Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1998 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS November 17, 1998 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, November 17, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, 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 DAVIS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or MAYOR SCONYERS: deletions? Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have CLERK: a request to delete Items 45 and 46 and to add Items 1 through 4 as listed on the addendum agenda. So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. . MOTION FAILS 9-1 It takes a unanimous vote to add MAYOR SCONYERS: everything. Mr. Handy voted against, so none of this will be added. Mr. Mayor, on Item Number 2 on this MR. KUHLKE: particular request, I had a call from Mr. Trent Whisenhunt. And it's my understanding that this was technically supposed to be on the agenda today and there was some mix-up through the Planning Commission and so forth, and I'm wondering if the Commission would consider hearing from Mr. Patty in regards to this particular item and seeing if there might be a reconsi- deration of Item Number 2. Mr. Handy, do you want to listen to MAYOR SCONYERS: Page 2 that since you voted against? We can accept Item Number 2. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, let me ask something, just as a MR. MAYS: point of order, on the additions. I know we're adding on Item Number 1. I guess that's members on the Administrative Services. Is that something that y'all talked about at the last committee meeting on the Individual Development Accounts [inaudible] trying to make it into the loan program? Mr. Mays, there was not a quorum present MR. OLIVER: was the issue, as I recall, with the Administrative Services Committee, and we had thought everything was going to be forwarded to the full Commission. And Mr. Benson is here. That was discussed, but it was discussed on an informal basis since there was no quorum. What I was going to ask Mr. Handy, could we MR. MAYS: reserve the right after a little bathroom conversation at the end of the day to bring this back up if we so might be able to get a vote at that time? That's a possibility. MR. HANDY: Thank you. I appreciate that consideration. MR. MAYS: Okay. If you don't mind, I don't want to MR. HANDY: take away something that needs to be done, so if I may, what I'd like to ask, if we could take them individually. That's what we're going to do. We're MAYOR SCONYERS: just going to call Item 1 and go right down the list. Ms. Bonner, Item 1, please. Yes, sir. Presentation regarding the Individual CLERK: Development Accounts. Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. MAYS: Discussion on Item 1 of the addendum? MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 9-1. Item 2: Whitney Place, Phase I, Final Plat CLERK: approval. Page 3 I move approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, in order to save us all a lot MR. POWELL: of time on this additions and deletions to the agenda, I'll go ahead and tell you I'm going to vote no on all of them. And maybe we can get it worked out sometime during the meeting to add them back, but this individual picking them out, this one is okay and that one is not okay, I'm going to vote no on all of them, so you might can save some time. I think that pretty much sums it up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2 is the motion on the floor. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, the usual sign of voting, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 9-1. Based on Mr. Powell's statement, we can MAYOR SCONYERS: dispense with any of the other addendums. Let's move on to the first order of business. Yes, sir. Under our consent agenda, Items 1 CLERK: through 34. PLANNING: 1. Z-98-132 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Barbara Weaver, on behalf of Newness of Life Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and a cemetery as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraphs (a) and (m) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Bennock Mill Road, 2,750 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right- of-way line of Horseshoe Road intersects the southwest right- of-way line of Bennock Mill Road (960 Bennock Mill Road). 2. Z-98-134 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions, '1) The existing residential structure be adapted without a drastic change of appearance; 2) Vehicle parking be in the rear yard and be adequately screened from adjacent residential land use; and 3) The main structure shall be used for a single-family residence or professional, no multiple- family occupancy', a petition from Michael Harrison, on behalf of Robert E. Harkrider, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northwest right-of- Page 4 way line of Russell Street, 167.03 feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Walton Way and Russell Street (821 Russell Street). 3. Z-98-135 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Juanita Gordon requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Golden Rod Street, 82.0 feet southwest of the intersection of the southwest right-of-way line of Hide Street and northwest right-of-way line of Golden Rod Street (2041-43 Golden Rod Street). 4. Z-98-136 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Larry Cheek, on behalf of Victory Outdoor Advertising requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 330 feet, more or less, north of a point where the centerline of Pepperidge Drive extended intersects the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road (3502 Peach Orchard Road). 5. Z-98-137 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Betty Cantrell, on behalf of Jimmy Cantrell, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Byron Place, 750 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects the southeast right-of- way line of Byron Place (3524 Byron Place). 6. Z-98-138 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions, '1) That an acceptable off-street parking plan be approved by the Planning Commission Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any conversion of the existing residence to a non-residential use; and 2) that this plan include the required off-street parking in the rear yard of the site as presently developed and that the internal traffic design allow a forward exit of automobiles onto Wrightsboro Road', a petition from Gerald D. Reynolds and Ronald D. Lewis requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the centerline of Belair Road extended intersects the north right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road (3529 Wrightsboro Road). 7. Z-98-139 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Clay Boardman requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of 15th Street and Greene Street (1450 Greene Street). Page 5 FINANCE: 8. Motion to approve overage and uneconomical City/County equipment as excess for the purpose of removing such equipment from the fleet through an equipment auction. 9. Motion to approve purchase order for one (1) full size, 4-door automobile for the District Attorney at a total cost of $20,551.00. 10. Motion to approve purchase order for one (1) compact extended cab pickup truck for the License & Inspections Department, Code Enforcement Division, at a total cost of $16,467.95. 11. Motion to approve a purchase order for the lowest bid for a three-year lease of two (2) Articulated 30 Ton Dump Trucks for the Public Works Department, Landfill Division, for a total lease cost of $360,671.76. 12. Motion to approve a purchase order for the lowest bid for a three-year lease of a Hydraulically Operated Excavator for the Public Works Department, Landfill Division, at an annual cost of $50,467.32. 13. Motion to approve the transfer of property at 210 Horton Drive (Tax Map 87-2, Parcel 99) to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 14. Motion to approve the abatement of 1998 taxes on Map 54, Parcel 62.09, requested by New Life Christian Center. 15. Motion to approve declaring as surplus Parcel 40.01 of Tax Map 47-2 located on Reynolds Street and Parcel 37 of Tax Map 47-2 located on Fifth Street. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 16. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #58-8357- 097 for Rae's Creek, Phase III in the amount of $440,000 and approve use of $40,000 recapture from SPLOST Phase I. Also approve the Engineering Proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $47,560. 17. Item moved to regular agenda. 18. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-8018- 098, Washington Road Sidewalk, Section II project in the amount of $200,000, adding said project to the Construction Work Program to be funded by the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. Also authorize work to be done by a contractor with an existing open contract. 19. Motion to authorize the construction and installation of sidewalks at two locations: 1) Laney-Walker Boulevard - Lovers Lane to Cherry Street, Lovers Lane - Laney-Walker Boulevard to playground (estimated cost is $7,500.00); and 2) Eagles Way - Olive Road to 15th Street (estimated cost is $8,200.00). The total estimated cost of the two projects (sidewalks), with work performed by County forces, is $15,700. 20. Motion to approve final change order in the amount of $9,472.50 to Steve Duffie Landscaping and Grading, Inc. for work completed on the Sharon and Sandy Springs Road Water and Page 6 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. 21. Motion to approve $35,000 funding for construction of water line to Blythe Recreation Center Site. 22. Motion to approve Change Order Number One for Project #57-8590-096, Traffic Engineering Improvements, Phase I, with B&E Electrical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $6,196.91 to be funded from the project's construction account which is funded by the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III fund. This Change Order is to perform required traffic signal spanwire, wiring, conduit, and junction box modifications. 23. Motion to approve low bid award to Chandler Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $9,203,517 regarding the construction of the 60" Raw Water Transmission Main. 24. Motion to approve low bidders for replacement of plant materials to R.A. Dudley, Inc. in the amount of $30,584 and Arthur A. Jones and Assoc. in the amount of $20,565, totaling $51,149, based on size, quality and availability for the Trees and Landscape Department. 25. Motion to approve AquaSouth Construction to proceed with excavation and demolition at a cost of $89,619 for reconstruction of the lift station at WWTP. PUBLIC SAFETY: 26. Motion to approve request for additional funds in the amount of $3,654 for lethal injection program at the Animal Control Site. PUBLIC SERVICES: 27. Motion to approve posting Marketing Director's position and hire at entry level salary. 28. Motion to approve LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 3 for professional services during the construction of the Loop Road Extension and consolidated Toll Plaza project, subject to the approval of the Attorney. 29. Motion to approve reprogramming SPLOST Phase III funds for Wood Street Park from 1998 to Year 2000 for $47,000 and to reprogram Chafee Park from 1998 to Year 2000 for $47,000. 30. Motion to approve and award bid and contract to A.T. Max, Inc. for $178,000, which includes Alternate No. 1 for Savannah Place Park Improvements, with $80,000 to be funded by 1997 Community Development Block Grant. 31. Motion to approve and award professional services for Construction Testing and Inspection Services to Graves Engineering Services, Inc. for a fee not to exceed $15,000. 32. Motion to approve creation of two (2) Lead Mechanic positions for Augusta Public Transit (Salary Grade 45), with positions to be advertised. 33. Motion to approve return of one (1) Shop Foreman position and six (6) Mechanic positions, effective 1/1/99, to Augusta Public Transit from TECOM Fleet Services, with Page 7 positions to be advertised. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 34. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held October 20, 1998.] What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MAYOR SCONYERS: MR. BEARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Does anybody want anything pulled out? MAYOR SCONYERS: [No response] Any discussion on Items 1 through 34? Do we have any objectors present? [NO OBJECTORS PRESENT.] All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to MAYOR SCONYERS: approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of those people MR. OLIVER: that are here relating to Rae's Creek and the surrounding area, Item Number 16 addressed those issues as it relates to hiring an engineer to commence the study of that and to come back with a design which we'll subsequently bid and approve the authorization to reallocate funds for that project, in case there's anyone here for that particular issue. Did y'all understand what he said? The MAYOR SCONYERS: engineer has been hired. Thank you. Next item, Ms. Bonner. CLERK:Item 35: Z-98-133 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That the only business on this property shall be a car wash; and that at such time as this use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)', a petition from Gary L. Richardson requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the northeast right-of-way line of McDade Farm Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Old Waynesboro Road. This is kind of an unusual situation in that MR. PATTY: this is a piece of property that's been zoned B-1 for years and years. It goes back to the '70s, if my memory serves me correctly. And the gentleman has bought it and wants to put a car wash on it, and that would require B-2 zoning in order to Page 8 do that. Like I say, the property is already zoned commercial, it's B-1, and that's a more restricted zoning classification than B-2. And the Planning Commission recommended approval on a majority but not a unanimous vote, and there were a couple of objectors and there were some people that spoke in favor of it. Do we have objectors here today? Would MAYOR SCONYERS: y'all stand, please? [APPROXIMATELY 23 OBJECTORS PRESENT.] Carol Miller, 4001 Goshen Lake Road. Good MS. MILLER: afternoon and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here. I'd like to make three points concerning our neighbor- hood's objections to the change of zoning to general business. Also, I think Mr. Richardson--I can't remember who else spoke in favor of this car wash, but I may have forgotten. It's only been very recently that we were made aware, as Mr. Patty said, that this area was even zoned for family business. This happened quite a few years ago, probably 20-plus years ago. And this land has been in trust, was just recently sold in August, so actually the neighborhood was not even aware that it was family business, and then it came up very abruptly and we found out that the zoning wanted to be changed. The residents of this area have a great deal of pride in their neighborhood and do not want to see business begin to edge in. As I said, people did not even know that it was family business and then to have this come to general business. There is a general commercial zone very close to us, as you know, on Highway 56, and that is close enough. We ask you to please ask yourselves, and even you, Mr. Richardson, would you not also be up here objecting if this were going to be in your neighborhood, next to your house, and you are concerned about your property values and the environment? As you can tell from the petition that most of you received, many more people could not be here due to work. Over 165 signatures are on this petition, and this was just done in the last couple of days. Because, actually, until the Zoning Commission meeting last Monday, people were not even really aware of what was happening because, as I said, nobody knew that that was a zoning changed to commercial. Also, we're concerned about traffic flow. As you are more than acutely aware, we are in the process of developing the Crosscreek High School, which is on Old Waynesboro Road. This property in question lies almost halfway between Goshen Elementary, which services over 700 children, and the new Crosscreek High School. We are very concerned about this in terms of traffic