Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS February 3, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, February 3, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. W. H. Mays, III, member of 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 CHRISTIE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: No, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Mays called in to say that he was attending a conference in Gwinnett County on behalf of Augusta-Richmond County, and Mr. Kuhlke is attending a funeral so he will be a little late today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. First item of business? CLERK: Introduction of selected "key" staff members. MR. OLIVER: At the last Commission meeting, Commissioner Handy specifically--and I know working through the committee system many of you get an opportunity to meet some of the key staff people that interface with your committee but not with the entire Commission, and I'm going to do one introduction and then Jack Murphy is going to do three in his department. The first one, I think most of you know this gentleman, is Clifford Rushton. Clifford is the Director of Information Technology. He has been here not quite a year. Prior to coming to Augusta-Richmond County he was with Federal Paper Board for 18 years as their information sources director. He has 24 years in information technology experience; he has a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of South Carolina. Some of the things that he's done so far since he has been here is he bid the telephone contract which resulted in a savings to Augusta-Richmond County of $208,000 a year. We have purchased finance accounting software, and the finance and purchasing components of it will be up August the 1st and the payroll/human resources piece will be up 1/1/99. That will permit us to do purchasing electronically and eliminate a lot of paperwork currently pushing around. We have also identified and will be implementing a utilities software package during the summer of '98. He's also working with the Tax Assessor and the Sheriff's Department to identify software that will meet their needs, and I know in the Tax Assessor's Office they're very close to making a recommendation on that. He's also proceeding to bid the cellular phones, and we expect those bids to be back in a month and probably be before you in about 45 days. With that, I would like to introduce Clifford. MR. MURPHY: I would like to introduce three young men who have been just absolutely a tremendous addition to the Public Works and Engineering Department. The first one is Jim Huffstetler, who is our Traffic Engineer. He's a native Augustan who is a graduate of Georgia Southern University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Technology. His previous experience includes working for Post, Buckley, Shoe and Jernigan who did a lot of work for the Georgia Department of Transporta-tion. He worked under a fellow that I knew years ago named Joe Thomas who I consider to be one of the best experts in traffic signal and timing. And he comes with a lot of goals. He wrote me down some goals, and I notice one he didn't put on here, he didn't say anything about getting railroads out of downtown. Stand up, Jim. The next fellow is Dr. Hameed Malik, who is our new Environmental Engineer. He is a registered professional engineer. And if I missed that, Jim, on you, you are also a registered professional engineer and we're real proud of that. Dr. Malik has a Master of Science degree from the University of Pakistan. He does also have his Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii. He has published ten research papers and six research abstracts. And, of course, he's a registered professional engineer and he handles all of our environmental engineering work. Stand up, Doctor. I call him Doctor. Our next fellow who has added tremendously to our new section under Public Works, he's the Assistant Director of Facilities Maintenance and Construction, Rick Acree is a registered architect in North Carolina. He holds a Bachelor of Environmental Design and Architecture out of NC State. This particular section that he has now has never been, to my knowledge--it was fragmented in Richmond County, and it's all together now and it's under Rick Acree and he's doing a tremendous job. I'll tell you the truth, I don't know how in the world we've done without these three people. Rick, stand up. The only bad thing about these people is none of them came out of Georgia Tech. CLERK: Delegation: Mr. Paul Simon regarding the Proposed Riverfront Hotel and Convention Center. MR. SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, County Commissioners. For the last several months I've been before you asking for funds through the hotel/motel tax for the benefit of several organizations in town, but today I'd like to present a proposal to the city that will bring you a stream of income back to the city rather than asking for funds going out the other way. I know you have this in your packet, but if each of you will have an open mind until I have an opportunity to explain the details of this plan because it is very complicated. I'd also like to ask the media to pay close attention because as you report on this matter you need to understand the details of how it works in order to give an accurate reporting. If I could ask each of you to open your book to the pages that I'm going to go through, I think it would be helpful as I explain the plan. In the letter I tell you that the partnership, that is, Augusta Riverfront Limited Partnership, makes the city the following proposal: One, that we would build a 100 to 140 room hotel on Ninth Street adjacent to the city-owned convention center. This will be an upscale Country Inn and Suites Hotel. If I could show you a picture of where this would go. If you're on the levy facing Ninth Street, this is the view that you get now. This view faces the Ninth Street entrance to the convention center. That's where we're talking about placing the new hotel. I have a rendering here. This shows the present convention center right here; the hotel, of course; the expansion of the convention center would be between the present convention center and the river. The hotel would adjoin the convention center on the other side and be adjacent to there and be tied into the convention center on the Reynolds Street side of the present convention center. So if you're a guest staying in the new hotel, then you could go all the way over to the Radisson without going outside. As you know, when you go to conventions you always like to stay where you can move around without going outside. That's what this would allow. The partnership also proposes that as we build this convention center, that we would guarantee that we would spend at least $3,250,000 on it. Now, it would be in a 30,000 square foot addition. We now have 26,000 approximate feet there. This would bring the total to 56,000 square feet. I'm going to ask Darryl Leech if he at this time would just tell you the kind of conventions that we are missing and ones that we have turned down recently. MR. LEECH: Sure. And I have copies of this if anybody would like that, of course. We've devised a list through different groups that we have solicited throughout the many years that we've been in business and we've determined that there are many organizations that have grown to capacity, which means they no longer can use us because they've grown in numbers, and there are several groups that currently we're unable to go after just because of the sheer size of them already that would potentially be able to come if we had this facility. And in this document, we'll pass copies out, we put the total at about 98,755 room nights. Now, that's not every year obviously, but a lot of these rotate, you know, every other year to this city or, you know, Savannah or Macon or Atlanta, so we think that we've got a real opportunity to succeed with this. MR. SIMON: If you will remember, back when we built the Radisson in 1990 we hardly got any conventions in this city. We didn't have a place to have meetings. And so you've seen what's happened by building the present convention center, we've brought a number of conventions here, and we think that this can continue to grow if we have the space. I'm going to ask Barry White if he would tell us a little bit about what goes on in other communities. MR. WHITE: I just want to share a little information throughout the state of Georgia with the current individual facilities and then the total overall meeting spaces available in the cities currently and also what's on the slate for the next couple of years in the surrounding cities. Of course, Atlanta leads the state in meeting facilities with the Georgia World Congress Center. Macon is currently second, then you have Albany with the James Gray Center, Athens with the Classic Center, Columbus Iron Works, Calloway Gardens, and Dalton's Northwest Georgia Trade Center. All those individual facilities have more space than Augusta has in the Civic Center, so they all offer larger meeting space than Augusta offers currently. As far as total space in those communities, Atlanta leads, Macon is second, Dalton is third, and Savannah is soon to be fourth. Currently Augusta is. As far as what's going on around the state, Atlanta is looking at a phase three expansion of the Georgia World Congress Center that will add half a million square feet to that facility. Columbia, South Carolina, has a conference center and athletic area which is currently proposed, scheduled to open in 2000, and it will have 68,000 square feet of space. Savannah, Georgia, has one of the largest projects underway right now, which is a resort facility that will include a 400 room Westin Hotel, over 