Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS January 5, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 5, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell (late), 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 WILLIAMS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Item #27 Item #53 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Appointment of Margaret Armstrong to the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission (District 9 appointment). 2. Motion to approve two corporate sponsorships for the annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Fund Banquet in the total amount of $480.00 to be paid from the "Commission Other" account. 3. Motion to ratify agreement with Georgia Power Company for real time pricing rate at 4-H Club Road facility and the filter plant on Highland Avenue, effective January 1, 1999. 4. Authorization to enter into an agreement and execution of resolution with the Georgia Department of Transportation at a cost of $49,265.00 for the construction of a bridge at Lake Olmstead as part of the Augusta Canal Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Project. We also request approval to proceed with procuring bids for construction. So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. SHEPARD: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. . MOTION CARRIES 9-0 CONSENT AGENDA Page 2 FINANCE: 1. Motion to award purchase order for work uniforms ("Best Bid") to International for outer garments (Section B) and Uniformals Unlimited (Section C) for uniforms according to bid tabulation for the City of Augusta for a two-year period. 2. Motion to approve $34,000 to be used in renovation of the offices and facilities of the Probate Judge of Richmond County, Georgia, to be funded from the '98 General Fund Contingency. 3. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement for $250,000 with New Hope Community Center, Inc. 4. Pulled from consent agenda. 5. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement for $200,000 with Beulah Grove Community Resource Center. 6. Motion to approve an additional $50,000 of SPLOST monies for the Lucy Craft Laney Museum. 7. Motion to approve a Resolution expressing no opposition to proceeding by the James Brice White Foundation to a change of fiscal Trustee or to an enlargement of invest- ment powers for said Foundation. 8. Motion to appoint Earl A. Loomis, M.D., as Trustee of the James Brice White Foundation. 9. Motion to approve two corporate sponsorships for the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame Event up to $1,100.00 to be paid from "Commission Other" account. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 10. Motion to approve the petition for retirement of Charles T. Fordham. 11. Motion to approve reclassifying three (3) positions in the Clerk of Superior Court Department. 12. Motion to approve adding Human Resource Coordinator I position and delete HR Coordinator II position. 13. Motion to approve creating an Administrative Assistant I position (Grade 44) and Secretary III position (Grade 37) and abolish the Executive Secretary I position (Grade 43) and two Messenger positions. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 14. Motion to grant easement for right-of-way to Georgia Transmission Corporation on parcel shown on Tax Map 155, Parcel 327, of the South Augusta Recreation Department Project. 15. Motion to approve an Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and Georgia Department of Transportation for the St. Sebastian Way and Greene Street Extension Project which provides that Augusta will be responsible for all pre- construction engineering activities of the project including design, right-of-way, utilities relocation, as Page 3 well as continuing energy and maintenance cost. 16. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-8547-098, Gordon Highway Median Barrier Project, in the amount of $185,000, adding said project to the Construction Work Program to be funded by the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. Also approve the Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation and authorize the right to request Proposals for Engineering Services. 17. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-8351-096 Amendment Number 2 for Tanglewood & Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvements for an increase in the amount of $165,000 to be funded from Account #57-8081-00-0606 of the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III funds. Also award bid to the low bidder, Mabus Construction Company, in the amount of $634,486.58 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for this project. 18. Motion to approve use of Commercial Metals Company (CMC) for collections of ferrous and non-ferrous metals at the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill as part of our Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, at no cost to the County. 19. Motion to award contract to Honeywell, Inc., Service Integrated Solution Group, for the procurement and development of the SCADA System for J.B. Messerly Water Pollution Control Plant. 20. Motion to approve proposal from Augusta Design Group to provide engineering services for Spirit, Rocky and Butler Creek Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Phase II at a cost not to exceed $686,459.00. 21. Motion to approve bid award to the low bidder, Mabus Brothers Construction, for the Paving Various Roads, Phase VI with CPB#57-8709-098/59-8709-098 in the amount of $338,216.30 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for this project. 22. Motion to approve additional services in the amount of $30,800 to Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. for the performance of "clean" sampling and analysis for metals and cyanide at the J.B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. 23. Motion to approve "Peach Care for Kids" flyer in the Utilities Bill Mailing. 24. Motion to approve selection of CH2MHILL to prepare Waste and Sewer Master Plan. 25. Motion to approve engineering contract with Brian G. Besson and Associates for $55,000 for engineering services in designing sanitary sewers for Skinner Road pocket. 26. Motion to approval proposal from Freeman and Vaughn Engineering, Inc. to study improvements to the plant's hydraulic flow splitting and sludge recycle systems at a cost not to exceed $19,000. Page 4 27. Deleted from agenda. 28. Motion to approve request from Columbia County for booster pump facilities on Old Trail Road. 29. Motion to approve proposal with Besson and Gore, Profes- sional Land Surveyors, Incorporated to survey area for clearing in borrow area at a fee not to exceed $2,400 and construction staking of east slope at a fee not to exceed $1,500. All tasks to be funded from Account 05- 4811-00-0442. 30. Motion to adopt a Resolution to support the Augusta State University History Walk, multimodal improvements and gateway landscaping Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) Project. 31. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to oppose any effort to create a Water Authority. 32. Pulled from consent agenda. PUBLIC SAFETY: 33. Deleted from agenda. 34. Motion to approve the purchase of computer CAD equipment for the Fire Department Communications Center at the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center to bring the Fire Department Dispatch Consoles up to date with CAD system at a cost not to exceed $35,400. PUBLIC SERVICES: 35. Motion to approve a change order to the contract awarded to Blair Construction, Inc. in the amount of $33,338.92 for additional work associated with the irrigation improvements to the Augusta Golf Course. 36. Motion to approve a Resolution supporting the concept of legislation granting state income tax credits to Georgia Employers who provide transit benefits to employees. 37. Motion to approve a Resolution adopting the Georgia Transit Association 1999 Legislative Agenda. 38. Motion to approve and award asphalt paving at the Lock & Dam Boat Ramp area to Pave-Way of Augusta, Inc., the low bidder, in the amount of $18,552.00. 