flow. At this time nobody knows what kind of traffic flow problems are going to be there. We have children on buses, cars, bikes, and even children walking because of Page 9 this proximity. So we're very concerned, too, about adding something commercial, adding something that's just a strip zoning in the middle of all our houses and residential. Also, we're concerned on environmental issues and drainage. Where is all this water--and there's chemicals, soaps, et cetera, in this water going into the creek. And so we have a three-fold concern here, and we really look to you as our only line of defense to help us. Thank you very much. My name is Schreiber, I'm the president MR. SCHREIBER: of the Goshen Residents Association. I'm here in that capacity. Prior to Mr. Richardson even requesting rezoning, he approached the board of directors of the Goshen Residents Association and discussed what he wished to do in that area, indicating that it was currently zoned B-1, that he wished to, since it falls within his purview, to put a car wash there, but would need to get it rezoned to a B-2. After meeting with his engineers and after having him meet with the board of directors of the residents association, the board voted to support him in his request for rezoning, and I am here to communicate that support of the residents association to you as well as his willingness to address the association prior to even requesting the rezoning. Now, we too are concerned about the things that the residents that are here are concerned about; however, we recognize that it is currently zoned B-1, and that zoning is not before this Commission. When we walk away today, if you disapprove this request, we will still be faced with a B-1 corner lot on a two-lane highway. Now, we believe that the use of this property for a car wash will be much more palatable to the neighborhood as a whole than other things that are permitted under B-1. It is for that reason that the board does support Mr. Richardson's request. And I would be derelict if I did not obviously say that the board does not purport to represent all of the residents of Goshen. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, could I--is George still out MR. BRIDGES: there? George, [inaudible] it looks like originally the staff recommended denial of the petition to change the zoning, at least that's what I've got here in front of me. Is that correct? The original staff report was for denial, MR. PATTY: and I think what I said on the commission floor was that I couldn't stand here as a professional and recommend B-2 zoning on the property, but there were unusual circumstances and I asked them to vote their convictions. What kind of property are we--are we MR. BRIDGES: talking about four acres and he's just putting this on one acre or one-half acre; is that correct? The other property is Page 10 not usable? This affects 1.28 acres of this property. MR. PATTY: What's the total property? MR. BRIDGES: There are 4.3 acres of Parcel 10, which I MR. PATTY: assume he owns the entire thing, and I believe the entire property that's zoned commercial is affected by this request. It is. But the other about three acres is MR. BRIDGES: wetlands and can't be used; is that correct? Well, it's also zoned agricultural, so it MR. PATTY: does not really figure into this. When was that rezoned to business? I MR. BRIDGES: assume that's prior to the master plan? All I can tell you is a long time ago, in MR. PATTY: the '70s or maybe even the '60s. If that were today, under the guidelines MR. BRIDGES: of the master plan, would it be rezoned for commercial use at that intersection? No, it wouldn't conform to the master plan. MR. PATTY: Mr. Mayor, I've received quite a few phone MR. BRIDGES: calls from residents on this issue. Initially, I'd say four weeks ago, I did get a phone call that indicated that some of the residents would prefer a car wash as opposed to a convenience store. But since the people in the general area in the last two weeks have found out about this, in the last week I know I've had 15 phone calls in opposition to a car wash going there. And the people understand, and I try and tell everybody this, that under the present zoning there could be a convenience store located there, and they seem to prefer that as opposed to a car wash. So, I mean, I think everybody understands the issues here. But I think that the people in a neighborhood should have a say in establishing the integrity of their neighborhood and what they want their neighborhood to look like. This is a residential area, this is a two-lane intersection from where McDade Road comes into Old Waynesboro Road. As we heard George say, if this was done today under the master plan, which are the guidelines for development, this would--a commercial development of any kind would not be allowed there. So in that regard, I will make a motion that we reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the petition for rezoning of this lot. Page 11 Second. MR. KUHLKE: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges' motion to deny, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. [VOTE REVISED TO SHOW MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTING NO] CLERK:Item 36: Discussion of Internal Auditor's position. One of the Commissioners came to me and MR. OLIVER: indicated, and upon checking the record that appeared to be correct, that a decision was previously made when there was no selection of an internal auditor made, was that the issue would come back to the Commission by the end of the year. This went through the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee decided to pass it to the full Commission. All I wanted to do was to make sure if the desire is to advertise, I'd like to know it up front. If the desire is not to advertise, I don't think we need to expend those funds to not make a selection. So it's whatever your preference is in the matter. Randy, it's my understanding, too, that MR. BRIDGES: the two that we had interviewed before for this position [inaudible], but the other gentleman indicated that he no longer desires the position; is that correct? That's correct. Previously there were MR. OLIVER: three people that were talked to. One of them has changed to another position, another candidate decided that they were no longer interested in the position, and the third person, in my opinion, didn't warrant further consideration. Mr. Mayor, you know, that of an internal MR. BRIDGES: auditor is a critical position. I think it's a position that reports to the Commission that we rely on day to day, week to week, throughout the year to make sure that our standards are being met and adhered to. And given that the contract with the external internal auditor is going end at the end of this year, I think it's prudent on our part to go ahead and advertise for this position so that we can have somebody on board as early as possible at the beginning of next year, and I would make a motion to that effect. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Page 12 Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. We will advertise the position as directed MR. OLIVER: and bring back the--and use the same screening process that's been historically used. Thank you. CLERK:Item 37: Motion to approve the proposal of Virgo Gambill Architects in the amount of $30,500 for the Shiloh Community Center Renovation Project. MR. H. BRIGHAM:Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. I second that. MR. BEARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 38: Consider the proposed railroad crossing closure on Goshen Industrial Boulevard and installation of warning bells and flashers at three crossings along Doug Bernard Parkway. No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee. MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we refer this to the Railway Trains and Traffic Committee. I think the backup material in the book says we want to continue the discussions with Norfolk Southern in this regard. I think they're also having some discussions later about the switching of this same line in a different location, which is, of course, downtown. So I would put that in the form of a motion. Second. MR. POWELL: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. Mr. Mayor, I think the three industries are MR. OLIVER: here and represented if there's any desire by the Mayor and Commission to hear anything from them at this time. Or if it's more appropriate, they could be heard from at the subcommittee meeting. Page 13 What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MAYOR SCONYERS: Subcommittee? [No response.