Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS March 18, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Wednesday, March 18, 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. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND M.E. STOKES. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request for deletions and addendums as per our printed agenda. We have one addendum to the addendum agenda, one grant award to the Augusta-Richmond County Partner and Family Connection. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is all these grants, are they all at a point they're going to be lost if they're not approved? MR. OLIVER: I'm advised that that is the case, that most of these have to be filed within the next couple of days. These are pass-through grants, which means we aren't putting up any of the in-kind money; however, we are responsible for the execution of the grant and to ensure that the grant requirements are followed. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What about on Item Number 8, is that the grant that was passed by the legislature? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. That is the money that was appropriated by the legislature as part of the-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] Item Number 8? MAYOR SCONYERS: So we want to pull Item Number 8; is that what it is? MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] next month's agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all hear that, gentlemen? Is that agreeable with y'all? MR. MAYS: We don't have any choice at this point. MR. HANDY: If the remainder can be passed. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, with the exception of the Item 8, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Okay. If we could, please, on the addendum agenda, if we could take Items 4 and 5. Item 4 is to authorize the Mayor to sign a grant application in the amount of $50,000 for an Intensive After Care program for High Risk Juvenile Parolees with match provided by others. Dr. Charles Bartholomew, Director. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, what is the local match? MR. OLIVER: There is no local match by Augusta-Richmond County. The match is coming out of funds that they receive from other sources. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 5 on the addendum agenda, to authorize the Mayor to sign a grant application in the amount of $46,478 for a 90-day Intensive Delinquency Prevention and Intervention Program with match from others. MR. BEARD: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: The next item is the grant award to the Family Council, Children and Family Connection. That's the addendum to the addendum. MR. TODD: How much is that, Mr. Mayor? MR. OLIVER: It's $50,000. These organizations need to plan ahead a little better and get this info in to us, because we just got this in the last day or two. MR. HANDY: I'll take the blame for that one. I just got used to everybody else doing it, so I thought I could ease one in here today. MAYOR SCONYERS: What number is this one? CLERK: This will be Number 9 on our addendum agenda. MR. BEARD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Presentation: Proclamation to Safe Communities. Would that spokesperson please come forward, please? Whereas the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County have sustained enumerable losses in time, health, and lives to traffic accidents; and whereas the losses of the young lives are greater for this single public health threat than any other problem in our county; and whereas the development of safe communities began on the foundation of safe kids and other community efforts by public health, education, and traffic engineering and law enforcement officials; and whereas the united efforts of the community have reduced traffic deaths and injuries in several cities in the nation over the past few years; and whereas the losses of five young adults and one child this year alone in this county weighed heavily on our consciences; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim the upcoming year, March 1998 to March 1999, to the memory of those deaths and urge all citizens to learn the cause of and interventions to prevent most deaths and injuries on our roadways, and also to resolve to unite for goal settings and accountability to improve or increase existing traffic safety programs to encourage law enforcement to increase its watch and penalties, together as a community of industry, health care, governmental agencies, and individual citizens we can make a difference in the traffic injury and death rates in Augusta, Georgia. In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and cause the Seal of Augusta, Georgia, to be affixed this 18th day of March, 1998. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.] CLERK: Under Presentations, Ms. Eileen Faucette of the Fort Gordon PTA. MS. FAUCETTE: Good afternoon. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Oliver, and other assembled guests, thank you very much for this opportunity to come and discuss with you the upcoming events related to the Month of the Military Child at Fort Gordon. I am Eileen Faucette, the PTA President there, and you may not have known that we have a PTA here at Fort Gordon working to improve the quality of life for all of our children and families. Children are our future, and the more that adults show how important they are, the more seriously children take their role and the more our parents make sure that every child has their best chance to have a secure and outstanding future. We have a number of events that are detailed in your packets, the little blue packet there to the right. You will be receiving invitations over the next week. We hope that you will make some time in your very busy schedule to take part. We also want to thank you very much for the support that you've given to children and family activities in your regular programming, and we know that the children's festival that you hold every fall is very much appreciated. The Month of the Military Child is celebrated worldwide at every military facility, and many of these activities have counterparts in other parts of the world. We especially hope that you will take part in our PTA activities. We have a very successful reading program that we need celebrity readers for, and we have provided you a nice little map on the back for those of you who are not familiar with driving on Fort Gordon. Once again, thank you for the opportunity and thank you for your concern and attention to child and family issues. In addition to the scheduled events there is a poem in your packet that is what we call our warm fuzzy for this event, and I'm going to read just a portion of this very famous Prepare for Children by Ina Davis, who, by the way, will be one of the featured guests at the national PTA convention being held in Nashville this summer. We pray for children who put chocolate fingers everywhere, who like to be tickled, who stomp in puddles and ruin their new pants, who sneak popsicles before supper, who erase holes in math notebooks, and who can never find their shoes. And we pray for those who stare at photographers from behind barbed wire, who never sweeped across the floor in new sneakers, who never counted potatoes, who are born in places we wouldn't be caught dead, who never go to the circus, and who live in an X- rated world. We pray for those children who want to be carried and for those who must, for those we never give up on and for those who don't get a chance, for those we smother, and for those who will grab the hand of anyone kind enough to offer. Thank you for your work on behalf of children and families to make sure that none of our children ever end up as one of those children. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Ms. Faucette's remarks be entered into the record as information. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Delegation: Mr. Bill Jeffords from the Goodale Landing Home Owners Association. MR. JEFFORDS: I'm here representing the Goodale Landing Home Owners Association, and there should be a number of home owners here, and we're here today to present our concern to you about the development of our property and our homes. To give a little history, the development of Goodale Landing started in 1986. In 1988 two buildings were built and the price range was 110 to 120 thousand dollars. And then the builder continued in 1989 and '90 to build two more buildings, Three and Four. The price range was $130,000. He then went to Building Five in 1992 and the price range was $135,000. He went to Building Six in 1993 and the price was about $145,000. That's the average price of each condominium per building. Now, in 1991 an agreement was struck with the municipal government to sell off the last part of Goodale Landing and build homes there valued at $200,000, and it was also in that same agreement to develop the last parcel, I'll call that Parcel C, with seven condominium units. And here we are now, 1993. In 1994, June, Parcel C plans are presented to the home owners from John Tompkins of Conspec, the original developer, that places ten units on this parcel. Mind you, the agreement was for seven. He places ten much smaller, more compact units at a much cheaper price on this same parcel. We petitioned the municipal government and his building permits were denied. His plans were also denied. Then in January 1995, again we have plans brought forward for Parcel C. This is six months later. Those plans are the same plans. Now, the same builder, John Tompkins, but a different company, AFT, which is reorganized and formed a new company now called AFT. Okay, AFT then brings these plans. Again the home owners objected to the permits, objected to the plans, they did not get passed through the Riverfront Review Board based on consistency and evaluation and density. Then we go to November 1995, eleven months later. What we have now is, Parcel C, again plans are brought forward, this time by a different gentleman, Mr. Harold Kitchens, who is a owner of Bulldog Enterprises. Okay, Bulldog Enterprises has permits. We immediately then filed another request to have the permits pulled and they were. The issue then came before the Riverfront Review Board. The review board denied his plans and told him he had to negotiate and get an agreement with the Goodale Landing home owners, which we tried to do.We were at odds with Mr. Kitchens and the development plan, and during the discussion Mr. Kitchens tell us that, in fact, Mr. Tompkins is going to handle his development for him also. Okay, again the plans are not approved. What happens is he comes to the Commission in 1996. We did not know of that meeting because previously we had been dealing with the Riverfront Review Board. So then we were not included in that discussion last year, so now we're asking to be included in the discussion and have this brought forward. What we object to is, when we bought into Goodale we bought into a development--I should say a development plan, and that plan was clearly laid out. The home owners have certain expectations. Those expectations were set down by the builder and by these agreements that the municipal government had set. Okay, so we invested our lives down there. Our homes are down there. We've been down there for a number of years now. These new plans have 1,450 square feet, our units are 2,100. These units plan to sell for $95,000. That is a 10 to 15 percent lower value per square, not only in the valuation of the home itself but even per square. In addition, he has two floors versus our three. He has a one-car garage with a huge pad for parking behind the building and we have two-car garages underneath the building. We have decking on our second and third floors; of course, he only has two floors, no decking on the second floor. He has docks which are much smaller than ours, ten foot per home owner. We have 25 foot per home owner. So the whole concept is he has squeezed in the number of units in a much smaller parcel, and our whole contention is, which would resolve the whole issue, why can't we just go with the original plans as presented originally to the home owners. Our contention, in addition, is that this parcel should remain a part of Goodale Landing. The builder has also been at odds with us that he wants to separate this parcel from the original Goodale Landing development, which we don't agree with that. In the 1991 agreement, it was specified that Parcel C would remain a part of Goodale Landing, although Parcel D was removed and sold as separate homes. One of our last concerns that you should be aware of is that the home owners have observed and are very concerned about the foundations down at that building. What we observed was building materials from the previous six buildings being deposited on that lot, then they were burned, then they were buried. We have pictures that attest to that. This happened in 1993/94 time frame. We have many concerns with that foundation in that we had a building, in fact, that had some slippage problems, and the home owners came in and repaired the building in 1993. And that building was complete and it was done well, and that cost $250,000, the cost of which was absorbed by [inaudible] went bankrupt, reorganized, and now sells for 50 cents on the dollar. Of course, the current builder claims that he's not building on that same location, but he is. It's the exact same location. We've observed this. So our contention is this: what we'd like from the Commission is to honor the original development plan which we bought into, which we've invested our lives in, and that's why we moved down there. And that's what we're asking, that they go to seven units and their plans be like Goodale Landing: three floors, two-car garage, same floor plans. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I am in support of the people from Goodale. I've been working with them for a long time, and I empathize with them and I know what they have gone through in the last few years. However, at this point I would just like to hear from our Attorney, and I see that we may have the former City Attorney here. I would just like to get some legal aspect of this before a motion is brought forth. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could I ask a question before Jim says something? Why are we involved with this? Is this the land that the city sold off, this Parcel C he's talking about? MR. WALL: Well, the city sold it originally back in--and then there was a foreclosure sale. Mr. Jeffords asked to be on the agenda back in October or November. Thereafter we met with Mr. Kitchens and Mr. Jeffords in February, I guess it was, if I recall correctly. And so this has come before you several times, yes, sir. MR. HANDY: I mean, do we have an agreement with Goodale Landing to tell the builder what to do about [inaudible]? MR. WALL: That's the issue, is whether or not the city has the right to enforce anything down there insofar as the number of units. And I have previously rendered my opinion that--and y'all took a vote to authorize ten. Basically what happened, if you start back--the 1986 agreement says 25 units, shall construct and complete 25 single-family condominiums on Parcel C. Thereafter, Conspec executed the security deed in 1989 in favor of First Columbia Bank. That security deed was then assigned to the Estate of Harold Fuller. The description in the security deed expressly states that the property is subject to the provisions of the certain agreement entered into between Conspec and the city. Then in 1991 that earlier agreement was amended. That earlier agreement, however, was not executed by First Columbia Bank, and First Columbia Bank is the one that held the security deed. And it's my opinion and the opinion of the title lawyers that have looked at it, that since it was the First Columbia security deed that was foreclosed upon and the amendment in 1991 was not included in that security deed, that that amendment was not in the chain of title and, therefore, the city does not have the right to enforce that. I would also point out that there is a discrepancy. The '86 agreement refers to 25 units, the '91 agreement talks about complete the balance of and it says 23 rather than 25 units. I don't know whether that was an error, but, I mean, there's nothing to show that there was any intent to change from 25 to 23. But the fact that First Columbia as the security deed holder didn't agree to be bound by that and didn't sign off on it, and the fact that that is the security deed that was foreclosed upon, and Mr. Kitchens gained his title through that security deed, in my opinion, the city does not have the right to enforce that. When it came before you back in '96, you approved the ten units subject to an opinion from the attorney, and I did, in fact, render an opinion that they could build the ten units there, and that's been the point of contention since then. The property owner also argues that the 25 units was intended as a minimum and not as a maximum. I mean, I don't know the history behind that. MR. DUNBAR: I might be able to give you a little additional background on that. In 1991, Conspec came before the city represented by a bankruptcy lawyer, and the implication was that unless the city gave him some immediate relief he was going to file for bankruptcy. And so the city agreed that--and what he wanted to do was get permission to sell off the last parcel, which was almost half of the subdivision, it's single-family units, divide them up into eight lots and not have to develop anything, not have to build anything. And in consideration for the city allowing him to do that, he agreed to complete construction of the final seven of 23 single-family condominiums buyers required that he construct on Parcel C. Now, that's a very important aspect of the agreement that he agreed to. And he agreed to complete that construction within a certain specific period of time, which has long since passed. Now, when the city agreed to allow him to do that, he sold those eight units for approximately $75,000 a pop. If you do a little math, that's about $600,000 that he walked away with. And he sold all those units within about one week and put $600,000 in his pocket, and to this day he has not built those seven units. Those seven units that were to be built were to be built in accordance with the original plans; in other words, be just like the other units down there, not be some small, cheap, apartment-looking kind of facility in a nice townhouse development. If you want to promote this city and you want to get on the front page of a municipal planning magazine, you can go down to Goodale Landing and take some photographs of that development as an example of what can be done in an inner city in an industrial type area to do a first-class development supported by the city. That would be Exhibit A for it. It's a beautiful location. And we've got a room full of people here that elected to live here in Richmond County. MR. HANDY: Excuse me a minute, Paul. Just go back to the paperwork you've got there, not delve