Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS April 6, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 6, 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 STEELE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request for two addendums to our agenda: (1) Motion to approve Resolution in support of House Resolution 3206, The Fair Housing Amendment Act; and (2) Appointment to the subcommittee on legal services. MR. HANDY: Motion to approve. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 16 were approved by the Finance Committee on March 30, 1998. [1. Motion to disapprove the abatement of penalty ($2,909.55) on property at 3122 Damascus Road. 2. Motion to disapprove the abatement of penalty on account 969719. 3. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 charge. 4. Motion to approve Resolution approving transfer of KMC Southeast Corp. franchise to KMC Telecom, Inc. 5. Motion to approve termination of contract between City Council of Augusta and Richmond County Hospital Authority and cancellation of duplicate City of Augusta 1995 tax bill for Map & Parcel 046-1-036003. 6. Deleted from consent agenda. 7. Motion to approve amendment to copier contract for bid item #97-108 awarded to the Pollock Company and authorizes increase in budget for Clerk of Court in the amount of $9,200 with funds to be taken from General Fund Contingency. 8. Motion to approve renewal of annual lease for the Main Tag Office located at 491 Laney-Walker Blvd. Building is leased from the State Department of Agriculture. 9. Deleted from consent agenda. 10. Motion to approve cellular telephone services contract to the lowest and best bidder, Alltel, saving $22,798 annually. 11. Motion to approve conveyances to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority for the following properties, to-wit: 1. 1703 Luckey Street 2. ____ Luckey Street (Lot No. 8, Block 3, shown on plat RR9-S 3. 1310 Florence Street 4. 1440 Roulette Lane 5. 1429 Roulette Lane 12. Motion to approve CPS Contract at $331,721.00 for Tax Appraisal and Assessment Software. 14. Motion to approve and execute Software License and Service Agreement with New World Systems in the amount of $58,410 for the calendar year. Funds are budgeted. 15. Motion to approve abatement of penalty on 1997 tax bill for 1215 Johns Road in the amount of $580.95. 16. Motion to approve abatement of penalties by G.E. Capital Corp. in the amount of $792.68.] MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, we recommend this be approved by unanimous consent. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 6. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 9. MR. BEARD: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 1 through 16, with the exception of of Items 6 and 9. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 6 is a motion to retain budget for Greater Augusta Arts Council 1998 at current level of funding. Approved by the Finance Committee March 30, 1998. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we bring the $5,000 back to the General Fund budget contingency. MR. BRIDGES: I second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, several years ago I come in here in the old government, the County Commission, and supported an additional $20,000 for the Greater Augusta Arts Council, and the reason for that is that they were putting on an event in South Richmond County known as the Lock and Ham Jam, and the concerns were that they were not making the money that they should make and they needed some additional support. Well, we gave them that support, we gave them $20,000. Fortunately, I guess, the year after they brought Tim McGraw in and he was a rising star and they made money, and I guess lost money since then. Mr. Mayor, it's my opinion that if they are not doing the event, that probably instead of just the $5,000 that we're talking about, or what they're saying that they spend to put on this event, they should give us $20,000 of it back, and that's the $20,000 additional money that we gave them per year to put on this event to help them, you know, break even or make money so they'd have money to regrant the different organizations that they regrant to. Mr. Mayor, we also in addition, through Amendment 73, etc., give money to a lot of these organizations that they regrant to. Mr. Mayor, in 1999 when they are putting on an additional event, regardless of where that event is put on at, whether it's the Green Jackets Stadium, Lake Olmstead, or at the old location of the Lock and Ham Jam, Mr. Mayor, or down on Broad Street, when they put it on, then we should give them the $5,000 back. We shouldn't continue to let them hold the $5,000. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we go on and fund this. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got a question to Mr. Oliver. Do you have a recommendation? MR. OLIVER: It was our feeling that it should come to you all because in the original budget that we presented to you that $5,000 was included. Subsequently there was a letter that had been sent to the Mayor requesting that that be taken out. We weren't aware of that. In general terms, I feel like the budget was approved with the understanding at least by you all that the $5,000 was included. If that was your understanding, then I think it ought to be taken out. If that wasn't your understand-ing or you feel they can use that $5,000 for other things to offset the 20% cut that they incurred, then you should restore it. MR. HANDY: But we haven't done any other department that way, so--the reason why I asked you the question is that if we gave them the money to put on the Lock and Ham Jam and they're not going to put on the Lock and Ham Jam anymore, then that--if that money was designated just for the Lock and Ham Jam, then we should get it back. That's what I'm asking: Is that what it's designated strictly for, the Lock and Ham Jam, the $,500 in question, or do you have any knowledge-- MR. OLIVER: That was the representation that we thought during the budgetary process. As I mentioned, there was a subsequent letter sent to the Mayor which you all were not made, you know, party to that said they weren't going to be doing that event, and, in their mind, it took it out. In our mind, when you approved the budget, we think that you approved the budget with the understanding that event was going to go forward. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, we don't normally approve an organization's operational budgets, do we? MR. OLIVER: Well, I think any time you look at the budget for a given organization you have to--you look at the things that that organization does and how they utilize that money. And, you know, if their scope of services is cut back or whatever, you make changes accordingly. But, you know, I think during the budgetary process you do look at what benefits they provide the community, and, admittedly, they did take a 20% cut in their budget. MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] have not reprogrammed this within their money and are they--will they have to cut it further? MR. OLIVER: I can't truthfully answer that, but I would anticipate that, based on the representations that they made, that they would probably have to do some reprogramming. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was the representations made in committee; right? MR. OLIVER: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: In other words, this would be an additional $5,000 cut if we take it away; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, that is the case. MAYOR SCONYERS: I just want to make sure that's clear, everybody understands that. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think that this money should come back into the General Fund. The money was designated, on all the paperwork that I saw when it was presented to the Commission, as being for the Lock and Ham Jam to be held in South Richmond County. When the director came before the Finance Committee last week to present it, she offered to use that $5,000 in South Richmond County to promote the Arts in the Heart for the city, and so it's my thinking from that that it was her intent to spend that in South Richmond County in some manner. So I think, to me, from that, it's clear that that money was intended to be spent in South Richmond County, and since it's not going to be, I think that should come back to the General Fund, and I hope that the Commission will vote that way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Substitute motion first, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to retain the current level of funding. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to retain the current level of funding, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. CLERK: The original motion was to return the $5,000 back to the General Fund. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CLERK: Item 9 is a motion to award low bidder, AccuData Solution, Inc., to print the Augusta Court Notices and the Utility Invoices, saving $12,937 annually. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move to award this to the low bidder, AccuData Solutions. But as to the utility invoices, I would ask that the bidder be instructed to put the Augusta Care Citizen Response line number on the bill. I think we are failing to communicate our Office of Citizen Response and its availability to our constituents and citizens and I would like to see that office publicized in a way that's really no cost to us. We're sending out thousands of pieces of mail. I don't object to the low bidder being awarded this contract, but I think we need to put that in there so that they do advertise this service that we offer to our constituents now. MR. TODD: Second. MR. OLIVER: We can do that, as long as they don't call us about their utility bill. We'll take care of that. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 17: Motion to approve a request for funding for The Augusta Chorale. Any approved funding to be taken from General Fund Contingency. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we deny this seeing as how we're going to the General Fund contingency. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. MAYS & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Item 18 is a motion to approve a request from Mr. James Florida regarding an increase in his disability retirement from 25% to 50%. MR. HANDY: Motion to approve. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. OLIVER: There are two people under the '77 plan that are at the 25% level, and I think on the motion it needs to be clear whether the intent is to take both people to the 50% level. The other thing that I want to mention, and I distributed this, that the cost to the plan, assuming an 84-year life expectancy for both of the remaining individuals and a 3% cost of living, on a present value basis is $298,529. And since the 1977 plan is not overfunded, any increase will be funded through the General Fund in this and future years. MR. HANDY: I'll amend my motion to include anyone out there that is not on here that's affected by this particular plan to be included. MR. SHEPARD: I accept the amendment. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my question is, are we making bad precedence of going back and changing benefits in plans? Not necessarily this plan, but are we making a precedent that we're going to do this in other plans? We've made some bad mistakes in them, too. Are we going to go back and readjust everybody that was not covered in those mistakes? MAYOR SCONYERS: We only have two people that's out under disability. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm not necessarily talking about the disability here, I'm talking about the other mistakes we've made in the pension plans. I mean, if we are, we can't afford to fund all these pension plans to cover everybody that wants to leave. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, doesn't each one of the plans have to stand on its own merit when you do something like this? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. I mean, each plan has got to stand on its own. I think that the concern that has been expressed is that we have been asked through a number of different plans and through a number of different issues to go back and correct some inequities, etc., and this is another example of where these individuals say they're being treated differently because of their retirement date from other individuals, and that's a policy decision for you to make as far as whether or not to go back and include them. There are obviously some other perceived inequities in some other plans and, yes, those will have to be addressed if and when those are brought before you, but I think that you can expect some further ones to be coming before you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Whether this passes or not; right? MR. WALL: Whether this passes or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Hunter, do you have something to say? MR. HUNTER: Yes, sir. I've got a case, and Mr. Shepard had asked me last time, it's Carter v. Oxford Commissioner. It's Georgia Court of Appeals, 102 Ga. App. 762. And the whole reasoning behind this is not to change the plan for these two fellows, but what happened is, is when y'all passed--and I have some minutes here where y'all passed the resolution changing the pension plan from 25 to 50%. Y'all did not stipulate a change date effective of new people vesting into the plan, you deleted the 25% and substituted the 50% and repealed all laws and concepts thereof. And I don't think that, quite frankly, this body has a choice in the matter. Well, y'all have a right to vote, but I think the courts will tell you that the 50% is going to have to stand for these two fellows anyway. That's basically where we're standing. I think that the way it was passed requires that--and also I wanted to tell you that both of these are work-related disabilities, and I think the preacher here prayed today about, you know, being fair, and these people were --you know, these are like veterans of a war somewhere else. They were retired as a result of their work for the county and were disabled in their line of work for the county, and I think that's an important consideration as well. That's all I have to say. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess this question is to Mr. Oliver in the sense that Mr. Etheridge is not here. But on the way in I stopped, you know, to speak briefly to Mr. Florida, and Mr. Etheridge walked up and said: I want to apologize to you, I'm wrong on the fact that I stated at the last meeting--I guess it's committee or whatever--that your disability wasn't work-related and that I find that it is. And I want that entered into the record officially by the administration. MR. OLIVER: I can't really speak to that, Mr. Todd. The only thing I can say is the letter that I read in the committee room was from Mr. Dixon, and that's the total extent of my knowledge of the whole thing and I don't know. MR. TODD: Well, certainly I would appreciate it if we could have Mr. Etheridge to catch the elevator and come up here because I think it's important to have all the facts out and not have the wrong interpretation. And I know there's probably some of my colleagues sitting here that haven't heard that and they just recall what they heard in committee meeting last Monday that one wasn't work-related, and I wouldn't want anyone voting on that when there's full knowledge that the original documentation as I understand it from Mr. Etheridge states that it is work-related. MR. BRIDGES: Jim, as I understand this, what we're--first let me address the Mayor and Commission, I guess. It was my intent when we voted for this--I wasn't expecting anything to be retroactive. I thought we were voting on it at that time from that point forward just like we done with the other pension plans. And we had just recently gotten into a rhubarb with the old city plan on $2,000 and who was supposed to get it and who wasn't supposed to get it, and it wasn't our intent at that time to be retroactive and go back and pay some odd number of people that $2,000, it was from a point in time on. I think that was out intent on this one, it was from a point in time on. And I know there's only two people in this plan, but I think Mr. Brigham is right, what we're doing here is we're setting a precedent. We're saying, okay, there's two people here, we can go ahead and give it to them, but we can't give it to the other people because there's too many of them. It doesn't matter if it's two or it's fifty or it's a hundred or whatever, it's what was our intent when we drew it up. I think the intent was to take it from that point forward. My question is, Jim, can we, without having to go back and redo the resolution or the document, can we just instruct you to word it such that our intent is reflected in it? MR. WALL: I'm not following you. You're saying do we need to reword the ordinance if it was to be-- MR. BRIDGES: If the wording is causing some confusion here. And it was not our intent to be retroactive on anyone. MR. WALL: And that it be prospective only? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. MR. WALL: Yes, we can come back with an amendment to clarify that since obviously there is some contention that it means other than the fact that it's prospective only. The ordinance does not specifically state that it's prospective only. Yes, that was the intent when we drew it up. That was the intent, I think, from y'alls standpoint in adopting it. But it does not specifically state that, and, you know, I think it's a matter of how you want to apply it. MR. BRIDGES: Then I'll make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we continue applying this as we intended it, that's from the date forward, and that, if necessary, an amendment be made to the resolution to reflect that. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hunter has already gotten back into the Reverend's prayer for the day, I won't reenter that. But, you know, I think to get back into our intentions, if our intentions are not on paper, then I think we first got to take a vote on our intentions because everybody's intentions may not be the same as the substitute maker's intentions. Now, my intentions on any deal would be--or ordinance would be not to discriminate against anybody. The question has been brought up about the state of going back and making things retroactive. I guess it's like the chicken and the egg, which comes first, whether the law was changed or whether some people changed the law to make it fit them. Well, they were sitting in a state of disability, the two people that you're voting on right now, and had no control over what we did. I don't think to say that they are trying to get it to be retroactive is quite the clear state of where this is, because to make it retroactive, in my mind, would mean it would go back to when each one of them individually filed for their disability and their disability date was granted. That would then make it retroactive. What they are going back to is to the date that we passed and we changed the law, which that is a big difference in making it retroactive. They aren't asking us to go back and reinvent the wheel. We, in turn, were the ones who entered into the legal process and changed the wording and the percentages that apply to the ordinance, not the people that were disabled. So I think the responsibility of the intent rests with those who have the power to change it. That's why I say I think if you're going to talk about intent we need to take a revote on what's the intent. And I think even if that vote comes out in a positive way to uphold what's done in the substitute motion, you open yourselves at that point for a different line of legal action because both of them were in the process of work-related disabilities. So I don't think the retroactive state holds water because they're not asking you to go back to the date in which they were actually classified as being disabled persons in a work-related state. It goes back only to the date in which we, not them, changed the percentage as it relates to the law; thus, when we changed it, it had to take in those persons, you could not pick and choose who at that point would be disabled. If you had two others in there, then I think the law would have to stand in terms of covering everybody, not the ones that might rest in some person's head. And I've gotten onto this Commission before about what goes into your head. It's like those mechanics scratching it in the commercial. You got to put it on paper and you got to make it a point if it's going to be policy. We didn't do that. I think the law has to stand on its own. It's going to cost us a heck of a lot more to try and prove what we might have intended to do than it would probably in terms of dealing with the law of fairness. And I think we changed it, not the disabled person, we have to live with that situation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Etheridge, the question was, about Mr. Florida, was his work-related? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Originally in the committee meeting I had a letter from Mr. Robert Dixon, the county administrator at the time, that said it was not work-related. However, we went back to the original documents and the original documents say that he did retire under disability retirement. The date of that is May 14th, 1991. And that is an employment-connected disability, according to the original documents. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what we wanted to get in the record; right, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, sir. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor and Commission, do y'all need a copy of this document? MR. TODD: Not really, as long as it's on file. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, it's on file. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Can I just ask one question? What about the status of Mr. Jack Usry, is his officially work-related also? MR. WALL: Yes. The agreement that was entered into does indicate that it is work-related, and there's nothing in that document, in my opinion, that would preclude him from getting the 50% in the event that you pass the motion that's before you. MR. BEARD: I just hope from this time on that we get the proper information when we are voting on something, because that was a big question at that particular time and we needed the correct information, so I just hope the record will secure us with the proper information from this point on. The other thing, Mr. Mayor, I would just like to state that I'm kind of confused about these two motions on the floor. Because my intention when I voted for this in the Finance Committee is the same as what Mr. Mays is saying, and I'm kind of confused as to which motion to vote on here because I would like to vote for this but with the intention of it starting--and that was my understanding, it was starting from the time that--not retroactive but from the time that the order was passed by us. So now I'm really kind of confused on which one of the motions to vote on. MR. HANDY: That was my motion. That's the motion I made on that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Maybe that is a little confusing. I see what you're saying, Lee. This goes back from the time that the 50% was passed, not the date these two gentlemen retired. MR. WALL: Right. As Mr. Handy just clarified his motion, it would go into effect at that point in time. MR. KUHLKE: When was that amendment made? MAYOR SCONYERS: August of '97. MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw my second on that substitute motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my question is for the Administrator. Is the money in there for us to pay this? MR. OLIVER: No, it would have to come out of General Fund contingency. I mean, we estimate what our pension contributions are, and it's predicated, and, you know, that estimate could be a little high and we may have had sufficient funds. Mr. Greenway just asked me that. If you go to the backup sheet, one year's worth of--and I know this wouldn't be a full year, but one year's worth of payment based on what they're currently being paid would be $19,408. And obviously that would continue for every remaining year, you know, of their life plus being adjusted for any cost of living. MR. HUNTER: I saw the statistical analysis and it's predicated upon the actuarial life expectancy of 85, which most people under medical disability do not--it's not an accurate figure. The second thing is some of the interest presumptions are made and there are instances there--which I realize you have to make some interest presumptions, but those don't necessarily hold true. MR. OLIVER: Well, it's based on 84, and obviously the medical condition of the particular person you can't take into as an actuary. It's based on 3% cost of living and 8% rate of return on investment, which is what we used during the actuarial analysis for the plan. Our intent is solely to be consistent. MR. SHEPARD: Let me ask the attorney while he's at the lectern: Is the rule that in a contest between a pension organization and the pensioner still that the ambiguity in the pension plan is to be construed in favor of the pensioner? MR. HUNTER: That's correct. MR. SHEPARD: I mean, it's a liberal construction, as I recall. MR. HUNTER: In fact, the county already has litigated some of these [inaudible]. I found it in the Code--I mean part of the Code. MR. SHEPARD: That's a Richmond County case, isn't it? MR. HUNTER: Yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that--and I think that Mr. Shepard has made the point. Certainly it's not contingent on whether we do the right thing or whether we have the money to pay the bills. And this is not a debate on whether we're going to give a cost of living, this is not a debate on whether we're going to give everybody in the plan 20%, this is a debate on whether we're going to do what the law legally requires to do as far as being fair to everybody in the plan. And I would agree with those that state that if there's a hundred out there, then they would be just as qualified for this additional 25% or 50% as the two. Let's just kind of chalk it up as being lucky this time that there's only two instead of a hundred. But the right thing is the right thing whether it's a hundred or whether it's two, whether the money is in the fund or whether it's not there. And I understand that we would be bringing the money from the General Fund, but any unfunded liability as far as this pension plan go or any other pension plan, Mr. Mayor, we would have to bring it from the General Fund. I've stated, I guess, on several occasions that I don't think that we take our position serious enough as far as overseeing the pension plans as far as being trustees. In my union I refuse to sit on the pension plan because, you know, it is serious business and you have to treat everybody the same. And if you mess up there, unlike here, you can go to jail. They're putting my union brothers in jail every day about the pension plan. You know, thankfully we're not under the scrutiny here as we are there, but I think we still have the responsibility and the obligation to do what's right and do what's fair, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if Mr. Todd is so correct, do we even need to be voting on this? MR. WALL: I don't think this is crystal clear, and I think you do need to vote on it so that we'll know how to apply it, there's no doubt as to how it's to be applied. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Since Mr. Kuhlke withdrew his second, we only have one motion on the floor. That was made by Mr. Handy. Why don't you read Mr. Handy's motion to be on the safe side. CLERK: His motion was to approve the request from Mr. Florida regarding his disability in the 1977 retirement plan from 25 to 50%, and to include anyone else who falls under that plan. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody that was effective August '97. CLERK: August '97? MAYOR SCONYERS: Correct, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, that is correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, can we consider 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 together? [19. Motion to award purchase order to Southlake Ford for two (2) Ford E350 work detail vans at a total cost of $45,814 for the Trees and Landscape Department. 20. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for one 15-passenger van at a total cost of $25,478 for the Fire Department. 21. Motion to award purchase order to Southlake Ford for two (2) Ford E350 work detail vans at a cost of $22,907 for the Recreation Department and $22,907 for Public Works Urban. 22. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for three (3) Ford Escort 4- door automobiles at a total cost of $35,271 for the Fire Department. 23. Motion to award a purchase order to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. for one prisoner transport bus at a total cost of $65,337 for the Sheriff's Department.] MR. HANDY: Motion to approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've got some questions to awarding a sole- source bid without it being rebid. We had a big discussion down here the last meeting about buying cars from out of town when they were the lowest bid and now we're buying cars from out of town when they're the sole-source bid. I think we ought to rebid them. MR. SIDDALL: At the Commission's request, we usually do so. We actually requested that these bids go out through Purchasing [inaudible]. Upon receiving the bids, we noticed that we only, in fact, received one bid as to the Southlake. I called the local dealer here in town and they said, "I was too busy and I didn't have time." The next closest dealer in Thomson said that his parts people had mistaken delivery time and, therefore, did not get it in to Purchasing on time, which voided the bid. And this does happen at times, but you can go back and rebid it. The next Commission meeting I had some other agenda items for vehicles that are the same thing basically where I had the dealer from Southlake who forgot that he had some bids to do and simply missed this next batch of bids. So it's a mistake that can happen. MR. KUHLKE: Harry, why do we have to buy Fords? MR. SIDDALL: We do not have to buy Fords. We base it on product, base it on standard quality at the best price. Typically the Dodge dealers do not have a great discount variance for the fleet plan, so they usually cannot enter a bid at the lowest price. The Chevrolet dealers until recently have had a major problem from GM themselves, so they've put further restrictions on them. They have a lot more paperwork they have to fill out. They have to send that paperwork to GM and tell them what their price discount would be, and most dealers just say it's not worth my time because I'm not making anything off you guys. So most Chevrolet dealers do not [inaudible]. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I know that the Administrator's Office, you know, concerns were when we were talking about looking at a way to do business locally was that we wouldn't have the competition that we would have if we opened it up, and I guess we're still going to look at that ordinance, you know. And I think we know when we're being gouged. We know what the market price is for vehicles, and if our local folks is gouging us we would know. I voted against the two million dollars going outside of this community because I thought if there was only 30% of it staying, that's $600,000, and that's $600,000 that's turned over in this community to create and grow jobs and economic development in this community. But it seems to me that by going the route that we went, that at this point we've come down to one source or at least one vendor that's going to supply the vehicles, and that vendor just happen to be in Atlanta, not Augusta, and I will not support that. If we're going to do it the way that has been proposed, then we're certainly going to get proposals from more than one dealer and we're not going to have a sole- source situation under any circumstances. And that's my response to the situation, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Mayor, thank you. MR. SIDDALL: If I may, I had six other agenda items that didn't make it in in time to be on this Commission hearing and it will be on the next one. All of those [inaudible] and I believe five of them are from a local dealer who bid the best price. So we are getting competition and we are trying to find new vendors [inaudible] and we're trying to keep the competition alive and well. But in this stage of the game, the chances are the only competitive bidders we're going to get are the Ford dealers. MR. KUHLKE: I move we rebid these. MR. TODD: Second. MR. OLIVER: Well, I think you only need to rebid 19 and 21. Those were the two that there were only one bid on. The others, there were at least three or four bids. MR. HANDY: Well, if we don't need the second--if you all want, Mr. Kuhlke, I can just take those two out and just do it just like it's supposed to. Send the two back that had the one bidder out for rebid and pass the other, that'll be fine with me. MR. TODD: Are you amending your motion, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I'll do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we just eliminate all the motions and start over with it where we can get this thing straight. Which are the two, Harry-- MR. SIDDALL: 19 and 21 have single bids. 20, 22, and 23 have multiple bids. MAYOR SCONYERS: So 20, 22, and 23 are the ones we want to include in the motion, Mr. Handy. MR. HANDY: Okay. That'll be fine. I'd like to make a motion to approve 20, 23, and 24 as written in our book. MR. OLIVER: 20, 22, and 23, sir. MR. HANDY: Okay. That'll be fine. The other two-- MR. OLIVER: And direct us to rebid the other two. MR. HANDY: Correct. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I see which way this is going, and I don't have a problem with the spirit of that, but I'm going to make the same statement I made in reference to local preference. When we really want to get serious about establishing local preference within the ordinance--and I see we got some ordinance work to be voted on today that I may not vote for. But when we want to get serious about local preference and putting a percentage in there so that we make legal what we're going to have to do and cut this mess out so that you don't have to beat your director across the head when folk don't respond, and then you can achieve the purpose that you want to do. But I'm going to make the same challenge to the Commission that I made earlier. When we hear preference, we get to running because it sounds like quotas and it sounds like set-asides. And I say the same thing I said at the other meeting, it's not always when you talk about preferences that you're talking about minorities and you're talking about women, you're talking about business in general. And when we get the intestinal fortitude to direct Mr. Wall to do that instead of constantly coming back and beating Harry across the head and BS-ing about these bids, then I think you can get that achieved and it will not really be a problem, it will fall within the legal guidelines of what you want to do. And I think that will get you in a position where you don't have to come here and dicker with us and explain it. The other thing I'd like to know, we're getting into a summertime period. Two of these fall, I believe, in Public Services. You've got Recreation work, detail stuff there, you've got landscaping stuff in there. Now, I want to know if the chairperson of that committee, when stuff starts to piling up, are we in any kind of danger--and I want to hear that from either one of the persons here, Mr. Beck and anybody else, are we crippled at that point or can we stand this rebidding time that we're dealing with by law? Can we deal with this rebidding? You know, when stuff doesn't get picked up, you know, it usually--we get it down at the Augusta Care line, but it usually gets on somebody's house or business line first. Where do we stand with that? MR. BECK: Mr. Mays, to answer your question, I think the vehicle that's going to be replaced is a 1984 vehicle, I believe. It's been running a lot of miles for a lot of years and it'll probably make it another couple of months. But, of course, we'd like to have it before the summer starts obviously. MR. MAYS: And, Harry, I would assume you're probably in the same position with the other one? MR. OLIVER: No, the two in Trees and Parks are new vehicles. If you remember, we cut the size of Trees and Parks back with the intent of using inmates, so we have temporarily pulled something out of Public Works to at least bridge half the gap with that. MR. MAYS: Well, I guess I'm asking it to him in plain English, can we withstand the delay without stuff piling up in a hot summertime period for our failure to put in place a local ordinance? That seems like that's what we want to do when we want to change the bidding process every week when Southlake comes back. And I don't have a dog in this hunt, the only dog I got is the fact that we need to get about the business of getting our work done within the city. And if we want to deal with local preferences, then, Jim, write--Jim's got an ordinance he comes up with every week on something that one of you Commissioners throws to him that we read about when we get into this darn book. If we want to do one, let's do it on local preference. We been needing one ever since we passed the darn disparity ordinance. We knew we had problems. And we can deal with that and deal with prefer-ences, do business locally, and quit messing around with it. MS. SAMS: I wanted to correct some information that you were given. Actually, the Purchasing Department mailed seventeen vendors the information, and in that seventeen there were five Chevrolet dealers, one Dodge, two Chryslers, one Pontiac, and one Saturn. I wanted to bring that to your attention because we are not bidding just Fords and each of these vendors were given an opportunity to submit a bid. Thank you. MR. TODD: What do your specs call for [inaudible]? MS. SAMS: The specs were generic. MR. TODD: Your specs didn't say Ford or the equivalent? MS. SAMS: And it said or equal. MR. TODD: Well, why don't we just go a true generic and say a 15- passenger or a, you know, certain size vehicle? I think when you say Ford-- and, you know, I just come from Atlanta last week working in a Ford plant, so I make my living at Ford and GM, too. But the bottom line is when you say Ford or equal, I think that we want to be generic and we can go generic and give a size, etc., and any fleet manager can look at his fleet and go from there. And in response, Mr. Mayor, if I may, I do have a dog in this hunt, and this dog is a local dog and it's the same local dog that the previous Commissioners, you know, when they done the set-asides for the engineering for flood basin set up, and I think that we can continue along those lines. And certainly I don't want to cost the taxpayers additional money, but I think we got to look at the value, Mr. Mayor, of money turning over in this community and economic development. And I don't care about Atlanta, I don't care about Chicago, I do care about Augusta. And you can call it political or whatever, but that's been my theme from day one when I got down here and it will be my theme when I leave. And I support the local ordinance as far as dealing with a percentage. MR. BEARD: Well, you know, Mr. Mayor, I would support the local ordinance, too, in preference. But the point is, you know, we're saying we care and we want it in the community, and I think we all want the same thing. However, you know, this is about the third week that we've messed with this and we've talked about this, and we have work details that needed to be out there and they are dependent on these vans and we're still--if we got to go back and rebid this, you're still talking about two to three months away. And we cannot make these people bid on--our local people bid on things that they don't want to bid on. I've talked to dealers and some of them are just not prepared to bid on this. So what are we going to do, are we going to wait until they get prepared if we have to wait until next year or the following year until they get prepared? These are business people and they know what they can do and what they can't do, and if they fall within that crack that they can't do it, then we ought to go on. Because I don't think we should hold up these departments, and that's what we are doing here, we are holding up departments so that we can get a bid locally. And I think that's wrong because we are hurting here personally by not getting these vans in so that these people can go to work, and I don't think most of the Commissioners are aware of what we are holding up here. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor and Commission, most of these--in Harry's favor here, I understand it maybe, you know, wants Ford spec or Chevrolet spec, but in most cases in bid situations--and I do this every day. In my line of work they come up with one line of equipment that we're going to use as a standard. That doesn't mean that I have to put that particular piece of equipment in, it means I have to have an equal--better or equal. And so most of these people who are out bidding these situations every day, they realize that they're not limited to a square D in my lines. Ninety percent of the jobs we bid have square D specs, but that's not preventing us from bidding to General Electric or whatever. I mean, it's common knowledge in the trades that if you're bidding on something, you know good and well that you can put an equal in there, so it's not really a problem that I've ever seen. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would like to know who I need to address Jim to make an ordinance for what Mr. Mays is talking about. Do the Mayor need to do that, do I need to do it as an individual, or who needs to do it? MR. WALL: Mr. Henry Brigham has already requested that. I'm working on it. I don't think I'll have it ready--Lori is actually the one who is doing the research on it and working on it. I have not seen a draft of it, so I don't think it will be on the committee meeting on Monday, but we're working on it. MR. HANDY: Okay. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that we need something and that the Mayor, the Administrator, the Attorney, or somebody is holding it up. If I need to do it, I'll put it on there myself to get it done. Thank you. MR. BEARD: I would like to make a substitute motion that we do all of the bids for the automobiles. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak to it. I think Mr. Beard's got a good point here. We sent this information out to all these people, we got back the results from the people that were wanting to participate, and I think we need to move forward with those results that we got back. We've done this in good faith, they've responded in good faith, and we need to make our decision based on the information we got, and I think we need to move forward with them and approve the low bid for all these. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion first, please? CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 to the low bid as listed. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CLERK: Item 24 is a motion to approve refund of taxes for 1995, 1996 and 1997 by allowing change of homestead class from H-10 to H-5. MR. WALL: Let me explain the situation. In essence, this individual has asked for a homestead exemption and a refund of taxes. His disability was not approved by the VA until sometime in 1997, beyond the deadline by which he could apply for a disability rating. He did not have homestead disability exemption. He would not have qualified in '95 and '96 because he did not have the proper documentation. Once the VA approved it, the approval was retroactive, so that had--you know, in the ideal world the application, when he applied for the VA, it would have been approved in 1991 and he would have gotten the exemption in 1992, '93, '94, '95, '96, and '97. We can only go back three years. And he didn't have the documentation so that he could make a property application until '97, so he is asking to go back as far as he can and get a refund for those years. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the Commission can't go back more than three years or the Tax Assessor's Board can't go back more than three years? MR. WALL: The Commission, in my opinion, cannot go back beyond three years. MR. TODD: And what ordinance is that based on? MR. WALL: It's based on general law that says that it has a three-year time limitation. I think if you go beyond the three years, then you are acting beyond what the law allows you to do. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess along that same line, and it's probably been a long time since we've had one on that three-year period, but were they not sending the exceptions to us and they were going up to the three-year point, and when we had the ones past through the years, we were doing those. And I guess what I'm looking at probably is in the old County Commission, but we didn't eliminate a county government by consolidating, and I thought that that was where if the waiver was granted, that it was done by the Commission and that the Board was sending those to us. Now, I could be dead wrong on that, but I thought we had handled some of those before. MR. WALL: The Board of Tax Assessors does not have the authority to refund any taxes, and so all the refunds for taxes, to my recollection, have always come before this board. And that's what he's asking for is a refund of taxes based upon that homestead exemption classification. MR. MAYS: And in all fairness to Jim, Mr. Mayor, the ones we might have handled that I'm probably thinking about probably were handled before you were the lead attorney for the county. But I just thought that I had remembered seeing some in prior years come before the Richmond County Board of Commissioners and we voted up or down on it, but that we had had to make this decision before in those gray areas or in those where there has been a, say, hardship case, per se, and where maybe this has been the kind of case where you may have had a proven documentation but it was not handled or not officially declared until a certain point or date. That's all I was--you know, I think you're absolutely right of where you've got to recommend, you know, that to us, but I know somewhere in that ghost I've seen one of these bills of three years or better before. If I ain't mistaken, I can't give you a date and a name, but we've probably got some that we did it on, and I just want to make sure that [inaudible]. MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I think I can answer the question. The question came up after I assumed the responsibility because it was my reading of the statute in a case that came out of Camden County, if I'm not mistaken, that we were limited to three years, and it was pointed out that the old Board of Commissioners prior to that decision that interpreted the statute had allowed more than three years. I think it's clear from--I think it's Camden County, that you're only authorized to go back three years, and that has been my position and I stand by it. I think that's what the case says. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, all I want to do is do what's legal and what's fair by our veterans, and especially our 100% disabled veterans. 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. CLERK: Under the Administrative Services portion of the agenda, Items 25 through 27 were approved by Administrative Services on March 30th. [25. Motion to approve $45,000 to be used as Neighborhood Matching Grants for low income targeted communities. 26. Motion to approve Settlement Agreement on 1975 Vogue mobile home belonging to the Estate of Bobbie Gover. 27. Motion to approve continuation of Public Official Liability Coverage.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move for approval of those items. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, if I could, please, before we take the Engineering Services portion of the agenda, we have an announcement from the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has approved Augusta's request for a traffic control assistance along selected state routes during the Masters golf tournament. These routes are Washington Road, River Watch Parkway, and I-20. The Department will assist with videotape surveillance, changeable message signs, highway advisory radio, a highway emergency response operator unit (HERO), a joint command center staffed by the Georgia Department of Transportation, and Augusta personnel will be located at the law enforcement substation on Eisenhower Drive. We will tour the command center on Tuesday, April 7th. We will leave the Augusta-Richmond County Municipal Building at 2:00 p.m. An Augusta Public Transit bus will transport the group to the command center and should return no later than 4:00 p.m. So we need you to mark your calendars. Okay. Under Engineering Services, Items 28 through 42 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on March 30th. [28. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.19 acres in fee (Tax Map 353, Parcel 5.16) Project Parcel "B" of the Westbrook Road Project which is owned by Charles E. and Regina L. Nichols. 29. Motion to approve Supplemental 1998 LARP List #2. 30. Motion to approve condemnation of right-of-way of 0.13 acres (Parcel 21) and 0.04 acres (Parcel 22) of the McCombs Road, Phase II Project which is owned by James R. Campbell, who says he filed bankruptcy several months ago and no longer owns the property. There are three outstanding mortgages on the property. (Tax Map 353, Parcels 21 and 22) 31. Motion to approve execution of drainage easement to the Department of Transportation on City property along I-20 near Wheeler Road. 32. Motion to approve bid award to low bidder, Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $99,985 subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Dunham Court Drainage Improvement Projects. 