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 39: Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for Saba Townhouses, Phase I. No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee. MR. POWELL:So move. Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell's motion, the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK:Item 40: Consider accepting proposal from FORE Augusta Foundation (Mr. Paul Simon) regarding The First Tee Program. No recommendation from Public Services Committee. I passed to you something that Mr. Beck MR. OLIVER: prepared. Again, this is a policy decision that should be made by the Mayor and Commission. Administration and Parks and Rec does not, you know, take a position as it relates to that aspect of it, while we think it is a good program. The proposal that Mr. Beck has put out, and I understand he has communicated with Mr. Simon, moves this total facility from both sides of Damascus Road to one side of Damascus Road. We had a lot of concern as it relates to having children or teen- agers cross Damascus Road because of the traffic and things like that. One of the comments that I'd like to make is he has worked up a budget for the maintenance of this. The staff is--he's indicating that it's going to take several dedicated staff people and the sharing of staff would be pretty difficult to do. This is a detail should you elect to move forward. But we would recommend, if you elect to move forward, that they be responsible for hiring and maintaining it because we don't see any economies that are going to be achieved by doing that. Mr. Mayor, let me get some clarification MR. KUHLKE: from Randy. Are you recommending that FORE Augusta hire or that FORE Augusta reimburse us? That they hire and they maintain it. And MR. OLIVER: the reason is, if you look at the staff breakdown, it Page 14 basically is showing that the cost is going to be about $115,000 a year, about $50,000 in equipment that's going to be needed, and, from what I'm understanding, this staff would need to be dedicated and moving back and forth would be more difficult. And what I'm very concerned about is that within several years that reimbursement may dwindle. There may not be enough funds available, and we would consequently wind up picking it up as part of our Parks and Recreation budget, and I'm extremely concerned about that possibility. Hopefully that would not happen, but I think this would--I don't see anything being achieved by, you know, putting it together. As I say, that decision doesn't need to be reached at this particular point because there's still a lot of work that needs to be done if the Mayor and Commission elect to proceed as it relates to securing funding to do the capital improvements. MR. KUHLKE:Mr. Mayor, Mr. Simon made a presentation to the Public Services Committee last week, and this particular program has a tremendous amount of merit, a lot of benefits to this community. What I'd like to do is to get it on the floor. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this concept, we approve the outline of the property in question, and that we approve it subject to review by the County Attorney and the County Administrator, and come back to us for final approval at that point. Mr. Kuhlke, is that the property outline MR. BRIDGES: that Randy has presented us with? Right. That includes the property on the MR. KUHLKE: east side of Damascus Road and roughly eight acres on the existing golf course, which is the ideal place for it to go from a safety standpoint and also being able to tie into the existing golf course. I'll second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, while I agree with part of what MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke is saying about the benefit to the community, I wouldn't go as far as he is going on this. Because I think most of us--some of us have known about this, but not the details of it, and I think that--to me, I would prefer approving the concept of this and working out the details, and that's partially what he said. I think the concept is good, I think it's going to be good for the community, and I feel that it would benefit the boys and girls of this community. But to the point that we have not had time to fully analyze all of this and look at this, and I think there are some things that we're going to have to consider in here, and it appears to me the concept would be good enough if we just stop it at that, Page 15 and that's the way I feel at this time. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from Mr. MR. POWELL: Simon. I always like to hear his presentations. Okay, although I've been criticized for MR. SIMON: introducing myself too much, but I think I will. I'm still Paul Simon, and I represent the Golf Hall of Fame and also FORE Augusta Foundation, which is an arm of the Golf Hall of Fame to raise money so that we can build the Golf Hall of Fame and Gardens and move that project forward. We've been very successful so far in our first attempts to raise the money here locally, and then the fundraising naturally will move out of Augusta throughout the state and also throughout other parts of the country to raise a total $13½ million, so we feel good about the announcement last week where the Augusta National has given $1 million to the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. The Augusta National is very interested in this project, The First Tee. I think all of you have a copy of the brochure. If you need one, I've got an extra one here. But this is a great project for our community, and as you pointed out, Lee and Bill, I think it's a great thing that can pull our community together and give the opportunity to those people who can't afford the game of golf the opportunity to learn the game. The proposal I made at the committee--I was not familiar with the property in that area to the extent that I knew that you had additional acreage available, so the proposal I made to the committee was the Damascus Road property on both sides, and some of the concern that the committee had was that some of that property may be developed or could be developed in the future. And Tom Beck called me and we met up there on the property, and he showed me an idea he had which is better than what we proposed. So the proposal that you see now in your packet, that is, moving on one side of Damascus Road and picking up the property adjoining to the golf course, is much better because, number one, it leaves the other property across Damascus Road for development and, number two, it brings everything on one side of the road and you don't have children then having to cross the road for this activity, so we feel better about that plan. The plan I submitted also to the committee was one that I asked that the county--since you have a golf course adjacent to this property, I just thought it would be less expensive for the county to operate that and we would reimburse them for that. If that proves not to be the case, it doesn't make any difference. I mean, we can--I just didn't see the need of buying duplicate equipment or having duplicate staff. But Randy may be right, it may not be duplication, and if that's the case, then it doesn't make any sense. I think those are details, though, that we should look into. Page 16 What I'd like to ask you to do today, if you would approve the concept, that is, give us the opportunity to use that property and then let us work out the details, I think that would be the way to go. The inaugural meeting of The First Tee is to be held on November the 20th in Florida, and that's the first meeting where they'll have the chapters that they have formed so far first meeting, and we'd like to be there and tell them that we have your approval for the land. They have seen the property on Damascus Road. They think it's an ideal site, the best site here in Augusta for that because it's adjacent to two golf courses up there and it's within the city and you have access to the property without a bunch of difficulty. So we think it's the best site we could come up with, and they're excited about that. This is a great organization, from what I know about it, and I'll learn more about it on November the 20th. But this organization is not asking for anything back. It's all a one- way street as it relates to what they furnish and provide for this community. A lot of communities have taken on this without others outside of the city government, so some cities are doing this on their own golf courses or are building golf courses or designing the things like we're talking about without involvement of the private sector. So some people see it as that's the way to go, but we think it'll work the way we've put it together, and we think that the interest that we find in giving the opportunity to young people, and particularly those who are disadvantaged and can't afford the game of golf, we find that there's sufficient funds out there to support this activity, so I don't think we'll have a problem, Randy, supporting it. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask a question MR. SHEPARD: of Mr. Simon and also the maker of the motion. Does the motion presently contemplate any expenditure of our monies-- taxpayers' monies at this time, Mr. Kuhlke? The motion that I made, based on what Mr. MR. KUHLKE: Oliver said, the only contribution the city would make would be the property. And we're not asking for any. We plan to MR. SIMON: raise the dollars. Both the Golf Hall of Fame and the FORE Augusta boards have agreed that the first dollars we raise will go toward The First Tee operation. To the operation and maintenance? MR. SHEPARD: To the building of it. And then The First MR. SIMON: Tee organization provides a lot of the--in fact, they're going to give us $100,000 directly. In addition, they provide all the golf balls, all the golf clubs, all the gloves, those Page 17 kinds of things, and they provide all the engineering and architectural services, and they also help you set up the business and help you set up the fundraising effort and so forth. So it's a support organization, and what you have to commit back to them is that we will operate according to their national rules in teaching these kids the game of golf. And then once a child learns the game and the etiquette of golf, then they are issued a card by The First Tee organization. And they can take this card and go to any golf course that we have pre-arranged a relationship with, and then they can play the game of golf for the price of a movie, not the full fees that you have to pay to go play. So it's a great program, I think. We would envision, Mr. Shepard, that the MR. OLIVER: structure would not be fee simple, but would rather be a lease agreement for like a dollar a year for a fixed term. And in the event it ceased to function in that purpose, the lease would terminate. But that'll just give you an idea of what we would envision as the structure. What I was asking is a more urgent MR. SHEPARD: question, like who would fertilize the greens, who would cut the grass, who would aerate the greens. You know, the maintenance of golf courses is ongoing, it's daily, in order to keep the greens--it doesn't help my game any, but--but's that's what I was wanting to know. If you could speak to that, the operation and maintenance end of it, Mr. Simon. The operation would be the responsibility of MR. SIMON: the FORE Augusta Foundation. Now, my presentation was asking the city let's don't duplicate since you have the equipment and the manpower and so forth, and let's you do it, but we reimburse you for it. But if that's not the way--in other words, if it's duplication, then we shouldn't do it that way, we should just operate it and bear the cost. So we're not asking the city to pay any operating costs or to provide any capital improvements, all we're asking the city is to provide the land for this purpose. Mr. Shepard, I think my motion speaks to MR. KUHLKE: those details being worked out by the Attorney and the Administrator as to whether or not--which way to do that. And if we were going to contribute those MR. SHEPARD: expenses, that would return to this body? It would come back to us. MR. KUHLKE: It's been represented that there will be no MR. OLIVER: expenditures coming from this government, and we are counting Page 18 upon that from a budgetary perspective. Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion was to approve the concept and the CLERK: outline of the property in question, subject to the review of the Administrator and Attorney, and that it come back to the Commission for final approval. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK:Item 41: Motion to approve transfer request by Myong Tul Chu for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Pine Hill Food Store located at 1680 Brown Road. No recommendation from Public Services Committee. For the benefit of the Commission, there was MR. WALL: a suggestion--and I think that in particular Mr. Mays alluded to the fact that perhaps some type of agreement could be worked out, and I do have a letter signed by Mr. Chu addressed to the Mayor and Commissioners that commits to not reapplying for an additional beer license or a gameroom license at the old location. And I first said Mr. Smith wasn't going to be here, and then I saw him, and I think he's gone again, but he is aware of that. Although they are not in agreement with that, they recognize that as the best alternative that's available to the neighborhood at this time and are not here to oppose that transfer. MR. KUHLKE:I move approval. Second. MR. BEARD: I'd like to hear from the gentleman who was MR. POWELL: the spokesman that was here last time that I see over in the corner there. I have one question that I would like to ask. The letter that Mr. Wall just read off, it covered a gameroom license and an alcohol license at the location. Does that include a liquor license? My name is Daniel Chung. I was informed MR. CHUNG: yesterday from Mr. Chu and I went over the [inaudible] and that's basically what Mr. Chu decided. I think the paper brought us was not initially made from us, it was from [inaudible]. Page 19 Mr. Wall, are you in agreement that that MR. POWELL: pretty well covers both facets of alcohol? Yes, sir. MR. WALL: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, COLCLOUGH & POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. : CLERKItem 42: Discussion of renewals: Approval of 1999 alcohol beverage license renewals for license holders in Augusta-Richmond County. This includes dance and Sunday Sales. MR. MAYS:Move it be approved. I second it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, can we hear from Mr. Wall on MR. BRIDGES: this one? Upon consolidation, we treated those adult MR. WALL: entertainment establishments that had alcohol licenses as being grandfathered in. And that has been continued, I think, frankly, to avoid further litigation concerning the matter, and we have continued to renew those. In regard to the adult establishments and MR. BRIDGES: the alcohol, my understanding is if we deny--if we just pick them out and deny them the alcohol license, that immediately lowers the age of those that can enter that establishment from 21 to 16. Well, our ordinance currently says 18 insofar MR. WALL: as adult entertainment. But, yes, it would remove that control. And we do have the control by virtue of the alcohol sales, which prohibits individuals under 21 from going in there. What recent court decisions--I think Cobb MR. BRIDGES: County is one of them. In regards to adult entertainment establishments, what does that allow a government to do or not do? There are several court decisions that have MR. WALL: come out in the last year to 18 months that essentially have said that counties/municipalities can prohibit the sale of alcohol in adult entertainment establishments, that there are Page 20 no vested rights. The fact that they may have had adult entertainment along with alcohol sales did not give them a vested right to a continuation of the alcohol license. Because the alcohol ordinances in those