in-- MR. DUNBAR: Okay. Well, they're concerned about the property value. Now, the way you can help these people is they have found something brand new down there that didn't exist the last time y'all heard this, and that is they've found some serious structural subterranean soil conditions down there on the site where this man wants to build these additional units, and they are--what he did was bury a bunch of landfill material, and we've got photographs of all of it. He buried this landfill down there, covered it up with a bulldozer, and now he's trying to build on top of it. The Licensing Department asked him to provide them with soil reports because of the history of structural problems that he had with his construction. Fortunately, there was this home owners mortgage company that paid, you know, the home owners to repair one of those facilities, but even where he didn't have landfill he had structural problems because his foundation was not adequate. Now, the Inspection Department has refused to give him any permits because of the condition of that soil, and I'll just let you see some examples of the kind of stuff that he's buried down there and wants to fill over. And I want to alert you to that because, you know, I've been sitting down here for a long time and I know how sometimes y'all are approached and asked to support certain things by the developer or the interested party and you don't know the full story. You don't know exactly what's going on, and somebody comes around and approaches you and tells you his side of the story without knowing what the full story is and you agree to make a commitment to support it, and then you wind up supporting him before you find out the other half of the story, as Paul Harvey would say. MR. HANDY: Okay. Now, Paul, thank you, no elaboration, tell me what you're talking about so I can make a decision. MR. DUNBAR: What we would like to do, based on this new information about the foundation, would be to have the Commission reconsider the decision to allow ten units on this property. And regardless of what your decision is on that--that would be ideal; that's what these people would like, to go back to seven units on the original plan. But under any conditions we want to alert you of the foundation problem and make sure that your Licensing Department makes sure that whatever is constructed, whether it's ten units or seven units, is not constructed down there on an inadequate foundation so that the buyers will wind up buying something that won't stand up. MR. HANDY: If all these problems that you just said here has occurred, why would we issue a permit to build anything down there? I'm just trying to see why would you say you don't want the ten, but you would go for the seven, but then the land ain't no good, so why put seven? MR. DUNBAR: Well, I'm not saying to put any [inaudible], but I would ask or urge you to reconsider because of the statics and other things, the seven versus the ten, and to require them to be constructed according to the original plans which match what's down there now. MR. WALL: I wanted to make two comments. One, Mr. Williams could not be here today and he asked me to convey that to you. He represents Mr. Kitchens. I don't know whether Mr. Kitchens is here or not. The second thing is that insofar as the landfill or whatever, the construction debris that is supposedly down there, those photographs were exhibited--I assume they're the same photographs that were exhibited to License and Inspection and Mr. Kitchens down in my office approximately a month ago. I understand that Mr. Kitchens is performing the soil tests and the boring tests that License and Inspection has requested, and so that is being done to verify that the soil conditions will hold up whatever is built down there. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that the Commission reconsider and we go back to the original agreement that was affirmed with the city and we abide by that, and also that License and Inspection makes sure that whatever that debris is down there is safe before any construction takes place. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. TODD: I first would want to know whether Mr. Dunbar represents the community association as their attorney. MR. DUNBAR: Yes, I do. MR. TODD: Okay. I voted with the community association, I think, the last time and lost on the seven versus the ten, and since then I've voted every time against any infrastructure that we had agreed to put in there because I think that it's a breach of the contract of what the agreements were as far as the infrastructure. I'm not concerned about what's in the bank deeds because I have no control there. I am concerned about what's in the agreement as far as the infrastructure go and what the developer is supposed to do and the standards, et cetera. And, Mr. Wall, I'd like to know, as far as that infrastructure agreement, what's in there? MR. WALL: Well, as far as the--are you talking about insofar as Parcel D and the infrastructure as far as the road and the sewerage or are you talking about Parcel D? MR. TODD: Well, Parcel C, Parcel D-- MR. WALL: Well, Parcel D is the one that had the agreement in there insofar as the roadway and the sewerage, and that's under construction. Let me point out, and perhaps we need to go into legal session, but we have approved a site plan for ten units in there. You talk about the original agreement, the original agreement was for 25, not 23. I would ask that we go into legal session to discuss this matter in order I can render you a legal opinion prior to you voting. MR. TODD: Before we go into legal session, my question is how many years after doing a inert fill, how many years that you got to wait before you can put anything on it without doing a compaction, et cetera? MR. OLIVER: My suggestion, Commissioner Todd, having had the experience of--having to take my exam in structural engineering, you can build over top of anything if you're willing to bear the expense by putting pylons down and that type thing, and obviously that's not cost-effective. But I think for the county's protection and protection of the neighborhood, I think the best thing to do is for us to just require a structural engineer to certify the structural integrity of what's being proposed to be constructed, and I think that that would address those concerns. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, perhaps we do need to go in legal session, but I don't have a problem with dealing with it out here. I think that the-- it's clear that this is on the river, and it's [inaudible]. MR. WALL: Well, let me say this: If, in fact, there are problems with building down there, that has nothing to do with the number of units that are constructed, I mean, and that needs to be handled by License and Inspection and the soil test and things of that nature. Changing the number of units is what concerns me at this point with an approved site plan for ten units with the opinion and the decision that has already been made by this Commission to allow ten units to go down there. And as I have repeatedly said, it may very well be that the home owners association itself may have a cause of action against Kitchens to restrict it to 25, I think, they say 23. Whatever that number is, they may have a cause of action. But, in my opinion, the city does not, and I think that you would be making a mistake now to rescind the action that you've taken or try to rescind it to go back to either seven units or nine units. And I'm not sure, when you say original agreement, whether you're talking about the original 25 or the 23. MR. TODD: I only have one other question, I guess. Mr. Dunbar, when some of these changes was being made, did you advise the government at the time? MR. DUNBAR: In 1991 I did, yes. I did not prepare the 1991 agreement, that was prepared by the lawyer for Conspec. And, quite frankly, I didn't see it until after it was signed. But, now, that contract that was prepared by Conspec's lawyer is the one that makes specific reference--it says whereas the buyer, Conspec, has requested a time extension with regard to its obligation to complete construction of the final seven of the 23 single-family condominiums the buyer is required to construct on Parcel C. I'm reading out of the contract prepared by Conspec's attorney. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we go in legal session. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays wanted to say something. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, before we get a motion on legal session, a couple of things, I guess, regarding Mr. Beard's motion. And I do plan to vote, Lee, for the reconsideration, but I'm going to--I'm going to chalk it up to coincidence because I don't think anybody within the new and consolidated government did anything other than in a receiving process. That's one of the good things about America: It's kind of like this pencil here I got today that's got an eraser, you've got the right to change your mind, particularly if an honest mistake has been done, and I'm going to still chalk it up to an honest mistake. But I have a problem with the dates that have occurred in this process with meeting with the people at Goodale Landing and the things that were consistently turned down, whether it be from Riverfront Review or whether old city government. Whether anybody took advantage of the time element and the new government's, say, lack of knowledge of what was going on with that particular problem, I'm going to just chalk it up to coincidence. But I think that's where the eraser comes in because we have, I believe, somewhat of an element of liability to deal with it. We've got two things here, we've got a serious situation with everything that goes on the river and in what's left of South Augusta where we deal with the area there to improve and grow and what we have here on this river. Those things have to be done right, and particularly when you're around water. You can't make certain errors there and just go with it. I agree with Commissioner Todd, we both have got whipped, even on the old county side, in reference to some other things that were built on the eastern end when our own plans said no, and shouldn't be doing it. But there are things there and we've got to live with them, but if we've got to live with them, then certainly we ought to live with them being right. If there were meetings, whether it's old county government, old city government, I do think that the new government has a certain responsibility to honor whatever one of those old governments did. I don't think that can just all of a sudden disappear. I think we probably did it in good faith and in good conscience, but I do think some of the things did not come to us probably like they should have, and I don't think that was anybody's fault on this side of the fence. And I'll still chalk that up to an honest mistake, but it's highly suspect and coincidental that it happened to be that way. The other thing I'd like for Mr. Beard to include in his motion, if he would, is that--I have no problem with the development, dealing with the site plans, soil samples, the whole environmental context, but I think particularly where we are dealing with this and the area we're dealing with it on, we need to have our own environmental folk dealing with that as well. There needs to be a balance of acceptance of what's approved by this government in a final analysis, not that which just comes from the developer. It needs to be done under the auspices of this city in terms of having a balance. And I would, Mr. Beard, if you don't mind putting that in there, that while we review what he brings to Planning, that our folks deal with the same balance environmentally and that we have something to compare with. Because having somebody certified to sign off on it--and this is not to say anything about anybody's reputation or what anybody wouldn't do, but, you know, when you work for somebody, then, you know, you're an employee. And I don't say anybody would put their integrity on the line, but it just gives a better system of checks and balances when the government does its own, and then you have something to balance that off with, and I'd like to see that as an amendment to your motion. MR. BEARD: That'll be fine. MR. KUHLKE: I just want to ask a couple of questions of either Paul or Jim. The maximum number of units that were agreed upon between the home owners association and the developer were what on Parcel C? MR. DUNBAR: Under the original contract it was 25, but when the contract was amended back in 1991, subsequently it was agreed that there would be seven. MR. KUHLKE: Seven. And that's the agreement between the developer and the home owners association? MR. DUNBAR: That's right. MR. WALL: Well, I question whether or not there was an agreement to change the number. The agreement doesn't say that. It's in the recitals. It says the balance of 23 units, being seven, and that recital is inaccurate. Nowhere in the body of the agreement, when it says therefore it is agreed as follows, does it say that the number is changed from 25 to 23. MR. DUNBAR: Well, even if it was 25, that wouldn't be ten. MR. WALL: It would be nine. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. The other is, is the zoning in order on this particular parcel to construct what the developer is asking to construct? Does he meet all the zoning requirements to put in ten units? MR. DUNBAR: Yes, he does. MR. KUHLKE: The other thing is, is there anything in writing that requires the developer to produce a minimum square footage per unit? Any agreement on the part of the old city, this government, the home owners association, is there a minimum requirement for spare foot? MR. DUNBAR: Well, the plans that were part of the original agreement call for certain numbers of square feet, and I believe the square footage of the apartments that are there run from 2,000 to 2,200. What he plans on building is only 1,400 and some odd square feet, which is about 30 percent less. MR. KUHLKE: I think my question, Paul, is he required--you know, just because he built originally 2,200 square feet, is he required on the remaining to build 2,200 square feet? MR. DUNBAR: I contend that he would be. Assuming that the agreement is still in effect, he would be, because the original agreement says that he will build according to the plans and specifications submitted, which is, you know, that larger square footage number. And he came back--you know, I read you minutes before and made the argument that under the Planning and Zoning Commission he could build 15, and all he wants to build is ten. Well, if he could do anything permitted by Planning and Zoning, he wouldn't have been down here before you asking for permission as to the number he could build anyway. The fact that he's down here asking you to pass a resolution saying how many he can build is a tacit admission that there's something that applies to this transaction other than just what number of units Zoning would permit. And I would say this that it would also authorize you to change your resolution, and that is that there is nothing that has happened since you made your ruling on ten. In other words, if you had said he could build ten and he had gone down there and started building ten and begun construction and laid them out, and then you came in and wanted to change it and say seven, I can see how he would say he was damaged or he was injured. But the fact of the matter is he hasn't been given any permits to build anything. He's done nothing, because when he went down to get his permit they found all these soil problems. And they haven't issued him a permit to build anything, so he hasn't built anything yet. So he hasn't been damaged at all, and I think for that reason you could change your mind as, you know, the motion stands if you would like to do that. MR. HANDY: Paul, you don't think this is a conflict with you representing the city, who gave them permission to do what they done, and now you're here representing them to fight us about why you're doing it? MR. DUNBAR: Well, the city didn't give them permission to do what they are trying to do now. I'd be perfectly happy--if they would do what the city gave them permission to do, none of us would be here. MR. HANDY: That isn't what I asked you. You was repre-senting the city when we entered into this agreement with Goodale Landing to do whatever they wanted to do, and now you're repre-senting Goodale Landing to undo whatever you approved to be done. MR. DUNBAR: No, I'm not saying to undo anything that I did. What I would love for you to do is enforce exactly, to the letter, what the city's agreement was with Goodale Landing because that was to build all these units identical, you know, that would match what's down there, and to build the number. What I'm asking you to do is not to do something the city--not to deny what the city approved, but to do exactly what the city did approve. MR. HANDY: That's been changed already. MR. DUNBAR: Well, but that was not done by the city or when I was the attorney. MR. SHEPARD: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd's motion was to go into a legal session. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL SESSION] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I recommend that you send the plans back to the Riverfront Review Board for their input as to the plans that have been submitted. MR. HANDY: I'll put it in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if maybe we need to--Mr. Attorney, should we add maybe an amendment to that in regards to not issuing any permits on that parcel down there until it's been thoroughly reviewed by the Inspection Department and certified by a structural engineer that the land is suitable to build on; is that an appropriate amendment? MR. OLIVER: And approval secured from the Riverfront Review Board. MR. WALL: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Would you accept that, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yeah, that'll be fine. MR. SHEPARD: It's accepted also. MR. MAYS: Mr. Handy, would you accept an amendment to coincide with that amendment that you just accepted? Because we're in this position because we are dealing with a lot of different things that may not be in writing or alleged to be in writing, and y'all know how I am about that. Y'all say I get too particular about it, but that's how you get bumped. I have no problem with the motion that I was going to vote for in the very beginning, but I get the feeling, you know, I can feel footsteps [inaudible]. Will you mind putting in there that-I agree with what Bill's amendment is, but I want to make sure still that there is some certification other than what we are sending the developer back to get. And I know what you're talking about in reference to Planning and Marvin Griffin Road, but I think with what has been alleged with the possibilities of environmental problems, that every aspect of what we've got needs to be included in there. MR. OLIVER: We could call for a phase one environmental as part of the building permit process. MR. MAYS: And I'm very serious, because if what's been done on the part that these folks are already satisfied with, if that had to be corrected to the tune of $250,000, then whether we end up building 7, 10, 23 or 25, we'd better make darn sure that we know from our side of the fence and have somebody sign off on it that we are satisfied with whatever goes down in reference to environmentally, structurally, any other kind of way, that we be included as a balance in that process. And that's not an insult to anybody's integrity intended in a professional manner, but I just think that protects us from the liability of this point, particularly with it sitting down on the river. And that has nothing to do with changing any numbers with that, this is strictly in terms of making sure that every base is covered in this process. MR. TODD: I'm somewhat concerned about, you know, getting a soil bore or compaction when you can bury stuff deep enough that you don't know until it decay, so I tend to agree to agree with Mr. Mays. I think that the building inspection department and everybody involved needs an explanation on what actually happened to the material that we seen turning up on the site. And I think at some point we got to get serious about just burning it. It's against the law to burn openly unless you're doing agricultural in Richmond County. I guess it was a year ago that EPA passed some regulations down to us and gave us about seven years to be in compliance, and we got to address that issue, too, and I think that we need to send notice to this individual that's already burning that nothing else is to be burned on that site. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make a comment here. I think we owe something to the residents at Goodale because they've been--this thing has been going on since, I guess, '91. And I was just going to suggest that whatever is decided here today, that we put some type of time line on it. If it's successful with the review board and bringing back information, I think we ought to put some time limit on there. Because I think these people have been, I know since I've been here, coming down here trying to get something done, and I think we need to settle this. And I don't know what the time line would be, but the Administrator and--I see they're having a conference over there, but maybe we can get some kind of time line on there, and this is what I would ask at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Will y'all accept that as an amendment on the motion? MR. HANDY: No, I'm not accepting any more amendments. Everything is fine in what we said we're going to do, and if we let it work there will be one. MR. BEARD: No, this is not an amendment, this is a suggestion to the people who are involved, and I don't think there's anything wrong with telling people that they've got to do something within a time frame. Because this could linger on for the next six months, and I don't think it's fair to the people. So you can either accept that as an amendment or let it go, but this is [inaudible]. MR. HANDY: It is dead. It's gone. I'm not accepting it. MR. WALL: I was just checking on the permit status. I mean, they will require certain things before they will issue the building permits, which will ensure that the--from a structural standpoint, the review by the Riverfront Review Board will look at the plans that are being submitted, and so I think the controls are in place with the motion that was originally proposed, and Mr. Kuhlke's amendment to that, I think, just reinforces the process that is already in place. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL AND MR. BEARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Mr. Mays, the Mayor would like to take up the Public Services portion of the agenda, Items 58 through 67. Those items were approved by the Public Services Committee on March 9th. [58. Motion to approve a request by Sandi Watkins for a special event license (one day) for beer on April 18, 1998 at the Exchange Club Fairground located at 306 Hale Street to be used in connection with Harley Davidson Owners of Georgia. 59. Motion to approve a request by Mike Smith for a special event license (seven days) for consumption on premises liquor, beer, wine, and Sunday sales for April 6 through 12, 1998 at 2603 Washington Road (Double Eagle). 60. Deleted from consent agenda. 61. Motion to approve new ownership request by Clark A. Poling for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Food Lion, Inc. located at 2115 Windsor Spring Road. 62. Motion to approve request by Fred G. Weisbrodt, II for a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Cooker Bar & Grille located at 276 Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway. 63. Motion to approve new ownership request by Emily Painter for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Players Lounge located at 2834 Washington Road. There will be a dance hall. 64. Deleted from consent agenda. 65. Deleted from consent agenda. 66. Deleted from consent agenda. 67. Deleted from consent agenda.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Number 60? I believe that's the one where they have a restaurant license but not a Sunday sales license. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: With the exception of Item 60, we're going to take Items 58 through 67. MR. MAYS: I'll second the motion, but I would like--and I don't think we'll have to pull it if the maker of the motion would, just for the purpose of so stating, on Item 65 in reference to the hearing, and I believe that we can simply leave that as setting the date for the hearing on proposed plans and changes. And my reason is that I have--y'all know where it comes from, but I don't like for us to set a public hearing with approval for what we're getting ready to do. I think that defeats the point of the public hearing. I think it needs to be where you are discussing it and we leave it open just on proposed changes and then we discuss those changes at that time. MR. KUHLKE: I will accept that. I thought that's what it was, but I will accept that. MR. MAYS: What I want to make sure, when we start talking about what we're going to eliminate and what we're going to do, it's as though we're approving the motion to do that, and then we have a public hearing following that to approve what we've already done, and it gives a tone that we've already decided what we're going to do and I think that may put us--that's a bad precedent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, we're going to revisit this. We're going to just take Items 58 through 63, with the exception of Item 60, and then we're going to come back and do Item 60. We're going to stop at 63. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do we have any objectors to the alcohol applications? MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to ask that. Do we have any objectors out here? None noted. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. SHEPARD: Madame Clerk, on 62, show that I abstained on that one as Cooker Restaurant Corporation is a client of my law firm and represented by my law partner, Jim Duncan. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like the record to reflect that I vote no on the ones that contain Sunday sales. MR. BRIDGES: Same, Ms. Bonner. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS ON ITEM 62. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEMS 59 & 62. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEM 59. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1, ITEM 62. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 58, 61 & 63. CLERK: Item 60: Motion to approve a request by Harold Baker for a special event license (seven days) for consumption on premises liquor, beer, wine and Sunday sales for April 6 through 12, 1998, at the Clubhouse located at 2567 Washington Road. Approved by Public Services Committee on March 9th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, have you got a question about this? MR. TODD: I'll make a motion that we approve it for April the 6th through the 11th, excluding Sunday. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion dies for lack of a second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the item as presented. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that the Sunday sales right for special events is a transfer of a license usually from a established restaurant, et cetera, that have Sunday sales privileges to the location where they're going to do the special event. And if I'm not correct on that, I stand to be corrected, and that's why I was making the motion that we do it for six days versus seven days. And I'd like to have a reading from the County Attorney. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, it is my opinion that you can authorize a single event license on Sunday and that is not in violation of our alcohol ordinance. And we've issued a number of them in the past. MR. TODD: I don't think I voted for them, and I can't recall where they were issued without the entity having a Sunday sales license for restaurant. And, you know, in my opinion, I'll vote against it because I think it's a violation of the state law as far as Sunday sales go. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK: The Planning Commission recommends as a consent agenda Items 1 through 8. [1. Z-98-26 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the conditions: "Any entrance on Mack Lane shall be located no more than 100 feet from the right-of-way of Tobacco Road; and that a buffer that conforms to the side yard buffer provisions of the Richmond County Tree Ordinance shall be placed along the remainder of the west property line adjacent to Mack Lane," a petition from Meybohm Realtors, on behalf of the McDonald Ga. Builders, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential with Conditions) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Mack Lane. 2. Deleted from consent agenda. 3. Z-98-31 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Elizabeth Cook requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Sullivan Road, 550 feet, more or less, northeast of the northeast corner of the intersection of Olive Road and Sullivan Road (2229-31 Sullivan Road). 4. Z-98-32 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ben Jacobean, on behalf of Ben & Mary Jacobean, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 1,921 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Morgan Road and Tobacco Road (2851 Tobacco Road). 5. Z-98-33 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bruce E. & Virginia Q. Blackburn requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-2 (Two- family Residence) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Heath Street, 362.00 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Heath Street (1519 Heath Street). 6. Z-98-34 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, "That there shall be no improvements of the front yard for parking, and that a site plan showing adequate vehicle parking in the rear yard allowing a forward exit be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-residential use of this property," a petition from James E. Spears, on behalf of James E. Spears and Joseph E. Smith, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right- of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 70.0 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Merry Street and Wrightsboro Road (1803 Wrightsboro Road). 7. Z-98-36 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from James K. Price, Jr., on behalf of Three Star Investment Co., Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture), Zone R-1A (One-family Residence), Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business), and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the southwest right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road. 8. Z-98-37 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Howard E. Eubanks, on behalf of Howard E & Ok Soon Eubanks, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Clary Road and Mike Padgett Highway (1901 Clary Road).] MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we need to pull Number 2. MAYOR SCONYERS: So it's going to be 1 through 8, with the exception of Number 2. Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 2: Z-98-30 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Maurice McKie requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the west right-of-way line of Drayton Drive, 935.67 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Massoit Drive and Drayton Drive (2625 Drayton Drive). MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Patty on whether there was objectors. MR. PATTY: No, sir, there were no objectors. MR. TODD: I received one phone call is the reason I wanted to have it pulled, so if there were no objectors at the meeting-- MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my other question is are we going to have any limit on how many personal care homes we need in one subdivision and how close those personal care homes can be? MR. PATTY: We've got a 1,200 foot spacing requirement between any personal care home or other similar uses approved by special exception. MR. TODD: And from this one on Drayton to the ones that's already there, is that 1,200 feet? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: My question is this, gentlemen: You know, I understand that these personal care homes are--we're going to have to make a place for them, but my question is--and my concern is just as Mr. Todd's, is the saturation of areas with these things. And the second thing of it is, who is going to police these things once they're put into--where does that come under, you or- - MR. PATTY: No, these homes are licensed by the Department of Human Resources and [inaudible]. As far as the saturation, the 1,200 foot spacing requirement is about the best we can do, I think. You know, when you think about it, that's a block. I mean, that's basically one block, and that seems to provide protection. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further 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. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, on the Finance Committee, I make a motion that we approve Items 9 through 18 as a consent agenda. [9. Motion to approve a waiver of 1997 property taxes, penalty and interest in the amount of $314.00 due on property acquired by Augusta- Richmond County. 10. Motion to approve abatement of 1997 property taxes, penalty and interest on property described as Tap Map 22, Parcel 160, in the amount of $292.12. 11. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes on account number 729650 in the amount of $23.13 for erroneous payment of taxes to Richmond County. 12. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes on account number 2048550 in the amount of $28.91 for erroneous payment of taxes to Richmond County. 13. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes on account number 2030480 in the amount of $110.26 for erroneous payment of taxes to Richmond County. 14. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes in the amount of $129.30 for overpayment of taxes on Map 139, Parcel 117. 15. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes in the amount of $129.30 for overpayment of taxes on Map 84-4, Parcel 274. 16. Motion to approve refund of 1995 and 1996 taxes in the amount of $258.60 for overpayment of taxes on Map 16-2, Parcel 168. 17. Motion to approve abatement of penalty on 1997 tax bill for 2724 Henry Street. 18. Motion to approve RSI contract at $207,368.50 for Tax Billing and Collecting Hardware and Software.] MR. BEARD: I second that. MR. POWELL: I just have one question. Have any of these parcels here-- the taxes are built in--interest on these properties been waived prior, in the past few years, on any of these same properties? Can anybody answer that question? I mean, I just want to make sure we're not getting into something every year here. I don't think we've ever checked it. MR. BRIDGES: I don't think any of these have, Mr. Powell, but I think that's something we need to--the staff needs to check and make a recommendation each time. That's a good point. MR. OLIVER: We can put that on the agenda items in these matters where there's a certification. We rely on Mr. Saul's office and Mr. Sears' office in that regard, but I think that's an excellent point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think we ought to take Items 19--because they all concern the same bidders and the same cars--Items 19 through 27, isn't it, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: I make a motion that we go with the low bid on each of those items and we take that as a consent agenda. [19. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for 90 Crown Victoria automobiles at a total cost of $2,093,400 for the Sheriff's Department Road Patrol Division. 20. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for one Crown Victoria automobile at a total cost of $20,432.00 for the Richmond County Correctional Institute (R.C.C.I.). 21. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for one Crown Victoria automobile at a total cost of $20,645.00 for the Augusta Fire Department. 22. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for nine (9) Crown Victoria automobile at a unit cost of $23,222.00, for a total cost of $208,998.00, for the Sheriff's Department Traffic Division. 23. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for one Crown Victoria automobile at a total cost of $21,091.00 for the Sheriff's Department Road Patrol Division. 24. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for four (4) Crown Victoria automobiles at a unit cost of $21,045.00, for a total cost of $84,180.00, for the Richmond County Marshal's Department. 25. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for one Crown Victoria automobile at a unit cost of $20,749.00 for the Richmond County Marshal's Department. 26. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for five (5) Crown Victoria automobiles at a unit cost of $21,676.00, for a total cost of $108,380.00, for the Sheriff's Department Fugitive Division. 27. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for three (3) Crown Victoria automobiles at a unit cost of $21,171.00 for a total cost of $63,513.00, for the Sheriff's Department Civil Division.] MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we go with the best bid, and that's Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that Bobby Jones Ford is in Augusta. If we have any warranty problems that we can't take care of through our maintenance agreement and it have to go back to the dealership, then certainly it would go to Bobby Jones Ford. Also, Mr. Mayor, we're losing our dealerships to Columbia County and other places, that they're moving out of Richmond County, and Bobby Jones Ford has made major investments here and here in this community. We're talking about approximately $77,000, I believe, difference, and I truly believe this is the best bid and that we should go with the best bid versus going to Atlanta or California or somewhere else. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, you know, my colleagues talked about corporate welfare up here numerous times over the years, and now they're proposing some corporate welfare. I believe that we have an obligation-- because most of this money is probably going to Detroit, not to Atlanta or California or anywhere else in this world but Ford Motor Company. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to accept the lowest bidder. And if we're going to do best bid--you know, we're skipping second lowest bidder to get to the third lowest bidder, and I think that needs to be pointed out, and that's all I got to say on the subject. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm not on that committee, but I sympathize with those who probably wanted to deal locally as much or more than anybody else. I hate to use that statement of, you know, chickens coming home to roost, but, you know, we get folk that's so afraid of government dealing with any type of preference until now we find out that, you know, a lot of times preference doesn't just happen when you're maybe dealing with certain things on one side of town. Preference can be to anything to try and help folk who live here, who work here, who pay taxes here, and who own businesses here, but we get afraid of that type of situation. Now, I think if the people who really want to do this, and I've been for supporting it a long time, and I know Commissioner Todd has in making that motion, but I think if we're really serious about doing that, we've had the opportunity after the old county acknowledged the fact that we had some problems with procurement period in numbers, whether we were dealing with women, whether we were dealing with combinations of minorities and women, whether we were dealing with local businesses or small businesses, the whole nine yards. We've had an opportunity as particularly a new government that if we want to put something up there that will stand a test in terms of a figure that can be used, that one that can meet a court challenge, and deal with a local preference and have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote for it, then instruct the County Attorney to do it, and I'll make the motion and I'll certainly vote for it because y'all know where I've been on this particular issue. But we can't make them up and change the rules when you need a preference and it doesn't involve certain folk. Now, it's good to do this one because--this might be a good American way of dealing with one, but if we start talking about and doing somewhere else I get reverse discrimination, I get quotas, I get every darned thing else. So I can sympathize, but until we put it in writing, have enough backbone to say we want to do what's right for local people, have a waiver preference in there of a certain percentage that will allow us to do that. We can't come up with fifth downs, you know, strike four, you know, and all this kind of thing, we want to change the rules in order to make it. We may not be happy with who's got the bid or where it's going, but maybe this sixty-some thousand dollar difference will encourage us to believe that doing for our own folk who live here is not a way of discrimination and you put it in a legal term that it will meet a court test. And you do have local preferences in this country that have worked, but when we hear preference, when we hear quota, we automatically run to a certain side of the fence and say, oh my God, we can't do that, we're going to get sued. Well, this is one of them kind of cases, and it don't involve nobody who look like me. And all the time it doesn't have to, but don't be so afraid of change. We've got an opportunity to make some changes and to do it legally. So maybe out of the $66,000 difference this will teach us a lesson that we can go ahead on as a majority of this Commission, instruct Mr. Wall to do the research and to bring it back to us, and to put one in there and then let the Southlakes of the world test us in court. And then when we do, then if we can't make it work, then we'll give them to any and everybody else. But that's the only way we're going to be able to deal legally with helping our folk here, and until that time we got to honor what we got as a local bid. But any time anybody else, whatever combination you want to make, whatever color, whatever age, have enough backbone to put that in writing and not be afraid of it because it's already been out there. So, gentlemen, you're stuck with the $66,000 till you make law. You can't do that and change rules in the middle of the game. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I kind of disagree with Mr. Mays that we cannot change. If we get enough people with backbone we can change it. The other part I do agree with, and I talked to Mr. Wall and he mentioned it in committee meeting, that he could come up with some regulation or some guidelines that we could work with. And I think that if we do that--we've got to start somewhere, and I don't think we ought to be castrated for not doing it prior to now. You know, we've got to start somewhere. I started in committee with it. So it came out of committee, but our recommendation--and I would hope that somewhere down the line this committee--and Mr. Wall will let us know what we need to do. That would be great, I have no problems with that, but I do think that this government ought to somewhere down the line work with those people in our community where we possibly can. Now, I know you say you get into the quotas and all that sort of stuff. Well, so be it. But, Mr. Wall, if you want to comment on how we could do it from this point on in case we don't, you know, have enough, I would support you do it now. But two million dollars--and I know y'all say it's all going to Detroit. Maybe so. But Mr. Oliver told me that the Ford Company here paid about $30,000 --isn't that true? -- in taxes here in this town. MR. OLIVER: That's approximately correct, yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And that's not, look like to me, all going out of this town. In that case it's not but 30,000 we're dealing with if you assume that this company paid some taxes, and I think at some point we need to look at it. And, Mr. Wall, if you'll give me some way, then I would certainly appreciate it. MR. WALL: Well, I think that there are ways to do it in everything except Public Works contracts. I think Public Works contracts are always going to be limited to the low bid unless for some reason the low bidder is not qualified to do the work. I have not done the research at this point in time insofar as, you know, percentages or things of that nature, but I do think that there are ways that you can do that insofar as local preference. And I think I was to work on that and I will do so. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm a friend of Mr. Lawrence at Bobby Jones and I've done a lot of work with Mr. Lawrence. I would like nothing better than to see him get this business, but under the present policies that we work under I have no choice but to support Mr. Bridges' motion. MR. BEARD: I sure hope we can do something with local preference from this point on because anybody who is in business and trying to get business for themselves here locally, I think, needs some type of edge in there. But, you know, when you go back and look at this--and I know what Bobby Jones does for the community, also they pay a lot of taxes here, and I can sympathize with them on that. And I would love to be able to vote for that because I think that we need to help the people in the community, but when you look at this and you see the--you know, they're not even the second lowest bidder, they're the third lowest bidder, and it's kind of hard to do that when you have an opportunity to save the type of money that we're talking about here this evening. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I've just got one question, and it's about the next few items. Every one of them is Fords from Southlake, so if it's not out of order I'd like to proceed on what I was talking about. What I was thinking about was why have we got some for $20,093, then we get over here to 21, then we get back down here to 23. Why don't we--I mean-- MR. SHERMAN: This is a matter of different cars for different departments and different sections. Each section has a different requirement as far as the accessories that are in that particular vehicle. MR. POWELL: I understand that they may have some difference in accessories, but I think we need to get the procurement straight here. And I don't know what the difference in accessories could be. A car is a car. I mean, power windows and stuff like that, but, now, we can make some arrangements with that kind of stuff there if we can get them for 20,000 and save 3,000 on some automobiles, now. MR. OLIVER: But I believe you're talking about police packages, aren't you? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, we're talking about the police package components that go into these. Some vehicles are traffic cars which have more auxiliary lights on them than perhaps a patrol vehicle does versus a CID vehicle versus Fire Department and so forth. MR. POWELL: I understand that, but right out there at that sheriff's range--I've been out there when they're putting the lights on them. So they ain't coming with the blue lights, now, because I've been out there and seen them putting them on. MR. SHERMAN: In the past they were not coming with blue lights. The Sheriff was funding those through a separate item and purchasing those, which in the long run costs more to procure the vehicle that way, by buying the two separate components and installing them together. This is a total turnkey package, so when the vehicles come in here they're immediately available, we can put them out on the street, whereas before it would take a minimum of two to three months before these vehicles would actually be out on the street. MR. POWELL: Well, that's fine. I understand that now. But maybe we can do something to get them a little closer together there, okay, as far as the amenities or bells and whistles, whatever you want to call it, and get them all the same car and then get the lights added. Because $3,000 worth of lights is a lot of blue lights on a car. MR. SHEPARD: I call the question on the substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: I got one question on this end, then we can call the question. My question is that I--I'm going to agree with Mr. Kuhlke. I know Mr. Lawrence and I don't have no problem with Mr. Lawrence and trying to help him, but he had--Lawrence basically is going to get this bid forever, so I'm not up here in the business of trying to start bidding for people. I mean, they know the cars, they know the bids, they know the markup on the cars, and then--whether some of you all may or may not know, this Southlake advertise in the organization that we support that we are a member of just like other engineering companies and everything. So this is a reputable company advertising in ACCG and GMA and all the other books that--same organization we're in, so we're not--you know, Southlake is no stranger to this--not to me. Might be a stranger to some of you all, but they advertise in the same book that we go get other people out of to do our other work, so [inaudible]. MR. SHERMAN: Southlake also has the state contract for all types of vehicles for the state of Georgia for 1998. MR. HANDY: Every time we go to Savannah, we go to our retreats, down at the motel Southlake there with a car with a package on it trying to sell it to this government. So they ain't no stranger. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly the intent is to go with the best proposal or best bid possible. I have a six-year commitment sitting on this board being for local preference. Many times we can do it in doing economic development or whatever. I understand that when we dealt with the other business for this government, that those businesses make major contributions to the economic development of this community. When I look at, Mr. Mayor, being next to last or--well, let's just say when I look at a city our size having the highest unemployment, certainly I look at us doing something wrong. And perhaps it's not just the car package, maybe it's the overall way that we do business, but we're sending two million dollars out of this community. And I understand that a percentage of it was going to go to Detroit, probably 70 percent or 80 percent, but 20 percent of two million dollars, Mr. Mayor, is going to stay here and it's going to be turned over here, Mr. Mayor, and I think that's what we've got to look at. I think that we have a way of doing it now, that we don't need to reinvent the wheel, that we can go with the best bid. And if it's so that the maintenance contracts will be done by Bobby Jones Ford here locally, as it's been stated, then maybe I'm wrong on that being a criteria of best bid. But I think, Mr. Mayor, we can use local preference as far as being best bid also. And, Mr. Mayor, I'm willing to take the chance to be challenged to make sure that we do right by this community. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is probably to both Harry and to Jim. Y'all know where I am on this personally. You know, I've been beat across the head by everybody that wants to loan somebody some money and do everything else for bringing it back up two or three years ago, and I've been ducking and running ever since. Just got my head above water personally for even proposing to deal with something like this to deal with local stuff and to deal with minorities and the whole nine yards. And if I had to do it all over again, I'd do the same damn thing I did then. But what I want to make sure of is that, one, to Harry, before these folk get in a walking state, what kind of time span do we have on these cars before they get to walking? And I think you know where I'm fixing to come from. MR. SHERMAN: We have about a 90-day delivery schedule from Ford. Beyond that we have the installation stage, which Southlake has offered to ensure that we get 15 cars per week until all the cars are received. The local dealer, under his original bid, specified that he could approximately deliver five a week after the 90-day period. We have an order date from Ford. The close-out date or the last actual date we can order these cars is April 4th, so we have to get an order in. MR. MAYS: Well, you pretty much answered what I was going to ask. What I was going to say, and I'm not trying to take your job, Jim, but I think if we're going to do that in the absence of having an ordinance in place, then if we want to reject them period and then deal with having one in place when you go back out for them. But, you know, to a point--you know, I guess I'm going to flip it around and throw it like it was thrown to me, and not dealing with Fords but dealing with people of color. If you ain't got the ordinance in place and stand the test of time for what the court is going to provide, then you can't turn around and tie that to it. And, you know, if that's what we want to do--and I agree wholeheartedly with where [inaudible]. But I think if we're going to do it, then we need to consider the time. I'd feel more comfortable if that's what we're going to do, then we need to be talking about rejecting something first if we're going to deal with that at all. I don't think we can just switch. And as much as I agree with my colleague in terms of the best bid definition, you haven't quite sold me on that one yet, Moses, in terms of standing up. You sold my heart, but I don't know whether you sold my backside. I done got sued and been sued enough in the last 18/20 months, you know, I'm running one ahead right now. But, Jim, how can we deal with that in terms of your going ahead, because I don't think the ordinance has to be dealt with in terms of any reinventing the wheel. You've probably got enough ordinances sitting over there in your office, you know, that each one of us to a certain extent probably have provided you from time to time, that we have more ordinances drawn up than any city in America in terms of dealing with different types of preferences. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Mays, I agree with you, I don't think the simple fact that they are a local business is sufficient in and of itself to justify that being a best bid. I think that we're on some very thin ground by taking that position. And basically that's the only reason that has been advanced insofar as going to the local bid. Yes, we could reject all bids and go back out. The problem with that is the order date that I've been told is in the first part of April, so that if you're going to get one with the police packages, et cetera. In order to get these kind of prices you've got to order them before April the 4th, so that does not allow sufficient time to get the ordinance in place insofar as local preferences and rebid and come back and meet those kind of time constraints. MR. MAYS: So that puts them to walking then a little bit. MR. SHERMAN: Yes, until next year. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. SHERMAN: If I may, I'd like to speak in regards to the warranty. Historically it's been a common misconception that if you purchase a vehicle from a certain dealer, that you need to go back to that dealer for that warranty. That is no longer in effect. It was a unwritten policy that people would allow you to believe, but it was a total untruth. Warranties today are a separate entity of a dealership. Dealerships require their certain departments to support themselves. All the major manufacturers now have increased the warranty claim service level and are having the dealers become more competitive in regards to getting services from different people on the warranty for their car. For our standpoint, the majority, 90 percent or more, of all the warranties for Ford vehicles that we have today is not done at Bobby Jones Ford. It is done at Bob Bennett Lincoln Mercury because it is a progressive operation and it's worth more, and they're out there to-- continuing to do that as much as possible. I would like to say that I had to personally call Bobby Jones dealership, the service manager and the parts people, and make them come out here to tell them that they need to be more aggressive and they need to address our service needs, and that's just in the last month. I finally got them to come out and offer their services to [inaudible]. I do not expect any problems with any Ford dealership regardless of who gets the bid. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, they've answered my questions. The only thing I'd like to say to the maker of the motion, and I've probably got to vote against my heart on it, but we've heard the sentiment for some time in reference to what we can do with our local business folk. Do you want to go ahead on and tie that into the motion today, Mr. Bridges, to start instructing the County Attorney to come on up with a local preference ordinance, or would you like for me to just place it on the agenda for the next meeting? MR. BRIDGES: I believe that's--Jim, didn't we request that anyway out of the Finance Committee? MR. WALL: It came up that you had requested that. I don't know that the motion passed. But, I mean, any one Commissioner has the opportunity to ask me that, and Mr. Brigham has asked me, so I intend to bring that forward to you at some point. MR. BRIDGES: I don't think that's necessary, Willie, when it's being-- MR. MAYS: You all did it in your committee? MR. BRIDGES: It's being worked on. MR. MAYS: Okay. No problem. No problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the substitute motion, Ms. Bonner, please. CLERK: Substitute motion was to accept the best bid, Bobby Jones Ford, from Mr. Moses Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES YES; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 8-1-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. CLERK: Item 28 is a motion to approve the Mayor, Administrator, and Attorney the right to negotiate a month-to-month lease for property on Bertram Road to be used for siting a temporary telecommunications tower. MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only question is this: Where on Bertram Road is this located, and do the people that live over in that area, if there are people over there, know about this request? MR. WALL: No, I doubt the people that live over on Bertram Road know about it. The property is immediately adjoining the Federal Express property. This is property that was owned by the county prior to consolidation as a site for a fire station, and that is one of the reasons that--it was put on here originally because it was a county property and we could put it up there. The problem has presented itself in that some of the cellular companies that have anticipated being able to put their antennas on the Washington Road fire station tower are not going to be able to do that. MR. KUHLKE: I read that. But my concern is that if we approve this without the residents that live around there, the next thing they know is they see a tower going up. MR. WALL: It will not be a permanent tower. This is a portable tower that will come in on wheels, and they need that during these next coming weeks. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that this is going to go up for the Masters and come down after the Masters? If that's the case, I can support it. But if it's going up permanent, then-- MR. WALL: It's not going up permanent. And one of the things that will have to be decided, and really--I think we need to wait and see, and I'll bring it back before you. The question is whether or not you would rather have it there until some determination is made as to the future use of that government-owned property on Bertram Road or whether you want to have the cellular companies locate as a matter of right on any B-2 zoned property in that area. There are two companies that are actively looking right now for a site on Washington Road that they would have the right to construct on B-2. I think both companies are willing, on a temporary basis, to be on Bertram Road. They need to be on Bertram Road over the next, or one in particular, over the next several weeks, and that's the decision that y'all need to make. And I intend to bring it back after I find out exactly-after more discussions with the two companies involved, frankly. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand what he's saying. You know, I guess being on two land use committees, ACCG and NACO, that we're dealing with zoning issues here. What I don't want to do is to do something that's permanent, or pretty much permanent, without having a hearing with the community and explaining to the community what we're doing. MR. WALL: These are not permanent. They're called cows or--something on wheels. What is it, cable on wheels or--so it will go in there on wheels, be on wheels, and when we get ready to move them off, they're ready to go. Communication on wheels, COWS. Communication on wheels. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 29 is a motion to consider waiver of the 1997 property taxes, penalty and interest in the amount of $5,425.13 due on property donated to Augusta Preparatory Day School. MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: I think we need to be concerned about a precedent with taxes here. This was brought up in committee, and in the past we have waived property that was involved with a church school, but that's--you know, my understanding from that, that this is not the case here. We're probably setting a precedent that we might not want to maintain at this point, and I'd recommend against approval of this. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm in concurrence with Mr. Bridges. I have a real problem, not with the organization but with the fact that this is being asked that we waive property taxes. If it was on the school site on Walton Way and not on Broad Street I would have less of a problem with it, but due to the fact that it's on Broad Street, I'd hate to see us get into the ability to waive taxes [inaudible] and it's not a actual part of the process of their normal facilities of use. I think we are making a mistake and I don't think we need to do this. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if I might be allowed, I'd like to amend my motion that we approve this for one year only. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a substitute motion we not approve this resolution here, please. MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, I can remember several years ago when we had a church out on Warren Road that had some properties that wasn't being utilized in the function of the church, and we certainly did not waiver the taxes until they included it in the church activities. And I think that it is, you know, in the Broad Street versus the location of the school, separate properties. I would tend to agree and feel that we probably shouldn't waiver the property taxes, and certainly with the information I have here. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I see Mr. Nicholson, who I know has an interest in this property, and I assume that's the headmaster with him, and-- I'm not sure about that, but I think we ought to at least hear from them. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I think we ought to hear from them. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Mayor and esteemed Commissioners, my name is Steve Blanchard, I'm the Headmaster of Augusta Prep. This property was donated to us and we are using it in terms of storage of school desks and that sort of thing. We'd like someone to purchase the property obviously and get it back on the tax rolls and it goes into our endowment. But we are, in fact, using that facility and we are a nonprofit. We're not making any money, we are a school. We don't pay any taxes on our property in Columbia County as well. MR. SHEPARD: I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Mayor. How do we determine that the property does not qualify as tax exempt property when the fee simple owner does qualify as a tax exempt entity? Do we have that basis under our present ordinance for making that distinction? MR. WALL: Well, the question is as to the use of the property. With a nonprofit organization, it is the use of the property which controls. For instance, if the school was renting this property out, drawing income, then it would not be tax exempt. If they're using the property as a part of their school function--and school function in a restrictive convenant context, because we looked at this insofar as the Davison Fine Arts School, some of you may remember. They were using that school for storage purposes, and the cases have held that that is a part of the overall function of the school. But it goes into the use of the property. And the situation Mr. Todd addressed where the property out at Warren School was being used for a playground, et cetera, and was a part of the property, we exempted it. While it was simply being held and they had no plans for the property, y'all denied it. So it's a question of whether or not you believe the use that they're putting to it is a part of the educational use of that school. MR. SHEPARD: Well, did I not understand you that when Davison Fine Arts used it for storage we granted an exemption? MR. WALL: That wasn't a tax exempt question, it had to do with a restrictive covenant and a reversionary interest that was in that, but it's the same issue, in my opinion. MR. SHEPARD: Well, it's deemed a school purpose. Storage is deemed a school purpose, whereas income production is not a school purpose, and so this would be a deemed school purpose as I understand the facts. MR. SHEPARD: That's a fair statement. MR. BEARD: I see here in the analysis that the property does not qualify as a tax exempt property, but I also would like to ask the question: How long are you planning to keep this? Is this property up for sale? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. This property was donated to the school as a part of the capital campaign, and, you know, we are trying to find someone to purchase it, but in the meantime we are using the property. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't know how it's going to sound, but it's going to sound good to me. The headmaster said they're not making any money, this was donated to him. And really the statement in the book--if they had not put it in the book saying it's not qualified for tax exempt, then we might could get around it. But you already got it in the book printed that it is not qualified for tax exempt, so that means that we can't go against that, okay? So what if you sell the property, since you said you're trying to do that, and why don't you sell the property, then you pay the taxes on it, and we just waiver that till you sell the property? I mean, that's what I'm saying, it sounds good to me, but that might get y'all up. MR. WALL: Let me explain the--since I phrased that. I mean, it is not automatically tax exempt. It's the usage of it that makes it tax exempt, if it is used for school purposes. MR. HANDY: But they're not going to school, they're not attending classes, they're just storing desks, so that's not school. MR. WALL: Well, there is a case directly on point that I looked at insofar as the reversionary interest that was in the Davison Fine Arts, because there was a question as to whether or not that reversion came into place. And the court there held that storing of supplies, which was the situation there, was a part of a school function and did not trigger the reversion that I'm dealing with. And by analogy, the same thing would hold true here. MR. HANDY: All right. Well, if he pay us when he sell the property, I'll go along with that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would have something to say concerning Mr. Handy in the sense that if the tax is exempt for the year, then do this enhance the sale of the property or the value of the property or, you know, help the property sell faster? And if the property sells this year, then do we start taxing it at the point that it sell or have we given an exemption for the entire year? MR. WALL: Well, it does not enhance the value of it because, again, the entity that purchases it--I mean, if it's a business, then it would have to pay tax on it. If it's a school that uses it, then that would come back before the Board of Tax Assessors insofar as exemption is concerned. And, you know, the exemption is for the year, so whoever buys it, I mean, if it's sold, the determination of whether it qualifies or not would come January 1 of next year. MR. TODD: What was the recommendation from the Tax Assessor's Office or Tax Commissioner's Office? MR. WALL: I don't think there was one. MR. TODD: Why not? They can exempt up to a certain dollar amount, then after that it comes to us. So if they are bumping it up to us, why didn't they make a recommendation? MR. WALL: Well, I didn't submit it to them for a recom-mendation, I guess, is the reason that none was made. However, the Board of Tax Assessors has to deal with the exemption within a certain time period, and apparently that application was not made to the Board of Tax Assessors during 1997, I assume. MR. HANDY: One other thing. This is not the first piece of property, this is part of that Knox Foundation property, and everything we've dealt with that, they come up tax exempt. This is what Knox Foundation [inaudible] and it doesn't qualify for what they want it for. And so I'd like to put in the form of a substitute motion, if I can put another one on the floor--there's two already on there now, maybe somebody wants to drop one out--that we go ahead on and waiver the taxes only until they sell the property and then they will pay the taxes. Because he said the school is not making any money, they don't have any money, so they will have some money if they sell the property. So why put a burden on them when they don't have any money to ask them to pay taxes when they don't have it, but they will have it once they sell it. Now, if I can get a second on that, fine, but I would like to put that in the form of a motion that we go ahead on and approve it subject to selling the property and then they'll pay the taxes on it. MR. KUHLKE: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I was going to say we already have a substitute motion on the floor. MR. HANDY: I know. I said there was two on there, but I thought maybe somebody want to drop one of theirs, or if somebody want to accept that as an amendment to one of theirs. MR. BRIDGES: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the substitute motion first, made by Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. Was to disapprove the waiver of the taxes. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to disapprove, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, MAYS, POWELL & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 4-5-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Kuhlke. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, that was amended to only a waiver for one year? CLERK: For one year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't you read the motion. CLERK: Okay. The motion by Mr. Kuhlke was to waive the taxes for one year only. MR. KUHLKE: 1997. MR. HANDY: I need to ask a question. What's going to happen after '97? MR. KUHLKE: Well, taxes begin to accrue this year. MR. HANDY: But they don't have no money, that's what I just said. MR. KUHLKE: Well, they better find some unless they sell the property. MR. HANDY: They don't have no money now. So if they can pay it then, they can pay it now. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you've set precedence by then, so it's irrelevant. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve the waiver for one year, 1997, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. HANDY & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Item 32 is a motion to approve Resolution designating the week of March 30 through April 5, 1998, as Augusta's week of celebration in observance of National Community Development Week. MR. TODD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 33 through 54 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on March 9, 1998. [33. Motion to award construction contract to the low bidder, Mabus Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,950 for the replacement of a manhole on Columbia Nitrogen Drive. 34. Motion to award contract for particle counters for the Filter Plant to Met One at low bid of $77,910.37. 35. Motion to approve condemnation of 1.07 acres of land in fee (Tax Map 58-3, Parcel 102.2) on the Cook Road/Glendale Subdivision Roadway and Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Robert C. Beckham and H.E. Beckham. 36. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.28 acres of right-of-way (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 52) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Kenneth L. Labrack. 37. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.09 acres of right- of-way (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 57) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Ronald H. Tullis and Edwina A. Tullis. 38. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.36 acres of right- of-way (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 58) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Jesse Lee Brown. 39. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.05 acres of permanent easement and 0.03 acres of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 31-1, Parcel 137) on the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project, which is owned by Ronnie H. Beard and Nancy A. Beard. 40. Motion to approve deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Buckhaven Lane. 41. Motion to approve the installation of water line extension to 3965 Scott Street in Belair Hills Estate Subdivision. 42. Motion to approve award of construction contract to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. for the Lakeside Subdivision Drainage Improvements in the amount of $278,007.25 to be funded from approved County Contract and Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Recaptured Funds. 43. Motion to approve Certificate of Ownership and Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation for the 1998 LARP Project. 44. Motion to authorize condemnation of 16,509.61 sq. ft. in fee; 2,548.14 sq. ft. of permanent drainage and utility easement; and 4,451.17 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement on property owned by Leonard T. Mays (Tax Map 41-1, Parcel 54). 45. Motion to approve option agreements with James M. Johnson individually or in his capacity as President of Crane Creek Development Corporation on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the amounts of $200, $8,004.75, $338.70 and $200, respectively. 46. Motion to approve amendment to sanitation contracts to reduce performance bond requirement to an amount equal to 25% of 1998 base bid amount. 47. Motion to approve acceptance of $2,000 counteroffer submitted by property owner. 48. Motion to certify the project right-of-way and execute the Georgia Department of Transportation right-of-way agreement regarding the Cook Road and Glendale Subdivision Improvement Project. 49. Motion to authorize Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to perform required site work and prepare Potentiometric Map during the 1998 period (two events); authorize Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. to analyze samples collected by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates during the 1998 period (two events); and authorize Discerning Systems, Inc. to provide Dumpstat software, cost not to exceed $44,058. 50. Motion to authorize Southeastern Technology Center to demonstrate Phytoremediation Technology at the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill to reduce heavy metal concentration in leachate generated at the Landfill (no cost to Augusta-Richmond County) and to authorize the City Attorney to process and complete the Waiver and Release Agreement between Southeastern Technology Center and the City of Augusta for the subject project. 