Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS March 3, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:20 p.m., Tuesday, March 3, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. (1) THE COLOR GUARD POSTS THE COLORS. (2) THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND GILLESPIE. (3) THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. (4) NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA. CLERK: Presentation to Former Municipal Judge Evita Paschall. MAYOR SCONYERS: Judge Paschall, for the four years of dedicated service as Judge of Municipal Court of Augusta, Georgia. [MAYOR SCONYERS MAKES THE PRESENTATION TO JUDGE PASCHALL, AND A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.] MR. BEARD: As one of the former members of City Council and during your tenure there, I just want to tell you how grateful we are for the services that you rendered to the city at that time. And we know that you took over from Judge Brown at that time, but you did a great service to our city. And I think just the former members of the City Council would like for me to just thank you for the service and the wonderful job you did during your tenure here, and we wish you and your family well and the best of everything. JUDGE PASCHALL: I would like to thank you, Mr. Beard, and I would like to thank the Commissioners for allowing me to continue serving as Judge, and I would also like to thank the former City Council for allowing me to serve as Judge. I really enjoyed the opportunity, I appreciate the opportunity, and I hope my serving convinced some young child to possibly want to be a lawyer and possibly want to be a judge. And, again, I say thank you. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.] CLERK: The Augusta Chapter of the Woodmen of the World: Donation of $3,500.00 to the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. Funds will be used to purchase computer software for the program known as "ARE YOU O.K." Ms. Gerri Page will be the spokesperson. MS. PAGE: On behalf of Woodmen of the World of Omaha, Nebraska, I am the area manager, I'm here today to present this check. Our work is similar to the Fire Department. We believe in protecting our community, and in order to do this, we'd like to present these funds to put them back into the community. And one way by doing this is that Chief Few has presented me with the program, "Are You O.K.", to help our elderly senior members to find out if they are okay, and I think this is one of the most worthwhile career opportunities that we can have in the Augusta-Richmond County area, to be able to get this program off the ground. And in order for this program to get started, we want to fully endorse this program from Woodmen of the World. On behalf of Lodge 1571, Martinez, Georgia, and Omaha, Nebraska, I present him with a check for $3,550 to pay for the entire funding of this program. [MS. PAGE MAKES THE PRESENTATION TO CHIEF FEW, AND A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.] CHIEF FEW: I want to thank you for this. This will help us toward our community-based fire services, and I can tell you that the senior citizens will be happy to have a program like this. And I got to tell you, Mayor, the chief of Atlanta, after I told him about the program, he's actually starting a program up right now and they're going to have one in the near future also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank y'all very much. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 15, with the exception of 10 and 15 being disapproved, were approved by the Finance Committee on February 23, 1998. [1. Motion to approve waiver of ad valorem taxes on the following properties belonging to Springfield Village Park Foundation, Inc.: 1133 Jones Street, 1211 Reynolds Street, and 111 Twelfth Street. 2. Motion to abate late payment penalty in the amount of $626.47 on the tax bill of JHBC, Inc. 3. Motion to abate 1997 taxes on the following parcels of land owned by Augusta-Richmond County: 97A0871219030 - Barnes Road - $104.26 97A1290537010 - Saddle Horn Run - $110.66 97A1322186000 - Richmond Hill Road - $314.00 4. Motion to approve Amendments to the 1990 GMA Equipment Lease Pool Program. 5. Motion to abate balance of 1997 taxes on five parcels of land purchased by the Richmond County Department of Health or condemned for the construction of New Health Clinic on Laney-Walker Boulevard. 6. Motion to approve the funding request to purchase one work detail van for the Recreation Department. 7. Motion to approve the funding request to purchase two work detail vans for the Trees & Landscape Department. 8. Motion to approve request to purchase one prisoner transport bus for the Sheriff Department Jail. 9. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the amount of $3,331.59 for overpayment of taxes on Map 37-3, Parcel 124. 10. Motion to reconsider the denial of abatement of penalties and/or interest for late payment of taxes by Pontiac Master. 11. Motion to approve a request to waive the ad valorem taxes in the amount of $2,788.57 on the following properties belonging to Hale Foundation, Inc.: 402 Walker Street, 412 Walker Street, and 414 Walker Street. 12. Motion to approve an Ordinance establishing a Pension Plan for new employees and for employees not currently enrolled in either a City or County Retirement Plan and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute documents to implement same, subject to final approval of Attorney and Administrator. (First Reading) Item 13. Motion to approve abatement of penalties on 1997 tax bill for property located at 715 Broad Street. Item 14. Motion to approve abatement of penalty on property located at 3002 Tobacco Road. Item 15. Motion to abate the penalties on business account ($208.54) and real estate account ($686.65).] MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee makes the motion that these items, 1 through 15, be approved by a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS: If I might, just from a point of technicality, on Number 5, let the record show that I abstained on it. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEM 5. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 1-4 & 6-15. CLERK: Under the Administrative Services portion of the agenda, Items 16 through 19 were approved by Administrative Services on February 23, 1998. [16. Motion to approve declaration of DC-3 airplane (currently located at old Richmond County Museum) as surplus property and to transfer airplane to Augusta-Richmond County Museum. 17. Deleted from consent agenda. 18. Motion to approve Operation Clean Sweep Project focusing on the Turpin Hill Neighborhood. 19. Motion to approve revisions to the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) 1998 Final Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds (budget) and include as Amendment #2 to Augusta's 1998 Consolidated Strategy & Plan.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 16 through 19 be approved by unanimous consent. MR. MAYS: I'll second that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Item 17, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve 16, 18 and 19, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 17: Motion to approve a $25,000 economic development loan for Mildred and Herbert L. Robinson d/b/a Mr. & Mrs. Manners, Inc. as recommended by the Augusta-Richmond County Economic Development Loan Review Committee. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we refer this back to the Loan Review Committee seeing how the Loan Review Committee only had two of the five members present when this loan was approved. I think at least the majority of them ought to be present when they approve a loan. MR. MACK: There were two members present, another member voted by letter concurring with the decision recommending the loan, so we had a majority. And Mr. Brigham is correct, there were only two members present, but we had a majority to recommend it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mack, who makes up this committee? Is there any county housing employees on there? MR. MACK: No, sir, they have no staff members on this committee. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mack, your staff did also concur with this loan, didn't they? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: And they went through the whole procedure, the staff did, also? MR. MACK: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve that as approved in the committee. MR. BEARD: It doesn't have to be a substitute. There was no second to his motion, Mr. Brigham, so [inaudible]. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I make a motion that we approve Item Number 17. MR. BEARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would also be concerned, you know, that if we have folks that is agreeing to serve on committees, then certainly they should be present at the committee. I would assume that this is done in a public forum, and you take something away from the spirit of the law as far as doing it in a public forum if you're writing letters saying I concur. You know, was the letter presented at the meeting or was the letter wrote after the meeting? MR. MACK: The letter was written the same day. MR. TODD: Was the letter presented at the meeting? MR. MACK: No, sir. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with it. And I think that it's simple enough to get three individuals out of five to a meeting and approve--and go by a process and have a criteria to go by. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mack, is the Loan Review Committee a committee of our choosing or is it a committee of the federal regulations? MR. MACK: It's a committee of our choosing. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But the federal regulations highly recommend it or not? MR. MACK: Currently now they're recommending that we use a committee to make recommendations to the board. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And if we have a committee--are we not going to use that committee? MR. MACK: The committee was used. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If the majority of the members of the committee was not present, how was the committee used? MR. MACK: Because we had three members that voted. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we done been through this several times with loans in the past where the loan group says they approved, another group says they didn't approve. I think if we want to have a committee, I think we ought to have a committee meeting to approve the loans. I don't think we ought to get in the practice of allowing the committees to approve loans by letter. I don't think that's an appropriate action. I think we ought to refer this back to the Loan Review Committee. If it's a sound loan, then we'll make it. I have no problem with making the loan, I have a problem with the procedure, and I don't think the procedure has been followed. