Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS February 4, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 P. M., Tuesday, February 4, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Todd, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Zetterberg, Beard, Powell, Handy and Bridges, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. W. H. Mays, III, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also Present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver, Administrator and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND WAYNE LUNSFORD. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Lunsford. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: No, sir. The first item is the recognition of DeCarlos Manor for saving the life of Alfred Hardwick by alerting adults that fire was coming from his home on January 23, 1997. MR. MANOR RECEIVES A CERTIFICATION OF RECOGNITION FROM MAYOR SCONYERS. CLERK: Mr. Andy Cheeks, President of the Rollins Neighborhood Association. MR. CHEEKS: Mr. Mayor and Honorable Councilmen, I come to you representing our neighborhood association to give you great thanks for the brave step you took in protecting our neighborhood. No, it was not an easy decision to do the thing that you had to do, and we all know, in spite of what is printed in the press, that you did not vote to rezone the property, that you voted to give homeowners a right to review the zoning of property before destructive development occurs. This issue has not remained an issue strictly for the Rollins area, for as each one of you sit representing a district, neighborhoods in your districts have expressed concern in this, in that this is a leading effort to give homeowners a right to review the property and the destructive development that may occur. With us today are members of the Rollins Area Neighborhood Association. Also, representatives from Pinnacle Place, Sand Ridge, Pepperidge, Barton Chapel, Sharon Road neighborhood associations. We also have continuing communication with folks from Summerville Association and the Montclair Subdivision, just to name a few. All these neighborhoods have struggled with or have faced struggling with the same problems that we face. On December 27th a notice was placed in the paper. It discussed the rezoning of the entire parcel of property, not just the 4.88 acres. We learned some valuable lessons from this last outing. The second parcel of property does not conform to any of the criteria used by F&D Properties. There have not been substantial funds expended on this property. I've looked at the tax records since it was purchased, and the only thing that's been expended on that is property taxes, and it's valued at $53,000. That's the entire 12 acres, including the business property on Highway 25. There has been no development. Twenty-four years have elapsed since this property has been rezoned. Let me repeat again: there have been no expenditures. And to use the terms in the court case, no excess expenditures. No plans submitted and over 18 months have passed. This is a process put in there in the zoning and planning ordinance for property owners. What you have done by your actions of protecting our neighborhood is not spend $142,000, what you did is preserve a tax base that has been a consistent contributor to our community for over 40 years. You took a stand for the citizens and the growing amount of neighborhood associations becoming involved with this effort in the neighborhood alliance across the county. Property owners that own homes want the same rights that have been enjoyed by the developers in this community for the last 50 years. We want equal rights. We want our rights as property owners to be considered as well. Ladies and gentlemen, we have got to stop the destructive zoning that is driving people out of our community to Columbia and Aiken County and other places. The only way to do that is to do as we've done in the past and step forward on behalf of neighborhoods. This is still hanging over our heads. We understand that the easement through the property which could create a thoroughfare is still in place. We also have a drainage and utility easement that literally runs through the bedrooms of our neighbors. We ask that you consider and work towards resolving that. The process is stalled. In reading the meeting minutes from November 5th when you decided to proceed with this action on our behalf, it's been determined by the zoning and planning board, to my understanding, that no clear direction exists for the future path of this action. We need a nudge at this point. We think it is in order to continue. Let's be clear about this, gentlemen. What did occur with the property sale when the County forced them to buy that was a parachute was offered, not only to F&D Properties but to us as well. And two things were asked for: one was the reversion; one was a mandamus, which is a mandate to stop the action. The third thing was offered, which would not stand up on appeal. You could appeal it and we could tie this thing up in court. The reversionary process was stopped prematurely and not allowed to proceed pending the court action, and then it died altogether. You do have the right to determine zoning. There are criteria, and based on the case from F&D Properties we learned that those criteria do not exist on the second plot of property. To use the F&D case as an example of why we cannot use the reversionary clause is an error. It is an error. Now, we have our own legal counsel that gives us this advice, and I'm sure that there is substantial evidence in law that backs up the fact that you have the right to determine zoning in the best interest of the community. We thank you for standing in our behalf. We need to consider these things because it is an unresolved issue to us of Rollins area, and that's why we're here today, to demonstrate to you that we have not forgotten and that we are still interested in this issue. And, gentlemen, as you can see, we have neighbors from other associations that are deeply interested in this, too. It is a right that we homeowners should have, and it is up to you to decide whether you nudge this process and allow us the due process of law or we allow it to die on the vine. The thing that we're all concerned about is that the reversion be lost and that the F&D case be used as an example of why we can't use the reversionary process. Gentlemen, let us make no mistake, the reason there has been no reversion to date is because the developers and real estate agents were the govern-ment as well. They were all one and the same and, therefore, the interest of the developers and the real estate entities were held above those of the citizens. The citizens are tired of seeing people trying to add additions to their home beaten over the head by the zoning and planning board while the developers go scott free and do as they will with our communities. We need this. We need this not just for Rollins area but for everybody in Augusta. If we don't -- if you drive down Walton Way or Richmond Hill Road or any other road in Augusta and you see the for sale signs, people are leaving. They're leaving because we have not placed a high enough value on the thing that is most important besides the family and the church, which is the neighborhood. And I'm asking you to make that stand with us again. We have not abandoned you. We have sung your praises to everyone for your defense of our neighborhood, and we will continue to do all we can to support this effort. It's not over with today and we realize that. Help us to see it through, please. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cheeks. Do I hear a motion to accept that as information or whatever? MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: I'm going to second the motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Cheeks, and the question basically is: when you were doing your research, did you research the property rights of the property owners and developers as far as being able to use their property for its highest and -- highest value and best use? MR. CHEEKS: Well, property owners have that right, but as we do in many other instances, Commissioner Todd, is we do environmental or community impacts on many of the other developments that are proposed on lots of property. All the property owners -- the homeowners are asking is that we do a community impact and that what one person builds in their yard not be allowed to detract from what I already have and have paid and worked very hard to establish. And in this case, when multi-family communities come in to established neighborhoods they basically commit an equity transfer, which takes the equity from the established neighborhood and transfers it to valuation of the property they're building. So our property goes down in value, they sell theirs off and then they're gone. We see in this community many multi-family developments and apartments. The best ones are the ones that have a green space around them between the surrounding communities. This is the kind of thing we're asking for. We did research that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cheeks. MR. CHEEKS: Thank you, sir. CLERK: Under Finance, Items 1 through 4 were approved by the Finance Committee on January 28th, 1997. [Item 1: A motion to approve a request from James W. Brigham, Jr. (Fire Department) to purchase 19 years 11 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 2: A motion to approve amendment of 1977 Retirement Plan for Richmond County, Georgia, in order to terminate the ability of participants to purchase credited service as of July 1, 1997. Item 3: A motion to approve Change Order #1 for the Belle Terrace Senior Center in the amount of $23,955.00 and a 15-day extension of the contract period. Item 4: A motion to approve refund of prior year taxes to Karen Holcomb.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee makes a motion that we receive these as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Thank all you folks for coming down to be with us. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 5, please? CLERK: Item 5 was approved by the Administrative Services Committee on January 28th. [Item 5: A motion to approve a Resolution designating the Check Signers, Co-Signers, and Alternates in connection with all Community Development Activities.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 5 be approved as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 6, please? CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 6 through 32 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on January 28th. [Item 6: A motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number 1 with funding for Bobby Jones Expressway @ S.R. 56 additional Loop CPB#55-8156- 330. Item 7: A motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-8308-07 with funding for Bobby Jones Expressway (I-20 to Wrightsboro Road). Item 8: A motion to authorize condemnation of property owned by Carolyn M. and Charles E. McGee, Jr. (Tax Map 144, Parcel 51). Item 9: A motion to authorize condemnation of property owned by James Edward Hawkes (Tax Map 144, Parcel 39). Item 10: A motion to approve purchase of permanent drainage and utility easement from Wilfred H. Gladue (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 161). Item 11: A motion to approve purchase of a temporary construction easement from Robert H. Peek (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 156). Item 12: A motion to approve purchase of a permanent drainage and utility easement and a temporary construction easement from Donald Wright and Gardenia Wright (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 110). Item 13: A motion to approve purchase of permanent utility easement from Steve and Paula Strickland (Tap Map 19-4, Parcel 145). Item 14: A motion to