Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS May 5, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, May 5, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of the Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Freddie Handy, member of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND JOYNER. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request for two items to be added to today's agenda: A delegation regarding Olde Town properties and the appointment of Ms. Karen Winburn to the Library Board, the Eighth District appointment. MR. TODD: I'll so move, Mr. Mayor, with the delegation having three minutes, one person. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: What is our first order of business? CLERK: The first order of business is a delegation: Mr. Don Ellefson, reference ADSI-United Van Lines. MR. ELLISON: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to come before you regarding a minor problem. We would like to request the county council to take into consideration assisting us to obtain a safe entranceway and road into our property. I'd like to take a few minutes of your time to explain to you the steps that we've taken so far to try to get this solved in the last four years. Four years ago we took the opportunity to decide that we were going to change our corporate workforce and our warehouse locations in Richmond County to a new location out off of Highway 56 and Payton Road. At that time we checked the road access and we found that Payton Road was only a fifteen-foot right-of-way, and we obtained a fifty-foot right- of-way from a gentleman named John Batchelor. At that time I approached several members of the county council, the Chamber of Commerce, and I was a member of the Pride and Progress Committee in South Augusta, and asked for assistance in providing access to our property and assist me with the DOT requirements as far as accel/decel lanes. We were told at that time after some meetings that probably the best access that we would have would've been off of Payton Road, it would have been a more reasonable way to do it, and that we would probably have a better chance of bringing in our utilities down that road. We pursued that in that manner only to find out that this was not a county easement, it is a non-ownership easement, and that the county just had been maintaining this easement for years to get to the back part of Payton Road, which is a county road. And at that time the water commission and the fire department said that they could not bring water or sewerage down that easement, so at that time we had to purchase additional easement from Mr. John Batchelor to bring our water lines and we had to pay the power company to relocate our power lines to bring them down the fifty-foot easement, and we had already surrendered this fifty feet to John Batchelor. At that point we pursued trying to obtain additional property from the land owners along Payton Road to widen the road, and we surrendered thirty additional feet of our property to enhance the chances that we would be able to pave this road and make a county road out of it. At that point we were unsuccessful. Two of the landlords, who are the major property owners along that road, refused to sell us the property unless we bought their entire tract of land at exorbitant amounts of money. We then had meetings with Mr. Dillard and several other people from the county trying to solve the situation. We met with Kevin Shea at the Chamber of Commerce and we tried many different avenues to try to make this program work, and we were fruitless in it. And upon the arrival of Randy Oliver, we had other meetings with Mr. Oliver and Mr. Jack Murphy trying to make the program work. And we contacted the County Attorney, Mr. Wall, and we found out that it would probably take a period of anywhere from eighteen months to two years to get condemnation of this property so that we could have a safe entrance to our property line. During this period of time the road was sand and clay. Due to the truck traffic, it turned to mud. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Oliver had to take an extreme measure at the last minute during heavy rains that we had to even give us access to our property, and at that period of time we do now have a gravel road. We haven't had any problems since they repaired the road, however, we still have a single-lane road. Two trucks cannot meet and pass on this road without going onto private property. Any trucks that enter this road have to stop on 56, which is a four-lane, busy highway and let all the traffic come out of that road prior to making an entrance or an exit into the property. We have since then talked with Mr. John Batchelor. He is willing to give us our fifty-foot right-of-way back. We have contacted the power company, they are willing to move our power lines to a different property line access. And we have contacted the DOT and got approval to put accel/decel lanes in down 56, make it a safe entranceway, and make access for Mr. Batchelor and our property through this new easement so that Mr. Batchelor will not have the same problem we have. They can't get in and out of his property with the same problems. We are asking that you take consideration these proposals. In the back of the book, in Section 5, you will see the original proposal to the county which we made was $157,600. If we go with the county proposal to pave Payton Road, obtain the property from the people, and put in accel/decel lanes, you're talking about $182,500. That would take two to three years to complete. I'm not sure that the traffic there can wait two to three years. Our proposal is to do the complete project, obtain the property from Mr. Batchelor, relocate the utilities, and everything is $134,400. At the present tax rate that we are paying, the county would reimburse their money just through our taxes alone in a period of less than five years. And the balance of the book just shows some background of our companies, how long we've been in Augusta, the amount of employees we employ, and some other companies that have left Richmond County that we probably could have kept here if we had maybe assisted them in the same manner that I'm requesting. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make an action motion here, that we refer this to the Engineering Services Committee and that we give the gentleman an answer within thirty days. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think it'd be important for this gentleman to know when that committee meets. CLERK: That's Monday the 11th at 2:30. MR. ELLISON: Again, thank you very much for your time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. Cast your vote for or against, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: The delegation regarding Olde Town Properties. MS. JONES: First of all, good afternoon. To Mr. Mayor and the Commissioners [inaudible] y'all did a lot of good things. And that's what we want to do in Olde Town, a lot of good things. The company that's buying our community has came to me and told me some things that we can do to improve our neighborhood. As you well know, Olde Town is in East Augusta, and East Augusta has been known as the area that has crime. Well, we more or less tried to convince them crime is [inaudible] it's not going to do any good to work with the child if you're not going to help the parents. We're proposing just some [inaudible] programs down there, some computer programs for the center. We have play-grounds down there for the children, so the children, you know, may have May Park, but they don't have to cross the street, per se, they'll be able to play in their own community. We're going to be doing some training to our mothers down there to help them get off public assistance, which everybody wants to save us some money. In other words, to get off welfare you got to educated, because you can't get off welfare unless you're educated. So we're planning to have the computer classes and all the other things, then you get trained in housekeeping. Whatever the problem is, whatever that we need, we're going to get it through our new program. I'm standing here to ask you all for the extension so we'll be able to get the programs and we'll be able to make our community a better community. We already have a neighborhood watch in place that's doing a good job, we are seeing about our senior citizens down there, we do clothes give-aways for the needy families, we have the backing of the churches in that community, we do a lot of good things in the Olde Town community, and I'm asking you all to please allow us the oppor-tunity to do better things for our community and our children. CLERK: For the record, could you give us your name and address? MS. JONES: My name is Pat Jones, I'm at 22 Broad Street. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I know you've got it on here as a delegation, but Item Number 31A is to extend the contract with White Oak Development Corporation for the closing of Olde Town Properties subject to the approval of the County Attorney and the Administrator. And we did meet with representatives of White Oak this morning and reviewed the status of the project. The state has not yet approved the loan. There are certain require- ments that have to be met not only by HUD, and we're waiting a final letter from them and also some additional information that they will need to submit. We are recommending that we extend the contract through the first week in August, which is August the 7th. MR. OLIVER: It would be more accurate to say they've approved the loan subject to certain conditions. MR. WALL: And the contract has been extended several times, as you know. The last extension expired at the end of April. And we do think that this is the best solution that's on the table and we're asking that you extend it. And I don't know whether you want to take that out of order at this time or whether you want to wait till we get to it on the agenda, but that's the purpose of the delegation that's here and that's the recommendation that I'm going to make when we get to that item. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we extend--take this item now and give them that extension. And also I would like to add to that that I would like to commend Ms. Jones for the job she does in East Augusta. That is my district down there. And she is really interested in those kids and she does a good job with them, and I think this ought to be noted in the record. MR. SHEPARD: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: I guess my concern is that there is no changes other than the extension. MR. WALL: They are paying an additional $5,000 for the extension, but-- there has been a change in the makeup of the partnership, but with the exception of that, there are no other changes, it's just an extension of the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting either for or against, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, let's move Item 30 up. CLERK: Item 30 is discussion of the inert landfill on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Barrett Road and New McDuffie Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you asked that this be put back on the agenda. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. One reason I requested that it be put back on was the time line between Planning and Zoning and the hearing here, and I had some phone calls from some individuals in the area [inaudible] that their position may have been misrepresented by the petitioner, and others felt that they didn't have a opportunity to come to the meeting because of the time line. And that's the reason that it's on, and I certainly would like to give the opportunity to the folks that would have objected if they would've had the opportunity. It come out of Planning and Zoning with a unanimous vote to deny. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? It's about the landfill on Barrett Road and New McDuffie. Do we have objectors here today? [Approximately 30 objectors noted.] Do y'all have a spokesperson? Would the spokesperson please come forward to the microphone? Give us your name and address, please. MS. ALEXANDER: My name is Hilda Alexander, my address is 3701-A Old McDuffie Road. Not only me but several of the community residents have several concerns. The reason why we are here is because of the fact that we did not have the opportunity to state some facts as well as to allow our concerns to be heard. We also have representatives from the community that are here that have signed letters that are concerned about the inert land- fill. Now, some of the facts I would like to present to you is the two methods of operation about the inert landfill. The first one is the burning of the--the decompensation of it. The method that Mr. Rabun, who is the business owner, has chosen to use is called decompensation. The facts about this is that it harbors rats, snakes, and other rodents. Also, this method has acid-based leakage that also goes into the ground and contaminates the water. The unpleasant odor is also one of the things that we are concerned about, the traffic, the trucks, the dust. Now, it happens that we addressed some of those issues in a meeting with Mr. Rabun and his attorney, Mr. LeGette, at the church, and he also wrote us a letter replying. Now, one of the concerns is that in the letter when he addressed the issue about the dust with the trucks and the traffic and operations, what he said as a response, which is item number five in our letter, is that in extreme dry weather Mr. Rabun has agreed to set up steps to control dust. This would include setting up water sprinkler systems to hold down dust as well as refraining from grinding on windy days when excessive dust is a problem. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I live in the South Augusta area, I know for the last three summers we've had a problem with water. And not only that, we have had a shortage with water. So if he lived in that particular area he would know that there is a problem with water shortages in the summer. So to us that's not a solution, but it's a problem. And not only that, but that kind of gave us the reason why we should come here today, because there are so many conflicting things that he has told us. And one of the things that he did was at the meeting of the Planning and Zoning meeting, and he probably presented this with you as well, he had a list of 176 people from that particular neighborhood that said that they wanted the inert landfill, that they did not mind the inert landfill being in that particular area. So what we did, we randomly chose ten people, just ten people that was on this list. We went to their homes, we asked are you familiar with the letter that Mr. Rabun presented us with. We gave them a copy of it. They knew nothing about the letter. Three of them signed saying that "I signed the letter with Mr. Rabun under the understanding" --this is Ms. Pearl Washington, whose name is on the list--"but I am totally against the proposed landfill. After I clearly under-stand it now, I discontinue my support." She did not know, she was not aware of it, she was told by Mr. Rabun there was going to be something else to it. Another one of the people who was on the list said, "I signed the letter for Mr. Rabun with the under-standing that it would only be a wood chipping company. Also, he did not receive a copy of my signature." This is from Mr. Kenneth Haney. He signed this stating he had no full knowledge of what exactly it was that they was going to operate there. The third letter, "I did not know what I signed." This is from Mr. Mr. Patrick Sullivan. This seems to be a consistent effort of Mr. Rabun. It's also a concern because, as we mentioned before, he has had problems with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. We have letters from them that states that he has had problems with his recycling business, the recycling business of tires, tires that he was supposed to recycle and dispose of. There was consent orders sent, he never signed them. There was consent orders that he never acknowledged. He was given a verbal order, he never signed, he never acknowledged it. And the reason why they did not continue to go throughout with this is because Mr. Rabun left the state. They cannot issue him a consent order after he has left the state, according to EPD, Mr. Jarrod, who is the region manager. Also, another fact about the inert landfill is they are potentials for fire. Now, the Columbia County just recently had a fire in November of '97. Because of this fire they will no longer have their inert landfill. Their inert landfill is operated by Mr. Hensley, and Mr. Hensley will no longer operate the Columbia County landfill. There is not a demand in Richmond County for the inert landfill. There is two that we know of: one that is operated by Richmond County, and that's located on Deans Bridge Road, and the other inert landfill is the one that is located on Gordon Highway and Molly Pond Road. This landfill is not needed in Richmond County. We have enough landfills in Richmond County to accommodate us. The other thing is that it is not strictly the church. Can I ask the residents who are against this landfill to stand as well? It is not just the church. Can I ask the church represen-tatives that are against this landfill? We are standing here today to tell you and to acknowledge the fact that the inert landfill is not needed and is not wanted. And because of the past history of Mr. Rabun not in compliance of the EPD who regulate a landfill and a recycling operating in such a matter, that we would like for you to reconsider the previously proposed acceptance of the inert landfill off Old McDuffie Road. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to ask Jim on zoning, reconsideration motions, are two of them required on the first motion for reconsideration? Two motions, on the reversal first to put it on the floor? MR. WALL: Right. A motion to rescind would be the initial step, and then theoretically you'd get back to ground zero, and then it would be another motion to take whatever action that you wanted to take with regard to the request. I would point out that I've had some discussion with Mr. LeGette, and we may want to hear from him. I have a concern about the potential liability of the county, and y'all may want to have a legal session or discuss it in legal session, where you have granted that request. And he has indicated that they have expended funds in reliance upon that, and some of you remember that we've been down that road once before. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we go into legal session. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Todd. Do we want to hear from this gentleman first before we go into legal session? MR. TODD: I don't have a problem there, but, Mr. Mayor, also I feel that there's been some subterfuge, too, in obtaining this permit. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I just wanted to ask one question. Were they notified about the meeting last week? MS. JONES: No, sir. MR. PATTY: Do you want me to address that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, please. MR. PATTY: Okay. At every Planning Commission, the first thing that happens is the chairman welcomes the crowd and then reads a statement, and that statement begins with the words "we are a recommending body." And I don't remember the rest of it, but the gist is that the final decision is made by this group, and the date and time of that meeting is given right then. Now, it's not reiterated after every case, but at the beginning of the meeting it is stated, and that was done twice because this thing came up twice. So there's no requirement for a written notice or anything like that except for the Planning Commission meeting, which is a public hearing. MR. MAYS: If I might before the attorney comes to the mike and before Mr. Patty leaves--and I do know that to be a fact. I've served three different occasions representing the county on Planning and Zoning. But we would not be setting a precedent in terms of--of course, a motion is something that just someone can vote on to deal with at their own pleasure up or down, but I would hasten to say that we would not be setting a precedent where we have reheard cases because--particularly in cases that have come before Zoning that have either been postponed, delayed, or where parties have been asked to work together. There is an element of confusion that has occurred more than one occasion, and I think every time that I've ever served we've had cases, particularly if they have been where both the petitioner and objectors have had a number of parties on both sides. When you see an absence of either side in there, it's usually a hint that somebody has got a miscommunication. I do agree that that's your procedure, and I don't disagree with that at all and I don't doubt that you didn't say that. But, one, we would not be setting precedent to rehear because we have done that before, and we have had occasions when a matter has been moved from one date to another one. And even I think you all heard at least two times on this particular case for a party or parties in the heat of that argument, I've had them--you know, we've had it where both parties maybe didn't show up. So, I mean, this is not something new, and I just wanted to put that to the record prior to us going in legal session, that we would not be setting a precedent in terms of where we deal with reconsideration. How we deal on that vote or any other vote, that's left up to the Commissioners to deal with. I just wanted to inject that; that, you know, I agree with you that that's what was done, but this would not be the first time when that communique has either passed parties--because you argued long enough, and I think you all stayed here one day, I know, probably on that one particular item for an hour or more just dealing with that, and it was not the first time that you heard it. So, therefore, you know, anything such as a date announced at the beginning of a meeting can easily get lost by the petitioner or by the people who are objecting to it, and I just wanted to state that for the record, that it would not be the first time that we've had to do that. MR. LEGETTE: Mr. Mayor, I'm Charles LeGette, I've appeared before you before. Apparently you're going to go into some sort of executive session to discuss this from a legal point of view, it appears, but I just want to restate my client's position. The facts are pretty clear, this matter was duly noticed, was announced, and was attended at a regularly called meeting of this city-county commission. Our position was voiced on that day. We appeared, we hashed it out, and I believe you did the right thing. The vast majority of the people were in favor of having that sand pit filled up. They're still in favor of it. But that's not the point. The point is you met, you heard the testimony, you made a decision. That was April 21st. I came that day because the Planning and Zoning board told us when to come. We came, opposition came, you heard it all, you made a decision, I contend a correct decision. Following April 21st my client, in reliance upon that decision, took action. He hired an engineering firm, he commenced paying rent on this property, he paid a whopper of a legal bill, all conditioned upon Zoning approval. He spent the better part of $9,000 since April 21st putting this site into action. He has an engineering survey crew working on this site right now developing sedimentation, soil erosion control plans, all those things. If any of you have been involved in commercial development, there's a great deal of engineering that's got to be done to take care of all those concerns about water, sedimentation, runoff, wetlands. All of that is under way. Mr. Rabun is paying for it. I'm confident that the law is very clear. If you grant special zoning and a man acts in reliance upon that, he's entitled to his permit. Now, these folks are entitled to their opinion, and I respect their opinion, okay? They're entitled to voice their opinion, but the law is clear. You've acted, he's acted in reliance, he's entitled to his permit, and you're setting the taxpayers of Augusta-Richmond County up for a tremendous lawsuit if you yank the rug out from under him today. And I say that with all due respect. He sincerely appreciates the opportunity to do what the majority of the people in that neighborhood want. They want that eyesore that's been there for ten years, they want it filled up, and all he wants to do is have the opportunity to fill it up. Please don't let your emotions get carried away from you. There are 170, perhaps 160--they want to change their vote on it now. There are over 150 people that I'm sure have said we want this hole filled up, and you've relied upon on that and you've acted, okay? Those are working-class people, they're at work today. Mr. Rabun is here. Ms. Alexander has talked about his past, talked about some tire fire that took place in 1992. Tire recycling has absolutely nothing to do with inert landfills. There will be no tires allowed in this site. But he's here, he'd like to address those things if y'all want to spend your valuable time dealing with that sort of thing. But his character has been assaulted here again today, and it's just not accurate, it's not correct, and it's not right. All we ask is that you stand by the legal, proper decision you've already made. Let this man go into business, reclaim that site, and be a good neighbor. Would you like to hear from Mr. Rabun or would you like to move on to something else? MR. TODD: Mr. LeGette, let me ask a question before we adjourn. Let's say that if there was subterfuge used in obtaining the permit or wrongful misinformation was given, is it still your position that this body don't have a responsibility and authority to take corrective action? MR. LEGETTE: Mr. Todd, I'm not going to speculate because I know there's been no misrepresentation, okay? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might, I'm going to take the wishes and the professional opinion of the attorney that we hired at this time since we got some time, because obviously the people who are here today are working people, as inferred. I'm going to make a motion that we go into legal session and get our opinion from the attorney that we hired. MR. BEARD: And I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Cast your votes accordingly, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [LEGAL SESSION] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, regarding Item Number 30 on the agenda, I'd like to make a motion, based on the advice of legal counsel, that we stay firm on the decision that was made at our previous meeting in regards to the inert landfill and that the Inspection Department be sure that all ordinances are complied with in regards to the operation of that landfill. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we reconsider the item on Item Number 30 in which the action was taken by the Commission, I believe, and I stand to be corrected by the minutes, on a six-four vote in favor of that. And the substitute motion is that we reconsider the action that we took at that last meeting. MR. TODD: Second. [End of Tape 1] MR. MAYS: Mr. Patty, I read what was in the portfolio of the petitioner. Are the names in reference to the petition either that are contained with this body's filings or in your office, are those the typed stated names or are those signature petitions from the petitioner? MR. PATTY: I believe that they are signatures. I believe that it's a typed statement that reasonably clearly states the objection with the signatures. I can go get those, but that's my recollection. And you may have the same thing that I have, but [inaudible]. MR. MAYS: And it may be on yours. I know it's in the portfolio where we've had the typed names that were in there. And I guess what I'm getting to, while it may not be law, per se, in terms of how we accept a petition, but that it basically had been standard ruling with both Planning and Zoning and with the former County Commission, and I know even in the old City Council days, and Commissioner Beard and Commissioner Shepard can correct me if I'm wrong, that we basically on petitions, pro or con, accepted those as official record in terms of signature petitions and not in terms of typed name or print name petitions. They were actual signatures to be submitted for the official record, and that's the policy that I believe we've gone by. MR. PATTY: To answer your question, I think anybody can submit anything, but I think a petition without a signature would be sensible. But I believe that these were signed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion first, please? CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd, was reconsideration of the inert landfill item at our last meeting. That was voted six-four in our last meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. BEARD AND MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 3-4-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: The main motion, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: The main motion is to stay firm on the decision of the Commission at the last meeting and instruct the Inspections Department to make sure that all ordinances are complied with. MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Bonner, I wish you to add in there that that motion was made on the advice of the Attorney. CLERK: Okay. The motion was to stay firm on the decision of the Commission at the last meeting, to instruct the Inspections Department to make sure that all ordinances are complied with, on the advice of the attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by casting your vote either for or against, please. MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 4-2-3. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could enter in the record why I abstained, as I abstained at the last meeting. The property owner is represented by my law partner, and I would incorporate my reason for abstention from that meeting and all these votes for the reason for my abstention. MAYOR SCONYERS: There was no action taken, so that means that it stands as it was on the 21st; is that correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. There is no action by this body to change the action that was previously taken, so that means that it stands. And for the information of the objectors, they will have to obtain a permit from EPD, and you may want to make your objections known to EPD so that they can take into consider-ation any concerns that you may have insofar as how it may affect your neighborhood. And you can call the citizens line tomorrow and I'm sure they can give you the name and address to contact. MS. JONES: Excuse me, Mr. Wall. To address that, the EPD only does what the local government has asked for. Also to address that, Mr. LeGette--not to bring in additional information, but Mr. LeGette also addressed the EPD about the status of Mr. Rabun, and to respond to Mr. LeGette's answers, he said our records indicate the history of noncompliance with regards to Mr. Rabun. Most notably, Mr. Rabun has failed to complete an enforced consent order with EPD in 1992--that's because he left the state--on the scrap tire facility that was regulated by Georgia state waste regulations. We do not locally have in place any type of action against anyone or anything that has to do with an inert landfill; so, therefore, the EPD will only do what the local government says to do. If we don't have anything in place, then there's anything he can do that he wants to do. MR. WALL: I'll be glad to discuss that with you at another time, but at this point there's no action by the Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to Item 1, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 10 were approved by the Finance Committee on April 23rd. [1. Motion to approve request for refund of penalty to Castleberry's paid on Map 58-2, Parcel 72.01, in the amount of $5,982.01. 2. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for fifteen (15) Ford Taurus mid-size automobiles at a unit cost of $16,500.00, for a total cost of $247,500.00, for the Sheriff's Department Criminal Investigation Division. 3. Motion to approve increasing CSRA Regional Development Center's 1998 budget $19,410.00. 4. Motion to approve $89,449.00 to purchase new radios from Motorola for Streets and Drains, P.W. Administration, Street Lights, Carpenter Shop, Electrical Shop, Coroner, Trees and Parks, and EMA. This is a state contract purchase. 5. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) compact 4x4 pickup truck at a cost of $16,295.10 for the Utilities Department Production Division. 6. Motion to reject bid made on the Fifth Street surplus property. 7. Motion to approve request from the Clerk of Superior and State Courts for budget adjustment in the amount of $30,000.00, to be taken from Municipal Court Budget or Contingency. 8. Motion to award a purchase order to Yancey Brothers Company for a two-year lease for a Caterpillar Model D7R-WDA Traced Tracked Tractor for the Public Works Department Landfill Division at an annual cost of $82,044.00. 9. Motion to approve a purchase order to Yancey Brothers Company for a two-year lease for a Caterpillar Model D5C-LGP Tracked Tractor for the Public Works Department Landfill Division at an annual cost of $31,958.64. 10. Motion to approve authorization of bid award on Phase II of the Immaculate Conception School Renovations to the low bidder, J&B Construction and Services, Inc., in the amount of $76,272.00 as recommended by Sydney Carter, Planning Consultant.] MR. BRIDGES: Are there any items there that anyone wants to pull? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Bridges, I want to pull Item 1. MR. BRIDGES: Any others? Other than that, I'd make a motion that Items 2 through 10 are--I present that as a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: I second that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, Item Number 3, the increase, is it already budgeted? MR. OLIVER: It's proposed to be taken out of reserves. MR. TODD: Let's pull that one also. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to vote on Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 1: Motion to approve request for refund of penalty to Castleberry's paid on Map 58-2, Parcel 72.01, in the amount of $5,982.01. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the reason I asked this to be pulled is because the information that was presented in the committee is there was a check written in time to pay this but it was lost or stopped payment on or something happened. Anyway. it never cleared. And I don't think we ought to go on the precedence and start waiving penalties based on the fact that the checks were written, not on the fact that the bills were not sent properly. And I'm opposed to this, and I am not going to make a motion to deny it, but I am going to vote against it. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting and cast your ballot for or against. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1. CLERK: Item 3: Motion to approve increasing CSRA Regional Development Center's 1998 budget $19,410.00. MR. OLIVER: With funding to come from the suburban reserves --urban reserves, I'm sorry. MR. BRIDGES: Motion to approve. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if I remember the discussion in committee on this, this was money that was available in the urban budget; was it not? MR. OLIVER: It was not budgeted, but it was an oversight during the budgetary process. And the discussion in the committee was that they should be cut back the same 5% as some other outside agencies, but that they should be restored [inaudible]. They asked for an increase of $24,551, and it was the consensus--it was cut by about 20%, but the reason that that occurred was because the prior year the city and the county budgeted them separately, and when it was combined we didn't do that, so it wasn't an intentional cut of 20%. After discussion by the Finance Committee, the consensus of the Finance Committee was that they should be cut at least the 5% that other outside agencies were, and that's why their request or the request for $24,551 was reduced to $19,410. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot, please, for or against. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 11: Consider request for granting H-5 exemption for 1995 to Mr. Joseph Young. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BEARD: I second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I don't remember the discussion on this. Mr. Williamson, I believe that this particular situation, that you never got a request for the exemption for 1995; is that right? MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct. The only thing we have on record is an application for 1996, and he has had an exemption since that time. MR. KUHLKE: And you only have to make that request once? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct, unless something in the status changes or if you move. If you move to another location, then you have to reapply. MR. TODD: Mr. Williamson, did he have that exemption in 1994--'93/94? MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Todd, I looked on the '94 billing digest and I could not find any property in his name. I'm not saying he didn't have one, it could have been listed some other way, but I didn't see anything. MR. TODD: When was the last time he had the exemption? MR. WILLIAMSON: I couldn't tell you because I couldn't find it. MR. TODD: So he never had an exemption and this is the first time? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, I'm not saying that he never had it, I'm saying that I couldn't find on what property it was because I couldn't find anything in his name. If he were to tell me where the property was, then I could check further. MR. TODD: We went through this debate or discussion in committee, and per my understanding at that time it was a matter of a gap of one year and that one year could have been where he's possibly moved. Now I'm hearing, and I want to make sure I'm getting correct information, is that other than for 1996 you have no record of the gentleman, Mr. Young, ever having a exemption or veteran 100% disabled veteran exemption. MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no record of him having it for 1994 or 1995. I did not look beyond that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to do is postpone this till the next meeting. I'm going to make a motion--or change my motion and make a motion that we postpone it till the next meeting so we know we have all the facts and that we look for a history of the gentleman, Mr. Young, having an exemption. MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Young is here, and I think if he could tell me where the property is that he had prior, I'd be glad to check it. MR. YOUNG: Yes. When I lived in Apple Valley--I don't have the correct address--I had a tax exemption. MR. WILLIAMSON: What year was that; can you tell me? MR. YOUNG: I think it was '78 or '79. If you go back to Nassau Drive in Kingston, from '82 it was an exemption status. MR. WILLIAMSON: You had the veteran's exemption there in '82? MR. YOUNG: Yes. In fact, I brought those documents to show you. I think it was '82. But I supplied those documents to you in reference to that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second Mr. Todd's motion because I certainly don't want to penalize Mr. Young if he just had a mix-up here. I'd like to have all the facts. MR. WILLIAMSON: The only thing I want to remind you about, and I'm not trying to in any way discredit Mr. Young, but even if he had the exemption at another address, if he moves he has to reapply. That's just the law. MR. TODD: Mr. Williamson, is it our law or the state law? MR. WILLIAMSON: That's state law. MR. TODD: And this exemption is based on federal statute; is that my understanding? MR. WILLIAMSON: Not federal, state. MR. TODD: Well, when we say state, most state laws is based on federal statutes. So is there a federal statute that brought about this state law, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: There's a federal statute that sets the dollar amount, as I recall the way the statute is worded. Isn't it tied to a federal dollar amount? MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not sure about that. But, you know, a lot of states don't have any exemptions, and so it couldn't be a nationwide application. MR. WALL: But I think the reference that he has to the federal, I think it is tied to a federal statute dollar amount. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Williamson, couldn't y'all go downstairs and come back up here and tell us yes or no so we can solve it this afternoon? MR. YOUNG: The information was given to this office. Now, whether it got misplaced or not, I don't know. When I purchased the property on 1318 Martinique Drive, the information was brought down here to the Tax Assessor's Office. It was given to one of the clerks, and all the information stated that I was tax exempt. Whether this went on the computer or whatever, I don't know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't we try and find that. Mr. Todd, would you and Mr. Kuhlke--why don't we let the two gentlemen go downstairs and bring us back an answer so we can solve this today; is that all right? MR. TODD: Yes, sir. I'll make a motion that we table, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, cast your ballot, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 12: Motion to approve Health Central Wellness Program Contract and World Gym Fitness Program. MR. H. BRIGHAM: This was approved in the Administrative Services Committee and I move for approval. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, this came up before, I think about two years ago when we were doing this health wellness program. To me, this gets into what do you think a government should do, what should it provide for, what should the taxpayers' funds provide for, and in my mind a exercise program is not something that the taxpayers need to support for a government. If somebody wants to exercise, you know, let them buy a ten-dollar video like I did with the rubber bands and all that. And I understand that they have to participate fully to be fully funded for this, but if we really got--we're venturing something here and we're not sure that it's effective or not. There's no way you can measure it, or no way that I've seen [inaudible] that this is true and beneficial to the employees and the taxpayers. If you really want to help somebody's health, I would think you'd want to pay them to quit smoking, and that is measurable, that is provable, but I don't think an exercise program is something the taxpayers need to be involved in funding. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have some of the same concerns that Mr. Bridges has. I voted for it to bring it out of committee and I'm going to support it today, but next year when you bring it back, if I'm still around, I'm going to let you know now that unless we put some more checks and balances in this thing I'm going to be over there with Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess it's evident that I don't use this program. I probably should. Programs like this is used throughout industry to help keep down costs. Even when the company go out and buy insurance on medical versus being self-insured, certainly it have a direct benefit when you're self-insured. I understand that everybody can't take advantage of it or use it because everybody don't get the same opportunity as far as their work location, you know, or the location of this facility, but I think that for every employee of Augusta-Richmond County it should be mandatory that they go out once every morning and do a minimum amount of exercise whether that is just doing stretching or whether [inaudible]. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, after that hypothetical testimony I couldn't resist the opportunity to give some actual testimony since I am a member of the program, not at government expense, however, Mr. Bridges. I think when the employees look at the city, they look at a corporate employer, and certainly we want to offer attractive benefit packages to our employees, and this is a part of that package. And so I think we should--I think costs are under control right now, certainly we do it on a year-by-year basis, and I think there are certainly benefits. One that I can speak to is that it certainly gives me stamina to go through my profession and it also gives me stamina to sit here on the Commission, so I would ask all of my colleagues to vote for that for the employees today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 13 through 19 were approved by the committee on April 23rd. [13. Motion to approve bid award of residuals management contract at J.B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant to Amsco, Inc. at an estimated annual cost of $943,461.00. 14. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Three for the Crane Creek Channel Improvement Project in the amount of $1,101,000 from funds already set aside in Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase II; deletion of the detention facility from the project scope and the right to let for bid. 15. Motion to approve proposal from Freeman & Vaughn Engineering to provide engineering services for the Kimberly-Clark Industrial Trunk Sewer Phase II at a fee of $106,300.00. 16. Motion to approve Resolution to abandon a portion of Mechanic Street. 17. Motion to approve acceptance of counteroffer of $2,000.00 to settle condemnation regarding Tanglewood/Kingston Drainage Improvement Project. 18. Motion to approve maintenance in lieu of rent agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and DHR Department of Family and Children Services. 19. Motion to approve settlement of condemnation of property of Robert A. Frederick for the sum of $25,000.00.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot, please, for or against. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might, for the record--the machine messes me up when I split them like that, but if you would, for the record, on 17 and 19 I vote present. MR. TODD VOTES NO ON ITEM 13. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS ON ITEMS 17 & 19. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 14, 15, 16 & 18. CLERK: Item 20: Motion to approve the donation of 2.17 acres of wetlands property of Benny B. Langham. MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concern with this is not necessarily taking in the 2.17 acres of wetlands, but I caution you that when you take in this 2.17 acres of wetlands you're opening up a can of worms. We've got a lot of people in Richmond County that own wetlands and own property on wetlands, and I think you're opening up a situation here to where all of them is going to want to come down and give you this property because they can't do anything to it because of the Clean Water Act. And I think you really need to use extreme caution and maybe take a second look at this thing before you start accepting wetlands property. MR. BEARD: You know, I really don't know a whole lot about this. I was just wondering, could I get some explanation from Tom Wiedmeier or one of the people who are dealing with it? MR. MURPHY: This piece of property is from right--let me just tell you where it is. It's in the corner of U.S. 1 and the Gordon Highway. And it's true, he cannot use this. He's donating and we are accepting, hopefully, to accept the land from the creek up to the 100-year floodplain, and that's all. Whether it be wetlands or not has nothing to do with it. What has to do with it is that in times in the future we're probably going to have to do some work on Rocky Creek in that area to prevent flooding on downstream, and I saw the benefit here of the donation of the land where when we do come along with widening and cleaning of Rocky Creek we would not have to pay for the property. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, cast your ballot appropriately, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have one question. Have we had any type audit done of the property to make sure that we're environmentally sound? MR. MURPHY: No. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion then that we postpone until we have that work done, at least by our own staff environmental person. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we were in the middle of taking a vote. You know, this motion--while I understand what Mr. Todd is trying to do, we were in the middle of taking a vote. MR. WALL: Well, let us handle that administratively. Before we record any deed, we'll ensure that there's no problems insofar as environmental concerns. We'll handle it administra-tively and that will resolve the parliamentary issue. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem with that, but we're going to have to address this in the middle of taking a vote and making a motion, so maybe Mr. Brigham have a good point. MR. WALL: Well, parliamentarily, the motion would be out of order because the voting was taking place. And what would have to happen, you would have to take the votes on the motion that was on there, and then if the motion passed, then if you wanted to impose conditions you would have to rescind that motion and make a new motion. MR. KUHLKE: I think I'd like to withdraw my second from Mr. Bridges' motion because I think Mr. Todd--can I do that even though we were in the middle of it? MR. WALL: The motion is on the floor to vote, but I gather that it's not going to pass because a lot of people are not going to vote. CLERK: We had six votes. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion passed. MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS NOT VOTING. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider the action on Mr. Bridges' motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. KUHLKE: And I'd like to say the reason for that, I think Mr. Todd makes a good point. I think certainly property that is donated to us, if it's useful, to some extent we ought to take it. But I think from an environmental standpoint that every piece of property we get, buy or donated, there needs to be something looked into about the environmental part. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Or either we're going to have to do something about accepting it subject to environmental terms [inaudible]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion on Mr. Kuhlke's motion to rescind? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to rescind, cast your vote for or against. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. KUHLKE: I make a motion that we accept the 2.17 acres subject to environmental evaluation of the property. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by the appropriate vote. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Items 21 and 22 were approved by Public Safety on April 23rd. [21. Motion to approve lease agreement between Augusta, Georgia, and WRDW Channel 12 for lease of space on transmission tower in North Augusta, South Carolina. 22. Motion to approve the endorsement of a request from Gold Cross Ambulance/EMS regarding the granting of a specific zone to Gold Cross subject to Region VI EMS Council's approval.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that Items 21 and 22, as approved by Public Safety, be approved by a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: I'll second. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, under the discussion period--and I voted for the motion in committee. We've been here for a little while, but in fairness of the democratic process, there may be some people that want to address both sides of this situation. And I think we need to, in terms of that fairness [inaudible] in reference to Item Number 22. MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Mayor and Commission, my name is Ernie Austin, I'm the area general manager with Rural Metro. And I guess you need my address; it's 1220 West Wheeler Parkway, Suite K. The board has been asked to endorse Gold Cross Ambulance Service for a zone in Augusta-Richmond County. The zoning process of emergency ambulance calls in the state of Georgia is handled by the Department of Human Resources, and each ambulance service in the state can make an application to the local Region VI EMS Council without an endorsement from the local government. It is not a prerequisite to making that application, and we would just simply ask the Board of Commissioners to consider that. This endorsement is not a prerequisite. Gold Cross needs to make application to the Region EMS Council. Augusta-Richmond County and University Hospital have historically opposed the creation of carve-out or niche zones in Augusta-Richmond County. Thank you. MR. SNYDER: Tom Snyder, representing Gold Cross Ambulance. We came before the Public Safety Committee asking for an endorsement. By no means did we state we were going to try to bypass the local Regional VI EMS Council. In fact, that was in the letter to the Public Safety Committee, that that was the process and the route that we would take. What we did ask was for the endorsement of the Board of Commissioners, and then from there we will proceed to the Region VI EMS Council. And historically in Richmond County since 1991 when University Hospital emergency services and Richmond Ambulance Service were in business, the closest available ambulance was sent on calls, and Richmond Ambulance did have its own area where they were closer, and that is in South Richmond. MR. OLIVER: For the record, though, if you got this carve-out, you would not be looking to us for any money for transportation of indigents? MR. SNYDER: No, sir, we would not. MR. BRIDGES: Tom, I've got a question. I'm not on that committee, but my understanding of the discussion of it is basically what the committee was supporting, or what I thought it was supporting, was if your ambulance was closer to an accident scene you got the call, and I thought that's what we were supporting. But I'm concerned about the zoning and what we're doing with the zoning. Are we limiting the areas that ambulances can go in? I guess that's where I'm concerned. MR. SNYDER: It would specify an area where we would be the first called if we were closer. If we did not have ambulances available-- MR. BRIDGES: But only if you were closer? MR. SNYDER: Yes, sir. And I'd like to pass out, if I could, a copy of the letter. MR. TODD: I'm in a unique situation in that I'm dealing with a gentleman that sold me on Rural, and now Rural [inaudible]. But I certainly think that competition is good, and I guess my position would be [inaudible] if it's a local competition, then I would vote in the positive for competition in the service. I think it's good for Rural, I think it's good for the city-county, I think it's good for everybody. Mr. Wall, is there anything in our agreement that would prohibit us from endorsing another ambulance service? MR. WALL: No, sir, there's not. I looked at both the ambulance contract and the supplemental 911 agreement that was entered into with Rural Metro and, in my opinion, there's nothing in either of those documents that would prohibit this endorse-ment. And I will comment that the ultimate decision as to whether or not they are granted a zone lies with the Region VI Council and not this governing body. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, on my endorsement of Gold Cross, I don't want it to be taken as that I don't endorse Rural. I support Rural, I appreciate what Rural has done in Augusta-Richmond County and their growth, etc. I think they've done an outstanding job. At the same time, I want to endorse competition. Thank you. MR. MAYS: I guess my question probably should be to Mr. Wall. Is there anything that we've discussed in committee--and at that time I voted for it and still support the competitive nature of what we're doing. My only question would be is there anything contractually that we have in place that would place the county in terms of any negative impact? MR. WALL: No, sir, I don't think so. I mean, obviously there are going to be some logistics that will have to be worked out because any medical call under the contract that we have will go to Rural Metro. But the agreement specifically provides that we will implement rules and procedure and guidelines that will have to be followed. Will we be called upon to referee, time will tell. Obviously the calls on 911 will go to Rural Metro. Rural Metro will then have to dispatch, if it's zoned for Gold Cross, a Gold Cross ambulance. So to some extent we may be called upon to referee if a dispute comes up in that area. That's the only potential negative impact that I've got, but ultimately we have control over that situation through the contract, I think. MR. MAYS: I guess what I probably more or less was referring to would be monetary. MR. WALL: Monetary, no, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: This may or may not be in order here, but does University Hospital fit into this equation in any way? MR. WALL: Well, a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the county has a contract with Rural Metro, which we do not. Our contract is with University Hospital. University Hospital, in turn, has subcontracted the ambulance service to Rural Metro. So, I mean, is University Hospital involved? Only to the extent that they have a subcontract with Rural Metro. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we would be voting against ourselves. MR. WALL: I don't know how to answer that. Sometimes some Commissioners want to claim University Hospital and sometimes they don't want to claim University Hospital, so I don't know how to answer that. MR. OLIVER: I would note that the current contract with Rural Metro--or University Hospital, I guess, expires in about eighteen months; isn't that correct, Mr. Wall? It was a three-year initial contract? MR. WALL: Well, the contract, I believe, was for five years, but over the first three years--they made the representa-tion in the Commission meeting that at the end of three years the county would no longer be paying the supplement to University Hospital. Mr. Mays, you know, in thinking about your question, I guess there potentially could be a savings because we are making a payment to University Hospital for the cost of the ambulance service, and we would not have any financial obligation to Gold Cross, but I think that would be a negligible difference. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I guess my motion is still on the floor, isn't it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Did I get a second? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you need the motion read, gentlemen? CLERK: The motion was to approve the endorsement request of Gold Cross. MR. KUHLKE: We never did 21. We're doing 21 and 22. CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, please cast your vote for or against. MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go back to 11 now with Mr. Williamson and Mr. Young? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMSON: Gentlemen, Mr. Young and I have gotten a little bit more information together. It appears that he lived in an apartment or a rental house from 1983 to September of 1994, so, of course, had no exemption during that period of time. He bought this property on Martinique in September of '94. He says that he applied for the exemption in '95, and I can only say that we have no indication of that, but the decision is up to you all. MAYOR SCONYERS: When do you have evidence that he filed for the exemption? MR. WILLIAMSON: 1996. MR. YOUNG: But during the time that I purchased the property on 1318 Martinique Drive I had contacted the Tax Assessor's Office. Also, the mortgage company had contact with the Tax Assessor's Office, because in doing the title search they found that somebody had to pay the taxes. So that's where the number came in-between where I came down here, filed my taxes, where I told them--and it was not, say, something that was done by me, I came down here and this was filed after the date. There was in contact with his office in September 17th, 1994. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we go on with the request for the exemption to Mr. Young. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second, to get it on the floor. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, the reason I made that motion was because it appears that there is some discrepancy between what Mr. Young did and the Tax Office, what they received. He's saying he took it in there, the Tax Office is saying that, you know, there's a possibility that it could be an error or they didn't receive it, it's not there now, so I don't think that we would be right in penalizing Mr. Young for that. This man is a veteran, he served our country well, and I don't think he would be down here stating that he did something that he didn't do, and this is why I made my motion for that. [End of Tape 2] MR. SHEPARD: ...if you want a homestead exemption, don't you have to come in and--ordinarily you get a reminder from your closing attorney that you act before April the 30th every year, and this veteran's exemption would be the same, would it not? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, that's correct. MR. SHEPARD: Is that a matter of our policy or is it a matter of state law? MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the application has to comply because you have to sign an oath on the application that you are in the property by a certain date and that you are a legal resident of the state of Georgia. MR. SHEPARD: And that oath was not given to this gentlemen until 1996; is that correct? MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the only one I can find. MR. POWELL: My question is to the gentleman. Do you have a copy of any of this? You don't have a copy of where you've filed this or anything? MR. YOUNG: Yes, I brought a copy down here and gave the clerk downstairs in the Tax Assessor's Office. MR. POWELL: But you maintained no copy for your personal records? MR. YOUNG: It doesn't have a date on it. MR. WILLIAMSON: He is talking about a letter from the VA Affairs Office. The process is when the application is made in our office, we give the applicant a receipt indicating the level of exemption that they are applying for, the name, the property address, etc., and the date that the application was made. MR. POWELL: I know you don't have any record of it on our end, but I'm asking the gentleman does he have any record showing where he has it on his end. MR. YOUNG: I brought a copy--yes, I had a copy. I had a copy. When all that paperwork was handed out to the Commissioners, right, that copy was in there. MR. POWELL: But I'm talking about you didn't keep you a copy at home? MR. YOUNG: Yes. MR. POWELL: Well, do you have that copy with you? MR. YOUNG: No, I do not have a copy with me. MR. BRIDGES: You have a copy of the receipt that they gave you of that? MR. YOUNG: No, sir, I don't have a copy. If that was so, we wouldn't be here, you know, to resolve that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Williamson, is there any kind of homestead exemption applied for in your records? MR. WILLIAMSON: I can find none and have none. MR. TODD: Mr. Williamson, what month did you establish that he [inaudible]? MR. WILLIAMSON: We did not establish that except to the extent that he moved presumably in September of '94, at which time he bought the property on Martinique Drive. He was in the apartment until September of '94. MR. TODD: And the 100% is on his letter--his copy of the letter? MR. WILLIAMSON: The only one that I have that is dated was dated May the 5th of 1995. And the VA, for whatever reason, is not in the habit of dating those letters. I don't know why, but they usually do not. But this one was dated. The application period for that year would have been January 1st to April 1st. MR. MAYS: The only thing I would want to ask Mr. Young [inaudible] is there anything, Mr. Young, that you've got or can get, say, if we would be able postpone here today, and I know how cumbersome some things can be with VA's operations, but is there anything--not so much in reference to whether or not the exemption papers were there on time, but if we were going to consider that, is there anything in reference to your disability that could be obtained letterwise or a statement they would give you during that period that we're talking about that would, say, predate the '95 period? I think that would help us to the point where [inaudible] the papers aren't there, and what I'm trying to basically establish is if you got something or you could get it and we could postpone, even deal with an original disability date in there, that would help us in trying to make that decision but still wouldn't set precedent. MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let me comment on that. I have no doubt in the world that he's eligible for it. I mean, I think the documents were probably on hand probably some years before this came up. This disability occurred during the Vietnam war, and so I have no doubt that the eligibility is there. MAYOR SCONYERS: But the problem is he just didn't come in in time to file; is that the whole problem? MR. WILLIAMSON: That's basically the problem. And yet he says he did. I would like to see something on paper, but I'm not going to argue the point with him. MAYOR SCONYERS: But the letter was dated after the date to file in '95; is that right? MR. WILLIAMSON: The one letter that I have that has a date on it. We have other letters that do not have dates on it that indicates the same information. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I sympathize with this gentleman. I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor. I sympathize with this gentleman, you know, being a veteran and everything, and like I say, because it happened in the war I'm sure he's eligible, but we have to hold everybody to the same standards and there needs to be some documentation that this was applied for. And, you know, I don't see that we've got any other option but to deny, so I'll make that motion. MR. POWELL: I'll second. MR. MAYS: That was the motion that I was afraid of was coming and that was why I asked, you know, in reference to previous disability records in terms of [inaudible]. Would the maker of that motion, say, if we withdrew everything that's basically on the floor, have any difference of feelings, since we're in the discussion period, that if--and you've had Mr. Williamson attest to the fact in terms of personal belief, but I know we can't deal with personal beliefs, we got to deal with what's on record. But I think what would probably help if we're talking about that in terms of [inaudible]. But what I'm looking for is if we took it off and we're dealing with [inaudible] would that make any difference in terms of where that motion is. Because I'm with you on where you can't deal with setting a precedent, but if we've got a situation of a long-term disability and we're dealing with whether or not we're going to waive because there may have been a difference of the date in there but clearly we've got a person that's eligible for it--and we've waived, in our creativity, a lot of questionable things from time to time that probably have been less brainstroking than this one is. But I'm just saying rather than to kill him with that item of maybe doing nothing but of maybe dealing with, you know, the eligibility on his dates there, approving that in absence of the application, because obviously that's not down there in North's office. That ain't going to be found, they done searched written and computer and wherever. But I think even on his own testimony of believing that, would that help us to get that motion off the floor, and the original one probably could be withdrawn, too, and maybe let him bring back even if it was a different letter from the VA. MR. WILLIAMSON: This letter right here is dated something like June of '94 from the VA. Like I said, that just verifies what I said earlier. The eligibility I don't think there's any question about. It's the application is the only question. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, you know, I want to help the gentleman here, too, but my concern is not necessarily the precedence issue, my concern here is that we've been two years now and this is the first I've heard of this thing. I mean, when you got your tax bill you didn't--I'm looking for something for you to help me make a decision here with is what I'm shuffling for. MR. YOUNG: When I received a communication from his office, right, I came down here and spoke with him, and he can verify that. It wasn't so much of where after the mortgage company paid the taxes I ran down here. There was nothing like that at all. This was an ongoing thing between the mortgage company, right, and Mr. Williamson, right, up till now. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, you know, the problem here is a technicality issue. The fellow just didn't come in and apply for it, and the letters clearly states that he's 100% disabled. You know, we're talking about $1,100 here for one year. Once that passed and he got his other tax bill, he came down here and did what he was supposed to do, but he just missed the time frame. I think we ought to help the fellow. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Williamson, it's not that I don't want to help this gentleman, but I want to understand what's ahead of me if I vote for this. How many other people have not filed for homestead exemptions that are eligible for it? If they come down here, how many of them are we going to have to do; do you have any idea? Could it be five thousand? Could it be a hundred? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, I don't think so. I don't know. I mean, it wouldn't be five thousand. MR. KUHLKE: This is not a homestead exemption. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, it is. It is a form of homestead exemption. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But any homestead exemption that hasn't been filed, are we going to be willing to do that for anybody? MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. But in this case we're only talking about one year. He did in fact apply, for whatever reason, the following year and received the exemption and has had it ever since. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is a homestead exemption, Mr. Mayor, but it's a special homestead exemption in the sense that it's for veterans and it's for veterans of all wars that have 100% disability. If you don't have 100% disability, Mr. Mayor, you're not going to qualify for it. I think in a community where we should be veteran-friendly in the sense that probably a good 40% of our residents is veterans, in the sense that we have Fort Gordon in our county and two major VA medical facilities in our county, that we should send a message out that we're going to be veteran-friendly and we want them to choose Augusta-Richmond County as where they retire and where they come to live or where they ETS out of the military. Our growth, Mr. Mayor, comes from SRS, from Plant Vogtle, but an equal share comes from Fort Gordon and the veterans that choose to retire here because they like this community, and we should, in return, Mr. Mayor, be veteran-friendly. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, once again, the issue here is not a veteran. Nobody has disputed--the man was disabled at the time he received his injury regardless of when the Veterans Administration says he did. The issue here is we've got certain standards that you have to go by. And if you can prove with documentation, provide the documentation, I have no problem giving it to him, but the thing is here we don't have the proper documentation. He just simply didn't apply for it that year. We just have to treat him like we do everybody else and what we've normally done in the past. If you don't have the documentation, we can't approve it, and I don't think we need to do that in this situation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion first, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell, was to deny the request. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to deny it, let it be known by casting your ballot accordingly, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, MAYS & TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to the original motion. CLERK: The original motion was to grant the request, by Mr. Lee Beard and seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot appropriately. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. CLERK: Under the Public Services portion of the agenda, Items 23 through 25 were approved by the committee on April 23rd. [23. Motion to approve LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 4 for professional services during schematic design of Terminal Building Renovation Project. 24. Motion to approve request by Ruth E. Walden for a business license (flea market) to be used in connection with "DA" Flea Market located at 3321 and 3323 Peach Orchard Road. 25. Motion to approve the letting of bids with alternates for the South Augusta Regional Recreation Park.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, those items were discussed in the Public Services Committee, and I move that Items 23 through 25 be approved as a consent agenda unless somebody needs to pull anything. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Let's pull 24. MAYOR SCONYERS: So 23 and 25 is going to be in Mr. Mays' motion. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 24: Motion to approve request by Ruth E. Walden for a business license (flea market) to be used in connection with "DA" Flea Market located at 3321 and 3323 Peach Orchard Road. MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Certainly [inaudible] so what are we close to? MS. WALDEN: It's right beside the Wooden Barrel. MR. TODD: So there is similar zoning in that area, but not yard stuff and etc. SPEAKER: It's zoned B-2. MR. POWELL: Mr. Todd, to answer some of your questions, I don't know if [inaudible] has received any calls, but I haven't received any negative calls about this. MR. TODD: We have in our ordinance that they can't [inaudible] tables out, and we understand all that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by casting your ballot appropriately. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 26: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held April 21, 1998. MR. BEARD: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by casting your ballot appropriately. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 27: Commissioner Jerry Brigham, Seventh District, offered the following names as nominations for appoint-ment to the various boards and commissions: Animal Control, Julie Tillery; Coliseum Authority, Austin Rhodes; Historic Preservation, C.G. "Sonny" Pittman, Jr.; Housing & Neighborhood, K. Glenn Watson; Human Relation Commission, James Murray, Jr.; Library Board, Sharon Bolgla; Planning Commission, J. Randall Hall; Public Facilities, R. Thomas Fuller; Riverfront Review Board, Charles B. Lanier, Jr.; Tree Commission, Roger Davis; Zoning Appeals Board, R. DeWitt Dent. Commissioner Ulmer Bridges offered in nomination for appointment to the Library Board Ms. Karen Winburn, on the addendum agenda. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. I have one question, I guess for Mr. Bridges. Ms. Winburn, I know she's a fine appointee. She at one time put in an application to go to work for Richmond County public libraries. She wasn't hired [inaudible]. She is not an employee? MR. BRIDGES: She's not an employee of the county is my understanding. MR. TODD: I want to go on record as supporting this appointee. I know David, her husband, I worked with him at Vogtle for several years [inaudible] a good appointee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by casting your ballot appropriately, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to reflect that I vote yes on all appointments except the Coliseum Authority appointment, and I vote no on Austin Rhodes. MR. POWELL VOTES NO ON COLISEUM AUTHORITY APPOINTMENT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MOTION CARRIES 9-0 ON REMAINDER OF APPOINTMENTS. CLERK: Item 28: Motion to approve expenditure from "Commission Other" account not to exceed $50.00 for Mayor's Prayer Breakfast. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I could talk forever against spending money out of the Commission Other, but we'll pray for you, you know. MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a lot of it. All right, all in favor of the motion, let it be known by casting your ballot appropriately, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 29: Motion to rezone property on Donald Green to B-1 as settlement of Donald Green vs. Richmond County. MR. WALL: This is one that has been in litigation. I met with the homeowners association approximately two weeks ago, and the stipulations that are in the agenda item would be a part of it; that is, that there would be a 45-foot rear buffer which would be left in its present condition until development, and thereafter an improved landscape consisting of a five-foot chain link fence on the property line and conforming to Code Section 8-4- 11(e)(8) of the Richmond County Code, a no-access restriction to White Pines Court, and a restriction on outdoor lighting to twenty feet. And this meets with the homeowners association and with Mr. Green's attorney. Recommend approval of that. 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 casting your ballot appropriately. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. KUHLKE: Move we adjourn. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham. This meeting is adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:40 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 the Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on May 5, 1998. _________________________ Clerk of Commission