150,000 square feet of meeting space in the Maritime Trade Center. And then Valdosta also has a facility that's currently planned and will be completed within the next two years. I have copies of that if anybody would like it. MR. SIMON: In order to increase the revenue to the city, and I'll be talking about other increases in revenues that the city will get, the partnership also agrees to increase the parking rate that we're now paying at the Radisson and also on the new hotel from $1.75 a day to $2.00 per day, and I'll show you in a few minutes what that amounts to. At the moment we pay -- last year we paid about $74,000 in parking fees for the Radisson alone. And the way that works, we don't charge the guests, we pass the--within the rate that we charge the guest is included the parking fee, and we just pay that directly to the city. Now, we'll do those things. The partnership will do that provided the city will do the following. Now, when we first came up with the idea of building the hotel and the needed convention facility, the thought was that we should just come to the city and, you know, ask you to build the convention space as you did before. But I realized, particularly after coming around here a number of times, that the city really does not have the funds to do that, so I came up with this idea that I'm going to present to you here today as to how it can be financed. But the partner-ship, as I said, will do what I've just outlined provided the city, number one, eliminate parking on Ninth Street between Reynolds and the levy. Now, since I've written this I have had some conversations with several of the property owners and I think we can satisfy them by having limited parking or parking on one side of the street. I think that's a problem that some of them are here to speak to, but I think we can work that out with them and I think we can satisfy--I think the benefits to them of getting a new hotel downtown outweigh the parking problems, and I think we can satisfy them about that issue. We're asking the city to bring the necessary water and sewer lines to the new hotel and convention center. We ask that the city provide the partnership with the same property tax relief that is available to other investors in like transactions. And, as I'm sure you know, the city provides a five-year tax relief and that's all we're asking for. That's not from the county. We're also asking that the city amend the agreement between the city and the partnership to provide for the additional space in the convention center and to provide for a new 50 year term. When the Radisson project was put together, the agreement between the city and the partnership was that the partnership would operate the convention center, and we had a 50 year agreement to do that. The maintenance of that facility is done by the partnership. We take 50% of the room rentals in the convention center, that is, the ballroom and those other rooms. We take 50% of that money and put it in a reserve fund, and then we use those funds to maintain the facility; that is, new carpet, paint, whatever it needs. So we never come to you and say you need to come over and paint the building or put in new carpet. That's part of the contract and that's the reason I think it's a good deal for the city, because you never have to have any maintenance, we take care of that. Number five in your letter that the city is required to do under this plan--I used the word cancel. That's a mistake. In a business transaction or in a legal document I would normally use that term, but in this public arena that I find myself in, that should have been trade. We trade with the city the indebtedness that the partnership owes to the city. Now, you have to remember the UDAG grant that we're talking about came about because the federal government had a program back then in 1990, and we got one of the last UDAG's, by the way. But that program was a federal program whereby the government would put money into a community such as Augusta to provide for projects that would provide jobs, and that's what we did. The agreement provides that the money comes from the federal government into the project. Thirty years later, from 1992 to 2022, that's when that grant comes due. So the $7.5 million has got 24 more years to run. $7.5 million 24 years from now is not worth but $1 million today. So if you gave me $1 million and I told you I'd pay 8% 2 interest on it, which is the prime rate, 24 years from now you'd come back to me and I'd give you $7.5 million. And that's the way that works and I'll get into that a little bit more in a few minutes. Let's look at the benefits that the city would have under this plan. The city will have a downtown convention complex that any city would be proud of: a convention center with 56,000 square feet, which now, as I said earlier, we've got about 26,000, with a minimum of 338 rooms. Now, if we build 140 rooms, then it'll add to that number, but all these figures are based upon the 100 rooms. So all the numbers that I'm talking about here related to the new hotel would go up 40% if we increase the rooms to 140 instead of the 100 that's under study now, but this would enable our community to compete with other cities such as Charleston and Savannah and Macon and so forth. But let's look at the economic benefits that the city is going to receive, What I'm saying to you, you take the UDAG grant, which is a non-working asset that you have that was given to you by the federal government, you're not earning any interest on it now, and you take that and you trade that for this project which gives you this following income: number one, increased revenue from parking. At the moment, as I said earlier, we pay $1.75 per day for the parking that we have at the Radisson. That amounted last year to $74,000. We propose that we increase that to $2.00. That's a 14% increase. That would add another $10,000 to that number. The new hotel, if it's only 100 rooms, would provide another $30,660 in parking fees, to give you a total increase in revenue to the city of $41,000. The next item is property taxes. This is what the city will get for property taxes: the first year, with the relief we would get, the county would get $14,916. But the community, which includes the school board, the total would be $60,000, and I think we need to count that because that's money that's being put back into the community into our schools. So the total the first year would be $60,000 in total taxes. The total after the property tax relief, after we go through that period, then the total tax is $94,000 that the community would receive. A substantial amount of money. Hotel/motel tax: With 365,000 room nights, if we occupied at 63%, and that's low to start with, but that will grow, then we'll have 229,000 room nights producing a hotel/motel tax of $89,000 a year. That's over and above what you're now getting. Estimated sales tax: Based on room and sales that we would have on the new hotel, the sales tax of 7% generates $104,000. True, the State of Georgia gets 4% of that, which is $59,000; the Board of Education, 1% is $14,000; but the City of Augusta gets about $30,000 additional revenues that you will get. A summary of those numbers I just spoke of, including the parking fees, the property taxes, the hotel/motel tax, the sales tax, all that adds up to the city by itself gets $201,000. The total community, including the school board, gets $329,000. And then once you add in the economic impact--and the economic impact, according to the CVB, is $11,500,000 the first year. So it would add another $114,000 in total community taxes, so that the city alone would get $248,000 the first year of this plan and the community at large would get $493,000 in this plan, so that's a substantial amount of money to be receiving. Just look back on what's happened with the Radisson project. We now have 200 employees at the Radisson, one of the largest employers in downtown Augusta. We paid parking fees last year of $74,000. We paid property taxes of $364,000. We collected sales taxes of $626,000. Hotel/motel tax, $292,000. And then secondary sales, tax occurring from secondary sales, what the people who stay there spend in other areas, amounts to about $531,000. So the economic benefit to the community was $1,899,000 from the Radisson project that we've got over there now on the river, so you can see how it can grow. This project, we will spend about $9 million. So you talk about economic development in downtown Augusta, we're talking about $9 million of private funds. We're not asking any public funds for that. We have other projects in downtown Augusta that need completion: the Golf Hall of Fame, Springfield Village, the Commons area, Fort Discovery, Woodrow Wilson. These are projects that need to be completed and they need your support. Public funds need to go into those projects so they can be completed, and there are others that I don't have on this list. But this is a project here that we're talking about all private funds of approximately $9 million. Now, I've heard talk about some other hotel owners in Augusta saying, well, if we had a UDAG we could have done this too. Well, where were they in 1990? In 1990 you couldn't find anybody to step up and build the Radisson. And it was a very risky proposition in 1990, and this has risks too. Back then, as I said earlier, we had no conventions in Augusta, and so we took a big risk. The hotel rates in Augusta were about $50 a night, and on $50 a night you can't build a hotel and sustain it. Another thing I hear and I've heard some of you say, they say we want some competition. You can't get competition in this situation because of this. In order for the Radisson to have been successful, number one, it had to have the UDAG grant. Number two, it had to have the office building. Who's coming to the City of Augusta and build office space to help support a hotel? Without the cash flow from the office building this project would not have worked. So the office building, the hotel--and who's coming to Augusta and build a hotel and a convention center? It's just not going to happen, it won't work. The convention center that we have is too small, but because of our contract you couldn't--our agreement wouldn't provide for others to come in and build a hotel and use that convention center because we have a contract to operate it. So in this particular situation, if we as a community want more convention space, this is the most economical way to do it because the city does not have to put any money, won't have to maintain it, and we all benefit from the increased activity there. Now, let's go over the most complicated schedule here, and this is the one I want you to pay particular attention to because this shows you what you're giving up and what you're getting. If you'll look at exhibit seven, I have four columns there. I have two columns under what I call city-county only and I have two columns under what I call total community. I know some of you feel that if the money doesn't come directly to the county, then we shouldn't count it. I don't feel that way because I think if we collect dollars and it goes to the school system, that's helping our community in total. But anyway, I put four columns like this. I did two columns because 24 years is the maximum period of time that the UDAG can be outstanding. It was 30 years, now it's 24 remaining. So that's the 24 year column. I put 12 years because there is, and I wanted you to understand this, there is a possibility that the UDAG could be paid out in 12 years. Now, that means that this man has got to do an extremely good job over there. The office building has got to stay completely full and we've got then to accumulate sufficient cash flows to pay off the debt. Because UDAG says two things must occur for it to become due: number one is the 30 year term or the early of the partnership paying off its first mortgage. And that's possible. It's most likely to happen somewhere between these two numbers. It probably won't run the 24 years, but it probably won't get done in 12 years either, but I wanted you to see both sides of that issue. So let's look at this. How does this work? If you take the 12 year figure, and that's the most conservative, that's the worst case as far as the city is concerned, the income is $248,000 for the first year. The future value of that if you run that out for 12 years--now, we're using a 4% growth factor. Well, I'm not going to be happy with 4% growth and Darryl will tell you that. We're not happy with that kind of growth, so -- because we're starting with a low base. We're starting with low occupancy and we're starting with low room rates and we're not considering the revenue that we think we'll get out of the convention space, so that number will grow more than 4%. Then if you say, all right, it's going to grow 4% and it's going to -- you've got to figure a rate of return on your money, so I've used 8 because that's the prime rate. I 2 could have used 6, I could have used 7; I used 8. I know the other day y'all 2 worked out a deal with the Partridge Inn, or it's in the process, you used 9 2 discount. Now, if I'd have used the 9 discount these numbers would look 2 substantially better than they do here, but I used 8%. So in the 2 future, if you let that grow, 12 years from now the value is $5,375,000. If you go 24 years, the value is $23,113,000. Then I've added to that, because you will own it, we're going to deed this to you, you'll own the convention center worth $3,250,000. I'm not letting those values grow, I'm using the present dollars that we put into the project added to the total of what the accumulation of these other funds grow to over the period of time. So the total value to the city 12 years from now of the project, in a future value stated basis, is $8,625,000. Future value for 24 years is $26,000,000. Then you have to compare that then to the future value of the UDAG grant. The future value under either of those circumstances, because when it comes due the full amount comes due, is $7,562,400. So under column one, which is the worst case, the city is better off by $1,620,600 compared to the 24 months of $18,800,000. So, now, let's then say what is the present value of that. Let's bring it back to today. And the way that works is you say -- and let me illustrate this again. The way this works, if you brought me--let me go through this other part first. The way to discount this back to today is you bring this present value, the $5,375,000 to today's value by discounting it, that means it's worth $2,019,000. The value of the convention center you add to that because that's your property, brings the total project to $5,269,400 discounted. The value to UDAG discounted to today is $2,841,200. Now, let's say this another way because all this is very complicated. If you brought me today $1,067,400 and you gave it to me and you said I'm going to come back in 24 years and I promise you I'll pay you 8% on your money, like if you put it 2 in the bank around here, I'm going to pay you 8% on your money, 24 years 2 from now it'll be worth $7,562,400. That's the future value of the UDAG. If, on the other hand, you do that in 12 years, you have to give me $2,841,000 for me to do that. You give me $2,841,000 in cash and I promise you I'll pay you 8% interest on it, then 12 years from now it'll be worth $7,562,000. So to 2 compare what you are getting versus what you are giving up, you have to look at it that I'm trading an asset that I have that today is worth either $1,067,000 or $2,841,000, I'm giving that up for something that has a value anywhere between the discounted value of $5,200,000 and $9,700,00. That's the way it falls. But in any of those cases you're better off to trade the asset that's not working for one that's going to work and bring you a stream of income. That stream of income is going to continue beyond UDAG. It's going to continue on and on like the Radisson is today, so it obviously, to me, is a much better deal to trade that asset. Now, another thing that we're going to do, we're going to provide 60 new jobs, Mr. Todd. You've been talking about jobs, and I agree with you 100%. We'll have 60 new jobs in downtown Augusta with this project. They are service jobs, but what's wrong with service jobs? I've always felt that all jobs are good, the person doing the job just ought to do the best job he can. To me, though, any job is important. Any questions about this schedule? It's very complicated and I want you to understand it. MR. TODD: Mr. Simon, you're expecting an answer from us today? MR. SIMON: Not necessarily, no. I want you to have time to think it through and I want you to be able to ask me or any others questions about it. Unfortunately, I won't be here in two weeks, I'm going to be out of town, but maybe-- MR. TODD: On your original UDAG grant, how many jobs did that grant call for you to provide and how close do you come to meeting that goal? MR. SIMON: We now have 200 jobs over there, but I think the grant at that time was somewhat less than that, 140 or something like that. But we're up to 200 now, and what we see is if we add the hotel and the convention center, that the two combined will be an additional 60 jobs to start with. And there will be some management positions there as well. MR. TODD: The reason that I think that we need time to digest this, look at it, and have our financial folks and the Comptroller and the Administrator and the County Attorney to look at it and bring us a recommendation or maybe even bring us a counteroffer, like you stated earlier, you know, you guys have a sole source situation in the sense that the convention center is not built where there is opportunity for others to do something on either side. And in that sense I think that you have a sweet-heart deal that--on face value it would appear that it would turn it into a better deal for the city, but I need time to, you know, digest that, look at it, and to assure that it is a better deal. The other reason that I think that we probably need to wait before we make a decision, it's my understanding that the Office of the Inspector General for HUD is in town now doing a review of past projects, and I'd like to see what that exit interview look like. And certainly I think that we need to communicate with HUD through our director, Keven Mack, as far as whether they will give a free clearance of this. MR. SIMON: That's no problem. One thing you mentioned, that we had a sweetheart deal. But, you know, back when we put this deal together in 1990 we couldn't get the banks to finance it. We had a very difficult time of putting the project together and getting bank financing because it was a very risky deal, and Mr. Kuhlke can attest to that, and a lot of others in the community know how much problems we had in trying to get the financing and getting the deal put together. But let me say this, too. I must say that, you know, we have the deal that we have for 44 years, and so if we have to give up much from that, then this is too risky to--you know, if we had to give up anything off of what we've got. Now, we tried to work out some concessions on parking and you see the benefits from an income point of view, but it wouldn't be worth it to the partnership to make this kind of investment if it doesn't have a reasonable return. So if you make a proposal, I think that should be taken into consideration. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to also point out that I have a serious problem with doing away with parking or abandoning parking in certain areas where it's going to hurt other individuals that's invested that didn't get UDAG money or community block grant money, that took hard-earned money and invested it in downtown, and then we eliminate their parking. I seriously have a problem with that parking proposal and would hope that whatever counter-proposal that we do or whatever proposal that you push, that that would not be in there. I've been through that fight, been there, done that as far as parking go, and I think we probably got it halfway decent and I wouldn't want to tinker with that any more. MR. SIMON: I'd like to respond to that. You know, at some point in time in Augusta we've got to learn to park in the parking decks, though. You know, we've got that problem throughout downtown Augusta. And we're all guilty of it, that you want to go to the store and you want to park your car and get out and run right in and come back out. But Augustans are used to that. And I think at some point, if these parking decks are going to be successful, then we've got to insist that people park in them. But I agree that--I don't think we want to do anything here to eliminate parking and hurt these people's business, and that's the reason I said that we would back off of that and make some concessions and work that out. My original thought was that if you go into some of the cities like Charleston where you have pedestrian only and you have just let a hotel car in and get into the parking deck, but you leave that as a pedestrian walkway, it just makes a nice atmosphere. But if it hurts somebody's business, we don't want to do that either. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion at this time that we receive this as information and allow our Administrator and staff to evaluate this plan, and in that interim the Commissioners who would like to can consult with the Administrator and staff and look at this proposal, and bring something--a counter-proposal back at the next--possibly at the next meeting if they can; if not, then it would go to the following meeting. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Mr. Simon, you said earlier in your presentation that when you started the Radisson no banks would loan you any money. When you took on this project, did you decide to go back to the banks and ask them to help? Rather than to come to the government to ask for help, have you thought about going back to the bank again? MR. SIMON: We will be going to the banks to finance part of this project, yes, but we're not asking the government to do anything except trade the UDAG grant. MR. HANDY: Also, your presentation must differ from the other one I heard, you know, the original one, and I listened attentively to make sure I understood everything that you said that you're asking us to do there. But this is a new government compared to the other government, but you are asking to carry over the 50 year deal that you had with the other government. You're asking to continue on some of the same things. And what really struck me is when you said that no one else could use the convention center. So you have something here that is set up that if you do not expand, then we do not grow. I think that's what I got out of your presentation. Is that correct or not correct? MR. SIMON: No, I think the city--if the city wanted to, it could expand the convention center whether we build a hotel or not, if that's what you want to do. But what I said about the limitation on competition on that particular spot was that back when this deal was put together you couldn't find anybody else to --in fact, this project was on the table for about three years before we came along and helped bring it about. Bankers First was involved with it and several others, and they never were able to put it together even though they had the UDAG grant. Well, we were able to pull in some help and got it done, but it was very risky. Very risky. But the partnership took that risk and it paid off. I mean, it's now a very successful operation. But we now need additional space. What I said about other people, anybody can come over there and rent it, there's no problem with that. Anybody can rent that space, it's open to the public. What I meant was that there's no way that you could bring in another hotel owner and build a building that would be adjacent to that convention center and utilize the space that's there and expand a convention center. And so it seems to me this is an opportunity to the county and the city to provide the community, as Barry White said, with additional convention space at no cost, it's all being done by private funds, and you don't have that opportunity very often I don't think. MR. HANDY: My final question is why would you want to deed it back to the city? Why would you want to build it and deed it back to us? MR. SIMON: Because that's the way it's set up right now. We wouldn't have to do that, we could build it and retain owner-ship. But I think in order to trade the asset that you've got, that would be the appropriate way to do it. In other words, you've got an asset now and you're just trading that for a stream of revenue, a stream of profits here that would be coming to the city. MR. HANDY: I said that was final, but this will be the final question. To show us good faith, which I know this is America and it's never going to happen, why don't you pay the loan off, your corporation, and then come back to the city and ask for help? MR. SIMON: If we're working the 9% discount, we pay it off. 2 MR. HANDY: No, not 9. 2 MR. SIMON: That's what you worked out with somebody else. Or 8, yeah, 2 that's what we're doing. MR. HANDY: You're saying that this is a risky business, but yet and still you want to include us so we'll be risking along with your project. MR. SIMON: We could pay the UDAG off if that's--the agreement doesn't provide for that, by the way. But if we could get HUD to agree to that, then we could pay it off and then ask you to put the money back into the convention center. It could be done that way. But what I've tried to show you was we're giving you a convention center guaranteed worth $3.25 million. I've tried to prove to you the maximum amount of value on the UDAG was $2.8 million. So right there you've got a value increase, plus then you're getting the income stream that this project is going to provide. If it's not done you don't get the increased sales tax, you don't get the increased property taxes and so forth. So that's where the city benefits, I think. MR. TODD: I have a final question, Mr. Simon. You pointed out that I am concerned about jobs, and that's true. How many of these construction jobs will be local jobs and how many of the jobs for the previous project was local jobs in construction? MR. SIMON: I can't answer either one. See, what we've done to this point is done this rendering on the project, and we haven't drawn any plans and we haven't gone beyond this because I wanted to make--we weren't going to spend any money on it until we got approval from the city, so I haven't really--what we'll do is we'll draw plans and then we'll bid it, and then, you know, we'll bid the project on that basis. The prior project was done by a construction company out of Atlanta, but I don't know how many--they did use a lot of local people, but I don't know to what extent. MR. TODD: My recollection is that it was a lot of folks from out of town, and possibly a question was whether, if Immigration showed up on the job, whether you'd have anyone to finish it. MR. SIMON: I don't know. You know, we contract out and so we weren't involved in the day-to-day hiring of the construction. MR. TODD: I would be interested in that aspect of it, you know, how many of those jobs is going to be local jobs if we do a trade-off with money. And it's my understanding that the UDAG money on the first and second turnaround would have to go back into a similar project, but the third turnaround would go to the county taxpayers, and I stand to be corrected, Keven, there. On the turnaround of the UDAG money, I know the program is not in existence anymore, but is it my understanding that the first and second time it have to go back into a similar project, and the third time around it would go back into the county taxpayers? MR. MACK: That's correct. I was just explaining that, and I explained that to the Mayor yesterday. The first two times that it comes back to the city it has to be used for the original intended purpose. The third time it comes back to the city, the city could basically use it for whatever reason. MR. TODD: So I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and that's one reason I need to time. You know, I've spoken publicly on my position on it and I've tried to rationalize why should I forgive the loan there, and I'm just trying to act conservative like my daily editorial page writer want me to, and we'll see when it come back. MR. SIMON: Well, let me say this, I appreciate the time. I know we've spent a lot of time on this. I'll be available by --you've got my home numbers and my office number in the letter. If I can answer any questions about this project, I'll be glad to do so. One of the things that Darryl should point out about the- MR. LEECH: One of the challenges that we have in being a convention city is that what's good for the City of Augusta is that they got hockey and they've really prepared the Civic Center and things are going very well and everybody is working together. Wonderful. Unfortunately, that's going to limit our convention ability over there. We've worked very hard in going into [inaudible] and the South is very heavily penetrated with religious conference management and we don't have a place to put these people now. The Civic Center is extremely limited on the time and space that we can get in there. We put a lot of conven-tions in there [inaudible]. So we're a little bit handcuffed with that. So in order to go after these groups, we're going to have to grow somewhere, and it make sense to grow relative to where the space is available now and expand it so that people are all together because moving them around was also kind of a hurdle for the city with convention activity. MR. SIMON: Thank you for your time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Simon. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 9, with 5, 6 and 7 for denial, were approved by the Finance Committee on January 27th. Item 1: Motion to approve annual appropriation of GMA 1990 Lease Pool Program. Item 2: Motion to approve 1996 taxes in the amount of $173.45 for overpayment of taxes on Map 43-1, Parcel 117. Item 3: Motion to approve 1995 and 1996 taxes in the amount of $346.90 for overpayment of taxes on Map 26-1, Parcel 10. Item 4: Motion to approve fixing and publishing of qualifying fees for offices to appear on 1998 ballot. Item 5: Motion to deny abatement of penalties on property located at 14 Highgate West in the amount of $437.02. Item 6: Motion to deny abatement of penalties and/or interest for late payment of taxes by Pontiac Master. Item 7: Motion to deny request from White Consolidated Industries Shared Services for waiver of penalty in the amount of $2,971.76 and interest in the amount of $353.63 regarding ad valorem tax account #1228049. Item 8: Motion to approve Partridge Inn payoff debt in the amount of $738,243.20. Item 9: Motion to approve Quit-Claim Deed for 258 Reynolds Street.] MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee offers this as a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Under Administrative Services portion, Items 10 through 17 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on January 27th. [Item 10: Motion to approve revisions to the HOME Program budget and include as part of Amendment #1 to Augusta's 1998 Consolidated Strategy & Plan. Item 11: Motion to approve an amendment to the 1997 Easter Seal agreement between Augusta-Richmond County which would allow the use of funds to be changed from use for the Job Readiness Program to the purchase of a special handicapped equipped mini van and video materials. Item 12: Motion to approve revisions to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program 1998 Final Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds (budget) and include as part of Amendment #1 to Augusta's 1998 Consolidated Strategy & Plan. Item 13: Motion to approve HND Housing Development Initiative Schedule. Item 14: Motion to approve the issuance of 1996 and 1997 CHDO funds in the amount of $259,150 to Laney- Walker Development Corporation (LWDC) to enable it to continue the housing development efforts in the Laney-Walker Community. Item 15: Motion to approve the reprogramming of $450,024.98 of unprogrammed funds which would enable us to continue our rehabilitation efforts until 1998 funding becomes available and to fill the gap of possible loss of a portion of our 1998 HOME funding. Item 16: Motion to approve Catastrophic Leave Program. Item 17: Motion to approve the reprogramming of $33,000 to the Sidewalk Program.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move as a consent agenda that these be passed. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to pull out Number 14. MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's 10 through 17, with the exception of 14. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 14: Motion to approve the issuance of 1996 and 1997 CHDO funds in the amount of $259,150 to Laney-Walker Development Corporation (LWDC) to enable it to continue the housing development efforts in the Laney-Walker Community. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 14 be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I need a clarification on whether we have any housing funds that's not already promised to another project. Now, it's my understanding when we done the White Oak property and approved that, that we promised the housing funds in that project, and I'd like a clarification on that and if there are going to be housing dollars to do things with this administrative fund. And I'd like a response from the County Attorney, the Administrator, or the Housing Director because at the time that I was doing that and before I had time to review the agreement I didn't recognize that we actually proposed that vote on the ratifying and it may be something we want to take corrective action on now. MR. MACK: I can't respond to the White Oak, but as far as the Community Housing Development Organization-- MR. OLIVER: Keven, perhaps I can address that first to set the stage. As part of the approval of that agreement--and that currently is before HUD now to--asking for their approval or their indication that they have no objection to that agreement. It says that we will give them 50% of $1,137,000 in 1998 HOME funds and 50% in 1999. The remainder of those funds, Mr. Todd, are available in those two years to do as the Mayor and Commission feel is most appropriate. MR. TODD: And I'm assuming that the Laney-Walker Corp. was the nonprofit organization that's going to be the entity that we're going to use to development a plan and to implement the plan as far as the expenditure of the other 50%? MR. OLIVER: These are '96 and '97 funds. I think Mr. Mack can discuss that in more detail. MR. MACK: Let me explain it to you this way. White Oak, that's the Olde Town project, is receiving $1,137,000, of which five hundred and some are going to be for the 1998 and the 1999 HOME dollars. Now, that does not include the total amount. 15% of the HOME allocations have to be allocated to community housing development organizations by law. Does that answer your question? MR. TODD: Yes, I think it do. Is the CHDO funds for administrative purposes? MR. MACK: No, sir, the CHDO monies are to build houses. No administrative monies whatsoever. We have not worked out an administrative deal with the Laney-Walker Development Corporation for any funds at this point, but we are looking into that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mack, over the last few months I've seen several letters concerning this particular organization and I think I recall that there was some question about that this particular corporation did not have a valid audit. And my question to you is this: Have you satisfied yourself that this organization meets all the criteria? I understand there's been a tremendous amount of pressure put on you to fund this organiza-tion. Has there been undue pressure put on you to fund this organization? MR. MACK: Let me say this, Mr. Kuhlke. Anybody that knows me knows that I don't bend under pressure, that I'm going to look at the situation and issues objectively. There has not been any pressure. As a matter of fact, the president of the Laney-Walker Development Corporation and I have met and we have sat down and we have tried to work out the issues that are involved in it. There were some situations in the audit, and, of course, if any audit is done in any organization there will be some problems. And we have had our people to go over there, my finance person to go to Laney-Walker Development Corporation and sit down and provide technical assistance to them to help them straighten out some of the things that they need to straighten out. MR. KUHLKE: So you are satisfied that they meet all the criteria to get these funds? MR. MACK: Well, I'm satisfied that the Laney-Walker Development Corporation is in the business to do what needs to be done in terms of revitalizing that community. There are maybe one, maybe two problems that we're looking at now to try to assist them. The first thing is that their board has to consist of community residents from low-income areas, and I have explained that issue to the president and he's addressing that issue. MR. KUHLKE: And you personally as Director recommend this? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mack, let's go back to the conversation we had before [inaudible]. How many CHDO's are in town? MR. MACK: There are two CHDO's, the Antioch CHDO and the Laney-Walker. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How do you become a CHDO? MR. MACK: You become a CHDO by meeting three criteria. You have to have the legal status, number one, state and local; you have to be a 501-C-3 organization; you have to have an organizational capacity and you have to have an organizational structure. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And as a department do we encourage people to become CHDO's or not, or do we take no position on that? MR. MACK: Yes, sir, we encourage it. As a matter of fact, the more community-based organizations we have in our community to provide housing, the more successful we can be. And I know prior to the meeting you inquired about the Habitat, and it appears to me that the Habitat can meet the legal qualifications to become a CHDO. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Now, when we give them this $250,000, that stays basically with their organization to turn around and rebuild houses constantly? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And so that money never comes back to this government except through taxes and other things where homeowners-- MR. MACK: That money will come back to us--as we monitor that CHDO and we find out that they are not doing what they're supposed to be and living up to the terms of the agreement that we have set out, then we can go back and-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: We can recoup our money if they're not doing that? MR. MACK: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. The other thing, CHDO's do not have the right of eminent domain? MR. MACK: No, sir, they do not. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So they cannot coerce people to sell their property to this organization, and so there cannot be any high-handed done to make people participate in this project if they choose not to. Under the concept of the superblock, the way I understand it, that we're basically outlining areas of this town to go in and improve the housing; is that correct? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How is Laney-Walker going to accomplish this? MR. MACK: Well, we're going to require, before we contract with the Laney-Walker Development Corporation, that they give us a plan as to what they are planning to do in terms of constructing houses, the locations, the square footage and so forth of the houses and the locations and the areas that they plan to construct in, and all of those items will have to be approved by us. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is there any maximum size or minimum size standards? MR. MACK: No, sir. We would like the houses to conform to the spec of the communities that they will be constructing houses in. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are they going to be buying up lots and resubdividing those lots, or do you know? MR. MACK: No, we don't know yet. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Mr. Mack this. As I understand it, the alternative is to designate another CHDO. That's the same alternative the committee faced; is that correct? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: And there are just two CHDO's that are presently organized. How does one CHDO distinguish itself to earn your recommendation versus the one that did not? MR. MACK: Well, basically what we are doing is rotating funds from one CHDO to the other. The Antioch CHDO received the '94 and the '95. MR. TODD: Did Antioch apply for a CHDO this time? MR. MACK: Antioch is already a CHDO. MR. TODD: Yes. Did they apply for the funds? MR. MACK: No. Antioch received the '94 and '95. And we have a plan for them--from Antioch now to do basically rehabilitation and so forth in the Broad Street area. MR. TODD: Right. Now, Laney-Walker Development Corp. has two homes that's under construction now. Is that previous funds they received from CHDO? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: My concern is that if we don't use it we may lose it, and I think that certainly Habitat could be approach far as what they need to do. And I've worked with Habitat, you know, and worked with Antioch some when they first started, and haven't worked with Laney-Walker but certainly I think [inaudible]. MR. MACK: They're moving in that direction. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Items 18 through 28 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on January 27th. [Item 18: Motion to approve condemnation of 0.34 acres of right-of- way and 0.03 acres of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 13-4, Parcels 272 and 273) on the Forest Park Drainage Improvement Phase I Project - Brentwood Place Detention Pond, which was owned by Robert A. Frederick. Item 19: Motion to approve proposal from James G. Swift and Associates for the design of the Bedford Heights Sanitary Sewer Project in the amount of $66,420. Item 20: Motion to certify the project right-of-way and execute the Georgia Department of Transportation right-of- way agreement regarding the State Route 56 @ Phinizy Road Intersection Improvement Project. Item 21: Motion to approve State-Aid County Contract Priority List. Item 22: Motion to certify the project right- of-way and execute the Georgia Department of Transportation right-of-way agreement regarding the McCombs Road, Section I Project. Item 23: Motion to approve the proposal for services as modified by Southeastern Technology Center to assist in meeting the administrative requirement of the Federal Economic Develop-ment Administration Grant which partially funds the Small Business Incubator Facility Project. Item 24: Motion to approve condemnation of 2,142.42 sq. ft. for permanent storm drainage and utility easement and 2,142.24 sq. ft. for temporary construction easement (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 62) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Margaret H. Newman a.k.a. Marguerite H. Newman Maddox. Item 25: Motion to approve Speed Limit Ordinance establishing speed limits for Augusta. Item 26: Motion to condemn the necessary easement across property of Betty W. Dorminey (Tax Map 71.3, Parcel 125) in connection with the Kissingbower Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phases IV and V Project. Item 27: Motion to condemn the necessary easement across property of Jack Vincent Keever (Tax Map 71-3, Parcel 104) in connection with the Kissingbower Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phases IV and V Project. Item 28: Motion to condemn the necessary easement across property of Woodrow W. Dorminey (Tax Map 71.3, Parcel 153) in connection with the Kissingbower Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phases IV and V Project.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like all the condemnations to reflect that I voted against it in the sense that I think that was my vote on some of them in committee, and [inaudible]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO ON ITEMS 18, 24, 26, 27 & 28. MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEMS 18, 24, 26, 27 & 28. MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25. CLERK: Item 19: Motion to approve to reclassify nine (9) Firefighter positions to Driver positions at an annual cost of approximately $20,000. Approved by Public Safety Committee January 27, 1998. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer the Public Safety Committee as a consent agenda and put in the form of a motion to approve. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 30: Motion to approve new application request by James R. Key for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Southgate Lounge located at 1631 Gordon Highway. Disapproved by Public Services Committee January 27, 1998. MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Second. OFFICER BERRY: In reference to this application, prior to this applicant filing this application we had this location under investigation for different illegal activities including gambling, illegal alcohol sales, and drugs. On January 4th myself and another investigator from the Sheriff's Department narcotics division walked into this location and observed about 13 subjects in one room. All appeared to be involved in some type of gambling activity. Two of the subjects were charged with misdemeanor gambling. One case was made for possession of cocaine. There were two handguns found inside the business, one of the handguns was reported stolen to this department. The manager of the location was also inside the room where they were committing illegal gambling. On those grounds, we ask that this license be denied. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to disapprove or deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve new ownership request by Baldemar Sanchez for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Amigo's Mexican Restaurant located at 1630 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. Approved by Public Services Committee January 27, 1998. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, let the record show that I'm opposed to the Sunday sales is the only problem I have with it. MR. BRIDGES: Same. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve associating Doug Batchelor for purpose of issuing Certificates of Participation for improvements at the Augusta Golf Course. No recommendation from Public Services Committee. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. WALL: If I could address that. We have received confirmation from Allied Bank, which will soon be Regents Bank as of February the 19th or 20th, I'm not sure of the exact that they will change their name, that they are willing to take care of the financing, be the lead insofar as arranging for that financing. It would be at tax-free rates. Now, I cannot give you a specific percentage. As of the discussion that I had with them this morning, however, that will be forthcoming, but it will be more favorable than the rates that were projected insofar as when the project was explained to you. If we are to move forward with this, then I need the assistance of bond counsel--local counsel. Since this is going to be handled by private lenders as a private placement, it's not necessary to go to Atlanta and secure bond counsel as you would in a public offering, and Mr. Batchelor is a respected attorney who does bond work and I'm asking that he be associated with us for the purpose of moving forward. And the next step would be adopting the resolution which would have the interest cost, et cetera, spelled out in there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, basically I want to point out that my concern is that we did pay this back out of one-penny sales tax, keep the one-penny sales tax, and I've been told that we would be able to do this even though I think we're probably waiting on an opinion from the Attorney General, and that we set up a enterprise fund with a combination of the golf course, tennis center, and the natatorium swim center, and that we use the revenues that is project that we are going to receive from the performance to run the enterprise fund operation of the three facilities. I would hope that we would be able to do that and I'm just going to vote present for that reason until we get that opinion back as far as this go. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to read into the record again my opposition to the certificate of participation and just note it in the record, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. CLERK: Item 33: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held January 20, 1998. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 34: Motion to ratify Federal Transportation Grant Agreement. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 34: Motion to approve establishment of committee to evaluate best method for security legal services. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that this be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the enabling language in the legislation to consolidate or reorganize Augusta-Richmond County states that we shall. I've been trying to obtain legislative counsel opinion on whether we can change the language from shall to may, and I haven't got it yet, but I'm told, and this is from one of my representatives, that if we change it, that it will be darned well changed back to shall. Now, the legislation tell us what to do. I think that we're on the wrong track here, that we--instead of trying to figure out a way of doing what the law say do, we should be trying to figure out a way to put it on the fast track and do it in the sense that we've been negligent on this for two years. Mr. Mayor, in your State of the City address you mentioned our accomplishments, and I think we've done a good job there. But the one item or issue that wasn't mentioned for whatever reason was the legal department, on what we haven't accomplished. And I know you don't want to, Mr. Mayor, in your State of the City address talk about the negatives, you want to talk about the positives, so I understand that. So today is the time to talk about the negatives, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, we haven't implemented the law department. I understand that the first meeting in January we appointed Mr. Jim Wall as legal counsel. I understand we done that unanimously. And I understand that Mr. Jim Wall has done a decent job for this Commission, or a good job. Any time you can get out from under a 20 year court order on a jail, I think he's done one heck of a job. And I would encourage Mr. Jim Wall, Mr. Mayor, to put a application in to be the inhouse legal counsel. I'd like to keep him on, but the law states, Mr. Mayor, that we shall. And my motion last time, Mr. Mayor, or substitute motion when we dealt with this issue, was to put it on the fast track, to authorize the Administrator and the County Attorney and whomever else need to, the Mayor, to go out for notices for a inhouse attorney and supporting staff, Mr. Mayor, and implement this department by July 1. I think six months is enough. Two and a half years is too much time or too long. And, Mr. Mayor, at the appropriate time--well, I'm going to go on and make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we do as I stated earlier: that we implement the law department by July 1st, that we authorize the appropriate individuals to go out for notices for a inhouse attorney and supporting staff. That's in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. MR. HANDY: Do we have an original motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. CLERK: To approve the establishment of the committee. MR. HANDY: Okay. I wasn't against what was on this piece of paper here, but I thought we had set up a committee the last time to look at that and see what the amount of money it's going to cost before we do this. So are we bypassing that or this is something different? CLERK: They voted on having a subcommittee and this is establishing that committee. MR. OLIVER: As I understand it, this committee--that would be part of their charge, to determine the best way to receive it and the cost of services. MR. HANDY: So what are we talking about establishing one between now and July before we get all the information in? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Mr. Todd's motion. MR. HANDY: The shall or will doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not questioning that. I'm talking about the committee that we voted on last time to set up and to see what it would cost to run it inhouse or outside, that's what I'm asking. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Handy, this is just, as I understand it, the committee that would do that for you, that would bring back that information. MR. HANDY: Okay, good enough. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Substitute motion first by Mr. Todd. Do you want to read that, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: The substitute motion was to implement the law department by July 1 and to authorize the appropriate persons to advertise for inhouse counsel. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE, & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 6-2-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion. You want to read the original motion, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Original motion is to authorize the establishment of the committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Lee Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, can I make a statement? I would just like to say since this is the first request that you and our new Mayor Pro Tem put together, that we should try to support some of the things you all are trying to do that's going to be the betterment for the total Commission. And this came from a request from you and Mr. Beard to form this committee; is that correct? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think it was a charge of Mr. Shepard in his motion, wasn't it? Isn't that where it came from? MR. HANDY: No, the letters in the book is signed by you and Mr. Beard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, we signed it, but Mr. Shepard made the motion at the previous meeting. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could speak to that. I did make the motion, I didn't designate the committee, so I saw that --this motion today is consistent with the last meeting's motion to form a committee, this just stated who would be on the committee, so that's why I voted in favor of it. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Item 36, please? CLERK: Item 36: Motion to authorize Mayor to sign certified local Government Grant for tour brochure with in-kind services to be provided by others. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to commend you for this initiative. It's something we've long needed. 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. CLERK: Item 37: Appointment to the General Aviation Commission (Daniel Field). Commissioner Mays offered the name of Mr. Ed Tarver. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question to the Clerk, is there any other vacancies on the General Aviation-Daniel Field? CLERK: Yes, sir, we have one other in Mr. Henry Brigham's district. We have one other district appointment. MR. TODD: We would certainly appreciate that appointment as soon as reasonably possible. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, we'll consider it. Be glad to. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 38: Motion to approve an ordinance granting a franchise to Jones Communications of Georgia/South Carolina, Inc. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission January 20, 1998. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my objection was over 5%, not over Jones having a franchise agreement. I think Jones do an outstanding job in this community and I'm going to vote for it in the sense I've lost on the other issues. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 39: Other business. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I thought it might be appropriate, since most of you know that I was in Atlanta this morning, to report on the meeting concerning the wastewater bill that is up there, House Bill 1163. Tom Weidmeier and I were asked by Mr. Connell to come up this morning and meet with them, along with Mr. Harold Reheis, who is head of the EPD. We did, in fact, meet with them. Mr. Reheis was very understanding of the situation that Augusta might unintentionally be pulled into that legisla-tion, and we met afterwards and have proposed some language that would allow us to be exempted from that so long as we stay in compliance with the federal court order. There is some additional language that he was going to speak with the Governor's Council and expect to hear back from him tomorrow relating to that additional language. But in any event, we had a good meeting and I think a successful meeting, and I feel like that the bill will be changed so that we will not run the risk of being swept up in those trigger mechanisms under that legislation. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I don't know whether this is appropriate, but I'd like to bring up--and you can stop me if it's not. All of us got correspondence from Mr. Connell in regards to the meeting we'll have with them next week, and that correspondence dealt primarily with the powers of the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem. There was no mention of the items that we passed a resolution on in our last meeting. And I would like for us to instruct the Attorney that certainly we'll talk with the delegation on anything they'd like to talk about, but I think it's appropriate that we concentrate on the things that we discussed in our meeting with the delegation here, and I think it's important that we discuss the items that we passed by resolution and sent to the delegation. The other thing is I got correspondence from Mr. Wall, and he may already have six signatures, but I think it's totally inappropriate for this body to pay for advertising for the legislative delegation on items that are going to affect this community. I think that there ought to be other ways that they can pay for that. So I would like to make a motion, if it's appropriate, that we instruct the delegation that we will discuss the issues obviously that Mr. Connell corresponded with us on, but we definitely want to discuss the issues that we passed by resolution in this body that are going to have a very positive impact on this community, and that we notify--unless we already have approval, that we notify Mr. Connell that we will not pay for any advertisement of any local legislation that they'd like to pass. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. That we won't pay for any local advertisement? MR. KUHLKE: That was not passed by us in the form of a resolution. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I think that one problem we have is that unless we're taking this up under other business--and I would think that if we're going to take it up under other business we would need to have unanimous consent to put it on the agenda and then vote on a motion, and I just wanted to point that out. I can support the motion. I can support putting it on the agenda and/or voting for it, I think it's appropriate. MR. BEARD: I would like for the Attorney--I can't recall the last time that this came up what your response was on it. I think there was a response in terms of the advertisement. I have no problem with the first part of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, but I would like to know a little bit about--there was a reason and I don't remember what it was the last time this came up. MR. WALL: Traditionally, the County Attorney has always run the public notices, drafted them on behalf of the legislative delegation and had them published, and it has been paid for out of the County Attorney's budget, any items of local legislation. Obviously the legislative delegation members do not have any funds. They're not paid any taxpayer funds for running advertising, et cetera. And although you may be in disagreement with what they pass, it is passed for the benefit of the taxpayers of Richmond County and this government, and so as an accommodation to them the County Attorney has always in the past run those ads. It became a controversy, as I recall, in '96 because I ran an ad at the request of one representative, and it was about an item that members of this Commission were not acquainted with, did not know about, and they felt it was inappropriate for me to be running an ad on behalf of a representative. In that particular case the language was furnished to me by that representative and I saw to it that it was published. And I do think that it is appropriate for the Attorney to do that because, again, the legislation is being proposed, whether you agree or disagree with it, on behalf of Augusta-Richmond County. And I feel like it's an obligation on the part of this government to pay that cost and I think it's appropriate for me as the County Attorney to do that. The compromise that was reached in '96 when this came up was that I would secure your approval in an effort to be sure, one, that y'all were acquainted with the fact that a legal ad was going to be run and published so that you didn't get a call about it and not be aware that there was an ad running and what in a general nature it was about. MR. KUHLKE: I don't mind amending my motion, but I think that we had two resolutions passed, one authored by Mr. Beard where the delegation would not take any action unless they had a resolution from this body. That was the first. We passed a resolution in our last meeting on items that we wanted to seriously discuss with the delegation. That was appropriate and consistent with what Mr. Beard had asked. So what I'd like to say is this: I have no problem paying for the legal ads by the delegation based on items that we pass by resolution that we would like for them to look into, but outside of that I don't think we should pay for it. I don't know any other way, Mr. Wall, to be consistent up here. But, you know, you said that what they do is for the betterment--or the detriment, you left that out, because sometimes it doesn't help us. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in principle I agree with Mr. Kuhlke. I think in reality we are also making some requests to them, you know, for some funding as far as Juvenile Court go and some other areas. I'm probably the culprit of the 1996 situation, and I feel that before any legal ads is run, that they should bring it to us and we should approve it or disapprove it, you know, and I don't have a problem there, or at least we should know that the legal ad is going to be run and what it consists of as far as legislation. And I consider it an unfunded mandate when we don't request it. I think one of my state senators or maybe two or three of the members of the delegation said they never impose an unfunded mandate, and certainly that's an unfunded mandate because we budget the County Attorney's budget. And when he run over $100,000 and we dig back in to put it in there--and I'm sure it's not going to be-- hopefully not $100,000 in legal ads. But, Mr. Mayor, I think it's the principle of the thing is what concerns me. I know that what they bring in, pork or bacon or ever how you want to look at it that they bring in, Mr. Mayor, is far greater than what we spend on a legal ad. And I think also, Mr. Mayor, that if they're going to do it, they're going to do it anyway. It seems like in their wisdom or in their bullheaded-ness, when they make up their mind to do something, that if they have a majority in the House and the two senators it's going to happen, and most likely they're going to find a way to run the legal ads. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, what kind of funds are we talking about here? MR. WALL: I'm going to guess fifty to sixty dollars. I'm not sure of the exact amount. Approximately fifty to sixty dollars per legal ad. MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw the second part of my motion. I mean, I'm not really thinking so much about the money, though I do think that we need to as a body be consistent with what we work with the delegation on. But, you know, that's peanuts and that probably doesn't make any sense. But I'd like to move that we add to the agenda that the County Attorney direct the chairman of the delegation that at our meeting next week we discuss the items we passed by resolution in our last meeting plus anything else they want to talk about. And I'd like to ask that that be added to the agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, does it take unanimous consent to add this item to the agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: If Mr. Kuhlke wants to have a bid contest with the state legislature, let him do it and not involve me. You don't have unanimous consent. CLERK: We have one other request, Mr. Mayor, to add an item. We have a request to add an item from the Recreation Department: A motion to approve and award the Fleming Complex fencing bid to Security Fence Company in the amount of $22,995. MR. OLIVER: And the reason that it didn't go through committee was because of the timing of the bids. Mr. Beck wants to make sure that the fence is up in time for baseball and softball in the spring. MR. TODD: Is this the low bid? MR. BECK: Yes, this was the low bid. We opened the bids last Wednesday for this fencing issue for the Fleming Complex. Security Fence is the low bidder and they meet all specifications for the job. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. HANDY: I just want to make a statement: I don't normally do this, I challenged most of them last year. I'm going to do it for two reasons. The main reason is to fence the area; the second reason is it's in my district and I'm not going to go against my district. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to add it to the agenda, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we need a motion to approve it. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: I second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. WALL: And, Mr. Mayor, I do need a legal session to discuss personnel matters and real estate. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 5:01 P.M.] MR. WALL: The first item is to accept the election of Judge Pope to the position of Judge Emeritus status effective February 16, 1998; and the second item is in connection with the emergency watershed project program with the sea wall at Goodale Landing, to approve two contracts. MR. SHEPARD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, the first item would be to accept the election of Judge Pope to the Judge Emeritus status effective 12:00 a.m. on February the 16th, 1998. And under the Judge Emeritus Eligibility Act of 1975 she would be entitled to 60% of her salary, plus asking that you continue her health insurance benefits the same as with the 1977 employee pension plan. MR. SHEPARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor, and I ask that the Commission direct the Clerk to send her a letter thanking her for her many years of service to this county. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. WALL: The second item would be to approve an agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the State of Georgia GMA for the construction of an emergency watershed protection measure, which consist of a sea wall at the Goodale Landing Subdivision in Richmond County, and also an agreement with Goodale Landing Homeowners Association, Incorporated for that sea wall construction project. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:15 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on February 3, 1998. _________________________ Clerk of Commission