HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 15, 1997
The Augusta Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, July 15, 1997,
the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of the Augusta Commission.
Also present were Ms. Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Randy
Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Jim Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND YOUNG.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request for two addition
items: To designate the Augusta-Richmond County Commission as the recipient
of financial assistance available from the Federal Transit Administration
funds; and, two, to approve a change in the hire date for additional Richmond
County deputies to operate the Augusta-Richmond County Detention Center on
Phinizy Road. And to delete Item Number 18.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question would be to Mr. Oliver. What kind of
impact financially, the hire date, will it be negative or positive?
MR. OLIVER: It's a negative impact. The impact of that is $142,000;
however, the money is available within the budgeted funds for that particular
project without going to the General Fund.
MR. TODD: What was the justification for changing the hire date?
MR. OLIVER: The justification for changing the hire date is the
consultant is telling the Sheriff and myself that the facility will be ready
for occupancy November the 1st, and as a result of that they want to get these
employees on 30 to 60 to 90 days before the facility actually opens. So the
justification is the hire date -- or the opening date is November 1st.
MR. TODD: And if the construction run behind, is the Sheriff willing to
use these men in the streets for temporary assignment to fill the gap between
construction? Let's say for some reason, inclement weather or whatever,
construction is not complete. Is the Sheriff willing to use these men in the
streets as far as policing other areas?
MR. OLIVER: The Sheriff would have to address that. We have a letter
from the consultant indicating that this facility will be open in November,
and I don't know if there's a representative from the Sheriff's Department
here. We will try to get them here by the time you consider that item to be
able to answer that question.
MR. TODD: Let's table this then until they can get here. I don't want to
vote in the negative on it and kill it, but I certainly want to hear from the
Sheriff's Department.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Couldn't we go ahead and add it, and then if they fail
to show up we can table it then?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I lose my leverage if we add it. I'm not pleased
with what's happening as far as law enforcement go and I want some answers
before I spend money.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, do you know of any reason why our jail would
not be ready the 1st of November?
MR. OLIVER: No, I don't. I'm relying on the consultant. And the
principal amount of the work remaining is inside, so I don't see weather being
a factor; but obviously with any construction project they're under no
requirement to perform by that date. But I think at this date it's highly
likely that they will be finished by that date.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION FAILS 9-1.
MR. HANDY: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. For clarification, what about the
other item on Transit? Were you voting against the whole addition, Mr. Todd,
or just that one particular item?
MR. TODD: Just that one item.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion was for everything, though.
MR. HANDY: Right. Well, I'd like to make a substitute motion to accept
the item on Transit, please.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, you're going to have Item Number 1, which is the
Transit, and Item Number 3, which is to delete Item 18 on the agenda; right?
Both of those?
MR. HANDY: Right, both of those. And we'll wait on the Sheriff's
answers for Mr. Todd on the other item.
MR. OLIVER: I have sent someone to contact the Sheriff's office, and
hopefully somebody will be over within the hour.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: (A) Presentation from Commissioner Lee Beard and Reverend K.B.
Martin in reference to recognizing the City of Augusta and Antioch Ministries
for being selected as a winner of the John J. Gunther Blue Ribbon Best
Practices Award in Community Development from the Department of Housing &
Urban Development.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, could we ask Reverend Martin to come forward,
please? Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, Reverend Martin and I attended
the Best Practices Award in Houston last week and we received the John J.
Gunther Best Practices Award. And this was out of -- there were 232 cities
there represented across our nation, and we were among that, and I thought it
was noteworthy that we had a project of that magnitude that would be
recognized nationally by HUD. This was the first award ceremony, and we were
very glad to be included in this. And this was initiated by the former city,
and this was a bold initiative by the Antioch Ministries there, and I think it
shows what can happen when the public and the private sector develop a
partnership, and it can enhance our community. So I thought that we should --
it's necessary that we recognize Reverend Martin and his group at this time
and would ask him to make some remarks in that regard.
REV. MARTIN: Thank you, Commissioner Beard, and to the Honorable Mayor.
Let me ask if you would -- I can't let you keep these, but I've brought a
couple since some of the Council people may not have seen our project, and if
you'll just pass them around. The top picture would be the before and the
bottom picture would be the after. We have finished the rehab. It included
eleven houses; six of those are single-family dwellings that we converted from
duplexes to single-family, and then five are still duplexes. And we have a
program description that we will give to all of the Councilpersons. They can
keep that. And, Mr. Mayor, we wanted to present to you one of the pins that
was given in Houston, and the pin simply says Simply The Best, 1997, and we
brought this back that you would have something. And I do have some
additional program descriptions if you need them. We appreciate very much the
former city working with us, and we are looking forward to developing the same
kind of relationship with the new city-county government. We thank you very
much.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we receive the report as information.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Mr. Otis Williams, reference to the Blackfoot Trail Road.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, honorable members of the
Commission, Mr. Jim, Wall, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Otis Williams. I
submitted the petition in regards to Blackfoot Trail on behalf of the
community of Shiloh Lake Limited Number Two. This is not a new issue. The
issue goes back to the year Jesse Carroll passed. Actually, it was the last
issue I put before the Commission before he passed. I have minutes from
meetings on Blackfoot Trail that dates back to December 1991, Agenda Item
Number 14; December 3rd, 1991 again, Agenda Item Number 22(a). The last
action or discussion during that time on this issue was at the Public Works
Meeting, Agenda Item Number 1. Previous to that meeting -- Mr. Mays is down
there at the end, I like to look at his eyes when I speak -- when I use his
name in reference to something. But Mr. Mays was the Chairman Pro Tem at that
meeting, and his recommendation to the committee was it be brought up at the
next meeting, and his recommendation was that it be -- the road be maintained
by the county, be taken into the county for maintenance. At that next
meeting, which was two weeks later, I appeared as Agenda Item Number 1, Public
Works Committee Meeting, December the 15th, 1992. Mr. Mays was -- he was
late, Mr. Sconyers was late. This was a six-member committee at that time.
Which carries us down to those two agenda items I mentioned where Mr. Lee Neel
made the motion that it be tabled, Mr. Beckum seconded. At the next meeting
Mr. Beckum made the motion that the item be tabled, Mr. Neel seconded. The
purpose in the minutes was for further information. I'd like to read
[inaudible]. Consider approval -- this is Item 22(a), 3 December 1991.
Consider approval for a request for acceptance of portion of Blackfoot Trail
Road into county work system, subject to property owners obtaining a survey to
establish location, as recommended by Public Works Committee at meeting held
December the 3rd, 1991. Same day, two meetings. I didn't make those
meetings. I was at the open meeting, or the public meeting. Now, those two
agenda items was taken up at the pre-meeting at that time. We used to call it
the pre-meeting. I appeared in the open meeting, or the public meeting. At
that time the item was recommended for approval by Mr. Gooding. It got a
first and a second and it was approved. I walked away with the understanding
that the project was on track, it was approved, no problems. Mr. Gooding said
all that's required is about three drainpipes and enough crush-and-run or
gravel or whatever to cover about 800/900 feet of road to solve the problem.
But to bring it to a speedy conclusion and to bring you up to where we are
now, at that time the property was in the possession of private property
owners, myself and four other neighbors, who have since been bought out. Now
80 percent of the property is in the possession of the county. The Landfill
at that time was a stand-alone department. Now, under consolidation, the
Landfill is under Public Works. I think that's Mr. Gray. I don't know who it
is [inaudible]. But needless to say, it's a very small problem in the light
of the progress that the Commission has made with respect to the Richmond
County Landfill. Mr. Mays can second all -- he can listen to everything I
say here. If there's any inconsistency, please stop me, because there was no
water on Deans Bridge Road back then. Way back then. To his credit, there's
water on Deans Bridge Road, and it came about during the opening of Cell 2-C
of the Landfill. So we have gotten some progress out there. So this project
is a very small project [inaudible]. These people do not have a way home
unless they cross my property. Yes, sir, Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Could you just tell me what the problem is so I can put
that before all the explanation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. The problem basically is the residents, they do not
have -- the easements to get home has been closed. The road that they were
using, Blackfoot Trail, to get home at that time has since been closed.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And you want it open?
MR. WILLIAMS: It has to be corrected. They have to have a way home.
They have to have a way home. This is county property now.
MR. ZETTERBERG: How do they get home now?
MR. WILLIAMS: They have to cross my property. They have to cross my
property, and it's been two years they've been doing so. And I've told them
that I will extend myself as long as possible, we're under a new government,
it's going to take time for things to happen. In conclusion, the assets
necessary to do this work is in the possession of the county and presently
located at the Landfill. They've built a mountain tall enough to call it
Babylon. There's earth-moving equipment out there. Three man days would do
this work. All we need is a vote of approval. We need six votes for these
people to be -- to correct his problem. If not, it's going to be back. Just
like the rest of these problems, they come back over the years. Very simple
at that time. It wouldn't have taken nothing more than Mr. Mays saying let's
do it, but he wasn't there.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, if I can address this, because
Mr. Williams has had conversations with my office off and on for some period
of time. The property that -- or the roadway that he's talking about
apparently was the subject of an unrecorded easement or an unrecorded joint
use agreement. And at the time the county purchased the lots off of what I
refer to as Birdwell Road--but this is actually up from Birdwell Road
adjoining the Landfill--when we were in need of acquiring that additional
property because of the methane gas and the desire to provide a buffer between
the Landfill and the other properties, that cost-sharing agreement was not
recorded; and so, therefore, the purchase did not include any obligation to
share the expenses of that driveway that he's talking about. The problem
with the county taking over that particular roadway is that it goes up a steep
hill and it has a lot of washing on it. As a result of that, people have been
using Mr. Williams' property, coming in off of Golden Camp Road to access
their home -- Camp Josey Road, excuse me -- Camp Josey Road to access the
property. The unrecorded cost-sharing agreement is the source of the problem
because the property owners that were there obviously had a shared interest
and a shared responsibility in maintaining that drive. The county purchased
the property. Since it was not of record, we knew nothing about it at the
time we acquired that property, and that's the reason that people are driving
over Mr. Williams' property. And I realize that they're using his property,
but, in fairness, that is the better access to these houses rather than going
up that steep hill because I don't think that several loads of gravel is going
to solve that washing problem. You're going to take on a long-term
maintenance problem by going up that hill.
MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comment. What Mr. Wall says is accurate
to the extent that the easements were not recorded. They were not recorded
because it slipped through the crack. Mr. Howard Bush done the deed work, the
property owners signed easements to each other. I signed an easement to my
neighbors and everybody signed an easement. It didn't get recorded. I would
have to go back to the documents from the state too far.
MR. BEARD: I think, you know, 90 percent of the Commissioners here are
not familiar with what is being said, and it appears to me -- and I'm going to
make this motion that we ask the Administrator to look into this and possibly
find a solution to this and bring it back to us so that we can be a little
more intelligent about what is going on and what is expected of us. I will
say that, you know, I think the people have a right to get to their property
without going across yours, and I'm sure there's a solution to it and we could
find a solution to it, but I think we need to be a little more knowledgeable
about what we're talking about, so I'm going to make that in the form of a
motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion to send it to the
Administrator, but I'd like to know whether the maker of the motion would
accept an amendment to send it to Engineering Services Committee. The issue
of the road -- I've dealt with most of the issues that Mr. Williams have as
far as the Landfill, even to the extent of the acquisition of the properties
that he owned, but the issue of the road, per record that he's provided here,
has never been discussed during those discussions of methane and water, et
cetera. And certainly I think that we need to address this issue, but I come
on board January 1, 1993. I think the records state the last discussion was,
what, 1992?
