Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS May 19, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., Monday, May 19, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Powell, Todd, and Zetterberg, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. W. H. Mays, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation this afternoon by Reverend E.T. Martin, Pastor of the Springfield Baptist Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION IS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND MARTIN. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request for one addendum item: To approve the transfers within the Recreation and Park Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Phase III renovation accounts in the amount of $988,000 to increase the preliminary budget for the Aquatics Natatorium to $4.1 million and to approve a contract for professional services contract with Virgo and Gambill in the amount of $229,000 for the project and approve filing of application with FAA for construction of facility at the site on Damascus Road. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion? CLERK: Jerry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. And I don't want to [inaudible], but my position on this is going to, you know, mean a no vote on unanimous consent. But I want to point out a couple of things. One, I don't think there's anything wrong with what we're doing as far as the money transfers because we're transferring from Recreation to Recreation, but the bottom line is that we only have, if we do this, $900,000; and the other 3.9 or whatever million that we're transferring from a Year 2000 project I believe is in here, too. We can't build a Year '97 project with Year 2000 money, so we got to get serious about this thing and get serious about where we're transferring money from. And I'm going to go on record as saying this now. If it's your intent to move this money from Willis Foreman Road racetrack, then I say over my dead body unless you are building this facility at Willis Foreman Road racetrack. That's the only place that you have a lump sum of money greater than four million dollars to do this project, and I would suggest or recommend to you to consider doing this project at that location. Now, whatever the influences is to do it in other places, I don't have a problem with that if you have the money to do it with, and my position has been from day one on this project that the money is not there, that we're only kidding ourselves and juggling numbers as far as approximately four million dollars from the racetrack project. No further discussion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Anybody else? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve adding it to the agenda, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: Mr. Mayor, we would like to acknowledge Mayor Pro Tem Freddie Handy and Assistant Administrator Walter Hornsby for completion of the ACCG and University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government Commissioner's Certification Training. On April the 30th, Commissioner Handy and Assistant Walter Hornsby recently completed the Commissioner's Certification Training Program jointly administered by the Association of County Commission and the University of Georgia Carl Vinson Institute. Officials who complete the program demonstrate an exceptional willingness to become better leaders in local government and to improve county government effectiveness. Added ACCG Director Jerry R. Griffin, we are extremely proud of them. The Commissioner's Certification Program is a curriculum designed to help today's county officials cope with increasing complex public service demands placed on local government often in the face of dwindling resources. Courses include Achieving Excellence in Local Government, Law, and Personal Liability. Mr. Handy and Mr. Hornsby, would you come forward, please? We'd like to offer our congratulations to both of you for doing such an outstanding job. [MR. HANDY AND MR. HORNSBY RECEIVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.] CLERK: Next, Mr. Mayor, we'd like to acknowledge the students: Ninth Grade Class of Citizenship Students from A.R. Johnson Health, Science and Engineering High School. They are visiting the Commission today as part of their study of local government. Their teacher is Ms. Helen Lynn Villa. This class has participated in hands-on learning about government through classroom visits from a police officer, a media representative, a farmer, local government official, and a Superior Court judge. One of their highlights this year was hosting Senator Max Cleland for a mock press conference at the school. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't y'all stand and let us recognize you. [THE STUDENTS RECEIVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Villa, would you like to say something? MS. VILLA: I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and be on the agenda. We are studying local government during this time, and through -- you're going to be their teachers today because in great part you will teach them most of what they know about their local government when they leave my classroom because you are the experts, I certainly am not. So you have a great opportunity today and we have a wonderful opportunity. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Item C, please? CLERK: Item C: Mr. Chuck Ballas, Luigi's Restaurant, in reference to "Richmond County Businesses Against the Total Smoking Ban." DR. FREEMAN: Mr. Mayor, members of the County Commission and citizens, I'm not Chuck Ballas, I'm Charlie Freeman. I was asked to participate on behalf of the restaurant owners in our opposition to the smoking ban, so I'll take just a few minutes to make the comments that we want to make, me as representative for the restaurant owners. We're not sure who makes the laws in Richmond -- the city, so we came to you with some possible common sense in this matter. We would like to ask for you, if it's in order, to vote for some type of resolution to support our cause. Leave the smoking ban as it is, it's working fine. That's the 75/25 percent ban which was placed in operation -- implemented by the Richmond County Board of Health I believe some two years -- a little over two years ago. Let the public decide where they want to eat. Ask the health board not to pursue a total ban unless tobacco becomes illegal. And I'd like to point out, as I have on the several occasions that I've had to speak about this, we do not tend to mislead or tell anybody that tobacco is not harmful. That's not the issue. Tobacco is definitely harmful to the health. That's not the issue, the issue is the control and the institution of regulations that control what we can and what we can't do in our privately owned businesses. There are too many inaccurate reports out about secondhand smoking. And I recently participated in a forum on the air about secondhand smoking and was misquoted on several occasions about my disagreement with the Surgeon General and calling him a liar, which I didn't do. I simply disagreed with the Surgeon General, and I still do, and I'm adamant about that. I've read all those reports in minute detail. We don't disagree that smoking is harmful, we just don't want the regulation put in. We will support the ordinance from Spokane, Washington, which we submitted to the health board where restaurants are required to post a sign at their front door stating our smoking policy. Then they can come if they want to or they can decide at that point. We are prepared, and I hope it doesn't come to that, to challenge legally the Richmond County Board of Health, any attempts to discriminate against the restaurants in Richmond County. And we simply furnish this as information to the Commission and to those of you who regulate and run our government, and we thank you for this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Dr. Freeman. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion that we receive this as information. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: I'd be interested in knowing what exactly -- if the Department of Health passes this, is there any other recourse for these citizens that -- rather than having a 75/25 ban, can they come to us? How do we interact with the Department of Health as far as this possible ordinance is concerned? MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you answer that, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: If it is a health problem, then the Board of Health has jurisdiction. And the cases that have come out of North Carolina have essentially said that if it is a health problem, then it has to be applied across the board. In other words, you cannot say that it's a health problem at a restaurant and is not a health problem in a shoe store. If it's a health problem, it's a health problem; so therefore there would have to be a total ban basically on all facilities where the public is around. If it is a policy decision as to whether or not you want to prohibit smoking in certain types of businesses, then it is a decision for this body to resolve because you're not saying that it is a health problem, per se, secondhand smoke, you're saying that as a policy decision you wish to ban smoking in certain types of businesses and certain types of restaurants. MR. BRIDGES: So basically it sounds like this is a policy decision since we're addressing restaurants only. MR. WALL: If you're addressing restaurants only, that was the purpose of the resolution adopted by the Health Board was deal with it as a policy issue. They were not prepared to say that across the board it's a health issue. MR. BRIDGES: I understand. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I know we're just going to receive this as information today, but I'd just like to state my point of view on this thing as a nonsmoker. I think that, you know, we reach a point to where government needs to quit coming in to try and take and make all the decisions for people who invest in our community. I don't smoke, I don't like being around smoke, but I think that the people who own these restaurants have a major investment in our community and I think it's time that government get their nose out of people's personal business and private business unless it's some law that people are breaking and start running the government. I mean, people have to make a living, and if -- if I don't want to go in a place where they smoke, I have that opportunity. But I think it's high time that the government, the Board of Health or whoever, they need to start tending to other matters and let people police themselves in their own personal businesses. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly agree with Dr. Freeman that secondhand smoking is a health hazard, and from what I've read secondhand smoke is a health hazard. I also concur with the County Attorney that unless they're applying it across the board, that we can't -- that the Health Department can't do it, that this body would have to be the body that do it and they would make a recommendation to us. I'm a nonsmoker that grew up working in tobacco fields and working in tobacco plants, so I guess that one side of me tells me to stay away from the smoking of it; but the other side of me tells me that there's good money and that was the cash crop when I was coming up, tobacco. I also realize that the air quality issues of today is indoor air where we have the problem, not necessarily outdoor air, and I guess the issues of the increase in asthma cases, et cetera, is indoor. There's a lot of things that contribute to that indoor air quality other than just smoke -- smoking cigarettes. If this issue come before this board as a policy issue, I want to go on record that I will vote against a ban against smoking in restaurants. If it come as a health issue, then the Health Department can deal with it and it don't come to us. I think it's high time that the Health Department take responsibility for their appointments and do their job if they feel strong enough about this, that it's a health issue, to ban. If not, they need to leave it alone. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to receive it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item D, please? CLERK: Concerned Citizens from the Hyde Park Community. The spokespersons for the group will be Ms. Cynthia Anthony and Ms. Patricia Striggles. MS. STRIGGLES: Good afternoon. I am Pat Striggles and this is Cynthia Anthony, and we are representing the citizens of Hyde Park Community. Hyde Park is Augusta's toxic neighborhood. As you all well know, Hyde Park has been found to be contaminated with various toxic substances. The presence of these substances has devalued our homes and properties and has made it dangerous for our children to play in their own yards. The contamination problem is not the only monster plaguing our community. At this time I would like to introduce to some and present to others the eyesore, Goldberg Industries. Goldberg has been a blistering sore on the face of our communities for many years. What was once a well-kept business when ran by Dixieland has now become a public eyesore. There are numerous railroad cars, tractor trailers, boxcars, and other debris and junk scattered on both sides of the road outside of the fence. In addition to the look of uncleanliness, these objects obstruct the view and the path of motorists and pedestrians. The streets that run through this area, mainly Dan Bowles Road, is dirty, is dusty, and is full of potholes, making it appear to be a dirt road instead of a paved road. And I have some photos to depict what I'm saying I would like for the -- Mr. Mayor and the Commissioners to look at. We as concerned citizens for Hyde Park, we have three main areas of concern: the congested, unguarded railroad crossing surrounded by boxcars, tractor trailers and other debris; the sidewalk issue: due to the junk and the debris scattered on both sides of the road, pedestrians are often forced to walk in the street, endangering their lives; and the numerous potholes and other obstacles make it almost impossible for vehicles to pass through. This is supposed to be a two-way street, but a lot of times only one car can get through at a time due to these obstacles. Several residents living in the area that have to use this road on a day-to-day basis, they have had blow- outs, they've had problems with their CV joints, and they have had their cars knocked out of alignment merely by driving through this area. This is what we, the concerned citizens of Hyde Park, would like to see happen. We want Goldberg to clean up his act; to put all junk, debris, tractor trailers and so forth behind a privacy fence -- not just a regular fence, a privacy fence. We want sidewalks for the pedestrians. No citizen should have to walk in the road to get where they are going. We want repaved and repaired streets and a guarded railroad crossing. Okay. After all this is done, we would like some guidelines and restrictions set for Goldberg so that this does not happen again. We have tried every means of trying to correct this problem. We have spoken with Inspections, Public Works and Engineering, Roads and Bridges, and the enforcement departments, to no avail. I recently spoke with Alex Goldberg last Friday who informed me that he owns the road, Dan Bowles Road, and he also stated that the county is supposed to maintain it. He also stated that if we don't like the condition of the road, then we need to take another route out. He stated that his car has, too, been knocked out of alignment and that he was only trying to run a business. Now, just because Goldberg is zoned heavy industry area, that doesn't give him the right to dominate this road and destroy it, making it difficult for motorists and pedestrians to pass through it. Also, Mr. Goldberg ordered me to stop taking pictures immediately. He called an off-duty deputy that guards his plant twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and the particular deputy that was on that day was Dwayne Christy, and he also instructed me that I was trespassing -- even though I was walking in the road, I was not in the plant, that I was trespassing and I would be arrested if I continued taking pictures, so I stopped. And I got four pictures and somebody else got the rest of them that you are looking at. MR. TODD: Did you get a picture of that officer that told you you was trespassing in the center of a public road? MS. STRIGGLES: No. After he told me to stop taking pictures, I stopped, I did not take any more. But I want to know what rights do I have as a citizen when an off-duty deputy dressed in an official uniform, driving a county car, can arrest me for walking down a public street taking Polaroid shots? In closing, I would like to leave you with something to think about. Even though Goldberg Industries is a heavy industrial area, this was a residential area before he started this business. We live there. We are mostly low-income people. We would like to live in Jones Creek, West Lake or other places, but we can't. This is our home, this is our neighborhood. Ghettos are made, not born. Let's turn our neighborhood back into one. Alex Goldberg stated that he is only doing his job. Think about this: If every company in America did its job like Alex Goldberg did his, scattering junk all over the road, tearing up the place, what kind of world would this be? A big ghetto. Tell me, Commissioners and Mr. Mayor, would you like to live in Hyde Park? And here's a picture [inaudible] depicting the place. And he also mentioned that this guy took a picture illegally and drove off. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we refer the issues to the appropriate departments -- MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. May I make a comment, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we have another lady here before we move on this. Why don't we hear from them, Mr. Todd, then we'll listen to you first. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. MS. ANTHONY: I'm just here in support of the Hyde Park Community also, and there are several other people that are here also that are concerned about this problem. We're not here to argue. The main goal of our being here is to point out that there is a serious problem [inaudible] and we would like to see someone, whoever is responsible, to take care of this issue. Someone just also pointed out to me that there is a tree hanging off the Goldberg property onto a Mr. Whitehead's land, and I have a picture of that also, and no one has done anything about that. And this is from one property to another, and something should also be done to correct that. Thank you very much for your attention. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Give us your name and address, please, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: Phillip Goldberg, Goldberg Brothers, 241 Dan Bowles Road, Augusta. It seems that Ms. Striggles has spoken to everybody in the county except to me. Our policy has always been one of addressing any legitimate concerns any of the citizens, including her husband, who I had a good rapport with several years ago and somehow that's gotten lost. We are zoned heavy industrial, we are a heavy industrial business. She quoted -- or cited Dixeland as operating a clean business. Our business has grown over the last years in estimation of eight to ten times bigger than Dixieland. The railroad cars that she cites are railroad cars we use in our daily business. I'm sorry, but that's the way we have to transport our product. No, I don't apologize, that is the way we have to transport our --or some of our product. The tractor trailers are the same thing. The railroad that she claims is obstructed is only obstructed if you zoom through and not look around. If you stop at the stop sign on the railroad side and on the other -- on our side and the other side, you can see trains coming. They blow the whistles all the time. The people walking in the street, I can't help. We have drainage ditches which are county maintained on both sides of our road, and if that's the safest place for them to walk, I'm not responsible for that. The county maintains that. We do everything we can to be responsible when we are approached in the right manner. Going to every city agency or county agency or municipal agency rather than coming and speaking to me about some particular things -- and there being scrap all over the road, I can't see. We have scrap on some sides of the road, yes, but not in the road and not blocking any coming or goings, because we have traffic -- our customers -- in the neighborhood of two hundred and fifty to three hundred automobiles and trucks a day come into our facility, and we don't have any of our customers down here complaining about it. Only the people who want unlimited access all the time are not willing to wait for commercial traffic to use the road, and we certainly have a right to use the road. If the concerned citizens of Hyde Park wish to try and address some of these problems better than we're doing now, if they will approach me directly, come to my office, sit down, we will discuss and find a mutual resolution to all of it. The government doesn't need to get involved in private business. And I'm certainly not unapproachable. I'm here, I'm saying that my door is always open. Nobody's bothered to knock on it and open it. The last time somebody knocked on it was Ms. Striggles' husband several years ago, and I haven't heard a word from them since. Now, I'm happy to open my door anytime to discuss any legitimate concern and problem. If people drive their cars over the railroad track and mess up their CV joints and other things, I'm not going to be responsible for that. I have flat tires on that same road. I can't be responsible -- that's one of the most heaviest traveled roads in the city of Augusta. I can't be responsible for everything on the road just because I use it along with everybody else. Now, my door remains open. If you wish to address this -- if you wish to come beat me over the head and do it your way, I guess this is the way to do it. If you wish to address it, my door is always open, I'm always available day or night, and we'll discuss it as I have done in the past with anybody who comes up with a legitimate problem. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to refer item two -- or recommendation number two and three to Engineering Services Committee, and four to Engineering Services Committee, and we'll take whatever action [inaudible]. Item number one, I would in this motion refer it to Public Safety because that's a issue as far as vehicles go, as far as the Sheriff's Department go, and enforcement, I believe that Public Safety is the appropriate place there. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Todd, may I suggest that item number one, because Mr. Murphy is the most familiar with crossings because we're working on something else, would also go to Engineering Services? Because -- MR. TODD: Yes. I don't have a problem with all of it going to Engineering Services, but certainly I think that there is enforcement provisions that's there that comes under Public Safety and you may need to at least send some of it to Public Safety also. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes? MS. CURRY: May I speak, please? Just a minute, please. My name -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Just one moment, ma'am. Ma'am, just one moment, we're going to get to you. Come on over to the microphone. Mr. Beard had the floor. Go ahead, Mr. Beard. MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd, what I'm going to suggest is that a committee be established, including Public Safety and whatever else is involved, and there should be a committee to look into this because, you know, these people, they do have a problem out there in Hyde Park. And, you know, from what the young lady said, they have attempted to work on this. And I think that if we got a committee to look into this and give a time line on this -- because it appears that they have been to several committees and been to several places and they have not gotten a result. So I would suggest hopefully that we could establish a committee that would look into that, including the Administrator, the Attorney, and other people from the Public Service sector there or the Engineering or wherever it's coming from, to look into that and give a time line on reporting this back to us. Because as I -- I've gone through those, and went through there last week. They do need the relief. And I don't think we need to wait around a couple more months or six more months to get this done, we need to act immediately on this. And I'm sorry, I think government need to get involved in this because nothing has been done to help these people. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I will assume that the motion died for lack of a second. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. MR. TODD: Okay, we have a second. Mr. Mayor, then I'd like some discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Were you going to add into the motion everything from Mr. Beard? MR. TODD: Well, there's a possibility, Mr. Mayor, of an amendment after discussion. So at this point I'd like to discuss the motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is not -- the group from Hyde Park is no stranger to us. Goldberg Industries is no stranger to us. Both has been down here before, and usually it's the same issues, but occasionally there's some different issues. Goldberg is under a consent order per EPD as far as their operation, and they are trying to clean up their act. There is some major work that they are instructed to do or is doing out of mitigating themselves out of the consent order. I think that we've got to allow them to do that. As far as the issue go as far as dirt being in the road, we passed a county ordinance approximately sixty to ninety days ago that deals with any entity putting dirt in the road and who's responsible for getting that dirt up out of the road once that construction is completed, et cetera. And they should have permits from Public Works. We also have money in the one-penny tax to do several of the issues that they brought up as far as the paving go. I know we've got storm drainage in there, which has been a issue in the past. And I think it's a matter of priority as far as this board go on whether we want to have sidewalks in that project. If the money is there to put the sidewalks in the project, then I'm sure it will be there. I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel. This is not a problem that we started working on yesterday, and if the entities that's involved report back to us that there's nothing that they can do, then I think it's time to form a committee and find a way to do it, but I believe the wheel is in motion as we speak. Goldberg will come in compliance with the consent order from EPD. They've been working for over a year/year and a half to do that. I made it a point to drive through Hyde Park for approximately seven months on a daily basis because I wanted to experience what they were saying that they are experiencing and, yes, it's true that the roads is in horrible condition going down through by Goldberg. Obstruction is there most of the time. The railroads is not guarded, and I don't know that all railroads is required to be guarded, I believe, when trains go through at a certain speed. So Public Works and Engineering Services need to coordinate that with the railroads. That is not a county responsibility and we don't have enforcement authority as far as the railroads go. So, you know, I don't know what else we can do other than fast-track the projects that we already have let for engineering and the surveying, et cetera, and maybe do emergency bids on it. And usually my experience is when we fast-track projects you don't get what you'd get out of them if you took the normal process. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MS. CURRY: My name is Ruby Curry and I live out there in Hyde Park. I've been there will be forty years on the eighth day of September coming. When I first moved out there it wasn't as bad as it is now, but now it has gotten awful. Sometimes the school buses have to wait till the trucks pull in and pull out. We go through there, we have to wait until the trucks pull in and pull out. We go through, we get nails in our car tires, and it's just a mess. And I know there's something that can be done because there's too many vacant properties out here in Augusta, Georgia, where he could not move that junk and stuff out of Hyde Park. If it was in a white person's section he would not have it there. Because he's white himself, he would not have it there, and I just don't appreciate him putting that junk out there where we, the citizens of Augusta and the neighbors of Hyde Park, have to live. It's just a disgrace and there's something could be done about it, and I'd appreciate it if you all would get together and do something for us out there, please. I'm begging you, please. Because we have to go through there, we have to go to work, we have to come from work, and it's just awful. It's just pure awful. Will y'all please do something for it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Discussion? MR. UTLEY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: One more person, then we're going on with the discussion. MR. UTLEY: To the Commission, Charles Utley, 3417 Sutton Place. Mr. Goldberg, I'm -- the only reason Mr. Goldberg is doing anything now is because of EPD. If it wasn't for EPD he wouldn't be doing what he's doing now. And this is -- you can't even see the railroad track, is what they're saying. You go down to the railroad track, you see eighteen-wheelers parked along the side. Junk is piled up between Babcock and Goldberg. It just doesn't make any sense, is what they're saying. As the association president, we were letting the citizens come before you today because they're the ones that travel day in and day out of there, and it is ridiculous. Now, Mr. Goldberg mentioned that he had talked with Mr. Striggles. I think he maybe have them mixed -- the wrong one, because he has not talked with Mr. Striggles, to Tom Striggles. And what we need to do -- if he want to talk with us, he can meet us at the community center. We don't need to go to his office. He can come to the center and he can sit down with us and talk to us. But I think it's over the limit of talking, it's time for some action, and this board need to take some action. And go out there and look at it. It's ridiculous for someone to have to come in and you have to see constant junk from the time you leave Thermal Ceramics until you turn the corner with a security guard, and we just want to see someone take some action now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Utley. MS. ROBERTS: Mr. Mayor, I know you said this is the last one, but I need to say just one thing, please, sir. My name is Nora Roberts and I live at [inaudible]. And where the policemens are parked is on my property. If I want to come through there, which is a road, I can't even get through because they are sitting there watching Goldberg's property. And those -- we was out there a few months ago with News Channel 26 and Mr. Handy, and we're just trying to get something done. And when he said that he would talk with anybody, I tried numerous of times to talk with him and never could contact him. They always say he was sick or something was wrong. So that's not true. Thank you. MR. OLIVER: At my request, there's a representative of the Richmond County Sheriff's Department here if there are specific questions for him. If not, he can take those comments back to the Sheriff and be part of the solution team to addressing this problem. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: My message to the officer that's representing the Sheriff, for the Sheriff to simply enforce the laws as far as those laws go. And I believe there is No Parking signs in the areas, et cetera. And I think certainly -- and I've said this before, I think there's a conflict in the sense that there is officers, you know, hired by Mr. Goldberg, which he have the option to hire anyone that he wants, and I'm sure there's plenty of private security forces out there that he can hire, and the Sheriff's Department doing their job as far as enforcing the law. I see a conflict there and I'd like for the Sheriff to address that as far as this board go. Other than that, other than just simply enforcing the law, I don't have a problem. Now, if the -- and I understand that Mr. Goldberg is trying to do some things inside that's taking up some room when he's trying to put in his retaining facilities and other things to keep the storm water off the residents, and maybe they need to get together -- the residents need to get together with Mr. Goldberg and sit down and look at the scope of his job and when he's going to have it finished and have some relief for them as far as the traffic in the road go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? If not, all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission, the Planning Commission offered to you as a consent agenda all items under Planning with the exception of Item 4, 14 and 15. And for the benefit of any objectors, I will read portions of the agenda pertaining to each Planning item and the location -- the petitioner's name and location. [The Clerk reads portions of Items 1 through 18, excluding 4, 14 and 15.] [Item 1: Z-97-28 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carrick B. Inabnett, on behalf of Dennis L. Deas, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a tele-communication tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Gracewood Road, 885 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Clanton Road and Gracewood Road. Item 2: Z-97-29 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., on behalf of Marlene C. Johnson & Terri G. Carswell, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone to allow an auto body and fender repair business per Section 22-2(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 860 feet, more or less, west of a point where the centerline of Maddox Road extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road (3922 Wrightsboro Road) with the following condition: That the petitioner shall be in compliance with all regulations of the Zoning Ordinance before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Item 3: Z-97-37 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Dennis Caddell, on behalf of Church of Christ, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a funeral parlor as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (J) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located where the southeast right-of- way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects with the east right-of-way line of Richmond Hill Road (2502 Richmond Hill Road). Item 5: Z-97-40 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sally Scheuler requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Byrd Road, 1,800 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the southernmost intersection of Byrd Road and Peach Orchard Road (3747 Byrd Road). Item 6: Z-97-41 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ernest Thomas, on behalf of Church of Christ Meadowbrook Drive, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing church parking as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive, 205 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right- of-way line of Byron Place intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive (2517 Meadowbrook Drive) with the following condition: That if the parking lot is paved, then the petitioner shall provide a complete site plan and adhere to the guidelines of the Tree Ordinance. Item 7: Z-97-42 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ashby Krouse, on behalf of Augusta Country Club, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a public parking area as provided for in Section 8-2(d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the west right-of-way line of Milledge Road, 705 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Gardner Street and Milledge Road (627 Milledge Road) with the following condition: That the petitioner shall provide a complete site plan and adhere to the Tree Ordinance. Item 8: Z-97-43 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mattie Pearl Williams, on behalf of Mattie Pearl Williams, et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension, 1,425 feet, more or less, west of a point where the centerline of McKnight Industrial Road extended intersects the north right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension. Item 9: Z-97-44 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George N. Snelling, on behalf of S.T.R. Partners, requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 680 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the centerline of Interstate Parkway extended intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Wheeler Road (3770 Wheeler Road). Item 10: Z-97-45 - Request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Patrick Walton, on behalf of Boardman Petroleum, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Lumpkin Road (2635 Mike Padgett Highway). Item 11: Z-97-46 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert Kight, on behalf of Geraldine Kight, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Veterans Road and Sibley Road (2201 and 2205 Sibley Road). Item 12: Z-97-47 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from R.B. Ward, Jr., on behalf of Winabee H. Ward, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located 500 feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road and also being 174 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Hamilton Drive and Lumpkin Road (2514 Lumpkin Road) with the following condition: That a site plan to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to convert an existing structure to a professional use. Item 13: Z-97-49 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Trent R. Carr requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3B (Multiple- family Residence) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Grand Boulevard intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Sixth Avenue (2014 Grand Boulevard) with the following conditions: The property be limited to the boarding of college students under adult supervision; and, in the event that this use shall cease, the zoning shall revert to R-1A (One- family Residence). Item 16: S-227-XI-E - PEPPERIDGE SUBDIVISION - SECTION XI-E - FINAL PLAT - A petition from W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl Homes, Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval of Pepperidge Subdivision, Section XI-E. This section is an addition to Pepperidge Subdivision, Section IE-E. This section is an addition to Pepperidge Subdivision off the west right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road and contains 10 lots. Item 17: S-511-III-A - ASBURY HILL SUBDIVISION - SECTION III - FINAL PLAT - A petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Crowell & Company, requesting Final Plat Approval of Asbury Hill Subdivision, Section III. This section is an extension of Asbury Hill Subdivision located off the south right-of-way line of Belair Road and contains 53 lots. Item 18: S- 513-III - WALTON ACRES SUBDIVISION - PHASE III - FINAL PLAT - A petition from W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting Final Plat Approval of Walton Acres, Phase III. This phase is an extension of Walton Acres Subdivision off the northeast right-of-way line of Willis Foreman Road and contains 111 lots.