Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-1997 Regular Meeting (3) THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING August 5, 1997 Commission Chambers Meeting commenced at 2:05 p.m. Members of the Commission present included Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Handy, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Powell, Mr. Todd, and Mr. Zetterberg; with Mayor Sconyers presiding. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND J.R. HATNEY. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, it's our honor today to have with us a representative from Senator Max Cleland's office. Augusta in the past for many, many years has not had a federal senator's office here. We have with us today Scott McGregor, who is going to open an office for Senator Cleland here in Augusta. Scott, would you come forward and introduce yourself and greet the people, please? MR. McGREGOR: On behalf of the Senator and myself, I want to say how much we're looking forward to getting our office in Augusta here up and running in the real immediate future. If there's anything that ever comes up that y'all need the Senator's attention, public or official, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's our first item of business, please? CLERK: The first item is a delegation. Mr. Marce McGhee, 3934 Barrett Street, reference to flooding on property. Mr. McGhee? MR. McGHEE: Yes. I'm having a water problem in my house, in my building, and I've asked the inspectors to come out and take a look at it. Now, they came by, took a look at it, and still I have a water problem. My garage has been flooded seven times. And the water is being channeled from another property onto mine. Now, I want the problems -- I want the water stopped, my problem corrected, and I want all the extra sand and dirt and stuff removed from my property. And the house is still under [inaudible] and still nothing is being done to prevent it from flooding again, and I want to know, you know, what is the law as far as a builder coming in and channeling water onto another person's property. I've talked to inspectors and I've spoken also to soil and erosion. MR. TODD: Is this water being channeled on you by the government or this is by another private concern? MR. McGHEE: This is coming from a builder whose name is McCord & McCord Design. They came in, they built the water up, the water is coming straight down the hill into my garage. MR. TODD: Okay. Is this a residential or -- MR. McGHEE: Yes, it is. MR. TODD: And the other facility is residential also? MR. McGHEE: Yes. MR. TODD: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from License & Inspection as far as the building plan and how the water is supposed to be channeled and whether it's per that plan. MR. SHERMAN: Commissioners, Mr. McGhee lives on Barrett Street in Belair Hills Estates. McCord & McCord Design/Build is constructing a house next door to him. The house is elevated above -- or the adjoining lot is elevated above Mr. McGhee's lot. When they went in and cleared the lot, just roughed cleared it, they went ahead and prepared a site for the house. The house is under construction. It's probably 95 percent complete, so we're not ready to issue a CO on the house yet. The lot has not been landscaped. The water is running around the front left side of this house and it's concentrating there, running down a hill onto Mr. McGhee's property, and it has flooded his house out several times --his garage. I've been in touch with the builder and I've told him that they need to resolve it before we issue the CO. And what it's going to involve is putting up a retaining wall at the left side of the property next to Mr. McGhee's as well as putting in gutters, running the water around to the back of the property. And, again, the house -- the construction of the house is coming along fine and it's meeting all the codes, it's just that the landscaping has not been done yet, or addressed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, is there any way that we can, through enforcement, assure that there's corrective action taken immediately? If we're waiting on the completion of the house [inaudible] final sign off, Mr. McGhee can receive significant damage. MR. SHERMAN: The grading ordinance does not specifically address this, nor does the soil erosion ordinance. The soil erosion ordinance does not require a plan because this site will be exempt, but it does require that they implement the best management practices. He has put in a silt screen and he has tried to sod the low corner, but there is just so much wash that it's going over the silt screen. The only thing that I know to do is to just tell them that it has to be done before the CO will be issued, and hopefully they will go ahead and take care of it. It's going to be a big problem for them the longer they wait, because if they continue to damage Mr. McGhee's property I suppose then it'll end up in a civil suit. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I understand that, you know, once we sign off, then it's certainly a issue then between the two parties in a civil matter. If our site plans as far as drainage and sedimentation go is not protecting other property owners, existing property owners, when they're doing new construction, then we need to make sure that we take that corrective action and procedure so we can protect existing property owners. And I'm going to make a motion that we receive this as information and that we request through the building and inspection department that they work with Mr. McGhee and Mr. McCord or McCord contractors to resolve this issue to eliminate any additional damages. That's in the form of a motion. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. MAYS: I guess my question is directed to Mr. Wall, no hot seat intended. Jim, I understand what Rob is dealing with within the law that's there, but obviously -- and I don't know what the date time of completion that they are looking at that's in there, but obviously if there is some ongoing damage that's in there, is there no remedial situation, say, at least on a 30-day situation or ordering the stopping thereof if you know there is ongoing damage, and if this is going to have to be a potential situation that we're going to have to sign off on and if this is putting us in a legal one, it may be one that we may want to discuss in legal session. But I think if there is an ongoing situation and our department recognizes it, and maybe because of the strength of the law it's not there, then if by weather or if by other jobs or whatever, that if it continues, say, maybe past a reasonable length of time, he could end up getting washed away. And I'd hate to see it to where, you know, we basically kind of, you know, sit while, you know, and fiddle while Rome burns. And I know we can't make an after-ordinance to it. It's obvious that we're going to have to maybe do something to correct future problems with it. And there are some things, Rob, you're probably going to find out in your new position that you're going to be coming back to us to ask for other changes on it, but I think this is one, if we recognize it from an enforcing department, then it looks like somewhere within there -- there should be something there that we can at least encourage, cite through warning or whatever. And I can support the motion on the floor, but I think we need to maybe do something in there if damages are occurring, we know they're occurring, because I think if we don't change it, then to a certain extent it's -- you know, this is almost as damaging as the 1990 flood, you know, when people build and hoping that they're going to be safe down the road. And if future development is going to harm that in the process, then something is going to have to be put in. While we may want growth, we're going to have to have planned growth and we're going to have to have growth which does no damage that which is already there. I just think somewhere in there within the law that we ought to be able to deal with something in order to deal with this before this is under final sign off. MR. WALL: We have in the past on occasion issued stop-work orders where there was erosion on property, and I think that this needs to be left in the discretion of the inspectors that are out there, both within Rob's department and within Public Works, as far as whether they're getting cooperation out of the home builder on the adjacent lot. But we have on occasion issued stop-work orders where they were not addressing the problem. MR. MAYS: Let me ask this maybe then. Would the maker of the motion -- and I think if we can get it with [inaudible] if we can get the cooperation out of this motion and allow Rob and those to work it out, I have no problem with that, but would you maybe accept an amendment to that motion to allow License & Inspection at least the latitude if they are not getting that cooperation, then they have the right not necessarily to wait back until we're at a regular meeting but to go ahead on and issue a stop-work order if that's the attention it's going to take. It may not, but -- MR. TODD: Yes, I'll accept that amendment, Mr. Mayor. And I think that License & Inspection probably already have the authority to stop work at any time that there's a safety issue, et cetera. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. I'm quite familiar with the problems of water and drainage out in Belair Hills Estates, and I'm concerned that the water that is coming off and maybe going through that property comes off the top of the hill [inaudible], and if that's the case, that's all tied together with another large project that Public Works has. So, Rob, I'd like you to work with Public Works to -- Jack Murphy and Mike Green know all about that, because we have done some remedial work on Barrett [inaudible]. MR. SHERMAN: I was just going to say, I think all the water that's going onto Mr. McGhee's property is originating on the adjoining lot. It's not being deflected from the street. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, with the amendment, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 2: The Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association, Reverend J.C. Phinizy, regarding recreation in the Turpin Hill neighborhood area. REV. PHINIZY: Mr. Mayor, to our County Commissioners, and to the people assembled, thank you for allowing us a few minutes of your precious time to speak about recreation, or should I say the lack of recreation in our Turpin Hill neighborhood community. I am the Reverend J.C. Phinizy, a retired Baptist pastor and a retiree of the First Union National Bank. I reside at 1303 Steed Street, and I am the President of the Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association. I'm going to ask Dr. Washington and also Mr. Robertson, would you please stand with me. We represent some of the best law abiding, tax paying, God fearing, caring and concerned voting citizens in the Augusta area. We believe in the brotherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. We are proud of our neighborhood and all those who live there, but there is one thing lacking and that is recreation. Since 1994 we have met in meetings with Mr. Paul DeCamp, Mr. George Patty, Mr. Lee Beard, Mr. Freddie Handy, Mr. Willie Mays, Mr. Moses Todd, Mr. Henry Brigham, Mr. Robert Howard, and others about our recreation in our community, and they all agree that we should have a recreational center built in our community. On June 23, 1997, at Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, at a meeting conducted by Brother Keven Mack concerning community block grant we again brought up the recreational center in our community. Mr. Robert Howard informed us that a center was on the drawing board for our neighborhood. You can imagine how happy we were to hear that good news. Later on in the Augusta Chronicle there was a write up about that neighborhood center to be built on the land of the old Howard Lumber Company on Martin Luther King Boulevard. So today we stand before you all pleading again that you will please build that community center that was recommended at the same time Jones pool was built in the early '60s. For 28 long years we have been pleading, and today we stand before you asking that it be done, and we hope today that it will be. Paul said, "Whatsoever things that are pure, whatsoever things that are good, whatsoever things that are honest, whatsoever things that are just, whatsoever things that are right, whatsoever things that are decent, do it." The Master said, "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me." The old, the young, and our children need our recreational center. We no longer have the Bethlehem Community Center together. It is not there for our activities anymore. And like the other neighborhood centers that are built, that center will serve all the people regardless. You have the power in this new consolidated government to assure the people of Augusta-Richmond County that we have a government not only with the people, by the people, but we also have a government for the people. So please, please, please build that new center in the Turpin Hill area that was recommended 28 years ago and it still hasn't come to fruition. Build it for the old people, for the young people, for the middle class, for the rich, for the poor, for the professionals, and for the non-professionals. Build it for the people. And if you build it, the Lord will bless you and so will the people. Thank you for your time, thank you for listening, the Reverend J.C. Phinizy, respectfully yours, President of the Turpin Hill Neighborhood Community Association. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we receive the delegation's comments as information, and I would have some comments when we got the motion on the floor. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess there's been some interest for some time in the Martin Luther King Boulevard area there at Turpin Hill, and it's somewhere between Turpin Hill and the Bethlehem Community area. And there is approximately, I believe, somewhere between 300 and 500 thousand dollars that was designated to go to the Bethlehem Community Center that is not possible because they couldn't come up with, I guess, clear title to property or a long-range lease. And where that project would have minimum impact on the General Fund, if we're building one and running it by Recreation it would have significant impact, but that is one funding source that we could look towards for a center for Turpin Hill area. We applied for a grant I guess for the senior center which is up the street from there, and there wouldn't be any need, in my opinion, to try to tie it together because we have a landfill situation on the property adjacent to the -- or I should say a methane gas problem that's probably going to be there for some time adjacent to the senior center. So the Howard lumber yard or somewhere in the general area I wouldn't have a problem with, and I think that we at least have a funding source that we can start with there. So those are my comments, and I can support a center as long as we're not busting the budget and we're doing it from existing funds. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the Bethlehem Center that Mr. Todd mentioned is in an area that I represent, and also the area where Reverend Phinizy was speaking of is another area that I represent in District Two. I have spoken with Commissioner Mays and others, along with Reverend Phinizy, about the possibility of putting a community center in that area. And, also, since the Jones swimming pool -- the money that it takes to repair that Jones swimming pool is to actually put a swimming pool over there along with this particular center. I have spoken with Mr. DeCamp, also spoken with Mr. Patty, and I've spoken with Mr. Beck about the recreation, and Mr. Howard, so we all are in accord of trying to come up with a possibility of putting a center in that particular area, and the only thing that is keeping us from doing it is finance as well as being able to acquire the land. We haven't had a study or not to see whether or not it's feasible to put a center in that particular area, but we will contact the Recreation Department and try to go forward to give Reverend Phinizy and the concerned citizens a answer. We will pursue the possibility of trying to put a center in that area and we will do all we can to honor your request. MR. MAYS: The only thing I'd like to add to that -- and I said before, representing four districts from the river all the way to the north side of Tobacco Road back. I think we have to be careful -- and I've spoke with Reverend Phinizy about this and he knows I'm in full support of doing that. I guess I was elated, too, at the point when we started having a funding source to finally deal with recreation and to being able to get some funding into our non-profits. One of the things that did happen is what Commissioner Handy has said, but I think it's also important that monies that are targeted to various areas, that if a particular project cannot go through on Street A -- and I think this has got us in the political ruckus that we get in from time to time -- is of making sure that whether it be through forgetfulness, through amnesia, through reprogramming, whatever, that they just don't automatically take flight and just disappear. And I want to make sure that while we're committed to --and it's going to have to come back through Recreation in terms of finalization, particularly because of environmental reasons if we're going to deal with that site. But I want to make sure that even if there is a problem, that the committed monies for that area stay in that area. And I think very often when projects get delayed for one reason or another, the shift comes in and then the shaft comes in, and then people and faces change, and then governments many times forget what they've actually promised and even forget what's even taken in minutes many times, or don't own up to it. And that's the main thing that we appreciate you coming for today and to be a constant reminder to us of where and what area that that money was allocated for. And I promise you that even if we got to shift 500 feet either way or a half a mile either way, that we remain committed to where those funds were targeted to and they don't just all of a sudden disappear because of what happened in Bethlehem Center. That may have been a legal situation, but the community didn't disappear and the folk didn't disappear, and I think that's the thing that the Commission has to remain committed to, and I just wanted to put that in for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item C: Representatives from the Imperial Theater, regarding Imperial Theater. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, could I just make a statement prior to hearing from the delegation in reference to the Imperial Theater. You know, I just want this group to understand that we have an item coming up in the next few minutes that Commissioners are having a hard time with because both groups -- we support them very highly and we think that both of those groups offer a service to the community that the community needs, and I would just like to at this time give you a little background on the funds that we possibly will discuss if there is a need to. The background goes back to City Council, and I would just like to forget about both groups for a minute and just talk about the intent of the funds that were allocated at the end of the old Augusta as we knew it, City of Augusta and the City Council. The City Council Finance Committee made the decision to allocate sales tax funds, and in that they allocated $750,000 to inner-city. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what inner-city means in this country, and I think, you know, my fellow Commissioners understand that. They have been told by the former mayor what that meant, and many of you out there in the audience know where that money was supposed to go. But, you know, if we are going to grow as a community, there has to be some sort of fairness issued to everybody. And hoping in that respect that we won't get into a whole lot of dialogue in trying to determine where that money is going, the subcommittee made a recommendation that even though we knew where that money was supposed to go -- and my colleague, Mr. Mays, just elaborated on some of the things that a lot of us think. We knew where that money was supposed to go, but we said in fairness that we would divide it between the two groups because we think that there was a need to give them something of support for the Imperial Theater. And after talking to many of my colleagues up here, I feel that we are ready to make a motion at this time that $300 be allocated to the Imperial Theater -- $300,000 be allocated to the Imperial Theater and 450 be allocated to the Mini Theater. That is in the form of a motion. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want to have the discussion now or hear from the representatives first? MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke has his hand up and I would like to hear what he has to say. MR. KUHLKE: I respect my colleague Mr. Beard's position on this, but -- and he and I had a chance the end of last week to sit down with Mr. Butler and Mr. Esterbrook and discuss this particular issue. I told him fortunately I was not a member of City Council and so I'm totally unaware of what these funds were actually designated for. In fact, I think that there was a lot of misunderstanding from the standpoint of what really these funds were supposed to be used for. We had a presentation a while back from the Imperial Theater where they asked this Commission for $541,000. I along with some of the other Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the Imperial Theater to take a look at some of their needs, and actually the theater is in deplorable condition. They have a plan to go forward. They have specific needs that they can do immediately. The Mini Theater, in meeting with Mr. Butler last Friday, it appears that their plans would probably begin sometime a year and a half from now. Specifically, they don't have any plans. I would like to offer a substitute motion, and I was hoping that it wouldn't get to this because I think basically what's going to happen is this may end up being perceived as a racial issue, and it's further from the truth. But I'd like to offer a substitute motion that we disburse this money, $300,000 to the Mini Theater, $300,000 to the Imperial Theater; that we enter into an agreement with both organizations that we would disburse $75,000 each to each organization based on them raising a two-for-one match for the $150,000. And basically what that means is this: In the case of the Imperial Theater, if they get 300, if they raise 150, bringing them to 450, and then we disburse 75, they're within $20,000 of what they have requested of this Commission. And I think both organizations -- I think it's a win-win situation for both organizations. The Mini Theater is already designated for $400,000 out of the sales tax, this would be another 375. If they dispose of their existing facility, and I don't know what the value of that is, that would give them a large pot of money to go out and build another facility. So I offer that in the form of a motion -- substitute motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second his substitute. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess Ms. Linda Beazley is not here, but Mr. Jerry Brigham, Henry Brigham and Willie Mays and Freddie Handy is still with us, and you are here and Mr. Jim Wall. When we were trying to pass the -- or at least we were proposing a referendum on one-cent sales tax in 1995, one of my concerns were, and some of my constituents, that we didn't make the mistakes that we made in the previous sales tax referendums and that we specify what money was being used for. And I probably pushed as hard as anyone to make sure that that happened, and when it come down to the city's monies I also pushed there, too. And I was told that I was meddling where I shouldn't be, that it was another government, but I felt that we had a responsibility as a county because only county governments can pass referendums and county governments is responsible for the distribution and to make sure that the expenditures is proper on one-penny sales tax -- special project sales tax. So I felt a responsibility to assure that the City of Augusta, the City of Hephzibah, specified where those monies was going to be spent, and we made that push. Now, there was some funds that wasn't designated. As far as the City of Hephzibah go, we made sure that they listed things even as far as small equipment that could be capital outlay. The City of Augusta -- the former mayor didn't cooperate that well, but he finally come around to an extent, and it was a understanding that the $750,000 that I later questioned was to be for inner-city or for low to moderate income families, and that was my understanding. Now, there was nothing ever put in writing on this, but I wanted a feel of where money was going to go to assure that individuals wasn't going to be able to use those funds as political slush funds down the line, where you got a pot of money and you kind of deal it out to whoever is, you know, brown-nosing with you at the time or whatever. And we come pretty close to assuring that that didn't happen, and I would hope in the next one-penny sales tax referendum that we make sure that it's designated where monies is going before taxpayers and citizens vote on it. That's important, because if you don't do that you're going to have situations like this. I support both groups. The daily paper editorial page stated that one of the entities has been around for a lot longer than the other one. Well, I think he got his facts wrong or he had something in his coffee the morning that he wrote the editorial. When I come to Augusta in 1978, I believe the Mini Theater was around or just been started. I believe at the same time that they were showing movies at the other theater, just to, you know, set the facts straight as I recollect, and I have a fairly decent recollection. But there is no merits really in who's been around the longest, the merits is in what service delivery the two theaters are doing to the community, for the community, and I think both of them are doing a good service delivery. One is leaning more to low to moderate income, the other one is leaning probably a little more to, you know, a dinner and a play crowd, and I don't have a problem with that. I can't afford it, but I don't have a problem with it. I'm in support of the arts. At a time when counties like Cobb County is, you know, stopping all funding for the arts or other counties throughout the state, or cities, I'm in support of the arts. I don't think that we should have a falling out here over a few thousand dollars one way or the other. I think we should go on and do the distribution of these funds and assure in the future that this don't happen again. And I'm speaking opposed to the substitute and speaking in support of the original motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I think one thing we need to keep in mind on both of these resolutions is that regardless of how this comes out, is that there be a proper accounting of these funds and that maybe we want to restrict them for capital expenditures. At least when we draw up the contract, Randy, we need to make sure that we're not expending funds out there that aren't accounted for and are not used properly in the manner that we intend. MR. OLIVER: It's my understanding of the sales tax referendum that these funds can only be spent on capital. And that was one of the clarifications, Mr. Beard, that I had was do you want contracts to come back on this, and in that contract do you want any form of a match in your motion at all? MR. BEARD: There was no match in my motion, but I will go along with what Commissioner Bridges is saying about accountability and in making sure -- MR. OLIVER: And bring back a contract then? MR. BEARD: Yeah, and a contract, but not a match. Could we have a roll call vote on this? MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, Ms. Bonner. VOTING YES: MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG. VOTING NO: MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & TODD. MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 4-4-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion. CLERK: Original motion made by Mr. Beard. VOTING YES: MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS & TODD. VOTING NO: MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL & ZETTERBERG. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to change the agenda just a little bit. We're going to do Public Services next. That'll be 80 through 92. CLERK: Items 80 through 92 were approved by the Public Services Committee on July 28th, with the correction of an address on Item 88. That should read 3328 Washington Road. [Item 80: Motion to approve an agreement between Augusta State University and Augusta-Richmond County for purchase of existing inventory at Newman Tennis Center of equipment and supplies by Augusta-Richmond in the amount of $22,502.00, and payment for court time by Augusta State University in the amount of $22,344.00. Item 81: Motion to approve a work-study agreement at Newman Tennis Center between Augusta State University and Augusta-Richmond County. Item 82: Motion to approve new ownership request by Peng Xin for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with the China Express Restaurant located at 2044 Peach Orchard Road. District 8, Super District 10. Item 83: Motion to approve new ownership request by Kum Yon Parker for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Ahrirang Korean Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 2, Super District 9. Item 84: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 85: Motion to approve new ownership request by Lora Ann Cain for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with the New Continental Restaurant & Lounge located at 1520 Aviation Way. There will be a dance hall and Sunday sales. District 1, Super District 9. Item 86: Motion to approve new ownership request by Joyce Holloway for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Chocolate City Lounge located at 2320 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. District 4, Super District 9. Item 87: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 88: Motion to approve request by Henry D. McLendon for Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Good Fella's Food & Spirits, Inc. located at 3328 Washington Road. District 7, Super District 10. Item 89: Motion to approve allocations from 1997 Recreation and Parks budget, $2,500.00 to Masters City Little League and $2,500.00 to West Augusta Little League to offset operational costs for youth baseball and softball leagues that each operate (subject to contract for services between leagues and ARC.) Item 90: Motion to approve a request to submit a pre- application for federal assistance for projects at the Daniel Field Airport. Local share, $43,658, to be taken from Daniel Field Reserves. Item 91: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 92: Motion to approve a Professional Services contract to Roger Davis and Associates in the amount of $43,680.00 (subject to contract review by attorney).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to any of these, please? [None noted.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the items, with the exception of the ones that we have pulled for the right of objectors, that they be accepted as a consent agenda, and that we handle the others individually. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO ON ITEMS 80 & 81. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEMS 83, 85 & 88. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEMS 80 & 81. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEMS 83, 85 & 88. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 82, 86, 89, 90 & 92. CLERK: Item 84 is a motion to approve new ownership request by Sang Pak for consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool Hall located at 2763 Tobacco Road, Ste. L. District 4, Super District 9. MR. TODD: I guess my concern, is that in a shopping center? Is someone here from License? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir, that is a shopping center, but it was an old location that already had alcohol and there is a new owner applying. MR. TODD: And they had on-premises beer? MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. TODD: And what we're doing now is -- MR. WALKER: Is just transferring the owner. Still keeping on-premises beer and it's a new owner. MR. TODD: Yes, okay. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have a different situation. I'm going to make a motion that we approve it, but we have a school crossing there close and I'm trying to look out for interest as far as school go. MR. KUHLKE Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the representative from the Sheriff's Department if they've had any problems at this location that we need to be aware of. The reason I'm bringing that forward is I've had some citizens call me and say that this situation is a public nuisance. MR. BERRY: My name is Roderick Berry and I'm with the Sheriff's Department. Myself and Sergeant Turnage work vice and we've received no complaints from this area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Item 87: Motion to approve new ownership request by Myong Tul Chu for retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Bi- Rite Convenience Store located at 1680 Brown Road. District 8, Super District 10. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Commissioners, we appreciate the opportunity to speak against this motion. My name is Jimmy Smith, I live at 1332 Brown Road, a Hephzibah address, and my concern is our community. This is a residential area and one of the fastest growing in Richmond County. We have close by Goshen Elementary School, the new high school will begin construction this fall, we have Pine Hill Baptist Church within a rock-throwing distance, we also have Liberty Methodist Church likewise, and we feel that we would like to keep our area a residential area. We are between two major thoroughfares, Highway 25 and Highway 56, that's lined with convenience stores that all have beer and wine licenses. And we realize that when Mr. Chu moves next door to his new building, that there will be another one going in the building that he's moving out of, and we feel that it will be a natural hangout for our young people and we're opposed to that. People are leaving Richmond County now because of this. We don't have any personal vendetta against Mr. Chu. We know that he's legal, I already checked into this. But my question to you, gentlemen, is would you want this in your neighborhood where you live? Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is to Mr. Smith and basically to Mr. Walker, and I guess I'll start with Mr. Walker. We're at the distance required for the churches, for the schools, including the new school that's proposed? MR. WALKER: The new school I do not know about, you know, but from the school and the churches and all, it does meet the distance requirement. The fact is, the church, the closest, Pine Hill Baptist Church, is 541 feet, measured by Mr. Harris, from the front door of the convenience store to the property line, then from the property line to the church. MR. TODD: Then I guess my question is, is there a new school proposed on Brown Road or is that just in the general area that the new school is proposed? MR. SMITH: The new school is proposed on Old Waynesboro Road, and the question in point is where they put the new building is at the intersection of Old Waynesboro and Brown Road, so it's just right down the road from the store where the new high school is to begin construction this fall. MR. TODD: I guess to Mr. Chu, do you own any other locations in the county? MR. CHU: No, sir. MR. WALKER: He owns Young's Country Store at 4170 Old Waynesboro Road. He is closing that one and moving to this location. MR. TODD: Is the old store also going to be a convenience store quick stop, I guess my next question, where you're going to have beer and wine to go? MR. WALKER: As far as we know, there's been no application or anything on the old store. It's a lease -- I believe he said it's a lease property. MR. CHU: Yeah, lease property. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the County Attorney, and the question, Mr. Mayor, is even when a license -- a petitioner or a licensee meet all the legal requirements, isn't it still up to the discretion of the Commission if the folks that's opposed show that it's going to have a negative impact on the environment, community, et cetera? MR. WALL: One of the things that's provided in our ordinance is that even if it meets those distance require- ments, that additional consideration is the location as to traffic congestion, the general character of the neighborhood, and the effect such an establishment would have on the adjacent and surrounding property values. And so the fact there's a school to be located and the neighborhood character can be considered, as well as the number of licenses in the trading area. MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make sure that my colleagues understood that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Walker, is this a new application or is this a change of ownership? MR. WALKER: It was listed as a new application. It's a new location. Same application, new location, and he's closing one and opening a new one. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Our book says it's a change of ownership, that's the reason I'm asking. It's a new location? MR. WALKER: It's a new location. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Mr. Wall, isn't there a new state law as to distance requirements between existing locations and proposed new locations, and does this meet that? I think it went into effect July the 1st. MR. WALL: You've caught me if it has, because I don't know -- I'm not aware of it. I think it's still 100 yards. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't think so. If I remember reading in some of my materials, I think there was a new state law on the distance requirement and I think there's a distance law from existing locations. I might be wrong, but I remember reading it. It was either one that passed or one that was proposed, but I thought it passed. MR. WALL: I'm not aware of any that passed. I could be in error. I mean, I tried to review the summary of the bills that came out, and I do not recall one that was passed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, would I be in order to make a motion that we table this one until the end of the meeting until Legal Counsel can get a update on the change in legislation? MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Wall, will that give you time? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. I'll go check on it. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, some of the residents wanted to speak to the motion to table. Is that permissible? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, that's a non-debatable motion. As soon as he gets back we'll bring it back up. We won't have to wait till the end of the meeting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Do we need to take a vote on the motion to table? MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to table, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 91: Motion to approve new ownership request by Richard S. Pak for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Baldinos Giant Jersey Subs located at 2760-E Tobacco Road. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to make a motion that we table this item until we get that ruling back, because that's the same concern I have with this location. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and the Commission, the Planning Commission recommends as a consent agenda all items with the exception of Items 5, 10, and 11. [Item 1: Z-97-59 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Fielding Spring Baptist Church, on behalf of Richmond County Board of Education, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway (Ga. Hwy. #56), 155 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Rollins Road and Mike Padgett Highway. Item 2: Z- 97-61 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Powertel, Inc. & Gearson Communications, on behalf of Paul M. Davis, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Cookie road, 1,205 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Marvin Griffin Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Cookie Road extended (3427 Cookie Road). Item 3: Z-97-62 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Powertel, Inc. & Gearson Communications, on behalf of Byron B. Magum, Jr., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 1,456 feet, more or less, east of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Robinson Avenue (Ga. Route 223) intersects the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway. Item 4: Z-97-63 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition 'That detailed surveys shall be conducted and submitted to our office and the FAA showing the exact location and height (MSL) of the top of the tower, and if these surveys or any other studies related to the airport reveal a problem, then this approval shall be null and void', a Petition from Powertel, Inc. & Gearson Communications, on behalf of Bowles & Bowles Construction, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the east right-of-way line of Hire Street (private), 249.53 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Tindon Street and Hire Street. Item 6: Z-97-65 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Patricia Boozer, on behalf of Patricia & Morgan Boozer, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R- MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Wise Drive, 380 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Alabama Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Wise Drive. Item 7: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 8: Z-97-67 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mark A. Ahlbrandt, on behalf of Mark A. Ahlbrandt and Elaine Foss, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Denmark Drive and Peach Orchard Road (3324 Peach Orchard Road. Item 9: Z-97-68 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Frank D. Davis, on behalf of Frank D. and Mary D. Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Victoria Street, 455 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Old Savannah Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Victoria Street (225 Victoria Street).] MR. HANDY: Move for approval for the others, please. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 5: Z-97-64 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carrick Inabnett, on behalf of Raymond Barton III, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on Bearing S 20 00' 50" E, being 34 feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive and also being 294 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the intersection of McKnight Industrial Road and Scott Nixon Memorial Drive. MR. ZETTERBERG: I had met with the representatives of the neighborhood and also with Alltel Communications and discovered that the neighborhood never saw the sign that was posted at that location. When I went out there, if you were looking to hide a sign you couldn't have done it any better. What I'd like to do is remand that item back to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that the community who is concerned about this item has an opportunity of due process in hearing that complaint. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe we also have a contingent from the neighborhood. 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. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I think Mrs. Frails wants to be recognized, if you would allow. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, just a point of information. With such a long agenda, if we're giving them an opportunity and referring it back to Planning and Zoning -- is that my understanding? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. TODD: Then I think that the appropriate point would be for the neighborhood to go to Planning and Zoning. MRS. FRAILS: May I address that, please? Excuse me, Commissioner, if I can say something, please. MR. TODD: Yes, just a point of information. I don't like to get ahead of the folks that we appoint, you know, to do the job, and the recommendation may come back all together different if we're not going to act on it today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am, you can come on up. MRS. FRAILS: Thank you. I just want to make one point, please. My name is Betty Frails, and I'll be very brief concerning the Scott Nixon Memorial Drive. As you say, that it will be tabled and that we'll discuss it. My request is that we do communicate, because that has been the problem in our neighborhood. This is not the first time that we were not notified concerning that Planning Committee on July 14th, 1997. They did have a meeting and we did not know about it, as Mr. Zetterberg has told you. My concern now that you are going to table it is to whom will I be in communication with. We don't want surprises again. This is a sign we weren't aware of. So as this issue goes forth we want to know to whom will we be in communication with. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, when is y'alls next meeting? MR. PATTY: The second Monday in September. If we don't have to readvertise it, we can hear it in August. MAYOR SCONYERS: So when is your next meeting in August? MR. OLIVER: If the sign was obscured, my suggestion would be I think the sign needs to be reposted, and it needs to be readvertised and reheard if the sign was not visible to someone -- the casual passerby. MR. PATTY: If we have to do that it will be the second Monday in September, if we have to readvertise it and repost it to conform to state law in that regard. The reason the sign was not put on the road is that state law requires us to put the sign on the property that's being considered for rezoning and that property did not extend to the road, it extended about 100 feet from the road where the sign was posted. MR. TODD: It seems to me that maybe the Planning and Zoning board need to come up with a procedure, Mr. Mayor, when the property don't come to the road of at least notifying some folks that's in the general area. That's usually the folks that's concerned is the folks in the general area. Maybe that need to go to the Planning board, and Mr. Handy represent us on that board, to work that out. MRS. FRAILS: For future notifications we would like for them to be visible so that we'll know what it's about. Past history, we've had this problem, see, and now this has come again, so we want to alleviate that problem. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, am I to understand that we're going to rehear this then, readvertise it and repost it? MAYOR SCONYERS: That was the motion, wasn't it? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, point of information. We done voted on the motion, and that wasn't the way that I understood the motion, so if we could have it reread. CLERK: The motion was to refer back to the Planning Commission. MR. TODD: Right, that was my understanding. And I would think it would be up to the Planning Commission on how they handle it and proceed and stay in contact with the residents that's concerned. I don't want to get in the business of telling the Planning Commission what to do. We appoint them, they make recommendations to us. And I think that when we get in the business of telling them what to do, then we don't have a Planning Commission, the board is doing it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty, what would y'all like to do in this so that we can let the lady know. MR. PATTY: Well, my recommendation would be, since they already know about it--I mean, they're here and they've been talking about it--to just bring it up at the next meeting and tell them now it will come up at the meeting next Monday. MRS. FRAILS: The second Monday in September, is that what you're saying? MR. PATTY: The second Monday in August. It'll come up next Monday in this room right here at three o'clock. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Patty. George, is there a difference on how we notify residents between a change of zoning and that of a zoning variance? I understand that with variance we tell people within about 300 feet or so of that location, and I'm not too sure that we do that. MR. PATTY: The Board of Zoning Appeals, their ordinances require that they send a notice to everyone within 300 feet of the property line and post a notice in the newspaper general circulation. State law requires on rezoning issues the posting of a notice plus a notice in the newspaper. Now, that's not to say we couldn't in addition to that send out letters, but [inaudible]. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think that's the problem we have. I don't know how many people read the newspaper and finding out what kind of zoning changes in their neighborhood. And it has been a problem for these folks. They have had some commercial development go in when they didn't know about it, they weren't represented at that time. This is the second --I have great empathy with Mrs. Frails that she has not be advised and I'd like you to take a look at that to see if our procedures are in support of the people that we're serving. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Mrs. Frails, did you understand that? MRS. FRAILS: Thank you very much. CLERK: Item 7: Z-97-66 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Monica C. Greene requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Dover Street, 309 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (U.S. Hwy. #1) intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Dover Street (2572 Dover Street). MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a question for Planning and Zoning in reference to where is that at as far as Deans Bridge Road go. I know where Dover is, but I want to know how far off Deans Bridge Road. What is the intended use of the property would be my question. MR. PATTY: A daycare center. MR. TODD: I would have a serious problem supporting and would speak against a motion to site a daycare center at that location, and I'll go on and state why. You know, some may make the argument that, well, if you have a crime problem, then law enforcement should address that crime problem. But my situation is that we have a crime problem, a infested area there as far as drugs, and maybe it's being addressed or not being addressed. But I think when we're doing zoning changes for daycare centers and sensitive entities like that we shouldn't -- the petitioner shouldn't want to locate a daycare center at such locations and we shouldn't do zoning changes for locations for a daycare center in a area where you have high drug activity, et cetera. Now, most of us has passed by Dover Street going Deans Bridge Road, and you look over to the left, we know what the environment is. We had a issue of a personal care home not too long ago in the same general area, and until we get this area cleaned up I can't support putting a daycare center there, and I'm going to make a motion that we deny it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? Hearing none, we'll move on. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. HANDY: Unless Mr. Patty have some information about it I don't know anything about. MR. PATTY: My only comment was going to be that this is within 400 feet of a major arterial highway and the comprehensive plan sets forth that that type zoning should be considered if similarly situated properties are zoned. In this case they are. The majority of these properties within 400 feet of Highway 1 are zoned commercial, so the zoning is in conformance with the plan. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you have any objectors at the meeting? MR. PATTY: No, sir, there were no objectors. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors here today? [None noted.