MR. WILLIAMS: 1992, right. Correct.
MR. TODD: Okay. So as Mr. Beard stated, those of us that's responsible
for the Landfill and those issues, and even as far as Public Works go now,
wasn't on this board. That's a previous board with the exception of maybe one
individual, possibly two.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, in all fairness to Mr. Williams and at the same
time my colleagues, some of them that are new --and I'm going to support
Commissioner Beard's motion today because I think that is the right thing to
do today in terms of helping y'all make a decision. But I think in a public
forum, for a matter of the minutes, that it does need to be said a couple of
things about this particular issue. One, as far as I can recall, everything
probably that Otis has said today has been absolutely correct. The one thing
he didn't mention was that I got my butt whipped on voting on that situation
and that's how it ended up getting into another one of those red-tape deals,
because he knows my feelings on what should have probably been done in the
beginning. For you newer Commissioners, what you should also understand
is that while we were faced with a lot of lawsuits and the threatening of
lawsuits in doing work on the Landfill, probably one of the most cooperative
people in this county in helping to get some things done is the gentleman
that's still before us right now. One of the ones who was not suing or
threatening to sue was the gentleman who's here now, and in trying to work
some things out. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, what we did in
terms of our progress and the delays that it's caused, we've actually made a
public road situation on probably the most friendly neighbor that we had out
there in that circumstance, because the traveling is being done over the same
person's property who was being friendly at that particular time. Now, I
have no problem with the Administrator and Engineering Services handling it,
but what I'd like to ask --and if it's legal, and we're going to have a legal
session later on, we can put it under that one, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Attorney.
But I think if it's at a point whereby y'all have worked out anything with
Otis -- has anything occurred from the standpoint -- and the reason why you
see such a gap for you newer members is that he has not been worrisome in the
situation, he's been patient in it. And I think if something has been done
along the legal channels -- hope to God that it's changed from '92 to '97,
that we can move forward either with helping him or with officially slamming
the door, but I think this period of waiting has been quite long enough to get
it settled. We've changed into a new government, we have built projects, we
have committed to projects, we've seen folk come and go that we've given seven
and six figure monies to deal with projects. And no offense to them, but I
think this is one that at some point ought to be readily disposed of and just
be decided by the majority of this Commission. And I respect the motion
that's on the floor, will not vote against it out of respect to the newcomers,
but I think it's one that ought not fester any longer in terms of where this
has been. And I would hope, Jim, if the legal ramifications haven't been
handled and worked out, that you and the Administrator can get to those, then
we could get something presented through their next committee meeting so that
by our next regular meeting we can go ahead on and vote this darn thing up or
down, because I don't think the circumstances have changed any since he first
started coming down here. The only thing that's changed is the fact that we
have spent millions of dollars at the Landfill, we've spent thousands of
dollars in acquiring other property, and the one person that was still the
most cooperative is the same one that the government is, for lack of a better
word, still turning their backside up to in this situation and putting it off,
whether it's procrastination or whether it's lost in the crack. But I think
it needs to crawl out the crack and be put on this agenda and dealt with, and
if we're not going to help him, then just vote it down and say that's what
you're not going to do. But it's been long enough of dealing with this one,
and out of respect for the newcomers I'll let it go, but I know where one vote
is going to be, it's going to be the same place that it was when I made the
motion in order to get it done when we first started with this mess.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask a question. Mr. Williams, would
it be possible that this land that they're using or this right-of-way they're
using now, that you want to sell it, since that's the best way to go through
that road, and that'll eliminate the problem of the other road they're talking
about?
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Handy, there are three possibilities: One is they can
reopen the old access which Mr. Wall addressed, it's a little bit costly; two
is the people could be condemned; three is they could acquire easements from
me. Now, the third one is the least attractive to me, actually, because I
don't want to go out there. I'd just like to see the trees grow. And I do
personally feel that all the efforts by the County Commissioners with regards
to the Landfill has been very professional and very costly. I've attended
most of these meetings, along with the Solid Waste Management Meetings and
everything else. And if there is a snake or there are some alligators back
there coming at my heels, I'm not going to fan the flies, I'm going to shoot
the alligator, and you will never have to revisit the issue again. So if they
acquire easements from me, there's nothing to say that 15/20 years from now
that there won't be a problem with the environment. So, you know, my
statement to that is small issues should be solved forever, not come back and
fester. But those are the three alternatives that I see, and I'm open to all
of them.
MR. TODD: I don't quite consider myself a newcomer in the terms that
I've been here approximately, I guess, going on five years, and this is the
first time that I've been addressed as far as this side of the issue here.
The Landfill problems we mitigated or took corrective action on most of them
when we had problems. The proposal to take funds from an enterprise fund and
do a Public Works project with, I would have a problem with it. I think that
if the road is going to be done, it should be done from one-penny sales tax
money or paving various roads, and we have funds in the paving county forces,
and certainly if we own the road we may consider paving it. The methane
problem has been taken care of pretty much [inaudible] piping methane to the
kaolin plant, which we have a deal worked out with as far as that go. The
odor problem that we had earlier has been taken care of by fitting a liner
over the 52 acres. The leachate problem has been taken care of by a million
dollar sewer or wastewater line into the Landfill. So I don't see any
problems as far as the Landfill go, don't foresee any, and I would assume that
by virtue of these actions, that it's going to make it more attractive for
folks to live around the Landfill where a couple of years ago we were looking
for a way to get everybody out from around the Landfill because of the
regulations that had changed from the standpoint the Landfill was cited.
So I don't have a problem with looking at doing something about the road and
looking for the best methodology. I don't think that we can do this today.
Basically all we can do today is give it to the Administrator and the Public
Works Director, or Acting Director, and they bring it back to Engineering
Services with a recommendation and then we go from there.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Todd, I agree with you 100 percent. By virtue of the
fact of the water being out there, people are locating in that area. To the
credit of this Commission, there are people locating on Camp Josey Road and
off of Camp Josey Road. Quite a few of them. And that is a fact, but it
doesn't preclude the fact that these people I'm speaking to live adjacent to
the Landfill and they do not have access to public waters. At this time they
are still on well water. So I just drop that in there for your interest, and
that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of that
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, a request to add to the agenda a change in the hire
date for additional Richmond County Sheriff's employees in order to occupy and
operate the Augusta-Richmond County Detention Center on Phinizy Road.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the Sheriff or someone from
the Sheriff's Department on the plans that if the contractor is not through
with the project, on the plans to use the deputies that's being hired.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Precision Planning that built this jail was opened up -
- supposed to open up next April. It was changed and brought up, and then we
put in for additional personnel to get them trained, and they were supposed to
some go on in September and some in November. Mike Heathfield that works on
this team had indicated the jail was going to open up early. I asked him to
get in touch with Precision Planning and give me a precise date to when this
jail was going to open up, because I didn't want to put the people on because
y'all have been good enough to give me the personnel. They came back, and
I give Mr. Randy Oliver -- he has a letter in regards to it showing that this
jail would open up on November the 3rd. Well, that's when we're supposed to
get the last 29 people to go on. We won't have time to train them, so we're
asking you to change that and let us go ahead and get 30 people in September.
I believe it's July the 21st that we were supposed to hire -- or August the
31st, and 29 positions was September -- we'll hire them on September the 21st
instead of November the 1st. And I think it'll be a total cost of -- for all
these personnel will be an additional $142,000 but it's the only way that we
can get these people trained and get those people off the floor and down here
at the jail now.
MR. TODD: And I guess my other question is, what kind of space do we
have at RCCI that can help us get the folks off the floor down at the jail?
Are we using that capacity?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I don't know exactly how many we got at RCCI now, but
we've been keeping 50 to 60 people out there. I think that place will come
close to holding 100, but there's some of these people I can't put at RCCI. I
can't afford to put them in an open cell like that one is out there. I also
have additional people up at the old Stockade, which is the Richmond County
Stockade at this time, but all those people will be going to the new facility
as quick as it's opened up.
MR. TODD: The contractor is under no mandate to finish early, and I
don't know of any award fee we have in there, but we certainly -- if he can
finish early, we want it so we can, you know, accommodate the Sheriff as far
as the space. But if we don't get in there early, if we get in there late, do
you have an alternative plan to use those deputies that we're hiring on and
training?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I will be using them. And I'll see if it's going to
fall behind; instead of hiring the second group, I will come to you and tell
you that it doesn't look like it's going to be open on time and we can defer
hiring those additional people at that time. Right now they see no need in
not opening up on November the 3rd. I mean, they know they're going to make
more money if they finish up soon.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Entertain a motion to approve the change of the hire date for the
additional deputies.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. HANDY: I just got one thing to say in regard to this to the Sheriff.
I think it's a very good idea and I think that you're doing a wonderful job
in planning for the new jail and planning for the opening of the new jail.
This morning I met with Congressman Norwood, and this is not related to what
we are talking about today, but it's related to the jail and your personnel
and the problems that they're having in Turpin Hill and with the drive-by
shooting and all, and then Congressman Norwood was concerned that we don't
even have a DEA Agency here in Augusta. And so by hiring these extra
people, if the jail does not get finished, what Mr. Todd asked the question
about, I would be appreciative and I know the residents of the Turpin Hill
neighborhood would be appreciative if you can just put those 29 people and any
more you can get and straighten out Turpin Hill. And all that you can do to
help the Turpin Hill area, it would be appreciated to me as being the
Commissioner of that area. We need to do something, and if anything that I
can do in order to help you get more people or whatever we need to do, I would
like for you to submit that request to the Administrator so we can clean up
the Turpin Hill area.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Mr. Handy, you not only have Turpin Hill, you have
about twelve other places in Richmond County that's on the same similarity as
this. We're having Turpin Hill as the problem now. I'd like to say this,
these people have to be certified before you can put them in a car and work
them, and you don't do that overnight. They have to go through a nine-week
school, and I have to use the jail as a stepping stone now to put the people
on the road. I put them in the jail to let them work. Used to POST would let
you take a man and put him in a car and he'd get field training before you
were certified, before you could put him in a car by himself. You can't do
that anymore now. You have to have a man certified before you put him in that
car as a rider or as a driver even though it's taking a lot of time.
