Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 7, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 7, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND WILLIAMS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a couple of announcements before we get started. The Regular Meeting of the Commission would normally be on November the 4th, Tuesday; but since that's Election Day and we have some of the Commissioners involved in the race, we're going to postpone that meeting until Wednesday the 5th. Then in December we're only going to have one Commission meeting, so we're going to delete the 2nd of December and have it on the 16th of December. And don't forget about the Clean and Beautiful cleanup this weekend. If you can, we need to really spiff out city up and make it look better. Take pride in [inaudible]. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a request to delete Item 44. MR. TODD: I so move by unanimous consent that we delete Item 44. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to delete, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Presentation: National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Certificate of Appreciation to Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Presented on behalf of the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve forces for distinguished contribution to the national defense. MR. McCAULEY: Mr. Mayor, members of Commission-Council, as you're all aware, for the last six months or so I've been serving as the Acting Director for the Augusta Public Transit Department. The Director, Mr. Heyward Johnson, who is currently on military leave of absence in Heidelberg, Germany, saw fit to nominate the City of Augusta as a patriotic boss. And out of that nomination came a Certificate of Appreciation, and I'd like to read that and, at the close of this reading, present this to the Mayor on behalf of the Commission-Council. It says: On behalf of the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, award this Certificate of Appreciation to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. It's presented on behalf of the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve forces for distinguished contribution to the national defense. And it's signed by State Chairman [inaudible]. This is done on behalf of the Commission-Council because Mr. Johnson felt that the Commission- Council was a good supporter of the Reserve in its efforts for our nation's defense. [MR. McCAULEY PRESENTS CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO MAYOR SCONYERS.] CLERK: Item B: Newberry Baptist Church, Mr. Walker, reference to the flood plain. MR. PRYOR: Mr. Walker is not here, but I'm on the committee [inaudible] for the Newberry Baptist Church. Allen Pryor is my name, and I'm here today on behalf of the members of the Newberry Baptist Church. And what we are concerned about over at the Newberry Baptist Church, located at 2212 Grand Boulevard, 2212 and 2210 is right there by that Ochee Creek. And since last year we've been trying to get a permit to do some building onto our church, and the onliest way that we can thrive is to do some building onto our church, and we have been turned down because they said that's a flood area. And I think they got it classed for a hundred year flood area. But we really need some help and we are here today to ask the Commission if there's any way that they can get us a permit or we are asking them, if we cannot get a permit, will they try to purchase our church and our land. Because if we cannot build or add on to our church, surely we cannot grow. And since they put that canal there, I reckon, I don't know, about twenty-four feet wide, I imagine, and ten or twelve feet deep, we haven't had any problem with any water. And we had Commissioner Handy helping us, Representative Henry Howard, and Mr. Rob Sherman. We've had several people, the engineer, Mr. Freddie Murphy I believe his name is, and we just can't get a permit. And we're going to ask the county if they would look into it and either give us a permit or purchase our property. If you all need any more information you can contact me at 2057 Martin Luther King Boulevard 30901, telephone number 724-3253. Thank you. MR. PATTY: Unfortunately, this encroaches in the flood-way of Ochee Creek, which is an area that you literally can't build in. You can build without a notarized certification, which at a minimum would require a lot of engineering work. And because of the improvements in Rae's Creek it would require compiling the cross-sectional areas of upstream and downstream. And the Corps eventually is going to do that for us and there will be a new floodway and a new flood plain dimensions, but until that's done, you know, they're in the floodway. Under our ordinance there would be no way to build on the property. We've got a letter to that effect from FEMA. MR. TODD: Can they go to the Corps and get a permit to do something in the floodway as long as they meet the criteria as far as the elevation about the ground level, et cetera. MR. PATTY: No. It's a local ordinance. Of course, you know, they hold over our heads the certification to program for a community, but it's a local ordinance they would have to comply with. And in order to comply with it, like I say, the only way would be to have this notarized certification or issue a variance, but if we issue a variance in the floodway we're opening up a lot of problems. MR. TODD: Was this the floodway before we done the Ochee Creek project or this is the floodway after the Ochee Creek project? MR. PATTY: Well, it's before because that's the only data we've got. Like I say, eventually the Corps will do this restudying. Now, whether it'll be next year or ten years from now we don't have any guarantee, and it could be -- and I haven't been out to look at the property, but it could be that the floodway -- the floodway obviously is going to be smaller, and it could be that they would be out of it at that time that the restudy is done. Until it is done, there's no way we could issue this permit. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's out of the question on buying the property, and certainly I wouldn't want to get caught up in a reverse condemnation because of possibility of something we haven't done. And I'd want to at least make sure that we've taken every provision possible to assist the church in the construction of their building, and perhaps we can make a request through our Congressman, Charlie Norwood, that the Corps speed its process up in looking at the floodway as far as Ochee Creek Basin go. And that's just comments, I'm not going to make a motion [inaudible]. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Is there a site plan for the addition to the building? Have you all gotten that far yet? MR. PRYOR: Yeah, we got that far, but the contractor that we had to build it, he have those [inaudible]. MR. MAYS: Okay. Were you all going in the direction between that church and that fence that's around that Ochee Creek channel or were you going towards Fifteenth Avenue? MR. PRYOR: No, we're going directly behind the church [inaudible]. MR. MAYS: Is that all of it in there, George? What I'm looking at, I know you're going closer to that channel when you're going backwards or if you're coming -- MR. HANDY: No, you're going away from it, Mr. Mays. It's going away from the channel because [inaudible]. The farther you go back, it'll be away from the channel. MR. MAYS: That's true, but the farthest way to go from it is if you had the property where it could go to Fifteenth Avenue. I guess what I'm trying to get in here is that anywhere in that circumference area that they could go if they had property there to -- MR. PATTY: I didn't realize this was on the agenda until just a few minutes ago. And I pulled the file, but I didn't look at the flood map [inaudible], so I really can't say. With the floodway it would be measured from the center of the creek. I don't know how it affects this property. MR. MAYS: I guess I'm kind of -- and I don't consider the flood situation being funny, but, you know, some of us fought when we put in -- I call it a million units, it's not that many. But when we look at our plans of what we did on the eastern side, what we packed into that situation down there, you know, on East Augusta, and we're talking about just with the addition that we've got here, probably from a common sense standpoint--I'm no engineer--you're probably in a safer position in what they want to add on out there than what we've got then down on East Augusta side where every plan that we got said we shouldn't build anything else. But we violated that and we basically went ahead and did it, and we had the federal government involved and now the people are getting HUD money and every darn thing else. You know, I find it strange where they will be doing --I know it couldn't be as many they've they've got on that eastern end sitting behind that cemetery next to 520 down in the lowest elevation of the whole county, and what we're going to do. So, you know, I think if we can, whether it's through your committee there or Public Services or some situation that we can get with the Corps and seeing whether we can work something out for them. But if it's on local ordinance side -- whose shot is it to call? MR. PATTY: Well, like I say, we have a local flood ordinance that was mandated by FEMA in order for this community to participate in the national flood insurance program. You know, they watch what we do, and I guarantee you if we approve a variance in a floodway they're not going to like it. Whether they cut us off or throw us out of the program I don't know, but that's an option they would have. MR. MAYS: They didn't throw us out on that one down there, though. MR. PATTY: Well, that wasn't in a flood plain. There was no designated flood plain on that property. MR. MAYS: But, you know, as I said, from a green, common sense standpoint, the amount of units we put, you know, in back of a cemetery and adjacent to an interstate highway and the lowest elevation and across the street from a swamp, and everything that we got in writing says we should not have any other residential growth down there and yet we put triple figures of housing down there. And we did it anyway, and this Commission approved it. And we're talking about dealing with a church there where you've got, as he says, a whole channel there that you could move an eighteen-wheeler in next to that, whether you stood it up or whether you laid it down, and I'm just thinking that there ought to be some way that we could work in there. If we work that out, we ought to be able to work anything out. And I ain't throwing that on you, but I'm just -- and I know where you all are coming from when we did the other one, you know. You brought up -- MR. PATTY: Well, I think the solution that Mr. Todd suggested is to go ahead and try to get them to move on restudying that flood plain. MR. MAYS: Well, we're going to need some help other than ours if we're going to get the Corps to move on something. MR. HANDY: I'd just like to make a statement concerning the church. There is a way that we could help, I believe. And it's just like George said, it's in the flood plain and the Corps have to issue the permit, but it's a local ordi-nance. And the only difference is if we as a Commission decide to help them, that may cause the insurance to go up on all the residents in this area, and that's why they don't want to touch it. We could change it just like that, just by the strike of a pen, but it's going to effect the whole entire Augusta far as the flood plain insurance if we change that ordinance. But I would like to hope that we could do some-thing to help Newberry Baptist Church, because if they cannot grow -- and it is because of our doing. We adopted that ordinance after they built that creek there. And they are now -- by doing that, getting the money from the government to build the creek to help with the flooding, it has put them in harm's way. And that's something that this government did after that happened rather than before, so that's our baby. We got to try to burp it and get it to spit up and keep getting up; okay? MR. OLIVER: If it's agreeable with the Mayor and Commission, how about I'll work with Mr. Patty to send a letter to the Corps and Congressman Norwood's office. I'll write it for your signature, Mayor, to ask them to see if they can expedite that analysis. MR. HANDY: And then if that don't work, Mr. Oliver, then we need to do something at the government ourselves, if we can't get them to do anything. MR. OLIVER: I share your concerns regarding FEMA, because the absence of flood insurance would impact this community greatly. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we receive it as information. 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: The Planning Commission recommends Item 1 and 2 as a consent agenda. [S-551 - WESTSIDE COMMONS - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Westside Commons, Final Plat. This subdivision is located on the west side of Alexander Drive, 1,474 feet, more or less, north of Washington Road and contains 30 lots. S-387-V - TOWN HOMES OF ALEXANDER - SECTION II - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Plann-ing Commission to approve Town Homes of Alexander, Section II, Final Plat. This section is located adjacent to the Town Homes of Alexander, Phase I, and contains four lots.] MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Patty, on Alexander Drive, that area seems to developing pretty rapidly. I don't know who handles this, maybe it's Traffic Engineering or whatever, but those driveways coming out of there come straight into Alexander Drive. There are no deceleration lanes that I can remember, and that's going to be -- you're going to have some bad accidents on that road if some action is not taken. If you will pass that on to whoever. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Finance portion of the agenda, Items 3 through 12 were approved by Finance on September 29th. [Item 3: Motion to abate 1997 taxes on property consisting of 4.88 acres on Richmond Hill Road (132-2/186), which Richmond County bought from F&D Properties, Inc. on January 9, 1997, pursuant to order and final judgement in case of F&D Properties, Inc. v. Richmond County, dated December 27, 1996. Item 4: Motion to approve to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Pollock Company, at a cost of $19,441.00 per month for 36 months - total amount of contract $699,876.00. Item 5: Motion to approve to abate 1997 taxes on property of Zannie and Essie Middlebrooks located at 1235 Ninth Street and 912 Spruce Street in the amount of $429.86. Item 6: Motion to approve to consider counter-proposal from Jimmy L. Martin to acquire property identified as Tax Map 37-3, Parcel 107 (Augusta Commons Project) for $97,651.75. Item 7: Motion to approve waiver of 1997 property taxes on $1,984.02 for warehouse located at 602 Taylor Street leased by Augusta, Georgia. Item 8: Motion to approve a budgeted capital hardware lease at $6,411 for 36 months, a budgeted capital software lease at $4,131 for 60 months, and an increase of $73,119 to purchase Finance Purchasing, Human Resources and GIS hardware, software, training, data conversion and implementation. Item 9: Motion to approve contract with Imperial Theater in the amount of $300,000. Item 10: Motion to approve converting four (4) temporary positions into permanent positions; permanent positions to be effective as of January 1, 1998 and eliminate all temporary positions. No financial impact. Item 11: Motion to approve "Over-Cap" Billings totaling $104,229.41 for Inmate Medical Services due for First Contract Year. Item 12: Motion to approve the release of requisitions for equipment purchases for Universal Hiring Supplemental Grant (68 Deputy Grant) in the amount of $313,480.32.