33. Motion to approve submittal of applications for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The two projects being proposed for submittal are a regional detention pond on Rocky Creek upstream of Wheeless Road and storm channel improvement project on Rae's Creek below Berckman's Road. This approval includes execution of a maintenance agreement subject to receipt of Federal funds. 34. Motion to approve changing the Georgia Power rate structure used at the Joint Law Enforcement Center (JLEC) from the current demand structure to Real Time Pricing. 35. Motion to approve Change Order #1 for repairs to the roof of the Maxwell Branch Library in the amount of $4,850.00 to Southern Roofing and Insulation, for a total contract price of $139,605.00. 36. Motion to approve deed to Southern Specialty Develop-ment Corporation reconveying 0.16 acres of property donated to the County along Spirit Creek. 37. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 for Pepperidge Drive Intersection Improvements with APAC-Georgia, Inc. in the amount of $18,466. Funds to be provided by the Augusta Utilities Department. 38. Motion to approve contract award to enclose the Salvation Army day labor facility on Greene Street to the low bidder, Secure-One Iron Works of Augusta. 39. Motion to approve extension of a trunk sewer to serve the proposed Goshen Village shopping center at Mike Padgett Highway and Tobacco Road. 40. Motion to approve placing the back-up generator at Phinizy Road Jail on Georgia Power's Standby Generator Service Program. 41. Motion to approve Mr. Bank Bowling proposal regarding a Scrap Tire Recycling Program for the City of Augusta. 42. Motion to approve proposal from Brian G. Besson and Associates to provide engineering services for the design of sanitary sewer force main to serve the proposed Protiva facility at a cost of $32,000.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take this as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS: Let the record note that I abstain on Items 28 and 30. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS ON ITEMS 28 & 30. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEMS 28 & 30. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 29 & 31-42. CLERK: Item 43 is a motion to approve Roads and Capital Project Budget #57-8709-098 in the amount of $950,000 and Capital Project Budget #59-8709-098 in the amount of $50,000 for advertising, engineering, construction, and contingency for the Paving Various Roads Phase VI Project. MR. BRIDGES: So move. 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. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 44 is a motion to approve contract with CH2MHill for Program Management Services for Bond Programs Projects at a cost not to exceed $1,685,000. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: What percentage is that? MR. OLIVER: Four percent. MR. TODD: And that's just to manage the money side of the projects? MR. OLIVER: What that will be for--you will still have an engineering firm. The engineering firm will do the design of the project. The construction management firm will do some value engineering and provide some general oversight. The actual inspection will be done by the engineering firm, however, and they will advise you whether the schedule is behind or ahead. MR. TODD: Is that anywhere close to the--what's the market for Augusta versus-- MR. OLIVER: Mr. Hicks and Mr. Akery did some background work for me to try to come up with some percentages. Mr. Hicks is at a conference regarding water today. He got a number from Atlanta which I don't think is relevant at all because I think Atlanta got ripped off, to be candid, but he also got some other numbers. One was for a project--and you've got to remember, a lot of this revolves around what the complexity of the project is. Obviously if you're dealing with a wastewater treatment plant, the complexity of the project is much greater and you would expect the fee to be higher. The other thing is it depends upon the level of services that you're providing, because it's not uncommon sometimes for a construction management firm to provide the day-to-day supervision of a project. That is not, however, the intent here. He got one at 2.1%, which was the Upper Oconee Water Basin, and it was for a construction manage-ment contract. Then there was one for Town Creek Water Treatment Facility, which was 4.7%. The manager on that was Jordan, Jones and Goulding. And then Mr. Acree came up with some numbers that were--again, it depends on the services being provided--about 3%. The school board percentage is at 3.2, for your information. MR. TODD: On the one that was 4.7, what was the scope of that management? MR. OLIVER: I can't totally tell you that. Mr. Hicks, in the memo that he sent to me late Friday afternoon, didn't--it doesn't specifically say that. I would note, though, that it's a water treatment facility, so it is some form of a plant, and one of the trickiest parts with a plant is to ensure that your operation and maintenance manuals are done the way they should be and to test out all your controls. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it seems that if we're spending $1.6 million, that getting that information together on the percentages, etc., would be more important than attending the conference. Maybe we'll learn, you know, how to handle deals like this at that conference. Certainly my concern is the percentages in that we're talking about this amount of money, and I think that if we're serious about going out for construction management, and I am no advocate of construction management, I feel we've been burned there one time before, that we certainly need to know the percentages and that we're getting a good percentage, and we need to make darned sure that there is no other hidden clauses, etc., in the contract. And that's basically where I'm at on it. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, what did we approve initially with this firm? What did we approve at that time? MR. OLIVER: You approved--and I think Mr. Wiedmeier can answer it better than I can, but my recollection is it was about $100,000 originally. MR. WIEDMEIER: Those funds were to allow them to get started and further develop the scope of work. They've already begun the effort, and we're using that 135,000 to draw for them to begin. Now, that is included in the $1.65 million figure. MR. KUHLKE: So we approved a contract with somebody and had no idea what it was going to cost us? I mean, that's what we did? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes. The scope of their services had not been fully developed. MR. KUHLKE: Neither one of them. The other firm-- MR. WIEDMEIER: Now, CH2MHill was selected before we even began discussing price. We selected them based on qualifications. Fees never entered into it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to commend Mr. Wiedmeier and Mr. Hicks for working on these contracts for us. If you'll recall, we had two companies: one was CH2MHill and the other was Lockwood Green that came in and made proposals. They were both good firms and went through a selection process, and CH2MHill was selected. The amount at 4% is somewhere in the realm that we expected. We expected it to be from 3 to 5 percent according to the scope of services. And what we basically have done is we went back--or Mr. Hicks and Mr. Wiedmeier went back and negotiated the scope of work. The original scope of work came back at $2.6 million. Mr. Hicks then went back and negotiated them down to $1.6 million, which was a savings of a million dollars in this contract. As I look at the contracts, and Mr. Todd has brought it up, the only other construction management that Richmond County has had, to the best of my knowledge, was the M.B. Kahn contract with the Joint Law Enforcement Center. The original contract on that, Mr. Kuhlke, was 5%. I think you recall being a part of the blue ribbon committee there to oversee that thing. I think it was then renegotiated down to 3% percent for one site, which is, you know, somewhere in the realm of 2 what we expected to pay on this. The other thing that we're looking at here is with the Law Enforcement Center it was one site that has to be managed. The bond projects are projects that are going to be spread really all over the county, so we intended on there being somewhat of an increase due to that. But I still feel that we're within the perimeter that we set, which was somewhere between 3 to 7 percent is somewhere what the average is running. It's just according to what scope of work that you want. MR. KUHLKE: It's just that it came after the fact as far as I'm concerned. The other thing that concerned me a little bit, and I may be wrong here, but it was my understanding that Mr. Hicks anticipated that the fee would be between 600,000 and a million dollars. MR. POWELL: Right. Me and Mr. Hicks had discussed that, and he said that was just--he didn't do anything really to base his thoughts on that, he just kind of pulled a number out of a hat and figured. But once we got into the negotiations and far along--4%, I think, is acceptable and I think we're paying a fair price. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, did you review this fee schedule? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, I did. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you in agreement with 4%? MR. OLIVER: Well, I think the thing that we have to realize in reviewing the fee schedule is that this is predicated on rates that are outside the community or from metropolitan areas, for one. I think there are a couple of things that we have to be careful of with any construction management contract, but they are not to be, you know, unexpected. My notes are made as an attachment to the agenda item and I stand by those comments. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The other question is, how much of this fee [inaudible] is travel and what kind of rates-- MR. OLIVER: Well, this is a not-to- exceed contract, so it's inclusive of travel. MR. WIEDMEIER: I think they're budgeted a per diem of $100 per day, however, we would pay invoices based on actual reimbursable expense. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think when y'all start negotiating this, y'all ought to at least use the federal per diem rates for Augusta, Georgia, for future ones, if not this one. MR. OLIVER: The one thing I would like some latitude on is on Exhibit B. There are some add-ons for computer use and certain EPA certifications which I think may not be relevant here, but--I think those are inappropriate, but they're relatively minor in the scope of things. MR. TODD: I guess I'm going to echo what Mr. Kuhlke said, that this is a stupid methodology to negotiate with a firm and designating the firm before you designate the fee, and I would have to agree. And certainly I think that if you're going to take out all the competition when you designate the firm, then you go in and negotiate the fee, I think certainly you should negotiate with both up to that point. You should designate both firms, negotiate with the people, and decide if they're both equally qualified to do the service delivery. And it's my understanding that between the two of them, both was very qualified, one just had more clients than the other. And, you know, I supported the Lockwood Green based on the fact that they had a local office, local set up here. I went against my good judgment on supporting them in this thing in the sense that I had thought I had got a--if not a cool reception, a cold reception at one of their events, and they probably lost a vote. But the bottom line, gentlemen, is this is a stupid methodology, as Mr. Kuhlke stated, to select any kind of professional consultant because you done decided before you negotiated on the fee, so they have all the room to maneuver to come back and set the fee as they want to set it, and I have a problem with the negotiated fee without competition. I'd like to know what Lockwood Green would do it for, you know, whether they would do it for less than the 4% or what ABC Corporation would do it for and if they are equally qualified and whether they would do it less than the 4%. And if so, you know, I'd like to have the option to pick one of those that will do it for less and that maybe will save us $600,000. And I'm going to abstain on this vote for the reasons that I stated in committee, and I have nothing else to say. MR. POWELL: One concern that you have, Mr. Todd, is some-thing I guess we're all stupid for because we do it every day on professional services. We pick the engineering firm and then we send our department heads back, and the Administrator, basically to negotiate the price. I mean, it's something that's done on virtually every engineering contract that comes through this board. The second concern I want to talk to you about is this contract has a cap on it. It has a not-to-exceed price. The one that we had an unfavorable situation with did not have a cap on it. The more the projects cost, the more money that the engineering firm will make. Mr. Wall has went into the contracts to make sure that we don't have that problem this time, and I feel confident that we're going to be all right on this thing. I would also like to encourage my colleagues to support this so that we can go ahead and move forward with our bond projects. Thank you. MR. WALL: Just to respond to Mr. Jerry Brigham's comment, the contract calls for the federal mileage reimbursement rate and, also, in the event of a rental car, it's the actual rental cost without any markup. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Does it also call for the Augusta rate of hotels by federal standards [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: Here's what it specifically says: reimburse-ment for meals and lodging when in travel status for program work shall be at the per diem rates and the latest federal travel regulations for Augusta. 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 & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 45 through 50 were approved by Public Safety on March 30th. [45. Motion to approve Emergency and Disaster Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and Chatham County. 46. Motion to approve the transfer of ownership of two systems from UGA Inventory to Augusta-Richmond County Inventory. 47. Motion to approve expenditures for a Fire Station Location Study to be conducted by an independent consulting firm. 48. Motion to approve Lease Agreements with Tower Broadcasting for equipment located at 2400 Barton Chapel Road, one for an annual rental of $1,915.20. 49. Motion to approve Lease Agreements with Tower Broadcasting for equipment located at 2400 Barton Chapel road, one for an annual rental of $3,889.68. 50. Motion to approve addendum to Agreement between the State Court of Richmond County, Georgia, and Detention Management Services, Inc. so as to provide collection services to the Municipal Court of Augusta, Richmond County.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, we present Items 45 through 50 as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question on part of 50. And I voted for it as a consent agenda because we were one person short on that day and I thought it needed to come out of committee with a positive response, but I remind the committee that on that day I had a little monkey tap on the side of my head over the weekend and I changed my mind. What I wanted to ask is that we got an extension of the contract that we already had in place, I believe, with State Court. I have no problem with the 40% on those uncollectables because I think they've got to do a bunch of work in trying to collect them. Probably the 40% should be--I might even deal with it if we were splitting it. My slight problem is the 35% on active cases. Is that something that we--is that the same type of rate that we've got written into the State Court cases or is this comparable anywhere where we're giving away 35% of what we got in it? I know the adage is that we save in terms of our personnel we got in there, and that might be an overall savings, but 35% on active cases, I just kind of wanted to hear a little bit on that. I can live with the ones they got to run folk down and do everything else on that's been laying there dormant, but 35% on active money, I just wanted to talk about that a little bit. MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, no, sir, with the State Court we are on a fixed fee per month per case. The percentage amount insofar as active cases is one that was negotiated with the company. And recognize that when we say active cases, this eventually will clear all the cases out, so that dollar amount is going to dwindle, dwindle, dwindle as fines are paid out because you're going to have a lesser volume. And that was a fee that was negotiated. I don't know that there's anything really to get any experience on other than what they anticipate their cost will be. We don't have a real good record insofar as total fines, etc., but I do think that it is cheaper than staffing an office and building up an office that is going to have a limited lifetime. MR. MAYS: So basically it's by almost a form of attrition, the one we're into on the additions would actually fade away itself and then we'd be under the one fixed rate contract? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, in Item 45, shouldn't that contract be with Augusta-Richmond County and Chatham County and not Richmond County? I meant to bring that up in committee. MR. HANDY: Are we Augusta-Richmond County or just Augusta? MR. WALL: Just Augusta as of July 1. I will approve contracts that are drawn up between Richmond County because Richmond County still exists. It's still a political subdivision of the state of Georgia. And, you know, we can get into a debate about, you know, what should be done, but I typically try to include Augusta, Georgia, in everything that's new. This is a contract that was already drawn up, and in my opinion we can contract in the name of Richmond County or Augusta, Georgia. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 51 through 57 were approved by the committee on March 30th. [51. Deleted from consent agenda. 52. Motion to approve disposition of six (6) vehicles by competitive sealed bids. 53. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 for the Short-term Parking Lot Project Contract with APAC-Georgia, Inc. in the amount of $45,050. 54. Motion to approve new ownership request by Isidro Ortiz Medina for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license (Sunday sales) to be used in connection with Camino Real Mexican Restaurant located at 2501 Washington Road. 55. Motion to approve and award the Fleming Sports Complex bleacher bid to the low bidder, Norvel Hasley and Associates, in the amount of $14,528.00. 56. Motion to approve the extension of APT's existing Tire Lease Contract. 57. Motion to approve and award the new water filtration unit for the Dyess Park Swimming Pool to the low bidder, Augusta Sunshine Pools, in the amount of $14,250.00.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to pull two, and that's 51 and 58. CLERK: That's not in the consent, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Just 51 then. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Items 52 to 57 as a consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 54. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEM 54. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 52, 53, 55, 56 & 57. CLERK: Item 51 is a motion to approve a contract with Toole Engineering for professional services related to drainage improvements at Boykin Road Park SPLOST Phase III and to reprogram funds as follows: Boykin Road Park, $40,000 from 2000 to 1998; Lock and Dam Park, $40,000 from 1998 to 2000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I would agree that you have a storm water situation at Boykin Road. I was over there, just happened to drive in there when we had the storm the other day, and there is a problem. But probably on Travis Road, and I know Mr. Powell can appreciate that, there is a worse problem as far as storm drainage go because you're running, and Mr. Bridges, you're running into water that's up to your bumper. At least I was that day that I was trying to get over to Boykin Road. And hopefully we can address that soon. But in looking at that one I thought I'd look at some other ones where we had similar situations that I knew of, and one of them was Gracewood where we have a situation where it's not coming on the road but we're losing in erosion from the road that goes between the Gracewood Community Center and the ballfield and the ballfield itself. And certainly I think this one we probably need to do, but we need to address some of the other situations, too, and I think that we probably have some that's even worse than this one. And, you know, when we're reprogramming money and stepping up projects, I think that we need to take care of the needs of those other fields where we have erosion situations. The erosion requirements as far as ordinance go is not if it go out on a paved road, it's whether it's happening at all. I think also that before we spend this money on 51 we probably should have a good debate on 58, but I'm not going to hold up if someone wants to make a motion to spend the money on 51. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commission, this is addressed to Mr. Beck, and this will help me later on down the road. We have another to vote on. These different parks or different projects that you're pulling money from, how are they going to get that money back to those parks? For example, we're pulling $40,000 from the Lock and Dam. How is the Lock and Dam going to get the $40,000 back? MR. BECK: Well, we're actually not pulling it from the Lock and Dam, we're just changing years. They were approved for 1998, the Lock and Dam park. Boykin Road was approved in the year 2000. We're just flip-flopping years to keep the bookkeeping consistent. MR. HANDY: So actually we're not taking away from one for the other, they're going to get it back, but you're just moving years around. MR. BECK: That's right, just to try to keep the bookkeeping balanced on the amount of money that we're moving around. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 58: Motion to award contract for construction of the Augusta Aquatics Center and authorize necessary reprogramming of Parks & Recreation Funds. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we disapprove Item 58. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion dies for lack of a second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Item 58. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with doing the swim center, I do have a problem with moving money from Meadowbrook Drive projects or areas that's been neglected for some time. And I would assume that the reprogram is still the same, Mr. Beck, we're still moving money from Meadowbrook? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Meadowbrook, Mr. Mayor, has been neglected for some time. It's a park that probably hasn't had any work done on it or anything done since I've been on this board and some time before. But, Mr. Mayor, even greater than that, if we want to look at the overall needs and make sure that they are addressed and they are taken care of, then--we have a situation at Brentwood where we had a playground under high-voltage lines, that if we're talking about some money transferring, let's transfer it there and buy that land that we say we didn't have the money to buy three or four years ago. We have a need, Mr. Mayor, in the Fourth District over at Woodlake Park. Let's take this money and use it in Woodlake Park. We have a situation where we had equipment that was dangerous, and I had to constantly, you know, remind the Administrator and Recreation that we need to do something about it before we got something done about it. And the problem again, Mr. Mayor, that we didn't have the money in Recreation and it wasn't funded. Well, Mr. Mayor, we're moving money out of the Fourth District, taking it over to the Fifth District to do the swim center. Mr. Mayor, I think that at least as I speak there's two to three swim centers already in the Fifth District, but there is a lack or inadequate playground equipment, Mr. Mayor, in the Fourth District. We can go on up, Mr. Mayor, and look at the situation at Gracewood Park where we need work done on that field. We need to do something about the erosion. We can go over to Pepperidge, Mr. Mayor, which is part of that Gracewood Park, and look at the need for recreation facilities or playground equipment in one of the biggest subdivisions in Richmond County which needs to be addressed. Or we can go back up to McDuffie Road, Mr. Mayor, and look at that center and some of the things that we need to do there that we're wasting on there that's not active when we're moving tens of thousands of dollars, Mr. Mayor, out of the Fourth District for the swim center. Mr. Mayor, I believe there is projects that it wouldn't hurt as bad that have millions of dollars in them that we can reprogram some money or funds from and not take it from the Fourth District. Mr. Mayor, yes, I'm being selfish here on this one because we've waited for six years. We've waited for a new one-penny sales tax. And the citizens of the Fourth District, Mr. Mayor, went to the polls and voted for the referendum, and when they voted for it, Mr. Mayor, they was told this is what's in there for the Fourth District. And, Mr. Mayor, I think before it come out of the Fourth District we should have public hearings in the Fourth District, Mr. Mayor, and we should tell the good people in the Fourth District what we're doing to them. We're sticking it to them, we're breaking our promise, Mr. Mayor. And if they make the choice, Mr. Mayor, over the parks in the Fourth District for the swim center, then so be it, Mr. Mayor, I'll support it. MR. HANDY: I just want to ask Mr. Beck, is there any money left in District Five that you can pull District Five money so the swim center can go in there? MR. BECK: Mr. Handy, our proposal does include some monies that are coming out of District Five: $50,000 from Heath Street Pool would be coming out of there and $20,000 from Minnick Park on Kissingbower Road. MR. HANDY: The reason why I asked you that, because, see, this swim center is going in District Five, and Mr. Todd brought up something there, that there is two swimming pools already in District Five. And I think you and I talked about it before, and it would be nice if you could inform the Commissioners, along with the Commissioner who's over that area, is that once we get the large swimming pool built there will be no need for Highland Park swimming pool and that money and that land could be -- [End Tape 1] MR. BECK: ...the natatorium won't be finished until the Spring of '99 hopefully, and with the Georgia Games and [inaudible] meeting that same year, we will probably need to keep Highland pool open even that summer also. So it will be at least two more years down the road before it can be considered, so for that reason I hesitated to put that closure and possible sale on the agenda. MR. HANDY: Maybe we can say that once that land is sold and everything, then you can replace that money back into the Recreation and fix some of those things that need to be fixed that you're pulling this money away from. I mean, I think everybody in Augusta wants to see the natatorium go, and everybody knows we need it. We know we don't have enough money, so we either say we don't want a natatorium or we got to figure a way to fund it for right now. But once we fund it, we got to remember where the money came from. Like the old adage say, remember where you came from as an individual and don't forget where you came from, so don't forget where this money came from. Once you get the money back in Recreation, don't say I need something else for Recreation, put it back in the district you pulled it from. MR. BECK: It is my recommendation and it is in your letter that I sent to you that any of the contingency that's left over from this project, at completion would go back to the reprogram areas proportionately to how much we took out of those areas. The project has 350 or 340 thousand of contingency, so however much is left at the end of the project we will put back into those project areas proportionately. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend the motion that I made. I understand from Mr. Oliver that we did receive bids on the natatorium, and I'd like to amend my motion to state that we would authorize the reprogramming of money as stated in Item Number 58 and that we authorize the contract with the low bidder, Two States Construction Company, for their base bid number two with no alternates in the amount of $4,325,582. MR. HANDY: I accept that. MR. MAYS: I tell you what, it must be nice to represent one district. I've got four, and I've got ten that I try and be fair to. Obviously there's going to have to be some reprogramming of monies done, and I was sitting here looking at Super District 9--I may be wrong on my quick math--it comes up a little better than half a million dollars than we're talking about there on some of the reprogramming. I'm not so sure, Mr. Mayor--and this may not change anything, but we're near the end of the agenda, but we do have some things we probably got to deal with and probably also got a session that Mr. Wall has to deal with in legal. But I would feel a little bit more comfortable if we maybe left 58 out here. I don't say just juggle these numbers, Tom, to be juggling, but I think what I'm looking at here, when I see some of the projects--and I do believe we're going to have to bend some in terms of the reprogramming. What does concern me, some of the so-called smaller number projects, some of those percentages are very high in there where we may be starting out with less than $100,000 and we may be taking away maybe half of it to do some things in there. When those things go into the same district--and I can sympathize, Mr. Todd, that's one of the districts that I represent--that some of those could possibly be even eliminated by the small figures that are being left in there whereas you may have projects that are up at six and seven figures that are only taking a hit of where they're not even coming up on 10%. Now, all of them are necessary. I think they all are necessary. But I think maybe a little bit of numbers juggling before we leave here would leave some of us a little bit more comfortable in terms of the fact of reprogramming some of these. Also, I think an explanation, for instance, with the pool that we--you and I talked about this in reference to handicap accessibility of that pool, that the program--I think we need to make sure that all this money--and that's the one we use primarily in terms of being handicap accessible, that we make sure that we guarantee on the other pool that if we're going to move persons to make sure that they can participate in that program, that we have that accessibility, whether it's at Belle Terrace or wherever, that they are on a priority list of doing that. I think that needs to be spelled out and said if we're going to not do some things at Heath Street. You know, if we're taking $215,000 of $262,000, if that's a basic reality, I'd almost be more comfortable doing $262,000. I doubt seriously we're going to be able to do a whole lot for $47,000 that's left in there. Some of these that I've got in my Super District, these projects, I think, are bordering on elimination with the numbers that are being left in there, and I'd like to decide whether or not we're actually eliminating or whether we're going to do something of substance left in there with the small numbers that we got. And I'm just not prepared--I want to see this natatorium thing fly, and I'm prepared to vote today to do that before we leave, but some of these in here on these small ones, whether they're in Super District 9 or whether they're in Super District 10, if maybe we could find a way of making sure that some of these things could be taken care of without the high percentage hits that are in them. Because when you're not working with a lot from the start--and maybe this might be typographical in here with Meadowbrook, because I'm looking at 50 on the approved budget, recommended reprogram 35, okay, and that's leaving 45, I think that leaves 15 instead of 45. Now, that's really not getting us into anything there, you know, one of the numbers has got to be wrong on that. MR. BECK: That's on the Meadowbrook project? That was a typographical. We had 80,000, we're asking to take 35, which leaves 45. MR. MAYS: So the 45 is the true figure being left. I was afraid of that being 15 that's in there. But that's what bothered me about some of those high percentage numbers in there on some of these small things. You know, it's almost like whether or not you're going to get anything done for your money in there. I think rather than to piecemeal some things, go in, get nothing done, and then by the time we get to it the little bit of crumbs that we put into some of these small projects, if what we put there is going to be tore up or eliminated by the time we get back in two years to do it, it's almost better to wait on the whole reprogramming and do it right as opposed to putting something cheesy in there from the beginning and not really being able to do it, and that's where I think we maybe need to have a little bit more dialog on where we're shifting the numbers at. I think everybody wants the project to fly. I think that when you add up the things as far as the expansion of it, I think that was a good thing to do and I still support that. But these are some hard hits on some high percentages on some of these smaller number projects, but where they are in a lot of these neighborhoods, they mean a lot to the folk that are there, and I'm just afraid of these numbers as is that we got in there. Some of them take some pretty hard hits. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, in the interest of time, wouldn't it be better if we just, while we got Mr. Beck right here, and we've got a description on the justification, just take them one by one and go over it right here and be through with it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what we ought to do, and I've got a problem with what he's wanting to reprogram in my district. Seeing how we got another governmental entity involved, and I haven't seen any kind of an agreement at all. I know that the meeting come about because I suggested it to you, I believe, on the reprogramming of the gym at Garrett. MR. BECK: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] but I have not seen a govern-mental agreement between the School Board and us and I'm not going to vote to reprogram $125,000 until I see that program or some kind of an agreement from them. I am not going to spend any money on any project that there is not money there to be spent. We don't know whether this is going to come about or not, and we are reprogramming $125,000, 25% of what you want to reprogram over just because we had a meeting and they were agreeable at a meeting? MR. BECK: Well, if you're speaking of the Garrett project, Mr. Brigham, we don't have the contract ready to bring to the Commission yet. We have been in negotiations with them. I think it's going to be a reality, but we've got to bring you an actual agreement to talk about. We have looked at this project. We have got some preliminary numbers from an engineering firm that we've got an RFP out on now on some numbers on redoing all four ballfields at Eisenhower, along with putting in a half a million dollars for a gym facility which we had projected from the start, and their numbers indicate that we can do this project for the $1.9 million that we've got left in the project. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And is this above the savings on combining those two? Because that's what I'm reading it as is $150,000 savings by reading it in here that we're going to do the combination thing and that's the reason we're saving $150,000. And you're telling me that's not that $150,000 that we're reprogramming? MR. BECK: That would be the 150. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And you're telling me also that we don't have an agreement, so therefore we don't know whether or not this is actually going to come to reality. MR. BECK: If we don't have the agreement, then we would have to reprogram out community center back to the half a million that we had to start with. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So where is that money going to come from? MR. BECK: This same project. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I can't spend $125,000 to give to the natatorium-- to build the natatorium and then this don't work and still spend $125,000 on this project. I can't spend that money twice, I don't have a credit card. MR. BECK: Well, that's what--if we took the $125,000 out, regardless if we got the agreement or not, it still would be our recommendation from all the projects that we've got. And I know each one of you don't want the monies coming out of your district. It's painful for us, too. We put this program together four years ago. Every project is needed. We're not saying just because we're taking money out that it's not needed. But along the scope of all the projects that we've got, these are the ones that we feel like that can best--money can be taken from. MR. J. BRIGHAM: If you'll show me where you've got an agreement, then I'll vote to do it. Until then I'm not going to vote to do it. MR. BECK: Well, we can't do that today. We do not have an agreement. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'm going to make a substitute motion that we approve only the contract to build the natatorium, that we don't approve any re-shuffling of funds at this point in time. MR. OLIVER: And I can't recommend approving a contract where we don't know where the funding is coming from, but I understand the concern. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, we're not going to spend money twice, and I don't think you've got the votes today to do it otherwise. MR. POWELL: Tom, I've got a question for you. I notice that you're going with the base, and I think that was the intent of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to go with the base bid. And I notice in here some of your alternates, and I've got some concerns with the site work being left out. Is that some extra site work or is that the site work for the project? MR. BECK: No, we put in three deductive alternates with this bid to have a potential menu that we might could pull from. The three alternates were to change the whole gutter system and pool depth, that's 1A and 1B. Alternate 2 was the site work for the job being done inhouse. Number 3 was the painting of the facility to be done inhouse. And it is our recommendation that we do not accept any of those deductive alternates. 1A and 1B we feel like sacrifice the integrity of the facility as far as a competitive venue, and Items 2 and 3 we just feel like we'll spend more money inhouse doing those two projects and leave things open with the contractor to accept those, so that's why we're recommending taking the base bid with the deducts. MR. POWELL: Okay. One other question, the filtration. Could you give me a clarification on that being left out? MR. BECK: That is the deductive alternate to put in, for lack of a better term, a lesser quality filtration system that's got a stainless steel gutter versus a flat gutter system that is more competitively geared for competitive venues. It is a lesser quality system. MR. HANDY: Two States is the same one that built Belle Terrace? MR. BECK: That's correct. MR. HANDY: So we're familiar with that pool. Are you satisfied with that work they done? MR. BECK: They did a good job. They did a good job and their time frame was good, and they done a good job on that project. MR. OLIVER: And we took the 340-day base bid instead of the 370, which finishes it with a couple dollars more, but we felt it was worth it in light of what we had riding on it. MR. MAYS: I'm looking at--you know, we've got some on here that's highly--for instance, on District One and Nine, Lee and I have got that one on the Canal Master Plan. Okay, we take 150 from there. What we've got in there, 250, where are we going right now with the 250? Where will that impact on what we're intending to get done in matching funds that we're trying to do or is that singly outside of the Canal plan? Because they've done a tremendous job in trying to get money and of putting funds together. We've got some that's over in there. I don't want to gut that by something we're doing over here, but if there's a chance to move something, get it back without damaging what we are moving at right now, then I think that might be a better area, you know, on this side to move it, at least on Nine's side of it, maybe on One's side of it, but at the same time, we might need some help on moving something else from Ten and Seven. I don't mind giving up something, but, you know, I think we've got to give on both ends of this deal and satisfy some of these small projects that's in there and lessen those hits. If we take 50/60% [inaudible] I'd rather see us not even do them, hold them the two years and come in and do them right than to come out there, you know, with nothing. But what would that do on--I'm just speaking of that one project now, that 250, because we're starting there with some things we've been talking about in conjunction with Julian Smith and those improvements. Is any of that tied into that? MR. BECK: No. These funds have not been specifically identified, to our knowledge. Hugh Connelly with the Canal Authority is here today, and Hugh and I have talked about this. But there was a half a million dollars that was put into the one-percent sales tax Phase III that we put in, and you'll see in your books it's in the Recreation plan for the sales tax, and we put in that half million dollars for implementation of generic master plan improvements on the Canal. There was no specific project tied in with that half million dollars. In addition to that half million, you also approved a million dollars in addition to that is SPLOST funds for Augusta Canal improvements. I believe that came out of the urban side of the sales tax, I believe. There's those funds, there is also $650,000 worth of ISTEA funds that there is out there. I am familiar enough, being on that task force, that there is another funding source through the National Heritage Corridor that I think the Canal Authority has been made a part of. So, again, we felt like--we're not saying that improvements to the Canal Master Plan are not important, we're saying in the total scope of things that are in--projects that are in our sales tax, that that along with these other projects that we've identified are going to be the least important in getting the overall Recreation plan implemented. MR. MAYS: I guess what I'm looking at is not so much maybe what you have done. What I didn't want to do is give the impression that when we've got contributed funds coming, that we look as a city as though we are pulling back, and with expected funds from other sources, that they look around and say, well, you've committed to thus and so and now we see that that's not there. If we can hold what we are getting from those other sources without endangering those funds, probably with a greater pullback in that area and a couple of big ones, with the guarantees or with the vote that we're going to make sure we're going to put it back if we're swapping time tables, then I think that gives us a chance to keep some of these smaller ones intact, but I don't want to run the risk of endangering something that may be from a contributed source. But I think that's one, if you're not nailed down to where you're going to put it, could give us a better impact than some. Lee and I probably are taking the biggest hit on it, but I think if we can get probably a bigger chunk from there and at the same time, my two elephant friends, if we can get a bigger chunk out of Seven and Ten on the $2.1 million, then we probably can do what's in-between without having World War III and go on and get this darn thing built where we don't scale it back to the bare bones. That's just my personal feeling on it. It impacts less projects to take it out of bigger ones where you're not specifically saying where some is going. And I can only say that on mine, now. It's a little different. Jerry's is more defined, it's there in terms of what we've got to do, but I'm just looking at impact numbers if we've got to swap something and pull something out, and it doesn't get us into those 50/60% hits, Mr. Mayor, that we got on eight or nine of these projects in here. If we start doing them then, we're just pulling numbers out, and we're going to get calls from every darn where with that darn thing and it'll be back on the agenda next week for reconsideration on what we've got, and that's the only thing I'm trying to do is just give us a different look at the numbers. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief. What I want to say is this, is the Recreation Department--that the two most significant projects that they've got coming out of the sale tax is the South Augusta sports complex, which is in trouble moneywise, and the natatorium, which went over the budget. Both of those projects--nobody wants to see money transferred out of their district to get these projects going, but both of these projects are going to be projects that are going to service the whole community, not just the districts that they are going in. And they are significant projects, they are worthwhile projects, and they will service the whole community. And I think we as a body have got to make up our mind today on the natatorium, we're going to have to make up our mind on the South Augusta sports complex at some point for funding there. So everybody's going to be jockeying to save $10,000 on this project or 20 or whatever it may be. We need to decide whether we are committed to build this natatorium to host the Georgia Games in 1999 to service this whole community for a long term, and then later we're going to have to make a decision on the sports complex. So I just wanted to make that comment. We can talk about $20,000 here and there, but what's on the table today is the natatorium. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be brief, too. I think that we probably was close to a budget on the natatorium and there was some concern about seating capacity and we added some seats in there, so we increased the budget; is that so? MR. BECK: The scope of the project did increase some by wanting to make sure it was a nationally competitive venue. MR. TODD: Yes. I think that in the scope of things I've probably been the most unselfish person up here when we're talking roads, recreation, etc, and the Fourth District has waited. And if we're talking about taking 30,000, 35,000, 45,000, or 50,000 dollars from the Fourth District and putting it in the South Richmond park, which is also a joint venture with the Sixth and Eighth Districts, then certainly I think I can go back and sell that to the Fourth District more so than I can sell to the Fourth District of coming across north of the Gordon Highway. I think the average citizen coming from South Richmond will probably use the Belle Terrace swim center versus going to Highland Avenue for recreational use. I understand also that we need the South Richmond park for the Georgia Games, so let's not play games with the money, let's not play games with what's the priorities as far as we go. The priorities for Moses Todd is the South Richmond park and the Fourth District. And maybe we need to draw down this natatorium, maybe we need to let it wait, you know, on the additional seats as far as size, etc., until the year 2000 sales tax, then go in and do an addition to that. We talked about selling the Highland Park, but we haven't talked, Mr. Mayor, about amending this motion where that would happen once the time line is over with when we needed it open and those monies would go back into these neighborhood parks. The Fourth District is hurting in neighborhood parks. We don't want community centers, we want unmanned neighborhood parks and we want those improvements. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Would you please read the motion. It's been so long [inaudible]. CLERK: The motion made by Mr. Kuhlke and seconded by Mr. Handy was to award the contract to Two State Construction at base bid number two, with no alternates, of $4,325,582 for the construction of the Augusta Aquatic Center and authorize necessary reprogramming of Parks & Recreation funds. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 59 is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held March 18th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 60: Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute contract with the Department of Community Affairs subject to the approval of Legal Counsel and Administrator for the attached sub-recipients grant awards. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Item 61: Appointments to various boards, authorities and commissions. Commissioner Henry Brigham, Fifth District, would like to offer the following nominees for appointment: Mr. Calvin Holland, Coliseum Authority; Planning Commission, Mr. Leroy Steed; Board of Zoning Appeals, Mr. George Mitchell; Historic Preservation, Mr. Alvin Forrest. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. HANDY: Excuse me a minute. Why can't we include Shepard in that since it's in 61. CLERK: Okay. Shepard, Third District: Mr. Nick Dickinson, Planning Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 62 is a motion to approve amendment of Ordinance No. 5998 (Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-2-50 et seq.) imposing rental car excise tax to include penalties for late payment. First reading. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 63 is a motion to approve amendment to the Ordinance establishing the Construction Advisory Board: Amend meeting dates from quarterly to bi-monthly, add "vice-chairman" to serve in the absence of the chairman, specify "one year" to be the term of officers, delete the "per diem" of $20.00 per meeting to defray expenses, and add as a duty "serve as liaison between the License and Inspection Department and builders". First reading. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 64: Motion to approve Ordinance and waive second reading providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 943 D'Antignac Street, 1117 Eighth Street, and 817 Beans Lane. First reading. MR. TODD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 65: Motion to approve amendment of Augusta-Richmond County Code to authorize License & Inspection Department's license inspectors to issue citations for violation of Augusta-Richmond County Code alcohol licensing and general business licensing ordinances. Second reading. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 66: An Ordinance to amend the Consolidation Act (1995 Ga. Laws, P. 3648) as amended (1996 Ga. Laws, P. 3607; 1997 Ga. Laws, P. 4024; 1997 Ga. Laws, P. 4690), pursuant to the Home Rule Provisions of the Georgia Constitution, so as to change the provisions relating to the Law Department; to provide that the Commission "may create a law department"; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting provisions; and for other purposes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we disapprove this ordinance. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve it. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, we have a County Attorney that's sitting down there that I'd like to think that could give us a ruling without conflict, but I'm not sure of that, so at this time I wish that you had an attorney like was proposed in the amendment that the consolidation legislation advised you. Mr. Mayor, the law tell us, you know, pointed it out to make it crystal clear what we are to do as far as the legislation that enabled us to consolidate. It says that we shall set up a law department. The only mistake that those guys in Atlanta made, that they didn't give us a time line, because we don't understand what's reasonable, Mr. Mayor. If you don't give us a time line, we'll go a hundred years, you know, intending to do it. And as long as, you know, we're intending, I guess we're okay. If we were going to request anything, Mr. Mayor, of the legislators in Atlanta this year, it should have been to change that legislation, to change it to say may instead of shall. But, Mr. Mayor, as long as it's shall, I shall, and I'm going to vote against this and vote for establishing a law department. And I don't think Stonewall Jackson could do better than what we've done as far as stonewalling on what this legislation called for. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I've probably got an opinion on how this thing is going to come out in terms of the numbers, but I'll let it stay just that, an opinion. Because everybody's got one of them and we know what that resembles, so I'll keep it to myself. But we just put forth a committee or will be voting on a committee to put in place to study bringing back the numbers, the--all the parameters about one of these departments versus the other form that we have now. And y'all know I've got a problem with perception, I've got a problem with timing when we--especially when we ask other people outside the Commission to do something and we look as though we are preempting the action that they do by going ahead and making a decision. Now, if we were going to do that, I think what we should have done--I probably shouldn't have asked Mr. Shepard to amend the motion to go ahead and we put a committee in a couple of months ago, which I'm glad we're getting towards putting those folk together, and just went ahead and we passed an ordinance. At least the ordinance would have been in place before the legislative delegation left. But we waited until the General Assembly adjourned, we got a ordinance out here on the same day that we are appointing a committee to set up to study what department or what form of legal representation we want, and I think that's very contradictory. I think the ordinance is premature. I think regardless of what our feelings may be on the decision of it, this is just plain bad business. If y'all were appointing me to a board to select something where you basically are making a decision by putting an ordinance into place, I'd tell y'all where to go with it because you're wasting my time by serving on that board. And I really think we ought to vote to turn it down at this point, and this is no reflection upon what we may decide on in the final analysis. But if we decided to let you and the Mayor Pro Tem come up with committee names, select people from the citizenry and from the legal profession to go out and to bring us these things back, then we have ample time to put together and pass this ordinance. But I think this is very improper to vote on this at this time, and I'm going to vote to turn it down. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, to speak to some of the concerns raised by this, I think it was my second meeting here that we adopted a concept to proceed with amending the charter in this fashion so that we may create it if the economics dictate, if the quality of legal representation dictate. It was a three-part motion I think we had that we would make a decision on this issue by July the 1st, and the third part was that you appoint a committee. And I commend the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem for taking the advice of the Commission a couple of meetings ago and going back to the drawing board on a committee which looks like it now includes a practicing attorney, and I think that's an excellent addition. You also have a corporate official from a large organization and you have the business community well represented. So I think, to answer the questions raised by my colleagues, this is just another step in the approach which will bring us to resolve the legal department issue. If the committee so recommends that we continue on with outsourcing legal counsel, we can do that. If it recommends a reorganization of part outside counsel and part inhouse counsel, we can do that. Or if we can go strictly to an inhouse counsel, we can do that. So I don't think we're premature, I think we're just trying to move along and trying to make the time deadline that we set for ourselves. We said we had to do this by July 1, so when we appoint the committee today, which I think is a good step and I think we want to be consistent with what we've done in the other action, that we should go ahead and take the leadership role and not be--as I said before, not be bashful about this issue but go ahead and enact the discretionary language into our charter so that we're set to move in any direction that we think will be appropriate to resolve this issue, and I commend all of my colleagues that vote for this change in the ordinance. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would agree that this is a little bad timing to start moving with the charter. I think that if we're going to approve that committee today, then you ought to let them go in with that charter as it stands. I think this is sending kind of mixed signals to the community and any committee that we establish. And while this may have been good, you know, some months ago, but what we have established here and going to establish here today, and the legislative body in Atlanta decided not to tamper with the charter and I don't think we should start at this point, I think we should let it go today. And if we have to come back to something like this, I think we have the opportunity to come back with it, but I think it's a poor signal to send today to start doing that and I would have to vote against that motion. MR. HANDY: I've just got a two-part statement or question or whatever. The way I read this book, it says may create a law department just like it says shall create a law department and then the intent of the legislature. By saying may create a law department still don't say that we are or we're not, and shall says we shall do one. It don't say whether we are or we're not, it's just saying you shall do it, but it didn't say when. Now, that's the intent of everything, so I'm finished with the law department part. Now, if I'm hearing something that we are intending to appoint a committee today, this is the one I think what you and Mr. Beard came up with, it's not on the agenda. CLERK: It's on the addendum agenda. MR. HANDY: Okay. So this is already on the agenda, so I'm talking about they're saying this conflict with each other and this is poor timing, poor signal. If it had been on the agenda, then everybody would have known about it. So if you're adding it to the agenda after this get on the agenda, then we had no knowledge of knowing that this should not be on the agenda because they conflict with each other, if you follow what I'm saying. Now, think about what you're saying and then look at what you got on paper. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to respond to Mr. Handy. This has been on the agenda for the last month, appointing the committee. We've had this since probably January and we just haven't been able to come up with a committee that the Commissioners agree on. But, now, this was on the agenda last month also. MR. HANDY: This agenda I'm looking at in the book today. Thank you. I want to do what's right, now. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to say I think Mr. Handy made a good point. Sort of what Mr. Mays was talking about is that if you change the charter, then you send the committee a signal. If you don't change the charter and the charge to the committee is to abide by the charter, then they are locked in to coming back to us with one recommendation. So I think really the ordinance that's before us really adds some credence to forming the committee because it gives the committee the opportunity of flexibility, whereby if you stay where we are now there isn't any flexibility. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm in agreement with Mr. Kuhlke. His argument is very logical and very right, in my opinion. And the other thing that I think that we need to understand is that if we're going to have a very strict interpretation of what's there, if we don't do this there's no need to even form a committee. And I think that the only way we can form a committee is by doing this. And, also, if the legislature hadn't intended on us having the ability to Home Rule ourselves, they would not have passed the general statute giving us that right. And I think we ought to be responsible for local government. We are the local government. We don't have to look to Atlanta to solve all our difficult problems, we can resolve some of them ourselves, and we can solve it with citizens' input. We can do this, but I think the only way we can do it with citizens' input is to vote for this ordinance that's on the table in front of us. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when we went and wanted to do a committee versus implementing a law department and going with the target date, I didn't debate that committee because I knew, Mr. Mayor, that those citizens, whoever you appoint, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is going to be smarter than we are, that they were going to go by the law, and that they were going to bring back a recommendation per what the legislation called for. Now what we want to do, Mr. Mayor, is to give them a out, you know. We want the out, so actually we're trying to give ourselves the out, but we're going to delegate this authority to someone to come back and make us a recommendation. And is it that those who are my opponents the other side feel that they are smarter than we and that they're going to go by the law and the letter of the law and they're going to bring it back to us and say, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commission, this is what the law say you shall do and this is our recommendation that you shall set up a law department. Is that what we're afraid of? Mr. Mayor, if we want to pass this ordinance today, then, heck, why even bother with the citizens committee, why don't you just go on and pass the ordinance and say that you're going to have a outsourced law department and that you name Mr. Wall that attorney for the next ten years and we'll have all our work, you know, took care of as far as a law department for the next several years. I don't think that's what the legislation call for, I don't think that's what the voters voted for, and I think that we're doing a disservice to this community if we go this route. Mr. Mayor, there is probably not a bigger supporter of Jim Wall down here than Moses Todd. It may not sound like it. We argue sometimes on points of law, and I'm not a lawyer, and Mr. Shepard is, but certainly we disagree, we agree, and we work together, and I would encourage Mr. Wall to get his application ready for to be the attorney in the law department because I think he do a good job. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'll be real quick on two things. One, I think that the charge to the citizens can be given to them very clearly, very intelligently, and the group that you've got, I think, can more than adequately interpret what they are charged to do: that is to come back with those cost factors and how those two forms of legal operations weigh against each other. And they can be instructed that when we decide on one form versus another one, that we can simply pass an ordinance at that time. That is not very unintelligent for them to be able to deal with. I think that this is an excuse to deal with giving a direction, and that's what I've got a problem with. The other thing that I'd like to remind my colleagues of is that those of us who lived and voted in the old City of Augusta, and we keep--and I have to make this point when I say it. We keep talking about what the charter says, we voted to give up our over 250-year-old charter. We relinquished that. I do not think we have one. We have a series of ordinances that are tied together, and until we write one for this new government and vote on one, then I think we've got one. We've got a reorganized government, not a consolidated one; so, therefore, there is no charter that we refer to. We abolished that by vote of the people who lived inside of incorporated city limits of Augusta, Georgia, at that time. And if I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected, Mr. Wall. We do not have one. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Mays, I do disagree with you, and we had this debate previously. I think we do have a charter, and I think that that was the intent of the consolidation bill and the referendum that was held. And I do not think that it is a reorganized government, I think it is a consolidated government. MR. MAYS: Is it in print or is it in the clouds? MR. WALL: It is in print. It is in 1995 Georgia laws as a charter. It does not recite at the beginning of it as it's a charter, however, it does refer to consolidation. MR. MAYS: But it doesn't refer to it anywhere as a charter? MR. WALL: It does not use that specific language, no, sir. MR. MAYS: Well, I'm just saying what the language is. We keep talking about a charter. Until we have a charter, we don't have a charter. We voted to abdicate. We gave away a charter. There were two different forms voted on in consolidation. The people in the unincorporated area voted to consolidate; those in the city limits voted to abandon and relinquish that charter and to consolidate. Two different votes. None was ever redrawn or said that that one would be extended to the new government. We superseded--and you've quoted many times that the county law that was in place would take precedence and that we would go by those series of ordinances, sir, and I think that's on record in several places that that's what we would go by in terms of an operating tool. But we have not voted and I beg to differ on the charter. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I disagree with my colleagues who are saying that it's just a one-way street here when we are giving the committee a charge, but I think that we're not giving them the proper respect. We're asking them to come back with a recommendation. We're not asking them to follow the particular bill that was given out by the delegation, we're asking them to make a reasonable decision on which we should have, an inhouse attorney or outsource this. And I think that when we give them this, that they're going to come back and they're going to look at numbers--I hope they will--look at numbers and what is the best for this county. And when they give us that, then it's up to us to make that decision as to what we're going to do, whether we're going to follow their recommendation or else we're going to do what we want to do, which we normally do. But I think that we--I just have a sense here that to interfere with this at this particular time when we're authorizing or going to authorize a group to look into it, we just don't need to mess with this at this time. MR. HANDY: Final statement. When we merged both govern-ments together, some of the ordinances stayed together, county and city, and they're still running concurrent with each other. They're still out there. Now, let's go back to the charter of the consolidated government. It says we shall have a law department, but it does not address the County Attorney. We shall have a law department and a County Attorney or once we set up a law department, then we just fire the County Attorney, or then they got to do another ordinance to get rid of the County Attorney? Because we still have a County Attorney as far as Richmond County. I just thought I'd throw that out there. You know, every now and then we get to talking, and I reckon I'm just like a preacher, you know, you start talking about a sermon and then the Lord send you certain words, and then when I get to talking a lot of things come to me to ask questions about. Now, what do we do with the County Attorney? We still have a County Attorney. So we don't worry about the law department, we still can set up a law department, but we can still set up a law department and still have a County Attorney. That's the question I'm asking. That's something else needs to be answered while we're researching. Do we have a law department and a County Attorney or do we have a law department without a County Attorney? Or do we have to send it back to Atlanta and they have to do all these changes to get rid of the County Attorney? Because I think the law far as countywise say we got a County Attorney. So that's some things you need to think about. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. HANDY: How do I get my answer, before you call for the question. Who's going to research that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to answer that? MR. WALL: Well, I have an opinion, but I guess Mr. Todd is correct, that if I rendered that opinion y'all probably would have some question about it. MR. HANDY: Could we get Shepard to do it? MR. SHEPARD: Shepard is not the County Attorney. But I suggested that you vote--I'm the seconder of your motion, so I'm suggesting that the substitute motion is the appropriate way to deal with this because it preserves the freedom of this committee to come back with the best recommendations in this community. And so that's--I mean, I seconded your motion. MR. HANDY: Okay, good. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I'm on the right track, I don't want to get off. MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the substitute motion, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve the ordinance to amend the Consolidation Act. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was made by Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. MAYS, MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: So back to the original motion. CLERK: To disapprove. Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to disapprove, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. SHEPARD AND MR. HANDY VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CLERK: Item 67A is to consider a budget for Weed & Seed for Barton Chapel. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion to approve the budget and the budget only for Weed & Seed for Barton Chapel. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Does this budget require a local match? MR. OLIVER: No, it does not. We've submitted for the funding on this. I think one of the things we're going to have to deal with in committee in the next couple of weeks is what's going to be the reporting structure for this. And there's a suggestion in there, but we're not locked into it, regarding the Weed & Seed coordinator. And we don't have to deal with that today as part of the budget process, but I believe that the coordinator should be one person, should be full-time, and should bear the responsibility of making sure that this program is implemented the way the Mayor and Commission desire. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll amend my motion that we go out for applicants for a coordinator for Weed & Seed if the seconder will accept that. MR. BEARD: I'll agree. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 67B: Consider award of Residuals Management contract at J.B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant to Amsco, Inc. at an estimated annual cost of $943,461. MR. WIEDMEIER: At the direction of the Commission, we went out and requested proposals for residuals management at the wastewater treatment plant. We took those proposals on February 26th. A review committee reviewed the proposal and recommended Amsco's as being the best proposal. I intended to take this to the committee first, but due to some recent circumstances, the need to get a contractor in to supplement our staff is very critical and that's why this was added to the Commission agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we authorize emergency purchase orders to take care of the situation that they're in and that they bring it back to the committee and to a later Commission to approve the outsourcing of the contract. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. POWELL: I'll second that motion. MR. TODD: And when we bring it back, I'd like to request that Mr. Wall research the future liability of doing it ourselves versus outsourcing, along with the cost. And if we can do that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 67C: Resolution urging Congressional support for additional authorization for funding for Railroad relocation in Augusta, Georgia. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly if we're passing this resolution, we should do the follow-up and call our representa-tives and request of them that--the Congressional delegation, that they support ISTEA and that they certainly try to get an amendment. I think that we may be a little late for this year, but the bottom line is that we need to make those phone calls, too. The resolution means something, but those phone calls going in mean a whole lot more. MR. OLIVER: That follow-up, Mr. Todd, has been done. In fact, the legislation is moving ahead of us. I don't know what the status is today, but we have had that discussion and Congressman Norwood is working very actively on reprogramming this. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to commend Mr. Shepard on the job he's doing over there in the subcommittee on the rail, and I think he's finally gotten us some action moving along and I just commend him on that. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Powell. We have met and we are working. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: On the addendum agenda: Motion to approve Resolution in support of House Resolution 3206, The Fair Housing Amendments Act. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. MAYS: I would not be politically [inaudible] I voted for it so that we'd have unanimous consent on the addendum so that everybody would have a right to vote, and I didn't want to play that way with it, but I go back again to probably where we're dealing earlier on a motion with an ordinance predetermining things. It's hard enough for me as an individual Commissioner to determine what we're going to do from time to time, I know it's hard as the dickens for me to realize what's going to happen on the state level, even harder on a national level. I realize what our intent may be in terms of the recent episodes, particularly in two given neighborhoods as it relates to the situation that this resolution I believe is attempting to get done. But my problem with it is that when you don't have control over what another governmental body is going to say, you don't know what's going to come out of that particular resolution. He may be starting off voting for something one way that you think is going to help and puts you totally in conflict of what the ending language is going to be. Several years ago people made attempts to deal with voting rights act legislation. We're looking now at Fair Housing Amendment Act in there. I'm very careful about how people fought for generations in order to put some of this legislation together. I'm not sure of all the components that are going into the resolution or what it will end up being, and for that reason of the unknown I cannot support what I don't know how it's going to come out. Now, I sympathize with those who want to deal with what the intent might be, but determining what's going to come out of Congress as it relates to any act that's on the books, particularly relating to discrimination, whether it be of people's color, whether it be of people of a certain gender, whether it be of their physical or mental status, I cannot make that predetermination of knowing what's going to be the end result of a resolution, and for that reason I have to vote no on what you're going to vote for here today. But I did respect the process of going ahead and voting, Mr. Mayor, and allowing it to come to the floor, but I cannot vote for it, particularly with the unknown capabilities of what may come out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is to the Administrator and the County Attorney. What's the position of National Association of County Officers and the League of Cities or Mayors Conference on this issue? Is this legislation so new that it missed the window of opportunity to be considered there in resolution? MR. OLIVER: This legislation deals with personal care homes and it clarifies the rights for personal care homes which we've been dealing with. MR. TODD: But we also deal with all of those issues at those locations with those entities and I don't recall it coming up. And Mr. Beard was in-- MR. BEARD: It came up at the National League of Cities and basically they were in support of it. MR. TODD: And I would assume that if the National League of Cities is supporting it, then the entity that I attend, that we are also supporting it. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 2 is to appoint the subcommittee on legal services: one corporate official from a large inhouse general counsel, Mr. Gerald Woods, Medical College of Georgia; one attorney, Mr. Pat Rice; two individuals from the business community, Mr. James Kendricks, Augusta Blue Print, and Dr. Yvonne Shaw from Paine College. MAYOR SCONYERS: We had one other person that I called and I haven't gotten a call back. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we appoint the subcommittee. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess that I'm opposed to the committee because I'm opposed to looking for an out and I'm for supporting setting up the law department July 1, 1998, and I'll vote accordingly. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are we just appointing the four people that are named or are we appointing the fifth person, too, or are we going to come back and appoint a fifth person later or what? MR. BEARD: We can come back and appoint that last person. But we wanted the committee to get started and we felt that since the time would elapse, that we need to go on and get this group started. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, in fairness--because we kind of ribbed you and the Mayor Pro Tem a little bit about some residences when y'all came back with a committee. Would the maker of the motion, since we pretty much have established where the folk are going to be living, and I think the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem have done a good job of coming back with what asked there, he's only waiting on a confirmation, would the maker mind changing that motion that as long as it meets those requirements, that we go ahead and name that person that's in there? MR. BEARD: I will accept that if that's what the body wants. MR. MAYS: I don't have a problem with trusting y'all to do that. MR. SHEPARD: I accept the amendment, too. MR. HANDY: I have one question concerning this committee. Where are they going to get their instruction from and who are they going to get their instruction from? MR. TODD: I'm going to give them some, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD: The Mayor and I will meet with these people, but we would ask for input from the entire committee and you can have that input. MR. HANDY: But we don't know anything about starting a law department. You need to get somebody else now, a subcommittee for lawyers who know how to set up a law department. That's what I'm talking about. MR. BEARD: But they're going to make a recommendation, Mr. Handy. That's what they're going to be setting up for. MR. HANDY: No, no, no, I'm talking about instruction. Who is going to tell these people what to look for and what to go by, the criteria of setting up a law department. MR. BEARD: I always thought that the Mayor, myself, and, of course, the Administrator could get together and charge these people. We've heard long enough what we want, and I think if we give them the instructions--and I think we also should have input from the Commissioners that want to have input into it, but I don't see setting up another committee to tell a committee what they are supposed to do. MR. HANDY: Well, let me tell you why I'm saying what I'm saying. Some of us want a law department, some of us don't want a law department. Now, you've got the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem telling the people what to look for, what do you think we're going to have? That's all I got to say. MR. BEARD: Well, I think you're insulting the integrity of that committee if they can't understand-- MR. HANDY: You didn't understand what I'm saying, Lee. I'm trying to get you out of it. I'm trying to get you out of [inaudible]. Let me clarify what I'm saying. I try to say things to make sure you hear what I'm saying. I'm saying now we got the Mayor, which everybody thinks the Mayor don't want a law--or wants a law, and then you got the Mayor Pro Tem sitting there telling the people what to do. I only threw that out to let you know what I'm saying, the perception of what you're going to get. You already know that the Mayor wants a law department. That's understood, everybody knows that. And then the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem is going to tell the people what to do. That's all I'm saying. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that the Mayor want to go by the law. MR. HANDY: I don't need no cheerleaders, I just want to say what I just said. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I don't think the Mayor does either. MR. SHEPARD: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve the appointments, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. WALL: I need a legal meeting. Two litigation matters. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING 5:00 - 5:20 P.M.] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I ask that two items be added to the agenda: one is to authorize condemnation of property owned by Richard Balcum; the second item is to approve a settlement of a water damage claim of Irene Smith. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. WALL: The first item is to authorize condemnation of property owned by Richard Balcum out by the landfill. MR. TODD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN; MR. KUHLKE OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MR. WALL: The next item is to approve settlement of a water damage claim of Irene Smith for the sum of $15,706.38. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a motion to adjourn? MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 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 April 6, 1998. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission