Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS July 21, 1998 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, July 21, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Beard, Mayor Pro Tem. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HICKS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request on a correction: as listed on Item 43, the wording "the conceptual design of the Terminal Building Additions and Renovations at the Bush Field Airport"; to delete Item 61; and additions: a motion to approve acquisition of necessary easement at 2760 Wicklow Drive for Rae's Creek sanitary sewer trunk line in the amount of $34,570.00, and to discuss the Grand Jury Report. MR. TODD: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard is out for the whole-- CLERK: On vacation. MAYOR SCONYERS: --meeting and Mr. Handy is going to be a little late; is that correct? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Before we get started, we've got a gentleman that's been--sometimes we tend to forget about the people that make our government as great as it is. Mr. Edenfield--why don't you stand up, Mr. Edenfield, please. This gentleman is one of the most dedicated servants that the government has ever had. In fact, a good while back he came to my office one day and said, "You know, Mr. Mayor, I believe we've got a bunch of meters that aren't being properly read." So I said, "Well, Mr. Edenfield, why don't you go out on your own and scout around and see what you can find." And the savings thus far he's already found is like $82,000. Is that correct, Mr. Edenfield? MR. EDENFIELD: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: Still digging; right? MR. EDENFIELD: Still digging, but it's gone up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That just shows you the dedication that our governmental employees have. And I know sometimes we cannot say thank you, but I want to personally, from all of us up here today, say thank you for a job well done for the dedication that you have for the good public service. Thank you, Mr. Edenfield. MR. EDENFIELD: Mr. Mayor, just doing my job I have done for 42 years. Just trying to earn my pay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, you've well earned it, that's for sure. Thank you very much. On another lighter note, gentlemen, today if we could kind of keep--I know last week, and I guess that was my fault, so I'll take the blame, I let us kind of ramble a little bit. But, you know, we have an important day today. It's election day, and the Board of Elections asked that we vacate the room as early as possible so they can have the election returns up here tonight, so I'll try to keep us on track today. Ms. Bonner, Item 1, please, ma'am. CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a presentation from the South-eastern Firefighters Burn Foundation to the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. CHIEF FEW: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I want to make a presentation to the Southeastern Firefighters Burn Foundation. You gave me the authority months back to go out and support the Southeastern Burn Foundation, and this morning the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department would like to present to the CEO of the Southeastern Firefighters Burn Foundation, Mr. Jerry Newman, $21,632. And we appreciate that, and I hope--I know that this will be beneficial to the Burn Foundation. We get people from all over the southeast coming to Augusta to the Burn Center, and we felt like we firefighters wanted to do something to help them out, and we are very appreciative that we had an opportunity to help them in this. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, Chief, I appreciate it. On behalf of the Board of Directors for the Foundation and for many, many burn victims and their families we accept this. There was a lot of hard work that went into it, and especially from the firefighters that stood out in the street and collected this money. Our thanks go out to you guys, you did all the work. It was long, hard, and hot out there, and we certainly appreciate it. And for the burn victims, it will go a long way in helping our Foundation help the burn victims. When Chief Few and I first discussed this project, we talked about doing something for the community. The Burn Foundation is instrumental in fire prevention. That is the name of the game. What we would like to do today as a token of good will to this community and to the Fire Department is to present a check to the Fire Department for the purchase of a portable fire safety house to be used for fire prevention by the Fire Department, and this check is 20% of the amount that the firefighters raised, $4,326,52. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you Commissioners. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Next item, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, if I could, please, as an oversight on my part, Item 29, if I can ask Mr. Todd and Mr. Shepard to accept Item 29 as a deletion on the agenda. MR. OLIVER: The reason for that is that they've decided to use another date. At this point they don't know what the date is for the event they're trying to hold. MAYOR SCONYERS: That'll be okay? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. The Planning Commission offers as a consent agenda Items 1 through 7. [1. Z-98-84 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition, 'The area to be rezoned be limited to the western half of the property', a petition from Robert Demello, on behalf of CDR Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Bullock Avenue, 400.0 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Craven Street and Bullock Avenue (3509 Bullock Avenue). 2. Z-98-86 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Katie Doyle, on behalf of Metropolitan Foods, requesting a change of zoning from Zone HI (Heavy Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the centerline of Skyview Drive extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway (1234 Gordon Highway). 3. Z-98-87 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Larry Ennis, on behalf of Ellen W. Clark, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Fourth Street, 175.0 feet southwest of the southeast corner of the intersection of Walton Way and Fourth Street. 4. Z-98-88 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Shirley Circo, on behalf of the Estate of Veniway Hartley, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Crescent Drive, 467 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Crescent Drive (1523 Crescent Drive). 5. Z-98-89 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Walton Way Hospitality Associates, on behalf of Woodlawn Baptist Church, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Walton Way, 175 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Chafee Avenue and Walton Way (1556 Walton Way). 6. ZA-R-102 - An amendment to Section 3 of the Comprehen-sive Zoning Ordinance thereby increasing the special setback from forty-five (45) to seventy (70) feet on the portion of Wrights-boro Road from Barton Chapel Road to the Richmond/Columbia County Line. 7. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Road Naming & Address Ordinance.] [NO OBJECTORS PRESENT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Does anybody want any pulled? MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor, but I want the record to show that I voted no on Item 1. I think that it's not consistent with what we should be doing in zoning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that so noted, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might, in terms of Item 7, I may have missed that on the ordinance maybe in a previous--in another meeting or the regular meeting. Is a second on this one, Jim, on the street naming or--and I'm sure this is probably the same, but I know we had--we went through kind of reinventing the wheel when we were putting this together and I just wanted to know if anything has changed from that. Where are we at with this, George, on the street naming? MR. PATTY: Okay. This is an ordinance that basically formalizes what we've been doing for years, plus it does add a provision that within 30 days-- and I realize it'll, you know, be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, but it does require within 30 days that a street number is posted on every property in a proper location, either on a house or on the curb, somewhere where emergency vehicles or, you know, anybody else trying to find them can identify the property. That's a huge problem in Richmond County and I'm sure you're aware of it. It is the first reading, and--you know, we send our zoning cases over as ordinances, and they're only written once, so I'm not sure what the procedure is on it. MR. WALL: I think this would require two readings. MR. PATTY: So it would be the first reading. MR. BRIDGES: Move for approval. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO ON ITEM 1. MOTION CARRIES 7-1 - ITEM 1. MOTION CARRIES 8-0 - ITEMS 2-7. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 8 through 25 were approved by the committee on July 13th. [8. Motion to deny request for refund of penalty by Toys "R" Us. (Tax Account #1054303 in the amount of $2,055.27). 9. Motion to approve the transfer of property located on 1116 11th Street to Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 10. Motion to approve the award of purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for two (2) compact extended cab pickup trucks at a cost of $29,886.20 for the Utilities Department Water Production Division. 11. Motion to approve the award of purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for four (4) compact pickup trucks at a cost of $61,187.12 for the Utilities Department Customer Service Division. 12. Motion to approve the award of purchase order to LJL Truck Center for one (1) 4,000 gallon water truck at a cost of $126,175.00 for the Public Works Department Solid Waste Division. 13. Motion to approve the award of purchase order to Rayman Pontiac/GMC for four (4) four-door 4x4 full-size utility vehicles for the Fire Department at a total cost of $137,650.04 and remove four (4) Crown Victorias from Fire Department fleet. 14. Motion to approve $9,885 to install new computers in Clerk of Commission's suite and new printer in Administrator's suite. 15. Motion to approve the award of purchase order to NAFECO for two (2) flat-bottom rescue boats at a cost of $26,976.00 for the Emergency Management Department. 16. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1996 and 1997 in the amount of $258.60 for overpayment on Map 140, Parcel 429. 17. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1996 in the amount of $173.45 for overpayment on Map 43-1, Parcel 23. 18. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1997 in the amount of $173.45 for overpayment on Map 37-3, Parcel 216.03. 19. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1996 in the amount of $1,339.22 for overpayment on Map 69, Parcel 5.09 #1. 20. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1997 in the amount of $939.16 for overpayment on Map 321, Parcel 13. 21. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1996 and 1997 in the amount of $384.11 for overpayment on Map 272, Parcel 3. 22. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1995, 1996 and 1997 in the amount of $969.60 for overpayment on Map 228, Parcel 28.02. 23. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1995, 1996 and 1997 in the amount of $520.35 for overpayment on Map 33-4, Parcel 73. 24. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1995, 1996 and 1997 in the amount of $520.35 for overpayment on Map 26-3, Parcel 19. 25. Motion to approve request for refund of prior year taxes for 1996 in the amount of $609 for overpayment on account 2048222.] MR. BRIDGES: The Finance Committee offers Items 8 through 25 as a consent agenda. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 6-1 - Item 19 [MR. KUHLKE ABSTAINS] [MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 7-1 - Items 8-18 AND 20-25 [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 26: Motion to approve a request for funding in the amount of $5,000 for the Art Factory. MR. OLIVER: If funded, this would need to come from either Commission Other or from General Fund Contingency because it's not a budgeted item. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve if funds available from Community Block Grant. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Is somebody here from the Art Factory? Can you tell me a little bit about it, please? MS. JONES: I'm Betty Jones, I'm the Executive Director for the Art Factory. We are petitioning Augusta-Richmond County for the Art Factory. We've been in existence since about 1995. We are a community art school and we provide art instruction for children from a very diverse population. Because we are housed in downtown Augusta, we do serve students from all over. We draw kids from Columbia County, Aiken County, as far away as Lincoln County, and also the City of Augusta. We use art as a vehicle to strengthen and to improve children's behavior, their educational levels, and provide them with social skills. We are petitioning Augusta-Richmond County at this time because our program has had tremendous growth expansion and it has put a strain on our budget, so that is why this petition is before you at this time. We are at present experiencing a real growth spurt and we just need some relief. We not only serve inner-city kids, but as I said, our program is very diverse and we draw populations from all over. And one of the things that make our program unique is that we have seen what diverse populations coming together can do and what they can accomplish by learning from each other and really working on social skills and educational skills. MR. KUHLKE: Could you give me some idea of the participa-tion that you have? What is the percentage that comes from Richmond County, Columbia, Lincoln, other counties and so forth? MS. JONES: We have approximately 30% coming from Richmond County, approximately 10% coming from Columbia County, and then about 10% coming from Burke, Lincoln--the surrounding counties. MR. KUHLKE: Have you made any requests to these other counties for funding? MS. JONES: We are primarily--right now we are--we are requesting funds from anywhere that we can, you know, get a grant out or anywhere we know of available funds, we are making requests to try to get some relief. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Jones, let's go back to what you told the committee last week. You told us at that time the majority of students came from the Harrisburg area, if I'm not mistaken. MS. JONES: For our summer camp program that we're doing right now. We're in a summer camp program, and we have--well, it's not the majority of the students, but we have a lot of our programs that are addressing the children in that area. Not just one program, but a lot of our programs are directed to children in that area. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And the other thing you told us, I believe, is that most of your students in this program was on scholarship. MS. JONES: Over half of our population is coming in on scholarship because we do--we have a variety of things that we offer, and a lot of children--as far as art education, art is not one of the things that most families right now are budgeting for, and a lot of children are not receiving this through the school systems. There are other programs out there, but for whatever reasons they are not tapping those services out there. MR. TODD: I guess my question, Mr. Mayor, is much of these students low to moderate income? MS. JONES: Right. MR. TODD: And if most of them are low to moderate income, and if they're mostly from Harrisburg, then certainly it would qualify for Community Block Grant if there is funds available and if Community Block Grant funds can be used for the arts. I don't have the answer to that, Mr. Mack have it, but certainly I think that's the way we should go. This government shouldn't be in the business of funding arts programs, whether it's this organization or any other organization, from the General Fund or from reserves. And, you know, I got beat up pretty good on this issue back when we were doing the budget with the Greater Augusta Arts Council, but that's my position and my philosophy on it. And hopefully we can fund it where there is funds available and there is federal funds, and when we're dealing with groups from outside of this community they will qualify for those federal funds also. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mack, did you have something you wanted to say? MR. MACK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Of course, we want to help the Art Factory in trying to achieve some of the things that they are trying to achieve over in Harrisburg, and what I would do is look at specifically what the Art Factory intends to use those funds for to make sure that we comply. Mr. Todd is correct for the most part, and if it's 51% and if it's in a low to moderate income community, for the most part it does, but there are still some other things that we need to check out before we enter into an agreement there. But we will try to make it work. MR. OLIVER: And I would suggest that the motion be subject to program eligibility and funding. MR. TODD: I'll accept that amendment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that so noted, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 27: Consider approval of a proposal for Pension Plan Investment Services. No recommendation from the Finance Committee. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we keep the investment with the entity that we have, Robinson-Humphrey. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, first I'd like to commend the Robinson-Humphrey group for the tremendous job that they've done on the pension plans. I'd feel remiss if I didn't bring this up, that we have a proposal from J.C. Bradford Company to provide the same financial managers as Robinson-Humphrey at a savings of roughly $180,000 a year. That money would go back into the pension plan. If I were in Robinson-Humphrey's place I wouldn't make an attempt to adjust my fees unless I was challenged by somebody else, and that's exactly what happened. To me, I think you penalize people that want to do business with this government that come in and make a legitimate presentation and then we allow the other people to come in and adjust their fee structure the way Robinson-Humphrey did. It's to the benefit of the plan and I can appreciate that. In my personal opinion, I feel like competition within this government on services that are provided to us is healthy, wholesome, and that we need to consider that. So I would like to offer a substitute motion that we consider the proposal of J.C. Bradford and that we consider looking at splitting the plan up. We have Robinson-Humphrey, we have the First Union, and J.C. Bradford, and the only people that I know of that have made a proposal at a reasonable savings to this county, that we consider them for a portion of the pension fund plan. MR. ATKINS: Mr. Mayor, may I speak on that a minute? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, go ahead. We didn't have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? CLERK: No, sir. MR. ATKINS: I'll have to disagree a little bit with Mr. Kuhlke. You can always get money managers come in and cut your cost, but whether they're going to perform the same duties that Mr. May has performed over a number of years. He's met the actuary assumption and made more than enough money to pay the pensions and also build up a good surplus. I think we've got about $70 million. That doesn't happen by letting two or three people handle it. And I'm speaking from experience. I serve on a board that's got four money managers and all of them don't make money. And a lot of times you can get cheaper prices and people will tell you what they're going to do, but if the man has got a good track record, he's local, why in the world do you want to consider somebody else? And $187,000 is a lot of money, but one investment can cost you two or three hundred thousand dollars. Speaking on behalf of the members of the '49 Pension, I just want to ask you to seriously consider keeping this with Mr. May and not split it up because you're not going to make any more money than you're making now, I don't care who gets it. He's doing a good job and you ought to let him have it and let him keep it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 28: Motion to approve $25,000 economic development loan for Ms. Beaurine Wilkins, d/b/a Queen's Limousine and Transportation Service, Inc., as recommended by the Augusta-Richmond County Economic Development Loan Review Committee. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 28 be approved by the full board. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be are we good on collateral and are we meeting all the criteria as far as regulatory criteria and this is not going to be one where we may have to take back if it's not paid if we pay it? MR. MACK: Yes, it does. And I know that this question is going to come up again, and I don't mean to sound arrogant about this, but if I present something to you it's in order and we have sufficient collateral and so forth to cover it. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mack. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Engineering Services consent agenda, Items 30 through 38. [30. Motion to approve execution of Annual Air Sampling Contract between Augusta and the Environmental Protection Division for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 with an annual compensation fee of $9,500 to the local government. 31. Motion to approve award of contract to Clayton Environmental Company for removal of underground fuel storage tanks at various locations throughout the County in the amount of $86,687 and authorize the execution of contracts. 32. Motion to approve revised State-Aid County Contract Priority List dated July 21, 1998. 33. Motion to approve Change Order in the amount of $11,219.50 to the contract for renovations to the Immaculate Conception School. 34. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $44,729.33 for Wyatt Construction Company regarding the Water System Interconnection Project. 35. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $980.00 for W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. regarding additional engineering services requested for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Extension Project along Lovers Lane. 36. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,390.00 for Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. regarding additional engineering services required for the Augusta State Water Tank Removal Project. 37. Motion to approve the purchase and installation of liquid lime system from Burnett Lime Company for Highland Avenue Water Plant at a cost of $175,300. (Sole source bid) 38. Motion to approve authorization of condemnation of 0.102 acres of right-of-way, Parcel 70 of the Wheeler Road Project - STP-7011(3), owned by Frederick C. House, M.D. (also one outdoor advertising sign).] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 39: Motion to approve appointment of Major Richard Weaver, Richmond County Sheriff's Department, to the Local Emergency Planning Committee to fulfill the unexpired term of Captain P.A. Williams, Sheriff's Department. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 40: Motion to approve contract with Atlanta Health Systems to provide a Wellness Program for the firefighters of Augusta- Richmond County Fire Department at a cost of $22,450.00. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: How does this differ from the wellness program that we have for the county government, and are we going to have any savings by opting out the firefighters for that plan? CHIEF FEW: This plan is in conjunction with the city's plan. What happens, it goes a little bit indepth into a good physical fitness program so that we can make sure that our firefighters meet the physical demands of the job. I can tell you that although the one that we have is voluntary, this is one that will actually look at every individual in the department, and then those people who are in a high risk area, we will let them know and then put them on a good plan so that they can get in good physical condition to do the job. So it is in conjunction with the plan that we do have in place now. They use the same facilities and all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I need the Chief to sell me on the need to spend $22,000. Sell me on the need to spend the money outside of what we already have, and what's the benefits going to be? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Todd, Chief Few and Mr. Etheridge and I have talked about this at length. As you're well aware, the Chief has implemented standards for the Fire Department. Some of the individuals within the Fire Department are going to be challenged in meeting those standards, and what we're trying to do with this, in concert with the fitness program, is to give them every possible avenue to try to achieve those standards. Because obviously if we don't have firefighters that are in a position to, you know, perform those jobs successfully it doesn't meet the needs of Augusta-Richmond County. And what this program does is provide wellness training where they're going to go around and do assessments of individuals, tell them what they need to do or help--tell them what they need to do, train fire personnel as it relates to, you know, how they meet those standards, also as it relates to nutrition and things like that. I mean, you don't want, for example, a firefighter that is overweight and can't climb a standard in the requisite period of time, so what we're trying to do is to head off problems and be proactive in trying to assist these employees to meet those standards, and this is a companion to help do that. Can employees do it on their own? Yes, they could. But we believe that at this point there's some motivation needed and some assistance needed to better permit them to do that. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, in 1981 I was in the Georgia National Guard. And they told me, you know, to push away from the table, and I didn't, and they put me on a fat boy program. And when I couldn't pass the time as far as running the track, the mile, they told me to look for somewhere else to serve, that the Georgia National Guard no longer needed me, and at the end of 1981 I was out of the National Guard. And I think that maybe that's the message that we need to send to our firefighters, I don't know. If it's scales that they need, you know, I can understand it, and training, but training as far as, you know, meeting the standards as far as physical standards go, I think that's something they need to accomplish on their own. We probably should provide the facilities, but I'm not sure that we need to hire a consultant or anything else other than that. CHIEF FEW: Commissioner, I want to say I understand that fully, but let me just say that for a number of years these firefighters operated in this town, and for me to come in and then I put standards in place and then tell them when you get to the standards you got to hit the door, it's a very tough one. I'm sensitive to a lot of--I want to give them every opportunity to stay in this profession, and I think it would be incumbent for me to try to make every effort to try to make sure that I ensure that they had a fair shake at that particular job. Eating habits and not staying in physical condition, that's something that happened over the years. This is something new to them, and for me to come in and put some tough standards in place--and I'm going to tell you they really understand that. They really know exactly what's going to happen. I want to give them that opportunity to at least get on a program for the first time and now they'll know that they got to stay in good physical condition. I feel a little bit compelled to do this because it is the first time, and I do have some pretty tough standards, but it's standards that you've got to have in place to have a good, effective fire department. MR. OLIVER: And funds are available within the Fire Department budget. This is funded out of the Fire Department's budget. CHIEF FEW: So I'm just asking you, you know, at least for the first time because we have changed so much in the department now, that we at least give them an opportunity. I think it's going to be a tough decision when I come in one day and say that we no longer need your services. You're going to get the phone calls as well as I am, and you know that, you know, and what I'm trying to do, at least we have something behind them saying that we did everything humanly possible to retain every member of this organization. This is a very proactive one, I have to say, because there are a lot of departments in the country that are not doing this and there are a lot of them that are. This is a program that I've implemented before, and I know it works because I lost weight on it, and I'm going to lose some more weight. I would try to say that I stopped the elevator today just to make everybody see how physically demanding it is just to walk up the stairs. Because I can tell you that when that fire alarm system comes in and it goes off, every elevator in this city just about goes down to the first floor, and you can see--you know, take some firefighters and put hoses on their back and then air packs on their back and in full uniform and tell them to come up the stairs and put a fire out up on this eighth floor. If you're not in good physical condition you're not going to make it. But there are a number of people who are trying very hard to reduce their weight now. They really don't know how to do it, and I think it's incumbent for me to try to at least show them and give them an opportunity [inaudible]. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Chief, I'm looking for answers more than anything else. Could we get the same results by requiring mandatory participation in a voluntary program by the Fire Department personnel rather than going out and getting a separate contract? CHIEF FEW: No. We don't have anybody with that expertise. I've taken some films from different--from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and I do have one person that when we go through the program will be going through the program with them so they can make sure that from now on they can teach this program to all our individuals so it won't be an ongoing process that we're going to be using with anybody like Health Systems. So it's a one- time deal, you know, and then I'm going to try to teach somebody within the department to keep the program going. MR. KUHLKE: Did you mention Health Central? It just came to my mind. They don't have the capability of doing what you want? CHIEF FEW: I asked them to submit one. She told me that they just didn't have the personnel to do that right now and she just couldn't do it. But this is in conjunction with them, Health Central. MR. SHEPARD: Is this a one-year contract, Chief? CHIEF FEW: Yes, it's a one-shot deal. MR. OLIVER: And we don't envision that it's going to be extended. The purpose of this is to do a knowledge transfer so that we have that ability inhouse when we get done and we have mentors, and Mr. Few and I have talked about that. CHIEF FEW: And I can tell you this, even with them putting the process together, even the people at Health Central got some things out of it, too. MR. SHEPARD: So the firefighters would be in both this wellness program and the Health Central program? CHIEF FEW: No, it's one combined program. Health Central is a voluntary--you volunteer, you go down there, and you work out. That's not enough motivation for them. Let me just say this, you wouldn't believe how many people are ashamed to go in the gym. There are people who are ashamed to go in the gym by themselves. You may not think it's a problem, but it is to somebody else who's never worked out before. This gives them a chance to work out together as a group as well as, you know, on their own. This is a commitment they're going to have to make on their own, too, on their off time. They have to, you know, go on their off time also, so it's not something that we're just doing, you know, during their work. Even on their off times they've got to make a commitment to go. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I believe in giving everybody the tools they need to do their job, and I don't think the Chief would be up here asking us for this if he didn't need it, so I move that we approve it. MAYOR SCONYERS: We already have a motion. MR. POWELL: Oh, we did have a motion? I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Item 41: Motion to approve lease for Marshal's Substation for approximately 2,578 SF at Regency Mall. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. OLIVER: The one thing I want to point out is that the Marshal's Department, through the efforts of the state legislative delegation, got a grant for $15,000 for leasehold improvements and that the limit of the leasehold improvements will be $15,000. That's all the money that's available, so--and I've been assured that that $15,000 will meet their needs for remodeling this space. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, is this annually renewable after the--and it's five years with-- MR. OLIVER: There's a 3% escalator on the lease, and it's a one year with options to renew for four years after that at 3% escalation. SPEAKER: If I may, the lease was drawn up by the County Attorney. We didn't accept their lease, we had it drawn up. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is $15,000 considered major capital improvements for this amount of space; and if so, then don't you want a guarantee on ten years or whatever with the escalator of 3%? MR. WALL: The renewal is at our option. From our standpoint, the concern was that in the event that we vacated early whether or not we would get the refund back, and they've agreed to that and that's part of the lease agreement. MR. OLIVER: The other thing I would point out is obviously it's in the best interest of Regency Mall to have law enforcement in that mall because that offers some element of protection to patrons and things like that to see officers coming in and out. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, gentlemen. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, before you move forward I'd like to instruct the Clerk to show that I abstained on Item 19. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, did you get that? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, gentlemen. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Kuhlke, would you like to give your reasons for abstaining? MR. KUHLKE: Because my name is in there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 42, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Item 42: Motion to approve office, secretarial support, court reporter, and insurance benefits for Judge Bernard Mulherin. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. OLIVER: I want to make one point on this since the committee didn't actually do this, that the cost of this is about $100,000 a year which will have to be budgeted in the 1999 budget. But the financial impact is $100,000 a year. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, cast your vote accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 42A: Motion to approve application for Grant to fund mobile data terminals in the Sheriff's Department. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Sheriff, do you really want this? SHERIFF WEBSTER: Yes, sir. I was kind of scared to get up because every time I mention a grant I get the shakes, so I'm a little bit careful about getting up. I brought you a light one now. I've got some heavy ones in the background that'll come up at a later date, but this is a real light one right here. And I would appreciate y'all looking at this because the federal funding would be right at $400,000 and the local funding would be a little less than $40,000, and we've taken $48,000 out of the drug funds. And this is a very important item because this is a data terminal that will be going into the automobiles, and it would be furnished to ten automobiles and they can get everything that they need out of this computer system without having to call 911 to get this information. It's the upcoming thing in law enforcement and we need it, and we hope that you approve this today. And I'm not going to bring back the big guns for a while, I promise you. MR. OLIVER: The only thing I would add to that motion is with the local match of $39,553 coming out of capital contingency. MR. SHEPARD: I accept the amendment as recommended by the Administrator. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you, Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: What is the total amount? SHERIFF WEBSTER: The total amount would be $483,537. MR. HANDY: And you're giving some drug money to go toward that? SHERIFF WEBSTER: $48,456 will be coming out of the drug funds and it would be $39,553 that the county would have to come up with. It's a two-year grant. And the money don't have to come up, I believe, until January. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: The Public Services Committee consent agenda will be Items 43 through 53. [43. Motion to approve acceptance of LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 5 for program management services during conceptual design of the Terminal Building Additions and Renovations, Curb Road Improvements, Long-Term Parking Lot Expansion, Future Rental Car Parking Lot Rehabilitation and Terminal Area Water Line Improvements at a cost not to exceed $20,000. 44. Motion to approve purchase from Burke Truck & Tractor of two (2) Wing Mowers in the amount of $17,381.50 (Bid Item #98- 097). 45. Motion to approve allocation of $5,000 ($2,500 each) to Masters City Little League and West Augusta Little League to offset utility costs for summer baseball leagues. 45A. Motion to authorize getting an appraisal on property at 2136 Grand Boulevard adjacent to Savannah Place Park. 46. Motion to approve a work study agreement (renewal) with Augusta State University for employment at Newman Tennis Center. 47. Motion to approve a request by Geraldine Slappy for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Zanzibar Jazz Night Club located at 1505-A North Leg Road. There will be a dance hall. 48. Motion to approve acceptance of the surrender of the business license used in connection with Las Vegas Gameroom & Southgate Lounge located at 1631 Gordon Highway. 49. Motion to approve contract with firm of W.K. Dickson, Inc. to provide engineering services for a state project to seal cracks in Runway 11-29 not to exceed $11,800. 50. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit Grant Applications to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for capital, planning and operating funds. 51. Motion to approve initiation of the actions necessary to transfer the ownership of the Hydrogen Bus from APT to the DOE Nevada office. 52. Motion to approve negotiation of professional services for architecture and engineering to Johnson, Laschober & Associates for Eastview Park Improvements. 53. Motion to approve and award purchase order to Hill Company, Inc. for $215,000.00 to purchase dehumidification system for Augusta Aquatics Center (best bid).] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve Items 43 through 53 as a consent agenda, with the changes noted in 43 that we approved at the start of the meeting, and that we do as well the alcohol on consent and check the audience for any objections on the alcohol. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to anything? [NO OBJECTORS PRESENT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 54: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held July 7, 1998. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we take the rest of them as a consent? [55. Motion to ratify letter regarding approval of the bid for the installation of a complete irrigation system for the Augusta Golf Course Improvement Plan to Blair Construction in an amount not to exceed $435,000. 56. Motion to ratify letter regarding approval of acceptance of grant for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Early Intervention Program with no matching funds from ARC and purchase order to NAFECO for two (2) flat- bottom rescue boats at a cost of $26,976.00 for Emergency Management Department. 57. Motion to approve Resolution regarding the adoption of the 1998-2003 Five Year Solid Waste Management Plan Short Term Work Program. 58. Motion to approve appointment of Greg Hodges to the General Aviation Commission (Daniel Field) (5th District Appointment).] MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. OLIVER: On the Solid Waste Management Plan, I'd make that subject to the Administrator and the Attorney's approval, because I have not seen that and I noted that it's just the letter to Mr. Mont. MR. KUHLKE: I'll amend my motion to do that. MR. TODD: And I'd like to also note, Mr. Mayor, that we did have hearings on that. MR. OLIVER: I believe that's fine, I just haven't seen the final document and I want to make sure it conforms to what was approved. SPEAKER: Mr. Oliver, we just got it back from DCA--or they've approved it and the Commission just needs to approve it, but a copy will be down to you tomorrow. MR. OLIVER: Thank you. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 59: Motion to approve Resolution establishing procedures for appointment of members to the Downtown Development Authority. MR. WALL: This is my error. This is the procedure that y'all followed last time, but we actually did not take a vote on the resolution, and Lena reminded me of that and I asked that it go back on to get the resolution approved. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: I understand also we're going to need to make a reappointment or-- CLERK: We haven't gotten anything yet. MR. TODD: No further discussion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 60 was an error because we waived the second reading at the last meeting. Item 61 was deleted, and Item 62 is a motion-- MR. WALL: No, this is different properties. CLERK: Oh, this is different property? MR. OLIVER: Yeah, different property. We're getting active on demolition. MR. WALL: Need to approve it and waive the second reading. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Item 60, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to make everyone aware that this 2019 Boykin Place is within the floodplains of the Newberry Baptist Church on Grand Boulevard, so this is an opportunity for us to do something for the Newberry Baptist Church once we tear this house down, and just want to keep in mind that this is what we tried to accomplish, helping the church as well as taking care of the dilapidated houses all in one thing. Am I right, Rob? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, sir. I've mentioned this to Drew Goins and he's going to look into this. This property as well as the church are both in the floodway and there may be some mitigation by removing this house. It's something that we're going to be looking into. MR. HANDY: I appreciate that, thank you. Look real hard, I'll be up for election next year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 62: Motion to approve amendment to Code regarding budget adoption by Commission. Second reading. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. KUHLKE & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 63: Authorize the purchase of 8,000 curbside recycling containers, at a cost of $22,720.00, for the Urban Services District by written quotes rather than formal bids. 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 the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. KUHLKE & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 64: Select representative to Region VI EMS Subcommittee on zoning. MR. WALL: You will recall that Chief Few was appointed, tentative appointment, to this committee subject to review to see whether or not it complied with the rules and regulations and the applicable law. We have met with the state representative, and Chief Few was in on that meeting, and have reviewed the bylaws of the organization, and it is the bylaws that prohibit Chief Few serving on this particular subcommittee. Essentially the state adopted certain procedures and adopted uniform bylaws for each of the local EMS Councils to implement, and those bylaws were implemented by the local EMS Council, and they call it an algorhythm narrative as far as the process to be used in determining zones for ambulance services. It would provide for a committee of five to seven members to determine if the request presents an opportunity for significant improvement. The Zoning Committee can be a standing committee or it can be an appointed committee. In this case it's an appointed committee. The chair of the committee must be a voting member of the Council. Other members of the committee, at the discretion of the Council, may or may not be members of the Council. However, a majority of the members of the Zoning Committee will be members of the EMS Council unless a conflict of interest is presented. One or more of the affected county- appointed EMS Council representatives will be appointed to the Zoning Committee. So had we not had a conflict of interest, one of the two county representatives would have been a member. However, our two county representatives on this EMS have a conflict of interest. Chief Few is not a county representative, he is an appointment by the Director of the Board of Health, and so he is not the county representative. In the event that a conflict of interest exists as to the county representatives, then it provides a non-Council member selected by the affected board of commissioners shall be appointed. The concept behind the bylaw is to require that a county representative be on that Zoning, and this is just a fluke, in my opinion, and it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But Chief Few not being a county representative, but being a member at large, is not eligible to be on the committee and so we need to appoint a non-member of the Council since our two Council representatives have conflicts. MR. BRIDGES: Who are the two Council members? MR. WALL: Tom Snyder is one, and the second one is--Chief, help me. CHIEF FEW: Rob Zayback. MR. OLIVER: And I firmly believe that it needs to be somebody that's independent of either one of the ambulance companies, has no affiliation with them, understands ambulance transport services, and will, you know, represent the county independently. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, do we have to do this today? MR. OLIVER: They're anxious to get this appointment done. This is going to continue on for some time, and because of the competitive nature of this I'm sure there's going to be many places along the way where there's going to be an opportunity for questions and challenges. MR. HANDY: The reason why I ask, you know, two weeks ago we put a member on there and then now we come back and say that member is not eligible. Well, we can't just think just like that and try to find somebody overnight to put there, so I think we should just receive this as information and then come back the next meeting with someone. I mean, that's just my opinion, now, because I'm not ready for that change. I have to think about this one. I'd like to put that in the form of a motion, to accept this as information and come back at our next regular Commission meeting and appoint someone to this Council. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: I guess my question is, and I need some clarification from the Attorney in the terminology of Council member, are we talking Council member of what? MR. WALL: EMS Council. MR. TODD: EMS, okay. And the Chief was not considering giving up one to be on the other, I would assume, so-- MR. WALL: Nor would I recommend that. The Council is the one that's ultimately going to make the decision, but his vote is more important on the Council than it is on the committee making the recommendations. MR. TODD: And is Pam Tucker a Council member? You know, if we're looking for someone who understands or at least work with ambulance, you know, that would be my choice, and I'll do that at the appropriate time. I'm going to vote with the motion on the floor to delay until we have time to think it out. MR. MAYS: Well, I guess I was thinking [inaudible] and I can support Mr. Handy's motion that's on the floor. I didn't know whether the Chief or the Administrator had any conversation in reference to anyone else within the department being suggested since the Chief himself can't serve [inaudible]. CHIEF FEW: I want to say this is a very important post and that we have had some conversation, and I'd like to put another member who doesn't even know anything about either person. He knows about EMS, he's very versed in EMS, he was tops in our EMS class, and--Lieutenant Kris James. I feel like he'll do us a good job. He understands the EMS field. In fact, right now we've got--each week we have 25 guys in EMS school. He's the one that's putting this class on with some other teachers from another county, so he will be a good representative for us and you can rest assured that he'll do a good job. MR. HANDY: I'll drop my motion if that's what we want to do. I mean, the reason why I came up with the motion is that I was not ready, but if the Chief is ready and he have knowledge of something, that's a different thing. But if I had to select someone it would be different, so I'll drop the motion on that. CHIEF FEW: I understand what you're saying, Mr. Todd, but what you need to do, we need to have somebody who is EMS certified. That's why I didn't pick one or two of my chiefs right now, because I picked the highest level person in the EMS school. MR. TODD: I'll make a motion that we name Mr. Kris James. MR. HANDY: I'll second. Now, who is Kris James? MR. KUHLKE: I'd ask the same question Mr. Handy did. I don't know Kris James. CHIEF FEW: He's a member of our department who is a lieutenant in our department. He's a member of our training division. He's tops in our class in the promotional process, he is tops in our class in the EMS, the new EMT school we put together, and he's a guy who is pretty versed in EMS. In fact, he's doing some things right now to try to enhance our ability to be a little bit more proficient in rescue services. MR. HANDY: If he's that good, do you think you want to lose him and put him on this? CHIEF FEW: Well, it won't take up all your time. This is just being on a subcommittee. MR. WALL: Let me comment. The Zoning Subcommittee is an opening meeting and I anticipate that the Chief will be in attendance at the meeting. CHIEF FEW: You can bet. MR. OLIVER: The other thing that I would point out is, based on the process that was explained to Mr. Wall and myself, we would envision that what will ultimately be done will be an RFP will be issued by the Council or the subcommittee and responses will be done and will be submitted to that, and in there will be some performance standards, I'm certain. So I expect this to go the full gamut unless someone intervenes legally. MR. SHEPARD: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve Kris James, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 65: Appoint Crisis Management Team. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a recommendation on the Crisis Management Team: the position of Mayor, position of the Engineering Services Chairman, the position of the Adminis-trator, the position of the Utilities Director, the position of Emergency Management Director, the position of the Fire Chief, and the position of the Fleet Manager. And, Mr. Mayor, that's just a recommendation. I think certainly that this is something that the Mayor should most likely appoint, and I don't want to go as far as appointing but just making the recommendation, and that we create the entity of the Crisis Management Team, so I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we create the entity of the Crisis Management Team. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, I've already got a team in place. I don't have everybody you've got. I've got Mr. Powell, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Oliver, Pam Tucker, and Brenda Byrd-Peleaz. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do you feel that those folks have the depths and substance when you're dealing with the mechanics of Utilities that you have on there? And if you're comfortable there, then I guess that I don't have a problem with it. And my other question would be, Mr. Mayor, have those individuals been meeting with you in the decision-making process? MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely, with the exception of Ms. Peleaz, and she's been on vacation. But we have the ability to call in anybody we want to. MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. HANDY: So move for what? MR. KUHLKE: The Mayor's recommendation. MR. POWELL: I'll second it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I'll support anything as far as Crisis Management Team because I think it's something that we need. I've talked about it from day one. And certainly I will support it and certainly I'll support the option that you're keeping to appoint additional individuals if you need them, you know, and I hope that you would do that. I have a serious problem, Mr. Mayor, with Utilities, and I think that you know that, I think Mr. Hicks know that, I think Mr. Oliver know that, and we'll just--you know, we could debate this, and I don't have time, you know, for that, I think the Board of Elections want to get in here. But, you know, the situation as far as what the Grand Jury has pointed out and a lot of things the Grand Jury haven't pointed out, and a lot of infrastructure that we built in this system is not on line that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, you know, I've talked to Mr. Oliver about this infrastructure that's been sitting--tanks that's been sitting for ten years on the [inaudible]. And I think, Mr. Mayor, that we need someone like the Fleet Manager that can look at the pumps, and hopefully you will call on those folks. And like I said, you know, certainly I think it should be your appointees, and as long as we're going to have one that's in place and that we're going to have true science or true engineering or true mechanics when we're dealing with delivering water to our users, then I don't have a problem with it. But, Mr. Mayor, I want you to know that if we have a breakdown, then certainly I'm going to probably be one of your biggest critics in that I don't think you're using the folks that's necessary to get the job done. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. These criticisms are nothing unique. Anybody else? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, also could you notify the members that you had told us that would be alternates in the absence of the committee? Could you notify those people to let them know? MAYOR SCONYERS: No problem. Other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 66: Adopt millage rate for 1998. MR. OLIVER: Placed in front of you are the proposed millage rates for the urban and suburban areas. As you can see, the proposal overall millage rate has not changed. We would note that last year we went to an identification by category for services; for example, law enforcement is broken out, things like that. The individual categories have changed somewhat as it relates to--because there was a substantial commitment, for example, made by the Mayor and Commission to law enforcement, but the millage rate for those two is proposed to be the same as it was in the preceding year. The same thing for the fire district county-wide. We would note that in the Blythe district it's gone down just slightly. If you remember, last year it went up just slightly, and it's because the premium tax is not applied. And that's a decision made by the City of Blythe, but we're proposing that that go down .04, which is negligible, but that's the amount that's needed to keep the revenue where it's supposed to be. I think the one that has potentially the most significant discussion will be the central business district tax. There's a five mill tax. The purpose of that, as I understand it, was to pay for the parking bays that are in Greene Street. That debt service was paid off. We have given you an analysis for the last ten years as to how those funds have been spent. We are comfortable that we will ultimately go back the additional ten years and that no more than the amount of money that's been--that the money has been used in that regard. The question before you today, and I think there are some representatives in the audience who would like to speak to this and make a recommendation to you, but the question will be whether you continue to levy that tax at the five mill rate or some other rate if you so desire or whether you cut that levy back to zero. Remember, these funds can only be used within that district for, you know, the purposes designated. With that, Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that you ask people from the audience who may wish to speak about that or give them that opportunity if you so desire, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the levy, with the exception of the downtown redevelopment tax and that we repeal that. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the motion was that we approve the levy and that we approve zero mill rate for the downtown redevelopment, and that's the motion. And, Mr. Mayor, may I go on to say that when the former city under its charter and ordinance approved this downtown redevelopment, it was until the indebtedness was paid off. It was supposed to be repealed, Mr. Mayor. And, Mr. Mayor, are we going to do the same thing when it come to the city's indebtedness? When we get that paid off, are we going to continue to charge them the millage for paying off the indebtedness? I think that, Mr. Mayor, we should do what we promise. We have a obligation, Mr. Mayor, to do what the former government agreed to, signed a contract with the downtown developers. And, Mr. Mayor, if they want a tax levied back on them, then let them petition the property owners, Mr. Mayor, and bring it to this government and I will consider voting for that. But I want to fulfill this contract that we have with the downtown developers, Mr. Mayor, or property owners as far as redevelopment, and fulfilling that is doing what the ordinance say we do at the time that this tax has taken care of the debt. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if maybe before we have any kind of vote or anything, if we might hear from the people that are for continuing it and who may be against it, and then maybe we can be a little more intelligent about this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have some spokespersons? MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to provide the secretary some information for the Commissioners, and I'll try to speak briefly because I know time is of the essence this afternoon. I'm really coming here wearing two hats today: first as President of Augusta Tomorrow, and I also represent as President SunTrust Bank, which is the second largest taxpayer in this district. You are very familiar, I think, with the history of this, and let me just say that I sympathize with what Commissioner Todd has said, and without extenuating circumstances I would certainly agree with him on the idea. The problem we have is that we think it would be very difficult to reinstitute this tax. Augusta Tomorrow would like to request that this be extended until September 30th of this year, with the idea being that if an agreement can't be worked out among the taxpayers who, in fact, are paying this tax, if an agreement can't be worked out by September 30th of this year, we would recommend that it be refunded to the taxpayers. And I understand from someone in the Tax Commissioner's office this can be expedited and then obviously repealed in the future. We would like to attempt to forge an agreement among the taxpayers in this district. Once again, if that agreement fails within the next 40--or we'll say 75 days roughly, we would recommend that the tax be refunded and ultimately repealed if a plan can't be worked out. What we hope to accomplish in that time frame, basically four things. First, invite discussion and input from all the members of the special district; second, develop a plan that will enhance this area of our community and continue our efforts to connect the riverfront to the remainder of downtown; three, to improve the tax base of Richmond County by revitalizing under-utilized properties in the downtown area; and, four, accomplish these tasks with minimal and probably, realistically, no financial involvement from the city. Once again, let me just reiterate that we have no interest in continuing this unless a majority of the tax dollars support this effort. If that does not happen, we would be the first to say let's refund what has been paid in '98 and repeal the tax. And I'll be glad to try to answer any questions that might be in my information if you have any. MR. TODD: You haven't had an opportunity--you didn't know that this tax was ending with the debt services paid off [inaudible]? MR. THOMPSON: We haven't done a good job with getting ourselves organized. We're asking for a little more time. And it did come up on us quickly. MR. TODD: Well, you know, the way I see it, Augusta Tomorrow's failure to plan and to organize is not, you know, my shortcoming, and my position remains the same. And I didn't hear a second to the motion, I guess, but the bottom line is that as an elected official I have a responsibility to live up to the contract regardless of what, you know, Augusta Tomorrow think or anyone else think, but it's my responsibility to do what the contract call for. And I'm not saying that if you come here with a majority support, then I wouldn't be for [inaudible]. MR. THOMPSON: My understanding is legally there was not an end to it, although I clearly understand the moral obligation of the city. MR. WALL: I guess that's what I wanted to address. A couple of things: the purpose of the tax as expressed in the ordinance that was adopted in January of 1976 was to be used for such purposes as the city deems beneficial to the district including the construction and maintenance of roads and streets, including curbs, sidewalks, street lamps, and devices to control the flow of traffic, parks, recreational areas, programs and facilities, parking facilities, and urban redevelopment and revitalization programs and the administration thereof. And there was not a deadline on it. In the minutes that were available from 1976 when it was adopted, nothing was said about the parking deck or a limitation as far as how long it would last, etc. Now, constitutionally, if you're going to have this district pay a higher tax, then they have to have an increased level of service or be provided something other than what taxpayers in general are furnished because you're assessing a higher rate as to these particular property owners. I understand from the merchants, and I've been told this repeatedly, that they were told that it would stop at the end of the--once the bonds were paid off. That's not a part of the minutes, it's not part of the ordinance. I talked to a couple of officials who were around at the time who don't recall that being really a part of the motion, and I'm not sure exactly where those promises came from, but certainly everybody I talked to has related the same story, so obviously the promises were made. But you can continue the tax as long as you utilize it for one of those particular services and the services that are received by that district are over and above what the urban services district as a whole receives. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I help the County Attorney on where one of those promises come from? One of those promises come in the enabling legislation to reorganize this government. In that legislation it said that all bonded indebtedness--that they would continue to pay that tax, and the time that bonded indebtedness was retired, then they would no longer be--we would no longer be able to charge them a special tax. And where this is a separate bonded indebtedness, Mr. Mayor, than the bonded indebtedness of other--the entire urban service district, this was a special service district bonded indebtedness. It may not, Mr. Mayor, be a general obligation bonded indebtedness as my colleague here has pointed out. I think the legislation was there and I think the intent was there when they were promised. Now, I own no property anywhere, Mr. Mayor, so certainly I don't have a conflict of interest here, but I want to do the right thing by taxpayers, and doing the right thing by taxpayers, Mr. Mayor, is ending this. And I'm going to shut up, and I'm ready to vote when we get ready, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me address a couple of things. I was one of those old has-beens that was around from observance in '76, I wasn't a member of this Council then. A lot of things were promised to people in this particular tax district. I've had my agreements with some philosophy within Augusta, but this is--that's human nature. But what I don't want to see us kill--and I think we're on the verge of being trapped by a time element. I think if there was a legal way that we could separate what we're doing with the timing of the millage rate, have some different discussions and planning and all that, insert it at a different time, that would be, I think, something that everybody could live with, but unfortunately we can't. As long as I can be assured that we will immediately, through Mr. Wall's office and the Tax Commissioner's office, that we'll be working immediately to set up a program in which that will deal with the refunding--and I'm not casting a doom situation to say that it won't work, but if it's in place so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel and say, well, we don't know whether we can do this, I think if that's in place, one, I can support it for this reason: when I was at GMA in Savannah in a downtown development session, when I looked at the Mayor that particular day, not only of Augusta, but when I looked at the Mayor of this region, we probably were the most inactive region in terms of downtown development. Now, I realize that in some cases to broaden that base you need a group like Augusta Tomorrow, and there can be some other things expanded there that maybe a downtown development group can't do. But I think that signals something, or it should signal something to us, that there is a problem. One, even historically there probably has been some good things done downtown. There have been some things, quite frankly, left undone. And if we're going to move forward in that area by reactivating downtown development, if the tax is going to be a tax where the discussion of business people and owners that are there to be inclusive in terms of really getting into more than maybe one pocket area of dealing with downtown, then I think you're going to see the spirit of those people who may have some very legitimate objections right now be more enthusiastic about it. I think what's happened with the objections is the fact that if some things have not changed other than what's on their millage rate, and if they have applied and maybe if they've not been able to get help in some areas--and I guess I can