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my question to Mr. Mack would be--and I agree. I think to strengthen your program--I realize everybody can't be at every meeting everywhere all the time, but what I think would at least be better, if at this point when--at the time that the meeting was held to now or at the time it went on the agenda, if--what about your other two members? I mean, even though they were not at the meeting, but I'm sure they've had the opportunity to review material or call back or something. Have they been contacted? And I think probably the basis of what you've got and probably the soundness of it, it's not a problem there, but I think--I want to make sure that you get off on the right foot [inaudible]. What's been the position of your two other members? MR. MACK: Well, one gentleman is employed by Allied Bank and, of course, they're going through a transition type stage. And, of course, Ms. Dee Crawford, the other member of the committee, came in about fifteen minutes after the meeting was over and we discussed it. So all of the members were advised of this loan. MS. EVANS: May I add something also? All the members had a copy of the package delivered to them. Mr. Smith, the one that gave us the letter with his vote on it, was on his way to the meeting. He had something come up at the last minute and he said he just couldn't make it but that he would send us a letter saying what his vote was because he had reviewed the package. CLERK: Give us your name, please. MS. EVANS: I'm sorry. I'm Gladys Evans and I work for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department as a business development specialist. MR. MAYS: You know, we want to make sure--and I'd hate to get us in a situation where we--you know, we are, I think, from the standpoint of where we've got to do certain things a certain way because of this Commission, because of the rules, because of everything from Open Meetings, you know, to you name it. I can see where you possibly may have a problem with the busy- ness of business people of where we've got to make sure that even though of the size of that loan and that magnitude may be small to the people that may make that decision, if it's 25 cents or $25,000, we've got to deal with it in a certain way on our level. Would it probably help from this experience that- -I don't know whether your board--a lot of times this group of ten, we get criticized for having too many arguments. Maybe we might get a lot more done if we had a group of five or a group of four. But just observing your process, and this is a one-time situation, I probably will vote for it, but I really wouldn't want to see it come back again with another one unless you're going to maybe have some rules as to where they maybe sign off on their procedure from, you know, your membership there, the board, or if you're going to maybe, you know, increase it to a size where you've got a workable number, just as your advisory board, I think, is a larger size of where we do the appointing to that one and you're not, you know, trapped there with just maybe four or five people. Because if somebody's got to make a million dollar decision in their business and come to your office maybe to make a vote on a $25,000 loan, theirs is going to rise first. You know, they're not in a position to where they're required by attendance vote to have to deal with it, and I can fully understand that. And I'm probably going to still vote for it, but I just think that before we get any more, that we need to either deal with the size of your board of expanding it there where you've got a workable number, that it doesn't come back with two folk. Because being a small business person, being in an inner city, being in a legitimate red-line area, I know the hell a lot of these businesses catch, but I don't want them to catch further hell from this group because we get penalized because two people out of five were present to make a decision. And I'm going to support you in what you've got to do, but I think in order to get this group's support and to make sure that it doesn't be dealt with in this manner again, then we need to make sure that that board functions or come back to us with a different way that you want to see it function. And maybe, you know, you might need a little bit of some grass roots mixed with the business in there if everybody is busy and can't get there. And I'm not criticizing. I'm being very careful not to criticize. But we don't want to get it muddied where you got good people with a good loan and then you turn around and get spanked by this Commission because it may seem as though you've got an impropriety, and that's all I'm saying. I'm going to support you in what you got, but I just think when you come back again with the next one, then you need to have a majority of that board making that darn decision. MR. MACK: I agree with that, Mr. Mays. But the person with Allied Bank, Gordon Earwood, that is the first meeting that he has ever missed. MR. MAYS: And I said I wasn't criticizing. That can happen. Where they've got million dollar decisions and y'all got to deal with a $25,000 one, they'd better be there at the bank or else they'll be coming over here and looking somewhere else for a job. But when you come here to us with it and it's an open and public meeting about it, we just want to make sure that it gives the presence of where--because this being discussed, even with a person's business, it casts in some ways or may cast a light that might not need to be shed on a good, legitimate and solid loan and a good solid business person, and that's all I'm saying. And I'm going to support you on it, but just when you come back again, just get your majority vote. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mack, first I want to say I concur with everything that's been said to this point because I think it's important from a credibility standpoint that procedures are being adhered to. But would you answer me for my information, what are the normal terms of a loan like this: the time frame and the interest rate? MS. EVANS: If I may answer that. The interest rate, according to the guidelines that were prepared a year or so ago, is prime at whatever closing-- whenever the closing of the loan actually is. And prime right now is probably about 8.5%. And the number of years would depend on the collateral. It can go as long as ten years, but I believe this one was approved at seven years. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mack, does your committee allow for that sort of voting by proxy? MR. MACK: This is the first time that has ever happened. MS. EVANS: And it doesn't have any written guidelines as far as attendance in the policy manual that was designed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. SHEPARD & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make one comment on Item Number 18, on the cleanup in the Turpin Hill neighborhood area. The Pride and Progress group has requested, and we concur, that we change those cleanup dates to coincide with the community-wide cleanup on March the 27th, 28th, and 29th, so we are going to do that. So we're going to do the cleanup in the Turpin Hill as our second phase of Project Clean Sweep on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of March. MR. MACK: Those cleanups are going to be throughout the community, but the Clean Sweep is going to be in the Turpin Hill area. MR. OLIVER: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mack and Mr. Oliver. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 20 through 40 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on February 23, 1998. [20. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.112 acres of permanent drainage easement and 0.068 acres of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 71-2, Parcel 296, Project Parcel 30) on the Cook Road/Glendale Subdivision Improvement Project, which is owned by Hunter Pointe Apartments, LLC. 21. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $56,085.93 to Mabus Construction Company regarding the construction of water and sanitary sewer improvements in conjunction with the Jackson Road Widening Project. 22. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $2,675.00 for J.D. Haire Construction Company regarding the construction and relocation of 12" water line for the Belair Road Extension Project. 23. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One in the amount of $178,500 and the engineering proposal amendment for $8,500 with ZEL Engineers on the S.R. 56 @ Old Waynesboro Road Project to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II, Recaptured Funds. 24. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.02 acres of permanent drainage and utility easement and 0.02 acres of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 61) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project. 25. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.08 acres of permanent drainage and utility easement and 0.07 acres of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 63) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project. 26. Motion to approve engineering contract with James G. Swift & Associates in the amount of $20,400 for design and surveying services and $3,400 for easement plats for 4,800 linear feet of 12" water line along Peach Orchard Road. 27. Motion to approve acceptance of easement from the Secretary of the Army for the construction, operations and maintenance of a water line to the National Science Center. 28. Motion to approve Consent Order regarding Messerly Plant NPDES Permit. 29. Motion to approve $71,958 for acquisition of hand-held meter reading devices and software from Utiliman Systems Incorporated (Itron, Inc. Equipment). 30. Motion to approve Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $3,900 for W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. regarding structural inspections for the Willis Foreman Road Two Million-Gallon Ground Storage Tank. 31. Motion to approve Larry Olinger to become a payment substation for water bills at One Stop Convenience Store located at 2382 Barton Chapel Road in South Augusta. 32. Deleted from consent agenda. 33. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 for Hillwood Circle/Whitehead Drive Drainage Improvements with Beam's Pavement Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $25,741.03 to be funded from the Project Contingencies. 34. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two in the amount of $607,737, which combines Phase I and II of the Forest Park Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project into one (including the Castlewood Drive Detention Basin Project) and approve the right to let for bid. All funds are set aside in these projects in Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III. 35. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Transportation County Contract Number PRLOP 8503-055(245)C1 for their participation in the Walton Way Improvements Project in the amount of $827,894.11. 36. Motion to approve the letting of project and amendment Capital Project Budget in the amount of $299,973.00 for Construction and Contingency from the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III for the Walton Way Improvements Project. 37. Motion to approve technical specifications for furnishing labor and materials to remove underground storage tanks located at Augusta-Richmond County's various facilities and authorize to solicit proposals from the interested vendors to complete the tank system closure work per above-referred specifications. 