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we recommend this be taken as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let the voting note that I abstain on Item Number 5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1 [ITEM 5, MR. MAYS ABSTAINS]. MOTION CARRIES 10-0 [ALL ITEMS, EXCLUDING ITEM 5]. CLERK: Item 13 and 14 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on September 29th. [Item 13: Motion to approve Information Technology GIS Map and Digital Data Release Policy establishing guidelines for the release of map and digital information to private agencies, city departments, and the public. Item 14: Motion to approve amendment to Code regarding voting procedures for Historic Preservation Commission.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 13 and 14 be considered as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Engineering Services: Items 15 through 35 were approved by Engineering Services Committee on September 29th. [Item 15: Motion to approve Resolution to abandon Tatnall Street Tract II for development of Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. Item 16: Motion to approve waiver of penalties totaling $27,686.47 on NutraSweet water and sewer bills - credit penal-ties to next billings. Item 17: Motion to approve contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction, Inc., in the amount of $380,692.65 regarding the construction of water mains and appurtenances on Travis Street, Woodward Avenue, et al. Item 18: Motion to approve payment in the amount of $5,566.25 to W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc., regarding surveying and engineering services for Alexander Drive sanitary sewer extension. Item 19: Motion to approve condemnation of approximately 0.09 acres from Tax Map 354, Parcels 8.21 and 104, plus 0.002 acres from Tax Map 354, Parcel 8. Item 20: Motion to approve engineering contract with Parson Engineering Science, Inc. in the amount of $17,500 for Regional Aquifer Study. Item 21: Motion to enter into revocable license agreement with State Properties Commission regarding the acquisition of certain land owned by the State Hospital Authority at the intersection of State Highway 56 and Phinizy Road. Item 22: Motion to approve proposed Consent Order from Georgia Environmental Protection Division regarding Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 23: Motion to approve proposal from Freeman and Vaughn Engineering to perform engineering study at a cost of $5,200 related to Goshen Industrial Trunk Upgrade. Item 24: Motion to approve proposal from Freeman and Vaughn Engineering to provide engineering services related to clarifier and digester modifications at the WWTP at a cost of $38,300.00 Item 25: Motion to approve Change Order Number 3 for Paving Various Roads, Phase IV, Project Number 57-8708-096, with Blair Construction, Inc. in the amount of $13,504.23, which will come from Project contingencies. Item 26: Motion to approve the original route alignment of the Kimberly-Clark trunk sewer. Item 27: Motion to approve an exchange of easement areas with BellSouth Communications at the intersection of McCombs Road and Westbrook Road. Item 28: Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedi-cation and Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for Bertram Village Subdivision. Item 29: Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedi-cation and Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easement for Castlebrook Village Subdivision. Item 30: Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedi-cation and Maintenance Agreement for the sanitary sewer main with applicable easement for Hartley Gibbon's subdivision. Item 31: Motion to approve proposed 1998 LARP Program List. Item 32: Motion to approve the termination of lease of Big Farm Property and proceed with Phase II of Constructed Wetlands Project. Item 33: Motion to ratify license agreement between Augusta, Georgia and TDI, Inc. for use of water tower. Item 34: Motion to approve the recommended firms of The Augusta Design Group for Projects S-3 and S-5 Sewer Rehabili-tation-Rocky Creek and Butler Creek Contract and Jordan, Jones and Goulding for Project S-11 odor control, WWTP. Item 35: Motion to approve submittal of the Transporta-tion Enhancement Activity Grant Application for $450,000 to the Georgia Department of Transportation for Phase III of the Augusta Canal Bikeway project, subject to approval of final grant application by County Attorney and Administrator.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept the Engineering Services report as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we pull 26? MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to take Items 15 through 35, with the exception of Item 26. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. TODD: I so move that we approve Number 26. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I see, I guess, the Chairman of Industrial Development here, and I certainly would like to hear from Industrial Development Authority. Industrial development is important to this community. We've had some delays already on getting this project, you know, in place for potential development of the industrial park. I went along reluctantly in support with Mr. Bridges and Mr. Powell and their constituents' concerns on rerouting this and even spending almost -- I think it was somewhere around better than a quarter of a million dollars to go down 56 Highway because I felt, one, the payback was better as far as 56 Highway go with commercial development. But I haven't seen, you know, any real potential that we can do it down 56 with the state saying it's going to eighteen months before they can authorize it to go around their right-of-way, and hopefully we got some information back from Atlanta on a recent trip that some Commissioners made that would change my opinion here. But I think that the best that we can do is to make sure that our environmental engineer work with the property owners and the providers to assure that we don't have overflow and that we don't have a negative impact on the property owners or properties that's concerned. And the monies that we were going to spend on the alternative route, certainly we should be moving to invest some of the monies along those lines. And I'd like to hear from everybody else. MR. OSTEEN: Gentlemen, I'm Monty Osteen, I'm Chairman of the Development Authority of Richmond County. Mr. Mayor, I have a resolution here that was unanimously passed by the Richmond County Development Authority--I can give it to the Clerk or I can read it--in support of the original route for the sewer line. Should I read that or -- MAYOR SCONYERS: You can read it. MR. OSTEEN: Whereas the Authority is in the process of making building sites available for immediate use by its industrial prospects in the Augusta Corporate Park and have been informed that the Augusta Commission-Council is considering an alternate route for the extension of sanitary sewer line to the park, which alternate route would be located within the right-of-way of the proposed widening of Highway Number 56 by the Georgia Department of Transportation; and whereas the Authority in its negotiations with the Georgia Department of Transportation have been informed that the right-of-way acquisition and the commencement of construction on the Highway 56 project may not occur until 1999 at the earliest; and whereas the original route of the sanitary sewer line extension as proposed to the Augusta Commission-Council by its Department of Utility is the most economically feasible and expeditious route to be taken; and whereas the Authority is currently working with industrial prospects which require sanitary sewer services on or before September 1998; now, therefore, be it resolved that the officers of the Authority inform the Augusta Commission- Council of the Authority's immediate need for sanitary sewers to the Augusta Corporate Park and request that the Augusta Commission-Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition and construction of the sanitary sewer line extension over the original route as previously proposed and that the sewer project be let for bids without further delay. Adopted by unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Development Authority of Richmond County this 18th day of September 1997. And I have four copies of this, with a letter from our attorney. Let me just say, gentlemen, that until we have sewer to this property we do not have an industrial park to offer to an industrial prospect that requires large amounts of land. It's kind of like trying to sell a car to somebody and telling him that we want you to buy it, but you can't drive it for two years because it doesn't have a motor in it and we'll put it in there at some point in the future. Our job is to enhance the economic quality of life for this community and provide job opportunity for our citizens, and in doing so one of the main things we have to have is property available with full utilities to industrial prospects when they come calling. We don't know when that is. We can never project when that is. But I can tell you this: If somebody needs 100, 200, 300, 400 acres, they expect full utilities to it. And if there is a contingency there wherein we're talking about pushing this thing out beyond the year 2000, then as far as we're concerned we have no park to offer and we are not competitive for industry of that size. So I urge you to adopt the resolution. MR. BRIDGES: Do we have any prospective companies that have said they will be coming? MR. OSTEEN: We have a company that's looking at the site actually at this point in time. The real issue here, though, is whether we want to be in the industrial development business or whether we want to take ourselves out of the industrial development business for two or three years. And I don't think this community needs to be noncompetitive over the next two or three years, which we would be if we fail to get sewer to that property. You cannot, in the industrial development business, say if you come we'll put sewer. It's the other way around: We have sewer, we have property, we have utilities, we have real access, come to our town. And that's the way it has to be done. Contingencies based on political factors are the kiss of death. MR. TODD: I'd like to, you know, at least hear from Mr. Weidmeier on how we may work to, you know, relieve the environmental concerns of the property owners. I know it concerns overflow and the negative impact that it may have on property as far as manholes, et cetera. MR. WEIDMEIER: That's one concern that the residents have expressed is the possibility of sewer overflows. I think with good planning and good design on the front end we can put in sufficient construction that would preclude the possibility of overflow. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, two weeks ago I went to an economic development meeting in Rome, Georgia, and I think Mr. Bridges went last year, if I'm not mistaken. But one of the paramount things that they emphasized at that meeting is that if you're going to be in the industrial development business, that you've got to have the land and you've got to have available infrastructure at that property. We've had the land out there now going on about three years or four years, and we've been talking about extending sewer to that property. Haven't done it. And I think if we're going to be a viable community competing for the economic development assets, it could come to us. And if you look at places like LeGrange, Georgia, Gainsville, Georgia, Douglas, Georgia, not to mention Atlanta, we are so far behind it's scary. And if we're going to have growth in this community we need to have a viable industrial development park in this community. We've got the land, it was given to us. But I think it's time for us to go ahead and act and get something done and have something that the Development Authority can market and let's try to get some jobs in here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, one of the other concerns is that once we gain the easement, that individuals will have a right, other than a property owners, to go onto those properties and deer hunt or turkey hunt, et cetera. And I'd like to hear from Mr. Wall on that. MR. WALL: Absolutely not. The county would have access to it insofar as to construct it and to maintain it and go on to repair it, but it is not public property so that anybody could go onto the property for any reason that they want to. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, at the meeting that Mr. Kuhlke mentioned, the economic development meetings we're required to have as Commissioners, I did attend that last year. And I found one of the things that was really interesting in that meeting was the statement by those conducting it that economic development is not summed up in jobs and industry, that economic development has to do with quality of life and improving that qualify of life for the people of the community. And what we've got here is we've got a situation where we've got some property, we've got some property owners that we tend to view as being in our way for development, industrial development, smoke stack development, whatever you want to call it, and that in order to get there the quickest way we're going to go through their property even though they don't want that. We are trampling on private property rights here. I mean, in my view that's where we're headed. If we truly viewed economic development as qualify of life, well, these people have a legitimate complaint here. This is their property and basically we're taking it from them and using it for our purposes. And I don't object to industry and I don't object to industry being a part of economic development, but when it becomes the essence of economic development itself, then we've got a problem there. I think we need to step back and look and see what our priorities are, who are we here to serve. You've all seen the memo in offices around town that a mess-up on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Well, basically that's what we're doing to these property owners. We'd lag around here for four years or whatever and haven't developed this property maybe as we need to, so now it's come to push or shove and we're going to shove and we're going to shove some property owners, and that's just not right. How do you know when you get some land who's going to -- what portion of the government's going to come along later and try and utilize it for their purposes after you've made your investment, after you've built it, after you've worked it. There's a basic concept here that I think we're missing. And also I think we're missing is if we run that sewerage line through the private property, then there is no return on the investment Mr. Todd mentioned. There's a quarter of a million dollars additional if we take it up 56, that's true, but we get that money back in tap-ins and tie-ons and commercial development along that route. We get nothing back if we take it through this private property, through this swamp. There is no return there, it's money out. So, practically, the 56 route makes the most sense. You get your money back, you encourage commercial development. You're going to have to put it along there at some point anyway, so basically what we'll be doing is -- if we do it down the private property and do it down 56 we've duplicated our services. There needs to be some additional thought process and additional planning here. And in that regard I'd like to offer a substitute motion, and that is that if we have an industry that says you put the sewerage there and I'll come here -- if we have somebody that wants to come here, then we'll do it the quickest route possible, even including the private property route. But if we don't have any industry that's saying that, then I move that we continue pursuing the Highway 56, working with the state and working with our legislators to speed that process up and see what we can do there. And I make that in the form of a motion. MR. POWELL: Second. Mr. Chairman, I think that if we'll go along with Mr. Bridges's motion and give us a little more time on this situation, it's something that we can resolve and it's something that we can resolve quickly. Sometimes we're hasty to make decisions that are affecting our citizens and also our pocketbooks. Keep in mind we're dealing with proposed and prospects. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I've been on the board approxi-mately five years and I've seen Horizon One, Horizon Two, and I guess Horizon Three go in in Columbia County; I've seen industrial parks go in in Aiken County all over the place; and we complain about why we don't have industry or why we can't grow jobs. We've spent money with the Chamber of Commerce to grow 10,000 jobs, you know, by year 2000 or 2002 and we turn around and tie their hands by not giving them the sewer that they need. Why did we spend money on the gas line out there a year and a half/two years ago if we wasn't going to put the wastewater there now? Why did we spend the time and the effort to do something about the water by developing the well out there? I think that certainly we need to look at the interest of property owners and property rights. I know the courts will do that. You know, over the years I've participated in seminars in the west: Denver, you know, et cetera, Nevada, and I understand the property right concerns. I'm a member of the National Association of County Officers, Environmental Land Use, you know, et cetera, where we're dealing with property rights and property rights issues. I think that this is something that we can mitigate and work out for property owners as far as assuring that we're not going to have overflow and assuring that they're going to have some input and some say into the architect of the line that's going across their properties and we're not going to have big ugly manholes and things like that that's going to obstruct or have a negative impact on their property. One of the gentlemen that was interviewed had a problem with it going either/or, down 56 or through the back of his property. I certainly have a problem with it not going either. I think that we've got to do one or the other and time is the essence. We can't wait another six months, eighteen months, or one month to make a decision and move on. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Bridges. All in favor of Mr. Bridges's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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 8-2. CLERK: Item 36: Motion to approve Program Manager for Bond Issue Projects. No recommendation from Engineering Services. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Lockwood Greene. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer a substitute motion for CH2MHill. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just thought it would be appropriate and it would help me if we got representatives from both of these firms that might tell us a little bit about their background as far as municipal -- whatever you call it, Tom. I don't want to make a decision personally without knowing who we're talking about. MR. CORLETTO: Board of Commissioners, my name is Pat Corletto, I'm the Regional Director for Project Development for CH2MHill. I appreciate the question that Mr. Kuhlke has posed. My firm is recognized as the largest environmental municipal consulting firm in the United States of America. We've been in Georgia thirty years. We provide program and construction management services to more than a hundred clients throughout the U.S. Gwinnett County, Rockdale County, Cobb County, we are currently their program managers for an identical program of projects that you have in front of you right now. We do a billion dollars in revenue a year. We have seven thousand employees, we have three hundred in the state of Georgia. We are well qualified to support this project. I've been working with your staff and some other folks for about a year trying to look at how we could add value, and I would entertain any questions that y'all might have. MR. ZETTERBERG: Do you have a local presence here in Augusta? MR. CORLETTO: No, sir, no local presence. The closest office that we have, our field offices where we operate facilities, two in the state, we offer facilities in Washington County. Our headquarters is in Atlanta. What we've advocated for this project to keep costs down is to marry our staff with the existing staff of Mr. Hicks. That way you'd have staff integration, would be using existing facilities and transferring technology to your staff, so it would be a learning experience, and that way we'd keep costs down. MR. BRIDGES: As far as a ranking with other, I guess, environmental companies, where do you rank and how is the rank determined? MR. CORLETTO: The Bible of our industry is the Engineering News Record, and we're ranked number one, and it's based on the dollar volume of sales in the municipal market-place that we serve. So we are the number one ranked, and I have provided information to staff during our presentation to validate that information. MR. BRIDGES: That's based on dollars that, you know, you receive? MR. CORLETTO: Serving clients, yes. MR. BRIDGES: But what about as far as -- I don't know, as far as professional standards or whatever, is there any ranking there that's involved? MR. CORLETTO: They don't really have a ranking -- I know where you're trying to go with this, but I think the valida-tion is we serve so many clients throughout the U.S., that's why our dollar volume is where it is. And, again, these are municipal clients; these are not clients that are outside [inaudible]. You've got very strict standards here, y'all. The Clean Water Act has changed, it's getting more complex, you've got Safe Drinking Water Act statutes, and this is what we excel in. And we serve on all the policy committees at the national level, so, I mean, I think that goes to the heart of the matter is we help write policy at the federal level that transfers down to y'all. MR. ZETTERBERG: It says the interview team recommend utilizing the services of the local firm, Lockwood Greene. Is there a basis for that other than they were local or? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Hicks and Brenda Pelez can speak to that. There was a committee set up to interview -- there were three firms initially. The interview committee consisted of Max Hicks, Tom Weidmeier, Brenda Pelez, Walter Hornsby, and two junior engineers from the Utilities Department. They interviewed the three firms. They felt that both Lockwood Greene and CH2MHill were eminently qualified to do the work, and they gave the nod to the firm with a local office, but any details more than that they would have to provide you because I did not participate in those interviews. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from either Max or Tom. What I want to be sure of is that from a qualifica-tions standpoint in this particular field, do you consider both firms having identical qualifications to provide the services that you need? MR. HICKS: I'd be hard pressed to say they had identical qualifications. CH2MHill is probably the premier firm, but they don't have a local office. Lockwood Greene would be a sufficient firm. They could do the job. They're not ranked as high, but they do have a local office, and that was the basis of the original thought. MR. KUHLKE: I have heard this, and tell me if I'm correct, that Lockwood Greene's primary expertise is in industrial waste and not municipal waste? MR. HICKS: Lockwood Greene primarily is industrial and commercial oriented, however, they do have some municipal work that they do. They have done a number of firms or municipal-ities in the country, but primarily out of their local office it really is industrial and commercial. But they do have some municipal clients. Again, CH2MHill has a lot more. The main thing with Lockwood Greene was they were local. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Hicks, when you talk about rankings, are we talking one compared to number one fifty or we talking one compared to number five or six or? MR. HICKS: Insofar as municipal environmental work, I don't know where Lockwood Greene is ranked there. CH2MHill was indeed number one. But in regard to program management such as we're looking for, in that particular area CH2MHill was ranked sixth and Lockwood Greene was ranked thirty-seven. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Out of how many? MR. HICKS: A hundred. MR. J. BRIGHAM: In other words, we're dealing with two of the top firms in the top half of the nation? MR. HICKS: We are. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Hicks, as far as the six and the thirty-seven, CH2MHill, that's the fellow that just spoke, is the number six? MR. HICKS: They're the number six, yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess, you know, there's a couple of concerns as far as I go. One is, you know, is there going to be an additional cost by having a firm that don't have a local presence, you know, as far as building go. I'm comfortable with either as far as the qualifications to do the work. And I know we can't make a decision based solely on a local appearance or, you know, that at least they have a lease or they are renting on Broad Street and they have, you know, some ninety individuals that are working off Broad Street, which probably most of them is working on another project. But if it's going to impact as far as the cost go, then I certainly think that we could use that in making a decision. And the other question I guess I have, is this a move towards privatization? I know the first time that was introduced, you know, there was privatization talk. MR. HICKS: One of the divisions or one of the companies, I guess, maybe they're wholly owned or whatever--Pat might can speak to that--is OMI. That is a privatization firm. CH2MHill is in and of itself an engineering firm. So, no, there is no privatization intended here. It's just that for these projects, the dollar values, the complexity, we felt like we needed assistance. And the best we could get it, instead of trying to hire additional staff, was to bring on board some engineers and administrators that could help supplement our staff. But there's no privatization. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you read the motions, Ms. Bonner, please. CLERK: The substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges, was to award the program manager to CHMM Hill. The main motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Jerry Brigham, was to award that to Lockwood Greene. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to vote on the substitute motion made by Mr. Handy first. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 37 through 39 were approved by the Public Safety Committee on September 29th. [Item 37: Motion to approve changing four Employee Request card position titles from Records Bureau Clerk to Secretary I and changing two Employee Request card position titles from Jailer II to Secretary I. Item 38: Motion to authorize three (3) new Central Services positions at the Phinizy Road Detention Facility at a cost of $11,792 in 1997 and $70,749 in 1998. Item 39: Motion to approve bid award to the consulting firm of Mowles & Associates at a cost of $24,500 to conduct the promotional examination and evaluation for the Fire Department officer promotions.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would like to move, Mr. Mayor, that these be voted on as a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 40 through 52, with the exception of Item 44, were approved by Public Services Committee on September 29th. [Item 40: Motion to approve new application request by Katherine Rose Neal for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with U.B.'s Restaurant located at 1944 Walton Way. District 2, Super District 9. Item 41: Motion to approve new application request by James H. Long for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Tyme Piecez Lounge located at 730 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1, Super District 9. Item 42: Motion to approve new ownership request by Kwi Chol. Han for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with C.K. Food Store located at 2852 Deans Bridge Road. District 2, Super District 9. Item 43: Motion to approve new ownership request by Sang Hyon Pak for a retail package beer & wine license in connection with Ethan Stores, Inc. located at 2940 Inwood Drive. District 4, Super District 9. Item 44: Deleted from agenda. Item 45: Motion to approve the "VOLUNTEER AUGUSTA!" Initiative. Item 46: Motion to authorize bid and purchase of one (1) each 130 CFM air compressor, estimated cost $11,000.00. Item 47: Motion to authorize bid and purchase of one (1) each enclosed cab agricultural tractor at a cost of $40,000 for grass cutting at Bush Field Airport. Item 48: Motion to ratify acceptance of Grant Offer for AIP Project No. 3-13-0011-17 at Bush Field Airport in the amount of $1,100,320.00 with Hold Harmless Agreement. Item 49: Motion to ratify Beam Paving Contract for Airport Project No. 3-13-0011-17 at Bush Field Airport in the amount of $407,367.60. Item 50: Motion to ratify APAC Contract for Airport Entrance Road Widening and Short-term Parking Lot Construction in the amount of $1,143,233.78. Item 51: Motion to ratify Resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Department of Transportation, United States of America, for a grant for public transportation assistance under Title 49, U.S.C. Section 5311. Item 52: Motion to approve the requisition to procure one (1) each Quick Response Fire Truck at an estimated cost of $50,000 by Bush Field Airport.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, those items were approved in Public Service Committee, and I make a motion that we accept them as a consent agenda, and that Mr. Walker's staff check on the alcohol license to see if there are any objectors to those, and that they show that -- they be voted on for the record separately but be approved within a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 53: Motion to approve Internal Auditor Work Plan. MR. OLIVER: The Commission previously designated itself as the Internal Audit Committee. The Mayor and Commission asked that we go out and prepare an internal audit work plan. I have worked with Baird & Company to do that. Also attached to this--which I didn't mean for it to be attached, that was done in my absence--are some reports that they had been work-ing on for some period of time, and we will take and address those findings. What the internal audit work plan does is it expresses the things they are going to be doing and the time frame in which we expect those to be accomplished. We have prioritized those based on where we think the greatest exposure is for getting various items completed. MR. KUHLKE: Move approval. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. HANDY: Just one question. On the work plan, Randy, who prepared that? MR. OLIVER: The first broad list was prepared by myself. I had prepared that with Mr. Plowman when Mr. Plowman was the Internal Auditor, and then I gave that list to Baird & Company, and then Baird & Company expanded upon it, added their insight, and it's a collaborative effort. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 54: Motion to approve Amendment 73 Funding. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the funding as outlined in the memo and recommended by the Administrator -- only those items that are recommended by the Administrator. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. OLIVER: I think that, you know, some of those are fairly clear and some of them fall in the middle. MR. KUHLKE: The ones that I'm referring to -- I don't want somebody to think I'm tricking them; okay? I'm talking about the first item, the Futurity; Boshears Fly-In; CSRA Classic; the next page, Heritage Unity; National Barrel Racing or Barrel Association; and Sacred Heart. MR. TODD: And we're talking about at a max of seven thousand? MR. KUHLKE: Seventy-five hundred. MR. TODD: Okay. Because on the Sacred Heart there's fifteen thousand down there and I want to make sure that we're not violating our own policy on the seventy-five hundred. MR. OLIVER: Yes, no more than seventy-five hundred. MR. TODD: So are you amending your motion that a maximum of seven thousand five hundred? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. Part of this Amendment 73 says, too, that we won't fund anybody for any longer than a period of three years -- well, three years. Is this our first year in doing that since we made that resolution or is this actually the second year in doing that? MR. OLIVER: I believe, but I'll have to check, I think on some of these organizations it's the third year. In no case that I'm aware of does it go over the third year, though. MR. BRIDGES: I know we've funded them before, but what I'm saying, since we drew up the standards I'm thinking this is really the first year that it would apply. I guess I'm trying to -- I can't remember the timing of coming up with the standards. I think we had approved the list last year before we came up with the standards really, and that would make this the first year to count toward the three years. Am I right? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd prefer to have the minutes checked to confirm whether it's the first year or second year. I don't want to make a rule that it be retroactive, but by the same token I don't want to go on my recollection versus documents or minutes. MR. BRIDGES: As just a point of information, if we could have that checked to see. Because it's not going to hinder anything that we do here today. It'd be the second year at the most, so. MR. OLIVER: We will check that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we have the entities that we're funding this year reread? CLERK: The Augusta Futurity, $1,000; the Boshears Fly-In, $7,500; CSRA Classic, $7,500; Heritage Unity, $7,500; the National Barrel Race, $7,500; and Sacred Heart, $7,500. MR. MAYS: What I was going to ask -- and I think that's a good motion today because it gets us off first base from the standpoint of going ahead with some of these organizations that are having events and that do qualify and need to move on, and I'm going to vote for it. I notice at the end of the second page on that recommendation, what I wanted to ask Mr. Oliver or the maker of that motion, with the amount of excess that we've got in there -- I do know that whether either out of frustration or whether rules changed in the past, yes, organizations probably just quit asking for money, didn't come back anymore, some that have probably contacted maybe since they thought the Amendment 73 deadline was there. Did we have -- because it says here recommend any excess funding be returned to General Fund. Now, I have no problem with that, but could we possibly leave that in a contingency in Amendment 73 maybe for at least a period of thirty to forty-five days so that if you've got a qualified event or entity that could come out of there that has not maybe even applied that would be able to do that. Since our funding sources are limited in terms of helping some of these organizations, then that would still give us a funding source and we wouldn't have to reopen that or draw from General Fund in order to do that. Is that a possibility? MAYOR SCONYERS: Who are you asking the question? MR. MAYS: Well, Bill's got the motion on the floor. And I'm going to vote for the motion, but I'm just saying since the -- for the first time in our history we've had an excess. Normally it's been that we've had to cut folk off, but this time, with us having a surplus in there, where we may have an entity to do it. Example-wise, situation of where we have a good event involving football bringing in people from out of town, filling up hotel rooms, doing business with restaurants. Same situation on 100 Black Men Organization that actually deals with your high school basketball tournaments of bringing in kids from various states and communities and bringing in parents and supporters who actually do the same thing that you deal with in the Classic, but it's not necessarily an entity that's on here today, and probably maybe from the standpoint of not getting it before just didn't submit. But I had a call since this came in, but we actually kind of delayed this and did the cutoff probably maybe even a month ago. That's why I'm saying if you had a contingency, whether it was them or some other entity that would qualify, that would give them time for submission and be able to get them legally in. And, you know, if they qualified, then you would have a funding source to do it rather than immediately returning that source back to General Fund and then creating a controversy if you had a legitimate event, then you didn't have a source of funding in order to pull some of that money from. That's all I'm saying with it. MR. KUHLKE: I hear what my colleague is saying, but I think that we are very quickly approaching the time that we're going to have to start making some tough decisions on this Commission. Mr. Mays, my idea is to return these funds to the General Fund to offset some of the costs that we've got, and that's it. Amendment 73, my idea is this is all we're going to give. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion with Mr. Kuhlke's motion, with the exception that the excess not be placed in General Fund and that it go into a contingency to remain for the next forty-five days. MR. HANDY: I'll second that motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess that I started talking about doing away with Amendment 73 two or three years ago. I think that it's an amendment that at the time that it was passed, and I would assume that we're talking somewhere around 1973/74, gave a county government a methodology of granting money out to promote the county, economic development, agriculture, et cetera, in a community, which cities had by virtue of their charter and county governments did not have. We are a incorporated government now, and I think that Amendment 73 is obsolete. We need to do away with it. We're giving away too much money. You know, if these events and these concepts that folks come up with actually is wanted by the people and needed, the people will pay for it. And the average taxpayer don't expect their tax dollars to pay for or to subsidize some of these entities and organizations. I'm just going to for the record say that I'm going to vote against Amendment 73 period, and I think that all the money probably should go back to the General Fund until we get the budget under control. And when we get the budget under control and when we're assured that we're not going to have a tax increase -- you know, we had I guess a county employee make a statement to the local press that, you know, he don't understand how we're going to balance the budget if we don't increase taxes. Well, I'll tell you, this is one way to do it is to put a freeze on Amendment 73, balance the budget, and if the money is there, then possibly look at doing something. And I'm going to shut up and listen and vote in the negative when it come up. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that we wouldn't penalize entities that are being successful in doing some things, and I realize that's maybe in some cases a drop in the bucket of what some of these do. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Todd, that that was a way in terms of when this was originated in order to get some things done. But at the same time, if there is a legitimate money item -- and I'm only talking about this year and I'm only talking about for the next six weeks. Some of the entities that are being brought into this community, you're right, people support them. And some of them have never received any funding and some, at the same time, I think -- and this is one of the things about making decisions without knowing all the folk involved that do reap the benefit. And businesses in this community, you know, whether they sleep and house folk, whether they sell food items, whether service stations sell gasoline, transport -- I only brought that entity up as one example of where that type of situation goes on. We have others that bring groups into this community. And I think the three-year statute is very good. It gives them a chance to get off the ground. But I think while you've got that source in it, I think that this at least gives them the time that if you got one or two out there that can qualify in it, I don't think that that's going to break the world and turn this whole government upside down. And I would hope like hell that we aren't $38,000 from total financial collapse and the excess is going to be Amendment 73. If we do, then we got a real problem and we ought not fund a whole lot of things that we got going on, and they certainly could start better than the ones we're doing out of Amendment 73. And we could get a cancellation list and we can take a lunch, Mr. Mayor, and we can go down a bunch of them, and we can keep some that go into five and six figures of money, then we'll have a lot left over. MR. BEARD: I'm going to vote in favor of Mr. Mays's motion, and I think I had raised my hand because I had similar thoughts. The excess money, I think, should be set aside. I don't agree with forty-five days, I think it should be longer, because I have experienced over the last year a couple of entities coming to this body asking for emergency funds. It wasn't that much, but we were able to help a basketball team go somewhere, a Girl Scout team go somewhere, and I think from time to time we need this. And we're not talking about a whole lot of money here, and I think that since it is a method that we could use for that type of thing -- and I know all that has been said about the budget and all of that, and I concur with all of that, and we are going to be in a tight situation, but there are certain things that you have to do, and some of this is -- I think this is a method where we could do those things, and I'm in total agreement with that, but I just think it should be for a little longer period than that. MR. MAYS: Forty-five isn't written in stone on my motion. I'm acceptable to an amendment. MR. POWELL: What is the purpose of the Amendment 73? MR. WALL: Promote the county. MR. POWELL: To promote the county. That's all? MR. WALL: Well, I mean, I don't have the exact language in front of me. MR. OLIVER: [Reads] The governing authority of Richmond County is authorized and permitted to appropriate property, monies, and services, any or all, so as to advertise and promote the agricultural, industrial, historic, recreational, and natural resources, facilities, and assets of Richmond County and environs to promote and encourage the location and expansion of industrial and commercial facilities herein, and to attract tourist and conventions hereto, making such appropriation directly for such purpose through such agencies, public or private, as it may designate, but condition that such appropriation shall not exceed $75,000 during any one calendar year. MR. POWELL: Okay. Now the second part of it. Every year I sit down here and we go over this same little list of Amendment 73 monies. We got the same people coming up here every time. Every time. We've got entities that's been up here -- I've been here four years, or three years, and every year it's the same people. Why don't we as a Commission sit down and say, look, we're going to fund you for three years and then we're going to go over here and we're going to help a new entity and try to get something else going in this town. You're going to be progressive, you're going to be regressive, or you're going to be stagnant, and we're stagnant with this Amendment 73. If you want to be progressive, let's have a cutoff time and pick up some new entities and help some new organizations come in. It's all about growing, it's not about sitting here and just going back and doing the same thing over and over and over again. MR. HANDY: I just want to make a statement concerning Mr. Mays's motion. The reason why I accepted it is because we -- you know, I know you're aware, we have spoken about it. We're trying to get the National Clown Association here, and this is coming out of Florida, and that's about four hundred clowns plus their family members. Now, you might say you got the luckiest clown sitting up here [inaudible]. You got ten clowns here, one kiss of death. But I don't want that money to be going back in, and I agree with Mr. Mays that -- if that $38,000 is going to help this budget, then I'll be willing to give up my $20,000 to go back in the county, because I know $38,000 is just -- it's nothing to even talk about. I mean, we walk out that door we'll spend $38,000, so putting $38,000 back in the budget ain't going to help this deal. Now, if we can put some millions back in the budget, then we'll be all right. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to know is there a deadline in that these different groups can apply for this? Has a deadline passed? MR. OLIVER: What the Commission had previously instructed us to do, and I -- I don't know if Ms. Bonner is good enough to remember the exact dates. You asked us to run an advertisement, or Ms. Bonner to run an advertisement in the newspaper. That was run, I believe, on two occasions in the three publications in the area, and based on that advertise-ment -- let's see. She's good. It was run in the Chronicle on the 15th and the 17th, in the Spirit on the 14th, in the Courier on the 14th, and in the Focus on the 14th of August, and it gave them until August the 20th to apply for these particular funds. MR. BRIDGES: My interpretation of that would be then really they -- you know, if the application is not made, the deadline is passed. In essence, we placed a deadline and it's passed, and the money should go back into the General Fund as I see it. MR. MAYS: I just want to reemphasize the only reason I put that in there is because this is probably the first year that this particular block of monies has not been totally used up with folk being, say, left off the so- called list. And whether we want to admit it or not, there have been entities that -- probably some of them that are funded that, quite frankly, out of frustration got tired of applying because maybe they fell off the political process ladder and it didn't get funded. So if you do that three to four different years out of government, then I guess some folks put it in, well, why waste the time, you know, to go back and do it again. They look at who has applied, they look at the numbers, they know you don't have but a certain amount of money and say, well, I'm not going to get anything anyway. And my thing was that if you got some that are bringing events -- and, I mean, we talk about what we bring in or don't bring in to our own Civic Center and all the controversy that's been there. But when I see groups such as Nike going to North Augusta, when I see -- and Clint Bryant is one of my best friends, but when you look at Augusta College getting in to attract some of the high school events we've got -- and I've said to this Commission over and over, we're the only major city -- and this maybe is not this particular board's fault, maybe it's another governmental entity's fault that needs to deal with it. But when we're the only major city that has not hosted any round of Georgia High School Association basketball tournament and yet we've had the most successful high school basketball teams in the state of Georgia, girls and boys, of any regional in the last five years, that's money that hits that road. Those are buses, that's gas, that's hotel money, that's food, that's entertainment, and you got adults coming in. And what I'm saying is those are the type of factors that you have for some people that, quite frankly, I know that have not submitted in that process that probably would qualify, and that was the only reason for wanting to leave that window of opportunity open for a short length of time. I would think probably technically it would expire -- you would have to put a dateline because, Jim, wouldn't that hit into a calendar year of these funds automatically? So that if you left it open for a certain period of time, they didn't apply, nobody came for it, it would automatically go back, so I don't really see what the hassle is about. MR. WALL: Well, yes. I mean, if the money is not committed by December 31, then it automatically would be part of the General Fund, roll back in. MR. MAYS: Then I'll back off the time amendment and just let it, you know, be dead on arrival at the end of the year if nobody does anything with it. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mays, I'm going to agree because a lot of us are going to be dead on arrival December the 31st. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Mays. Do you think we ought to read the motion, gentlemen, or are y'all -- why don't you go ahead and read it, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Mays was to approve the funding for the Futurity, the Boshears Fly-In, the CSRA Classic, the Heritage, the Barrel Races, Sacred Heart, and that the excess funds not be placed in the General Fund but the monies be placed in a contingency for forty-five days or until December 31st. MR. MAYS: Until the calendar year runs out, you know, legitimate entities that can come in within that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS. [VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS. [VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MR. BRIDGES: Let's do a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: On the substitute motion by Mr. Mays. Do you need the motion -- are we okay with the motion? MR. HANDY: Yeah, we're fine with the motion. [ROLL CALL VOTE: MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE YES. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. POWELL, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.] MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke's motion, the original motion. [ROLL CALL VOTE: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE YES. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO.] MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: No action. Let's move on. CLERK: Item 55: Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held September 16, 1997. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 56: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond Code 6-2-52 defining "eating establishment" for purposes of sale of alcoholic beverages. Approved by the Commission on September 16th, second reading. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we vote in the negative and not pass the ordinance. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we approve the ordinance. This is about underage drink-ing and about people claiming to be a restaurant when in fact they are a lounge. This is not about Sunday sales. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. MAYS: Maybe Mr. Wall needs to comment on 56 where that no one gets the opinion that you got some folk here that want to deal with supporting underage drinking in any cause. But I think what the language of the law that's transcribed in the last couple of weeks about eating establishments, Sunday sales, the whole nine yards, we started talking about changing ordinances. And the only thought I had over the last few weeks, and this is just one person's opinion, we've got some stuff on here today dealing with eating establishments and defining an eating establishment and we don't -- probably with the exception of Ulmer and Lee and Bill, you know, we might all define an eating establishment as somewhere you can just go and, you know, glut yourself to death. But in all seriousness, I think we need to maybe have some type of feedback. You've got a good neighborhood alliance, cluster of people, you're talking about in parts of what you're dealing with today, the language of these ordinances, feedback of protecting neighborhoods as well as from the people who are in business. And maybe there needs to be, Mr. Mayor, some type of subcommittee established with a combination of these folks, because there's a lot of stuff that's being thrown out right now about doing a lot of changing, period. If it's reaction-ary to one business here, another business there, and you're talking about changing ordinances, then I think you need some feedback from the people that are going to be affected. And on one side I think you've got a good established group with your neighborhood alliances that two to three people can be picked from; I think you also got business people, restaurant owners, that can produce and have those type of folk to come together, meet with folk whether it's from License and Inspections as well as with our Attorney, and then maybe try and come back with some reasonable language that we got to deal with this as opposed to maybe doing these, you know, one knee jerk at a time. And that's just my personal opinion on it, but it's been a lot to absorb over the last few weeks, and I think we're doing it somewhat in a reactionary fashion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, state law defines what's a eating establishment or who can serve alcohol beverages on Sunday. If we follow the state law when we are letting a license, then we're okay. We've had recommendations from the Sheriff's Department in reference, you know, what's qualified and what's not, and we've somewhat ignored those recommendations. We have a law that's on the book that's a state law that enabled the referendum that we passed here locally to do Sunday sales. I think that's enough. There is state law also -- I'm going to yield to the County Attorney, he had his hand up, but I think there's state law also on underage -- you know, folks that's selling to underage public. MR. WALL: I appreciate the opportunity to explain this. First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday sales. This has to do with whether or not a business can come in and get a restaurant license and then be open one day of the week because they classify themselves as being a restaur- ant and having a teen night and putting all alcohol behind --locked up. But you've got a bar six days a week, five days a the week, and then on Monday night they advertise for teen night. And by virtue of it not being a bar, but as opposed to that they go out to License and Inspection and buy a restaurant license, and they serve hamburgers and hot dogs and chips or taco chips, and they have a kitchen, they meet that definition, but they sell very little food, but they do have a restaurant license. And so then on Monday night or Wednesday night or Friday night or Sunday afternoon they have a teen club and a teen dance. And they lock up the alcohol, but that's the way they're skirting around the ordinance. What this does is saying if you're going to be an eating establishment, then you've got to have fifty percent of your sales in food, you've got to be a restaurant. Then if you want to be a -- take a restaurant and if they want to lock up their alcohol and they want to close it down and have a teen dance, then they can do so. But that's the problem and that's what's happening. Now, it has gone to the point in certain establishments where they're not even closing down -- I mean, basically a bar, you've got restrictions on who can come in there. And so what they're doing is saying we're not a bar, we're a restaurant, we're just like Friday's or somewhere else that is a restaurant that also serves drinks, and so then the teens come in there as well. They've been passing out arms bands so that it'll make it easier for them to distinguish the teenagers or the underage people from the ones who are, in fact, twenty-one years old and older. They're claiming to be a restaurant, they're a bar, but they go out and they buy a restaurant license, they sell very little food, and that's what this is designed to prohibit. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one question if I'm not out of order. Mr. Wall, how in the world is Mr. Turnage and Berry going to police this if we're letting people close up --they got a bar one day, the next day they ain't got a bar. There's no way in the world those gentlemen can police that. Why don't we abolish this practice altogether? If you got a bar, you got a bar. If you got a teen club, you got a teen club. MR. WALL: All right. But if you've got a restaurant, how do you prohibit teenagers from coming in there? MR. POWELL: Well, I understand that you can't do it with a restaurant. MR. WALL: And that's what this is designed to do. In order for them to come in there and get a restaurant license, they've got to have at least fifty percent of their sales being food sales, so that the bars -- if they want to call themselves a restaurant, then they've got to serve full meals and come in. We've tried it from the standpoint that -- you know, we've had arguments in the past about whether or not they had a full kitchen, served full meals, and those are the problems, and it's just continued to grow. There are more and more entities out there that are saying they're closing one day a week, the alcohol sales, they're having teenage dances, and they're saying we're a restaurant, we're not a bar, but the rest of the week it is clear they're a bar and they're serving potato chips. MR. POWELL: I agree, but I don't see any way in the world that those gentlemen can do their job. MR. WALL: Well, I think maybe they're here and maybe want to speak for this, but this was their suggestion about how to deal with this issue. Is Stoney here? MR. TURNAGE: You've basically covered it, Mr. Wall. MR. HANDY: I have a question, Jim. It may not meet the approval of everyone, but this is just like what we was talking about last week about the club on Central Avenue and about closing it up earlier or whatever for Sunday sales. But what I'm about to say now is that why can't Stoney and Mr. Berry over there police their own area? They know whether the food is there or not, how many is serving. I mean, why can't you bring people to court? See, what about those people that call theirselves a lounge? And you said a restaurant earlier, or a club. What about a lounge far as a restaurant? A lounge that have drinks, restaurant license that serve food also, how would that work? You know, the term is lounge, now, not a bar. MR. WALL: All right. Well, let's say lounge, it's the same thing. They're a lounge and they have a bar and they serve alcoholic beverages six days a week or five days a week, they don't have a Sunday license. They don't have a Sunday sales license, they don't apply for a Sunday sales license so that they don't have to meet this fifty percent criteria. So they go in and they serve Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. They have a bar, they have a dance floor possibly, and they -- it's an adult establishment. But they also have a restaurant license. There's no prohibition on a teenager going into a restaurant, so they can go in on Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday, et cetera, because it's also a restaurant. Monday night they lock up the alcohol, they have the dance floor, same bands, and they call themselves a restaurant, and there's no way to prohibit. What this is designed to do is say if you want to be a restaurant, then you've got to have fifty percent of your sales in food. Then if they are truly a restaurant, so that they've got tables, sit down, serve full meals, then you can go in there seven days a week -- or six days a week. Let's forget about Sunday sales because this has nothing to do with Sunday sales. Six days of the week they can go in, eat a meal, an adult that's there can order a drink. MR. HANDY: Do we know of a place here in Augusta that's doing that with their license? MR. WALL: We know of several places that are doing that. We know of other places that have requested it, and we have said that they cannot open up as a teen club because they are a bar. Others are doing it. There are, what, four? MR. TURNAGE: I know of two. MR. HANDY: Do I know those two? Is it in District Two? MR. TURNAGE: I don't know where District Two is. MR. WALL: One is on Wrightsboro Road; correct? One's on Washington Road. MR. HANDY: Well, that's Jerry and Zetterberg. Okay. MR. WALL: But there are others that are trying it. There's one out on Calhoun Expressway that is -- excuse me, Bobby Jones Expressway that wanted to do it, but honored a request from the Sheriff's Department that they not do it, but it's becoming more prevalent. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, would this prevent a lounge that wants to serve a meal from getting a food service permit? I think that's what Mr. Handy's original question was. MR. WALL: No, they could get the food service permit, but they would not be able to call themselves a restaurant so that they would go out to License and Inspection and pay some nominal amount to be a restaurant and then hold themselves out to be able to serve minors food because they're a restaurant while they truly are serving the adults as a lounge. MR. HANDY: Well, I've never seen that, Jim, that's why I asked that question. I know one came up and -- the old lounge right there on Deans Bridge Road. The man wanted -- we cut that one, we nipped that in the bud, we wouldn't give him his license, you know, it didn't pass the table and all. MR. WALL: It started out with it just being a teen night, and they went out and they purchased a restaurant license and they claim to be a restaurant just like Friday's, any of the places that serve full meals, Hooters, Pizza Hut, whatever, and they said they were a restaurant. Well, in truth, all they serve is chips and dip and hot dogs and stuff like that. But, I mean, they -- it was worth the investment to go back there and put in what is defined as a kitchen, but they really don't cook any food and they don't have any meals. There was one establishment, then another opened up out on Wrightsboro Road. A business out on Bobby Jones Expressway wanted to do it this summer. We met with them, had several conversations with them, they chose not to do it and honor the Sheriff's Department request. One establishment has gone to the point now, I'm told -- and I don't know this, but I'm told that they are actually issuing bandannas, that if you're an underage person going in there on Tuesday night - - [end of Tape 1] -- MR. MAYS: Just a couple of questions I wanted to ask before we vote. Your violations or complaints that you're getting -- and I'm asking this, now. Are they conducting any alcohol sales on that Monday night? MR. TURNAGE: Not that I'm aware of. MR. MAYS: Okay. The other question I want to know --and the only reason I'm asking these questions is I don't want to get us into an ordinance that comes back and not just bites us in the face, bites us in the backside, too, from the standpoint that are we changing in our definition of Augusta-Richmond County now what is a restaurant. Because we're getting over into Monday with this deal, and are we talking about places that don't have a Sunday sales license -- and I'm just playing devil's advocate now, Jim. But if they don't have a Sunday sales license, are we extending the definition in this town of a restaurant beyond what it is anywhere else in the state of Georgia? MR. WALL: No, we're not. MR. MAYS: Because you're talking about a building basically, and when you talk about the excess of fifty per-cent, that is where it comes in compliance, I thought, with what your Sunday sales law was. But if these are cases where there is no Sunday sales and you're shutting this down to do it, I just want to make sure that when you go after somebody, that you've got something that's going to hold up when you go after them and not leave something in there, you know, with a loophole in it to get it tied around our neck and then we're stuck with it. That's the only reason I'm asking that. MR. WALL: Columbia County has this same requirement, I'm told. Now, I haven't verified that, but my understanding is if you're a restaurant, if you want to serve drinks you've got to have at least fifty percent of your sales in food. And that's the same standard that we would be applying here. MR. MAYS: On any day? MR. WALL: Yes. I mean, the problem is, if you're a restaurant -- if I go out and buy a restaurant license and I got a lounge and I got chips over there and I'm serving drinks and got a band and got dancing going on and attracting primarily an adult crowd, and I've got a teenager who wants to come in there and says, well, this is a restaurant, it's just like the Pizza Hut that serves beer, you know, why can't I come in here? That's the problem. MR. MAYS: But are they buying both licenses? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, they're buying both licenses. They're buying a restaurant license and they're buying a beer license, and they're letting the teenagers come in there and saying we're no different from the Pizza Huts or the Fridays or whatever. MR. MAYS: We're selling them the whole ball of wax? MR. WALL: They've got a kitchen, they come in, they say we're a restaurant. And there's nothing to prohibit them from buying a restaurant license right now, and that's what this is designed to stop. MR. MAYS: My problem is it seems like we got a problem as a government: we want the money and we want the license fees, but we don't really know how to enforce what's in there. Now, if they're violating the age law of where you've got --if they've got a nightclub license -- I'm asking the question, are you saying to me if they've got a nightclub license, if they sell alcohol, and not a Sunday sales -- if they're in there and they are under age, it makes no difference whether they've got a bandanna on or a hoolahoop. If it's under the age limit, then you're under the age limit. You've got an enforceable law that you can deal with already, it would seem like to me, Jim. MR. WALL: No, sir. They claim they're a restaurant. They're serving food, they have a kitchen. MR. MAYS: What do we sell them, though? What they claim means nothing. What do we sell them? MR. WALL: We sell them a restaurant license and we sell them an alcohol license. They can be in a restaurant which has a bar and has dancing under the restaurant license. They can't be in a nightclub that does not have a restaurant license. MR. TODD: What's the definition of a nightclub? MR. WALL: Well, I mean, we don't sell a nightclub license, what we sell is an on premises consumption license. And if you've got an on premises consumption license as well as a restaurant license, then there's no difference -- I mean, a young person can go into a restaurant even though they serve alcohol. Now, if they truly serve meals they ought to be allowed to go in there, but if they're using that as a subter-fuge just so that they can attract people in there -- and that's what they're doing. MR. TODD: How many restaurants have a dance floor? MR. WALL: I'm not going to touch that one, I don't know. MR. KUHLKE: I think I'm totally confused, but let me see if I'm right on this. If they have the restaurant license where they can come in at any time, fifty percent of their sales has to be through the restaurant? MR. WALL: If they're going to have a restaurant license and serve alcohol. MR. KUHLKE: Now, that fifty percent sales is not every day, it's on an annual basis; am I right? MR. WALL: Right. MR. HANDY: Jim, as I'm listening to you -- like, for example, Red Lobster and T-Bonz. You know, sometimes my family and I go out to eat there. And I went in T-Bonz and I didn't even know -- I think this may have even been one Sunday we went to eat, and they were serving just as much liquor just like it was a regular day. But what you are saying is that you have people trying to be like -- you're not having a problem with T-Bonz and Red Lobster, these are new people just popping up out of nowhere trying to capitalize on the money far as teenager-wise. But whatever they're doing, are they selling to teenagers liquor and beer also? MR. WALL: No. MR. HANDY: So what are we trying to prevent? MR. WALL: Well, trying to prevent two things. Number one is that the decision -- the policy decision that you've got to make is do you want a place that is strictly a lounge or a bar or a nightclub, whatever you want to call it, who does not have Sunday sales, but they go out and buy a restaurant license and they set up a kitchen and they serve hot dogs and chips, do you want them to be able to lock the beer up, lock the liquor up, one night a week and do every-thing just like they normally do except serve alcohol? Have a dance floor, have a band -- I mean, give the kids the appearance that they're going to an adult establishment, but they're really not because the beer is not there. All right. Now, that's where it started, and we lived with that for a couple of years. Where the problem has really started surfacing is the fact that more and more people are wanting to do that, and there are people who are going out and buying a restaurant license and now they're taking the next step. Just like you're able to take your family to T-Bonz, Red Lobster, and they serve alcohol -- or your child could go there without you because it's not required. It's a restaurant, they can go there even though they serve alcohol because they have a restaurant license. All right. Would you want that child, your child or anybody's child, to have the same opportunity to go to a true lounge because in addition to having that on premises consumption license they also have a license to be a restaurant, and the only thing they serve is hot dogs and chips and had a dance floor and bartenders running around serving adults drinks and, hopefully, the teenagers Cokes. MR. HANDY: Okay. One answer to that, and I know it may not be the right answer: come up with another license. Then they won't qualify for the restaurant. Come up with one par-ticular license for a person that does not have Sunday sales, and then you have the Sunday sales, too, and then you can separate them that way. MR. WALL: Well, I guess my question is, what is it that you see -- any of you see this amendment changing that you don't want to see happen? Mr. Mays commented about seeing this as having a loophole or something that would come in and bite us, and I don't see it having that potential. And I guess my question is, you know, what is it that you think this ordinance may stop and prohibit that you would like to see continued to be allowed? MR. MAYS: Well, since you've directed it to me I'll answer it. I don't like to see us knee jerk on what I call emergency room type ordinances being written because you have one business to do it. I think you've had quite enough publi-city, Mr. Wall, over the last two to three weeks in dealing with the Sunday sales. Mine was merely only dealing with the temperament of what you were putting together. I asked a question of -- I said playing devil's advocate, and it was simply asking a question. It wasn't to allow, sir, anything illegal or immoral to be done. Sometimes government in its right and moral steps can take the wrong steps of putting something together that will not hold water. The only thing I wanted you to do, Jim, was basically put something together that was going to be strong enough and legal enough. And when I said loopholes in it, loopholes are already being done. If you didn't have loopholes primarily in what you had, then you wouldn't be sitting here asking the question about what you got whether some folk are wearing arm bands or bandannas or whatever. People, like animals, form defensive mechanisms to get around anything. And if you're not careful when you draw up something with all the good intentions of making something right, if somebody is slick enough and quick enough to be able to get you in court outside of Richmond County and then get something real dumb throwed back on us and then have a field day with us, and then we spend another year of legal money trying to fight it to get at one business. That's my only reason of doing it, it wasn't to condone anything. But I just think when we come up with these two to three minute bathroom ordinances that get us laughed at and then possibly on the verge of getting thrown out, that's what I want to see us, you know, get done. I mean, you know, we got to talk about what's being bad in there. Maybe the answer to dealing with a teen night might be, through our Public Services Committee, changing some of Recreation's hours and opening some businesses there on Saturday and Sunday nights where then we've got teens within our facilities and control. And they might not be looking then to deal with an adult establishment, then they've got something that you control or that our churches control and open for young people. So, I mean, there are avenues that you can deal with that. But I just don't want us drawing something, you know, quickly that you're going to get somebody to come back and find a way around it, and then end up penalizing folk who are running legitimate businesses, who are asking questions. And the reason why I said about the [inaudible], when you have businesses that see ordinances being voted on and they're in that type of business or industry and they know nothing about it even though it may be aimed at one bad apple, questions naturally are going to be asked, and they're asking the people who sit up here, not necessarily the people who sit down there inside that second team. They're going to call Commissioners and the Mayor and ask what are you doing because we don't know anything about it. And that was my reason for asking that, Jim, not to be derogatory or not to throw that off. MR. WALL: And I hope that you did not take offense to the questions that I was asking, but they are -- MR. MAYS: I don't. I can handle it. The kitchen don't get that big for me. MR. WALL: I think that there may be a perception that this ordinance is designed to do something other than what it was designed to do, and that's the reason I posed the question. I think the sentiment of the Commission is that if it is going to be a lounge or going to be a bar or going to be a nightclub, then that's what it ought to be and it shouldn't be a restaurant. And this is not a quick jerk, knee jerk reflex action, this dates back before consolidation. We've tried to come up with solutions. We have looked at various alternatives, and my understanding, again, is that this is what Columbia County does. When they started issuing ban-dannas and when it started becoming more and more prevalent, then it was time for us to take what we think is a workable solution, an enforceable solution. It's limited to those places that want to be both a restaurant and a lounge, and that's what it's designed to do. You know, it is not singling out any particular business or anything else, it's singling out a problem that's becoming more prevalent. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have the privilege to withdraw the original motion and let the substitute motion be the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: What is the substitute? CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve the ordinance. The main motion was to disapprove the motion to approve the ordinance. When I read the item, Mr. Todd made the motion to disapprove. MR. HANDY: Disapprove the ordinance to do what? CLERK: Defining it as an eating establishment -- to amending the ordinance defining eating establishment for the purpose of sale of alcoholic beverages. And then Mr. Jerry Brigham made the substitute motion that it be approved, the amendment to be approved, seconded by Mr. Bridges. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, I'm going to have to lock Mr. Todd in. He made the motion and I seconded. I'm not going to give it up, so just take them both. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, to the Parliamentarian or County Attorney, what is the procedure? MR. WALL: Once the motion is made and seconded, it belongs to the floor and it remains on there unless it's allowed to be withdrawn by consent. MR. HANDY: I appreciate that. I'm right this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Brigham, to approve Item 56 as is. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Item 57: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code 6-2-64(b) to amend the distance requirements for the purchase of alcoholic beverage license for certain establishments. This is the second reading. Approved by the Commission on September 16th. MR. WALL: Let me point out, the copy that's in your book has two hundred yards and at the last meeting you will recall that that was increased to three hundred yards, and so if you will make that note insofar as the agenda item is concerned. And what this does, it would establish a three hundred yard distance requirement measured front door to front door. Not property line to property line, but front door to front door from churches, school buildings, school grounds, et cetera. And this came up out of the committee -- all of these ordinances came through the committee and came as a result of -- well, came through the committees. But at one point it was suggested and proposed that they measure from property line to property line, and in the committee discussion that day it was suggested that, rather than doing that, increase the distance requirements. And there was some confusion on my part. I thought the instruction was two hundred yards and that's the reason I drafted it, but the committee's decision was that that should be three hundred yards, and so that's the recommendation from that committee. MR. BRIDGES: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: If this is in order, I think that we did this -- and I voted for it the first time and will probably vote for it again, but we do have some people here that have some problem with it and I'd like to give them an opportunity to express what their concerns are. MR. KOGER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Marty Koger, President of Koger Walters Oil Company. We operate six convenience stores in Richmond County that have alcohol licenses: four of those are closed at eleven or twelve o'clock at night, two of them are twenty-four hour locations, none of them sell on Sundays. We have been living for years and years and years by these two manuals that stipulated that we locate outside of a hundred yard radius from the churches, schools, recreation areas. These are things that we have complied with for years and years. We have not skirted any issues, we have not tried to operate on Sundays, sell after twelve o'clock at night; we have followed the law very, very well. We have a lot of business integrity. Changing this law or this ordinance to a distance of nine hundred feet from the door of a church to the door of an establishment, a convenience store -- basically this is exclusively for convenience stores and places of commerce on major arteries where churches love to locate because of the exposure, the access, visibility. Those are the same things that I go for. But by changing it from three hundred feet to nine hundred feet radius, you have changed the area that is affected from six and a half acres to fifty-eight and a half acres. That's a nine-fold increase in the amount of property that has been eliminated from opportunity for me to develop my territory. I have six locations in Richmond County. This ordinance would preclude me from being able to expand in numerous places. Numerous places. Also what it will do is create an anti-competitive environment. If a business is grandfathered in to an eighteen hundred foot diameter circle around a church, they will be guaranteed a monopoly for selling alcohol at that intersection from now on. That is wrong. I have made property investments -- not only me but a lot of my competition, but not only them but a lot of developers who own property, a lot of people who have inherited property, a lot of people who own property in growing areas that now I'm not going to be able to purchase. I'm no longer a part of the marketplace. It affects a lot of people, a lot of money. Today y'all approved without any discussion an alcohol license for a restaurant that is next door to Richmond Academy. No one was here