approve purchase of permanent utility easement from Mattie M. Gay (Tax Map 19-4, Parcel 51.) Item 15: A motion to approve purchase of permanent utility easement from Toby Reese and Mary Reese (Tax Map 19-4, Parcel 38). Item 16: A motion to approve purchase of permanent utility easement and temporary construction easement from Charlotte A. Van Horn (Tax Map 19-4, Parcel 145). Item 17: A motion to approve purchase of easement from Eldridge and Salome T. Hankinson (Tax Map 87-2, Parcel 235). Item 18: A motion to approve purchase of temporary construction easement from Pamela Hensley Long (Tax Map 33-1, Parcel 57). Item 19: A motion to approve purchase of temporary construction easement from Ruby Harris and Henry Harris, Jr. (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 126). Item 20: A motion to approve purchase of temporary construction easement from James L. Kendrick (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 127). Item 21: A motion to approve purchase of temporary construction easement from James W. Thompson (Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 142). Item 22: A motion to accept counteroffer to acquire 1,002.34 square feet of right-of-way from E.L. Jernigan and Sarah C. Jernigan for $425.00. Item 23: A motion to approve purchase of permanent utility easement from Joel A. Plagenhoef (Tax Map 26-4, Parcel 4). Item 24: A motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Pinnacle Place Subdivision, Phase IV, Section IV. Item 25: A motion to receive as information the recommendation from subcommittee regarding a Resolution to establish mandatory garbage collection in Richmond County and to schedule public hearings/town meetings to receive public input and come back to the Engineering Services Committee in ninety (90) days with a recommendation. Item 26: A Resolution establishing an Enforcement Division for litter control and placing the Division under the Marshal's Department. Item 27: A motion to approve to recapture $96,000 of County Forces funds in Special 1- cent Sales Tax, Phase II and to reallocate those funds to the landscape crew for intersection beautification projects in accordance with the recommended list; to adopt the name Augusta-Richmond County, The Garden City and approve funding for the new signs. Item 28: A motion to approve the authorization to execute Change Order #1 in the amount of $103,647.00 with Mabus Brothers Construction Company on the Division Street Basin Sewer Separation Project. Item 29: A motion to approve to proceed with a change order to replace failing sanitary sewer in 13th Street. Item 30: A motion to approve Final Change Order with Blair Construction, Inc. to decrease the contract in the amount of $250,319.65 for the Metcalf Sewer Separation, Phase V Project. Item 31: A motion to approve Final Change Order with Mabus Brothers Construction to decrease the contract in the amount of $60,794.45 for the Turknett Springs Basin, Phase III. Item 32: A motion to approve Policy Statement authorizing the Administrator to enter into property acquisitions contracts valued below $10,000.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept these as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull out Number 26 and discuss it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Powell, we're going to pull Item 26; is that okay? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, that's fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: All with the exception of Item 26, all in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 26, please? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, there was a proposal that was given to me this morning, I think in response to last evening's meeting, from David Smith, the Landfill -- or the Solid Waste Director, to have six enforcement officers, but that they would be deputized by the Sheriff of Richmond County but operate under the direction of the Commission-Council and under his direction. And there were several other conditions to that. I briefly talked to Mr. Wall about this, and I believe Mr. Wall wants to comment on the being deputized by the Sheriff and working under the Commission-Council. MR. WALL: The comment I want to make and to be sure that everyone understands: if they're deputized by the Sheriff, the Sheriff ultimately is going to be the one who is responsible for the actions of those officers, whether it be in a complaint that might be filed against any of the actions of the officers, any excessive force, or anything like that that might be alleged against any of these individuals. And even though that they would be under the direction of the Commission, as outlined in the proposal, they're under the direction of the Commission only as any other employees are under the direction of the Commission. And I understand the rationale behind this, but by virtue of their being deputy sheriffs, Georgia law makes them -- makes the Sheriff responsible for their conduct. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we place the six -- the detail of six under the Marshal's Office, we have one working supervisor, no clerk, and they would work at the direction of Marshal Steve Smith as the Enforcement Division for Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to that motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Smith -- David Smith and Steve Smith as to, you know, their thoughts on it and why it should be under their department and how they would manage that. And I'd like some history, too. I understand that we had a litter enforcement before. I'd like some history of what went on with that, because I've heard that the Sheriff had it, then I heard that the Marshal had it, and I'm confused as to what went on in the past, and I certainly don't want that to happen in the future. MR. DAVID SMITH: Okay. The first thing is, is that the Enforcement Division, as we saw in our town meeting last night, is a very much needed item. It is an item that -- it doesn't matter whether it's under the Sheriff, whether it's placed under deputies run by the Commission, or whether it's under Marshal Smith, it's a needed item. And these gentlemen -- the main thing that I want to ensure that happens is that these gentlemen do what they are put out there to do, and that's enforce the litter laws, or either the dumping laws, the code violations, as put forth -- as mandated by the Commission to get done. That is the most important thing. Before we had problems with this situation where people were put out there -- it started with people from RCCI years ago. They were put out there to do this type of enforcement. Some of them were utilized for other things at times. When it came under the Marshal's Department, as the court load started up, of course, the Marshal had no choice but to put people -- he had to protect his courts first. When it went to my division, we ran it. And, of course, it got moved over to the Sheriff's Department because of the court problem again, and he has to put the emphasis on crime reduction and not this code enforcement. That is why I made the proposal that I made. Whichever way it goes, I would like to see the Commission ensure that it is put out there for the use that it's designed for. Since the Landfill will be the primary funding source, I have a vested interest in making sure it's out there. I feel that the proposal that I put on the table this morning is a good one and would work very well. MR. STEVE SMITH: That's essentially true. I mean, if there's any questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them. MR. BRIDGES: Steve, what about as far as your deputies having to deal with the courts in place of enforcing the litter patrol. If they're on the litter patrol and they have to go to court -- I'd like your thoughts on why they have to, or will that be a problem this time, or will they be out there enforcing the litter laws? Just comment on that, if you would. MR. STEVE SMITH: Well, I think there's a misconception that we pulled litter deputies before to handle court services, which is inaccurate. I think maybe on one or two occasions we used them to transport a prisoner, and we're talking about three or four years ago. At that time we were understaffed and, fortunately, we've got our staffing up to where it needs to be at this point. As I've said before, if we are able to get the litter enforcement we will devote them solely to enforcing the ordinances and laws of Richmond County in regards to dumping and littering. I don't -- we're not going to run into the problem again with sparse manpower within the Marshal's Department. MR. BRIDGES: So you'd be able to utilize these people strictly in writing tickets, investigating, that kind of thing, and they wouldn't be tied up in court or whatever? MR. STEVE SMITH: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I only have one question, and that's for Mr. Smith. In the proposal that I -- and I guess I need to identify which Mr. Smith, so Mr. David Smith. The proposed salary for a working supervisor for the Marshal's service is approximately -- I guess the entrance rate there or whatever, the rate is nineteen-four. I would assume that your salary is a lot more than nineteen-four, so I guess, without discussing your salary in the sense that it's a personnel matter, would you be willing to do the job for what's being proposed here as far as cost? MR. DAVID SMITH: No, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Todd, I don't know exactly where it should go, but if it goes to Steve's office, the Marshal's Office, and we are establishing six new positions in your department, certainly I would hope -- and, Mr. Todd, you may want to -- I might ask you to amend your motion that if we approve this, that we have at least a quarterly report back from the Marshal's Department on what the success of the program has been. MR. TODD: So amended, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. STEVE SMITH: Mr. Mayor, if I might? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Smith? MR. STEVE SMITH: I've assured Mr. Oliver and Mr. Todd that we'll be glad to report any -- the progress that we're making either in written form or orally, however he would like to have that. MR. ZETTERBERG: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Bridges had his hand up. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question here, too, on -- for both of these gentleman. How many men would you have out there 24 hours a day to enforce these laws? Because a lot of this littering is taking place before 12 midnight or -- well, really it's taking place all during the night plus early morning and late in the evening. And I'd like to hear both gentlemen address the fact of how many men will they have out there 24 hours a day to enforce that or will it be just an 8:00 to 5:00 type thing. MR. DAVID SMITH: First, let me state no matter which agency it goes to, the Marshal as well as whether I got the unit, I'm sure that the times would be staggered as to where the evening hours would be covered where a lot of your illegal dumping takes place and the weekend. It was done that way before. The Marshal's Department handled it that way, I handled it that way when I had it, and I'm sure in the future it'll be handled that way. What you have to ask yourself right now is what's best for the public, what do we need out there at this time to stop this problem and get it under control. I'm sure you could set guidelines as to what you would want with this division and give this information, whether it went to me or to the Marshal, and you would receive that. But it needs to be staggered hours, staggered personnel, to cover these hours where people are doing this illegal dumping no matter which way it goes. And I believe either way you go, with either agency, you're going to have a win-win situation. It's just which is better, which places less liability upon the citizens of Richmond County, and that's the thing you have to look at. I would like it to go with me, but I have no problem in supporting the Marshal or the Sheriff's Department. But you have to say what is the best for the people, and I believe the County Attorney has addressed that in some sense. MR. BRIDGES: Steve, what about that as far as what length of time during the day these -- your guys could cover these? MR. STEVE SMITH: We will certainly do a needs assessment and determine, you know, what would be our peak hours as far as the dumping goes. I think where we had litter enforcement before, we had some officers out at six o'clock in the morning, and usually in the summertime when it gets dark a lot later, we had the officers out accordingly to when our peak dumping periods were. A lot of it is outside the Landfill hours when people go to the Landfill to try to dump a load and it's closed, so we had a lot of deputies working right around dusk when it appeared that our highest dumping times were. As David said, there would be no set time. Hopefully we would institute the litter line again and make that service available to the citizens so if they do see somebody littering or if they know of a dump site that we need to check out, they can call and report that and we can get somebody right on it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I discuss this? My first inclination here is I would like to see this under the Landfill, and the reason is I think there is more emphasis there for the people at the Landfill to enforce the provisions. If they ticket somebody, they get money from the Landfill for the tickets, but they'd rather see them come through the gate and pay the fee to unload their garbage. But, Jim, what -- I'd like to hear again your viewpoints on what are the advantages and disadvantages of putting it under the Landfill or what would be the advantages of having it under the Marshal's Office. MR. WALL: Well, I was not specifically trying to address the advantages of one versus the other. The thing that I wanted the Commission to understand is that by virtue of these individuals being deputy sheriffs, if they work -- if they were deputized by the Sheriff and working under the supervision of David, they are still law enforcement officers, deputy sheriffs, such that the Sheriff, and ultimately the County, would be responsible for any actions that were taken by those individuals. They likewise, being deputy sheriffs, are ultimately responsible to the Sheriff. Just like if they were deputized by the Marshal, they ultimately are responsible to the Marshal. What you would have is David acting as an intermediate supervisor, in a sense, between these individuals and the Sheriff. And that was the point that I was trying to be sure that everyone understood, that they -- by virtue of being deputized by the Sheriff, they are subject to his direction and he is the one ultimately responsible for their conduct. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Oliver wanted to say something. MR. OLIVER: I just wanted to add that wherever this function resides, one of the things we're going to be looking at is going to be to ensure that what our recoveries are through fines and that type thing cover the salaries, so that that's clearly understood. Because obviously this needs to be -- you know, needs to cover the costs, because it is a critical need, and then we can determine if staffing needs to be done differently. I might also add, I did talk briefly with the Sheriff. Just prior to this meeting I was able to get ahold of him. I would be a little more comfortable if we had a letter from the Sheriff saying that he was in agreement. He indicated to me that he was conceptually in agreement; however, we didn't have an opportunity to go into any of the specific details, and I just don't want any miscommunication between the Sheriff and the Commission. But he indicated that he would go along with whatever the Commission wants. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we place the litter enforcement up under the Landfill subject to the agreement of the Sheriff. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Do y'all want to discuss that any? I know you don't have any questions, but this is a separate motion. Substitute motion first made by Mr. Bridges. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 7-2. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion by Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 33, please. CLERK: Items 33 through 35 were approved by the Public Safety Committee on January 28th. [Item 33: A motion to authorize the execution of the annual Lease of the Vehicle License Office on Laney-Walker Blvd. (State Farmers Market). Item 34: A motion to dispose of property left over from 1996 surplus/salvage. Item 35: A motion to adopt an Ordinance to adopt Title Three of the Augusta-Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances of the City County; and for other purposes.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that these be placed on as a consent item. They were discussed and approved in Public Safety Committee. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who seconded that, please? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to pull out Number 35 since it's an ordinance. Even though I think it's going to pass and I don't have any problem with it, I just think we don't need to vote on ordinances as part of consent agendas. MR. H. BRIGHAM: All right. MAYOR SCONYERS: 33 and 34? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 35, please? CLERK: 35: A motion to adopt an Ordinance to adopt Title Three of the Augusta-Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances of the City County; and for other purposes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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. BEARD & MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Item 36 is a motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the City Council of Augusta Ordinance No. 5801 granting a franchise to KMC Southeast Corporation so as to extend the Franchise throughout the limit of Richmond County; to provide for an effective date. Second reading, approved by the Commission on January 21st. 37 is a motion to approve an Ordinance to prohibit the use of skateboards and skates on any street, sidewalk, park median or parking area within the area bounded by the Levee and Walton Way between 15th Street and 4th Street; to regulate the use of in-line skates; to prohibit the use of skateboards and skates on private property without permission. Second reading, approved by the Commission on January 21st. 38 is a motion to approve an Ordinance to adopt Titles Four and Five of the Augusta-Richmond County Code; to adopt Section 1-6-1 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; and repeal conflicting Ordinances of Augusta and Richmond County. Second reading, approved by the Commission on January 21st. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Who was the second, please? CLERK: Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. For the County Attorney, on the franchise ordinance, there is not going to be a direct fee passed on to the users because of the franchise like with the utilities that we done some time ago in South Richmond? MR. WALL: That is correct. However, to say that the KMC might ultimately charge its users based upon the increased franchise fee, now I can't state that. They might absorb that cost and then raise the rates saying that there is an increased cost. But, I mean, this is a limited client base that they have [inaudible]. MR. TODD: Yes, I understand [inaudible]. But you don't foresee any concern over the -- MR. WALL: Not like Jefferson EMC, no. MR. TODD: Okay, thank you. No further questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, on Item 37, there's nothing mentioned in there about the effective date. Wasn't the effective date on that March 1? MR. WALL: In the ordinance itself, I revised it afterwards, and -- CLERK: April 9th. MR. KUHLKE: April the 9th? Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 39: A motion to approve the Commission regular meeting minutes of January 21st. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 40? CLERK: Well, we have an addition, the resolution of the ITER project. A Resolution that the Consolidated Government of Augusta-Richmond County hereby endorses the Savannah River Site as a fusion research center. The Government calls upon the Department of Energy to reverse its existing policy and to endorse the siting efforts for such projects as ITER in the United States, and more particularly at the Savannah River Site; it be further resolved the this Government calls upon our President and Administration and Congress of the United States to participate in and fund fusion research in such a manner that prepares our nation for the future, provides for our defense, and keep us in the forefront of the scientific community worldwide; it further be resolved that we request the State of Georgia to match funding from the State of South Carolina to secure this project, not to exceed one million dollars. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Certainly I feel that the Mayor's Office should provide the President of the United States with a copy of the resolution tomorrow, or the appropriate entities that need to receive copies. And those are my comments. And I'd also like to commend the -- if it's appropriate, the Mayor and the Administrator in doing a record meeting time- wise. I believe it's about three o'clock and we're getting ready to adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: That's it, Mr. Mayor. You have one item? MR. OLIVER: Under Other Business. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn to take care of a legal meeting. CLERK: No, Mr. Oliver has one other item. MR. OLIVER: If I can just mention one thing so that we're all dealing with the same information. We have determined that we have an opportunity to apply for a two million dollar soil conservation grant for emergency watershed protection. The staff has identified that opportunity. It's an 80-20 participation grant, which means we have to do 20 percent of it. However -- or 25, is it? 25 percent. However, we believe we can do a majority of that through in-kind services. We are currently preparing a project list for that, and the grant application is due February 15th. And we don't have another meeting before then, so what we are proposing to do, with your permission, is to include it as part of the Thursday meeting that we're going to have at 5:30, because at that time we will have the project list ready. We just didn't want to rush that at this point, but we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to apply for those grant funds. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept it as information and add it to Thursday's agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: I just need to know about Thursday's meeting, that's all. CLERK: Work session. MR. HANDY: Has it been posted -- put out -- sent out? CLERK: Uh-huh [yes]. MR. HANDY: When was it sent out? CLERK: Last week. It was faxed to everybody. MR. HANDY: [Inaudible] CLERK: It could have been. MR. HANDY: [Inaudible], but I'll take it anyway. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I need a legal -- excuse me, you need to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, I was fixing to say we haven't voted yet. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Wall needs a legal meeting. Do I hear a motion to that effect? MR. WALL: Legal and -- litigation and personnel matters. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of CommissionCERTIFICATION: 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 February 4, 1997. ____________________ Clerk of Commission