39. Motion to approve a new application request by Ivey Thomas for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Eagle Majic Mart #2 located at 2601 Deans Bridge Road. 40. Motion to approve new application request by R.W. McClellan for a consumption on premises liquor and wine license to be used in connection with Club Barcelona located at 2533 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall. 41. Motion to approve new ownership request by R.W. McClellan for consumption on premises liquor and beer license to be used in connection with Trackside Bar & Grill located at 1801 Kissingbower Road. There will be Page 5 a dance hall. 42. Motion to approve new ownership request by Siguan Chen for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Ming Wah Restaurant located at 920 Baker Avenue. 43. Motion to approve new ownership request by Amanda Palmer for a consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Beetle's Place located at 2342 Gordon Highway. 44. Motion to approve new ownership request by Craig Choe for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with High Lite Tavern located at 3602 Milledgeville Road. There will be a dance hall. ATTORNEY: 45. Motion to approve Speed Zone Ordinance Number 98-204. (Second Reading) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 46. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on December 15, 1998. ADDED TO CONSENT AGENDA: 52. Appoint Mr. James M. Proctor to the Augusta Aviation Commission. (District 7) 54. Consider reappointment of Mr. Marion E. Barnes to the Richmond County Planning Commission to act as the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Zoning Appeals. 56. Motion to approve payment of attorneys fees to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. 57. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to sponsor legislation to provide a method of funding new technology and equipment replacement for recording documents in the Superior Court Clerk's Office. 58. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support legislation to modify the Enterprise Zone Employment Act of 1997. 59. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to support funding requests of the Richmond County Health Department for purchase of furniture, fixtures, and equipment. 60. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to sponsor legislation to amend O.C.G.A. 48-5-24(D) so as to provide that a penalty of ten percent may be imposed on taxes not paid by the due date established by the governing authority of any county. 61. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend the Act creating the Board of Tax Assessors for Richmond County to Page 6 clarify that any member serving on said Board must be a resident of Richmond County and providing that any member who ceases to be a resident of Richmond County shall vacate his seat. 62. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting the Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. distribute certain funds to the Augusta Sports Council and the Augusta-Richmond County Museum. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 32. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, could I pull out Item Number 4? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we not add to the consent MR. SHEPARD: agenda Items 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61? How about 62? CLERK: Add 62 as well. MR. SHEPARD: Are there any objections? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. BEARD:Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda, with the additions added to that. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Any discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS ON ITEM 59. MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEM 59. MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ALL ITEMS EXCEPT 59. CLERK:Item 47: Motion to approve corporate sponsorship of the Second Annual Unity Breakfast in the amount of $150.00 to be paid from "Commission Other". MR. BRIDGES:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Is there any discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Item 4: Motion to approve Hudson and Marshall, Incorporated as the auctioneer for excess City/County vehicles and equipment. Page 7 Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled. I MR. BRIDGES: had a gentleman, Mr. Glenn Rhodes, that wished to speak to it if he could. Glenn E. Rhodes, 5650 Deans Bridge Road, MR. RHODES: Augusta, Georgia. My question would refer to--I talked to Mr. Siddall right before these proceedings. But, anyway, what happened is I've been in the auction business for 25 years here in Richmond County, and I've handled all of Richmond County school systems for 15 of the last 20 years, Columbia County auctions--you know, we've been in business for 25 years, and through a misunderstanding I was never even able to submit a bid; in other words, throw my hat into the ring as to what I would do this sale for. You know, I've done this particular sale in years past, but for some reason I was never contacted or even allowed to put a bid in as far as proposal on doing this sale, which I feel I could do it as cheaply and as good as anybody as far as, you know, conducting this sale. And I understand it was through a misunderstanding that I wasn't contacted. What happened is I went out, took a look at this equipment, was under the impression that I would get to place a bid on it, basically was told it was going to be put on hold until after the holidays, and, you know, found out it was on the agenda to be approved today at 2:00. But like I said, we've been in business for 25 years. I just really wanted to have the opportunity to submit my bid just like anybody else would, and I wanted to know why I didn't have that chance to submit my bid. Mr. Siddall is in attendance, as well as MR. OLIVER: Ms. Sams, and I believe Mr. Siddall can address that. Harry? Originally when we determined that we MR. SIDDALL: should auction off some equipment and received Commission approval to excess that equipment, we started to contact various vendors through the southeast to determine who would be the best one in our interest to perform the auction for us. Our first contact was Mr. Rhodes. I personally took him out to the area, showed him all the equipment, we gave him a preliminary list of those pieces that the Commission approved for us to excess. We also dealt with Performance Auction Company, Hudson & Marshall, and Lynn Cockerham, who is also a local representative. During the communications that we had with the different parties there was some slight confusion that Mr. Cockerham and Mr. Rhodes would do a combined bid. We received the bid from Mr. Cockerham and made the assumption that that bid also included Mr. Rhodes at that time. So based on that, out of the four people that we started the conversa- tions with, we received requests back from three and from those three made a decision who would be the best for Augusta- Richmond County. Page 8 Mr. Rhodes, was that your understanding, MR. BRIDGES: that you would be bidding with this gentleman? No. My understanding was that I would--as MR. RHODES: a company would have an opportunity to participate in bidding on this sale. Mr. Siddall had asked me were there any other auctioneers. Because with an auction company, a lot of times, especially dealing with a government entity, excuse me, guys, but a lot of times they really don't know how to critique a company as far as who's going to do the advertisement, who's going to do this, and, you know, a lot of times it is whoever will do the job cheapest basically gets it. And there is so much more included in it, you know. Like I said, when me and Mr. Siddall spoke, he asked me what were my thoughts as far as other people in the area that I felt could conduct the sale. And I said, you know, that I thought Mr. Cockerham would do a fine job and, matter of fact, we have even worked together on sales prior, you know, and that, you know, we may possibly could bid this sale together, I didn't know. But, see, when I was faxed something, I was faxed an inventory that was not even complete as far as, you know, what we were going to sell. I don't know how you can tell a man what you're going to sell if he don't know what you're going to sell. I mean, the list that I received was an incomplete list. I mean, it was a total list, but yet we were maybe going to sell this boat, we were maybe going to sell a motor grader, we were maybe going to sell a bulldozer, and it's almost impossible for me, you know, to tell somebody exactly what I can do it for. So the last I was told, that I would be contacted after the holidays and that I would be able to submit a bid just like anybody else. I mean, like I said, I've lived and worked in Richmond County all my life and pay my taxes in Richmond County, and, you know, as far as--I faxed