Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS June 17, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, June 17, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, and Freddie Handy, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MR. HANDY: ...is running a little late, and so we're going to go ahead on with our devotional service, and we're also going to have the Pledge of Allegiance and also the addendum addition, and then by that time he should be here. Would you all stand for our prayer by Reverend Shipman and also Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION IS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SHIPMAN. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS RECITED. MR. HANDY: I need to make a correction. We're not going to have a devotional service. That's the Baptist coming out in me. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commission, we have a request for three addendum items: Item 1 is a motion to approve the delineation of additional items on all tax bills; 2, to approve the Pay Plan; 3, a motion to approve an Agreement between the Georgia Department of Transportation and the City of Augusta for capital assistance to the Transit Department. MR. HANDY: Gentlemen, what do we have? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I move that we approve 1 and 3 by unanimous consent. MR. MAYS: Second. MR. HANDY: Okay. We have a motion to approve Items 1 and 3 by unanimous consent. Any discussion? If not, all in favor, vote in the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MR. HANDY: Any deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MR. HANDY: Okay. Item 1, please? CLERK: Under Delegation: Reverend Larry Fryer, Whole Village Concept, reference to "Parents Against Crime Day." MR. HANDY: Reverend Fryer? REV. FRYER: Thank you. I'm Reverend Larry Fryer. Our Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Handy, Mr. Mays, who are persons of the Turpin Hill district, and all other Commission-Council members, we are members of PAC, and I ask the members of PAC would they please stand. This is fathers, mothers, and their children, many of them; Cynthia Walker here behind us who will speak briefly today. We are here to say we're asking for support of all of these persons here who have lost their children, one most recently in March who was shot fifteen times and left on the streets of Augusta. Many have worked with Turpin Hill, with Mrs. Hark, our president, and our new president of PAC, which is an organization that is organized to help to comfort parents who have been victimized by violent crime, to compel our public and private officials to get involved, even more as they have been, and to confront issues of crime. We certainly thank our Sheriff Department for its support; Congressman Norwood; and we have a letter from the President of the United States, who is supporting what we are doing with PAC; and certainly First Mount Moriah Baptist Church and many others who have worked so hard to help us in the prevention of crime. Many things have been done in the community. We want to say to our Mayor who is here we certainly thank him for coming out, as well as many others, in the Turpin Hill community to help in the prevention of crime. Many of these parents who you see today have lost their children. They've been shot down on our streets, and certainly we want to put our arms of love around them and let them know through this organization, Parents Against Crime, we certainly want to help make a difference. At this time we have Mr. John Kelly, who is the President of PAC, who will come with a few brief remarks within our time limit; and then one of our students from C.T. Walker Magnet School who also helped this class help to organize the logo for PAC, I think which is on your second page that we gave you all today. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. My name is John Kelly, and this is my wife Frances sitting over there, and we're residents of Turpin Hill and I am the Chairman of the PAC, Parents Against Crime. On September the 30th, 1991, at the Augusta Market on Martin Luther King Boulevard, our son Michael, at 32, was gunned down. And his last plea was "Help me." So what we're doing today, we -- our hope for help is still heard today. Through PAC we're asking everyone to help us comfort one another. Confront issues. Confront issues that challenge those in public places, our elected officials, those that are appointees, our officers and law enforcement. We're asking all of you to join hands with us and help us to get rid of crime. We need help to end violence, crime, and restore peace for our community so we can have a brighter tomorrow. Thanks, and let's get rid of crime. STUDENT: Hello to the parents, fellow classmates, and Ms. Perrin's class at C.T. Walker School. My name is James Ercaro [phonetic]. I'm here to talk to you about a new organization called PAC. PAC stands for Parents Against Crime. PAC helps parents get over the deaths of their children. In the past year there have been many violent murders in Augusta; many have happened to our teens under the age of seventeen and above. PAC tries to stop this nonsense violence. If we work together this organization, PAC, can make a difference. REV. FRYER: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, we want to thank you for this opportunity to hear us, Mr. Handy, about our concern. And we want to say we have seen some changes in the community, and it's not as much, and I do know oftentimes when I call the officers they are right there on the spot, and we certainly hope that this will continue. And I think when the whole community gets involved in trying to prevent these acts of violence, it does help us all, so we want to thank you, each and every one of you, Mr. Kelly and, of course, the students from C.T. Walker. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Will you entertain my motion, Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we -- by resolution, that we endorse PAC, and that's my motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. HANDY: We have a motion and a second to endorse PAC by asking a resolution to be drawn up. Any discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I know that we all are against crime, violent crimes, in our communities; but sometime it seems that if it don't affect us directly, that we're not as against it as when it hit us directly. This is a area I guess I've worked in for some ten to twelve years approximately. I was just in Columbus, Georgia, talking to a officer with the Columbus Police Department on Saturday about--stayed over a day--about Crimestoppers, because I understand that Crimestoppers is a way that we can do the reward for heinous murders or homicides in the streets of Augusta without going through the Governor's Office to do each one or getting the Governor to first approve the reward, as the Georgia General Assembly [inaudible], which handicapped many cities and counties, of course, offering rewards directly. So hopefully we can have Crimestoppers on board here soon and that would be a solution to the dilemma that we're in as far as offering rewards. And I would hope that this organization continue to have a long life and that the -- I know Reverend Fryer don't stop. He's not a quitter, and I'm sure the parents that's lost their youth in the streets of Augusta are not quitters. I've never lost a child or a youth or a relative in the streets of Augusta, but I can recall the young man that got me involved was a young man by the name of Johnny Lackey. He was gunned down in the streets of Barton Village. His body was dumped in the streets of Meadow-brook Subdivision. To this date, to my knowledge, there haven't been an arrest for that murder, and there is many others that I can think of where we haven't had arrests, and I think it's high time that we increase the number of arrests and we raise our tolerance level as far as what we're going to put up with as far as homicides in the streets of Augusta. If we can't do that, then everything else is a lost cause that we do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, before we carry the motion we need to present a proclamation. Ms. Bonner? REV. FRYER: Mr. Mayor, just before you do that -- MR. HANDY: Yes, sir? REV. FRYER: Commissioners, that letter we gave you, you have this emblem right here, would you help me in just holding that up so that the citizens can see that emblem? That's PAC, which is Parents Against Crime, and underneath is Stick Together, Make It Better. You see the peace sign and the family going across it. The students at C.T. Walker are majorly responsible for this logo which will be on tee shirts that we will have and, with permission, the names of all of the deceased persons who have died in our streets of Augusta will be on there, as well as, I'm sorry, Mr. James Brown, who is also working with us, with PAC. CLERK: Reverend Fryer, would the members of the PAC organization stand, please? To Revered Fryer and the members of the PAC organization, the Mayor and the Augusta Commission would like to recognize you for your efforts and to proclaim this day as Parents Against Crime Day. Whereas the Parents Against Crime is an organization formed on May 6, 1997, in Augusta, Georgia; and whereas the goals of this organization are to confront issues related to violence and peace to Commission, elected and appointed officials, law enforcement, and members of the community to work to bring justice and mercy to victims with all due speed; and whereas members of the Parents Against Crime commission will also seek to provide comfort and help to victims and families suffering from the effects of crime; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim June 17, 1997, to be Parents Against Crime Day and ask all citizens to join in this observance. In witness thereof, I have unto fixed my hand and caused the Seal of Augusta, Georgia, to be affixed this 11th day. Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, Augusta, Georgia. MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, we're ready to vote. All in favor of the resolution, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Ms. Charlotte Watkins, reference to Code Violation Signs. MS. WATKINS: I'm Charlotte Watkins, and good afternoon. I represent a group of inner-city taxpayers who have concern about the wording of the proposed signs that we understand you plan to place on blighted areas. We have concerns that this may bring about additional problems and that it does not address the full problem. The spokesman for our group is Father Lewis Bohler. We have some recommendations--and I'm going to pass this out, will ask that you pass them down--as to what we would suggest that be on there. FATHER BOHLER: Good afternoon. [The Commission responds.] You don't sound like you mean it. Mr. Handy has sat down, and I got my little speech all together. I wanted to say Mayor Pro Tem, he taught me how to go through every bit of it, and now Mayor Sconyers is there; but I just remind you, you still owe me the barbecue. MAYOR SCONYERS: [inaudible]. We've got to find someone that's vegetarian; right? FATHER BOHLER: Yes. See, he does remember. Now, that's the mark of a good politician, that he has a very good memory. I'm here as spokesperson for a group of taxpayers and property owners, concerned citizens, and as a prodigal son who was born here seventy years ago. And I left for fifty-two years and I have returned to the Garden City of the world, not just of the South, and I would like to see it remain that way. We would like to give you as a kind of quasi mission statement the fact that we are unequivocally opposed to blight and that we unswervingly will stick to the purpose of ridding this city of blight. And I'm sorry that Pastor Fryer and others who were here have departed in that we are all working in the same direction. We would like to address a few issues, however, that do concern us, and that is the manner in which we propose to rid the city of blight. One of them is the posting of signs. Having spent thirty-five years in the city of Los Angeles -- which is called City of Angels, but you have to go far to find some angels there. Believe me, you'll find more in Augusta. But having been there and having seen what happens when the wrong persons avail themselves of someone else's address and phone number, I need only mention the names Tate and Manson to give you some idea of where my concerns lie. I need only say that to say that there is maybe a component here that we should look at again. We have no quarrel at all with ridding the city of blight, but the manner by which we propose to do so is one that we find very bothersome. And we would certainly like to ask our esteemed Commission persons here who -- Commissioners, rather, to take another look at that and put a hold on it until such time as we can enter into dialogue with you and, together with those of us who have come up in the inner-city, work together to make this indeed a safe place and a Garden City as it so rightfully is labeled and called. Again, my chief concern here is the harms that will happen. We together as a together place cannot do but just so much, and fragmented, that would just kind of defuse the energy that we all need to pull together, so I ask you to consider that part of it. In the back of my head, however, is an ongoing dialogue with not only members of this city, Augusta-Richmond County Commissioners--I have to get accustomed to that instead of City Council now-- and all interested persons. It will take all of us to address this blight. I'm not sure that we will completely eradicate that, but together we can do a commendable job. And I just ask you to give us that time. You have aroused within us an interest, and as McArthur stated in this address before Congress when he returned from the Philippines and from Korea, to under-stand this you must look at the components that have gone into this over a long period of time. We in the inner-city were once ambivalent about even living there. We were pushed there, we were forced to be there, and we went through many transitions in search of our own identity. But we are returning to that now and we would like to keep that as a place to remind us that we do have legacy and we have interest and we have history. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Snellings. MR. SNELLINGS: I'm Ross Snellings and I'm here in my capacity as Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission. And as I understand it, one of the areas of Augusta to be targeted by this sign ordinance is the Bethlehem neighborhood which, interestingly, is one of our city's few established historic districts. And I guess I always find it most distressing when I see portions of a government at cross purposes, or at least taking contradictory paths toward the same purpose, and I think perhaps some of the wording on these signs is in conflict with what Ms. Addie Powell and Reverend Cooper and many other concerned citizens in Bethlehem have been attempting to do in regard to that very historic neighborhood. And I would not say that the position of the Preservation Commission would be entirely opposed to some sort of sign. I understand the thrust of it and the purpose behind it, but I think the wording of it, particularly the portion of it that would label it as slum property -- you know, my understanding of the word slum is that's not something you use to apply to one single individual building, but that really impugns the entire neighborhood as a whole when you label something a slum property. And I think that the same goals could be achieved by the sign ordinance with a rewording that would not at the same time seem at cross purposes with those who wish to seek the preservation of the Bethlehem neighborhood and the restoration of these buildings and the revitalization of them. And I'm also a little bit concerned that the ultimate goal of this sign ordinance may be toward condemning these buildings and having them demolished, leading to more abandoned weed-grown lots of which there will be very little potential. As long as there is a structure there, if they can be boarded up and kept safe against the elements, at least there is a potential that somewhere down the road, if the seeds of historic preservation take root, then restoration activity can take place. But once the historic building has been demolished, that's it. And, of course, as you know, the situation with so many of these lots is that the size of them is such that if the building that is there is torn down, the setback requirements are such that it would be almost impossible to build anything back there. And that is -- that's all my input really is on this. Thank you so much. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Snellings, do you have a proposal for correcting the situation in the blighted areas, especially those areas that's been put on the national historical list? And if you do, then do you have a funding source and have you made proposals to -- for community block grants through Housing and Urban Development? MR. SNELLINGS: I myself have not taken those steps, but I know that there has been a lot of work done in that regard. I'd say most recently the Historic Preservation Commission received a grant pertaining to the Bethlehem neighborhood wherein we prepared design guidelines for the restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings in Bethlehem, and that's just my most recent -- what I know about. MR. TODD: Have you visited -- Mr. Mayor, the other question is, have you visited Augusta Avenue on the Bethlehem community side in the last year/year and a half? MR. SNELLINGS: I'm fairly certain I have been down Augusta Avenue in the last year/year and a half. Again, let me stress that I'm not at all suggesting that we don't need to do anything in regard to this sign ordinance or it ought to be entirely done away with. But just particularly labeling the property as slum property, I think there could be a more effective way to get at the property owners that are responsible in some cases for these properties being derelict. I think really the larger issue is a question of police protection and enforcement of codes in a larger sense. And I know that there are many property owners that, of course, would like to be able to maintain the buildings better, but this is very, very greatly frustrated by a number of other factors that are really beyond anybody's control. But, again, I'm not opposed to doing a sign ordinance of some type, it's just the method in which the sign is worded. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can the County Attorney read the resolution, what will be on the sign? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you have that available? MR. WALL: I do not have that with me today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can somebody get it? MR. OLIVER: I can get it. CLERK: Belinda's going to go get it. MS. WATKINS: I remember fairly well what the sign says. I do not have it exactly, sorry. I have it down in my car, but I know you don't want me to run down there and get it and take up that time. But what it says is that there will be a sign posted giving the name, the address, the telephone numbers of -- oh, here we go. Okay. One says "This property has been cited for violation of Augusta- Richmond County codes. The owner has not yet chosen to bring his property up to code. Please ask them to do so." If this does not get --if something isn't done in fifteen days, it then breeds another sign that's posted. "Slum property: The owner of this property, Jane Jones, at 1618 Robin Lane, phone number 722-1234, is in violation of county law and chooses not to bring their property"--it should be his or her, but it says their property--"into compliance, thereby significantly contributing to the blight in this neighborhood. Should you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to call." And this is why we are here. Now, the Chronicle ran an excellent indepth article on blighted property in the city; much of it is in the Bethlehem and downtown area. But this is not something that came about overnight. Gentlemen, I'd like to say that the wording ignores the role of past short-sighted planning and Band-aid solutions contributing to this problem, and I consider this a Band-aid solution. What you're saying is put this sign up, tell people this is who the owners are and get on them and make them change it. What you may not be aware of is many of the owners of this property live in that neighborhood themselves; that many of the owners of this property are retired, on fixed incomes; that these property owners still keep up with their taxes as best that they can. In addition to them -- and I find myself in this position. While I do not live in that neighborhood, there is property in that area that belongs to family members of mine for whom I have assumed some responsibility. And the money that has been paid in taking down buildings and then keeping up lots which have overgrown, the money which is paid to clear lots annually when people -- once these buildings are down, they become dumping grounds. People dump their old tires there, they dump their old refrigerators there, they just -- it's convenient and that's what they do. Then we have the -- the owners of that property have the responsibility of clearing it, and it is expensive to do so. If I had my choice of monies that are there -- there is a place in that community which I have not taken down because it is my home place, but this cannot be repaired because of monies that are going into these other things, which is demolition and then keeping the lots clear after it has been done. So we think that what -- as Father Bohler said and as the Chronicle said, one gentleman said "Well, they got rich and they moved away." We think that when you put these signs up there people will think "Oh, well, these people own property, they must have something." Many of these people are people who live alone and that you are inviting people to go and check it out and see if they don't have something else. Maybe they have money stashed under the mattress, maybe they have a credit card, maybe they -- well, we think that you may be -- this may be far reaching, but you may be making these people objects of home invasions, which unfortunately is becoming a problem in our community. We firmly believe that if the government will consult with, plan with, and work with persons interested in living in the inner-city communities, a viable solution can be developed which meets the needs of everyone. With this in mind, we have given you some recommendations which we would like you to consider. We're not saying that we aren't trying to do something, because people have individually tried to do something, but we look in other sections of the city and we see the that improvements are made, we think that we just don't know how to do it. So if you -- we aren't telling you to do it for us, we're telling you to meet with us, let you tell us what our ideas here, because there are ideas. The Chronicle article listed some ideas that some owners had, okay? As we have met together, we have come up with ideas that might improve this community. We were born there, we were nurtured there; we have not only a financial interest--for which there is no return, believe me--we have an emotional interest in that community. We'd like to see the history of that community preserved, but we would also like to see the community improved. As Reverend Cooper said, "We'd like to see" -- and I always -- I remember these words. He said "We'd like to see the Bethlehem area and the inner-city area look as if it belongs to the rest of the City of Augusta." So please read the short statement that we passed out to you and consider working with us in this regard. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion that we appoint a special committee that include the Housing and Urban Development Director, the Administrator, the County Attorney, and the Super District Commissioner, to take a look at the area and do some planning with the community -- and Mr. Snellings, I believe, with Historic Augusta, to do some planning with the community and see what we can do. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion, but I'd also like to include myself because the majority of that is in the district that I represent. MR. TODD: Sure, Mr. Handy. Mr. Mayor, I include the Mayor Pro Tem and anyone else that like to be included. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I thank Mr. Todd for placing me on that committee. I know the problems with that. I live on James Brown Boulevard until the new city government and the Board of Health I guess will evict me soon, and I don't know what district I'll be living in then, so I'm very much aware of what the government by planning for folks instead of planning with folks can do. And probably living in one of the oldest building structures that's in this city. Unfortunately, historical areas many times and the value that's placed on them is determined by who's doing the writing and who's doing the thinking. That's unfortunate in this community, but it exists. What I would like to add to what has been said by residents in that area -- and, first, I would hope that the maker of the motion -- I think that's a good motion from, quite frankly, this official side of the fence to have folk on, but I think to expand that, if we're going to get into a working session of working with people, I think you have a pretty good representative group of people that are here, and I think that group ought to be expanded to deal with persons in the Bethlehem and Laney-Walker areas if you're going to appoint a subcommittee to do that. I've always, I guess, lived by one of Carried Mays' philosophies, you know, you don't get a lot accomplished by talking down and talking at folk. You've got to expand that and put folk there. One of the reasons that I hesitated voting for this particular proposal when it came up two weeks ago and didn't give it support was not that I didn't think we should enforce the law, but I didn't figure that that should be the first response answer to what has occurred in many of these communities. One thing I'd like to add to what's been said by residents that's been left out, and definitely not purposely, is the fact that you're looking at areas that have suffered and endured everything from crack houses, prostitution houses, walking drug trafficking, to a point that if you lived in other areas, didn't own, didn't rent, didn't know anybody in that area, you find yourself at 401 Walton Way just by being there. We suffer through that, legitimate red- lining that's gone on ever since the May 1970 riot of where we've been basically officially written off that you don't put any money in terms of reinvestment into those areas. A lot of the folk there -- not only that, of dealing with the old city and programs that were there, we can look around -- and it may not be a fault of this government, but we have inherited it. You had artificial lines which stopped at certain places whereby monies and support that could have possibly kept some of these structures from getting into the shape that they were in basically were denied unless you crossed certain political channels in order to get it. And I think it's living proof that when you combine red-lining, when you combine the lack of what went into Community Development monies in terms of improving some of those areas, then yeah, you've got, quite frankly, in some areas a living cesspool in many cases that residents have had to still live in and endure. And I don't think any of the persons there mind the law being enforced. I don't think that's the question. What I was saying two weeks ago was that if this was going to be a tool, let it be a tool; that's one of the weapons, let it be something that you deal with as a last resort. But I think it says something very strange to a community that those that have basically in some cases suffered the longest and by the most visible neglect -- and I've even had people to say this to me, they say "Well, you know, we've come up now and you ought to be glad that we got a big governmental building going into the area." You know, they spent seven million dollars on a Board of Health. And we start talking about whose health, and basically -- and I hate to get personal with it, but there are a lot of people out there who see what the devil is going on, and it's just beginning to start. And I've reminded the Commissioners here, and I say this while I have neighbors here, that it's just beginning, and it's going to get harder from the standpoint that when you come in -- that basically no other plans other than to deal with this type of construction, and to almost move folk out to where you've got folk battling just to be made whole in this process, when we know what government has done in other areas when its come in, and you say to folk who are on fixed incomes -- when you say to them where they live in a house that's valued for thirty- five to forty thousand dollars "You move out and you find one for the same price -- which all us know you cannot do. But the cowardness of government has allowed this process to happen over in Laney-Walker and it's happening right now. So you have that in Laney-Walker, you have that in Bethlehem, and I'm glad, Mr. Snellings, you are here. I think -- and I got your letter the other day in reference to appointments. I was glad to hear from you all. It may not have been your letter, one of your board members. But I invite you as well to come over, and we're going to --we need to look at some of the historic buildings that probably do need to be saved in that area because, for the most part, many of them where rehabing has been done, they've been done by the private investment of people who had to endure this when they could not come and get money from the city, when the vast majority of it by the skim of the law was going downtown on the riverfront. Now, I don't have a problem with the river at all, but it gets back to what Deacon Cooper says, you know, all the city ought to look like it's kin to each other. And where this illegitimate separation has come about has basically been from the tune of benign neglect. You don't have any bankers rushing out, you don't have anybody rushing out to do anything out there basically where we are. And as you said, a lot of these people do live there. Some that could have been saved when they only needed window sashes and porches, they couldn't qualify to do anything, to get any help. So if we're going to put this in our arsenal, we ought to sit down with folk and we ought to plan to do everything that we've got in our arsenal. We ought to go back and we ought to make a redirected effort for those areas that were never touched with Housing money except very sparingly and go into a concentration of those, areas that were absent totally of UDAG monies that never got any in terms of any funding. And when folk would come here, basically it was almost like they hated to see Bethlehem and Laney-Walker folk even coming, as though it was something that they had to beg for, when in essence this city got money only because you had low to moderate income folk. And we are right now under the gun of the federal government basically to be investigated, rightfully so, and I could probably care less who's barrel they raid and what they find at the bottom of it, because so many folk that were left out of the pool that should have been in it never were counted, to a point now seems as though they are being made the neighborhoods that will be the total victims and you classify that as an official slum. So you don't have lawbreakers, you have survivors: those of us that have been able to sit there and endure it and watch the South Carolina cars at night, watch the Columbia County cars at night, watch the folk of every different color persuasion come in and ride out, not just folk who live there but folk who visit there in terms of economic gain, illegitimately, that help run those different neighborhoods down. So I hope that when we plan, let's put all the folk in that motion, Mr. Todd. We got some folk here who will help us with that. I don't mind going, but bring them in together. No sense in us talking to each other about what we're going to do with them. Let's include them in the process, then let's come back and probably do it like we ought to done it in the beginning and say this is what we're going to do. And then when folks say to you then what else can you help us with since you never helped us with very little before, then we can answer that question, too. And as an end result of it, we can also, Mr. Mayor -- I think that I said last week that's labeled the City of Augusta that we own, right-of-ways that some of them have grown up as tall as this building, lots that are also owned by us, that we own, we can start by placing -- if we're going to put some signs out, let's put the first signs there, but we own a heck of a lot of it, too. MR. COOPER: Mr. Mayor? My name is Willie Cooper -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Come over to the mike, please. MR. COOPER: Okay, I'll come to the mike. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Excuse me, Mr. Cooper. Did I understand Mr. Mays to request an amendment to the motion to include the spokesperson for the community? And if I didn't do that, I intended to do that, or that was the intent. So at this time I'll accept that suggestion and add the two spokespersons, or whoever the community want to designate, up to three individuals from -- MR. MAYS: Well, I don't necessarily think we ought to limit it. While we're talking in that, I think you have a planning problem that's serious in that area. I don't think you're probably going to have a million folk who are going to be in there, but at the same time I think there is support help; for instance, people from Historic Preservation that may not live in that area that can lend support to what's there, and I'm for putting those on. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mays, excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have a committee Mr. Patty and myself is on, as well as a majority of the Bethlehem Community Center, which Mr. Cooper is on, that is working on a plan for the whole Bethlehem community, and that will probably be the best steering committee to put on as a whole. This is a committee that the Mayor set up the first of the year. MR. MAYS: I have no problem with that, Mr. Handy. If you want to take that particular committee and incorporate what the scope is and transfer it to that committee, then that's fine. But what the motion on the floor was was to deal with appointing a subcommittee that was going to deal with us and not deal with the residents, and that was going to achieve a different mission. If it'll go better through what you've got, I don't have a problem with that at all. The motion can be withdraw and you just simply activate it, you know, from what you have in place and just take that particular mission and transfer it over to that and work out of that particular group. I just wanted to make sure you had folk involved in it, because this thing of getting back and forth about folk reading about things has at some point got to stop. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mays, it's already in effect, so it'd be the easiest thing to do to add the official that Mr. Todd announced to this committee, because this committee come through Planning with George Patty and Paul DeCamp and all of them. MR. MAYS: I have no problem with that as long as that is acceptable to residents. MR. HANDY: Well, it includes the residents that we're talking about. MR. MAYS: But I was making myself clear, Mr. Handy. I've been here so long that anything you don't do in writing and you don't express, it doesn't get done. We have a new government right now with a lot of assumations in it, and you know what the first three letters of that start with. MR. HANDY: Amen. MR. COOPER: Mr. Mayor, I guess I can talk now. We can sing together, but we cannot talk together. And the reason I'm here, I've been in Augusta, Georgia, since 1924 and this city has never been in the condition that it's in now. And I live on Wrightsboro Road, 1132, and we have had meetings concerning Bethlehem community with the Historical Preservation and the man have drawn some guidelines for us to go by. Right? We met over to the lot there on Laney-Walker Boulevard once, and the next time they was working on the room over there. MR. HANDY: The roof. MR. COOPER: No, the -- where you have the meetings at. And they thought they wasn't going to have no meeting, but I told them, I said "Let's go to 1243 Summer Street, Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church," and we went there. We had our meeting, and we have had another meeting, and we've got plans. And the world wasn't made in one day. And if we would come together as peoples of the City of Augusta we could accomplish something, but divided -- a house divided, a business, a home, if it's divided it will not stand. And if we get together with what we are trying to plan to do and give us some time and (inaudi-ble]. It takes some cabbage leaves, and most of us don't have a whole lot of cabbage leaves 'cause they don't give them to us. Now, you know how I know? I used to walk from Wrightsboro Road out here where the [inaudible] is to a milk dairy, and had to be out there at six o'clock in the morning, work all day and walk back, and had a half a Sunday off out of a month. And you know how much money I was making back there then? Three dollars. Wasn't enough to buy a pair of shoes. And when I went up there to tell the boss man I needed a raise he told me, said "I can't raise you." I said "Well, I'm going to come see you when I get ready to go home." He said "Who been talking to you?" I said "Ain't nobody been talking to me." And when I went up there and talked to him, he give me a raise. So that let's you know it takes money to do anything that you attempt to do. And if you all will get together with us and we sit down and discuss these things and put forth some efforts together, we can do a lot of things here, just like they did down there on Riverfront. And you know why this money is coming in here? For the poor peoples that cannot do for themselves what need to be done. Yet instead of them taking this money putting it where it's supposed to go, they're putting it everywhere else but where it ought to be. And if you all will give us some time and see that we get some finance -- we think just as much of them houses that we live in as the people do up on the hill, out here in -- what you call this thing where they done did all of these -- redid all of these big houses down here? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Olde Town. MR. COOPER: Yeah. Well, we think just as much of our residence as they do down there, up on the hill, anywhere, 'cause we've been living there all our lives and we appreciate what we got. It may not be no ten or fifteen thousand dollar house, but it is a home. You understand? So let's get together and give these peoples a chance to work on the plan that we got going. And y'all do something to help us and everything will be all right. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. They was addressing Deacon Cooper as Reverend Cooper, but I can see why they say Reverend Cooper now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get the motion reread. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The motion by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Handy was to form a subcommittee to have citizen input on the violation signs consisting of the Neighborhood and Housing Director, the Administrator, the Attorney, Super District Commissioners, Ross Snellings, Mayor Pro Tem Handy, and I think Mr. Todd included Ms. Charlotte Watkins, Father Bolen-- FATHER BOHLER: Bohler, B-O-H-L-E-R. CLERK: --Bohler as a part of this subcommittee. MR. TODD: And also, Mr. Mayor -- CLERK: And the committee, the neighborhood committee. Did you accept that? MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, this committee is for more than just looking at signs. Matter of fact, the intent wasn't to look at the signs, but that's okay. The intent was to put them with Housing and Urban Development Director so they can look at some grant money and come up with some proposals as far as doing something about their blighted area, and that's the intent and that's the motion. CLERK: Neighborhood revitalization; would that be okay? MR. TODD: Yes. Now, the -- I'm glad to see the community down here because I know that there is a congressional being pushed by a gentleman out in South Richmond that has never lived in the downtown area in reference to where this money is being spent. I also know that there's supposed to be an investigation starting, you know, in reference the -- how we spend these funds. And it's good to see the community down here, and the community should be at every public hearing to do with -- or that has to do with community block grant money as far as housing rehab go. If you're not here representing yourself and you're not here making those arguments, then those funds is going to wind up somewhere else. And every reprogramming hearing that they have once Washington and Atlanta approve it. If they put it in the paper, you need to be here to oppose it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business, please? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and the Commission, the Planning Commission is recommending as a consent agenda all Planning items with the exception of Item 1 and 3. And for the benefit of any objectors, I will read the consent petition names and locations. Item 2 is to approve a petition from Cleveland Bethune for a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church at 1911 Lumpkin Road. Item 4 is to approve a petition from Myra Coleman requesting a Special Exception for a family personal care home on 1627 Cider Lane. 5 is to approve a petition from Richard Johnson requesting a Special Exception for establishing a family personal care home, 2818 Nighthawk Drive. 6 is to approve a petition from James E. Blanchard requesting a change of zoning from a P-1 (Professional) and a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on the corner of the intersection of 13th Street and Walton Way. 7 is to approve a petition from Carmen Vinson for a change of zoning from a Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located at 2836 Milledgeville Road. 8 is a Final Plat Approval for Saddlebrook Subdivision, Phase V; a petition from James G. Swift. This lot contains 24 lots. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 5 and do it individual. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, that will be 1, 3, and 5. CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We 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. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: Item 1 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Susan Goodwin, requesting a change of zoning from a Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on Deans Bridge Road with the following conditions: (1) That the use of this property be limited to a mini-warehouse development or those uses allowed in a B-1 zone as shown on the site plan submitted; and (2) that no buildings be located east of the Georgia Power easement. MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, we did have some objectors to this, I understand. I wasn't at the meeting, but it was approved with the conditions [inaudible] offers more protection to the neighborhood than the existing zoning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have objectors to Item 1? MS. BENNETT: Yes, we do. MAYOR SCONYERS: How many objectors do we have, please? MS. BENNETT: Would you stand, please? [The objectors stand.] MAYOR SCONYERS: I count nine, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do we have a petitioner? Is the petitioner here? MS. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the objectors and then the petitioner, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. The objectors first. Go ahead, please. MS. BENNETT: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I am Eloise Bennett and I live at 2945 Celeste Drive. I'm a mother, a wife. I have three children; two children, who are teen-agers, live in my home. I am speaking and we are coming to you asking you, and I hear the same type of thing that is going on in other neighborhoods. We are trying to keep our neighborhood as best we can, and for us to have these mini storages coming -- and you know yourself, we don't know -- we can ask to reserve this storage building, but what goes on in there and around it is hard for us to say right now. We want to prevent other problems, because right now we have many problems going on in that area. And Deputy Young is working with us, and we thank him for that. But we have burglars going on burglarizing homes, cars being stolen, children getting hit in the streets, and if we were to have these mini buildings coming down there, we are afraid that other problems are going to create from these mini buildings, and that would mean further on down the road. Suppose this doesn't work. These buildings are there. I can look at these buildings and see all kinds of writing on the outside, all kinds of grass and what have you grown up. Who's going to do this? Who's going to keep it from being an eyesore? Right now we are dealing with one building -- we have two stations. One station is going out of business and all kinds of writing and things on that building. We've asked them over and over to get it off, so we have decided to buy some paint and we're going to do it ourselves. That shouldn't be. We are so afraid that this is what's going to happen here. And I tell you, we as a group will really help these people to find some place to put their storage bins. Please don't put them there. We have to go into this area to our homes. This is our home. We have been there -- I've lived there for twenty-four years and I don't plan on moving now. It's going to have to be a big emergency for me to move. So we want you to help us to help them to see that this is no place for that type of thing, and we could all have that with your help. We have senior citizens out there, we have young people out there, we have many teen-agers that we are working with, and we have a working community relationship. We are getting stronger now with Deputy Young's help, and we want you to help us. I'm sorry, this isn't the only reason that we do not want these storage bins out there, because we never know what the problems are going to be, and we want to end it now. We don't want them there because we don't want to have to come back later and ask you to have these people to move these things to eradicate the situation. Why? Let's do it now. Let's stop the problem before it starts. We thank you for helping us. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. GOODWIN: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Goodwin, I'm one of the partners in the property. I'd like to address some of the concerns of the citizens in that area. As far as our project goes, we do feel like it will be a productive project for the area, and we're planning to build a forty thousand square foot mini-warehouse facility. It's a full-sized facility that will be managed by an onsite manager, so there will be someone there at all times to supervise the facility. It will be fenced off, and there is a large buffer in the rear between the property and the subdivision. It's a minimum of a hundred and twenty feet in the shortest area and goes over two hundred feet in some of the other areas. The property is like over seven acres, and we plan to use only half of it. And with the recommendations by the Planning Commission, we cannot build past that easement, so we cannot get any closer to the subdivision. We also, on the corner, wanted to build a neighborhood shopping center that would provide services to the community such as an insurance office, a sandwich shop, beauty shop, and just some neighborhood type businesses, and an office to house our manager. But -- and this is property fronting on Deans Bridge Road. There is other similar uses of that property on that highway, and as part of the plan for the county as far as development goes, we think that it would be a productive project. As far as traffic and crime, we have -- we deal with customers mostly over the phone and in the mail for the most part. Customers only come in mainly to put their goods in storage and to take them out, and we only expect about ten to twelve customers a day. We don't think there will be a lot of in and out, and it would be off of the main highway, not the subdivision. And we will be using state-of-the art security measures: an alarm system and the fencing and an onsite supervisor, so we think crime won't be a problem. MR. TODD: Ms. Goodwin, what are the plans -- is there going to be enough back of the high-voltage lines to do anything with or? MS. GOODWIN: Yes, sir. I do have the plat here if you're interested in looking at it. There is some land area in the back, but that has been restricted so that we cannot build on it. MR. TODD: Right. Do you own that buffer that you are speaking of that's going to -- MS. GOODWIN: Yes, sir. It's a hundred foot power easement and twenty foot drainage easement on our property. MR. TODD: Okay. And do you have a problem with restrictions as far as that buffer go, to not go over the multiple-family in there? MS. GOODWIN: I'm sorry, do we have -- MR. TODD: Would there be enough there to do multiple-family or would -- you've cited the buffer there as part of the situation that would mitigate, I guess, any concerns the citizens have. Would you have any objection to the zoning change for the whole properties and not to use that property for anything else? MS. GOODWIN: We won't be able to build on the easement anyway. You cannot build a structure on that, so it's kind of out of the question. And the Planning Commission said that -- put the restriction in we couldn't build past that. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, this is one that put me in a dilemma as far as the community go and the developer, but in thinking in terms of what the law says as far as the zoning statute go that we have, we have a area that certainly qualifies for commercial and it's in our comprehensive plan as far as commercial. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it's zoned multiple-family, because the last thing that we want to put there would be multiple-family for two reasons: one, multiple-family is usually renters and we have property owners; two, a multiple-family building would probably go two-story. It would put folks adjacent to the high-voltage lines, and I don't think that we would want that. And if I was sitting on the board when it was being zoned multiple-family, the high-voltage that's there, I would have voted against that. I think that if we get the proper buffer, we get the proper privacy fence, and we get the proper storefront out of this and business plan as far as the other facilities that you're going to put in there, and that there's not a bar or something like that included in that plan, then I don't really have no option but to support it. There is probably a lot worse things that could go at this location. I stopped a couple of weeks ago and looked at the rezoning sign, looked at the area, and certainly this would be one of the things that would be suitable for it [inaudible], and I'm going to make a motion that we approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. LOVE: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll make the second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, did you second that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. LOVE: Good afternoon Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners. I'm Gerald Love and I have lived at 2821 for right at seven years. I'm ex- military. And this piece of property she's talking about putting this storage facility on, I feel that it shouldn't be there because, number one, in order to get to this storage facility you have to make a right -- a left turn there off Deans Bridge, which is less than a half a mile or a quarter of a mile from one of the most dangerous intersections on Deans Bridge. There have been a lot of wrecks there on Deans Bridge. It shouldn't be there because it's going to create a problem with the flow of traffic. In order to put something in storage, they're going to be bringing a truck, most likely with a trailer or some type equipment attached to the back of it. I think this needs to be taken into consideration and thought about very carefully before you put something there on that corner to create a big fatality; not only as in fatality, but you got us that are homeowners down in there don't want this there because when you're bringing in a storage facility you don't know where the equipment or the manifest is coming from that they're storing in there. Being military -- ex-military, a lot of stuff may come from overseas that haven't been cleared through Customs or haven't even been inspected before it left the foreign country to be put in one of these storage facilities. This should be taken into consideration before you force something on a community that's been there for years. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MS. BENNETT: Sir, may I please say -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Just a moment. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Patty, I'd like to see a map of this [inaudible]. And my question is, is this bordering the drive -- Inwood Drive, is this taken -- is this the property we're talking about? MR. PATTY: This is the entire property. This is [inaudible] -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's Inwood Drive and Deans Bridge Road, the frontage of Twin Oaks. MR. POWELL: Okay. Now, do we have a buffer zone, is my question, from Inwood Drive between this property developer and the -- Inwood Drive and the property developer? Do we have a buffer zone in here, George, or? There's no buffer zone, so they can build right up to the entrance of the subdivision? MR. PATTY: That's correct. MR. POWELL: Okay. That's all I need to know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am, you wanted to say something else? MS. BENNETT: Mr. Mayor, I had one final word I would like to say, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. MS. BENNETT: It's impossible to have this kind of buildings in that area without it affecting the neighborhood. And we've said over and over that our concern certainly is our children, and when we have something up there it's going to affect all of our children, and we're trying to get them to be on their own and grow up without walking and throwing paper and stuff everywhere. And it's going to be a total traffic jam, and we don't need that. Please think about it. Before you pass that, please think about it, because we don't need it there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, what was the staff's recommendation on that? MR. PATTY: The staff recommendation was for approval, basically for the reason Mr. Todd enumerated. MR. BRIDGES: George, is that in line with the master plan? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: And all the entrances will be off of Deans Bridge Road? MR. PATTY: No. Topography would allow an entrance on Deans Bridge Road. MR. BRIDGES: Pardon? MR. PATTY: The topography would not allow an entrance off Deans Bridge Road, it would have to be off of the subdivision street. MR. BRIDGES: It would be off of Inwood Road? MR. PATTY: Inwood Drive. It would have to be off Inwood Drive. MR. BRIDGES: They couldn't put a turn-in off of Deans Bridge? MR. PATTY: We don't believe that that would be possible. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Bennett, can I ask you a question? MS. BENNETT: Sure. MR. KUHLKE: If the mini-warehouses were not approved, what would you -- what would the neighborhood accept on that piece of property? MS. BENNETT: Really and truly, we really don't need anything in that area unless it's going to be something to enhance the neighborhood. MR. LOVE: Could I answer that? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. LOVE: A recreation area for the kids. MS. BENNETT: I feel that's a good idea. Yes. MR. LOVE: Because there's nothing there for the kids in the whole neighborhood. MS. BENNETT: That would be a good idea, recreation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to mislead the community. I have friends and folks I've worked with sitting out there and I'm going to shoot as straight as I can with you. You know, you can love me for it or hate me for it, but that's what I'm going to do. The zoning right now is multiple-family. This board don't have a choice on that. It was zoned sometime before I got here, I can assure you. And, basically, if the owners of the property wanted to put it on the market for multiple-family or do multiple-family themselves, that could happen and happen today without coming to us for approval of anything other than the site plan, which the community don't have input in that process. So that's a done deal. If we wanted to put recreation there, we cannot condemn for purposes of recreation. That's the law. So even if we wanted to put it there and the owners did not want to sell to us, then that's not an option. We can't condemn for recreation. So we're either stuck with one of two things sooner or later: the storage buildings, which I think is going to have the least negative impact, is my opinion; or a multiple-family, which could be put on both sides of the power line and would have a greater impact. Now, I can make a decision using discretion on what impact it's going to have on you. It's been articulated, you know, what you think the negative impact would be. One of them has been traffic, the other one is that you have a crime problem in there, and the other one is that you have graffiti on an existing building. If I got to make that decision in the boundary that I can make it in per the zoning statute, then the decision would be against you and with the developer because you haven't shown me that the storage buildings would have a greater impact as far as traffic, as far as crime go because you have no control over who the person rents to, et cetera. And I cannot stop the owners from selling the property for multiple-family or developing multiple-family themselves, so that's the dilemma that I'm in. Certainly I like to help my constituents when I can, and I think that this is what I'm doing here is helping my constituents. I don't know Ms. Goodwin, this is the first time I've seen her, but I do pay attention to what's going on. And I stopped and I looked at that rezoning sign, and I felt that this was a good rezoning, from a multiple- family to pretty much general business. And as far as Deans Bridge Road go, that's going to be general business up and down Deans Bridge Road. We're not going to win on that one in the courts or anywhere else. It's a reality. MS. BENNETT: Sir, you are saying that the courts are not thinking about the residents who live there, they are thinking simply about the rezoning of multiple businesses and other things like that. But we are the people there, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the courts -- and the County Attorney can give me an opinion on this. I think the courts is going to win between the property rights of the property owner and the negative impact that it may have on the property owners in the residential area. And this being in a area that's been designated by our own zoning statute to be commercial, it would be my opinion that the courts would rule against this. Now, Mr. Wall, would you give me a read on it? MR. WALL: Well, just because the residents in the neighborhood are opposed to it is not a justification for turning it down. There has to be an objective reasoning for denying the rezoning request. And you are correct, you've got to look at the property rights of the people who have requested the rezoning. There is one correction, however, I'd like to make, and that is we do have the right to condemn for recreational purposes. It's a Special Master proceeding. MR. TODD: Thank you for that correction. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays also had his hand up. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be very brief. If I could, I guess, play devil's advocate for a second. You know we talk about predicting what the court might do. I remind my colleagues we bought part of a neighborhood just recently and paid some dear money for it, I guess predicting what the court was going to do. I said over and over -- and y'all say I'm crazy for saying it, but I think the judges probably agree with what I said. They are people and they live in this community and they're elected, too. They do feel the pulse of folk when they come in. That's not to say they will violate the law and deal with it on sentiment. But I do think if you're talking about the establishment of a commercial facility, probably in a neighborhood maybe where some folk are not going to be moving again, they are there now and--I hate to say this way--will probably be there at the time of their demise. This is going to be permanent residents. If you're talking about a non-entrance off of Deans Bridge Road, then I would guess then if it's going to come through the subdivision street, then you're bringing that traffic into a commercial facility through that subdivision. That's no different than what we dealt with with our friends in Belair of not wanting trucks to come through there and going to a gravel pit. They may not need the same commercial type of drive-through that's going to a storage bin. Now, you're talking about not building past the power line and that easement that's in there. While it may be true that the residents don't have any input in that process of objecting to the site plan, the Commission does have input into it, and maybe that's something that we need to deal with as to whether or not power lines are going to be an issue that we address in terms of safety where something's built. And you say that we cannot stop it in terms of multiple-family, I don't know. If we feel that serious about it now in terms of power lines, then it seems to me that we make part of a valid argument that objecting a site plan, because then it would be located in terms of being under a power line. So I would take a strange view of trying to predict what the court might do in terms of that much intrusion into a neighborhood. You see where a case is not to be proven. You cannot judge one person. And I think this young lady probably would be a good owner and a good developer, however, when we start talking about zoning, we don't base it on individuals or what may be done now, you take it based on what the precedent may be and what may be set. We just finished an argument of talking about -- dialogue, rather, about inner-city. We could go over into the Bethlehem area where you've got warehouses that either MCG owns, with storage that folk didn't know what was over there, from the standpoint of also those now that we're trying to get out of there, and you're talking about the worst eyesore. And I know you're talking about big warehouses versus mini-warehouses. Warehouses are still to a certain extent warehouses if you're there and you're established in your neighborhood, and so I do think you do have somewhat of an element of intrusion of that business nature. So I wouldn't necessarily say that that would be a case that we could predict whether they will win or whether they lose. Now, whether we've got any grounds for denying that, that's a horse of another color. But from the standpoint of traffic that would be coming through if there is no way to get in off of Deans Bridge Road -- which, yes, I agree, that is a commercial corridor. It's going to be that way. But if there is no way to get to it other than you bringing that traffic through that neighborhood, then I do think you have a safety question. And I've seen us turn down probably some that we maybe shouldn't have, based on the law, for far flimsier reasons where we dealt with safety on alcohol and on other things that would maybe be a case in this one that it probably would fall in that borderline case. So I'm not going to support it, and I'll be willing to state the fact on it that they probably got just as much a chance maybe in court if they mount their support as what Rollins did. It depends, I guess, on how they put their folk together, how they line them up, and what the judge might see in court. So I don't think we can predict that and say that they don't have a leg to stand on in terms of what a judge may decide in reference to a neighborhood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I think that one thing we're talking about here is the citizens -- I keep hearing up here that they don't have a reason to, you know, put anything there, they don't want anything there. I think what the citizens here are trying to do is protect their investment and preserve their standard of living. I come down that road every day, and it's going to be a terrible place to put something there because it is going to be a terrible intersection, there's no doubt about it. We've had lengthy discussions with the Planning and Zoning Director at several public forums, and I've invited George out to a community breakfast that we have every month in the Sixth District, and the citizens have asked for more buffer zone between the streets going into subdivisions and commercial deve-lopment. And I think if we'll address that we won't have these citizens up here concerned because we'll have the safeguards in place to protect their investment. And I think it's a simple solution to the problem, although it's going to be a little bit more costly to the developer. But it's just a simple solution to this problem, and I think we'll curb ninety percent of these problems by giving a little more buffer zone on these subdivision streets. And I'll be honest with you, gentlemen, until we get up and make the new regulations or whatever you want to call them and put those in place, we're going to keep seeing people up here, and these people have a legitimate claim to be here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Do y'all need the motion reread, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Powell brings up an interesting point, but even if we gave a forty-foot buffer zone between Inwood Drive and the commercial property, or fifty feet or eighty feet, I'm not too sure that would satisfy the neighborhood's concerns. You just don't want anything there, and I'm not too sure that really I can support that because I haven't heard any real valid reasons why a property can't go in there. MS. BENNETT: Sir, we don't want anything there for it to endanger the lives of our children. We have senior citizens, I told you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Now, why would -- I don't want to get into an argument with you, but I think we're raising this to a level that can't be substantiated. Now, if there is a traffic problem there on Inwood Drive, and if that has to be corrected, then maybe we need to address that. But saying that something is going to endanger our children some day, that's -- MS. BENNETT: The traffic is going to endanger our children. MR. ZETTERBERG: That won't -- that would not get me to change my vote on this particular issue, but if there is something more substantial in this - - MS. BENNETT: Sir, we are not trying to get you to change your vote, we are trying to get you to see that we are human, too. We have to protect where we live and our families, our children, and when we get this type of thing there it's going to endanger the whole system there. I'm sure you wouldn't know what I'm talking about unless you are out there. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm very familiar with Deans Bridge Road. I've been going up and down that road for close to thirty-five years, so. MR. LOVE: Where do you live at now? Where is your residence located? MR. ZETTERBERG: I live off Walton Way now, but I go up and down Deans Bridge Road all the time. It's a commercial road. MS. BENNETT: Exactly. That's why you don't know anything about [inaudible] MR. LOVE: That's the problem with this whole idea. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we call the question? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, take order and call the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I asked if y'all needed the motion reread. MS. BENNETT: May I say something? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, ma'am. We're through with all the discussion. CLERK: The motion was to approve the petition from Ms. Susan Goodwin to change the zoning from a Zone R-3B to a Zone B-2 (General Business). Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. With the conditions. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, MAYS & POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 3, please? CLERK: Item 3 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sandra Winfery, on behalf of Sandra and Ronald Winfery, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance at 516 Coleman Avenue -- at the intersection of Chester Avenue and Coleman Avenue (516 Coleman Avenue). MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. Ben Allen, who represents the petitioner, called me yesterday and told me that she could not be here, nor could he be here, and asked that this be postponed till the next meeting. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. That's approval to postpone? MR. HANDY: Correct. That's what he asked for, isn't it? MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with the motion. Just for the record, are there any objectors here at this time? [None noted.] That's the only thing I wanted to know, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to say something about this particular zoning. On Monday we, the zoning committee, we had approved this. And after we had approved it, then we get -- three people got up and said they objected to it after it had gone through the motion and had been approved and everything, so they rescinded the motion and went back through with it. But the people that was objecting to it was talking about past history that happened when the house was rented out, and the owners stated that they will be living in the house now themselves taking care of the area. So I think that if the owners and the neighborhood get together, that this may come out to be a pretty good project. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion to put it off until the next one, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 5, please? CLERK: Item 5 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Richard Johnson, on behalf of Amos V. and Cecella B. Johnson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home at the intersection of Sturnidae Drive and Nighthawk Drive (2818 Nighthawk Drive). MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Planning and Zoning on whether there was any objectors and [inaudible]. MR. AUSTIN: Gentlemen, I'm Bob Austin. I was at the Planning Commission meeting. George was on vacation, so I was handling it. There were no objectors to this petition. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please? CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 9 through 13 were approved by Finance on June 10th. [Item 9: Motion to ratify allocation of funds in the amount of $183,500 for capital equipment purchases in Recreation from Public Works Administration contingency within Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III. Item 10: Motion to approve quitclaim deed from Richmond County to McQue Boddiford on property designated as Lot 26, Block D (Map 129, Parcel 47) on a plat shown on Reel 271, page 1340. Item 11: Motion to approve request to waive remaining property tax penalty in the amount of $152.56 on properties at 2525, 2527, and 2529 Peach Orchard Road for Tax Year 1996. Item 12: Motion to approve Home Rule Amendment (Ordinance) to amend purchasing procedures. Item 13: Motion to approve requisition for one each full-size automobile as replacement for Fire Department.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to bring to you Item Number 11 and 13 as a consent agenda. I took out --that could possibly include Item Number 10 because I thought that was not to Mr. Boddiford, I thought that quitclaim deed was to somebody else. MR. WALL: Well, the quitclaim deed may actually be to Boddiford, but the purpose of it is to clear it up so that someone else could redeem the property. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Well, I'll take Item Number 10, 11, and 13 as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: 10, 11, and 13? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion for Items 10, 11 and 13, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please? CLERK: Item 9 is to ratify the allocation of funds in the amount of $183,500 for capital equipment purchases in Recreation from Public Works Administration contingency account. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I had a discussion with the County Attorney after we approved this motion in the Finance Committee, and at that time he advised me this was something that we could not do; and, therefore, I would like to send this back to committee to be worked on and bring back another recommendation. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy, to send it back to committee. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'll yield to Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I'm not sure you want to do that, Mr. Mays, because I -- you know, this is getting to be ridiculous. We know what we can use one penny for and know what we can't use it for, and when our staff bring things to us that we can't use it for we need to pretty much spank their hands and send them back to look for another source. We went through this deal not too long ago on using some Public Works money for a community project, culture, historic or whatever you want to call it, and we can't do that either. We was going to use some money to buy books for the library, and we can't do that either. Even though this board voted to do it, it was ratified, the Attorney General said we cannot do it. And we haven't gone -- we reprogrammed those funds to another area over there and we haven't gone back and changed that vote, you know, or rescinded that vote, and we need to do that and it need to be on the earliest possible agenda. If we're going to pass one penny sales tax in the future, we can't contin-ue the effort to abuse one penny sales tax and spend it in areas where we can't spend it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: To start with, we can spend this money for what we're trying to spend it for. The problem we have is the way we drew our petition with the public in saying that we would keep it within departments. Is this correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay, so that's--[END OF TAPE 1] -- the library monies at that time from the book allocation to be spent in other ways. That has already been done. That doesn't need to be done. The concern that I have is before we sit here as a group and today tear apart Recreation on one percent money on $183,500 we need to at least take a look at this and -- where it's going to be a little peaceful and calm. That's all I was planning to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I don't mind a kinder and gentler way to do it either, but I think we ought to get to the realistic way of how we're going to get some of this stuff done. You're absolutely correct, Moses, and I have no problem with the yielding in there. Where I think we do need to get some clarification is this is not a brand new situation that came up, this is one in terms of going back over a period of many months when we were trying to decide --and this is what I get -- this is no knock on Public Works and that committee, but I think that, and I say this often, every mule, every jackass ought to carry its own backpack. Now, if we're expected to do some things in Rec -- whatever you do in any department ought to be legal. I'm not going to sit here and say you move money in any illegal way. We're in agree-ment about that, all of us ought to be in agreement about it. But I think when it comes up months later -- and the only reason that this was channeled over into that Public Works side was that that was the only way, quite frankly, that we could get the equipment situation done. Want to know the truth about it, we wasn't going to get it approved out of Rec. We didn't have the money. It had to go to somebody else's committee to get it. And my thing is if you want Rec to do certain things over in there that it's going to have to come out of that money, then let's deal with, at least this year coming in -- and I think Mr. Oliver on board and it's the way that this can be corrected. That regardless of the source of funding, whatever way that we have to do it legally, that either you put the money in that particular committee or department's budget from the very get-go, not have anyone playing stepchild and begging over into another one. This is the way this happened for so long. And we're talking about the old city for some, this is what happened so long in old county government, that everybody to a certain extent had to beg one particular department to get a whole bunch of things done, and this is without exception in this case. So, I mean, it's not a fact of where it's something to be hidden and done, it has to get done. Folk can't work without the darn equipment. I don't really care whether it -- it can come from anywhere, it can fall out the sky, but the folk have got to have it and, you know -- and it has to be done legitimately. So if y'all want to take this back and in-between Finance and Public Works -- however y'all want to get that together and do it, and whatever in your great infinite mercy that y'all decide to give us that's needed in order to cover parts of that particular amount --because that's not in there, and the only reason that that came up was because when we started talking this whole deal about cemeteries, about golf course equipment and everything else they got new popped over into Recreation, is that everybody wants it then to expand, but in so many cases you don't want from another area to put the money over in there. Well then, hell, if you don't want to put the money over in there, then run it out another committee. That's what you ought to do with it. And the same thing has popped up with the tennis court, and I'm saying that now because further down the agenda -- and I hope we don't get -- IQs don't drop down to zero with that. It's got to be run. It's got federal money in it, it's a recognized entity across the Southeast, eighteen courts, and we've been dealing with that. And I'm just saying it now, preempting it, Mr. Mayor, from the standpoint that we start forgetting about the stuff that has still got to go on. And the only reason that this came up months ago in order to try and get this equipment was because of the shift in duties that Rec was going to be asked to handle, and we merely asked for the fact that the equipment be gotten. If it's not going to be gotten, somebody else going to do it. Public Works want to do it, they can go do it. They can keep the money, they can send the people out there, they can clean the cemeteries, they can clean -- they can do anything they want to do, but I think it ought to just be cleared out. If you're going to give a responsibility to a department or area, then let's give it from the very beginning in budget, and then if it's not going to be done and you expect results to happen out of it, then don't get crazy when it comes before another committee and then you want to know where the money is going to come from. MR. OLIVER: Let me provide a word of explanation so everybody understands. In June or July of 1996 there was some equipment purchased. It was an authorized expenditure, however, no funding was identified at that time. As result of going through the audit for this year, the auditor identified appropriately that that be the case and that a funding source needed to be identified. That problem as a long-term respect has been eliminated and the agenda items now require the Finance Department to sign off as to where that money should be taken from, and not only is the department held accountable for the funding source, but Finance double-checks that. On this particular item Mr. Wall did not have an opportunity prior to the committee meeting to look at that and to identify that, and I think it's just a matter of us going back, putting our heads together and coming up with a way to do it. As I say, this -- the funds for this have already been expended and they were authorized to be expended, but no funding source was identified at the time that the expenditure occurred. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the Chairman of Public Works I don't have a problem with this. It's something that -- as Mr. Mays has told you, it's a shift in duties. We've got to pay to keep these parks up. We have no choice. I don't like to see the sales tax money changed from one designated area to another and I'm totally against that, but this is one of those exceptions where we definitely have to keep up our Recreation parks. And I'm going to support this, but I'd like for you to put it in the budget next time because Public Works or Water Works doesn't need to be the whole county coffer. We need to take and budget these items so we won't have this come back up. But I am going to support it this time because, as Mr. Mays has said, it's something that we've got to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Let me simply explain the reason that I pointed this out to Mr. Brigham and suggested that perhaps it run back through the Finance Committee. When the capital improvement plan was approved or initially started and the various projects were looked at, there was a lump sum category included in there for administration expenses. However, in the approved list those administration expenses were spread over various projects, and the dollar amounts in the plan that was ultimately approved included a portion of that lump sum dollar amount and it was allocated toward a project. So there is not currently within the sales tax budget an administration category. Then, the resolution that was passed calling for the referendum on the sales tax provided that projects within a certain area would be funded to the extent that they were feasible and within the funds that were available. And then if a project was not feasible or could not be funded, then it was to be allocated to other projects within the same category of projects if funds were needed for the remaining projects within that category, and then if not, to projects in one of the different categories. There is a -- I think there's a method to accomplish this, and I've talked with Butch about that before today. We just need to simply bring it back through the Finance Committee, I think, and come up with a plan, and I think that it can be resolved in the Finance Committee in the next meeting, but we need a little bit of time to get the numbers together. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Do y'all know what we're voting on? Do you need the motion reread? CLERK: The motion is to refer this item back to Finance Committee at the next meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm voting no, and I'm qualifying my vote to the extent that this is something that shouldn't go back to the Finance Committee to find a way to circumvent the law. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. CLERK: Item 12 is a motion to approve the Home Rule Amendment (Ordinance) to amend the purchasing procedures. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends Item 12. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Discussion -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? MR. POWELL: I've got some discussion, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Just one question. Could you put it in layman's terms exactly what we're amending? MR. WALL: Increasing from five thousand to ten thousand dollars what can be approved, and also authorizing telephone quotations as opposed to just written quotations. Record has to be maintained of the telephone quotations and kept in Purchasing. Those are the two changes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Yes, sir? MR. COVINGTON: Mr. Mayor, I have an objection to that for the simple reason I'd like for you to look at -- for one reason -- MAYOR SCONYERS: State your name, please. MR. COVINGTON: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is John Covington, I'm a concerned citizen, former vice president for Blacks Against Black Crime, and I've been looking at the way that we do business and how it's channeled. And when you raise the approval to ten thousand dollars, that's where an individual can make a decision about a business contract without having to go through this committee is the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. And all you have to do is take four or five of these approvals, that's fifty thousand dollars that he can give to a contract. And I think all of the major funding decisions should come through this board, and I think ten thousand dollars is noteworthy for each of you gentlemen to consider and I recommend you disapprove it and continue the way it is. Matter of fact, it may need some changes the way it is right now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, it's going to cost us more money -- it's going to cost this Commission and these citizens and this community more money to go out and advertise the bidding on the money that's going to be saved by allowing this to be done. We will still go through a purchasing procedure where bids are obtained. What we don't have to do is we don't have to advertise for five -- if we're going to spend five thousand dollars for a given piece of product and have staff -- the legal notices ran and all that done. That is where the money is going to be saved at. It's not -- we are still having to get multiple quotes to award a bid item, but we don't have to advertise it legally, and we're attempting to save the taxpayers money by doing this project this way. MR. OLIVER: Additionally, I would add currently above fifteen hundred dollars we have to advertise, which requires written advertisement. But in addition to that, if you needed fifteen hundred dollars for your business and you had men out there to do a job and you couldn't provide them the materials, they can't do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to support this, and this is the reasons. One is that we brought a minority and economical development or small business person on board to look out for the interest of small and minority businesses to make sure that they have a level playing field, and I'm sure that she's going to do a good job there. And I would expect the outcry to come from or the challenge to come from the daily ledger in the sense that this is going to certainly take money out of their pocket as far as their bottom line go, and if they are pleased with it, then certainly, you know, I think that it's something that we should do to save money. I agree that there has been disparities in the past or there possibly haven't been a level playing field in all cases, but this is what we're paying a person to do now, and I have all confidence in that this position is going to work out for the - - in favor of those that feel that they haven't been given equal opportunity. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further --Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I saw you frown when Mr. Brigham was talking. This does not eliminate the bidding process. MR. COVINGTON: I hear what you're saying about it doesn't eliminate the bidding process, but then who --we're talking about placing this in someone's hands where any error is just an oversight, it is not someone's responsibility. MR. KUHLKE: Well, it is a responsibility. MR. COVINGTON: You have the responsibility of overseeing every action that takes place in this county to ensure that [inaudible] for all companies and all businesses. I can see where that -- CLERK: Can you come to the mike, sir? MR. COVINGTON: I can see by raising this to ten thousand dollars that it would even enhance a good-old-boy system, and I think what you need to do or what you should consider is trying to move away from the good-old-boy system and accept your respon-sibilities. If it's more costly, so be it. But as long as this county is running on an equal operating field and eliminating all possibilities of a good-old-boy system, we should do that, and that's what -- that's my objection and that's the reason why I think it should either remain the way it is or even be reduced. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Who are we -- we're delegating the authority to somebody. MR. OLIVER: The Purchasing Agent. MR. ZETTERBERG: To the Purchasing Agent. MR. OLIVER: And, also, I will say this: I will take care of the administrative part of this, but -- you know, I have no objection to telephone quotes up to, say, twenty-five hundred dollars, but all quotes above that should be in writing with the advent of fax machines. My difficulty is to have men out there who want to repair a piece of equipment or do a job and they need something totaling fifteen hundred dollars and it takes us three weeks to go through the bidding process. It just -- it isn't working for us. MR. WALL: And I'd point out that that five thousand dollar limitation has been in there since 1975. And I don't know what inflation has done since '75, but I'll just about say that you probably couldn't buy for ten thousand what you could buy for five thousand in '75, I don't know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank y'all. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 14, please? CLERK: Items 14 through 23 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on June 10th. [Item 14: Motion to approve Facade Restoration Contract to A&L Construction Company in the amount of $15,000 for the structure located at 658-662 Broad Street. Item 15: Motion to approve Change Order #3 with Fidelity Deposit Company extending the contract 120 days and increase amount paid by HND by $780.00 to be paid from Facade Funds for Restoration Project 1257-1261 Broad Street. Item 16: Motion to approve Change Order #2 with United Concepts extending the Facade project located at 952 Broad Street an additional eighteen (18) days. Item 17: Motion to approve Change Order #3 with Fidelity Deposit Company (for contract extension of forty-five (45) days only) Facade project 935-939 Laney-Walker Boulevard. (No Cost) Item 18: Motion to approve update of the Short Term Work Program (STWP) in accordance with state law and submit for review by the CSRA Regional Development Center and Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Item 19: Motion to approve extension of the Architectural Contract with Nicholas Dickinson & Associates for the Facade Program for an additional six (6) months at a cost of between 9%-10% of facade grant amount. Item 20: Motion to approve allocation of CDBG funds within Augusta-Richmond County, including Hephzibah and Blythe. Item 21: Motion to deny request of Judith S. Schmidel for forgiveness of housing rehab program conditional deferred payment loan in the amount of $9,831.60. Item 22: Motion to approve bid award to Dawson, Taylor & Company for Commercial Property & Contents, Boiler & Machinery, Bonds, Voting Machines and Valuable Papers. Recommend $50,000 deductible with $125,000 annual aggregate for an annual premium of $81,652. Also, coverage on all blanket and individual bonds remain basically the same premium, which is $21,519.00. Item 23: Motion to approve a $20,000 repayable Economic Development Loan to Sidney's Department Store and Uniform, Inc.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items be approved. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out Item Number 20. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item Number 20? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Any other items need to be pulled, gentlemen? Item 14 through 23, with the exception of Item 20? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion -- was that Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 20, please? CLERK: Item 20 is a motion to approve the allocation of the CDBG funds within Augusta-Richmond County, including Hephzibah and Blythe. Approved by Administrative Services on June 10th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? I was just going to explain it since it came up in my committee. MR. TODD: I'll yield, Mr. Mayor, to my colleague. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mayor, you know, this came after quite a bit of discussion in the committee concerning this, and we all understand the situation here. But as I've said before, that -- you know, Hephzibah and Blythe is a part of the city -- well, a part of Richmond County, and we have to take into consideration that we consider the entire county now as the city. And although we know that these people elected not to do this, there is an alternate route which you may want to consider in this. You may want to let the municipality of both of these -- if you want to take it back and let the municipality of both of these decide, because I don't think this was made by either one of these cities and probably was made by individuals and, therefore, you may want to take it back. And if the city or the cities want to participate in this, maybe we should give them the option of doing that. That would be an alternate route for this. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I think that if we're going to take a action that's going to effect the city, incorporated or unincorporated, that we should have a resolution from that entity calling upon us to take this action. But the other problem that I have with this is that we would only be able to do this if we were a urban county or had urban county status. This is a initiative that I brought up I think a few years ago, and the board didn't move on it because the former city I think, quite frankly, didn't want us to move in. If we are a county over two hundred thousand we would, per my understanding, have urban county status, and it's my understanding that we're approximately two hundred and five thousand. But the other option I think that we would have, short of being a urban county, is to assist the City of Hephzibah and Blythe in filling out applications for a grant through the state. It's my understanding in order to go straight to the federal government for community block grant money--and I stand to be corrected; I believe the Housing and Urban Development Director is down there--is that you got to meet a certain population level, and I believe it's a population of more than fifty thousand or greater. Is that correct? MR. MACK: Well, to be classified as an urban county your population has to be in excess of two hundred thousand. MR. TODD: Right. And how about to go straight to federal government, bypassing the state, for community block grant funds? MR. MACK: Well, if the -- if Hephzibah and Blythe decided to, they could go directly to the state, not the federal government, because the federal government awards those funds to the state government. MR. TODD: Yes. Do the City of Augusta go to the state or go direct to federal? MR. MACK: The City of Augusta is what you call a participating jurisdiction or an entitlement community, and they receive those funds directly from the federal government. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion, if we don't have one on the floor, that we send this back to the committee to work out a formula in which -- you know, if we want -- if the City of Hephzibah and Blythe want approval, then we need a resolution, then we need to look at the CFRs as far as the rules go and make sure that we can do what they are requesting. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I'll yield to Mr. Beard. I think he had his hand up first. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, surely we have no objection -- I don't personally as a committee member. It was placed on the committee and we dealt with it, as I said, as it came on, so I have no personal objections to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I have no objection to it, Mr. Mayor, but one thing -- one point of clarification that I'd like to make concerning this. We understand as far as the money allotments, and the majority of this money is going to go into the urban area. We have no problem with that. We're not trying to get a big chunk of the CDBG money. What we have out there is isolated cases in the 30815 and the 30805 ZIP codes, and the only way that you're going to know -- when you go out there to someone who applies you don't necessarily know where the exact line runs, whether they're in the City of Hephzibah or their out of the City of Hephzibah, because the lines out there really aren't clearly defined. 30815 comes all the way south of Tobacco Road, and it may go across Tobacco Road in some cases, and that's Augusta-Richmond County. 30805 goes outside of the City of Blythe and carries the whole south end of the county, and that's something that needs to be considered. All we're saying is we have some isolated cases, and the citizens of this community do not want to have the door slammed in their face. And if Mr. Todd's motion insists for us to go back and ask these cities to give us a resolution, well so be it. But one thing about it, gentlemen, these gentlemen pay federal taxes and they pay taxes in Augusta-Richmond County. MR. MACK: Let me add one thing regarding the application to the Department of Community Affairs. These funds are awarded on a competitive basis and they are awarded based on the number of low to moderate income people. But the City of Hephzibah, if they were being competitive in terms of this application process -- and I'm not going to attempt to make a decision for the state in terms of awarding these funds, but I will say that on a competitive basis the City of Hephzibah would have a slim chance in being awarded because of the number of low to moderate income people that they have in the community. So I guess the point that I'm making is this: since I worked with the former county there were -- there have been very few homes or houses that have been rehabilitated, and the chances or likelihood of our people being eligible for these grants is very slim. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Mack. Do HUD go by census tracks, traffic tracks, or ZIP codes? MR. MACK: Neither one. MR. TODD: Neither one. MR. MACK: I mean, they use census tracks in rating the grant applications, but I mean they basically use the population based on municipalities and counties. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, my question -- my only concern is -- and I want it to be known on the record that I'm not against Hephzibah or Blythe. It's the -- we as Augusta-Richmond County government shouldn't be sitting here making decisions for two governments who has their own government body, and if they want us to help them, then they request it and then we look at it versus the Commissioner of an area. I'm not against Mr. Powell nor Mr. Bridges, but Hephzibah has not asked us for anything, nor has Blythe asked us. They have two governments and they know how to do and ask for what they need to for their government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion, and it may be the same thing that Mr. Todd made, but what I would like to suggest is that we table this particular item and that we allow Hephzibah and Blythe, their governing bodies, to take the initiative to present us with a resolution should they have any interest in this. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. MR. TODD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, just a second, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, we already had somebody with his hand up. Now, when you run the meeting you can sit up here. As long as I'm running the meeting I'm going to run the meeting; okay? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a motion to table is non-debatable, is my understanding. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're not talking about that, Mr. Todd. Would you just hold on a minute, please? Matter of fact, I was going to ask the Attorney. When we say table, do we table it to the end of the meeting or actually postpone this? MR. WALL: That's correct, and I think that's the intent of the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what you wanted, wasn't it, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Postpone or defer, whatever. MAYOR SCONYERS: Till the next meeting? MR. KUHLKE: I'm going to say that we defer any action on this until we have some formal request from those two entities concerning this particular matter. MAYOR SCONYERS: What do we call that, Mr. Wall, postpone? MR. WALL: Motion to postpone, indefinitely. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. County Attorney, in the language of the first motion, what did you call that? MR. WALL: What he stated was a motion to table, but the table was until they received a resolution from the governing body, which obviously would not be during this meeting, so the intent of the motion was to postpone. MR. TODD: Maybe I need a clarification on the intent. I try to do a good job as far as the procedures go, and I don't have a problem with debating a postponement, I have a problem with debating a table. MR. KUHLKE: Postpone. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to volunteer a point of information here. This is something that wasn't pushed by the Commissioner from that district. When I looked on this agenda and seen it, it was a motion to deny, a motion to deny the people of my district without anyone calling them and asking them for a resolution. It wasn't put on here a motion to request a resolution, and I just want a clarification on that. But Mr. Powell wasn't pushing this item, Mr. Powell is looking out for his citizens. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a substitute motion -- I'm sorry. MR. MAYS: The only thing I would like to see us do if this is going -- and I'm sure in either one of the motions, whichever one passes, it's going back into a committee. I would hope that in that committee process, that there is a determination -- and I think this gives all of us some level of confusion. I'll wait till y'all get through on that end. Okay. What I'm trying to get a clarification on, and I think this will help those people in that area, is that in representing four districts that run from the river to Tobacco Road, part of mine -- and I think you need to clarify in committee what is technically the City of Hephzibah, what is technically Blythe. There are a lot of Hephzibah/Blythe so-called unofficial because of that ZIP code process and postal readings, and I think in doing -- whatever you take back to committee, y'all need to determine that before it comes out of there. Because I want to make sure -- and I don't mind telling you, if we had to vote today in terms of whether you're going to share up CDBG money with the City of Augusta and Richmond County, the Commissioner from District Nine to represent those four districts it will be an unequivocal no. But what I do want to make sure is that people who may be of low and moderate income do not necessarily have to live within the inner-city. There are people that are in pockets of this county who need help and may qualify that may not be technically in the City of Blythe or Hephzibah, and I think that should be the committee's task to work that out to make sure that there are people in this consolidated government that if they fall into that status, that we make sure that we help those folk first on that list because they are a part of this government that voted to be a consolidated government. Now, if we were talking about splitting it today, y'all know where I stand. If it comes back in two weeks to split it, you still know where I stand. I ain't going to change that. But I do think we owe that for citizens in this consolidated government to determine that, because a lot of times when we say going south, this person lives in Hephzibah, this person lives in Blythe. That could be from where you got subdivisions all the way to almost the end of -- near the Burke County line. So I think that needs to be determined before you make a permanent decision on that. Their making a resolution request in order to do that, it was not a resolution request to come inside this government, I ain't prepared to split nothing. But we're not doing that today. But I just wanted to hopefully share that, that the committee does that when it goes back into determining what's going to happen with Hephzibah and Blythe, not just to send us a resolution but that we don't leave out folk that we legitimately represent in that process. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, for all practical purposes, does a city not comprise all of Richmond County with the exception of Hephzibah and Blythe? MR. WALL: Yes, it does. MAYOR SCONYERS: So, actually, anywhere in there a grant can be given; is that correct? MR. WALL: Outside the city limits -- except within the city limits of Blythe and Hephzibah. MAYOR SCONYERS: Blythe and Hephzibah, right. Okay. I just wanted to define that. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it should also be pointed out that the City of Blythe is in two counties, and I'm not sure whether the City of Hephzibah is actually in two counties or not. I think it may just run south to the county line. I've tried to keep up with those annexations when it was important, but, you know, we've been consolidated now for a year and a half. I'm not, too, against the City of Hephzibah or Blythe. There is a mechanism and a path for them to go down to obtain community block grant money. And certainly when we were -- and I don't want to punish anybody for not voting for consolidation, because I'll confess and tell you that I did not vote for it. But the bottom line is, is that there's a process and that we need to follow that process, and we need not to get in trouble with what we're doing as far as community block grant money on trying to help someone that haven't officially requested that help. I think that's probably more important than anything else we're doing here. Official request for help. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Would you read the substitute motion, please, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Bill Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Ulmer Bridges, was to postpone until a formal request is received from the cities of Hephzibah and Blythe concerning this issue of receiving the allocations of the CDBG funds. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? On Item 21, I believe Ms. Schmidel is here. And if I could at this time, since she's come here and would like to speak to this, I wondered if we could give her the opportunity to do this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do we need to rescind the action that was taken? MR. WALL: Yes. I think the proper motion would be to reconsider Item Number 21 and then bring it back up for discussion. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 10 is a motion to deny a request from Judith S. Schmidel -- MR. OLIVER: It's 21. CLERK: That's what I was reading. MR. OLIVER: Oh, okay. You said 10, though. CLERK: Motion to deny a request of Judith S. Schmidel for forgiveness of a housing rehab program conditional deferred payment loan in the amount of $9831.60. MR. WALL: Mayor and members of the Commission, this was put on the agenda as a recommendation to deny the request. And Ms. Schmidel has some special circumstances that are set out in the documentation concerning her health, and there is, frankly, a conflict in the documentation which she apparently signed which indicated that the loan was not automatically forgiven upon the death of the borrower so long as there was a relative who continued to live in there. The loan was one that was forgivable at a rate of twenty percent over a five-year period, and there are two years remaining on her loan. The manual apparently indicated that the loan would be forgiven upon the death of the borrower. She has two other notes that are unsecured and, as I say, the health situation is explained in some detail in the written agenda item. She has requested -- I have recommended denial because you are, in my opinion, going to be confronted with a number of hardship situations. While I'm sympathetic with her situation, I think it establishes a bad precedent. But Ms. Schmidel, I think, wants to indicate her plea that the loan be forgiven. She does have a contract for sale on it, which would pay off the unsecured note, and I would point out that those are family members that would be collecting that money in lieu of this. And if she continues to live in the house or in the event that a relative were to continue to live in the house, then the loan would be forgiven over the balance of the term. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Ms. Schmidel? MS. SCHMIDEL: I'm Judy Schmidel, I'm the -- I'm not the petitioner on this motion because I would like -- I am asking that it be waived earlier, or forgiven earlier is what it would be since it would be forgiven if I stayed there. I do have a copy of the housing rehabilitation program policy manual, page six, wherein it states, "CDBL is forgiven upon death of appli-cant," period. This is what I was going on and what I was told. It was pointed out to me by Mr. Wall that there are different provisions in the loan deed. There's conflict and -- in the disclosure statement is the one where -- not in the loan deed -- well, anyway, in the disclosure statement it states that repayment would be required upon the death of the borrower, primary borrower, you know, and so on unless one of my heirs lived in the property and maintained it and everything for the balance of the term. There is a year and a half left to go on the term. At this particular point I still have a ten percent chance of staying alive through this coming October. There are so many different things. The loan deed also provides that I'm supposed to be paying into an escrow account for taxes and insurance, and any rents that I receive for the property -- no where can I find that I'm supposed to live in this property, even though if I were to die one of my relatives is supposed to move in and live in it. MR. WALL: That was a condition of the loan it was for. MS. SCHMIDEL: That was understood. I was told that. At that time I, frankly, was a little bit too sick to even be reading this stuff, but I didn't have it all to read. I only received -- some of these documents are dated November '92, November '93 and thereafter. I've got the envelope at home where some of these pertinent documents detailing costs and what was to be done to my property were mailed to me on May the 28th of this year. So I got those about a week or so ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I've been working on those ever since. I have been unable to obtain copies of those documents before then despite repeated requests, by letter, by certified mail, by telephone and everything else. This policy manual also states that the total rehabilitation cost to not exceed sixteen thousand dollars. When the work was first done on this in November of '92--now, this November that'll be five years--there was eight thousand dollars and something, eighty-one hundred dollars to put on a roof and rewiring. It's my understanding -- you correct me if I'm wrong, but that eighty-one hundred dollars exceeded some requirement that it couldn't exceed five thousand dollars, so they decided to put that in -- instead of the emergency grant which my document showed, to put that in as rehab loan. In that event, then they got it by this total amount of sixteen thousand. Then they came back up and come up with fourteen thousand seven hundred dollars, which was not the low bid. And some of the bids were pulled, and I was told at that time that you've got --let's say you've got this number of bidders and this number of houses. Then as each one bids, he gets the low bid on that one and then he's pulled out. So since I understand I was the last one to be drawn that day, then I got whoever was left and whatever their bid was. There are a number of discrepancies on these things such as the electrical bill included four hundred dollars to install light fixtures and things in my house. I provided all of those, and I was told that I would get credit for that. And then they told me later that it would be four hundred -- I mean fifty dollars and that was all, and I was too sick to try to fight for fifty dollars, and when I got these papers the other day mailed on the 28th I see that it's four hundred dollars simply for the fixtures now. The labor and all that was separate. That was two thousand and something all together. I'm saying this: I have a buyer who has agreed to buy the property and rent it to low to moderate income people in accordance with the HUD and your guidelines for your rental to meet the goals of the HUD program. I have a letter here, which Mr. Wall has a copy of, that HUD in Atlanta states that they do not see that this would in any way be detrimental to their requirements and that they ask that y'all please consider this and come to some satisfactory agreement on it. Mr. Davis is willing to agree to rent to low and moderate income people and to sign an agreement to that effect. He owns a number of houses in this community. He is dedicated to upgrading this community. He buys old houses usually that are just all rotting down and really fixes them up and rents them to nice people and maintains these properties. He and I -- he owns one next door to me. He and I went in together to build a privacy fence in-between it. We certainly upgraded both properties. He would be upholding the goals, as I understand it, of this program. I'm asking that y'all waive the amounts. And first of all, the amount of ninety-eight hundred dollars, the twenty percent for that first year was never taken off of that. They started over in 1993 and included that entire eighty-one hundred dollars emergency grant and added that on. So you've got a lot of discrepancies here. I've been trying to work with the city. I'm willing to drop it, forget about it; if not, I've already got a call in to the Office of HUD Investigation and Fraud. I have been informed by HUD in Atlanta that y'all do have a responsibility of due diligence as to the quotes and the contract costs and things like that to make sure that I am not gouged, and -- things like four hundred dollars for electrical fixtures that were never delivered because I delivered them; a thousand dollars for termite treatment when the actual cost was five hundred and ten dollars. I have these figures. I have quotes for everything that was done on my house. They come to a high figure of about eleven thousand -- I've got it somewhere -- eleven thousand and about six hundred dollars. The low figure was ten thousand and five hundred. Y'all paid out twenty-five thousand to somebody somewhere I don't know. So I'm asking y'all to reconsider and I'm asking you to approve the waiver on this. If not, then I'm -- this is the last thing I'll do, I'll fight going out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Wall, did you want to say something? MR. WALL: Well, I was going to point out there are two different issues. Insofar as whether or not there was anything improper done, I mean, that ought to be investigated regardless of what happens to the loan balance. And that's something that I don't think we ought to, as she apparently suggests, sweep under the rug by virtue of forgiving the loan. I will say that there are some allegations that have been made and have already been looked at that, frankly, are not justified. And there is a conflict between the policy manual and the loan documentation which she signed, and I agree with that. I mean, in the committee's agenda book there's a part of the policy manual; however, in the loan documentation that was drawn up by whom I don't know in '92, it clearly says that it would be forgiven -- would not be forgiven except in the situation where the -- it's not forgiven at death and an heir has to continue to reside there and the title has to be in their name and carry out the full five years. And, again, I think you've got a hardship situation, but it's not going to be the only hardship situation, and I hope that she's here in eighteen months so that, you know, the loan will be forgiven at that time. But I don't think that we ought to confuse those two issues. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I know we're all sympathetic here, but I'm going to make a motion here that we deny the request and that we order the Attorney and the Administrator to look into it and investigate any other discrepancies that may exist with this particular loan. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion. MS. SCHMIDEL: May I ask one thing? There were supposed to be two requests here. One was that it was either waived or that y'all allow Mr. Davis to assume the obligations under that loan, providing that he rent to the low and moderate income people, which would satisfy the goals of the program. This was not on there. I'm asking that that be considered. We are closing this loan on this Friday. I have got to move to be with my family so they can look after me. I'm here alone in this city and you can tell it, I'm standing here fighting all of y'all and, damn it, I hate it. This is wrong. Y'all are treating me wrong. So I'd like for you to give me answer, yes or no, can he assume this indebtedness today? It was supposed to be on here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have two questions. And first let me start out by saying you're not the only one calling for an investigation of what's going on as far as this city go, as far as HUD community block grant, and I think that no one that sit on this government today was on this government in 1992 - - MR. HANDY: Just two, Mr. Todd. Just two. That's what I was going to bring up. MR. TODD: And we certainly -- we certainly welcome the investigations. I do, you know. And so to clear that, that that is not over anyone's head as far as -- you know, I perceived it as a threat and I don't like being threatened or intimidated. That's one. Now, the decision is that I don't have enough information to base this on. You tell me you have a letter from HUD. That letter is not in the book and I would request a copy of that letter. You tell me that you're terminally ill. That's in, I guess, your information that you supplied, but I don't have anything as far as a medical release from your doctor to deter-mine that by, even if I was going -- if I had the HUD letter and I was going to give you consideration. I have to do things by a process. I can't do it on emotions, I got to do it per what the HUD regulations is and what the law is. Emotions I can't do it on. MS. SCHMIDEL: I understand that. I furnished the names of my doctors and written authorization to contact them, and I also sent copies of their reports stating what my prognosis and chances are from here and from Vanderbilt in Nashville, Tennessee. They're in a file. I sent them to Mr. Keven Mack. I understand that he's not -- maybe -- I don't know. It was my - - I understood that he was sending all of this stuff to Mr. Wall, and Mr. Wall tells me the other day -- including this copy of the sales contract wherein the buyer was agreeing to assume these conditions of the loan. I do not mean this as a threat as such. I'm not trying to intimidate you, I'm trying to tell you I don't have the energy for this fight. I'll cooperate in any way that I can, and I have done so. I've got file after file, I have done my best. I have put everything in my life into this particular problem for the past few years except going to the doctors and fighting there. MR. TODD: Yes, ma'am. If you'll yield. Mr. Mayor, do anyone have the letter from HUD? I think that's important here in making a decision or even a substitute motion. And the other thing that we need, if anyone have it, is a statement from the doctor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mack, do you have one? MR. MACK: Yes. There is a letter from HUD, and the County Administrator Mr. Oliver and I have gone over that letter. And, in essence, the letter said actually that HUD doesn't have a problem with us forgiving that loan, that it is a local decision. Now, I would also add that Ms. Schmidel's situation is a very complex situation. I mean, her file is probably about three or four inches thick compared to the normal one-inch thickness of the regular file, because during the process of -- during the construction of her house or rehabilitation of her house, according to the former inspector, there were a number of problems going back and forth and legal issues and letters written back and forth. And, I mean, it was not only a nightmare for her but apparently was a nightmare for the former inspector. Now, one of the things that Mr. Oliver and I discussed when we were trying to assist with this situation is, number one, whether there has been a precedence in this situation or not. And one of the things that we wanted to do as a new local government is say, hey, let's not set a precedence because there are several others, believe me, waiting. You know, as soon as we make this one, hey, there are several more coming. The other thing that we have to look at is the spirit and intent of this program. The spirit and intent of this program -- although I am very sympathetic with Ms. Schmidel's situation. Mr. Oliver and I both are very sympathetic. The spirit and intent of this program is to not let a homeowner reap a windfall as a result of the sale of their property. That's the spirit and intent of this program. And this loan is forgiven twenty percent each year. Now, again, I said I'm very sympathetic with Ms. Schmidel. If it was my mother I would speak the same way. MS. SCHMIDEL: May I speak on that? MR. OLIVER: Well, let me add one thing. I have had one additional request since this one has come in, and that's just for the record. MS. SCHMIDEL: I'd like to address the windfall issue. I'm not making a windfall on this. Those unsecured loans that you're talking about were monies that were loaned to me by my mother and an aunt. My mother -- my aunt had to sell all of her stock on her retirement funds to loan me the money to buy this house, and the other funds went into the repairs and the rehabilitations that I have done. I added a room, I corrected the back room where the ceiling was falling in; I've had to repair the furnace, the hot water heater and oodles of other stuff. I'm not making a windfall. If y'all want to see the figures, I'll sit down and I'll give them to -- all of those figures to you. I've got stacks of bills, you know, where I've been buying materials and all like that. I sat down the other night, hard as it was, and I added those darn things up and I came up with something like three thousand dollars and something, plus the other things like the furnace and the hot water system and the incoming water line. That was supposed to be done by these contractors y'all hired. Y'all paid out eighteen hundred dollars to two different people at two different times. Each one was supposed to completely upgrade my plumbing system to code. A thousand to one and eight hundred to another. I replaced the incoming water lines and I did ninety-five percent of the other plumbing work in that house. Anyway, the goal of this -- I'm not making a windfall. If I sell at thirty-two thousand and pay off the first mortgage and the second mortgage and the money I borrowed to pay the IRS, I will walk out even. I also had some equity where I've been paying payments -- monthly payments on this building up equity in the house. MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Schmidel -- MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I need to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke was asking Ms. Schmidel something. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. KUHLKE: The tax lien was -- do you mind telling us what that was? I mean, I don't see any correlation between this -- what we're talking about and your tax lien. MS. SCHMIDEL: Well, when I took out this loan I notified y'all of everything I owed: the first mortgage, the second mortgage, you know, the monies I owed to my mother and my aunt, and I owed the tax lien to the IRS. That happened because I got sick, I had no income, and I couldn't pay it. MR. KUHLKE: It's my understanding from the County Attorney that the provisions of loan are nonassumable. MS. SCHMIDEL: The loan deed states in there that y'all have the right to consent to the buyer of my property. Now, you want to get real technical, the -- MR. WALL: Whoever assumes the loan, let me clarify, would have to meet the same criteria. Mr. Davis would not meet the criteria. MS. SCHMIDEL: You've got conflicting things in this contract. As an attorney, somebody should -- I'm not an attorney, but you might want to have an attorney look at it. And that conflicts with the disclosure statement and also your policy manual. MAYOR SCONYERS: Were you finished, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, then Mr. Handy. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might be in order, because we've had a lot to say about this, and I'm going to be honest with you, from a personal standpoint I feel a little bit uncomfortable -- and I know we do -- supposed to do this by the law. I feel a little bit uncomfortable supporting the motion that's on the floor at this time now. Maybe the committee may not want to hear this one again, but my substitute motion is part of what's in the original motion, and that is, I'd like to make one which, yes, examines this one along with any other cases where unlawful things or the head of unlawful things have been done. But I think as it relates to this lady, I'd like to see it go back to committee and give her a chance to submit everything that's there. And I appreciate -- I know where Mr. Mack and Mr. Oliver are coming from, and I appreciate the non-setting of precedence. But, you know, at times it's a thing that's called fairness, and sometimes to achieve fairness you have to set one. And I'm not sure whether or not at this point of making an individual decision on this lady's life -- she might outlive me, might outlive everybody in here. But the thing is, I do think if you're going to start talking about hardships -- and this is an inheritance problem. We got this from the old city. But it's in our court, we got to play it. And I think what has happened is a clear case of one those pointed-out situations where she was not necessarily dealt the great fair hand of one of the Brooks Brothers or Lillie Ann type situations that was put together by the city government. If anyone probably -- and I'm listening to what she's just orally saying about finances. This one probably should have been to the fullest limits of a grant rehab program from the very start, with limited amounts on the loan from the very beginning. But we can't say that, we don't know what was necessarily there. Keven, y'all might have the numbers on it. But what I'm talking about is we got to make a decision now, and if I had to make one today, I'm not in a position to say that this is not necessarily a hardship case that we can't make one on. I think she needs to be given that time to resubmit whatever she's got from HUD. If we need to reask them in her particular situation where we can go from this one and redeal with it and look at what she has got, I think it would be helpful. And nine thousand dollars -- and I'm not saying that we ought to run away from every fight because somebody makes a challenge. I don't have a problem with anybody challenging me, arguing with me, or threatening me. When it's your life and you're questioned about how much of it you may have left, I think you got a right if you're going to argue with me. That's the process of debate. We argue with each other, so none of us ought to have a problem with anybody arguing with us. But I think in terms of achieving the bottom line of fairness, and maybe because I've not had a full level of exposure to her particular case, I feel a little bit empty in making that decision today in terms of doing that denial. I'd like to see it go back to committee. And if we're going to handle these cases in terms of something that's been done wrong, then hey, let that ball fall, I don't have a problem with it. I think you got some -- well, y'all know my feelings and I'll discuss them in executive session. You got some folks ought to be where probably the population would drop in this city anyway. But I think this one needs to go back to really look at whether or not you've got that type of hardship in there, and I'm not prepared to make a decision on it today. That's my substitute motion. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to substitute that -- second the substitute motion. I'm also going to call for the question because we can't make no decision on this. CLERK: You're seconding it; is that what you're saying? MR. HANDY: I'm seconding it and calling for the question because we can't make no decision on all this. I don't even know what she's talking about, let alone trying to make a decision on it. MR. MAYS: And I think too, Jim, in the interim it may give her a chance, if that buyer does not qualify and if we're going to do no on both options, to at least maybe find an eligible person in a hardship situation that it could be passed on to. MS. SCHMIDEL: He has qualified. We're supposed to close Friday. That's three days from now. And if this goes back to committee, I'd like to know how I can pay the funds into court until this is settled so that we can - - I can give good -- MR. WALL: Your attorney can handle that. All he's got to do is escrow ninety-eight hundred dollars or whatever the number is. He knows how to do that. MS. SCHMIDEL: We're prepared to do that. MR. WALL: He knows how to do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy, that this go back to committee. All in favor of that, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MS. SCHMIDEL: I'd like to say one thing. I'd like to recommend Keven Mack. I've dealt with Perrow and all that bunch for so long and I got real bitter, and Mr. Keven Mack is certainly a great improvement. I commend him. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. We very seldom hear something nice. I appreciate that, and I know Keven appreciates that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 25, please? CLERK: Item 24, sir. The motion to approve the Subordi-nation Agreement for Francis C. Heslen to be subordinated to loan by the First Bancorp Corporation with regard to property located at 1528 Craig Street. This was referred by the committee. MR. OLIVER: This is a refinance and it doesn't impair our equity. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Who seconded that? CLERK: Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? Thank you. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, my question would be, I guess, to the County Attorney or Administrator, that everything is in order on this? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 25, please? CLERK: Engineering Services: Items 25 through 40 were approved by the committee on June 10th. [Item 25: Motion to approve job descriptions for Assistant Directors of Public Works for Engineering Services, Operations and Facilities Maintenance and Construction. Item 26: Motion to approve the Riverlook Road Subcommittee recommendation to construct parking lots and pedestrian traffic lanes on property leased by West Augusta Little League on Eisenhower Drive with County Forces at a cost not to exceed $30,700.00 funded from 1997 SPLOST Funds. Item 27: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Number 57-8558- 097 in the amount of $127,000, the engineering proposal from Johnson, Laschober and Associates, P.C. in the amount of $6,000 for Dunham Court Drainage Improvements to be funded from Suburban Forces Drainage in Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III and request to let for bid. Item 28: Motion to approve bid award to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. in the amount of $190,665.90 on the Hillwood Circle/Whitehead Drive Drainage Improvement Project and approve the contracts subject to receipt of proper bonds and signatures. (Funded by SPLOST, Phase III) Item 29: Motion to approve Change Order #2 for General Roadway and Drainage Improvements, Phase I to construct a permanent traffic control island at Skinner Mill Road and New Skinner Mill Road as previously directed by the Commission in the amount of $16,186.45 with Beam's Pavement Maintenance. (Funded by Project Contingency) Item 30: Motion to approve the naming of an unnamed alley in Harrisburg as "Logan Lane." Item 31: Motion to authorize bidding and construction of boat ramp at the Lock and Dam and to authorize the Administrator to award bid to lowest qualified bidder. Item 32: Motion to approve authorization to proceed with surveying and engineering services for the Laney-Walker Blvd. Street Improvements Project by Charles T. Alexander at a cost not to exceed $96,000 for the total engineering on the project. Item 33: Motion to approve authorization to proceed with surveying and engineering services for Augusta Canal Third Level Improvements -Phase II by Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. at a cost not to exceed $50,370. Item 34: Motion to authorize bidding and construction of 2,100' of 6" water line along Grape Avenue and Weaver Drive and establish a project budget of $22,250.00. Item 35: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,126.68 for Mabus Construction Co., Inc. regarding the emergency replacement of the 6" water line along Koger and White Roads. Item 36: Motion to approve authorization to proceed with surveying and engineering for the Augusta Canal Multi-Use Bikeway/Pedestrian Trail by W.R. Toole Engineers at a cost not to exceed $105,371.00 subject to funding by the Canal Authority. Item 37: Motion to approve installation of three (3) additional monitoring wells and related sampling and analysis, field investigations, preparation of assessment report to evaluate maximum contaminant level, meet with ARC Landfill and Georgia EPD, revise sampling and analysis plans corrective measures with Conestoga-Rovers Associates in the amount of $70,900. (Funding from Landfill account) Item 38: Motion to approve purchase and installation of sixteen (16) entrance signs on major roadways to Augusta at a cost of approximately $800 each. Item 39: Motion to authorize a $1000 sponsorship for International AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition in Atlanta. Item 40: Motion to authorize contract with Atlantic Construction & Marine Services for $1,250 to inspect Canal Bulk Head Gates on June 30 subject to funding by the Canal Authority.