to argue that point. You approved it with no discussion. And here I am complying with the law, doing every single thing that I can to do the best thing to maintain the privilege that it is to sell alcohol in this county, and you're changing the rules. You're changing the game plan, and all the properties and all the investments and all the plans have been thrown -- will be thrown up in the air, and I hope you will change your minds. Thank you. MR. TODD: I have a question for the gentleman. The one we approved that you allege is next door to Richmond Academy, and I don't doubt you there, did it meet the present distance requirement from a school? MR. KOGER: There are no distance requirements for restaurants. Another thing that this Commission does regularly is it approves for events. Y'all have approved significant monies today for Boshears, for -- I mean, I think these are great things: drag boat races, ski boat things at Lake Olmstead, and y'all give them the license to sell alcohol on Sundays a block away from my store. I'm closed, I don't sell beer on Sunday, but y'all regularly give them permission to sell beer -- in excess. I mean, a lot of people go to excess at these events. They don't do that at my stores. They have got to show ID's, they have got to be sober, and they take those packages home. They don't drink it in my store. And you're changing the rules, and I hope you will change your mind. MR. HANDY: Jim, I know every time we -- when a problem comes up we try to find an ordinance to give -- to change it to make it better. For example, when this one came up I know what brought it on. For the Central Avenue, I know what brought that on. Is there any way that we could have some input from the licensee and the committee before we start putting all this stuff together to come back up? I know you cannot put things together to satisfy everybody, but it looks like every time you put up something, somebody's shooting at you with holes in it, you know, then we waste all this time for nothing sometimes. So why can we come together and decide what we're going to do or the best thing to do before we put it on paper and try to get it passed? MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Handy, in all fairness, I think these things need to be debated. I mean, if a Commissioner has an idea of something that he thinks will solve a problem, whether it be in his district or some other district, then --I mean, that's the way Congress deals with issues, the way the General Assembly deals with an issue: draw up a bill, put it out there, see if the people support it, and get six votes. If it doesn't, it fails. You know, I think that sometimes you get the perception -- and I don't think it's there, but that Jim Wall is proposing this as a solution sometimes. And sometimes I am, but many times it's a recommendation coming from a Commissioner that they think that this will address a situation. And that's this situation. I mean, you know what precipitated it: there was a feeling that we were allowing alcohol sales too close to churches and was requested to make one change, which was to go from property line to property line, which was the old county method. When it got into the committee, through debate it was decided that there was a better way of doing it: rather than going from property line to property line, go along the route of travel, but extend that distance requirement to the three hundred yards. And I'm not sure that Mr. Koger -- I mean, I don't think that those are fair numbers to take a circumference, because -- I mean, you go out the front door to the sidewalk, to the roadway, down the roadway to the church or whatever, and then back down the sidewalk. I mean, that's not a true three hundred yard -- or nine hundred feet circumference, and it was going to vary from building to building depending on how far the church maybe sat off the street or how far the convenience store sat off the street. But this is another way of measuring it. There are some concerns because you are extend-ing the distance requirements, but, I mean, I think that the Commission needs to debate those type of issues. MR. HANDY: Well, I never thought you put anything together; my problem is Commissioners putting things together. I'm going to tell you just like it is: See, I don't want to have to come up here and waste my time and vote on them. Because one Commissioner on that end of the table might think of something that I don't think they might be right, I know it's not going to pass, but then go through all this talking about it, another Commissioner on this end go put something together, then -- if we hired you as the Attorney, then you should look at the things or get somebody to research it and look at it, and then present to us some things that might need to be changed. I mean, that's the way I see it, now, that may not be the right way. But we shouldn't have Commissioners here making these kind of decisions and get up here and waste an hour/hour and a half and then it don't even pass. And then that's just something to make that Commissioner, to my opinion now, feel that they know all the laws and they -- so that's bypassing you. So if they know all the laws, then we don't need you, that's what I'm saying. That's the way I feel out it. Thank you. MR. POWELL: I have a question for you, Mr. Wall. A lot of these stations, and I think Mr. Koger's station probably fits the same design as most of the stations, they don't have just one door on them, they have two doors. Now, who's going to go out and determine which one is the front door and which one is the back door? MR. WALL: Well, all I can say is that I copied the language from the state statute, so the General Assembly and the Legislative Council that drafted that language, I copied it directly from them. That's the way the state measures it and I guess in a question about which one is the door, I guess we'd ask the state. MR. POWELL: Well, in some cases I'm saying you're talking about thirty extra feet there, so -- or thirty less feet. It's just all in how you interpret it. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I initiated this and I think it's a good measure. When we consolidated, we basically approved all the titles that came before us just to get some-thing on the books. None of us had time to read it, it's several inches thick, and as we go through it slowly, I mean, I'm sure we're going to come up with other things we're going to want to change. This is one that I see I think needs to be changed. And, Mr. Koger, you're right, we do things that don't look exactly right and I'll work on them, you know, later. This is one that I feel like and I'm seeing the need to do here at this point. But basically what we've got now, we've got a route of travel and it's a hundred yards, only a hundred yards. And basically if I were a store sitting here and that wall was another store, and you have to follow the route of travel to the nearest sidewalk and then down it and into the next store -- you can actually have two buildings, one a church and one a store that sells alcohol, sitting next to each other depend-ing on the route of travel. And we've run into this problem several times. We ran into it with Curtis Baptist where the church was basically -- I mean, anybody go down there and look at that church and the man that wants the store there would think that that would be something a reasonable and prudent man would allow, but yet they were within the route of travel distance. And we ran into it out on Old Waynesboro Road, and we disapproved the one on Old Waynesboro because, I mean, you've got houses sitting right there around the store. And although homes are not included in this ordinance, maybe that's something we need to look at as well. But my understanding is that that hearing was held before the judge today, and the feeling that I get is that the judge is going to rule against us because of the distance require-ments. Yet any reasonable, prudent man who goes out there and looks at the store, looks at what's around it, and sees the proximity to the church there would say this is something that shouldn't be allowed. And what it boils down to is we simply don't have the distance requirements to make it something that would protect churches, schools, libraries, whatever, and this ordinance attempts to rectify that and I believe it does rectify that. If we don't pass it, we're going to continue --with the short distances that we have now, we're going to continue having judges throw out things that we know are not reasonable for neighborhoods and protection of the kids and from a visual and moral standpoint we know should not be allowed. We're going to continue to have them thrown out. So I think this ordinance is good. All the businesses that now have a license are grandfathered in so that we're not changing anything. We're primarily talking about the develop-ing areas that will be coming in the future. As far as protecting monopolies, I'm certainly not supportive of that. But I think the availability of any commodity always increases its consumption, and the less available that commodity is from somebody -- from my viewpoint, that's a good thing. Right now if I want to go get gas at basically any place in Richmond County, and I'm doing it at seven, eight, nine o'clock at night, then I have to fight off gamblers and people that are intoxicated to get in there to pay my gas bill. MR. HANDY: And dopeheads. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, dopeheads too, Freddie, thank you. That's an illegal drug. We're trying to restrict a legal drug here now, I think we should keep that in mind. So I hope that we will support this motion and pass this. I believe it's good for the community, I believe it's good -- not only just churches and schools, it's good for the community and the development of Richmond County in entirety. MR. TODD: First I guess I'd voice my support for any individual that have a good concept to present it to the Commission and to the County Attorney, and I believe that's the way that we have progress and we work out issues. I also want to speak in support of this ordinance in that I'm not convinced that a service station or a quick stop absolutely has to have alcohol sales in order to make their business plan work. I've heard the percentages of business that it is, but I note as I travel throughout the state or throughout several states in the southeast that you have some counties where you have no alcohol sales, you have some counties where it's only in a major supermarket, you have some counties that sell alcohol twenty- four hours a day, seven days a week if you go to the Florida end of it in some of those counties, and all those stores survive, and all of them doing business pay their employees and apparently make a profit or they wouldn't be in business. So I think that we need to protect the interest of the communities, churches, schools, recreation areas, and that this Commission have that discretion with the laws currently on the book, or if the Commission don't have the political will to use that discretion, then certainly I'm not against a rule on the book or additional law to assure that that happens. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: The ordinance as it stands today is a hundred yards; right? MR. WALL: A hundred yards for beer and wine, two hundred for liquor. MR. ZETTERBERG: Proposed is three hundred? MR. WALL: Correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: And the state is -- MR. WALL: Is a hundred and two hundred. A hundred for beer and wine, two hundred for liquor. So we're being more restrictive than what the state would allow. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Bridges's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. [MR. MAYS ABSENT] MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. CLERK: Item 58: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-1-3(c) to amend the regulatory fee for game rooms and arcades for (a) electronic machines displaying a video image, (b) amusement machines (coin operated) other than video machines, (c) music machines, and (d) billiard and pool tables. Second reading. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: This is not going to affect any museums or the Discovery Center, anything like that, is it? MR. WALL: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS ABSENT] CLERK: Item 59: Motion to consider rescinding the appointment of Sam Cruse to the Indigent Defense Committee. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I tried to communicate with every-one. I don't know whether the letter reached everyone or not. I was contacted last evening by Mr. Fleming who indicated --and apparently from a newspaper report had indicated last week that he wanted to appear before this body. Mr. Fleming was also appointed by the three County Commissions involved, and he indicated that he was going to be out of town and requested that this matter be postponed. And I indicated to him that I would recommend it because I think that in the sense of fairness, you know, he deserves to be heard. He would not be here representing Mr. Cruse, but he would be here presumably speaking at least on behalf of himself insofar as the Indigent Defense Committee, and I therefore request that you postpone this matter until the 21st and bring it back at that time and give him an opportunity to be heard at that time. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion to get it on the floor for discussion. Mr. Mayor, you know, I looked at this and, you know, I said what's wrong with this picture. We have a Indigent Defense Committee that's in defiance of state law as far as Sunshine go, in defiance of this government, and they've had plenty of time to come in here and explain themselves or invite members of this board over to their meetings to explain themselves, and they haven't done it. The reason that they haven't done it-- and I'm going to take a little risk here and hopefully I don't assault someone or get a traffic ticket or something--is that Judge Fleming is over the Indigent Defense. His brother John is, you know, one of the attorneys that's on Indigent Defense and is also doing business defending indigents. Mr. Goode, you know, do PI work, it's my understanding or it's alleged, and hold a office in -- or at least held a office in the past in Mr. Cruse's office. You know, I was asked by a colleague, well, why don't you call for a grand jury inquiry on this one? Well, the bottom line is the individuals that charges the grand jury is the same individuals that's saying that there's nothing wrong with what the Indigent Defense Committee is doing. Maybe we need to call on the State Indigent Defense Committee, whether that's the Georgia Supreme Court or whomever, to take a look at Richmond County's Indigent Defense Committee. I hope as we go through this process that we don't have to go before one of the local judges to decide on whether we are right or they're right. Hopefully we can get our good friend, the country judge, that come in and ruled against us on 911 to come here. I think certainly he would be fair. And those are my comments, and they are in support, I guess, of postponement to give everybody a fair opportunity to speak. I think they've had plenty of time to present their side, and they've done a very poor job of doing it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Give me a good reason that we should post-pone taking any action. What obligation do we have to anybody that's a member of that committee to postpone any action? Mr. Fleming is not in question here now, so I'm asking why -- give me a good reason before I make a substitute motion. MR. WALL: Okay. Mr. Cruse is chairman of that committee and has been the focal point of a lot of the criticism, parti-cularly in the press. However, the decision that was made to set up the account and to transfer and to give a raise to Mr. Cruse was a unanimous decision of six members of that committee -- I mean Mr. Goode. And it was signed by all six members. Mr. Fleming was one of the ones who made the deci-sion that Mr. Goode should get that money, was one of the ones who made the decision that the funds should be set up in that account; and, in essence, that is at least a part of the conduct on behalf of the chairman that y'all have been critical of, and I think that the committee members that participated in that decision ought to have the opportunity to come here and explain why they did what they did because they made the -- signed off on the motion. MR. KUHLKE: Well, why is it taking them so long to --until we took some action at our last meeting, why has it been so long for them to even want to talk to us? Why don't we get rid of all of them? MR. WALL: Well, we do not have the authority to get rid of all of them. We only appoint -- and I say we, the three counties involved, two of the three counties appoint two members to that. Now, they have a difficult time getting a quorum for their meetings. Two members are no longer in that position, so I think they're down essentially to four members. They tried to meet, I think, last Thursday night and didn't have a quorum. And so, in essence, it was last evening that they met and approved the agreement that we previously had approved, and it was apparently following that meeting or during that meeting that I received the call requesting this postponement. But, you know, we have been negotiating a settlement of that because, quite frankly, I think that agreement was better worked out between myself and Mr. Dunstan, is who I dealt with, than debate that issue with all the publicity that has surrounded it and try to iron that out in a public forum. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification. You said two of the members is no longer there. You mean they've done the right thing. MR. WALL: One was disqualified automatically by virtue of the fact that he was appointed to a judicial position and statute prohibits a judge from being on there. The other one was appointed to the Juvenile Court to defend cases there and deemed himself to have a conflict, and so therefore has resigned. So those two positions are unfilled at this point. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we ask for the immediate resignation of Mr. Cruse. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. WALL: Excuse me. You've already asked for that. We did that last time and got no response. MR. KUHLKE: Let's do it, that's what I'm asking. I don't want to reconsider. MR. OLIVER: You want to rescind the appointment then. MR. KUHLKE: Absolutely. MR. WALL: If the motion is to rescind the appointment, I think that it needs to state as grounds for that the fact that the money had been transferred prior to any notice being given to the Commission and the fact that they used some of that money to pay Mr. Cruse--I mean Mr. Goode, I'm sorry--Mr. Goode, and include that as grounds for the rescission; that had you known those facts, then you would not have appointed him at that time. MR. KUHLKE: I will include that wording in my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: It is. I have a question. Mr. Cruse was the chairman of the committee. He was appointed the chairman by whom? MR. WALL: He was elected chairman by the members themselves. MR. ZETTERBERG: And he was responsible, he was the man in charge? MR. WALL: Well, the statute does not give him any more authority than any other member. MR. ZETTERBERG: But he was in charge, he was responsible, he was the leader? MR. WALL: In the sense that whoever is elected chairman of any group is the figurehead of that group, but has no greater authority than any other member except as conveyed upon him by that group. MR. POWELL: I just have a couple of questions, Jim, just for clarification. Now, Mr. Cruse is the chairman of this committee. His raise was voted on by six members of that committee; is that correct -- I mean Mr. Goode's raise was voted on. I'm sorry. MR. WALL: As well as the other members of that office. I mean, it's not just Mr. Goode's raise, but all six signed off on it. MR. POWELL: Okay. So it was voted on, it went through the due process, but yet we hear in the media and some of my colleagues here have put it out in the media that he gave himself a raise. Is that the case or is that not the case? MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Goode did not give himself a raise. The committee voted to give a supplement, is the only way to characterize it, as well as other members of that office. MR. HANDY: Jim, two questions. We're not saying that we want him to resign from being chairman, because another body put him as chairman or elected him as chairman, but why can't we rescind our appointment? MR. WALL: That was his motion. MR. HANDY: That was his motion. Okay. And then another thing, what I really want to ask you about, why would we need John Fleming or anybody to come speak for Cruse? Cruse should be defending his own self. If all he done was right, then he ought to come here before us and defend himself, not somebody else come in. And I know this is a touchy situation. I know that. I know the players, I know who's involved, I know who's three strikes -- no, who's two strikes is on, and I know who's at the bat right now. I know all that. But, see, I'm talking from me to you as the Attorney. MR. WALL: Well, let me go back and address Mr. Zetterberg's question. And I know what point he's making, and it's well founded. But, I mean, let's go back to the old county commission, and you had a chairman of the county commission, either Mr. Sconyers or, prior to that, Mr. Mays. Y'all elected among yourselves as far as who would serve as chairman. Now, if something was done wrong, then was Mr. Sconyers when he was chairman or was Mr. Mays when he was chairman or was Mr. Henry Brigham when he was chairman, was he solely responsible for that if y'all voted to take that action? Now, that has become the focus of it. So to the extent that Mr. Fleming is one of the members who voted on it, who wants to come before you and say this is why we did what we did, then is he -- he is not there defending Mr. Cruse. I mean, in essence he's there defending himself and the Indigent Defense Committee that he's a member of. It has nothing to do with Mr. Cruse, you're right. You're right. MR. HANDY: Exactly right. That's what I'm saying, right. But Cruse -- MR. WALL: To that extent it does not have to do with Mr. Cruse, but it - - you know, he was the chairman and elected from among themselves. MR. HANDY: Right. And then that question you asked about when the Mayor was chairman: he may have been our chairman, and we all eight of us then had equal rights, but if anything went wrong, he was the one that signed the document and he was the one with the trouble. That's just like Cruse. Now, I don't have anything against Cruse. I probably wouldn't know him if he walked in the door right now, so that doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have anyone, I don't care if it's myself or any person that we as a body can appoint to a board, and then we got to listen to Columbia and Burke County tell us we can't take him off. Now, if we appoint him, we ought to be able to rescind that appointment. And then if they want him as chairman for their bunch, then he can still be chairman for them, but he won't be representing Augusta-Richmond County. That's what I'm saying. Why is it so hard? You know, I asked this question that night we were back there, and I got real mad and I know you got mad with me and we was mad with each other. That same night back in that room there, this same thing, I knew that that guy was not going to leave and we couldn't get rid of him. I knew it right there. But then you all, same as what I was speaking about earlier, making these laws, forcing me to do something that I didn't want to do, and now it still hasn't happened. It still hasn't happened, he still haven't left yet. Now, I don't have anything against Cruse. Everything they did with the bank account and all that could be perfectly legit, but just ethical parts of it look wrong. But he need to come and clear his own name if he hasn't done anything. I would feel better if he came and said himself versus sending Fleming up here or even Dunstan or anybody. Now, one final note. You dealt with Dunstan to put all this together, but now Fleming wants to straighten it out. That part I don't understand. Every day you came up you said you and Dunstan was speaking and you and Dunstan was putting this thing together to make it work. Okay, where is Dunstan now? Why couldn't he come up here and speak versus Fleming? MR. WALL: I can't answer that question. I spoke to both Mr. Dunstan and Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming is the one who wanted to come. And, you know, I guess in the legal profession we're taught about fair play or whatever and people ought to have an opportunity, and that's the reason that I indicated that I would recommend that it be postponed to give him that opportunity. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mine was in the form of a question. You might have answered it before. Who are our two appointees? MR. WALL: Mr. Cruse and Mr. Fleming. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So Mr. Fleming is one of our appointees, okay, and Mr. Cruse. And then the other two people are appointed from the legislature? MR. WALL: No, the Chief Superior Court Judge appoints two members and the Bar Association appoints to members -- the President of the Bar Association. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And you are President of the Bar Association? MR. WALL: No, I'm President-elect. Judge Neal Dickert is the President. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we'll have to wait till you get there to make your appointments. MR. WALL: Well, there's one appointment this year and one appointment next year. That's right. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, I see. We're getting a little closer now, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Excuse me, Mr. Brigham. That's what I wanted to come out before that would never come out. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yeah, I see what -- we're not trying to put you on the spot. Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question was partially answered by Mr. Brigham's question. Who was the individual who stone-walled the information from coming quickly on Mr. Oliver's request? Who was the individual who did that? MR. WALL: I can't answer that question because I've gotten mixed stories, and I honestly cannot answer the question. The request came in originally that they wanted --well, when we met with them, when Mr. Oliver and I met with the Indigent Defense Committee, they asked for certain information. I did not have that information, and -- MR. ZETTERBERG: They acted like lawyers. MR. WALL: Well, you're right. That's what they are. They're trained that way. MR. ZETTERBERG: They just flaunted this in front of our face, and what we're angry really at is the members -- since we already understand that we can't do anything about Columbia County appointments or Burke County's appointments or Judge Fleming's appointments or the head of the Bar appointments, what we could do is something about our appointments. And I personally am very unhappy over our appointees for voting for this when it was outside of their area of responsibility, and I'm very unhappy that the records did not come to us right away. So my feeling is that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Cruse ought to step down, and that's what this body ought to do because they are our appointees, and they are the ones who flaunted it in front of us. MR. WALL: Well, and I'm going to act like a lawyer, too, from this standpoint: Frankly, what we provided to them was not what they asked for, and when I realized that what we furnished them -- it was all we thought that they should be entitled to or should be interested in, but they had reasons for wanting the entire document, so I made the request that they get the entire document. That again was not furnished to them. And to be honest with you, and I don't know whether this is true or not, they still say that despite it being delivered to my office and my delivering it to them, that what they got is not the full document. Because they've been furnished portions by people who work for the county that didn't come from me that show them information that's different from what I furnished to them. So I don't know whether I've ever been furnished the entire study, to be honest with you, and so I can't -- MR. ZETTERBERG: The entire what? What are we talking about now? MR. WALL: Salary study. MR. TODD: Isn't there such thing as discovery? If they were telling you they had something that you didn't have, then, hell, they should have let you seen what they had to verify it. I think they are stonewalling. What's the problem as far as the press go on releasing information there? I think it's time to call for the question. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's all we asked for was them to simply bring their records to the Commission. That's all we asked them to do. We didn't ask them to review our salary study so they could compare to make sure -- to justify that they got what they wanted to get. We just asked them to bring -- simply bring your records to us, do it now, and they didn't. And I tell you what, this is somewhat symbolic, because those boards and commissions are appointed by this body. And my understanding is we are the highest elected body in this city and county, so therefore I want to make sure that if we ever ask anybody else to send something they do it post haste. MAYOR SCONYERS: You want to read the two motions on the floor, please? CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg, was to rescind the appointment, and the grounds being no prior notice to the Commission for the salary increase to Mr. Goode and the transfers of the money. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. CLERK: That was the substitute motion. The original motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to postpone. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd has requested a roll call vote. The substitute motion first. CLERK: This is for the substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd, to rescind the appointment. [ROLL CALL VOTE: MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE, MR. MAYS, MR. POWELL, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE YES.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. WALL: I do have a couple of items I need to take up in Legal, a personnel matter as well as a real estate matter. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, raise your hand. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING, 4:45 - 5:35 P.M.] MR. KUHLKE: Motion to add to the agenda: (1) Consider extending contract for sale of Olde Town Properties through December 31, 1997; and (2) Consider approval of medical retirement for A.B. McKie. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. [MR. TODD ABSENT] MR. KUHLKE: Motion to approve extending contract for sale of Olde Town Properties through December 31, 1997. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. TODD ABSENT] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Motion to approve medical retirement for A.B. McKie. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO. [MR. TODD ABSENT] MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have Amendment 73 reconsidered. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. TODD ABSENT] MR. BEARD: I move that we allow those funds to those individuals that have been circled by the Administrator and the excess funds be held over for forty-five days and then after that put into the General Fund. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. [MR. TODD ABSENT] MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. KUHLKE: Move we adjourn, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on October 7, 1997. ____________________ Clerk of Commission