There's a grant that we put in for, and we haven't heard back from Washington
yet, but there's a federal grant for --it's supposed to be for 68 people,
which they would be partially paying. This was my dream, that we could get
those additional people we need. At the present time each car -- I got 27
beats: 27 beats has got close to 340 square miles, and at 340 square miles
each one has a coverage of better than 14 square miles average. Some will be
three, some will be 30, and every person out there has an average of
approximately 7,400 people he has to take care of, one automobile. No way in
the world I can do it. This can be verified, but -- I'm not using these
counties, but they're the same similarity as Richmond County, which would be
Bibb, Chatham, and Muskogee. Muskogee is more similar to us than anybody else,
and they got better than 150 more people in the road than we got. I think
if you'll go back -- you remember when there was talking about annexation, and
you go back, I think the Mayor at that time, he promised he would give them
people a hundred and some odd deputies for the little territory that he was
fixing to annex, which it failed. I would have give anything in the world if
I could have got those people he was talking about because I'd have been able
to do the job. If they had annexed, I'd have been able to keep all the
personnel I've got, then I would have been in good position. So we're
well understaffed, and I don't -- I'm not complaining because you people have
been good to me. But everything I've had to do lately is to protect about 600
people, and that's the people that's in the jail, and I'll continue to do that
because we've got to take care of this problem right here. But I'm having --
I'm gaining every day with my jail personnel and still the taxpayers out there
are not getting any additional protection for themselves because -- and
they're the ones that's footing the bill. I thank you for what you did today.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make a comment. And I appreciate all the
good work that you're doing, Sheriff Webster. The number of people in the
jail does concern me, and I know you don't have total control, you're the
custodian over it. But since you've given the opportunity to state your
requirements for more policemen, I'd like to say that I'd like to see this
community do a little better job of looking at some alternative sentencing,
electronic monitoring. There was an excellent program on television the other
night on Dateline on how some more progressive communities are reducing the
size of the jail population, and I'd certainly like to see that done with some
of our criminals or people who are being sentenced today for things where they
could be sentenced in their home.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: You've got a good idea there. We've looked at some,
but for some reason or another we never went anywhere with it. I've mentioned
before to a couple of people about the Stockade. The Stockade, when we took
it over when we consolidated, was in terrible shape. The Stockade is in
pretty good shape now, if you'll take a run up there and take a look at it,
and it may be there where you could have you a work release program approach
where you could have people that's serving time to come in and go out and work
all day and pay the county for their stay there. It would take minimum
security. It wouldn't take too many people, it would take a few people at
nighttime while they're there. And they would be self-supporting. They would
be taking care of their bills and fines or alimony or whatever they were
supposed to pay. It's something to look at because that building is not in bad
shape now. We've been able to put it back in pretty good shape.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, somehow I'd like to see maybe the Administrator
figure out a way that we can get this issue brought before the Commission
again and get all the parties to it so that we can maybe start working
constructively towards reducing the jail population so downstream we don't
have to make the big jail bigger.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Well, there's one thing about it, you're doing the best
thing that's ever been done. This is the first time that they've ever looked
ahead. You're building a jail out here now where you've got additional room
to build. Instead of coming up next time and having to build a kitchen and
four pods, you're going to have one pod at a time and it won't hit the
taxpayers like it has before, because I think that you put in for fifty acres
of land out there and nobody will be in this room here when you fill that out.
MR. OLIVER: I would note that once the new facility is open, that we
will have enough jail space to house approximately one-half of one percent of
our population; which, you know, is not an encouraging sign. And I agree with
Commissioner Zetterberg, we need to look at alternative mechanisms.
MR. TODD: Basically I was trying to establish, in the sense that this is
going to have a negative impact on the budget as far as what we had planned to
spend, an alternative use if we didn't open the jail. But I'd like to follow
along the lines of Mr. Handy's concern and the Congressman's concern about not
having a DEA officer here. I know they're only here when we're working with
the drug task force, but also we don't have a GBI office here and we don't
have a State Patrol office here as far as patrolling the streets of Richmond
County, and I think if we could get more GBI officers in here and more State
Patrol in here to patrol the state highways, certainly that would free up some
men to do the patrolling of communities and other areas. And so I also
have a interest in getting more men on the street and certainly would support
the State Patrol doing patrolling of state highways, the GBI having a physical
presence here in the sense of a office like they have in Thomson, Georgia, and
welcome all the drug enforcement officers as possible. I had the opportunity
to, you know, see the work of the DEA task force when they worked with the
Sheriff here and the Provost Marshal's office, et cetera, earlier, and the
Sheriff and those done a good job in the Barton Chapel area and a lot of other
areas, and we would like to see that aggressive effort and smart policing
continue.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I'd like to remark on that if I could. DEA does a
tremendous job with us. They've been a big asset to us, and if you'll see
some of the money that they gave back to Richmond County that we haven't had
to spend so we could spend it on drugs, it's been tremendous and we're very,
very proud of them. I'd like to see a DEA office here, I really would. GBI,
we get good cooperation out of them. Their post is in Thomson. Anything that
we ask them for, they give us service, but they got so many surrounding
counties in the CSRA that don't have the law enforcement manpower that we got.
The State Patrol, I have requested from the Colonel, and this has been
over a year, that he put a five-man task force here in Richmond County, and
that's nothing but working the main arteries, because that would give my
people relief and get them in the communities so we could have less
burglarizing and other instances like that. Which they're short-handed. He
told me that he would look into it, and I'm fixing to contact him again to see
if he can. He didn't turn me down, he just didn't have the manpower to do it.
Because I would appreciate a five-man task force working on just the main
highways: 56, 25, Number 1, Washington Road, and Bobby Jones. If we could
just get those, it would give us a lot of relief. And so we're looking for the
same thing that you're looking for, they just haven't had the manpower up till
now, and I'm hoping we will get it somewhere down the line.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 1: Designate the Augusta-Richmond County Commission as the
recipient of financial assistance available from the Federal Transit
Administration funds.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: The Planning Commission recommends as a consent agenda Item 2 and
3, and to take Item 1 separately.
[Item 2: S-527-A - HUDSON TRACE ADDITIONS - FINAL PLAT -Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Hudson
Trace Additions, Final Plat. This subdivision is an extension of MacAulay
Place in Hudson Trace Subdivision off Stevens Creek Road and contains 17 lots.
Item 3: S-532-III - NEVIS SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT -Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Nevis
Subdivision, Final Plat. This subdivision is located off the east right-of-
way line of West Wheeler Parkway, south of Wheeler Road, and contains 11
lots.]
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 1: Z-97-53 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sandra Winfrey, on behalf of
Sandra & Ronald Winfrey, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Coleman
Avenue, 342 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Chester Avenue and Coleman Avenue (2516 Coleman Avenue).
MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, this is one that, due to an administrative error,
did not make the last agenda when it should have been heard. It was left off
the agenda, and --actually, that's the second meeting previous to this one.
This thing got missed twice. And we did notify the petitioner that it would
be on the agenda today. In fairness to her you might postpone it one more
time and let me contact her.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to postpone to make sure
that Ms. Winfrey be present.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Patty, were there any objectors?
MR. PATTY: We had petitions signed by twenty people, and we had five or
six objectors at the meeting.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Handy, would you accept an amendment to your motion that
in notifying the petitioner, that the objectors be notified as well since it
had that much of a time gap, that everyone that's been basically associated
with this be notified at the same time?
MR. HANDY: No problem, Mr. Mays.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: The Comptroller recommends as a consent agenda Items 4, 5, and 6.
[Item 4: Request from Charles T. Fordham (Fire Department) to purchase
15 years 10 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 5:
Request from Mary G. Woodward (Tax Assessors) to purchase 4 years 3 months
prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 6: Request from
Richard Weaver (Sheriff's Department) to purchase 5 years 5 months prior years
service in the 1977 Pension Plan.]
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. TODD: All these applicants was in before the deadline of 1st of
July?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, do we expect any more? Is this all of them?
MR. McKIE: No, we've got some more coming. I think there are 15 or so.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But we're not taking any more applications?
MR. McKIE: That's correct, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are we going to be finished with this by next time?
MR. McKIE: Probably. We'll have to wait on the other folks to do the
calculations for us and get them back to us, but they should all be back by
then.
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. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 7: Motion to approve Resolution to transfer the designated
portions of Market Street, 12th Street, and Tatnall Street to the Georgia Golf
Hall of Fame.
MR. WALL: This is a matter that y'all authorized earlier to have a
public hearing. The hearing was held, there was no objection to this property
to be incorporated in the Golf Hall of Fame. Recommend approval so that the
necessary deed can be executed.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Is there Traffic Engineering concerns, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: No, sir.
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. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
MR. WALL: Item 8 is a motion to cancel security deed. This is to clean
up the record in connection with a planned closing on the property by the
property owners. The indebtedness was considered paid in full in 1989. It
was through a block grant loan program, and this needs to be executed just to
clean up the record.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to
approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: The Administrator recommends as a consent agenda Items 9 through
14.
[Item 9: Motion to abate balance of $193.10 ad valorem taxes on
property identified as Tax 35-2, Parcel 576.] Item 10: Motion to abate
$514.01 which represents the DOT's portion of 1995 taxes on Parcel 81, Parcel
8. Item 11: Motion to abate $241.71 which represents the DOT's portion
of 1994 taxes on parcel acquired from Phillip T. White on April 28, 1994.
Item 12: Motion to approve payment of refund of taxes to Ryder
Transportation Services. Item 13: Motion to approve payment of refund of
prior year taxes - 1996 to Equitable Life Assurance Society in the amount of
$43,552 for Map 85-2, Parcel 54 (Regency Mall Property). Item 14: Motion
to approve Grant from Georgia Department of Community Affairs in the amount of
$26,250 and authorize disbursement to organization.]
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. HANDY: I just have one question on the Ryder. Which Ryder is that?
That's not the Ryder that works for us, is it?
MR. WALL: No, it's not, but there may be some relationship. I hate to
say that they're not somehow tied together.
MR. HANDY: I know what the book says in here, but could somebody
enlighten me why we're doing this?
MR. McKIE: Their accountants did not have the necessary information
ready in time to file a timely return, so rather than be late or be penalized
and incur interest they overpaid in advance and they're now looking for a
refund of the difference. So we've had use of their money for [inaudible].
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is the Tax Assessor's Board recommending this? I
guess this is to Mr. Oliver. Is this a settlement of a court case or what's
the details?
MR. WALL: It really does not involve the Board of Tax Assessors. What
happened, the taxes are to be prorated among the counties in Georgia because
they did not have their accounting complete in order to know the proration
among the various counties in Georgia where the trucks were running. They
asked the Tax Commission could they just simply pay everything here and then
seek a refund, and that's what they did. So they paid everything to Mr.
Saul's office that was owed in the state of Georgia. Now they will have to
pay those amounts to the various counties that are involved, and the county's
portion will be retained and we'll refund the balance.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Saul has signed the agenda item, Commissioner Todd, for
your information.
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. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 16: Approve Millage Rates and Tax Digest.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. OLIVER: There is one area that the millage will increase, and it's
very minor. It has to do with the fact --and Mr. McKie or his staff can
perhaps additional information, but as I understand it, the City of Blythe
takes the insurance premium credit and applies it in a different manner rather
than through the millage rate. As a result of that, there is no credit
against the tax bill and that results in a slight change in the millage: the
change in the millage being .64 percent. As I say, that is a decision made by
the City of Blythe. In all other areas of the county that credit goes against
the property tax rates, and that's the reason for it.
MR. BRIDGES: So what are you saying as far as the millage? It's going
to 5.64? So it's actually decreasing slightly?