in a list of credentials as far as who I am, you know, and I went to a lot of trouble just to have the opportunity to be able to place my bid. And then, you know, I wake up after the holidays and, you know-- Well, we all woke up after the holidays MAYOR YOUNG: and found things different around here. And I must have slept a little longer than MR. RHODES: everybody else because I didn't get to throw my hat in the ring. Harry, what kind of expense have we gone MR. BRIDGES: through as far as getting these bids here? What will we have to do to give Mr. Rhodes an opportunity to present a bid this time and how often do we present these bids for--to select an auctioneer? Page 9 The county has basically not done this in MR. SIDDALL: the past. They have made a decision on how they would hold auctions in the past and generally asked people to assist them. This is the first process where we tried to do it from a--from a format that seems to be correct and the right way to go. We have asked the bidders to submit an offer to us as to what they would do and how they would it and what their charges would be. The majority of the people realize when they hold an auction there are vehicles that you add during the process and delete during the process until the final day of the auction. We also received--most of the information we received from the majority of the parties listed the cost, which is basically that of an advertising cost, what it costs to do the advertising, to have the people on site at the day of the auction, and that's usually a generic cost that once it's calculated, it's calculated, whether you have 200 vehicles or 212 vehicles. For us to go back and redo this, we certainly can. We are extending the date of the auction and we can continue to do that until such time as the Commission desires. This is being done as a net auction. You MR. OLIVER: may want to explain that, Harry. Auctions can be held in basically about MR. SIDDALL: three different categories. One category is to offer to sell your equipment and have an auctioneer come in and perform that auction for you at a price. He bases that price on the number of pieces of equipment you're selling. In recent years we've changed and it's gone more towards a buyer premium type of auction where you may have a 5% buyer premium and the owner of the equipment splits the rest of the additional cost. The third option, which seems to be the most favorable that's done across the United States today, is to have a 10% buyers premium which is covered entirely by the buyer of the equipment and the owner of the equipment pays zero for this auction. So it behooves the auctioneer to sell the equipment at the best price they can, therefore, their rewards are higher. Harry, is this something that the next MR. BRIDGES: time we have a group of cars, that we would bid again? I mean, we're not selecting these people as the sole [inaudible]. This was just for this particular instance MR. SIDDALL: so we could make sure we established a policy, a way of auctioneering equipment off. We perceive that we're going to do probably two to three auctions a year, and we can go back each time, if the Commission desires, and select additional Page 10 auctioneers. MR. BEARD:Mr. Mayor, in the Finance Committee it was evident that, you know, this was the best method of handling this. And in lieu of the fact that we're going to be handling more auctions, and I'm sure that Harry will be instructed by the Administrator to include all the people in this area; therefore, I'm going to move that we approve this motion at this time. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Will the public know what type of MR. COLCLOUGH: auction they're getting? You mentioned three types of auctions. Yes, sir. The advertisements will go in MR. SIDDALL: the newspapers, on television, in various local magazines and so forth. There will be brochures that will be printed out on all of those. It will say what type of auction it is, where it is, the location. It will all be in there at the day of the auction and it will be repeated throughout the auction so the buyers are aware of what and how they need to bid. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Harry, this MR. MAYS: was a sealed bid process? No, sir, this will be an open bid process. MR. SIDDALL: There will be auctioneers at the site, we'll have two-- No, I'm talking about the process for MR. MAYS: selecting the auctioneer. No, sir, it was not a sealed bid process. MR. SIDDALL: Basic quotes? MR. MAYS: Yes, sir. MR. SIDDALL: Have those quotes--and I wasn't in attendance MR. MAYS: at your last committee meeting. Were those quotes made public at that committee meeting on the numbers? Remember, Mr. Mays, that this was a MR. OLIVER: question of percentages, and so, consequently, it was a percentage of whatever sold. But those numbers were made public at that time. One other question. Mr. Rhodes' bid MR. H. BRIGHAM: did not get there at all? Page 11 I never got an opportunity to even submit a MR. RHODES: bid. I mean, I got an opportunity to go out and view the merchandise, I got an opportunity to spend my time to submit my credentials, you know, I placed time and effort into this, but I never actually got to submit a bid. I mean, I was deleted from that process of being able to submit a bid, and that's why I'm here. Would that put us at a disadvantage if MR. H. BRIGHAM: we allow him in any way, or, Jim, is it legal, if we go back and do this [inaudible]? Well, the potential disadvantage is that--and MR. WALL: I'm not sure of the form of the bid, but if the--what these people agreed to do it for, that information now is public information and would give potentially a new bidder some additional information in which to base his bid. Now, the others could go back and adjust it, but obviously they've got some information where bidders have already submitted information, and so they would be--Mr. Rhodes would partially be at an advantage. We have a motion on the floor. All in MAYOR YOUNG: favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN. MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1-2. CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve selections of (1) Corridor and Gateway Enhancement Demonstration Projects and (2) Lake Olmstead Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail projects for inclusion in a Transportation Activity (TEA) application for Augusta-Richmond County. : MR. J. BRIGHAMMr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled, and the reason I asked for it to be pulled is, in addition, the committee originally was presented a bike trail for Berckman Road to Boy Scout Road and from Boy Scout Road on up to Skinner Mill Road, and I would like to add these to this motion and submit it for approval. Second. MR. KUHLKE: I would like to mention one thing, Mr. MR. OLIVER: Mayor. I think that that's fully appropriate, and I'm under- standing that on the ISTEA funds, that this congressional district may fare better this year than they did in prior years. But there's a possibility, from talking with Mr. Murphy and with Mr. Patty's office, that the projects may ultimately compete with themselves; and, consequently, I would Page 12 ask that we make sure that we prioritize these projects so that if we get two of the three we know which two of three we want because we've come up with a method that we can contract that. Ideally we'd like to get all three. Our recommendation would be that clearly the corridor and gateway enhancement demonstrate project come first because we believe that that's of the most interest or the most interest and need to the community. After that, we don't have as strong a feeling. But with that prioritization, should we fall into the category that we would get two of the three, we can then withdraw one of the applications if need be. Would you like to amend your motion to MAYOR YOUNG: accept priorities? MR. OLIVER:Make the priorities the corridors first, Lake Olmstead bike path second, and then Rae's Creek third? I'll accept that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I just want to make sure I understood what MR. BRIDGES: we're doing. Originally we said we felt like we could get either one or two, the corridor or the Lake Olmstead. But what we're doing now is adding the Rae's Creek as the third option, and that's over a million dollars. Is that--what I don't know is [inaudible] might put the entire project over that. Randy, do you recall? I don't recall. I would note, and I think