identify with it particularly because I live in one of those traditional redline areas. But you also have had the systematic toning of redlining even in the downtown tax district because if you maybe were not picked and choose you didn't get, and I think that's where the outcry is coming from. I think if there can be a promise from this administration, that working with Augusta Tomorrow, working with downtown development, that you're going to see a more expanded move and a more inclusive move to do that, then I think you will see the enthusiasm that's there. And if we've got to make it or break it today by putting it in, I would rather see us not drop it, but at the same time set up a means that it can be refundable so that if we're dancing by the same type of music, nothing's changed, then, hey, let's come back in and sit down and let's refund the folk their money. But I think that's where the level of opposition probably in a lot of cases has legitimately developed, and that's something that we kind of inherited. But if we're going to make a change, I don't think we should walk away from what we can do. Because not only are we going to be looking at the tax in this district, we're going to be confronted--and Henry and I sat in on the session we talked about just last week on the appointment of enterprise zones. You're going to have different methods, even though this may not involve the millage rate here, but you're going to have different areas that are going to be hopefully coming into this city with different creative tax measures in order to provide the types of incentives that can develop some of these areas particularly that have not been touched in the redevelopment process. So this is one area where it's added on and being done, but you're going to have others. For instance, other cities already have their mechanisms in place. We had the privilege of seeing two of our competitive cities with their programs already there, everybody on board from the legal department people to their community development people, as well as their financial institutions, and even their chamber that were included in how they're going to help to develop a lot of these areas. So I would hate to see us close a window of opportunity that we might not otherwise have. We take it off, we kill it at that point, then it's done. But I think if you leave it open to at least give the chance that we can do better than what's already been done, then I think you've got something to work with. But I think if it's going to be business as usual, then I would more than 110% support everything that my colleague has said and those people who really want to see a difference. And I think one of the things we can start with that doesn't even involve a tax is in how people are treated who own property downtown. It is a very distinct shame when you read about projects that might happen--and this is going to fall on this Commission, but if I'm going to support Augusta Tomorrow, then I'm going to whip you all a little bit across the head, too. When you start talking about condemning property to make way for projects, and folk who own the property exist right downtown that don't even get the courtesy of being called or talked about, those are the things that make folk mad as hell and don't want to extend taxes, don't want to be a part of those projects. Now, that's going to have to change. Now, if we're going to support the millage to do it, then I think a different face and philosophy is going to have to change whether it's Augusta today, tomorrow, or some other time in terms of making this thing work for everybody and changing the total face of downtown. I don't mind supporting that, but I want to see a different way in which we've done that. And I think you've got some new and different people involved and I think we can do some better and creative things, but I don't think we need to shut the door on it. But I think if we're going to leave it open, then we need to make sure that it's not looked upon as a tool to beat the folk across the head maybe who can't compete and who aren't in the inner circle to make those certain decisions. And I think we've had not only folk where you're talking about from a smaller business scale, you had people who've had large investments in the Broad Street area that, quite frankly, have picked up their news about what the city is going to do from what they read in the daily newspaper, and I think that's a very poor way to plan a city and at the same time tax the folk who are going to be a part of that taxation. It cannot work that way, and I suggest that you convey that to your board members over there, to your vice president that was the former mayor of this city, and to anybody else that wants to listen to it. But I think if you're going to ask us to put that on with our millage rate to do it, then let's change the tone of what we're doing. Leave it in there and we come back in the fall with a different course of planning so that the people downtown can see that this really means something, that this administration is serious, that your organization is serious, and that we're going to try to do some things that we have not been doing, and I think that's the key to helping us to move along with it. And I'm planning to support it on that basis and not see it get killed in here today to do that, but I'm going to be the first one to tell you, and not only will I promise it, I'll guarantee it, I will be--Moses won't have to make a motion to try and help annihilate you, I'll do it first if it's not going to be any changes in terms of what you bring us. And I realize y'all can't do it by yourself. Y'all can make some positive changes and we can be the bullheaded ones that don't want to deal with it. But I think we're going to have to have the type of dialogue that we, quite frankly, have not had in the past, Mr. Mayor, in order to make this city work and to be able to do that downtown in a true democratic process in order to get that done. And I would hope at this time, with those refunding procedures being put in place in the same time that we talked about implementing it, that we can do that and that we can pass all of it together. MR. OLIVER: I'd like to point out that I did talk with North Williamson and he indicated that we could do it as a refund. Logistically that did work. A representative of Main Street is here also. Main Street is supportive of this particular effort and I think they're prepared to address that. Mr. Mays, in addition, I would note that Augusta Tomorrow, as I understand it, sent out a letter to every property owner in the district regarding a meeting last Thursday evening. Now, admittedly, the notice was probably pretty short and other people had other commitments, but I totally agree with you that one of the things that's going to need to be done is to build a consensus within the community or within this district to do that. But short of having a funding mechanism there are certain things that just aren't going to happen within this business corridor that perhaps are very desirable, and the only way we'd be able to approach it potentially would be Phase IV of the sales tax at some later date, and I think that would be a shame. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me just briefly apologize for not being at that particular meeting, because I would have probably been a little more--I had a personal friend, a former county employee, that I was servicing at that time, and I had a conflict and couldn't be there and that's why I was not at that meeting. I would have made those same comments there, and that would have been my choice of making them. But since I got to vote on it I was going to have to make them somewhere, and I wanted to make sure that they were understood by all parties involved if I'm going to support it. MR. KUHLKE: I agree with Mr. Mays. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could address a question to the Attorney. Is there any legal difficulty? There may be no logistical difficulty with a refund, but is there any legal difficulty with a refund or would that be logistically handled sufficiently? MR. WALL: Well, we need to understand that we are setting a tax rate for 1998, not for 1999. We have to be paying for services that are rendered in 1998 and not what's rendered in 1999, so the idea of coming up with projects that will be implemented in 1999 I don't think justifies imposing the tax this year. Now, if we can demonstrate that we are providing services and have provided services, or if before the end of the year we implement a plan to provide an increased level of facilities or services as defined in that ordinance that imposed the tax, and that's the intent of the Commission today when they levy the tax, then, yes, I think that we're legal. Now, if we fail to achieve that goal by year's end, then I think that the property owners that have paid an increased tax rate would be entitled to a refund because we failed to fulfill the services that we're doing. But I don't think that we ought to adopt the tax, say, and if we fail to implement a plan within 60 days, then we're going to refund because the idea is that this millage rate is for services that supposedly were budgeted and promised as a part of the '97 budget--or '98 budget, excuse me. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Wall, that district runs from 13th--would you give me the boundaries of that, please? MR. WALL: It runs from 6th Street to 10th Street and from the Savannah River to the easternmost boundary--well, by Greene Street. Northern boundary is Savannah River, eastern boundary by 6th Street, southern boundary by Greene Street, and the western boundary by 10th Street. MR. SHEPARD: One other follow-up question, Mr. Mayor, if I could. The purposes is not exclusive in the 1976 ordinance either, is it not, as long as it benefits that district? MR. WALL: Correct. It says including, but not limited to, and it has to be some services that are beneficial to that district. MR. SHEPARD: And I think the Norfolk Southern Rail Line that y'all are charging me with looking at does run through the...[End of Tape 1]... MR. POWELL: ...one or two things here. You have to kind of slow things down for me, I'm just an old country boy. Let me ask you a question here on this sales tax credit. I know Mr. Wall has already discussed this with me, but this number here for sales tax credit where it's got it .83, the amount of change here, I thought we set the amount of sales tax for the City of Blythe, and when we--you know, we sent that notice off to the state, what portions each community is going to get, and I just want to make sure that there's no change in that because that's not--it's come down considerably there. SPEAKER: The sales tax credit is basically the prior year actual sales tax collection divided by the digest. MR. POWELL: So what you're saying is we had less sales tax come in in-- SPEAKER: Last year, not this year. MR. WALL: And if you will notice, each of the fire tax districts had the same .83% change. MR. POWELL: Okay. One other question for you, and this is just, you know, kind of browsing over this thing. I see the millage rate set at 22.13 for the central business district downtown area, and I notice on here we have a lot of urban bonds and stuff. Has anybody looked into the possibility of possibly refinancing some of these urban bonds so that we can roll back some of this money to the taxpayers down there? Because this is just--I mean, this is really pretty high. SPEAKER: We had looked at that back in early February of '96 and a lot of those bonds are non-refundable or non-callable. MR. OLIVER: A lot of them were written that way. The problem you get into is IRS rules as it relates to refunding, and you're permitted so many refundings. I asked about a month or two ago at Commissioner Bridges' request, I had asked the same thing, and I had asked--I don't remember who, one of the big brokerage houses, to take a look at it. They did, and they identified two small pieces that--and one of them, I think, related to the coliseum and one of them related to something else, and it just wasn't worth it unless we were doing a new money piece, and part of it had to do with one of these bonds was non-callable for a long time. And for the benefit of the people here today, non-callable means that if you refund it you couldn't take it out anyway, so you'd have to defease it, which means you put it in a separate account to pay the principal and interest payments as they come due, and the problem was is that was such a negative spread between what we were paying and what we would get in interest that it just didn't work. I can give you the analysis if you'd like. MR. POWELL: If you would do that. And, Mr. Oliver, I believe what you're saying, but I'd like a breakdown of these bonds and when they were done and also the reason that they can't be revisited as far as renegotiated or possibly refinanced or something. MR. OLIVER: Be glad to. MR. BRIDGES: How many property owners are there in this district; do we know? You said the letter was sent out to all of them. Approximately, I mean, ballpark. MR. OLIVER: About 130, I'm advised. I don't know. We provided the list and, frankly, I didn't look at the number. MR. BRIDGES: So eight of them provide 50% of the dollars is what we're saying, of the 130. MR. OLIVER: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: And, Jim, I want to understand what you said before in response to Mr. Shepard. If what we're voting on today is 1998, everything that is supposed to be done as far as this tax goes, in regard to this tax, has been done. There is excess funds there of $65,000 if we approve that today. Am I right? Am I following you? MR. WALL: Well, I didn't mean to say that everything that these taxes said was a legitimate purpose had been completed. I mean, obviously the purposes that are specified in the ordinance for which these monies can be used are very broad and very general as far as streets, curbs, recreational programs, etc. But what I'm saying is that you're setting the tax rate for 1998. You're funding expenditures and budgeted expenditures and programs that should be done in 1998. So to the extent that they're talking about projects to be done in 1999, that's really not an appropriate expenditure or levy of taxes during this year. Now, if we've done these things or it's our intention to do these things in 1998, then that's fine. MR. BRIDGES: What plans do we have to do in 1998 with these funds? MR. OLIVER: There was a meeting held Thursday, and I'll tell you how this whole thing started. The Mayor and I were at a meeting of Augusta Tomorrow about three months ago at Enterprise Mill, and that was when the subject originally came up, and I brought it up with Main Street. I indicated to both groups that continuation of this, which is what they discussed, was going to be predicated on a desire by the property owners to continue it. I mean, it was something that benefitted their district. There was a lot of discussions as it related to parking and things of that nature, and we discussed the fact that if you build a building someplace you'd be required to provided parking, just like Enterprise was, so that, you know, there was a correlation between services and that type thing. What they have talked about is the possibility of doing parking in that district, that there's a need for parking downtown. There seems to be people with varying ideas as to whether it should be used for parking, whether it should be used for streetscape improvements, sidewalk improvements, and the like. Additionally, as it related to the parking, there was also some question as to where the best place to put that parking would be. Some people wanted it in one place, some people wanted it in another place, and what I think the desire of the two groups are is to try to provide an avenue to build a consensus as it relates to how that can best be used. Because clearly there is some need in the downtown business area for parking, because if people can't get into stores and shops and that type thing they aren't going to patronize it. MR. BRIDGES: Jim, did I understand you, though, today we need to either vote this thing up or down, that we don't--from a legal standpoint or tax standpoint, we should not say, okay, we're going to extend it to the end of September and see what agreement can be worked out? MR. WALL: That's essentially correct. Basically the tax does not terminate by its terms until you vote to terminate it, so if you take no vote to terminate it today but simply impose the five mills, then you're assessing the millage rate and establishing that, and then it becomes an issue of whether or not you are properly funding projects as specified and authorized by the ordinance when you utilize that money. But the tax will continue until y'all stop it. MR. HANDY: Jim, did you say this money could be used for streets and sidewalks? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, within that district. MR. HANDY: Okay. And it runs from Greene Street to the river? MR. OLIVER: Between 6th and 10th, yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Right. Okay. I'm in front of James Brown Boulevard. From Greene Street to Broad Street is like a roller coaster. I be on that just about every day, it's just like a roller coaster. But from Broad Street where it turns back into 9th Street it's pretty good. So why haven't this money been used to fix that up? Ellis Street, like a roller coaster. Sidewalks falling in, they got holes going under buildings, nobody fixing it, but you got the money and you said this money can be used for that. MR. OLIVER: Well, remember, this money was used to pay off the bonds that had 20-year maturity, just like a mortgage payment, and that's what the money was used for. I mean, the future money could be used for that if that is the will of the Mayor and Commission based on input from the people in that particular district. MR. HANDY: But it should not be for the Mayor and Commission. I mean, the ordinance says that the money can be used for that. MR. OLIVER: But as with anything within a budget, we collect a certain amount of money and then the Mayor and Commission, based on staff recommendations and citizen input, selects what the priorities are and how that money can best be used, and that's a policy decision you'll make. MR. HANDY: I understand it that way, but I just thought about that particular street because I use it constantly, and then when I heard in the ordinance there's money for it--and it's just like a roller coaster. I mean, I don't understand. A lot of things I've learned since the consolidation, but I be downtown more now that normally I wasn't downtown to see all the things happening, and I really haven't seen anything within the last two or three years on downtown. So you're saying that if the bond was just paid off--when, this year? MR. WALL: In '97. MR. OLIVER: Now, one of the things that you try to do is obviously it's in our best interest, if we can do it, to get a state contract or funding some way like that to do street repairs, and we want to maximize that because we can use state money for, you know, street repairs and that type thing. I mean, sidewalks is a little bit different issue. Parking garages, there's really not a whole lot of state money available, so you try to match that. As you're well aware, we're doing Walton Way, which I think there are sections of that that clearly need it. MR. HANDY: Right. But it's a lot of streets, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, all the way up to 10th. From Greene to the river, all that whole section in there where this tax covers in there have bad streets and bad sidewalks and everything in there, so that's something that needs to be looked at. You know, I would like--if you're using that money for what the ordinance says, then that definitely needs to be taken care of. But meanwhile, until something happens as far as James Brown Boulevard, that roller coaster, we need to do something for emergency on that one because it's just like a roller coaster. And if you want to try it out, you can drive out there and you'll see what I'm talking about. MR. BRIDGES: Just one other point. I want to make sure I understand this. The bonds that that extra tax was to pay off have been paid off in '97? MR. WALL: That's correct. And I don't mean to pick at it as far as semantics. There's nothing in the ordinance or the adoption that said the tax was imposed to pay off the parking bonds, but when the--I'm sure when the parking deck was done and the financing was put in place everyone recognized this was a source of revenue that could be pledged for that, and so that was done, but the tax was implemented before the financing came about. MR. KUHLKE: Jim, let me ask you this: we're talking about imposing a 5% additional tax on a district; am I right? MR. OLIVER: It's not additional, it would be--it would continue. It's not additional. I mean, it would be the same level as last year. MR. KUHLKE: If you took the scenario that 1997 that tax should come off because what was done and what's been said was going to be done has been done; right? MR. WALL: Right. MR. KUHLKE: So we're talking about adding a five mill tax to a district, and the people in that district are willing to accept that tax assuming that when they come up with a program, that those funds would be used in that district based on what the people in that district want; right? MR. OLIVER: That appeared to be the consensus Thursday evening. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. So contrary to what Mr. Handy is saying, if we impose this additional millage rate on that district we certainly should comply with what that district would like to have and not necessarily what we think we ought to do. That would be my thought. MR. WALL: And I agree with that in theory. What we're having here is we're imposing this tax and then we're defining the project. And I agree with you, if you could define the project in advance and ask the property owners whether or not they're willing to support that project by imposing the tax, then I would agree 100% with what you're saying. MR. KUHLKE: All right. But isn't that what Mr. Thompson is asking for, is for us to pass this with five mills on it, give them until September the 30th to get together to see if they can build a consensus on what they want to do in that district; if they can't, even though the tax may go to December the 31st, then we as a Commission have got to agree that we will reimburse the property owners in that district the tax imposed to those property owners. He's saying September the 30th, you're saying that when we impose the tax it goes to December the 31st. MR. WALL: It goes on the assessed value of January 1, 1998, to be used to fund the budget for 1998, which would expire December 31, 1998, yes. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. So what Mr. Thompson is asking is to try to come up with a plan by September the 30th. If they don't come up with a plan, then we as a Commission would reimburse the taxes collected for 1998. MR. WALL: Yes, sir. The only thing that troubles me about that is, let's assume that you've got one property owner out there who says, you know, at the time you imposed the tax you did not have a project for using these funds for and that you were speculating that a project would come about at some future time, and I think that that property owner would have a valid challenge to the assessment of the tax against his property. Does that make sense? SPEAKER: Mr. Wall, I think I would help you in that case. If we went back to '77 I think we could easily show there was a deficit between what was paid for the bonds versus what was collected. So instead of having a $69,000 positive flow, going back to '77 if we had to in court, it would easily be a deficit situation, if that would help. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Kuhlke, I guess what I'm saying is you need to impose the tax for the purposes specified in the ordinance and assess the millage rate there. Now, if you do not come up with a project that's acceptable to the Commission after getting the input from the property owners within that district, then, yes, a refund would be in order because you have decided that that project cannot feasibly be done or there's not support for that project and then you cancel that project. And so then the property owners within that special tax district are not getting a heightened level of services or facilities and, therefore, they would be entitled to a refund of the money. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my only answer to Mr. Wall is that couldn't you, when you talk about projects--and I see where you're coming from with that on a legal point. And you ask me if I understand it, the only thing I understand is you probably made me a little bit more confused than I was when we started. But if I'm going to base it on that theory, don't we have--and I guess now what I'm speaking for maybe is not so much on projects that have been done, but a bond has been done, or maybe even some projects that have been suggested. But let's put the thinking cap on for just a little bit. If we go back to the start of consolidation, and some of the things that we inherited in the new government on services that were already behind schedule, that had not been done, complaints, necessary manicuring in that district--and I'm talking about now not on the riverfront, but from business owners in that area, say, basically for certain performance of services that just were not getting done. Now, Freddie brought up about James Brown Boulevard as one example. If you're looking for a reason that's in there in reference to that part of the theory, I would think you've got enough neglected services of a general nature that have not been done in that district, probably and in some other districts. But if you're going to talk about that one where the tax was imposed, then I think you've got enough probably on the drawing board. I mean, a good example, you can go into Richmond Barber Shop there today and ask the guys in there and they'll tell you about it whether it's the public properties that we own and some of the alleyways and everything else that trash stays forever, trees growing up that used to be like flat land, and just the performance of normal services that were not being done. I think if you went back to maybe a elective maintenance schedule or, say, a schedule that was non-existent that you had outcries for for so long--and I think what you've got is not so much where you're looking at--nobody wants to pay any more taxes, but if they're going to pay them I think they'd probably be more supportive if they knew that some of those things were going to be corrected, and that's what's caused your negatives that's in there. Right now you're looking at people on Broad Street that--I've had this question just in the last couple of days, and at the time a particular deputy who walks that area was over there meeting with one of the store owners that had gotten broken into. One where you could throw a football up the street from that one had been broken into. One had been broken into three times. The question was addressed to me just right off the cuff, you know, when are you going to change the pattern, for instance, in law enforcement of where you've got the one walking man down here. We're paying an additional tax, why can't it either be, you know, all mobile or you get an increase in that. So I think if you're going to do it, those are the things--you've got enough mess in place right now, I think, that you ought to--you're a good creative lawyer, that if you're going to do it, you've got enough stuff that hadn't been done that could be put into place and put your program out there if that's what you're looking for. I mean, if that's your basis for saying you can't do it, then I'm giving you one to where you've got enough stuff that you didn't do already and we've got enough places down there that need fixing. Then if people see that progress, I guarantee you'll make those folks' job easy by September if they will listen. Now, the outcry is going to come if we put folk together and you start talking about paying for stuff and they see no changes. Then I think what you're going to get is you're going to get a rejection, and I'm going to be the one to make the motion first that you refund the money back. MR. WALL: And, Mr. Mays, I agree with what you're saying. I think that we can implement and can justify an increased millage provided we provide increased level of services in that area. I think that we can do that if we come up with a project whether it be additional parking, whether it be streetscape, whether it be landscape, whether it be James Brown Boulevard, whether it be replacing sidewalks. You know, any of those things that will assist this district beyond what the urban services district in general receives would meet the criteria and can be utilized for it. I didn't mean to leave the railroad out. And so I think that all of those are good ideas, but, I mean, when you assess a tax it's to fund projects and it's not a project to be named later is my problem with it. And here, as long as you fund the general category and tell the staff that these funds are now available, they're a part of the '98 budget, you know, bring us an itemization, a list of the projects and a priority, meet with the downtown property owners within that district, get their input as far as the priority of the projects, and then y'all come back and vote on those, that's fine. MR. MAYS: How are we going to make that fit into what we're doing today other than by going ahead and passing it? MR. WALL: I think that's what you do is pass it with the parameters that the money will be used for the purposes as specified in the ordinance, the five mills, and direct us to come back with a priority of projects within that after meeting with the property owners within that district. MR. OLIVER: Not later than September 30th. MR. MAYS: I guarantee you, now, I'm not going to vote for a tricker tax in order that they pay higher just to get what they normally ought to get that they're not getting now. Now, where the arguments come in, and justifiably so, is that they paid higher, new projects didn't develop for some parts of downtown district, and they had to bellyache and plead for normal city services. Now, some of that maybe we didn't do, but there was a lot of inheritance of where you had seasonal changes of trash, debris, grass, you name it, just normal functions that ought to deal with the city. That's why you've got the reluctance to go any further on what you've got. I just want to see us--I guess what I'm caught between is like the Tale of Two Cities. On one hand you've got an opportunity where you're trying to revive and do something different. You appoint a whole new board or a partial board of downtown development and maybe for once you've got an administration in place hopefully that will guide us into something that everybody in that tax district can realize. But if it's business as usual--what I'm concerned about, you discontinue the thing, you come up and give those folk, say, no working incentive to get together and plan to have anything else, to do anything else with it, then what do we do? What's your mechanism then for having a source to do it quick, and I guess that's my question back on the flip side of it where you have nothing in place to do it. You've got two choices, I would think. You do, one, not only the moral thing but the legal thing and you give the money back if they sit on their butt and they haven't planned anything, or if you've got some money there to do something with, then you can entice somebody else to help contribute and to do something. MR. OLIVER: I think what I would suggest is that you implement--you say that this has to be done by September the 30th, and then on September the-- whatever the meeting is just before September the 30th or right after, you take whatever the consensus of this group is, Commissioner Mays, and then you decide. If perhaps the other needs such as James Brown Boulevard and sidewalks and things like that are greater in your mind, you can decide between the various alternatives and ultimately, if you wanted to, you could decide to refund it to the district, and then that way there's a time parameter that everybody clearly understands. MR. MAYS: I can agree with that in theory. The only problem I object to about that is that some of the raggedy stuff that we got, it ought to be going to your office and then to Public Works to get that done. That ought to not even be in no tax to be dealt with. MR. OLIVER: And that's fine. I mean, if someone tells me the areas, we've got a mechanism to deal with that and we can do that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the presented millage rate for 1998, including the five mills in the central business district, that we direct the Administrator to come back to us by September the 30th with projects that have not been completed, say, in that business district as well as projects proposed for the future in that business district, with a consensus of the property owners in that district, and that at that point we either ratify what's presented to us or by the end of this year we refund taxes for 1998. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second that. MR. SMITH: My name is Joe Smith and I own some property on the 800 block of Broad Street. I'm going to only speak for me because I think there are very, very different opinions of this tax. I didn't even know there was a tax when I purchased my property until I got the extra tax bills and dug into it a little bit, then I realized what it was. I as a property owner am for the five mills if there is a plan. Now, I don't think there's a plan. I think that what the council is trying to do is not to let this die. Twenty years ago I don't really know what their plans were. It was promises made, but nobody confirmed the promises. Surely all these meetings were written down somewhere to see what they tried to accomplish. I think we do have a unique situation down here. And I'm for downtown. I mean, I've invested in it, not to make any money because I sure haven't made any money on it, but I do think that it has a potential. But I think we're losing what we are trying to do here. I mean, the best thing for me that I would want is to--number one, the 20 years have been paid. Cancel the tax. Then it looks as though we have an organization here who is organizing this group of people. Let's all get together and say, okay, we're going to let you raise the five mills again, but we are going to tell you what our people's problems are. I have some property on 8th Street that I have a drainage problem from other buildings that over the years have just added gutters and all. I've got sewage there. I went to Streets & Drains two years ago for them to come down. The manhole cover was eroding away. There's a drainage problem there. You would have thought he thought I had a disease or something. Those are the things I would like to pay my five mills for, because I do think to fix--the street that you were talking about, sir, why does my five mills have to pay that? Don't my property taxes pay that? I mean, don't all the county property taxes pay for streets and drains? You're making that a special project for my five mills. That's not where I want my five mills to go. I mean, I want my five mills to go to the property owners who have come and have a unique situation. It's a unique tax, let's have unique situations. And I think through them--and I'm not really sure what your organization is, sir, but we need an organization. But I say what this gentleman says right here today, you're trying to create a situation to save those five mills and I don't think it ought to be done unless we have a plan, and we don't have a plan. Thank you. MR. FORREST: I'm John Forrest and I've operated a business since '74 on Ellis Street, and I was present when they came up with the plan to make better parking and stuff for Broad Street, to make it a beautiful place instead of what we had. We had the widest street and a lot more taxes, so we made parking harder instead of better. And just the people from 6th Street to 10th Street are the only ones being assessed the extra five percent, and my understanding at the time was it was supposed to pay for that project and that project alone, and then when that indebtedness was paid off it was supposed to be cancelled. I went to the meeting they had last Thursday evening, and they're talking about the people that have the money. Those are the people that want to keep the tax going, not the poorer people like us. Now, we haven't gotten anything and there is no plans that I saw anywhere to do anything other than they want to make a plan to build a parking lot to be able to help somebody, the property owner, sell his property. Thank you. MR. WALL: Reimplementing the tax may not be as difficult as everyone is concerned about because if, in fact, the Augusta Tomorrow represents 51% of the tax--owning at least 51% of the value, then through a process under a different code section you could implement a city improvement district tax. And what that provides for, and it's a statutory procedure that was enacted in 1981, it can be implemented two ways. One is that at least 51% of the municipal taxpayers living within that district approve that plan or, number two, if the municipal taxpayers owning at least 51% by assessed value approve of the plan, then they can. And that tax is for a five-year limit unless it's renewed, so every five years that process is reviewed to see whether or not it should go forward. That's a different statutory framework than was utilized insofar as this tax district is concerned, but that's available and is out there. MR. OLIVER: I've got one comment to make on that. While I don't disagree with that, the five-year limit, if you're going to do a capital improvement such as a parking garage, is just unworkable because clearly you're not going to pay a parking garage off in five years. I mean, that's just not going to happen. Now, I can't recall, but my recollection is that either the GMA or the ACCG may have been successful in extending that statute as it relates to the time limit for the business improvement district, but I don't know. But with the five-year limit it will be great for street improvements, streetscape, and those types of things that you can do incrementally, but it would be unworkable for any kind of long-term capital program. SPEAKER: I went to a meeting about six months ago at the Imperial Theater that I believe was called by Augusta Tomorrow. Mr. Oliver was there as well as many others. We took a little poll on whether or not we wanted a parking garage at 8th and Reynolds Streets, and I counted that little poll and 68% of the people did not want the parking garage at 8th and Reynolds Streets. I pointed out that you were going to be putting a parking garage in the center of a triangle of three other unused parking garages, which we also paid in excess of $100,000 plus to match to the North Carolina outfit. We've got 964 spaces available every day of the week in downtown Augusta. I don't want a parking garage. I expect I probably know more about parking automobiles than any man in this community. We don't need a parking garage. You know, I can't imagine--this is where the whole thing is going to is we're going to buy this parking garage, and I believe we're going to buy it from a corporation that some of the people are board members of some of these organizations that want this to happen. Charles DeVaney comes in the other night and I point this out to him that we had this meeting five or six months ago and it was voted down. He said, "Oh, those weren't the people in the know." Well, by God, I'm in the know, fellows. I'm around every day. You know, I'm in the know. You don't need a parking garage in this community. And like Joe or somebody said, I don't need to pay special taxes to get the streets paved. And, frankly, I don't need y'all to clean up my area, I keep it clean enough myself. I mean, we do need some things in this downtown community, but we had an agreement 22 years ago that this tax would run out in 20 years. I don't understand why the fathers of this community can't keep the agreements. You know, why do I want to give my little hard-earned dollars and basically put them in the hands of Augusta Tomorrow. You know, we got the fox in the hen house as far as I'm concerned right now. I don't need to send any more money around there for them to control and to make their choices of what to do with my money. And I really don't believe nobody's going to send back the money six months or a year down the road. If they do, I'd like to get a Kodak and take a picture of the check. I mean, I really don't believe it's going to happen. I was fortunate enough to go Saturday night to a packed sellout at the Imperial Theater. Upstairs, downstairs, every seat in the house was sold. I was going to park at my place of business and walk because I just assumed that the parking would be just jam-packed. I went and I parked behind Southern Finance. There was ample parking. Every seat in the house was sold. About eight or ten spaces in front of the Imperial Theater were taken up with show cars to highlight the event. We don't have a parking problem. We don't need a $3 million parking lot. And ever who's in charge of Augusta Tomorrow and all the little things that come out everywhere I go, Davison's Auto Service ain't a proposed parking lot. It just ain't, you know. Y'all got me going to be a parking lot, 150 yards down the street you're going to have another parking lot. We got three of them right now. We got the greatest white elephant the community has ever built right there at 9th and Greene. You know, we're not sitting here talking about whether or not Randy Oliver can buy us some new trash cans and clean up the curb and then plant some flowers, we're talking about building a damn $3 million parking garage that we do not need. I'm all for the community doing something better. You can raise it to ten mills, I don't care. If you keep this community clean, if you do what you're supposed to do, that's fine with me, but please don't channel my money over to other people to control and say if they can't find something to spend it on they'll come back and give it back to us. You know, it's not good to sit here and make an agreement with all the business community and say we'll stop this tax at the end of 20 years and two years later we have an emergency meeting last Thursday night, absolute emergency, got to be done today. They had 22 years to figure this thing out. The poker game is over, close that hand, fold it out, start another one, instigate a new tax. Let's don't keep running this thing in the ground. For God's sake, let's don't give them a parking lot. That's the last thing we need is another parking lot. I'll give you the figures if you want to and I'll go around and show you the parking places within this community in parking lots that we own right now. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I guess we've heard on both sides of it and I think the bottom line is this--and this is what I've heard more than anything else, and I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing the downtown property owners, both big and large, are saying is I don't mind paying the five mills if you're going to upgrade and bring people to Broad Street so I can improve my business. If we can do that, they don't mind us taxing them. But what I'm also hearing the smaller property owners saying and not necessarily the large owners is I don't want to see y'all city fathers take this money and put it into a capital long-term project that I'm not going to see any immediate benefits out of. Now, that's what I think they have said to us. I'm willing to take the ride this year because I think we can do something to improve the lot of the downtown property owners right now to improve the rental value of those properties. And I'm like Mr. Mays, if it don't work, you won't have to ask next year because it ain't going to be there. I'm going to second his motion or make a motion and let him second my motion, but we've got to do something to improve downtown. We've got to do something to help all property owners, not just our large ones, we've got to help our small ones, too. We've got to find a way of getting people back in this business district. And this affects all of us whether we live in Martinez, Hephzibah, Blythe, Evans, North Augusta, Aiken. The core business district of this community, wherever you are in the CSRA, is still downtown Augusta. And it looks like a war zone, and until we take some pride in it and do something about it, then nothing is going to happen to it. And I think the downtown property owners, from what I'm seeing, are willing to take a gamble for one year to improve this, but they want to see some immediate benefits for this. And if we don't have them, they're going to have our heads on a platter, and I think that's what they're telling us. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be brief. The reason that most folks don't want to start a tax is that once they let a politician start a tax, it'll never end. The other issue is that, you know, the most difficult thing is to stop a tax or to reduce a tax, but the easiest thing is to raise a tax or if you give a politician a tax he'll find a way to spend it. I think that's around the table, and Mr. Wall would make a very good liberal, Mr. Mayor, because he certainly [inaudible] oblige the folks on how they could do it if they wanted to send it. It's my opinion that the services that's given to the average citizen throughout this community, that we can't charge or use the special tax to do that service delivery, it's got to be something special, or that's what it's supposed to be for. And the new sidewalks, roads, or street lights, unless it's, you know, trimmed in gold or something, it's not something special. But, Mr. Mayor, more important than that is that we have a contract and we have legislation that deals with bonded indebted-ness, and my interpretation is this is bonded indebtedness. Mr. Mayor, if the group wants to get together and bring a petition to do the new ways Mr. Wall pointed out with the 51% of the citizens or 51% of the property owners or whatever, or the old way, I don't have a problem probably supporting it. I do support the downtown business district, but I have a responsibility, Mr. Mayor, an obligation to live up to the contract and live up to the legislation as I understand it. Now, the County Attorney haven't talked about the legislation, I guess, that deals with the bonded indebtedness and I'd like to possibly hear him comment on that. There is an old saying in baseball, you know, if you build it they'll come and play. If you implement a tax, politicians will come and spend it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I hope my conservative friends--you know, I feel deserted down here today. I hope my conservative friends will vote with me on killing this tax or repealing this tax. It's the conservative thing to do. I'll make a substitute motion that we set the tax at zero, the service tax for the downtown business district. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Define what we're setting to zero. MR. TODD: I'll define it, Mr. Mayor. It's the special tax on the downtown business district covering the boundary from--that stated before. CLERK: It was to approve the millage rate with the exception of the downtown central business tax; right? MR. TODD: Well, we're approving all of it, but we're setting that tax at zero. And if somebody want to come back to propose to increase it later, I'll probably support it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I seconded Mr. Kuhlke's motion because I was under the impression that the business leaders, at least most of them from downtown, had kind of gotten together and talked about a plan. And if that is not true, then certainly, you know, that may--if you think it will get done by that time, then I think that it ought to be done. But I'm not so sure that we ought to--when I say we I'm talking about the Commissioners ought to do it. It seem like to me they are the ones who are going to have to pay the taxes and that they could come up with or make some recommendations. If I'm in error on that, then I stand to be corrected on it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Osbon wanted to make a statement before we vote. MR. POWELL: That's fine with me. MR. HANDY: And then I would like to make one also after that. MR. OSBON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My father opened a business on Broad Street in 1940. I've spent my entire life here and I'm very sympathetic to both sides of this issue. I don't like taxes any better than anyone else. I think that most of you who have seen the properties that I own on Broad Street would agree that they've been well taken care of, and I've spent an awful lot of my own money, but I've asked for an awful lot of city money to try to improve them. I feel like that right now we have an opportunity in Augusta with all of the things that we are in the middle of. Augusta can be a major tourism destination for our region. We've done a lot with Fort Discovery, we are working hard on the Golf Hall of Fame, Springfield Village is on the way, Augusta Commons is going to happen. I'm also involved with the Woodrow Wilson Historic Augusta restoration project. Fifteen years ago my business on Broad Street went bankrupt. I lost every nickel I had. I've been very fortunate since then to have been able to develop a business that has worked. I had the opportunity with this new business, Osbon Medical Systems, a few years ago to have moved it anywhere in the world, any part of the country, and I elected to stay in Augusta and I'd like to stay on Broad Street in downtown. I believe in downtown. I think that there is a great future here, and I'm very concerned when I think that we might be making some moves that might have a negative effect. I think the idea of this tax to be extended temporarily makes a lot of sense, and I think that how the money will be spent should be determined by the people in this district. I'm a minority land owner in this particular tax district. I own a little piece of property, not much. Most of my property is at the other end of Broad Street. But I am dedicated to this city, to the downtown area, and I would speak very strongly about the fact that I think we need the opportunity to consider this as has been discussed. I would be very dismayed if I felt like that we weren't making the commitments as a community that we need to make in order to take advantage of the opportunities we have, so I would encourage you gentlemen to please think this through very carefully because I think what you do today can have a significant impact. Thank you very much. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask Jim a question in that ordinance to see whether I'm right, because when the gentleman got up there he was saying he wanted for his tax dollars to fix this and fix that. I thought you read in that ordinance that that money was for streets and sidewalks and things, could be used for that. That's what I need to know. MR. WALL: It can be used for that. The point that I would stress is this has to be an increased level of service beyond what is afforded on a city-wide or a county-wide basis. MR. HANDY: Right. Okay. There's a lot of things I've seen going other places than--and for the same street we're talking about, for example, from Reynolds Street to the river you have bricks there instead of asphalt or concrete. Those bricks can be extended from the river all the way to Greene Street and you can even sell the bricks for $100 or whatever if you want to beautify that street and make it right if something needs to be done about it, so that's something special. I don't like the negatives I heard about James Brown Boulevard and he don't want my monies fixing that. I'm saying that James Brown Boulevard just happens to be where it is and it just happens to be the worst part of it. And James Brown Boulevard should have went to the river, which they stopped it on the other side for some unforeseen reason and that's why it's not fixed and not done anything to it. I'm saying the street is like a roller coaster and it needs to be fixed, and I don't care where the money comes from to fix it, it needs to be fixed. And if you have money and you've got an ordinance that says that money can be used to fix it, then it needs to be fixed. And when it was 9th Street you fixed it, so why when it's James Brown Boulevard you want to say, well, I don't want my money fixing no street? That's all I have to say about it. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, the gentleman in the front row wishes to be recognized. He's raised his hand several times. MR. CARSWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'm Joe Carswell. I own a very small piece of downtown, and I mean small. We've been paying for something for 20 years, it's paid off, I don't see why we got to keep paying money you don't even have a plan for. I mean, nobody's got an idea what you're going to do with the money. You just want to keep the money. If there was a plan it would be understandable, but there's no plan in 20 years. You know, why don't we use complete county money, why use just this little section? Why not raise everybody five mills, then we'll have a ton of money and we can buy twice as much. MR. SHEPARD: I think we have plenty of ideas, Mr. Carswell. And I think that this is one Commission meeting that I haven't turned back to see the train bisect this district and we talk about the inconvenience to just about everybody in this community. And I'll tell you, this is one Commissioner that's not sitting up here without ideas, and I'll certainly see that if we do approve it today for one year, that we'll use it on ideas like that which will benefit this community. And I agree with Mr. Brigham, if we don't use it like that, in new directions, we ought to just kill it next year. MR. CARSWELL: Well, why was there no forethought before now? MR. SHEPARD: Well, sir, I can't answer that question. I don't know that anybody can answer it. I mean, we haven't had a surplus until last year, which there was a $65,000 surplus. Now we've got an opportunity of a revenue source without increasing taxes, not to build a parking garage necessarily, but to make some real changes in this downtown district, and I think that's what some of the colleagues like Mr. Forrest indicated and Joe there indicated as well. I mean, I think--don't sit there and doubt us all for not having different ideas. I think that I would beg to differ, that I would have some different ideas, and I think we can show in the next few months that we can come up with some ideas that will legally spend these proceeds and will impact your property and other people downtown in a dispropor-tionate way far more than it would impact people out across the entire municipality and county. So I would just say that in rebuttal. I have a plan, and that's not something that I came in here today with, I've had it since I ran for election last year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, would you read the substitute motion, please. CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve and adopt the 1998 millage rate, with setting the downtown revitalization tax at zero. MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all heard the motion, gentlemen. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE, MAYS & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion. Would you read the original motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, please. CLERK: Was to approve the millage rate, to include the five-mill millage rate for downtown revitalization, and that the Administrator come back by September 30th with a list of incomplete projects as well as proposed projects and a consensus of the downtown property owners; and if no consensus is reached, that the '98 assessed tax be refunded. MAYOR SCONYERS: You heard Mr. Kuhlke's motion, gentlemen. Vote accordingly, please. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to flip around and fool everybody because I'm going to vote for it because it's got conditions attached to it. I think it does put a greater challenge. I would like to ask in that motion--I hear what's there, but does anything in there need to be strengthened from the fact of the time we bring this back in September to require something additional to it, and maybe the maker and the seconder might accept this as an additional amendment that at least an itemized, tentative plan be put in place and spelled out in writing. And just as we've had this honest dialogue here today, and I fully--and Jim and I probably have had some private conversations of where we can beat across the same heads sometimes, maybe even a different head, I can fully understand where he's coming from with it. But I feel compelled to say this because I think that the people at Augusta Tomorrow really need to take something serious at heart and bring this back. I know we've had the discussion period, but I looked at your last page in terms of your supporters and people that are here in terms of that project. I would firmly beg you, urge you, to deal with everybody, sir, in this district. I think it would go a long way towards your planning. Because if you ain't got nothing when you come back, I'm going to be the maker of that motion. I'm going to cut loose everybody's electricity to turn it down and to refund it back. But you mentioned a few minutes ago about Augusta Commons, and I've got to say it, Mr. Mayor, and I mentioned it earlier about--and I didn't put a name, but when you've got one of the biggest supporters of downtown-- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Are we voting on this or are we having--are we still in discussion? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, Mr. Mays was trying, I think, to add an amendment to Mr. Kuhlke's motion. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem, Mr. Mayor, if we're not in the middle of voting. I would just like to call for a roll call vote and I'll listen to my colleague. MR. MAYS: My problem, and I wanted to make this out, you cannot spare enough. The day after we voted some of us were blistered in reference to the hotel vote, particularly myself and Mr. Todd, in the final analysis of it. But when you look at one of the biggest supporters of downtown [inaudible] and you talk with a business person that owns a piece of property that basically reads about what's going to happen to their property--and you made the statement a minute ago about this being one of the projects downtown. Well, the other side of that coin, and Bonnie is not here and I don't think she'd have any reason to lie, but when somebody like that that's been that support reads about what's going to happen to something in a paper, this is what you got the folk who are fighting you up in arms because of that type of relationship. And I'm saying to you that if that relationship does not change, I'm going to be the first one to vote for giving them that money back. Everybody is not going to agree 100% all the time, but when you start talking about condemning and taking folks' property--and I'm going to say this, too. I sat there, I know Henry saw it, I know Larry saw it, as the chairman of a county commission I saw it, too. Jimmy, I seen some pictures where you weren't around, son. And when folk draw folks' property in to be green space and lots and they don't know anything about it, but yet they are being taxed, Mr. Mayor, we've got a hell of a problem when people are talking about leading. And I'm just saying that to you to say I'm going out--I'm going to support it to give you time to put it together, but I'm going to try and chop your darn neck off if it's not included in what we're going to come back to and deal with these people to really build downtown and to have that type of communication with them. You cannot do it in a secret way. We cannot have covert types of plans that just pop up and simply because some folk own 51% of the property, that that's the way it's done, and I just want to make that clear. I'm going to support that temporary action. I'm going to be very lenient on doing that, but I would urge you, particularly as some new leadership over there, to really sit down with everybody who cares about downtown. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: I thought you wanted a roll call vote? MR. TODD: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Oliver, would you read the millage rates into the record for us, please? MR. OLIVER: Certainly, Mr. Mayor. Suburban service district, 6.78; urban services district, 17.13; fire district, 7.40; Blythe district, 9.45; central business district, downtown revitalization, 22.13. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, would you call for the roll call vote, please. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. MR. BRIDGES, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. CLERK: On the addendum agenda, Item 1: Motion to approve acquisition of necessary easement at 2760 Wicklow Drive for Rae's Creek sanitary sewer trunk line in the amount of 435,570.00. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: What is this per square foot? MR. WALL: This is for two buildings, not for the land. The land was previously acquired and somehow through the process the buildings that are sitting on top of the easement were not included in the appraisal. And we got up to the property line and can't go any further until we acquire these buildings and work something out. MR. TODD: Okay. And the appraised value of the buildings is thirty- five? MR. WALL: That's an agreed upon value. We got two appraisals insofar as replacement and the property owner has agreed to that, to include the red tips. MR. TODD: It look like we don't have much of a choice. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 2: Discussion of the Grand Jury Report. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that this be put on the agenda, and I hope everybody got their report. And basically what I'd like to request that we do is take the Grand Jury report and charge the Administrator with making the corrections that can be made without a resolution and bring back recommendations to us as far as the issues that deal with a resolution so we can take the appropriate action at the next regular meeting, and I'm going to make that in the form of a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. OLIVER: Two of the issues will come back to Engineering Services. Mr. Hicks and I have already talked about it. There will be two agenda items, one of them is for the finance position for the Utilities section. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that this is what we want to do and that the Grand Jury recommendation is the appropriate thing to do. I know they had limited time to review, and certainly when I look at the report I see that they--in their overview of the system, that they left the well fields out completely that are in South Richmond County side, but they mentioned the former county waste treatment plant, that there is a possibility they did not receive all the information or it was an oversight. And I know they had a short period of time to deal with a lot of issues, and if we're not going to accept the recommendations, then I think that we need to report back to the Grand Jury at the time we make that decision [inaudible] that we believe that this recommendation is not a good recommendation and point out why. I understand a recommen-dation is a recommendation, it's not a directive. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't think it ought to live or die by changing something in what's in the motion, and I'm going to vote for the motion, Mr. Todd. The only thing that I would say in addition to that that you might want to consider, Mr. Mayor, is the fact that with the amount of things that we have to normally deal with on a regular agenda day--I don't mind us coming back at a regular meeting and dealing with this, but with what has been brought out--and a few minutes ago the Administra-tor mentioned about some of the things coming through Administrative [sic] Services. I was thinking with the center that's been drawn around this last particular item regarding Utilities and water, and even though other things are in that Grand Jury report other than just water, I would hope that we might--and it may not be before the next regular meeting that we might schedule to deal with it, whether it's a work session/ particular meeting, special meeting, that we might take some time to set aside and deal with the report of that Grand Jury as well as some proposed plans that we might want to deal with as a full Commission as opposed to just--and this is no knock on the committee, but I think they're going to need some help in terms of where we move forward in reference to Utilities, and we might want to look at a particularly special called meeting somewhere in there to deal with this Grand Jury report and those items surrounding it. And I'll vote for the motion that's on the floor, but I think sometimes--and this is one of those particular cases where the regular time frame of a committee meeting or the time frame of this particular meeting may not allot us the proper attention that we need to sit down and go over and deal with a Grand Jury report. And that's just an observance, but I would hope, Mr. Mayor, maybe in terms of having some time to digest it and some things that you and Mr. Oliver particularly on the eighth floor, that you may want to consider dealing with a special called meeting just to deal with those particular items. MR. OLIVER: I agree with that, and I think that, you know, like a half- day work session would be the way to address it because I really think that it's going to take some time to delve into those things. I think that's a good idea, and with the Mayor and Commission's approval we'd be glad to coordinate that. MR. TODD: I'll accept an amendment to the motion to have a special session, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a problem with that. And I think also we have reports from the engineering firms that we've hired as consultants [inaudible] and I think certainly we need to discuss those also because those reports deal with a lot of the issues as far as water go. I'll accept the amendment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you need a legal meeting? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Real estate, personnel, and litigation and legal advice. And in order to let the Board of Elections come in, it's appropriate to do so as a part of the motion, when we reconvene, to reconvene in the committee room, and that way you can turn this over. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move. And I'm going to request to be excused, I've got to go vote. MR. SHEPARD: I'll second that motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to request that my colleagues excuse me, I'm going to vote, and I request that Mr. Oliver and Mr. Wall update me on legal. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] MAYOR SCONYERS: The meeting is back in session, gentlemen. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that you add to the agenda a motion to approve medical disability retirement for Butch Murdock under the 1977 county pension plan. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. TODD OUT] MR. WALL: And I would ask that you approve it. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. TODD OUT] [MEETING ADJOURNED] 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 July 21, 1998. _________________________ Clerk of Commission