MR. McKIE: That sheet is the M&O, the Maintenance and Operation millage
rate. Blythe is not included in that 5.66, that's just the county general
millage rate. But in general, the millage rates are exactly the same as they
were last year county-wide except for Blythe, which is up -- I think it was
one half of one percent -- .64 percent.
MR. TODD: My question would be, you know, what is the procedure as far
as how the insurance from -- prior insurance taxes could be applied, and is it
our responsibility to make a decision for the City of Blythe? And I guess the
other is that I have a problem voting a tax -- where they are not voting an
increase, we are, and they're applying the money the way they see fit. Do we
have [inaudible]?
MR. WALL: Not on the insurance. That is a tax that goes to them. They
implement the tax, and so we have no input into that issue.
MR. TODD: Don't we supply them with their fire services, and do they in
return pay back the city-county for those fire services?
CHIEF FEW: We do what we call a mutual aid, and we also monitor their
calls through our 911 systems, but they do have fire protection. They have
one station. But we do supply mutual aid to them.
MR. TODD: And is that for the Richmond and Burke County side or just the
Richmond County side?
CHIEF FEW: I have been told that is our fire station, so, yes, indeed we
supply the fire services there. I'm thinking of the Hephzibah station, excuse
me.
MR. TODD: I would think that the entity that provide the fire services
would be entitled to the tax and, you know, I'm going to tell you that I'm not
going to vote for a property increase for the citizens of Blythe.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, this fire station that is in Blythe, not only
does it take care of the City of Blythe now -- which is a small portion of
actually Blythe. The actual area of Blythe is -- the majority is in Augusta-
Richmond County. And, you know, I don't know how you're working this thing,
but I'm opposed to any kind of tax increase and I'm also opposed to the
citizens of Blythe having to pay more.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the way I understand it from the discussion,
and I think Mr. McKie wants to comment, but what I understand is that the City
of Blythe has took the fire premium as their money and we are still providing
the service. And instead of giving them credit -- the premium is the only
reason it's gone up is my understanding.
MR. OLIVER: Let me try one thing. Let's take the City of Blythe. The
issue was there was a projected credit for fire insurance premium for the City
of -- I guess it was Hephzibah. It went from 203 to 209, so there was a
difference of .06 mills on that, and we anticipated that credit to increase.
Since the City of Blythe does not use the credit to offset the fire fees there
was no corresponding increase from the anticipated additional premium dollars.
That's the reason for the marginal increase.
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, that's right. The insurance premium comes directly
from the State to the appropriated area. So Tommy got it, and what they did
with it is up to them. But we supply the services and, of course, had to pay
for it and assess a tax for it. So what we charged them a little bit more
for, they had offsets on there.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that the City of Hephzibah
have their own fire services, whether it's voluntary or whatever, and they
provide their service. So, therefore, they should be entitled to their
insurance taxes from the State. The incorporated community of Blythe don't
provide their service, so they should not be -- or should have to put it
towards paying for the fire service and that service delivery. And I'd like
to hear from the County Attorney on whether we have the law or whether we
searched the law on this. Because I can tell you, I said I'm not going to
vote for a tax increase and I'm not going to vote for a tax increase.
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, I may not do a good job answering your question and
so I may have to answer it again. The fire insurance tax has nothing --
excuse me, the insurance tax that is collected by Blythe has nothing to do
with fire protection. They get that money and can use it for anything they
want to use it for, and then the county has the right to establish a premium
for fire protection. The Blythe fire station supplies fire protection not
only within the city limits of Blythe but in the surrounding area, and what we
are charging them for is--or the residents there--is for that backup service,
the fire protection service, however you want to characterize it. Which, the
increase is a result of the fact that the city council of Blythe has chosen to
take the insurance premium tax and use it in some fashion to fund their own
city government, which they have the right to do, which is a separate issue
than the fire protection.
MR. McKIE: We used to use it strictly in the General Fund, the former
city did up until its demise, and the county had been putting it against the
fire protection fund since we had a separate one probably for the last ten
years.
MR. BRIDGES: Butch, if I vote to approve this, am I voting to keep the
millage rate the same and not increase it? In other words, I'm not voting for
an increase in the millage rate; is that right?
MR. McKIE: Except in the Blythe tax district. County-wide and in the
city we'll have the same tax rates as we had last year.
MR. OLIVER: Now, if you could make the City of Blythe give us the
increase in the insurance premium tax that they're going to get from last year
to this year, we could do that; but we don't have the legal mechanism to
require them to give us that increase in premium tax or require them to use it
for fire protection.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 17: Motion to approve creation of Richmond County Land Bank
Authority and to appoint members to such Authority.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a lot of questions about this Land Bank
Authority. I hope it'll work. I expect there are votes here for it. To me,
I still have some doubts as to whether it will function as the intent is. I
guess maybe it's conjecture, but I can see a lot of possibilities for
politicalization of this authority, so I'm not going to support this motion.
I believe the votes are there to pass it from what I'm hearing, but I still
have quite a few questions and problems with this authority, so I'm going to
oppose it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak in support of this issue.
Certainly by putting it in the Land Bank it saves this government money that
we can keep in our budget or keep in our contingency where we condemn
property. It gives us a mechanism to not condemn property but to have
courthouse sales for property where folks haven't paid their taxes, and when
we do that we don't wind up paying a half million dollars of taxes to other
tax collecting entities; therefore, it also enable us to put tracts of
properties together for community development and other projects like Reverend
Martin just presented to us and receiving an award for. And I want to go on
record supporting it and urge my colleagues to support it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to also echo the same thoughts that
Mr. Bridges has. I think that we're opening up a situation here that we're
going to be sorry for down the road.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I ask for a roll call vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I request that the motion be reread.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the creation of the Richmond County
Land Bank Authority and to appoint members. Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by
Mr. Kuhlke.
ROLL CALL VOTE: MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Item 19: Communication from Harry D. Revell regarding
expenditures of the Board of Health in connection with the New Health Clinic
Project.
MR. WALL: Mr. Revell is not here, but you have in your agenda book a
request for some $613,081. The Commission approved last year one million
dollars out of the sales tax funds for the Board of Health project. This is
to pay for land acquisitions totaling some $497,811, and the balance of it is
appraisals and professional services totaling the $613,000. Recommend
approval of this. The reason that it's on the agenda in this fashion is that
the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax contract with the Board of Health
has not yet been officially approved by both bodies and signed, however, these
land acquisitions have gone forward. There are special masters that have not
been paid that need to be paid, and we're requesting that this be done at this
time to authorize payment of this money.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, we'd like to read the total fund request in for the
record. That's $613,081.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would want to know what percentage is
going to professional services, and two is the professionals that's providing
the services.
MR. WALL: There is a total sum of $15,000 included in legal services. I
don't know the breakdown of that. The majority of it would be coming to our
firm and Mr. Revell.
MR. TODD: Is the F.A. Johnson group and [inaudible] is that $42,000?
MR. WALL: $42,000, which is a monthly amount of $7,000 per month for six
months.
MR. TODD: And what service are they providing? They're doing
architectural engineering or what services are they providing?
MR. WALL: The entire scope of their agreement I can't fully address
because I didn't review that contract before-hand. But the Board of Health
entered into a contract with Mr. Johnson and his company to coordinate the
project, to coordinate the land acquisition, to coordinate the construction of
the project. And as I say, I don't have the specific details of that
contract, but it's one that the Board of Health entered into with Mr. Johnson.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, didn't the Finance Committee make a recommendation
to this board on a methodology of approving contracts when we deal with one-
penny sales tax? And I guess my question is why we haven't seen this
contract. I know this is a quasi-public entity or governmental entity, but I
would think that we would feed everybody from the same spoon. So if I'm
approving money, then I'd like to see the contract that go along with the
monies that I'm approving.
MR. OLIVER: We have a contract which will be coming forward for the next
Finance Committee on this particular project.
MR. TODD: And are we using Mr. Johnson's architect and consulting firm
or are we using legal advice out of that office or to what extent are we using
services? And I guess I would wonder whether there's a possibility we would
have a conflict, too.
MR. WALL: We are not using any legal services from Mr. Johnson's office,
and the engineering firm of Johnson Laschober is a different Johnson and is a
different group, and they are the ones that are doing the architectural
services.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we just disapproved one where we had a individual
giving professional services to the Catholic school, you know, and that was
just a few dollars. We're not going to have money to buy furniture, it's my
understanding, when this building is complete. We're probably going to have
to go back to the sales tax dollars and look at reappropriat-ing some for
similar projects. And I don't know that there is a need to continue a
consultant at $42,000 at this point to consult on -- what? If we're hiring
appraisers to go out and do appraisals or we're hiring a engineering company
to do the architectural engineering, then why do the Health Department need a
individual to do PR for them? Or what is he doing? And at the present I need
to see the contract, and I'm not going to vote in the affirmative until I see
the contract. We ratified the recommendation from Finance at a full board
meeting, and I don't have a contract here and I want to see the contract that
the Health Department have with Johnson's consultants per this project.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, may I suggest that this will --
and I recognize the concern over the contract, and as I say, that contract
will be coming for you. There's been some discussion over the last month or so
concerning the scope of the project that will be a part of that contract is
the reason that it has not already been presented. If we could deduct the
consulting group's firm of $42,000 from the request and approve $571,082,
which are the -- $571,081 -- then we'll bring the consultants contract along
with the one-percent contract before the committees in two weeks and then
before you the first meeting in August.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I will accept that as a substitute motion to the
motion I just made because I think we need to move forward on this project.
And if it's a concern with the consulting firm, then I think we should
separate the two and maybe deal with that if that's what people on this
committee want to do. But I think that, you know, we have made commitments
here, we have signed off, and those people need the money to continue on with
this project. And I think this project is important enough to continue with
that, and I will accept what the Attorney said as a substitute motion to this.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I'll still second it. Mr. Mayor, also while we're
on the Health Department and the fact that the contract with Mr. Johnson's
group is between the Health Department, we've got to also realize that the
Health Department is not like some other entities in that the only funds they
receive are funds from the county or from the State of Georgia. It's not like
you're dealing with a third-party group that receives funds from outside of
the government. This is not a 501-3-C corporation where it receives funds from
other places. The funds that is expended is on the part of the Health
Department. And I know the concerns of some of my fellow Commissioners about
this contract, but it's a contract that has already been entered into and it's
going to be paid for with public funds. As y'alls representative I voted
against that contract, and I want that to be very plain.
MR. MAYS: I guess my questions and observances are probably directed to
the County Attorney. Now, we're going to, I'm sure, with what's on this plate
or agenda today, that we're probably going to deal with a legal session. I
will not have a vote in this process. I'm not one of the named parcels that's
listed on this itemization as of today, but as long as representative of this
area and a family member that's represented 25 out of the last 27 years,
dealing with my neighbors and constituents I'm not going to separate myself
from the dialogue of it unless ruled otherwise. Now, the legal session
question -- and I do have some questions for the Attorney. If you want them
asked in legal session, we can put them on the end and we can retire to that
and I will respect that. I think it's of public information that it can be
answered, but I will yield for that ruling.
MR. WALL: If it is a discussion concerning property acquisition, then I
would ask the Commissioner to raise those in legal session because of the
impact that it may have on ongoing negotiations or purchases in that project
area.