MR. OLIVER: that's a good point, that while this is a grant, it's an 80/20 grant, which means we have to match it 20% locally. So we're going to have to do some scurrying within our funds to find the match, assuming that we get funded. Two of them we've kind of identified. So let me understand this. We're going MR. BRIDGES: before the DOT and we're saying this is the priority that we want you to approve these in; is that correct? No. We'll submit them all on equal MR. OLIVER: footing; however, we have worked out a system with the rating process that should it come down to we will get two of the three, we have an understanding that we will be given some latitude to suggest which two we'd like to have. I guess that was one of my concerns was MR. BRIDGES: the project number three would require, if I remember correctly, a quarter of a million from us. Do we have to commit that this year? Are we prepared to commit that for the project? Randy, your thoughts on that. Page 13 Clearly we're going to have to find them. MR. OLIVER: The only place that we could find that from would be sales tax. I mean, it's an 80/20, so if it's a million dollars--and I was not at the committee meeting, so I don't know, but if it's a million dollars, it would be $200,000. We would have to know when the contract is awarded, I mean, where the total funding would come from. I would like to hear from Mr. DeCamp because MR. BEARD: what I heard in the committee meeting is not what I'm hearing now, so I would like an explanation. Because it was my understanding in the committee meeting, what I heard from you, that it would be better to do it this way, and I thought this is what was kind of agreed on in the committee meeting. I think--and Paul and I have talked. MR. OLIVER: Perhaps Mr. Murphy made the most current contact and he may have some additional insight. Because my understanding was the same as yours initially, Mr. Beard. The information we have obtained from our MR. MURPHY: contacts in Atlanta right now is that last time we had enhancement projects the 10th Congressional District did not get as much as some of the other congressional districts; therefore, it is believed that the funding for the 10th District will be higher and better. And these projects, if you submit three, they will be competing with other projects in the 10th Congressional District. However, since the 10th District is to get more funds this year, and we have set up a tracking system with the Georgia DOT, you have the option, if it comes down to one of ours competing with the other of our projects, you would have a choice of saying the other needs to fall away. Does that answer your question, Mr. Beard? MAYOR YOUNG: Yes. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Murphy leaves, this is MR. MAYS: one of the things that I brought up at Mr. Murphy's presen- tation that we had, and it was such a thorough presentation that he did. But we talked about, Mr. Mayor, in reference to returning--and I know this is one of the things he was strong on, on our lobbying efforts with all of our agencies. One of the things that--and I can support the motion. I don't have a problem with adding it, but I think we need to make sure, whether it's on record or at least a clear understanding in public, that the priority system does need to be in place if it's in nobody's minds other than the 11 folk that are going and the departmental people that will be there. Because the worst place to have a dispute or a semi-dispute is when you Page 14 get there in the Commissioner's office. And I've seen us do this only one time, and I hope it was the very last time that that happens, and it didn't occur on the part of our staffers and professionals. But when we start changing these things, that throws a monkey wrench into what we are doing. When we've gone before, we've always gone with one voice, we get this straightened out before we leave. And to add on because we've got more money--I think that's a good suggestion in terms of going after more funds, but I think when it boils down--and those of us that were standing in the Commissioner's office before and basically said to us, "Gentlemen, this is what you've got to do, you've got to make a decision." I think we need to be clear on that decision before we leave home because in his office is not the place to make that decision. That time is around this table, and I think we ought to do that and be in agreement on what that priority system is. And I can support the motion, but I just want us to be clear that we have a one, two, three priority. Because half of us don't need to be saying what two is and another half saying what two is. That needs to be done right here. On the one, two, three priority, suppose MR. BRIDGES: that we get approved for three and what we really wanted was one and two. Are we going to have to pick three and-- No. What we've come to an understanding MR. OLIVER: with the rating people is that if they say, okay, you're only going to get one project, then they will give us the flexibi- lity to select which project we want. So if they give us two, we would pick the projects that you rated one and two. If they gave us one, we'd take project number one. And that's the importance of you giving us the priority. My concern is we're talking about coming MR. BRIDGES: up with a quarter of a million, if we get three, out of the sales tax, and that's just--to me, at this time, that's a lot of money where a lot of that is tax money and already committed. It's just a concern. I'm not saying I'll vote against the motion or anything. Let me ask this question to the Adminis- MR. SHEPARD: trator or Mr. Murphy. Certainly the number three project connects Berckman Road with areas further out west in the area, and I think it's already the location of a sewer easement which has been graded and people, I'm told, are already using it as a trail. Yes, sir. MR. MURPHY: And Lake Olmstead, is it a circular route MR. SHEPARD: or does it actually connect-- Page 15 I believe it will connect with the Canal MR. MURPHY: bikeway that's in the design. Well, in terms of project number three, MR. SHEPARD: the people in the area and others are already voting with their feet, so to speak, because they're using this area, and I think that we need to take into consideration the fact that the citizens there are using it de facto as a trail already. And I think it's important to keep this in the package, and we shouldn't--and that's a real alternative transportation through West Augusta. We have a motion and a second on the MAYOR YOUNG: floor. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Item 48: Motion to approve new ownership request by Pat Pielert for a consumption on premises liquor and beer license for the Fine Host Corporation to be used in connection with the Bell Auditorium located at 712 Telfair Street. There will be Sunday Sales. Item 49: Motion to approve new ownership request by Pat Pielert for a consumption on premises liquor and beer license for Fine Host Corporation to be used in connection with the Augusta-Richmond County Civic Center located at 601 Seventh Street. There will be Sunday Sales. MR. SHEPARD:I move approval of 48 and 49, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, can we take Item 50 with the MR. J. BRIGHAM: same [inaudible] go on and do that one, too? MR. SHEPARD:I'll amend to add 50 as well, Mr. Brigham. CLERK:Item 50 is a motion to approve a new application request by Charles F. McWhorter, Jr. for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connec- tion with Logan's Roadhouse located at 269 Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway. There will be Sunday Sales. Do we have a second to that motion? MAYOR YOUNG: I'll second it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: All right. Any discussion? Do we have MAYOR YOUNG: anybody here to appear in objection to any of these three? [NO OBJECTORS PRESENT.] Page 16 Any discussion from the Commission? All MAYOR YOUNG: in favor? MR. BRIDGES & MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO. MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK:Item 51: Motion to approve new ownership request by Mike E. Pape for a retail package liquor and wine license to be used in connection with Overpass Package Store located at 3745 Peach Orchard Road. MR. KUHLKE:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Is there anyone here to speak out in MAYOR YOUNG: objection or on behalf of this? [NO OBJECTORS PRESENT.] Where is this located at? MR. BRIDGES: Mike Pape. 3745 Peach Orchard Road. It's a MR. PAPE: mile south of Tobacco Road. Any discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Item 55: Motion to approve Ordinance designating the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to act as the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to get it on MR. KUHLKE: the floor for discussion. I'll second it for discussion. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I know Mr. Oliver can speak to MR. KUHLKE: this, but we have Dr. Ike Washington, who is Chairman of the Appeals Board, and Ms. Childress who is Vice-Chairman, and they would like to say a few words in regards to this if you would allow them the time. That'll be fine, Mr. Kuhlke. Who would MAYOR YOUNG: like to go first? Mr. Mayor and members of the DR. WASHINGTON: Page 17 Commission, I appreciate this time that you've given me to make some statements. Before I get started, Ms. Childress is the senior person on our zoning board, and she has a lot of information from experience that I don't have although I've been there a good while. I would like to give her some time. I notice from the reading here of Item 55 that you've gone ahead with it. Mind you, this is the second reading, and we didn't know anything about it. We're here today to express some type of concern about it. I've served on the Planning Commission and/or on the zoning board. I don't see how you can put them both together unless they're going to make some changes in their interpretation of the rules, and then they'll have to spend maybe five or six more hours trying to get through their agenda [inaudible]. We have about 20 petitions, sometimes more and sometimes less, but I'll say they average about 20. And we can't run roughshod over these people who are making these appeals, and so we spend enough time, we feel like, with these items for [inaudible] people at least have a fair chance to explain what they want. If the reason for abolishing the board is financial, it seems to me that maybe we should have looked at the cost compared to the cost of other things and [inaudible]. This board is almost self-sustaining because the funds [inaudible] enough to offset the expenses for that particular month. Now, what I'm trying to point out is we're going to get ourselves into some difficulty. I remember one time before we got into the same kind of difficulty [inaudible]. One man came from the old County Commission and the old City Council, came to us and asked if we would cooperate with him. He didn't come to one meeting of this outside agency and he-- evidently he didn't understand what was going on, so he went back and asked that the county withdraw its support, and it did. My point is this, I don't want to see us get into difficulty trying to solve one problem and get into difficulty creating a lot of other problems. Dr. Washington, didn't you serve at one MAYOR YOUNG: time on the Planning and Zoning Commission? Yes. DR. WASHINGTON: So you have experience on both of those MAYOR YOUNG: boards then. Yes. I don't see how you're going to DR. WASHINGTON: get them both together. Now, Mr. Patty can do it. If anybody can do it, he can do it, but it's going to be the people who serve on that board are going to have to spend a great deal more time at it. I have brought with me copies of the MS. CHILDRESS: Page 18 last three months' agendas for you to keep and have. Each of you should have agendas, when she gets through passing them out, of October, November, and December, the last three months, and this will give you an idea of what goes on at the meetings. First of all, I want to say Happy New Year to all of you, and especially best wishes to Mr. Mayor at this first meeting. Most of you have not attended the meetings. Because you have so many boards, you can't possibly go to all these meetings, and you have enough of your own to go to, but let me just give you about four or five facts that I'd like you to keep in mind as you decide to vote on this. One is that we're one of the oldest boards in the county, dating back to at least the '60s. I don't know how far beyond that, but at least till then. Another is our purpose is to hear requests for mobile homes where they're not supposed to be, for home occupations when they're not zoned for that, and mostly for variances. When you're building a house or whatever, there's all of these codes and ordinances that you're supposed to abide by. If for some reason you think you shouldn't fit into that, then we are the appeals board that you come to. Now, I want you to think particularly about this next point, and listen carefully to it. The boards are very different in their functions. One is the board that comes up with the rules and the laws under the supervision of the Planning staff, and that's this book. This is our Bible that we go by. We are there to hear the people who say this shouldn't apply to me because of whatever. And we listen to that. If you combine them--now, think about this: If you combine them, you've got the board who makes the laws, writes them for your approval, and our board who is supposed to hear their unhappiness with it or their feeling they haven't been dealt with properly or whatever. So if you combine them, you've got the one who writes this book also determining whether it's fair or not for each individual that comes before it. So, to me, it would be very difficult, for me at least, to serve on a board that is hearing both of these. On the one hand you come into the Planning Commission meeting with an open mind saying we have two sides here and we're going to listen very carefully to it. On the Board of Zoning Appeals, however, we're there to support the ordinance unless there's some reason that we should not. So we come in with a "no" in mind saying show me why you're different or why your particular case does not apply, why this doesn't apply to you. So, you see, you have to almost put on two different hats, and I don't see how you can do that very well. Another is the workload. Dr. Ike mentioned that we have about 15 to 20, sometimes 25 or 30 cases. You see the last three months, you can tell. Well, the Planning Commission does, too. If you combine these two boards, you've got 20 to 40--well, you've got, let's see, certainly about 40 cases to hear each time. We're there three hours, they are there about three hours each time, plus I spend and these others spend Page 19 several days a month looking at these sites, and I presume the Planning Commission does the same thing. So if we're already spending about three full days a month doing this, and you combine those, it will require, I would think, another meeting of the Planning Commission each month. I was talking to one of their members the other day and this person said I don't see how in the world we can combine them without an extra meeting. There is the possibility that they will remove home occupations from the Board of Zoning Appeals and have a different way even if these boards are not combined, but that still is only about a third--you'll see on there, about a third of our cases to hear, so that still takes us down to 15 to 20 cases to hear each time. Another is that the financial, I believe, is the reason that you all are thinking about it, and I certainly commend you for that. I know we're all clamoring that taxes not go up and that we not have expenses, we're trying to cut back and trying to cut back. But I do believe that since we have just initiated the $100 fee rather than $50 fee just during the past year, I do believe that within a year it will not require any money from the city/county. And I think even this coming year you might could cut it in half because we have some extra in the bank right now, and it looks like we're almost self- supporting, possibly self-supporting. And if you closed our board down, you've still got to pay secretaries to do the work for this board, you've still got to pay for the advertisement for it. The only thing you would cut out is the stipend that we are given. I really like volunteer boards. I wish they all were volunteer, but I think there are several that have a stipend. You can either take that stipend away at some point if you want to or whatever. But I do feel that if it's just financial, if that's the main reason, then that really is not valid because I really think that if we have time to look at it, that you will see that it's self-supporting. So what I would like to ask you to do today is, especially in light of the fact that our Mayor is