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we accept Items 25 through 40 as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Powell's motion? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 41? CLERK: Item 41 is to approve awarding of the engineering contract to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst on the 60" raw water line. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. HANDY: Go ahead, Mr. Todd, then I'll be next. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if we'll start on this end. Mr. Mayor, certainly I see that there is some folks that's wanting to be competitive with everything and, you know, I don't guess there's a law against being competitive. I guess the other side of being competitive is trying to do some things locally, and we've got in some pretty heated debates over some professional services contracts in the last six weeks or so. I'd like to remind my colleagues that if we're going to pick these things apart, then we need to look at all professional services and put all professional services out on the chopping block, and that's including those that Recreation do, that Water Works that, that Public Works do, et cetera. The Public Works right now, professional services as far as engineering services go that's outsourced go to flood basins. There is a engineering firm -- well, it's one of the best set-asides I ever seen. And I know that some of my colleagues don't like the term set-asides, but the set-aside is that the -- the flood basin that's set aside for an engineering firm ought -- the engineering surveying firm, and anything basically that happen in that flood basin goes to that firm. There is not necessarily any competitism in there. And, also, probably if we go down there and look at the disclosures, we'd probably see that some of those engineering firms make contributions to some of us, you know, maybe even to this Commissioner, but that don't make it right. And I think that if we're going to deal with this and go to a competitive basis, then I --I would welcome it. Let's do it, let's set up the procedure, let's go out for proposals, because I can assure you that those of us that is concerned about whether a minority get, you know, work as far as professional services go, they darn well are not going to get any as long as it's set up where it's set aside for six or seven good old boys. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. OLIVER: I would like the Commission to know one thing in regard to this one because I do believe in full disclosure. The amount of those engineering services are going to be a mid six-figure number. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call on the Utilities Director, Mr. Hicks, to come up and explain this situation for my colleagues. It's not the good-old-boy system here, it's really some very technical drawbacks to this particular project that I think we need to be all aware of. Mr. Hicks, would you come up and explain that to these gentlemen? MR. HICKS: Okay. The agenda item that originally came before the Engineering Services Committee really had to do with asking for an engineering contract for facilities assessment and comprehensive master plan to water treatment plants. There was a motion made to approve that, and then there was a second, then the question was asked, well, what about the work on the bond projects. And I made the comment that we had prepared a -- illuminated this, but then in consultation with the Administrator it was thought that it would perhaps be best if we had a more formal process which involved going out for request for qualifications from various firms and then making selections after we went through that process. I made the comment that there is one particular project, and that is the sixty-inch raw water line, which probably will take one of the longest design times because of the uniqueness of trying to locate a line of that size across and through the Augusta Country Club, the Augusta National, perhaps through subdivision areas. It's going to be a delicate thing and it's going to take some time. And, also, the amount of time to build a four-mile sixty-inch water line through areas of that type made me want to go ahead and ask to be able to award this contract at the earliest possible date, so we suggested that we award it to the firm of Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst because of their previous association with both the Augusta National and the Augusta Country Club. Also, they have a strong surveying arm and would be very capable of doing the location surveys and carrying all of that out inhouse. So we recommended awarding that contract to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst; then on the remainder of the projects going ahead and looking at the request for qualifications, responses that came in, and making recommendations to you at that time. So that's how this came about. That then was added to the motion, but it was only two to one in favor and that was not sufficient to recommend it. So that was the status, but we would like to go ahead and award this one if we could. Those are the circumstances, their familiarity with the two major entities that we're going to have to cross. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you have -- MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was what I wanted Mr. Hicks to let the Commission know. I think what we're trying to do is, in some cases, is micromanage these professionals that we've hired and try to tell them how to build roads, we try to tell them how to run water lines; but none of us up here has done that, and I think sometimes we have to have enough confidence in our staff -- and I know I certainly have a lot of faith in Mr. Hicks and Mr. Weidmeier with the Utilities Department, and I think they've made the proper call here. Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst is the engineers for the Augusta National, and it's -- you know, you've got a time frame there that you're dealing with. You've got a very delicate situation there so that we don't hold this project up and make the people run short of water should we have another blowout. And that's the crucial aspect of this, and I think that we ought to look at our professionals that we've hired and give them the opportunity to make their call. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was the one to question this particular item, and my reason for questioning it is, to give it to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst just because they have ties with the Augusta National don't mean nothing to me. You shouldn't just give away that kind of money just because somebody knows somebody else or tied to it. If it needs to be bidded, it needs to be bidded. I can understand if they got a good relationship with them, but that still doesn't say that we should give it to them because they are friends of Augusta National or because they know somebody. That's not the way we're supposed to do business here. MR. HICKS: If I might comment along that line. Be it -- you know, be it basic that -- first, that they were a very qualified and experienced local engineering firm, I would agree certainly with Mr. Handy that friendship with anyone should be no basis. But Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst is one of the stronger local firms insofar as projects of some magnitude are concerned, so that had a great bearing in it. Had they not been, then it -- it would've been immaterial to me who they were friends with or not friends with. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question on that latter one. It was my understanding because they already were the engineers for Augusta National, not that they were friends. MR. HICKS: Well, that's true. I don't know what friendship Mr. Robertson has with anyone, but they do the work -- when we had to do some work looking at one of the pockets of unsewered areas, and we're looking at a sewer line that potentially might have to go across the Augusta National property, they were the firm that we were referred to to deal with that had done the master plan, had a large-scale map of the whole facility and that sort of thing. So that's -- they were the ones that we were referred to at that time, so that's where that came from. I don't know about friendships. Really I used the wrong term. MR. ZETTERBERG: So really that's the thrust of the issue if we should give it to Cranston, Robertson, because they are the engineer for the Augusta National. That's the decision point. Is that work -- MR. HICKS: Plus, they're a very qualified -- you know, they're a very qualified firm. They've done some outstanding projects. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm sure that all the other ones. But that's the deciding factor [inaudible] the Augusta National. MR. HICKS: It did, it tipped it in my own mind in that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I probably stated before, and right or wrong I stand by this, that certainly when we're going across the Augusta National, I don't really care that much -- I don't say this as far as the Country Club go. The Country Club, as far as I'm concerned, is a group of members, you know, there and it's a separate entity from the National in the sense of what damage we could do in there on the golf course. And my position is that when we go in there, that we should work with them as far as what we're doing in there. I know the average citizen don't like us coming through their yard and not correcting the situation when we leave. And when the county can work with the National as far as a engineer go, then certainly that kind of, you know, let me know that I'm not going to hear a lot of complaints, you know, that they bought into the process, the way things are going to be done, et cetera, and that engineer that works for that golf course is not going to do something that's going to have a negative impact on the golf course. So I think both interests is represented. I don't have a problem there. But I think that if we're going to nit-pick the engineering firms of professional services, then I'm willing to go on and let the County Administrator bring a proposal back to put everything out competitively, then we go with the lowest proposal. There's no bid requirement here. We've done it with the Space Allocation, so let's do it, let's be competitive. My colleagues has said that they wanted to be competitive, they wanted to go with the lowest dollar bid or [inaudible] bid, so I'm ready to do it and I think that we need to move in that direction and move soon. And if we don't do something soon, I'll have it put on the agenda and we'll vote it up or down. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Randy? MR. KUHLKE: I think there are just two clarifications from what Mr. Hicks said. Obviously their relationship and the trust that they've instilled with the Augusta National is an issue, but from my conversation with Mr. Hicks, also we're relying on the strong surveying capabilities of this firm, that they have one of the largest--and this is a large surveying job--the largest surveying forces in the local area, as well as augmenting with good engineering services, their ability to perform the work. But perhaps more importantly, if my memory is right, Mr. Hicks, it's nine months to design and eighteen months to build. Is that what you figured? MR. HICKS: Right. If we let the contract to build in two pieces, then both running concurrently, it could be built in eighteen months easily. MR. OLIVER: Okay. So even there we would be building it in two pieces. It's anticipated this construction project is about nine millions dollars, so I'm comfortable with Mr. Hicks' recommendation. What was agreed in committee, however, was that we would go out with requests for proposal for the remaining projects that we have a little more space timewise to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask Mr. Hicks, is this an exception to the rule or is this a common thing? Since I'm not that familiar with what you're doing here as far as not bidding on these projects, is this solely an exception? MR. HICKS: Well, if you'll notice under this, there's a number of items that were approved as a consent. Probably over two hundred thousand dollars worth of contracts were selected and awarded and y'all approved them today by a consent based upon a recommendation of either the Public Works or former city engineering or whatever group. So generally the engineers have been selected based on the best judgment and proposals of the departments involved. MR. BEARD: They're not all competitive bidding? MR. HICKS: Right. The exception is to go out for statements of qualifications, which we're doing, but like I say, the Administrator felt like we would do well to do a more formal process. But most of the engineering contracts are let just by recommendations. MR. BEARD: But I would think that at some time we really need to look into this, and I agree with what Commissioner Todd has said. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will the maker of the motion accept an amendment? MR. POWELL: I'd like to hear what the amendment is first. MR. TODD: Okay. The amendment is on all professional services, that we go out in the future for competitive proposals. MR. POWELL: No, Mr. Todd, I won't accept that as an amendment. MR. TODD: Well, you just lost a vote here. MR. POWELL: So be it. MR. HICKS: Might I -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver was shaking his head. Randy, do you want to say something. MR. OLIVER: Okay. With a professional services contract, if you have two equally qualified people on a professional services contract obviously price becomes a factor. However, I could see a situation where you could get ten proposals in, one of them could be by far and away the lowest bidder and the person would either be totally unqualified or marginally qualified, and if you had a nine million dollar project and I gave this to a marginally qualified firm to do that work, I would not be here too long. Obviously you have to weigh the price that they give you against the qualification and the ability of that firm to be able to perform. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I would assume that we would get statements of qualifications and that we would have a pre-proposal mix and that we would probably disqualify or reject any proposals that we didn't feel that -- we felt that was frivolous. Now, less than six weeks ago we debated the issue with a -- that involved a minority firm where the low proposal was not a minority and they were equally qualified to do the work, and then we took a third majority firm and used their methodology as far as delivery go and was going to put it on either/or regardless of who we chose. We went with the low proposal. There was no requirement to do so. Now I hear folks wanting to move away from going with the low proposal. Now, you tell me how minorities is supposed to play this damn game if you change the rules as we go or make the rules as we go. That's my point. We either should go with low proposals or best proposals or something, but we got to have some rules here, gentlemen, to play by. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, haven't the professional services agreements always been handled this way? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, on the best proposal. And the department has reviewed -- generally they're familiar with the engineering firms that are doing the work. They come in and make a recommendation, and after discussion and looking at their capabilities, et cetera, the project can -- and that's the way it has been handled. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. I don't think I'm going to get what I want here today, but I can assure you that I will flood this community with [inaudible] engineering surveying firms and we will see what rule we go to or change to then. We got the good-old-boy system here, it's live and it's well, and you don't want to change from it. But the bottom line is that you have set-asides whether you want to admit it or not, and the set-asides is to flood basins. And it's my understanding that set-asides are supposed to be illegal, so let's do away with the damn set-asides. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I hate to say anything, but I hate to hear Mr. Todd use an example where I don't think that it's germane in this particular situation. With the Space Allocation Committee we had three firms that we looked at. They were all qualified firms. We had one firm that submitted a bid that was substantially lower than anybody else, and from the standpoint of economics I thought--I thought, you didn't--that we should accept that bid, and that's what we did as a Commission. You know, and so I think you're clouding the issue in what you're trying to say here as far as set-asides or whatever might take place. I think in the case of engineering, that you do have to look very strongly at the qualifications of the firms. I think that -- I'm all for spreading that business around, but sometimes it's very difficult in those professions to look at it strictly from the standpoint of cost. So I couldn't sit here and not say something concerning what you're talking about because I think you're trying to move it into an issue that is totally out of range. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I certainly think it's germane. We hired a engineering firm or construction management firm to do this work. We didn't hire a planning firm, architectural engineering firm, et cetera, to do it. I don't think we hired the best qualified, but that's not the issue. The issue here is that we were going to go with the lowest proposals and we didn't even go out for proposals on this work. I could have voted for the Robertson company to do the Augusta National in the sense that I would perceive it as being the best proposal. But we're not going out for anything, it's my understanding, over there in that area and that is wrong. It is wrong, too, not to go out for proposals as far as the Public Works go. I work with engineers every day, so -- you know, company engineers and contract engineers. I know, you know, the importance of qualifications of engineers. And as far as Space Allocation go, I don't think we're clouding the issue here. I think the issue is that we stated that the taxpayers wanted the products for the lowest cost, qualified. And when we don't go out for proposals, then certainly we don't have the best price or have no way of measuring whether we have the best price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, did you want to say something? Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm not so sure what I heard a few minutes ago about the best bid. Look like it's a little different from what happened about three or four weeks ago. I just listened to the record of what Mr. Kuhlke said, and I'm not so sure that firm that was gotten was able to deliver on that. I think Mr. Oliver is supposed to bring us back something on that, because I think that -- and I was on myself about two or three weeks ago, and I made a comment and someone took offense to it. But it's going back to the same thing, there seems not to be any way to get around this business of not being fair. Keep the playing field kind of level. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks, do you want to say something? They kind of left you out there by yourself. I'm sorry. MR. HICKS: No, sir, I'm just listening. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Anybody else? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion -- MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear the motions again. I think there's two on the floor, isn't there, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, just one. CLERK: No, sir, just the one to approve. Motion to approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion to approve. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 42, please? CLERK: 42 was approved by the Public Safety Committee on June 10th. [Item 42: Motion to approve Change Order with Beers Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $62,887 to provide and install a total of six new rooms (two rooms for each pod A, B and C) at Phinizy Road Detention Facility.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, and I move for approval by the Commission. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. May I? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: That's Item 42; right? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: How do you install a room? MAYOR SCONYERS: Who wants to answer that? MR. POWELL: Very carefully, Mr. Mayor. MR. OLIVER: We hire the Sheriff's people to guard prisoners, not to write. MR. HANDY: I'm serious, how do you install a room? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, it's my understanding that in each pod we had some -- we had enough space to add additional partitions in there. This was - - am I right, Jim? MR. WALL: Yeah, in some space that was available they could convert and use into supply storage, et cetera, and so this is to -- MR. KUHLKE: For each pod. MR. HANDY: Right. I was there and I know what you're talking about, but I said how do you install a room. I know what you mean. No other questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: In other words, you want to see the truck bring it in the city? MR. HANDY: Right. I just want to see them install a room, right. MAYOR SCONYERS: It's by Handy-House. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 43, please? CLERK: Items 43 through 52 were approved by the Public Services Committee June 10th. [Item 43: Motion to approve $28,000 as detailed in 1997 Capital Budget toward purchase of replacement Bookmobile; said funds to be matched with federal, state, and other library funds to purchase vehicle. Item 44: Motion to approve license extension request from Jerry L. Kight for an extension to purchase the alcohol beverage license to be used in connection with the Town Tavern Restaurant located at #15 Seventh Street. District 1, Super District 9. Item 45: Motion to approve new ownership request by Chandrea Dock for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Club Hollywood's located at 1505 North Leg Road. There will be a dance hall. District 3, Super District 10. Item 46: Motion to approve Sunday Sales License request by Glenn Ashley for a Sunday Sales License to be used in connection with Charlie's Restaurant & Tavern located at 2182 Gordon Highway. District 3, Super District 10. Item 47: Motion to approve ARC Recreation & Parks Department assuming operations of the Newman Tennis Center effective July 1, 1997 with existing personnel subject to negotiating a contract with the Center's Manager and increase position control as follows: Manager, $30,240; Head Professional, $7,500 (20 hr/week- $7.50/hr); Groundskeeper full-time, $15,255; Part-time support staff, $20,000 (not to exceed annually). Projected deficit in 1997, $12,000; funding to be taken from Recreation and Park budget. Item 48: Motion to approve professional services supplement at Belle Terrace Swim Center for $6,500 to Precision Planning, Inc. Item 49: Motion to approve Plan for Phase I renovations to Julian Smith/Lake Olmstead Park in the amount of $689,431 and to approve the transfer of Augusta Canal Master Plan funds in the amount of $100,000 in SPLOST Phase III, to be added to the said project subject to formal dedication of $100,000 of SPLOST funds from the Canal Authority. Item 50: Motion to approve $25,000 increase to the capital budget for architectural and construction cost related to roof replacement of the "old tower" electrical vault building and work order for Cheatham, Fletcher, Scott & Sears Architects, not to exceed 10% of contract. Item 51: Motion to approve $120,000 increase to the capital budget for architectural and construction services related to the demolition of the old hotel wings, along with work order for Cheatham, Fletcher, Scott & Sears Architects, not to exceed $4,500. Item 52: Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between Gregory Szymik and Augusta-Richmond County to provide professional services related to transit planning activities at an hourly rate of $30.00, not to exceed $7,500.00 (budgeted item).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: 52 or 53, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: No, sir, 53 was an add-on. MR. MAYS: All right. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept Items 43 through 52 as a consent agenda, and those items which are listed as alcohol licenses, 44, 45 and 46, shall be -- CLERK: Would you like me to read those? MR. MAYS: Go ahead. CLERK: Okay. For the benefit of -- MR. MAYS: And check for the objectors. And I don't believe you have any here, do you, Mr. Walker? MR. KUHLKE: Second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. CLERK: Mr. Kight requesting -- Jerry Kight, for alcohol beverage license at the Town Tavern located at #15 Seventh Street; a new ownership by Chandrea Dock for an on-premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Club Hollywood located at 1505 North Leg Road; and approve Sunday Sales request by Glenn Ashley for Charlie's Restaurant & Tavern located at 2182 Gordon Highway. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have any objectors, do we? [None noted.] We have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have some questions on 47, but not on the rest of them. CLERK: You want to pull that? MR. MAYS: You want us to pull it out, Freddie? MR. HANDY: Right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there may not be a need to pull 43 out, but I want to know where the funding that we're matching, et cetera, is coming from. MR. HANDY: And that could be answered for 47, too. I may not need to pull it either. MR. OLIVER: On 43 it's coming out of the capital replacement funds account. Mr. McKie signed that on the back of the agenda item. On the Newman Tennis Center, Mr. Beck can address that, but it's coming out of their existing budget in savings that they've accrued during the year. MR. BECK: This funding deficit that we're projecting for the year, which would -- for the rest of '97, which would be approximately twelve thousand dollars, is what we would be projecting at this time would come out of, again, a similar situation to the West Augusta soccer fields we had a couple of months ago. Our Belle Terrace Swim Center was annualized -- the budget was annualized for the year and was approved as such, so we actually have several months of funding that have not been used. We're scheduled to open that facility within the month, so we feel like there is funding there that can be identified should we have this deficit, which is what we are proposing. Hopefully we'll be able to at least break even, but we won't be able to see that until we get into it. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor? I hope this is not a tough question, but if we didn't have the other situations that developed, what would happen to the funds that was appropriated but not used because the facility wasn't ready to go online? MR. BECK: What would happen to them? MR. OLIVER: They would drop back to the General Fund if they were not used for the intended purpose. We have that situation that occurs frequently with lapsed salaries and things like that. They roll over into our balance forward. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, the reason why I ask that question was we just came in a situation that somehow or another we creatively found money for the Women's Boxing, $25,000, and now Recreation has got a new tennis court that all that stuff came up like the soccer thing. So why all of a sudden Recreation keep finding money to shift their budget around? Are we over budget in Recreation or how are they getting money to throw around? I mean, we need Recreation to run the government if they can move money like that. MR. BECK: I'll vote against that one myself. These funds are just not sitting out there. We do an annualized budget when we do our budget process in September and October. We knew these projects were '97 projects, were going to be built -- matter of fact, they had already started construction in '96. Not knowing when during the year that they're going to open up, the budgets are annualized, and you as a Commission approved it as such. Now that we know when the facilities are going to open, those months are available. We couldn't use them for any other purpose -- you know, since you're asking where the monies are coming from, that has to be a recommendation because those are available funds. MR. HANDY: Okay. [END OF TAPE 2]--as long as you can move it within yourself. But you're going to run out if you keep doing it. MR. OLIVER: I made sure that was written in the motion, Commissioner Handy, if you'll look at Item 47. MR. HANDY: Say that again? MR. OLIVER: If you'll look at Item 47, at the very bottom of the motion it's written in there. MR. HANDY: Oh, I know. I see the line that's twelve thousand dollars. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I would ask Mr. Todd, did that cover on 43 [inaudible]. I believe he was going to go ahead and answer you that on 43. MR. TODD: Yes. I was just thinking that certainly this would be a capital improvement and there's a possibility one penny could have been used for the Library, but I won't -- I think if the money has been identified, it's been identified. But as far as Recreation go, we're trying to move money from Public Works administrative contingency one penny to Recreation, maybe you can find some additional money so we won't have to entertain doing that. MR. MAYS: What I was going to ask, Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Todd brought that up, was that -- I thought, Moses, at that time, too, but I didn't say anything. One of the things I was saving was that just in case that if there was a gap period in there, and knowing with what Mr. Leach and those needed, that if the match for some strange reason did not materialize on time that you needed it, then we would have a source to fall back on and that we were guaranteeing that the Bookmobile would be able to move, so if we had to come to you, you know, and ask anything. And, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we call ourselves doing you a little favor, because we didn't anticipate last year, you know, getting a golf course. It's up and running and it's about doubled the money. We didn't anticipate getting a tennis center, but we're going to have to run it. And all that we don't search and find, we have to bring it to you and Mr. Jerry Brigham over in Finance to get the money. So as long as we're searching and finding and getting it and keeping it running, that's doing y'all a favor to keep from haggling over it. So we'll be glad to send you some more items because Randy already said we can't juggle no more. But he don't know we're out of money anyway, so whatever we get new, it'll be to you. MR. HANDY: Well, ain't no problem with that, Mr. Mays. I just -- it's certain things that I'm going to have to go on whether I want to or not, and that is making sure that this community be well-served, and I can understand that. But I will say that if we hadn't given the $25,000 to Women's Boxing, we'd have been plus thirteen thousand dollars today. Thank you. MR. MAYS: And if we'd have gave the golf course away we wouldn't have had nothing, and a bunch of people mad, too. But we still got it and it's making money. And be surprised, after this year the tennis center might make some money. All kind of money surprises popping up when you take them over and run them right. CLERK: Mr. Mays, is Item 43 and 47 being taken into the consent? Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yeah. I didn't want to pull it out. MR. MAYS: Yeah. I'll take that. MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor, one item -- on Item 49, that item was actually contingent upon the Canal Authority's approval of those -- of a hundred thousand of those funds, and we did meet with them at their regular meeting Thursday and they did approve that. And I have the letter with me that I'll forward down to the Clerk's Office, but it has been approved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on anything, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO, ITEM 46. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEM 46. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ALL ITEMS EXCEPT 46. CLERK: Item 53 is a motion to approve a bid award of low bid in the amount of $18,456 for the Belle Terrace Swim Center bleachers to Sturdisteel Company. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I just got one question I'd like a clarification. When Mr. Mays carried it to 53, they said this was a add-on. So if it was a add-on, how it got added on after commission -- I mean committee? What happened then? That's all I want to know, how you do that. MR. OLIVER: The bids came in the day afterwards. Mr. Beck came to me and asked if it could be added to the agenda since it was a straight bid item. We took the low bid. Because it's going to take some six/eight weeks to get the bleachers and get them installed, and he indicated that there was a need to do that, and by waiting until the next Commission meeting we would delay that about two weeks, probably add three. MR. HANDY: But it should have been put on addendum then and we should add -- vote when we're voting for the other addendums this morning. That's what I -- if it wasn't already on the agenda. MR. OLIVER: That's fine. What happened was the bid closing was the day or two days after the committees met but before the agenda was printed, and that was the difference. And if you would prefer any items that don't go to committee to go on the addendum as a policy decision, we can adhere to that. MR. HANDY: No, I was just asking a question, that's all. I just want everybody to be aware. I'm just asking a question, that's all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we still within budget with the Swim Center? MR. BECK: Yes, we are. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. OLIVER: And, in fact, there's going to be an agenda item next time that comes back to you to release a little bit of money back to other projects. MR. H. BRIGHAM: On this project? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: You shouldn't have said that. MR. OLIVER: Would you like me to say that a little bit louder? CLERK: Ought not to say it all. He got plans for it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was just asking for this project. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 54, please? CLERK: 54 is a motion to approve the regular minutes of the Commission on June 3rd, '97. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 55, please? CLERK: 55 is appointment to various Boards, Authorities and Commissions. Mr. J.B. Powell would like to place in nomination for appointment on the Library Board Ms. Juanita Burney. Mr. Mays would like to make the nominations for the following: on the Housing and Neighborhood Development, Ms. Barbara Gordon; and on Zoning and Appeals, Mr. Thelonius Jones. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 56, please? CLERK: A motion to approve an Ordinance amending Richmond County Code to provide for procedures for tree removal on public right-of-ways. Approved by the Commission on June 3rd, Second Reading. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Oliver -- Mr. Mayor? Mr. Oliver, is there anything that's going to slow down the process -- normal process of doing public right- of-ways, et cetera, in here? MR. OLIVER: No, sir, there's not. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 57? MR. OLIVER: 57 -- and I think we discussed this the last time, but I was asked to bring back a layout. I don't know if we can get this done in the next two weeks, but at the latest we could get it done would be in four weeks. This is the diagram. As mentioned before, it's taped out on the floor, and if this body is in agreement with doing that I'll proceed to have the Carpentry Shop take care of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: And we can do that within the sixty-five hundred dollars? MR. OLIVER: Yes, we can. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Who seconded that, gentlemen? CLERK: Henry Brigham? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The addendum agenda, Item 1: A motion to approve the delineation of additional items on all tax bills. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the County Attorney on what we're doing and why. MR. OLIVER: I'll start and Mr. Wall can chime in as appropriate. The Finance Committee and myself and Mr. McKie have met with the -- Mr. Saul's office, and we talked about how we could better delineate the tax bill to make it so that -- and there were some slight changes, as I understand it, made last year. We felt that it was important for the citizens that we serve to know what they were paying for, what the cost of services were, and we looked at a couple of things, but there was a certificate of distribution that would -- which precluded doing certain things. What we decided, the consensus of that group was that we would put on the bills what the cost of street lights are. That is already done in the suburban area. We would propose to do that with an equivalent millage in the urban area, and the same thing for fire protection. So the fire protection would be individually itemized, the street lights would be individually itemized, and those two things are currently done within the suburban area. The other item that we discussed doing, and we felt that it was important, we currently spend about thirty-four cents of every dollar from the General Fund on law enforcement, and we felt that it would be a good thing to do for people to understand what we spend for law enforcement. And then that way when you held a public hearing for the budget and law enforcement was discussed, people would know what amount of money is the contribution towards law enforcement. Because the fact is, of our budget thirty-eight percent of the money you truly control and sixty-two percent of it you have little control over from the standpoint of either being the Sheriff, being the judicial system, being the Solicitor's Office, the District Attorney, and those types of offices. So the object behind this is primarily to provide, to the extent we can, full and complete disclosure to the community as it relates to how their dollars are currently used. MR. WALL: Let me explain. I think the first sentence, Mr. Todd, may have prompted your question. The certificate of distribution insofar as the local option sales tax provides a percentage for the urban services district and the suburban services district. There was a question as to whether or not that could be applied uniformly across it, and it cannot based upon the certificate that's currently on file. Now, that can be changed in the future, but the change does not take effect until January 1 of the following year, so if you submitted a new certificate of distribution, that effect -- that change would not take effect until January 1, '98. The remaining items that Mr. Oliver has gone through there insofar as the rationale for delineating that on the tax bill -- and that's a policy decision for you to make and has really nothing to do with the certificate of distribution as is outlined there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, is there a possibility that we can also -- and I know we're dealing with budget here, but we also collect all taxes, and we're talking about tax dollars. Is there a possibility we can also show that seventy percent of all taxes collected go to the Board of Education for running the Department of Education? MR. WALL: Well, if you look at the tax bill, somebody can make that calculation. I mean, the millage rate is on there and the dollar amount. But, no, I don't think that you can start putting explanations on the tax bill along those lines. There's a limited amount of space. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I just wanted a correction. I think the Administrator said that he met with the Finance Committee. I wasn't sure he said that or not. Did you say you met with the Finance Committee on this here? MR. OLIVER: There was -- yeah, there were representatives. Mr. Brigham, I guess, from the Finance Committee met in that meeting. Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: Oh, okay. I just wanted to clear that up. MR. OLIVER: Yeah, it was Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: The next item is to approve the agreement between the Georgia Department of Transportation and the City of Augusta for capital assistance to the Transit Department. MR. WALL: Mr. McCauley is here, but he had presented this and it needs to be in Atlanta is the reason we asked that it be added to the agenda. This is a standard contract that is entered into each year. The state is funding ten percent, the federal government will fund eighty percent, and there's a ten percent match by this government. And the funds have been budgeted for that, and recommend approval of it. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: [inaudible] CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Well, I just didn't want to [inaudible]. MR. HANDY: He don't admit it, though. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple of questions. I know that we inherited this situation and we used -- continued to use the funds we had on hand from the -- from Recreation when we transferred it over to Transit. But my question is, do we have a problem -- a intentional problem on going direct to federal on one side, the urban side, and going to the state on the other side? Are we double-dipping in any way or that's okay? MR. WALL: [inaudible] MR. TODD: Okay, thank you. No further questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to go into Legal Meeting, and the Attorney will discuss why we're going in Legal Meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to that motion? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. OLIVER: The Attorney is going to excuse himself from this Legal Meeting because he has a conflict. MR. HANDY: Uh-oh, this is one of those. Okay. Let's discuss the contract then through our Internal Auditor -- about our Internal Auditor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING, 5:35 - 6:10 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: ...We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we need a motion to approve. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear Mr. Wall's recommendation. MR. WALL: Purchase three acres from the Augusta Tech Foundation for fifty thousand dollars for the incubator project. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by -- MR. HANDY: Which one? CLERK: Mr. Handy. MR. HANDY: Jerry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: By Mr. Brigham? All right. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. That is a nondebatable motion. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 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 June 17, 1997. _________________________ Clerk of Commission