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull 16. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. That's with the exception of 16, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we've got 4, 14, 15, and 16 to be voted on separately. CLERK: Any objectors? [NONE NOTED] MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of [inaudible], let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 4, please? CLERK: Item 4 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Jacqueline Johnson, on behalf of Sandra and Willie Fields, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Ridge Drive and Thomas Lane. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. This is a request for a staff-operated personal care home to house six elderly people. It's an eleven hundred square foot house, three bedrooms, one and a half bath. We had numerous objectors petitioning it, opposed to it. It was denied unanimously. MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, at the last meeting I was made aware of some concerns that the neighbors had and I really, really, really felt that if they wanted to take their neighborhood back, that they really needed to know this neighbor. In response to some of their concerns, a personal care home is regulated by the State of Georgia and is inspected by Richmond County Health Department. Some of their concerns were that, in response to number one, they said that it would increase traffic. The type of clients that would be in this home, if it's six clients that really don't have anywhere to go and don't have any family, I can't see where there would be much traffic. This house also has two carports, which would allow at one time three cars at one time, so I don't see that issue. Secondly, the safety of the clients is my first priority, being a nurse and being in the nursing home business, and I've also worked in home health and I've also done rehab work, so I know that the safety of the residents is my first concern. This house has a pool, and it was brought to my attention-- I have only lived there two months--that there were transient neighbors there. If that were the case, I feel that -- just like Ms. Striggles came and petitioned one, if that were the case before I moved in, that the neighbors would have brought it to her attention that this property needed to be brought up to code. Also, Richmond County Health Department, I talked to Mr. Morris. His concern -- his only concern about the pool was that if the patients had access to the back door, then they could get out, but he only said that it needed a lock on the pool, and the pool is being covered. As we speak, we are going to get the pool covered. I do not have any relationship with the people that own the house, nor am I really related with it. In response to the concern for the safety of their children, as I said before, I would screen these patients and the main thing would be is if they could get along with each other as well as get outside. These people -- if you seen the newspaper yesterday, the area on aging had a clipping about this type of service that is rendered, and these people would have to be able to respond to an emergency, they will have to be ambulatory. And there are stairs in that house, so like I said, Mr. Morris has already spoken with that. And I think the main reason that this thing is to this point is because someone mentioned about the property value. I talked with Mr. Wilson at Richmond County Tax Assessors who said that this would have no bearing on the property value of the neighbors in that neighborhood. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Clinton Road is a part of this subdivision. There's been a personal care home zoned in that subdivision since '89, so I really can't see any point to this. Also, whether -- as stated before, whether or not I'm allowed to provide this service in this neighborhood where I currently live or anybody else's neighborhood, as long as the State of Georgia and any other state that I apply to be a nurse in, I'll still be that care provider [inaudible] whether it involves being a nurse in a nursing home, personal care home, or any other aspect of nursing. We don't know how long we'll live and we don't know what road that will take us to. And as we'll see, we're having more older people having no where to go, and the difference between me doing a personal care home and me working in a nursing home is the fact that I want to take care of these people. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Let's see, do we have any objectors here? Do you have a spokesperson? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, could you have them to stand so we can see how many objectors we have? MAYOR SCONYERS: Would all objectors stand, please. [OBJECTORS STAND] Thank y'all. MS. THOMAS: Good afternoon, I'm Gayle Thomas, I'm one of the homeowners and residents of the Brookwood Subdivision. And as you are receiving some of our concerns -- and we have some petitioners, the homeowners that have signed a petition against this rezoning request, and I'm just going to go over and reiterate some of our points and our --some of the reasons why we are opposing the rezoning of that residence. I'll give you a chance to get your copies. We, the homeowners and residents of Brookwood Subdivision, strongly oppose the rezoning of the corner property located at 3017 Thomas Lane and Ridge Road, Augusta, Georgia, to a family personal care home. This property has been very transient, it's been unstable and poorly maintained. Even now it is not being kept in good repair. We desire for this home to remain zoned as residential property. Some of our concerns for opposing the rezoning are as follows: First, we feel it will cause a decline in our property value. We feel it will attract more personal care homes and other business and commercial type ventures in our neighborhood. It will result in safety concerns for our children and homeowners in the neighborhood. It will result in safety concerns for the residents of the homes -- of the home due to hazardous location of the property on a busy corner intersection with high traffic. That's one of the concerns for the residents if this home is approved. It will create a further hazard as there is insuffi-cient parking facilities, and this will impede safe passage of automobiles and pedestrians at this corner. It will force several homeowners to move from this stable neighborhood. It will destroy our presently stable and desirable home dwellings. And in conclusion, we have been encouraged over the years to start neighborhood watches and heard such terms as take back your neighborhoods. These terms suggest to me empowerment over what goes on in your neighborhoods and taking a proactive stand for the betterment of your areas and for your neighborhoods. We have no personal opposition to family care homes in general. We don't. However, we feel strongly that our neighborhood should not be the place for such business endeavors. And as I said, see the attached petitioners, and I do acknowledge the presence of some of the homeowners and residents from the Brookwood Subdivision. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: My name is Ben Allen and I'm also a resident of Brookwood Subdivision and have been a resident in that area all my life. We oppose the personal care home in the area. One of the things that we need to bring before the Commission at this time, you know, you talk about pride in neighborhoods, and I think if you're talking about having residence and businesses mixed together it just won't work. I think we had an example of that when the residents from Hyde Park came here, and they told you that whenever you have a business located right inside or adjacent -- closely adjacent to a residential area it just does not work. And that's what we're coming before this Commission telling you today, that it will just not work if you're talking about putting a business endeavor inside of a residential area, and there is ample law which says that that just should not take place, and we would urge this Commission to join with the Planning and Zoning Commission to vote to disapprove the personal care home. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I certainly would hope that my colleagues would go along with the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the people in this district. Certainly I probably deal more with elderly people than anybody on this Commission, but I think this particular place is not the place to have one. I will support this young lady in getting another place someplace. My motion is that we concur with the Planning Commission and deny it. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think the reason that we should deny this is that the residents have pointed out that this would have a negative impact on their property and possibly their safety, so we have a negative impact on neighbor-hood order. But they also ordered that this is going to -- that this location would have a negative impact on the residents that would be living there, the seniors, in the sense that there is a pool in the back, in the sense that there is -- you know, I hear there's upstairs, et cetera. And I don't think it's a suitable location and I want to certainly support Planning and Zoning on their decision. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MS. JONES: I just want to say one thing, Mr. Mayor. I want to qualify one statement. I'm with the Area Agency on Aging. We do not -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Come up to the microphone and give us your name and address, please, ma'am. MS. JONES: My name is Elizabeth Jones and I'm with the Area Agency on Aging. I just want to qualify one statement that I heard and maybe I misunderstood. We do not have any type of jurisdiction over personal care homes in this area. We are an advocacy and a funding source, but we do not have any juris-diction, and I want to make that plain to everybody here in the room. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. Further discussion, gentlemen? MS. ROURKE: I'm Amy Rourke and I'm also a homeowner in the Brookwood Subdivision, but I'm also a licensed social worker whose had numerous years of experience in working with the aging population. I've worked as an ombudsman for the Richmond County senior citizens. I have worked as a social worker at Georgia War Veterans Nursing Home. I have a master's degree in mental health and geriatrics. My concern as a resident, but more as an advocate for our seasoned citizens, not senior citizens, is oftentimes the very type person that Ms. -- the petitioner has described as needing this kind of care are the very ones who can be very easily exploited. I am not suggesting that that is your motivation, and as a healthcare provider I certainly would hope it is not. But the persons who do not have support systems, they don't have families to advocate for them, that is a concern of mine as someone who has worked and someone who has [inaudible] and somebody who has been an advocate for that age group. This is a very thorough -- busy thoroughfare that goes through our subdivision. More than that, I wasn't aware until very recently that we already have two personal care homes in that subdivision, and I think part of that is the kind of aes-thetics that we've tried to maintain in this neighborhood. And I don't have a problem with older persons, I love them. My dad was in such a facility. But, again, there is very little quality assurance when it comes to this kind of home. I know that as a fact because, again, I was an ombudsman. Persons who many times need to have nursing home placement find themselves in personal care homes. The level of care that we are talking about here is more suited for somebody that is orientated times three, ambula-tory, who is aware of their surroundings, and could have some objection were they mistreated in any way. Sometimes they don't have a voice, and I think as citizens of this great county we need to look into it and explore it a little further. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 14, please? CLERK: Item 14 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charles E. Luther requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located 310 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest right-of- way of Mike Padgett Highway (3839 Mike Padgett Highway) with the following conditions: 1) That no other building be constructed on this property for nonresidential use; and 2) that the rear yard buffer requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance be applied to the southern side of the subject tract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Yeah. The reason I asked you to pull this one out separately, of course, after the meeting --and we talked to this guy numerous times, and at the meeting we read the stipula-tions, and it wasn't until after the meeting that we realized that what he actually wants to do is to build another building on this property and stipulation number one is that he not be able to do that. It's got industrial on one side and residential on the other, and we were trying to protect the residential side of it and I think the fence will adequately do that. I would recommend, and I don't think my Commissioners would be uncomfortable with me recommending that you strike stipulation number one. The guy is not here, he was going to be out of town today, didn't realize until -- we didn't realize until Friday that this meeting was to give us an opportunity. So he's not here, but I would recommend you do that anyway. MAYOR SCONYERS: So you want us to strike an item off of that? CLERK: Stipulation number one? MR. PATTY: Yeah. There were no objectors to this, by the way. MR. KUHLKE: Move approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd recommend approval for that. CLERK: We have a motion, Mr. Bridges. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors present today? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you have any objectors, George? MR. PATTY: [Indicates negatively.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham -- I mean, Mr. Bridges, what was your comment, please? MR. BRIDGES: I said I'd recommend approval for that. CLERK: Oh, for the district. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to concur with the Planning Commission and striking item one from that, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 15, please? CLERK: Item 15 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George S. Patton, on behalf of Jesse H. Patton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located at the rear yard of 1636 Powell Road with the following conditions: 1) That there shall be no outside storage; 2) that there shall be no alterations to the driveway; 3) that there shall be no signs; 4) the petitioner shall erect a solid fence no less than six feet in height and around the interior area to be zoned, except for areas necessary for ingress and egress; and 5) that at such time as this use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone A (Agriculture). MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we let Mr. Patty make his speech, gentlemen, before we do everything; all right? Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, I would like to say one thing. I don't want to make a speech, but number four --my secretary got a little bit over- enthusiastic and added this stipulation. It was not in the minutes, and -- I think it's a good idea on her part, but -- I don't know if the gentleman is here or not, but he called and told us that it hadn't been offered, and when we checked the minutes he was right, so I'd ask that you strike stipulation number four. MAYOR SCONYERS: Which stipulation? MR. PATTY: Number four, the fence. And he would be required to fence some of that property where he's doing business. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Now can we have a motion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do it as amended with number four dropped. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I would certainly hope that we would -- we're rezoning this area and it's going to draw additional traffic, that we look at doing something about the intersection of Powell Road and Gordon Highway as far as street lights. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 16, please? CLERK: Pepperidge Subdivision, Final Plat Approval, W.R. Toole Engineering. Approved by the Planning Commission on May 13th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd asked that that be pulled. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I have a couple of questions. One is that the planning review has already looked at this, the new one that we brought on board? MR. PATTY: I don't think that they approved -- that they reviewed this one. I think was done prior to them coming on board. I would have to check that, but that would be my guess. MR. TODD: I'd like to know who done the planning review, who signed off on it. If it was done before, then it should be signed off on. And, Mr. Mayor, if we need to move on and come back to this one, that's okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's all right. Let's solve the problem while we're here. MR. PATTY: This was signed off by Scott Godefroy, if I can read his signature, 5/7/97. Was he on board then? I believe that's what this says. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. I so move that we approve it. I would assume that the storm drainage and all that was -- MR. PATTY: Okay. MR. TODD: So move we approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. 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. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner, 19? CLERK: The Finance portion of the agenda, Items 19 through 25 were approved by the committee on May 12th. [Item 19: Motion to approve waive penalties on the 1996 taxes for property described as 215 Fifteenth Street and Fifteenth Street in the total amount of $445.35. Item 20: Motion to approve waive penalty on the 1996 tax for property described as 1841 Savannah Road in the amount of $1,377.93. Item 21: Motion to deny request for waiver of tax penalties on 1996 property taxes for above listed companies in the total amount of $7,332.47. Item 22: Motion to approve the recommending funding for the following projects from Urban Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase II as presented from the Subcommittee: Rae's Creek (Lake Olmstead to Berckman's Road $200,000; Ninth Street Parking Deck Repairs and Renovation $50,000). Item 23: Motion to approve increasing the Administration Capital Budget in Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase III by $8,000 to purchase replacement computer equipment, plotter and associated software for the drafting unit of Public Works. Item 24: Motion to approve request for budget adjustment of $38,400, Department 4222, object code 252. Postage to be paid from contingency. Item 25: Motion to approve engagement of Pension Services, Inc. to perform an analysis of the Pension Plans of the Consolidated Government at no cost.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we've got a couple of denials, I guess. Basically my motion is that we approve the actions taken in the Finance Committee. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull Item 21. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any other items to be pulled, gentlemen? So we're going to vote on Items 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 21, please? CLERK: Item 21 is a motion to deny a request for waiver of tax penalties on 1996 property taxes for property as listed in the amount of $7,332.47. Approved by the Finance Committee on May 12th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee's recommendation still stands that we deny this. This was a situation where a private company failed on their own internal part to pay their taxes on time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, you asked that that be pulled, didn't you? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, my understanding that what it was, was it was a error by the gentleman who done the records keeping, and since then that gentleman has been removed from that position and I'd like to see us reconsider it. I'm not -- I'm going to make a motion, and it probably won't get a second, but I'm going to make a motion that we reconsider this. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, a substitute motion. Do I hear a second to Mr. Powell's motion? [NO RESPONSE] Hearing none, we're back to Mr. Brigham's motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for a roll call vote. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there's discussion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion. I'll second his motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there's discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me make sure, now. Do we have a motion and a second, or are we kidding? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, no, I wasn't kidding on that. I'm not talking about the roll call, I was talking about his motion I'll second. CLERK: Mr. Powell's motion to reconsider. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a substitute motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I can understand when we make mistakes where we would pay for those mistakes by not waiving -- I mean by waiving the penalty and sometimes the interest. But when a private entity have a CPA or bookkeeper or whomever and they make a mistake, certainly I would leave it up to them on whether they keep the person on board or run the person off, but they should pay for that mistake, not the taxpayers or not county government shouldn't be deprived of the funds that's legally due the treasury of Richmond County. We shouldn't be in that kind of business, we should be about being fair, and I think being fair is that when we make the mistake, that we give consideration. When they make the mistake, they pay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I kind of want to [inaudible] Mr. Todd's motion -- discussion. We've always been fair when it's been our selection of problems. We've always waived the penalties, we've never waived the interest, and I don't think due to the nature of this one that we need to change our positions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify. The substitute motion was to waive the penalty. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And now I'd like for roll call vote on the substitute. CLERK: Mr. Beard? Are you ready, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am. MR. BEARD: On the substitute motion? CLERK: Yes, this is on the substitute motion to waive the penalties for $7,332.47. MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. 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: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays -- oh, he's out. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MR. POWELL & MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we'll go back to the original motion. CLERK: Yes, sir, and that's to deny the request. MR. POWELL: With a roll call vote, please. CLERK: Mr. Beard? This is to deny. MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Under Administrative Services portion of the agenda, Items 26 and 27 were approved by the committee on May 12th. [Item 26: Motion to approve Subordination Agreement between Richmond County and MORCAP, Inc. to permit refinancing. Item 27: Motion to approve for retirement effective 6-1-97 for Dora G. Hamilton (77 Pension Plan).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items be approved. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, the consent agenda, Items 28 through 42. Please note that Item 37 was received as information. [Item 28: Motion to approve a committee to prepare a strategy and appropriate ordinances to assure that all subdivisions of land conform to certain GIS Standards. Item 29: Motion to approve Utility Relocation Agreement between WorldCom Network Services, Inc. and Augusta-Richmond County for the relocation of their facilities estimated to be $9,584 in conjunction with the Georgia Department of Transportation's Bobby Jones Expressway Project. Item 30: Motion to approve bid award to Mabus Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,397,434.46 and approve the contract subject to receipt of proper bonds and signatures. Item 31: Motion to approve Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolution for Walton Hills Subdivision, Phase I. Item 32: Motion to approve Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolution for Lancaster Subdivision. Item 33: Motion to approve Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolution for Lewis Acres Subdivision. Item 34: Motion to approve proposal to provide engineering services from Toole Engineers for Davis Road/Camilla Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements at a cost not to exceed $11,545. Item 35: Motion to approve proposal from James G. Swift and Associates to provide engineering services for the RCCI Trunk Sewer and Highway 25 Sewer at a cost of $41,510.00. Item 36: Motion to approve proposal to provide engineering services from Southern Partners, Inc. for Sharon Road/Sandy Road Water and Sewer Improvements at a cost of $16,400. Item 37: Motion to approve update, expanded and consolidated Construction Work Program for the Special 1-cent Sales Tax Projects. Item 38: Motion to approve Change Order #1 for General Roadway and Drainage Improvements, Phase I in the amount of $44,407.10 with Beam's Pavement Maintenance for various items of work. Item 39: Motion to approve petitions for the installation and maintenance of various street lights. Item 40: Motion to approve installation of two groundwater monitoring wells and related sampling and analysis for Conestoga- Rovers Associates for $6,500.00. Item 41: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One to realign the funds on S.R. 10/U.S. 278 Gordon Highway, Section I and increase estimated utility relocation costs by $35,000. Item 42: Motion to approve easement agreement with the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia to allow encroachment on City right-of-way on Harper Street in connection with Medical College construction of new ambulance entrance.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this committee's report as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: What item was received as information? CLERK: Item 37. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 48, please? CLERK: No, sir, we have Item 43. Item 43 is a motion to approve bid award to Palmetto Overhead Door in the amount of $61,325.00 for repairs to the Daniel Field hangar doors. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. I guess the extent of my discussion, Mr. Mayor, is that I'm trying to remember this issue in committee. And I believe I chaired the committee -- CLERK: No, sir, Items 43 through 47, these are addendum items. They were not taken up in committee. MR. TODD: They were not taken up in committee? CLERK: No, sir. MR. TODD: Then where is my addendum? CLERK: They're in your book. MR. TODD: In my regular agenda? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: And how did this item get into Engineering Services versus Public Services? CLERK: No, we're still under Engineering Services. MR. TODD: Yes, but I believe this is -- this should be over in Public Services. CLERK: You're right about that. MR. TODD: Okay. I'm going to go on and support it if the discussion go that way. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. OLIVER: I can explain why it didn't go through committee. I originally held it up when Mr. Boshears gave it to me. When the backup was written it did not appear to me like this went through a competitive bid process. I had some concerns about that and Mr. Boshears assured me that it did go through a competitive process; however, we only had one bidder and that was the reason it didn't go through committee. He indicates that the rollers have been on this door for quite a while. He is in the audience to answer any questions you may have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think Mr. Oliver answered most of my question. My concern is even then why did it not go back through the committee process. I think that's basically most of our questions on the next several items. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I'd just like to ask Mr. Oliver if this is in the Daniel Field budget or where are these funds coming from? MR. OLIVER: Yes, Finance has signed off on the agenda item saying it is a budgeted expenditure. MAYOR SCONYERS: Other discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess I would like to see the backup document or hear from Procurement as far as going through the proper process - - bid process before I would vote for it. I know that we don't have sole bid here because I know there is more over door companies than this one. There's Augusta-Aiken and I probably could name off two or three more, so I would have a problem probably supporting it. CLERK: Mr. Todd, I talked to Ms. Samms on Wednesday and she assured me that it did go through the proper procedure. There were notices on the newspaper advertisement. She also stated to me that there was another bidder, but he came in approximately 25 to 30 minutes late, thereby making that impossible for her to receive that bid. So there would have been more than one, but the fact that he was late, she could not accept his bid. MR. TODD: Were there any efforts then, in the sense that this was a one bidder, to go back out for bid or is this a emergency that we get this door in? CLERK: Mr. Boshears is here. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from the Director of Daniel Field. MR. OLIVER: Yes, Mr. Boshears and I had that discussion. MR. BOSHEARS: The problem with this, these doors -- this is an issue that's been going on for a number of years now. These doors date back to, in one hangar, World War II and the other hangar prior to World War II. The doors are cracked, welds are broken, there are flat spots. Some of the doors require a motor vehicle to move the doors now. It's an issue that needs to be addressed and that's what we're doing. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Boshears, in the sense that you only have one bid, did you attempt to negotiate with this entity on price downward? MR. BOSHEARS: I don't think that's something that I can do. MR. TODD: I guess I'd hear from the County Attorney, but I believe that certainly if we only have one bid, that you can -- and it's the low bid, that you can negotiate downward. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to address that, sir? MR. WALL: Well, you certainly have the option of either rejecting all of the bids and sending it back out, accepting it even though there was only one bid, or, you know, if you do have only one bid, then obviously you can negotiate with him. MR. BOSHEARS: What they had done when they were doing the budget process last fall is they got an estimate on repairing the doors. The estimate came in at around $64,000, and so that was the area that we were shooting for. His bid was about $3,000 less than the estimate they had gotten in the fall to make the repairs to the doors, so to me it seemed like a pretty fair -- pretty fair. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think Mr. Boshears answered my concern and I think I can support the bid. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I'll yield, Mr. Chairman, and call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 44 is a motion to approve -- MR. OLIVER: Let me make this easy. I'd like to -- we sent some things down and apparently there was some confusion. I'd like to pull 44 and 46 off of there since it didn't go through committee and just route that to committee because I think that's a better way to do it. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to delete Items 44 and 46. Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, do I have to agree to pull that off now? Do we need unanimous consent? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, you sure do. MR. HANDY: Well, I don't agree. MR. OLIVER: I have no problem with them going forward. Let me tell you the only reason I did that, because it was not my intent to go around the committee process and that's the only reason I did it. I'm in agreement with the two items, so whatever the pleasure of the Commission is --the Mayor and Commission is fine. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think certainly when we're dealing with bids and they are more than the Administrator can authorize per county ordinance, then I think that it need to go through every check and balance we have down here. Certainly when I hear about it the first time when I sit down at the table or on Thursday afternoon when I get my book, I don't have enough information to make a intelligent decision on it. And I take the bid process serious. If it's something that the Administrator is authorized to go on and do in that dollar amount, I don't have a problem with him going on and doing it and I shouldn't see it on the agenda. If I see it on the agenda, then I want to know about the issue and I want to know that there is not any concerns as far as the issue go. Now, I would call for the question on pulling it off, and if it don't, then we'll have the debate and vote on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to delete, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. HANDY & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a unanimous vote, gentlemen, so let's take Item 44. CLERK: Item 44 is a motion to approve the bid award for the annual bid for traffic sign fabrication, installation and street painting as recommended. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I'd just like to ask the Administrator, are you approving Number 44? MR. OLIVER: I'm in agreement with 44. MR. BEARD: You're in agreement? I move that we approve Item 44. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would assume that we were -- we went through the bid process, I see, so I'll vote in the negative on the issue. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please? CLERK: Item 45 is a motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement, and road resolutions for Walton Meadows, Phase III Subdivision. MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a motion, gentlemen. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question would be who signed off on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Have we got somebody from Engineering here? MR. GOINS: Everything is in order. MAYOR SCONYERS: Everything is in order? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. Everybody [inaudible] review process. MR. TODD: Thank you. No further discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 46 is a motion to approve Change Order #3 for Turpin Hill Roadway & Drainage Improvements, Phase II in the amount of $15,556.04 to Mabus Construction Company to correct a flooding problem at a residence near the intersection of Grand Boulevard and 13th Avenue. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would assume that the money is in the budget for that project -- in the Turpin Hill project? MR. GOINS: It's in the contingency. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I heard you say the money was in contingency. Is the money in contingency for this project or is the money in contingency -- MR. GOINS: For this project. MR. POWELL: Okay. That's all. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Good question, Mr. Powell. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 47, please? CLERK: 47 is a motion to approve Change Order #1 for the Skinner Mill Road/Agerton Lane in the amount of $232,000 with Mabus Brothers for this revised work. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second to Mr. Handy's motion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion, but I have some discussion and questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what percentage of the original contract is the change order. MR. GOINS: Mr. Murphy is going to address that. MR. MURPHY: Tell you the truth, I have no idea what percentage this is of the total project cost, but it has to be a small percentage of the total project cost. MR. OLIVER: The original contract was one million three, so -- MR. MURPHY: Our cap was one million three. MR. OLIVER: Yeah. This is about fifteen percent or so. MR. MURPHY: Keep in mind that what we're talking about here is the cost -- the bottom line cost will be borne by the developer and Augusta-Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: It's a fifty-fifty cut up to the cap; right? MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, whose oversight was this change order of this amount that we got to do over a $200,000 change order? MR. MURPHY: There are two components to this change order. Number one is a line shift of ninety-five feet where the project intersects Wheeler Road across from Marks Church Road. The Georgia DOT has had some concerns about the lack of distance from the off-ramp off of Bobby Jones onto Wheeler Road and then people desiring to turn into the project to visit the new businesses there. The shift of ninety-five feet, which would be this way, would also solve another problem that we had with the Bobby Jones limited access. And that particular component, moving the line over ninety-five feet, which affects Marks Church Road and the alignment right there at the intersection, is a total of $155,000 with the contract. The second component has to do with the incentive that we would like to use to spur on the contractor to complete the project by August the 15th. August is the magic month for these particular businesses out there to be in business, and in order for them to do that they've got to have a roadway system which is operable. That amount of money would be $1,000 a day which would be applied off of the original completion date of October the 31st for the contract. Keep in mind, all we did was take the number of days from August the 15th to October the 31st and applied $1,000 a day for that, and it came up to $17,000. The contractor has to earn this. It does not kick in until August the 15th. MR. TODD: And are the developers paying fifty percent of that also? MR. MURPHY: Yes, he is. MR. TODD: Thank you. What was -- Mr. Murphy, what was the cap on this project as far as the dollar amount? MR. MURPHY: The total cap was about 1.4 -- 1.385 million. MR. TODD: And are we going to come under that? MR. MURPHY: Yes, presently we are. MR. TODD: Thank you. No further discussion, Mr. Mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question, Mr. Murphy. Is this the part that lines up Marks Church Road with Agerton or does it -- MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is. We also -- if this change order is approved, we're going to realign also Marks Church Road as it comes into Wheeler. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Were you finished, Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: I was going to say one other thing. The businesses, once they get going, they only have to generate $100,000 in sales to get $1,000, which will be split between one percent and the Board of Education, so it won't take long to get the incentive back. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: Under the Public Services portion of the agenda, Items 48 through 59 were approved by the Public Services Committee on May 12th. For the benefit of objectors I'll name the petitioner and the location for the licenses. [The Clerk reads portions of Items 48 through 55.] [Item 48: Motion to approve transfer application request by Mark Peterson for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Publix Supermarket, Inc. #525 located at 2816 Washington Road. District 7, Super District 10. Item 49: Motion to approve new application request by Larry Knight for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Fox's Pizza Den located at 2803 Wrightsboro Road. District 5, Super District 9. Item 50: Motion to approve new application request by James M. Reid, Sr. for a consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with Reid's Beer & Wine Tavern located at 1575 Picquet Avenue. District 2, Super District 9. Item 51: Motion to approve new ownership application request by Marvin Barnwell for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with King Ludwig Restaurant located at 1630 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday Sales. District 2, Super District 9. Item 52: Motion to approve new application request by Chin U. Yu for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Buckaroo's located at 1511 North Leg Road. There will be a dance hall. District 3, Super District 10. Item 53: Motion to approve a new ownership application request by Joseph W. Ng for a consumption on premise beer license to be used in connection with Bamboo Garden Restaurant located at 817 Fifteenth Street. District 1, Super District 9. Item 54: Motion to approve new ownership application request by Joseph Currington for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with DA Spot Restaurant & Grille located at 1719 Laney Walker Boulevard. There will be Sunday Sales. District 2, Super District 9. Item 55: Motion to approve new application request by Benjamin F. Belcher for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Antique & Jazz Restaurant located at 1704 Central Avenue. There will be Sunday Sales. District 2, Super District 9. Item 56: Motion to approve a Capital expenditure of $25,278.60 for Change Order No. 3 for the construction of the Belle Terrace Swim Center. Item 57: Motion to approve issuing a hold harmless waiver to Augusta State University regarding usage of (1) one softball field at Wrightsboro Road Athletic Complex at Augusta State University by the Recreation and Parks Department for girls youth softball for the summer of 1997. Item 58: Motion to approve Sublease Agreement between Richmond County and The Greater Augusta Arts Council for use of property at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam on June 6, 7 & 8. Item 59: Motion to approve contract between Augusta-Richmond County and the Lamar Corporation for shelter ads. Lamar to pay County 8% of gross revenues, print maps and schedules.] CLERK: Is there any objectors present? MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify my vote as no on Items 51, 54, and 55 due to Sunday sales. MR. BRIDGES: Same here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell and Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Bonner, did you stop at 55? CLERK: Yes, sir -- well, 56. MR. KUHLKE: What about 56 through 59? CLERK: Okay, those were for the benefit of the objectors for the liquor applications, and then we'll do Items 56 through 59 in a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I certainly want to recognize my colleagues' rights as far as discretion and that they understand they have discretion when it come to alcohol sales on the Sunday sales. And this is basically what I've been telling my colleagues, all of them, as far as when sales of alcohol have negative impacts, whether it's for religious reasons or for other reasons or whatever reasons, that it falls into the area where we have that discretion, that we can exercise that. We approve some because some has argued that -- made the argument that alcohol sales is a right and not necessary a privilege, and I disagree with that, I think it's a privilege. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO - ITEMS 51, 54 & 55. MOTION CARRIES 7-2 - ITEMS 51, 54 & 55. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 56, please? CLERK: No, sir, Item 56 was -- that was included in the consent agenda. Item 60 is the next item. It's a motion to -- MR. KUHLKE: [inaudible] CLERK: Well, I said 48 through 59 as the consent, and then I read out the alcohol for the benefit of objectors. Is that okay? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah. I'm confused like Mr. Kuhlke was, I think. CLERK: No, I said 48 through 59 as a consent, and then I read out the alcohol beverage license for the benefit of objectors. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we go on and ratify 56, 57, 58 and 59 in the sense that there's some confusion on whether we had them in the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was 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. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 60, please? CLERK: Item 60 is a motion to approve the Ordinance appointing Chief Judge of State Court as the Chief Judge of Municipal Court and designating the Solicitor as the chief prosecuting attorney for Municipal Court; assign Municipal Court to the Superior Court; assign old Commission Chambers on the sixth floor to State Court; and assign two Municipal Court staff to Solicitor's office and absorb -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Who seconded the motion? MR. HANDY: Mr. Powell. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion -- MR. HANDY: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I've got one question. Jim, all is well? MR. WALL: All is well. MR. HANDY: No problem? MR. WALL: No problem. A letter will be written requesting an inventory of the cases down there, and I think that was the last concern that was expressed by any of the affected officials. MR. HANDY: Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Second reading on this Ordinance: To approve amending the Richmond County Code to authorize Administrator to change an alcohol license ownership. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I would assume that when we're changing the ownership of a license, that the Administrator will obtain the information from the Sheriff's Department and use that in making that decision -- recommendation from the Sheriff's Department. MR. OLIVER: That is correct. MR. TODD: Thank you. No further discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 62, please? CLERK: Second reading on this Ordinance: To approve an Ordinance to amend the City Council of Augusta 1949 General Retirement Fund. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: This is the second reading. What this does is allow the computation under this plan based upon the month of service rather than years of service to make it consistent with the county's '77 plan. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 63, please? CLERK: Second reading: A motion to approve amending the Richmond County Code Sections 7-4-12, 7-4-13, 7-4-14 and 15 to provide for editorial revisions. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. County Attorney, what does the -- MR. WALL: If I can steal a phrase from Mr. Patty, I guess my secretary got overly enthusiastic with the delete button and several paragraphs got omitted, and this simply puts them back in. MR. TODD: Yes, and what were those paragraphs? MR. WALL: A better part of the ordinance. All of Subparagraph C on 7-4- 12, all of Subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 were deleted -- [End of Tape 1] -- CLERK: Go ahead. MR. WALL: -- Paragraphs 1 through 4 were deleted. On 7-4-14, the same thing, Paragraphs 1 through 5 or Subparagraph A were deleted. And I don't know what happened, but they were deleted when the code was adopted in the final version. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No further discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion now, gentlemen? Is everybody satisfied? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 64, please? CLERK: Mr. Todd and Mr. Handy would like to offer the following as nominees for appointment. Mr. TODD: To the Human Relations Commission, Ms. Nadine Horne. Mr. HANDY: Animal Control, Lester Earl Thompson; Aviation-Bush Field, Mr. Frederick Benjamin; Aviation-Daniel Field, Belle Clarke; Historic Preservation, Annie Powell; Human Relations Commission, Reverend Larry Fryer; Trustee Board, Clara Hornsby; Personnel Board, Dr. Velma Curtis; Planning Commission, Thelma Mack; Riverfront Development, Bonnie Rueben; Tree Commission, Roy Simpkins; Housing and Neighborhood Development, George Cunningham. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that Ms. Nadine Horne don't live in District 4, I believe she lives in District 3, but certainly Ms. Horne has done a good job on the Human Relations board the approximately two years that she's been there. And I don't have a great deal of interest in District 4 to serve, and I believe that this would be the only Native American and female on the board unless there was another female appointed today. And where there's no requirement that there be females, that it's just, I guess, the criteria set up by law as a minority-majority community, I think this adds to that board. And we had a Native American issue several years ago during Lock and Ham Jam, and Ms. Horne was appointed to try to avoid those kind of issues. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion or comments, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 64-A is the communication from the Attorney regarding the Coliseum Authority appointments, along with the Administrator. MR. WALL: I don't know whether a corrected sheet has been distributed to you or not. Let me point out one thing insofar as Item 64 is concerned. The terms for the two legislative appointments expires in the Year 2000, March of 2000 rather than 2001. Also, on the second page, again, those appointments would expire in the Year 2000, with the exception of one position which will expire in March of '98. The other terms that expire in 1998 are odd number districts and, therefore, I'm recommending that the appointment for District 7 be the one that would expire in March of '98, so you would be filling an unexpired term in that one appointment. I've spoken to Mr. Jerry Brigham about that. The other people would remain on there. Mrs. Blackwood would remain as the appointment representing -- and she would be from District 3; Bonnie Rueben, District 1; Jordan Wright, Dis-trict 5. The legislative appointments, I put down the districts that they live in just for informational purposes. And the unrepresented districts will be 2, 4, 6, and 8 for the terms to expire March of 2000, and District 7 would expire in March of '98. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, are you saying there wouldn't be an appointment for District 4 until the year -- MR. WALL: It is a vacant position that would be appointed, and what I - - Mr. Oliver had circulated a memo recommending that even though the appointments for the Coliseum Authority are to be made by the body as a whole, that since there were eight districts -- or eight appointments, with the exception of the super districts, each one of the Commissioners representing a single district would make an appointment for that district or suggest a name for the full Commission to ratify. My understanding is that the two Commissioners representing the super districts have consented to that. I've not spoken directly with either Mr. Mays or Mr. Kuhlke, but I've been told that they were in agreement. So the idea is that the Commissioners from Districts 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 would suggest names and then the Commission as a whole would approve those. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. BEARD: Mr. Wall, am I to understand -- or am I correct that the Bill does certify that these individuals appointed should reside in that district or be appointed from that district? MR. WALL: I'm sorry, I may have to get you to clarify this. This is a non-Section 13 -- MR. BEARD: I'm talking about the appointments from as far as the Bill states. Does it state that they are supposed to reside in that district if we make these appointments? For example, if someone makes the appointment from whatever district, if the Commission makes that appointment, is it true the Bill calls that that person should reside in that district or what? MR. WALL: Well, the answer -- short answer to that question is no, because I think we're confusing two things. First of all, this is a board or authority that is not directly affected by the Consolidation Bill because it - -the Coliseum Authority is created by a separate act. That act called for four City Council appointees, four County Commission appointees. Obviously now with consolidation there are eight appointments to be made by the Consolidated Government. It does not call -- since this Bill -- the Coliseum Authority legislation stands on its own and it does not require that they live in a specific district. MR. BEARD: So you're saying authorities -- appointees can come from anywhere within the city? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. BEARD: But the others would have to live in that district if they are -- MR. WALL: If they live in a Section 13 -- excuse me, if they are representing a board or authority that is affected by Section 13 of the Consolidation Bill, the idea is that they would live in that district. But the Bill does not compel them to live in that district. Just as Mr. Todd has pointed out with regard to Nadine Horne, he has recognized that, you know, in that situation and has suggested that someone who does not live in that district be appointed to fill his position from District 4. So it doesn't require that, it says so that each district is represented. But those are Section 13 boards and authorities, the Coliseum Authority falls outside of that. MR. BEARD: Just wanted a clarification. MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, when we're getting into clarifications, Mr. Wall, what do the Bill say in the sense that we don't get in trouble with the minority-majority community. Would Ms. Nadine Horne qualify as a minority as a Native American? I know we've already took that action, but I think that it may be important to clear that up. And maybe you can bring that back to us at a later date, and if we need to make a correction, then we will. MR. WALL: Okay. I mean, the -- she was appointed to the Human Relations Commission, I believe; is that correct? MR. TODD: Yes, as a minority member. MR. WALL: And the Human Relations Commission is supposed to be brought -- made up of representatives from various segments of the community, and Native American is one of the categories to be represented. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't need to vote on that or anything, do we, Jim? MR. WALL: Not unless someone wants to bring forward a name. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we receive it as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would point out, one of the reasons that we were requested to put this on the agenda for today is the fact that even though the authority members serve until a successor is appointed, apparently they are having difficulty having a quorum at their meetings because some of those whose terms have expired are no longer attending, so there is some need on the part of this body to appoint some people so that they will have a quorum. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can I make a motion that we delay this till the end of the agenda so we can -- I think we want to go through some other items first. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. There's a motion by Mr. Brigham that we table it till the end of the meeting. Do I hear a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, nondebatable, isn't it? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's right. I'm just checking, y'all. All right, all in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 65: Appointment of Brenda Byrd Pelaez to the position of the Equal Opportunity Officer at a salary of $36,000. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'm going to vote in the negative on this and I just want -- for the record, I wanted it to show that I have -- this is not a personal vote or anything. It's been my argument all along that this position -- this department itself is unnecessary, unneeded, it's a growth in government, it creates no savings for the government; it's my argument it's not required by the Bill. But I just want the record to show that I have no personal animosity against this person. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I guess that I could argue and document that we have disparities, but I don't think there's a need to do that. I think that in the wisdom of the Legislative Delegation, when they passed the Consolidation Bill they put it in here. And there's a lot of things in the Consolidation Bill I don't like that I'm going to have to swallow, and basically I'm not saying this is one of them. I think as we deal with the Consolidation Bill and implement the laws or the law that enabled us to consolidate there's going to be those components where we don't necessary agree, but it is the law, and I'm going to support this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to also echo Mr. Bridges' thoughts and feelings on this because I feel the same way. I feel like that we've got a place that could be utilized in Human Relations to handle this and I feel like that we're upsizing the government again. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Further 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 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: 66, please? CLERK: A motion to approve the minutes of the Commission meeting on May 6th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 67, please? CLERK: A motion to approve the recommendation of the Space Allocation Committee to award the contract to Duckett & Associates for professional services associated with a Space Utilization Study at a cost not to exceed $93,000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we award it to the best proposal. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor and my colleagues, this comes to you from the Space Allocation Committee. The vote was two to one to bring it to you for approval. I was the one that opposed submitting this for approval, and the reason I did that is that we had three very qualified firms to submit proposals to us and the proposals ranged from $50,000 to $122,000. Subsequent to our meeting and our interviews the highest bid, which is Duckett & Associates, the one that is being considered for approval, made some suggestions to cut the price to roughly $90,000. It's interesting to me that we have this on this agenda and right following this we have something on the agenda that -- trying to get $50,000 back, and yet they're pushing to pay $72,000 more for a study that we don't need to pay for. I had Mr. Oliver go through all the proposals, and I want to pass these out to my colleagues, that shows the qualifications or what has been proposed by each firm, the number of employees in each firm, and the price submitted. I'm going to give you a second to get that. But if you'll notice, that the three firms bid on exactly the same thing. If you'll notice, that the lowest bid was $49,945. The firm that submitted that bid has three hundred and thirty-nine employees. They're an international firm. The other two firms have nineteen and eighteen employees. So I'd like to make a substitute motion that we reject the recommendation of the Space Allocation Committee and that we approve and award this contract to Heery International at a cost of $49,945. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Mr. Kuhlke's motion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, is my colleague telling me that Heery and associates is going to have three hundred and thirty-nine employees, you know, working on this Space Allocation Committee study in Augusta, Georgia? Do they not have any other work? You know, that would be the first issue when we're talking about the number of employees. But the number of employees don't concern me. I think that we can go back to another construction management company, and I won't name it, but it was involved in the jail project. It certainly gave the best proposal as far as up front on what it was going to cost to do a jail that we had approximately fifteen million dollars mentioned to spend on this project in the budget from a One- percent Sales Tax, Phase I. Because we went over budget we had to go out on a COPS, and I think we increased that amount of money and this project escalated with this construction management company from approximately fifteen to thirty to forty-five million dollars. When I got involved in the process in 1993 of bringing this project back within the scope of where it should be, what I cited and what I seen was the big problem was that we had a construction management company on board. They get paid a percentage of the project, so it's in their best interest to bring the project in sky is the limit. Certainly the architect-engineering company didn't help in this effort, and we had spent six million dollars on a project and didn't have the project out of the dirt as far as the support go, the core support go. Mr. Kuhlke was chairman of the citizens committee. I understand that Mr. Kuhlke come on board late, that it was a decision that a previous commission had committed to to go with this entity. And I venture to tell you today that this company is at forty-nine because they intend to do the scope of the project, then come back and do the work. There is no way that you can convince me that out of a dozen or so bids, that you would have one bid that would be this far out of proportion as far as a professional service go. This is not a bid, this is a proposal. It's a professional service proposal. And my position is that I've been there, I've done that with a construction management company, I don't want to go there again. Duckett don't do construction management, from my understanding. They are a architectural company that do interior architect and other architect and space allocation studies. We're going to pay them for what they come here to do, then they're going to exit Richmond County and they are not going to do the construction if there is construction needs. They're not going to satisfy those needs as far as Richmond County go, that's why I think they're the best bid -- proposal. The other reason I feel they are the best proposal is that they have local entities that participate in this process with them that understand the needs of Augusta-Richmond County. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I'll yield to Mr. Beard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say because I was on that committee and I don't want people to get these figures confused, at the time of that meeting when the committee met that figure was not one twenty-two. We had information there stating that that would be eighty-seven --or between eighty-seven and ninety-three, somewhere in that range for Duckett, and I don't want people to get confused that, you know, we were voting on a hundred and twenty-two on that. The other phase of that would be that we looked at this -- this was the second highest bid, not the highest bid. And, also, at that particular time during that meeting the Administrator was recommending CGA, which then would have been, if we look at the figures now, the highest bid, and he saw -- I asked the question and he saw nothing wrong with Duckett. And he had gone through all of these proposals, and since it was the second bid there I saw no reason not to go along with that after looking at the proposal. I do have some questions about the last company there with the low bid simply because the other two were more in line. And I thought with local assistance that they were offering in the second bid there we could go with them, and that was my rationale and I just want to put that on the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think that I'm correct in stating that the bid was $122,000. The reduction was offered to us subsequent to the public meetings, and to me that's totally unethical. Whether Heery or not is trying to buy our business and get business down the road is really no concern of mine. We are going for a specific study, we are making no guarantees. If they are trying to do this to impress us, and they certainly have the opportunity to come back and get any work following this or bid on any work, but there are no commitments made. I just think it would be ludicrous for us to spend any more money than the $49,945. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd just like to ask a question. Some said that at the committee meeting--I was not on the committee and I was not at the meeting-- that it was not a hundred and twenty-two but it was ninety-three. Which one is correct now? Somebody maybe is -- MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, the original price to us from Duckett and Associates was $122,000. Am I correct, Mr. Oliver? MR. H. BRIGHAM: When you got to the committee, that's what I'm talking about. MR. OLIVER: At the time of the committee it was one twenty-two. Subsequent to that committee meeting they sent us a letter indicating that based upon the following revisions it would be -- in their opinion it would be lowered to somewhere between eighty-seven and ninety-three. MR. KUHLKE: But this was done after our meeting, the public meeting. MR. H. BRIGHAM: The question is, Mr. Wall, can we award this bid based on -- I mean, can the Commission if they so desire? They may not [inaudible]. MR. WALL: This is a professional services contract that can be awarded based upon the -- your review of the qualifications, who would do the best job, and not necessarily the lowest price. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And it's my understanding that this came out of committee and was recommended by staff all the way up the line, all the procedures were followed; is that not correct? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, I'm not -- I don't think the staff necessarily made a recommendation. A motion was made in our committee to recommend Duckett and Associates. We had three members there, the vote was two to one to bring it to y'all as a recommendation. I voted against it and I've stated why. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Oliver, just so we can clear the air a little bit, do you have a recommendation? MR. OLIVER: I have a recommendation, but I don't think I help, I think I make it more complicated. I felt that technically the best proposal was CGA's proposal. I agree with Mr. Kuhlke, I think Heery was trying to put a price on the table. I think that they're a very capable firm. I think all three of these firms are very capable. I think Heery was trying to get their foot in the door to perhaps do other work on other things, but we told them at that presentation there were no guarantees. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So basically you didn't have a recommendation? MR. OLIVER: Well, I felt that CGA had the best proposal; however, I also recognize -- you know, I also -- I was not uncomfortable with Heery. I ranked them CGA, Heery, and Duckett; however, I felt all three firms were very capable. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, I'd like to say that I -- that was the exact ranking that I had, but because of the cost I could not go with CGA. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I point out that Mr. Oliver recommended that we take the CGA scope of work, et cetera, and regardless of which one we went with as far as the best proposal or lowest proposal, and it wouldn't make any difference whether we were going with Duckett or the other -- or CGA, that we would have their scope of work, et cetera. And that was in the motion that's before you today, that we adopt CGA's scope of work and specs, et cetera, and I would assume that Duckett, if they are awarded this bid, that they would have to agree to perform per that criteria. So we have a mixture. We have Duckett's price, and they're doing the work using CGA's -- Carter Glover and Associates' specs, I guess, or at least scope of work as far as their specs go and what they would do and how they would do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to put the Administrator on the spot here, but did I hear you correctly, Randy, in saying that all three firms, you feel like, are qualified to do this study? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, without a doubt all three firms are capable of doing this work. And while one may be slightly better, I'm not uncomfortable with any of the three of them. MR. POWELL: Okay. I'm just -- I'm having a problem with it. If all three firms are qualified to do this work, why are we even discussing it if we can get it $50,000 cheaper? And that's what my concern is. I just don't understand, if they're all qualified, what the argument is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. Was CGA ever given -- or Heery ever given the opportunity to submit a second proposal? MR. OLIVER: No, sir, they were not. It was not intended -- that was not a solicited proposal, that was an unsolicited piece of correspondence. MR. ZETTERBERG: But that is -- it just seems to me that we're talking about in this particular issue an equal opportunity. I certainly would love to be able to do business with the City of Augusta if I could make one bid and then come in and make another bid after I knew what everybody else's bid was. I mean, let's talk about fairness, let's talk about equal opportunity, let's talk about the position that we appointed in Block 65. Would the Equal Opportunity Officer think this is an equal opportunity? Look, I'm for fairness. I'm for level playing fields, absolutely, but this is not a level playing field. We have a local firm, a competent local firm who is minority owned, I believe--I don't know if that's been said at all, I might as well say it, it's minority owned--who makes a proposal that is close to $50,000 more than the lowest proposal of an equally competent international firm. Now, I think we ought to take a look at what equality really is. Equality means you have equal access to the government, equal access to put proposals in, and then be weighed on the merits of that proposal. We're told that they're all equal, all equal, but one is almost $50,000 cheaper than the other. Now, what's the issue here? Is it really fairness and equality? I doubt seriously that anybody in this room outside of this panel, given the opportunity and the facts, would make any proposal that was any different than what Mr. Kuhlke is proposing. If this is a racial issue, okay, if this is a racial issue, then let's put it right up on the table. But I don't think it is a racial issue. I -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, if the gentleman would wait one minute. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? Mr. Todd? Hey, wait a minute. He's got the floor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's appropriate to ask will the gentleman yield, and that's my question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just wait till he gets through. Go ahead, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I tell you what, I ran for public office and one of the things that I wanted to make sure of, that we did play with level playing fields. I made a commitment to the public, I made a commitment to the minority community that I would act in total fairness on anything I did, and I have supported that issue, but I will not support something that has a $50,000 differentiation between costs. I just can't do that. I will yield the floor to Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, will Ms. Duckett please stand up? I want for the record to show that -- I don't think she's a minority. MR. ZETTERBERG: She's a woman. MR. TODD: What's your nationality, Ms. Duckett? Are you black or Caucasian? What do you go as? MS. DUCKETT: I'm African-American. MR. TODD: African-American? MS. DUCKETT: Yes, I am. MR. TODD: Well, I didn't recognize that. But also I'd like to point out that she's not a local contractor, that the -- it's the local contractor components that she brings to the table, and all of those is majority community including the real estate component. I believe there was three; is that right, Ms. Duckett? MS. DUCKETT: That's correct. MR. TODD: And so the point that I want to make, that I don't look at contractors as far as color go. She could easily pass with me to be whatever she want, but certainly she didn't come across as a minority. I didn't recognize anything in the proposal that she was a minority contractor. I did recognize one minority gentleman that was with her that was with the firm, and probably because his skin texture was closer -- well, it's probably a little darker than mine and I recognized that. But the best proposal as far as I seen it was because they had local components with them, was one; and two, that they were giving a proposal on a scope of work and not necessarily looking at construction management. And certainly if we want to bring in the issue of giving money away, which is illegal, or to grant money, and certainly without having a vote on it, and mix that in and have apples and oranges as far as a legitimate proposal. You can accept addendums when you're dealing with bids as long as you accept and offer those addendums be accepted from everybody. And when you're dealing with proposals you certainly can accept amendment to those proposals, addendum to those proposals, per my understanding, and I stand to be corrected by the County Attorney. So there is nothing underhanded here. The bottom line here is what I'm supporting, is the best proposal, and the best proposal is the proposal that have three local components with it as far as the scope of services go, and I think that those three local components will be individuals that know what the needs of this government is. Carter Glover is a good company. Heery is a good company. I think both of them participated in the request for proposals in the reorganizing effort and restructuring the jail project. Certainly international companies have a lot to bring, and I believe both of those companies are international companies. I'm not sold on that the bigger you are, the better you are. I've learned that with the other company from Columbia, South Carolina, that come in here as far as construction management. I'm not in the construction business, I'm not in the real estate business, I think I am in the fairness business, and I think that it's fair to the citizens that voted on one-penny tax to expect some of the money to be spent here locally. MS. DUCKETT: May I make a point of clarification? Number one, at the pre-contract conference we were not told that this was a bid. We were told that this was going to be a negotiated contract, that it would be evaluated based on interview and technical merit, at which point in time that the fee would come into place and that it would be discussed before it would be awarded. Number two is that we were not aware of any of the other fees at the time that we submitted the letter. Very simply, Mr. Oliver said in our interview that we were the highest bidder and could I tell him why, and I very simply responded to him that we did not know we were bidding, we thought that we were negotiating, that's why there were cost reductions, and that whoever was successful would be given a negotiated contract, not a -- and that it wasn't based on bid, as I'm hearing today. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think just from a point of clarification, Mr. Todd continues to use the word construction management. This is not a construction management contract, this is a consulting contract on space allocation, period, and I think that needs to be clarified. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, I request a clarification from my colleague. I believe he stated that this was paying $50,000 more for a study that we don't need, and I would like a clarification on that comment because I think it was probably said out of context, but I'd like to know whether he really feels we don't need this study. MR. HANDY: And, Mr. Mayor, after we finish that I'd like to call for the question. MR. KUHLKE: Are you asking me? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm asking my colleague. MR. KUHLKE: Me? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Bill Kuhlke, Commissioner from the Tenth District. MR. KUHLKE: Well, if I said that I didn't mean to. We do need the study, but we don't need to spend $50,000 more. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: About an hour ago we elected a person to be the EEOC Officer, and my colleagues talk about fairness, but when it comes to certain groups there's no such thing as fairness. They always find an out for it. We had a study tried to get done some time ago so that we could across-the-board do some business with persons in minority groups. They don't want to do that. I guarantee you, every one of them right here now will vote against this because now they found out who she is. Before they didn't know. And to me -- I didn't know either, so we didn't care. Maybe this will be the first test for our EEOC Officer, for some of these to test their fairness that they come to us with so. And when it comes through us -- and Mr. Todd talked about the $50,000. I thought you were talking about that a few minutes ago, but we're not talking about that. But to say here and to see it on the agenda for four or five days and to say to a person that's coming in thinking that they will get some consideration that the persons -- my colleagues have no intention, none whatsoever, in recommending something that's going to be done by a minority group. Now, you just watch it now. You watch it. There has not been a time on this board with this particular group of gentlemen. They don't find that in their hearts. Oh, they talk a good game. Oh, you know, fairness. That's what I ran on, fairness. But when it comes down to putting it into practice, it's far from it. Far from anything you want to see. And I hope the records will show this, and our officer just coming aboard that y'all just voted on, maybe this will be her first test. She's a lawyer, maybe she can test some of this, Mister, and see where all this fairness that my colleagues have. Fairness. Fairness. No fairness. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess Mr. Brigham is addressing me because I brought up the fairness issue. Frankly, I'm very, very disappointed in that because I think the record will show that we've been supportive of a number of issues that the minority community has asked us to be supportive of, to include the project -- health project down on Lucy Laney Boulevard. They heavily lobbied us, we agreed to have that put down there. We agreed on an EEOC position when certain members did not think that it was necessary. There have been -- we unanimously supported, I believe, at least eight to two, the appointment of a minority to be head of the equal opportunity thing. I take it as a personal affront if Mr. Brigham thinks that I can't be fair. I've got a long record of being fair with minorities, not only as a Commissioner but also as a professional solider, and I've got more experience in being fair with people. I can't bring back, Mr. Brigham, the fact that you don't think white people can be fair, but you're looking at one that can be fair, and you owe me an apology. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might remind y'all, gentlemen, it's not a minority- majority issue, it's a matter of money, and I think we've all forgotten about money. You've gotten away from the fact that, you know, it's $43,055 that we have difference here, and I think you need to focus on the money and nothing else. Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to award the contract to Heely -- is that what it says? CLERK: Heery. MAYOR SCONYERS: Heery, excuse me. Heery, Incorporated, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM & TODD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Todd to give it to Duckett and Associates. All in favor of that, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a no vote. Move on to the next item. CLERK: Item 68 is a motion to approve the ratification of the "Letter" requesting the District Attorney to investigate the $50,000 payment which was made by Augusta-Richmond County to River Race Augusta in 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make one statement. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, go ahead. MR. HANDY: Concerning the $50,000 that the letter that was asked by Mr. Todd, I think, in order to get it on the floor for the District Attorney to investigate, I don't think -- I said in the meeting before and I'll say it again now and publicly to let everybody know that I don't believe in giving away money, I don't believe in misusing the taxpayer money, but I do believe that we need to police ourselves. I do believe that we should have done this in a different way to try to do the best that we can before we start bringing in the District Attorney. We have certain people that like to try to put people in jail or tries to find somebody that's doing things wrong regardless, and I don't think it's right. I think that we are all grown men here, we are trustees of the taxpayers' money, and we should be able to police ourselves; and then if we find that someone have done something wrong or unethical, then we can call in the police. But all these things should be done first before we try to find out if somebody has done something wrong and the only thing to do is to lock somebody up, because what we are doing here is casting a shadow over all eleven of us. Although everybody says that the Mayor approved this, but the whole entire Commission approved this because we all is as one, and when one of us get out of line, all of us looks bad. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like just to make a comment on that. I wrote the letter -- I signed the letter originally on having the District Attorney investigate the issue frankly because I didn't know what else to do. The information was coming to us very, very slowly. We didn't have the slightest idea what had happened. As information evolved, it became clear that the $50,000 was given inappropriately under the circumstances, at least that I was led to believe. That a private citizen or private citizens' group came before the Commission -- or came before the Mayor and asked for $50,000 and the Mayor -- my understanding is that the Mayor, with the approval -- not written approval but at least consent or at least acknowledgement by a few Commissioners said that they believed -- now, whether they believed it was okay for the Mayor to go to the Comptroller and ask for that money directly without a vote, I don't know. But the very fact is the Mayor was asked for money, he went to the Comptroller, there were several Commissioners supposedly that knew about it, and frankly I think we've got a problem here that we can't stand up admit that we did --and if we were wrong in what we did, we ought to just say it. There's a possibility we may have signed off on this thing, although I doubt seriously that I would have signed off and given money to people who had spent the money for a party and $20,000 and $5,000 worth of alcohol. But the very fact is I'm still not too sure what the District Attorney can find now. I think most of the facts are on the table. Certainly, Mr. Mayor, we should just stand up and say "Hey look, I did it and I'm not going to do that anymore." And I hope -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me count the six. MR. ZETTERBERG: And I hope that the Comptroller would be sanctioned and told that if he ever did that again he would lose our trust and, if possible, he would be relieved from his position. And I don't know what else we can do to get the money back, but it's on the table, that's what it is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's not my intent to put anyone in jail, even though I guess by being hard-nosed that some of my colleagues may come to that conclusion. It's my intent to get to the bottom of it, to get to the truth, and certainly I note that when the Grand Jury look at something they put folks under oath and we most of the time get to the truth. I think that the taxpayers of Richmond County want to get to the truth, and if this money was misappropriated, that the taxpayers of Richmond County would want the money back into the coffers of the treasury of Richmond County. That is the only intent here. Certainly as far as six go, I think way before December 1996 that this Commission was using the methodology of letters, and to an extent we were governing by letter. And I think certainly that if I was going to authorize $50,000, unless it was a dire emergency or a matter of life and death, I certainly wouldn't have authorized it before I had that six that I had on a letter, those signatures, ratified before the board. I certainly feel that that's the process. We had a process before December 1996. The process is and was that, one, in order to give money out to -- the Comptroller could give money out. And speaking of losing trust, that trust has been breached as far as the Comptroller go. I've lost that trust. But the bottom line is that, one, the entity would have to come in and show that they were incorporated, that they was a nonprofit organization; two, that they would have to bring in a CPA's report or audit or be willing to have the Comptroller to look at their books or the Internal Auditor to look at their books. Those are the rules that we play by when we're dealing with the Greater Augusta Arts Council or any other nonprofit out there that wanted money. It didn't make any difference who it was, that's the way it's supposed to work. They make a written request for what they wanted, you know, even if it was put in the budget. We had no written request here for monies that I can understand. It was never articulated to me, this Commissioner, that there was a request for money and this Commissioner never approved for the Mayor to give out $50,000. My position is that it was misappropriated. It might have been even obtained through deception, and that's what I want the District Attorney's Office to look at. And the District Attorney have subpoena power, the District Attorney's Office can put folks under oath, the District Attorney's Office can put them before the County Grand Jury. I don't have that authority, they do, so that's where the check and balance is as far as this Commissioner is concerned when there's things go wrong in this branch of government. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support all of us policing ourselves. I think that in my experience here as a Commissioner, I don't know of any cases where --that we have been covert or anything like that. One thing that I'd like to bring to your attention, gentlemen, is sometimes we go out here and we cry wolf. Some of us cry wolf a lot more than others. Still, we've got a group there that puts this race on that are all volunteers, and I don't think the press has done a very good job of reporting that fact. These people are down there working for the good of the community. And we launched an effort for the Science Center, the Golf Hall of Fame, everything that we could do to attract tourism to Augusta-Richmond County. We have volunteers here that are willing to put on a race that has a significant economic impact on Augusta-Richmond County and brings in tourism. And we go out here before we get our facts together a lot of times and we say this group is guilty of this and this group is guilty of that, and the whole time we're slapping the hands of the people who are volunteering to try to make this place a little better place to live. And I'd like to see us somehow get our facts together before we go out here and try to pull these publicity stunts. And that's all it is, a publicity stunt to try to diminish something that people are working hard to try to build. If the money was misappropriated, if the money was spent illegally, then let's check it out. But we all know good and well -- we know the integrity of our Mayor and I pretty well know the integrity of this Commission, and I'm just appalled that we cannot police ourselves and sit down as gentlemen and research these facts before we got out here to the press and call everybody a liar, a cheat, and a thief. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, there was kind of a consensus at one point in time that we would let the Administrator have a look into this and bring back information concerning this and make a report on this. Am I correct in this? MR. OLIVER: That is correct, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Plowman and I have been working on that. It's scheduled to go to the Finance Committee, and we would like to invite all of you all at the next Finance Committee meeting, and representatives of River Race will be there. MR. BEARD: Well, I'm going to suggest that we -- I'm going to move -- is a motion in order, Mr. Parliamentarian? MR. WALL: Substitute motion. MR. BEARD: Substitute motion? I'm going to do a substitute motion that we wait until we hear from the Administrator and that committee that's working on that, and then we can move forward on this, whatever we want to at that time. MR. HANDY: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I would have no problem supporting it going back to committee before it went to the District Attorney. Frankly, going to the District Attorney is almost a court of last resort in this case, other than if the public decides to do something with all of us and censure all of us for it somehow. Maybe that's at the polls. But I don't think that we're casting any dispersion on the citizens who work very, very hard to support the community, although I think -- in hindsight, I think the citizens' group has learned a big lesson: Don't engage in any type of activity involving this kind of funds without any legal protection such as incorporation, and make sure that all the paperwork is -- you have all the paperwork. But, again, let me just say this was a case where the Mayor passed on instructions to the Comptroller to write a $50,000 check, and my understanding is that there were other Commissioners who knew about this and they never said let's go vote for it. I don't know of anything in our rules--and, Mr. Wall, maybe you can help me--anything in our rules that provide for us to be able to discipline one another for such an action. There isn't. There is no rule, so all we can do -- frankly, the District Attorney, if he found out there was some legal reasons -- and I doubt very seriously they'll find that. This body operates in good faith. Good faith that the rules will be obeyed, that everything will come through the Commission, that we'll each get a vote representing the twenty-five thousand or thirty thousand people that we represent, and that there won't be any side deals. Now, I'm not even -- I don't think this was even a side deal, I think it was just poorly spent. I doubt very seriously if the Mayor said "I don't want the other Commissioners knowing about that" because I don't think the Mayor is of that character at all. But the very fact is, why don't we just own up and say what we did, everybody admit to it and let's go on, and maybe propose a rule that provides for better discipline within our system and how we can operate ourselves. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is discussion on the substitute motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I don't have a problem with the direction that the County Attorney, the Administrator, and any other staff person that's talking to River Race Augusta in reference these funds and recouping these funds. I think certainly that at some point we should make a decision to pursue the funds that they paid off the personal debt with and pursue any funds that they used for paying for alcohol, and probably pursue all funds, but certainly those funds that the taxpayers -- it's illegal for the taxpayers' money to be used to pay for alcohol beverages, per the Attorney General's opinion. It's illegal to give --grant money out without it coming through this board, and the taxpayers of Richmond County receiving benefit for those monies that's granted out. And there is -- you know, certainly there's information that's come forward since the issue come up and the letter was circulated where the six signatures -- obtained the six signatures to take it to the D.A. And I can remember another entity where we didn't get any cooperation out of them whatsoever that was milking this county and the taxpayers for about two and a half million dollars and this board was -- previous board was unwilling to act. And when the D.A. got involved in it and when we learned there was certain things that they were doing that was probably highly illegal, they come to the table and we walked away in negotiations with approximately two million dollars less that we pay per year. So, yes, it hurt all of us when we have to deal with issues like this, but certainly I feel the pain. I think that we all feel the pain for a period, but sometimes it's good to deal with the pain and get it over with versus sweeping it under the rug or trying to cover it up or to just do nothing about it at all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Beard if maybe he would add to his motion that we direct the Internal Auditor to look at all of the agencies that we give funds to and at the appropriate time developed by Mr. Oliver, that a report come back to this Commission. We might find that we're just talking about the tip of the iceberg right here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I'd also like to add a -- if Mr. Beard will accept this amendment also: that we go back through and, when we audit, that we determine if any other checks have been written by this government during the tenure of this Commission without the approval of this Commission, any expenditures made that were not approved other than those that can be signed by people in due authority. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, also I'd like to bring it to the Administrator's attention that the volunteers and the volunteers of all of these agencies, they don't have a set guideline to go by. They didn't have a set guideline to go by, according to what I've gathered in my own investigation of this. Let's create them a set of guidelines to go by, a process that they come through; and let's get us a process that we go through and let's adopt that, and let's fix the problem and quit throwing stones. MR. OLIVER: I don't believe you were at the committee meeting, but we did discuss that, and I totally agree with you. And we are coming forward with a policy that will do that which will require a contract between the government and the entity which will set forth what they are supposed to do in return for the money and what the safeguards in that contract are. MR. POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I was just about to add to that, you know, to my colleagues, that we are in the process of doing that, and I think it will take care of that if we can just take care of the present item that we're dealing with. Because the Administrator is working on that, and we've been talking about this for the last three or four weeks and I think a policy will be developed out of that. So I think that is being -- what they are asking for basically is being taken care of. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since everybody is expressing their opinion, I need to express mine. I'm not as concerned about the $50,000, even though I am very concerned about how it was spent. There will be a full and public accounting of this money. What concerns me more is the fact that $50,000 was spent with the Commission approval. That is what I am more upset over because I don't know how many other $50,000 were spent without my approval. Where my concern is, is that our rules say that we have to have six votes to pass something to spend money. That's what I'm concerned about. That rule was broken. That's the rule -- I haven't heard six people come forward and say "I approved of this expenditure." I know as Chairman of the Finance Committee I did not know that the money was spent. I was not informed of that till it hit the press. I also know as Chairman of the Finance Committee that I did not vote or give my permission to anybody to say I would authorize this expenditure. That upsets me. I am painted with the same brush as being guilty as the person that approved this and approved it for me. That bothers me. And it bothers me bad that my colleagues, whoever they are that approved this, won't admit to the fact they approved this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion first. Do y'all need it reread? I don't know if Ms. Bonner's got time to read the whole thing. CLERK: Did you accept the amendments, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I really don't have a problem with the first one, but it is being taken care of. And if that is being satisfied, Mr. Kuhlke -- MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw it, Mr. Beard. CLERK: You, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I won't withdraw mine. If Mr. Beard doesn't want to accept it, then -- what I'm asking is that during the course of this investigation over this money, that it be expanded to look and ensure -- my question and Mr. Brigham -- Jerry Brigham's question, if any other monies were disbursed without authority -- proper authority. CLERK: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Beard's substitute motion was to delay the ratification of this letter until the report comes in from the Administrator at the next Finance Meeting, and that was seconded by Mr. Handy, without the amendments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Without the amendments. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just one question. Did Mr. Beard not accept my amendment? CLERK: No, sir, he didn't. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Thank you. My understanding, Mr. Beard doesn't want to investigate whether any other monies have been -- MR. BEARD: Don't interpret what I -- don't interpret what I'm talking about, Mr. Zetterberg. I have the right to accept your amendment or not accept it, and let's leave it at that. I didn't accept it, but don't interpret what I meant. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask one question. Since Mr. Oliver is going to help spearhead bringing back some regulations, what kind of a time table will we be working on? I think that's -- CLERK: He's going to be at the next Finance meeting on the 27th. That's the next Finance meeting, one o'clock on the 27th. MR. H. BRIGHAM: All right. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are we ready to vote now, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business? CLERK: Do we need to go back to the appointments of the Coliseum Authority? Well, we've got an addendum item. Okay. The addendum item is to approve the transfer of the funds for the Recreation for the Natatorium and the architectural services of Virgo and Gambill. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Mr. Powell -- I mean Mr. Todd, I'm sorry. MR. HANDY: And then I'd like to speak, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as I stated before, that we don't have the four million dollars, and I was certainly -- this is another area where the Comptroller has breached my trust. That in the schedule and the funding for the projects the provision that Lock and Dam is not scheduled until Year 2000, I was mistaken that it was Year '99. And I believe those Year 2000 projects, or most of them, is in Tier II, and I'm thinking this is a Tier II project, so that would be if the money is collected. But let's just assume --and I don't have the schedule in front of me. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the money is there in Year 2000. If the money is Year 2000, there is no way we can spend it, Mr. Mayor, in 1997. Or I'd like for someone to show me how we're going to do that. There is a way to go on and do this natatorium by putting it out on the racetrack property in South Richmond County. The properties is paid for. This don't accommodate everybody that the Director of Recreation would like to accommodate, and I'm not sure that we have a responsibility to accommodate them; that is, the possibility of the medical community using it and having it in a proximity of the medical community, Mr. Mayor. It don't accommodate Augusta State University in having it in proximity of Augusta State University. But I think that we should be more about accommodating the schools of Richmond County versus the Georgia State -- Augusta State University or Medical College of Georgia or the other medical community, and if we put it out on racetrack properties we would do that. The other plus for putting it on the racetrack properties is that we have approximately 6.2 million dollars, I believe, or somewhere in there approximately after doing acquisition of the properties to spend that we're going to spend between now and Year 2000. We can certainly add this project in there. We can have almost a one-stop facility, the swimming and the baseball and a lot of the other activities on this site. If you go to Columbus, Georgia, and look at Common South, that project, they are hosting the Southeastern Conference in baseball last week, I believe, and they got a nice facility there. Certainly the soccer fields will be on the west side, but it's still in the same county. That soccer could be done on that side and some of the components would be in different places. But it's ludicrous to think that we can spend money that we don't have, and I don't think we should lie to ourselves, and we should call the Comptroller on the carpet and the Comptroller's Office as far as the folks that's keeping up with one-penny money. And if this is the way that we do our accounting, then I can -- all I can say is shame on us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if my colleague would so aptly remember, this was a Phase -- Tier II project that was scheduled for Highland Park, I believe. I also believe that we as a Commission reallocated the money from the Lock and Dam park to bring this forward to -- and changed that to a Tier II project. I also believe at that time -- the Lock and Dam was from a Tier I to a Tier II, and this project come from Tier II to Tier I. I also believe at that time the funds was noted by the Finance Department that they were available currently for that project. The other thing is that all of us are not completely happy with the way things are going with this project. We also realize that we've got to do this project for this community. And I believe that that site is the best site, and I'm going to stand firm on that site until the FAA tells me I can't build on that site. Now, this motion moves it forward to the next point to find out if we can or can't do it. If the answer is no, then we'll go somewhere else. There's already a number of people looking for alternative sites. But if we're going to live up to what we told the taxpayers in one-percent money, we ought to leave it very close to where we told them it was going to be to start with, and that was in Highland Park, and this is the closest site to Highland Park that has even been proposed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. Mr. Beck, could you just tell me, the project is now about 4.3 million dollars; is that what it is? MR. BECK: We're proposing right at 4.2 --between 4.1 and 4.2. MR. ZETTERBERG: Does that cover contingencies? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: So that we're not going to -- if there are some change orders, and I imagine there will be -- MR. OLIVER: There's a ten percent contingency. MR. ZETTERBERG: And -- okay. MR. BECK: If I could just maybe recap very briefly about this. Back in November when we did come before you with the project, our construction estimates at that time, and they were estimates, were 3.2 million dollars. Subsequently, in the last six months we have done further design planning and review on the project and feel like that it actually is going to be approxi- mately five thousand more square feet to get the kind of facility we need, not only for the Georgia Games, which this project has gotten more attention because of, but just for our community in general to build the best facility we can. And with that increase in square footage is where we came up with approximately four hundred more thousand for construction approximately, and then putting in the architectural and engineering fees, which also is the second part of this motion, and with a ten percent contingency is where the monies come to the 4.1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beck, I understand that primarily the reason that you need this approval now, whether it goes on the Damascus Road site or somewhere else, is that from a timing standpoint, that we need to go ahead and award the contract for the architectural part of it so that we can meet the schedule to have this facility ready in January of 1999; is that right? MR. BECK: That's correct. That's correct. MR. KUHLKE: And that is crucial for us to go ahead and take an action on this? MR. BECK: Yes, sir, it is. Now, the Georgia Games does drive that particular part of it because we have made a commitment for the Games -- to have this kind of facility to host the Games. And, of course, I think I mentioned before they would like to have a six to eight month lead-in time so we can have other events there, work out any kinks with the facility, so we can ensure that we're going to be offering the best Games for the citizens of Georgia. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I think my question was answered. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question would be, as far as your professional services go, how did you select your architect? MR. BECK: We sent out a request for proposals. We had seven respondents to the RFP's. Out of the seven respondents we, with a committee, narrowed down three to interview for the project. After the interviews we felt like that the best firm for the money and as far as their qualifications to do this project was the team of Virgo-Gambill with Mark and Associates as the pool consultants out of Atlanta. MR. TODD: Were they necessarily the low proposal? MR. BECK: I believe, if memory serves me, they were the low definitely out of the three finalists. And I believe -- I believe they were the low out of the seven, too, if I remember right, but they were definitely the low of the three finalists that were interviewed. MR. TODD: Yes. Even though there is not a requirement as far as a bid go, it would be helpful to have the backup information when we're dealing with professional services also, and I would appreciate that in the future, Mr. Oliver. MR. OLIVER: That'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? If not, all in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner? MR. OLIVER: And I have one thing I need to mention. This is primarily for the media's purposes. Max Hicks, the Utility Director, has indicated that because of construction down around Willis Foreman Road, that we're asking people with sprinkler systems to wait till about a half an hour after dark to use them. We have a valve that's turned off and we are trying to get two tanks back up to where they're supposed to be. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need a legal meeting, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, one litigation matter. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Also, Mr. Mayor, going back to the Coliseum Authority, I'd like to make a motion that we delay this until next time we meet so we can get names. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy, that we delay till the next meeting the appointments to the Coliseum? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need a legal meeting, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes. I've got one condemnation. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 5:00 P.M.] MR. WALL: ...add to the agenda the settlement of the condemnation case and a motion to approve settlement of condemnation, Richmond County versus Collier, for the amount of $131,330. MR. TODD: So move by unanimous consent, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now I need a motion to adjourn. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Nondebatable motion. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:13 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 May 19, 1997. ____________________ Clerk of Commission