Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 5, 1996 City Council convened at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 5, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd, and Zetterberg, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commissioners and Councilpersons -- have to remember we got two of them -- no, actually one, but you got to put both names there -- Regular Meeting. The Reverend H.K. McKnight is going to bring us our -- from Bible Deliverance Temple, he's going to bring us our invocation. If you'll remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND H.K. McKNIGHT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, we have two requests for additions to the agenda. One is to consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council in meetings held February the 20th and February 26th. We have a request from the Water and Sewerage Department to accept emergency bids for a sewer replacement and road repair on Highway 25 at Butler Creek. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move by unanimous consent. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, we would like to recognize the International Students Training and Computer Science in Communications at Fort Gordon. Would you please stand, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: These gentlemen came in to see -- would y'all stand, please? They came in to see how a real government works, so we want to give them a real good shot of it today. I think they're going to enjoy it. Thank y'all for being here. A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN. CLERK: Item 1: The Georgia Department of Community Affairs, reference the Augusta Canal RIR. MR. ROBERTSON: Hello, I'm Tom Robertson. I'm not with the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, but I'd like to introduce some guys we have with us. I've talked to many of you over time about the Augusta Canal; in fact, most of you in your former lives or even now. And I'd like to present to you Mike Gleaton from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, who wants to talk to us about some special recognition for the Augusta Canal on a state-wide basis. MR. GLEATON: Thank you, Tom; and thank you, Mr. Chairman- Mayor and Commissioners and Councilpersons for the opportunity to speak to y'all about a subject that I think is dear both to y'alls heart and certainly to our heart: the Augusta Canal. It's a very precious resource; a natural, historic water supply resource. We've been working with the Canal Authority, a special committee, some of the Commissioners here, to come up with a management strategy that will help y'all coordinate development with Columbia County which also shares a small portion of the Canal within its jurisdiction. We've been working on this for over a year, and with the consolidated government vote back in the summer we've kind of had to put things on hold until we could get back together with you as elected officials, and we're ready to move forward. As Tom said, there will be a special recognition for the Authority and the -- for the Canal, actually. It'll be the first designated regionally important resource in the state of Georgia under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Our department is charged with the responsibilities of carrying that out, and this will, in all likelihood, be the first one in the state. We anticipate, if everything goes well, that that designation could be conferred on the Canal as early as by May of this year, perhaps June. So we want to take our recommendations, which embody the Augusta Canal Master Plan and I think have been forwarded to you for this meeting, out for public review and hold some public hearings on those. And we'll be doing that either during the latter part of this month or the first part of April, and then maybe making some final revisions to this contingent on what we get out of the public hearings, and then coming back and recommending final designation and formal designation of the Canal as a regionally important resource throughout the state -- or in the state. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, but we just wanted to kind of update y'all on where we were in our process. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Tom and that committee for the outstanding job that they've done on the Canal. I worked with them while I was on Council, and I think it's going to be a great natural resource for our community. And the only thing I would like to add, that I sure would like to see that third level worked on, Tom, and get going on that and open that up. But I think y'all have done a very good job on that, and I've been with you on several occasions on that and I'm real proud of the job that you are doing. MR. ROBINSON: Thank you very much. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the gentleman's comments as information. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, don't we need to give him a little more approval than just accepting it as information, we give him a little go-ahead with this? MR. GLEATON: Not really. This was more of an informational briefing just to bring y'all back up to speed of where we were in a process that was well underway, but the consolidated government vote and -- y'all have had other fish to fry and we're just getting back to you now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 2: A delegation from Project Success: Olympic Hero, Mrs. Consovalla Adams. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Don Johnson broke the news to us last week, and we're asking him to do it again; and Captain Weaver will give us a little later on the idea of which way we're going; and Ms. McKie is one of the board members, and also Ms. Pam Tucker. Then we'll get a chance to hear from the young lady that wrote the letter to make the nomination. Go right ahead, Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Commissioner Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: They gave me five minutes and I guess I took a minute of it. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, you did, I believe. I will move right along. Mr. Mayor and Councilpersons, appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Don Johnson, I'm board chair of United Way this year. I have been asked to kind of give you a little bit of background on how we selected the torch runners who would carry the Olympic Torch. Sunday afternoon, July 14th, the torch is going to pass through the Greater Augusta Area; and, in fact, we're even going to have a celebration in Augusta and a stopping-off point for the torch. Some 52 runners between Waynesboro and Warrenton and Augusta and Harlem are going to carry it. And let me tell you, they're going to have to work on their arm strength; and I thought some of you may want to pass that around. [Mr. Johnson hands torch to Mr. Powell.] Several months ago when the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games developed the Community Hero Torch Bearer Program, they decided that the honor and the privilege of carrying the Olympic Flame should be bestowed upon deserving citizens: people who had made significant contributions to others in this community, people who had dedicated their time and their service to making life better for someone else. The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games asked United Way of America and its network of member organizations to facilitate the Community Hero selection process. United Way of the CSRA is one of 1,300 United Way agencies that publicized the program locally, distributed applications within the community, and encouraged local heroes and people who know and respect them to apply or nominate someone to carry this Olympic Torch. Our region was selected as one of the 147 Community Hero judging locations across the country. We convened a panel of 23 local citizens who represent a cross-section of the area. This judging region included the towns of Waynesboro, Augusta, Harlem, Thomson, and Warrenton. For one day in January we came together as a group, the judging panel, to evaluate the Community Heroes entries from our region. All of the Community Hero applicants were worthy candidates, and we discovered that this Augusta region is filled with heroes. And while we certainly could not select everyone as a torch bearer, we believe that the 52 folks that we did select truly represent what is best about Augusta and the Augusta area. Now, real briefly, I thought you'd like to know just a few facts about the torch route. The torch arrives in Los Angeles on April 27th of this year, and for the next 84 days criss-crosses the United States, arriving in Atlanta on July 19th, so Augusta is within five days of the torch finally arriving in Atlanta. There are going to be 10,000 torch bearers covering some 15,000 miles. It will cross through 42 states, 29 state capitols, and over the course of the route will come within a two-hour drive of 90 percent of the population of the United States. It's going to travel by every means conceivable; not only by runner but it's going to travel by bicycle, by train, by Pony Express, by canoe, by sailboat, by cable car, by steamboat by a Great Lake steamer. It's going to average 184 miles per day, and the day is going to be about 14 to 15 hours long, and it's going to be a time of celebration across the entire country and hopefully bring the Olympic spirit to all of the folks who can see it. Thank you very much. MS. TUCKER: Mr. Mayor and Council-Commission members, I've been a United Way volunteer for 18 years and I've had the pleasure of serving the Richmond County employees as their chairperson to collect donations for the last several years. And last Wednesday I was voted as a new board member for the United Way of the CSRA, and I'm very happy to be involved with that. And I want to say that Project Success is one of the new affiliate agencies