38. Motion to approve award contract to Ingleside Electric for fabricating and installing six (6) new trash racks at the Butler Creek Gates in the amount of $8,845.00. 39. Motion to approve contract for repairs on twenty-one (21) floodgate operators to Master Fabricators in the amount of $9,240.00. 40. Motion to approve Resolution to abandon a portion of Carolina Road and authorize its conveyance to the adjoining property owner.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. I would like to pull Number 32. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Items 20 through 40, with the exception of Item 32. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta- Richmond County Code Section 5-2-45 to provide for water and sewer rates as adopted in the annual budget. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the reason that I wanted this one pulled is I think when we're dealing with an ordinance, that we shouldn't deal with them in a consent. They probably should be even--not even included with the agenda for the committee but under the County Attorney in the sense that there is a mandate that we do it and that they be filed with the Clerk's Office when we're dealing with an ordinance. Also, I think it's important that the public know what we are doing, that we have at least opportunity to debate the issue and let the public know what we're doing. And if I didn't have the background information from the budget, et cetera, on the way it's worded, Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't know what this is, and I believe what we're doing here is increasing water rates by 3%; is that correct, Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: The ordinance does two things. What the ordinance does is it provides for water and sewer rates to be set as part of the adoption of the budget. We believe that as part of the budget adoption every year, that that ought to happen. The second part of that, Mr. Todd, you're absolutely correct, as part of that budget the Mayor and Commission previously approved a 3% increase, but we cannot increase those rates the way the previous ordinance was written without going through an ordinance procedure, and what this would do would be modify that procedure so upon budget adoption those rates would be approved rather than having to go through a multi-level process. MR. TODD: Is it my understanding also, Mr. Oliver, that this is the second reading or first? CLERK: First reading. MR. TODD: Okay. And there will be another reading? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's important when we're dealing with an ordinance that maybe we separate them out somehow. I don't know how we do that or whether it would concur with the Mayor and Administrator and County Attorney. But I opposed this when it come to the budget for an increase. I didn't oppose the 3% franchise fee that we're charging our public utilities just like we charge everybody else. I opposed the increase in the sense that there was no need. It has no impact on the budget, yet it do have an impact on wastewater as far as the capital outlay go, Mr. Mayor. But we have options on how we can pay for capital outlay. I know Representative Howard was concerned, Mr. Mayor, that we were spending money from waterworks and that we wasn't making any plans for capital outlay for South Richmond. We can take care of the capital outlay, Mr. Mayor, with the revenue bond we have now, with the one-penny sales tax that we have for the wetlands, and with the money that's there for the expansion and taking care of unpocketed areas and expansion of water and wastewater. For any future needs, Mr. Mayor, we can take care it out of the Year 2000 one-penny sales tax. I think that we will pull $50 million out of that five-year sales tax. At the current rate we bring in $165 million to do our expansion. I think it's wrong that we burden the users of this system, that many of them is on fixed incomes, with an increase. We don't need this increase, Mr. Mayor, to take care of the bond payment. The system is paying for that. We need the increase to look at future needs as far as capital outlay, and we can do it from a one-penny sales tax, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we disapprove this first reading of the ordinance. That's in the form of a motion. MR. MAYS: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor. I read with quite a bit of interest, and it's not something that I laugh about, but I found it a little humorous when I heard the proposal of a water authority. It doesn't get to be funny, though, I think, if we give somebody an excuse to put one together. Now, I'm a little concerned for several reasons. The people that put us together in the reorganization deal--and I don't want my two colleagues on both sides of me to beat me to death at the same time while I'm talking, so I'll hold one hand up and I'll watch the other one out the side. But I think it's been a matter of public record where I stood in reference to what--the whole thing was written into the bill in reference to the immediate rollback, and whether we agree with what the old city did or not in terms of water, the standpoint was we found ourselves this year without, over a two- year period, between probably 3.7 and 4 million dollars in revenue that we dealt with on an immediate impact that wasn't considered when they put the consolidation bill together. Then all of a sudden out of that same group we hear voices in terms of dealing with a water authority. I think if we start to deal with increases that aren't seriously looked at, we give credence to putting that type of authority together. And I think that's what we need to carefully watch, that we don't get in that mode to where the sentiment gets to be to say, well, if you're going to deal with the increases, then why not go ahead and have an authority and then to create a whole other layer of bureaucracy folks pay close to $6,000 a year to sit and battle that one. And then when you need to make serious decisions, then you've got to go in terms of with some of these authorities that at times assume their own godlike roles, their own rules, and you catch the devil trying to even get them into any type of understanding. And we've seen that with various authorities from time to time that governments have appointed where they become total little powers or little cities on their own. So I think if you're going to deal with doing this, you need to seriously think about, too, what impact that might have of giving strength to an authority that possibly has been proposed and pushed, that came about after we sat there and met on two different occasions with the legislative delegation and came as a surprise upon us where we knew nothing about it. And I can think of a lot of things I won't say today that maybe they ought to be trying to dismantle or regulate, but I won't get into that. But I think if you're going to give them the credence to do something like this, you need to be careful in terms of whether you're dealing with those increases. I fought against an increase and I lost from the very beginning. I fought against how we were dealing with that in the budget and I lost that battle. I'll probably lose this one today, but I'm going to be consistent at least in losing. But I think you ought to at least realize what you might be opening yourselves up for. If you're going to deal with that type of proposed situation, then you give strength to something that you say you don't want, something that you've not had even the privilege of discussing, that you basically have got it by fax and you saw about it in your advertisement. So I think you just need to be aware of that and keep your eyes open with it so that it doesn't hit you by surprise and you do it, you know, by your own self-infliction, and that's why I second the motion at this point to turn it down. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, what I'd like to find out is the increase represents about 1% a year for the last two years, and I fully understand 2 that expenses go up, salaries go up. I think we've got a built-in 3% increase potentially in salaries. Can you explain to me the rationale, if it's any different than that, of why we're proposing an increase? MR. OLIVER: I think there are a couple of factors, Commissioner Kuhlke. One is to put it in perspective. The average utility bill here is about $25 per month for a residential customer. 3% of $25 is 75 cents. You are correct in that the rates have been constant for a two-year period. On average, each department was given 3% to increase salaries last year or to adjust 2 salaries. 1% was done across the board, 2% was done on a pay-for- 2 performance, but it was 3% to each department. We surveyed 20 other 2 jurisdictions. We found that the rates that we offered of the jurisdictions surveyed were the lowest. If you will also recall, based on financial projections the revenues coming in were quite a bit less than those that were originally anticipated when the rates were worked out. It's philosophically our thought that it's better to raise the rates a little bit at a time rather than to be in a position when you need a major plant retrofit to have to raise the rates significantly at one time. And what this ordinance provides for is that during the budgetary process, when the budget is adopted, that the rates would be set at that time. If this is not passed, we would have to go back and basically cut about a million dollars worth of projects out of the utilities budget of the capital variety because the budget is currently predicated on this additional revenue. MR. BRIDGES: First let me say, Mr. Todd, that I agree with you as far as the franchise fee. I think that is probably an item that we might want to do away with in the future. We're basically taking money out of one pocket and putting it another, and it is too similar to what the old city did as far as raiding the water fund to pay for the general budget. The question I've got, Randy, as this ordinance is written here, does it cap the amount that the water rates can be raised in any one year by the CPI? MR. OLIVER: Cap, no. I think that you would very much limit your flexibility in that if a major plant retrofit was needed--I mean, obviously what you try to do is to do a system where you phase those rates in so nobody is hit in any one given year. But I think to impose such a cap, you would restrict your flexibility. You know, it's not my intention to recommend anything of the kind, and that's one of the reasons that we are suggesting to do it by the CPI because people tend to understand that better. MR. BRIDGES: But isn't our purpose here, at least one of the purposes here, to tie it to the CPI is basically tie it to the inflation rate and keep from having these 20 to 30 percent increases, you know, every five or ten years or whatever when we see ourselves in trouble; isn't that what the purpose is of this? MR. OLIVER: That's one of the purposes. I mean, clearly, you know, I've seen far too many communities that will keep their water rates or sewer rates the same for five or seven years, then they need a major plant expansion, then they go back and they raise it the equivalent of 3% a year. And if it's been five years, it'd be 15%, if it's been seven years, it'd be 21%, and then the public doesn't understand that because, you know, they don't recognize the fact that it hadn't been raised. As Mr. Kuhlke said, this translates into 1% a year, which is quite modest if you look at things, I mean, and 2 inflation has been quite modest. MR. BRIDGES: My understanding, too, is that we were short almost a million dollars on the sewer side of the bill this year. MR. OLIVER: I think Mr. Hicks can probably give us that number more accurately, but it was something, I believe, in excess of that, yes. MR. BRIDGES: And were we short on the tax side as well? MR. OLIVER: Our sales tax collections overall were less than we had originally projected, and part of that has to do perhaps, we hope, with the Department of Revenue. We're still investigating that portion of it. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear from Glenn on that. GLENN: Water/sewer revenues were down approximately 7% or approximately $2 million from what was budgeted, so that's a significant impact. On top of that, Max told me that they pumped or sold 9% more in water, so the impact of the water rates that we set in the prior year had a significant effect on revenue. I know there were a lot of complaints and people screaming that the water rates went up, but there were a lot of people that actually showed a reduction, and I'm one of them. I benefitted from the new water rates, but-- so we lost overall revenue about 7% of what we had budgeted. We had two phases of sales tax reimbursement, one is a combined sewer overflow and the other is the wetlands projects. The combined sewer overflow, there was approximately $5 million paid to the water department for 1997. That was what was budgeted. There was no money in '96. And the plan is by 1999 to have the total $10 million reimbursed to the water department. We spent 2 approximately 13 to 14 million dollars--right off the top of my head, it's between 13 and 14 million dollars for the total combined sewer overflow. But the sales tax ordinance only allowed--and this was the urban sales tax ordinance--only allowed for $10 million reimbursement. The other half of 2 that would be the wetlands project, which was the same amount of money. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver and Mr. Bridges, you talked about the index, CPI. I don't have a copy of the ordinance in the book, I don't think any of us do, but I asked the County Attorney about that prior to this discussion and I understand that there is no reference to an index in the ordinance at all. MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. KUHLKE: And so in response to what Mr. Bridges has said and what you've talked about, I think there needs to be a revisit maybe of that ordinance if we're going to tie it to a specific index. MR. OLIVER: Well, I think the intent more was to tie it to the budgetary process, and it's my intent to tie it to the CPI to the extent we need it. I mean, some years we won't need it. And Mr. Wall and I talked about what the specific index should be as it relates to coming from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But as I say, the only thing the ordinance does is make it so upon adoption of the budget we set these rates so we don't have to go through a multiple approval process, and we can do it any way the Mayor and Commission would so desire. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly we can look for ways to make it look easier to accept or easier for the payers to swallow. And when we go to town meetings, you know, I'd like to walk out there and say I'm from the government and I'm here to help you, but it's hard to do that and keep a straight face when we do things like we do here as far as these increases go. If we wanted to use the rates all around the country, you know, or all around the state as a reason to justify to increase the rate, then we want to turn around and use the low rates, the reason for industry and reasons for retirees and other individuals that do business in Richmond County or come to Richmond County to relocate in Richmond County, I think that we're somewhat hypocritical there. We've been dealing with some other rates, you know, utility deregulation, and I think that there is several that's higher than Georgia. Would that be a reason to up? No, I'm not lobbying to go up, I'm lobbying that we stay where we're at or come down. And I think that's what we need to do here with the water, we need to stay where we're at or come down. Glenn, how much did we increase the 1996 when we restructured the rates for consolidation? GLENN: You're testing me here, but 1996 we actually showed about a $385,000 shortfall revenue against the budget. MR. TODD: I'm not talking about how much actually came in. I know we were supposed to have been revenue neutral. And I know in working out that formula to be revenue neutral we were bringing the rates down in West Richmond, we went up on rates in the inner city, and we went up on rates as far as wastewater, I know, out in South Richmond to make this thing revenue neutral. And I think what happened is the Good Lord blessed us with a lot of rain and we had a shortfall. So as the Good Lord blessed us with rain, are we going to go up every year or are we going to look for other ways to take care of our capital outlay? We don't have a shortfall as far as the bond go. We don't have a short-fall as far as operations go. We do have a shortfall as far as what we anticipated to be able to spend in capital outlay. We all know that we have a system that we need improvements on as far as capital outlay go. We have more money right now in the revenue bond. The expansion money that was there for South Richmond, I think it was somewhere around $20 million, we loaned $10 million to the wetlands project that was supposed to be paid back from one penny, and that's money that we can reprogram into expansion. I'm trying to see the need for increasing, the dire urgency to increase to do capital outlay. I don't see that. I do know and I seen that we increased probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 22%. If you don't have the figures, I'll pull some out of the sky. My recollection is not perfect, but about 22% in 1996. We come back and we made some minor adjustments on water, going with the--because of complaints, going with the winter month rate for citizens that--maybe we had a senior citizen on a fixed income, that they would pay that rate. And I know that had some impact, possibly negative, as far as revenue go. But I still say, gentlemen, the way to make up for that negative impact as far as revenue go is with one-penny sales tax Year 2000. You have more projects than you're going to be able to do between now and Year 2000. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Glenn, I believe you said while ago that our water sales in volume went up? GLENN: Yes, sir. And according to Max-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Max, you might want to come help because I need to understand some things. GLENN: Basically sold--from what Max is saying, sold more water, which meant water usage was up for 1997, yet revenue was down. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Max, approximately what percentage did water sales go up? MR. HICKS: The water sales went up--well, I'll give you the figure. It was 900 million gallons more that we sold last year. That was about a 8.3% increase. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The revenue, the reason it's down is because we as a Commission lowered everybody's wastewater figures; is that not true? MR. HICKS: That's true. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And that's whether you lived in the old city or old county, the old West August, wherever. Everybody got the same lowering of wastewater figures; is that not true? MR. HICKS: That's right. In other words, when we went to the winterized average, that applied to all residential users wherever they were. And in effect what we have done was used the entire--well, as appeared in the paper, an average of 7,000 gallons per customer per month was what was used to set the original rates in order to recover X number of dollars of expenditure. And then when we dropped that to an average of 6,000, then naturally you're going to lose money because you won't sell as many widgits. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If that's the case, if we had not reduced those rates we would've had a very bountiful surplus? MR. HICKS: If we had not done that, selling as much water as we did, we would have had an increase over what we had in '96. MR. J. BRIGHAM: A tremendous increase? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Now, likewise, with the reduction of water, is there not capital needs to produce that extra 900 million gallons that are not being met? MR. HICKS: There were. The capital needs would have been chemicals and electricity. Labor was the same, but you would need more chemicals and you need more electricity. MR. J. BRIGHAM: You need that because it's a variable directly to use of water? MR. HICKS: Right. Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So those expenses went up, but we did not get any additional revenue for that? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Now, the cost of treating wastewater, the volume of wastewater proportionately for the number of gallons that were treated, did it go down because we went to a wintertime rate? MR. HICKS: No, sir, it did not. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So actually what we've done is we've given the taxpayers a real good break on their water rates and we have ate up our additional cost in the wastewater treatment side by still having to treat the same percentage of gallons that is pumped whether or not we collect revenue for it; is that correct? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So this proposed rate increase, while it's only a 1% 2 for the last two years, is a very meager increase? MR. HICKS: It's a modest increase. It would amount to about $800,000 a year or about 75 cents per residential customer per month. I haven't tried to figure how much it would increase as far as the commercial customers. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on. So while we get the rap of not being customer-friendly, we have proven that we are extremely helpful [inaudible]. MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. The Commission responded, you know, to the customers' demands. MR. MAYS: Let me just ask you this, Max, and this is real quick. I think it's real simple to understand, you know, how those numbers came about. I mean, naturally if you've got by legislative law where you're doing equalization which in essence deals with a reduction and you pay less for it, then you're going to in all probability, whether you're talking about water, food, whatever you may consume, you're going to be able to deal with more of it. Wouldn't it be safe to say that? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: Okay. And I'm not debating that about where we've tried. We were mandated by law, and I think you all have done a good job with water. I'm not even beating our Finance folks across the head because I know the message we sent to them and to the Administrator of what to pump that with. My fear, though, is still what it was, and I guess I'm going to put on my conservative Republican hat for a minute. A tax is a tax, I don't care what name you basically put on it or where you hide it at. Now, my problem is, is that if you're going to deal with these little increments--now, we passed a budget the first month of the year. Third month of the year now, we're still basically dealing with ordinances that tie us in to a budget now. Now, this is the same argument--and I won't delay because of debate to get Ms. Bonner and those to pull back up what we were talking about at that time, but I hope that you all are dead right and I'm dead wrong about what my fear was at that time. When you start to deal with these little incremental things to make up a budget--now, what I'm hearing in there that I don't like today is that, well, if you don't deal with the ordinance in here and dealing with this, then we're looking at some other things that we've got to cut and we've got to do. I said that in the very beginning: expectations of what you may sell should not necessarily be the main focus of where we're going to deal with the budget. So, I mean, if you're depending on whether or not somebody is going to deal with renting a car, somebody's going to deal with water here, somebody dealing with another little rag-tag tax in order to make a budget work, you may be the rest of this year going back with these little silent threats about what if we don't sell enough water or what if somebody else doesn't rent enough cars, and that's what I was talking about that time. But the bigger thing, I think, Mr. Mayor, that we need to be concerned about is that while the numbers may be safe, the perception needs to be clear. Now, I think that in terms of--and I agree with Jerry in terms of a good deal in reference to our customers. That's what ought to be highlighted. Phil and I can disagree with a lot of things in the paper. I agreed with the editorial the other day in terms of where our water is right now and all. But I think from the perception standpoint we want to be careful in how an increase is interpreted by the general public so that you're not--and I guess I'll borrow this from Steve Hardy: you don't want to be like that little deer standing in the middle of the road when the headlights hit you. And you're standing right there with a big stare in your eyes, boom, you got an authority on top of you. Don't know how it happened, mainly because some things maybe have not been articulated properly. And it doesn't take a lot sometimes for the delegation to get a misunderstanding about what's direct to them, and you can end up with something that you don't necessarily want. That's all I'm just saying there is that be careful in how that's worded, how you deal with the PR in terms of what you're dealing with water. The things my colleague said a few minutes ago, those are things that we'd better be talking because, if not, you're going to end up looking at something that you may not want and all of it could come right on top of you because of perception. If it's perceived wrong and it gets out there, you start dealing with what's perceived as an increase, then folk may say, well, why not, maybe they don't know what they want to do, they're back now deciding they may have to do something different with the budget, they just passed the budget. Those are the things I think you ought to seriously consider. If nothing else, and I shouldn't say this in public, it ought to be to each one of y'all--Sylvia, this ain't no closed meeting, but it ought to be said to them ten times in ten different places one on one. But I'm going to tell you this, don't telegraph them no message up there to give you an excuse to put something in place that you have to turn around and fight. And I think if it's not sent back properly, then you could very well give excuse to something of a layer of bureaucracy that's not needed and definitely not wanted and one that wasn't even given the courtesy of being discussed. But if you give the excuse, you might get it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to tell each and every one of you that Mr. Mays is not very far off base. We met with the local delegation this morning in Atlanta, Mr. Hicks and myself, and the message that we received was received loud and clear. They have some concerns with the way we've been shifting money around with the water fund. The 3% franchise fee creates a problem for us in one way because we're passing it on to the consumer. Although, keep in mind, we're talking about, on a $20 bill, we're talking about 60 cents. And I know 60 cents isn't a lot to some people, but, again, we have folks that are on fixed incomes and are shuffling bills just to make it. The message that was received this morning was, again, received loud and clear, that we need to be looking for some other ways to come up with money for the General Fund. The state delegation wants the water and sewer expansion and they want it done in short order. I appreciate Mr. Howard working with us and taking the bill that was proposed and tabling it for now and giving us some time to work out some of these problems. But Mr. Mays, again, is right on track. If you don't want the state delegation forming a water authority, then we need to look at some other means of coming up with these funds. I think that they'll accept the 3% this time, but I think that-- they're going to give us this year, but the bill is not dead. It's laying in state and it can be revived, and that's what I'm bringing home to you. We've took $5.5 million out of the water fund. Next year we're going to take, what, 3.7, Mr. Hicks? MR. HICKS: Well, in '98 it'll be 3.7. MR. POWELL: 3.7 million. The next year it's 2.5 million, and we're going to wean it down to a million dollars. MR. OLIVER: 1.5 million. It's 3% or 1.5 million. No, wait a second, it's 5% or 1.5 million, isn't it, Max? MR. POWELL: It's one million dollars, if I'm not mistaken. That's what I believe. It's one million dollars, if you'll check the records. And I'm bringing it back here to you just like it was put to me, and it was put to me stern as a warning and I accept it as that. And, again, I respect Mr. Howard for giving us an opportunity this year to try to work out some of this stuff, but we need to start looking for some other avenues. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Powell brings a good point to us here. As far as the budget goes, in the Year 2000, my understanding there is we can pull 1.5 million out of the water side and put it in the general budget. We've got the franchise fees coming out of the water side to put it in the general budget. That 1.5 million, we do not have to pull that out of the water fund. My understanding of the bond reading is that is just the maximum that we can pull out. We don't have to do it. So we can alleviate some of the capital budget problems of the water fund that way. Of course, that puts pressure on the general fund side, and we need to get our act together there. With that in mind, I want to make a motion that we support the ordinance as it is, with the addition--and, Jim, I don't know what kind of legalese we'll have to do this with, but with the addition that we--in any one year we cannot raise the water rates higher than the CPI. It doesn't mean we have to raise them to that, but we cannot raise them higher than the CPI. And I'd make that in the form of a motion. And I think that--one of the purposes being that we're trying to get rid of these, every five or seven years, 20% increases and that type of thing. I think that this is reasonable and I think it's prudent to do it. And if we need to look at monies for budget purposes, we need to look at the 1.5 million and the franchise fees, so I'll make that in the form of a substitute motion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion. MR. HANDY: I have just a three-part question. I agree with what I heard here today concerning the water authority, what Mr. Powell brought back, the concerns about Mr. Mays as well as Mr. Todd. But, number one, I never knew that we had trouble with our water department. I never knew anything about that, so--I'm on the committee and this is the first time I heard anything about swapping money from one part to the other of the water depart-ment. That's one thing I don't know anything about. Number two is that Mr. Todd, he keeps talking about 2000 taxes. I'll agree with him about waiting on certain things about Year 2000, like if you're talking about the golf course and now we're talking about the water. But how do we know that 2000, that we'll pass the sales tax? I mean, the way that we are doing things here now, the perception that Mr. Mays talked about you keep putting out there, I don't know whether the taxpayers are going to vote for anything that we want. Sometimes, to me, it seems that we are shooting our own selves in the foot. We mean well by what we are saying, we want everybody to know what we're talking about, we want to bring the issues out so we don't give the perception that we're trying to do something that's illegal, but yet and still we send out a message to the taxpayers that we are doing something illegal. And if we keep depending on 2000 taxes and talking the way we're talking now, I don't think we're going to have any 2000 taxes, and then we will be raising some taxes. So what I'm saying is that it's good to talk about and bring the issues out, but make sure that what you're bringing out is accurate and not just putting something out there and then we're going to have to go back out and try to bring it back in and clean it up. And it's bad to clean up something once you get out there. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to send the perception out here wrong. Again, I think the local delegation is going to be lenient with us this trip on this 3%, okay? But I think that also we need to make some changes as far as their concerns as to notifying the public of these increases and having some town meetings, and I agree that we need to look for, in our next budget, some other means of coming up with this revenue. But I don't want to send the signal out there to the public that water and sewer rates are not going to be increasing. I've told people this all along. As EPA and EPD mandates get more stringent it's going to cost more money to treat this water, it's going to cost more money to treat this wastewater, thus the cost is going to go up. We've done a good job--Mr. Hicks has done a wonderful job in keeping our rates low. Mr. Oliver. All we're saying is--I feel like we're going to try to help get this 3% through, and I urge my colleagues to support it today, but next year when we come back we need to have a different game plan or I think we're going to have a different operation to look at. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's a fact that for the users that use X amount of gallons--and, Mr. Hicks, I guess you have the gallons. What was the gallons for the winter months average? It's a fact that we carried their rate throughout the year, 12 months, to winter rates. It's a fact that those folks realized also a reduction as far as their wastewater. It's a fact, Mr. Mayor, that wastewater in South Richmond was probably about 40% of the water and water became 40% of the wastewater in South Richmond. That's a fact, Mr. Mayor. It's not a misperception, it's not misleading folks, it's a fact. I agree with Mr. Powell that we need to have hearings, because when I look at the water bill, you know, that I receive, I see $50 on it. I see, you know, over $30 for wastewater and the rest for water. So it's a fact, Mr. Mayor, that the citizens in South Richmond is paying more for water. It's a fact, Mr. Mayor, that at the time that--well, let's just go several years back, I won't name the Commissioner, that water was raised in South Richmond to have an expansion fund to be able to expand the water and wastewater in South Richmond. It's a fact, Mr. Mayor, that we expanded the water from county line to county line. We were all involved in that. It's a fact, Mr. Mayor, that several--well, a year and a half ago when we dealt with this water issue we had several individuals sitting on this board saying they didn't understand what we done. All I'm saying, Mr. Mayor, is let's understand what we're doing today and let's make sure that the citizens or the users understand what we're doing today, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Glenn, I need your help. Glenn, can you tell me how many dollars we transferred from the water fund to the general fund in 1995? GLENN: 1995: $14.3 million. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can you tell me how many dollars we transferred in 1996? GLENN: $6.7 million. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can you tell me how many we transferred in '97? GLENN: $5.2 million. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is 5.2 14 million? That's about $9 million 2 difference, isn't it? GLENN: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So obviously we are taking money out of the water fund to support the general fund? GLENN: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We're doing a real good job on about $10 million a year. And what's going to be the '98 transfer? GLENN: It's 1.5 million less. It's going to be 3.7. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So that's going down, too, isn't it? GLENN: Yes, sir. And it will go down another million in '99. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It'll go down another million. And was it--I guess I need to ask Jim Wall this because he's the employee and I don't want to put anybody up here on the spot. Was it not the debate of this Commission when we got into setting the sewer bond rate that we were not going to transfer more than a million dollars a year or 5% of the revenues, which-ever was lower? I believe that was the facts of the matter. So if the legislative delegation is so damned dumb, and pardon me, that they can't see that we're not taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket to run the government for a tax paying public that has to be ran out of tax dollars and not robbing a water system, and we're trying to leave the money in the water system so we can expand it and renew it. The problem we have now is that we have a broke water system that needs renewing. If nobody is going to say that, then I'm going to say it. It's broke. The money has not been spent on the renewal of the system, and we're going to spend the money on the renewal of the system that we take in as water revenues and that's the only way we're going to spend it. We are not going to support the General Fund. The people that sits up here have been unanimous in that. Now, if the legislators want to create a water authority, God help them, they can do it because I can't stop them. But they are not going to improve the lot of the water user in this county. When we take and cut almost $10 million out of transfers on an annual basis--that's an annual basis. $10 million, you know, somewhere along the way that's a lot of money. More than I got. But $10 million, when we take that and quit transferring it when we can go in and renew the sewer lines that have to be renewed, that have not been renewed for 20 and 30 years, now, where is the message not getting out? I can't go to every street corner and preach this sermon. I don't want to. Somebody has got to be wise enough to realize what we're doing and look around. If we were taking $10 million out, we would still be in the same fix and we would be having more broke water lines, we would have lines exploding on us. That is not what we want. We want what y'all want: we want good, clean, safe drinking water to every home in this county. And I don't want the water users having to pay a higher water rate to support the sewer users. If you're a sewer user, you ought to pay for the cost of it. And it costs more to treat sewerage than it does to get water to you. Yes, the old people in the old county system had a higher water rate and a lower sewer rate. That meant that people that were not using the system in sewerage were supporting the people that did. Let's get this thing on an even keel. That's what we've been trying to do for two years in water. And I thought it was one of the bright spots, but obviously somebody has missed the picture around here. Maybe it's us, maybe we see it too clear because we can't explain it to the public as to what's happening. Now, I don't see where we've done a bad job. I think the Commission deserves a hand. I think we ought to pat ourselves on the back a little bit. When we can cut $10 million out of the transfer of General Fund money from the water and sewer depart-ment and leave it in the water department to renew and expand the system, something's got to be done right. MR. HANDY: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the substitute motion first, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, was to support the ordinance and to add that we cannot raise water rates higher than the CPI in any one year. The main motion was to disapprove the ordinance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' substitute motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. (MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT) CLERK: Under the Public Safety portion of the agenda, Items 41 through 44 were approved by the committee on February 23, 1998. [41. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and WRDW Channel 12 in the amount of $12,816 for lease of space on transmission tower in North Augusta, South Carolina. 42. Motion to approve allowing firefighters at Station #10 to use Fire Department property for parking for patrons at the 1998 Masters Golf Tournament. Funds will be placed in Station's budget. 43. Motion to approve salary of $94,400 for the Chief Judge of State and Municipal Court, plus retirement contribution equivalent to FICA contribution and a $3,600 supplement for serving as the Chief Judge. 44. Motion to approve contract renewal between Augusta, Georgia and the Housing Authority of the City of Augusta.] MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer the Public Safety Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 45 through 51 were approved by the committee on February 23, 1998. [45. Motion to approve new application request (A.N. 98-5) by Thomas Kyu Pak for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with P.K. Pantry located at 2502 Lumpkin Road. 46. Motion to approve new application request (A.N. 98-6) by Richard A. Wimmer for consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Oldenberg Grill located at 3037 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. 47. Motion to approve bid award to Augusta Wall and Concrete in the amount of $44,337.90 (best bid) for construction of brick veneer wall exterior finish on the existing Belle Terrace Community Center. 48. Motion to approve submittal of a Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant request to Georgia DNR in the amount of $16,000 for historic preservation planning services with any match to be from Historic Augusta. 49. Motion to approve execution of a Purchase of Service Contract between Augusta, Georgia (Rural Transit Program) and Lynndale, Inc. 50. Motion to approve the acceptance of LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 3 in the amount of $101,635 for professional services during design and bidding phase of the Terminal Access Roadway Extension Project to be covered under AIP 3-13-0011-18. 51. Motion to approve to enter into a contract in the amount of $36,765.00 with Sig Cox to replace the HVAC System at the Wallace Branch Library.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve Items 45 through 51, we pull 52 and 53, and we approve the others as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I vote no on the Sunday sales item. MR. BRIDGES: Same here, Ms. Bonner. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO, ITEM 46. MOTION CARRIES 7-2, ITEM 46. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 45 & 47-51. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Mr. Mayor, the City Administrator has requested, and Mr. Chairman, that Item 53 be moved to the legal session. Would that be okay? MR. MAYS: That's fine. MR. WALL: Following the legal session. MR. HANDY: Could I ask a question? Why would you want to move it? MR. WALL: There are some matters concerning the bids that need to be discussed in legal session. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might. This was the one, Mr. Handy, 53, we did approve at the committee just for the fact of bringing it back, because we were trying to cut some time provided everything--we had one--we had a good bid, and that we made sure that all the legal requirements were in order. And that's the reason 53 is on here, so that if it could be done we could cut off three weeks in order to do it. But I think there are some legal things that he may need to discuss in reference to that bid. But that's why it's on there without a recommendation, per se, because they were going to have the bid opening the day after the committee met and we couldn't deal with it in the committee and all. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. CLERK: Item 52: Motion to approve Resolution declaring official intent to enter a Public Purpose Lease with Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc., as Lessor, to finance certain capital improvements to the Augusta Golf Course and to obtain reimbursement from Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. for certain costs of such improvements incurred prior to completion of the transaction. No recommendation from the committee. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve. MR. SHEPARD: 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. BRIDGES, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Item 54: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on February 17, 1998. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Appointment of Mr. Bert D. Harbin to the General Aviation Commission. This appointment comes from the Sixth District. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Mr. Bert Harbin to the Aviation Commission. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 56: Consider approval of funding in the amount of $400 from the "Commission Other" account to assist with a Retirement Party for Judge Iree Pope, Probate Court. MR. SHEPARD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I hate to talk against this thing, but as a member of the Finance Committee I feel obligated to. As the Commission Other is declared in the budget, I thought that was a rainy-day account and I don't assume that this is a rainy-day expenditure. And I hate having to put it that way, but I understood and I believe that in government we should not be spending our rainy-day accounts in such frivolous manners as this. We've got a large enough budget and there's other places to find $400 without going into the Commission Other account. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I wish Judge Pope godspeed. It was a pleasure working with her when I chaired the courts committee several years ago. But I've consistently voted against Commission Other expenditures and I won't debate other than I'll vote consistently. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 57: Resolution in support of funding for Weed and Seed site recognition for Barton Chapel Neighborhood. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve this resolution. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. POWELL: I just have one question in this. It's not anything against it, I think it's a very good program. Are these cuts that the federal government is talking about--this is just for my information, Mr. Todd. You may can tell me. Are the funding cuts for Weed and Seed going to affect us anywhere in this project? MR. TODD: Yes, it would. It's a cut. The Sheriff has indicated to us that he still could use some old vehicles to do some things as far as vehicles go, but there is supposed to be some money there for vehicles and other hardware as far as the Sheriff's Department go. So certainly it will hurt us as far as the Sheriff's Department side of it go on the Weed and on the Seed as far as the community side go. We were promised by individuals from Savannah with the federal government and Washington, D.C, full funding. Basically if we got recognition, then we would receive full funding. Well, we received the recognition and they're cutting the funding. And, you know, I had to come back to town to be here for the meeting today, but certainly I'm back in D.C. Wednesday and Thursday and I intend to visit the Weed and Seed national headquarters to discuss this and discuss it with Senator Paul Coverdell and Max Cleland and our Congressman Charlie Norwood on a national level. It's important that we receive the full funding if we're not going to set ourselves up for failure. And initially the funding was supposedly cut even deeper than what they was offering here. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I remember going to Savannah and looking at that program down there, which was a pretty significant program. It appears to me--do these funds come in one year, Mr. Oliver, or do they come over a three-year period of time? MR. OLIVER: Well, I think there are a couple of points to be made here. It's a one-year grant. It's eligible for two additional renewals, for a total of three years is the current criteria. Originally we had anticipated 750,000. It's been cut to 200,000, with the possibility of a $50,000 increase. I would note, however, that the personnel are not covered under this grant. When you approved the 68 deputies, that included six for the Weed and Seed area, so personnel is not an issue. So the amount for law enforcement is totally for vehicles and equipment: to provide the vehicles, to provide the uniforms, to provide the radios and the equipment that are needed. While there may be some impact on the law enforcement side, I see the bigger impact being on the social service side: being able to provide the programs to help these people find jobs, to provide child care, health services and that type thing, and that's much of what we viewed in Savannah. MR. KUHLKE: And certainly I'm not opposed to it. I understand the benefit of a program like this. But I do have some concern that the amount of money that's being forfeited right now, and if we don't have--if the social services or agencies that may participate in this can't supplement what the Sheriff is going to do, is how effective this program, Mr. Todd, might be. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the program can be effective even at the funding level it is now. The administration is putting more money than ever into children and youth programs and into other programs that your director can make grants for. The Savannah office started out with a full staff: an executive director, an assistant executive director, and I think two interns. Right now the Savannah office is operating with just an executive director and one intern. I would assume that we will operate with just an executive director. We'll hire someone that have grant-writing abilities and some social services skills that will look for grants and bring additional funds in from other grants and federal programs. So it can be effective on the social side, on the Seed side, and the Sheriff has assured me that he can be effective on the Weed side with what he have. We would love to have full funding, that's the reason that I pushed for this resolution. But if we don't obtain full funding in 1998, we can operate, and we will go back to full finding in 1999. MR. KUHLKE: One other question, Mr. Mayor. Since the Sheriff's Department had dedicated six positions to this Weed and Seed Program of the 68 new deputies, is it unrealistic to think that since we can only fund two, that he may not fund those other four positions? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it is unrealistic. MR. KUHLKE: I was being facetious. MR. OLIVER: The intent is to--you know, we'll use the money that we've got to buy the equipment and we'll basically go as far as we can, but the intent is still to provide those six people. I don't think the law enforcement side is going to be hurt nearly as much as the social services side. Clearly we can't provide as high a level of service, and it's really going to be--this person or persons is going to be a coordinator of services more than a provider of services and it's going to be up to them. We're supposed to put the budget together, that's being worked on now, and I'm supposed to go over it next week, and as soon as we do that we will get you the revised scope of services that we envision. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I certainly hope and supported this. I too went to Savannah to work on this, and I had hoped that not only would that community be helped but it would be able to get that one started and expand into other communities. It seems in our community now we need all of the social help we probably could get to keep us at a sane sort of pace, and I certainly would hope that this group, including the Administrator and our Attorney, would work with us and try to see to it that whatever we can do to help the social side. And a lot of times we don't want to talk about that, we don't want to get involved with that, that's for somebody else. But, ladies and gentlemen, it might be all of us unless we're able to make sure that we understand maybe what's going on in our area. I'm not predicting anything, I'm just saying that--as somebody said earlier, stating the facts, and that's what we're actually doing. And I think this is a terrific program that can be helped. I see where our delegation has been asked for something, and certainly the delegation--and I'm sorry that I was not able to attend. I'm on the National Public Safety Committee, but I was written up as having spent the most money, so I chose not to go this time. But certainly we hope that this can be amended, and we'll work to do all that we possibly can do to perhaps get it back. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order for--I know we have a motion to approve it. I was wondering if we might could tack on a little amendment to this motion, that if Mr. Todd is going to Washington this week, that we maybe get the Attorney or the Administrator to draft up a letter for signatures in support of this Weed and Seed Project. And if you would accept that as an amendment-- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we already have the letters drafted and they've already been mailed, so--you know, calling on the senators to support it, and the resolution is following the letter. But we'll be glad to accept that amendment, Mr. Powell, and send another letter. I don't think there's ever too many. MR. POWELL: I was thinking maybe something on a little more personal note, but, you know, if you want to accept it, that'll be fine. MR. TODD: I'll accept it. Mr. Mayor, did you already sign a letter to Senator Paul Coverdell and-- MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we did. MR. TODD: We've been working hard on this. And let me say this, that Pride and Progress has been on board with this program and support it, the Community Alliance South Richmond, YW/YMCA, and I know I'm going to miss somebody, but basically all of the organizations is on board, DFACS, et cetera. And the reason that we needed these entities on board is this is the entities that we're going to, you know, use to provide the services. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. If someone come in that have a substance abuse problem, we send them to Regional or Mental Health for substance abuse, or to Augusta Regional, I guess it is now. If someone come in that need a job, we're going to have the resource person to send them to to help them with that job. And ever who the director is, or the coordinator, will take care of that coordinating the resources. Mr. Mayor, we already have the resources in this community, and too often folks don't know where to go to receive those resources, so we're giving them a helping hand here with this program. And this program was initially implemented by State Representative Betty Ann Hart which at the time represented the 106th District, and it's certainly needed in this community. We hope to expand it or similar projects in other communities. We are working with Family Connection and any other organization that's doing tutoring in schools. The feeder schools, Mr. Mayor, for Barton Chapel community is Barton Chapel Elementary School and Glenn Hills Middle School. We already have tutors in that area working. We have Family Connection, I believe we have children that go to Project Success. Mr. Brigham can identify with that. And we have Westinghouse and others that's helping us in these communities. MR. HANDY: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to support it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 58: Resolution requesting funding for The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. MR. SHEPARD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I add an amendment to this one? I guess this is mine, too. But what we have happening, and I was talking to the Mayor Pro Tem about this issue, is that there is a lot of congressional folks trying to attach amendments to ISTEA reauthorization. And we only have 60 days left on the extension and we're afraid these amendments is going to kill ISTEA, so I'd like to at least, this resolution, call for it to be passed as is without amendments. MR. SHEPARD: I accept the amendment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 59: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta, Georgia adopted by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission on March 18, 1997 by providing additional regulations for the creation of remote lots, or Flagpole Lots. (Second Reading - Approved by the Commission February 17, 1998) MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: What I'd like to do is offer an amendment, Mr. Mayor, to amend the motion to read that the road must be accepted by the county or be in the present county road book. And that would be an amendment to the first reading. MR. KUHLKE: I don't think I'll accept that. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, may I make a substitute motion, please? My motion is to accept it as it's written in our book, with the exception under Section A where it says that a flagpole lot--"provided that the street the property is fronting on must be a public street," and I'd like to change that wording based on the recommendation our Attorney gave us in his memo to read "must be a street that is officially deeded to Augusta, Georgia." In other words, if they're putting a flagpole lot onto a street, that street must be deeded to Augusta, Georgia. And I make that in the form of a substitute motion. MR. POWELL: I'll second that. MR. WALL: The original reading -- [End Tape 1] -- MR. POWELL: [Begin Tape 2] -- see us making some inroads into this, but I think that we need to come back later on and make some changes. But I commend the Commission and I hope y'all support this to get us started. MR. BEARD: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 60: Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Laney- Walker Neighborhood: 1246 Pine Street, 1010 Ninth Street, 932 Miller Street, 1107 Dugas Street, and 912 Barnes Street. (Second Reading - Approved by the Commission on February 17, 1998) MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concern--and I don't know whether we do it here or do it when we're dealing with contracts. You know, in some cases we may not, depending on the dollar amount, deal with a contract. But ever who is going in to tear down these homes, we need to assure that they meet all EPD require-ments, and I think that's important. Is the County Attorney and the Administrator assuring me that this is going to happen? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. I can't answer the question as far as whether we've got an existing contract that covers all these homes or not, and I don't know whether Rob is here. MR. OLIVER: We're currently--I don't know if he's gotten the bids yet. We were in the bid process. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I would recommend that Procure-ment reject all bids that don't meet the minimum requirements of EPD. MR. OLIVER: We do that. One of the things is to ensure that whoever gets the contract disposes of it in the proper place. And we're working on that, and we had some discussions with EPD on that yesterday, as a matter of fact. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, before any contract is approved the appropriate language will be included to ensure compliance, I will assure you of that. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just an observation. I'm going to vote for the motion, but it's somewhat related to what we're doing overall. And it's not a criticism, it's an observation. But what I wanted to--for the minutes and was going to pass on to Rob and those. One of the concerns that has happened in reference to a lot of these houses where we have decay or abandonment, and at some where we may have a case where you have, you know, burned-out structures, one of the suggestions I was going to make--and maybe they do it without a license, but--and this is one of the complaints that you get in a lot of neighborhoods and I know all of us have heard them, is that maybe there needs to be a quick inspection from the standpoint of checking to see whether these homes have been insured. And one of the complaints that you get is people will ask the question whether or not folk, maybe in cases where there is an abandonment on, you know, those burned structures, Chief, where folk may be walking away with the insurance but then leaving them there, you know, for the city, you know, to have to deal with. And that may be one area that Inspections wants to kind of look at a little closer, you know, after that's done. Because if they are there and are insured, it's not going to be one that's going to be rehabilitated. And maybe that's somewhere, Jim, that we might want to look at if there can be some language to deal with that, that if there are funds there, even if maybe the insurance is low and may not be able to replace that structure, then at least there could be some requirement that we have that if that happens--and I don't know, maybe that's not even legal, but I think maybe we ought to research it because a lot of them there have been burned for some time. The Chief inherited a bunch of them when he came here, you know, and they're still there. And a lot of times in neighborhoods, Mr. Mayor, you get that question, well, I wonder did that person have insurance on that structure, and it may have been enough that--may not have been enough to totally replace it. But if it was some there, we need to make sure that it's enough there to at least cover the cost of demolition. Because if it's just sitting there burned out, obviously if there's been some insurance that case has been settled, and I think that's something that we need to look at maybe in terms of some language of ordinance that if it's not there, then we can deal with those, you know, that have been burned that are insured and maybe nothing is being done with that money to deal with putting that money into those neighborhoods. And that's just an observance, and I only brought that up because we were talking about demolition, but it's just something that we may want to look at in how we can probably maybe strengthen that part of it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I just want to thank you and thank the committee. I think last week in the committee meeting I mentioned the fact that I didn't think we were moving quite fast enough, and Mr. Wall indicated he would help with it. And y'all wrote a letter and I see now that they are putting a fence up around there, but it looks like to me that they might could have saved the fence money if they had gone on and started doing what they was talking about. You know, putting up fence up out there is a sign of another delay. But I appreciate, Jim, you all working on it. I know you are working on it and I want to tell you I appreciate it. MR. WALL: If I can perhaps give an explanation. They are in the process of submitting that out for bids. They were going to put the fence up in order to protect the neighborhood and, in addition, go ahead and do some demolition to protect along the sidewalks. And they are aware very much of the appearance that the abandoned buildings, et cetera, give, but they do need to go through the bid process and they're going through that just as expeditiously as they can. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I appreciate that. Commissioner Mays and I rode through there yesterday and they had four or five trucks out there, and I don't think these were bidders. And they were moving pretty fast. They were taking windows and doors and tearing off the roof, but-- MR. KUHLKE: Stealing. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, Mr. Kuhlke calls it stealing. Well, whatever. MR. POWELL: I'm sure they're going to bring it back. MR. H. BRIGHAM: But I would hope--and I'm going to say this and I'll be through with this issue, but I won't be through with it until we--you know. But I would hope that the Chief--and I saw this letter, you know, encouraging this, but it's real important. That neighborhood is having a meeting Saturday right across the street from, you know, the situation where someone had left [inaudible], and we need to be able to take back a report that [inaudible]. And I don't mean you can get around the red tape, I'm not saying that, but-- and I think we can do it. It seems like to me the Chief got a lot of good ideas from all over the place, and maybe he and Rob and some of them can come up with a way that we can probably help move this thing along if we could. That's my speech for the day. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I also would want to assure in the specs and before we demolish a home that we do a environmental audit to make sure there's no asbestos there, and I think we need to make sure that that's there in place when we're doing that. And I don't have a problem with using our environmental engineer or whomever. I don't want to slow down the process, Mr. Mayor, and I know Mr. Beard don't want me to, but I certainly want to do it where we're doing it per the state guidelines as far as EPD. MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 61: Motion to approve Resolution in support of Resolution by the Development Authority of Richmond County as to an Agreement between the Development Authority of Richmond County and the Metro Augusta Chamber of Commerce. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just have one thing. In Item 2 on that resolution it mentioned staff. Who pays for that staff? MR. WALL: They do. That's personal, their staff. MR. BEARD: Okay. Fine. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I spoke up for some of what this resolution calls for, and certainly even if it means that we pay for a staff person that's going to represent the interest of the City of Augusta I would be in support of that. And I'd like to certainly commend the new president of the Chamber for what he's doing to at least put us in a position of a level playing field as far as Augusta go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion for a legal meeting, gentlemen. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. WALL: Personnel, litigation, and legal advice. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING, 4:05 - 5:10 P.M.] CLERK: Item 53: Award contract for Augusta Aquatic Center and approve related reprogramming of funds. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, recommend that the contract be awarded to ConTec of Delaware at the bid price of $3,998,000. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. WALL: Excuse me, $3,998,999. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear what he read off again so I'll know what I'm voting on. I don't know what contract I'm voting on reprogramming. MR. WALL: Just the contract. MR. TODD: Well, I want that clear. That's the intent of the ones that made the motion? MR. POWELL: That is my intent, for the contract. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'll ask the Attorney, is it necessary to state the acceptance deadline in this motion? MR. WALL: Yes, I mean, let's do. To be presented to them in a standard AIA contract for acceptance within seven days. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, do you want her to amend your motion to state that? MR. POWELL: That is acceptable. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Ms. Bonner, is that so noted? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else? CLERK: No, sir. [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 March 3, 1998.