at the budget hearing when he appeared before the Finance Committee, and I can understand, you know, why he would be concerned. But in the attempt to get out of the micromanaging and let the Administrator present a budget, I haven't participated in the budget hearings this year and basically don't have the intent to. I will depend on the Administrator, even though he come in late, to present a budget to me, and I will vote on that budget up or down. There may be some areas where I'd like to see additional funding where they don't get it, but that's the position or approach I'm going to take. We just approved a Community Block Grant or HUD budget where there was probably fewer folks involved or engaged in that process than there were in the processes for all -- as far as all the department heads, et cetera. I would seriously doubt if the public was invited to those budget hearings and when the Community Block Grant monies was cut and the decisions was made who was going to receive and who was not. I know there was input for the public as far as suggestion of projects or programs. And I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: I would remind Your Honor and the Commission that there were two weeks of public budget hearings in October, but we'd certainly be delighted to do that again. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: 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. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 54? CLERK: The next item is approval of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission minutes for December 3rd. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 55, please? CLERK: 55 is an appointment to the 7th District seat on the Augusta- Richmond County Human Relations Board. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: In lieu of we just received the recommendations for the appointment, I'm going to move that this appointment be withheld until we have an opportunity to go over the recommendations and do it at this time. And the reason I'm doing this is because I've been one of those persons who all along thought that we should get some type of policy in appointment to boards and in accordance with the bill by the legislators. So this is why I'm making this comment at this time, and I so move. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a substitute motion, since it's my appointment and I have a vacancy that's been already created and has been in existence for several months, that we go on and fill this position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I guess we started some time ago putting some individuals on Planning and Zoning, et cetera, and I know that the Mayor Pro Tem has been working to, you know, bring us up to par as far as appointments go, but we need to replace individuals where there's vacancies so those entities can function. And when it's a individual choice as far as nomination, the Commissioner from that district, I don't see any reason to hold up nominations. If we can't live with the person that's being nominated, then we should vote up or down. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just reiterate what Mr. Beard has said. It was under my impression that we have been waiting all of this time for the County Attorney and also for the Mayor Pro Tem and whoever else was involved in this to present to us whatever the vacancies were, whatever we had to do, and we would do that all at one time. I've had a number of appointments that I would have liked to have made. I would have liked to -- and I was operating under the premise that we were waiting for a time and day when the Commission would be presented the opportunity like we are doing now. I don't have a problem with supporting Mr. Brigham's motion, but I will tell you that I am very disappointed that -- at least disappointed in myself that I didn't go ahead and do the same thing, but I thought that I was following along with what everybody else was doing and what I had intended. I believe Ms. Bonner told me before that we would be waiting for a period of time. Now, if we haven't done that, frankly, I've wasted a whole bunch of time. I've wasted about a year's time, because I would have liked to have made appointments in the second and third week that I was in office. Now we've waited a year and sort of kind of got -- I think we have egg on our face right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, what I would like to do at this point is, since Mr. Brigham is saying that, you know, he needs this seat -- and there are many seats that are needed on this, and I was really hoping that we could wait and do it right for one time. But it appears that -- you know, if most people want this, to go on and do this one at this time. But I think we are doing something wrong and, you know, I think I will have to vote against it. But, you know, if that's what the other Commis-sioners want at this time, I'll just go along with it, but I just don't think that it's right to do it at this particular time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard, this particular position here we've checked out and it is open. It's going to be Jerry's appointment regardless. He can do it today or he can do it next week when we do the rest of them. It's not going to interfere with what we're doing. It's an opening on the list and it will be one of Jerry's appointments, so it -- they need a quorum over there and this is why he's asked to go ahead on and fill this position, so they can go ahead on and have a quorum and have the meetings. It's not going to interfere with what we have done and it will still fall in line with the rest of the committees that you were passed out today with. MR. BEARD: Okay. Mr. Mayor, then I will withdraw my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the only reason I made the motion is I am sitting here with a seat that is vacant. I have other numerous appointments that are people in those seats and I am, like the rest of the Commissioners, waiting for an opportunity to appoint these people in the future, but I think that it would be a travesty to deny us a position when it's a vacant position. MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Since Mr. Beard withdrew his motion, do we only have one motion on the floor? CLERK: Yes, sir, to fill the vacancy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. All in favor of Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Mr. Jimmy Murray to fill that position. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's nomination, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 56? CLERK: 56 is a discussion item of membership in the Energy Community Alliance. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I typed up somewhat what the Community Energy Alliance entity is. It's an organization that was formed on the Washington, D.C. level, and the Beltway, to represent communities that's directly or indirectly hosts of DOE and DOD sites. We are more concerned about probably the DOE site in the sense that we have SRS. Former Mayor Charles DeVaney has participated in this association or with this entity, not necessarily as the city being a direct member but participated in going to conference and seminars and paying the fees -- individual fees and in having input on the policy decisions that would affect the DOE complex complex-wide. As most of you know, that there was a decision made on the tritium methodology in Washington, D.C. last year--I believe it was last April--and at that meeting the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, you know, supported SRS as far as the tritium site and supported the methodology, I think, if I'm not correct, the linear accelerator. But this is bigger than just that one mission. There is policy and policy recommendations that's made that deals with SRS and Fort Gordon that we should have someone at the table when those decisions or policy recommendations is made, because oftentimes those recommendations go to Congress or go to the Administration or the appropriate federal agency and they adopt those recommendations. I would like possibly for the Mayor to set up a committee to look into this -- you know, the Mayor and the Administrator. I believe the fee is approximately $6,000, but that fee can be divided by all of the interested parties. There are several counties that's indirect or direct hosts of DOE and Fort Gordon, and in most of the other areas the counties share the cost of membership and divide it and it usually come out, you know, 1,000 or less dollars. And I bring this to you as information, and I'm going to make a motion at the appropriate time that we accept it as information. And I also brought back some documents and brochures to Mr. Oliver, the Administrator, that will help us as far as the interest that we have in the water and wastewater initiatives at Fort Gordon. And I bring this as information and I so move that we accept it as information. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? Coming around. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 57, please? CLERK: Item 57, Other Business. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, did you want to -- MR. OLIVER: Let me just update you on the Fire Chief selection process. I distributed -- put in -- the applications closed last Friday the 13th at five o'clock. I put in each one of your boxes. We've reviewed the applications and screened down to six individuals that we believe are qualified for that position. In accordance with my understanding of the policy that's been adopted by the Commission, the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem -- and it was the Consolidation Manager, but I will be assuming that role. We'll do telephone interviews with these individuals. We are trying to set those up for this week, perhaps even early next week, and -- to screen that list further to determine who is the most qualified candidate. It's the desire of everyone, I believe, to get this person on board by the first of the year-- or at least make a selection, I should say, by the first of the year. So because this is the last meeting of the year it may be necessary to request -- or the Mayor may request a special called meeting to review the choices and make a final selection prior to year end. If any of you would like to review the applications, I'd be glad to share any of those with you. In that memo I tried to delineate what their educational experience is as well as their current position, and in one case I needed to go back to a prior position because of a slight change. But if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. POWELL: Move that we accept Mr. Oliver's report as information. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do we need a legal meeting, Jim? MR. WALL: I've got some litigation, personnel, and real estate matters I need to discuss. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move we go into executive session. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 4:45 P.M.] At the close of the legal meeting, the Commission reconvened and reopened the meeting to the public and press. At this time Mr. Wall requested that two items be added to the agenda for consideration. MR. TODD: I move that these items be added to the agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MOTIION CARRIES 10-0. Approval of settlement of claim against Western Surety Company for claims arising under Fidelity Bonds issued to Richmond County for the sum of $165,000. Approval of settlement of claims involving M. B. Kahn in Richmond County concerning the Spirit Creek Treatment Facility for the release of $43,800 held as retainage in exchange for mutual releases. MR. HANDY: I move that these be approved. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: I move that we adjourn. MR. BEARD: Second. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. 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 17, 1996. _________________________ Clerk of Commission