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, is the petitioner here for Item Number 7? MR. PATTY: No, sir, I don't believe she's here. MR. TODD: My question is, Mr. Mayor, to the County Attorney. As far as high crime areas and impact that crime and drug sales is going to have on an establishment like this, can we use that for a reason, per the zoning statute, to deny? MR. WALL: In general, yes. I mean, obviously the character of the neighborhood and all of those things can be taken into consideration. Now, the question is whether or not the change from the Professional zone to a Neighborhood Business would increase that. The fact that the high-crime area, et cetera, is there, I mean, is that indicative of the zoning as Professional and would a change of zoning impact that is the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my point is, and my point is to my colleagues and I hope they understand it, is that Professional, you don't have children going in. And I would assume that this is not a senior daycare, that it's a childcare. You have folks going in getting their hair done or their nails done or whatever and it's adults and they know the surrounding and the environment. Where you have a place where you're putting children, that fall in a different category. So, you know, I hope that I don't have to say I told you so later. And I can, you know, tell you now that I'm going to raise holy hell with Chief Ronald Strength and the Sheriff's Department as far as Dover Street and the drug trafficking that's going on in that area as I have done or more vigorously if we're going to establish a daycare center there. MR. MAYS: I tend to agree with my good friend and colleague, but maybe if that's the catalyst it's going to take to help get it cleaned up, then we'd better hurry up and vote on it then. Because I don't necessarily think that good zoning and good intentions ought to necessarily be held up because we got some areas where you ought to put some suppression in and sit on them and sit on them hard and run them out. The ordinance that was drawn up by Mr. Wall's predecessor on prostitution that specifically dealt with and was brought about because of the traffic that you had on Deans Bridge Road in the vicinity of Hillcrest School is right across the street from what you're dealing with, and that was when I first came on board on this Commission. So if we're still dilly-dallying around with how we're going to deal with that one in some other areas, then I say so be it, go ahead and put the daycare center, and if that brings about the enforcement that you need over there, then maybe that's what it's going to take in order to do it then. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 10: Z-97-70 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Michael A. Schaller, on behalf of Michele M. & Michael A. Schaller, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricul-ture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Belair Road, 685 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Powell Road and Belair Road (4005 Belair Road). MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors here on Item 10? [None noted.] MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Bud Dent for Mr. Michael Schaller. I'd like to introduce Mr. Schaller. Mike is here, his wife Michele is right back here; and Mr. Perry Smith, who is a neighbor, will speak in favor of Mr. Schaller's request; and also Mr. Billy Franke with Sherman & Hemstreet is here, and they represent a property nearby and they also support Mr. Schaller's request for a zoning change. I have asked Mr. Wall to pass out a few copies of maps and the photo which has been digitally improved to show the proposed building on Mr. Schaller's 2.4 acre lot so that you can get some idea of what he proposes to put there. Currently Mr. Schaller is a cabinet maker working downtown. He'd like to move his cabinet shop out onto his own home lot. He's got almost two and a half acres. It's on Belair Road, out in far West Augusta. He is requesting that you change the zoning. If I may give you a few facts for your consideration, I'll go ahead and do that now. First of all, there are no neighbors that he has been able to contact who are opposing his motion. I have also asked him to go to his immediate neighbors and ask them if they would sign a statement, and each of them have done that, which says I do not oppose the Schallers building and operating a cabinet shop at 4005 Belair Road. And these are signed by a Mrs. Elizabeth Easler, a next-door neighbor; a Mr. Frank Parker, who lives down at the corner of where the new Powell Road and Wrightsboro Road intersection is going to be constructed--this ties in with the Gate 1 intersection; and Ms. Darlene Wigner, who operates a daycare center in the same vicinity; and Mr. Perry Smith who is here also. I have only the originals of those and we would offer those. They are in support of Mr. Schaller's request for a zoning change. If I may highlight several points for you very quickly. There are already three existing businesses in this area which is zoned Agricultural. They are a plant nursery, which is right near the intersection where the new road is going to be built; a daycare nursery, which Mr. Schaller estimates has around 30 children per day, high traffic; there is also a dog kennel located nearby as well. There used to be a cabinet shop with a variance right next door. That's Mrs. Easler's late husband operated that. After he passed away, apparently they discontinued operating that and therefore that zoning variance lapsed, so actually there used to be a cabinet shop right next door to where we're talking about. And Mr. Schaller, since the Planning and Zoning hearing, has gone back and redesigned the concept of his cabinet shop for several reasons. One, the area where he will actually be sawing, where there would be noise, he is planning to insulate that to reduce noise. He's also going to put the office in front, which would absorb some noise. He's going to design the bay doors which would allow noise to come out facing into the interior of his lot so that -- it's already covered with trees and shrubs and so on, so that would help contain the noise before it reached out into the neighborhood. He has those trees and shrubs in place and he plans to put in more. If you will look at that photo that has been enhanced with that red barn-like building on it, he intends to build a six-foot wooden privacy fence basically across that opening. As you're looking into that, you're standing out on Belair Road and looking onto his property, and you see how the trees are already surrounding where the building will be. He'll put up that six- foot privacy fence. This is not a high-volume traffic shop. Very few people come to his shop, and he does not go back and forth with his cabinets when he goes out and installs them in the homes, so really traffic is not a consideration here at all. Also, he only has about one truck that he uses, a pickup-sized truck that he carries the cabinets and the materials in. Finally, he does not intend to put a sign out on the public street itself. He does want to put a small sign up on the building, as you see it in the photos there, so that it can be identified. I believe those are the factors which perhaps you would want to consider in determining whether or not you would grant this motion, and we would ask that you allow Mr. Schaller to put the property in. And perhaps Mr. Franke desires to say something in addition to what I've said. MR. FRANKE: I was just going to make a comment. The area in general, with the Belair Road extension falling into place, they're projecting it to occur like in February or March versus the end of '98, and that's going to be a high impact to the area, and that whole area really should be service oriented type businesses. And all the current zonings that are in that area within 500 feet of the intersection of where Belair and Wrightsboro Road [inaudible], so all that needs to be considered as far as maybe everybody going out and seeing what's going on in the general area, because it is really growing and a lot of the growth is heading to Columbia County. MR. KUHLKE: Why was it turned down? Sounds like it's all right to me. MR. PATTY: Sounds pretty good to me, too. The only thing I got to say is that the comprehensive plan says that that type development ought to be located within 500 feet of the intersection. In this case we're talking about the intersection that's being constructed, the new relocated Wrightsboro Road and Dyess Parkway, and this one actually is about 700 feet. There were no objectors and there was, frankly, no discussion about the conditions that he's proposed. MR. KUHLKE: How many feet from what intersection? MR. PATTY: The new signalized intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Belair Road, which is going to be one of the two signalized intersections at Dyess Parkway and Belair and Wrightsboro. MR. KUHLKE: And it's supposed to be 500 feet and you say it's 700? MR. PATTY: It's 700, yes. MR. KUHLKE: Isn't that better? MR. PATTY: No. This extends the commercial zoning further into what, you know, at some point becomes a residential area. MR. KUHLKE: I move we approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a comment on that, Mr. Mayor. While I agree with approving this, I think we need to ensure the setback conditions in that, the buffering is also met, and the ingress and egress routes are met, and that should be part of the -- would you accept that amendment? MR. KUHLKE: I'll amend my motion to include that. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 11: Z-97-53 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sandra Winfery, on behalf of Sandra & Ronald Winfery, 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. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve, to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what the staff recommendation and why the Planning Commission voted to deny. MR. PATTY: Let me give you a little history on this first. It was heard by the Planning Commission probably in June, or even in May -- it was in June because I was absent from the meeting. What happened in our meeting was the objectors were not aware that this case was on the floor and they did not object during the hearing on the case, so it was approved. And then the objectors later found out -- Mr. Handy was there. They objected and it came back for another vote, at which time it was denied. Ben Allen was representing her at the time, I don't think he is anymore, and when it came to the Commission he asked me to pull it from the agenda when it would have regularly have come to you and I did. And then at the next meeting it was inadvertently left off the agenda, and I believe the last meeting when the petitioner didn't show up, I wasn't 100 percent sure if we had notified her, so I asked you to postpone it. So this is probably -- this goes back to June. Now, that didn't answer your question, I realize that. These type requests, and we've had numerous conversations about them with Mr. Wall and with you as Commissioners, they're frequent. She wants to keep five elderly people in her house. She does live in the house, it's not a staff operated facility. And there's simply no way that I've been able to discern to make these decisions. There's no criteria you can set up. We've talked to other communities, nobody has got a good way of making these decisions, and frankly we just bring them up to the floor and hear them out and try to make a decision on our feet as to whether it's good for the neighborhood or bad. MR. TODD: How many bedrooms in the house. MS. WINFERY: Four. MR. TODD: Four bedrooms. You want to keep up to five and you're going to live in the house? MS. WINFERY: I have a drawing because the house is added on, okay, from the original plan. Okay, there's two rooms that will be for private clients, and then there's another room that would accommodate three, and then we have a staff room for the person that will be staying on the premises, and then there's a bedroom for me and my husband. Then you got the dining room and you got the living room, you got the laundry room, you got -- you know, it's a big house since it's been added on. And when I went down to the tax -- where I pay the taxes for my house, see, they didn't have the print, so they had to come out and look at the house because the house had been built on. But the person who I bought the home from never did add the rooms on, they never did know about it, so I reported it and now it's listed and everything. MR. TODD: Is there enough room there, floor space, to do five and the live-in staff? MR. PATTY: Well, of course, that's regulated by the Health Department, but to my knowledge there is. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to 87, please. Mr. Wall, did you get the information? MR. WALL: There has been no change in the distance insofar as beer and wine. There has been a change in the requirements as regarding liquor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you understand that, sir? MR. TODD: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to speak to that first. These people in here in objection to this -- this kind of snuck up on us, but we hope that you'll agree with us that this license not be issued in this neighborhood, and I say neighborhood because that's basically what you've got at the crossroads of Brown and Old Waynesboro. There are houses and neighborhoods on all four corners, there's a church shortly down the street from where this site is being proposed, there's Goshen Elementary less than a mile down Old Waynesboro Road, there's a new high school proposed about a mile and a half from there, as well as I'm told possibly a middle school as well. When the new high school goes in traffic is going to increase in that area probably about 50 percent, and that's based on a study we've had the Planning Commission do. So in regards to being within the legal limits of the ordinance itself, I have a problem with the ordinance that we have anyway as it's drawn up. Basically what it says is you walk out the front door of the establishment to the nearest sidewalk in the front of the establishment, and then you proceed to walk down the sidewalk toward the church or the school or whatever it is you're trying to measure the distance from, and then I think the limit is, I believe, 100 yards. The way that ordinance is drawn up, conceivably and in theory a church could sit directly behind the liquor store and still be within its legal limits, because you've got to go out in front, measure the distance from the front of the store to the nearest sidewalk, and if your parking lot is long enough you can, you know, have 100 yards there. So my motion, Mr. Mayor, is to deny this license. I think we're in our discretionary limits to do so. This is a neighborhood and it is near a church, it is near a -- there are houses and neighborhoods all around that area, and continually growing, and I don't think this would be for the good of the community and it's not for the good of the neighborhood, and I make a motion that this petition be denied. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to point out that we do have the discretion, that Mr. Smith representing the neighborhood association pointed out that this would have a negative impact on the community to locate the business at this location, especially with the additional school coming and the community environment and setting, and -- thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 91: Motion to approve new ownership request by Richard S. Pak for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Baldinos Giant Jersey Subs located at 2760-E Tobacco Road. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, that's the item that I had some concerns from the neighborhood associations on, and what appears to be happening here is we have a corner there that is just getting saturated more and more and more with alcohol licenses. I think the only thing up there that doesn't have an alcohol license is the laundromat. I'm looking for them to come down here anytime. And, I mean, there's got to be some regulation or some common sense used about just saturating every business on a corner with beer or liquor licenses. It's really degrading to the entire community and it's something that I would like to see this Commission rule against, and I'll make that in the form of a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess in discussion, I would assume that this is an existing business, a new ownership? MR. WALKER: It's an existing business, new ownership. It already has a beer license there and we're just -- a new owner is taking over. We're transferring from the old owner to the new owner. MR. TODD: I'm going to make a substitute motion that we approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, what's our position? MR. WALL: If you've got an existing alcohol license there and it's just a change of ownership, you're going to lose it. I mean, it's a transfer, and without showing that there's something peculiar to this particular operator that would justify the denial - - the fact that the intersection has become saturated, in my opinion, would not be a justifiable cause for turning it down. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, the other thing that I think we need to consider here is that we had an individual that run for County Commission that may be involved in this business and I think that we need to seriously look at situations when it may be construed political. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Todd, to approve this. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] CLERK: Under the Finance portion, Items 12 through 36 were approved by the Finance Committee on July 28th, 1997. [Item 12: Motion to approve recommendation to increase Zoning Appeals fee to $125 per case with increase in budget to $5,000 from General Fund Contingency. Item 13: Motion to approve $37,000 for Personal Computers for Probate Court. Item 14: Motion to approve request from Kathleen M. Daniel (Emergency 911) to purchase 15 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 15: Motion to approve agreement between Richmond County and Richmond County Health Department regarding funding of the New Public Health Clinic (subject to the Administrator submitting a schedule of yearly funding allocations). Item 16: Motion to cancel eighteen (18) security deeds in favor of Richmond County made during the years 1983 through 1986 to various property owners under the Richmond County Rehab Program. Item 17: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 18: Motion to approve requisition for one each Chevrolet Cavalier 4-door automobile. Item 19: Motion to approve issuance of bid for one each Aircraft Refueling Truck (estimated cost $100,000). Item 20: Motion to approve funding of $23,000 for the requisition for one Crew Cab Pickup Truck. Item 21: Motion to approve the request of Thomas E. Polite to terminate contributions from the 1977 Pension Plan and receive a refund. Item 22: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes -1994, 1995, 1996 in the amount of $115.94 to Robert L. Symms for payment of taxes in error. Item 23: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes -1994, 1995 in the amount of $17.06 to Ronella B. Hobby for payment of taxes in error. Item 24: Motion to approve requisition for one each Portable Air Compressor, valued at $12,000.00. Item 25: Motion to approve request from Larry J. Smalley (Fire Protection) to purchase 15 years 6 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 26: Motion to approve request from Jack H. Milton, Jr. (Fire Protection) to purchase 5 years 5 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 27: Motion to approve funding of $22,000 for the requisition for one 15-passenger van. Item 28: Motion to deny waiver of tax penalty on 1996 personal property taxes for Norwest Equipment Finance, Inc. in the amount of $856.07. Item 29: Motion to approve authorization of Signers on Government's Bank Accounts. Item 30: Motion to approve Pension Bond Account Agreements with Prudential Securities for the Richmond County 1945 Pension Plan ("1945 Plan"), Retirement Plan for Employees of Richmond County, Georgia, effective January 1, 1997 ("1977 Plan"), and City of Augusta General Retirement fund ("1949 Plan"). Item 31: Motion to approve requisition for two each Chevrolet Cavalier 4-door automobiles. Item 32: Motion to approve amendment of the 1977 Retirement Plan for Employees of Richmond County so as to provide that disability retirement benefits shall be 50% of the employees' average earnings, as opposed to 25%. Item 33: Motion to reject and re-advertise bid for copier services for the Consolidated Government (low bidder, the Pollock Company, at a cost of $21,060.00 per month for 36 months - total amount of contract, $758,160.00). Item 34: Motion to approve revised capital item budget for Utilities Department. No change in funding. Item 35: Motion to approve $173,000 request for funding for two new State Court Judges, their secretaries and related supporting items as mandated by the local delegation. Approximately $66,000 of this request is Capital items and are not a recurring nature. Item 36: Motion to approve modification to Information Technology Organization Chart, deleting an Application Developer position and adding a Lan Administrator position, at a savings of $6,016 annually.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we do that as a consent agenda. I'm sure some of these items probably are going to be pulled off, though. MR. BEARD: I second that. MR. MAYS: I don't think we have to pull Item 15 off, but I would like to comment on it under discussion if we're in that period now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, we're in that now. MR. MAYS: Okay. The only thing that I'm going say --and a lot of dialogue has been brought about in reference to this whole Health Department situation [inaudible] rumblings now that the decisions about the Health Department are causing delay on another major project down on Broad Street that's even coming into the new picture. But I'm not going to start another revival today, I'm going to be real brief. I think we've been gathering enough converts out in the Laney-Walker area to a point that our message has been getting across to a point the only thing we wanted to see is that people who are going to -- I guess regardless of what you call when folk move from one place to another whether it's displaced, relocated, moved, transferred or whatever, and I just [inaudible]. But I think we've had some good dialogue in reference to this project, particularly over the last couple of months. I don't think it's anywhere near totally finalized, but I think at least the spirit of this Commission hopefully has been moved to a point that fairness can come about in it, and that's the only thing I think that people have asked from the very beginning is that this Commission, the Board of Health, or the two together make folk whole, and whatever process that that's done in I don't think people really care. Fairness in whatever form it comes in is basically fairness, and as long as we are moving towards that as we finalize a location on this project, then I think that that's at least the spirit and the right direction which we'll go. I would hope that we will continue in that vein. I do think that, as I said earlier, we are not through with things there, and I would hope that those of you who do have a vote in this matter, that you would continue to be vigilant. Because as we've seen so many times, just as an example today, what happens when things are not spelled out clearly, when things are not written in their totality, when times passes memories fade and when things are not totally written in stone as they are held within governments, then that which is assumed is just that, it's assumed. And many times, as the old saying goes, you know what that makes, and I hope with this project that that does not go that way. And we have had good discussion regarding that and I hope that the dialogue there continues with all parties involved, will continue to move in that direction and that the element of fairness can be achieved before finalization, and those are my only comments. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to clarify one thing if I may. On Item 15, I put in front of you a redistribution of SPLOST Phase III funds that will permit funding of this project because the funding of this project, according to the contract, did not coincide with what was approved in the referendum. This is a way that it can be done. We believe that it does not -- will not impact operations of these projects. However, we would note this: that when the space consultant comes back, if they should come back with a solution other than build or renovate, such as buy another building, we could potentially be in a situation that the funds aren't available, and that we wouldn't know, but this is what we feel is the best solution at this time to do that. Clearly we will not spend a million and a half dollars on this building this year, and we know -- we're very comfortable with that estimate. In 1998 we had budgeted 7.2 -- or I should say several years ago 7.2 was budgeted. Clearly that cannot happen. But we have tailored this schedule to do that, so I would request in that motion that you approve the reallocation of SPLOST Phase III funds in accordance with this schedule as part of that motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm going to accept Mr. Oliver's amendments. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my question is, to Mr. Oliver, is Item Number 17. Mr. Oliver, my only question on this, it appears to me that we are limiting ourselves to one particular vehicle. And I understand it says for 1997, but does that put us in any kind of position where we're eliminating competition for county vehicles during the remainder of this year? MR. OLIVER: I mean, obviously we went through an analysis. I think Harry Sidell -- is Harry here? Mr. Sidell is in a position to do that. He went through and did a rating matrix. From a maintenance standpoint, the best thing that can happen to us is -- and I understand your concern -- would be to have the same vehicle so all parts are standardized and everything like that. We have made this recommendation solely for 1997, and Mr. Sidell can talk to the competition aspects. But clearly our objective is to try to downsize the fleet, and as part of what you've seen in here we've downsized from a 4x4 to a Chevy Cavalier in one case. MR. KUHLKE: And I'm not speaking in opposition to this, I just wanted an explanation. MR. SIDELL: In regards to the Chevrolet Cavalier, you'd still have competition through the other Chevrolet dealers that are out there. We originally started the evaluations by looking at the Chevy Caprice and the Ford Crown Victoria which were originally in competition with one another for a large four-door vehicle. When that competition was in effect you could get a law enforcement type vehicle for approximately $12,000. Too good of a deal to pass up and most counties took advantage of it. Now that competition is no longer available and that same car is sold for an average of 20 to 22 thousand dollars a year. By right- sizing the fleet, we get it to the size that each department should use. The only people that really have a requirement or a necessity for the larger type vehicle is, in fact, Public Safety departments, and not all of those departments -- not every section in each one of those departments has a requirement for a full-sized automobile. MR. KUHLKE: But I understand your recommendation excludes Public Safety, am I correct, in most instances? MR. SIDELL: It would exclude Public Safety from the aspect of areas such as patrol units, traffic units, and CID investigators and so forth. I have been speaking with the other departments as far as when they can use a downsized or right-sized vehicle in that law enforcement or Fire Department or Corrections Department, that we should do that. And I have that agreement with all departments, that they will definitely look at that and accept that administrative vehicle when it fits and fills the needs that they have. MR. ZETTERBERG: I am concerned about this. I've been involved in large-scale procurements in a former life and this is the first time that I've ever seen a government agency specify a specific vehicle for the procurement rather than letting the marketplace dictate that. Now, that may -- the advantage of doing that, we live in a community where there are all sorts of dealers that are represented. When we decide we're going to only deal with one particular dealer, then we all have to deal with lots of different dealers. And I appreciate the fact that we are downsizing the vehicle fleet and I appreciate the fact that we are reducing the vehicle fleet, but I don't think it's in the best interest of our citizens to dictate what kind of car we're going to drive, let the marketplace do that. Very well, the Chevrolet Cavalier may do that, but I would suggest that when we write the specifications, that we write it not to identify that's the dealer or the make that would be procured but we provide that it be dictated on price and service. That would be the criteria, rather than specifying a specific vehicle. So I'd like to make -- is there a motion on the floor now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm willing to pull this item out and go on and get the rest of them on consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a point on the first item, Number 12, that reads a motion to approve recommendation to increase Zoning Appeals fee to 125 per case. If I remember correctly from the committee, that we recommended to the Zoning Appeals board that they do that, not that we -- CLERK: You approved this as a recommendation from the Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to speak on Item 15. I think you went that way, but I'll make it very brief. And this is my public and private position, and I think it's morally wrong to condemn property or put a business out of business and condemn property for a parking lot when precedence has been set to establish parking area on adjacent property [inaudible]. And I'm going to support this consent agenda, but I want to go on record as far as my position on condemning property and putting a business out of business for a parking lot when there's other areas that can be accommodated as far as parking lot. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, excluding Item 17, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS: Let the record show that I have to abstain on Number 15. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEM 15. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 12-14, 16-36. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 17? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the recommendation still stands as the recommendation from committee. That is in the form of a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I tend to agree with Mr. Zetterberg on the issue of going out for specs, just putting out what you want as far as service delivery and not name a brand. I think when we name a brand it excludes everybody else from the public process. We name a brand in Public Safety, and I can understand that because your Public Safety folks is in those cars, you know, twelve-hour shifts, et cetera, or, you know, pulling investigations and they're sitting in them. But I think outside of Public Safety we certainly shouldn't name a brand. When you name a brand you give that brand advantages as far as market power go, and I think that is wrong when we're spending tax dollars. So I would agree with Mr. Zetterberg, and I'm going to yield and maybe Mr. Zetterberg will offer a substitute. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we go out on competitive bid and not state a brand name for a particular vehicle and we let the marketplace dictate whatever the needs of the government. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Harry, why don't you come up and tell us why y'all did what you did. MR. SIDELL: In a review of the different vehicles in that size category, one of the criteria was price. Regardless of the specifications that I put out, if I put out specifica-tions for this right-size vehicle, the chances are probably a 90 percent factor that throughout '97 the Chevy Cavalier will be the choice based on competitive standpoint also. These vehicles are all in the same size category, passenger volume, cargo space, fuel economy and pricing, and that's the thing I looked at on every vehicle in that standpoint. If we go out with a generalized specification for that size car, the chances are that will be the car that will win the bid every time. That's the reason why I suggested that particular vehicle to be the vehicle of choice for '97. Each year I would propose that we do another evaluation for administrative vehicles and light pickups and do the same thing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the gentleman has just made a good -- he's made my case, that if the brand that he's wanting to name is going to win out, then there's no need to name it, let it win out. But when you name it, you eliminate everybody else. MR. SIDELL: The intent of right-sizing the equipment is also a concern for the taxpayer from a maintenance standpoint also, it's not only just the purchase price of the vehicle. The shops and the garages will become more competent with working on a singular type vehicle, parts inventory will somewhat be reduced, and we become [inaudible]. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concern with this -- I have to agree with what Mr. Zetterberg's -- the intent of his motion. We've had complaints from various dealers that they have been excluded from the bid process due to us naming a particular make. I think that we ought to do it as a four-door sedan and just go with some specs and let whoever gets the bid get the bid, and I think that's the only fair way to keep anybody from getting excluded. If it's Toyota, so be it. MR. OLIVER: We could do this, if you all would like, on what I call an annual bid basis. I mean, we would go out with one bid a year for this type of vehicle and then evaluate it based on criteria and achieve the same result. One of the things I would make as a passing comment, when you look at Avis and Hertz and the people that are in the vehicle business, they tried to and they have valid reasons for wanting to try to standardize their fleet. Sometimes those are reasons, however, we can't live with because of the environment in which we work. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing -- I was going to ask this of Mr. Wall. Probably, Jim, unless we rescinded --and I understand that in this new government we carried over, unless we make some other new ruling, those laws or ordinances which we went by in terms of county. I support the substitute motion that's on the floor, but I think if we did otherwise --and I probably bring this up every time a different department gets into what I may think might be construed as a lockout position with a particular item whether we're dealing with a car or whether we're dealing with a bar of soap. But I believe, particularly as the maker of that motion several years ago on the "or equal" provision of bidding, that unless we rescinded that which we already have on the books as a county provision we would be, I believe, probably almost having to vote for the substitute motion based on what we've already adopted that I believe is standard procedure in terms of your having the inability to not name a required item be it Chevrolet, Ivory, Green Giant with peas or whatever. I think you have to ascribe to the "or equal" provision as it relates to any area of the procurement process unless we rescind that particular provision of which the Commission dealt with. MR. WALL: Well, in certain situations where there's been a justification for specifying a brand name, as long as the Commission authorized that we've been able to do that. But you are correct that the general policy has always been to open it up to as much competition as possible and having the "or equal" so that you did not -- were not able to specify a brand name. But where there were situations where a department because of the experience or because of peculiar-ities within that department or whatever needed to specify a brand name, then the Commission has authorized that. So, I mean, I don't know that you would have to rescind that policy in order to go with a specification of a brand. You're still going to have competition within the dealers. But, I mean, it's against the spirit of what you're talking about when you say the "or equal". MR. MAYS: And I think even when we have named -- when we've gone about in certain cases of naming a particular one, we have also still stated the "or equal" provision, I believe, haven't we? Even when a named one has been in there, so that if XYZ drive train can provide a caterpillar or tractor, then it still has to be in there. MR. WALL: In general, we -- there have been very few circumstances in which we've gone with a sole source, but we have done it on occasion. MR. MAYS: I doubt if we could get a sole source on a car. What I do think -- and I agree with the driving point of where that is to get with a standardized vehicle in there. Maybe one variation might be that we might want to look at is that once you start in that vein of getting what you want, whatever that might be, and if it ends up as a Chevrolet Cavalier, probably of getting into a specific amount of vehicles so that you could cover down the road the replacement cars on there with that, unless you had a legal reason to do otherwise, and that might be the only way you're going to get to that type of standardization. But I think you could get into some serious trouble with that kind of provision [inaudible]. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think this is a very interesting argument, but I think the reason the recommendation came forth to start with was an economy move by the staff to try to recommend to us a way to cut costs and at least standardizing so that we don't have Item A, which is an apple, and Item B, which is a berry, and trying to buy the same parts for both of them and not having to repair all these different items. I think that was the methodology of the recommendation to start with, and the only reason I was willing to go with the exclusive right is to say that in 1997 we're going to use this type and maybe in 1998 we're going to use that type, and I thought that was the recommendation and that's the reason I voted for it in committee and still plan on voting for it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: How many vehicles are we talking about in this particular -- do you have any general idea? MR. SIDELL: I'd say probably for the remainder of this year no more than ten vehicles. Next year, of course, it would be more. As the evaluation of the fleet shows that a lot of the vehicles out there should be downsized or right- sized and replaced, of course there would be more vehicles. But in '98 we would do a complete reevaluation of all the vendors' capabilities and then a new suitable vehicle selected. It doesn't necessarily mean it will be the Cavalier, it could be the Dodge Neon or it could be the Ford Temp or another brand. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm certainly not in the car business, but I drive a Chevrolet--not a Cavalier--but I would hate to see a car solicited already if I was a dealer and would not even have a possible chance of getting into the pool since we would be spending public funds for it. So I say that in support of the motion that we ought to let the -- now, if this was written in some kind of a way, and I don't think it was, I hope not, that it would favor Chevrolet -- and I've driven one for the last forty years, but I just hope it would not be. MR. SIDELL: No, sir. I evaluated all the dealers -- or the manufacturers' specifications, I contacted each fleet manager of all the major dealers and got their average pricing for these vehicles, I used the gas mileage according to the EPA standard book that comes out once every year, and used all of those factors in scoring and evaluating the vehicles. MR. ZETTERBERG: All the things you've done I'm in full support of. That's not the question. In fact, it's irrelevant really. The very fact is that we're at a point to make a decision and we are going to go out and make a procurement of major importance to this county and that we have a lot of people out there that have a lot of products that they should have an opportunity to show us, demonstrate, and price for us. We represent the taxpayers and we need to make sure we get the lowest possible price for that. But there's really two policy decisions that maybe need to be made and one only can be made today. Today I'm only asking for a competitive bid. Tomorrow, after we make that competitive bid, we may standardize around a vehicle because of cost. But the first shot out of the gate ought to be -- what we ought to be doing is letting the marketplace dictate what vehicle based upon the requirements we have, then later on, maybe next year after -- with experience, then we make a policy decision that might say that we're going to standardize around XYZ vehicle. That's the only point I'm trying to make. MR. HANDY: Just a helpful note. Next time when you present something to the Commissioners, have that information that day that you said you called around and received all that. You have that in your hand or you have it -- MR. SIDELL: I provided that in the Finance Committee. MR. HANDY: No, but I'm talking about as a -- today, you know, having it in a form with us that Chevrolet costs this or Ford costs this and you recommend this. MR. SIDELL: I made an assumption that the information would be provided as it came up -- as it went from Finance Committee to you. MR. HANDY: Right, okay. And then it would've been easier for you. You wouldn't have got shot at like you're getting shot at today. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think we can go with the original motion with Randy's recommendation, that each year we're going to be bidding these things out anyway, so, you know, everybody is going to get an opportunity in the free market to have a shot at selling the government cars. So I would support the original motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll make it brief, that I guess we're going to do a set- aside for Chevrolet. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you read the substitute motion, please? CLERK: The substitute motion was to seek competitive bid with no brand name to be specified. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Under Administrative Services, Items 38 through 45 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on July 28th -- including Item 50. [Item 38: Motion to approve execution of Covenant of Purpose, Use and Ownership in connection with Incubator Project to be constructed adjacent to the campus of Augusta Tech. Item 39: Motion to approve Economic Development Loan Review Committee recommended approval for a $20,000 loan for Kiysha Designs subject to conditions of the Loan Committee. Item 40: Motion to approve transfer of the $15,000 facade grant approved for 984 Broad Street from the present property owner, Historic Augusta, to the tenant Coco Rubio. Item 41: Motion to approve amending the 1995 and 1996 CSRA EOA Agreements which would allow the remaining balance of funds totaling $3,556.10 to be used for salary costs for April through June of 1997. Item 42: Motion to allow Able-Disabled, Inc. to subcontract transportation services out to the Senior Citizens Council at cost not to exceed $8,000. Item 43: Motion to approve an amendment to the 1997 Girls' Inc. agreement between Augusta-Richmond County which would allow the use of funds to be changed from acquisition of the property located at 1917 Watkins Street to the removal of asbestos tiles from the main building located at 1919 Watkins Street. Item 44: Motion to approve amendment to the 1997 St. John Towers' agreement between Augusta-Richmond County which would allow the use of funds to be changed from modifications of the elevators to the replacement of the roof of the apartment complex located at 724 Greene Street. Item 45: Motion to approve funding for Augusta Youth Center in the amount of $2,348 for Summer Camp Programs for joint venture with Little World of Learning Daycare. Expenses must be incurred after approval date. Item 50: Motion to approve transfer of the $30,000 facade grant approved for 415 Seventh Street (Lamar House) to 419 Seventh Street (Woodrow Wilson House).] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, as a point of clarification so that we don't get into a conflict, included on the Finance Committee's agenda that had previously been approved were recommendations -- and I'm looking at Item Number 18, for instance, to go out for a Chevrolet Cavalier; Item Number 31, which is two Cavaliers. I think those are the only ones. Would that be to -- MR. OLIVER: No, we will go back and bid that the way that you all said, and if we need to amend it, we'll amend it. But we will do it as an annual contract for the remainder of this year for a category of car and we can take that into account, and I think that does need to be corrected. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would move that those items that the Clerk read and approved by the Administrative Services Committee be submitted as a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief. My interest here is money -- when we're reprogramming money, that we reprogram money to clean up the blighted areas, and hopefully that's coming about soon. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Can we take Item 46 and 47 and 48 together? They're all relative to the street lighting project. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. [Item 46: Motion to approve the use of 1996 Street Lighting Project funds to fund the street lighting portion of the Engineering Department's Laney-Walker Improvements Projects. Item 47: Motion to approve the use of 1997 Street Lighting Project funds to fund the street lighting portion of the Housing Development Project #97143. Item 48: Motion to approve the reprogramming of $186,708.39 in CDBG funds from the 1994 Street Lighting, 1994 Street Lighting, and the 1994 Broad Street Improvements Projects with $156,708.39 designated to the Housing Development Project (#97143) and $30,000 designated to the 1996 Street Lighting Project #96032.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that those three items be adopted. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. MAYS: I'm in favor of the motion, very much so. I just would like to add briefly for the record as a comical note that when they do put them in, that they do a little bit better job of keeping them burning and going than the ones we've already got out there. At times Laney-Walker can be very, very dark, but it can be a whole lot of lights out there, light posts, but at times it's as though they're not burning. MR. BEARD: That is true, and we've talked to Engineering concerning especially that 800 block up there, 800 block running from Martin Luther King back to James Brown Boulevard, and they're supposed to be working on that. It appears that someone has the capacity to either dim those lights or turn them off, and that shouldn't be. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my question, and it's really just for information purposes only, motion to reprogram 1997 funds from CSRA Agency on Aging -- CLERK: I didn't take that one. MR. POWELL: We're not taking that? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just 46, 47, and 48. MR. POWELL: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when we're reprogramming money, may I hear from the Director in reference of what the plan for cleaning blighted areas? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we haven't gotten that far yet. Let's get through 46, 47 and 48, and then we'll be glad to get on this other stuff. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure that's on the agenda unless it's in some of this reprogrammed money and we're spending -- well, I'll discuss the street lights then, Mr. Mayor, if you'll just give me one second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I wish you would and let's get on the right project. MR. TODD: Yes. I think that we got to set a priority of what's most important, Mr. Mayor, the street lights or the complaints that I've heard about blighted areas and needing to clean them. If we're going to clean blighted areas, there's provisions in the community block money to do it. If we're going to put in street lights, you know, and that's the priority, then we do it. I don't want -- I'm not going to support going back to the General Fund to do the other. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MR. TODD: So I want a clarification, Mr. Mayor -- and I haven't yielded to the gentleman. I want a clarification on what we're going to do there because the complaints that I've heard has been from the colleagues that represent the inner-city. I don't represent any of the inner-city, but I'm concerned and in support of what they want to do, I just need them to tell me how they want to do it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I will answer Mr. Todd because I think he knows that I have been one of those people who have been talking about that. We had asked the Administrator to bring back a proposal at the next committee hearing in reference to blighted areas, and we should have that proposal for you at the next Commission meeting. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can I ask one question about street lighting since we're reprogramming money? I'll assume that the money we're reprogramming, from the way I read this, is already in street lighting, that these areas are going to come back in a new program or in a new -- what's going to happen in that situation? MR. MACK: Yes, sir, we are proposing new programs. We want to reprogram the money so we can deal with blighted areas and so forth, and we are getting y'alls approval so that we can advertise in the newspaper to comply with HUD regulations and give a 30-day notice for public comment. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Obviously we're moving street light options around. Why are we -- I know we're moving it to blighted areas. Are we going to come back to the areas that we're moving from and how are we going to fund that? MR. MACK: Well, when you talk about areas, are you talking about in terms of specific census tracks or you're talking about a line-item area? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't know. You've got project numbers here and I don't know whether we're talking about streets or census tracks. MR. MACK: Well, the point that I'm making is that the monies have not been designated to any specific area in terms of blocks of concern, they've just been designated in terms of street lighting. What we are trying to do is rehabilitate various communities within the city. We're going to need those funds to rehabilitate those areas, including erecting street lights. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if it's not directly line-itemed to a particular area, why do we even have to vote on it? MR. MACK: These are line-itemed to a particular area. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then we obviously are moving from one area to another area. MR. MACK: The point that I'm making, it's not a specific location. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would've thought that the location would be part of the area. Maybe I misunderstood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further 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: Item 49: Motion to approve reprogram of 1997 funds from CSRA Agency on Aging in the amount of $40,000 and award this amount to Walton Options for Independent Living, Inc. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BEARD: I'll second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Cummings, and I talked to Mr. Mack about this also. And basically the agency that applied for the grant is not up and running and ready to use the grant, and they're going to lose it if they don't use it, and this entity can use it and serve the same constituency. And I'm in support of it, speak in support of it, and hope my colleagues can support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Engineering portion of the agenda, Items 51 through 68 were approved by Engineering Services on July 28th, 1997. [Item 51: Motion to approve authorization policy for infrastructure maintenance (County Forces) with a cost limit up to $5,000 for Departmental approval, $5,000 to $10,000 for Administrator approval, and over $10,000 to be approved by the Commission. This will be in concurrence with the recently adopted purchasing policy. Item 52: Motion to approve bid award to the low bidder, APAC-GA, Inc. in the amount of $147,173.75 subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Pepperidge Drive Intersection Improvements Project. Item 53: Pulled from consent agenda. Item 54: Motion to approve ratification of award of emergency construction contract in the amount of $13,235 to J.D. Haire Construction, Inc. regarding the relocation of approximately 960- LF of 6" water main along State Highway 88. Item 55: Motion to approve condemnation of a ten (10) foot triangle owned by Ms. Yolanda M. Walker at the northeast corner of 5th Street and Reynolds Street to facilitate intersection improvements. Item 56: Motion to approve condemnation of a fifteen (15) foot triangle owned by Ms. Betty Bethune at the northwest corner of 5th Street and Reynolds Street to facilitate intersection improvements. Item 57: Motion to approve project conception, establish project budget, authorize property acquisition and hold public hearing with regard to the project. Item 58: Motion to approve Change Order #1 for Sand Ridge Storm Drainage Improvements in the amount of $36,906.40 with APAC-Georgia, Inc. that will provide for extending an 18" and a 36" storm drain pipeline in the original contract and remedy a severe drainage and erosion problem in the same vicinity for which Augusta-Richmond County is responsible. Item 59: Motion to approve condemnation of approximately one-third of Parcel 10 on Tax Map 22 (Project Parcel 27). Item 60: Motion to approve to enter into a contract with Southern Roofing and Insulation Company to replace the roofing on the Main, Wallace, and Friedman Libraries at a cost of $134,800.00. Item 61: Motion to approve Engineering Contract with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst in the amount of $475,000 for Design of a 60" Raw Water Transmission Main and Preparation of Easement Plants. Item 62: Motion to approve approval of counteroffer option in the amount of $500.00 to purchase 9,833 sq. ft. of permanent drainage, utility and access easement; 5,006 sq. ft. of permanent easement over existing sewer easement; and 2,597 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement owned by Barbara L. Botts. (NOTE: Mrs. Botts feels that her property is worth more than the appraised value of $250.00.) Item 63: Motion to approve award Construction Contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction Company, in the amount of $198,500.00 regarding the sanitary sewer crossing of Gordon Highway near Fort Gordon's entrance gate No. 1. Item 64: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 65: Motion to approve enter into an agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation to receive funds for Drainage Improvements and Resurface Improvements on a portion of 13th Street and Reynolds Street in the amount of $402,429.93. Approval of Change Order to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company in the amount of $816,985.50 with contractor waiving any delay claims. Item 66: Motion to approve the proposal from Rothberg, Tamburini and Winsor to perform Facility assessment at the Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant in the amount of $30,000.00. Item 67: Motion to approve proposal to enter into an engineering contract with Pruett, Ford and Associates, Inc. to design a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the Wallace Branch Library at a cost of $4,000.00. Item 68: Motion to approve list of Pockets of "Unsewered Areas".] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion. And, also, on Item 68 I have some comments. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I picked up the daily paper today and read a letter to the editor that we were approving pockets of sewer on a political initiative, and I'm going to speak as vice-chairman of the Engineering Services Committee and the person that's responsible for wastewater and landfill. I'm not up for reelection until 1998 and I would never do anything to be reelected with taxpayers or enterprise funds. And I'd just like to flatly say that we're doing this now and we -- it was approved in the revenue bond that we passed last year. So it was talked about a year ago, and there was no way we could do it because we didn't have a mechanism to do it with until we done a revenue bond. We've done the revenue bond and now we have a outline per the revenue bond to take care of pockets of sewer. We can't wait until Year 2000 to do it, we got to start it now, because we got a time line per the revenue bond issued on when we do it. We do some between now and Year 2000, we do some after Year 2000, if my recollection serves me correctly. And I know that those out there, even when you do things that serve the best interest of your constituents, Mr. Mayor -- and, like you, I'm about serving the best interest of the constituents and my colleagues. When you do things that serve the best interest of your constituents, you're still going to be criticized on what you do, and there's going to be those that is going to make it political. You know, like my colleagues, I do full-time work for part-time pay and, like my colleagues, I would assume that when someone make a statement like this it irritates the living heck out of me, and I wish they'd just let us know what they want. You know, if they don't want sewer -- I understand that the gentleman that wrote this letter have sewer. You know, if he don't want his neighbors to have sewer, he should say in the article -- the letter to the editor that he don't want his neighbors and other citizens and taxpayers of Richmond County to have sewer. I want them all to have sewer, Mr. Mayor, like you and the rest of my colleagues. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. One thing about us, when we become public servants we're open to criticism, but we just have to either take it -- you know, it's kind of like in the kitchen, you have to take the heat or get out. And I don't believe anybody has been wrote up any more than I have. And that dream I had the other day didn't come true, did it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Todd brought up unpocketed sewers -- and I guess that letter was written by one of my constituents and probably aimed at me. This unpocketed sewer areas has been on our agenda for 18 months and is not a new political issue, and probably if it hadn't been brought up and discussed over the last 18 months we'd probably still be discussing it in the Year 2000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 53: Motion to approve the Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Capital Project Budget in the amount of $1,984,000 from the approved list of projects in Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III, and the right to advertise for engineer's qualifications for the Wrightsboro Road Project. MR. KUHLKE: I had asked that that be pulled. Just for information, Jack, what is -- I mean, where does it start, where does it end? MR. MURPHY: It goes from Barton Chapel Road [inaudible]. What this is, the Georgia DOT has an infrastructure work program to fund only the construction, with the amount of 5.3 million dollars to do the work, which means that Richmond County is going to have to do the engineering, purchase and obtain the right-of-ways, all the pre-construction process is our responsibility, and we -- that's what this Local Government Project Agreement says, that we are agreeing to hold the hearings, do all the surveys, all the design work, fund and acquire the right- of-ways, with the Georgia DOT letting the project in the Year 2000. That pre- construction process money is scheduled to begin in 1998, and we are simply asking for permission to get a jump [inaudible] qualifications for the engineer to do this work for us. MR. KUHLKE: I talked with Mr. Murphy and I wanted to mention something to Mr. Powell, the Chairman of the Engineering Services Committee. That particular area is going to grow. I think there is a major reconstruction of the intersection of Barton Chapel Road and Wrightsboro Road. But there have been some people that have approached me, primarily the Augusta Mall people, in that Bobby Jones is going to be widened. We have a serious restriction at Wrightsboro Road where Bobby Jones goes over. There is some interest on the part of the merchants out there with the possibility of widening that bridge -- or lengthening the bridge, they're going to widen it anyway. And I would like to ask that the Engineering Services Committee, working with Mr. Murphy, to pursue this diligently because I feel like that looking long-term with the widening of Wrightsboro Road out to Belair Road, that we now already have a serious problem there, that we need to pursue the idea of giving us the flexibility long-term to be able to widen Wrightsboro under Bobby Jones. So I would just like to ask Mr. Powell and Public Works to continue to pursue that, working with the Augusta Mall people and the consultant that I believe they hired that has given you a great deal of information. So I wanted this information, but I wanted to inject that if we don't do that I think we're being very short- sighted. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. POWELL: Second. And, Mr. Kuhlke, your concerns we'll address at the Engineering Services Committee. MR. TODD: Isn't there also opportunity, Mr. Mayor, for the consultants and the concerned merchants and citizens when we're doing -- they have a hearing when we're going to do a road widening, and that hearing will happen before and those individuals can influence the outcome of configuration, et cetera. MR. MURPHY: When the Wrightsboro Road public hearing is held, of course, you know, you can talk about anything you want to. It'll go on the Georgia DOT's record and they will respond in the manner which they are accustomed to for such things like that, yes. MR. KUHLKE: Jack, let me ask you this. The Wrightsboro Road project is one project, the Bobby Jones project is another project. And I think the coordination with the Bobby Jones widening is an issue that's separately from the Wrightsboro Road part and so, you know, we just need to stay on top of that. MR. MURPHY: What we need to do, just for the Commission's information, the Georgia DOT is in the process of hiring a consultant to look at a corridor that will improve the I-20/I-520 interchange all the way down to Bobby Jones and including the Wrightsboro Road [inaudible]. That would be the proper place for the [inaudible]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 64: Motion to approve Engineering Proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. to provide engineering services for the redesign of the Kimberly-Clark Trunk Sewer in the amount of $58,770.00. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I asked that that be pulled. My question is this, the wording here says redesign. What have we paid for design up to this point? Can somebody answer that? MR. WEIDMEIER: I don't have that information. That was designed prior to the consolidation of the departments. That design has been done for some time. MR. KUHLKE: And the rerouting of this sewer line is going to cost us another $58,000 to redesign that in addition to what we've already paid? MR. WEIDMEIER: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Which is going down the tube, a lot of it? MR. WEIDMEIER: Some of it will, yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the redesign is not because they were bad designs, the redesign is because the conditions changed and the constituents or service area that we wanted to pick up. When it was first designed it was going, I guess, across the back forty and not catching any of Highway 56 where there's potential for commercial growth and payback, and the other problem was that there was citizens that didn't want the sewer line coming across their property for various reasons, and I think that -- I can't necessarily disagree with them when we look at our history of overflow and being under consent orders. But the bottom line is that this is a better deal for the wastewater for Richmond County in the sense that the payback is a lot faster. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 69: Motion to approve Change Order #2 for Skinner Mill Road Extension/Agerton Lane in the amount of $77,769.68 with Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc. that will address and resolve conflicts discovered when the construction began on the relocated portion of Marks Church Road at Wheeler Road. MR. MURPHY: You remember Change Order #1 was to shift the alignment as the new Skinner Mill Road/Agerton Lane project tied into Wheeler Road across from Marks Church Road, and the reason for that was because of our concern of the lack of left-turn stacking. It's a tremendous move towards better safety and for operation of the system. And one of the things that we assumed with that change order, and this also included the incentive agreement with the contractor to finish and to give us an operable system by August the 15th, we assumed that we had enough quantities in the contract, which we did at that time. But once we got to clearing and grubbing across Wheeler Road for moving Marks Church Road over 95 feet we discovered a clay sewer very deep and the loads won't -- it won't carry the loads that we're going to place on there, so this change order here is basically for that, to put a duct-to- line sewer system in there. Also, we discovered a 30-inch pipe coming down Wheeler Road that we're going to have to accommodate and also a hidden pond that was a detention pond -- detention facility that was serving the Y. All of this is included in this change order here. This has nothing to do with the incentive agreement. He's got a good shot at meeting August the 15th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 70: Motion to approve capital purchase of MADVAC 101D Litter Collection equipment at an approximate cost of $28,500.00. MR. OLIVER: And I would add that we are proposing to take the funding from sales tax for this. The purpose of this equipment, we figure it will alleviate the need for six to twelve people in the long-term, but frankly we're going to keep up better with litter. What it is, it's a little vacuum that's on the side of a tractor, permits us to go through the parking areas, closer to the business areas and streets and to clean up trash, and that's the purpose of it. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where I support the equipment, I'm going to vote the same way I did in committee, and that is in the negative. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Oliver, does this equipment allow us to clean up inside the median down on Broad Street, all those places where people sit? MR. OLIVER: Within certain limits it does. It depends again on the access, and I think Mr. Greene can address that better than I can. MR. GREENE: You're talking about the parking bays in the median in the middle of Broad Street? MR. ZETTERBERG: Not just the parking bays but the other areas where people can sit in. MR. GREENE: You can take this vehicle on sidewalks. You can also use it in the parking decks, the clearance is low enough. I've seen this vehicle demonstrated in two different cities as well as here in Augusta. Atlanta bought six of them just for the Olympics. They work extremely well. MR. ZETTERBERG: It does not escape me that Mr. Oliver said that we can replace ten or twelve people down the road [inaudible]. MR. GREENE: No, sir, this will be people that we will not have to hire, not to replace right now. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, what I would like to say is that while I can support the motion here to purchase this, but I would like to add, and possibly to the Public Service and the Engineering Committee, it is necessary to clean up these areas, not only the parking bays downtown which are filthy all the time -- and I just don't understand why we can't clean those up. You go over here on Greene Street and going out Ninth Street, or James Brown Boulevard--I can't get used to saying that name, it's always Ninth Street to me--and other areas, the Laney-Walker area, and I think if we're going to utilize this, let's utilize it in all areas, because I think that we are doing a very poor job of keeping this city clean. I can go up the Calhoun Expressway, and I go up there every morning, you find beer bottles and everything else on the side there, and look like they clean it maybe every two months or so forth. And I think we have those vehicles out there to clean that, and I just want to know from Mr. Greene there who is in charge of cleaning all of this and keeping it clean? MR. GREENE: We are, sir. MR. BEARD: Okay. Well, my point is well taken, and I hope that you heard what I said and maybe we can do something effectively about it. And the other thing I would like to ask while I have the floor is that how many of the street sweepers do we have? Because some people in some parts of the community never see those street sweepers. MR. GREENE: We have two street sweepers in the urban district. We have three that are assigned to the suburban --I mean, the urban district, but only one is running, the other two are in the shop. The only one that's running in the urban district right now is the one that the Commissioners authorized to buy back in January of this year. The other two are in the shop. They're completely worn out and we're asking for replacements for those in the budget. Mr. Beard, I agree with you 100 percent. I do not disagree with anything. But if you remember, due to financial restraints the old urban district, the city, did not purchase any capital equipment for quite some time. We have assessed our needs and we're working with Mr. Sidell and he's trying to help us in trying to get us the type of fleet and equipment that we do need to maintain these areas. But you are absolutely correct. What we clean up now on Calhoun Express-way and areas like this, we clean up these by hand. You can't clean those areas with street sweepers and et cetera. When you have the people -- the parking bays, just to give you an example, most of that trash comes from the clubs, people coming out of the clubs. They dump it in there at night, by the time the crews get there in the morning you can't get in there and clean underneath the vehicles because they're completely full. A lot of it is the community is throwing it out, but a lot of it is they haven't had the manpower nor have they had the equipment necessary to maintain these areas. This is one of the areas with consolidation that we're trying to put the crews where they're needed. Instead of urban/suburban, this is one Augusta, and we're trying --through the reorganization, trying to utilize the crews where they are needed. MR. OLIVER: Let me work with Mr. Greene, and if we need to get additional equipment, we'll bring it back in a similar manner to this. Additionally perhaps, Mike, we need to start our crews earlier in the morning before we have these vehicle problems. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 71: Motion to approve bid award to the low bidder, Mabus Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,497,744.60 subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Hyde Park Drainage Improvements Project. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second the motion. MR. TODD: Is this in line with what we talked about and having the hearings with the community and looking into the brownfield initiative? You know, we made some bad decisions here and I think we're going to have to change a couple of them today. And if it's what the Commission want to do is to go on and approve this, then -- you know, as far as those that wasn't a part of the Engineering Services Committee where we discussed it, then perhaps we want to do that. But I think that if we can have those meetings with the community -- and my question is, Mr. Murphy, have those happened yet? MR. MURPHY: You remember, Mr. Todd, that I told you that our consultant had in his proposal [inaudible] and he set up a hearing in that community and went there that night, and there was another meeting going on out there and he never did get to hold the hearing. So effectively what I'm saying is there was never a public hearing held. MR. TODD: I believe what come out of committee as far as a recommendation was, along the discussion or the talks, was that we basically do a hearing and that our 40-day time line on executing the bid, that we had plenty of time to do that. Now, gentlemen, there are two things that we have going on, Mr. Mayor. We have the Health Department doing a toxicity, I guess we call it or whatever, study on whether there is anything in there that's detrimental to the folks that live in Hyde Park. We've gone over the other entity that's doing the cleanup and what they're doing in there, but there is factors other than the unnamed entity that I'm going to leave unnamed because they threatened to sue the Health Department. There is two other entities in there -- corporations in there that's under consent order that could have a negative impact on whether this community stay a viable, sustainable community, which I say it's not, or whether it goes into a brownfield initiative. In the budget that the President just signed today, I think around noon, there is monies in that budget for brownfield and there's good opportunity to do a brownfield in Hyde Park if these studies come back. And I would like to hear from the citizens, because we can simply not execute the bid or we can execute the bid with the understanding that the work won't start until we have time to get some statistics back and some information on whether we're going to have folks there or whether we're moving folks out. I also would want to make sure that the money stayed in the account designated for Hyde Park until we have a disposition. And those are my comments. This is not in District 4, but I'm trying to represent the interest of the environmental side of this. And I'm willing to answer any questions or try to help work this thing out, but I think that we could be wasting some money if we go on and spend it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Handy and I have discussed the possibility of amending the motion to include a postponement as far as we'll approve this pending the hearings, the public hearings. Is that right, Mr. Handy? MR. OLIVER: I would suggest you defer any action on the contract until you hold the meeting, because to approve a contract subject to a public hearing could - - MR. WALL: You're going to have a problem insofar as the notice of award. MR. POWELL: Okay. Well, I'll withdraw my motion and let a new motion -- MR. HANDY: Right. I'd just like to make a motion that we postpone this particular item until we have the hearing from the neighborhood and get their input before we decide what we want to do with this particular item. MR. BEARD: I'll second Mr. Handy's motion. MR. OLIVER: Would the Commission like to be involved in the public hearing? Is that your plan? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, right. And you also. MR. UTLEY: The community met on this issue and our standing is that we not issue the contract due to the fact the activity that's taking place with the Goldberg site is now vastly moving toward the Gordon Highway and it will not alleviate the drainage problem. And we would like to hold those funds and hope that we will get an environmental decision in the form of a brownfield initiative where we can use that as leverage and still probably use it as drainage monies when you can bring it up to industrial use and not as a residential use. And we would get more for the money and at the same time we would solve a long dispute with the community where you would have the community relocated using funds from EPA, ATSDR, as well as HUD. And that's our reason for our meeting yesterday is to put a hold on it as far as leave it as it is, because we'll survive now. And I'm 50 years old and it's been flooding ever since I've been out there, so we might as well just hold on a few more weeks or a month and see can we get an initiative passed where we may be able to relocate, and then turn it into an industrial park where -- Goldberg cannot advance to the Gordon Highway, but he can advance back into Hyde Park where it's so desperately needed now. And you all really need to go out there and look at that mess that Goldberg has out there. And by the way, let me clarify, too, this does include Virginia Subdivision. I think someone was saying we -- every time we speak we're talking about everything, which includes the Southern Wood Piedmont area, which does include Virginia Subdivision, Hyde Park and Oregon Park, and I want to make sure everyone is clear on that. MR. WALL: We need to get some direction from the Commission. The bids are only good for 40 days. The bid opening was on July the 14th. Depending on how much notice of a hearing -- I mean, it's possible that we could schedule a hearing toward the end of next week or Monday before the next Commission meeting, but it's going to be short notice, and will that satisfy the Commission's desire to hold a hearing with that short of notice? MR. HANDY: Let this one expire, we'll do another one. But we need to have a hearing. We need the input from the neighborhood. MR. WALL: The bids are good, we would hate to lose it, but that's what we're seeking direction from, how much advertising, can we hold a hearing and then bring it back on the 19th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we have Mr. Utley here. He told us that he already had one meeting. I think that he can mobilize his troops to have a hearing probably at our convenience. The only problem was that the first hearing, they didn't coordinate the meeting space. Now, we've run into that situation where we was having a hearing at Jamestown Elementary School and Morgan Road Middle School was having PTA and we didn't have, you know, a handful of folks to show up. So that happens and we're not being critical about that, but I think that he can mobilize or he probably can give us a answer -- I think he done gave us the answer on what the community wants. MR. WALL: We'll try to work something out with the contractor, get him to extend so that we can bring it back to the Commission the first meeting in September. If we're unable to do that, we may try a quick hearing, but if the contractor will agree, then bring it back in September. MR. HANDY: Okay. Also, Mr. Mayor, I heard what Mr. Todd said about Mr. Utley having a meeting and everything, and Mr. Utley is the president of the neighborhood association and everything, but we still need the input from the entire neighborhood. And also I want it to be understood that Mr. Utley is trying to get the brownfield initiative. We are not, as a government, responsible trying to move people out of Hyde Park. So I don't know anything about the brownfield initiative, who is responsible for that as far as giving the money and who is responsible to say that Hyde Park will be turned into what we're trying to get it turned into. And we're holding up this project and we're not knowing, so I need some more information from someone to see whether we're on the same accord, whether we're stopping a project and not knowing whether or not if Hyde Park will be turned into what you would like for it to be turned into. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to address that. My colleague makes a good point, and I believe that this Commission passed a resolution calling on the EPA to make this a brownfield initiative. Now, certainly we need certain data to do that, but this go back at least three years, I think when Cynthia McKinney first started representing the 11th District, that we was -- at that time we went to Planning and Zoning and got the [inaudible] as far as the information on the residents out there in Hyde Park and it was presented to her. I think we UPS'd probably a stack of materials that high. And there was at least three initiatives to try to get it in to legislation, a reauthorization of EPA and a reauthorization of Super Fund. It did not make it. Now we have another opportunity with the budget that the President signed today having brownfield initiative monies in there. When this government was going on the Chamber trip, I didn't make it, but I urged that at least somebody deal with the brownfield initiative. Now Mr. Utley is traveling on this initiative on trying to push this as a private citizen, but this board has endorsed the brownfield initiative for Hyde Park/Virginia Subdivision. The perception is there that there is a problem. If the perception is there that there is a problem, then whether there is a problem or not needs to be decided by tests and what the Health Department is doing, et cetera. Anytime a major corporation threatens to file a lawsuit to stop a study on whether the activities of the industry is having a negative impact on citizens, then I think they have something to hide. And I support the brownfield initiative and continuing this and get everybody out of the -- between the rock and hard place: industry, the citizens, and this government. MR. MAYS: The only thing I'd just like to say real quickly, I hope we don't get the priorities mixed up on where we need to go with this project. Obviously we want to help, but I think the hearings are important. And then if out of the hearings come the fact that they want to continue to fight to get that support, then I think the issue of when we award a contract is really the least important of our worries. A million and a half to a million six, don't worry, somebody is going to competitively fight for that. If you hold it this Christmas or next Christmas, you're going to have some people who will battle for that money. I don't think we got to worry about that factor. Somebody's going to compete for it, you don't have to worry about that. But I think that if we are that close to trying to get something accomplished with this and then may be able to turn that situation around, then I don't think that the awarding of the bid and going through -- while I know that we've got some false ceilings, we want to make sure that we take advantage of the dollar if we're going to use it, but I don't think that ought to be the driving force in what we ought to deal with, and I hope that's not the case. I hope the driving force is what we can eventually bring in to this total mess that's over there in Hyde Park, and if we can get with y'all in terms of doing that, then fine. I think the key issue is making sure, as I said when we started off this meeting today, is that the monies don't walk away and go somewhere else. As long as they are committed to Hyde Park area, you're going to find competent people who will go over there and bid it and I think that's the bottom line of it. But I think the people in the initiative should be the driving force, not when and where we let a particular contract, because somebody will go over there and do it, you ain't got to worry about that. You put it out for bid, buddy, you're going to have some folks who will be ready to come over there and bid on it, so that's not your problem. But I think if we've got a chance to hopefully clear up a bad situation, then we need to continue to work with them. MS. ROBERTS: I'm Margaret Roberts, Virginia Subdivision, and what I came down to talk about, I was wanting to know if the Virginia Subdivision where it reaches Hyde Park's drainage, was this sales tax money of Virginia Subdivision, to do work in Virginia Subdivision, or is it the same project? MR. MURPHY: I'm going to assume that you asked the question--because I really didn't hear you, ma'am--that you asked me on the phone today. Number one, does the Hyde Park project reach over and do anything in your subdivision? No, ma'am. This is just for east of Dan Bowles Road. And the second question was, was there any one-percent sales tax money scheduled to be spent in Virginia? No, ma'am, not at this time. MS. ROBERTS: Well, I know there hasn't been any and I've been out there about 50 years yet, so we keep waiting on it. We don't have the ditches cleaned, they haven't been cleaned in 13 years. The grass is this high and the place is a blight area, too. We don't have anything down there. They overlook us like we're not even there, you know, we just go right on by them. But that's one thing I wanted to make sure, that the Virginia Subdivision is included when you said about this brownfield industrial park. They came down in December and mentioned about it [inaudible] something about relocation, which we haven't heard anything about it. But we want to make sure that when you're talking about Hyde Park, that you do mention Virginia Subdivision and we are included because the people don't know. We need to relocate and get out of this place. MR. UTLEY: Mr. Mayor, they are included. We are not separating at all. But it does not include any industries, none whatsoever, only the residential areas. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mike Greene still here? Mike, is there a reason we can't cut the grass over in Virginia Subdivision? MR. GREENE: Some of the areas we do cut with the mowers. Some of the areas we do not cut because of the ongoing thing with the Piedmont plant. We cannot utilize inmates in these areas to get down and actually cut the ditches. We do cut the right-of-way, we do go in there with equipment. We've been in Virginia Subdivision in the last month or so with heavy equipment and dipping the ditches out. I've got several pipe projects that--I was working on the thing today to be approved--that we're going to try to alleviate some of the flooding in that area. A lot of the ditches are anywhere from one foot to eight foot, the same ditch. It's up and down, up and down, the driveways and everything else, so it is a real drainage problem. But as far as cutting the grass, we cut the right-of-way, but we don't do much in the ditches. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I wanted that basically for information where Ms. Roberts will know we are doing something over there. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, before Ms. Roberts leaves -- and I think you asked a very good question in reference to Mr. Greene with that cleanup, and he was correct in the answer that he gave. I'm reminded of you laughing a little while ago about having dreams. You know, this is kind of like one I've dreamed before and been through this process. I'm wondering whether it's a dress rehearsal for the same play. You know, as the mood has become a little bit more favorably, thankfully, with government and this whole Hyde Park/Virginia Subdivision situation -- not to where it should be, but it's a long way from where it was, and I think some of the fear factors of government thinking that this was going to be, quite frankly, Savannah Place Part Two but only expanded by numbers, and that drove a lot of people to fear. But while we are working in unison with each other, I would hope, and this is nothing that's new, that maybe through Public Works -- this was voted down by us at least once, maybe more than that, I don't know, we've been down that road so many times. But it would seem to me that the perception, Mr. Mayor, that maybe some of the residents get, and particularly maybe more so in Virginia than in Hyde Park, is the fact that if some of our people -- and this is just one of those assumations again, that if there is a fear factor or something to be fearful of, if they don't want to be in there doing it, then obviously folk who are there every day have an obvious problem, too. The bottom line is, a lot of the general maintenance is not getting done. Maybe then in that regard what we need to look at, as we've talked about before but never approved, is of looking at contracting with people that will do that type of environmental cleaning work that are insured, that have the necessary equipment and personnel to be able to protect themselves and their folk, that go in for a fee and clean those areas up. And that's been presented to this body before, maybe not the new consolidated government on this issue, but I know it's been before the old County Commission, and we've been slam-dunked on occasion with that. But I think as the mood gets to be more favorable, then obviously it would seem to me if we got folks that we can't be responsible for --if we got inmates that we are fearful of that will sue, then the only alternative is to look at a third-party cleaning source. Now, if that gets us in the predicament that we admit that there is contamination -- I think we're already in that predicament because we got, by admission, the fact that we got folk that we don't want cleaning it and we got prisoners that we don't want to take in that situation. So I think the only alternative it leaves us in is that we do or at least seek the numbers that it would take on contractual cleaning so that those people are protected and that the normal operations of government to make it liveable and clean can go on. And I would like to invite -- if there's no motion on the floor -- MAYOR SCONYERS: There is. MR. MAYS: Then I would like to ask the maker of the original motion, since we're on that subject with this, could you amend that motion to at least authorize Public Works or the Administrator jointly to seek in terms of finding out what the numbers would be for those areas and to deal with that type of general cleaning that can not be done by machinery. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, did you understand that? MR. HANDY: Yeah. I just want to know who said we can't clean it, why our people can't get in the ditch. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, isn't this discussion getting a little far off of postponing for a public hearing? MR. HANDY: No, it's all tied in together. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I know it's all tied together, but I think we should deal with things separately. MR. OLIVER: With your permission, we've tentatively scheduled, subject to getting one of two facilities, August the 28th at 7:00-- it's a Thursday--if that meets with your needs. And we would either have it at Clara Jenkins School or at the center on Goldenrod, depending upon what the availability is. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me, it seems to me like we approved the cleanup of this area about two and a half years ago. We authorized Public Works to go out and clean the ditches in the Hyde Park and Virginia Subdivision, and, Mr. Utley, you probably remember that. At that time we had a letter from then-Director of Public Works, Mr. Gooding, that the contamination was no -- there was no contamination in the ditches and that the tests had been already done. The neighborhood came down and voiced strong opposition to us cleaning out those ditches, and I think Mr. Utley was part of that then. And that was the direction that we were taking because the citizens were concerned of us cleaning up or digging out the ditches because of stirring up some contamination, and that's something that hasn't been shed light on. But it has been discussed, it was discussed at the old County Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Powell is right on that, including I guess a agitator, a certain attorney's wife come down and stood in front of a grade-all. So, you know, he's right on that, and certainly I don't see any reason why we can't cut grass. All we need to cut grass is a respirator if you think you're going to kick up dust or something like that. You can get in there with a Weed Eater and you can cut grass. I don't see a problem with why we can't subcontract it out. We got more than we can do anyway, that's the bottom line. So if we -- we can let agitators beat us to death with environmental issues or we can do what we need to do and do the service delivery and have nothing to complain about if their ditches is cleaned. Then the other issue is separate from the minimum moral obligation as a government service delivery as far as keeping paper picked up, grass cut, and ditches cleaned out with grade-alls. When you put that man on the grade-all on a wet day, or you can wet it down, and you're loading that dump truck, you are not making any dust. There is no reason for anyone to be out there protesting a cleanup, period. And what's in the ditches is already wet because you've got running water in there. And the biggest problem in that ditch is some kaolin that's running from a -- not a kaolin mine but running from a company that use a kaolin product that have water a different color. That's one of the problems. There is a consent order on that because they're not meeting the clean water standards. But perception is what's killing us here. And if they got 234 folks dying in a, you know, unreasonable amount of time, then I'm not going to argue with them on that perception. I'll wait for the Health Department to bring their study back and we'll make a decision then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Read Mr. Handy's motion and let us move on with the order of the day, please. CLERK: Mr. Handy's motion was to postpone the awarding of the contract until a public hearing is held. Mr. Mays asked that he accept the motion to authorize Public Works and the Administrator the numbers to do a general cleaning that can't be done with machinery. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you accept that, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No, I didn't accept it, because we can clean it and we don't have no reason not to go in there and clean it. I mean, our people can clean it. MR. MAYS: Well, let me just ask this, Mr. Handy. I was just responding to what our Mayor had asked the person in charge of cleanup. I didn't answer the question from the floor, Mr. Greene answered the question from the floor. Now, you are on Engineering Services -- and I'm not trying to start a debate about your motion. I can live without the amendment. The only thing I was trying to do was to help our new Administrator with a little history to a point that if you're going in there, it'll be a lot better armed with a situation of knowing what it would take you to clean up something than it would going in there with a lot of airs and nothing to offer. The answer was made by our people in Personnel, and I'm not indicting Mr. Greene, he just simply answered the Mayor's question. He said that they were not able to do it. Now, he's the one that's in charge of dealing with it, he answered the question. Now, whether or not it's true that they can clean it, I'm not going to get in that debate about whether it's not. You know, I'm not a health assessor, I don't know. I deal professionally with the end product of all of it, but -- you know, I'm just saying when the Mayor asked the question, he wanted to know why we weren't dealing with it because Ms. Roberts made a statement, and he basically answered the question that they were not able to do it because of what had been going on environmentally. Now, if y'all want to do that through Engineering Services and you want to put your prisoners, your Public Work folk over there, deal with that. If you don't, the only thing I was saying was at least getting some numbers so that if you had to contract it, that you could come in there and be able to tell folks something. Because obviously when you get there, I think the proof is going to be in the pudding regardless of where they came up with it. It was not so much in terms of normal cleanup, it was in terms of unearthing and disturbing what could be possible evidence in that area, and it's a big difference in that. And so I think that's a little bit different than where you got Johnson grass growing in the ditch. Let's have a common sense with that and be reasonable about it, and you're familiar with that area very much with that. So, I mean, you don't have to deal with putting that on the amendment. You don't have to walk in there with anything. I was just trying to make it friendly so that if you come there you'd have something to present to folk other than a wild-eyed stare that we basically been doing for the last several years, that was all I was trying to do. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, could I answer my colleague in reference what may be there, evidence that we may destroy. We offered to pull samples of anything that we pull out of a ditch and save it for testing by anybody that wants to test it. That happened, Mr. Mayor, when we had the person standing in front of the grade-all. If they wanted to stage it in their backyard -- [End of Tape 2] -- and they could take samples, we take samples, and our environmental engineer will even send those samples off to have them tested. So it's not a issue of destroying evidence, and we have no intention of destroying evidence. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to postpone until we have a public hearing, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0 [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] CLERK: Under the Public Safety portion of the agenda, Items 72 through 79 were approved by Public Safety on July 28th, 1997. [Item 72: Motion to approve $41,041.00 for matching funds (.111 of the grant amount) necessary for the procurement of a $369,740.00 grant. (Grant covers two year period.) Item 73: Motion to approve purchase under State Contract #466-00-50041 for Mobile-Vision system-5 In-car Video System (in use by Georgia and South Carolina State Patrol) for 35 patrol units at a total cost including installation of $127,419 ($3,470/unit plus $150/unit installation, and eight 75' cables to make cameras portable for use in working fatalities at a cost of $719.60 for all eight cables). Project was approved for $128,000 in capital listing for 1997 permanent budget. Item 74: Motion to approve agreement with Aiken Motorcycle Sales for the use of three Kawasaki Jet Ski Watercraft by the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department subject to operations policy and Attorney's review of contract. Item 75: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 76: Motion to approve agreement between EMS Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Rural/Metro Ambulance, and Augusta, Georgia, allowing Rural/Metro to establish a Public Safety Answering Point PSAP. Item 77: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 78: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 79: Motion to approve the appointment of Captain P.A. Williams, Sheriff's Department, to the LEPC to complete the current three-year term for Major Richard Weaver, Sheriff's Department. Term expires April 1998.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: I move that the items read by the Clerk would be approved by the committee. They were discussed in the committee meeting and approved. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. POWELL: I'd like to pull Item 78. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on 75. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to pull it out? MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items need to be pulled out? MR. MAYS: 77. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Items 72 through 79, with the exception of 75, 77, and 78. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 75: Motion to approve purchase of bullet resistant vests in the amount of $8,400 for the Deputy Marshals as an additional safety measure to protect them while performing duties of their position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I apologize to my chairman, I should have asked the question in our committee meeting, but when are the Marshals going to wear these vests? Is Mr. Smith here? MR. OLIVER: We'll see if he's there. I'll try to pinch hit in his absence. It's my understanding that he is going to adopt the policy that's the same as the Sheriff, that unless the weather is excessively hot and that it creates an imposition in the performance of their job, that it will be mandatory that they wear them all the time while they're on duty. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further 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 77: Motion to approve to revise work (change order with Beers Construction company in the amount of $29,214) in the attorney visitation areas of the housing pods. Changes include adjustments to walls and additional hollow metal, glazing and seating (subject to letter of cost reasonableness from architect/engineer and a recommendation from the Citzens Advisory Committee). MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. MAYS: I asked that it be pulled and I'm glad Chief Toole is here. I believe it reads subject to a letter of cost reasonableness from architect/engineer and a recommendation from the Citizens Advisory, and I've tried to keep an open mind until this particular meeting before a final vote on it. I stated in committee -- I believe the Sheriff was there that day -- no, Chief Hatfield was there that day and you weren't there on that day, Charlie. And you know me, I don't say anything behind anybody's back I won't say to their face. I said then and I say it now that any changes basically that related to what we were doing in terms of court order or the judge approving of a situation, that you were going to account, particularly as the chief jailer, presenting problems that were there in that jail, fine, and I could adjust with that as long as what we had in the budget. What I questioned was -- and this was not personal in dealing with the Attorney's provision of it, but I know the rigmarole we have been down through with the frills added on where when we started off where maybe jail may have been one of the considerations, not the only one, but everybody got a chance to load up that hotdog in the beginning and get it all the way from 15 and 20 million dollars into an estimated 50 million, which it would have been. And I was concerned at the time that we're going to get a chance to move in four to five months ahead of time, have some money left over that would put us in the black with it, that we weren't just looking into a situation where we had some money. And I know that you've not brought that in there and I won't say Mr. Wall is bringing that over there, but I wanted to make sure, because I thought that when we went through that whole provision, whether it was our side of attorneys or whether it was Georgia Legal Services, that all of the little things such as these visitation areas and that kind of thing were basically ironed out. If that's one that's going to hamper your operation -- as I said in that committee meeting and I'll say it again, that if that's one where the chief jailer looks me in the eye where he's got a problem with that, that's going to cause us a problem, then I'm open to dealing with that. But just one to the point of where it will be better bigger or if it seats more people in some area doing it -- and I think we've been reminded more times than one by Judge Bowen to a point that his order was in terms of dealing with overcrowding. That was what we were under the order to do, and I think that's what the order still is even under the reprogramming order, and that's why I asked that it be pulled out. If we've gotten those information numbers from the parties involved to move on with it, then I still stand open-minded and ready to vote on it. But if this is one that has another opportunity to increase this thing, then I got a problem with it. CHIEF TOOLE: This didn't just come up, Mr. Mays. This has been an issue that's been brought before the Citizens Committee, brought before Mr. Wall and myself, the Sheriff, Mr. Wilkinson, who is the court-appointed lawyer for Judge Bowen to look into different things that we're doing out there. And during the time that we were going back and looking at this we saw a need to put this in. You've seen the Fourth Street facility, everybody in here. We have one visitation booth for everybody to use up in those towers. We started out at $58,000 trying to add these booths, cut it in half to $29,000, negotiated it down. I have checked the booths out, I've been out there numerous times, and we feel like that it will expedite the attorneys seeing the clients that need to see them out there, a very minimal cost and a very small portion of time involved in getting the attorneys up and getting them down. This was something that we have discussed I guess probably a dozen times. Did not know that it was going to be a big issue as far as it coming up, but we felt like it was an issue that we needed to go ahead and address, resolve, make sure that all parties involved were satisfied with the resolution, and that's why it was done in the change order that was sent out. MR. TODD: I guess one of my concerns, Mr. Mayor, is that the Citizens Committee didn't have a recommendation at the committee, and I sat in on Mr. Brigham's committee; and, two, that it was probably packaged wrong in the sense I think someone said that it was part of a court order, or misconstrued -- CHIEF TOOLE: No, it's not part of a court order. It has been brought before the Citizens Committee. In fact, I even talked to Mr. Bud Amerson as early as yesterday and they were in concurrence with going ahead and getting this done. MR. TODD: Right, and I can support it as long as it's not being packaged as far as it's a court order. I went over and read the court decree or court order [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, I'll direct this to you. There was some conversation or some mention from you that you were expecting a reduction of about $22,000 for some foundation work, Charles, that was eliminated, and that -- so that we felt like that the impact of this change order would be about a net $7,000. Any resolution to that? MR. OLIVER: That was Mr. Wall that made that comment. MR. WALL: That was me that made the comment. Back when the original discussion came up there was an expectation that there was going to be a $20,000 cost savings, and I talked with the Chief about that last week. I don't know whether Doug has ever responded to that or not. CHIEF TOOLE: We're trying to pull that information now, Mr. Kuhlke. I'll be glad to send you a copy of it as soon as we get it. I feel sure that the deduct is in there, I've just got to pull out all the paperwork. MR. OLIVER: It isn't in this change order, though. CHIEF TOOLE: No, it's not in this change order. MR. OLIVER: Okay. I have a letter of cost reasonableness from the engineer on this. I don't have anything from the Citizens Committee, but assume Mr. Toole is representing the fact that he's talked with the Citizens Committee, they are comfortable -- have they sent anything or do you know? CHIEF TOOLE: Yes, sir. Like I said, I talked with Mr. Amerson just as early as yesterday. MR. KUHLKE: Have they put anything in writing? CHIEF TOOLE: No, sir. I can get it in writing from the Citizens Committee if you need that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS DID NOT VOTE. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 78: Motion to approve expenditures for renovations to office space in Augusta Riverfront Center for relocation of Fire Department Administrative Offices at a cost not to exceed $10,000.00. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this be pulled just really for information purposes, not really an objection to it. But I noticed here that we have a cost not to exceed $10,000 for the -- and this question is -- the two questions is for Chief Few. The $10,000 that we're going to spend to renovate the area, you've got it coming out of a fund number here. What are those funds appropriated for? I mean, is that an administrative fund or is that from a -- is that for equipment or? CHIEF FEW: It's for maintenance. MR. POWELL: Is that maintenance on vehicles or just maintenance on the building itself? CHIEF FEW: Building maintenance. MR. POWELL: And my second question is, Chief, I noticed here we had the cost of the construction, but we didn't have the cost of the lease per square foot in here. MR. OLIVER: Let me explain, Mr. Powell. There isn't any cost per square foot. The government made a commitment when the building was originally built to lease X number of square feet. Housing and Community Development currently occupies a portion of that square footage, the rest of that square footage was never utilized by anyone. What the proposal that Chief Few put forward was to use the space and to share a combined conference room with Housing and Community Development, so actually there's no increase in money that we're paying out. Now, as a practical matter, as was mentioned, we will wind up -- we're paying a portion of that out of the General Fund, charging it back to the Fire Department, but it's no new money to us. We are not renting additional space. We are obligated for the space we're renting, we're just not using it. MR. POWELL: How long are we obligated for this space? MR. KUHLKE: Ten years. MR. OLIVER: Yeah, that's my recollection also. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I just got one question. The extra room that we was paying for never been used since we bought it? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. MR. HANDY: What's the use in getting it then? MR. OLIVER: I will say this in defense of that, it was a situation that was done to make that particular complex work. There were a number of people that did that. I mean, Mr. Morris did that with the museum and different people make -- but whenever you do a speculative office venture it's not uncommon that you have anchor tenants, and those anchor tenants commit for a certain amount of space. And the reason for that is to have a guarantee to the investor that the building is going to lease up and not go into default. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, it's my understanding that the city subleased a portion of that space where Chief Few is going in to two attorneys and one is still there. MR. OLIVER: I didn't know that. MR. ZETTERBERG: Chief Few, can you tell me how many people you're going to move over there? CHIEF FEW: Yes. There's about seven. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. TODD: I had my hand up, and I'll make it very brief. When I was invited over to Augusta Tomorrow and looked at the vision for that area I didn't see Channel 6 or the Fire Department down there, so I imagine the Chief is probably going to need a place to oversee the movement of that fire department. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 93: Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission on July 15, 1997. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 94: Appointments to various ARC Boards, Authorities and Commissions. Mr. Handy would like to rescind the appointment of Ms. Belle Clark to the Daniel Field Aviation Commission and to appoint Ms. Linda Roberts. He would like to appoint Ms. Belle Clark to the Coliseum Authority. Mr. Todd would like to place in nomination Ms. Marlene Watkins for an appointment on the Coliseum Authority. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 94-A: Appointment of Richard Slaby to the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia for term July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1999. CLERK: I spoke to Judge Slaby and he had looked at the canons and felt that he could serve in that capacity, and he is interested in serving if y'all are agreeable to reappointing him. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to appoint Judge Slaby, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10- 0. CLERK: Item 94-B: Reappoint three members to Economic Opportunity Authority for a four-year term: Mr. Marion Barnes, Mr. James Walker, Ms. Imogene P. Ford. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: I'll have to apologize for not looking in the detail, do we have a detail of who these people are? I really don't know who I'm voting on here. I'd like to know something about them. MR. OLIVER: We are under no legal obligation to appoint these members at all. These are recommendations that were made by them, and it's my understanding these people currently serve. MR. BRIDGES: So this is the people they are asking that we appoint? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're on this, I notice on their letterhead there's three vacancies. Are we going to fill these three vacancies? MR. OLIVER: Those have already been filled. That was miscommunication between myself and them probably a month or six weeks ago. We filled the three vacancies six weeks ago, but we didn't do the reappointments because I didn't understand those terms were expiring. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to the County Attorney whether we have any legal liabilities in having three members over there as far as any action that they may take as far as [inaudible]. MR. WALL: No, it's a separate corporate entity. The fact that we appoint somebody to the board does not, in my opinion, create any liability on this Commission's part. MR. TODD: Is there any obligation as far as funding go? MR. WALL: Any obligation, no. Now, you have funded it to an extent in the past, but there's no legal obligation. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, to go back to the past, when I come on board we discontinued the funding, and I led that effort, I believe, because there was some concerns about some activities by their former executive director. And I basically want to make sure that -- and I think those situations were a family member being on the payroll and a lot of other things. As long as we're not funding, I don't have a problem with the appointments. MR. WALL: I don't want Mr. Todd to misunderstand. I don't know about '97, but we funded in '96. And I'm not certain about '97, but I would not want to represent that we have not funded them to some extent in '97. MR. TODD: When you say we, you're talking about Richmond County Board of Commission? And I'd like to know when that funding was approved. MR. WALL: Well, it was approved out of the City Council in the budget that they approved for 1996. It was part of the budget that the City Council adopted in December of '95, but the monies were a part of the '96 budget and were paid out in '96. MR. TODD: I understand that, Mr. Mayor, and don't have a problem with it. That was another entity and we inherited it. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Greenway is in the process of checking on the current status regarding any funding. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 95: Motion to approve contract for Space Utilization Study. MR. TODD: If I may have the floor, Mr. Mayor, a minute. This is one that I guess is the outrage of the year as far as I'm concerned, that we had a entity that said that they could provide a service delivery and we awarded a proposal, and they were supposed to have saved us 50 percent and they're coming back and telling us that they got to have another $20,000 in order to do this work. Now, it was my understanding that they couldn't perform the work per the money that they put in their proposal using the Carter-Gobel scope of work, and they agreed to, it's my understanding, or at least before we approved this motion to award them the bid or proposal, that they would do it for that amount. And now I'm hearing that they can't do it for that amount, and even adding $20,000 to it they can't do 100 percent of it, that there's two components, or at least one component they can't do. I think this is ludicrous. I think there was those of us that sit on the board that told the individuals that was pushing this that they could not do it for the money that they was proposing. This was a frivolous bid or proposal and they done it to get their foot in the door, and they knew the service delivery we wanted was the Carter-Gobel scope of work. And based on that, I'm going to make a motion that we award this contract to Duckett, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. BEARD: I'll second it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I am at the moment not against awarding the contract to Duckett, okay? What my concern is, that I've become very confused on the bidding process, and I'd like to ask Mr. Oliver a couple of questions. We went out with a proposal -- and let me preface my remarks, because I'm getting sick and tired of us going out for proposals and then having -- after we go out, then we get into battle royals over issues. I've never seen anything like it. I have never seen this many contracts in dispute, and it's almost to a number, one, two, three. Every time we turn around and compete for copiers or anything else, we get into some sort of a long, harassing, detailed problem. So I'm going to ask a couple of questions. One is, when we went out for a proposal, everybody got the same request, right -- got an RFP? MR. OLIVER: That is correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Then they all responded to that RFP; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: That is also correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Then one of the contractors came in -- let me not ask that question right now. How did the CGA or whatever the proposal is become the writing document that we base this on? MR. OLIVER: Let me explain this. In these types of responses there is going to be more ambiguity, and let me tell you why. We went out and asked for a consultant and we defined a scope of work, which I think was done as well as it could be done based upon the fact that we had never gone through this service. I mean, we had gotten RFP's from other jurisdictions, but we went out with that scope of work. We had three firms that came in and made presentations. One of them, you know, had something that was slightly different, one of them had another thing that was slightly different, and then the third one we viewed as having the superior scope of services, and that was Carter-Gobel. As a result of that, what was done was we had some preliminary discussions with Heery International, and when the written language was faxed around, be it misunderstanding on our part, their part, or they didn't like the written language, Mr. Goins and I spent some period of time negotiating language back and forth and we could not get to a point that we felt that it was consistent with what CGA said. They made some arguments as to why we needed to do one thing or didn't need to do one thing, but we made a commitment to this Commission to one thing and we wanted to do that and we did do that. We felt that at that point what was appropriate -- we said, okay, this is it. They said we can't do that; we didn't budget it that way, we can't do it. We said okay. In efforts of being fair, what we did was we faxed the scope to them and we said this is the scope, use it. We faxed the same scope to Duckett & Associates, we said this is the scope, you use it. Neither one of them had an opportunity to know what either one's price was. And we brought it back to you, and the hope was to bring it back to you so that now rather than having an orange, an apple and grapefruit, we now have three oranges and they're all doing exactly the same thing. The scope of services is verbatim the same. If you all feel that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And let me just make this comment. The scope of services should have been absolutely plain the first time that thing went out, and I would suggest that if we're going to get ourselves into this thing we ought to have pre-bid conferences so that everybody clearly understands what has to be done. And my position right now, we have probably violated every rule that I can think of in contracting and we're all mixed up down here. Seems to me the appropriate bid now is CGA. I mean, what we did is we asked them for their proposal, CGA had the best proposal, or did we go out and ask for the best price? You can't have it both ways, you're either going to ask for best price or you're going to ask for best proposal. MR. OLIVER: We asked for the best combination of service and price was what we asked for. MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't know how you get that. That's pretty difficult to get, that's my considered opinion. That becomes very, very subjective in that case. And my problem is I don't know how to vote, so I may not just vote. But I think we made a big, big mistake just from the very beginning and we best get a lot better. That's one of the reasons I wanted to make sure that we go out and get vehicle requests. Don't let me catch y'all coming back in here and writing specifications that specify Chevrolet Cavaliers. MR. OLIVER: But I think everyone will agree though when you do a vehicle spec, that it's much more well defined than it is on a study of this nature. MR. ZETTERBERG: I appreciate all the good work the staff does, but in contracting we need to go back to school. MR. BEARD: I'm thoroughly kind of confused over this, but I got the book here to understand. Because I'm going to tell you, maybe it's my naiveness, you know, but I thought the study was well under way, and come back in here and find out that we got to, you know, go through this whole process. And then I looked in the back of the book here and see some different prices, and I just don't understand it other than, you know, if these people cannot do what they said, then, you know, go to the next person. And to me, as we said before, that next person was the Duckett company. You know, all of them were given -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Wasn't it CGA? MR. OLIVER: At the last Commission meeting that this was discussed, you wanted to get an agreement on scope of services and bring back a contract to you. The two firms at that time that were discussed were Heery International and Duckett and Associates. MR. BEARD: And Duckett was the next person and they didn't get the bid, that was my understanding. And this is what I see, and I think everything was equal, then we go to the next person that can provide those services, and that's what I'm going to vote on today, that the next person get the bid. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I have two questions. The first question is for the County Attorney. We've taken these proposals, we've used CGA's scope of work. When we've contacted the other companies, we didn't contact CGA for a rebid. Now, are we putting ourselves in a position - - a legal position on this? MR. WALL: Well, CGA bid on the scope of services. I mean, they've quoted that. And so what we -- in order to compare apples to apples, what was done was to go back to the two companies that had a little different scope of services and say, now, what will you do this work for. And, again, you're dealing with professional services as opposed to bidding for, you know, a car or a tool or something like that that, you know, you know what that is going to be. And when you're dealing with professional services, different organizations are going to approach it in a different way. And let's face it, we were looking for their expertise in the request for proposal, and so when they come back and defined the scope of service and said this is the way the project ought to be done, Carter-Gobel had given a price for that, and to compare apples to apples we got pricing from the other two entities. MR. POWELL: Right, but my question was, you know, we've taken the scope of work from CGA, we've -- the numbers have already been exposed. Everybody knows what color underwear CGA had on, okay? Well, these people come back and are allowed the opportunity to rebid. Now, I'm asking are we going to run ourselves into a legal position with this. MR. WALL: I don't think you run into a legal position. I mean, I understand your problem with the process, because they had a benchmark that they could use insofar as pricing, and I understand that concern. But from a legal standpoint of professional services, I don't think you create any legal problems. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, let's go back to CGA. What was their bid on the original proposal and is it more than either one of these -- MR. OLIVER: No, it's not. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What was it? MR. OLIVER: It's $96,800, Mr. Goins says. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm kind of like Mr. Powell, if we done anybody wrong, we've done CGA wrong. We've said we're going to follow their set of guidelines, we kicked them out of the race and we've gone back to the other two bidders, the low one and the high one, and we went to the one in the middle and said we're going to follow their guidelines. Now, if we're going to do this -- if we're going to start over, let's start over, or either we're going to stick to low price, one of the two, we're not going to go back around [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, you know, I'm disappointed in the way it's been handled basically from a couple of standpoints. The first thing is the low bidder's price has gone up to give us what we want. The second thing is Duckett and Associates has been given three chances to become very low and they haven't done it yet. And CGA has been excluded basically. Maybe they should have been given a chance to revise their price at the same time. So, to me, I think we've handled this very poorly. We were hoping to get this space study in in November or the first part of December. We're not going to do that, I don't think. But I cannot support paying $11,000 more, and my suggestion is that we -- at this point I would support Heery and Associates because they got the best price and obviously the scope of work. But frankly I think that whether you change anything or not, I think we need to give all three a chance and I think we need to defer doing anything on this until we have a clear understanding -- we didn't develop the scope of this work until we received bids. That's basically what we did. MR. OLIVER: There is some validity to that statement. It wasn't totally refined out of our inability to be able to do it because we didn't have that experience. Might I suggest this, in a spirit of compromise and fairness what we can do is we could send each one of them a letter. We've now agreed that the scope is there, give them each until 12:00 noon, say, on Friday or 12:00 noon on Tuesday or whatever and say give us your best number. And then at that point it's fair to everyone, the scope of the service is fair, and what I'm trying to do is come to a meeting of the minds here which everyone feels would be equitable to all parties. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that we went out for proposals or for bids, I think we went out for statement of qualifications on the first one. And I tried to read what Drew put together in the specs, the criteria. As far as cost go, the maximum points you could get was 30. The total maximum points was 100. So cost shouldn't and can't be in those specs the whole influencing factor, you consider everything. I think also they requested, you know, the scope of work, what would they provide in a space allocation study, you know, and that's a statement of qualifications. Certainly Carter-Gobel had the best statement of qualifications. Also in that, for those that wasn't on the committee, and I think I made a couple of meetings, Mr. Kuhlke, there was an assessment of the written proposal or statement of qualifica-tions, or a combination, and there was an assessment of the interview. And after doing that and grading them, there were recommendations from the staff, and the staff recommendation was the firm that we initially awarded it to first, Heery or whatever it is and Duckett. Those was the two from staff. So at the point that staff has made that recommendation, I'm not looking at Carter-Gobel, I'm looking at the other two. I'm not obligated to use anyone's statement of qualification. We brought folks in the conference room down on the sixth floor and they told us how they would -- what scheme they would use on reprogramming the jail. Well, one fell in, the rest of them fell out, you know, they was out of it, we hired Precision Planning. We've had contractors we brought in as far as statements of qualifications go as far as the landfill on capping and doing the cell. When we finished with them we hired one, the other ones went down the road. And we don't have to go with the low dollar proposal for professional service. And we can kick this thing around as long as we want to, but the bottom line is that we have opportunity here to do some things that we should have done a long time ago. We have a qualified minority contractor here that we can do business with, and my advice to them would be not to give you the service for nothing just to get it. You should put a dollar proposal in for what you can do it for and make a reasonable profit. I don't think anyone sitting here would do anything any different than that. This entity, they're out of Atlanta, they have three subcontractors, or possibly four if you -- I mean, three. There's three with the real estate; if you delete the real estate you've got two subcontractors that's local. That should be another reason for supporting it. Now, we can go with the international company for the sake of going with an international company that has jerked us around, and the bottom line is that it was -- it was on the Internet, it was everywhere else because it was in the daily paper that we were awarding it to them with the understanding that they would do the Carter- Gobel scope of work. And if they wasn't agreeable to that -- I was told basically that they would do it for that. I had individuals sitting at this table told me that they would do it for that. If they wasn't agreeable to that, they should have told us that and told us that then, not now, not two months later when they ought to be mobilized and in with the study. There is folks that's waiting on this study so they can make decisions. We have additional judges, we have court services we got to take care of, we have heating and air conditioning on this building that's falling apart, and there was 10 million dollars put in the one-penny sales tax to take care of this building, and we either should go on and take care of this building or go on and do the space allocation study. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We talked earlier about the Chevrolet Corsica and the Crown Vics. There ain't a whole lot of difference in this. It's a question of how we're going to get there, it's a question of what we asked for, and we'll pay what we asked for. We're the ones that changed the contract. If we didn't expect them to change the price, I'm sorry. Maybe we were held out a carrot, but I still don't think we need to go buying a Crown Vic when we need a Chevrolet Corsica. MR. MAYS: If we're going to deal with professional services and deal with those qualification areas that companies or individuals can do, then I think we ought to deal with that and we ought to be ready to stand behind a company or persons in terms of doing what we want them to do as the best people that can do that, or we ought to deal with it totally on knowing first what we want and then putting it into a scope and let people bid on it. Now, why we're getting jerked around is basically because we're on kamikaze missions with this darn thing, that sometimes we want it to be a strict bid process, sometimes we want to bring folk to the table almost and be able to hand them a process. I didn't even -- because of my inability to know what I was doing, I didn't even participate in the thinking and the rationale of that little scale bid y'all had. Number one, that's not my job to tell somebody's qualifications and to bid 20 points here, 15 points here, 10 points here either. And maybe with the exception of one or two people, I don't think anybody else is qualified to do that. I think it gets even narrower when you start talking about spending somebody's money. I think it gets down to zero people on this board of doing that. But the last time we went through a crazy bid process of putting numbers together and then coming out with an ending figure of who we ought to give something to was when we hired a consultant to put a sales tax package together, and we're sitting down here every week wondering why certain qualified projects got left out of the process. Got left out of the process because we played silly games with it. What we're doing, we're still playing silly games, and we need to decide how professional services are going to be dealt with. You can't have it one way where you're dealing -- and this is no knock on engineering firms, but we can't have them where we're dealing with them one way in that respect and they come along and you select them by a different level of criteria, and then when you decide to do something else, if somebody done something before and they look good and they know five people over here or six people and they built this particular project, that's a good firm to hire. One somebody hasn't seen before, might be a bad firm to hire. And I really think that's the musical chairs game we're playing with the professional service process. And until we get to a point of deciding and making a decision as a board whether we want to deal with that on strict adherence to it or whether we want to have enough confidence to go out and deal with -- once we find qualified firms to do a particular service, just say okay. If one costs us three times what the other one was going to do, but if we're satisfied with the scope of that service, be human being enough to say we selected the best firm and move with it. But this dilly-dallying of trying to get something changed after you've got somebody is just going to lead to a bunch of elementary mess to a point that when we criticize boards that we appoint people to and want to know how they came up with a decision, then, quite frankly, they may be doing a little bit better job within some of those authorities and boards than we are because they're going ahead and making a business decision and standing behind that decision and going ahead with the project. I don't think right now that [inaudible] small mess that I got between my ears and knowing which one of these folk that y'all got on the spectrum to even make a vote on. I'd like to even know did it start over, gentlemen, with just three people? Did y'all have some others in the beginning? MR. OLIVER: There were, I don't know, six, eight, nine proposals. The six, eight, nine were skinnied down to the three most qualified, and those three most qualified came in. MR. MAYS: I'll close out, Mr. Mayor, and be real -- I'll shut up on this. That makes me even more leery to a point that if you change scope when you got down to three, how confused were the people when you had five to six? Maybe you might have got a better deal out of some of them when there was six or seven of those. So, you know, you ask yourself where do you go legally with it. If you're getting into that thing of exposing numbers, then maybe you had somebody out there in the bunch who got dropped off, that didn't make even the three, that if knowing what you really wanted -- but you can't bring folk in looking cockeyed at somebody about what you want and then change it and then hope that the person that you got in mind is going to end up getting the job. You can't do that. So, you know, I wouldn't -- whether it was minority firm, majority firm, whoever, I just got a funny feeling that Mr. Wall or Mr. Mayor is going to get served, or Mr. Oliver, with some papers by somebody, because it seems like we got a mess here, and I'd be afraid [inaudible], so I'm going to abstain on whoever's name comes about here today. MR. KUHLKE: Can I make a substitute motion? That we defer any action on this particular item, that we invite the three people to come back to us based on the scope that obviously we have defined at this point, and we take this up at our next meeting. I just think that there's too much confusion here, and I want this thing to be done right. I mean, we look at our Internal Auditor, we look at the copy deal, we look at all this crap that we mess up on, and I'd like to see this -- we've got the time at this point to maybe do it right, and so I would like to make the motion that we do that. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: The Spirit had quoted me on this about two months ago, and I made the statement, I'll make it again today, that sometimes we have to put our own personal feelings back and do what is right. I'm going to ask two questions. Was it not true that when we awarded this bid, that the group said they could do it for $49,000? MR. OLIVER: That was the representation that I understood. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And now they're coming back and saying that they could not do it for $49,000? MR. OLIVER: Yes. And, frankly, to be fair to all parties, the difference was in the written language. They did not have the same understanding verbally as it was, they felt, in the written language. But you are correct, and they said that they could not perform the scope of work that was faxed to them for the cost that they previously offered. However, they said in their opinion it wasn't in the RFP and, to be fair to them, that's correct also. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, isn't it not true that we did have a company or maybe several companies that did understand the language and made a bid within reason? MR. OLIVER: You had two companies -- you had one company, obviously CGA, and that was the reason we seized on their scope, that we felt best defined the project. Duckett did not go into as much detail as CGA did, however, Duckett indicated when that scope was faxed to them that they did not have any kind of problem with the scope. Heery indicated that they felt part of that scope was not necessary and that they did not contemplate that work being done. MR. H. BRIGHAM: In the nomenclature of things, when we have several bids and one fall out for reason or the other, isn't it customary -- I'm not saying that's the rule, but isn't it customary that we go to the next bid? MR. OLIVER: Frankly, I've done it many different ways. I have done it that way, I've also done it where you do simultaneous negotiations. So, I mean, there are different practices involved. I will say this, that professional services are much different than if you're bidding on sticks and bricks, because obviously there are times, for example, on an A&E contract that you could take the cheapest price and wind up paying more money. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think I stand pat, I think we blew it. I'm not going to vote on it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I don't know a lot about a whole lot of different things, but I do know all of the firms were reviewed and a short list was formed, and all things were supposed to been equal. And I think that in most cases wherein the first person cannot do the job, then you go to the next person, and that's the way I feel about this. And I also question, you know, why didn't we just go to the second person instead of going back and contacting both of these organizations again when it should have been just simple to go to the second bidder. But we went back and we contacted, you know, these people and told them to rebid or whatever they were supposed to be doing, I guess it was rebidding, and I don't quite understand that. And I just feel like it should have been very simple, that if Heery couldn't do it, then you go to the next person. And that's the way I see it and that's the way I view it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back and maybe ask Mr. Todd to give me a brief answer on one question that he shed a little light on. Earlier when he started talking he said that we had two firms here and that one of the firms still couldn't meet two of the obligations, and I just -- I'd like to throw that out there if you could give me a clarification. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding, and I'll refer this to Mr. Oliver, that Heery actually has not agreed to do the full scope. They have changed the price from 49 to, I guess, 79 or whatever and they still have some concerns about doing the service delivery on the full scope of the Carter- Gobel. Is that my understanding? MR. OLIVER: I'm going to defer the specifics of that to Mr. Goins because I can't answer that level of detail. MR. GOINS: That's incorrect, Mr. Todd. Heery has agreed to the scope of services for CGA at the amount that's shown in your agenda item, and there's a backup that indicates that. MR. TODD: And they're going to give us the entire scope of work? MR. GOINS: Verbatim. MR. TODD: Verbatim. Okay, then that was a misinterpre-tation, Mr. Powell, by me. And, also, I'll take 25 percent of the responsibility for screwing this up. I was on that committee, I believe there was four of us on that committee, and I would hope that the chairman and the rest of them will take their percentage of responsibility, too. MR. HANDY: I just want to make a sarcastic statement. If we can pay $90,000 for a pay study and get screwed up like it is, hell, this ain't screwed up at all, this is good. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me ask Drew one question in following up on what Mr. Todd said. In the writeup that you have here you say that Heery agreed to the CGA scope of services with the exception of two things. Did Duckett and Associates exclude those things also from their proposal? That was the detail engineering analysis and the ADA evaluation. MR. GOINS: Let me say one thing to answer that question. Heery International provided us a price based on the RFP that we put out for bids. CGA and Duckett -- we go back to the Cavalier and Chevrolet. Heery says okay, you bid on a Cavalier, this is the price for a Cavalier. Duckett and the other firm says, well, we can get you there for -- but we think you need more things, so they added costs associated with the additional things that they recommended that we have associated with this study. And as Mr. Oliver stated, that CGA's proposal or scope of work was superior to the original RFP, and we recognized that fact and that's how we're in the situation that we're in now. We changed scope of services. When we went back to Heery and asked can you do this for the scope of services and we gave them the written document, they told us no, we can't do that based on two factors: number one is the detail that was in the written documentation for the engineering studies and the second was the written documentation for the ADA requirements. And as I stated in my agenda item to you, those were the two sticking points from the CGA proposal relative to what Heery's original proposal was. MR. KUHLKE: So they are in there now? MR. GOINS: They are in there now, and they are in there for the price that they quoted. But, again, the misunderstanding was in the written language of CGA's proposal. They recommended detailed engineering evaluations of all the facilities that we own. Heery contends that we don't need that. MR. KUHLKE: So if you took that out of there -- are you and the Administrator saying that we need that service? MR. GOINS: My personal opinion is we only need that in a very limited area. MR. TODD: I think he had me confused, and maybe Mr. Kuhlke cleared it up. He told me it was verbatim, then I was understanding there was two sticking points, but it was resolved. It's my opinion that we have a ADA requirement that's a mandate per ADA that we provide, you know, there, and I don't see how someone could tell us that we don't need it. Even though we put a lift next door, I see the person that would use the lift climbing the steps all the time, but at least we met our minimum requirements if she should fall. So I think that there is a mandate and a requirement for the ADA in all of the facilities, and the other issues, you know, as far as engineering. What I want to assure -- if I may reflect, Mr. Mayor, back to -- you know, a few years. A few years ago we hired a gentleman, paid him 40 or 50 thousand dollars, a professor from Georgia Tech by the name of [inaudible]. He probably didn't tell us all we would like to hear, you know, and certainly he didn't tell me what I'd like to hear because I'm quite embarrassed sitting on a government body that do less than three percent with the minority community. And that study was called a disparity study. And whether we accept the recommendation or not, we should try to take corrective action. But the body did accept the recommendation, and most of us are sitting here. We accepted a recommendation that we had disparities. And I don't think that we should award contracts to minorities just for the sake of awarding a contract to a minority, but when you have a qualified minority I don't think you should look for every reason in the book to not award a contract. And we've done that. I can name them: Blue Construction, Athens-Clarke County. The issue was sloppy work they done up around Eastpoint. The Mayor Pro Tem and myself drove up there and looked at it. It was supposed to been in a high-profile community. We found all that to be wrong, and that come from our staff. We can continue down the road of looking for ways and reasons not to do business with the minority community and you're going to have one or two end results: one is that your underground economy is going to continue and you're going to have your killings, your murders, your drug dealings and things like that. Because if you don't let the economy grow and work in a fair market or a level playing field, then it's going to grow in the underground economy, and the DA can tell you about that, or you can be fair and you can do what's right, and at least it puts hope with those folks that's been excluded from the process and you have more folks try to work the system and do what's right. So there's a lot more here than probably meets the eye, but the bottom line, we're not requesting a set-aside like we have with Public Works, with engineering consultants and that professional services where you have a set-aside for the good-old-boys in each flood basin. We're not requesting that here, all we're requesting is that you be fair, that you award bids with a fairness doctrine, and that you not award it because there's a minority involved. Before I knew a minority was involved I supported Duckett. A lot of folks probably don't believe that, but I said it here and it's a fact. And I still support Duckett based on the interview, reading the specs, and the recommendation from staff as far as they recommended Duckett number two and Heery number one. My conclusion was number one. Now that I've learned that Duckett is a minority firm, have I pushed any harder for them? I don't think so. But I'm not going to sit here and not defend my philosophy and position because they're a minority firm either, because I understand they're doing an outstanding work, they've done outstanding work over the years, and they've paired up with two outstanding local majority community firms and possibly three if we keep the real estate element in there. And that's where I'm at on it, gentlemen, and it's not a racial issue, it's a fairness issue, and that's where I'm at. MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't want to be painted in this issue that my vote revolves around a minority issue at all. My vote of no on this issue, or absent on this issue, deals with the professionalism that this board has shown and that the staff has shown in contracting efforts. This has nothing to do with race whatsoever from Rob Zetterberg's point of view. Nothing. You can make broad generalizations, Moses, but this has to do with our professionalism, this has to do with our staff's professionalism, and I'm not going to be a party to slipshod work by this government. I represent taxpayers: black taxpayers, yellow taxpayers, red taxpayers and white taxpayers, and I don't give a damn what color they are, what race, what gender, whatever. But I will not be part at all of lack of professionalism, and I think that's exactly what we are. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, please. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke was to defer the action and to invite the three firms to come back based on the scope of service at the next meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 3- 3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to the original motion. Read the original motion, please. CLERK: Original motion by Mr. Todd was to award the contract for the Space Utilization Study to Duckett and Associates. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM & KUHLKE VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Item 96: Motion to approve a Resolution requiring public disclosure by members of the Augusta Commission and any employee of Augusta- Richmond County of performing work for benefit of Augusta, Georgia. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I request that the Clerk read the resolution, or the County Attorney? MR. WALL: Whereas the Augusta-Richmond County Commission has adopted a code of ethics set forth in O.C.G.A. 45-10-1; and ' whereas members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission may have interest in companies performing work or rendering services to Augusta, Georgia; whereas it is deemed to be in the public interest for there to be public disclosure of any Commissioner who has any interest in companies performing work for Augusta, Georgia; now therefore be it resolved by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission that any member of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission who for himself or on behalf of any business or for any business in which he or any member of his family has a substantial interest involved in any transaction made pursuant to the sealed competitive bids, to make or give public notice of such involvement to be recorded in the minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission of such transaction. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that's a proposed resolution and I'd like to move that this board approve it. MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think this is a no-brainer, and that's all I'm going to say. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, according to the consolidation bill, I think it says that -- for example, like the Attorney could not work for the Commission or [inaudible]. Now, I don't mind Mr. Todd putting in for a resolution to do anything that he deem necessary that we need to do, but when it's going to any family member, if it's not your husband or your wife or your children, I don't see where there needs to be any family members in there because, I mean, that's just getting too far out the way. And I think we already have something in place. When you bid on a job you're supposed to disclose it already, and I'd like to ask, is that correct or not correct, Jim? MR. WALL: In the Public Works contracts that we have, the contractor has to list the subcontractor who does more than five percent of the work, and so that information is disclosed and is on public record insofar as the Purchasing Department is concerned. So, yes, that is there. MR. HANDY: So what this will do different from what that is doing now? MR. WALL: Well, those procedures are in place insofar as Public Works contracts. This is broader from the standpoint of services, and it is simply a disclosure that would be made. It would not have to necessarily be read at any public meeting, but it would be on file so that if anyone was concerned they would be able to look in a central place in the Clerk's office where it would be spread upon the minutes and would be a part of the public record insofar as the involvement of a Commissioner or his family in work for the government. And the reason that the language was used is basically I took the state requirements. Any member of the family, that came from the state statute. If you're doing state work that requirement is there. MR. HANDY: Right. State work, not county work. But what's the purpose of this? I don't know whether Commissioner Todd explained to you when he asked you to write that, but what really is the intent behind this whole thing right here? MR. WALL: Well, Commissioner Todd wanted there to be public disclosure if a Commissioner was involved in doing work for the county. That was the purpose that I was instructed to try to meet in drawing it up. Now, beyond that I can't answer. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll try to answer that if the Commissioner would like for me to. The devil is not in the details of this, this is just to police us as a board. I started this initiative in 1993 when I come on board with ethics in government. Mr. Kuhlke enhanced that in 1996 when he come on board. He broadened it and this is to further strengthen that. As it's been said here, we're painted by one brush. If there's not guidelines to keep me in line and I go out there and mess up, certainly you all pay. If one of you certainly do it, then we're all paying. And basically this is a policy that I -- like I said to start with, it's a no-brainer. I don't see how you could argue with doing a public disclosure as far as doing business with the government or if your family is doing business with the government. The other thing that this will do is certainly, based on being elected to the board, whether it's present or future Commissioners, you won't be able to increase your market or powers here of whatever business you're in or want to do by doing it with the government or doing it with contractors through subcontractors with those contractors, period. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, if you own stock in a company that sells something to a subcontractor or a contractor in Richmond County -- I mean, just how deep does this thing go? You know, some of us may own some stock in a company and don't even think about it. MR. WALL: Well, I guess it depends on what level of stock that you would own. I mean, it says a substantial interest in the company, and the fact that you may own, you know, 100 shares in Procter & Gamble or Caterpillar or something like that, I mean, that doesn't come into play. I mean, it would mean a right -- an interest that could influence the decision of that company, and that would not necessarily in all cases mean 50 percent, but, I mean, as a general rule I think that you could look at that as sort of the benchmark. But a substantial interest, more than just a nominal or small percentage ownership in a company is what it's designed for. MAYOR SCONYERS: I just wanted to get that clarified. MR. BRIDGES: You know, I guess I'm kind of confused about this resolution, too, because we've already got the ethics codes that we live by. Anytime anybody puts in a bid for anything you know who it is. The bids are sealed bids. They're secret, you can't -- if our staff is doing their jobs properly, there's no way any Commissioner or anybody else that works for the government can get a leg up on anybody else. And I don't think a Commissioner should be excluded from any public process that's available to any other citizen that's out there, and I just think that's putting a burden on people that might want to seek office that if you keep laying these additional burdens on them, you're not going to get anybody running for public office. Some people might like that. You know, I'm just looking at who this applies to sitting on this board, and if each person that this applies to or that I think it applies to as a businessman decided not to seek office, Mr. Todd and I would be the only ones left up here. And I don't think that's in the best interest of the citizens of this county to be limiting that process. I think this is something that we've already got as far as ethics. We've already got the codes and the law and everything in works, and we've got the bid process that we go with the low bid, and let's go with that, let's do what we've got, let's not exclude people. MR. MAYS: I seconded because I wanted to get some clarification for myself. Jim, how does this differ with the already-in- existence spending guidelines on that -- what is it, within a given period, I believe, that the $200 tax situation that's there. Does that language cover what you proposed in here or is this a different situation in here? MR. WALL: Well, it could conceivably be a different situation. I mean, the situation where the $200 limitation per quarter, that's except through sealed bids. If you were doing business with the county and go through a competitive bid process, then obviously that would be disclosed. However, if you were a contractor to furnish copy machines and you had a subcontract and you bid on that, but as a part of that you were going to subcontract out to Jim Wall Paper Company to buy the paper from me to supply the copy machines, depending on the way the specifications were written, you might not have to disclose that Jim Wall Paper Company was going to supply the paper. This would require that. I mean, Jim Wall Paper -- if I were a Commissioner, Jim Wall would have to disclose the fact and put in the record somehow that I was participating in a contract with Mays Copy Service, and then if anybody wanted to check to see what business Jim Wall had done with the county, then that would be on file. So the bid process would not necessarily reveal that. In the Public Works area we do require that, that the subcontrac-tors be listed, and so there is disclosure there and it's available at the time the bids are opened, everybody sees who the subcontractors are that do any substantial portion of the work. I guess it would be in the non-Public Works arena that this might come into play. MR. MAYS: And my reason for asking on that procedure, even though this is not in place and probably will not get in place, I've had the experience of having to deal with that $200 factor even though it's not been in a bid process. And since the Coroner's Office doesn't have a rotating system, you know, on unclaimed bodies, you know, I get less of them than anybody else, so I really don't have any problem since he doesn't send me any, so -- and I'm glad he doesn't. But, you know, when I have had an occasion where there may be a request and you run into those so-called pauper situations, and the monies that are derived out of that office is beyond the $200 limit -- only slightly beyond that, roughly about 250. And when I've had those cases I've had to, naturally, submit a bill, you know, to him on an itemized basis of doing so, but the check that I get and derive from that is less than what any of my colleagues in the same profession would be because it puts me over that particular limit. So, you know, I can live with it or I can live without it because I'm already basically having to deal with it, so, you know, I was just sharing that as information of how I had to do it, you know, within my own. It hasn't been a situation I've had to deal with a lot, but in those cases where it might occur, that's how it's done. It's not necessarily a disclosure, per se, but there is a bill on file with that particular office that it comes out of. And in this case it would be an elected official who would receive the billing process of it, but the basic check would come out of, you know, the county's money. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 8-2. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I need a legal meeting. I know everybody is tired and it's been a long meeting, but -- personnel, real estate, and litigation. MR. POWELL: I move we go into legal. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 6:40 P.M.] MR. OLIVER: To pay Baird & Company $17,800 for internal audit service work performed for the months of November, December, and a partial month of January; terminate the agreement for internal audit services with Cherry, Bekaert & Holland immediately, and issue a 30-day termination letter to them in accordance with our contract with them; reinstate the contract with Baird & Company, subject to the inclusion of a 60-day termination provision that will give us the right to terminate this agreement at any time with 60 days notice; and agree to refrain from retaining Cherry, Bekaert & Holland during 1998 for internal audit work. MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer a substitute motion all the way down to terminating the two firms, paying off the two firms and not reinstating anybody. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on either motion, gentlemen? Substitute motion first. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Original motion, Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we adjourn, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a non-debatable motion. Thank you. [MEETING ADJOURNED]