asking for more and more people to be involved and more volunteers--I hate to see a board of this importance done away with. This is one of the ways that 12 more people can serve. Those of us who are on this board will come and go, but that board, in my opinion, after serving on it a long time, really needs to be there because of the reasons that I have said. So I would ask that you at least consider postponing until the facts, the financial facts, are in front of you. If you're trying to save money and that's the only reason for this, then I would certainly recommend that you not do it. If you're in doubt about it, then let's put our facts together and let you look at them. I didn't have them because I didn't know until yesterday this was on the agenda, so I all I could do was just get together the agenda for you, but I'll be glad to answer any questions about that that you want to ask me. Page 20 Let me make a couple of comments. This was MR. OLIVER: an issue that came up as part of the budgetary process. I don't remember the exact amount, but I think we budgeted a transfer--or originally the budgeted transfer from the General Fund to this particular board was some 12 or 13 thousand dollars a year. 12,000 a year. MS. CHILDRESS: Yeah, it was something in that nature. The MR. OLIVER: people that serve on this board receive $100 a month, and there are 10 members, as I understand it; is that correct? Right. MS. CHILDRESS: Ten members on the board at $100 a month. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Patty and I talked about this and he's prepared to discuss the technical merits of it. But as Ms. Childress indicated, we believe that there are certain things, particularly the home occupations, that should be done administratively. In other words, that someone is going to operate a one-person billing service out of their home and that type thing, to make those things go through a board seems to be somewhat unnecessary, but there has to be a clear delineation of how those types of things are done. As it relates to the rule- making aspect, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendations to you all who approve the rules. They do make recommendations to you. I asked Mr. Patty to be here, and he can talk about the technical merits of how he envisions it happening. I was asked, you know, as a cost-cutting MR. PATTY: measure whether the Planning Commission could, in fact, take this on, and they could. They could take it on probably by eliminating some--not necessarily all, but some of the home occupations, those that involve computer business or mail order businesses, things like that. It would probably eliminate a third of the agenda, and possibly incorporate this into our one meeting or even have a separate meeting, but it could be done. I think as Jewel said, there are different perspectives. You know, in making zoning decisions you've got a comprehensive plan and an existing land use pattern and a zoning pattern and, you know, you make decisions based on those type things. In an appeal or a variance request or a request for a mobile home or a request for a home occupation it's sort of a unique situation and you want to look at different things, and you do put the burden on the petitioner to prove that it is a unique situation, unique to the property and configuration of the property or the topography or the shape of the property or something of that nature as far as the variance. The burden is there also to show that it's not Page 21 going to have an impact on the neighborhood. And they are individual issues and I think you do come to them with a somewhat more negative approach than you do on zoning issues, but I think the Planning Commission could do it. I've talked to them in pre-meeting based on my conversation with Randy, and they're agreeable to do it if that's the decision that y'all make. The one thing I would note, that depending MR. OLIVER: upon the decision made--obviously as part of the budgetary process that $12,000 was not funded, and if this board stayed, which is your all's decision, we would need to do a budget amendment for the $12,000 out of General Fund Contingency. Mr. Mayor, I guess I'll speak to it since I MR. MAYS: was the one that raised the--I won't say the objection, but I raised the question when this came up in reference to--and I, too, applaud Mr. Oliver and the Commission for wanting to be prudent, but I think there is a functional use to many of these boards. And I'm not going to ask George to defend himself, because he definitely will try, and any workload that you send to him over the years, he's always been willing to do it. Just as he said the Planning Commission would find a way to make it work, they would. His office would find a way to make it work. So don't defend yourself on this one. But the real gut issue of this is, I think, the functional capability that Ms. Childress has brought out. I've also had the opportunity--Mr. Colclough just got off that board, Mr. Handy is still there. I've had the opportunity to serve on it in the past, Mr. Brigham has as well. And I've talked with the new chairperson of that board, Ms. Armstrong, as well as others on the Planning Commission side of it. They would probably echo basically what the other board has said, and I don't think it's anything where folk want to spend money, they know those functions. They can't have necessarily a consent agenda because when you're dealing there sometimes with the sensitivity of neighborhoods, the opposition that's there, the petitioners that's there, they've got to hear it all. And I think we know from being next door on committee meeting day, sometimes they are there when you get started, they are also in here when we finish. Same thing can be said with the Board of Appeals. Now, true, they can make it do if we ask them to make it do. But I think for 12 to 13 thousand dollars a year, to deal with something that's functioning and make it dysfunctional, that we ought to find another place to deal with that $12,000 that's there, I think even to the point that they can give you an idea of their own in reference to the fact that if we were that financially strapped. But I beg the Commission to consider first the functions of those two boards and what they do and whether or not that's a prudent decision in terms of Page 22 functional capability to get that done. And I think the two differences are very clear, and I think that particularly when you start making and setting rules on one side and then you're the person there to hear the appeals--it's almost like the city judge in the one place hearing a case, making a decision, and then you have an appeal and then the same judge hears the appeal. That's basically what we're asking the body to do in terms of functioning. So while we should be applauded for making a prudent financial decision, let's look at what the functional capabilities of those boards are, and I would hope that this is one that we leave alone. I think Ms. Childress made a good point. I MR. KUHLKE: do see some conflict, George, combining the board that you have and the appeals board. But rather than abolish this board, and considering that we approved the budget and so forth, why don't we amend the ordinance whereby the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals gets no compensation. And that will allow the Mayor to attract a lot of people into our government. Are you amending your motion or-- MAYOR YOUNG: I don't think I made the motion. MR. KUHLKE: There's a motion and a second on the floor. MR. MAYS: I seconded it. MR. SHEPARD: You made the motion for the purpose of MAYOR YOUNG: discussion. You made the motion, Willie? MR. KUHLKE: MR. MAYS:No, but I'm going to make a substitute one that's very clear: that we leave them alone, and that Mr. Oliver be instructed in this million-dollar government to find $12,000 from somewhere to keep them functioning. I'll second that. MR. BEARD: It would be taken from General Fund Contin- MR. OLIVER: gency, if I could get that added. Wherever. MR. MAYS: One other thing is that--maybe I didn't MS. CHILDRESS: make it very clear. I really believe you could cut that in half this year. I think we can make it fine on half of 12,000 and maybe even the next year do away with it completely. So that's one possibility, too. Page 23 Mr. Mayor, I am interested in the home MR. SHEPARD: occupation issue. It seems that out of the agenda on December 21st there were six home occupations and there were 21 items, so, you know, about a quarter of your business was home occupations. And I'll ask my own appointee, Ms. Childress, if the board is interested in a process where we handle home occupations in an administrative manner rather than coming as cases. I see the others are setbacks, whereas these others-- you basically have setback issues and you have home occupation issues. What about handling home occupations-- Home occupations has increased and MS. CHILDRESS: increased, because you see it on the news always advertised. Especially when they've had a seminar in Augusta about it, then we really have them coming for home occupations. It suits us all right any way they want to handle it, but it still leaves us an agenda bigger than it ever used to be, even with those gone. Due to the setbacks, though, is that--the MR. SHEPARD: setbacks would remain on your agenda? I would think that's the main reason we MS. CHILDRESS: would be there, for that and the mobile home situations, placing them when they're not supposed to be on a lot. But any way you want to do it suits us fine, we're just glad to serve. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to let the body MR. BEARD: know that I have talked to Ms. Armstrong and I've also talked to Dr. Washington about this, and they both are feeling that they have a full plate--both of these boards have a full plate, and that is why I seconded Mr. Mays' motion. Because I think there is activity enough for both of these boards and there's work enough for all of them, and I think we don't need to get into disruption at this time. Now, maybe in the future it may be something that we need to work out something different on this, but at this point I think we need to leave this alone. And I think if members of the boards who are working on these particulars each month, if they feel that they way, then they should know what is involved in that. I feel that this board should be left MR. COLCLOUGH: alone. I think it serves a great purpose with home occupa- tions. They are able to look at home occupations and make some decisions on how these home occupations are run, and I think it's a great asset for this board to continue to have the home occupation business rather than deleting that from them. They are able to make some stipulations for these home occupations that I don't think can be made any other place. Page 24 All right. We have a substitute motion MAYOR YOUNG: and a second. Call for the question on that. All in favor of the substitute motion? Could we have the substitute motion read MR. BRIDGES: again, Mr. Mayor? The substitute motion, in essence, is not to CLERK: abolish the zoning appeals board and to continue as is. With $12,000 of funding to come from MR. OLIVER: General Fund Contingency. Did you accept that, Mr. Mays? CLERK: That's not a problem of accepting that, MR. MAYS: because I think with the increase in fee that may not all even have to come out of contingency. As the year goes on, I think that board is going to be able to make up more than enough to do that. But I'll accept that amendment. All in favor of the substitute motion? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. : CLERKItem 63 is to discuss/approve the Indigent Care Contract. I have met with University Hospital and, MR. WALL: through a series of discussions, have a proposed contract, which is a one-year contract which has a cap on the expenditures of $2.5 million. It is virtually the same contract as had been in existence in previous years, with this exception: in the covered health services, it is--that has been redefined. Covered health services includes inpatient services, outpatient surgery services, as well as emergency room. Removed from the covered health services are the pharmacy as well as the clinic operation. But it does have the $2.5 million cap and it does have a one-year agreement for them to provide indigent care services, and it's a contract that I recommend for approval. MR. KUHLKE:So move. Second. MR. HANDY: One point I would like to make is Mr. Wall MR. OLIVER: has talked with them and he's represented to me that it's not University's intent, but the contract would provide for them Page 25 to pull out of the clinics or pull out of the providing of pharmaceutical, but the purpose of this contract is to give them some flexibility to provide--or to secure other funding for indigent care. And I just want to make sure that it's clear that it's not University's intent to pull out of the clinics or pull out of the receipt of medical services from indigents from the clinics or from pharmaceutical products. Guys, I'm not quite that fast yet. Who MAYOR YOUNG: made the motion? I made the motion. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. Handy seconded. CLERK: All right. Mr. Parks is here. Is there MAYOR YOUNG: anything you want to say in regard to this, Mr. Parks? I did have a few brief remarks. Thank you, MR. PARKS: Mayor Young. Let me first thank the Commissioners for the $2.5 million. I know that it took a lot of effort to find those monies and I appreciate that on behalf of the patients that we serve and your constituents. That was something that was sincerely appreciated. It's not what we requested, but certainly based on the level of service that Mr. Wall outlined and Mr. Oliver outlined, we think those dollars are reason- able. I want to commend Mr. Wall and his office. Those negotiations were done in good faith, and I think, based on the time constraints that we had, I appreciate him making himself available to move forward with those talks. What we've agreed to is based upon our cost of serving certified indigents for services outlined in the contract. It does not recognize the other eight to nine million dollars of uncompen- sated care that we provide as part of our mission, but that's not a part of the contract and I just want to remind you of that. But it does meet the criteria that our board set forth, and that criteria was that the level of service has to equal the level of reimbursement. And if you look at the inpatient and the ER care that Mr. Wall outlined, it comes to about $2.5 million. What this does do is gives us the flexibility to change the service delivery in outpatient areas as needed, so that's going to be an issue that we will deal with. I want to remind the Commissioners that close to New Year's Eve some wanted to find additional dollars, and we appreciated that. Now you have that time, and we look forward to returning in coming months to ascertain and restore those additional funds that we've consistently requested for the past years, and especially the last six months for these patients. I'm also encouraged by Mayor Young's comments that we have improved dialogue with the Commissioners. We welcome that. I think that's necessary, for the county nor University Page 26 Hospital deserves to find ourselves again in the position that we did over the recent weeks. And we both had financial con- straints. We still do. We were both under time constraints that really weren't required, they were somewhat self-imposed by both of us. So I would encourage both parties to seek to have improved dialogue, and we'll follow up with you on how we can accomplish that later. But, again, I want to thank you for your efforts on behalf of the patients and our organiza- tion. We needed the $2.5 million, and I think this is a fair and reasonable way to come to some compromise. And it's your intent then to keep the MR. OLIVER: clinics operating substantially--I recognize you want the flexibility to tailor those, but substantially in the same form as they are, and dispense prescriptions and medicine substantially in the same form as currently or has been done through '98? As I mentioned before, we'll be doing things MR. PARKS: like combining the medicine clinic and the pediatric clinic, like I've mentioned all along, to do those types of things that will reduce our costs, but we will still continue to provide those services as best as our financial ability allows us to. This is spelled out in the contract; is MAYOR YOUNG: that right? Well, the operation of the clinics is not MR. WALL: spelled out in the contract. Because, again, the contract defines the covered health services that are included, which includes the emergency room. And from my vantage point, insofar as ensuring that the indigents that were in need of health care, as long as the emergency room was included in the contract, I think it becomes a business decision and a business necessity, frankly, from University Hospital's standpoint that