Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2000 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS June 6, 2000 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, June 6, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough, Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams, 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 Germano. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Clerk: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Let's move ahead with the order of the day. PRESENTATION: Richmond County DFCS Outstanding Volunteer Service Award Augusta Commission Clerk: We have a presentation, the Richmond County DFCS, Outstanding Volunteer Service Award, and Ms. Linda Johnson, the Director of DFCS, will make the presentation. Ms. Johnson: Mayor and Commissioners, we want to present to the Department of Family and Children's Services, on behalf of the Board of Directors, on behalf of the 248 children in State custody, and 86 families, foster families serving this community, we want to present the outstanding volunteer appreciation award to all of you for your support, for your commitment, and that's both financial and otherwise. We thank you for the commitment. On behalf of all the foster parents, we appreciate your support of family and children of Richmond County. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. On behalf of all the Commissioners, we certainly appreciate the recognition. You help build families, put families back together, and we thank you. A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN. Clerk: Under the consent portion of our agenda, Items 1 through 43: FINANCE: 1. Motion to approve the abatement of 1999 taxes in the amount of $1,301.29 for property located at 1929 Walton Way. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 2. Motion to approve the repair of a Caterpillar 836 Landfill Compactor for the Public Works Department - Landfill Section by Yancey Brothers of Augusta at a cost of $41,282.17. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 3. Motion to approve the lease of two Caterpillar D8R-WDA Bulldozers for the Public Works Department - Landfill Section from Yancey Brothers of Augusta at an annual cost of $181,780.32 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-63). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 4. Motion to approve the lease of a Caterpillar D6M-LGP Bulldozer for the Public Works Department - Landfill Section from Yancey Brothers of Augusta at an annual cost of $37,922.88 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-064). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 5. Motion to approve the purchase of a Chipper/Shredder for the Trees and Landscape Department from Southeastern Equipment for $15,975.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-065). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 6. Motion to approve the purchase of a Solar Powered Message Board for the Public Works Department - Traffic Engineering Section from Burch-Lowe of Augusta at a cost of $14,565.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-060). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 7. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) Ford Windstar 7 Passenger Vans for the Fire Department from Willoughby Ford of Thomson for $20,589.50 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-068). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) 8. Motion to approve Lease Agreement with Community Service Board of East Central Georgia d/b/a Community Mental Health Center for buildings A and E. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2000) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 9. Motion to approve request for temporary contractual employee at $125 per case for Coroner Officer. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 10. Motion to approve request from Mr. Jack Long of Indigent Defense Tripartite Committee regarding their request for additional personnel (lawyer, investigator and secretary at approximate cost of $45,000 from General Fund contingency for Y2000 and budget in 2001. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 11. Motion to approve condemnation for the properties located at 809 Laney Walker Blvd. and 813 Laney Walker Blvd. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 12. Pulled from consent agenda. 13. Pulled from consent agenda. 14. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $10,000 in 1999 (CDBG) funds and designate the funds for Augusta Youth Center. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 15. Motion to approve option agreements for the following properties and owners, to wit: (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) Dollie Russell (Gloria R. Blanchard) 1130 Summer Street $5,200 Leola Baker (John Fisher) 1132 Summer Street $14,500 Rev. Paul W. Gardner, Sr., 1131 & 1133 Eighth St. $11,600 Ann Coggin & Mary Wilkins 815 Laney Walker Blvd. $3,000 Pauline E. Young 821 Laney Walker Blvd. $8,150 16. Pulled from consent agenda. 17. Motion to approve plaque on Riverwalk in recognition of the original members of Augusta Tomorrow, Inc. with cost not to exceed $2,000.00. Funded from Commission Other Account. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 18. Motion to approve the execution of a lease agreement between Augusta Richmond County Extension Service and Augusta Housing Authority based on Memorandum of Understanding between Extension Service and County Government. The County provides office space for Extension, for $1.00 per year. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 19. Motion to approve Interim Salary Adjustment Policy. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 20. Motion to approve the transfer of Lt. Blondie Forrest and Lt. Daisy Williams from 911 to the Sheriff's Department as deputies into existing positions in the Civil Division with salaries frozen (no cost of living or merit increases until range exceeds employees' salary). Funded from lapsed salaries in current year; budget 2001. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) 21. Motion to approve allowing Mr. Andrew Garnett six weeks to work with HND and the Citizen Advisory Committee regarding the payback of UDAG loan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 22. Motion to approve proposal in the amount of $7,500 with Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. to respond to Georgia Environmental Protection Division comments relative to closure certification document for Phases IIA & IIB to be funded from Account 541-04-4210/5212999. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 23. Motion to authorize the cleaning of HVAC ductwork and equipment at the JLEC at a cost of $41,300. Work to be performed by Air Quality Systems of Evans, Ga. subject to funding source. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 24. Motion to authorize issuing Requests for Proposal to replace the roofing above the electrical switch-gear at the JLEC. Cost is estimated to be between $55,000.00 and $60,000.00. Funding source recaptured Sales Tax interest earnings. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 25. Motion to authorize an exercise within the next month between EMA, Fire Dept., Public Works and Augusta Utilities participating whereby a loss of water situation occurred to be sure contacts are in place to deal with emergency. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 26. Motion to approve a Supplemental Agreement in the amount of $4,500.00 to Godefroy & Associates on the Traffic Engineering Improvements, Phase I Project (CPB # 323-04-200823591) to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I Project Contingency for the purpose of adding a right turn lane along North Leg onto southbound Gordon Highway. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 27. Motion to approve proposed list of streets for resurfacing by County Forces (CF00B) to be forwarded to Georgia Department of Transportation for approval to utilize asphalt from their asphalt plant located in Augusta Richmond County. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 28. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two in the amount of $11,509.98 for Mabus Construction Company on the Hyde Park Drainage Improvements Project to be funded from the project construction (CPB# 321-04-292822571) for additional storm drain pipe and asphaltic concrete to complete activities associates with this project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 29. Motion to approve the addition of Parham Road Improvements Project to the Construction Works Program. Approve Construction Project Budget No. 322-04- 200822631 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase I Recapture funds. Also approve execution of Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 30. Motion to approve the Special Lighting Districts along Gordon Highway, Deans Bridge Road and Peach Orchard Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 31. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to prepare contract documents and advertise for solid waste collection (for costing purposes only) in Urban Service District and certain portions of the Suburban Service District including Districts 2 & 6. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 32. Motion to approve establishing a standard contract in Public Works for awarding of future engineering services and other services. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 33. Motion to approve First Addendum to Water Tower License Agreement at an annual rental of $18,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) 34. Motion to approve Change Order #1 to the Digester Rehabilitation Contract with P.F. Moon, Inc. for $500,442. Funds available in account no. 507043420- 542510/89800580-5425210. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) PUBLIC SERVICES: 35. Motion to approve "best bid" award of Library Cleaning Contract to Southern Management for one year, renewable for two years at a monthly cost of $2,698.94. Funds available in library General Operating Budget. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 30, 2000) 36. Motion to approve Change Order in the amount of $10,045.50 to the contract with TCA Electrical, Inc. for the rehabilitation of runway lights at Daniel Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 30, 2000) 37. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code Section 7-1-90(c), providing for the charge for the temporary sign permit and inspection. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 30, 2000) 38. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between Augusta Housing Authority and Augusta Richmond County Recreation and Parks for Summer Youth Program, funded by the Housing Authority and implemented by the Recreation Department in the amount of $50,000.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 30, 2000) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 39. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of Commission held May 16, 2000. APPOINTMENTS: nd 40. Motion to approve the 2 District reappointment of Rev. Larry Fryer to the Human Relations Board. th 41. Motion to approve the 6 District appointment of Ms. Jodie M. Graham to the Augusta Richmond County Animal Control Board. 42. Motion to approve the following District 10 appointments: Mr. Dick Gayle - Animal Control Dr. Carl Nechtman - Augusta Port Authority Mr. Hugh Connolly - Canal Authority Ms. Faye Wyatt - historic Preservation Mr. Braye Boardman - General Aviation Mr. Hardie Davis - Human Relations Mr. Tom Sutherland - Library Board Mr. Jimmy Harrison - Personnel Board Mr. David Darby - Planning Commission Mr. Duane Grice - Public Facilities Dr. Charles Freeman - Riverfront Dev. Ms. Annette Harlan - Tree Commission Mr. Don Grantham - Zoning Appeals Mr. David Hogg - HND Advisory Bd. PLANNING: 43. ZA-R-113 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission requesting an amendment to Sections 21 and 26 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance thereby requiring that uses which would in any way involve detained persons, or uses related to corrections or incarceration such as halfway homes for persons released from correctional facilities must have special exceptions pursuant to Section 26 regardless of the base zoning of the property. (Approved by Commission May 16, 2000 - second reading) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what's your pleasure with the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Gentlemen, would you like to pull any items? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: 12, 13 and 16. Mr. Mayor: 12, 13 and 16. Any other items, gentlemen? All right, nothing heard. So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus Items 12, 13 and 16. Mr. Oliver: I would note on Item 23 that the funding is General Fund Contingency, it's subject to funding source. Item 23, General Fund Contingency, funding source. Mr. Mayor: Anyone want to discuss that one? We have a motion to approve the consent agenda minus Items 12, 13 and 16. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item 12. Clerk: Item 12: Motion to approve charging 75% of Environmental Engineer's salary to the General Fund at 25% to the Landfill and adjust salary grade to Grade 55. This action will decrease the General Fund expenditures by $6,124.00. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think the Administrator can possibly help me out on this. I just don't quite understand what we're doing here and maybe the Administrator can help me. Mr. Oliver: The environmental engineer, in concert with the former Solid Waste Director, has spent a lot of time working with the landfill and environmental issues relating to the landfill. Previously we had not allocated any of the cost of his salary to the Landfill. We think that that's appropriate. In addition to that, this would change the classification on the environmental engineer from a pay grade 52 to a pay grade 55. Mr. Beard: Well, I guess my only question, then, would be what percentage is her getting? Is he getting above the 15 percent? Mr. Oliver: In accordance with policy, he would get 15 percent. Mr. Beard: It's not above 15 percent? Mr. Oliver: No, sir. He would get 15 percent because it went up three pay grades. That's correct. And if you like, we can make that a condition of the motion. That's fine. Mr. Beard: I'm sure it's being taken care of. I just needed for you to explain to me what he was getting. Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? We need a motion. Mr. Shepard: Move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is Item 13. Clerk: Item 13: Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Old Town Neighborhood: 340 Walker Street, (District 1, Super District 9): Laney Walker Neighborhood: 1115 Hopkins Street, 913 Twelfth Street, 915 Ninth Street, 1111-1113 Eighth Street, (District 1, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 432 Fairhope Street, (District 1, Super District 9); and waive nd 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, it only concerns one house on there, 913 Twelfth Street. We do understand, and I've talked with the Director and also with the Administrator, that if we could possibly pull that house off because it is being repaired, and I think anytime that we are repairing houses and got a full understanding that this is what is going to happen, we ought to give people So I move approval of this with the exception of 913 Twelfth the opportunity to do that. Street. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Any further discussion on this issue? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is No. 16, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Item 16: Motion to approve employee's salary increases for 2000 as follows: A - 1.7% Cost of living increase to be provided to all regular full-time employees who have been employed with the City of Augusta one year as of September 30, 2000. Those employees with less than one year of service will receive a pro-rated percentage of the 1.7% cost of living. B - 3.3% Job performance increase to be provided to regular full-time employees based on their job performance as determined by each department director. The 3.3% is based on the department's budget. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 30, 2000) Mr. Oliver: And the 1.7% would be applicable to part-time also. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: The only reason I pulled this is probably for some discussion, possibly among the Commissioners. We talked about this when it came up in Committee, and it was discussed. And I think the Administrator pointed out also that possibly what could we do for those people who are receiving the 1.7 cost of living increase. Can we help those people a little more? And this has been my question all along. Not that we don't have particular faith in the Directors, but to kind of level the playing field so that all of our employees receive a little more than possibly that they are receiving now. And some of this is based on the smallness, the size of the department. But I was wondering if we could not do three percent instead of 1.7, and for job performance go to two percent. And I would like to hear some feedback from the Administrator on this, what he thinks about this, and how would it affect the financial situation. Mr. Oliver: Well, as long as the total of the two add up to five percent, we're financially neutral. The thing I think that you have to weigh in your mind is that by going -- and as I understand it, the 1.7 percent is the cost of living adjustment that's published by the Department of Labor, based on the Consumer Price Index. By increasing that to three percent, what that would do on one hand is ensure that everybody would get three percent on a pro rata basis. For example, they've been here 12 months, they get three percent, whether they were a good employee, a bad employee, or an average employee. The intent behind the cost of living was to keep everyone cost neutral as it relates to their earning power between years. But clearly, what you're proposing is not out of the realm of possibility. It just would make it so that there would have to be less thought as to how it's going to be distributed on the part of department directors. Mr. Beard: I've opened up a discussion. I'll come back with a motion. Mr. Mayor: Next is Commissioner Williams, then Commissioner Cheek. Commissioner Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make a motion, I wanted to make a substitute motion that we take the performance and the job performance, change from three to two that we've got and make it a five percent, performance being three percent and job performance being two percent. We've got good and bad employees, we understand that. But we've got department heads that's supposed to be able to control or understand the situation within their department. So if a department head is seeing after that employee, I think we can weed out the people that, just not from a pay standard, but from other standards if they're not performing to their level, so I am making a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we change it to the three percent performance and the job performance two percent. Mr. Oliver: I think you want three percent across the board, cost of living, and two percent performance. Mr. Williams: Okay, two percent performance, job performance. And three percent cost of living. Mr. Mayor: Cost of living. Right. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: I'll second that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my concern, as I stated in the committee meeting, is that the Consumer Price Index does not reflect actual buying power of real people. It's a political tool used to make politicians look better. If anyone goes to the grocery store or gas station, you know that the cost of living has gone up much more than 1.7 percent of the last year and this would be a very good opportunity to at least keep our employees even with or maybe gain a tenth of a percent or two against real inflation by passing Commissioner Williams' motion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, if you're in private business you're not guaranteed anything. Anytime. And I think that if we are fair with our employees, I think if we stay, well, I think you have to stay with some type of index. I realize things fluctuate and go up and down. But to me, we are looking for employees to do an exceptional job, and if they do that they get rewarded, and we leave the responsibility of determining that to the department heads. And so I don't think Mr. I'd Beard made a motion, if I'm not mistaken. I think Mr. Williams made the initial motion, so like to make a substitute motion that we accept the recommendation of the Administrator. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I probably will vote for the original motion that's on the floor, but just for the sake of discussion, not necessarily argument. I wore my, I wore a tie that I usually haven't worn. I usually wear my good luck tie. It's not on today. So I'm very careful about getting off the ramp on things. But Randy, just for the sake of discussion on the amount of money that we're going to deal with on both the cost of living and performance, were any numbers, just for discussion's sake, rolled on dealing with that whole plot of money, on what we would deal with if we did not deal with -- I'm talking about property now -- on the flat percentage, if we took those folks and rolled the whole numbers in there and gave them an equal amount of money, and this is one, I guess, Mr. Mayor, I used to lose this argument a lot. And I always still like to bring it in for the point of discussion, because the thing I guess I have personally against a lot of percentages, anyway, is that when you're trying to narrow certain gaps, percentages, if you've got some inequities, to a certain extent, gets you further apart anyway, if you're not talking about a lot of money. So for instance, if you were giving everybody, and I don't know what the numbers might have been if you rolled them into everybody's deal, but in some cases where you take a percentage of a certain salary and that percentage might be $700, and the same percentage of another person's salary might be $300. And you're trying to equalize what you're doing that, and you're only widening the gap by another $400. They're getting the same percentage, but you're not dealing with the same amount of dollars from the very beginning. And I just want to know, just for the sake of discussion, was it ever thought about to deal with money and to deal with them across the board, not percentage rates but across the board money, realistic rates. Mr. Oliver: We budgeted, Mr. Mays, five percent of payroll as an increase. How that amount is allocated out, whether it be as a percentage or as a lump sum payment regardless of what the salary range of the individual is, is a policy decision, and those numbers can fairly quickly be run. Our payroll is roughly $60 million. Five percent of $60 million on an annualized basis is about $3 million. But you also have to remember we have part-time employees and full-time employees. Mr. Mayor: I think one of the points Mr. Mays is trying to make, and I'm not trying to speak for you, Willie, is there some way to weight it so that people in the lower pay grades get a larger increase than those in the higher pay grades. Is that the point you're trying to make? Mr. Mays: To part of that, because when we deal with it, and I know we've come a long way with the governmental salaries, but I can remember, well, I guess you were here, Ms. Bonner, when we looked at this, probably ten, 15 years ago, that was one argument that always came up, that that loaf of bread cost the same thing for that person that at that time was down in the so-called poverty level as much as it was for a department head, in order to buy the same loaf of bread. Well, with what's happened now, those salaries, yes, they've gone up, but then if the percentage on somebody's salary of $40,000 versus somebody's at $15,000 to $16,000, then the numbers gap in there still gets us to a wide deal. And just for information's sake, and I can support, I think the reversal is a better situation. But I always like to deal with real money. It's something you can count. $500 for everybody is just $500 for everybody. It doesn't get to be $750 for somebody and $250 for somebody else, $475 for another person. And I think when you don't have a lot of money in that pot to go around, that maybe that's something that we just might ought to consider, with the numbers. Particularly if it's something you say you can run real quick. Mr. Oliver: I think it's a matter of defining the rules, and you have to weigh the impact of what kind of morale problem you may create, because if you make an assumption that the cut-off is $20,000 or $25,000 and the people under that number get a greater amount than somebody that's at $25,001, the person at $25,001 is going to be very unhappy and the person at $24,999 is going to be extremely happy, so it's a very difficult and tenuous thing to do. Mr. Mayor: Let's hear from Mr. Bridges now and then Mr. Jerry Brigham. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think there's two reasons why I favor the substitute motion over the original motion. I agree with Mr. Cheek in regard that I don't believe inflation is just 1.7 percent. My wife tells me the same thing, Andy, when she goes to the grocery store, that that's just not the case. But one of the reasons I support the substitute motion is because we do need a basis or a standard to operate from, to move from, to start at, rather than judgmental calls of three percent this year, four percent or five percent next year for the cost of living adjustment, and also I think it gives the department head, who knows better than anyone else, whether somebody deserves a raise, has worked for it, has been loyal, showed up for work promptly, and displays all the attributes that a loyal employee should, and should be rewarded for in a year's time. And I think it gives the department heads more flexibility with those that are deserving and the ability to reward them in that venue. The lower you get that percentage that that department head has to operate with, then the less effect the department head has on the work habits of his employees. And I think that should remain with the department heads, who know them better than we do. And for that reason I'll support the substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, you know, pay raises are always a source of soreness, no matter who you deal with. The easy thing, I guess, would be to take five percent of our salary and divide it by the number of employees and just give everybody the same thing. And that way we [inaudible] the same way. But everybody in this government doesn't do the same job, as we are well aware of. They might do the best that they do at their level, but their level is not the same level as everybody else's level. I don't think we can legitimately do this with our employees. The other thing that I have a concern with -- the next easiest thing would be to just give everybody five percent, but then the person that's doing a good job is going to be rewarded the same as one that is doing a piss-poor job. And we go ahead and reward them all the same way. We've done that, either one of those methods, rewards everybody the same way. The giving of the performance is that we are expecting our department heads to reward those employees that do above and beyond the call of duty with extra pay incentives. This was something that we agreed to. I think it's something we need to continue to operate. It would make my life easier, and probably this whole Commission's life easier if we would just take and give everybody five percent. Or an equal amount of money. But, you know, when we do that, we will still have people complaining to us, cause some of them are going to think they did a better job than some of the rest of them, and you're going to hear from them then, and not from just the people, oh I only got $50 this month, I didn't get the $120 like somebody. Nothing's fair in this life, you know, Willie and I are both self employed, and we don't get no percentage raise based on cost of living or anything else. We get it based on whatever comes through the door. That isn't a good feeling, either, but that's the way it is. That's the thing we chose to do, and I think that probably weighing all that and I think the substitute's the best method that we have at this time to reward people for the jobs that they have done in performance and work for this government. I don't particularly like it, but I think it's fair. It's a way of rewarding those that work hard for us. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think one of the problems I think we have with this pay raise is we don't have an effective performance evaluation instrument. I think if that is in place, I think the performance evaluation raises can be distributed equitably from the work the person's done, but right now I see where we have a very poor performance evaluation instrument to distribute these funds. That's why we are up here trying to do what we do today. I think until we put that instrument in place and train people on how to use it, to be fair to all the employees, the ones who are doing a good job and the ones that are doing a bad job, and I think we're going to come back here year after year with this same problem. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Oliver, is it not true that most employees end up getting the full amount of the pay raise each year? The cost of living and the merit? Mr. Oliver: No. I would say this, and I agree with Commissioner Colclough, I think the instrument is a good instrument. One of the things in an organization of this size is to ensure consistency between the various people, but no, I mean they will run the gamut. The rules we have run in the past and we're going to continue would be, no one could give more than ten percent, but you have to remember if you give somebody a little bit more, you have to take something away in another area, because you're going to get whatever percentage that you allocate in the pay for performance category, based upon that particular entity. So if they have a payroll of a million dollars, they're going to get three percent or whatever you all allocate to them, to be divided among their employees, and some based on those performance evaluations will get a little bit more and some will get a little bit less. And the next logical question is yes, some departments are finding this is a very difficult exercise and do tend to group everybody around the average. So you've got various things that are done. I would note that these are reviewed by the EEO officer and the Deputy Administrator, was the process last year, and it's envisioned that that continue this year. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Let's go ahead with the vote on the substitute motion from Mr. Kuhlke, and that is to approve the salary increases for 2000, 1.7% for cost of living and 3.3% percent job performance. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us back to the original motion from Commissioner Williams, which is a 3% COLA and 2% performance. Is there any further discussion on that motion? All in favor of the original motion, please vote ay. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to the regular agenda. Clerk: Item 44: Motion to approve real estate sales contract with John T. Edwards and T. E. Norris to acquire property knows as 843 Broad Street (Tax Map 37-3, Parcel 101) and 836 Reynolds Street (Tax Map 37-3, Parcel 102) for the sum of $419,000.00. (No recommendation from Engineering Services May 30, 2000) Mr. J. Brigham: So moved . Mr. Oliver: This is the -- Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. We had a motion. Mr. Oliver: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor to approve this. Mr. Oliver? Mr. Oliver: This is the property the former Health Department was in. It's part of the Augusta Commons project. As we previously indicated to you all, the property owners have been trying to work out an arrangement. That is a totally private endeavor, I would note. But purchasing this property, we would ask that that motion contain the provision that we be permitted to go ahead and acquire the rest of the property for the Commons, as well as to proceed with the design. Previously you had put the design and continuation of the project on hold until those issues were resolved. We met last week with one of the two property owners, who has now come in with an alternate plan, and I would just like to show you the two plans. While we prefer the original plan, we think that the second plan is workable, but again this is an issue to be resolved by the private sector and not one necessarily to be resolved by government. But here are the two plans. The first plan provides for the Commons, as you can see, to be totally open, which would make it so that this particular structure, the Morris Museum, would be seen and would be a big anchor at the end of the Commons and would give what I call somewhat of a monumental effect and would serve as an anchor. There is an issue as it relates to this piece of property. Right here on Reynolds Street, this is the property they've been trying to work a transfer out with that property owner to transfer or to give them a piece of property down this way. At this point, that has not been achieved. However, what they have done is to propose an alternate, and with the alternate, if this property, one of my concerns was if this was built on, that this would look out of scale. As you can see, the way that they have redesigned this alternate, by putting a structure here and a structure here, that will maintain the balance in the Commons. We are comfortable with that. However, it will not make this structure appear to be as significant as it would have been under alternative A. We are comfortable, as I say, with this. However, we felt that we would be remiss if we did not tell you what was being considered at this point because we believe that all the information or the best information we have should be available to you when you make these decisions. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, you believe that the design has proceeded along such that it's safe for us to go ahead and purchase the property and begin our part of the Commons between Reynolds and Broad Street? Mr. Oliver: Well, remember that our part of the Commons only related from here to here. At this point, this is a private endeavor. We have not involvement. There has been some discussion that there may be some state money used on this. That I don't know what the outcome may be of that. Also, there has been some discussion as it relates between Broad and Ellis Street. At this point, while it's indicated on the map, we have met with that property owner, as Mr. Mays asked. She is comfortable with this project. But there is nothing provided for in this project of from Broad to Ellis. So at this point, those are very much just conceptual to show how it possibly could be tied in at this point, but our plan at this point is just from Broad to Reynolds Street, and our recommendation to you would be to go ahead and approve the acquisition of the Health Department building, and if you are agreeable to do that, authorize us to proceed with this design, as well as the acquisition of the remaining parcels. There are about three parcels that we still have yet to acquire. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Oliver, the scheduling of the Commons project and the private investment, is there a chance that we would go back to the original design assuming that the property owners got together on a swap, and what is their timing? Mr. Oliver: They have been working on this for a couple of months, as has been represented to me, but they haven't done it. The north side of Reynolds does not impact us, and frankly, in my opinion, we will be complete well in advance of them being complete. I do not think that they will -- I don't think they will be anywhere close to meeting our schedule and I think we're in advance of that. Again, our project starts here and goes to here, and so therefore we don't have any interaction at this point north of Reynolds and that has no impact on us. Mr. Kuhlke: But us moving ahead may be the catalyst for them to move ahead? Mr. Oliver: It could be seen that way. It may encourage some conversations to occur, yes. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? Any comments? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Randy, the money that we're talking about today, that does not include the cost of design? The $419,000? Is that correct? Mr. Oliver: No, sir. We already have a contact for the design. Mr. Shepard: And that's been funded by other money? Mr. Oliver: That's been funded by sales tax already, and we also have a project budget for this particular project at this point for the acquisition of those other parcels. Mr. Shepard: Out of sales tax? Mr. Oliver: Out of sales tax. What we would envision would be we would acquire all the parcels. We would issue a separate contract for demolition while the design is going on and then give whoever the contractor selected a clean site to start from because we think it would be cheaper and quicker. And if this motion is approved today, that's the way that we would proceed. Mr. Shepard: And Randy, the last question, this would create the public space for some of the festivals, such as the Arts in the Heart? I mean they could locate the tents on this grass mall that we're creating? Mr. Oliver: What we are proposing here, the answer to that is very definitely. One of the issues that I think we've got is I think we've got two downtowns. We've got the river front, we've got the rest of the downtown, and the intent of this is to try to bridge the gap between the two and to set this up in such a way that you have tie downs, electric, utilities, and things like that. This would not be open normally to vehicular traffic. It's proposed to be solely a pedestrian right-of- way situation, and in addition to that there will be provisions made here to accommodate at least two stage areas, so we can promote those types of special events, and will give us a better environment for having these special events in our opinion downtown. We are also going to be asking for money from A-NIC to construct restrooms over in this particular area on the right side of the drawing. Right now there are no public restrooms in the budget. We think that that is something that very definitely needs to be done, but the funding is not there. These are one of the things that you've obviously got to have and to provide for. The riverwalk and the Main Street DDA person to have office space over the top of those restrooms so that they can, if you will, manage these activities. Because we believe the people that manage the activities should be close to those activities. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Randy, I couldn't see the board. Where was the, what we want to buy today? Where is it located at on that map? Mr. Oliver: What we want to buy today is located right in here. It's the building that the Health Department was in. Mr. Mayor: Any further questions? Mr. Oliver: We already own two of the parcels, by the way. Mr. Mayor: Any further questions? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank Mr. Oliver for bringing the different design to our attention. And the other day, this came to our Committee because there were some particular questions asked. I'm not going to be hypocritical. I'm going to say the same thing in Committee that I say out here when it was introduced and I supported the overall plan to do this, and I also thank him for guiding that particular group in corresponding with the folk that were involved in this project in terms of named properties but had not at that time even been done the courtesy of being talked to, and I think that's good. And I'm going to vote for the motion. But I do want on the record, Ms. Bonner, that if we see this event again, I'm not going to be supportive of any massive condemnation to get this mess straightened out. I think we've committed to it. It was on a ballot. And whatever the dispute is otherwise in there, whether we go with that design or go with another one, I think it's a public project. I think we've made some conditions that we've asked for, and I really don't think we ought to be caught in a chess game of being pushed. We put down what we said we were going to spend. We took a vote. We said we were going to vote for it on the conditions that certain things be done. Now I can accept that only because a new design and a workable design can be done. But if it gets up back to where this body has got to play referee, and I only have one vote, but I want it on record now so I can go to bathroom if that discussion, Mr. Mayor, comes back up, I just leave the room and y'all already know that I'm not going to support it under that type of means. I think we need to deal with this project just like we would everybody else's projects that's involved with public money. We say we're going to do something. Either straighten them out or we condemn everybody else's project and everybody else's property. And I made the statement in that room and I'm going to make it out here. If it was John K. Doe in the argument and Susie W. Anybody, we settle the argument. We condemn all of it, take it, because public money is involved in it. And it will be straightened out. But we know what the deal is, but it's overall I can deal with that, it's still a better project, we need to get it done. But I'm going to go on record right now. I am not going to deal with any forced condemnation to do it. Y'all can deal with it 9-1 or whatever votes y'all get out of it, but I am not going to deal with this one past that. I'm going to help you today, Bill, but after that I'm not going to let the tail wag the dog in this deal. We made a strong commitment to it, we've done our part, and I don't think it ought to be said that if we make a move then they'll get what they hadn't done. That was presented, Mr. Mayor, in your early stages of your first days getting here and we are still arguing about -- we aren't, but they are, in reference to how this is going to be designed. So I do thank you, Randy, for the way you've driven this to get it to the point of it being reasonable and of still being able to stay in a public domain. But I want to go on record, I ain't dealing with no condemnations. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, your comments are well taken because this City has been ready to move forward with this for some time, and it is the private sector that's been holding it up. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Since Mr. Mays started talking about and we hear a little more about it, what is the problem? Why can't we solve this, Mr. Administrator? Mr. Oliver: Candidly, it isn't our problem to solve. The reason I say that is that we own an alley up through here, and an alley coming over this way, and it connects up. But as it relates to this property to the north -- Mr. Beard: What is the property to the north we're talking about? Mr. Oliver: It would be everything from Reynolds Street up. This property is owned principally by two property owners, and those two property owners are trying to come to some kind of accord, if you will, this is probably slightly more desirable in a couple of ways, than the second alternative, and that was what was originally proposed. But this alternative is workable. Mr. Beard: From my understanding — Mr. Oliver: And this would accommodate the two property entities. Mr. Beard: But it's my understanding, for example, the Galleria and the health center and those items out there, what's the difference between that and what we are trying to accomplish now? Because out there, those people, in fact last week we just settled some property that people could not come to agreement on and we had to move the project forward. So maybe -- just explain to me what is the difference. Mr. Oliver: I think there's a big difference, in my opinion. We have no financial interest in anything north of Reynolds and no governmental dollars are going to be involved in this project that I am aware of at this time. Okay? Whereas in Phase I of the Galleria, there are government dollars involved in that acquisition. Now whether they may or may not get State money to do this, I can't answer that, but there's nothing currently programmed in Sales Tax Phase III for this project or proposed in Sales Tax Phase IV to accommodate anything north of Reynolds. Mr. Beard: Well, what is A-NIC -- they had made, are they involved in this? Mr. Oliver: I only know what I've read in the paper. Beyond that I don't know. And I had heard that there was some money committed to the Commons, but we don't have control of that. Mr. Mayor: We saw they got that money, Mr. Beard, and that's why we're sending over a proposal to use some of that money for public restrooms. Because quite frankly, we don't know what that's for. Mr. Beard: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: Sir, did you call the question? Thank you. We’ll move ahead with the vote, then. We have a motion to approve, it’s been seconded. Mr. Oliver: I would ask that the motion be to approve, authorize acquisition of the remaining parcels between Reynolds and Broad and authorize proceeding with the design. Mr. Mayor: Is there an amendment to the motion to that effect? Mr. J. Brigham: No, sir. The motion was to buy the property. Mr. Mayor: So the motion is as stated in the agenda book? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we purchase the property and that we authorize the Administrator to proceed with the acquisition of additional properties that we need in that block. Mr. Mayor: And the design work? Mr. Kuhlke: And the design work. Mr. Shepard: Second that motion, too. I second them both. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Let's go ahead and vote on the substitute motion. All in favor of it, please vote aye. (Vote for substitute motion) Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 7-2-1. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to the next item, No. 45. Clerk: Item 45: Consider the selection of a project or projects for inclusion in a Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) Application for Augusta Richmond County. (No recommendation from Engineering Services May 30, 2000) Mr. Mayor: Who has got that one? Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is an annual event. Selecting projects for the TEA application. Been doing this since '91. And the projects -- we sent out a letter several months ago to everybody that would have an interest asking for projects to be submitted, and those went through a process of evaluation by the transportation study, and the three projects that are best in terms of being ready to implement and meeting the criteria are the three that you see on the agenda. I hope you see on the agenda. On the agenda item, those are fully explained and I'll ask any questions that you have. Mr. Oliver: The Rae's Creek bicycle/pedestrian trail, No. 1. Augusta State University history walk, No. 2. Downtown Augusta, multi-use and streetscape approval project, based on prior history with funding in this, it's unlikely they will fund all three projects. If they fund two of them, we would do the first two. If they fund one of them, we would do the first one. Just to make the record clear. Mr. Mayor: We have somebody in the audience who wanted to speak to one of these items. If you'll come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record. Pull the mike down and speak into it. Mr. Fusselle: Mr. Mayor and honorable Commissioners, my name is Mark Fusselle. I'm the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at Augusta State University and I live at 1006 Monte Sano in Augusta, 3040. I'm simply here to urge you to please support the second phase of the Augusta State University history walk. We have worked very hard to improve our classroom facilities. As I think you all know, at Augusta State for many years we taught in building which were designed for the manufacture of ammunition in the Second World War. We have not expanded our facilities. We've simply replaced them. The expansion that we have done has been on the Wrightsboro Road facility property, and we would like to bring those two properties closer together in an environmentally-safe way, so we have made this proposal. We've brought in $21 million for the classroom replacement. We've got the federal funding for the first phase of the Department of Transportation grant. We just need your support so that we can bring this to fruition. And I think also, it will not only make a better educational facility at Augusta State University, but it will beautify the neighborhood, it will make the neighborhood safer, and it will help us bridge the Wrightsboro Road area with the history campus area, and we would very much like your support in this. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Any questions for the presenter? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval, Mr. Mayor, but I'd also like to say as the Commission representative on the Downtown Development Authority that our interest in all three of these projects is very keen, particularly the one in regard to the downtown area for the streetscape. I understand that's probably No. 3 and may not get funded, but it's on the list, and I encourage you. Mr. Patty: I failed to mention one thing on that project. On that project, we can use the Traffic Engineering improvements that are already included, are included in the recommendation for Phase IV Sales Tax. There really wouldn't be any new money involved in that project. Mr. Bridges: Second the motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I intend to support the motion. One comment I did want to make is that we have situations all over this community in the creek basins where we have sewer and utility easements and drainage easements, and I would like to see that Butler Creek and Rocky Creek and Spirit Creek be considered for future projects such as this. This would be a tremendous way to tie the entire community together to our canal parks and our lock and dam. We talked about that earlier this year, and I'd like to see it come up in the next year or so. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor -- excuse me, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: To inquire of you, Mr. Mayor. A few weeks ago, we delayed closing the reservoir to pedestrian access, and I see Mr. Beck over here, and I've recently been talking to Max Hicks about it, and my remarks are directed to Mr. Fusselle,. That property sits between your two facilities, one the main campus and the ASU complex on Wrightsboro Road. And we would like to include that in the planning process since we're looking at a bicycle/pedestrian trail around that facility, which is right between the two. So I just point out that had occurred to me when I was reviewing that and would like to get with you and coordinate you into that process, if we could. Mr. Mayor: All right, we'll go ahead and call the question on the motion to approve. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I had one additional question. This is an engineering question. On these pedestrian bridges we are going to build over the creek, are we going to build those according to 100 year flood criteria? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: So when we had at least two 100-year floods in the last ten years, so these bridges will probably be gone and we'll have to replace them? Can we build these at a higher level or up a little bit where we don't lose them or at least buttress them where they don't wash away? Mr. Patty: [inaudible] bridge crossing, but they will be at a minimum of the 100-year [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: Now those criteria don't preclude us from building things above and beyond their standards; correct? Mr. Patty: No, sir. That's the minimum criteria. Mr. Cheek: So we could build a 500-year flood criteria and be okay? All right. Mr. Mayor: We'll move ahead with the vote, then, on this motion to approve. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 46: Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing administrative approval by the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission of abandonment of platted drainage and utility easements for the purpose of combining two or more subdivision lots upon written evidence from the Public Works and Utilities Departments that the draining and utility easements that are not currently needed for drainage or utility purposes and that these easements would not be needed for such purposes in the future. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2000) Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: One of the things we get from the developer on subdivision is a five-foot side lot line easement, a 10-foot [inaudible] on every lot in the subdivision. And occasionally we get someone that buys two lots and wants to build a house in the middle. And we've got ten feet of side easements that are owned by the County at that point. And in the past, frankly, we have checked with Engineering and we have checked with Utilities, and if there's no need for those easements we have apparently in error approved the plat combining lots, and Mr. Cheek correctly pointed out to us when one of these came up a couple of weeks ago that that easement needs to be formally abandoned by the Commission and unless there's a resolution specifically allowing us to do that, that's what we're asking you to do. We would get written approval from the Engineering Department, from Utilities, before we would take such action. Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Any discussion? We have a motion to approve. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, we would just give them the easement or just abandon it? Mr. Patty: Yes. We would abandon it. If we find that there's no current need for it or any future proceeding. Mr. Mayor: Did you have a question about that, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Just that one. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 47: Motion to approve contract to second low bidder, Mabus Brothers Construction, in the amount of $1,406,858, subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. (No recommendation from Engineering Services May 30, 2000) Mr. Bridges: I so move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is there any discussion on this item? None heard. All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. th Clerk: Item 48: Designate voting delegate for NACO's 65 annual Conference, July 14-18, 2000 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I nominate, since he's a member of the Board of ACCG, Commissioner Jerry Brigham. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any other nominations? Mr. Shepard: I move the nominations be closed. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of closing the nominations and electing Mr. Brigham -- Mr. Shepard: By acclamation. Mr. Mayor: -- by acclamation, please vote aye. Do it all in one. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 49: Approve sponsorship of corporate table plus display at a cost of $1,000 for Project Success of Augusta Seventh Annual Celebration Luncheon. Funded from Commission Other Account. Mr. Mays: I move approval. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Oliver: There's $4,405 remaining in Commission Other Account. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Got a question, Jim. Two questions, whether this can be done by contract. Since a member of this Board has association with that, is there any conflict in the rest of us voting for that, anything dealing with the Ethics Ordinance that might be a conflict of interest for the rest of us? Mr. Wall: In my opinion, no, there is not, so long as y'all have not made any promise that you would vote for it in exchange for any future vote, and I assume that that has not been done and this is something that y'all have supported in the past, so there's no conflict. Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? Mr. Shepard: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: The question is called. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. H. Brigham not voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to Item 50. Item 50: Legal meeting. Consider possible settlement of litigation matter. Discuss potential litigation. Personnel. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I’d asked for a legal meeting to discuss possible settlement Of one litigation matter. I had discussed potential litigation, I wanted to brief you on one Situation, as well as a personnel matter. Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes stated by the Attorney. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of going into Executive Session, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL SESSION 2:55 - 3:35 P.M.] Item 51: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard, we'll sign the affidavit without objection. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Are there any items to add to the agenda? Mr. Wall: Yes, I would like to add to the agenda a motion to approve settlement of the case of Dale Brantley v. George Ealey and Augusta, Geogia that is pending in the Superior Court of Richmond County in the sum of $50,000. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to add and to approve? Mr. Bridges: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to add the item to the agenda and approve it. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Any additional business to come before the Commission? I'd like to report to the Commission that I've gotten receipt of communication in the last 24 hours from the Mayor's Complete County Committee working on the census, and the Census Bureau has reported back that we have a 97.5% count as of this point in the process. If you'll recall, in 1990, the count was 95% at the end of the process, so we're doing much better this year and it looks like we're going to have a very good census in Augusta by the end of June. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just one concern. I think maybe addressing it in this manner may resolve it. This Saturday, I saw a County employee in a County vehicle driving with a lawn mower in a trailer behind his County truck. I'd like to reissue the vehicle policy stating that these County vehicles are not to be used for private business or private use, and I'd like to see the policy implemented and people punished if they are caught using County vehicles for private usage. Mr. Oliver: Did you by change get a tag number or vehicle number? Mr. Cheek: My 17-year-old was driving and I couldn't get the car turned around in time, but we won't have that problem again, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Oliver: I don't see the point in reissuing. I think the point now is just to take disciplinary action. Everybody knows it. Mr. Cheek: If you're satisfied, I'm satisfied. Mr. Oliver: I'm satisfied. There's no point in reissuing it. Everybody knows the rules. Two issues -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, just a moment. Mr. Mays had his hand up. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say for the sake of information and the record that I fully agree that tomorrow's meeting is a very important meeting that we're having in reference to the presentations and to talk about our most valuable resource in terms of water and where we are going with that whole issue. I regret that I will not be able to be here tomorrow due to death in our immediate family and that service is going to be right at the same time that we start this meeting and then we'll have to end up going to Lincoln County for burial. But if there is not a vote taken on tomorrow, if you all do not finalize it, I do plan to have someone to video the proceedings for me tomorrow, Mr. Mayor, and if there is not a vote taken, so that I can get the chance to go over the actual presentations of the entire meeting and be able to study that, so if we end up making a decision at a different time I'll be able to do that. I wanted to apologize and let you know in advance, but that is one situation I can't control. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard: Will there be a vote tomorrow? What can we expect tomorrow? Mr. Oliver: Here is the agenda that's been set for tomorrow. It's been set as a special called meeting so that official action may be taken if that's the desire of the body. The reason for that is that a number of you all talked to me about the fact that you would like to go to bond issue, perhaps as early as July if not August. Clearly we cannot start a bond issue until we assemble a project team. The first item of business on the agenda is to select bond counsel. The second item is to receive the presentations and then if you so desire to choose underwriter for the transaction and then to have CH2MHILL review the project list and try to adopt a list of projects. That is not as critical as the first two items in the grand scheme of things because that list can be inserted at a later date, but we wanted to get feedback on our preliminary list. And then the fourth item deals with the fact that we believe that we need to start staffing up now to be able to address being able to handle these $85 million or $90 million dollars in projects and the $250 million worth of construction programs that's going to happen within the Utilities area over the next five years. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, you had a couple of issues you wanted to -- Mr. Oliver: Yes. One has been addressed. We have tentatively scheduled, if it's okay with you all, as you know, we have pressed the 20" line into service. We've been testing that and we are prepared to turn that over tomorrow. We are proposing that we do a hydrant turning ceremony at one o'clock, if that's agreeable with everybody, at the intersection of Old Tobacco Road and Highway 1. Mr. Mayor: Old Tobacco and Highway 1 at one o'clock? Mr. Oliver: We have not proceeded through a full week of activity yet so we can't tell the total impact of that, but at this point it's looking very favorable, the impact that that has had, and that will only get better as the 5 million gallon tank is brought online, as well as the additional pumping station. Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further business? Entertain a motion to adjourn? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: You mentioned the pumping station on Wrightsboro Road. Can we take measures to try to expedite acquisition of the pumps? Mr. Oliver: That's being worked on. The pumps are on order. By tomorrow I can tell you the delivery schedule. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adjourn? We adjourn without objection. 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 June 6, 2000. Clerk of Commission