Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-1998 Reular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 6, 1998 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, October 6, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND BALLARD. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: No, sir, Mr. Mayor, we do not. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's our first order of business, please, ma’am? CLERK: The first order of business will be to recognize the Augusta Recreation and Parks Department. Mr. Beck, please would you join the Mayor at the podium? MR. OLIVER: And I think Mr. Beck has some staff members, Mr. Mayor, that he'd like to recognize. CLERK: Mr. Beck, the Mayor and members of the Commission would like to congratulate you and your staff today and present you with this certificate of recognition for having been designated as the Agency of the Year from the Georgia Recreation and Parks Association. Again, congratulations on receiving this prestigious award. I will read the letter that Mr. Beck received from the Georgia Recreation and Parks Association: Dear Tom: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I advise you that the Augusta Recreation and Parks Department has been nominated for the association's prestigious Agency of the Year Award. Our awards committee met last week, and I am happy to advise you that after reviewing a multitude of nominations for the award, that Augusta Recreation and Parks Department will be the recipient in 1998. As you are probably aware, we currently have 199 agency members in the association, and to be designated as the Agency of the Year is certainly a very high honor. Congratulations to you, members of your staff, and the elected officials for their support of your efforts to obtain this highly deserving recognition. I will look forward to seeing you and members of your staff at the annual conference in Gainesville. Sincerely, Thad L. Studstill, Executive Director. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, it is a very high honor for us to receive this award. It's the first time since 1977 that Augusta and Richmond County have been so recognized as being the Agency of the Year of the State of Georgia. But all of you get a chance to see me on a regular basis, and I would be remiss to sit here and take credit for this award because it's the folks out there in the field doing the job day in and day out that really deserve this award. I'm very proud for the City of Augusta. I'm proud for our government, but I'm most proud for our employees who are out there in the field doing the job day in and day out. And if you would allow me, I'd like to introduce these folks to you because they're the ones out there doing the job for you every day: Walter C. Hunter runs our McDuffie Woods Community Center; Joanie Smith is our Waterfront and Aquatic Facilities Director; Lela Jackson runs our facility at May Park; Tammy McPhealy is our West Augusta Youth Athletic Coordinator; Dana Pettigrew runs our center out in McBean; Rayford Kelly runs our center at Bernie Ward; John Major is our Maintenance Coordinator at the Newman Tennis Center; Marion Ware is our Athletic Fields Coordinator; Eddie Howerton is our District One Supervisor for Area Parks; Ron Houck is our Planning Development Manager; and I think back in the back is my able-bodied assistant, Robert Howard. So if you would, please congratulate these folks because they're the ones doing the job. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] CLERK: At this time the Mayor and Commission would like to acknowledge for Public Safety Appreciation Week the following public safety divisions: Emergency Management; Fire Department, Chief Few; Sheriff's Department; Emergency Service Corrections Department; 911; Emergency Medical. I will share with you the letter the Mayor received from the Governor this week: Dear Mayor Sconyers: Governor Zell Miller has proclaimed this week of October 5th through 9th, 1998, as Public Safety Appreciation Week in Georgia and has urged us to locally proclaim this week for our public safety officials. On behalf of all public safety divisions, I respectfully request that the week of October 5th through 9th be proclaimed as Public Safety Appreciation Week. The proclamation reads: Whereas more than 1,500 public safety officials are sworn to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Augusta, Georgia; and whereas these brave men and women representing the disciplines of law enforcement, fire service, emergency management, emergency medical service, corrections, and 911 services are among the very best in the state; and whereas many have fallen in the line of duty and many others have given their lives by way of dedicated careers in public safety; and whereas compelling stories of fearless and unparallel service exemplifies the tremendous work and dedication put forth by the public safety officials in Augusta; and whereas these fine officials who on a day-to-day basis guard us, defend us, and dedicate their lives to protecting us should be recognized for outstanding services to their community and to their profession; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, hereby do proclaim the week of October 5th through 9th, 1998, to be Public Safety Appreciation Week. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] CLERK: We have the introduction of Mr. Lon Morrey, Comptroller. MR. OLIVER: I would like to introduce to you Mr. Lon Morrey. Mr. Morrey is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts. He has a Certificate of Educational Achievement in Governmental Accounting. He's a Certified Public Accountant in the State of Illinois and the District of Columbia. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts Governmental Technical Standards Committee. He's a member of the AICPA Task Force to Develop the National Continuing Professional Education Curriculum, a member of the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy Committee to Develop a Model of Quality Enhancement Program, and the state CPA Society representative to Mid-America Intergovernmental Audit Forum, and charter member of the Forum's Single Audit Committee. In addition to that, he comes to us from a public accounting firm in Washington, D.C., and just prior to coming here he completed an audit of payroll at Washington National and Dulles Airport, so he's assured me that he can handle any issues that may arise as it relates to our airport. With that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Morrey. MR. MORREY: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I want to thank you for this opportunity, and will I assure you that I'll do everything that I can to fulfill the confidence you've shown in me. With that, I will take my leave and just say that if there's anything I can do for you, please contact me. I will do my best to fulfill what you need. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. OLIVER: Additionally, Mayor and Commission, this afternoon we would like to introduce--as you know, we've had some staff transitioning in the Information Technology area. We are now at a full complement in the staff side, and we would like to introduce the new staff people that we hired. We think that they're some of the finest that can be had. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Clifford Rushton to make those introductions. MR. RUSHTON: I'd like to thank you, Mayor and Commissioners, for helping us acquire talent to fill the openings that we had in our IT department. We've had many. We've had a time replacing them, and now I believe we've got some of the best talent and new blood in our department with new interests in a lot of areas that we need it. I'll introduce these across the room as we go across. The first one is [inaudible] Usry. She is an application developer. She has a business administration degree in information systems from Georgia College and State University. Next we have Russell Summer. Russell is a new application manager. He has a computer science degree from USC-Aiken and he comes to us from Palmetto Federal with ten years of experience in our industry. Next we have Michael Sleeper. He's our new assistant administrator. He has a bachelor's degree in computer science and a master's degree in artificial intelligence from the University of Georgia. He's President of the CSRA Computer Society and a former consultant in many areas, particularly also in Internet applications. Next we have Tommy Brown. He comes to us as assistant administrator from [inaudible]. He's got 18 years experience in the industry, so he's bringing us some good talent. Next is Nina [inaudible]. She is an application developer. She has a computer science degree, and she comes to us from Gracewood School and Hospital, and she has seven years experience. Next is our latest one that just--matter of fact, today is her first day on the job, so this will get her started right off the bat. She is a GIS application developer. She has a GIS geography major from the University of South Florida with a 3.4 GPA. She's already implemented a half-million dollar GIS project for nuclear missile sites at three Air Force bases, including 450,000 miles of cable. She uses the language art view, which we use in our GIS department, so she comes well qualified, too, and we want to welcome her as the newest one in our group that started--well, I guess yesterday for orientation. The last one, Tameka Allen, which some of you know, has now been promoted to our applications manager. She implemented the utility billing system and now she has taken on the lead--project leader for our new financial systems, and doing well there, as well as heading into some of the other areas. She handles a lot of the areas in IT. So this is some of our new staff, and I just wanted to welcome them aboard and introduce them to y'all. Thank y'all. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MAYOR SCONYERS: While she's passing those out, Mr. Wall, upon appointment to the Commission to fill Mr. Todd's place, when can the recipient actually take the seat? MR. WALL: Well, we'll have to get the papers from Atlanta as far as the oath, and those papers from the Governor's Office through the Secretary of State's Office. And maybe by the end of the week, first of next week, but not today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I think some folks were--didn't understand exactly when they could take the seat, and I wanted to make sure that was clarified. Okay, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Okay. We have a request to add to our agenda the reclassifying of the Clerk of the Juvenile Court of Richmond County from Deputy Clerk II to Deputy Clerk I and authorize hiring Ms. Alice Williams to fill that position. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead and vote on it? MR. WALL: Mr. Kernighan was going to come later, but--if anybody has any questions, but however you want to handle it. He was going to be here--he had a 3:15. Soon as he finished that up, he was going to come up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Well, why don't we go ahead with the order of business then, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Yes, sir. We'll take Item 75. Item 75 is to discuss restoring City Pensioners' benefits to same prior to consolidation. MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, we are asking for all former city and county employees, that they retain the same insurance under the consolidation bill, the same insurance that we had before consolidation. In 1995 there was a consolidation bill, and for the first year, 1996, they kept it at the same thing as they had before consolida- tion. 1997 they changed our insurance for the people that's on Medicare to PPO. And we found out later that they had a non-duplicating system under the SAS. Said that if Medicare paid 80% of what they approved, then the PPO wouldn't pay anything at all. But let me read to you Section 12 in the consolidation bill. It says: All employees and former employees of Richmond County and the City of Augusta, and if the charter of the City of Hephzibah is repealed as provided in Section 18 of this act, the City of Hephzibah and of every agency instrumentally [sic]--I may be pronouncing that wrong-- commission or authority thereof shall retain those pension rights which had occurred to them prior to January 1st, 1996. Under any pension plan adopted by law or the ordinance or resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County or the Mayor and Council of Augusta or the Board of Commissioners of the City of Hephzibah, the Commission-Council shall assume on January the 1st, 1996, all obligations arising under all such pension plans. But the assumption of such obligations by the Commission-Council shall not create any obligation on the part of the Commission-Council or create any right which did not exist prior to January the 1st, 1996. So we contend that we are entitled to the same insurance that we had prior to consolidation, and we ask you to adopt it today. And we have asked for this ever since the first of last year. We came here about three months ago and we were told in the meeting by Mr. Wall, Mr. Oliver, that we would have that information back in--it'd come back to the Commission in two weeks. It's been at least three months or more since that happened. And we are asking you today to give us what the consolidation bill calls for. Thank you. MR. MADDOX: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I'd like to speak to that just a minute. To start with, I know that Mr. Shepard and Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays knows what I'm talking about. When we came to work for the city it was not a matter of choice, they made us take this insurance. In fact, a lot of the men had better insurance policies where their wives worked. But they said you either take it or you don't work for the city. It was part of our contract. And up until consolidation all retirees had the same benefit. What you've got now, you've got--and I don't like the word discrimination, but that's what you're doing. When you're over 65 years old, that's when you need your insurance. So what you've done so far, you've taken the people over 65 and put them under one plan that's not half as good as the people that's 65 and under under that plan. They call it PPO. That's supposed to be Preferred Provider Option, but it's not an option. You don't get anything hardly out of it. But the people that's 65 and under, they get a good policy, and that was the same policy under the old city government that-- everybody that was retired had the same policy. Mr. Beard, you're aware of it. There was no difference in the retirees. But what y'all have done now, you've taken the people that's 65 and put them in a category. And if you don't need insurance when you're 65, I don't know when you do need it. If your mother and father was sitting out here and you was retired, you wouldn't be debating this, you'd go ahead and vote to give it to them. And that's all we're asking for, what we are entitled to. We was promised under consolidation we would not lose any benefits. We have lost benefits, the people that's 65 and over. I don't know if y'all are aware of it, but we've got three different plans now, and the people that are 65 are being discriminated against, and it's wrong. The only thing we're asking you, to give us the same policy that the other employees have that's retired that's 65 and under, and I don't think that's asking too much. We deserve it and we worked for it. We worked for the city 25 or 35 years and we was promised this, gentlemen. We were promised that we could carry our insurance and it would be the same as the retirees that we've always had. Well, you had consolidation, and in February of '97 you changed it completely. You said if you're 65 you've got to work under one plan. And let me tell you something else you're not aware of: A lot of people that's 65 is on Social Security and the insurance don't pay anything. But you're paying a couple of hundred dollars a month and we're paying so much and it's not worth the paper it's written on. If you think I'm kidding you, check on it. You get very few benefits if you're 65 and over and on Social Security. So I'm telling you you're discriminating. I don't like to use that word, but that's what you're doing when you get 65. My lord, if you can't have insurance when you're 65--you don't need it when you're 19 or 20, I can tell you that. I don't know nothing about the budget, but you spend a lot of money around here. You've got people sitting out here, you can see them, they're up in their 70's and everything, they're not going to be with us much longer. We just lost five of them this past year since the first of the year. You can put it in a study committee and we'll be down here another six months. We're simply asking you to do the fair thing, look out for the people that's dedicated their life to the city, and I don't think we're asking for too much. Thank you. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, it was my recollection that this matter had come before Administrative Services, and I can be corrected by the chairman or any of the members there, that we formed a--asked Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver to be on a task force, and we also asked the former employees, retired employees, to have a lawyer designated, and I understand that Mr. Jack Long has volunteered his services in that regard. And I haven't seen Mr. Long today, and he knew nothing of this agenda item, and I notice we have a lack of backup in our book. So, Mr. Wall, could you comment on where we are in those sessions that we asked you to work with Mr. Long on, please? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, I can. First of all, I was directed to investigate the complaints that have been made by the retirees as far as the nonpayment is concerned of benefits and where--the indication was that amounts had been paid of several thousands of dollars or claims were not being paid at all. In response to that, Lori D'Alessio from my office went with John Etheridge down to Columbus and spent the better part of a day down there reviewing a number of claim files, all of those individuals that we had information that had complaints about payment of the bills or the way their claims were being handled. As a result of that, I came back with the information that Lori had developed. She and I met together with Jack Long, and this has been several months ago--I can't remember the exact date, don't have that with me--and reviewed that with him. At that point he indicated that he was going to meet with the retirees, and in particular Mr. Lynn, and go over that information. And the understanding was that we were not going to bring it back before the Administrative Services Committee until after he had an opportunity to talk with them, and then if there were further questions, to come back and meet with me. I have seen Mr. Baker on a number of occasions and have asked on several occasions whether or not he had been in touch with Mr. Long, whether or not Mr. Long had been in touch with him, etc. So I was waiting for that process to work itself out, because I had provided to Jack the information that we had obtained when Lori and John went to Columbus and reviewed the claim history. I spoke with Jack, as Mr. Shepard did, today. He was not able to be over here. He likewise has not had an opportunity apparently to communicate with all the retirees and review that, and I think that it's--it needs to work through him. He has the information that we've developed and, you know, I think that--you know, some of the claims that were--had actually not been filed at the time a number of the retirees were--had complaints about the manner in which it was being processed. But we have provided that information and turned it over to Mr. Long, and I think he needs an opportunity to sit down with them to evaluate exactly where they are. MR. MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, could I speak for just a minute? We've talked to Mr. Long, but I don't know why in the world that the people that are 65 and over has to get a lawyer to get what they're entitled to. Why should we have to go get a lawyer and then meet with Mr. Wall to work these things out? We're just simply asking give us the same insurance that the people 65, 64, and 63 and 62 has got. Is that asking too much? What can a lawyer do that's going help us here? I don't know if we have to pay him or not, but I don't think we need no legal ruling on it. We're simply asking--you people are elected to make these decisions. You get it tied up in legal stuff and we'll be like some of the other things, it'll be eight years from now and we'll still be talking about what we're supposed to do. We're simply asking you to change our policy, give us the same thing that people that are retired 65 and under, and I don't think that's asking too much. If it is, then I think we're all in the wrong business. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions about this thing if you want to ask them. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, probably I may have been--and this didn't just start with consolidation. I probably was the most vocal critic in terms of insurance coverage, period, both life and hospitalization, old county commission and now, being satisfied on a few of the things that we did such as portability clauses and some other things in terms of active persons. But I've had conversations with many of the retirees, and, in fact, I don't mind admitting it in public, probably part of the reason that they are here is on some of the information that they found in terms of claim payment and, I might add, some of the information that I brought to them in reference to the way that that's being handled. I agree with the Chief in terms of whether or not this has to be handled legally. I think Jim and those to investigate in terms of the payment claims, that's only one part of the issue. And that's good that we're doing that in recognition of how they may be paying, but policy itself, you really don't have to leave this building in terms of what an insurance policy calls for. I mean, it's going to say what it states, it's going to say what it pays for, and that's what we signed on to. When we argued and debated on the last issue of changing insurance, one of the things, and I think the minutes of the record will show it, was that we were not--and I asked this question, in terms of harming anybody from the standpoint, whether they be active employees or retirees, that we were not going back into any state, and I was assured of that through Human Resources. I think that--is John in the room? Mr. Etheridge? CLERK: Do we need to get him? MR. MAYS: I think you darn sure do. I mean, that's where insurance is being handled, it's out of Human Resources Office. We don't have to deal with Columbus, in all due respect to Jack, Jack is my attorney, too, but I think we need to--on some occasions, depending on what kind of trouble I'm in. But I think that the insurance situation, Human Resources ought to be able to tell us point blank what predicament we have put those that are in a certain age bracket in, and that's been the argument that I've had with it all the time. And I don't think we have to deal with--that ought to be able to be cleared up in terms of what classification that we signed on to with those new programs, because we were basically assured that what is happening, what is alleged to be happening, would not take place under this new particular plan. Because, I mean, anytime if you're going to do something progressive with insurance and you're going to go backwards, that you're not helping anybody. And definitely-- and I've said this, and I've said this to both Mr. Baker and the Chief. In looking at some of the payments that are being made for those that are retired or in that age bracket, they would even be better off with supplemental insurance than they are with what the county has them classified in than the ones that are under 65. Cheaper and would pay more. It does no good to be classified and put under it if they're going to be totally, after whatever Medicare or Medicaid kicks in, if they're going to be out of it altogether, and that's what's happening. And I don't think that this Commission--at least I hope to God this Commission wouldn't have put itself in that position of wanting to voluntarily, knowingly, put people in that predicament. And the question was asked if it wasn't asked by anybody other than me whether or not this was going to be in a regressive mode, and I was assured that it wouldn't. I'm finding out that that's different. And that is different and we need to correct it. And I agree we do not need to--from a legal standpoint if they wish to be represented and to deal with that. But I agree we need to deal with the correction on this part. Human Resources, that's what they are paid to handle in reference to insurance. They ought to answer the questions point blank whether or not the coverage is there or not and then what have we got to do in terms of dealing with restoring it, and I think that's a very simple withinside three months question, Mr. Mayor, that ought to be able to be answered. Now, if the Administrator wants to answer it before the Human Resources Director gets here, feel free to do so. But I think it's been clear that without even checking the payment system out of Columbus we know that there has been a change. MR. OLIVER: Well, I'd like to make a couple of points. I mean, Mr. Etheridge can talk to the details of the plan, but there are clearly inequities in the way the premiums are structured in these plans. And just so that you know, the '49 retirees pay 10% of the premium cost, the '77 retirees pay 50% of the premium cost, okay, so there's a benefit that goes to the '49. I will note that the actuary has gone through and done an actuarial analysis which we're going to be presenting as part of the budget that shows us that our insurance costs are a million dollars over what they were anticipated in being and that we are making provision for those as part of the--for the budget and we're going to come back with a plan to address that. Additionally, the benefits paid--if they're not paying anything, then the numbers that the actuary has given us are incorrect. But of the retirees, the amount of benefits being paid under the plan are almost double that of any active employee, so somebody is getting paid. And obviously I can't go into who, but that's what the numbers show. So I think you've got to be careful as it relates to the equity between plans, because whatever is done for one plan--and I understand under the former city that they paid like a dollar on a prescription. Well, I think those days are numbered because I don't think that's something we can do or we can afford. But that's a policy decision that you need to make, and we've tried to make those types of things consistent. And as I say, there is a difference in premium payment right now, but that is in favor of the '49 participants. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I'd like to answer to that, very quickly, and this is something that I'm on record as stating over and over. This is prior to Mr. Oliver's coming, it's after Mr. Oliver got here, too. The million dollars that's being put forth in that difference, I doubt seriously if that is because we've got retirees. Now, they are the only ones that are getting any other outside contribution that's in there, so I would say that it's nil in terms of what that does. I think common sense, though, somewhere has to go into the writing of a plan. When we commission insurance companies and ask them for RFP's to do insurance on any plan, you state to them the type of workforce that you've got, how it's made up, whether you've got different plans or pensioners, and whatever else that might be in there, age, the whole nine yards. And in any common sense element, I think it will tell us that anything that goes backwards doesn't make sense. Now, if that ends up costing us in terms of doing so because we are trying to upgrade within that system--one of the things that came to mind, and this brought a lot about the pension debate, period, is because of the fact that the salaries of so many people who worked for both the city and county were so low. And in terms of their retirement of basically getting nothing, when you deal with hampering what they get in insurance, then you're really playing with a person's state of mind at that stage. So I don't think that the increases that we've got--I would probably--and I could be wrong, but I would debate whether or not they are the cause of the direct cost and the increase that gets into seven figures of money in terms of the retirees. Because that part that they are getting that's being kicked in by the feds because of their age, nobody's debating that. What's the problem is that once that's kicked in, they have nothing within the plan they have from us to take care of the rest. That puts them at a disadvantage that they were not in before. And I think in writing the plan, that was what some of us urged Human Resources and anybody else that had anything to do with putting it together to make sure that all of those factors went into the writing of that program at that time, and I still stand by that same argument. I made it two years ago, three years ago, and I make it today. MR. MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Oliver mentioned the '49 people paying 10%. That was what we were paying under the city. We didn't ask for that, the city gave it to us. They said it was part of our contract. We didn't ask for the 10%. They passed it, the City Council did. And we said we would not lose any benefits under the consolidation plan, but we did. Let me give you one item. If you're in an HMO, you have no deductions. Everything is 100% except the $10 you pay. Under the PPO you've got $250 per person, $750 per family. That alone is just out of reason if you're going to have two different groups that you're paying, and some of y'all should check into that really. Why should I have to pay $750 deduction when the guy that's 64 [inaudible]. But because I'm over 64 I've got to $750 deductible for my family. Now, that's not reasonable. You can't tell me that's treating me fair. MR. OLIVER: Federal law precludes that from being offered at this point to people that are over the retirement age. MR. MADDOX: I didn't understand you, Mr. Oliver. MR. OLIVER: Federal law prohibits that. It's my understanding that there's a qualified HMO that's going to be Medicare/Medicaid eligible that's supposed to come available February the 1st. MR. MADDOX: Well, we haven't got it now, though, see. MR. OLIVER: But that is not something that the local government has control over. That is a federal/state issue and not local government issue. MR. MADDOX: I'm going to disagree with you because the local government is the one that passed that $750 deductible against the people that's over 65. We had a meeting and it was passed at that time. Now, I don't know what you call local government, I'm not debating with you, but I'm telling you there's not a federal law that I know of. If it is, I'd like for you to show me. MR. OLIVER: It's the HMO that's the federal law. MR. MADDOX: We're not under HMO, we're under PPO, which means you get shafted. MR. WALL: Let me address this. I see Mr. Baker carrying the charter provision, and with all due respect to Mr. Baker, that deals solely with pension rights, it does not deal with health insurance. And, Mr. Baker, let me finish. If you take your position to its logical extreme, then it starts off "all employees and former employees". That means that we were locked into what the former city provided to all its employees, all its retirees, the county was locked into what it was providing to all its county employees, all its retirees, and that simply is not what the consolidation bill says. What it did not do was change your pension rights, and the health insurance is something outside of your pension rights. MR. BAKER: Mr. Wall, I'm not an attorney, but I got the minutes of--the 1995 pension committee minutes. They voted on there numbers and numbers of times pertaining to our insurance, and it was part of our benefits under the pension. And they set a precedent many, many years ago that they gave the retirees under the pension plan their insurance. And this consolidation bill, this is the law of the State of Georgia. It was passed pertaining to our consolidation. I think it's very simple. I think anybody could read it. And it's like the nose on your face, if you look in the mirror you can see it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Etheridge around here anywhere? John Etheridge? MR. MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, I'll say one other thing. Mr. Etheridge has tried to help us any way he could. When we present him down there with problems, he's went out of his way to try to help us. The only question I would ask you is why are we people that are 65 years old being treated different than the people that's under 65? That's my only question I'm asking. MR. OLIVER: Well, I think people that are in the PPO, Chief Maddox, receive the same deductibles and everything that people that are over 65 get. MR. MADDOX: No, sir, we don't. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me see if I can find Mr. Etheridge. I saw while ago. John Etheridge? How about calling and see if we can find Mr. Etheridge. Okay, we got him. Thank you. MR. LYNN: I'm not complaining about the law, I don't know anything about it, but I can speak for myself, my own experience. I'd like to quote here on page seven of the booklet that they sent to me after I appeared before the last committee meeting, and it says here: After a participant has paid $1,200 in combined deductible and out-of-pocket for in network providers, the program pays 100% of the covered expenses for the remainder of the year. That is a farce. I have downstairs in Mr. what's-his-name's office canceled checks nearly $6,000 that I've paid to University Hospital this year. In addition, I have also paid other doctors, other things pertaining to other treatment, blood work, x-rays, things of that nature, that I've paid that they would pay some of them as little as 95 cents on. Now, that's a long ways from the $1,200. My expenses this year after Medicare was nearly $10,000. Very, very little. Now, I took several days at the request of the lady in his office to go through my bills determining what Medicare had paid, what the SAS had paid a part of, what SAS had refused to pay any on, and what I still owed, the whole works. This information is down in his office now. The lady called me yesterday and told me that they were reevaluating my claims. But my complaint is this: Why should we have to have a reevaluation when the bills go to them anyway? These bills went to them months ago. My wife died in July and they are still not paying. And I feel like if we--prior to Mr. Etheridge taking this over and writing up this trash that we have for insurance for Medicare people, we didn't have any complaints. They paid that 20%. Now, if the insurance is going to pay 100% for somebody that's employed, why in the devil can't they pay 20% for the old people here that are on Medicare? It doesn't make sense to me that they complain about 20% and then talk about paying 100% for everybody else. Thank you, sir. MR. WALL: I would point out, Mr. Lynn--and you and I spoke out in the hallway beforehand and I will check into it. At the time that Ms. D'Alessio went down to Columbus and reviewed your bills, there was approximately $500 that was owed by you or to be paid by you, which you may have paid. The maximum amount provided--remember, the language you read said inpatient--in system provider, the most you should have to pay is $1,250. And with all the claims that we reviewed, so long as a provider that was in the system of the PPO was utilized, that's the most that was charged to any individual. I'll be glad to look at your situation. But, members of the Commission, I think that's the reason that this needs to be dealt with--not necessarily among the attorneys. You can take me out of the loop and that'll be fine. But we looked at the claims because of complaints that were made like that, and we got the documentation and I provided that to Jack. Now, these claims may have been incurred or accrued since this report was run, which was around the 1st of June, and it may very well have, but we'll have to look at those and see. But the most you should have to pay, provided you use one of the approved doctors, is $1,250. MR. LYNN: May I ask a question? Where is that list of approved doctors? Mr. Etheridge told us when he was feeding us all this baloney about the insurance that we could go to any doctor or any hospital of our choice. He just failed to mention at that time that we had to pay for it, though. He also told us that we could get all of our medications for five or ten dollars. I went to the drugstore yesterday with a prescription and they told me it was not covered by insurance. It was a legal prescription by a doctor for leg cramps, and they told me at the drugstore that it was not covered. Now, that is more of the stuff. Y'all talk about your persons we are supposed to go to, but you haven't given us any list of that. You've not told us-- MR. WALL: Well, I think you--you should have a list of the approved physicians. It has been circulated and I assume that you got a list of-- MR. LYNN: Well, he told us we could go to any of them of our choice. MR. USRY: Mr. Mayor, we attended the meeting that we had back in May or June or whenever it was with Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Wall and some of the Commissioners at that time, and at that time we had questions. Not only are those that are over 65 being penalized, those that have retired under disability as myself are being penalized. When we asked the question in the preliminary meetings when we took on the new insurance, Mr. Etheridge said that PPO's and all would be paid the same. At that time we were under the impression that once Medicare took care of the payment, then SAS would take up the remainder of the 20% and deal with it on the 80% basis. That is not what's being happened. We have lost coverage, not just for the age 65 but for some of the other county employees. The problem is I don't think anybody really knows what the system is talking about, nor do they want to talk about what's really going on, nor are they explaining to you what's really going on. I think that what's happened is you've got a lot of those that have retired out here and gave a lot of good service to this county and to this city a raw deal, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor, the last meeting we attended down here, Mr. Etheridge and, I think, Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver stated to us that they were working on a plan and that we was going to be pleased with it. We're still waiting on that plan. Now, they told us to bring all our bills and they would go over them--reevaluating is the word they used--and so we brought them all down. And I called Melba in Mr. Etheridge's office and she put me on a three-way conversation with SAS. And I had bypass surgery last July, and I had a few bills that I thought the insurance was supposed to pay. They told me at that time they wouldn't pay any of my bills, that you're on your own. But, you know, we're still waiting on that plan that Mr. Etheridge said we were going to be pleased with, but we haven't seen it yet. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck, would you have any objection to my saying what the numbers that were paid on your account as of June 30? MR. BECK: Not that I know of. MR. OLIVER: Okay. According to SAS, at that point in time there were $60,047.84 in charges, and the patient's responsibility was $903.02. MR. BECK: That's not true. MR. OLIVER: That's the figures that came about as a result of the meeting. MR. WALL: Those were the payments that were reviewed in Columbus by Ms. D'Alessio and-- MR. BECK: I'll bring my paperwork down here and show you. MR. BAKER: I'd like to make one more statement. MR. HANDY: I'd like to have another meeting, Mr. Mayor, for insurance purposes only. MR. BAKER: I would like to make a short statement. They were talking about us getting Mr. Long over here. We didn't seek Mr. Long to be here at this meeting. We thought we could come in here without an attorney and ask for what is right under the consolidation bill. Thank you. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to suggest that we're going to have an Administrative Services meeting on Monday, and it appears that there are a lot of questions to be answered, and it appears that we could go on like this most of the afternoon. And I'm going to make a motion at this time that we refer this to Administrative Services and ask that Attorney Long and the other parties involved in the pension come in and let's try to settle this thing at that time. MR. SHEPARD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MR. BAKER: Mr. Lee, we didn't hire Mr. Long. MR. BEARD: I understand he's volunteering his services. MR. BAKER: Well, I hope so, but we didn't ask for him to come over here. We thought we could--we thought we could come over here and ask the Commission, with no offense to anybody, but we thought we could ask for what the consolidation bill calls for. MR. BEARD: And I think you have that right, Mr. Baker, and I think it should be. But I'm just thinking that this is going to take a long, long time with all the questions and all the comments, and possibly by Monday--you know, we want to help you, and I think that that's the way to do that is to get in a smaller situation wherein we can work with it and have all the people there who need to be there and get some more information. MR. LYNN: Mr. Beard, let me clear up one thing. Mr. John Long is a friend of mine. He didn't volunteer his services to all of the retired people, he volunteered his services to me personally. So if there's a-- MR. BEARD: Well, he doesn't have to be here, but I think we need a little more time to-- MR. LYNN: Well, I think I need some help, too, because I'm the only one here that's spent the money that I have in the last few months, and I'm going to welcome him to come. And I'll tell you something else, if I have to pay him, I will. Because I feel as though what the insurance policy says and what I have had to pay, there's no comparison. And if it takes a lawyer for me to get part of it back, the only alternative I have is to get a lawyer, because I think I've been shafted by this so-called insurance we've got. MR. BEARD: And we want to correct that wrong if that's the situation. MR. LYNN: But I wanted to clear up the fact, though, that Mr. Long volunteered his services to me, not to everybody. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Please clear it up today. The only thing a motion has got to be made and it voted on and we'll know where we stand. SPEAKER: Mr. Beard, when and if you get your committee together to meet with the advisers, be sure to include at least two people concerning retirement. Because we can sit here all day long and tell you everything, but until you hear it from their mouth you won't know. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Lee, you asked for that for Monday; right? This coming Monday? MR. BEARD: Yeah, to be added to the Administrative Services. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's going to be the 12th at what time? CLERK: Two o'clock. MAYOR SCONYERS: The 12th at two o'clock. MR. BAKER: I wish you would vote on it today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the motion on the floor, please. CLERK: The motion is to refer this to Administrative Services along with the pensioners--did we delete Mr. Long? MR. BEARD: If he wants to come, he's welcome. MR. BAKER: We'll be glad for him to come, but we haven't hired him. CLERK: At the Administrative Services on Monday at two o'clock in Room 802. MR. HANDY: Do we have a local representative for the insurance company that we have that could be here also? I'd like to add that on as an amendment to have him here. MR. OLIVER: Well, wait one second. We'll try to do that. That timing is pretty tight for that, but we'll try to do everything we can to have him here. MR. HANDY: We've wasted an hour and 15 minutes for nothing, so whatever it take, if we're paying the insurance man, ask him to be here. MR. OLIVER: What we need is somebody from the actuarial firm and somebody from the claims administration forum. MR. HANDY: Well, we need everything we need to get the insurance straight. This could be affecting my policy, too. I don't know, but I'm concerned, too. MR. OLIVER: Well, also, you know, it will affect--or could affect the existing employees if you enhance the level of benefit. MR. HANDY: Because you say the '77 plan pays 50%, that's the plan I'm in. So I'm paying 50%, so I've got concerns here, too. MR. MADDOX: You better hope you don't live to be 65. I do want to say this: Mr. Etheridge down there has really tried to help a lot of people that went to him. I sent a couple of people to him and he did everything he could to help them. I know some people kind of doubt him, but Mr. Etheridge has tried to help a lot of people that's over 65, and I want to congratulate him for helping us. MR. SHEPARD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I have nothing wrong with that motion. This doesn't need to be a part of it as an amendment, but this is just a suggestion. You're going to end up spending some time on this issue on Monday regarding insurance and you might need to have the Clerk to either move Finance or start it earlier or start the Engineering Services later because you all are on a 30-minute time frame for that committee. I don't think that's going to work. This issue is going to take your whole committee. And I think to do them justice and saying, well, we've got a committee coming in behind us, we need to move it, that's not going to cut it. I'm not on your committee, I will be there, but I think we need to give her that leeway to get with the chairperson of those committees, move those time frames so that you've got adequate time in Administrative Services in order to handle this. MR. BEARD: Speaking for the Clerk, I'm sure she can work the logistics out for us. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, with Engineering Services following the Administrative committee, if there seems to be a time over-running the Administrative Services Committee, then we can just pass the Engineering Services Committee on to the full Commission to give them some more time. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 61: Z-98-103 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission requesting to rezone those properties that are not agricul- tural properties from the agricultural zoning classification (A) to the residential zoning classification (R-1) within the area described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of Old Waynesboro Road and Georgia Highway 56 (Mike Padgett Highway), then southwest along Old Waynesboro Road to Spirit Creek, then west along Spirit Creek to the Georgia-Florida Railroad, then south along the Georgia-Florida Railroad right-of-way to the Hephzibah city limits, then east along the Hephzibah city limits to U.S. Highway 25, then south along Highway 25 to Little Spirit Creek, then northeast along Little Spirit Creek to Georgia Highway 56 (Mike Padgett Highway), then north along Mike Padgett Highway to the point of origin. [Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Any manufactured home legally located with the subject area at the time of the rezoning may be replaced at any time in the future by a manufactured home that, at the time of replacement, is less than five years old; and, 2. Property subject to a "conservation use covenant" (as defined in O.C.G.A.  4-8-S7.4) as of the effective date of the rezoning shall be automatically conditionally rezoned to agricultural. Property which becomes subject at some future date to a "conservation use covenant" shall be automatically conditionally rezoned agricultural at that time. If property within the subject area which has been conditionally zoned agricultural based on a "conservation use covenant" subsequently is found to no longer be eligible for such covenant, said property shall automatically revert to R-1 zoning. If property within the subject area which has been conditionally rezoned agricultural based on a "conservation use covenant" is subsequently subdivided any way, then said property shall automatically revert to R-1 zoning.] MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to move that on Item Number 61 that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission in regards to that particular item. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I would ask if there are any that would like to speak against or for this out there. [NO OBJECTORS WERE NOTED.] MR. BRIDGES: Okay. George, I'd like to make sure we understand a couple of things on this, and particularly in regards to my understanding that this change will in no way increases taxes on those properties that were formerly agricultural. MR. PATTY: Okay. The Tax Assessor made that statement at our meeting, okay? MR. BRIDGES: The second thing is, it's my understanding from what you've got here on the agenda under item number one in the bubble, that if someone's mobile home burns up or is destroyed by flood or whatever, that they have--my understand- ing was they'd have two years to put another mobile home in that same lot, that they would not have to build a home on that lot. MR. PATTY: That's correct. And I would like for you to add to the language in the agenda item under number one where it says at the time of replacement is less than five years old, I'd like for you to add provided that the replacement occurs within two years of removal. That was, you know, presented at all the meetings and it was inadvertently left off the agenda. That would mean that any time that an existing legally-located mobile home is removed from this area, that within two years of that another mobile home could replace it. The only condition would be that that new mobile home would have to be less than five years of age. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that amendment. MR. BRIDGES: And if there is an avenue for those who may have a piece of property between two mobile homes that they obviously probably couldn't sell to build a home on, there is an avenue for them to seek to have that--to be able to place a mobile home on there; is that correct? MR. PATTY: In addition to the agricultural zoning, we have a residential mobile home zoning that allows manufactured homes also, and the remedy in that situation would be for them to seek rezoning to R-MH. And obviously the surrounding land use would be taken into consideration in making that decision. MR. BRIDGES: And also for someone who may want to put a mobile home in their backyard for their kids or something like that, they have an avenue of redress as well in this situation? MR. PATTY: They also would have the option of seeking R-MH rezoning. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further 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: The consent agenda will be Items 1 through 59. Items 1 through 59 is the consent agenda. PLANNING: 1. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Servants of God Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Koger Street, 153 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of 15th Street and Koger Street (1216 Koger Street). 2. Z-98-105 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Nicole Peake, on behalf of Jeffery Mobley, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Lucie Street, 130.1 feet southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Shilo Street intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Lucie Street (3415 Lucie Street). 3. Z-98-106 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Tower Com Southeast Limited Partnership, on behalf of Dorothy A. Booker, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower in B-2 (General Business) Zone as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of McElmurray Road, 513 feet, more or less, southeast of the centerline of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and McElmurray Road. 4. Z-98-107 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Dion O. and Jerilynn M. Blocker requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Stone Road and Moncrief Street (2301 Moncrief Street). 5. Z-98-108 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Chuck Hornsby, on behalf of the Brothersville Development Corp., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Wells Drive and Lumpkin Road, with the following condition: That an off- street parking and ingress/egress plan including, at a minimum, shared driveways and improved parking in rear yards to be approved by the Planning Commission Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-residential use of this property. 6. Z-98-111 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Eugene Kirkland requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 180 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wylie Drive and Mike Padgett Highway (3205 Mike Padgett Highway). 7. Z-98-112 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Hubert H. Williams III requesting a waiver of the condition placed on the 1986 rezoning to a B-2 (General Business) classification on property located on the southeast corner of the intersec- tion of Broad Street and Milledge Road (2176 Broad Street) with the following condition: That the use of the property be limited to an auto car wash and detailing operation or those uses allowed in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zone. 8. Z-98-113 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert Cooper, on behalf of Ebbie Pressley Petrea III, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the south right-of- way line of Wrightsboro Road, 117 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Spring Street and Wrightsboro Road (1838 Wrightsboro Road), with the following conditions: 1) That the existing residential structure be adapted without a drastic change of appearance; 2) vehicle parking be in the rear yard except for one handicapped space in the front yard; 3) a new driveway on the northeast side of the property shall be constructed; and 4) that conditions 1-3 shall be complied with before a Certificate of Occupancy is approved. 9. Z-98-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from James S. Timberlake, on behalf of Augusta Exchange II, LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on Bearing N 625'52" E and being 850 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway and Agerton Lane (3551 Wheeler Road). 10. Z-98-115 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Dianne Dansby, on behalf of First Baptist Church of Gracewood, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the centerline of Gracewood Cemetery Road extended intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road (3651 Peach Orchard Road). 11. Z-98-117 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Nellie Davenport, on behalf of Musgro and Mary Brinson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Doug Bernard Parkway, 437 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Nixon Road and Doug Bernard Parkway (1555 Doug Bernard Parkway). 12. S-368-V-IV - PINNACLE PLACE - PHASE V - SECTION IV - FINAL PLAT - A petition from James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Pinnacle Properties, Inc., requesting final plat approval for Pinnacle Place, Phase V, Section IV. This phase is an extension of Pinnacle Way and Dunson Drive adjacent to Pinnacle Place, Phase III, Section IV, and contains 41 lots. FINANCE COMMITTEE: 13. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes in the amount of $939.75 to Five-O-Development, Inc. for overpayment of taxes on Map 39, Parcel 138.2. 14. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the amount of $1,716.91 to Grady Smith for overpayment of taxes on Map 32-1, Parcel 68. 15. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the amount of $565.23 to Kilpatrick & Cody for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 2055409.11. 16. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the amount of $853.35 to Leasetec Corp. for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 2006292. 17. Motion to approve refund of 1996 taxes in the amount of $443.05 to Uniformals Unlimited for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 1136838. 18. Pulled from consent agenda. 19. Motion to approve Resolution granting the consent of Augusta, Georgia to the transfer of control/consent to assign- ment of the non-exclusive cable television franchise to Charter Communications, LLC. 20. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing judicial in rem tax foreclosures. 21. Motion to approve the abatement of 1998 taxes for Map 170, Parcel 7, in the amount of $994.34. 22. Motion to approve allocation of funds to renovate the former White Road Shop into an operation base for the Trees & Landscaping Department with $18,801 shortfall taken from capital reserves. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 23. Motion to cancel membership with Energy Communities Alliance in the amount of $5,000. 24. Motion to approve petition for retirement of Robert N. Dixon, Sr. 25. Motion to approve petition for retirement of Gwendolyn B. Streaty. 26. Motion to approve the Weed & Seed Coordinator position and reporting relationship. 27. Motion to approve the relocation of Trees & Land- scaping and renovations to the former White Road Shop. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 28. Motion to approve proposed "1999" LARP Program List with the additions of Centurion Road and Hephzibah-McBean Road from Highway 25 to Highway 88. 29. Motion to approve list of roads to be let to contract which have adequate right-of-way. 30. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to prepare plans and specifications for the Tree Removal and Maintenance of the Augusta Levee and let project to bid. Resources for this project are available in the Special One Percent Sales Tax-Phase III Contingency Account 57-8081-00-0606. 31. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $4,427.50 for W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. regarding additional engineering services requested for the extension of a 12" water main along Columbia Nitrogen Road. 32. Motion to award low bid to Hardy Plumbing, who submitted a bid of $528,735 regarding construction of the RCCI Trunk Sewer. 33. Motion to approve Change Order to Engineering Services Agreement with Freeman and Vaughn for additional work related to digester modifications at the WWTP at a cost not to exceed $23,700. 34. Motion to approve final change order in the amount of $4,587.03 to Blair Construction for work completed on the Belair Hills Water Line Improvements. 35. Motion to approve engineering fees for ZEL Engineers in the amount of $32,815.47. 36. Motion to approve award of Augusta Corporate Park Trunk Sewer to low bidder, Mabus Construction, in the amount of $818,288.63. 37. Motion to authorize additional engineering services to revise the Hyde Park Drainage Improvements plans and specifications with W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $6,500.00. Approve Capital Project Budget Amendment #5 to allocate funds from project contingency. PUBLIC SAFETY: 38. Pulled from consent agenda. 39. Motion to approve $65,658 for purchase of Trimble Navigation GPS Equipment hardware, software, and training. 40. Motion to approve award of a purchase order for ten radar speed detection units for the Sheriff's Department Road Patrol Division at a total cost of $19,490. Bid #98-145A. 41. Motion to approve $234,191 for installation of a PBX system from low bidder, Sprint, to be funded from Phase III SPLOST; and authorize the hiring of a Telecommunication Specialist I to reduce associated telephone expenses by $57,360 annually. 42. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between The McKinney Corporation and Augusta, Georgia for 7,000 square feet in Southgate Shopping Center for new Sheriff's Department Substation. PUBLIC SERVICES: 43. Motion to approve new ownership request by Barbara Saunders for consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Rudy's Tavern located at 1979 Tobacco Road. 44. Pulled from consent agenda. 45. Motion to approve new ownership request by Setsuko Ono for consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Mikoto of Kurama located at 3102 Washington Road. 46. Motion to approve new ownership request by Malcolm Parkin for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Raco #6 located at 2447 Wrightsboro Road. 47. Motion to approve the City of Augusta's sponsorship of the annual Georgia Transit Association Conference in the amount of $500 to be paid from "Commission Other" account. 48. Motion to approve new ownership request by Rufus Van, Jr. for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Garden City Convention Center located at 1241 Gordon Highway. 49. Motion to approve Certification Agreement regarding the Georgia Certified Local Government Program (CLG) for Augusta-Richmond County's Historic Preservation Program. 50. Motion to approve a deductive change order with Blair Construction in the amount of $2,934 for the Lake Olmstead Park Project. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 51. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held September 15, 1998. 52. Motion to approve minutes of the called meeting of the Commission held September 28, 1998. ATTORNEY: 53. Motion to approve an Ordinance entitled "Groundwater Recharge Area Protection Ordinance" which is proposed to bring Augusta into conformity with the rules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources at Chapter 391-3-16.01. First reading. 54. Motion to approve an Ordinance entitled "Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance" which is proposed to bring Augusta into conformity with the rules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of Chapter 391-3-16.01. First reading. 55. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to provide for a new Section 25-D entitled "Savannah River Corridor Protection District (SRCP)" to bring Augusta into conformity with the rules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of Chapter 391-3-16.04. First reading. 56. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Subdivi- sion Regulations for Augusta-Richmond County to provide for wetland protection in conformity with the rules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources at Chapter 391-3-16.03. First reading. 57. Motion to approve an Ordinance entitled "Site Plan Regulations for Augusta, Georgia" which adopts existing site plan policies and also new provision necessary to bring Augusta into conformity with the rules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of Chapter 391-3-16.03 regarding Wetlands Protection. First reading. 58. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Chapter 8-4 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code entitled "Trees" to provide for additional landscaping standards for development that is not single-family residence in nature, and for other purposes. First reading. 59. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Section 6-7-10 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regulating Taxi Cabs: to remove the limitation on the number of Taxi Cabs; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. Second reading. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions on these. I don't want to pull them off if there's no problem with it. Item Number 10, Jim, dealing with First Baptist Church of Gracewood, we have the supporting documentation from a meeting of the church that authorizes the sale of the church property. MR. WALL: I spoke with Mr. Patty, advised him that generally in a Baptist church the trustees have the power insofar as dealing with the property. He got the church bylaws and got a statement from the trustees that it's in conformity with those bylaws. So, yes, sir, we've fulfilled the legal requirement. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. On Item Number 28, would the maker of the motion accept a change in wording there? When this came from the Engineering Services--this reads that we would add to the LARP List Hephzibah-McBean Road from 25 to Hephzibah city limits. That should read from 25 to Highway 88 because Hephzibah-McBean Road goes through the Hephzibah city limits to Highway 88. MR. POWELL: You are correct on that, Mr. Bridges. We discussed that, and I'll accept that amendment. MR. BRIDGES: On Item Number 38, is it my understanding that this additional attorney position for the Solicitor is to be funded for this year only and not to be a continuation after this year? MR. OLIVER: I think that the direction of the committee was to include it in next year's budget also. At the present time this is not a budgeted position; however, the Solicitor has assured us that she can take it out of lapsed salaries. But, you know, my comment and my recommendation would be to wait on the management study. MR. BRIDGES: Could we pull that one, Mr. Mayor? I'd like to discuss Number 38. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question I'd like to address on Engineering Services Item Number 30 on the contract for the tree removal on the levee, and I may want it pulled. How are we going to coordinate the tree removal contract with, say, the natural areas around the Canal that are subject to the Canal grant improvement that's going to be done with the ISTEA money; and, also, how are we going to coordinate that with the Riverwalk? We're surely not going to authorize cutting trees on the Riverwalk for the structural integrity of the levee, are we? MR. OLIVER: No. Mr. Murphy or Mr. Green should be here, but we-- MR. SHEPARD: Well, I'll just ask that be pulled then. MR. OLIVER: We have an obligation under our agreement to do certain maintenance items, but it's not intended to impact the aesthetic part. Obviously there may be some difference of opinion between the aesthetic part and the other, but I'll make sure-- MR. SHEPARD: I'll just ask that Number 30 be pulled. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the chairman if Item 44 relates to a new ownership or if that's a transfer at J.C. Food Store on Golden Camp. We have quite a few wine and beer places out there. I'd like for that to be pulled. MR. MAYS: That's perfectly fine with me. And also, Mr. Mayor, there's a large delegation in reference to Item 44. So if we're backing up to that, we may want to pull that one and recognize the people that are objecting to that at that time, too. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to take Item Number 18 and combine it with Item Number 70 and handle them both at the same time. I also have a question about Item Number 28. Can spend the LARP money for the City of Hephzibah since it's going through their jurisdiction? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Murphy out there? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mark, if we go through the City of Hephzibah, can we ask that their LARP List [inaudible]? SPEAKER: We can put it on our LARP List, and however they distribute the money, whether it's separate from ours or Hephzibah [inaudible], either way. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Murphy, in reference to the contract for the cutting of trees on the levee, how are we going to coordinate the more city parts of the levee? For example, Riverwalk is located partly on the levee, and the Canal Authority, I think, has obtained a federal ISTEA grant for the improvement of the Canal area. How are we going to distinguish those areas of the levee that have aesthetic value and may have trees on them and this contract? MR. MURPHY: That will be taken care of. It'll be taken care of by our--in the contract. MR. SHEPARD: In the specifications? MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: Well, I'd ask that the maker of the motion include that those specifications be attached to Item 30. MR. POWELL: Amendment accepted. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. You don't need to pull 30. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I did want to pull 18 where it can be combined with 70. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, one correction. On Item Number 19, as opposed to Paul G. Allen--I was subsequently notified and sent a revised resolution over. It's Charter Communications, LLC, is the one that it would be assigned to. CLERK: Okay. We have a motion to approve the consent agenda items with the exception of Item 38, 18, and 44. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Are we ready to do Item 18 and 70? MR. POWELL: Yes, that'll be fine. [18. Motion to approve $150,000 additional funding for Blythe Community Center to be paid from Sales Tax Revenue Account SPLOST/LOST. 70. Motion to approve bid award for the construction of Blythe Community Center.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Item Number 18 and a motion that we approve Item Number 70, for the funding to come out of SPLOST. If there is a shortage of funding in that fund, then the remainder of the project be funded out of LOST. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck passed out a list that was put in front of each of you all. Is that the list that you want to take it out of? MR. POWELL: That'll be acceptable. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Powell. Do we have a second to Mr. Powell's motion? MR. BEARD: I'll second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we want to go to the LOST? I think we can do this completely in SPLOST. MR. POWELL: That'll be fine. If it's available in SPLOST, Mr. Brigham, I have no problem with that. But if the funding runs short, in order to keep the contract from being derailed or postponed, then just go ahead and fund the rest of it out of there. But you have a plan there that will cover it out of SPLOST. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, let's leave it in SPLOST, then we [inaudible] everybody's treated the same and fair. MR. POWELL: I'm assuming everyone's going to be treated fair anyway, Mr. Brigham. The plan is on the table, and if it can be funded out of SPLOST, that's the first step that should be taken. MR. OLIVER: I would note I think that's do-able. A good project will come in within 5% of the budget if you ride tight control on it, and I've talked with Mr. Beck about that. But obviously if the funding for the South Augusta Regional Park, if change orders exceeded the 320,000, we would come back to you all requesting additional reallocation from SPLOST. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, can I say something to Mr. Powell? I want to support this project, Mr. Powell, but I can't support it unless you drop the word LOST. MR. POWELL: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke, that word is dropped. Never let it be said that I'm hard to work with. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I support the project there in Blythe, and I've always supported it from the very beginning, but I want to make sure that one piece of language is not included in that motion. I have no problem with what Finance approved before it came to Public Services in reference to the additional funding source. I have no problem with that. What I do think that we need to look at, Mr. Mayor, and I want to make sure this is not in the motion as an automatic, but I think we need to allow the Attorney some time if this is. Now, in that motion, and I want to make sure we're correct on it, the plan in terms of--and I know we've had to move a lot of things, Recreation and in juggling, because all these things are coming in over what we have allotted in there. But are we going to go with the proposed plan at all or do we have enough money that we're going to try to deal with SPLOST to deal with this? Now, if that's all that's in the motion, I don't have a problem with that. But I think we need to look at the proposed list or we need to maybe leave this out of the motion today for this particular reason: there are--there is, rather, language that has tied the City of Augusta in long- term language to Pendleton King estate. I'm not sure and I want to make sure, and Tom knows more about it than I do, but if we're going to be terminating things that are in a lease that are involved in the King estate, both with the Heath Street property and with anything to do with Pendleton King, I think that's something that the City Attorney needs to have some time and recommendation on, bring it back to us, and let us know the full parameters of where that takes us before we touch any of that money even though that may be simply a termination of what we provide for it. And I just want to make sure that that's clear at this point. If we're going to include this part in it--and I appreciate the Director getting us to a point where we can juggle where maybe it doesn't hurt. But in the language of that lease I think we need to be real careful there in terms of how we deal with that with that estate property, and I don't think he's had time to deal with that and make a proper recommendation on it. And I would rather we leave that out of it, support it on the SPLOST money that's there, and go ahead on and try to complete the project like that. MR. BECK: Mr. Mays, that was the intention of what we were doing. The recommendation would be, since we have built these other aquatic facilities, would be that that is something I think we need to explore would be that lease situation for the long-term benefit. What this would do, though, would take those monies out of that facility and not to spend those monies that are in our SPLOST. It would not have anything to do--and I don't think you should treat the lease in this particular motion. You should just deal with the monies that were obligated for the park, but not the lease itself. MR. MAYS: Well, my only problem I have there is that, you know, when you take money away from the situation, then sometimes you take life blood away from the situation. And you say, well, I've not touched the language of it, but, you know, it's like in the kitchen: you don't throw the stove and the refrigerator out, but if there's no food in there to cook, then there's nothing to live off of. I don't want us dealing with the money before we know the full parameters of what we're doing in there. Because I think that in terms media- wise and in terms of people that have been close to that estate as what it has serve for with the city, I don't want us to get out on a limb as though in headlines we are terminating agreements, per se, with the King estate and how it relates to the city and because of the long-term effects that those properties have had with the city. I think that's something we need to deal with totally separate, even if it's just a part of it, and I think the first dangerous step to make is when you take funding away from it. When you take the funding away from it, then everything else dies. And, you know, you and I have had this discussion before. When you start moving monies, even though we've had the Belle Terrace situation, but one of the worst things you can have is to have a facility that you somewhat abandon by means of taking the funds out of it. If the funds aren't there, then it doesn't function, and that's just a fact of life. If there's no money to put in it, then it's not going to move. I would rather see us, since we're going at it in that manner, to get all of the money that we need, you know, rather than some on the SPLOST situation. If we're going into it, we might as well as go into it whole hog, get the money, do what we got to do in Blythe. But I think if we're going to deal with a split situation of coming over in here and find something down in that darn lease that we may not like, then I think we need to know, Mr. Mayor, clear sailing, where we're going before we start touching that because those are some things that have been left in trust that were in place before anybody in this room that's in public office was dealing with. We inherited it with the old city. And I think, Lee, Steve, you all can attest to the fact that when you start getting over in that you're getting in delicate ground, and I think Jim needs to be--and you, Tom, y'all need to get together on that before we start dealing with moving some money out of that. That's just my question of preference there. And I support the Blythe situation, have done it, but I think we need to do it out of one source of funding that's clear where we're not tampering with another one and have not explored the full possibilities of what we're getting into by taking funds away from that estate property. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll amend my motion to be subject to Attorney review to make sure that we address Mr. Mays' concerns. We definitely don't want to violate any agreement that we have down there. MR. MAYS: Wait a minute, I thought this wasn't in there. Is this in there or out of there? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, it's deleting it from three sources. One is $50,000 from the Heath Street pool, $20,000 from the Traylor Street playground, and $80,000 from the contingency for the South Augusta Regional Park, subject to the Attorney's approval. MR. KUHLKE: I don't see the connection between the swimming pool and the King estate. MR. OLIVER: Well, I think the question, Mr. Kuhlke, is whether we have any contractual arrangement to maintain or keep that pool in a certain state, and I don't know the answer. MR. BECK: I can answer that. We do have a lease. There is an existing lease for us to maintain that property. Now, that is a separate lease from the lease that's associated with Pendleton King. It's two different sets of trustees. So-- MR. MAYS: And you can attest it's been in place a long time, but Bill and some of the new ones don't know what they'll get from it. I can guarantee you that some folk that's dealing with it, they'll give you a call and they'll let you know the parameters on it. Real quick. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm still--how much money did y'all find in SPLOST to be able to deal with it? What I'm looking at is you're going in on $50,000 on one place. If you're going into what you've got on SPLOST money, why not go ahead and deal with all of it out of SPLOST money? I mean, you're going to get the same criticism for taking $10 out as you will $10,000. Why get into the parameters of messing with this pool money? You need to study that a little further, whether the contractual agreement is there or not. Because I think if you don't provide the money to deal with the pool, then are we just going to abandon it and leave it? I got a problem with that. MR. OLIVER: It's all being proposed, Mr. Mays, to come out of the SPLOST money. MR. MAYS: But what I'm saying, if this--is this in it or out it? MR. OLIVER: Based on the current motion, if it was adopted it would come out of it. MR. MAYS: Okay. Well, I guess I'll make a substitute motion then that you take it out of it--this out of the plan and you find a way to deal with all of it out of SPLOST. [inaudible] that particular one cent tax than you got coming out of $50,000 on this pool. MR. OLIVER: It would have to come out of other SPLOST projects. This requires a reallocation if you're going to take it out of SPLOST, and what's been suggested are these three projects. Now, if you want to take it out of other projects, that's a policy decision. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I would like to amend my motion again. Let me make sure I've got it correct. I'd like to amend the motion that the monies come out of the other two projects, and if the funding is not available in the other projects, that we come back before the Commission and let the County Attorney bring us back his opinion of the situation and make sure that we are not violating any lease and that we're not degrading or closing up any project. MR. MAYS: Let me just ask: what happened in Finance? Because I know I inherited it back when we started committee meeting the other day. But I thought there was a formula approved in Finance that went out three to one that found the money that didn't include this. Now, you know, this has occurred since we met and to deal with this money. Now, if it was voted on in a committee before it got to my committee to find a source, then I don't see why we ought to absorb all of it out of Public Services in pitting one thing against another. I am thoroughly in favor of that project. I was in favor of it when some folk that are in favor of it now wasn't in favor of it. And I don't have a vote in Blythe, but this one I do have a vote over here in Five. Now, let's get to the raw numbers of this thing. I thought in Finance you all decided how you were going to get that. Now, was that an illegal source it came out of and had to be changed? I thought it was voted on legally. I thought the recommendation was that you didn't want to do it, but it was voted on to do it and that it could be done that way. MR. BRIDGES: Well, what went on in Finance, it was passed out of Finance, but there was some disagreement or discussion as to where it should come from, LOST or SPLOST. And it actually went to your committee, my understanding is, with--and got no recommendation. In the meantime, before the Finance Committee meeting and this meeting, we asked the Director of Recreation to see if he could find the money in SPLOST because LOST money really should be used to--be applied to the property tax relief, and this is what he's come up with as far as making this project work. And the $50,000 from the Heath Street project is in the SPLOST. It is part of the sales tax money. I'm a little confused since you're saying it's in there or not in there. It is part of the SPLOST, it is one of these three projects that would be paid from sales tax monies. MR. MAYS: Well, let me bring your mind a little bit better where you won't get confused. When we started this about Belle Terrace, I was the person that asked the question when we built it--see, this is not the first time that we've talked about taking Heath Street's money. I'm the same one on this end that asked then, even if we built Belle Terrace, were we still not going to have a need, particularly on the handicap accessibility, that Heath Street was providing and what we were going to do with it. I saved it at that point and it didn't get maligned. Now it's back in here. Now, it may be better that you're dealing with that out of property relief, but let me--I'm going to break it down to you, Mr. Finance Chairman. I think you voted for it out of the committee to come out of LOST. Now, what's happened since you voted for it is that some of these other fellows are telling you that, yeah, we'll vote for you on Blythe if you go over here and you knock this pool over here in Five. I was with you when some of them wasn't with you. But, now, talking about LOST, you're fixing to lose me today and probably some others that got a vote in Five if you're going to go in here finagling with this. If you're going to go in there in the LOST side of it, then go on and get all of it from the LOST. Don't get in here in this splitting game, see, because this splitting has started since you all voted in committee. And I believe you're the chairman of that committee, you voted for it at that time, and it wasn't no illegal motion because I know your integrity well enough you wasn't going to let it come out of there illegal. But it came out of there three- one, and that's where y'all was supposed to be going to take it. Now, this thing here popped up since our committee meeting. MR. BRIDGES: Let me respond to that, Mr. Mays. In the first place, when it came up to the Finance Committee it was my understanding that we were pulling that out of SPLOST, not LOST. And that's how it was passed and that's how it was on this agenda is SPLOST. And after that meeting, the Commissioner that made the motion, I believe, said no, I thought we were talking about LOST, so we went around that rabbit for a while. And in-between that meeting and now I've asked the Director of Recreation to see if he could find the money in SPLOST because, including myself, there are other members of this Commission that do not want to apply LOST money, which is for tax relief, to pay for projects such as recreation. And he did that, these are the projects he's recommending. My understanding of the Heath Street pool is that when we build the natatorium, that is going to be an excess piece of property that we would have to maintain, which--Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that's why this was recommended on there, and it sounded like a reasonable recommendation. I'm not trying to take anything, you know, away from you or your people, Mr. Mays, I'm just trying to be reasonable with this and see where we can make the Blythe project work and yet not maintain duplicate facilities. MR. MAYS: Well, all of them are my folk, that's why I voted for the one in Blythe when a lot of other folk didn't want it. But I'm just saying that we had this understanding, I thought, when I brought up the question about Heath Street and what we were going to do with it. We've got some facilities now that we've caught the devil with that some of y'all don't know about. We had a problem in terms of--even when we expanded in Belle Terrace, we had a problem with what we abandoned over there. We got a situation on The Hill right now that we don't know where we're going to go with funding there in terms of [inaudible]. Now, if we're going to continue to get in these situations--it's good to have stuff new, but it shouldn't be pitted with what's existing there and you have no plans for what you're going to do with it. And the first step towards abandonment is to pull money out. That's plain and simple. You don't provide money, then you have a facility at some point that you're going to have to take care of. Ain't nobody fixing to go by and buy no old swimming pool off the county. That ain't fixing to happen. And if it's going to happen, we need to negotiate it with somebody in order to be clear before we pull the $50,000 out. And my question still, I think you all answered it, wasn't that it was illegal to do what you had on the LOST. You expressed it very clearly. Some folk didn't want to do it on this Commission, but some folk don't mind going over in here pitting this project against that project. And I've been for that, but I've been saying find the other funding source out of Finance. I thought you found it, and I'm ready to go ahead and vote on that other one and will take the criticism for it coming out of that money. But I ain't fixing to take the double-hit criticism of coming over here and closing a facility that you don't know how you're going to fund, how you're going to keep it open, and then it becomes an eyesore in the Heath Street area over in there because it's not being operated at some point, and then we've done that to build the other. I don't think it ought to be a war of where you deal with the two neighborhoods and your folk or my folk. All of them is our folk. But if we're going to deal with it out of that funding source, then we ought to do it just like y'all did it in the motion and not come up after the committee and we come with another plan. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, thank you for recognizing me. Perhaps, Mr. Mayor, there is a solution to this problem. We over-bought land for the Blythe Center, so why don't we just simply sell off the land that we don't need at this time and pay for the facility at Blythe? I think that the tax relief money, the LOST, should stay for tax relief. And we're raiding for the South Richmond project again. Mr. Mayor, yourself, Mr. Powell and I agreed in 1995 that we would do a joint project regionally, and now they're raiding the contingency when we were short on money to finish the project, and we have a project that we don't have the money to finish there at the regional concept. It makes absolutely no sense to over-buy land in one area that you don't need at this time and raid other projects. So I think that's your solution. Thank you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Todd's influence and his opinion, but, again, Mr. Todd, we're trying to be progressive here, and we don't want to get in the same situation as many of our parks in not having enough land to expand for the growth in South Richmond County that's expected. And as far as you standing up to the mike today and trying to make the LOST fund a sacred cow, you had no problem voting for it to fund the feasibility study out of there, so I think we need to clarify that, too. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that's what that tax is for is general operations. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd call the question on the motion. MR. OLIVER: I think we need to clarify the motion. [END OF TAPE 1] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: We're going to go to the addition item. Mr. Kernighan is here. The addendum agenda item: to reclassify the Clerk of Juvenile Court of Richmond County from Deputy Clerk II to Deputy Clerk I. MR. SHEPARD: I move approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that this is approved upon the retirement of Mr. Rufus Lowe and that we're also authorizing Ms. Alice Williams to replace that position; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: That is correct. And the salary indicated in the agenda, as it states, would be at the maximum of this particular range, and the person would come in as any new hire of Augusta-Richmond County. CLERK: I'll read this for the record: To reclassify Clerk of Juvenile Court of Richmond County from Deputy Clerk II to Deputy Clerk I and authorize hiring Ms. Alice Williams to fill that position at a salary of $26,993, which is the top of the range. This will require an additional [sic] increase in funding of approximately $5,850, including benefits. MR. OLIVER: That's annually for next year. MR. HANDY: Let me just ask Randy, I is lower or higher than II? MR. OLIVER: I is higher. MR. HANDY: I is higher. So this position is being upgraded? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. 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 9-0. CLERK: Item 38: Motion to approve one (1) additional attorney position for the Solicitor General Office with funding from lapsed salaries for the remainder of the year. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like an explanation of what are we actually funding here? Are we adding a new person to the payroll next year or is this strictly for--I know when you came before the Finance Committee and discussed this we were-- at one point we were just considering just till the end of the year, and that's the way this motion reads, but what are we actually looking at here? MS. JOLLY: It's my understanding that I would be able to offer the person a position come January the 2nd. When I spoke to Finance and subsequently to Public Safety, I was able to pay the funding for the position for the remainder of this year out of lapsed salaries, but I think it would be unfair to hire somebody and only be able to hire them until December 31st. That's not fair to any individual that you could offer the position to, nor would they be willing to accept that not knowing if they had a job come January the 2nd. With regard to the additional approval, my request, which was in the budget this year and in the budget last year and in my upcoming budget request which is currently being considered for the next fiscal year, was to add two attorneys and one investigator. It was bypassed on last year in the budget. No additional personnel were added on earlier this year by the Commission, and so I'm really kind of coming at the end of the year to say, you know, I need to go ahead and have this position approved so it would fall into the next budget year. What I am requesting is that the other positions that I have requested in next year's budget be a part of the budget process. I have good news for the Commission today in that I did receive approval this week from the grant application that y'all had given me approval for last year. It was renewed, and I was even given a $3,000 increase from Governor Miller, which applies to the victim's witness program. I believe that I'm going to be able to report to the Commission a surplus in the victim's witness program monies of the 5% surcharges which are paid by defendants that come through the State Court. I'm waiting on some computer reports. And so I may be able to offer some funding, for example, for the investigators, which will require no money from the county budget, but I don't have that information yet. The Finance Department tells me it's going to be a couple of months before they have all of that information together. But I guess to make a long story short, the bottom line of the request today is that, yes, I would be able to offer this person a position come January the 2nd. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. And I understand that, and I'm not trying to hinder you from, you know, operation of your office, and I understand you need the people. I guess the concern I have here, Randy, is the management study is not in yet, and we--I think in the past when we've had people come up and ask for additional employees we have turned some down and said wait for the management study. I have a little bit of a problem approving you and turning them down, and I'm concerned about who else is going to come up and say, hey, I need employees, because we hear that continually. And the Grand Jury report keeps telling me this department needs more money, more people. I mean, that's the typical Grand Jury report in departments, so I have a problem with doing that outside the bounds of the management study. Randy, when is that due? MR. OLIVER: It'll be the first part of December. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, how many other new employees have been requested in the budget process? MR. OLIVER: I don't know how many were requested as part of the budget process. Is David Collins here? He's heading this way. Mr. Collins, the question by the Mayor and Commission is how many new employees were requested as part of the budgetary process this year altogether? MR. COLLINS: We have a total of seven county-wide. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do you know what departments they were in? MR. COLLINS: We had some in the heavy pickup in the urban service district, Ms. Jolly asked for a couple, Risk Management needs two safety inspectors, and that's it as far as new employees. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I think we'd be remiss not to look at this in terms of past policy, and that's been in the last year that there has been a commitment by this Commission to increase the on-the-street law enforcement, which has directly impacted Ms. Jolly's position and her department. Also, we have seen the legislature create two new State Court judges, and Ms. Jolly exclusively serves the State Court, so we've seen an increase in the caseload there. I think that when we make a commitment to law enforcement, gentlemen, that we have to realize that commitment doesn't end with making cases on the street with the law enforcement personnel, but that that continues on into the court system where the disposition could be guilty or not guilty. And to handle those appropriate dispositions, I think that you've got to look at the Solicitor's Office as a special case, and we have to affirm our commitment to law enforcement by looking at the lapsed salaries and giving Ms. Jolly another position for which I understand she has a person ready to go in. This is a backlog that we don't want to happen. The State Court is not backlogged, but we need to keep up with the flow. The approval of the Public Safety Committee was unanimous, and I'd ask that you support this motion. Thank you. 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. MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Item 44: Motion to approve new ownership request by Yon Sun Dickerson for retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with J.C. Food Store located at 2451 Golden Camp Road. MR. WALKER: This has been approved by the committee and was on the consent agenda. It was approved by our department and the sheriff's department with no problem. CLERK: It was pulled out. It wasn't approved in the consent. It was approved by the committee, but it wasn't in the consent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have objectors? Can we see the objectors? [APPROXIMATELY 20 OBJECTORS PRESENT.] MR. SMITH: I'm Otis A. Smith, 3103 Belle Meade Drive. Mr. Mayor and County Commissioners, your record will reveal that we have always opposed the beer and wine license for this address. We even opposed a store being located where it is. The store is located right next door to a kiddy playland, basketball courts, tennis courts, and there's a walkway or runway where people walk basically all day long that surrounds this store, covers approximately one-third of this store. You have placed in this community to help to beautify this community a senior citizens center, the Belle Terrace Recreation Center, and a swimming pool. And to have this license renewed or transferred is what we oppose today. We would like to continue to beautify our community. We would like to continue to make this community safe for our children and even for ourselves. When this store has a wine and beer license, it brings into the community those only who come into this community to buy the beer and the wine. So therefore we are asking, first of all, that you do not approve this renewal or this transfer. And if you cannot remove--if you don't have the authority to remove this store, then we ask that you at least deny the beer and wine license. I hope you will check the record. You will discover that the license at this place was suspended for at least one year. We thought at that time that surely they would not be renewed. But at some time, maybe not you who are here today, but someone else gave permission or approved a beer and wine license for 2451 Golden Camp Road. I come as a minister who lives in that community. My other neighbors are here from both the Terrace Manor community and the Belle Meade community to say to you we do not want this license to be renewed or transferred. Thank you. MR. DICKERSON: I'm her husband, Yon Sun's husband, and I'm going to have to speak for her. Roy Dickerson at 2304 Basswood Road in Augusta. Now, the way I understand it, this license has been in effect for quite a few years. We did not know about the suspension that this gentleman was talking about. And the sale to us was made under [inaudible] beer license and wine license. And I understand--I think it's been there since probably the late '60s, maybe early '70s, as far as being in business. And if I'm not mistaken, the beer license has been there ever since, I guess, except in one year that I know about. [inaudible] transferred the license to us, which is what I understand it is, not a new license, a transfer. And if you don't, you might as well just close the business. It's taxpaying business in the county, and that's really the only thing we can stand on. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question for Jim. Jim, I know some of these licenses are grandfathered in that we do year to year. Is this one of those or is a transfer a-- I guess a new opportunity or is it a new situation where we're either voting to or not to give that license? MR. WALL: Well, I was reviewing the file to see whether or not this is a transfer of an existing license or whether it's a new license. There was a license at the location. MR. WALKER: It's a new application, old location. MR. WALL: The other one had been in operation? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: Mr. Bridges, I mean, when you talk about grandfathering in, typically that's in a situation where it may not be in compliance with distance requirements or things of that nature, and I think that there would have to be some change in circumstances in order to justify a denial of the license at this time. For instance, the one that recently went up, there was a change of circumstances as it related to that license, and I don't know that there has been at this point explained any change in circumstances between when the original license was granted for that location and the present. Now, I've not one heard one, but--I mean, maybe there is, but I've not heard it yet. MR. BRIDGES: So we're discussing a new license here and we're back to ground zero, aren't we? I mean, that's--what you're telling me is we're not? MR. WALL: You're not totally at ground zero because there's been an existing license at that location, and there has to be a change in circumstances in order to justify a denial of a license for that location. MR. BRIDGES: Also in regard to--I mean, bringing up location, one of the objectors mentioned that there is a child's playland or recreation over there and basketball courts nearby. Given that location is one of the consider- ations of--you know, recreational facilities, churches, that type of thing is one of the considerations, would that have an effect in this decision? MR. WALL: I think it would. And I also think that it might be important that--I mean, since the original license was located, the Belle Terrace Swim Center has been located, and I assume that's in close proximity; is it not? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: And so you have added recreational facilities in that location more so than when originally licensed. So I think under the Supreme Court ruling you would be entitled to consider that in making a determination whether or not a license should be issued based upon the current circumstances of that neighborhood. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Wall, the location in question, there has been continuous sale of alcoholic beverages at that location or has there been a lapse due to--or maybe Mr. Walker could answer my question. Do you know? MR. WALKER: Well, none of the people came to me. I didn't know anything about it. MR. SHEPARD: And the business was just sold from one owner to another, and these are the new applicants; is that correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. H. BRIGHAM: There was a lapse, Mr. Mayor and Commission, for a year, I believe it was, and then they reapplied again. It was the first violations of drug abuse and other substance abuse in that neighborhood. Now, the question of whether this is a new license, looks like to me it is over against just transferring it, and I think this is what--I think that's what Mr. Bridges was asking. Well, if it is, then I think that the request by the people in the community is a reasonable request, and I would hope that my colleagues would consider it. We just approved getting $150,000 from somewhere to do some things-- MR. POWELL: We haven't approved it yet, Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, you're going to get it. But what I was fixing to say is he's got enough land to do what needs to be done. And I think I said this before, when we bought this back in 1988, in December of 1988 when those were things just started out there, I think it was 11 or 12 acres, and now we don't have enough to turn around in that particular area. And certainly I will do everything I can to help them relocate someplace else because we just don't have any place in that area to expand. We're running over each other trying to get it, and we couldn't expand if we wanted to. Of course, I know Mr. Beck is trying to take our money from us, but hopefully he'll give it back to us and we can do some things in there. But I hope in this particular issue that my colleagues would certainly look at the request of the community. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, let's don't give these people some false hope in that if we don't vote to change it--if we vote to not allow the ownership to change, that does not necessarily close this place of business up. MR. WALL: Well, I mean, certainly they have the right to--the applicant would have the right to appeal. And it would not necessarily close the business, that's correct, because they--it would just take away the beer and wine sales. But then it would also be subject to an appeal. And for the benefit of the Commissioners, apparently at one point when the license was revoked there was a court proceeding back in '91 and '92--and I don't know the details of all that was going on, I was quickly trying to review it. And at that time they were successful in getting it reinstated, but I think that was on a termination provision as opposed to a new license. MR. J. BRIGHAM: To the best of your knowledge, is alcohol being sold there now? MR. WALL: From what I understand in the file, it was sold as a going concern, a going business. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. If there's an alcohol license there, if we turn these people down and not license them, and the other person goes back in and operate the store, would they still have the license or not? MR. WALL: If they have not surrendered the license, I mean, they could go back. But, I mean, they've sold the business. I mean, they'd have to rescind the sale or do something, buy it back. MR. MAYS: So at this point you're still in a negotiating pattern, per se, until this part of the Commission rules in favor or to deny? And that's not to say what may not happen in another--say in a court of law. But you're still in a holding pattern in terms of not being at a loss at this point? MR. DICKERSON: That's the way I understood it. MR. MAYS: Okay. I think, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] Commissioner who directly represents that district and myself, we both remember '91 and '92 and we both voted in terms of the closure or termination of that license. That was one of the things, and I say this for the audience, that the committee chairperson had in mind on that day was remembering in terms of what had happened to us in '91 and '92 in terms of that particular battle. You know, sometimes the law isn't really fair and sometimes it may not even be right, but, you know, that was one we fought in that particular case and, you know, we were not successful. I was kind of surprised on that day in committee that we probably did not have objectors at that time. I do think in terms of transferring it, that it might be interesting to--Mr. Mayor, there's no real good way to say this, but it might be a good way to finish a situation out [inaudible] fairness to the applicant, and that was why I asked in terms of where were they with their purchase. If they're not in the financial mode of where they have been harmed, it might be interesting to know--and this is no business of the Commission, but it may get us to a different point of questions as to whether or not, Mr. Brigham, the person might even come back and want to even deal with trying to deal with an application--I mean deal with a license in December, and if trying to sell, maybe might seek a different mode of trying to deal with getting rid of that particular building. I have no problem in testing that particular water. I don't think at this time we put, Mr. Wall, an applicant in terms of a court case of a financial loss since the application is pending. Their sale is pending on what we do in the final analysis. I'm going to--if you've got something legal to say, I'll yield for you, because I'm--I'm fixing to make a motion, but I'm going to yield to you. MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I'm not sure, the purchaser perhaps doesn't understand all the documents that he has signed. But included in the file are a closing statement dated August 1, 1998, that is signed by four parties: a Kim, a Chan, a Dickerson, and a Han, which shows to be the buyer and the sellers; as well as a bill of sale; a security agreement that has been signed; the promissory note, only the first page is included and so I don't have a signature page; as well as a UCC-1. So I'm not sure it's--from what I'm looking at, I think the sale is closed. MR. MAYS: Well, that was why I asked the question on record in terms of how far were they into it. Because we find a lot of times--and even though alcohol license are a privilege license commodity, you still--as in zoning, many times you'll have a conditional application in terms of that closing and whether that's in there or not. MR. WALL: Not as a part of the documents that are in this file. Now, if there is a side agreement that's not in this file, there may be. MR. MAYS: Well, one way to fish that situation out then, you'll hear about it in appeal. I'm going to move that we reverse the decision of my own committee. I'm going to move for denial. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second to get it on the floor. MR. SMITH: I'm Jimmy Smith of the Pride and Progress Committee in our area. I do attend the Hillcrest Baptist Church on the corner of Golden Camp Road, and on the other corner is Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church, and there is a 30906 project going on right now to try to help clean up the area and do some things that would improve it. That is one of the, I guess, worst areas in our county for prostitution and gunfire and drugs all the time across the road there. And this past week the Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church, Hillcrest Church, and the Alleluia Community came together with a meeting to try to do some things in the community along with the 30906 project. I know that the Mayor was in the meeting. But we are trying to clean up this community, and we really believe that adding an active alcohol--beer and wine license would turn it the wrong way. It would do 180 degrees from what we are trying to attempt. And we wholeheartedly ask you to consider our neighborhood and what we're attempting to do and turn down this license application. Thank you. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might add, because I know you cannot deal with a denial on just the loose-endedness of wanting to deny it, and I want to put in the motion in terms of that proximity of recreational facilities and due to the overall detriment of public safety and of not dealing with a new plan or new ownership in terms of what we have suffered in terms of past inflictions and as to whether or not new ownership since there has been no meeting of proposed new ownership with the community in that area. I'm going to put that in that motion to let it stand at this point. I know that we probably will deal with an appeals process and we've not heard the end of that story and end up back dealing with a meeting, I assume, again. But I think that in order to at least get it to that point, the worst thing that we could do, if you're going to have that in a changeover, would be to approve it and then try and stop it after its gone on in any further degree. So that's what I would like to be included in that motion, Ms. Bonner. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask the Attorney to comment on Mr. Mays' motion. Can we as a body find the proximity to the recreational facilities frequented by minors and young people, isn't that part of [inaudible], as I understand it, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That is correct. MR. SHEPARD: And do I understand your motion to include that finding? MR. MAYS: The whole deal. MR. HANDY: I got one question, Mr. Mayor. Jim, what would happen if this sale doesn't go through? The original owner would still be able to sell alcohol beverages? MR. WALL: I think the sale has been consummated. I think the sale is done. I mean, there's a signed lease agreement in here from the property owners to the new purchaser. I mean, I don't know whether there's--it's somewhat typical to have an agreement where they continue to operate under the license pending this application. At this point the new owner does not have a license to operate there, and, you know, it-- MR. HANDY: So you're telling me he's selling beer illegally? MR. WALL: No, he's not selling the beer illegally. Depending on whether there is--what type of agreement may be in place. He can't continue to operate under the prior owner's license, no. MR. HANDY: How long could he do that? MR. WALL: Until this application is ruled on. And if it's turned down today, then he'll be stopped. MR. HANDY: Then that means we're putting him out of business. MR. WALL: Well, you're not putting him out of business-- MR. HANDY: I mean putting him out of the alcohol business. MR. WALL: You're putting him out of alcohol sales, not putting him out of business. MR. HANDY: That's what I'm saying. MR. H. BRIGHAM: We don't need to be selling no liquor out there. MR. WALL: He would not be able to continue to sell alcohol. MR. HANDY: What I'm looking at, will we be liable for a lawsuit whatever we do here today? MR. WALL: I think we have to recognize that, yes, there probably will be an appeal of the denial of the license. Because, I mean, it's the same situation in a sense as the Brown Road situation, and, you know, they may very well challenge it, yes. MR. HANDY: Okay. I haven't voted yet, my fellow colleague, I'm asking a question. MR. MAYS: I would like to ask Mr. Wall one other thing, and I stand to be corrected, but in terms of a privilege license, per se, even though the negotiated point from buyer to seller of new ownership may be of enticement to get a sale, the holder of that particular privilege license does not hold the legal right to that license, am I correct, in terms of the alcohol part of that in terms of his real estate transaction? He's still in terms of a buyer beware risk to a point that whoever assumes that may or may not get that granted license; would that be correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. LOWERY: Mr. Mayor, if I may. My name is Melvin Lowery. I'm the pastor of Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church you've heard about. I'm also the president of the board of neighborhood improvement project you've also heard about today. I'm a man of few words, and so I have written a statement that I would like to read, and it goes: While I would not oppose any person seeking to make a living, I do feel that it's my obligation and my responsibility to stand against a negative force in the community. While the J.C. Food Store may serve a constructive need in the community, it is also considered a destructive element by most of the members of the community and the neighborhood association. Often one can see youngsters suspiciously loitering or hanging around the exterior of this premises. There is suspicion that some of these youngsters are dealing drugs and using this location as a landmark for their clientele. Many in the Belle Terrace community believe that the community would be better served if the J.C. Food Store would move to another location, possibly on Deans Bridge Road or somewhere else. However, we would even, I believe, as president of neighborhood association, instead of trying to put them out of business with the loss, would consider the purchase of that facility so that they could get their money out of it, if that's a possibility. But I would like to also stand and ask that you deny them the liquor license, which would help eliminate this destructive element in the community. Thank you. MR. WALL: Let me just be sure to caution the Commission. I do not want the Commission to consider the possible sale of this business to another enterprise as any ground for considering this application. I mean, that should not be a part of your consideration at all. MR. DICKERSON: Gentlemen, before you make a vote, without the beer license you might as well close the door of the place. I hate to say that, but that's a big part of the business out there, and most of the people up in the area behind the store is the ones that frequent it. And every time we catch young people congregating out front, we ask them to move on. So that's really about all I can say, and I appreciate it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please. CLERK: Motion made by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Brigham, was to deny the motion. MR. WALL: Deny the application. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 60: Z-98-100 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Willard Hogan, on behalf of Dr. D. Ramon Walters, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Langdon Drive, 170 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Langdon Drive. MR. PATTY: This is kind of an unusual site in that it faces the back of an abandoned grocery store or supermarket and the back of a convenience store, so it's questionable as to what the best use of this property would be. The petitioner in this particular case wanted to build a fairly large day care center, and the commission felt that it was just too much--to intense use of the property based on the location. It's basically within the subdivision, so we recommended denial. We had a considerable number of objectors, and I think it was unanimous or near unanimous. MR. HANDY: Move for denial. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 62: Z-98-109 - A petition from Kellos Investment Co. requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Scott Road, 130.0 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Reese Avenue and Scott Road. MR. PATTY: I discussed this with Mr. Kellos yesterday afternoon and he advised me that he wanted to withdraw this from the agenda. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 63: Z-98-110 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from John R. Sipes requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Danville Street, 600.0 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Suffolk Drive and Danville Street. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MS. SIPES: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I'm not a lawyer and I'm nervous, so I wrote everything down, if that's all right. Rosalie Sipes, 2445 Danville Street. I want to set the record straight on some things because I'm fighting for my place to live, my home. And some falsehoods were told at the Planning Commission by a lady that I never had met, I still don't know her, and I want to set the record straight on some things, if it would be all right. This lady and another lady that lives on Danville Street conspired to tell falsehoods around the neighborhood and at the Planning Commission to get us off of there, and I really don't know why. We're fighting for our home. In July we purchased--I'm sorry, I've got to put my glasses on. In July we purchased two residential lots and an adjoining lot in the Virginia Place Subdivision from Mr. Milford Scott. The lots are located at the dead-end of Danville Street. We purchased the lots for our residence, and this is our only home. Mr. Scott assured us that there would be no problems with us moving a mobile home into there and living there, so we went ahead with it. Except for our lots, all the other lots on Danville Street are zoned agricultural, which means--to my knowledge, it means that mobile homes are allowed there. And there are several other mobile homes on Danville Street. If I could, I'd like to show some pictures. This one is right next door to us and this one is just two houses down. It's a lean-to that's just two doors down from us. They're right on our same street. And all the other lots are zoned agricultural, and what we wanted to do was zone it so that we could live in our mobile home there because our lots are zoned light industry. This was done in the 1960's. After purchasing the lots we contacted the Planning Commission to rezone the property so that we could live there. We were told that since there did not appear to be any problems with our request, we could move our mobile home onto the property pending the completion of the rezoning process. And I had no idea that there would be any problems whatsoever. We did that, and we are still cleaning up the property. We have cleaned it up and it looks nice. It looks very nice. I have some pictures here. We put a privacy fence all the way around it. Would you show these, please? This is pictures of the privacy fence that we put all the way around the place, and when you look--when you're coming down Danville Street, when you look onto our property you can't even see the mobile home because of the privacy fence until you get right down in front of our gate. We have cleaned the place up considerably and are still working on it, and we're now living there. This is our home, we're living there. We've put city water in and city sewer. We don't have any wells down or anything else there. Prior to buying this property, that end of Danville Street was a crime zone. There was all kinds of drinking there, there was gun sales there, it was a lover's lane, there was condoms found all over everywhere. They went down there on the property that we bought to smoke their pot. It was bad. And I called the sheriff's office and they told me that in the last 12 months before we bought the property there were 93 calls down there to that area to stop all of this crime and everything. But we moved down there and it stopped. One time we caught some kids in front of our fence in front of our driveway in the back seat of the car making love, and we told them thank you, this is our driveway, you can move on, and they haven't come back. But we stopped all of that down there. It's a beautiful place. We've done a lot of work on it and we're planning to do some more. My husband is a disabled veteran and he works as best he can with me cleaning it up. This is what we bought the property for, for our home, and we're cleaning it up. The only--well, the main objector to this doesn't even live down there in that area. She lives several miles south of that area on Brown Road. She has a beautiful place out there, but she's objecting to us having a place to live. She stated at the Planning Commission meeting that she lived on Brown Road and she merely owns property in the area, which she does. And I took pictures of that because--this is the property and this is the sign for sale, because after the Planning Commission she took the for sale sign down because she was trying to make people think that she lived in that community and she did not. This is--I'm sorry, I didn't give you these. This is two trailers that are right next to the property that she's trying to sell that is the junkiest place you ever saw. MR. HANDY: Excuse me, Ms. Sipes, she might be listening to you. MS. SIPES: She is. Thank you. She's the main objector. And a lady that lives on our street, she and this lady conspired with their lawyer together and told all these lies, and they went to--they came to the commission and they said that they had gotten a petition from one of the churches in the area. Well, we called the secretary of the church, and this lady that is objecting to it so much that doesn't even live in the area doesn't even go to that church, and her lawyer doesn't go to that church, but the lady that lives on our street goes to that church. She went to the church, and this is what the secretary told me: She said she went to the church and went to the head deacon. They had no pastor. She went to the head deacon and told the head deacon that we were going to put a salvage yard down there, we were going to put a garage down there, we were going to put a car lot down there, all of this. And she said, "You need to sign this petition." They put it in the bulletin at the church. She said, "You people need to sign this petition to keep these people out of here." Every bit of it is lies. That's where we want to live. That's our home. We were in Africa as missionaries. When we came back here we had no home. We lived in a motel for a while, and we were able to get this property, and this is our home. There will be no business there. I don't know where they got their stories. They got them somewhere, but I don't know where. They didn't come to us to ask the truth, but they were telling all of these things. If they'd have had a pastor at that church, this probably would have never happened. They have a pastor now, and probably after this we will talk to the pastor about it. My father was a pastor, and I know that it wouldn't have happened if a pastor had been there. Now, as far as anything to do with the cars, my husband, like I told you, is a disabled veteran. He can't do a whole lot, but he does what he can, and once in a while he'll help a friend of ours that is a car dealer. He'll help him take some cars to the auction to sell them. And if they buy some cars at the auction, he'll bring them home. And he has parked them--wherever we have been before, he has parked them, and that's what he would do now. Two or three cars maybe a couple of times a month we would park in our driveway. We wouldn't have any more cars in our driveway than what you have in yours. But that's where--I guess that's where all the car business came from with this lady. I just want to stress again this is our home and we want it rezoned so that we can put our home there to live there. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I made the motion to deny this based on the information that I have received from the neighborhood--from the same lady she's talking about and from others. I don't know what's going on down there, I don't know how the interpretation came like it is, but I'd like to withdraw that particular motion and make a motion to send it back to George Patty. He's the Director of Planning and Zoning. Let Planning and Zoning decide what's going on over there and then bring it back to us, and then we'll deal with it that way. MR. SHEPARD: I accept that amendment. MR. HANDY: Thank you. Because I've heard a lot of stories about everything she said and then some more, and I know George heard it, so--he have a committee that's supposed to make the decision and then now they send it to us to make a decision that he should have made, so I'm going to give it back to him. MR. PATTY: Okay. First of all, all the facts are on the table, and they were at the Planning Commission meeting. I'm going to try to sort through them and tell you what my take on this is. These folks bought this property. The property is zoned light industrial even though it's part of the subdivi- sion. I believe that's Lombardy Subdivision. It's the back lots. It's where Danville Road dead-ends into the railroad right across from Southern Wood Piedmont property. And these two lots, maybe three lots, were zoned light industrial back in the '60s for whatever reason, but the remainder of the subdivision is zoned agricultural. There are homes on most of the lots. There are a couple of mobile homes. A couple of those homes are manufactured homes. Generally the homes are in good condition, better condition as you go up north of Nixon Road. As far as the use of the property, a gentleman did come to our office after they had bought the mobile home to put--and I believe placed it on the property. My staff did allow them to occupy the thing after giving us a letter, and I've got it right here if you want to see it, agreeing to remove the thing from the property if the zoning wasn't approved, and they understood the risk in making that decision. There were allegations that they were going to use this as a security office, to use the remainder of the light industrial property to store cars on. The gentleman has an auto brokering business, I believe, where--he said at our meeting that he would be buying and selling a few cars and they would occasionally be stored on the property, but from what he described, it's certainly not going to be any junkyard or anything like that, any paint and body shop or anything like that. When you balance it, which is all we can do is try to balance the detriment to the community against the rights of property owners, I think it came up pretty even. But there's one thing here that hasn't been put on the table, and that is that our comprehensive plan recognizes the problems in this area, environmental problems there have been, and it's got a strong policy statement against doing anything that would increase the density of habitation of this area. And because this property is zoned industrial, they cannot occupy it at this time. They can't build a house on it, they can't put a mobile home it. It's industrial property and the ordinance does not allow residential use. So, you know, I don't think there's any question that allowing them to zone this property back to agricultural would, in fact, be contrary to the plan then. It was because of that that we recommended denial. The home is already there, it's not terribly inconsistent with what's around it, but I think--this thing is looking across the railroad to Southern Wood Piedmont site, and I think that, you know, there is justification for denial on that basis. MR. HANDY: Okay. I know when I spoke to your office--I wanted to bring that out because you told me some of the same things and that also he had signed a letter stating that if the Planning Commission deny it, that he will move the trailer, so why today it's a different story? MR. PATTY: The letter is right here. MR. HANDY: Right, I know, you told me you had it. I wanted to make sure that came out. MS. SIPES: See, the thing is, I feel that we have as much right to live there as any of the other people that live there. And as far as--I think he's concerned about the-- something--contamination or something there, but our ground isn't contaminated any more than anybody else's is contaminated. I don't understand that. MR. SIPES: All I have to say, we bought this property in good faith when Milford Scott used to be a senator in Georgia. He said he didn't think it'd be a problem, that we could move a mobile home there. We went to the Planning Commission, we paid the fee, they said they didn't think there would be any problems getting everything approved, they said we could move the trailer on there. We hooked up the water, the sewer. It cost a lot of money to put the privacy fence up as security because there was so much things going on in that area. And like my wife said, there were 93 calls at that lot from the police station 12 months prior to us moving there. And a lot of drugs and things going on on that particular lot. We have cleaned it up and, you know, I think this is a good thing. I think it's a plus for that community because these things are not going on at the end of that street anymore. And we live there, we like it, we moved there in good faith, we've spent a lot of money, and I would like for the Commission to approve for us to stay there as a residence, as our home. And like I say, I'm a disabled veteran. It's limited what I can do, it's limited how much money that I have, and I've spent, you know, just about my limit. If we have to move off of this property, it's going to cost us a lot of money which we do not have, and I'd appreciate it if you would allow us to stay on this property and keep it as our residence, downgrade it to, you know, where one could stay there. Thank you. MR. HANDY: I want to still stick with my motion and to second Mr. Sipes, too. I'm a disabled veteran, too, so I feel for you. But I'm going to leave my motion as it stands, but any of my colleagues can make a substitute motion to do what they want to do with it. Because if George has denied it and they went through with it--I talked to George over a month ago, because this has been running out there for a long time. And they have signed a letter saying that if the Planning Commission turn it down they will move, so now it seems they had a change of heart and I don't know why. But if the land is light industrial and it cannot be for a residence, then that's denial right there, so we would have to go back and change the land so they'll be able to live there. Well, that's something George and them need to do, and he said that's not in his comprehensive plan, so we are at a stalemate here. So if we change the zoning for this particular one, then that's going to be setting precedence and you got to go back and redo a lot more changes in lands for people. That's all I have. I'm going to let mine stay, but they can do whatever they like to. MR. BRIDGES: George, I think from what I've heard in some discussion here today, apparently there's a problem with this being changed to agricultural, and I notice your staff wasn't aware of that or didn't know why that was done. Some of the residence thought that this was a residential area, and yet particular lots through there have been changed to agricultural at some point, and I think there's some confusion there as to how that got changed. Can you enlighten me on any of that? MR. PATTY: Well, you know, it appears that this property has always--I say always, it's been zoned agricultural for some time. There has been no zoning change to agricultural. Homes are allowed to be built in agricultural zones, and obviously that's what happened here. I haven't done thorough research on this, but I can tell you in the last 15, close to 20 years, this has not been rezoned. The light industrial zoning was placed on the property in the 1960's, and I don't know what the history of that is either. MS. FAGLER: I've got a copy on how it was changed. It was changed--my name is Faye Fagler, I live on Danville Street. We did not know about this until a couple of weeks ago, and this was done behind our backs and we didn't know anything about it. Well, I got neighbors that have been thinking that we can still [inaudible] and we found out that we have been changed, because we did not know [inaudible] he done it or why. But it was changed May the 12th, 1969, and we was not informed about it. And I'll tell you who done it, Milford Scott was the one had it changed, and he did not let nobody in the neighborhood know why he was doing it. And I got the [inaudible] 1948, and Milford Scott changed it and we was not notified about any change. MR. BRIDGES: It was residential and he changed it to agricultural? MS. FAGLER: That's right. He changed it himself. We got neighbors that have been living there for 40/45 years. We did not know anything about it. And I'm going to tell you, they're very disappointed. And a lot of them is handicapped, cannot get out, and they want the thing to be changed back to residential like we used to have going back for 48 years. MR. BRIDGES: George, the only comment I'd make, I wish you'd kind of go back and research that at some point, and maybe we need to change it back to residential if that's the case. But at this point, I would make a motion to concur with the Planning and Zoning and recommend denial. MS. FAGLER: And can I make one other statement? I'm the third generation that has lived on Danville Street. My great- grandfather bought the first lot, which I live on now, on November the 14th, 1948. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a second to Mr. Bridges' motion? [No response.] Hearing none, we'll go back to Mr. Handy's motion. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to send it back-- MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to have discussion on Mr. Handy's motion. I think in fairness to the petitioner-- and I say this because I've work with Ms. Roberts, the young lady--we've been down this road a lot of times in that area on different properties. This is one of the glaring results, and I've argued and lost this battle a whole bunch of times, more than I want to count, but this is one of the glaring results. And people have not necessarily wanted local government to deal with a total buyout in that area, but they have wanted help. And a lot of that help, everything from zoning neglect, ripping off of buyer's beware--and I think right now I'm looking at a wonderful couple that got bit. And I say that in the hope that the person that sold it to you won't sue me, and I guess I'll have to call Jack to tell him come defend me on that. But what a lot of these folk have been into prior to even your moving, and this is not anybody's fault in there, but you still are getting to be a victim in it, is that we have had serious reservations about wanting people to live there period because of the problems that have been surrounding Southern Wood Piedmont and because of the action that we've had to take, many times not in favor of people, and I've fought even my own existing government with some things that we've done there. This is why the seriousness--I say this to the Mayor and other Commissioners, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Wall, the seriousness of that whole brownfield initiative in that area of trying to deal with a swap, of dealing with getting that situation to an industrial deal, so that these people can be properly bought out. And the question that's there is what's happening with us. We're constantly--you may not know about it, but there are many people on both sides of that railroad track in that area that everything from properties diminishing, not being able to get insurance carriers to carry those homes over in there, health problems, we've been faced with all of it in this chamber, and that's why there has been a reluctance to deal with residential living in that area. I wouldn't want to see you just turned out flat and say by that motion to get you to move out. What I'd like to see included in there, since you're definitely in a low to moderate income area where that is, is [inaudible]. And Mr. Mack is not here today, but I'd rather see us--rather than that type of strict enforcement, is to deal with the possibilities of some form of help to deal with a relocation of what you've got in there. Because, I mean, whether or not you agree with the agreement you signed in terms of moving, that's there and that's in place and we've somewhat got to honor it. But I also feel like we have somewhat of an obligation from the standpoint that we ran water over there to you, we let you move in, and I think somewhere in there this Commission somewhere is going to have to have the intestinal fortitude to deal with everything over there by that railroad track, everything from Aragon, Hyde Park, Virginia Subdivision, the whole nine yards of it, in terms of some strict enforcement so that we don't keep getting these little slip-ups in there. Now, as far as the complaints about the light industry, if it stays like it is they can put cars over in there. I think we ought to recognize that. They fence in in there and under the existence of light industry they can deal with that. And I don't know what may be there and I wouldn't want to suggest to them to do anything illegal, but maybe under light industry, if they can't get no help out of us, maybe that's what they ought to do. Ain't no law in the world to say you can't live in your business. I can prove that. You can be residential where you live. So what I'm saying is before you extract them out from where they are, and in a light industry zoning, maybe noncompliance until they can do better might be the case. Because the thing you're dealing with there is under that light industry, that leaves room for a lot of grounds in there. And I have fought us dealing with anything in terms of increased habitat living for those areas, period, but the thing is you've got somebody over in there. You extract them out of it, somewhere in that process of government something got lost in terms of you turning water on and you getting folk over in there into a field of that nature. I think it's ironic--and I'm going to still say it. He can sue me, he won't get nothing. But, you know, it's ironic that you may be the holders of the only property that's been sold over there that somebody was willing to buy in the last 25 to 30 years. You came back from a mission on another continent and, quite frankly, I believe some folks saw you coming. Ain't nobody been over there to buy nothing in that area. And I'm not being funny about it, they are victims. I mean, anybody who owns a piece of that property over in there that's willing to sell it to somebody who will be glad to buy it would probably be less than crazy to go ahead on, just frankly say, well, I saw a fool coming, I'll sell it to you. You're basically looking for somewhere quiet where you've improved in order to live. So I think in there in your motion, somewhere before--they ought to be given some time span or some leniency before we enforce even a legal document that's been signed. I mean, you're looking where they are, it definitely looks better than where it was when they moved in. That's an improvement. I think to extract them may be legally right, but it would be morally wrong, and I think we ought to look at trying to send them to Housing and get some assistance. And somewhere in there, Jim, I don't know whether it's nothing that we don't need to do but maybe put up a sign over there, one of them great big green ones, Mr. Mayor, that puts a buyer beware signed by the City of Augusta, Georgia if nothing else, that if you buy something in this alleged contaminated area, you may be the victim of anything. Because anybody who can basically get rid of and unload that on somebody that doesn't know anything about that area, they will do so, because right now that whole area is at a standstill. Article recently on Aragon Park in reference to a forgotten area. You got a forgotten area down that whole side of Gordon Highway existing from one side of 56 back over to the other side of the old Mike Padgett Highway. And basically we've been in a mode of government, quite frankly, of benign neglect. We've had numerous delegations come to us over the years. These folk have been here asking and crying for help on what they had. And we realize you're there in a situation with your home, but we've been there almost to a point of fighting everybody from ATSDR. You had folk in one area that spent $2 million to study and [inaudible], you name it, they've had it. So rather than kicking you out for dealing with a gentleman that's probably been trying to peddle that property for I don't know how long--and somewhere in our computer system, you know, we just saw the whole new thing of technology paraded before us today. Maybe somewhere in our technology there ought to be a asterisk by every piece of property over there, that before a transaction can be done in the Clerk of Court's Office, that it be noted that this is an area that's not insured, that you catch the devil with high rates in terms of trying to stay there. All of those things should be marked to pop up on a governmental computer. Now, if we can't do the decent thing and we're not going to get involved with moving anybody, the least we can do is try to take the folk we got in there--and, quite frankly, [inaudible] keep innocent folk from getting over in there. And, you know, I think that gives you some great spirit in there, but I think legally you've got yourself a light industry place over there, and if nothing else, if we can't find you nowhere to go, you can go ahead on and start your business over in there. And, Mr. Wall, I don't think we can stop him from dealing with a light industry business, can we? SPEAKER: I got one problem with that. If he's going to run a business, it's a dead-end street, traffic in and out, wreckers, plus the noise level in the area. MR. MAYS: What I'm getting to is this: This maybe gets us to the lead-in of why the whole deal--George and them just swept through one area in Richmond County already of dealing with the comprehensive area of trying to bring in and deal with the mobile home traffic and manufactured homes. George, this maybe needs to be y'alls next project. Maybe y'all need to go through there and find out of getting your zoning corrected so that it's back like it's supposed to be. But at the same time, now, it's like one of those things with the Wizard of Oz, you can't follow two yellow brick roads. Now, they've bought some property and they do have rights. Even though they've been probably gypped with what they bought, they still have got a right under the zoning that they exist under to deal with what the zoning calls for. So, I mean, we can't just turn around there and tell them you're going to move, but you can't do nothing with the light industry property that you bought. They bought it, they're stuck with it. What I'm trying to do is fix it where you'll have a good neighbor in there that's not in conflict with where you are and get your zoning straight at the same time. Because you all have got one bureaucratic mess over in there that at some point needs to be straightened out. But what I'm saying to them, when we get ready to kick them out, they also own property in there. And whatever that zoning calls for, whether it's on a dead-end or whether you got a four-lane highway going into it, they got property rights that's in there. Whether we like that or not, they still have some rights down there, and what I'm trying to do is get them into a mode of thinking before they go ahead and put you something down in there that you can't live with and that they don't want to live with. SPEAKER: If they ain't going to run a business, why is it named a business--zoned for business? MR. MAYS: Only thing I'm saying is they've got property that they bought that's light industry. They may not even want to do that, but before somebody would get kicked out with nowhere else to go--and I'm just saying that, to me, if I bought it and got gypped and I was living down in there and didn't have nowhere else to go, and you said to me, "You can't live down here, but if you got a light industry business you can stay down in here," if I didn't have anywhere else to go, I'd find a way to stay down in there. The law of self- preservation is going to come first. And that's what you're asking them to do in that case. What I'm trying to do is to find a means that will satisfy you, get you in a comfort zone over there, and find some way to either get them out and get them some assistance in there so that they can deal with the agreement that they've signed. The property is still there, they can still put something down in there, they bought it, and that would affect you negatively if something goes down in there. So what I'm saying is what is the worst of the situation, getting them in a situation where they can live residentially or keeping what you've got and maybe they find somebody of a negative nature that will go down in there and buy it, and then you won't be able to stop it and we can't stop it. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could get a word in edgewise. MR. MAYS: I'll yield to Steve. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I think the thing to do--I don't think we have the money to do anything with them for the brownfields, but I think in fairness, and we've heard a lot about fairness, I make a substitute motion to approve the petition of the Sipes to change it to R-MH and make it residential zoning. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion first, just made by Mr. Shepard, to approve it. All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Handy. MR. BRIDGES: Could we hear that one again, the original motion? It's been so long. CLERK: The original motion by Mr. Handy was to refer it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of-- MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could I say something before we vote on it? Just one second. That's all it's going to take, one second. I'm sending it back to Mr. Patty and he can take as long as he wants to make a decision and send it back to us. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Patty got your message. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 64: Z-98-116 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Nordahl Company requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) and Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Woodcock Drive (Dead End), 121 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Portsmouth Place and Woodcock Drive. MR. PATTY: This property is zoned--actually has several different zonings--well, actually it's zoned R-3B, which is a multi-family zoning classification--no, it's currently zoned R-1B and R-3B and they want us to rezone it to R-1C. R-1B is a single-family classification that allows lots 70 feet in width and 7,000 square feet' R-3B is a multi-family zoning classification. The petitioner wants to zone this property to R-1C, which is single-family that allows small lots, 6,500 foot lots. The petitioner is here, and I think one of the issues, if not the issue, is what size homes is he going to build on the lots, and I think he wants to speak to that. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I'm Nathan Youngblood, I'm the chief operating officer of Nordahl Homes. What we're doing here is exactly what we're already building in this subdivision. We're asking for this rezoning in order to take a look at the lot sizes. Since the houses that we're currently building are a little bit overwhelmed by a 70-foot lot. It wouldn't be by 65 and that's what we're going to request when we submit the development plan, 65 and 70-foot lots. We've been very successful in the Pepperidge Subdivision with this product. It's all brick, with a sodded front yard, sprinkler system, mini blinds in the front window. The square footage range, under roof--and these houses don't have garages, so this is the living area. 1,299 square feet is the smallest house and 1,660 feet is the largest under the current plan. We've had success with this product in Woodlake and currently are building it in Quail Ridge. Now, we're not changing the product line. It's not low-income housing. MR. ROUSE: Mayor Sconyers, my name is Norris Rouse and I live at 2645 Portsmouth in the Quail Ridge Subdivision, and late good afternoon to everyone. I'd like to just ask all the members here living in that subdivision to stand. [APPROXIMATELY 21 OBJECTORS PRESENT.] MR. ROUSE: And along with me is Mr. Andrew Jefferson, who is my neighbor also, and we and these other voting, taxpaying citizens of Quail Ridge Subdivision inside Richmond County--first of all, we just thank you for hearing and taking time to recognize the desires of the community. This afternoon we are here to represent our interest in our most valuable material possession, our homes. We wholeheartedly ask that you reject and do not allow the rezoning of Item 64, Z-98-116 of your agenda, the property located on the north right-of-way line of Woodcock Drive and Portsmouth Place. The effects of such rezoning would, first of all, indicate smaller lots, smaller houses, less property value, and more tax base. Your passing this rezoning in our neighborhoods would totally be against our desires and, secondly, would pre-obligate--as we feel, you will pre-obligate the Richmond County Sheriff's Department for what we feel would become an area--no longer a neighborhood, an area, as we've heard said throughout this afternoon, an area for crime, high traffic, high residential turnover, violence, and an area of not only undesired living but an area of undesired visiting. So we ask, do not allow our neighborhood to become an area in South Richmond County which contributes to the woes of all the people and you, our elected officials. Again, we simply ask that you reject this rezoning. Further, we do not appreciate any builder who would solicit changes in our decent neighborhood for small houses on small lots, fast built, in and up and out of operations, which will leave you, Mr. Sconyers, and this Commission and all of us voting taxpayers with the day-to-day burdens of a neighbor- hood-turned-problem-area. This can and must be avoided this very day. And we're not anti-build, we're not anti-progress, but if you look at what they're bringing in versus what we already have, you wouldn't want it in your neighborhood. If you've got to build, Mr. Nordahl, build something equal to or far exceedingly better to keep our standards of living high. And you're a builder, you can do that, but you have chosen to do less. This is very important to us and we ask for your help. We want your help now so that perhaps later we can all be pleased with our decisions. So we ask that you reject and do not allow our neighborhood to become a rezoned, quote, area. I thank you, we thank you for hearing our sincere and heartfelt concerns this afternoon, and may God bless and keep us all. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Could I ask a question? Do y'all have covenants in that neighborhood? MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: I was just asking the speaker, I'm sorry. What do the covenants call for as far as size of plot and home? MR. ROUSE: First of all, the covenants call for lots being zoned R-1B, and then it specifically moves on to-- MR. JEFFERSON: It goes with a minimum of 1,250 square feet for a one-story structure, less for a 750 square foot for a multi-story structure on the ground floor. This is our protective covenance, and it was first enacted in 1984. It is a 20-year covenance. I can pass it around to the Commission if they choose to see it. MR. BRIDGES: I guess, Jim, my question I'm asking, if he's building in that area, will he come under those convenants or will those covenants be separate from him? MR. WALL: I'm assuming that this is an area that's outside of that homeowners' association and that those covenants would not be applicable if it's developed in stages. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: They would still meet his requirements even though we don't come under them. MR. ROUSE: It's not an issue of convenants right now, it's an issue of zoning. We don't want smaller lots, we want bigger lots. I mean, these lots that he's put into the community already are the smallest lots in the community versus what we already live on, and I could put two of the houses on my lot alone. So we're saying if you're going to be a builder, build bigger houses, keep our value up. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: It's already zoned multi-family. We're not doing that. We're building single-family-- MR. ROUSE: According to the zoning you have an option, multi-housing or single-family, R-B1. We're terribly disappointed with what you've already put there. MR. BRIDGES: I guess another question I have is what this gentleman is bringing up here. If you don't enter this zoning, you have the possibility to have multi-family dwellings. Is that more desirable than what he's proposing? MR. ROUSE: That's not desirable. But what we're saying, that if he is held to a high zoning ordinance, then he would have to meet those codes in a higher level of work or product that he puts in the area. You lower the zone--you know, Commission doesn't govern the square footage. We wish you could, but you don't have any voice in that. So we're saying we want to sustain the zoning-- MR. JEFFERSON: Multi-family was never in our covenants, and we don't recall his residence--when it was rezoned to multi-family from R-1B. We've been living there for quite a number of years, and the new houses that they are building at this moment are directly in my backyard. As a matter of fact, I went on vacation this past summer, came back, trees were being cleared. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I beg your pardon, there were no trees. MR. JEFFERSON: On the corner of Portsmouth and Cross Street where they're building those single-family dwellings now. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: That property has been clear-cut for several years. MR. JEFFERSON: Let's make sure we understand exactly what we're talking about. Where Cross Street dead-ends there was a barrier and there was a wooded area. There were trees and woods that went behind Portsmouth Place and Cross Street. You're speaking of Woodcock. Now, I live on the corner of Portsmouth and Cross Street, and you just started building three, maybe four houses that's under construction right now. They're just in the drying-in stages. Are you familiar with that area? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. MR. JEFFERSON: That was wooded about six or eight weeks ago; am I correct? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Any tree great enough to have been timbered three years ago was taken from that property. We bought it as a clear-cut [inaudible]. MR. JEFFERSON: Sir, I beg to differ with you, because the barrier was put up there to keep people from going back there on dirt bikes and so forth. As of six or eight weeks ago there were trees--I don't know how heavily, but there were trees and woods back there. Because you just poured the foundation about three or four weeks ago on the lot directly behind my lot on the corner of Portsmouth and Cross Street, which is adjacent to the property where the kids go to Jamestown Elementary. Are you familiar with--you've got a slab poured right at that with landscape timbers. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: It's the same property. The only trees left there were too small to be considered [inaudible]. MR. JEFFERSON: Okay. Because, you know, I don't know how often you visit the area, I don't know if you're in the office or the field, but that was a wooded area. But the point we're trying to make is we have R-1B zoning, which are considerable large lots, nice size lots, and we are in favor of being rezoned from R-3B to R-1B for every lot. And as a matter of fact, we would solicit and help you sell those lots, because we feel like those smaller houses are hindering us in helping you sell that smaller house for considerably more money. So basically we're just trying to preserve the integrity... [END OF TAPE 2] MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, this property was owned and developed by the Trotter family, and then we purchased the section he's talking about [inaudible] and the particular covenants he's speaking of wouldn't be--if it's raw land that we're buying, it wouldn't come under the covenants. Nordahl Homes is Augusta's largest home builder, has been for 10 years, has been a licensed builder in Richmond County for 15 years, and we're not in and out, we're not-- MR. JEFFERSON: Well, I'm familiar with Mr. Nordahl and his reputation. His integrity is not in question. We're questioning the size of the lots versus our property values. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: These houses are going to be priced from 72,900 to 90,000 dollars. I don't think that's low-income housing. I don't think we're asking for anything that's not-- wasn't already written in the books. MR. JEFFERSON: You are in the covenance. Number of lots of Block A, Block B, 11 lots, 10 lots, a total of 21 lots. That is in that covenance area. I have this plat, I can show you where I live on this corner right here. This corner here is where I live, and right back there is where they put up the 21 lots. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think you'll find a house under 1,250 square feet, if we do fall under those covenants. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we hear from one speaker at a time instead of the debate that's going on? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I thought one was speaking. I rest my case. MR. JEFFERSON: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Shepard, other Commissioners, but this is a very touchy situation. When you look at a 30-year investment, you are looking at--all we're asking is a fair opportunity when this developer came in to develop these additional houses, that he go through the proper channels or at least the decent channels as far as respecting the existing property owners as far as notifying us on what's going on. Because we are what make that additional house that you're building sell, the reputation that we've maintained in that community, the way we've kept the community, and all we're asking for is a two- way street. We have no problem with you building your house, making money. You're selling a good product to people with good money. But we do object to you damaging the integrity of the subdivision by bringing a substandard or subpar product with smaller lots, smaller houses. Basically all we're asking is since we live in the Quail Hollow/Quail Ridge Subdivision, that our wishes and our covenant be respected, not clandes- tinely done whatever you want to do with that convenance and the building permits and so forth. I saw a grading permit on the lamp pole, which I'm on the corner, but we never ever saw a big white card with a big red Z saying rezoning. I mean, I have people behind me now that will state the same fact. If that was the case, Mr. Colclough and the Planning Commission would have seen us there; Mr. Handy, which serves on the Planning Commission, would have seen us there. All we're asking is that you preserve the integrity, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, of our existing neighborhood with our covenants and with what's comparable to what we're living in and what we purchased, what we invested our life savings in purchasing. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I have just one quick question of the petitioner, and I do plan to make a motion. You stated a few moments ago that the property that you are now beginning construction on or have proposed construction in reference to zoning changes, that you bought from the previous developer. Have you done any development in the existing area that's there already? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. MR. MAYS: Okay. I'm going to preface my motion on two things. One, Mr. Mayor, I think just as we--and I talked a few minutes ago about us undertaking tasks. I think this is another one of those tasks. We swept through an area to deal with not smaller lots and homes that were built smaller and closer in density, but we dealt with probably a more far- reaching situation in terms of dealing with agricultural zoning and a change to deal with single-family development in those areas. I think this is a classic case that while that plan swept into one area to do that, this is another case where this also needs to be done. I find it very hard when we're asked as a Commission, and while we want to see people move into our community, while we want to see development done, while we don't want to be anti-building, this--even though this was bought from Trotter and those, I can count more times than I want to whereby investments have been made, whether I'm talking about Sand Ridge, whether I'm talking about Breeze Hill, whether I'm talking about this development, whereby even the same developers will sell in an area for a certain amount of money and then have the audacity to come back and deal with the same clientele that they've dealt with in those areas in something that will possibly lower the value of what they may have profited off of. Again, it's one of those things I've used for a long time, and I think Carrie Mays taught me well with it. Sometimes even when you got the right, it doesn't necessarily make it right. And with that, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and we deny the zoning. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. BEARD: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to deny, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 65: Z-98-118 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Randy Gilbert, on behalf of Southeastern Communities, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Barton Chapel Road and Glenn Hills Drive. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. CLERK: Item 66: Z-98-119 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Randy Gilbert, on behalf of Southeastern Communities, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on a bearing N 1447'53" W and also being 886 feet, more or less, north of a point where the centerline of Toms Drive extended intersects the north right-of-way line of Glenn Hills Drive. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. CLERK: Item 67: Z-98-120 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting to amend the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance by designating a corridor 1,000 feet wide on either side of Wrightsboro Road extending from its intersection with Barton Chapel Road in a westerly direction to the Richmond County/Columbia County boundary line as an SCA (Special Sign Control Area) District under Section 25-B of the Ordinance. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. ATKINS: Could I make a comment on that? I'm Tony Atkins, and I'm not asking you to not approve this, I'm asking you simply to postpone it and send it back to Planning Commission on the grounds that I have a good faith doubt that a sign was posted. I don't know if y'all are familiar how you do it, but if you take a whole neighborhood from Barton Chapel to Belair Road and post one sign on one side of the road and one sign on the other in letters about this big, it's impossible to read unless you stop. And when I did stop--the sign was only up, as I can remember, and I go up and down Wrightsboro Road every day, it was not up over a week. And I called and they said, "Oh, yeah, we passed that yesterday." I feel like that the neighborhood, the people who own property on Wrightsboro Road, do not know what's happening, and I feel like their property rights are being affected, and I'm asking that you send it back to Planning and Zoning so that more people in the neighborhood can be notified and so they know that something is happening that will affect their property values. MR. PATTY: The law requires a notice to be placed in the newspaper for general circulation, which we did, and it requires a sign to be placed on the property. Now, obviously on these individual properties, we put signs on the property and they may or may not stay up. The law requires us to place it on the property, and we did place it on the property, and we make some effort to see that it stays up. On these properties like this [inaudible] I believe it was 1,800 properties affected, we can't put a sign on every property, and I think the law recognizes that. And so what we attempt to do is put signs at one end and the other in order that people will have a reasonable chance of seeing them. I wouldn't have a problem with what Mr. Atkins is--if I can, just let me give you a one-minute version here of what this is about. Our general sign regulations are not very restrictive. They allow, as you can see on Washington Road, billboards. And we've made some effort to control that, but we haven't done very well. But incrementally we've passed a sign control district ordinance that does control signage. It does not allow off-premises advertising, it does not allow billboards; it does allow signs on businesses, but it restricts the height, the size, and the number of signs a business can have. And now with Belair Road just about to open and I think with the new federal highway funding that's available, I think the widening of Wrightsboro Road can proceed very rapidly. And if you don't approve this and probably don't approve it today, you're going to have a flurry of billboard applications and, you know, the horse is going to be out, so I would recommend that you approve this today. And if Mr. Atkins has got some specific complaint, he can tell you what it is, but if you don't do it today you're going to have a bunch of billboards on Wrightsboro Road. Now, we recognize that our sign regulations have got to be rewritten, and with everything we've had going here the last month, yeah, we haven't been able to get around to it, but the first of the year we're going to do that and probably do away with these sign control areas in favor of something that works better. But right now I would strongly recommend that you approve this. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Atkins, do you have a special interest in this or are you real concerned that the property owners up and down Wrightsboro Road just weren't aware of this and haven't had a chance to vent what they feel? MR. ATKINS: I feel like I'm a victim. And not in this stretch of Wrightsboro Road, but I own property on Belair Road. And I don't--obviously don't live that way, and I went by there one day and saw a sign where this sign ordinance had been passed two months ago and it wasn't anything I could--I even called to see about trying to get it withdrawn, and my understanding is it's impossible, it can't be done. But I feel strongly--and one of the criteria--if you'll look at Page 82 on the zoning ordinance book, it says one of the criteria of doing this is that a significant proportion of the residents in the area request it. And what I maintain, you've got 1,800 owners and you had two signs. And just to illustrate my point, let me show you the sign. Now, from where any of you are, can you read it? And can you imagine going up and down Wrightsboro Road where there's not room to stop and read. It's impossible to determine what this is about. MR. KUHLKE: I guess my question, Tony, is if we postpone this, what is that going to do for you? MR. ATKINS: Well, I've got one property owner here, and what it'll do for me, I think, unless--personally I think that in the sign ordinance it ought to include a letter explaining to each owner how it's going to affect its property. But to answer your question, I would try to contact more of them and get them to express their opinion. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I think that we should heed what Mr. Patty is saying here. We voted some money for the corridor improvements, entrance to Augusta improvements. And I think I see Mr. Jimmy Smith from Pride and Progress, he's very active in that. These are some non- monetary things that we can do toward improving the entrances to our city. I think that Wrightsboro Road, with the opening of Dyess Parkway, is going to be even more of a gateway to this city than it already is, and I think if we want to try to develop it in an orderly manner--because surely development will come to that corridor when that road is improved. I think if we act today [inaudible]. If we postpone it, we're looking at all kinds of takings issues and things like that. And speaking as a representative of that area, I think that we should take the Planning Commission's advice, our Executive Director's advice, and pass this ordinance today. Thank you. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to do, if Mr. Shepard could go along with this, and maybe--I'm hearing Mr. Atkins saying he would like to have more input which would be influence for you not to do what you're going to do. But anyway, I think--in looking at these signs, you can't read them. Unless you've got a special interest and stop, you can't read those signs. And a lot of people don't read the newspaper or those advertisements. But I'm wondering if a motion would be in order that we defer for 30 days any action on this, but in the meantime we impose a moratorium on any sign applications on that stretch of road until a final decision is made. And I only do that from this standpoint, is that if there are property owners out there that would like to provide more input than what you have gotten in regards to this, I'd like to be able to give those people enough time to do that, but I don't want to impose an influx on you of people wanting to come in and do something that would be contrary to this particular ordinance. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask George, can we impose such a moratorium under the existing-- MR. PATTY: I think that's a legal question. MR. SHEPARD: Well, I'll ask it to Mr. Wall then. Maybe I should ask it to some other lawyers. I don't know, I'm asking myself. MR. WALL: A lot of moratoriums that have been imposed have been deemed to constitute a taking as of the time of the imposition of that moratorium, and if--I think the fear that George is expressing is that people would go out there and try to secure sign permits within the right-of-way that you're eventually going to have to acquire for the widening of Wrightsboro Road or get vested rights before you enact this thing and defeat the purpose of it. And I cannot assure you that a moratorium would stand up if challenged, and some of the people may be willing to make that type of challenge. Gwinnett County lost it on a sewer moratorium. MR. SHEPARD: By law it's not legal? MR. WALL: Very questionable. MR. ATKINS: We have one property owner here that would like to address the Commission. MR. GUNN: I'm Melvin Gunn and I own Gunn Automotive out on Wrightsboro Road, right in the intersection that's in question: Dyess Parkway and Belair Road and Wrightsboro. I don't know that I'm particularly opposed to this sign ordinance. I didn't know anything about it until two days ago, I believe, when Tony and I were talking, and I ride Wrightsboro Road regularly because I test drive practically every car we work on up and down Wrightsboro Road. And I don't know whether I'm particularly opposed to it, but when I moved out there 15 years ago that place was in--well, the entire place was in somewhat a state of disrepair. And the place I bought on Powell Road, of course, that's been cut off now, and I guess if you count it I own four pieces of property on Wrightsboro Road now, and I would like to have input, not necessarily negative. If the signs are--some detriment to signs or some problem you have with signs, then that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, I just didn't know anything at all about it. And owning property out there, I've staked a big part of my life in that particular area of Wrightsboro Road, so I would ask that we be given some time to have some input to find out what this is all about and the impact it's going to have on the property that we own. Because a lot of us have bought property and we've tried to [inaudible] so I would at least like to have some input, not necessarily negative. I may agree with every point of it if I hear enough about it, so that's my particular input. MR. ATKINS: That's my whole point. I don't have an ulterior motive except that I feel like--I feel very strongly that it's taking away an owner's rights, and I feel like that the owner at least ought to know what's happening to him. And right now it's not fair the way it's done, but at least I'm taking my own time and my own initiative to try to get the word to as many of them simply so they'll know. I wish somebody had done that for me and they didn't do it. And all I'm asking is for time. I'd like for it to go back through the Planning Commission so y'all don't have to listen to all this. But that's my request, that it be routed back to the Planning Commission and go back through the process again. MR. OLIVER: And I'm just offering this as a suggestion. What you may wish to do is to adopt it and request that a public hearing--that additional public hearings be held to obtain information and then modify it as appropriate. I think that may meet the needs of all the parties. MR. KUHLKE: Would you adopt it subject to the public hearings or-- MR. OLIVER: No, my suggestion would be to go ahead and adopt it and then hold additional hearings, and then if the community wishes to change it based upon that input, you can make a subsequent decision to make it, you know, more or less restrictive as the case may be. But I think that will eliminate a potential problem. MR. ATKINS: I respectfully request that that not be done because I know from experience how hard it is to get something undone. And what I'm trying to do is to not get it done, just try to delay it, and I don't really see where that's going to hurt anybody that much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, George, you have to give permits to signs, don't you? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, couldn't we limit that? MR. WALL: Well, that goes back to the issue about can you impose a moratorium, and there is a very legitimate concern as far as whether or not a moratorium would stand up if challenged. MR. KUHLKE: I think I'd better withdraw my motion if it's not legal. MR. WALL: I'm trying not to say that it is illegal in case I have to defend it. MAYOR SCONYERS: The main motion we have on the floor then is to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission, made by Mr. Handy and seconded by Mr. Shepard; is that correct? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 68: Motion to approve funding in the amount of $3,500 from "Commission Other" account for the C.S.R.A. Classic, with matching funds from Mayor's contingency fund; and $1,000 sponsorship in support of 150th anniversary celebration of the Augusta-Richmond County Library. MR. OLIVER: And Mr. Collins advises me that this particular account is $187 short and it will require $187 transfer from the Commission's travel and training account to zero out the account. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: What are you going to do, Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I've got to do whatever y'all do. MR. BEARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we allot only the $1,000 for sponsor of the 150th anniversary of the Augusta-Richmond County Library. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. HANDY: How many substitute motions can you have if neither the original motion or the substitute fit your taste? MAYOR SCONYERS: We're limited to two, aren't we, the main and a substitute motion? MR. WALL: Yeah. If they don't pass, then you can come back and put one that-- MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, maybe I can get it under discussion. Why would we need to go in a travel account just to get $187? I mean, why would we have to do that? Give them what's in the account and that's all. MR. OLIVER: That's fine. You can cut the request by $187, that's not a problem, but what I wanted everyone to be aware of, that we are short $187 of having 3,500 in the account. MR. HANDY: $187 ain't no money to even be put up there. Whatever the accounts hold, give it to them. MR. OLIVER: If we took 3,500 out of an account we didn't have 3,500 in, I would not think our Comptroller-- MR. BEARD: I'll just amend the motion to give them whatever is in the account. MR. HANDY: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, how about $1,000 for the sponsorship of the Library? MR. BEARD: That's included. MR. OLIVER: That's included. Mr. Collins advises me of that. MR. HANDY: I'm trying to figure a way to clean out the account like Mr. Kuhlke told me two weeks ago. MR. POWELL: He's been doing a pretty good job by himself. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen, on either motion? Mr. Beard's motion was amended to whatever it takes to clean the account out. CLERK: Yes, sir, and we have a substitute motion on the floor as well. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. And we have a substitute motion for just $1,000 to the Library only. CLERK: Yeah. Mr. Beard's motion is to fund the $3,500 from Commission Other account and $1,000 minus $187; right? MR. BEARD: Correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, is the 187 coming out of the 1,000 or the 3,500? MR. BEARD: 3,500. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we knew what we were funding. Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Bridges, was to fund $1,000 only to the Library. Is that correct, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll go back to the original motion. The original motion made by Mr. Beard was to clean out the accounts. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck has a proposal to put forth. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we--to approve the funding for the Blythe Community Center, with the funding to come out of SPLOST from the two programs, and to abolish the third $50,000 to come from the swimming pool and to take it out of the other two projects, one contingency and one project. MR. OLIVER: So 20,000 would come out of the Traylor Street playground and then 130,000 would come out of the South Augusta contingency; is that-- MR. POWELL: Out of the contingency, that's correct. MR. OLIVER: Okay. I just want to mention that that will make the contingency on that project four and a half percent. MR. BEARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would beg of my colleagues, this is--certainly is in violation of the agreement, Mr. Mayor, that you, Mr. Powell, and I, on this regional concept. We have projects in this regional concept that we had to delete, you know, take out of it. The good folks of South Richmond County expect you to keep the contingency there. Four percent contingency in this project is ridiculous. It's not even 50% of what's normally kept in a contingency, and I think that Mr. Oliver would agree with that. And there is no way that we can complete this project and program it to the extent of what's supposed to be in it with the money we have, and we're going now and we're raiding this project again to move money to another project. What if I wanted to move money from this project to the Meadowbrook project where you moved $50,000 to the natatorium, and I can go on and name other projects. How about Woodlake, you know, where we're in dire need of recreation facilities there and a playground. I haven't done this. I think I've been unselfish in this area, and I would call on my colleagues to do the same and leave the South Richmond project alone, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think one of the things that needs to be noted about the South Richmond project--and I'm not saying that we may not still go back if there's not a workable way on that estate and deal with what's there and the other $50,000. But one of the things, Commissioner Todd, that was brought up just last week in reference to the major South Richmond project is the fact that some of these projects are going to have to be done hopefully in their entirety, some where the monies are not there to do them in their entirety. We may have to deal with looking totally at going into another phase. The question that came up at the last committee meeting was the fact that that being a tri-district that such project--but a project for this whole area and not just for South Richmond County. It's locally geographically in South Richmond County, but it's to be used by everybody. And we've discussed this, too, the political ramifications, quite frankly, doing a bunch of projects piecemeal and half getting them done. One of the things about the larger project that's there is that I, quite frankly, am kind of glad that we've scrapped the idea of the gym that was to go in that project. It's ridiculous, and this is what was brought up at the last committee meeting, that rather than building a gym that's less than $2 million on that much acreage, we need to be seriously looking at a project that's as good or better than what's in Riverview Park in North Augusta. Two million dollars is not going to cut it in doing that. And what we decided to do in regard to that was to try and do all of the outdoor facilities in their entirety as they were to be done and scheduled rather than to half do something in one place, half do it in another. If you go into District Six, of which this major project is a part of, and you deal with a building built there in Blythe, for instance, with no kitchen facilities, no other facilities there to deal with it, and you already don't have the money to deal with going into the larger project, whether you take this money and complete Blythe or whether you leave it alone, you still don't have the money to deal with the gymnasium facilities that's there that's already been scratched. So in trying to salvage some things to make some of it be done right rather than all of it being done in a halfway manner, that was part of the mindset of trying to get some of the medium range facilities done in their entirety and then look at how we can deal with that larger project of the tri-district area, but again serving everywhere, located in South Richmond County, to make it work right. Because as it is right now, if we leave that money in there, if we leave it in there, vote this down and agree not to touch it at all, that project in South Richmond still is not going to be done like it should be done in its entirety. And that was the mindset on trying to get something done right as opposed to having two projects in South Richmond, one of a major degree, one of a lesser degree, and not do either one of them right. And that's where some of that terminology came from. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand from not being in a position of power that Mr. Mays protected his interest as far as the swimming pool and everybody protect your interest. All I'm saying, I've been very fair, very unselfish, worked to make a regional park work. As Mr. Mays said, it's for all of the citizens of Richmond County. Did not push for a major project or a project for the Fourth District. Now, what this make me look like, you know, I won't even say. Thank you, and y'all go on and do what you need to do. MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAYS: Well, I remind you, too, that part of the district that you were protecting in South Richmond is also a part of Mr. Mays' district as well. And Mr. Mays didn't want to see that done in a flim-flamsy way, which is going to be done that way, quite frankly, whether this money stays or not. So I don't have a vote in Blythe. It was a matter of the fact of doing those folk like they should have been done, and that was my reasoning for that. You cannot continue--and we put this thing out on a bid, this is not something that we've just said, Moses. I've said all along one of the worst things about having to telegraph the message of money is that developers--not developers, but these contractors basically see us coming. If the budget has been published in the paper--this is something that we all know. If they know we've got $1.7 million allocated to spend, we're fooling ourselves to think that bids are going to come in at 1.2, 1.3. Hell, every one of them is going to come in at 1.8 and 1.9. That's just the way that game is being played. And I wish there was a way that we could basically say we've got a pot of money, we want a facility built, and we're not telling you how much we've got to do it with, but the law won't allow us to do that. And as long as we telegraph that message of money, then it's going to always come back that way. And the only thing I'm saying is in order to try and keep every one of these areas satisfied in some way, then this is what we maybe need to do. If we've got immediate needs in terms of other park equipment that's on a smaller basis, then rather than that going into Blythe, I don't mind going back into some of what we've got whether from that contingency or [inaudible]. I don't have a problem with that. MR. OLIVER: We would also ask that that include award the bid for the contract, assuming this passes, to Excel. MR. POWELL: Motion amended to accept the low bidder. MR. BECK: And if I could mention, your second sheet on the handout was the negotiated low bid with Excel in the amount of $456,279. And there is--on the recommendation sheet from Dickinson and Associates [inaudible]. MR. HANDY: I thought Keller was the lowest bidder. MR. BECK: They made a mistake on their bid. They had a typographical error on it when they were the low bid at bid opening, so they retracted that bid. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. And who did you say have it now? MR. BECK: Excel Design and Construction Company. They're out of Stone Mountain, Georgia. MR. HANDY: Good lord. We need it here, though. It always goes out. MR. BECK: They were the low bidder on the project. MR. MAYS: Any time you want to go local, you've got a vote over here. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, usual sign of voting, gentlemen. MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 71: Motion to approve awarding the bid for five (5) transit vehicles with options for four (4) additional vehicles opened on August 18, 1998, to National Bus Sales and Leasing, Inc. for $929,500.00. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 72: Appointments to fill two (2) vacant seats on the Region 12 MHMRSA Board formerly held by Dr. LeJeune Hickson and Ms. Jeanette Cummings. Names submitted for consideration by the MHMRSA Board are Mr. Andree Lloyd, Mr. Jerry W. Peloquin, and Ms. Allean P. Tyler. I don't know if the Commission--I sent out a memo that I had talked to Mr. McCullough regarding your concerns at the last meeting regarding these two vacancies. Dr. Hickson and Ms. Cummings both resigned for personal reasons. Mr. McCullough concurs with the concern of the Commission regarding minority representation on the board and he has suggested that you may want to fill one vacancy now and that he would actively seek a minority to fill the other position. And he would suggest Ms. Tyler because she has a disabled member, and that would help them to meet the criteria on the board. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we concur with the Director's recommendation and appoint Ms. Tyler. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Since I promised Mr. Lloyd I would nominate him for this position, I'm going to do so. MR. HANDY: I just have a question, Mr. Mayor, I don't want to nominate anyone. But the statement Ms. Bonner just made that he's going to seek a minority, well, Dr. Hickson and Jeanette Cummings is a minority, so how the balance of the board going to look then? I mean, I'm not here trying to make it work, I'm just trying to--you're taking off two minorities and you're putting back one, so how that going to work? CLERK: Ms. Gold is being reappointed. We had a four- member board and we had three--three members of the board was minority members. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with the Director's request, but in his verbal translation--and the only reason--I'm going to say the same thing I said at the other meeting. When we did not have it balanced on the original appointments, it was brought to our attention at that time by Ms. Mulherin of what we needed to do. The Commission had to go back and we acted accordingly and we balanced the board. Now, what I'd say to the Director back, and it'll be a part of these minutes, just make sure you have it balanced by what they have instructed you to make sure it's in balance at, and he'll read that off the minutes. I mean, he's seeking to find. I've been here almost 20 years, I have a problem with this seeking to find on some stuff. You know, if he knows what the bylaws say and what they're supposed to do, then, hell, that's what he's supposed to, and then just let him do that. I'm not going to try and tell him how to do that, but I made it to his attention just like I brought it to attention last week to make sure that's what he had in mind. CLERK: Yeah. And he also said that if the Commission had any referrals, please forward those out to him. MR. WALL: I guess there needs to be some--there are two nominations, and is that for one seat or is that for two seats? Because if both nominations were to receive a majority vote, then conceivably you would be filling both seats. MAYOR SCONYERS: I thought Ms. Bonner read that he suggested only filling one seat. CLERK: Yes. MR. WALL: But I just wanted that to be clear that that's what y'alls intent is. Y'all are only voting on one seat--two nominations for one seat. MR. BEARD: Two nominations for one seat. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what you understand, right, Mr. Brigham--Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We're going to vote on them in the order they were proposed. That would have been Ms. Tyler first. All in favor of Ms. Tyler, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY: I need to know something. Who is Ms. Tyler? CLERK: I think it's in your book. There's a letter from Mr. McCullough in your book. MR. HANDY: Okay. Hold on a minute then. I may have a note, but I don't see no Tyler on it. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, while he's searching that, can I ask something? And maybe I'm looking at this wrong in here, but are we voting on the Richmond County members for this board or are we voting on a total regional board? If what I'm looking at is a voting district, we can encircle Lincoln County. I've got a lot of kinfolks in Lincoln County of all different colors. I don't think none are my cousins, but, you know, if we're voting on somebody that don't live in Richmond County, I done got hit with that, too, that needs to be clear whether we're voting on Richmond County folk or whether we're voting on a region that's outside of this area. Because this says on this application voting district, Lincoln County. MR. WALL: Well, my understanding is that you're voting on a representative from Richmond County for this board. And if you read on, I mean, she has a Richmond County address and a Lincoln County address. And, quite frankly, the Xerox at the bottom, I can't read what it says. MR. MAYS: I'm blind and I'm talking about up in the middle. I'm talking under section five. MR. WALL: It says voting district, Lincoln County. I can't--it talks about her daughter's residency, I think, down at the bottom, but I can't read that. I don't know what it says. MR. MAYS: And it's a possibility that the Director may not know. I mean, if they're thinking in terms of an Augusta address, that's correct, in all fairness to him. But I'm just saying--I'm just reading what it says and it says voting district, Lincoln County. CLERK: To answer Mr. Handy's question as to Mr. McCullough's reason for recommending Ms. Tyler, that's in your book. He says enclosed is one more application--he addressed this letter to Mr. Oliver--of a very interested candidate who is also a family member of a consumer, which, as you know, Georgia Code 37-2 calls for at least 50% of the membership of the regional board to be made up of consumer or family members of consumers. So that's why Ms. Tyler is being recommended for that vacant seat. MR. MAYS: I'm familiar, Ms. Bonner, with that provision. But as I say, I served two years on the Richmond County Board of Health and we instituted the first regional board. That was one of the reasons that Ms. Knight and then some others were put on the board, because they had relatives--in her case where a child that had a type of disability. I'm still saying are we voting on somebody where you got a listed voting address in Lincoln County. That's another county. And I'm sure somebody that--if she wants to change it--you need to follow the rules of whatever it is that's in there, that's all I'm saying. I have no problem with the lady, I think she fits the bill to qualify. What I'm saying is when it says a voting address of Lincoln County, then I'm sure that there are some people who have--that are consumers who have relatives who utilize the program who live in a county of 206,000 folk that we could find one nomination of some color to put on the board. That's my argument with it. [inaudible] But we need to be right on it, Mr. Mayor. If the voting address is Lincoln County, then we need to maybe put it off or something in there because that needs to be clarified. That done skipped all over Columbia County and jumped into another. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 4-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll go back to Mr. Lloyd. All in favor of Mr. Lloyd, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. CLERK: Item 73: Reappointment of Ms. LaVerne Gold to a three-year term to the Region 12 MHMRSA Board. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Henry Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 74: Appointment of Ms. Dorothy A. Bohler to a two-year term beginning September 1998 through June 3, 2000 to replace Ms. Sadie Maguire on the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 6-2. CLERK: Do we want to take Mr. Garnett before we--he's on the delegation. MR. GARNETT: Good evening, my name is Andrew Garnett. I'm at 2403 Young Drive, Augusta, Georgia. And I'd just like to bring to the attention of the Commission that I have a $150,000 loan request pending at the Housing and Neighborhood Development Office, and I'm having a very hard time getting it in front of the Commission. And I've met all the criteria that they have, and now I'm just asking for the Commission to consider making a vote on the loan. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, what's the procedure here? MR. OLIVER: If you recall, there were three loans that you all approved in the amount of $75,000. This was one of those loans. MR. BRIDGES: So it's 75, not 150? MR. OLIVER: That is correct. That is currently what has been approved by the Commission. Mr. Garnett communicated, and I don't--Mr. Mack is out of town, but Ms. Tutt put together a chronology for me. On 8/25 Mr. Garnett sent a request in requesting that that be modified to $150,000. And I know that Mr. Garnett had originally requested 150,000, but the Commission approved 75. Appraisals have been done. That process, admittedly, languished somewhat. Based upon the collateral that's there, according to what I've been provided by Housing and Neighborhood Development, he's eligible for about $122,800. As you may or may not be aware, the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development also put out requests after the three 75's were awarded to companies and entities who may be interested in obtaining funding. They received eight requests for $875,000. My suggestion, but we need direction from you all, you may want to look at what those other requests are to evaluate the merits of those requests concurrently with his additional request, or alternatively we're prepared to send this to Administrative Services for consideration. But I've indicated to Mr. Mack I want a recommendation from the loan committee, because one of HUD's criticisms was ensuring that the loan committee, the advisory board, whatever, make the appropriate recommendation regarding it. MR. BRIDGES: My understanding is it came here--or my recollection is it came here to us, we approved 75,000 for the three subject to Randy and Jim reviewing it. Mr. Garnett's been awarded 75,000 and now he's requesting more. And you've got--in addition to that, you've got eight other people out there requesting to be approved for funds; is that right? MR. OLIVER: That is correct. We have the documentation back on Mr. Garnett regarding real estate appraisal and equipment appraisal. MR. BRIDGES: Well, wouldn't this whole thing, the addition that Mr. Garnett is asking and the eight, wouldn't that go back before the Citizens Review through the Administrative Services, then up this way? MR. OLIVER: Based on HUD's most recent recommendation, I would tend to agree with that because--but as I mentioned before, the Commission had previously approved the $75,000 loan. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I'll make a motion that this request, along with the eight others, go through the usual procedure of the Citizens Review Committee, then to the Administrative Services. MR. OLIVER: And I would--I can do that any way you'd like. MR. BEARD: Just one question on there. I think it has already been through-- MR. GARNETT: It has. MR. BEARD: --yeah, the second loan that he's asking for. [inaudible] that's with that office, and it's my understanding that it has already been approved by the loan review committee for the extended funds. MS. TUTT: They recommended on September 2nd that provided Mr. Garnett provides sufficient collateral to secure the loan, to go ahead and approve--or to go to Administrative Services Committee to approve the loan, and then to the full Commission to approve the loan. So they did, on September 2nd, say that if he provides sufficient collateral to secure the loan, that it go through the Administrative Services Committee. MR. BEARD: So all he would have to do is take this back to the--bring this to the Administrative Services Committee with the correct collaterals; right? MS. TUTT: Correct. MR. BEARD: Then this could be done Monday. MR. OLIVER: Yeah, this can go Monday, there's no question about that. And based on the collateral, it's something slightly less than 125,000. MR. GARNETT: I am not taking this before anyone else. It has gone on for six months now. I have given y'all everything that you have asked for. You have the--the committee that the last loan went through said that if I provide them with $150,000 of collateral, or 90%, then this loan could go before Administrative Services Committee. Every time my proposal comes up in front of the Administrative Services Committee, they find a reason not to bring it before them or they find a reason not to meet; okay? So this is why I have requested to be on the agenda today to bring it in front of the full Commission. I am not going through this process again. Now, if we can't process this loan according to the criteria that you all established, then I think we need to send it to someone else. Because I have given you--I've got $137,000 worth of collateral on the table right now. That is more than 90% of $150,000. And if I can't get a vote of an affirmative or a negative today, then I'm going to have to take it to--in front of another venue to see if we can't determine if this is not--this whole process has been nothing but a big sham. MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Garnett, all we're asking, that you come before, on Monday, the Administrative Services Committee and present whatever you have. MR. GARNETT: But I'm telling you that I have tried on several occasions. I even wrote Mr. Oliver a letter and I [inaudible] the number of times that I have requested to go in front of a board and those boards have always found a reason to either cancel or not put my proposal on the table. And I'm saying now that if-- MR. BEARD: Mr. Garnett, I'm a part of the Administrative Services Committee, and we have the people here, and we will acknowledge your request on Monday and bring it through the proper procedure. MR. GARNETT: I will not be in town on Monday. I request an answer today. If I don't get an answer today, then I'm going to have to seek other remedies for this process. It's gone on long enough. There's been plenty enough opportunities to look at this information. I have given you everything that you have asked for. My loan proposal met the criteria before the criteria was even established. This has been a major delay tactic to take this thing off the table. I'm even concerned about the money that's even available at the $150,000, and that's what I've been trying to get--I've been trying for the last 90 days to get that established from the Housing and Neighborhood Development Office: is that money still there, is that money available. According to them, one of the loan applicants had pulled out. When that loan applicant pulled out, that's when I made my additional request. And since that time I've still had major--nothing but major stalls. I have even had to go out myself and get part of the loan process completed because they couldn't even find the people that was required to do it or they just didn't try. So if I don't get an answer today, I'm through with this process. I'm going to have to try another venue in order to get this matter resolved, because I've given the full Commission opportunity to get this process taken care of and they haven't done it. They've dragged their feet the whole while--for a full six months now. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Garnett, I got a copy of your letter to Mr. Oliver, and I know it's kind of frustrating. A couple of things. Number one, I don't know if you really need to be at that meeting Monday if Housing and Neighborhood Development makes a presentation to that committee for approval. But if you don't get approval today, where are you going to get the money? MR. GARNETT: Sir, that loan is qualified to be passed at any bank. And I put together--and that loan development packet, I brought it in front of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission and asked them for approval to go ahead and complete these projects, and all I've got is just a bunch of bull through the whole entire process. Now, if I don't get it approved here, I can get the loan approved. That's no problem. But I'm not done with this situation in terms of how this whole process has been handled, because it has been handled incorrectly and it's a disrespect to me as a citizen of this town to come before y'all with a qualified economic development packet meeting the criteria that y'all established. And to tell me that-- MR. KUHLKE: Well, I think what Mr. Beard is saying, though, is that the process--since you were approved at 75, you're asking for additional money, that the process needs to go back to Administrative Services and then come back to us for final approval. Am I wrong on that, were you approved for 75? MR. GARNETT: Yes, sir, you are wrong. Let me take you all the way back to-- MR. KUHLKE: No, I-- MR. GARNETT: Yes, I think you should be told. I-- SPEAKER: Call for the question. It's insulting to the tax--I'm a taxpayer. He's insulting us in here. It's insulting. MR. GARNETT: I requested $150,000 originally. When my packet went in, I received a phone call from the Housing and Neighborhood Development Office. They told me rather than submit a packet for $150,000, to submit it instead for $75,000. They had told me that they had already basically approved $150,000 for B.L.'s, $75,000 for Baldino's, and $75,000 for Church's. That's how my $75,000 got on the table in the first place; okay? Now, I don't know what meeting they used to approve that or where it came from, but I wish Mr. Oliver and Mr. Wall look into this to see if that meeting was even legitimate. Now, this whole thing has been a stall tactic. That loan proposal has been stalled in every major step of the process. It got stalled at the Atlanta appraisals, it got stalled at the pre-appraisal, it got stalled with the equipment appraisal, and now they've taken the brand new packet that I had and they just cut $20,000 out of there saying half the stuff in here don't qualify as hard assets. All of this has just been one big stall tactic, and that leads me to believe that there is something wrong here in terms of whether that $150,000 is available or not. And that's the reason the $75,000 were on the table in the first place. I did not request $75,000, I was told that I was going to get $75,000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges, what was your motion, please? MR. BRIDGES: My motion was to send it back through the chain of command. But based on what Mr. Beard has said, if he's been approved for it, apparently his just needs to come-- since that's all we're discussing really is his and not the other eight, I would think that Mr. Beard's idea to come before the Administrative Services Committee is the one that's in order. So I'll withdraw my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Lee, is that going to be your motion? MR. BEARD: Yes, it could come--the only thing, he doesn't want to come back. And if you are not here, Mr. Garnett, then just send the information to us on Monday, we'll deal with it and send it back, and that's all we--I think that's all we're asking. And I know your frustration and I understand your frustration, because it has been a long time. And I agree with you, you've been given the runaround, a whole lot of runaround, and I'm not questioning that, but we do-- that's what the money is for, to help people, and we are going to have to expedite the loan situation over there in Housing and Neighborhood Development so that those people will deal with people on a prompt and a timely basis and not just drag this out because it is frustrating and I understand that. But we had the $300,000 available, and it was divided up between the three applicants that applied, you and two other people. Which I understand those people have dropped out and the money--there is additional money available. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second your motion. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I've just got one question--not really a question, it's a statement. I talked to Mr. Garnett about this procedure and everything, but everyone fails to realize that he was approved for $75,000. If he would have accepted that 75,000, then he wouldn't be here fussing at us today. Since he decided he wanted another 75,000, that's what stalled everything and that's what got things like it is. MR. GARNETT: No, sir, that is not true. That is not true. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call-- MR. HANDY: Wait a minute, Lee, how do you know I'm finished? What you want to do, shut me up? MR. BEARD: You can just talk as long as you want to, Mr. Handy. MR. HANDY: No, I'm serious. I understand-- MR. BEARD: I'm sorry, but I thought you were through. MR. HANDY: I understand what Mr. Garnett is saying and I want him to get the loan. I want everyone who's eligible to get a loan. But he was approved--no, he said he was told-- which was wrong if someone called and told you because we don't work like that. It should have came through a letter from the Administrator. MR. GARNETT: Well, he did. I wish Mr. Mack was here. He told me that he would-- MR. HANDY: Well, Mr. Mack was wrong. It should have came from Randy Oliver that you had been approved. MR. OLIVER: There was a letter that went to Mr. Mack approving the three loans subject to the approval of the Administrator and the Attorney. MR. HANDY: All right. That's the way we do things around here, so I want you to know that, we try to do the best we can and we do things right and professional. But what you're saying now, you're calling us all crooks and don't know what we're doing, and that's not right, Garnett. I understand your frustration and I understand you need your money, but we still feel just like you do. MR. GARNETT: Mr. Handy, if that is the way you're doing business, then why don't you and I and the rest of the Commissioners get with Mr. Mack, have him explain what happened to me or what happened with that process. MR. HANDY: No, we're going to let Mr. Oliver deal with Mr. Mack and we deal with Mr. Oliver about that. MR. GARNETT: You let Mr. Oliver deal with Mr. Mack and-- because this is what happened in the process, and somebody's a crook. I mean, that's what happened. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to get a clarifi- cation on the fact that if you're sending--hold a minute, Andrew. If you're not going to be here-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, now, if he doesn't want it, I don't think we ought to try to force it on him. MR. MAYS: I don't think it's a matter of forcing, Mr. Brigham, and you're chairman of that committee-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Exactly. And we approved the $75,000, and you are going to get the $75,000 if you do what they ask you to do. But, now, that type of thing just puts us in a bad mood if that's the way you want to do about it. MR. MAYS: Well, let's--you know, I think if we're going to tell the story, now, we ought to tell the whole story with it. Your man ain't lied yet. Now, he was told--wasn't asked, he was told what to deal with on this proposal back when we were trying to do a so-called trade off and to justify what was happening when we were giving away $7.5 million over there in that hotel project and those projects that were out there. Now, that's where it started from. Now, his was approved for the 75, but that was not his proposal. He had in his proposal then 120-some thousand dollars that would have dealt with everything he needed to deal with in its entirety, but he was asked to deal with 75, so that if you want something, that's what you're going to get. Now, he ain't lied about that. Now, I can take it further, but I won't. Now, what I'd like to know is if y'all are going to handle it Monday, then handle it Monday, and then send something to us in two weeks so that we can deal with the young man's situation up or down, give him zero, give him 75, give him 122. I've heard his collateral going from one place as being low, as 40-some thousand dollars. Now today it's up in the 130-some market on it. That collateral amount has drifted as much as the weather has changed in Augusta, Georgia. MS. TUTT: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'll yield to you in just a moment. What I'm telling you, you just came in on the tail end of this. I advised him early on with his collateral that he needed to deal with his own appraiser in fighting this group of folk here. I've been there, done that. I know what you got to do to deal with that, Mr. Wall can attest to it. I wouldn't take one appraiser that this county hires and drop him out that darn window out there with a parachute on hoping he would land and trust his integrity. That's how I feel about the darn appraisers that we take to do anything when you start talking about giving somebody some money or taking their property. I asked him to get his own to back up his own figures, that's why he's back. If y'all are going to handle it Monday, I think what needs to be clear: are you going to mix his on the difference of his loan, are you going to mix that with the other eight folk that's there, or are you going to handle him totally out of the money package of what you've got? Because I think if he applied back during that time--I'm going to put the same bum rush on y'all that you put on me back when you was dealing with the hotel. You said that those folk had been over here too many times, they didn't need to have to come no more. Well, I'm saying the same thing about one young black businessman: he's been here too many times, too, and you ought to handle his just like you handled the other folks' business, especially since didn't nothing come out of the trade off for no other side of town. At least make one of the loans darn work out of the money and go where it ought to be intended to go. That's the only thing I'm saying to you. If you're going to work that in the committee, work it. If not, go on and take a vote today. I'm going to vote the same way today that I'm going to vote in two weeks. MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: I didn't get an answer, Mr. Beard. MR. H. BRIGHAM: On what? MR. MAYS: On how y'all are going to handle it. Are you going to mix his or are you going to separate it? Now, I've heard Mr. Oliver down there talking about it ought to go with the other stuff. Now, are y'all going to follow Randy when you get in that meeting or are y'all going to follow yourself? MR. OLIVER: No, the direction was to send it back to committee and deal with this individually, as I understood it, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: Deal with it individually. So that means it mixes in with everything else then. I'm just asking. It's a simple question. You've got three degrees, hell, you can answer that, Randy. Just answer the question, what are you going to do with the boy's money? Just answer it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: If the young man is there on Monday--he was walking out and said that he did not want the loan; okay? MR. GARNETT: I did not say that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: In the money that was approved--and I think the records will show this, that the $75,000 was approved; okay? Now, how you all got to the collateral of the 132 and all of that has not been back to the Administrative Committee. Now, who we want to fault about that, I think that's most unfair, because if Keven was here, then we'd need to jump on him about it. But I think since he is not here, we have to deal with the fact that we haven't. Certainly I would be the first to say let's do it. I made a commitment to do it and I will stand behind that. And I don't think it ought to stand on anybody else's, but it stands on your loan. That's all I was fixing to say, Mr. Mayor. That's my commitment, and I hope that the committee will follow because that's what was done. And that really was passed on to the Commission, and I think the records would reflect in this Commission that this is what was done with the 300,000. I may be wrong, but I think that's what was passed on. So I think that, you know, in all of the frustration--all of us are frustrated. I've got 25 parents out there waiting on me right now that I'm going to have to get to in a few minutes. But we want to help if we can, and I think in the process of the motion that's on the floor, we've got three of our committee members here, and I think we can get it done. Now, how you deal with all the other people, that's another issue. But when it comes through here Monday, whether you are there or not, if the right criteria are there, we can handle it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to-- what was the motion? CLERK: The motion was to--it was referred back to Administrative Services. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go to the Election of Officers. CLERK: Election to fill the unexpired term ending December 31, 1999 of Moses Todd, District Four. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, on this election I'd like to have a roll call vote, please, instead of the usual voting. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, for the nominee for the Fourth District, I'd like to nominate the Reverend Minnie Davis as the new commissioner of that district. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm honored to nominate for that seat Mr. Richard Colclough. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor-- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate Andrew Jefferson. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further nominations? MR. HANDY: I believe so, Mr. Mayor. And I think I came before Lee, but it doesn't really matter, so--you recognized him first, so it doesn't matter, but somebody will get the District Four seat today before we leave. And I'd like to nominate King Singleton, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. They'll be voted on by the order they were nominated. That'll be Ms. Davis first. Is that right, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, how many votes will I get a chance to do? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got four people, you can vote four times. MR. POWELL: But only once. CLERK: Ms. Minnie Davis. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO. MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES & MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 5-1-3. CLERK: Mr. Colclough. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a new commissioner. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might say something in reference to the new commissioner coming on and the other commissioner from District Four. I would like to express for the record--and I think we had four excellent people nominated today. Any one of them could serve equally. But I do want to say that this has to be at the top of our list of asking for a legislative change to deal with what is a glaring, glaring flaw in this bill. With every bone in my body I have just cast a vote--and no reflection--and I voted for those first two people. And I told somebody today I was going to vote for all of them, that was going to be my process, till somebody won, mainly because I still think--even though a commissioner is coming on, that for six people to make a decision for a whole district--and I firmly--even though I'm going to vote for him, but I thoroughly disagree with Mr. Thurbert Baker's office as Attorney General. I think that the merits of having an election far outweigh what's written in that bill. This election should have been decided at the polls and allow the people of District Four to elect whoever they want to elect. And I think it should be a clear message that people in District Four particularly ought to send to every member of the legislative delegation, Senate and House, to concur with a resolution that I hope will be passed by this Commission asking them to let that be their first order of business to change that method in the bill in the way that we vote. Again, I think we had four excellent people, but I think that the fair way to do it would have been at the ballot box, and that's a true democracy in terms of that work. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead and do Mr. Todd's delegation? CLERK: Mr. Todd, did you still want to? MR. TODD: Yes, I'd like to address the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the opportunity, and Commissioners. I realize that your task is not easy sitting up there. It may look easy to us sitting out here. And you made some tough decisions today, from the recreation facilities to the zoning issues to appointing a replacement for District Four. And I certainly appreciate all that you do and all that you've done today, and thank you for, you know, making a decision on District Four. District Four needs representation, and I think you understand that if anyone do. And, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, thanks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. CLERK: Item 69: Consider renewal of the Administrator's contract under the same terms and conditions adjusted for inflation. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we extend Mr. Oliver's contract for two additional years beginning March 1, 1999, and the adjustment to his salary be consistent with what the increases for the department heads are at 3% per year for the last two years. MR. BRIDGES: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: I was going to nominate Mrs. Randy Oliver. MR. OLIVER: She's tougher than I am, you know that. MR. MAYS: That's my friend, too, and she votes democratic most of the time. Can I make a substitute motion on that? You just find you another house. MR. POWELL: I just have one question as to why we would bring this up. Is it normally brought up during the first meeting of the first year or is it-- MR. OLIVER: Here's the reason, and perhaps you didn't receive the fax. It's customary that within six months of the end of the contract, that it be renegotiated. The reason for that is that if either of the parties desires to make a change, it gives an opportunity to do that. Because obviously if you start to make a change within 30 days of the end of the contract, you can't do that. MR. HANDY: I would like to--I'm not against extending the contract, but I would like to say that when Jim wrote the contract up I thought he extended that two or three months in the beginning of the year to--that if a new commissioner or something come on. So if that's the case, if it's customary to put six months, I think that needs to be put in the contract so next time around it's customary to start six months ahead of time. Because those three months that we extended originally was for that that you're saying. And we're getting that information from you that it's customary for six months, but we don't know that for a fact, that's what you're telling us. But we extended your contract three months for that reason, for a new commissioner or a new mayor or whatever comes on to be able to see you and do that. I'm not against extending your contract, but I'm saying that it needs to be put in the contract what we're going to do so we won't have no problem when we get ready to do it. MR. KUHLKE: Would you like for me to amend my motion to include that, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: That'll be fine. Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. He'll do that, make that amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MR. WALL: I've got two matters that I'd like to clear up. I know it's late, and I promise to be short--if y'all will promise to be short. MR. BRIDGES: Motion to go into a legal meeting. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING, 6:55 - 7:05 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add to the agenda the approval of a settlement agreement with Doug and Doreen Holland for the sum of $26,500 for damages to their property on Margate Drive. MR. KUHLKE: I move we add it to the agenda and pass it. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a motion to adjourn? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: So move. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:07 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on October 6, 1998. Clerk of Commission