MR. MAYS: Well, the whole thing, Mr. Wall, is about property
acquisition. So, I mean, if we're being generic, then all that I probably am
going to say is going to be about that and, you know, so I will yield to that.
But I think there are some serious questions that need to be answered about
the contract and I think that there are some serious questions in reference to
what we are voting on in the scope of the letter that can be handled in the
legal side of this. And if it's about -- it's not about anybody's specific
property that's in here, there is not an argument about an appraised price on
anything, it is strictly dealing basically with what already has been
submitted in a public book or document for us to peruse on over the weekend or
given time. Now, if that's illegal for being put in that fashion I will still
yield.
MR. WALL: Well, there is nothing illegal about discus-sing it in the
open session, and as long as it's about one of the parcels that's listed here
and does not effect ongoing negotiations or discussions concerning other
properties, then certainly there's no reason that it could not be discussed in
the opening meeting.
MR. MAYS: I don't think it would dwell in that matter, Mr. Wall, and
without any dialogue or argument or rebuttal I will refuse to -- refrain,
rather, if I am stopped. If that borders on that type of question, I will
respect the right of legal counsel and I will stray away from that and I will
hold that till legal session. Now I guess I'll go for what I know. Now,
number one, we talk about the contract. It is my understanding -- and I don't
think this contract should be a phantom contract. Number one, our
representative has already stated he voted against it. Most of the other
Commissioners here do not know what's in it. We cannot separate ourselves on
this issue and wash our hands with it and say, well, the Board of Health is in
charge of it. I've questioned all along in these public meetings, and it's
gotten now to a point of fish-cut-bait time, as to whether or not who's in
charge of this thing. Is it, you know, the tail or the dog? Now, we are
the recipients of sales tax money. We are the ones who authorize the
referendums that are placed on ballots, we are the collectors of it, we are
the trustees and guardians of that money in sales tax. We are the ones who
dole it out whether it's to the 501-C's, whether it's to departments in this
city and county, or whether it's to authorities and boards which have other
authorization and powers as does the Board of Health. I understand that, but
I don't think it's correct to have in a part of these minutes to say that this
is done by the Board of Health. The same attorneys that represent the Board
of Health also represent this city and this county; am I correct?
MR. WALL: That is correct.
MR. MAYS: We are receiving the same legal guidance and representation
whether it is you or someone else in that firm; am I correct?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. MAYS: Okay. So the common denominators on the contract then are the
same, am I correct, as far as legal advice?
MR. WALL: Yes, although I didn't recognize it. But, I mean, under the
law I am jointly responsible for it and --yes, that is correct.
MR. MAYS: I just want to make sure we're not dealing with any unknown
legal advice because, I mean, it's said that the Board of Health is doing it.
I think that's a little bit of a misnomer that needs to be cleared up. If
we're receiving the same advice from F. Lee Bailey, then F. Lee Bailey is the
attorney for everybody involved, there's no different attorney. And that's
all I'm going to say about the contract. What's in this letter is -- it
talks about current and expected expenses. You warned me about expected, will
not say anything about that, respect your advice on it; but I think if a
letter is coming out on legal stationery to talk about expected when we're
only talking about what has already been done, then that does not give this
Commission an idea of what is to be expected. Now, I meant that by saying I
think for the record that this Commission made an unprecedented move. We
authorized and in effect put a ceiling on the property in the Laney-Walker
area. We appropriated one million dollars, and I think what you're seeing at
best is that you're seeing a project ongoing that's trying to make the budget
fit. It's my understanding whether it's the ruling of the planners or the
professional people or it be from the attorneys representing us that the
question that has come up, and probably the most probably argumented point, is
that where have been or where are the standards that we will go by in terms of
this process for making people whole. That was asked over two years ago. I
probably have been the most dogmatic person about asking that, and I've
answered it in two manners: I said treat folk fairly and I've said do business
people like you do business folk anywhere else where you've gone in and taken
property. And I don't think I have to equate that anything else with what I
mean, but for the most part inner-city properties, and particularly those that
have been in black inner-cities, basically are treated just as that. It's as
though you're dealing with colored business, you put a number out there, most
people probably that you have acquired property from maybe have not even
known, or did they know, the right of trying to deal with the only appraisers
or maybe not even had the expense to go in and to do that. I want that as a
part of this particular record, and I think it's important that it be placed
in there. The no-standard provision, I guess that's floating along by
itself. That basically has not been done. Mr. Todd asked about the building
and furnishings in this matter, as to where that money is coming from. Is it
true that this project is at the rim of the seven million dollars that's been
allocated for it? And I'm not talking now about dealing with the appraised
values or future values, that if we have allocated seven million dollars, if
we've got a ceiling -- and that can be debated yes or no, but I'll accept the
million dollars. If we are up to the rim at 5.9 or whatever it is to build
this building, then where are the other monies coming from? And is this
Commission as guardians and trustees of the taxpayers' money, are we then
going to put the differences out there? Or have we even posed any of those
questions to the Board of Health or have we posed them alternatives? And I
will save those alternatives, Mr. Wall, for legal session because I think it's
sad when the alternatives are being brought about by the people most effected.
There are alternatives which can effect this project, which can save the
taxpayers money, which do not have to go to the rim of what this project is,
but yet you still have a tail wagging a dog that's deciding what monies will
be spent. And what I'm basically hearing is that this is the Board of
Health's baby. Well, it is not. It is the governing body of the City of
Augusta represented by our legal staff which we pay and of which we set policy
and we direct. If I am wrong I can be so corrected by you, the Mayor, or any
of my colleagues. But I think we've gotten into a situation of convenience.
We allow it to go to a board for the most part that basically until very
recently looked like nobody who lived in Laney-Walker until now won, that has
basically made this type of decision and to the point of seven million
dollars. Now, I'm all for economic development, I'm all for improvement,
but I stated all along do it fair. And I think if you have alternatives that
are on this table, that can be brought to the table, whether it's in legal
session or wherever you want to bring it, then I think they ought to be
discussed. Because this is the city's money. We allocate these funds. If
this was some little 501-C that we were dealing with, we would be raising all
holy hell about it, but for the most part endorsed by the right people. And I
think most people that have supported this project have wanted to see it done,
but want to see it done fairly and not running roughshod over anybody. The
negotiations, without quoting any numbers, that have gone back for the most
part and funds that are being allocated basically have been changed mainly
because this Commissioner and a few others have raised hell about the
unreasonable numbers that have been brought forth which almost border on
ridiculous, that I would even question whether or not you pay the damn
appraisers that you got out there in terms of what's been done, and I think
you know where I'm coming from. And I'll save the rest of it for legal
session. Unanswered out here, but you can reserve it in there. But I not only
have a problem with you going forward on it because of the absence of the
contract, I think you ought to deal with your whole measure here. Because,
one, are you looking realistically at 497 or are you looking at 613? Are you
trying to put professional out of your property funds or are you taking them
out of somewhere else? The letter does not say. It doesn't state. It has a
number, it has an itemization, and I think it's clear. I have no problem with
that. But it doesn't state what body of money they are coming out of. Is it
out of that property total or is it out of others?
MR. OLIVER: The contract that we have coming forward, Commissioner Mays,
is for seven million dollars. It tells the Health Department that we won't
give them above seven million dollars. The budget provides for a ten percent
contingency at this point. Beyond that I can't answer the specifics, but it
also clearly states that there's no obligation by the county to provide
furniture, fixtures and equipment, and that that's recognized on the front
end. Obviously that does not preclude them from coming back and asking for
subsequent funding later, and that would depend upon the will of the
Commission.
MR. MAYS: And my issue is not a dog fight about the furnishings in it.
That's just an awareness point in it. But I think when you talk about the
seven million dollars and where this Commission allocate it -- and even in
differences that some of us have had in this project, I think that to set an
arbitrary ceiling -- and I've sat here since 1990, into the third phase of the
sales tax, I've watched folks' property in River Watch Parkway, I've watched
it on four-lane widening, and I have not seen yet -- and we may have done some
speculation as it comes to Recreational projects, of a need to put into a
project there, but even that has been open-ended. This has been the only one,
in spite of the professionals asking for what direction will be given in terms
of satisfying this gap because of the limitations of sales tax money and what
it can do legally, which I contend -- and if there's a letter floating around
somewhere else where the government answered it or where we voted on it,
that's different, but I've not seen one, and as far as I know it's basically
been on chance and I think it was done on chance. And y'all can accuse me
of saying it borders on -- I'll just say cultural discrimination or, you know,
the lack of an understanding that everybody can have historical value whether
it's deemed by some historic geological group or not, but it's very strange
that that's the only one that stands out like a sore thumb where we made a
blanket endorsement of a million dollars and put not an effective working
source but you actually put a ceiling in order to terms of work under and now
trying to make this budget work with it. And that's why I asked where then
are your differences of funds, because you're talking about 497 in one case,
you're talking about 613 on the other. Are you taking both out of that pot or
are you taking the difference of the 497 out of another pot? Because if it's
coming out of the million, then that's not property. Those are professional
services related to property, but what I'm saying is then that's a misnomer in
terms of where you set aside those monies for it. And I think anybody doing
work ought to be paid, but I think if the letter says this is to be an
itemized clarification, there ought to be a clarification, and there's not.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I don't guess I'm prepared to address exactly the
breakdown of the sums above the $613,000 because I'm not totally familiar with
the Board of Health's seven million dollar budget on the project. I would
note that in Dr. Rumph's letter he refers to invoices regarding land
acquisition, legal and design. Certainly this $56,000 insofar as professional
services for design would not come out of the million dollars. The appraisal
expenses and legal expenses, I don't know whether that was a separate budgeted
item under their seven million dollar budget or whether that was included
under the land acquisition, so I don't know the answer to that question
without looking at that. The question is whether or not the legal expenses
and the appraisal services, which total some $17,000, count toward the one
million dollars that the Commission approved insofar as land acquisition or
whether that is shown in the Board of Health as a separate budgeted item out
of the seven million dollars, and I don't know the answer to that question.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll try to shed some light on this. There is a little
in excess of one million dollars -- several hundred thousand dollars in excess
of one million dollars for acquisition of properties is what it currently
calls for. The rest of the money is allocated for the building of the
building is my understanding. There is no money in the budget for the
furnishing of the Health Department. The Board of Health has gone on record
requesting that the local Legislation Delegation fund that through State
funds. That's pretty much where we're at today, with the exception of the
fact that we have either got negotiated or have gone through, what, 24 out of
the 34 parcels of property?
MR. HANDY: No, 20 out of 34. We've got 14 left.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: There has been five condemnations entered into at this
point. All of them are not on this list.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might. And I cannot vote, I cannot make a
motion, but it would greatly concern me with some of the things that I've
seen, particularly where we've been split far as a Commission in terms of
asking everybody from the Sheriff and the D.A. to find out about $50,000 on
the River Race, that we're fixing to deal with seven million and we don't know
-- haven't seen all of the darn contracts on, that we've not completed a sales
tax agreement of how we're to deal with it between this body and the Board of
Health, and yet we still manage to be in this tail-wagging-the-dog mentality
about moving on on this darn project. Now, I think if it's going to be
done -- and I remind this Commission, I remind the Attorney, I was chairman of
this Commission when I was told by folk and we did otherwise that where we
were and too far down the road when we were eighteen million dollars over with
the jail and what we couldn't do to get it under control. We just heard
earlier when the Sheriff said we'd be moving in that jail in November, months
ahead of time, we'll be dollars ahead of time. It will be for what we
borrowed and we can pay it back and we actually made money off of the deal.
Now, if we turned around a project -- I'm not saying they should do that in
this case, but what I'm saying is if you're going to be that prudent about
fifty million dollars or finding out where it came from and of getting it back
down to the thirty-two to thirty-four with a contingency that it was intended
to be, then, gentlemen, where is your intestinal fortitude to deal with all
seven? Because I contend until you get your ducks in a row you will not
be the people who are let off the hook when questioned as to whether or not
you busted the budget on this one. They will not go to the Health Department
or some appointed board, they will not go to any professionals, they will not
even go to Mr. Wall, they're going to come to the Mayor and the members of
this Commission and ask those questions. So I've got the luxury of
abstaining, gentlemen. You don't. And if you're comfortable with it, then you
do what your comfort zone says. But I'll tell you what, if I was sitting
here, and where you've got this money directed in here, with as many
unanswered questions as you do about the contractual liabilities -- and I can
give you one here about the contract. That's why Jerry voted against it,
because it's very open-ended and it says to one of which you have a very hell
of a hard time getting rid of anybody aboard dealing with it. That's why your
Commissioner from the Board of Health didn't vote for it. He was being very
nice about it. I'm going to be abstaining, I don't have to be nice about it.
That's why it's there, that's what the wording is. You can take up the rest
of it in legal or y'all can go on out here and y'all can deal with it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we invite the Board of Health over here to
give us a reported update and then we can see exactly what's what. Can we get
them, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, you can. And as I say and as Mr. Oliver has alluded
to, the contract will be brought before you in the Finance Committee and all
those questions can be addressed at that time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't we send them a letter stating that we
want them to make a formal presentation and let us see exactly what's what.
Can you take care of that, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: I would like to make a substitute motion that we just table
this until we get the report from the Board of Health, we don't do anything
about anything until we get the report from the Board of Health and we can go
from there.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to change that to postpone instead of table?
MR. HANDY: Postpone will be fine, yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I assume that this board understands that there is legal
ramifications that if we postpone it, it puts the masters in -- where there
have already been some master awards, then these properties have to be paid
for. Is that correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: There have been some special master awards that we have an
obligation to pay for; however, I mean, I don't think that -- in all fairness,
I don't believe that's an insurmountable problem. I think we can work through
that.
MR. HANDY: All I see is about $450 on there, unless there's some more.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, I think it's done on the special masters fees, but
also the awards of the property that's involved.
MR. HANDY: Okay. The reason why I say that, Mr. Mayor and
Commissioners, if we got questions and we don't have the answers for them,
then it's not going to hurt until we get what we need to make sure that we
understand what we're doing.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, also while we're addressing this situation,
we got to remember that this Commission is the one that sited this site, and
it was an eight to one to one vote, if I remember correctly. We chose this
site.
MR. OLIVER: May I make a suggestion? Because of the schedule on the
calendar the Finance Committee or the subcommittees will not meet next week at
all. And because this is of interest to the entire Commission, I would
suggest that we consider -- or you consider setting up a special meeting next
week to discuss this with representatives of the Health Department, because I
think that the time constraints are going to be too great to handle this and
give it the appropriate amount of time within the subcommittee structure. My
suggestion would be perhaps if Ms. Bonner and I can work it out, to make it
next Tuesday perhaps in the late afternoon.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would ask my colleagues would you build a
home without having -- making arrangements for furniture? And if you're going
to build a 5,000 square foot home and it's going to deplete your furniture
budget, wouldn't you then build a 3,000 square foot home and buy furniture? I
think it's ludicrous to have your hands out begging without any assurance for
furniture. I would question if this is a major request for the Senate
Majority Leader and the Delegation to put it into their supplemental budget.
Now, this is not a new issue as far as this furniture go. This has been
back there for some time. And I would suggest to the Board of Health that
they, one, downsize their building to include furniture. It may not be in the
best interest of the architectural engineers or the consultants to do that in
the sense that they usually get a percentage of the building, you know, et
cetera, and maybe not necessarily a percentage of the furniture. But where
we're at on Broad Street today, I'm sure it's not the same size as where we
are moving to. The other issue is land and how much land is needed. I
voted -- well, talked against and I guess probably voted against the first
site on Twiggs Street. I supported this site because I thought it was a good
site, that it offered a open opportunity for urban renewal in the Laney-Walker
district, is something that we all should be interested in. But we don't
necessarily need the size that we're building and we can add on to it later
and put the furniture in there. I believe that there is a facility adjacent
to it across the street that may even can share some common parking area, and
there's alternatives for what they're doing here. Now, my position -- I
want to be supportive of public health. I will not be in support of public
health at all cost. I don't look at [inaudible], but I do look at the bottom
line and I do look at fairness, I do look at the contracts and the procedures
that we've set forth, and we should hold them accountable to those rules just
like we are holding everybody else accountable to the rules. And, Mr. Mayor,
I don't have a problem with meeting with the Health Department, but we have a
representative that represents us on the Health Department Board. I think we
should pass a resolution and hand it to Mr. Jerry Brigham, which is very
capable of going back over there and telling the Health Department where we
stand on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, wherein I understand a lot of what has been said
here and I understand, you know, why it's being said, and I think -- I pushed
this project myself, along with other colleagues on the board here, trying to
make an impact in the area out there. And this isn't something that has just
happened, it's been culminating for a long period of time. And I think we all
agree, you know, much about it and that this was the site that would be used,
and I think we all understand that there is an element of fairness and we've
all pushed that. And I will be the first to admit that if that element of
fairness is not being used, then we need to look into it. But we've gone down
the road quite a bit here, and I would just hate to see at this time that that
project is derailed at this point. Now, most of us know, if we're going
to be fair with each other, that there is a particular item in here that
created most of the problems here. And I have gone along with eliminating
that for the time being until we hear -- or make some positive alternatives
here or look into that aspect of it, but I think that we will doing ourselves
and the community a disservice if we didn't continue here. We've made certain
recommendations here. We've gone into the assessment of property, and I would
be the first to also admit with my colleague that some of those appraisals
were not in line, but we got those -- to my knowledge, a lot of those
appraisals came in the line. Now, if the community out there with 28 of the
32 or 33 parcels out there, if we have come to an agreement on those, then I
think that the others can be worked out. Now, I hear again about furniture.
But I think it was also stated, and the representative can correct me if I'm
wrong, that it was also understood that the Delegation from the State would
kick in some money for the furniture if that's what you're looking for.
But I don't think we're at liberty to sit here and micromanage and say what is
needed out there and we're going to cut down the footage and we're going to
delete this and delete that. I think that we ought to hear from them. If
that's what you want, I have no problem with that. But why would you stop a
process here just to get involved here with one item on here? Now, that item
can be deleted until you are satisfied and we can move on with the project.
And I'm going to ask that we move on with the motion that was made, the first
substitute motion that was made, and accept it here and move on with that and
deal with this while other avenues or whatever particulars that you have in
that, deal with it on that level.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question here. These parcels, are
these people that have agreed to the amount here or are we giving them the
appraised value?
MR. WALL: Well, in a lot of instances the same answer. I mean, these are
the agreed upon amounts, and some of them are negotiated amounts, some of them
are the appraised values that they've agreed to.
MR. BEARD: In other words, they're condemned or?
MR. WALL: I don't know whether they -- how many, if any, of these are
condemnations.
MR. BEARD: Well, maybe Mr. Johnson could answer that. He's sitting over
there. Mr. Wall? Mr. Johnson is sitting back there, maybe he can -- MR.
WALL: Well, I'm sitting here looking at it. You've got some that are broken
down. Clerk of Superior Court, those would be condemnations. Insofar as
Coleman Carpenter and then Woo, those two would be condemnations.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Woo parcel was condemned simply because the person
that owned the property died in 1962 and it was hard to establish heirs. That
was the reason of the condemnation of the Woo property.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the substitute motion, please.
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by
Mr. Powell, was to postpone until the Commission received a report from the
Board of Health.
MR. BEARD: [inaudible]
CLERK: No, sir, your motion was the main motion. Your motion was to
approve the expenditures, deleting the consultants fees in the amount of
$42,000, making the expenditures $571,081.
MR. HANDY: Ms. Bonner, excuse me. Not necessarily get a report from the
Board of Health, but meet with the Board of Health to get all this information
that we're looking for versus just to get a report from them.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to postpone, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
CLERK: Item 19(a): Discuss allocation to Better Business Bureau of
$25,000.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Since the representative from the Better Business Bureau
has left, could I have a motion to postpone -- MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Items 20 through 24 were approved by the Administrative Services
Committee on July 7th.
[Item 20: Motion to approve reprogram of funds awarded to CSRA Business
League. Item 21: Motion to approve the elimination of competitive
application process and evaluate the loans request as funds are available.
Item 22: Motion to approve loan funds range for Economic Development Loan
Fund $5,000 to $25,000. Item 23: Motion to approve policy of active code
enforcement for overgrown lots. Item 24: Motion to approve Substance
Abuse Policy Revision and Option #2. (Complies with the recommendation of the
State of Georgia, removes Section 2 of the January 16, 1996 policy and
requires all employees to be tested in accordance with NIDA standards (split
sample).]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be approved as a consent
agenda.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Items 25 through 30 were approved by the Engineering Services
Committee on July 7th.
[Item 25: Motion to approve condemnation of 8,427 sq. ft. of permanent
drainage, utility and access easement and 4,155 sq. ft. of permanent access
and utility easement over existing sanitary sewer easement. Item 26:
Motion to approve completion of topographic survey/sedimentation and erosion
control plan for compost site at Augusta-Richmond County Landfill by Southern
Partners, Inc. for $8,300.00. Item 27: Motion to approve Pipeline
Crossing Agreement between CSX Transportation, Inc. and Augusta-Richmond
County to allow installation of 18" sanitary sewer line under the railroad
tract at Gordon Highway and Gate 1. Item 28: Motion to approve the
installment of street lights on Telfair Street, East Ford and Walker Streets
as well as new sidewalk and landscaping on Walker Street at a cost not to
exceed $33,750. Local government will provide labor, Federal General Services
Administration will reimburse for all materials cost including street lighting
installation. Item 29: Motion to approve Right-of-way Mowing and
Maintenance Agreements and Indemnity Agreements with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for landscaping the following intersections: S.R. 10, Gordon
Highway at North Leg; S.R. 121, US 25 at Tobacco Road; S.R. 121, US 25 at
Windsor Spring Road; S.R. 104/28, Washington Road at Fury's Ferry Road.
Item 30: Motion to approve a request from the Georgia Forestry Commission
regarding a proposal for participation by Augusta-Richmond County in the
development of the Spirit Creek Environmental Education Center at a cost of
$17,000 with Public Works and Augusta Utilities providing in-house labor.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this as a consent
agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve the re-routing of the Kimberly-Clark
sanitary sewer trunk line to Highway 56.
MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor, that we approve.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there is two routes here, I guess, discussed in the
Engineering Services Committee. There is one off the road route which is
going through several individuals' property that have no desire to develop,
and there's no cost benefit to going that route. And if we're looking for
payback other than industrial users, and we're usually looking for ways to not
have a -- to do a payback on industrial users, that's one of the methods we
use for getting them in here, then we need to look for a payback from
commercial and light industrial and possibly residential on Highway 56.
The additional cost incurred is approximately a quarter of a million dollars,
but there is a payback at a point in developing along that corridor as far as
Highway 56 go. And it makes sense to me that we would go that route, so
that's why I made the motion and that's why I argued in support of it at the
committee meeting. And I think it's the best route even though it costs us a
little more, that we have a highway developed there, Highway 56, that there is
sewer needs, wastewater needs are there, and I would recommend to my
colleagues that we support this route because of the payback and we don't have
to put the payback in [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I still have several concerns with this. One
is the fact that a quarter of a million dollars is still a quarter of a
million dollars. The other part of it that I'm concerned with is there's been
no assurances to me that we can just put this in the state right-of-way. And
if it's proposed, I haven't seen anything from that from our Engineering or
Public Works Department or anywhere else. I think that's a concern that needs
to be addressed. The other thing is I believe also that in the long run we
may want to keep the industrial sewer separated from the residential sanitary
sewer, is my personal belief, and I think if that's the case we ought to do
the most short and most economically feasible route to do and save that
quarter of a million dollars.
MR. KUHLKE: Is Mr. Hicks here? What was the recommendation from
Utilities to Public Services?
MR. HICKS: Insofar as what we had recommended, we had looked at both
routes and had come up with a cost estimate both ways. And an argument could
be mounted in favor of either route, so we mainly just set forth the
engineering and the relative costs and left it, you know, to the Engineering
Services Committee. Either one would be feasible. Either route would
eventually be needed. Those, you know, who live along what we call the
primary route on the little map that we gave out, they certainly are not
desirous at this time of having a line up through there; however, none of us
live forever and we don't know what their forebears might want to have. But
also a good case can be made for putting the sewer line up Highway 56, as
Commissioner Todd pointed out. So either route has merit. There's a
difference in cost; there is dealing with the land owners, you know, at this
present time and their desires. So either route would work. Insofar as
going along Highway 56 is concerned, in the Engineering Services Committee it
was asked that Jack Murphy contact the DOT. He did. We have in our
possession at this time a set of the widening plans for Highway 56. It
appears from a cursory examination that there would be room within the right-
of-way. Mr. Murphy also contacted the DOT right-of-way department. They made
the comment to him -- and he's not here at this time. I don't know if he
reported to you, Mike, if you could confirm this, but he also reported back
that the right-of-way department said that they would look favorably on the
sewer line going in that right-of-way; however, that if we did want to do it,
that we needed to get on with it because they are acquiring that right-of-way,
and if it's to be part of the plans for this, then we need to get it drawn up.
So that was their comment. They did comment favorably on it.
MR. KUHLKE: In the primary route there's no payback schedule there. Do
you anticipate nobody else tying on if you went with the primary route?
MR. HICKS: Well, the property owners along that route, I don't think it
goes near any of their homes. It does not go near any of their homes, and we
don't anticipate that they would tie in, so there would not be a payback in
that regard, it would be strictly from what sewer service fees we got from the
industries.
MR. KUHLKE: And explain to me, Max, getting back to the sewerage
treatment plant, do you come part way down or you start the line on Horseshoe
Road going down 56, and then turning up Bennock Mill Road, then back to the
sewerage treatment plant? Is that the route?
MR. HICKS: That's the route we looked at. It has been suggested that we
could look at going on down Highway 56 and intersecting that Spirit Creek
interceptor at a location near Spirit Creek, but to my recollection -- well,
it could perhaps be done. I don't think it would cost any more than this
does. Fact of the matter, I know that it wouldn't or less we wouldn't need to
do it. Whatever we do it won't cost any more than what this was estimated.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It's my understanding that eventually we're going to run
sewer lines out 56. That's in the grand plan of things.
MR. HICKS: Yes, eventually we would anticipate that there would be
proposed growth along Highway 56 and a sewer line would be needed. That's why
I say that this sewer line is not an extra sewer line, it's just that it would
be built now instead of at some later date.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And the impact on running the line into the Kimberly-
Clark property is a difference of about three months; right? This would delay
running that into there by about six months.
MR. HICKS: Our estimate of time to do a redesign and design the sewer
line along the Highway 56 and Bennock Mill Road route is that it would take
about six months to do a redesign. The question was asked in Engineering
Services Committee how long it would take to condemn should there be that
decision, and the Attorney might want to address that, but I would guess it
would take at least three months to do that.
MR. OLIVER: The one question I've got, Mr. Hicks, is that you talk
condemnation, but on another hand you mention the fact that the state is going
to work with us on right-of-ways. Is this just in the obscure chance that
there may be an isolated parcel here or there that will need to be acquired in
addition to that state right-of-way?
MR. HICKS: We have not really addressed that, Mr. Oliver. We looked at
the plans, it looked as if there would be enough room for us to have the sewer
line within their right-of-way. However, your question is well put. Until
the survey is done and we look at the cut slopes and the field slopes and know
exactly where the sewer line is going to go we won't know if we need to get
into an additional right-of-way. But if we are able to stay within their
right-of-way, they're perfectly willing to accommodate us.
MR. ZETTERBERG: The difference in the cost then between the straight
route, the primary route, and the one proposed by the re-route is how much?
MR. HICKS: 238,000, I believe is what's in there.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Difference?
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: My understanding is that money is available within the
water fund.
MR. HICKS: Well, there are funds within the bond issue to cover the
amount of the original estimate. There are, at present, uncommitted funds in
the bond issue extension to unsewered areas. It would be within the purview
of those responsible to say if you wanted to commit some of those funds to
this, or there would certainly be sufficient funds within the renewal and
extension. So that's why I say funds could be made available should the
Commission decide to go the alternate route.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And if we use those funds, what's the impact on other
areas?
MR. HICKS: It would just reduce funds available in other areas.
MR. KUHLKE: Max, I'll tell you, when we go to the unsewered areas, I
have a problem with running new sewer lines out at taxpayers expense where
we've got unsewered areas that the property owners have already paid, and --
because they're in those pockets. You know, I think that that is -- I don't
think that should be commingled.
MR. HICKS: We had met with Mr. McKie -- I had looked around to see if he
were here. I don't want to put him in the hot seat, but another question that
was asked with regards to the pockets of unsewered areas was how much money
could possibly be made available to look at that construction. And Mr. McKie
and I met, and a cursory review or, again, a quick review of the budget
indicated that there could be as many as seventeen million dollars available
between now and the year 2000.
MR. McKIE: There will be sufficient funds. There will be.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, the route change is something that I would
like to urge my colleagues to support. The map that we have here that shows
the area, it doesn't show it on the map, but on the Old Savannah Road, which
is Highway 56, the western portion of Highway 56, which is -- you know, it's
just really a big blank there. That area is one of the proposed areas for our
development plan, our overall development plan for Augusta-Richmond County,
and that is one of the areas that the Planning and Zoning has picked out to be
one of the next development areas in our community. And not to mention the
fact of the commercial development that you're going to pick up along a major
throughfare versus going through a swamp.
MR. HANDY: I just have one question. I'm not against the new route,
because if the homeowners don't want it, then we got to make a decision
whether we're going to condemn it or not. But I just got a question to Mr.
Hicks there. Mr. Brigham asked a question there, and are we going to have to
run two lines or one line when he said keeping the resident separated from the
commercial. That's what bothers me there, because this line is actually for
the park and that's all going to be commercial only. Now, we have to separate
commercial waste from -- I mean industrial waste from residential waste going
to the same treatment plant or -- it comes in the same pipe or does it matter?
MR. HICKS: It comes in the same pipe. We have what's called an
industrial pretreatment program where we look at the waste coming from the
industries, and if their waste is too strong or too concentrated in whatever
respect we require them to provide pretreatment so that the waste that receive
from them is compatible with our treatment system.
MR. HANDY: So that has to be done actually on the property itself before
it enter this particular pipe?
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd encourage my colleagues also to support the
secondary route. These people that own the property on the primary route are
my constituents. I've met with them, along with Tom Wiedmeier. They're all
unanimous and adamant that they do not want this sewerage line going through
their property. There are even some environmental concerns in some of the
lower areas that Tom was not aware of that I don't think we have an answer on
yet as to whether we could be affected if we went the primary route. But
I think the secondary route is the only economically feasible route to take.
It'll take 238,000 extra dollars; however, as you saw on the report here,
that'll be a 13-year payback. We're talking about supplying sewerage to
pocketed areas of Augusta-Richmond County, and the payback is 15, 20, and 26
years payback, and some out to infinity that there really is no payback for,
but I agree that those people should have that, and they will have it. But
with this route we have a payback potentially strictly from what exists there
now, not to mention what would be out there in the future. It would encourage
industry to come on the western side of Old Savannah Road, and I think from a
practical and economic standpoint --as you've heard, we're going to have to
build this one at some point anyway, so rather than build two, let's just
build one and go with it. Also, there seems to be some concern about a
possible delay in time if we go the secondary route as far as getting the line
to the plant site. That was brought up to Tom Wiedmeier. He mentioned that
if they started construction on the plant tomorrow, that we would have the
sewerage to them in plenty of time for them to use it. In other words, it
would be there when they needed it. They don't need it tomorrow. They don't
need the sewerage tomorrow, but it would be there in sufficient time for any
construction if they started construction tomorrow. So I think the practical
thing and the economic thing and the one that would satisfy the homeowners is
to choose the secondary route, and I'd urge you to support it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be as brief as I can. I know we've
probably beat this horse to death, but the bottom line is that there is money
in the water and wastewater for expansion and renewal. The bottom line is
that we can kill two birds with one stone in the sense that we're doing both
the industrial needs and the residential needs. Mr. Hicks has indicated that
the industry would be required to do the pretreatment through one of two
methodologies, you know, through a reactor or onsite treatment; that our fee
that we charge them dictates that they do it and make it more feasible for
them to pretreat, because if they send it to us raw they're going to have
another rate, so they're going to pretreat onsite, any industry coming in.
The other area that we have is a safeguard with the backflow preventers in
any line. We already have on the Spirit Creek trunk lines industrial and
residential, so it's nothing new that we're doing. And I think that we need
to go on and approve this and get it moving, because what I want more than
anything else is the wastewater at the industrial development site so when a
prospect come in we're not telling them that we're going to have wastewater
there in six months or a year, we're telling them to come on and tap on.
MR. OLIVER: I am supportive, frankly, of coming down 56, but I'm a
little bit uncomfortable, and maybe Mr. Hicks can help me. I want to know,
because right-of-way is a significant portion of any cost, and I want to know
that you're comfortable that any right-of-way acquisition cost will be
minimal.
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir, we are.
MR. HANDY: One final question is that Mr. Kuhlke brought up something
earlier in his statement, and I'm not in favor of it, but he said the
extension money -- excuse me, a minute, I can't hear both of us talking. The
extension money that we had in the old -- I don't want to separate this, but
it came up last week. We have a city and we have a county, and we had money
in the county for expansion. And we loaned you, Mr. Hicks, thirteen million
dollars back before we consolidated, and they was talking about this money,
somebody was, about this pocket. Now, Kuhlke brought up a question a few
minutes ago about the sewerage. You said the money have to come from
somewhere and we have less money in that area for sewerage. Now, what I'm
asking is that could we put in that motion to approve this line going down 56
and we don't take any money away from any area for the pocket sewerage area
and we take this from the expansion money that's already out there allocated
for the county side before we consolidated and use that money to do this line
versus taking money that we already have allocated for sewerage in other
areas; could we do that? That's the question I need answered.
MR. HICKS: Yes. I don't see Butch around anywhere, however, the money
that was loaned to the former city is to be repaid back into that reserve fund
from monies generated with the -- is it the special purpose or just the local
option sales tax? Anyway, it's supposed to come back in. It's my
understanding that money will start coming back in, and certainly this project
is well within the area that the Commissioners had previously stated that they
would like to see that money stay in. So my comment, Commissioner Handy, is
that this project would not even affect that seventeen million that Butch and
I talked about.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, that's no problem. As long it won't affect it
and as long as we won't be shortchanging one area for another one, then I
don't have a problem. Could you add that to Mr. Oliver's motion about -- the
acquisitioning land, would you add this to it, too; if we have to use that
unseweraged area money, that you need to uncross your legs and finish it?
MR. HICKS: Right. They're uncrossed.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question.
CLERK: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. A motion to
approve the re-routing of the Kimberly-Clark sanitary sewer trunk line to
Highway 56, with no monies being taken from the funding of the pocket of
unsewered areas, and to use the water and sewer renewal and extension fund
money for the extension, and that there be minimal land acquisitions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Public Safety Items 32 and 33 were approved by Public Safety on
July 7th, 1997.
[Item 32: Motion to approve bid award for container garbage collection
to lowest bidder CSRA Waste Disposal. Item 33: Motion to approve
purchase of communication equipment from Motorola in the amount of
$32,030.00.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that these be approved by a consent
agenda.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 34: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
the Commission held July 2, 1997.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Items 35 and 36 are a Second Reading Ordinance.
[Item 35: Motion to approve Ordinance revising Title 4, Section 4-2-26
of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regarding interference with garbage
receptacles. Item 36: Motion to approve Ordinance revising Title 6,
Section 6-6-47 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regarding issuance of
"Going Out of Business License Sale."]
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 37: Motion to approve execution of quit-claim deed to
Tracey W. DeVore, Jerry Greenway and Wayne Merritt Builders, Inc., d/b/a
Interstate Properties, abandon-ing the County's interest in a 10-foot easement
along the rear property lines of lots 3, 4, 13, and a portion of lot 12, and
5-foot easement on side property lines of property located on Interstate
Parkway originally subdivided in individual lots, in exchange for new easement
on combined lot.
MR. HANDY: So move. Unless you got a problem with it, Mr. Attorney.
MR. WALL: The only thing -- I do not have a problem with it. I would
like to make one correction. The quit-claim deed will not actually be to the
individuals and the corporation listed there, it will be to Steinberg and
others. And I don't have the full property names, but DeVore and others
conveyed to Steinberg in January '95, so the quit-claim deed will actually run
to different people.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: All property owners that this is going to impact is in this
agreement?
MR. WALL: That's correct, yes.
MR. TODD: Thank you. And we had public hearings?
MR. WALL: There's been no public hearing on this, however, it has been
reviewed by Mr. Murphy at the Public Works Committee. In essence what
happened, they combined lots that were originally individual lots in order to
make a transfer.
MR. TODD: Okay. So there is no need for public hearings on this?
MR. WALL: No, no need.
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.
CLERK: Item 38: A Resolution authorizing Commissioners of Augusta-
Richmond County to enter into an agreement with East Georgia Easter Seal
Society, Inc. with regard to a "Fantasy of Lights" Display at Pendleton King
Park during the Christmas Holiday Season.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 39: Appointments to various Authorities, Boards and
Commissions. Mr. Todd would like to enter for nomination Ms. Evelyn Austin to
the Historic Preservation Board and Mr. Ira Davis to the Tree Commission.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: (C) Appointment of Mr. Sam Cruse to Indigent Tripartite
Committee.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, just one of my concerns is that I have a concern
about appointing folks to the Indigent Defense Board that's going to receive a
direct benefit by doing business with the board and whether there is a
conflict of interest there, and I think that we need to look at that for
future appointments and try to find some attorneys that is not practicing or
doing business with indigent defense, and there are a lot of them out there.
And those are my comments and thoughts. And I know that these appointments
come up from the boards and -- or the board itself, but maybe we could share
that concern with them.
MR. WALL: If I can address that. This committee does not have any
oversight responsibility or supervisory respon-sibility insofar as the fees of
any individual attorneys, and I frankly think that it's important that you
have attorneys that work in the indigent defense on the committee because they
understand the problems and can work through that. The judges involved are
the ones that approve the fees.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion to approve Mr. Cruse, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item (D): Appointment of Richard A. Slaby and Isaac W. McKinney
to Community Service Board of East Central Georgia July 1, 1997-June 30, 1999.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, have Mr. Slaby just been appointed to a judgeship,
and have anyone talked to him since that appointment? I know we have some
things that's happening relatively fast, and if we're talking about the judge,
then -- MR. WALL: I have not talked with him specifically about this,
but I would doubt that he would want this appointment in light of his
appointment to the State Court judgeship. And if we can delay that until I
can have an opportunity to discuss it with him, and my guess is that he would
not want to serve.
MR. POWELL: Move to table.
MR. TODD: Is that postpone, Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Postpone Mr. Slaby's appointment.
MR. TODD: I would second the substitute motion to table Mr. Slaby's. I
think he would make a fine appointee there, to my colleagues that nominated
him, but I didn't want to -- I want to give him the opportunity the decide
whether there is a conflict as far as serving his judgeship.
MR. HANDY: I just want to ask one question. It doesn't matter about
that, because I know he's just been appointed to State Court judge. But he's
already a judge, isn't he, so what's the difference?
MR. WALL: It's a part-time position as Juvenile Court judge.
MR. HANDY: Okay. But he's still a judge then?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the difference is that he's going to have to run
for elective office in -- I guess non-politics as far as judgeship go. And
also Mr. David Watkins, which is a very able jurist, was appointed and we've
also in the past appointed him to head up the Board of Elections. So I think
that we're going to have to make some adjustments. We certainly want those
appointments to the bench, and I think they're probably two of the better
appointments that we had, you know, so I support them. And not to take
anything away from the individuals, but just give them the opportunity to
comment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Ms. Bonner, do you want
to read the motion now so they'll know exactly what they're voting on, please?
CLERK: Okay. The substitute motion was to postpone the appointment of
Mr. Slaby. Then we'll need a motion to approve the appointment of Mr.
McKinney. Mr. Powell and Mr. Todd made the substitute motion to postpone the
appointment of Mr. Slaby.
MR. TODD: I accept the amendment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: (E) Discuss appointment of Public Works Director.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, can we take and add that to our legal meeting and
go on with the rest of the agenda?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely.
CLERK: Item 40: Communication from the City of Hephzibah requesting
consideration in disbursement of HUD funds for the Community Development Block
Grant CDBG and HOME Programs.
MR. BRIDGES: Motion it be approved.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need a legal meeting?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. I've got some litigation matters and real estate
and personnel we need to take up.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. TODD: I'll second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
[LEGAL MEETING, 4:40 - 5:35 P.M.]
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to enter a motion that we offer the position of
Public Works Director to Mr. Jonathan Adams.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MR. HANDY: I'm going to have to live by my conscience, and they say if
you're going to live by the sword, you're going to have to die by the sword.
I like Jonathan and I like Jack. Both of them are good people and I think
they would make a good Public Works person for us and they would bring some
innovative ideas and some things that we've been missing here to Augusta.
They had good interviews. One I may hold up a little higher over the other,
but for my own reasons that I cannot discuss. But I feel -- and this is
my honest opinion. A lot of things that I have sat here and went against,
that some people thought I was just going against because of who the person
was or who was involved. But I'm not satisfied with bringing a person out of
town who knows nothing about the area, but yet and still they are qualified to
do the job that we are asking to do, but they know nothing of the area and the
people. Now, you may think I'm talking in circles, but what I'm saying is
that I'm afraid that the people that we are putting trust in that we would
want and would love to hire because of the experience they gave us as far as
on their resume and everything may not be the person we need here in Augusta,
Georgia, because they may be overqualified. That's what I'm saying. And I'm
going to make a motion to let it stand just as what we are and let Mr. Oliver
and Mike and Drew run everything until they make a decision. That's what I'd
like, to put that in the form of a motion to leave it alone and --I need to
think about it some more.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that a substitute motion?
MR. HANDY: I would love for that to be one, if I can get a second. If
not, then I'll find something else to do.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess that in the sense that the substitute
motion take precedence over the motion, that I am discussing the substitute
motion. I think that, Mr. Mayor, the citizens of this community expect us to,
you know, get off of the eight ball and go on and do something. We for
political reasons, Mr. Mayor, put Public Works off to deal with for last. I
guess that I've been one of the big critics of Public Works, and because of
conversation with certain folks I decided, well, I'll just, you know, step
back and let the process happen. Because we haven't dealt with the issue
of Public Works and naming the department head we certainly have deficiencies
as far as Public Works go. We moved to put Mr. Oliver in charge somewhat, but
he's hired as Administrator, and I think that the bottom line is that we just
should do it, do it and get it over with or vote it up or down. I'm going to
go with professionalism. I would have seconded Mr. Kuhlke's motion if I had
the opportunity, but my colleague, you know, seconded it. But I think that we
need to do it and just simply get it over with.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, just a question of parliamen-tary procedure.
Can you make a motion in the middle of an election?
MR. WALL: This is not an election as such as a motion to appoint
someone, and so I do think that it's in order.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, then a point of information. Is the substitute
motion germane to the motion?
MR. WALL: It's germane to the topic, which is the Public Works Director,
and so I do think it was in order of that, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, how about let me see if anybody else wants to
comment first, Mr. Todd. Anybody else want to comment or discuss this any
more, gentlemen? If not, we'll be glad to go on to the voting of the
substitute motion. Ms. Bonner, read the substitute motion, please, made by
Mr. Handy.
CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell, is that
Public Works continue under the supervision of the Administrator, Drew Goins,
and Mike Green.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & POWELL VOTE YES.
MOTION FAILS 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke's motion was for Mr. Adams. All in favor of
Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I have one item that I'd like to add to the agenda
to get approved today: the settlement of the condemnation action against Dawn
Buchanan.
CLERK: A motion to approve the settlement of the condemnation action by
Augusta-Richmond County against Dawn H. Buchanan for the sum of $1,950.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. POWELL: Move we adjourn.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:42 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 the Augusta
Commission held on July 15, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission