Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS March 18, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 18, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: 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; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Claude L. Harris, Sr., Pastor of the New Life Church of God in Christ, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HARRIS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Harris. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission. We have a request to delete Item 34, appointment of Public Works Director. Additions to the agenda: to authorize a lease agreement with Alltel Mobile for a cellular phone antennae and equipment at Highland Avenue Water Tank; two, a motion to approve the policy for appointments to boards, commissions and authorities; three, a motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. William B. Lee IV to a new four- year term on the Board of Tax Assessors, 23rd Senatorial District; four, a motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Tracy Williams to a new four-year term on the Board of Assessors, 22nd Senatorial District; and five, a motion to approve contractual services between Augusta-Richmond County and the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: With the exception of deleting Number 34, I'd like to change it to discuss, and make a motion that we do the others unanimous. And the reason is that I think that we need to make a decision whether we're going to re-advertise or not or what direction we're going from this point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: Item 1 is a delegation. A presentation from the Augusta- Richmond County Delegation regarding the Energy Communities Alliance Annual Conference held in Washington, D.C., March the 6th through the 7th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: We had somewhat promised Mr. Pen Mason, which was one of the delegation members, that this probably wouldn't come up until somewhere around the middle of the agenda. And if Mr. Oliver or Mr. DeVaney don't have a problem, I'd like to kind of live up to that promise and not do it -- or starting it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. DeVaney, do you have time to stay till -- MR. DeVANEY: I can stay. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Item 1, please? CLERK: Under the Planning portion of our agenda, it's the recommendation of the Planning Commission that all items with the exception of Item 1, 6 and 9 can be taken as a consent agenda. And for the benefit of any objectors in the room, I'll read Items 2 -- portions of the consent agenda. Item 2 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ellihue Lanham, on behalf of Kenneth E. Vinson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, on Old U.S. #1, Tobacco Road, where it intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Old U.S. #1. Three is a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Powertel, Inc., on behalf of Myron Colley, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower on Deans Bridge Road (2860 Deans Bridge Road). Four is a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Faulk & Foster Real Estate, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cellular communications tower on Tobacco Road -- Old U.S. #1 and Tobacco Road. Five is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Melissa Hueter, on behalf of the Waffle House, requesting a change of zoning from a Zone Light Industry to a Zone B-2 on North Leg and Gordon Highway. Seven is a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Toole Engineers regarding a change of zoning from a Zone R-1B to a Zone R-1C on Monte Carlo Drive in 11-D Pepperidge Subdivision. Eight is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Phillip Tully, on behalf of Bobby G. Fulcher, Sr., to change zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone Light Industry on property located on the southeast right-of-way line Peach Orchard Road. Ten is a final plat approval for 11-D Pepperidge Subdivision. This section is an extension of Monte Carlo Drive in Pepperidge Subdivision off Highway 25 and contains 34 lots. MR. TODD: I'd like to pull the Monte Carlo Drive, or the last one, and make a motion that we go along with the Planning Commission on all the others. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd that with the exception of Item 10 we concur with the Planning Commission. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I think that in light of the action just taken, that the petitioners on Item Number 1 are agreeable to having that withdrawn from the agenda. And they're here, and -- is that correct? PETITIONER: Yes, that is. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to allow them to withdraw Item Number 1. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: One question, Mr. Chairman. I just want a point of information. Is this -- are you withdrawing the application for the special exception or are you just withdrawing it off the agenda today? PETITIONER: We're withdrawing the application. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 6: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Maurice Steinberg, on behalf of Maurice Steinberg and Gerald Ehrlich, requesting a change of zoning from a Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the northwest right-of-way line of Old McDuffie Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Bobby Jones Expressway. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, this is predominantly a residential area that's predominantly residentially zoned, although there are a couple of spot zones, and we have a number of objectors here that are in opposition to it. We recommend you deny it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a 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 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please? CLERK: Item 9 is an amendment to Section 2 (General Definitions), Section 22-B-2 (General Business), and Section 26 (Special Exceptions), thereby adding specific regulations to address the location of telecommunication towers. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, do you have anything? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. As you all know, we've had numerous requests the last few months -- well, several requests the last few months, and we know that numerous requests are coming for telecommunication towers due to the changes in technology and the proliferation of use of these type of devices. And we have been looking at various communities and the way the regulate telecommunication towers and antennas, and we came up with the ordinance you see in front of you. And what it does, it attempts to identify those that should be allowed by right; in other words, they should not take special -- require special zoning. And those that would not take special zoning and be allowed by right within the zone in which they are located would meet the following conditions: the height of the tower would not exceed the height allowed in the zone, 165 feet; set back from the nearest residence, it would not be -- would be greater than the height of the tower; if there's no other structure within a half a mile -- or a mile of the location, excuse me, it's at least ninety percent of the height of the proposed tower; and the structure would be fenced and provided with landscaping, et cetera. That would be allowed by right and would not require special exception; it would not have to come to you. Any other tower would have to come to you and we set forth eight criteria to judge those that do have to come to you by it. The criteria designed to identify characteristics that could reduce obtrusiveness of the tower and make sure that it fits into the area, make sure that it's needed, make sure that co- location is not possible. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would like to see this item postponed and us to appoint a study committee with some industry representatives to make us some recommendations and make sure that we are proceeding in the right direction. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion if we can have an amendment to have some community representatives also on that committee. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I left him off by mistake, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you. Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10? CLERK: Item 10 is Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 11-D, Final Plat: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 11-D, Final Plat. This section is an extension of Monte Carlo Drive in Pepperidge Subdivision off Highway 25 and contains 34 lots. Approved by the Planning Commission on March 11th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is to Mr. George Patty in that Monte Carlo is in a low-laying area that's experienced some flooding in the past. You know, how is this development going to impact positive or negative on that flooding? Did they make provisions --positive provisions to handle water that will relieve them of future flooding or? MR. PATTY: Well, first of all, this particular part of Monte Carlo-- that's a long street--it's not in the floodplain. They do provide storm water retention as required by our ordinances, and it's been approved by the Engineering Department and everybody else. MR. TODD: Yes. I would assume that if we're going in on whatever it is, maybe Pepperidge, that this is going to be running up the hill that way? MR. PATTY: Yeah. MR. TODD: And I'm not good on directions, but certainly there's going to be an awful lot of water coming off of that hill, and I think I voiced this concern when they first started. What kind of impact is it going to have in the flood zone? We have a big pond down on the back of Monte Carlo there on the development that's already there. And certainly I would want to be assured that we're not going to have a negative impact and that their water is being taken care of as far as routing it to, I believe that's Butler Creek, versus just turning it loose on the residents that's down the street. And is there's someone here representing the developer? MR. HALL: My name is Charlie Hall from W.R. Toole Engineers, and we designed a portion of Section 11-D that you're approving today. The development itself is actually split between plans that we had done and some plans by Mr. Nance. There are actually two retention ponds, one on the lower half of Monte Carlo and one up on top of the hill behind Section 11-A, and those ponds were designed to handle all that water. We do have storm water boxes and traps and everything else in place. Everything's been approved by the County, not only in plan but installation. So those measures have been installed and those things have been taken into account. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 11, please? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends that you take Items Number 11 through 22 as a consent agenda; and with that, we'll also make a motion that we approve those items. [Item 11: Motion to approve a request from Marvin Tawney (Marshal Department) to purchase 5 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 12: Motion to approve a request from Pauline Willis (Tag Office) to purchase 5 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 13: Motion to approve a request from John Bennett (Recreation Department) to purchase 15 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 14: Motion to approve abatement of remainder of 1996 taxes ($239.48) after seller paid pro-rate share (Thomas Woods Lands). (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 15: Motion to approve the request of Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a Standard Electronics for waiver of penalty in the amount of $172.53. (Disapproved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 16: Motion to approve a request of Meco, Inc. of Augusta for waiver of penalty in the amount of $837.30. (Disapproved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 17: Motion to approve a request to credit to IBM account in the amount of $162.76. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997). Item 18: Motion to approve credit to Robert G. Gay in the amount of $858.35 for homestead exemption dropped in error. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 19: Motion to approve credit to Alexis S. Wilson in the amount of $911.97 for tax billed in error. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 20: Motion to approve a request for abatement of property tax on Clements and Mason Warehouse located at 602 Taylor Street, Augusta, Georgia, for tax year 1996. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 21: Motion to approve advertising for Home Rule amendment of the City of Augusta 1949 General Retirement Fund in order to provide that credit service be measured by months rather than years. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997) Item 22: Motion to approve reprogram Special 1-cent Sales Tax Funds, Phase III, for libraries by shifting a portion of the Branch Library repairs and renovations funds in the amount of $300,000 from 1999 to 1997. (Approved by Finance Committee March 10, 1997)] MR. BEARD: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham -- MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? I'd like to have Item 16 removed for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to have Items 15 and 16 talked about separately, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're going to take Item 11 -- CLERK: Items 11 through 22, with the exception of 15 and 16. MAYOR SCONYERS: 11 through 23 or 22? CLERK: 22, with the exception of 15 and 16. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That was a motion by Mr. Brigham. Do we have a second? MR. BEARD: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 15, please? CLERK: 15: A motion to approve the request of Standard Electronics West d/b/a/ Standard Electronics for waiver of penalty in the amount of $172.53. Disapproved by the Finance Committee on March 10th. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the reason I pulled this off of the agenda, I wanted to discuss it separately. All last year we always gave the benefit of the doubt to taxpayers in situations like this, and we waived the penalty but not the interest. And the thinking was that if there was some money there involved that the taxpayer didn't pay his taxes, he had interest for that, and -- but we always waived the penalty, gave the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt. What we've had this year, we've had -- the first couple of cases that are similar to this that have come up have been almost your-check-is-in-the- mail type situations and, you know, we've denied both penalty and -- have reimbursed both penalty and the interest, and I think that's getting away from the actions we've taken in the past. I think we need to be consistent on this. I think Item Number 15 is a situation where the gentleman sent in seven, eight, ten different checks and all of them but one were cashed for his different pieces of property, and whatever --however that came about, I think the benefit needs to go to the taxpayer. And I would make the motion that this request -- that that penalty be waived but not the interest on the item that was not paid. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, is anyone here from the Tax Office? MR. KELLER: Tax Office? I'm here for Standard Electronics. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from them and what they're recommending. MAYOR SCONYERS: Someone from the Tax Office [inaudible]. MR. TODD: If they're not here, then I'm ready to -- if there's no further unreadiness, then I'm ready to vote. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I believe the -- Standard Electronics would like to speak if he could. MR. KELLER: Yes, sir. We've been paying our taxes as a business for about twenty-something years. In this particular case -- and we've never been late or anything. In this particular case there were four -- three other checks in the same envelope that went to the Tax Commissioner. All three -- three of the others were cashed and everything; this was not. We feel like that the check was lost there, not here, not by us, and we feel that this $172 or whatever should be waived. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to give us your name, please? MR. KELLER: My name is Lynn Keller from Standard Electronics. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question on adding the interest -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, go ahead. MR. ZETTERBERG: -- of adding the interest in this case, in 15 and the one in 16, through no fault of the business themselves. And we're going to penalize them and charge them interest for interest that really wasn't earned, and I question the rationale for charging both penalty and interest on these. I'd like to just voice my objection to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to address that? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. There is specific statutory authority insofar as waiving the penalty, and the Commission is given the authority on that. It has been the practice of the former Board of Commissioners and has been the practice of the Consolidated Government to waive the penalty only, even in situations where it was an error on the part of the Tax Commissioner's Office; the theory being that the business owner had the use of the money during the period of time. And regardless of whose fault it was, he did have the use of that money. Now, you could get into an argument perhaps in today's economy as to whether or not that is an offset, but that's the theory behind it and the policy that we have consistently followed, and I recommend that you continue that policy. Because they have had the use of the money during the period of time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: To me, I think that is a policy that penalizes a business owner for the neglect on the part of the government, and I can't buy into that myself. If this -- the check is received and we lose the check here or we don't deposit the check, then we're going to penalize the business owner? That doesn't make sense. First of all, how does the business owner until he gets his next statement in or whatever know whether the check has cleared or not? I don't see why anybody in private business ought to pay for the mistake of the government. MR. WALL: Well, I mean, if you talk about penalizing -- and there are two components: the penalty provision, which is the part that has been waived; the interest portion, again, you can argue that it is a penalty to the business owner to pay that interest. However, going back to the use of funds, he's had the use of the funds during that period of time, and I do not view that as -- I mean, it's certainly not couched as being a penalty. It's not intended to be a penalty; it's money that the government has not had the use of that they did have the use of. And you say where the -- the government lost the check. You get into some situations such as this that, you know, there is no clear-cut answer as far as whose responsibility -- who was at fault. Did the check inadvertently get dropped out of the envelope before it was mailed or did it -- was it lost in the Tax Commissioner's Office? So, I mean, it was not intended to be a penalty, the twelve percent, and it's the use of the funds. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: A question for Mr. Wall. Is it the practice of the government to reimburse with interest any monies that they have held from a taxpayer in their error? Do we return the money or do we return it with interest and penalties? MR. OLIVER: Under the Prompt Payment Act. MR. WALL: Yeah, under the Prompt Payment Act, but that's on contractors where we do pay interest on that. When you have retainage you pay interest on that when it is paid. Refund of taxes that have been paid, no, we have not paid interest on those funds because we pay the money back at the time the request is made. MR. ZETTERBERG: My case rests. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion -- do y'all need the motion reread, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand. [VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion -- MR. BEARD: Would you read the motion again, please, Lena? CLERK: The motion was to waive only the penalty, not the interest. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Let me see a show of hands for Mr. Bridges' motion, please. MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] MR. MAYS: Just for a point of order, Mr. Mayor, I guess with all that discussion going on I was thinking that Ulmer had proposed to waive all of it. CLERK: Just the penalty. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day. MR. MAYS: I'd have made a substitute motion. On error like that, then you need to waive all of it. I'm ready to move on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 16, please? CLERK: Item 16: A motion to approve a request of Meco, Inc. of Augusta for waiver of penalty in the amount of $837.30. Disapproved by the Finance Committee on March 10th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, also this is a situation where the address was -- mailed to the individuals incorrect and they haven't used that address in three years. I'm sure you've read the backup to it, and what he's asking here is to waive the penalty. Once again, we've given the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayer, and I recommend we waive the penalty on this as well. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Brigham, Henry. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm one that's kind of hard to keep up with in the mail, but it's my fault by moving -- changing my address, and I should, you know, make sure that there's a good address out there. And I understand that the post office only forward mail for approximately ninety days, so I'm not sure that it's this government's fault that, you know, we have bad information as far as where to mail the tax bill. I can understand individuals not wanting to receive a tax bill. I don't either. But certainly I think there is less evidence here that this is county government's fault. It's not county government's responsibility to keep good addressing as far as the taxpayers of this county; it's the taxpayer's responsibility to let the government know if they have a change of address where to mail that tax bill. And those are my comments, and I probably can support the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Just for the purpose of the record, the other tax bills were sent to the correct address. This one had an old address. The address had been changed on the other bills that the taxpayer paid. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to have Mr. Futrelle discuss the case and maybe shed some light on what happened. And, again, I don't believe that we should be penalizing him in this case, nor do I believe that we should be charging an interest on it. MR. FUTRELLE: Actually, the -- Mr. Mayor, I'm Jeff Futrelle. Actually, the post office box -- my general manager wrote the letter to Mr. Wall. Actually, the post office box has been closed for nine years. We've been getting these bills through the post office. I guess because they know -- we've been in two post office boxes in thirty-seven years, and I guess when somebody throws it in the incorrect mail box they write in the correct one. And when we get it in, we open it, we mail the bill in, and nobody has noticed that an incorrect address is on it. But we've been in business for thirty-seven years in this county. We've never been late until -- we weren't late on this one. We got the bill, we called Jerry Saul. Jerry suggested that we go ahead and pay the tax but not the interest and penalty and write a letter to Mr. Wall. We did that that day. And I feel that we have -- we've been paying our taxes for thirty-seven years on time, that we deserve some consideration on this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I can see this is a little different from the other. And I think that whatever there is, the mail box changes and what have you -- and I think also at the point where -- maybe we need some explanation from the tax people when we get these cases up here so that they can enlighten us on some of the items. But I think it's [inaudible] and I just -- I would feel a little different about this one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just make one comment about the situation. One of the problems that we have in the government today is we're operating with very different types of computer systems and different types of databases. In reality, this situation should never occur if we invest in the right technology. There only should be one address for an individual or business. In this case neither the post office saw fit to change the address or notify the senders. Mr. Futrelle opens up sixty to seventy letters a day and never looked at that. I get about the same level of mail and I never look if they're sending it to the right address. When I get it, I make the assumption it is sent to the right address. In this particular case, whether it be one, five or nine years, obviously it's a mistake. I don't believe the individual should be penalized because I see there's no intent involved at all. The very fact is that the Futrelles have been a very important family within this city and have done an extremely good job in the -- in civic concerns. I think we should take Mr. Futrelle's explanation and honor it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Public Safety portion: Item 23 was approved by the Public Safety Committee on March 10th. [Item 23: Motion to approve building plaque for Augusta Law Enforcement Center scheduled to be opened August 1997.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this item was approved by the committee and I pass it on to the full board for approval. So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 24, please? CLERK: Public Services agenda: Items 24 through 32 were approved by the Public Services Committee on March 10th. [Item 24: Motion to approve a request for new ownership by Christina J. Park for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Paul's Supermarket located at #2 Greene Street. District 1, Super District 9 Item 25: Motion to approve a request for new ownership by Raymond L. Walters, Jr. for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with Lufran, Inc. d/b/a Olde Town Amoco located at 443 Broad Street. District 1, Super District 9 Item 26: Motion to approve a request for new ownership by Alvin C. Roberson for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Olive Supermarket located at 1671 Olive Road. District 5, Super District 9 Item 27: Motion to approve a request for new ownership by Susan H. Speth for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Magnolia Tea Room located at 2107 Kings Way. District 3, Super District 10 Item 28: Motion to approve the commitment of ten (10) acres of property on Damascus Road for construction of the Aquatics Natatorium (subject to FAA Settlement). Item 29: Motion to approve the bid award to R.D. Brown Construction in the amount of $825,275.00 for construction of the West Augusta Soccer Complex of Maddox Road. Item 30: Motion to approve a contract for architectural and engineering services at South Augusta Recreation Complex with Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst in the amount of $273,000 (subject to ARC Attorney checking reimbursements). Item 31: Motion to approve Lease between Richmond County, Georgia, and Calvin Chance for building at #4 Fifth Street. Item 32: Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Mark M. Newell, Archaeologist (a volunteer position) of the Georgia Archaeological Institute as the Historic and Archaeological Cultural Resources Management Advisor for ARC.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd propose that Items 24 through 32 be approved by consent. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 30 and discuss it individually. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to discuss Item 31 also. MAYOR SCONYERS: 30 and 31? MR. WALL: Could we pull Item Number 29 out? I've got some comments about it. I don't know whether they want to take it as a consent agenda or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: So basically we're going to take 24 through 28 and then 32? CLERK: We're taking out Items 29, 30, and 31. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 29, please? CLERK: Item 29: A motion to approve the bid award to R.D. Brown Construction in the amount of $825,275.00 for construction of the West Augusta Soccer Complex off Maddox Road. Approved by Public Services on March 10th. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I want to make everyone aware of some facts concerning the bid on this project, and we have gotten a protest from Mr. Mirshak, who is present here representing Blair Construction. For the benefit of the Commissioners, when the bids were received, the low bid on the base bid would have been in favor of Blair Construction; however, there were a number of add alternates that were a part of the package. Johnson Laschober engineering firm, Mr. Joe Johnson, reviewed those, and in consultation with Mr. Beck from the Recreation Department made the decision and made the recommendation to include two add alternates. When those two add alternates were included, then the low bid for the overall project was in favor of R.D. Brown contractors. In the letter that has been written by Mr. Mirshak addressed to me--and I understand a copy was furnished to the Mayor--he raises two points. First of all is the fact that, according to their contention, there was no -- it was not indicated on the face of the bid envelope the name of the utility contractor nor was there a contractor license number, which he contends is required by Georgia law. As to that contention, the statute -- Georgia law provides in part that if fifty percent or more of any multifaceted project being bid is utility work, then the bidder must have obtained a utility license and his or her number must be written on the face of the bid. In this case, I'm told that less than -- well, approximately $40,000 was included for utility work, which is certainly less than fifty percent and is only a small portion of it. However, I will comment, and as Mr. Mirshak did in his letter, included in the specifications there was one addendum that came out that said -- indicated that the utility contractor was to include his license on there. In this case what you had was a general contractor. The general contractor did indicate his license number on the outside of the bid envelope. I deem that to have been in compliance, and I think that the bid was properly opened and properly considered and should be considered in the overall project. I'll also comment that there were three other general contractors, according to my understanding, who bid on the project itself. There is also a contention and an accurate statement that there is a family relationship between R.D. Brown and Johnson Laschober. As it turns out, the civil engineer in Johnson Laschober's office -- and he was involved and did the design on the project. His father is a project engineer for R.D. Brown contractors. Now, the project manager who I am told prepared the bid and did the work for R.D. Brown was not the father, and although it's unfortunate that this relationship existed, it was a sealed bid. I do not see how there was any undue advantage or any improper influence that could have been exerted in the process. Again, in talking with Mr. Beck, the two add alternates were the two that he selected after consultation with Mr. Johnson and are the add alternates that he suggested. So I think that the bids are proper, I think that the contract should be awarded to R.D. Brown as the low bid on the overall, and I think that the Georgia law was complied with insofar as this being a general contractor and with less than fifty percent of the work being a utility contractor. And I think it's in order and should be awarded, but I did want the Commission to have the benefit of that information before voting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we postpone it for two weeks for further study. There are some folks that I think that probably should be here, like the Purchasing Office. And at the time that we discussed in Public Services Committee I had some concern about the add alternates and had some concern about whether there was a protest, and I learned today sitting here that we have a protest. And where I respectfully, you know, consider the advice of the County Attorney, I certainly haven't had time to digest it all, and I just basically feel that I'm not ready to move on with this bid if there is concerns, and with a protest there is concerns. And I'd like to know what date the protest was filed on. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, Mr. Mirshak originally contacted me on Friday raising questions, was not certain what he would do, he and I met at four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and then the letter was faxed in this morning. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second the motion. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we go ahead on the advice of counsel and approve the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, a substitute motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Mr. Todd's -- well, Mr. Mirshak, do you want to say something? MR. MIRSHAK: Just very briefly. I believe Mr. Wall's statements are generally accurate. He knows I disagree with him on one point of the law, but that's for another forum if necessary. I would point out that by choosing these two particular alternates, the rationale that was given in the letter to the contractor was that this allowed the county to use up the budget. There wasn't any discussion to the contractors that these were the best alternates to be picked, that the low base bid was $815,000, and orally it was communicated that the budget for the job was $829,000, which was reduced from what everyone understood the budget may have been originally. That, coupled with the relationship between the parties involved and the fact that the -- the Commission should be aware that while the winning bidder under this scenario was only $400 lower than the original winning bid of the base bid, that while both of these are fine companies and have had excellent relation-ships with the county and the city over time, that the new winning bidder -- this is not generally, in our way of thinking, their principal line of business. They are a general contractor that goes out and builds buildings. The original low winner -- base bid winner is a company that specializes in grading and paving and is going to do most of this work themselves where our understanding is, based on the subs that have been submitted, that this is basically a farm-out job by the general contractor. This is not their principal line of business. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mirshak. Discussion on Mr. Todd's motion first, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: The only thing I'd say -- well, Mr. Mayor, I was still at National League of Cities and was not here for that committee meeting. But I think that with not a dire emergency rush to do it -- and I know Margaret Twiggs is now the late Margaret Twiggs, but this one is going to have to pass the smell test. I think rather than -- we just changed directors and I think he's trying to do a job out there. I think we need to go on and clear the air on this deal, and I think it needs to go on into that two-week period and let's probably relook at it and then bring it back out at that particular time. I think we're going to do the project, but I don't think two weeks is going to kill us, and I don't think this needs to be any black eye on that particular department in terms of getting this particular item straight. And if the Director wants to address it, I think we ought to maybe allow him this particular time in order to do that. MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, the only thing I want to address is the budget -- a couple of things. One is the budget. The budget for this job was always $829,000, and the only alternates that could have been selected were these two, of which these two were very important alternates because it paves the parking lot for the Soccer Complex. So where the eight fifty came in, I think that was possibly misrepresented by the engineers at the bid opening, but the budget was always eight twenty-nine. The other point I would like to make is that two weeks doesn't sound like a long time, but we do have a very short window for this project as far as getting the grassing in to be able to play this fall. Whether or not two weeks is going to kill us or not, I don't know, but it will have some effect on the project possibly. MR. TODD: Mr. Beck -- Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: What kind of grass do you plan to put down will be number one; and two, if the other add alternates wasn't realistically -- wasn't going to be realistically considered, then why would they even been proposed? MR. BECK: Well, anytime you do a job like this -- we're trying to stay within budget on all of these projects, and when we specified this job and did all the bid documents we set a base bid at an amount that we felt like would come under budget. Which we did. And in doing so, we also put in add alternates to have a menu of items that we potentially could choose should the base bid have come in lower than we expected. The base bid came in at $815,000 on an $829,000 budget. All the other alternates were all much higher than -- and we would have gone over the budget for the job. We would have loved to have done the whole project, but the whole project would have been in the million dollar category, or maybe a million one. And these two alternates were the only two in the menu that we could afford, number one; and number two, they were both very important. The bigger alternate actually paves the parking area, which is very important. The second, smaller, $770 alternate changes the lighting over on the two fields that are going to be lighted on the base bid to a more efficient sports lighting that'll save us on utility costs. It's a better, more efficient lighting and easier to maintain. So those were the two alternates that we chose. They were my recommendation along with Mr. Johnson, the engineers, so that was my recommendation. MR. TODD: I guess that if we are doing a public airing of this, you know, do you see a potential conflict between father and son as far as the project go? MR. BECK: Do I see one? Absolutely not. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I do -- I realize how hard -- probably before he was Director in terms of Assistant Director putting a lot of this together, and I realize that two weeks can be a time factor either way. I'm a hundred percent in support of this project, always have been, but I think when a legal question is raised -- and we're in a public forum and probably there is some unheard information that maybe has not been disseminated to this body yet. I think that waiting the two weeks may be the lesser of the two times if it gets into a full-scale legal problem. So two weeks in order to deal with this, we may be able to deal with it in two hours or two days, and I'd just rather see us take that time and do it so that we understand where we're going rather than getting into a full-scale legal situation and getting a good project held up and then maybe you're looking at longer than two weeks in order to get it done. So I think this is the lesser of the two times that you're probably dealing with, and I'm going to support the substitute -- I mean, the motion to go ahead and delay with it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Beck, I need to ask you a couple of questions. Maybe I'm a little confused and maybe I'm not. Were all these bids received in a closed, sealed envelope? Nobody changed any alternates or -- MR. BECK: No, sir, it was -- they were all opened in a open bidding process. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. So that's -- everybody was fair up to that point; right? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And the other thing, we had a budget, a preset budget, and we knew what that preset budget was. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. We had a budget of a million dollars for this project, and when you take off the purchase price of the property, the engineering cost, the legal cost for a little property dispute we had on a right-of-way out there, the budget came down to $829,000. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And can you tell me that there is no way that any of the other -- what was your next cheapest alternate? MR. BECK: The next cheapest alternate, I believe, was 25,000, which would have put us over the budget. MR. J. BRIGHAM: 25,000 would put you over the budget. Now, I realize this is a very close bid and it makes people nervous, but is it -- you know, it could be a lot closer than what it is. There's $400 difference. There could be an even greater -- even closer than that. We could be talking about $50 on an $800 bid -- $800,000 bid, couldn't we? MR. BECK: It was 25,000. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It was 25,000. So we would've already been over budget. So if you could have only done one alternate it would not have changed between the low and high bid; right? MR. BECK: If we had -- I don't understand your question. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If you could only have one alternate, not two, there would've been no change in the high and low bid? MR. BECK: If we had taken just the alternate on the lighting change, that would've kept the bid the same with Blair Construction. But in taking the second alternate -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: But not doing that, we would not have accomplished everything that we could have accomplished with both of them? MR. BECK: That's correct. But the other -- that would have still left some money that was budgeted that could have gone to this project. And we are -- even though we're trying to stay in budget, we're trying to get the most out of the contracts. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And if we had to rebid -- go out and do that work later it would've probably cost us more money [inaudible]. MR. BECK: That would've probably been the case. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I just wanted to make sure I understood. It was a fair and close bid all the way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mirshak, are you contending that the procedure that was followed by accepting -- taking alternates and -- was not acceptable? I mean, is that -- are you contending that the bid should've been awarded on the base bid and the alternates not even considered? I'm curious. MR. MIRSHAK: I don't think that's our position at this point. The manner in which the alternate bids were selected was -- is unknown -- MR. KUHLKE: And you don't think that the owner had the right to select what alternates they wanted? MR. MIRSHAK: The owner can select any alternates they want. They could have waited for another day to do the entire project and had the [inaudible] awarded based on the base bids. You still had $4,000 left under the budgeted amount, you could have selected only one alternate, so, you know, I don't -- MR. KUHLKE: If we wait two weeks you'll probably come over to our side? MR. MIRSHAK: What's that, don't show your cards? MR. KUHLKE: You won't come over to our side? MR. MIRSHAK: You know, my client has had an excellent relationship with the city-county over many years. I'm not -- I won't say that -- my client's not here. I may get shot, but, you know, if y'all approve the project subject to my client withdrawing the bid to see -- I mean the protest, to see if it can be resolved to my client's satisfaction, that may be a prerogative y'all want to pursue. My client is concerned about the other issue as well, that the specs specifically required this general contractor to disclose the utility contractor on the outside of the bid envelope with the utility contractor's license number, and that wasn't complied with. My client, who is a utility contractor, has to go to great lengths to go take tests, be certified by the state, and has to do all those things, and so that was another -- that was what popped up the red flag at the bid opening. But we're not in any way trying to impact our relationship with the city-county on an ongoing basis. MR. OLIVER: One thing I would like to add is the process that was used in the evaluation of these bids is, frankly, the only logical process that can be used. And let me give a brief example for that. If you had a base bid of a hundred and fifty thousand by one bidder and a hundred dollars on the base bid from another with an alternate, then the second one would obviously win. The problem becomes, though, with the alternates. If you get contractors that aren't pricing the alternates objectively, knowing that the base bid is going to be what secures them the job, they add additional overhead and profit in the alternates, and that works to your detriment. So what you have to do is you have to look at the total package price. And, admittedly, the alternates have to be at the discretion of the owner. So consequently I believe this is the only logical way to look at the bid based upon the, you know, the total work that we want performed, and I would encourage the Commission to go ahead with the recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to ask one question. You've heard the pros and the cons, but at this point you're sticking by your recommendation that it ought to be done at this particular point? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to move the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Substitute motion first; that's Mr. Kuhlke's motion. Why don't you reread the motion, Ms. Bonner, for us. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham, was to approve the bid award to R.W. Brown Construction in the amount of $825,275. Main motion by Mr. Todd was to postpone the process for two weeks for further study. That was seconded by Mr. Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke's motion first. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, MAYS & TODD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: The next motion was Mr. Todd's motion to postpone it for two weeks? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, HANDY & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Five to four again, so we don't have a vote. [inaudible] Item 30, please? CLERK: Item 30: A motion to approve a contract for architectural and engineering services at South Augusta Recreation Complex with Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst in the amount of $273,000 (subject to the Attorney checking reimbursements). MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that that one be pulled, and what I'd like to do is -- and Mr. Oliver probably can put it in perspective, but what I'd like to do is to at least execute a phase one of this and that Whitehurst and associates bring back the programs and probably present it to the board, then we do phase two. So I'd like to do it in two phases, and that's my motion, that we do it in -- oh, I'll wait before I make a motion to hear from the Recreation Director. MR. BECK: Well, maybe I can address that. This contract actually covers all of the architectural and engineering for this project, with the initial -- the initial phase that'll be done -- initial work that'll be done on this project will be an overall master plan for the project. And then after that's done and we bring it back to you for approval, which we will do similarly to the way we did Lake Olmstead a couple of weeks ago, then we would come back with a recommendation for the first phase of the actual work that's done on the project, which is -- it's potentially going to have to be phased anyway. MR. TODD: Yes. So are we approving the overall project and then we have them to bring back phase one, you know, the master plan, or are we approving the master plan portion of the funding? How do you -- if you feel you're buying a pig in a poke and you want to, you know, change directions, is there a exit to change directions if you're not getting in phase one what you anticipate? That's my concern here. MR. BECK: Whatever is done out there has got to have our approval. They're the architects and the engineers for the job, they'll make their recommendations, but all of those are subject to our approval. MR. TODD: I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we approve it with the Commission appointing a citizens committee and the citizens committee working with the Recreation Department as far as the project go, the scope, and the programs that will be in the project. That's in the form of a motion. MR. OLIVER: There'll be a conceptual design done first before a lot of effort is put in there to define the basic elements upon agreement on the conceptual design. And if you all would like that to go to a citizens committee or come back to the full Commission, that's appropriate. And then after that conceptual design is agreed upon, then it will go to what's called detail design of the particulars of the individual elements. MR. BECK: If I could make this mention, part of their proposal also is to include public hearings for citizenry input for this project, and we would welcome and would recommend having a citizenry group to look at these things so we can make sure that everyone is communicating together. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll restate my motion, and I'll even amend it, that the citizens come from the districts that went together with the budget for this project. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I think if you're going to have a citizens committee -- this is the largest project that the county is going to do. I don't think you should, you know, the citizens' input from just the three districts you're talking about, Mr. Todd, if you agree with it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that when we were prioritizing projects, that every Commissioner on the board at that time, and I guess now, had the opportunity to merge projects together. Indeed, this project is going to be for the use of the citizens of Richmond County, but there was three Commissioners--Powell, Sconyers at the time as chairman, and Todd--that pooled money together to do this size of a project and to save the taxpayers money in the long run as far as operations go, and certainly I think that those three districts should be representative of the citizens that programmed the elements and programs as far as this project go. Then, you know, once it's open, that it's there for all citizens of Richmond County. Representative of those three districts as far as the citizens committee go is Commissioner Kuhlke, which represents half of the county; Commissioner Mays, which represents half of the county; Commissioner Powell; Commissioner Bridges now that's in the seat that former Commissioner Sconyers was in, now the Mayor; and Commissioner Powell and Todd. So I think that you're going to have representation of the entire county either way you look at it. This is not a territorial thing, but, you know, if you want my involvement as far as your programs and elements, et cetera, in the project and some of the projects that you have for District 7, District 3, District 2, then certainly we'll bring everybody in on this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We didn't have a second to your motion. MR. MAYS: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me just say this in fairness to our Director, I'm glad we only have two of these on here, but I think this clearly underlines what we have brought forth in Public Services Committee, particularly with Recreation and Parks for the first time being under the auspices of the one percent sales tax program. Primarily before we've been basically dealing with Roads and Bridges and Jails. We have been begging in Rec in conjunction with any other department, separately, independently, whatever, firm, individual, farm out, whatever you want to take it with, but I think the Director has brought to us on more than one occasion the need for help in terms of project management of the scope that's going to have to come out of this one department, and I think we're seeing that through part of the discussion that's going on today. I'm glad we're not having ten to twelve of these same projects that are coming up here today because we could stay on Recreation till five or six o'clock this evening. And I'm saying that for record, that I hope that soon we will get some involvement from the whole Commission to make a decision on either dealing with some additional help in the management of these projects. While I think that Tom has had to, as previous Assistant Director, to do this to a certain extent singlehandedly and I think done a very good job in terms of trying to put this together, now in terms of Director with the whole ball of wax, that we need to either move forward in either dealing with Rec and Parks separately, in some help in that area, or we need to deal with it for the whole program. However we deal with it, this Commissioner can vote either way, but I think it's a very clear indicator of what your new Director has been asking for even prior to his being named, and I just wanted to make that observance in terms of support of it. And the only reason that I didn't go along with him on the other proposal is that I do think when you've got that type of protest -- and I'm one I don't like to play all my legal cards out in public. If our Attorney is debating on one side and you got another attorney with a protest and I'm hearing it today for the first time, then I want to know what all the parameters are in a legal type of situation so that we can move forward, and that's why I supported a delay. But I think that's a clear indication, Mr. Mayor, that we're going to have to at some point in this particular committee get some help in there, whether it's by firm or whether it's by individual. If not, you're going to have a lot of up and down debating and time delays with a lot of projects that this department has put a lot of time to that didn't just start this year and didn't just start with this particular sales tax. Some of these things have been waiting on a dusting board in some cases for the last four to five years. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [NO RESPONSE] MR. TODD: What was the question, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of your motion. I don't have anybody's hands. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'll just go on and amend it for everybody that's sitting here to have a pick as far as the citizens committee go, and that's an amendment to the motion. MR. MAYS: Second. MR. TODD: And that's all projects, Mr. Mayor, I don't care whether it's happening in West Richmond, South Richmond, or where. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion with the amendment, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: I'm not going to vote on all projects by where they are. We represent the whole Richmond County and all projects should be included, but not to say that we can say whether a person have to be on that committee because of wherever the project is. I think that's the last thing Mr. Todd said. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that's correct. I said all projects -- that this citizens committee would be appointed by each Commissioner. There's ten Commissioners. This citizens committee would be appointed by each -- by district and they would have a say or at least opportunity to influence all projects that's done through Recreation in Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve the recommendation of the Director of Recreation and approve Item Number 30. MR. HANDY: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Any discussion on that, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the only interest that I have had in this thing is to do what's in the best interest of the citizens of Richmond County, to do what's in the best interest of the taxpayers of Richmond County; and when I talked to you and Mr. Powell approximately two years ago and we merged the monies versus building a recreation center in District 4--and I'd like to point out that this is in District 6, not District 4, so I'm not selfish in that way--that we looked at operation cost for the future and trying to keep costs down by merging the three together. Well, I see some folks want to have their cake and eat it, too, and all I got to say is shame on you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: This forum really doesn't allow us to question one another, but I'm just trying to understand what Mr. Todd's motion is about. What's under this? If you could tell me what's under it, maybe I could vote for it, but it just sounds like I want to control something, I want to do something. It doesn't make any sense to me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: What's under this, Mr. Mayor, is that, one, that the three district Commissioners went together with their funding. When the other Commissioners had a opportunity to do the same, they did not. And certainly I think that the interest should be the two super districts that represent this area and the three Commissioners as far as what's going to be in the project, the elements, and the program. Now, as far as use go, it's there for the citizens of Richmond County like the individual district projects, whether we're talking about the swimming pool at Belle Meade or the soccer field in West Richmond or the swimming pool that's going in on -- at Damascus Road or a gym at the area that's in District 2 or wherever. And I've tried to stay as far away from Recreation as I could in most areas as far as deciding programs and elements, et cetera, and I'll do you a favor and I'll stay away from all Recreation, so let's go on with the order of the day. I think there's a motion on the floor to accept the recommendation of the Recreation Director, and I can live with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you withdrawing your motion, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't believe my motion went anywhere, so it's dead. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, Mr. Mays seconded your motion. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I seconded and I fully understand what he's talking about. I really don't think we have to get totally subdivided and self-destructive on this issue. For so many years where we've not had any funding source at all, I think one cure to this -- and I don't necessarily think we have to do it today; I think we can move on with what Tom wants to do under Bill's motion. But what I think would be helpful is that if we go ahead, and probably on something that was proposed and taken back and doesn't get any money, would -- just as we are behind on putting together all the committees that we're doing, I think now that we're moving forward with filling those committees, that probably if we go ahead and maybe even add to that and activate it fully a full Recreation Advisory Committee, I think that would then help with a lot of the stuff that's being laid out that you're doing in Recreation. We got a lot of people that want to serve, and I think that from the area that Mr. Todd has described, I do -- and the reason why I seconded the motion, I think there's a valid point that was in there. Because for so long, particularly in deep South Richmond -- and I supported that when I was in District 1 as a Commissioner and didn't have a vote that went out as far as Tobacco Road, and my district now runs from the river all the way out to one side of Tobacco Road. But in fairness, there have been questions from citizenry as to what is going on of anything major that will be done in South Richmond. I don't think it was necessarily proposed in the motion to start a territorial fight; I think it was just where people could have input and to have interest since nothing for so many years had been done. And what I see is that we've gotten partially into World War III when we really don't have to on this particular issue, and I think an overall Rec Advisory Committee that goes from the river to Blythe and from the South Carolina side of Beech Island all the way up to Columbia County will basically cure that. Put it together with the rest of the committees, because certainly Tom knows they're going to have enough work to do on their own, and I think those citizens can help in doing that and give input with all the projects that we got on board. And I think we can do that probably at the next committee meeting of approving to do that and add it to the list and open up the talent bank, and I think that will solve us from self-destructing on an issue we don't have to fight about. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. It's my understanding that we attempted to do a vote or we done a vote on this issue, so I believe there's another motion on the floor. I believe Mr. Kuhlke made a substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. TODD: I call for the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg had his hand up. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make one comment on that. I certainly am all for citizens involvement in the projects. The reason why I'm against the suggestion by Mr. Todd at this time is that I think we're making policy on the fly. I think that he may have a good point, maybe we need more representation, but how we do it and when we do it and who does it ought to be something that the Administrator takes a look and the staff takes a look at, maybe develop the policy, and then let us consider the policy. But to make policy like this, on the fly, just doesn't make a lot of sense. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if there's only one motion on the floor, I make a motion we table this issue. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got two motions on the floor, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke's motion was a substitute motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I was thinking that one motion had already been dispensed, that we voted on it. But I will withdraw the motion to table and call for the -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you let me run the meeting, please. Thank you. Read the substitute motion, please. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy, was to approve the recommendation of the Director to approve the contract for architectural and engineering services at the South Augusta Rec Complex with Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst in the amount of $273,000. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 31, please? CLERK: Item 31 is a motion to approve a Lease between Richmond County, Georgia, and Calvin Chance for the building at #4 Fifth Street. Approved by the Public Services Committee on March 12th -- 10th, I'm sorry. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I know what Mr. Chance is addressing and I don't have an objection to it. The lease agreement as presented and as approved by the committee was to have an effective date of May the 1st of 1997. He's requesting an additional month so that the lease would not become effective until June 1st, 1997, and I have no objection to that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move the recommendation of the County Attorney. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: We'll now have the presentation from the delegation regarding the Energy Community Alliance Annual Conference. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. DeVaney? MR. DeVANEY: I'd just like to thank you and thank you for the opportunity to go. I'll be very brief since I know that the afternoon is moving on. At the request of Commissioner Todd and the members of this body, a group of us attended the Energy Communities Alliance meeting that was held in Washington, D.C., March 6th and 7th. I've given to each of you an outline, including the agenda that was held at the meeting, and also some pertinent facts concerning the Savannah River Site. Let me mention that Augusta has never been a member of the Energy Communities Alliance. It is basically a lobbying group that is made up of a variety of communities around the nation that have similar sites such as the Savannah River Site. Perhaps now with the transition, the changes that have come about and the loss of some 10,000 employees at the Savannah River Site, we should reconsider that position. At the same time, we must keep in mind that this has to be a two-state effort and that certainly the officials from South Carolina need to take the lead. After all, the plant is located on their side of the river. So why should we be worried about it and why should we be sending delegations to meetings such as this? Well, I think all of us know that it has a tremendous economic impact on both sides of the river, and I think we also know that about 35 percent of the employees live on the Georgia side of the river. But I'd also like to share with you a few of the spinoff facts. When you lose 10,000 people, you start feeling it, and that plant is in the Augusta statistical area when unemployment figures are given. A few of the facts include that for every 1,000 employees that are laid off Georgia loses 13 million dollars in revenue, South Carolina loses 31 million dollars in revenue. Multiply that by ten and it's a sizeable factor for both sides of the river. In 1994 the site spent some 578 million dollars on goods and services. Over two million dollars was contributed in 1995 to area United Way campaigns. Some 90 million dollars was spent in 1992 to health providers in the area. In 1993 some 1.2 million dollars was paid by SRS for its employees to enroll in local colleges and universities. And that money is spent on both sides of the Savannah River. We can talk about the effect on area retailers; we can talk about the caliber of jobs that are being lost that are very difficult, if not impossible, to replace in the area; and we can certainly talk about the loss to our two states of employees who contribute to and support a variety of community organizations on both sides of the river. At the Energy Communities Alliance meeting we learned that other areas are certainly facing these same problems and that many, however, are responding in a very aggressive manner. I think in this area we have always been very content with the job that has been done at the Savannah River Site and we have always simply been reactive to the events that have occurred. We have never been very proactive. But when you go to a meeting in Washington and you see that the Hanford, Washington, site puts out its own newsletter and that they are going after every mission that the Savannah River Site currently holds or wants including the tritium mission, the MOX fuel, which is a plutonium disposition, as well as a variety of other missions, you realize that this wasn't put out by a group of volunteers; this was put out by a professional organization that those communities--and it's a variety of them--have put together to support the Hanford site. I can remember a few years ago that Hanford wanted very few missions if it had nuclear in front of it. Today they want them all, and it would be to our loss. I think that we have to be more proactive. I think that we have to be willing to look at new ideas and decide that together, as a two-state area, that we are going to work together for the Savannah River Site. I don't think we can depend on the site itself, I don't think that we can depend on the operations itself--they must operate within certain limits that are prescribed by the Department of Energy- -but as citizens concerned about what's happening to the Savannah River Site, let me assure you that we can act without constraints. I've also attached for your review a couple of charts that shows that we had about 148,000 DOE employees in this country in 1992. All of us were aware that we would make some changes and that we would lose some employees. Was there anyone aware that we were going to lose 10,000 employees? I don't think so. And it starts to make you ask where is our piece dividend for this two-state area. We now have projected about 95,000 employees at DOE sites. As I figure it, that's a loss of about 50,000 employees nationwide. The Savannah River Site has taken one-fifth of those total losses in this county. If you look at the map that I provided you that lists all of the sites, other than the ones that are slated to be closed the Savannah River Site has taken one of the biggest hits in the nation, losing nearly a third of its employees. In contrast, Oak Ridge has lost less than ten percent of its employees. That happens to be in Tennessee. Please do not tell me that politics does not play a role in these plants. I think all you have to do is look also at the fact that despite good efforts by the Department of Energy they have placed some 34 million dollars at our disposal for transition. That is to create new jobs. They can only point to a little over 500 jobs that they can take credit for having been created. That's a far cry from 10,000 losses. They would like to project in the figures that I gave you that by the year 2000 we will create an additional 6,000 jobs in this area. Does anybody believe realistically that we can create 6,000 new jobs in less than three years of the same caliber that we have lost at the Savannah River Site? I think the Metro Augusta Chamber will tell you that we create on an average about 2,500 jobs a year in the metropolitan area. Do we really think we're going to create 6,000 more to replace these losses? I think the most startling and the most frightening aspect of this meeting is that nobody would tell us where the bottom may be for the Savannah River Site. I watched again the proactivity of many of the other sites. Hanford, Washington, as I mentioned, comes to mind because they were going after so many of the missions that we had. They also had fifteen people present at this meeting. Oak Ridge was present in force. Other communities with similar DOE sites were present in force. I think it behooves us to get rid of the boundary line on this project between Georgia and South Carolina, and it certainly behooves us to really think as to the commitment that we can make on both sides of the river to help support the efforts that are necessary to help the Savannah River Site and to help our two-state economy. I know of no new missions that are not going to cost money, time, and support for the Savannah River Site, and I know no way of supporting the Savannah River Site unless we are willing to make a commitment of time, energy, and money on both sides of the river. So basically that gives you a quick overview. You see the agenda that is attached; I don't have to go through every meeting. I think the four of us who attended--Commissioner Todd, myself, Pen Mayson, and the City Administrator, Mr. Oliver --certainly made a lot of contacts. We renewed friendships and acquaintances in the Department of Energy. We also learned that this is not one-sided. Congress alone cannot dictate the future of Department of Energy sites. It is going to also involve the Department of Energy, which is going to be around for a while, and it is also going to involve us as citizens being able to talk to the people in Washington as well as locally about what we want for the future of this plant and telling our representatives in Washington how to respond on our behalf. But it is now time, I think, and perhaps long past time, for us as a two-state community to work together. In some conversations this morning I said, you know, we have to be careful. How would we feel if South Carolina took the lead in protecting Fort Gordon? We would think something was a little odd about that. But if we took the lead on Fort Gordon we'd sure want their help, and I think that's the same analogy I'm trying to give to you on the Savannah River Site. Certainly it is their plant and they must take the lead, but I think we can be strongly supportive for a variety of missions. You have passed a resolution regarding nuclear fusion. You have, I think, other resolutions coming up supporting other missions. I encourage you to wholeheartedly endorse those. We need to go after the tritium mission. Many of us thought that was a given, that's what they've done for years. Hanford, Washington, wants that and our last Secretary of Energy gave them the opportunity to get that by allowing them to do additional tests and other studies in one of her last acts in December. We think we're the perfect site to dispose of plutonium and the MOX fuel --MOX. You learn a lot of these types of things as you go through this. But we are the perfect site for it. All of a sudden so is Hanford, Washington. We need to get that disposition mission for the Savannah River Site. How do you do it? You either hire professionals in Washington to knock on doors and to ask for their help or you continuously bombard Washington and the Department of Energy with letters and delegations and people who can talk the lingo and who can go up there and make a good impression on both the Congress and the Administration, including the Department of Energy, and that's where I hope that we can put together a two- state cooperative effort that will go after tritium, go after MOX fuel, and hopefully go after fusion opportunities as a science of the future for that tremendous site. And in closing, let us not forget that the Savannah River Site is still an important part of our nation's defense. We have not lost that capability, nor has this nation lost the need to be well-prepared in terms of defense needs, so I hope that we can continue as a two-state effort working very closely together. I think it was an excellent meeting. Again, I appreciate the opportunity, I know the others do as well, to represent this community, and I hope that we can put a stop to the continued job losses. There's no magic solutions, no magic formulas; it's just going to take some hard work and a realization that the ton of bricks has fallen and that we must do something to shore up support publicly for the Savannah River Site and its employees. They need a morale boost, and I think some of the items on the agenda today can provide that morale boost for those employees. They need to know they're appreciated and they need to know that it's two states and a variety of communities, we want to work to protect and preserve the Savannah River Site for this nation. If it continues on, imagine the economic impact that it will have on this two-state area. It won't just be a recession, it'd be a depression for us, and we simply must get that message across to Washington. Thank you. And if I can answer any questions or if anyone in the delegation can, I'd be delighted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, Pen, and Mr. Todd, I appreciate y'all taking the time to go to Washington. Obviously it's a very important area that we need to concentrate on. My question is going forward. How do we build the relationship in South Carolina? Whose going to carry that forward? Is Mr. Todd going to do it? Are y'all going to continue to work along with Mr. Todd representing the Commission? How is that going to happen? MR. DeVANEY: Well, a very small group of us met this morning, those of us who had been on the trip, to talk about that very subject. And certainly I think that we've asked some folks at the site itself within the parameters allowed by law to help take a lead on that and in putting the two-state group together. On the ITER project, the fusion project, we have had a good working two-state group. Our concentration has been on that effort. We thought the tritium mission was pretty well taken for granted at the Savannah River Site. We were wrong. We thought we had the -- because we were the perfect site for MOX fuel we should get it on its merits. We all know that doesn't work that way. And so I think the overtures have already gone out in terms of some of the South Carolina people to expand the horizons beyond fusion and go forward in terms of the other missions, and I think Mr. Todd has certainly taken a good lead on that, and we will all continue to do so and certainly periodically report back to you through letters or memos or however you would like and try to keep you informed. From time to time, I'd like to say that I think that there could be financial requests that would come forward. I hope that they would be in reason, but I hope that we would consider them in the light that they are taken. They will not be given to set up a bureaucracy, I can assure you of that, but -- and they certainly won't be given unless you have like considerations from the other side. But that's the effort that I think we must make and we must be willing to bite that bullet if it's warranted. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: If I may -- well, Mr. Mayson look like he have something, so I'm going to yield to him. MR. MAYSON: Thank you, Commissioner Todd. The one thing I want to emphasize is how hard those other sites are working to get our projects and the new projects that ought to come to SRS. As Charles mentioned, the tritium mission was solid at Savannah River, we thought, and all of a sudden Hanford is putting together a case for getting the tritium producing reactor or accelerator or whatever it might be in the state of Washington instead of here. And, also, the mixed oxide project should come here. Now, if we lose these two projects, not only are we going to lose 2,000 more employees sometime later on this year because of the budget, but we're probably talking about a total of maybe another 10,000 employees. The site's problem is it needs missions. The big defense mission is gone, so now the big mission that's left is the tritium recycle mission and the tritium producing mission. And if we don't get those, we're lost. And I'd hate to see us lose it to politics, and that's what's trying to happen now. The folks out in the state of Washington are politicking very hard to get all of the missions, so I can't emphasize to you how important it is. Yes, the four of us continue -- plan to continue working in this effort to try to bring together Georgia and South Carolina for a unified effort to try to retain these missions, and we'll do anything that this Commission wants us to do in that regard. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the other member of the delegation was Mr. Randy Oliver, and I guess I'll yield to Mr. Oliver. MR. OLIVER: I just have one thing to say. I think that we have a course and we have a plan. We've got to identify who the people are that are going to carry out that plan. One of the things that I don't think we've totally drawn on well is, since this is a two-state effort we have elected officials at the federal level from two states, which should give us some superiority in that vein, which has not been drawn upon well and in a coordinated manner, in my opinion, so consequently we want to work out a plan where we can make best use of those resources to achieve our objectives. And it is a little more complex in that we do have a multi-state effort, but I think that we have made inroads into doing that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to maybe bring us up to date on Wednesday's trip to Atlanta where the local delegation --that's the Senate Majority Leader and all of the members of the local delegation, including a member from the Columbia side, Mr. Bill Jackson--met with the president of Westinghouse, Inc., Savannah River Site, Mr. Ambrahm Wall, and Mr. John Lindsey, the vice president, and talked about a coordinated effort as far as both sides of the river go. And the person that's been designated to at least get that started as far as the State Representatives go -- and they have planned to meet and I don't want to speak for them, just relay some information or at least some actions that happened there. Ms. Leslie Price on the City Council, Aiken, South Carolina, and also is an executive with SRS- Savannah River Site, is the person that's going to coordinate the state level meetings; and certainly I would like to, as far as the Board of Commissioners go, or the City Commission go, excuse me, to call on Ms. Price to coordinate the elected officials getting together in the sense that she's already been charged with coordinating one. And I don't think that I'm the person -- I don't think that I'm the rain maker, and we're not really sure who the rain maker is, but certainly we're looking for that rain maker to make it happen, and hopefully that person will come from the South Carolina side. What I'd like to do today when the opportunity allow itself is to make a motion that we join the Energy Communities Alliance and that we pay a community -- instead of a single government fee of $5,000, that we pay the community fee of $7,500 and we allow the six counties on the Georgia side -- I mean six counties on the Georgia and South Carolina side that's affected by this impact as far as reduction in force buy into this by reimbursing Richmond County. And I believe there is somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty-eight cities, and the reason that we want all these entities involved is that when you get to D.C. and you vote on the board of directors, the more members you have the more slots you have or qualify for as far as board of directors. Hanford, Washington, have five board members. I don't think anyone else have more than two. This community would have at least five to six board members if we went the community direction. I want to thank the Commission for the opportunity. I guess I've been at this approximately ten years in one fashion or another as far as new missions for SRS, and thank the Commission, the citizens and taxpayers and the Mayor for sending the delegation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I'd like to thank the delegation for all the work they've done. I have a very uneasy feeling, though, at this moment because I don't know who's in charge. Would it be appropriate if we asked you to come back within a month to give another report so that --and I'm sure during this period of time somebody will be designated? MR. DeVANEY: I will be glad to. And hopefully you'll be reading about that more, because I think we've got to get it out to the public more. But I'll be glad to keep you posted, and right now we're looking to some of the folks at the site itself in terms of helping us or making suggestions on getting this effort coordinated. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, and if the Mayor will entertain a motion, I'd like to make a motion that we join the Energy Communities Alliance. MR. MAYS: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: The only thing I'd like to say is that if we join, we find out where the money is coming from. MAYOR SCONYERS: Subject to funding? MR. HANDY: Yeah, it has to be identified where the money is coming from. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend the motion that the money would come from contingencies. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion -- MR. HANDY: One second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Todd said come from contingencies, but I need to hear that from Randy or somebody in Finance. MR. OLIVER: We have the $7,500 in contingency. 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. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we probably can dispense the other item on the agenda in reference coordinated efforts for new missions. I'd like to make a motion that we call on Ms. Leslie Price to coordinate the County Commission -- well, the City Commission, excuse me again, as far as getting us with the City Commissioners and County Commissioners on the South Carolina side and that the Mayor's Office coordinate the Georgia side as far as County Commissioners and City Commissioners. And -- unless the Mayor have a concern about that. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. DeVANEY: Can I make one comment on -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. MR. DeVANEY: Mr. Todd, is Ms. Price still employed with Westinghouse? MR. TODD: Yes, sir, she is. MR. DeVANEY: I'm wondering if you could perhaps consider Ms. Price or someone else that Westinghouse may wish to designate, simply because they may have her on other assignments. I don't know, but I'd like to give them a little latitude. I like Ms. Price and I hope she will do it, but I'd just like to make that comment, that they might designate someone else, I don't know. MR. TODD: Yes, I certainly will accept that amendment if it's okay with the rest of the body. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mayor DeVaney, Mr. Mayson, Mr. Todd, and Mr. Oliver. Item 33, please? MR. TODD: May we do all of them in a consent agenda that come from the Engineering Services Committee without recommendation? MR. POWELL: Mr. Todd, I have no problem with you going ahead and, you know, putting that forward as a consent agenda because you chaired the meeting that day, but Item 34 I think we should pull out. MR. TODD: Okay. That's with the exception of Item 34. MR. POWELL: And provided that there's no opposition to any of the items. MR. BRIDGES: Item 33, we need to discuss that one as well. MR. TODD: You want to pull it, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, I just pulled it. MR. TODD: And Item 33. Thank you. I'm going to so move, Mr. Powell then, that the other ones we do in a consent agenda. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, how about letting Ms. Bonner read it first before y'all get carried away. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The consent agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am. No, we just need to read the items. CLERK: Items 35 through 46 as a consent agenda. [Item 35: Motion to approve condemnation of 2,392 square feet of required utility and drainage easement for sanitary sewer on property of W. W. Zealy, Jr. Item 36: Motion to authorize the reimbursement for Water and Sanitary Sewer installation in Cawley Place Subdivision and Rescind the Policy to prevent future claims. Item 37: Motion to accept proposal and authorize Southern Partners to proceed with a design for Recycling/Courtesy Area at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill at a cost of $7,300. Item 38: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-8906-097 with funding in the amount of $42,000 from Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase III Allocated Funds and approve the Engineering Proposal from Brian G. Besson and Associates in this same amount for McCombs Road, Section II. Item 39: Motion to approve schedule of fees effective April 1, 1997 for Taps and Miscellaneous Services, providing for annual inflationary increase each January 1st for Augusta Utilities Department. Item 40: Motion to approve recommendations from the subcommittee regarding the cleanup of illegal dump sites. Item 41: Motion to approve Capital Project Amendment Number Two with funding for the Crane Creek Channel Improvements Project in the amount of $350,000 from allocated Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase II Funds, CPB#55-8369-323. Item 42: Motion to approve change order #1 for Rae's Creek Channel Improvements, Section II, with Mabus Construction Company in the amount of $28,436.50. Item 43: Motion to approve change order Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Four with funding for the Barton Chapel Road Improvements, Phase I Project in the amount of $1,158,000 from allocated Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase I Funds, Recaptured Funds and Utilities Renewal and Extension Funds, CPB#55-8675-094. Item 44: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One with funding for the McCombs Road, Section I Project in the amount of $75,000 from allocated Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase III Funds, CPB#57-8905-096. Item 45: Motion to certify the project right-of- way and execute the Georgia Department of Transportation right-of-way agreement. Item 46: Motion to approve the Engineering Proposal from Brian G. Besson and Associates in the amount of $20,750 for the Design of Water System Improvements in conjunction with McCombs Road Improvements.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 33, please? CLERK: Item 33 is a motion to affirm the decision by the Administrator to prohibit parking on Seventh Street between Reynolds Street and Port Royal; authorize cleanup of petroleum leakage from cars in parking garage and assess cost to responsible parties. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that this item be effective. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've gone out there and looked at that area, and I guess I have a problem of a portion of this and the other portion I don't. I don't have any problem with authorizing cleanup as part of our city ordinances and whatnot in that regard. My concern is with prohibiting parking there on Seventh Street at Reynolds and Port Royal, and the -- at least one of the business owners there has said that that's going to affect him and affect him in a negative way. I guess the problem I have there is we knew when we put the Discovery Center there and we built that building, that these businesses were there, that they needed that area for parking. And now we're going back -- now that we've moved in there and we've done what we want to do, we're saying we want you to do something -- we want the business owners to do something else, we want them to do something different. But they were there first, and I guess I -- unless I can hear some good reasoning of why to do otherwise, I'm going to side with the business owners on this. They were there first. We knew they were there when we moved the Discovery Center there, we knew they were there when we built Port Royal, and now we're trying to change things all around and I guess I have a problem with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Davison, did you want to say something? Or Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my opinion that no business owner have an inherent right to use public properties and that the board can set policy as far as the restriction of use as far as public properties go for safety reasons, public safety, et cetera. And certainly it's my opinion that if a business is in business, then they should provide parking for their customers, or at least a percentage of parking for their customers. And it's my position that the business don't have the right to park commercial vehicles that they use or disabled vehicles on public properties and rights-of-ways, and I guess that's where I would disagree with Mr. Davis there, and would support the motion that we modify the parking that's allowed and -- or at least to eliminate it and do no parking. We're talking about a building where, when we started, we had a combination of commercial shops and residential that now is residential and a Discovery Center. We're going to have hopefully thousands of visitors in and out of there, and I think parking vehicles that would obstruct traffic, emergency public safety traffic or otherwise, would certainly put those visitors and residents in the Port Royal in harm's way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Davison? MR. DAVISON: My first -- I can't stress enough, there are no disabled automobiles parked on Seventh Street because of my company. There are no disabled automobiles. There are no abandoned automobiles parked in the 100 block of Seventh Street because of Davison's Auto Service. As far as commercial vehicles, my company trucks are commercial vehicles. I guess you'd classify my automobile as a commercial vehicle since it's leased through the company. I've heard a lot of talk in here in the last hour and a half, some of it productive even. But I've heard talk about taxpaying citizens, thirty-seven years, we ought to have some respect for them. We're taxpaying citizens in this community for fifty-three years. We're good to the community, we do our part. I've heard a lot of talk about losing jobs, you know, outside of the community, going other places. I'm not even saying that we would leave town, but this is what's happening to our downtown is we're running our fellow businessmen out of town. Parking is the greatest problem you have in the City of Augusta at this moment in trying to attract new businesses. Parking is your number-one problem. Why are you going to eliminate spaces because of the whim of some certain individuals in Port Royal condominiums? In over an hour with -- all the money we spent sending a delegation to Washington or somewhere to save the jobs at SRS from politics. That's what I'm asking this community to do, to save my street parking from politics, please. Fifty-three years we've been parking there. Come by there any day, I'll move any automobile that is in my care and custody. There will not be an automobile parked -- there has not been an automobile parked in the street for fifty- three years that was disabled that belonged to Davison's Auto Service or one of its customers. My cars are moved in and out. Those trucks move. I've tried for the last month to keep my trucks off of the street and personal automobiles have taken over immediately. My trucks have not been on the street for the last month over there on that west side of Seventh Street. I try to do everything I can do. I called Mr. Oliver's office three times, I finally got in touch with him; I volunteered my assistance, my help in any way. I said anything I can do for the parking anywhere in downtown Augusta, especially 700 -- or the 100 block of Seventh Street. I never got a response. Someone told me yesterday that this was coming up on the agenda. I really don't want to live the rest of my business life coming over here and having to call Ms. Bonner once a month to see if this is buried in the agenda somewhere to try to get it over with. Let's get it over with, let's do what we're going to do, but please don't do this. You ain't trying to run business out of town, you're trying to keep business in town. There's no commercial vehicles out there. You know, I'm just saying let's stay where we were at, you know. I didn't ask for the Science Center to come here to disrupt the situation. I'm glad to have them here. I'm trying my best to be a good public citizen and trying to work with the community. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Davison. MR. ROSEN: I represent the Port Royal homeowners, and I'd like to say that there are very few parking places -- CLERK: Can we have your name, sir? MAYOR SCONYERS: Give us your name first, please. MR. ROSEN: Clarence Rosen. There are very few parking places on that street, and we're talking about obstructing the flow of cars in and out of the garage. He's talking about he doesn't have any disabled cars. He's got them parked on the sidewalk but not in the street, and that's obstructing the flow, too. He also has them parked in a building, about ten or fifteen in there leaking oil all over the place. That's mentioned in there. But there's a garage right there. If they want to park, let them park in the garage. But his trucks are bigger than average car. Now, as it is now, we've got one-way traffic there now before you have to weave through to get in and out. About a thousand cars or five hundred cars or how many are going to be coming a day there, it's going to be a mess if anything parks on that street. That restaurant doesn't need it. They're talking about businesses; there's only one business: Mr. Davison's. And the other restaurant's got parking behind it, and it's just going to be open at night. It can park in the bank's parking lot; they'll be glad to work an arrangement out with them. But they're blocking the street and -- I mean, you know, it's just a matter of logistics. We don't want to mess up the Science Center with people getting in there and having to weave through traffic to get to park. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, this is one of these things that obviously we don't want -- we'd like not come to us. I had a meeting yesterday with representatives from Fort Discovery trying to come up with an idea, Jimmy, on how we're going to transport people for the opening in April. Now, they're anticipating anywhere from twenty to twenty-five thousand people over a two- day period. My personal feeling is that in the best interest from a tourist standpoint, that Seventh Street shouldn't have parking. On the other hand, I realize that if we put that restriction, that we are doing something to your business that's unhealthy. And it was my understanding that Mr. Oliver and yourself were going to get together and see if there was some way that we could help you should we eliminate parking on Seventh Street. I believe you just stated that you haven't gotten together with Mr. Oliver and nothing's been worked out. But I would say that if we as a body restrict parking on Seventh Street we have some obligation to you to try to resolve what problem that creates for you. I will vote for the motion to restrict parking on Seventh Street, but I would also say whoever makes that motion, I wish they would consider that this government step in and try to help resolve the problem you've got in a satisfactory way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, would you amend your motion to reflect that? MR. BEARD: I'd like to hear from the Administrator first. MR. OLIVER: I would just like to make one point. My recollection of what the Commission asked to be done was for me to sit down with the Port Royal Condominium Association and Mr. Davison to discuss parking on that street. I was not aware of any other accommodation as it relates to Mr. Davison's business establishment. The facts are the street is thirty-one feet wide; consequently, when there is particular commercial truck vehicle parking on the one side of the street, it does create a problem. It has been a problem for some period of time since the condominium association was there. With the additional traffic of up to a thousand visitors a day, obviously that's going to make that situation that much worse. Mr. Davison has said, by his own admission, that he has been trying to keep the trucks off the street, and I applaud that effort. He's indicated, however, that other passenger type vehicles have parked there, and I think the proposal brought to you will address that problem. And I believe from the image that we are trying to portray with this particular endeavor, as well as from a life safety issue, that this is the appropriate action to be taken. MR. DAVISON: Could I say one more thing? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. DAVISON: Mr. Oliver said his understanding it was supposed to be him and I and the Port Royal association. I believe if you'll check back with your minutes it was supposed to be him and I, a Port Royal association representative, and a representative of the National Science Center about this matter. We have yet to see anybody from the National Science Center in this meeting. The Port Royal association brought three security guards over to be their safety engineers, you might say. But the original thing that y'all said to do has not been done, and I definitely think that the National Science Center representatives should be involved in the parking [inaudible]. And I did try my utmost, Mr. Oliver knows, three times and asked him could I do anything to help. So it ain't going the way you told him or asked him for it go. MR. OLIVER: And I called you back, Mr. Davison. MR. DAVISON: You called me back and I offered to help you in any way whatsoever with downtown parking, Seventh Street parking or anything. The next thing I know, someone comes to me yesterday and says, by the way, do you know it's Number 33 on the agenda. I volunteered to help. I would like to keep an open relationship with you. I don't think we need to go around each other's backs about things. We need to get the four representa-tives -- if you've got a Port Royal representative and a National Science Center and Davison's and the community, that's fine. I personally think we ought to get somebody that's a little less unbiased than Mr. Oliver about this situation, but I don't think he knows what he's talking about in this community and this town. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: You know, if we're going to do the personal attacks as far as bias go, then why don't we get somebody and keep everybody else out, and let a traffic engineer study this and whether we need to have commercial traffic there, parked commercial trucks, et cetera, and other vehicles, or whether we need to have a open throughfare if we're going to have folks living there and that many visitors in there. I'm not a traffic engineer; I'm no kind of engineer. My common sense tells me that we don't need obstruction of traffic if we need to get a ambulance in there, if we need to get a fire engine in there, and certainly if we need to get, I guess, a general alert fire engine in there where you're going to have the guy driving it from the front and back end so -- you know, where you have to get something up in the air to get some folks out. So that's just common sense there. And what I'd like to see is that we go on and restrict the traffic in the name of safety, and then if we need to work something out in other ways, then we consider that and that we not have that holding us up to do what's safe and what's right as far as the citizens and the visitors of this building. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I came in here probably I guess from the sake of safety, too, prepared to go ahead and vote for this whole proposal that's on the table. I agree with what Bill has asked to be put on as an amendment in terms of trying to help Mr. Davison and his business. I can also understand it that if he gets emotional. Probably I can maybe understand it a little bit better in that I might be moving in the next twelve months myself based on government edict that I probably will not be able to control, and we've been in that block for the last seventy-five years and have undergone every bit of survival to stay there, you know, and now we'll be probably moving in the name of progress. I think we should be fair about something with the National Science Center and Port Royal in terms of plans for the future of downtown, period. And maybe this is not the forum to discuss it, but I'm going to go ahead and put it on the record. I think we need to go ahead and be fair with Jimmy and those and start talking about in some legal forum: How do you deal with buying this man's business. Because let's quit playing with it and go ahead and say what you're confronted with. Because I've seen as County Commission Chairman; I'm sure some before me saw it, I'm sure that the Mayor has probably seen an artist sketch of it, he came behind me as Richmond County's Chairman; you got a former mayor in here. Every artist sketch that I've seen, when these plans were going about, basically contain no Davison's garage sitting down there for the future. Now, if that's in the artist sketch -- and I don't think the people who are living there are involved in that type of situation because they are there as investment people and they have their residence there. They should want to feel safe, they should want to see that be a beautified area, but at the same time -- you know, I guess it's kind of like, you know, when a church moves in next to a nightclub, you know, and we are asked to do something there to protect the church. Nobody wants to vote against a church, but you also know what you have sitting there from the very beginning. And I think at some point we need to be a little bit fair in the overall plans, start some negotiation and start dealing with the man up front and say if you don't want him there as a part of the future, then let's talk about getting a fair price on the man's business. It's one of those few that has been able to weather that storm and stay downtown basically when a lot of people weren't concerned about doing anything on the river other than fishing on it, and I can remember those days as I sat here in this same chamber. But at some point that's going to be the fair thing to do for the future, because obviously with residents there in Port Royal, National Science Center, Discovery, Inc., that's not going to mesh with what you have there in the long-range effect. And I think at some point we need to quit playing games. The city needs to be the catalyst of bringing that together because this is what it amounts to, this is the start of it in terms of that restriction. But they have been there for fifty-some years and I think that does deserve some consideration. The cleanup, if they're doing any environmental things, they ought to be corrected. Probably was a bad move by somebody to give them the authorization to place cars there from the very beginning. Maybe this talk should have been done in terms of getting something in an open-air market to place those cars and store them from the very beginning and not there inside that garage. But that's water over the dam, they are there. That has to be cleaned up and I can support that. But I do hope that you can get something in there, Mr. Oliver, on an existing business that I think to a certain extent is being penalized for the sake of being there in the wrong place at the wrong time, having stayed downtown, and now in the name of the progress of our future that it's going to have to be taken out of the picture. That's what's going to have to happen. It's not -- let's don't even play that game. Any artist sketch that's been drawn--you gentlemen know what I'm talking about--bring them up. Some of them as big as half of that wall there. They don't contain your business down there, Mr. Davison, and at some point has to be eliminated and moved. What I don't think we ought to do is do it like Robert Flack's song, I don't think we ought to kill it softly and slowly. We ought to be up front and go ahead and start some negotiations, give the man his fair price, start talking about that, and do what's just and then give the balance. It gives the balance in terms of tourism, it gives the balance as far as residents in beautification and safety in their investment, and it also gives the balance to a long-term business that's also paid his dues in this community. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute motion that we approve Item Number 33 on the agenda but we contain in that motion that we direct the Administrator to work with Mr. Davison to see if in fact we can accommodate his needs for the lack of the parking that he will be losing down there. In the event that that is not fruitful and a relocation is necessary, that then we pursue that approach. MR. MAYS: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? Coming on around. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make sure that that motion doesn't imply that we are going to buy Mr. Davison's property. I mean, that -- MR. DAVISON: It ain't for sale at this moment. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Zetterberg, what I'm hoping is that there is something that we can do and not have to buy Mr. Davison but that we would pursue looking into that idea. Of course, a lot of things would have to happen before that even took place. MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't have a problem with that as long as we're looking at that as an option. I just didn't want to have it in there that we would consider down the road that we -- the next logical course was to buy Mr. Davison's property. MR. KUHLKE: It is not. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's already been taken care of. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think we are getting into something now that is going to be a problem down the road, and I think all of us understand that. We're getting into the parking problem, and it is a big problem. As one of the Commissioners told me the other day, that, you know, if we had a pot of money we could just buy up all the buildings down here and build a couple of parking decks and that would satisfy, you know, the citizens and us and everybody else. But that pot of money does not exist. So I have no problem with Mr. Kuhlke's motion because I was going to add to my motion that -- but I think this is something that needs to be done now, and if we are saying that we're going to approve this motion, the Item Number 33, with Mr. Davison getting with the Administrator and the Administrator assisting him -- because I personally don't want to create a problem for any small business person, but we do know progress has to take place, and we have to move with that. And this is not about the residents of Port Royal and Mr. Davison, it's about parking downtown, which we have to consider, and there are many things that we're going to have to do in the future to alleviate some of that. We have a science exhibit there opening on the 26th of April and we need to start looking and planning for that and beyond. We have a Golf Hall of Fame coming up down there. And it would be my suggestion that --it appears to me that a committee would be appointed to look into the parking problem downtown. I know we had one a few months ago, but this is for a long-range parking problem downtown, and I think we need to form a committee to look into that and come up with some solution along with the Admin-istrator on that. I will yield to Mr. Kuhlke's substitute motion that Item 33 be approved with the Administrator working with Mr. Davison. MAYOR SCONYERS: So you're, in effect, withdrawing your motion; is that right? MR. BEARD: Well, I will, and accept Mr. Kuhlke's at this time. MR. OLIVER: I would like to make one point just for the record, that the only funding that is available is the Phase II sales tax money. So that may be something that will need to be looked at in concert with that, which may delay consideration of how that money is applied. MR. BEARD: Well, are we talking about -- we're not talking about purchasing it. Maybe you need to clarify that. MR. KUHLKE: Let me clarify this. First, I'm hoping that we can get with Mr. Davison and develop a solution to what his needs are with the absence of the parking on Seventh Street. And I don't know what that is, but I want that discussed. If Mr. Davison finds out that what's happening down there is a detriment to his business and he cannot operate, then I think we should pursue going further with the idea that we might purchase that property down there. But my idea right now is to try to come up --and it may be a short- term solution, but I'm totally opposed to crippling a business that's been in this community for fifty years with the stroke of the pen without us having and admitting that we have a responsibility to try to assist that business to remain viable. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume then that we would look at purchasing other properties where we've banned parking and that those individuals would be entitled to fair consideration. Really, I think this motion is out of order in the sense that on the agenda we are to discuss or consider or looking at a recom-mendation to ban parking on a portion of Seventh Street, and I would think that anything that go outside the latitude of providing alternative parking would be not in order as far as a substitute motion, which I understand now is the original motion because the original motion was withdrawn. And I would like to hear from the Parliamentarian as far as that go, but I don't think there should be any discussion in a motion in reference acquisition of property if it's not on the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, I think the motion is to look at alternatives in the event that the Administrator is not able to find some alternative to assist Mr. Davison. So it's not authorizing the purchase of any property, that would have to be brought back, but I think the motion as made is in order. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. DAVISON: Could I say one more thing? Before y'all make any serious decisions about this cleanup, I think we need to think. These automobiles that I transfer to Port Royal garage are being impounded by Richmond County. I mean, basically a homeless car at that point in time. It's being impounded, and y'all own -- or this community, this is Richmond County, owns that parking garage that we're talking about calling the EPA in here to see about cleaning up. And you can go over there with a pressure washer and clean it up. It's not my fault that it's as dirty as it is. Your construction people came in with a three-inch PVC pipe and ran water off the third floor to the second floor, which washed it all down. And in these buildings you have expansion joints where there's water and oil [inaudible]. But what you're doing is calling the EPA in here on yourselves. It ain't mine, it's y'alls, and you're calling the EPA to come see about tearing down your parking lot. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Brigham was next. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I still have a problem when we mention the purchase of property. I have said on numerous occasions [inaudible] that we are not in the business of buying property. We are not an economic development in that way, and I have a serious reservation about making a reference to buying property in any kind of motion, especially when it's not necessary. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The only thing I'd like to remind my colleague -- and he's been very firm with that on both governmental bodies that he's served on and I highly respect that. But if there is an artist conception, if there is a plan somewhere, if a phantom drawing can appear that -- whether we've seen it over a box lunch, whether it's been at a blue cheese dinner, that -- and I'm just saying we ought to be realistic. In the plans for the future the garage doesn't sit there. And if it doesn't sit there, somebody somewhere has made a plan at some point in time in the future either to eliminate it or hope that it will be eliminated. And the only thing I'm saying is, common sense, you don't have to be Einstein to believe that either you do it by the process of eliminating a business and drying it up and hope that it will go away or you make the proper plans and do what's right for a business that's been there for fifty-some years. It's not saying that you purchase it, not saying that you even get together and promise anything, but that it be put on the fairness agenda to at least talk about it. That's all I'm saying, you know. And I think that this thing crosses territories, it crosses colors, it crosses party lines. I think a lot of people are getting sick and tired of the intrusion that a lot of folk get on elected bodies and appointed bodies that they become in the right of eminent domain, to a certain extent God Almighty, of what they can do with the stroke of a pen and a vote of just eliminating folks or what they can do in the name of progress. It's just like a balance sheet. On every side where you've got assets, the other side you got some liabilities. Somebody pays that cost. And I think that the motion, even if it is out of order, I think it's a fair out-of-order motion and I'm going to vote for it. MR. BEARD: And I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Powell had his hand up. Coming around, and then we'll vote. MR. POWELL: Just one question. Mr. Davison, how many parking places are we talking about? MR. DAVISON: Five. MR. POWELL: Five parking places. MR. DAVISON: Well, really you're talking about three across the street from my place of business, and there would be two more across the street from the Town Tavern section, but there's not but a total of five available spaces. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't want to belabor the point with my colleague that sits next to me about artist renderings, but I have sat on other boards and I've seen mountains appear where there's plains, and I certainly hope we don't go out and start building mountains because they are there in artist renderings. And just because something is not seen doesn't necessarily mean it's not located there. MR. MAYS: Only thing I'll say is I was born at night but not last night. I've been around this government long enough to know, hell, if you can smell a trick you don't always have to see it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a motion on the floor by Mr. Kuhlke. Do you want to read the motion, Ms. Bonner, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I just want to make one comment. I wasn't on that subcommittee that was appointed, but I think that Mr. Kuhlke has a valid point, that all of the options ought to be laid out and work with Mr. Davison. I certainly am not on that subcommittee, but I'd like to support that, because I think somebody mentioned the fact that we have enough time with small businesses and trying to save some downtown. And certainly I'll probably support the motion to move the parking space, but I don't know how many employees he have and we certainly wouldn't want to do all that, but I would certainly hope a committee would be appointed to work with you, see can we get this thing worked out. I think it can be resolved, just the right people haven't gone in a room and just said let's do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke was to approve the decision by the Administrator and to direct the Administrator to work with Mr. Davison to accommodate his needs for parking. In the event that that's not fruitful, that we pursue relocation of Mr. Davison's business. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. And that is the only motion. Mr. Beard withdrew his motion. CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS POWELL, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to qualify my no vote, that I can't support the motion because of the language in there about acquisition. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. I think the show of your hand explained that. That was seven to three, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Item 34, please? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request to do -- to take Item 1 on the addendum agenda. We have a delegation here. Can we take Item 1 if there's no objection? To authorize the Lease Agreement with Alltel Mobile Communications for Cellular Telephone Antennae and Equipment at Highland Avenue Water Tank. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is somebody here from Alltel? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. INABNET: Carrick Inabnet here on behalf of Alltel. We'll be happy to answer any questions about this proposal, but I think the terms have effectively been worked out with the City Attorney, and I will at this point turn it over to the Commission should they have any questions for us. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the item. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, please? MR. TODD: Yes. For Alltel, I just want a clarification. Is there anything that would be involved as far as would it have a negative impact on any other radio stations or communication systems? MR. INABNET: No, there would not. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. I'd like to know a little bit more about the agreement with the -- as far as the amount per month, and I'd like to ask the board of director also does he have any complications with this. MR. WALL: The amount per month is $1,000 per month, annual fee of $12,000. In addition to that, as additional compensation the county would have the right to place antennas on the tank, and the -- in addition, in the event that additional--I call them antennas--disks or whatever, are placed there it would be at the rate of $1.58 per foot. And they're talking about, I think, 210 feet elevation -- is that right? MR. INABNET: That's correct. MR. WALL: I think it's 210, so it'd be 210 times $1.58. And those are the essential provisions. MR. POWELL: Okay, that's basically what I was asking. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Back to the original agenda. Item 34: A motion to appoint W. F. Carson as the Public Works Director. MR. OLIVER: I have one comment to make, Mr. Mayor. I talked with Mr. Carson last evening. He indicated, because there was some discussion as it relates to this, that he had not been contacted by anyone within the county or on the Commission, and that was not an issue, was not a part of his decision, that it was made for personal reasons. Professionally he felt that it was a good opportunity for him, but due to family considerations he felt that that was not the appropriate thing for him at this time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we go back out community-wide for advertisement. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. MR. TODD: Nationwide, community-wide. I think we discussed what community-wide meant before, but nationwide. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, why don't we do what we did with the Administrator, just go back to the original list. That's what we did on the Administrator when one backed out. We've already checked all the people out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that we had four and we lost all four of the ones. And I would think once you take your top four, then -- if you've got it like a cone, that does -- and that cone was bottom-side up, those four is kind of up there and the rest of them is kind of down there. So that's the reasoning. And perhaps the Commission would support your position, but we have a motion on the floor and I'd call for the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion. Since we as a Commission only saw the resume of the three people submitted to us, I'd like to move that prior to going back out, that the Commission be given the opportunity to look at at least the top ten to twelve applications that were presented to the county and see if not -- if there is a qualified individual within that group that we might consider for that position. If not, then I would support taking the time to go back out and delaying this thing further. But I think that the Commission should have the opportunity to look at at least ten applications that were put in and let's see if we have somebody there we can choose from. MR. BEARD: One question, Mr. Kuhlke? Are you talking about the Commission as a whole or the committee that -- MR. KUHLKE: The Commission, Mr. Beard. I think we as a Commission should have a chance to look at all of the applications that may be available, not just the committee. MR. BEARD: Okay. Just a point of clarification. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who was that? MR. TODD: Commissioner Todd, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Go ahead. MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, certainly we have a process that's worked and we've gone by for a number of months in selecting the management for Richmond County. That process, as you know, Mr. Mayor, has been the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the County Administrator as far as selecting candidates and bringing them to the Commission, and the Commission then selecting one of the top three or selecting from the individuals brought forward. I don't see the need to change that process and bog down the entire Commission in the process of interviewing and selecting. I think that it was probably others that made this argument earlier on and not this Commissioner. I certainly buy into it. I'm going to be soon unemployed, but when I'm employed I'd like to spend the time looking for employment. When I'm employed it costs me approximately $180 a day to come down here. It's my belief that we won't have full participation through the interview process, even though I would be here. I've been here on other interviews where, you know, we had folks missing. I don't have a problem delegating authority, and I think that the way that we initiated this and we delegated the authority to the Mayor, the Administrator and the Mayor Pro Tem, I'm comfortable with and probably can't support the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concern is that if we go through this process -- we've already had three candidates withdraw that we considered our top three candidates. If we're going to go to the next seven people that submitted as to the top ten, how many of those are available and are we going to have anybody left to choose from? We've drug our feet on this long enough. I think the problem is that we haven't acted, and I think we need to get a fresh group to select from. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: May I just, for background information, provide the process. I screened the original group of candidates down to the top six. The Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and myself inter-viewed all six of those individuals by telephone. Then at that point we came up with the final three, which were brought to you. We felt that there was a dramatic drop-off between candidate number three and candidate number four, but that was, again, our assessment. So we have looked in some detail at the top six. We only had background checks, however, run on the top three. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I do have a problem with deviating from the process. I think that we have not deviated from the process so far, and this is why I can't go along with the Commissioner on deviating from the process. I don't have a big problem with either way this goes, picking from the ones that are left or going along and going out. But the Administrator is saying that there is a tremendous drop -- a significant drop-off from the ones that we had and the one that left, then I think that -- this position that we are trying to fill is a very important position, and if it's going to take a little more time to do that, then I think we ought to take the time and get the best possible applicants available. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, the Public Works Department is in need of leadership and direction and national advertisement would further delay this process. The employees want to know what path their careers are going to take. We went back on the list when we hired our Administrator when the number-one contender dropped out, and that's where I stand on this issue. I think we need to go back and look at the applicants and see if we've got somebody that we're comfortable with and give them the opportunity. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a problem going back on the list. But it's just like what Mr. Oliver said, we checked the list and the list that -- that's why we shortened it down to what we have, so we didn't think that what was left there was -- had the experience we needed. But I don't mind going back. You can call in ten or whatever you want to, but I still want it to stay at the procedure that we had; that the Mayor, the Administrator, and the Mayor Pro Tem pick and select a certain number and give it back to the Commissioners. And if we can't do that, then we need to go back and change our procedure before we go any further, because we already have a procedure in place to how we select a department head. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I don't have a problem with that. All I'm looking at is in the essence of time. Now, I don't want to deviate from the process that we've gone through, but rather than going through the advertising process and waiting on the -- if the committee can go back, look at the remaining applicants, come back to us with three or four more and give us a chance to do it, and certainly that ought to be -- we should be able to do that in a week and -- where we're talking about six weeks. If we have a problem at that point, then let's go ahead and readvertise again. But I think we ought to go ahead and go through this process and see if we can save some time and come up with a good person. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: So, Mr. Kuhlke, as I understand your motion really then, it's just to use the existing applications and bring back three or four more to us; use the same procedure and don't deviate from the procedure? MR. KUHLKE: Absolutely. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, why don't we cut to the chase then. We know who the next three is and they're probably sitting in this room or somewhere close around. Why don't we nominate someone? Thank you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Is that true, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't know. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I don't know either. Is that true, Mr. Oliver? You say you cut them down to three. Is that true? MR. OLIVER: To be honest, I don't remember the order beyond the top six. I don't recall. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, then let's have Mr. Oliver to get the list and we'll know. MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't think that needs to come up right now. Do you want to say something, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, go ahead. MR. J. BRIGHAM: My problem is still the original problem. If we -- y'all make reference to the Administrator. We had one guy drop out and we had seven other people that were still available. In this case we've had four drop out that we know of and we still got people dropping out. Now, at what point do we readvertise? I don't think this is quite the same situation. And I'm also concerned about the availability, and I'd hate to see us get below candidate number ten on the original list. If we went below candidate number ten, are we getting our best candidate? That's my only concern. At what point are we going to stop? Are we going to go down to candidate thirty-five? forty-five? We had -- how many did we have apply, Randy? Sixty? Maybe we'll get down to sixty-five. MAYOR SCONYERS: I would doubt you could even get anybody new coming in. Who would want to come to this government? I wouldn't. MR. KUHLKE: Jerry, I'm just -- I'm talking about three to four people. I mean -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Bill, three or four people at what point? Midway through the list? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I think there's two motions on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. We're fixing to vote on them right now. Thank you. MR. HANDY: I got one question, Mr. Mayor, before we vote, please. May I? MAYOR SCONYERS: Make it quick. Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Bill, in your motion would you state -- so far we have interviewed six people. How many more would you like to interview? MR. KUHLKE: I'm saying bring three -- three people. I'm leaving it up to the committee. MR. HANDY: Three from where -- what point, though? MR. KUHLKE: Whatever list you got. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay, you want to go back from the beginning. MR. KUHLKE: I don't want to deviate from the process that you have always used. I'm saying go back to the bank, come back to us with the other three names. And your recommendation may be that these are the next three but we don't recommend any of them, but I still -- I'd rather go through that process before we go back out and advertise regionally or nationally for that position. MR. HANDY: What you're saying is that you want three names from the remaining list of the applicants that applied for the Public Works Director; right? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Okay. That won't be no problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the -- do you need the motions read or do y'all think y'all know what we're voting on? Read the motions, Ms. Bonner, please. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke's motion was that the Commission be given the opportunity -- originally he said the top ten and twelve applications, then that was amended to say three or four names, to look for a qualified candidate. In the event that a candidate is not found, that you proceed with a nationwide search. MR. KUHLKE: Yes, ma'am, and to utilize the procedure that we have always used. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, roll call vote. CLERK: Okay, this roll call vote is taken on the substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, substituted [sic] by Mr. Powell. MR. BEARD: Could I hear that again? I'm sorry, I need to hear that. CLERK: Okay. The motion by Mr. Kuhlke? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Okay. The motion by Mr. Kuhlke was that the Commission be given an opportunity to look at the top ten/twelve applications mainly to bring back three names to look for a qualified candidate. In the event that one is not found, that we proceed with a nationwide search utilizing the present procedures. MR. HANDY: That's the substitute. What's the original motion? CLERK: The original motion made by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Zetterberg was to advertise nationwide -- to readvertise nationwide. The roll call vote will be on Mr. Kuhlke's motion. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, Item 47: A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission on March 4th. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by who? CLERK: Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? Thank you, Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 48 is a motion to approve the Ordinance to amend the 1977 Retirement Plan for Richmond County, Georgia, in order to provide for the immediate vesting and participation for department heads appointed by Richmond County, Georgia. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on March 4th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 49: A motion to approve an Ordinance adopting Titles 6, 7, and 8 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on March 4th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: In my old age, just for a point of reference, what is that on? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Title 6 is License and Inspections; Title 7 is Buildings; Title is Planning and Zoning. MR. MAYS: Okay. Thanks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 50? CLERK: Okay, we'll take Item 50 in the legal session. Under Other Business, Item 51-C: A motion to approve the appointment of Ulmer Bridges to the Resource Conservation and Development Council. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I'd like to know -- MR. KUHLKE: What is that? MR. HANDY: What is that? Right on. And how do you get nominated? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if I could speak to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Freddie, I'm still trying to find out a lot of what they do, but the Resource Council is a group of primarily farmers in Richmond County. It's the old Briar Creek Soil and Water Conservation District. They do things like dry water hydrants for farmers or no tiller and they rent the tiller out to the farmers that might not could afford to provide that item for themselves. It's a -- and they do it through various funding from federal and state sources. We provide no funds for these is my understanding. And just generally their active in soil and conservation throughout the district. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, if I may. We also gave them -- kind of let them have [inaudible], I believe. And that's a good appointment for Mr. Bridges. I appointed him to there because he have a lot of interest in South Richmond and he probably, outside of Mr. Powell, have the most farm district in Richmond County. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I echo what Mr. Todd has said. I think that's a good appointment. That's Mr. Phil Hadarits' [inaudible]? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Well, it used to be [inaudible]. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I'd still just like to know how did he get nominated and what kind of paperwork was sent here to get him as a nominee. That's what I'm asking, how do you go about that? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Pete Fulcher that's on that board asked me to serve on the board. They always like to have a government appointee on the board. And it was Ms. -- the former administrator served there before. MR. HANDY: Ms. Beazley. MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Beazley. And I told him I'd be glad to serve on there, and he would like -- they said that they would like some -- you know, some official act from the government. That's what we were doing. MR. HANDY: It's still the same reason why I asked. I don't see anything in the book asking for anybody, and I don't think that any citizen just go out and pick who they want to go any board without coming through this board. If that's the case, then why are we sitting here voting for it today; he can just go on and put him on there. That's all I got to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My only question was, can Mr. Bridges serve on that board without being us appointed -- without us having to appoint him? MAYOR SCONYERS: He probably could, couldn't he, Jim? MR. ZETTERBERG: So why are we involved in this? Mr. Bridges can serve on any board he wants. I don't have anything against it. I don't even know who the Resource Conservation and Development Council is. MAYOR SCONYERS: They just kind of wanted our blessings on it. MR. ZETTERBERG: Huh? MAYOR SCONYERS: They just kind of wanted our blessings on it. Do y'all want to bless him or not? MR. ZETTERBERG: What does that -- am I adopting them? What comes next, money? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. We done made the nomination and second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I mean, it just seems sort of frivolous to me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just think -- like Mr. Bridges often says, I don't think this is the responsibility of government. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to appoint Mr. Bridges, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 51-D is a request for a letter of support from the Commission regarding a pass-through Grant from the State for the 100 Black Men organization. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: How much is the grant? MR. OLIVER: I'm not familiar with this budget. Just want to make sure that there's no contribution required from local government, because if there is we need to budgetarily analyze the impact. CLERK: He's here. Would you identify yourself, sir? MR. LLOYD: My name is Sanford Lloyd, president of 100 Black Men of Augusta. And the question was whether or not the govern-ment -- the County Commissioners have to support it in monetary ways. The answer is no, that we just have to have the authority of the Commissioners to actually apply and receive any funds from the grant. The grant itself requests $26,369, I believe is the amount; which I think there may be a copy somewhere in there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Sometime ago, I believe about a year and a half ago, that we had a request I believe that was somewhat blessed by the government that Family Connection would be the entity that would bless grants. This group went to Family Connection per my request and was directed to the -- and when they reported back to the state, the state still told them they would require this Commission's blessing on the pass-through grant. This is not saying they're going to get the grant. They're in competition for it. And I'd like to enlighten you on the 100 Black Men a little bit, and you may correct me if I'm wrong. But I have a friend that's in District 6 that lives across from District 4 that I work with, and he have a son that's at Augusta College that had attended Butler, and his son was one of the applicants that was picked to receive a scholarship and he received a scholarship from 100 Black Men. So my friend being a Caucasian, you know, I said is your son, you know, adopted or what? So I think that the -- when you hear the name 100 Black Men you think of a group that maybe just doing things for minorities, but this is a case where there was a bright Caucasian male that received a grant from a entity called 100 Black Men, and I think that's outstanding in this day and time. MR. LLOYD: And if there are any questions about what we do, our mission is to improve educational opportunities to improve the chances of success for youth. We have a special interest that we do actually try to put on African- American males, but included in our program are not just African-American males; there are Caucasians and there are African-Americans. But our emphasis is on African-American youth because we identified them as needing a lot of resources, and that's what our grant is applying for, resources to help us implement and expand some of the programs we already have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think one thing needs to be made for the record. Sometimes when things come back up -- and I've heard folks say, well, didn't I hear that before and it was stated differently. I would encourage Mr. Lloyd and the organization --even though this pass-through grant that they may or may not get, I think they have a good chance of getting it--but to also come back to this body for next year on a timely fashion when you got the time. I think they qualify just as much as any of the other events that we are funding under Amendment 73 in terms of tourists and outside attractions. One of their primary fund raisers is the basketball tournament that they put on now each year. Back in 1994 they did request the local governments, the year that I was chairman, and I don't know whether y'all have got anything since then or not, but I do know that that year there was joint city and county participation in terms of we gave the same amount. You weren't president then, but we gave a matching amount from the County Commission at that time that we had under contingency in that event because all the Amendment 73 monies were gone. But in terms of people coming in and spending money, not only are local high schools involved in that particular fund raiser, but you have championship teams from the states of Georgia and South Carolina that are being brought in and you have those supporters, families and people who follow teams and who come in and spend money. So we do give to other matching events that do the same type of activity. So if it's heard of again and it is on board, I would hope that we wouldn't take the attitude of saying, well, you know, we weren't going to make a commitment because we heard we didn't have to give any money. I just wanted to clarify that on the record now, that they will be back, because I'm going to solicit them to come back inasmuch as I think probably over the last couple of years the requests that they have made of local government have kind of fell on deaf ears and have not asked for that much of funding. So I just wanted to put that in for the record at this time and hope that you would submit, because there are similar events in terms of sponsorship, and I think yours does qualify under the auspices of what that particular amount of funds are designated for and probably qualify maybe a little bit better than some of the ones that we're actually giving it to. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to, on behalf of this body, congratulate and thank Mr. Lloyd and the 100 Black Men for what they are doing for the youth in this city because I think that they are doing an outstanding job in assisting them. And I'm sure whatever we can do to assist you in that, we'll be more than happy to do it because I think you're known for the outstanding work that you've done with our youth. In a time like this they need all the help that they can get, and I applaud you for your efforts, the 100 Black Men. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: On the addendum agenda under Item 2 -- MR. LLOYD: Excuse me, I got one question, and that is how do we go about actually getting that. MR. OLIVER: Letter? MR. LLOYD: Yes. MR. OLIVER: We'll do a letter of endorsement for you. I have a standard form for that. And if you give me your grant application, or a copy of it, if you just get to my office a copy of that, I'll prepare a letter of endorsement and I'll send it to the Mayor's Office for him to sign. MR. LLOYD: Thank you. CLERK: Item 2 under the addendum agenda: Motion to approve the policy for appointments to the boards, commissions and authorities. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: If we could take Items 3 and 4 together. Item 3 is a motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. William B. Lee IV to a new four-year term on the Board of Tax Assessors ending 2001; 23rd Senatorial District. Four is to approve the reappointment of Mr. Tracy E. Williams to a new four-year term on the Board ending year 2001; 22nd Senatorial District. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 5 is a motion to approve contractual services between Augusta-Richmond County and the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we participate in the walk-a- thon and become a supporter by doing in-kind services such as making the bus available that pick up the folks like me that's too old and fat for walking, and restrooms available at Julian Smith and at the Barbecue Pit, and other lines of in-kind services. I know the Sheriff's Department is going to participate, et cetera. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Jerry Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I have no discussion; I'm willing to listen. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I've participated in this event through my local union, the plumbers union, for several years and coordinated it for two. This is a worthwhile event. But I tried to sit down when I heard that this was going to be added and come up with a way that we could possibly best impact the walk, and this is just my opinion on the way that we best could do it, you know. And there is a possibility that the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, out of their contingency want to maybe even do more, but certainly I think this is a good methodology. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve the contract for the $1,500. Anybody can do any in-kind they want to, but this is the only organization that the county has that all of their employees can participate as one, and this is a good cause. And there is some statistics about the babies that is born here and the ages of the kids start off from ten years old up until nineteen years old, and I think it's a worthy cause. I was asked by the Mayor's Office to attend a breakfast at the University Hospital about two weeks ago, and that's where I received all this information. And I brought back information and gave it to the Mayor's secretary and to pass it on to Human Resources. And it's a sponsorship that this government be sponsoring for $1,500, and there is some items that goes along with that, and there is a proposal that tells you exactly what we'll be getting for the money. We're not donating anything to the organization and nor are they asking for like charitable organizations. We are receiving service for the money that we're spending. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I ask what services are we receiving for the money? And I think that this is a fair question, Mr. Mayor, in the sense that this is an addendum to the agenda. And I understand the process that you go out and get pledges, anywhere from a penny to, you know, ten dollars per mile that you walk, and you commit to walk those miles to raise money, so all of our employees that participate would do that. And basically is this a promotional package that we're talking about as far as stickers or the package that the coordinator will get on how to participate? MR. HANDY: That's correct, Mr. Todd. Jim, have you prepared a contract, or do you have any information on it? MR. WALL: I have not prepared the contract yet. I did speak with Ms. Bailey on Friday, and I will prepare a contract. And I think that there are services, from my understanding of the conversation with her, that we can incorporate into the contract similar to what has been done in some of the other agencies, and I'm comfortable with the fact that we can frame a contract that will meet the legal requirements. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion and let the substitute motion become a motion if the substitute motion maker will accept the other in-kind things in lieu of -- well, not in lieu of, also do the other in-kind things. I think that's something that's very much needed. When you walk from Butler -- well, not Butler, from Richmond -- we hope we're not walking from Butler this year -- from Richmond, you know, up the hill and over to the --around Lake Olmstead, one of the problems that we've had is that we haven't had restrooms. And Bill Strips' folks has been good about letting us use theirs, and when Recreation is notified in time or there's participation in the past, they've, you know, accommodated us, but I'd like to have it in the official action of the Commission that we'll have someone available for those other services that's needed. MR. HANDY: I'll accept that, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we need a second to Mr. Handy's motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, I'll be happy to second it and move the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. MR. OLIVER: Could I ask the maker of the motion to include in there if you want it taken out of General Fund contingency? MR. HANDY: I have no complaint about where it comes from, we just need it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. HANDY: Thank you, gentlemen, very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 50: Report from the Attorney regarding the Internal Auditor's Contract. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I'd request that we have a legal meeting to discuss this item as well as a number of other litigation items. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: And personnel. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING, 4:59 - 6:50 P.M. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:50 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on March 18, 1997. _________________________ Clerk of Commission