51. Motion to approve award of bids for Pest Control Services to two service providers: A & R Exterminating (Sections I and IV including special treatment of food areas and infestation prevention) and Metro Exterminating, Section II, III and V. 52. Motion to approve Wetlands Delineation Survey and property appraisal for +10.35 acres tract of land on White Road at a cost not to exceed $6,000. 53. Motion to approve proposal for engineering services for the Mid-City Interceptor Relief Sewer from ZEL Engineers in an amount not to exceed $289,344. 54. Motion to approve a Deed of Dedication from Hunter's Pointe Apartments, L.L.C. to Augusta-Richmond County.] MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put this as a consent agenda and ask that we accept each item as it came from the committee itself. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, Items 33 through 54, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS ON ITEMS 35-39 & 44. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEMS 35-39 & 44. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 33, 34, 40-43 & 45-54. CLERK: Item 55: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number 55-8678-098 in the amount of $2,036.00 to be funded from Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase II Recaptured Funds, the engineering proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. in the amount of $70,000, and the right to let for bid the Barton Chapel Road, Phase II Project. No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee March 9th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. MAYS: Second. MR. BEARD: I would just like to know, I think we received something today about where these funds are being pulled from to do this, and I'm concerned about the East Augusta--the amount that was being pulled from East Augusta. And if that is true [inaudible]. MR. MURPHY: According to the information we received, there was $470,000 left in the construction--in the contract of the East Augusta Drainage Improvement Project. MR. BEARD: You mean the drainage problem that we're having down there on Sand Bar Ferry Road? I know that has not been completed. MR. MURPHY: No, sir, I understand that, but the East Augusta Project that was presented and went through the award and the construction activities itself had left over in its contract $470,000. MR. BEARD: Well, if we have that much left over, why couldn't we utilize it on that problem out there that we have on East Boundary? MR. MURPHY: You could. MR. BEARD: So why are we pulling it? MR. MURPHY: There is another project where that money--the East Boundary project was coming from urban funds, not suburban funds. MR. BEARD: So we've been a stepchild for so long that we just do it all the time, and even though we have the money, we still-- MR. MURPHY: You had the money in the suburban area. MR. BEARD: That's suburban. MR. MURPHY: East Boundary is urban. MR. TODD: It's borderline, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, gentlemen. We don't have any more suburban and urban, we got one city. Did y'all forget about that? MR. BEARD: I didn't bring it up, Mr. Mayor. I'm talking about East Boundary, and that's the city as far as I'm concerned. SPEAKER: The only thing he's mentioned about urban-suburban is that we have specific sales tax projects that can be funded only out of the urban money and suburban money. So that--from what Mr. Murphy is saying, that's all he's addressing. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we all understand. We've got to get to a point where we forget suburban and urban and become one because 20 years down the road we're going to be like Jacksonville, Florida, doing the same thing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly this project is in District Four, District Five, and District Three. And I think that those of us that have been here and those of us that was with the city understand that when we were doing the one penny sales tax in 1995 we were two governments, Mr. Mayor. We had a urban and suburban sales tax. Approximately 26/27 percent went to the urban service district for their projects, approximately one percent went to the City of Hephzibah, and the rest of it went to old Richmond County. We haven't consolidated those funds, Mr. Mayor, it was a referendum. And the former city had been slow on committing to and doing the work to tie in East Boundary on the urban side to the storm drainage that we done down Laney- Walker Boulevard on the suburban side, and I think that's where the gap is as far as the projects go, if I understand. And I don't meddle in Public Works. I requested through Mr. Oliver and Mr. Murphy that we look for money to do Barton Chapel Road because we had program money from Barton Chapel Road to do some other projects that was given a higher priority, Mr. Mayor, under the former county government when Mr. Don Grantham was chairman of Public Works. When I was called in and this was presented to me as far as the urgency of those projects, Mr. Mayor, coming off of Washington Road, certainly I agreed and the money was reprogrammed. Now, Mr. Mayor, we have projects that's finished and all we are requesting is that we reprogram some money back to Barton Chapel Road, Mr. Mayor, to do Barton Chapel Road. It absolutely makes no sense to piecemeal Barton Chapel Road like we're doing it when we can do it for less money if we get this approved, get it to the state for DOT approval after July 1st, their new calendar year, and we can almost do the whole project without the contractor leaving Barton Chapel Road or we can wait until Year 2000 sales tax to finish it. Mr. Mayor, I think I've been fair to my colleagues on this board when it come to projects in their district, and we're talking about money that is recaptured after projects is finished or, Mr. Mayor, after projects is at the point where the folks that program the money in the first place for contingency feel that we can finish them under budget or with the money that's left. And certainly, Mr. Mayor, there is some other projects in District Four that if we run into a situation where we cannot finish the projects, then certainly at that time I will look at shifting some funds from some of those other projects that's coming, Mr. Mayor, in 1999 and Year 2000 in District Four. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, and grant Mr. Todd this, Barton Chapel Road is a needed project. I don't argue that point at all. My problem with this, Mr. Todd, is that we're taking monies that have been recaptured out of storm drainage and putting into a paving or widening project. I think what we're doing is--and I think you'll acknowledge this, Mr. Todd, is we don't have all the drainage problems fixed yet. We've got one here that's in my district, Boykin Road Drainage Improvements. Sure, we've completed the first phase, but there's two and possibly three phases to that project that we haven't even let for bid yet, so we don't know if we're going to be $100,000 under budget or $100,000 over budget. My point is we took a stance as a Commission to attack all of the storm drainage projects with the money that we allocated for storm drainage, and now we're going to shift this money from storm drainage projects where people are getting flooded to widen a road. Grant you, Barton Chapel Road needs widening, but I think the people need water relief first. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess I probably say this on behalf of you and Mr. Kuhlke and myself first. You know, I admire these single district fellows. You know, I got Four and One. And I seconded to get it on the floor so we could really get this out for some discussion. I was joking the other day about how much time, Mr. Handy, y'all spend in Engineering Services and I was kidding about staying all day [inaudible]. But I don't know whether I'm ready to vote today or not for a particular reason. I think everything that Moses is saying in that project and what we've done shifting to Barton Chapel is absolutely correct. The Mayor Pro Tem brought up a valid point in terms of what we've been discussing in East Augusta. Before we move away from that, I think a question needs to be answered. Even though we're one city, are there monies enough to deal with finishing East Augusta out of the urban monies that are over in there? Because I can remember selling the idea to the old Commission the year that I was chairman. In fact, it was when some people in the city and the county wasn't necessarily speaking, and I sent the message back over to this chamber to get their act together. Because I didn't see why water kept blocking up right down there at East Boundary and Laney-Walker for years and the city would say it's the county's fault, the county would say it's the city's fault, and I said, well, hell, get together, do the project together. Now, if the monies are there out of the other side to get that done and to make sure that we're going to complete it, I don't really, Lee, have a problem with the move if we're going to be able to help the funding there to do that with. But, you know, we get to fast checking on where we switch and move, and that's what's got us to the argument of where we are right here. Now, this Commissioner is absolutely correct, there was a lot of stuff shifted from that area out there because the project was too big. I mentioned a few days ago to you all in committee, I'm not on the committee, but I mentioned to you that I had a problem about the scarcity of us--even though we were criticized some-times for traveling, about the scarcity of our appearing before DOT and of making sure that we became a household product, particularly since Gwinnett and particularly since Dekalb have now passed their one-cent options. We know where the Commissioner has been, he's been absolutely good to us, but you know where his home is, don't you? Okay. They got a one-percent program now, too, and they are bigger than we are. They're going to be asking for money. Dekalb is going to be asking for money. So we've got to make sure that we stay on track with that. What bothers me in terms of going somewhere with a number four project on a list--and I agree partially with Commissioner Todd. He had a right to be mad when we went up there, but that wasn't necessarily the place for us to be arguing about it. We've always had a good agreement that once we go, we're set on the agenda, then that's what we unitedly fought for, whether it was members of the delegation, whether it was members of the old Commission, and now the new government, fighting for what you take up on your agenda. It's crazy to go there divided. But I think when you come up with a project listed that high and then you don't have any money tied to it, somewhere in there the Commissioner is going to start looking-- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, would the gentleman yield to me just a second? MR. MAYS: I'll be glad to yield to you, Moses, on that. MR. TODD: I want to point out that I was totally teed off, but did not argue in the Commissioner's office over projects, that it was a united front. Thank you, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: That's correct, you did do that. I said I agreed partially with you on it. But we had enough argument outside the building even though it wasn't in the room. But, you know, the point is, if it's going to be that high on a list, then it ought to be tied to some level of funding. And when we get into the switching game, then that gets us into problems. And I think what's happened is part of District Four has become a victim of it, and we don't need to make District One a victim of the same thing. The bottom line is, is the money there from the urban side to finish off District One. That's the lowest elevation in Richmond County, and we've got an interstate highway coming through down there, and 520, and we've got a hundred units or whatever that is built behind the cemetery back there. MR. OLIVER: Let me tell you what we're debating. We're debating whether the money has to be used within the former--as part of the referendum, within the former urban or suburban areas. In Phase III, we are of the opinion that it cannot be commingled, it has to be accounted for separately as part of the resolution. What we're discussing is, is in Phase II whether you can mix that money or not, and we've pulled out the referendum to look at that. The bottom line, however, is it becomes a policy decision that the Mayor and Commission need to make as to how the money can best be expended. MR. MAYS: Well, Mr. Mayor, what I said to Mr. Oliver, that the people who are affected by the flooding, regardless of where God's water starts, that the victims lie in the old suburban area. Now, whoever's fault it is as to whether it comes out of urban or suburban is not necessarily their problem. They are there over on the old county side of the fence. So if we don't fix it on this side, they still got the bottleneck on that side. They are the victims. So, I mean, I think both ought to be done, but it's just ironic that these two are headed on a collision course out of all the darn money that we got. That's the problem I got with each one of you four gentlemen on that committee in Public Works. MR. BRIDGES: Jack, this list you passed out, is that where you're pulling the money from for Barton Chapel Road? MR. MURPHY: Yes, out of Fund 55. MR. BRIDGES: And my understanding is that the Commissioner in Atlanta refused to fund this because it was unbudgeted on our end; is that right? MR. MURPHY: He didn't say that he would not fund it. We told him we were not ready because it was unfunded. And he's never backed off it. He's ready if he has the funds. MR. BRIDGES: If we're talking about doing things in order, by procedure, and in the manner that they should be done, shouldn't we--maybe should've done it in last year's budget, maybe we'll do it in next year's budget--budget for funds for Barton Chapel and then we can go before him rather than try to apparently pull monies away from other needed projects? MR. MURPHY: Well, it's not this year and next year, it's a phase thing. You know, we're operating on Phase III now and what's left over out of Phase II. We're not talking about budgeting for next year, we're talking about Year 2000, which is the next sales tax. What I'm saying is that Barton Chapel Road Phase II is unfunded, okay? It ought to be funded now. The only reliable source is a combination of recaptured and join DOT state aid. Let me clear up something: the drainage problems in East Boundary, given the old city limits, was on the east of East Boundary itself. So back when we were not consolidated, and that's when East Augusta was created, that project, we could not come in on that street and do it. There was enough urban funds to do East Boundary. You remember we had a project, it was a joint effort that went out under one contract, however, there were urban funds that went up into the old city limit when we were doing Laney-Walker Boulevard and the ditch. That was a joint effort. MR. MAYS: Where are we, though, in reference to that? And I think that's probably where the Commissioner from District One needs to really hear the clarification on, and I do, too. I know how it got started, and you were part of the positive efforts of helping to put that together in old county Public Works at that time. But we need to answer the question, I think, in reference to the fact we've got still work, and I stand to be corrected, but on the suburban side of the funding and to get the Phase III done in East Augusta, do we have enough total monies with this much left over to do everything we got to do in Phase III with the addition of those apartments, with the addition of the interstate highway down there, and what the old city was to have done in the project of relieving us with the water that they were sending down there that wasn't being done on the city side of the fence at that time. MR. MURPHY: The only other project that I know that exists, and you can correct me here, the only other project that I know that exists in our program right now is the Sand Bar Ferry--no, East Boundary Project. Now, you will remember, Mr. Beard, that is it on the state and county contract list. That project was identified, we put it on the list, and in answer to when can we get started, we can get started any time. There's money there in the urban funds. MR. BEARD: You know, if the money is there and we can get started on it, I have no particular problem with diverting this to it. MR. MURPHY: And we'll be glad to get started on that. MR. HANDY: I would just like to say a lot of times I don't agree with Mr. Todd on some of the things he do, but Mr. Todd is right about Barton Chapel Road. We need to go on and finish it. We here as a body, if we get in trouble with money, we can move it around. It's not our money when we say our district, but money has been pulled from district to district and sometimes we don't even know about it to make sure things work. So we're sitting here fussing over something that--we should go ahead on and do Barton Chapel Road because Mr. Todd has suffered a lot, and then if we get in trouble with money, then we worry about the money, and it's simple as that. East Boundary where they're talking about, that don't have nothing to do with Barton Chapel Road right now. We're talking about Barton Chapel Road and Barton Chapel Road only. Then when we finish Barton Chapel Road, then we go to East Boundary. But don't tie the two together because they're totally separated. We're only here talking about District Four, relieving Mr. Todd of his worry and heartaches of thinking that we as a body, which I will not be a part of, trying to trip this project up. And we all here should be supporting each and every one of us ourselves when we get a problem in our area. Now, he have suffered, he put off things, we should help him by going ahead on and do Barton Chapel Road. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I agree that there's some pain and suffering going on, but it's the people out there whose houses are getting flooded, that are waking up in the middle of the night down around Hollywood Subdivision and all in there with water up to their beds, that we need to make a priority. Of course, we can always tell them, well, we know you're flooded, but you can ride out to Barton Chapel Road and ride on the widened highway, it's dry up there. MR. SHEPARD: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I haven't said anything at all. I think Mr. Powell is partially right and partially wrong. I had people that was being flooded for years along Rae's Creek that this Commission passed in 1990 sales tax, I believe, to fund the project. It got done in 1997, '96. Now, we can't cure all the flooding problems. And maybe what we need to do is put priority on the flooding, but if we're going to do that I think we ought to start off with the ones that was promised to do in 1990 first, and we ought to complete all the other sales tax projects first before we go to the 1994 that was promised before we even get around to Phase III. This is an ongoing problem, and it's been a ongoing problem every time we intend to do something, but there's projects that were voted on after mine was voted on that was completed before mine was completed. Now, why is that? There isn't any right or wrong answers up here on this. What I think we need to do--and I think Mr. Todd is right. I feel for Mr. Todd. I've waited for my projects and he's waiting for his. I think we have a commitment to this community to do the oldest projects first, whether it's drainage or roads, and we need to get it resolved what we're going to do. And if we passed this thing back in 1988 to do Barton Chapel Road and we put it off, we ought to do Barton Chapel Road. If it was Hollywood Subdivision, we ought to do it. But we need to be consistent about what we do in trying to get this old stuff over with, and I think that's what Mr. Murphy is trying to tell us. I can go on with my drainage problem now. My drainage problems aren't stopped because we've completed the project. I know that. I'm turning water loose on Mr. Beard and there ain't no funds there. Now, are we going to spend it all on drainage? Maybe that's what we need to do. But it's not limited to any one area of this county. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if you'll excuse my language, I'll be damned if I'll be browbeat on drainage projects. If we want to shut down all road projects, Mr. Mayor, and do one hundred percent drainage projects, then I'll buy into that, and I'll buy into it right now and we can change the motion to that effect. But, Mr. Mayor, there is drainage projects in District Four, too. But I can tell you some drainage projects that wasn't really drainage projects, but folks was flooded because it was on Sand Ridge Hills, Mr. Mayor, where a developer went in and done the work improperly and we put it at the head of the priority list. And, Mr. Mayor, I can tell you how it got there on the priority list, because the chairman of the committee, Engineering Services Committee, was in that district. And that's how a lot of other projects, Mr. Mayor, get on the agenda to be done. And I think I've been patient enough with my colleagues, I think my constituents have been patient enough, and I think the citizens of Richmond County that travels Barton Chapel Road has been patient enough. And I call for the question. Vote it up or vote it down. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK: Item 56 is a motion to approve adoption of Minimum Performance Standards for the Fire Department, and Item 57 is a motion to approve the three-year terms to the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Items 56 and 57 were approved by Public Safety on March 9, 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. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: If we could do Items 64, 66, and 67 in consent, and then we take up Item 65 separately. [64. Motion to approve a change in the professional services contract awarded to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $13,875.00 to accomplish design of the entrance road off of Windsor Spring Road, off-site sanitary sewer from Spirit Creek to Willis Foreman Road archeological assessment in conjunction with the fill in wetlands permitting, and the widening of Windsor Spring Road. 66. Motion to approve request to submit an application for state assistance to seal cracks in Runway 11-29 at Daniel Field. 67. Motion to approve the purchase of one (1) reel mower from Stovall Turf and Industrial in the amount of $4,150.00 for the Recreation and Park Department.] MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: Item 65 is a motion to approve a Public Hearing regarding Augusta Transit's request for fare structure modification which includes the elimination of transfers and a thirty-day ride pass. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm voting for the hearing, but I'm not necessarily voting for what they are proposing to do. MAYOR SCONYERS: Didn't we have two ladies that wanted to speak on the Transit? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ma'am, give us your name and address, please. MS. MILLER: Lula Lorraine at Apartment 203 of the Bon Air, 2101 Walton Way. The people on the buses didn't even know that you guys were having this today, and it's really important to us because there's a lot of us who rely on this to get around. We hope that you will check all avenues before enforcing anything. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, what we're approving is a public hearing. MS. MILLER: I know, but I mean as far as looking at all aspects of it when doing this hearing. That's all I ask is that, that's all. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think not only her statements, but I'm sure some of us have been approached in person as well as calls from the people who use public transit and from supporters of public transit that may not necessarily be direct users, and that was why I wanted to make absolutely sure that the wording of this motion strictly deals with a date and a hearing, simple as that, and that we are not tied or restricted to anything. Now, sure, fares may come up, we may talk about transfers, we may talk about the thirty-day deal, we may talk about free passes, we may-we will even entertain other thoughts that citizens will have. But I think it's very important that we send the message that we're doing just two things, that's having a hearing and put a date on it. And that's all we ought to have in that motion, particularly if you're asking for public input, and I kindly ask the maker of the motion to really just simplify and leave it at that. Because the first thing that came out of last week in some quarters was that everything from fare raises, boom, that we were anointing that, that it was already set to go, it had already been done. And I just don't think we ought to set that type of tone and the perception coming from it, that we ought to be very careful on how that's done. I mean, we may still end up with anything, we may still end up with some of the things that's been discussed, but I think that should be the only thing that's dealt with in terms of setting this hearing, a date and a time and the department that you're dealing with and that's all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I agree, and I think that if we can come up with the money that's mandated on this unfunded mandate to give individuals a $20,000 raise over two years, we ought to be able to come up with money to run the public transit. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further comments, gentlemen? CLERK: Mr. Handy is not here. Do you want a substitute motion? MR. MAYS: Substitute motion that--I believe, Mr. Oliver, you and Transit were working on getting together with that date or were they doing it on their own? MR. OLIVER: They were working--we'll work with Ms. Bonner to do that, but we haven't established a fixed date yet. But under federal guidelines, it has to be so many days and advertisements have to be placed. I mean, there are very strict standards on it. MR. MAYS: I'll simply just make a motion that you all get a time and a date for a public transit hearing. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 69 is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on March 3, 1998, and the called meeting held March 11, 1998. MR. BEARD: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 70: Appointments to various boards, authorities and commissions. From District 1, Commissioner Lee Beard recommends these appointees for appointment to the various boards: Animal Control, Archie Shepard; Bush Field, Ed McIntyre; Historic Preservation, Thelma Williams; Housing Advisory Board, Nancy Barnes; Human Relations, Walter Thomas; Personnel Board, Colis Ivey; Planning Commission, Pat Jefferson; Riverfront Development, Bernard Johnson; Tree Commission, Butch Gallop; Zoning Appeals, Jacqueline Fason. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the nominations, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item B: Commissioner Ulmer Bridges offered the following for nomination: Personnel Board, Jon M. Winters; Public Facilities, Avery Willis. MR. BRIDGES: Motion to approve. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that I'm abstaining on voting for Mr. Willis. MR. KUHLKE ABSTAINS (ON MR. WILLIS). MOTION CARRIES 7-1. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item C: The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem offer the following names as nominations for the subcommittee regarding the creation of the in-house law department: Mr. Brian Batson, Mr. Hugh Connally, Mr. Brett McGuire, Mr. James Kendricks, and Mr. Harold Petteway. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those names be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I did a little research on these these gentlemen and I've got several questions that I don't understand. All these gentlemen are not residents of Richmond County, and I think that if we're going to do this, and which I fully support the establishment of this committee, I think we ought to have Richmond County residents on it. The other concern that I have is I understand Mr. Connally is an attorney, but he's not a practicing attorney. And I don't have any problem with him being on the committee, but I think when we voted to put an attorney on there, I thought it was our intentions to have a practicing attorney, not just an attorney. And in light of that, I think we ought to make a motion somewhere along the way, or either--I would accept a motion of referring this back to committee and come back with some more names or either we can do the names here today, I don't care which. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could echo Mr. Brigham's comments, I think that it's very important that we have a practicing attorney on this committee. Maybe Mr. Connally is a member of the Bar, but I think he's been out of the active practice of law for a number of years. I think he'd be an asset to the committee, and I want to thank the Mayor Pro Tem and you, Mr. Mayor, for your effort in getting a committee together. I'm getting a committee together on the railroads and I know what an effort that is to get folks who will serve. But I think we should enlarge the committee so that there is a practicing attorney, and we define that as an attorney that certainly is practicing in Augusta-Richmond County who is regularly going to court or regularly involved in transaction or legal practice, and preferably someone who is regularly going to court who appreciates the problems that a municipal authority or county has in reference to Federal Court, in reference to zoning, in reference to condemnations and these issues that routinely come along. So I commend your work, but I think we need to expand this committee, and we can do it today or we can do it next time, but I think we need to expand it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to maybe certify all of this and what we did and the reason for doing it. To answer Mr. Brigham's question, I fully agree that in reference to boards and authorities we should utilize people locally and not go outside of the county. To me, I think we viewed this as a little different. And really we were asked to get people who were involved in entities that had in-house attorneys and outside attorneys. But this is what we were asked, and I think if you will check the record, although these people may live in Columbia County, they work in the city here and they are dealing with just what you asked for. And as far as Mr. Shepard is asking about the attorney, well, you know, no one specified whether, you know, he's in a courtroom every day or working in the courtroom every day. I understand he is an attorney and I think he had those experiences, and we didn't get into that. So the Mayor and I viewed this as something that was dealing with a short span of time, coming in and working and giving some input here, and then we making the final decision. We're not asking these people to make a final decision on this. We're going to make the final decision on whatever they bring up, and it doesn't matter--we're going to make the final decision and, therefore, we were under the impression that it--really we were more concerned about these people and their representation as to the work that they were doing in preference to where they live, and that was the reason for our doing that. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I've just got a comment to make, and it's not that I'm not agreeing with Mr. Beard, but he's just got a little differences here. Out of 78,205 total in Richmond County, I know we can find more people than this that lives in Richmond County, that does not live in Columbia County, to put on a committee if we need to. Now, if you go out and look for particular people, then you may have your list narrowed down, but we're not here looking for anybody particular, we're just looking for a committee to do what we ask to do and make sure we get a good committee. What I as one prefer, that we can use Richmond County people, not Columbia County people period. And out of all the people in Richmond County and all the industrial businesses in Richmond County, we ought to be able to find somebody in Richmond County and not Columbia County. And that's just a statement, not disagreeing with what you said. But I would rather use--like we talked about buying cars in Richmond County instead of out of Atlanta, well, now we're going to go back to the people in Richmond County instead of Columbia County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, based on that then, I guess we'll have to get us a new Attorney, because Mr. Wall lives in Columbia County. Do y'all want to get rid of him? MR. HANDY: If we get six votes we can get rid of him, too, but we don't have the six votes yet, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will you entertain a motion to do so? MR. HANDY: And I'll let that get on the agenda. We can amend the agenda again for that if we can get six votes to do that, but I don't believe we got six votes there to go against Mr. Wall with the type work that he's doing. MR. POWELL: You don't have unanimous consent. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I want to kind of echo the same sentiment that's been expressed by Mr. Handy, Mr. Shepard, and Mr. Brigham. I'm not talking about personalities here, maybe I'm talking about perception, but we are talking about a situation where you're trying to get a committee that will come back to this body with a recommendation. That recommendation will have a financial impact on this community. I hate to take an action on something that will have a financial impact that's being recommended by three people on this committee that will not be affected by that impact. I don't even know these gentlemen--some of them I do, but I don't know the ones from Columbia County. And I'm sure they're qualified people, but I just think that we are sending the wrong signal out to the community when we appoint people that don't live in Richmond County to come back to us with a very important decision that we've got to make and is going to have a financial impact. So I just wanted to express that. One of the people on here is a name that I submitted to Mr. Beard to consider, but I think--I'm saying that because, the way it is now, I would have to vote against this committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Beard and I both went out into--like I went to industries, and I did not ask the people do you live in--I mean, obviously these people have businesses in Richmond County or I wouldn't have went to them. And I guess one of the criteria was that--nobody said that we had to ask them if they live in Richmond County. That's my fault. But if y'all want to go out and get some others, then that's what we ought to do. We'll make it a criteria that we ask the people up front where the hell do you live at. MR. KUHLKE: I wish you would do that, and I think it's you know, you and Mr. Beard's responsibility to bring back a committee to us, and my only comment is the residence of three of the people on this committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, maybe we should just dissolve this committee, Mr. Beard, and maybe advertise or something, a way to get people that live in the county to come up and approach us about being selected. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you know, if that's the wishes of the body, we surely--you know, we'll go back. It still has to be voted on, but we'll go back if that's the wishes of the body to go back and get this. I surely adhere to the boards and authorities, and I hope we'll be just as diligent when we look at those people who are being appointed because I have seen names already submitted that people don't live in Augusta or they're building homes in Columbia County and they're being submitted as going on boards and authorities. Now, I'm totally against that and I hope we keep that same approach that we're doing now when we look at people who we are going to submit on boards and authorities, so let's keep that in mind as we make these appointments. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I am sympathetic with you and Mr. Beard in the sense that Mr. Powell okayed for me to set up a committee on wastewater, a subcommittee, and I gave Ms. Bonner, you know, the criteria and I didn't put in there must be a citizen of Richmond County. But we picked individuals from industry like y'all did and we picked individuals from organi-zations like the Augusta Building and Trade and the Augusta Builders Exchange, and I may get someone from Aiken County or out of state, I don't know. And, fortunately, we only got two back. It's hard to get folks to serve on a committee, and I can understand, you know, when you're going out that it's not the easiest thing in the world to do. But if I was going to sit here and tell you that, Mr. Mayor, I was going to vote for your nominees I'd be a hypocrite because I wouldn't vote for them if every one of them was from Richmond County. Because, in my opinion, I took a oath that I would uphold the laws of the State of Georgia, the United States, and the local ordinances, and as I understand it at this time, unless that legislative delegation we have in Atlanta changed something today, the law say that we'll have an in-house county attorney, and certainly I think it's hypocritical of us to appoint a committee to try to put the responsibility off on someone else to tell us to do something that we know is not legal. Mr. Mayor, if the local delegation is going to do one thing in Atlanta, they should resolve this issue if we're going to do something different from what the law says. And I don't think that this board have the backbone to do what's right, I don't think the local delegation have the backbone to do what's right, and what I say, Mr. Mayor, is shame on all of us. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I recommended the amendment to Mr. Shepard's motion in terms of us setting up a committee, you know, to get to this point. It came up in reference to Mr. Wall's residence, and I believe that the State Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court has closely held in terms of the fact that you're trying to make a person live and reside in the same place, you cannot constitutionally do so, so I think that's a moot situation. But I think in terms of selection of dealing with 200,000 people, we put together various citizen group committees, divided it up when consolidation was done. Probably some of the criticism that's come to all of us has been that some of them feel maybe in a forgotten passage in terms of what they've done. I seriously think everybody you got on this committee that's there, I think they are very good and knowledgeable people that could serve and do a good job. But I'll say the same thing about this committee that I said about setting up the public hearing for transit, and I agree totally with my colleague from the other Super District, the perception of what we do is very important. And I think to have that many people that reside here, and I think we probably may have been remiss--and I think you all are doing an excellent job in trying to put everybody together, but I just think rather than maybe voting for this and voting these folk down maybe somewhere else, maybe to just let you and the Mayor Pro Tem work that back out, bring us some Augusta people and choose from those folk. And while you're doing it--I can say this because I'm not campaigning for anything and just got a whole new term, but it wouldn't hurt y'all if y'all expanded. It wouldn't hurt you at all. You know, the legal system does deal with women, and it's another situation where y'all got five men down here to make a decision. So you got some female attorneys, you got some female business people that could also expand into that role and do that. But I think they ought to come from Augusta, and I say this not being funny. You best better believe that if Columbia County, either one of those cities or the county attorney up there, if they were going to pick a group of people to deal with any of their business, it isn't going to be nobody from Augusta, Georgia, it's going to be from when you go past that Columbia County line. And that's not being hard, but I think if we're going to campaign and solicit from Augusta people, then we ought to select Augusta people. And if we're going to deal from those industry entities that are out there, then find somebody in that entity who lives in Augusta, Georgia, and that's the way I feel about it. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could make a substitute motion that the matter be referred back to Your Honor and to the Mayor Pro Tem to look at these and return with a set of recommendations with residents of Richmond County meeting these criteria, if at all possible, and expand the committee by one individual which would include a practicing attorney. I don't want to turn anybody down who has already said they would accept and work, and I'm not criticizing anybody because I think it's admirable that somebody nowadays would want to serve in either elected or appointed service. So I would offer that as a substitute motion. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on that, gentlemen? Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Shepard-- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, if I'm in order and if it's okay with you, I'll just withdraw this instead of having it voted on. CLERK: You want to delete this item from the agenda? MR. BEARD: Delete the item. MAYOR SCONYERS: We can't delete the item from the agenda. MR. BEARD: No, we can't delete it, but I can withdraw it. MR. WALL: He can either make a motion to postpone the consideration of this agenda item until the next meeting as far as recommendation or he can make a motion to delete it, but it would take unanimous consent to delete it at this point. But a motion to postpone to a later meeting is a recommendation. MR. BEARD: Well, I would like to make a motion to-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Lee, Mr. Shepard's motion does exactly what everybody wants. I think that would be the simplest thing to do. MR. BEARD: Okay. We can go with that. MR. SHEPARD: Call the question, Mr. Mayor, on the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. BEARD & MR. TODD ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. CLERK: Item 71 is a motion to authorize Mayor to execute Brownfield grant for Hyde Park/Virginia Park Subdivision area, subject to the approval of County Attorney and Administrator. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, just a question for maybe the Attorney or the Administrator. The Brownfield grant, is that a grant or is that a--do we have to repay? MR. OLIVER: It's solely a planning grant. It's in the amount of $200,000. If we get that--and there's been a lot of discussion as to whether this site is eligible. One of the reasons that I felt we needed to move forward was because some of the residents in that area have gotten assurances from some of the federally elected officials, and those assurances may be somewhat contradictory to what we're hearing from other agencies. But the $200,000 is a planning grant. If we are awarded that grant, and the submission date is March the 23rd, that money will be used to determine what needs to be done out there to determine the funding for--you know, how much we could possibly anticipate from the federal government, state government, and also the various sources which would include Housing and Neighborhood Development as well as other federal programs. But it's solely for planning. It would delineate the boundaries of the site and that type thing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my recent trip to D.C. when we had an opportunity to talk to the EPA folks, including the Administrator, that basically shared with us that it don't hurt to make the application; that, you know, there's nothing in concrete as far as grants go. Normally they don't fund Brownfield initiatives or projects where there's people to be moved, but they also make exceptions, and they made exceptions in Texarkana, Texas, in a similar situation, and certainly I would encourage my colleagues to support this and we go from there. It's not costing us anything. 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. CLERK: Item 72 is a 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. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on March 3, 1998. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. BRIDGES: From my understanding on that, that is based on the CPI for the previous year. MR. OLIVER: It's based on the CPI for the southeast region. The federal government has a lot of different indexes. But, yes, it's 2.3 percent and limits future increases to the same CPI index. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in that I don't have the minutes from the last meeting, I think objected to it then and I said that the capital outlay should come from-- CLERK: It's in the front of your book, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Well, I'll go on and make it for the record, the statement that the money should come from future one-penny sales tax projects to fund this. I know what the Water Works folks is saying the needs are, but basically I think that we can save the users 100 percent. I've heard on Mr. Eskola's report that by going by the CPI and not doing the 3 percent, that we're saving them approximately 40 to 60 thousand dollars. But we can save them 100 percent by not doing it all and put it on the next one penny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 73 is a motion to approve an Ordinance establishing a Pension Plan for new employees and 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 the Attorney and Administrator. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on March 3, 1998. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: 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: Item 74 is a motion to approve amendment of Augusta-Richmond County Code to authorize License & Inspection Department license inspectors to issue citations for violation of Augusta-Richmond County code alcohol licensing and general business licensing ordinance. First Reading. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 75 is a motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Section 1-7-15(b)(2) of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to modify the powers and duties of the Richmond County Personnel Board; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other purposes. MR. TODD: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. HANDY: I would like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we deny this item. Because I heard from some of the people on the Personnel Board, and I don't know where this came from, so I need to know some more information other than sitting here. Because I heard from the people on the Personnel Board and they don't have a problem with whatever they have over there. MR. OLIVER: I don't--I mean, that's a policy decision that you have to make. I was not at the Personnel Board meeting and I understand that this was discussed. Is Mr. Etheridge here? I think Lori was at that meeting also. And it was my understanding that they were experiencing a great deal of frustration in the number of cases that they were hearing, that they heard a one-day suspension case which took--you know, typically when they hear a case it takes at least an hour, and that that was a source of frustration. Additionally, there was some frustration about hearing cases where somebody was suspended without pay in the case of, you know, someone being charged with criminal activityand that that was not provided for. And one of the things that we tried to do there, and I did not participate in the meeting, was to better delineate what they were to do, and what this provides for is that only actions that would affect a person beyond a certain period of time would be heard by them. As it currently stands right now, if someone, to be facetious, is suspended for five minutes, they have the right to appeal that to the Personnel Board. MR. HANDY: Right. But, see, we shouldn't be making an ordinance to satisfy people on our board. If they get frustrated, then we ought to replace them with other people who wants to come and work. That's what I'm saying. MR. WALL: Let me comment and address this. I was not at the meeting and I'm not sure whether it came up in--or how it came up in the meeting. I am aware of the fact that several of the new appointees to the Personnel Board have read the statute defining their responsibilities, and it does not specifically state that they will review suspensions. And so the question had came up, well, why are we hearing these suspensions, and it was included in the personnel policies and procedures that they had that right. So the attempt was to--the Personnel Board, as we interpret it, wanted to get out of hearing the suspensions, and so we were trying to make the personnel policies and the ordinance creating the Personnel Board consistent. And we need to do that one way or the other. I mean, either suspensions do go to the Personnel Board or suspensions do not, and we need to make those two consistent and right now they are not consistent. MR. HANDY: The reason why I'm saying that is that you all have taken it away from the Commissioners and gave it to the board, relieving our power of hearing grievances and stuff. So since you've done that, then leave it with them. That's what I'm saying. So ain't no sense in changing it, just make the board comply with the policy and procedures instead of changing the policy for the board. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Handy's motion. MR. OLIVER: Might I suggest, Mr. Handy, because I think this will clarify that, that your motion be that we modify the ordinance to be consistent with our current policy and procedures and require them to hear suspensions. MR. HANDY: Exactly right. I'll accept that. MR. OLIVER: Because I think suspensions have the potential for being more of a detriment in that, you know, if someone is charged with a crime, they could be six months or a year before the trial ever happened. MR. HANDY: Right. I'll accept that as long as the ordinance comply with the policy and procedure, not changing the policy and procedure just for an ordinance. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, you'll be able to suspend them, you will, but the hearing will be later on then; is that right? MR. OLIVER: Here is the current policy. Mr. Hornsby hears the appeals. Current policy is if someone is suspended, that they have the right to appeal through the Human Resources Department and ultimately to the Administrator's Office. If the Administrator's Office upholds the appeal, then they have the right to appeal to the Personnel Board. And currently they can appeal to the Personnel Board any time that they lose time, if you will, be it a half a day, a day, or whatever. And the only thing this policy was proposing to do was to make it so the number of cases being heard by the Personnel Board were reduced, because obviously with a workforce of 2,500 people there are a number of cases, particularly recently, that they've had to hear. And, you know, part of it, like Mr. Handy is saying, is because the board is new and there's been some delays in doing that, and, you know, we'll work with them however you all think is best. MR. BRIDGES: So what is the motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: We have two. Mr. Handy made a substitute motion. Read the substitute motion. CLERK: That we modify the ordinance to comply with the personnel policy and procedure manual. MR. HANDY: So the suspensions will be heard by the Personnel Board. MR. BRIDGES: After it goes through the Human Resources and the Administrator? MR. OLIVER: It wouldn't change that. The other motion would be to change it in accordance with the ordinance, and the ordinance currently says that the only suspensions that can be--as I say, they would be heard--to provide safeguards in the system, they would be heard by Mr. Hornsby, but the suspensions beyond the ten-day limit would go to the Personnel Board. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw my motion if the seconder of the motion will withdraw with me. MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: On the addendum agenda, Item 2: Commissioner Steve Shepard offers the nominee of Mrs. B.J. Lester to the Library Board. Third District appointment. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move for Mrs. Lester's appointment. She is currently serving an appointment to District Five by assignment, but she actually lives in District Three. The District Three appointee has resigned and does not seek reappointment. 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 10-0. CLERK: Item 3: Commissioner Moses Todd offers the appointment of Gen. Robert Gray (Retired) to the Augusta Aviation Commission. Fourth District appointment. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to clear up any concerns about where General Gray lives, and I'll take it--I retired as a sergeant and he was a general, so I had to take him at his word when he told me. Saturday a week ago out at a Max Cleland function at Fort Gordon we talked for approximately two hours, and he shared with me that he lived off Meadowbrook in the Fourth District. I questioned whether he planned to move to Columbia County because the rumor in the street was that he was building a home in Columbia County by way of the--you know, he was on the Austin Rhodes show or something, I think. And he indicated to me that his mother is moving here from Ohio and that a home was being built for his mother in Ohio. At this time he lives in Richmond County. I take him on his word on it. And I think this is probably one of the better appointments that we've had opportunity to do in Richmond County, and any time that General Gray should move from Richmond County I would then consider appointing someone to that position. I believe that he lived on Fort Gordon, that's also in District Four, so between the two he's been in District Four. MR. BEARD: Are you including that in your motion that when he moves to Columbia County, that he would-- MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor, I'm not. Because no one else that ever made an appointment to a board or authority have included in the motion that if a person moves, that they would do a reappointment. MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd, just let me ask you one question, and this is a comment, too. Since we've made so many problems here today about where a person lives, General Gray is building a house in Columbia County-- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor-- MR. BEARD: Just let me finish, if you don't mind. General Gray is building a house in Columbia County. We just discussed people living in another county serving here, you know, and I would just like- -since we've raised that question today, I would just like to know and have that verified. I have no problem with General Gray personally, I think he's a fine person, and that is not--we're not getting into personalities, we're getting into where a person is living and where he is expecting to live. And if somebody is--if I'm building a house in Columbia County, then I expect to live there, and he is building a house in Columbia County. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't care whether General Gray is building a house in Taiwan, he's a resident of Richmond County at this time, and I'm making the appointment to the Bush Field aviation board and call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 6 is to authorize the Mayor to sign grant application in the amount of $5,000 with the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for banners for downtown Augusta with any match to be made by Main Street Augusta. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. OLIVER: That should be $5,450. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 7 is to authorize extension of Motorola Service Agreement. Funds are budgeted. MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. OLIVER: This is for radios that the Sheriff, the Fire Department and that type thing have. This contract should have been renewed two months ago. These are radios we bought from Motorola. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: That's it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need a legal meeting, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Please, sir. Litigation and a real estate matter, and personnel. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, so move on the legal session. MR. SHEPARD: Second. [LEGAL MEETING, 5:45 - 6:25 P.M.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 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 18, 1998. _________________________ Clerk of Commission