cases, just as our alcohol ordinance, provides that it's an annual license, that it is up for renewal every year. And the courts have recog- nized the ability of counties and municipalities to regulate alcohol in that fashion and to adopt an ordinance such as we did which would prohibit further alcohol sales in adult entertainment establishments. But you are correct that the age would drop from 21 down to 18. What about the adult entertainment license MR. BRIDGES: itself, is that a privileged license, something they are grandfathered in with? Well, our ordinance says that it will be MR. WALL: renewed, but it does not specifically state that it is a privileged license. I think they're generally regarded as privileged licenses, but then you get into a whole other area of the law and that deals with First Amendment protection, et cetera, which is what we've litigated on for a number of years. If we deny the alcohol license to an adult MR. BRIDGES: entertainment establishment, we have not necessarily closed down adult entertainment, we've just basically lowered the age to those that enter and decreased the government's ability to monitor or regulate those establishments; is that right? That's exactly correct. MR. WALL: Mr. Wall, I've got a little problem with MR. POWELL: the way this thing is worded up. The way you've got it worded here, it says this includes dance and Sunday Sales District 1 through District 8, Super District 9 and Super District 10. We don't have any dancing--nude dancing, to my knowledge, out in District 6. And, you know, I understand you've got to go with a county-wide ordinance, but, you know, this thing is worded up a little different than-- Well, no, sir. I mean, everything in that MR. WALL: green book is included, which includes all alcohol licenses out in the districts. So, I mean, it's not the five adult entertainment establishments, it's everything in that green book. Well, maybe I'm just reading into MR. POWELL: something, but I'm not real comfortable with that. Well, I'm not sure I understand. I mean, it MR. WALL: Page 21 is all the alcohol licenses, which includes the entire county. I understand. Alcohol licenses, yes, MR. POWELL: through Districts 1 through 8, but we don't have no dance in District 6 now, and it seems to me like we're somewhat including that and we don't want that out there. Well, I understand that, but-- MR. WALL: What do you mean by dance? MR. BRIDGES: Well, I mean, you have dance hall licenses, MR. WALL: and that's a dance hall license included in there. And I don't know what-- That's not adult entertainment? MR. BRIDGES: No, that's not adult entertainment at all. MR. WALL: Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. POWELL: I understand, I'm just being careful. I don't want to wake up one morning and look over at the corner and have a nude dancing establishment. Mr. Mayor, I think in the last three years MR. BEARD: we've gone through this, and it looks like every year we go through the same thing. I don't see any need to deny these people these license. We've been doing it for years, ever since I can remember, and that's been a very long, long time. And we've been told each year that this is a control factor, we have a control factor here. The Sheriff's Department and the alcohol people have agreed to this in saying that it was safe, so, you know, I just don't see twisting these people around every year for the same old thing. But I think, you know, you're denying people a livelihood where we say you can just go and snatch their license at will. And I think as long as--this is my district that most of this is in, I don't have a problem with it, and I think that as long as they control it as they do, it's fine with me and I intend to vote for it. Mr. Wall, according to our ordinances, MR. J. BRIGHAM: is this an activity we cannot turn down, the way the ordinance is written? The alcohol ordinance prohibits the sale of MR. WALL: alcohol in adult entertainment establishments except to the extent that there may be a vested right, and the question is whether or not there may be a vested right. Now, the courts, as I've indicated to Mr. Bridges, that have addressed the issue thus far have said that there appears to be no vested right under those ordinances as to a continuation of alcohol Page 22 sales. And, frankly, I don't have any reason to think that the court wouldn't hold the same thing with regard to our ordinance, but that language is included in our ordinance, which is not included in the others. I think that you and I both know there will be litigation over the issue if it comes about. So generally I would agree, but that provision is included in the ordinance, and I guess it would ultimately be for a court to determine whether or not they may have some vesting of some right that's perhaps different than what the courts have looked at thus far. And if somebody was to apply for an MR. J. BRIGHAM: adult entertainment license, who would rule as to whether they could have one of them or not? An adult entertainment license is applied for MR. WALL: and comes before this Commission. Can we turn it down for any reason? MR. J. BRIGHAM: For any reason? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Not for just any reason. I mean, there are MR. WALL: criteria included. But there are criteria that they can be MR. J. BRIGHAM: turned down? Yes, there are. And one of the things that MR. WALL: we have done is we've tied in the zoning regulations and we have put specific requirements in the zoning law as to where they can be located and the size of property and things of that nature. And as I've said in the past, you know, in my mind we've got the best of both worlds in that we can prevent one from going in District 6 or District 7-- We're sure going to try. MR. POWELL: --because the ordinance prohibits alcohol MR. WALL: sales out there. Whereas we've got them in a confined geographical area, they're currently being treated as grandfathered in, which would be lost at the time that is sold or transferred or if they attempt to move to a different location. Mr. Wall, can we amend the alcohol MR. J. BRIGHAM: ordinances? Yes, sir. MR. WALL: Page 23 Could I ask the investigator, have we MAYOR SCONYERS: had any problems at all with any of these places? No, sir. None that I'm aware of, no, sir. MR. BERRY: Thank you. Any other discussion, MAYOR SCONYERS: gentlemen? Mr. Mayor, so that I understand this, I'd MR. SHEPARD: ask on the benefit of us new Commissioners, Mr. Colclough and I. Certainly this is the first time we've faced it. Jim, under the present structure we have the control of the 21 to 18 age group. And if we tinker with this, we're going to jeopardize that control; is that the bottom line? Yes, certainly as to that age group. But in MR. WALL: addition, because there's alcohol sale there, there's regulation even above age 21 that you might not have in a-- In a so-called non-alcoholic juice bar? MR. SHEPARD: Right. Yes. MR. WALL: I'll ask Mr. Powell to tell me about MR. SHEPARD: those. I think you've said that this just-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: there's no new license for this group and that this is just renewing the persons who have been grandfathered into it for some time? That's correct, simply a renewal. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, the reason we're here, this-- MR. COLCLOUGH: that means that--I have a problem actually with the Sunday sales. Will there be any drinking on Sundays? Not in an adult entertainment establishment. MR. WALL: Well, this is the way you have it worded MR. COLCLOUGH: here. This has-- Well, that is a generic agenda item, because MR. WALL: the green book that each of you should have had has them broken down insofar as Sunday sales, dance halls, alcohol license, wholesale alcohol license, adult entertainment, et cetera. So that is a generic caption on the motion to encompass what's in the green book. And the only way they can have Sunday MAYOR SCONYERS: Page 24 sales is they must have more than 50 percent of the food-- sales from food; right? That's correct, and they are listed in the MR. WALKER: book, the only ones that have those licenses. Mr. Walker, has there been any MR. J. BRIGHAM: modification to that list? Yes, sir. Good Fella's has written a MR. WALKER: letter withdrawing his application--his renewal of Sunday sales. As of January the 1st, he will not have Sunday sales anymore. And I think it should also be noted that the MR. WALL: address for Mr. Chu that is in there is the old location. And obviously with the transfer that's been approved, the renewal would only be as to the new location and not the old location. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. Ms. Bonner, if you could record mine as a MR. BRIDGES: "no" vote on Sunday sales. Same here, Ms. Bonner. MR. COLCLOUGH: And if you'll record mine as a "no" MR. J. BRIGHAM: vote on the adult entertainment. Is that so noted, Ms. Bonner? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. CLERK: MR. BRIDGES & MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO ON SUNDAY SALES LICENSES. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT LICENSES. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. CLERK:Item 43/44: Appoint Mr. George DeVallon Bush to the Historic Preservation Board, representing District 3; and appoint Mr. Ross Snellings to the Historic Preservation Board, representing District 6. MR. SHEPARD:So move on both items. Second. MR. BEARD: Page 25 Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion to approve Item 43 and 44, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 45: Appoint the following to the Downtown Development Authority: Ms. April Beard (to replace Mr. Robert Gordon) and Mr. Vincent Hamilton (to replace Mr. Robert Kirby). Item 46: Appointment to the Board of Tax Assessors (Senate District 23) due to the resignation of Mr. Donald H. Skinner: Mr. Harvey Johnson and Mr. Ernie Bowman. MR. BRIDGES:Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we delete those items and add them on to the agenda for the next meeting. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Shouldn't it be a motion to postpone MR. J. BRIGHAM: rather than delete? My intent is to do it at the next meeting. MR. BRIDGES: I'll yield to the Parliamentarian. Well, if they are deleted, they would auto- MR. WALL: matically be carried back to the next meeting, so the effect of the two motions would be the same. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Item 47: Update on Wastewater System. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if we could perhaps delay MR. WALL: that until after the legal meeting since I do want to discuss with you the pending litigation, and it might be appropriate to discuss--have some guidance before we have that update. So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, MAYOR SCONYERS: the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Page 26 Do we have anything under Other MAYOR SCONYERS: Business? Mr. Mayor, under Other Business, I would MR. KUHLKE: like to request that we look at the addition to the agenda Item Number 2 only at this point, and prior to that--we add that to the agenda and that we hear from Mr. Patty in regards to the reason this was not on the agenda today and it's being asked to be added. Is that in the form of a motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. COLCLOUGH NOT VOTING. MOTION FAILS 8-1. Well, we have a "no" vote. Mr. Beard MAYOR SCONYERS: voted no, so it's not unanimous. We can't put it on without a unanimous vote; right, Mr. Wall? That's correct. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, in regard to Other Business, MR. SHEPARD: this was on the addendum agenda and I would ask for unanimous consent to add the resolution inviting Governor-Elect Barnes to this community, along with Governor-Elect Hodges. We never got to discuss that. We drafted that, I think, at the urging of some of you after our work session, and I would ask that we add that to our agenda. But I think time is of the essence to invite both of these recently-elected Governors, or Governors- Elect, to our community. I think we need to think about regional cooperation not only on this side of the river, but we look at regional cooperation on both the Georgia and South Carolina sides, and I think this would--we could take a leadership role and be the first to request this in this area, and we would assume a pivotal role in this process. So I would ask that we add that. Is that in the form of a motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, it is. MR. SHEPARD: Page 27 Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 9-1. We have a "no" vote by Mr. Handy, so MAYOR SCONYERS: that will not be added either. Do I hear a motion we go into a legal meeting? To discuss legal matters, litigation. MR. WALL: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. BEARD: All in favor, the usual sign of voting, MAYOR SCONYERS: please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING, 3:15 - 4:15 P.M.] Our meeting will come back to order, MAYOR SCONYERS: please. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask that items MR. BEARD: for the additions, 2, 3, and 4, be reconsidered. Second. MR. HANDY: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard's motion to add Items 2, 3, and 4, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Mr. Mayor, I've got two items to add as well, MR. WALL: if I may: a motion to approve settlement of the Kendrick Jordan claim for the sum of $350,000; and a motion to approve settlement of the workers' compensation claim of Johnny R. Rewis by payment of the sum of $20,000 and providing three months open medicals to include office visits and prescribed medications, but no diagnostic tests. So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. SHEPARD: Page 28 This is just to add; right? MR. MAYS: Correct. MR. WALL: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, the MAYOR SCONYERS: usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 2: S-550 - WHITNEY PLACE, PHASE I, FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Whitney Place, Phase I, Final Plat. This phase is located approximately 1/4 mile east of Wheeler Road and contains 76 lots. MR. HANDY:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, is any of this in the MR. J. BRIGHAM: wetlands area or anything like that? Mr. Oliver, do you know that? MAYOR SCONYERS: I do not know the answer to that, but if MR. OLIVER: you want to make it subject to that, I'll be glad to make sure. I wouldn't think it would be, but I MR. J. BRIGHAM: just wondered. If you'll make sure, that'll be fine. Further discussion, gentlemen? Do you MAYOR SCONYERS: want to add that on, Ms. Bonner, that it be subject to-- Yes, sir, subject to wetlands. CLERK: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to MAYOR SCONYERS: approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 3: Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Lease No. DACW-21-1-95-1237 for the New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam extending the term for an additional 10 years and setting forth requirements and lock operating procedures for anadromous fish passage, subject to approval of Administrator and Attorney. MR. HANDY:So move. Page 29 Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 4: A Resolution formally inviting Governor-Elect Barnes to meet with Governor-Elect Hodges, the Mayor and members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission to discuss economic development in the region: "After the recent general election of Roy E. Barnes as Governor-Elect of the state of Georgia and Jim Hodges as the Governor-Elect of the state of South Carolina; and whereas the Augusta-Richmond County Commission is committed to the promotion of economic growth in Augusta-Richmond County and the Central Savannah River Area and desires to promote greater regional cooperation for that purpose; now, therefore, the Augusta Commission formally invites Governor-Elect Barnes to meet with our community, with Governor-Elect Hodges, and the Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission and other interested elected officials and businesspersons in the Central Savannah River Area to discuss economic development in the region. The Clerk of Commission shall forward a copy of this resolution to all interested elected officials and businesspersons and said Governors-Elect." MR. HANDY:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:The next item is a motion to approve the settlement of the Kendrick Jordan claim in the amount of $350,000. MR. HANDY:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I have a feeling--I am glad--no, MR. MAYS: let me take that back. I would not postpone a settlement by the technical reason of not allowing it to go on, so that was my reason for voting for it to go on, as you well know. And I do want to state publicly and for the record that I think that Page 30 while our Attorney was acting in professional realms of working for this government and in good faith of getting this settlement done, I cannot in good conscience vote for the amount of the settlement in this particular case and what has been done as far as the extent of the injury. I feel that the settlement is not adequate in terms of the age of this person to the extent and nature of what has been done. And I feel that while the court settlements rule in our favor and we act behind what I feel are the long skirts of sovereign immunity, I still go with the old saying that I've said many times: simply because you got the right, it doesn't necessarily make it right. And for that reason I'm going to vote against the amount of settlement. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Other discussion, MAYOR SCONYERS: gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, the usual sign of voting, please. MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK:The next item is to approve a settlement of workers' compensation claim of Johnny Rewis by payment of the sum of $20,000. MR. HANDY:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Is that with the amendments that Mr. Wall-- MR. POWELL: Yeah. $20,000, with the three months open MR. WALL: medicals for treatment purposes only, no diagnostic tests. Was that included in the motion? MR. POWELL: That's included in the motion. She just MR. WALL: didn't read the whole thing. Do you want me to read the entire motion? CLERK: No, no, I just wanted to make sure. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I probably can vote for that MR. MAYS: particular motion, just a point of clarity. Jim or Randy, in a case like this of wrapping up this settlement, does that person still have the right, at their own expense, since we have put in the portability clauses in reference to insurance, to pay for those insurances if they can afford the means to do so? And what I'm looking at is the length of time in years that you had temporary disability. It's been ongoing-- Page 31 It would depend, Commissioner Mays, on MR. OLIVER: whether he currently carries insurance with us. If he doesn't carry insurance with us, that's not--he can't do it, clearly. And I don't know the answer to that part. And, frankly, the second part, if he does have insurance with us, that is a good question in that--and I don't know the answer to it here today. I'm saying we made that available in cases of MR. MAYS: where people may be opting to leave this government or, say, in some cases where working beyond years that persons would want to work mainly because they could not take certain benefits with them. We fought as a government to include the portability clauses so that young persons, if they could afford the means to take insurance with them, they would be able to do so. Now, you have a person--and I'm glad you're wrapping it up, but what I'm looking at is that if you're ending this, then do they retain those rights if they are an insurance carrier. Now, if they're not insured at this point, then it's moot because then they can't--it doesn't apply. But I think if they are leaving under those circumstances where you're settling out a claim where they have been injured and you're wrapping it up, do they have then the right to buy the insurance. And I think that's something that we should know in terms of how far the portability clauses go because that was the purpose of us paying as a government an additional hundred and some thousand dollar contribution to make sure that you had those rights built in. Well, he is covered under Social Security. MR. WALL: He has Social Security disability, so he's going to have certain medical benefits through that, so he's not without medical benefits. I don't dispute you, Mr. Attorney, but I'd MR. MAYS: hate like the devil to be dependent on Congress for my whole future. You know, I'm reversing the positions, and I'm just saying if you're ending it there--and I'm not debating about your settlement, I'm just debating that--really not only this case, but then what if in any case. If the portability clauses are there and a person is insured and they have the means, whether it be through collection plate or any other kind, to pay for the insurance, can the person take it with them? I think we ought to know that. We ought to know what a policy calls for, what it says, and what ability a worker has within a certain classification to take that. We ought to know that. And I do not know as to Mr. Rewis, but my MR. WALL: guess is that with him being injured before consolidation--I Page 32 mean, I would almost guess that he is not currently covered. I don't know, but I would be willing to assume that he is not currently covered. It would be unusual for him to be out on workers' compensation for as long as he has and still be covered. For the future, Mr. Mayor, I just think we MR. MAYS: ought to know, though. It may not apply in this case, but we ought to know how far portability goes. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further MAYOR SCONYERS: discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. KUHLKE OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK:Item 47: Update on the Wastewater System. I'd like to just give a brief overview MR. WIEDMEIER: of the improvements that are ongoing at the treatment plant and have been ongoing for some time. As you are aware, we are currently designing a new lift station and bridge system for the treatment plant. The design is about 90 percent complete. That's about a $1.7 million project, and it's funded our revenue bond issue. A new bar spring has recently been installed at a cost of $19,123. Hydraulic improvements to improve the performance of the plant's splitter box were recently accomplished at a cost of $27,284. The primary clarifiers and aeration systems are being returned to full service through routine maintenance functions. Design on the improvements to the anaerobic digesters is 90 percent complete. That's going to be about a $4 million project to return those to full capacity. There will be an item presented to the Engineering Services Committee in the very near future to install a new [inaudible] system for the plant, particularly for the equalization basin system. And construction of a new chlorine system has been underway for several months. The cost of that project is $156,944. I think, in summary--I mean, can you just MR. WALL: sort of summarize the condition of the plant as far as from an operational standpoint? The plant is operating very well right MR. WEIDMEIER: now. We're achieving excellent treatment. There is a lot of deferred maintenance at the plant. That's something that everyone is aware of, and we've been working to catch things up and are very close to making it a very new and reliable system. Page 33 Mr. Mayor, do we need a motion to accept MR. HANDY: this as information or what we need? MR. BEARD: I'll move--I was going to move we accept it as information. Second. MR. BRIDGES: Ulmer, how you and Lee go and take my MR. HANDY: motion? You can second it, Freddie. MR. BRIDGES: If you want to make the motion, Freddie, MR. BEARD: that's fine. You were asking, and that was my suggestion anyway. Go ahead on. Go ahead on, use whatever MR. HANDY: motion on the floor. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard's motion, the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Do we have any other business? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, that's it. CLERK: Motion to adjourn? MAYOR SCONYERS: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MR. HANDY: [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 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 November 17, 1998. Page 34 Clerk of Commission