the primary clinics in some fashion remain open and remain operating. Remember that the 30906 clinic will--under the terms of the trust fund monies that were granted has to remain open during calendar year 1999. The 30901 clinic will be funded until April, and at that point they will have to make decisions. But, again, that is primarily a primary health care facility. And from a business standpoint, in my view, University Hospital is either going to have to see them at the emergency room or see them at the clinic, and I think that this contract gives them the flexibility insofar as the primary health care clinics are concerned. The specialty clinic areas are areas that, again, they will have to make decisions about, and that's the reason that I was comfortable with the contract as we negotiated it. Page 27 In the budget hearings I recall there MR. H. BRIGHAM: was a motion made that every three months we would review our financial status. Now, would this contract preclude that or would we still have an opportunity to go back every three months and revisit it just in case the economy or what have you would do an up turn, or a down turn as the case may be. My question is does that preclude that? No. I mean, the contract clearly can be MR. WALL: amended to either expand the scope of covered health services or to expand the cap. Now, the one point I'd still like to make MR. OLIVER: is that theoretically this contract would permit them to close the 30901 clinic April 1st. Now, I don't think that that's anybody's intent to do that, but the contract was done this way to give them the opportunity to secure other funds from other sources, because I gather they felt that was easier to secure funding for. And it's nobody's expectation that that's going to happen, I just want to make sure that's clear and on the record. Mr. Mayor, I probably will vote for the MR. MAYS: motion on the floor, reluctantly, because I think that's probably the best that we can do. I do want to thank Richard and Jim particularly in terms of working thus far and getting to where we are with this contract. But I guess as a resident of 30901 and probably having represented that area longer than anybody here, probably longer than most folk have ever, I would hope--and this is nothing that has to be added to the motion, but it's to follow up what Henry said in reference to coming back and looking at it in three months. I would hope that--because the scary part about a cap estimation on medical care, when you've done an estimate and you know you're going far below that estimate already, is that the dangers are certain types of cases fall within that parameter and those projections start looking bad early on in the year. I would hope that both of us could return to that table before we get to a shocking period as though we would have to face that in terms of a clinic closing and that we would revisit that because I think that we're sending you out kind of on a question mark. We would like to do more and obviously budget restraints capped that. But, you know, I just hope that if we have to look that in the face, that we will--both to Mr. Wall and Mr. Parks, that we can deal with coming back, as Mr. Brigham has said, even before that quarter, you know, is up, Mr. Oliver. And I think it would even be a good idea just to know in that period how we are rolling along with that particular amount of money. And I don't think that has to be spelled out in the contract, but I think as delicate as that balance is, and with the fears Page 28 of a lot of people that reside not only in that ZIP code area but who have to deal with that type of medical service and many times have to make desperate choices that a long of us in the community may not have to make, that it's very serious to them in not knowing where their needs will be met. And so I just would hope we would return to that anyway. I was just going to comment that Mr. Oliver MR. PARKS: and Mr. Wall were right, our intention would not be to close the 30901 or 30906 clinic. The whole idea of having those in those communities is so that those patients have better access to those services. But this kind of contract allows us the flexibility to deal perhaps with the clinics on the main campus. Our idea would be to have those clinics in the community and make those appointments out in the clinic in those sites rather than have those patients come to the main hospital, and I think this contract is a good compromise for that. Is there any additional discussion? All MAYOR YOUNG: in favor of the motion? MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Addendum Agenda, Item 1: Appointment of Margaret Armstrong to the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. Mr. Mays offers this. MR. MAYS:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Item 2: Motion to approve two corporate sponsor-ships for the annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Fund Banquet in the total amount of $480.00 to be paid from the "Commission Other" account. MR. H. BRIGHAM:So move. Second. MR. BEARD: Discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Page 29 CLERK:Item 3: Motion to ratify agreement with Georgia Power Company for real time pricing rate at the 4-H Club Road facility and the filter plant on Highland Avenue effective January 1, 1999. MR. HANDY:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK:Item 4: Authorization to enter into an agreement and execution of a resolution with the Georgia Department of Transportation at a cost of $49,265.00 for the construction of a bridge at Lake Olmstead as part of the Augusta Canal Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail Project. We also request approval to proceed with procuring bids for construction. This is part of the Canal Authority's MR. OLIVER: funding, and they asked that this be added so that they could secure the necessary permits to get this completed in time for the Georgia Games. So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: The source of funding, Randy? MR. BRIDGES: It's the Canal Authority, one percent sales MR. OLIVER: tax. All in favor of the motion? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Looking back at Item Number 56, it does not MR. WALL: designate the--it was put in the consent agenda, but did not designate the source of funding. I would ask that you reconsider that for the purpose of adopting a motion that would designate the source of funding. So move to reconsider. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Page 30 All in favor of reconsideration of Item MAYOR YOUNG: 56? MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 56: Motion to approve payment of attorneys fees to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. And I think you need to designate the source MR. WALL: of funding. This is the same law firm that was involved, and previously you designated the funds to come from Bush Field, which is my recommendation. MR. SHEPARD:I so move, Mr. Mayor, that it be taken from the Augusta Aviation Commission account. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Any discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mr. Mayor, I would request a legal meeting to MR. WALL: discuss one pending litigation matter and one potential claim against the city that--recommend for discussion in legal session. So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MR. POWELL NOT PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING HELD] MR. BEARD:Mr. Mayor, I move to approve settlement of the claim of Doris Eitner by allowing her retirement with 30 years of credited service. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Add to the agenda and to approve. MR. WALL: This was to add to the agenda and approve. MR. BEARD: Page 31 Any discussion? All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:The next item is to elect the Mayor Pro Tem position. MR. H. BRIGHAM:I would like to move that [inaudible] Mr. Beard be the Mayor Pro Tem. I second that motion. MR. HANDY: Are there any other nominations? I will MAYOR YOUNG: call the question. All in favor of Mr. Beard, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Congratulations, Mr. Beard. MAYOR YOUNG: I would like to thank my colleagues for MR. BEARD: their vote of confidence in me. Hopefully I can live up to it. Any additional business? MAYOR YOUNG: No, sir, that's it. CLERK: Move we adjourn. MR. H. BRIGHAM: We're adjourned. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on January 5, 1999. Clerk of Commission