and it is a wonderful agency that is helping high-risk youths; and a lot of the employees, in fact, donated and designated their money to Project Success, and I think there will be even more of those kinds of contributions coming in for the program, but I just -- my words are mainly primarily just to validate the wonderful program that Project Success is. CAPTAIN WEAVER: I'm to tell you which way the route of the torch runs. It'll come out of Burke County on Highway 25, down to Phinizy Road; it'll go across Phinizy Road over to Old Louisville Road, and Old Louisville Road to Highway 56-Old Savannah Road; into and across the Gordon Highway. It'll go across Olive Road to Martin Luther King Boulevard, and Martin Luther King Boulevard down to Twiggs Street into Seventh Street. It'll go past the Civic Center to Broad Street; it'll make a right onto Broad Street, down to Sixth Street. It'll go across Sixth Street onto the Riverwalk and down to the Amphitheater at Ninth Street. At the Amphitheater at Ninth Street -- now, this has been tentatively agreed on. We think it's going to be the route. It's going to go out Ninth Street, back to Broad Street, up Broad Street, out to Washington Road to -- I'm sorry, not to Washington Road but to Milledge Road. It'll go across Milledge Road to Walton Way, up Walton Way, down to Berckman Road, and Berckman Road back to Washington Road; Washington Road up to, we think, Boy Scout Road; Boy Scout Road to Skinner Mill Road, over to Walton Way, down Walton Way to Jackson Road, Jackson Road into North Leg, North Leg to the Gordon Highway, the Gordon Highway out to Harlem. So that'll be the route of the Olympic Torch. MR. JOHNSON: That's still subject to some change. We're still working on some of it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right; okay. I'd like to introduce you to the homeroom teacher of this young lady, then she will give her nominating speech for Ms. Adams, and Ms. Adams will be the final -- and Mr. Diddly, who is the counselor. Would you stand up? This is the homeroom teacher of this young lady over at Lucy Laney, and Mr. Diddly is the counselor. Synethia, would you tell these folks what you did, in your own words, how you nominated this young lady? And then Ms. Adams will say hello to you. Synethia is a tenth-grade student at Laney, and last year she had the highest average in math in the ninth grade. And we haven't checked yet, but we hope it's the same this year. Mr. Zetterberg, you hear that? You'll be called on for that. MS. JONES: Good evening, my name is Synethia Jones. I am a student in the Project Success Program and a tenth grader attending Lucy C. Laney High School. I nominated Ms. Connie Adams as my Community Hero for several reasons. First of all, a Community Hero is someone who performs outstanding volunteer work. Ms. Adams is my Community Hero because she is a person who loves to children make their lives successful. She is now a teacher in the afternoon school program called Project Success. This program reaches out to the community and gives every student a chance to learn more about themselves and their future goals. She helps them to keep their minds clear, stay off the streets, and keep them moving in the right direction. Dr. King once said that a great person is one who serves other; therefore, I feel that Ms. Adams is indeed a great person, for she serves us well at Project Success. Ms. Adams speaks for herself and Project Success, a very caring person and a very successful program. Thank you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. William Carroll, the former mayor of Blythe, is chairman of our committee. We want him just to stand. Dr. Shaw is on our committee, and there are others. I know I've taken over my five minutes and I'll give up. Ms. Adams -- would you all welcome the young lady. And her son is sitting by her; he works at Channel 26. Ms. Adams, stand up and let them see you. She is going to be carrying this torch. Mighty short, but she can do it. MS. ADAMS RECEIVES A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. MS. ADAMS: And this is my son. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for allowing us to do this for us. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue to support Project Success by any means available, and let this community-minded organization know that we appreciate their efforts by giving them one more round of applause. MR. HANDY: Second. A SECOND ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think Mr. Powell made a motion and -- CLERK: Mr. Handy seconded. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Please let the record know that I abstain just in case somebody says it's a conflict of interest. CLERK: So noted. MOTION CARRIES 9-O-1. CLERK: Item 3: Consider approval of minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council Meeting held on February 6, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MAYOR SCONYERS: A motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 4 is a communication that was approved by the Administrative Services Committee February 26th, 1996. [Item 4: Consider approval of a contract extension with Field Asset Management Services regarding the HOME Housing Rehabilitation Program.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Beard a question, if you don't mind. Or, I move that we approve it to get it on the floor, but I have a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. Mr. Beard, what I wanted to find out is, on the extension of this contract here, did we make any effort to -- and I read the information in there, but did we make any effort prior to this contract coming up to get any other -- secure any other bids to handle this work for us, or was that not possible or what? MR. BEARD: I don't know. We have the director here, Mr. Mack, and he'll answer that. I'm not -- I think he can answer that. MR. MACK: Mr. Kuhlke, initially we did send this thing out for bid, and we did receive bids and Field Asset Management was the lowest bid at that time initially. MR. KUHLKE: I understand that. I'm asking, this is an extension of the contract, and did we look any further before we extended this contract? Did we ask for any bids? MR. MACK: No. We spoke to Georgia Housing and Finance Authority about this contract on two or three occasions. And the reason why we're asking for an extension up until June 30th, 1996, was basically two reasons: The first reason is that by the time we advertised this contract and so forth, then the program would basically be over; and the second reason is that Georgia Housing and Finance Authority provides energy training, and they are not going to provide anymore energy training for this program year. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume that we're talking about professional services here and not necessarily something that would have to go out for bid for, but certainly we want to go out for requests for proposals. I addressed this issue, I think, approximately a year ago when we were going out for -- we were bringing someone on. I certainly hope -- and I understand what, you know, the stated agency is saying and what the department problem is here, but I would hope that we would do a workshop where we would inform individuals that they need to take this training if they're going to participate in this process and that we certainly communicate that other than just having an excuse why we can't go out for proposals at the next opportunity. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mack, how many years have these people done this job? MR. MACK: Approximately two years. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And you mean that we can't -- we can keep extending the contract without going out for bid year in and year out? MR. MACK: Well, again, the only reason we're asking for this extension is basically because Georgia Housing and Finance Authority is not providing anymore energy training to any new contractors. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And this extension is for how long? MR. MACK: June 30th, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And at that time is there going to be a new contract issued? MR. MACK: We would go out for bids at that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 5: Consideration of bids to be opened February -- that was opened February 28, 1996, for Liability Insurance. Mr. Wall. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this was not able to go through the Administrative Services Committee since the bids were opened after that meeting; however, it was -- the bids were received on the 28th. They were reviewed for the first time on the afternoon of the 28th, and we had a further meeting today among members from Risk Management and members of our firm, and then subsequently with Mr. Etheridge and with Butch McKie. And based on all of that, it is our recommendation that we not renew or extend the existing coverage that will expire at midnight on March the 10th because of the cost of that. And if you look in the package that -- and the bids wanted is the first sheet, and flip to Page -- and I passed this out to most everyone on Monday; others I passed out tonight. On Page 7, the cost of continuing the coverage for the balance of the year is some $408,000, and in looking at the claims against both the city and the county over the past several years, we do not feel that there is justification for continuing the coverage. You will recall at the beginning of the year when we issued -- or requested that the binder be issued, there was some question as to whether or not the immunity that is applicable to counties would be applicable to Augusta-Richmond County. The General Assembly has now passed that local legislation, and so it is the recommendation that that coverage not be extended. Now, we did not at January the 1st bind Public Officials Liability Insurance, and that's found on Page 10 of this same package. It is now the recommendation that we do, in fact, purchase $2 million of coverage with a $250,000 deductible, which would be a cost of approximately $50,000 for the balance of the year. The cost that is shown in your package on Page 10, if you look at Proposal D, the second one, is $74,189, but that's for a $75,000 self-retention. There is a 10 percent discount by increasing that to a $250,000 self-retention, and then there is a 25 percent discount if you eliminate the back-wage coverage. And so what we are recommending is that we take the opportunity of increasing the retention to 250,000 and eliminate the back-wage coverage, which is a 25 percent savings and which would amount to a 35 percent savings off the $74,189. And that's our recommendation. I'll be glad to answer any questions about how we came at that recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell to approve, have a second by Mr. Handy. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I, for one, would like to keep the liability coverage, and I'm going to explain why, and I'm sure the voters are not going to do it. I had some problems with sovereign immunity outside of what the state law give political subdivisions. County governments -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, speak into your mike. They can't hear you over here, please. Thank you. MR. TODD: And I realize that certainly we are two entities, a county -- and we're functioning as a county and a city entity. I don't have a problem with sovereign immunity when it's dealing with police vehicles, you know, your solid waste or sanitation vehicles, et cetera, but I think that we need coverage when we're dealing with basically anything else. And if I understand the legislation correct, Mr. Wall, it give us the privilege to implement sovereign immunity if we so desire? MR. WALL: It grants to us sovereign immunity. Now, you could waive it on any particular occasion on a case-by-case basis. MR. TODD: Yes. And in those cases where we waive, if we should waive, I think we would want insurance to back us up there. So I have a serious problem with not doing anything as far as extending the insurance. I just wanted to go on record, and I'm ready for the question. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, is the reason that you are recommending this is because of the experience factor that we've had in the city and the county, and that by not extending this liability insurance we're going to be saving money, based on the experience? MR. WALL: That is correct, and taking into consideration the substantial reserve that has been built up on the county side. And the county made the decision a number of years ago that rather than paying the rather huge premium, that this money was -- a certain amount was allocated each year to build up a reserve. We now have a substantial reserve that's available for any claims to which sovereign immunity might not apply, any claims involving law enforcement. If you look at the claims, with the exception of the break in the water line, the premium would just about equal what we paid out in claims last year, would exceed what we've paid out in the two previous years. Now, we did have the exception last year because of the ruptured water line; but, again, when you consider the self-retention of $500,000 and the premium, then that cost would be greater than the total liability incurred by the city and county last year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve not taking the liability insurance -- is that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, and taking the Public Officials Liability with a $250,000 self-retention but eliminating the back-wage coverage. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, everybody understands what we're voting on? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have one other question for the County Attorney. How do the sovereign immunity affect the personal liability as far as a individual being sued as a trustee or steward of the county? MR. WALL: That's the reason we're recommending we take the Public Officials Liability, to protect the individuals involved. MR. TODD: And we're talking about up to what amount? MR. WALL: $2 million. MR. TODD: No further questions, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 6: Discussion of the needs of the Trees & Parks Department for Masters Week. John Etheridge will address this item. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, since we originally met on this with Mr. Smith and Commissioner Beard, we've been able to work out five of the six positions that Mr. Smith had asked so that he could be prepared for Masters Week. The position that we really couldn't work out because it's not budgeted was a individual at the cemeteries, and I think that we are required for perpetual care for those cemeteries. And Mr. Smith could better address that portion of it than I. Also in our conversation we discussed the possibility of having some of the prison labor assisting with some things and, also, on the suburban side we have a landscape crew that comes under Public Works that might also be able to lend some assistance there, too, to Mr. Smith. Because he has a great task ahead of him in preparing the city and county for Masters Week. So with that, I guess that I'm asking for y'alls support to support Mr. Smith in his efforts and maybe assist him through some prison labor, approve the job for the cemeteries, and maybe allow those people from the Public Works area, you know, along with Mr. Gooding's blessing on that, because they work under his area. But Mr. Smith, like I say, has got an enormous task. And Barry is here, so -- you know, Barry, feel free to get up and say whatever you need to. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Etheridge. Are we talking about five permanent employees in the five that you identified? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. And they are authorized and budgeted. MR. TODD: Yes, but did anyone look at the option or possibility of outsourcing temps and getting us through Masters with that area of it till we can have time to work in the inmate labor and maybe doing a permanent person as far as the cemeteries go? MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd, we're going to have the inmate labor very soon, as you reference to, but in the meantime there is a great need. As you know, the Trees & Parks Department was cut short back in the spring and the summer of last year because of the city layoff, and there is a dire need. I mean, if you ride through the city here you will see that there is a dire need for some assistance there. They just cannot do that work. And with the recent thing that we had with the -- we don't have inmates out there to help them, and they are really at a disadvantage, and this is why we thought that we needed this. And we are talking about two to three weeks, possibly four before Masters Week, and we just need that if we want our city to look good, and I think that this Council can go along with that at this time. And there will -- those people will be utilized and they will be needed, and I think that it is a necessary item, and I move that it be approved. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Lee Beard, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, since we're amending the budget, has anybody asked the Comptroller about the funds? Has any funds been identified for this position? MR. ETHERIDGE: The funds are available for the position. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Where are they available from? MR. ETHERIDGE: From? They will be available from the Trees & Parks budget. Now, additional -- other than those five people the funds are not there. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what I understood the motion was, was to hire -- I'm not going to fight with you about the five people; I want to know about the sixth person. Where is the funds been identified for that salary? MR. SMITH: That was a budgeted position in 1995; it's not in 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But it's not a budgeted position in 1996. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, Commissioner Brigham, but this pertains to Magnolia Cemetery, and my secretary cannot be in two places at once. And Magnolia Cemetery is a very historic cemetery. They receive funds, they open and close graves. And I got a call from First Union Bank, for example. The trust officer said she went to the Phinizy tomb, if you want to call it that, was very displeased with the way she was handled in the office area to deliver a check, because the Phinizys continue to give the city money. So I really didn't really know what to say except I don't have proper office staff. And the office staff now is a girl that I got out of the cemetery that used to cut grass. So with the historical significance of Magnolia, with the influx of visitors for the Masters --my great grandfather is buried there; I'm sure many of you here have relatives there -- it needs to be handled a little bit more proficiently and professionally onsite at Magnolia. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we hire that one person for the cemeteries and that we also hire the other five from temp services in town to take care of the trees and parks for Masters. And I think this can be done in a timely manner and we can be online for the Masters. And I don't necessarily like the -- taking the position of not going along with the recommendation from the department heads, and it's no reflection on the department heads, but I think that we --when we consolidated, certainly we didn't supposed to grow, you know, jobs. You know, I think most folks expect us to cut jobs, and now we're growing permanent jobs for a temporary situation possibly. And that's my motion, that we hire one person for the cemeteries and that we job-shop for the other five. MR. SMITH: Commissioner Todd, if I could say one thing. These are vacant jobs -- MR. TODD: A point of information, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to let that motion have a opportunity to fail by the lack of a second or to get a second, and when the Chair rule, then I'll be glad to listen to the gentleman. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear the gentleman and what he had to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Barry, please. MR. SMITH: Back in June -- I mentioned this at several meetings -- we had to lay off 22 people. After June, six to eight people have resigned because there's not enough -- they've got too much work on them in the department. So basically these jobs are vacant jobs that are budgeted in the '96 budget. Which, the resolution that was passed at Commission a few weeks ago should allow for jobs to be filled; is that correct? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. SMITH: So this is jobs that are vacant that would fall under that exact resolution, although that one job is not budgeted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I was going to second Mr. Todd's substitute motion, not necessarily to vote for it, because I think there's one ingredient that's been left out of this that I've not heard, and maybe I've missed something. I applaud the committee for moving forward. I'm not on that committee. I probably have to -- and maybe I'll end up abstaining, maybe like Henry, in terms of conflict. But I probably am in and out of cemeteries more than anybody else here, and this is -- I have no problem with us doing our sprucing up for Masters and what we have to do in terms of maintaining our image as an international city and the Golf Hall of Fame and all of those things at that time. I'm all for that. I have no problems with that, Mr. Smith, whatsoever, but there are some conditions. And not to any of your fault, because you had to deal with what was handed to you in your department, but I think some conditions at those cemeteries. And I noticed you mentioned Magnolia. I have relatives in two city cemeteries, getting back to my great grandparents. And I can sympathize with people who call, and not only call from the two that's on Watkins Street and Third, they also call from Westview. They probably call from Westview more than any other one, and some of the conditions at Westview were as bad as they are right now when the last Masters left here. And I think if you're going to refine and get this crew together and workforce together, then I'd like to hear a little bit more about if it is -- particularly if it's going to be permanent, I want to know whether the permanency is going to go to the cemetery side of this. I'm all for the Masters sprucing up, but when it comes and goes, that dedication of those who have their loved ones buried there, particularly those that have paid into perpetual care -- and it's probably gone from perpetual care to perpetual something else in a lot of cases, mainly because of that manpower. I'd like to know what's going to be done in that situation before moving on with the other, and I'd like to see it in some way packaged off if these are going to be permanent people. And maybe a lot changed since I left the old city government. In fact, when I left it was still Cemetery, Trees & Parks and I notice now it's just Trees & Parks. But cemeteries do exist, and I think it was said by someone that you can tell the condition -- maybe in terms of how a community cares about its living by how it takes care of its dead. And those people are still buried there, and I'd like to know what we're doing in that permanency of going to keep those situations being brought up to par first and then how do we plan -- or what plans that are there to maintain them. And I'd like to hear something on that before we take a vote, particularly with establishing permanent positions. And maybe that's been discussed already, but I'd just like to hear it. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I may be the only one that doesn't have anybody buried in Magnolia Cemetery, but I want to just voice support for Mr. Smith in his work that he has to do. What I'd like to do is see somebody go out and scope how much work we need to do to keep this city as attractive as it can. I don't want to be in the position of having to peak every Masters. This man needs people to keep the city well. It should be a high order of business in Augusta, Georgia, and I think we need to just belly up to the bar on this one. But I don't think he can do it by himself. And I'm not for hiring people in the city. This is the kind of work that ought to be contracted out. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question here. I guess, Mr. Etheridge, maybe you can answer me. But what you're saying here, Mr. Smith, is that you've lost six to eight people, you need those people replaced, and plus the five that we're talking about -- MR. SMITH: No, that's the same -- MR. BRIDGES: Same people? MR. SMITH: We've lost eight and they have discussed -- MR. BRIDGES: You want to replace five of the eight? MR. SMITH: They've discussed five of the eight, which I was happy with, and that's where we are now. This is the same -- MR. BRIDGES: But originally you wanted the five plus the one to go to Magnolia; is that right? MR. SMITH: Right. That's right. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. And the one to Magnolia is not budgeted, no funds designated or identified for that person? MR. SMITH: For Magnolia, no, sir. But there was a clerk of Magnolia before the layoff. MR. BEARD: I think we're getting a little confused here and, you know, we're picking at a point of temporary and permanent employees. I think what Mr. Smith and what I envision him stating and needs would be -- and let's maybe get away from Masters; we ought to just talk about the city itself and the beautification of the city. But as we all know, that committee was really devastated back in the summer with the layoff, and we know we need at least the five people, and that's what I had referenced to, that he need those people. And if we are asking him to do the job, I don't see why we can't replace people at this point. Those people are needed. I don't care how we reorganize or what we're going to do in the future, those people are needed now. We're asking this committee to do a tremendous job and yet and still we are worrying about five people here, whether they're going to be temporary or whether they're going to be permanent. And I say that if you've lost these people -- and we have given other committees and other assignments where they've lost people, we have added those people, and I just think that, you know, we're getting a little petty on all of this and we need to at least hire those five that have been replaced. MR. POWELL: We've had this discussion somewhere before this year, and I think the last time that we had this discussion you said you needed 27 people. Am I correct on that? MR. SMITH: That's correct. MR. POWELL: And you said that you had them in your budget and later you called me and said that you didn't have them in your budget. At that point I think I recommended for you to go ahead and try to put them in your budget process. Now, let me ask you a question. If you needed 27 to do this job then, how are you going to get by with 6 now? MR. SMITH: It'll be hard, very hard. The 27 people were the people that were laid off. And this was in '96 when we were discussing this. But unfortunately, I realize I can't get all the laid off people back. I realize that, so we've been doing the very best we can. So it got to a point of, as Mr. Beard says, emergency status. And I think we're at that point with the Masters in four weeks from now, so I've accepted 5 out of the 27 is basically what it boils down to. But I dismissed that out of my mind because that wasn't in the budget to begin with. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, of these five people we're talking about, we are trying to bring back three people that were laid off back when the layoffs were done -- trying to bring them back to work on these jobs here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I feel compelled -- and maybe I'm the one that's absent-minded, but I want to help Mr. Smith's department. And again, I repeat, I applaud what the committee has done, but I'm still searching for an answer to my question to a point that if we have a gross situation that's there that goes beyond the general cleanup for Masters and sprucing up that goes go within those cemeteries, you know, is there any plan? And it doesn't have to be, Mr. Smith, for the people that you're getting for this; it could be with some type of marshal plan or dealing with prison labor to go in there and help them. But I'd like to get an answer from it, you know, do you have it or does someone else have it. Because there are definite calls that are going out from those cemeteries, and particularly for those that are in perpetual care, and it is just not stopping and I'd like to get an answer for it. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, when Willie started I thought I knew what he was talking about. I'm not sure now, but it's my understanding that -- we've been working for two days trying to come up with a mission statement for this government. One important word in that mission statement is attractive for this community. Mr. Smith has done a great job in the City of Augusta. He's short-handed; he needs the people to continue the job that he's done. And it's my understanding we approved five people for the Sheriff's Department so that we could get 40 prisoners, and I think Mr. Beard is in charge of that, and it was my understanding that those people would assist, Mr. Mays, in the cemeteries. Am I right, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke, and as soon as we can work that out -- that was just appointed last week. We're going to meet on that this week. And I think that, you know, we're going to utilize that inmate labor wherever it's needed, whether it's in the cemetery or, you know, on the streets or out in the suburban area. We're going to utilize it, but we have to get a plan for that and we have to work it out. But in the meantime we -- Mr. Smith does need some assistance there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not against giving Mr. Smith assistance, it's the methodology in doing it. And I think that also what we're supposed to be doing in the near future is assessing our overall situation and needs as far as manpower go, and we may have some folks that we can, you know, move from one area to another. And in order to give us time to do this, I'm just suggesting that we go out -- outsource for temps and bring them in, work them, and -- you know, you're not going to have time to train anyone here, we're talking for Masters, you're just going to have to bring them in and work them. Now, you may have some situations where you have two or three individuals you had before that you can bring in, but I think the temps will work. We need to look at implementing it. And I'm not going to vote, other than for fire and law enforcement, to put one single employee on the payroll permanently, and I'm just going to make that statement here and now, above what we have. I'm not talking about if someone quit. I don't think they need to come here to replace that person that quit. And that's the position I'm going to take, and I'm not going to debate this issue again, I'm just going to vote no when it come up. And I'm ready for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Zetterberg, did you want to say something? MR. ZETTERBERG: Do we have a motion on the floor now? MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got two motions on the floor, yes, sir. CLERK: The substitute was to hire one permanent position for Magnolia and hire five temps. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's one motion. CLERK: That's one motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: The second motion? CLERK: The motion was to do the six permanent employees. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can add a little light to this and maybe I don't. Mr. Smith, it's my understanding that you're wanting to fill five positions that have already been created. Basically what you're wanting is our permission to go hire these people? MR. SMITH: That's correct. They're basically vacant positions. Why it came to this Commission meeting, I'm not exactly sure. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, it's not that we're creating any new positions in those five? MR. SMITH: No, sir. But they're vacant positions that need to be filled -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. But, now, the sixth position is a new creation? MR. SMITH: -- except one, and that's the clerk for the cemeteries, because that was abolished in June. Except that one. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was -- I think it was right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, we're going to vote on the substitute motion first. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, just a point. I think the Clerk said -- did I say five or six? CLERK: No, Mr. Todd's substitute motion was that we hire one permanent position for Magnolia and hire five temporary personnel for the Masters Week cleanup. MR. BEARD: What was the original motion? CLERK: The original motion was to hire six permanent positions. He had five positions that were vacant, and then he had one position for clerk that was unfunded in the budget. MR. BEARD: I think I made the motion -- CLERK: The original one. MR. BEARD: -- the original motion, and mine was five. We can go with the five. I didn't say six, because the sixth was one not budgeted and it wasn't there. But I wanted to at least get the five people that were there, and that was my motion. That's why I wanted you to clear it, because I kept hearing you saying six, and that wasn't -- CLERK: Okay. Your motion didn't include the sixth position. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all need the motion re-read, gentlemen, or are y'all ready to vote? MR. KUHLKE: We're voting on Mr. Todd's motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, the substitute motion first. Mr. Todd's motion was to hire one permanent person for the cemetery and the others temporary. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 7-1-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: We go back to the original motion. CLERK: Was the hiring of five positions, permanent positions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to hire five permanent people, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. CLERK: Items 7 through 27, with the exception of Item 24, were approved by the Engineering Services Committee in meeting February 26th, 1996. MR. POWELL: I'd like to make a motion that we take the Engineering Services as a consent agenda, excluding Item 24. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. All in favor of -- I mean, excuse me, discussion, please? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to -- just for discussion, Mr. Powell, Number 9, can you pull that out, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll take out 9 and 24; is that correct? Is that all right with you? MR. KUHLKE: 9, 13, and 24, if you would. MAYOR SCONYERS: 9, 13, and 24. Is that all right with y'all, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: It's all right with me, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about you, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Right; it's okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the Items 7 through 27, excluding 9, 13 and 24, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 7: Consider approval of the purchase of a replacement maintenance truck for the Traffic Engineering Department. Item 8: Consider approval of the low bids for sign and marking materials for the Traffic Engineering Department. Item 10: Consider approval of Change Order #1 regarding work on the drainage system in connection with Glass Factory Avenue Basin, Phase III. Item 11: Consider approval of Change Order #1 regarding Utility Relocation on Wheeler Road Widening Project. Item 12: Consider approval of the purchase of materials necessary to relocate utilities on property adjacent to the Carpenter Shop on Highland Avenue. Item 14: Consider approval of a recommendation to abide by the present agreement with the Conifer Neighborhood Association regarding a paved traffic island at the intersection of Skinner Mill Road and Skinner Mill Road Extension. Item 15: Consider approval of a proposal from Zimmerman, Evans and Leopold, Inc. regarding a Hydraulic Network Analysis for the Combined Augusta-Richmond County Water System. Item 16: Consider approval of a Local Government Project Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation and Capital Project Budget regarding Deans Bridge Road at Tobacco Road and Gate #5. Item 17: Consider approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One regarding Perimeter Parkway Improvements. Item 18: Consider approval of award of bid regarding Pleasant Home Road Drainage Improvements to APAC- Georgia, Inc. Item 19: Consider approval of Certificate of Ownership and Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation for the paving of Twenty-One Roads in Augusta-Richmond County. Item 20: Consider approval of Certificate of Ownership and Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation for the paving of Twenty-Five Roads in Augusta-Richmond County. Item 21: Consider approval of a contract with Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. regarding East Augusta Drainage Improvements. Item 22: Consider approval of a Resolution regarding Wise Drive. Item 23: Consider approval of a Resolution regarding Turner Drive. Item 25: Consider approval of a "Memorandum of Understanding" and authorization of funding regarding Intersection Improvements at 13th Street and Walton Way. Item 26: Consider approval of the acceptance of Megan Drive into the road system for maintenance only. Item 27: Consider approval of a Request for Proposals regarding the Land Application Program; Liming of Sites. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 9: Consider approval of replacement of two-hour parking signs on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Broad Street. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Powell, the reason I wanted to pull this out, I had gotten a letter, and I passed it on to Ms. Beazley and I think she's passed it on, but is this in response to things being overcrowded in those two blocks because of the courts, because of maybe the employment in one business in that area? MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke, in response to your question, what this was was a recommendation by the Sheriff's Department, number one, so that they could treat all of Broad Street fairly as far as parking. That area -- the vendors in that area came to the committee meeting, and the majority of them, what they wanted us to do was to just make it two-hour parking and they would find parking for their employees. MR. KUHLKE: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Could we get the other -- Item 13 answered while we're here? MR. KUHLKE: I guess that's -- the answer is the same? MR. HANDY: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Number 9 and Number 13. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 9: Consider approval of replacement of two-hour parking signs on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Broad Street. Item 13: Consider approval of a recommendation to allow two-hour parking on the west side and restrict parking on the east side of Seventh Street from Reynolds Street to Port Royal.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 24: Consider approval of an Ordinance to establish Water and Sewage Rates for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Water and Sewer System; to establish an Industrial Water Surcharge; to repeal conflicting Ordinances of the City Council of Augusta; to repeal conflicting Ordinances and provisions of the Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address this one item. The water rates that you have in your book are not the water rates that -- the water rates in the book have been redone. There were some more complications in it. You have a water rate that has been presented to you, and basically I guess what I'd like to do is call on Mr. Hicks or Mr. McElveen to address the changes in the new water rates. MR. McELVEEN: The only major differences -- can you hear me through this? The major differences in what you have in your book, I believe, and what you were presented with today, the amounts of monies that was raised -- that we anticipate raising through these revenues is going to pretty well close to what we had originally. The other big difference in these rates, you will find that it follows the pattern that was set by you people when you were talking about new government: that the people in South Richmond County would not get a rate increase, the folks in West Richmond County would get a decrease, and the folks within the city limits of Augusta would get a slight increase. It meets all of these requirements, plus the fact it does give us the $11 million on the suburban side that we felt was needed for all the projects in the future. So we feel good about this finally with these rates, and we highly recommend them, you know, to you at this time. Any questions, I'll be glad to answer them, or Mr. McKie may be here to answer some. MAYOR SCONYERS: He's right behind you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for approval of these new water rates. I think that we've satisfied all parties involved, both the Comptroller and the Water Works directors and the members of the committee. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell -- MR. TODD: And I -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you wait just a second, Mr. Todd, please. In your motion, would you add that to make it effective April the 1st and not make it retroactive, please? MR. POWELL: That amendment is accepted. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that was going to be my amendment. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Do I have a second to the motion now? MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, just a point of information maybe from the Interim Attorney. According to the bill that we are working under, is changing the date of the increase in -- or the change in the water rates acceptable, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, you're caught in a dilemma. The consolidation bill indicated that the water rates would be uniform as of January the 1st. There is some question about going back and retroactively establishing a water rate. So I could argue either side of that, and I think that in view of what has transpired it's probably the most acceptable solution to the problem. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a substitute motion that we make it retroactive to the 1st of March. We haven't billed it; we haven't even read the meters for the 1st of March. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concerns with that are the area that's going to be affected with the increase has a lot of senior citizens in it and they're on a fixed income, and what's going to happen if we go all the way back and make this retroactive is they're going to get hit with four months of increases, and I just think that's unfair. And we're in pretty good shape with our Water Fund, and I just don't see it being necessary. MAYOR SCONYERS: I failed to get a second to Mr. Brigham's motion; that was my mistake. Did anybody want to second Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second his motion. Mr. Powell, it's back to the 1st of March, not to the 1st of the year. MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke, even noting that, I think we should just set these water rates and go ahead and not put an additional burden on those senior citizens. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem, Mr. Mayor, with giving the folks in West Richmond their discount, even back retroactive to the 1st of January, but I think when you talk about increasing someone's rates, even if we're talking about the 1st of March -- they've already used the water basically. You know, we're talking about billing for -- I don't understand -- maybe it's the billing I don't understand, but if we're billing for February's water in March, then I would have a problem with making it retroactive. Even though you haven't sent them a bill, they've already used the water. And I don't have a problem with an amendment to the original motion to give the folks in West Richmond their discount starting January 1 as the legislation stated and not going up on everybody else's until after we pass this and for the water used after that point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In the essence of time, I won't have any discussion during the discussion period. I would like for the minutes to officially read to reflect upon, for reference, to the meeting in which I discussed what I was going to do in reference to these water rates, and I'll let that be a part of my discussion. And I think that point is clear. And I sit here between my two Republican colleagues, and both of them are my friends, but unlike George Bush I will not waiver on my vote. And I said what it was going to be if there was an increase, particularly on those folk that have -- and I reminded you that, yes, you know, it may have been a small amount, but it was still an increase. A lot of them are there; they cross everywhere from downtown at the bottom, all the way through Harrisburg, and they reflect all colors, a lot of incomes, and a lot of ages. And I'm going to stick with that, and if consolidation is supposed to hurt as we grow, then I'm not changing and I'm not waivering on it and my vote is going to be no on either one of the motions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? The substitute motion first. Do y'all want the substitute motion read, gentlemen, so you know what we're voting on? CLERK: The substitute motion was to have the rates retroactive back to March -- the effective date retroactive back to March 1st. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, let's go to the original motion, which was Mr. Powell's motion. Do you want that read, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Was that effective the 1st of April going forward? CLERK: Yes. As read, but the effective date being April 1st. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. Is this the adoption of an ordinance? MR. WALL: Yes, it is. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this the first reading? MR. WALL: It is. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I thought I'd make sure. We've got to vote on this again next week -- next time we meet? MR. WALL: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 28 through 32 were approved by Finance Committee in meeting February 26, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, the Finance Committee would bring this to you in the form of a consent unless somebody wants to pull an item out. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out Item 32. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items need to come off? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would point out that Item Number 31, as approved by the Finance Committee, was for it to be pro-rated as of the date of the closing and not a complete waiver. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wall. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 30. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 30, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to vote on Item 28, 29, and 32 -- excuse me, 31. We're going to pull Item 30 and 32. All in favor of the motion to approve those items, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 28: Consider approval of a request from David S. Wilkin, on behalf of Deborah and Douglas Austin, requesting a waiver of a $3,696.00 demolition charge on property located at 1513 Forest Street. Item 29: Consider approval of a request from Mrs. R. R. Murphy regarding the waiver of accrued interest concerning taxes on Murphy & Son Drug Store. Item 31: Consider approval of a request from Sam Nicholson, on behalf of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, regarding the waiver of taxes for the year 1995.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 30: Consider approval of the demolition of the property known as Village Square Apartments. MR. TODD: I guess, Mr. Mayor, my concern is along the area of the asbestos, and I think there was some discussion of this in the Finance Committee meeting, but I don't see it here in reference to the landfill receiving those products at no cost. And I had some concern about it there, and I'll voice that concern here. If that's not the understanding of this agenda item, then I'm ready to move on and vote in favor of it. If it is, then I certainly think that if the Finance Committee wants to do that, that they should come to the Engineering Services Committee and that we should have more input than just Finance Committee and the Comptroller. If the -- you know, I fully understand that the landfill have a loan from another fund, and if they want to give credit to the landfill for the amount of asbestos that come to the landfill, or other waste, then I don't have a problem with that. So I guess I need a clarification -- or I'll just offer an amendment that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we let Mr. Goins answer your question for you. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. GOINS: Mr. Todd, it was my understanding that this amount of money was approved for the removal of asbestos, and that was based on my estimates for the removal of worst-case scenario. And I believe that information had been provided to you at a earlier meeting, and this was approval for the asbestos abatement based on that estimate that I had done. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we approve it, with the urban service district paying for the asbestos coming to the Richmond County Landfill at the rate that will be set at a future date. MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a second to Mr. Todd's motion. Do I hear another motion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll go back and make the motion that we accept it as presented to the committee at that time. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask, why is this request made by Mr. McKie? I mean, it seems to me that the request should come from somebody other than Mr. McKie. Can somebody answer that question for me? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Kuhlke, basically in the Finance Committee this was a discussion about sources or ways to pay for this project, and that was -- at that time was basically the entire discussion. There was some concern as to putting the products into the landfill and how we would go about charging or not charging ourselves for that privilege. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would think that if there is concerns about putting the product in the landfill, then certainly those concerns should come through the Engineering Services Committee. If there is concerns about whether there is going to be a fee charged, certainly those concerns should come to the Engineering Services Committee and not from the Comptroller or basically anyone else. Now, I understand that the Comptroller has been working with this project as far as the airport go, et cetera, and I'm a little sore about all of it because when I sat here and took a vote on that issue I didn't have all the facts. There is a half dozen letters that's out back and forth between governments that I didn't have the facts on or I received the facts late, and I think it's time that the proper issues go to the proper committees and we won't have this problem. But, gentlemen, when you start hollering again about the landfill being in the red, we'll talk then about how it got in the red, and it's for not charging the tipping fee for situations like this and other areas of county government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one question. Is the amount for the demolition, is that removal of the asbestos included in that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you answer that, Drew, please? MR. GOINS: It's my understanding that these funds were made available for the asbestos abatement only. MR. ZETTERBERG: What did the contractor bid on? MR. GOINS: The original contract was bid for demolition and asbestos abatement. That original bid received in November of 1995 was some $577,000, if memory serves. I provided an estimate to the Comptroller's office for asbestos abatement only, based on worst-case scenarios, of approximately $350,000. Mr. McKie, in his recommendation, is identifying a source of the funds. The project has not been bid at this time; he is only identifying the source for the funds. That's my understanding. MR. ZETTERBERG: The project has not been bid yet; we're just allocating funds? MR. GOINS: That is correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: We're going to go out on the street if it -- why wouldn't we include as part of that that he was responsible for removing the asbestos? And if he was responsible, then part of the contract, he would pay for tipping fees to use our -- or he would have the choice of putting it anywhere he wanted to put it. MR. GOINS: There has not been a set of specifications to remove the asbestos. That can be part of the removal cost, that he be authorized to put it in the landfill at whatever fee that you decide that we put in there. But, again, this is just identifying the funds, to the best of my knowledge. There has not been a contract, there has not been a bid. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, it appears that I would agree partially with what Mr. Todd has said. And since the funds have been approved through the Finance Committee, I would suggest that the program be revisited through the Engineering Services Committee and then brought back to Council. MR. KUHLKE: The way this reads is approval for demolition. What you're saying, Mr. Goins, is this is approval of funds to go out for bids. I mean, it's -- MR. GOINS: That was my understanding. I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of that letter. Mr. McKie can probably address that. MR. KUHLKE: Well, Butch, the way this reads is, if we approve it, then you would go ahead with the demolition. MR. McKIE: I'm a little bit at a loss as well. I had talked with Engineering about it and suggested that would have a source for that funding, but to my understanding, this is a request to proceed with bidding in order to do the demolition and approval of roughly that level of expenditure. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Well, I second Mr. Beard's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it's already seconded. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No, sir, I was going to second the motion. I have no discussion. MR. MUNDY: I would like to say something on that, if I could, Mr. Chairman. Tony Mundy; Mundy Construction, Inc. I bid on that project when it came up, and I was very outspoken with Christy Attaway, director of that. The state law says in order to remove the asbestos, it is the owner's responsibility to identify that. And I brought out the point then that it's no way that we can bid on that and be fair with all the contractors. It was a dozen of us in the room at that time, and I said that I'm not going to spend 8/15 thousand dollars to identify the asbestos and then not even get the contract as the low bidder. I objected to it; they came back and said that it would be a package deal, you'd have to remove the asbestos. I think that this needs to be looked into by this committee or by the Council- Commission and put it back out to bid and do it the way the law requires. MR. ZETTERBERG: Could you tell us what you think the committee out to - - MR. MUNDY: I think they ought to draw up the specs and -- I've been after Miller Meyer and them to let me dump at the landfill and take houses down and don't charge for disposal of the materials, just use your equipment and your trucks for hauling, and that way it'll put everybody in the same ballgame. He told me that that wasn't the way that it should be. I objected to it and, you know, put out my feelings about it, but you can save a lot of money by letting a contractor dump and just let him charge you for his hourly use of his equipment and labor. I'd be willing to give you a price per unit up there. And you could get that project cleaned up with just more than one contractor. You could have five or six contractors up there taking down Building A or Building C, whatever it may be, and I think it would be a cost savings and help the contractors out in this area. But I'll be glad to work with them, and there's some other contractors that would work with you on it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think we're on the right track. We authorized, I think a meeting or so ago, for a environmental audit of the buildings, and that is someone to come in and identify the asbestos, et cetera. And the second leg of that is to go out for proposals for bids as far as removing that asbestos. I think the problem that we have here is whether we're going to permit individuals to dump in a Enterprise Fund landfill at no cost, or the county is going to absorb that. And all I'm saying is that we've got to have some type cost accounting where when you do this, that you don't come back six months later and want to privatize the landfill, as there's been some talk about already, you know, and punish the folks that work at the landfill for not making a profit or breaking even. When we talk about dumping out there, we're talking about air space. We're talking about a highly valued commodity in air space that it costs us approximately a half a million dollars per acre to develop a subtitle D landfill. And certainly we don't want to just authorize or let anybody that have a contract with county government dump there at no cost or to save money when we're going in the hole on the other end. MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, let's let Ms. Bonner read a letter here that might solve this whole problem and clear it up. CLERK: Yeah. It kind of conflicts with the item the way it appears on the agenda, but the letter is from Mr. McKie, which he says: "I propose that we undertake the clearing of Damascus Road property known as Village Square of all vacant buildings and hazardous material. I propose that the Engineering Department develop an RFP and immediately bid the job." So it was not saying that he was going for demolition but that Engineering Department prepare their RFP. And he identified the sources for the funding under Risk Management, estimated cost to be $350,000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that clear it up for you, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, as I said, it was a discussion of funding to start with in the Finance Committee, and I think that's an appropriate place to have a discussion of funding since we may have to affect the budget one way or the other. I do not see anything wrong with having a discussion of funding. As for the landfill, I have no problem with paying the tipping fees, but let us remember, the one hand we pay with is our own hand and that we've got to take the money from somewhere else to put in the Enterprise Fund. I had no problem with doing that. All we tried to do in the Finance Committee is identify a source of funding to complete this project. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I think it'd be helpful if the agenda was worded correctly. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think it would be helpful if we got meetings of the committee meetings -- the minutes out so everybody would understand what took place. MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I also think it would be helpful if we could get these minutes of the meetings. I was at the meeting, I objected then. I full well know what was voted on at that meeting, and it was to waiver the tipping fee. And all I'm saying, if that is not in the recipe here, then I don't have a problem with it, I'm ready to call for the question to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell had his hand up over here. Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Beard's motion, isn't it, the substitute? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. CLERK: Well, we had two. We had -- Mr. Beard did a substitute as well as Mr. Todd, didn't you, about the tipping? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: You didn't do that in the form -- okay. Mr. Todd was to review -- refer this back to the Engineering Services Committee and then it be brought back to Council. MR. BEARD: Yes, their recommendation, because it has already -- the funds have already been approved through the Finance, I think, and now since Mr. Todd raised the question about the landfill, I just thought that maybe the Engineering Services needed to take a look at it, and that was what -- CLERK: So that's your motion, for it to go back? MR. BEARD: Yeah, to the Engineering Services Committee. CLERK: Engineering Services Committee for review. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did y'all hear that, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: So now you're agreeing with the Finance Committee and its recommendation to send it back to the Engineering Services Committee; is that what your motion is? MR. BEARD: Yeah, let them -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's what the other one was, wasn't it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's what the original -- the original motion was only to identify a source of funding. MAYOR SCONYERS: Lee, would you withdraw your motion and we can solve this whole problem? MR. BEARD: I'll withdraw my motion then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. Now we'll get back to Mr. Jerry Brigham's original motion there. MR. POWELL: Would you re-read the motion, please? The confusion overwhelmed me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you read that letter you read awhile ago and that'll cover the motion. CLERK: Mr. Brigham's motion was to accept Mr. McKie's recommendation: "...that we undertake the clearing of Damascus Road Village Square Apartments of all vacant buildings and hazardous materials. I propose that the Engineering develop an RFP and immediately bid the job for the following conditions: State terms and conditions for contractors' use of our landfill for dumping at no charge; funding will be the from the Risk Management reserve $6 million fund; estimated cost is to be less than $350,000." MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to vote for the motion, but anything that is concerning the Engineering Committee, from now on I'd like you to send it back through the proper committees, and that's all I'd like to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 32: Consider approval of the appointment of Kathy Williams as Acting Internal Auditor with position to be advertised by Human Resources Department. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I had this particular item pulled for, number one, I don't think that we should be setting up anyone acting as an internal auditor for the severity of this position; number two, I've heard some threats going on, what someone's going to say and what someone's going to do about this position; and, number three, I don't think any one of us as a Commissioner should go around trying to recruit a certain job for a particular person without it going through a committee. And the internal auditor works directly for all of us, not a particular person, and I think we should go out for proposal. If you feel like it's not good to go out for a proposal because of the time, we can go out on emergency to hire someone for a three-month period until we get someone to fill this position, but we don't need anyone in an interim or acting temporary position as an auditor. And that's why I had it pulled out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on this, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee still recommends that we appoint an acting internal auditor. The purpose of appointing an acting internal auditor is, I believe that the state legislature section requires that we have an internal auditor. I think we ought to appoint an acting one. I think we ought to go out for applications. There has been no discussion as to who's going to fill this position, to the best of my knowledge. It was the committee's feeling that we ought to have somebody that acts in this position. If y'all don't want to name an acting, it was the suggestion that the supervisor from Human Relations -- I mean, Human Resources -- I'll get it right in a minute, my mind's going a little fast -- Human Resources, that the senior member of the department do it -- do the duty anyway. All we did was say let's take the senior member of the department, an acting member, advertise the position, and find out if we could have some qualified applicants. If we couldn't have some qualified applicants, that we then look at outsourcing this. I don't see a problem with that, maybe some other Commissioners do, but the committee's recommendation still stands and we bring it to you in the form of a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a position -- in the meantime what we should do is maybe look at the possibility of privatizing this. We maybe need to go out for proposals, or if we've got someone that's local that may want to take this up on a interim basis as far as a private company, then I think that's the way we really need to go with this other than going through a stalling hiring practice, or we just need to go ahead and get us an internal auditor, and that's all I want to say about it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I've been a advocate of outsourcing the internal auditing department before consolidation and before the buzz word of, you know, privatization started circulating in the county. I guess that was your buzz word. And I'm still in a mindset that we should look at outsourcing, but I also feel that we need to go out for proposals. And I don't have a problem with going out for applicants, too, with the understanding that we're going to take the best of the two. I don't think we should wait and advertise for applicants and if we don't get good applicants, then we should look at outsourcing. I think we should -- if we're going to do it, we should let the Internal Department prepare a budget on what they can do it for, et cetera, and the outsource proposal, and compare the two with the cost of what the department head would be as far as personnel cost there. And it's my belief that we can do it more efficient by outsourcing it, and this has nothing to do with the personality involved now, past personalities there, et cetera, but it has to do with what other counties is doing in this state as far as internal auditing go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that the committee would accept the recommendations of the Finance Committee. All we're trying to do here is establish somebody to head up this department on a temporary basis. We can still discuss outsourcing, we can still advertise, we can hire a -- advertise for a permanent internal auditor, we can consider privatizing it; we can do all that, but this is just for the interim, for right now, just to have someone that can be there day to day and head up the operations. And I would hope the committee would support the recommendations of the Finance Committee. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is, is the internal auditing function not - - we're not doing anything now? Zero? We've got three people down there. Who's in charge? MS. BEAZLEY: Well, there is nobody in charge right now. They have a supervisor, Kathy Williams, who will supervise, I suppose. I think Kathy was here. If you have any questions, I'm sure she will be more than happy to answer any questions that you have. But they don't really have anybody to take directions from, and she was supervisor under the previous auditor. MR. ZETTERBERG: And she supervised the other people? MS. BEAZLEY: She supervised the other people. MR. ZETTERBERG: And nothing's changed; right? You're in charge; right, ma'am? MS. WILLIAMS: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess the reason for voting then is because we have to appoint an internal auditor; is that the reason why the vote is there, somebody's already doing the job? MAYOR SCONYERS: Somebody needs to be in charge. MS. BEAZLEY: You don't have to, is my understanding. You do not have to, but you need somebody to be in charge and you need to give them the authority to work in a temporary position for the interim. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think she's in charge. MS. BEAZLEY: Well, she may be in charge; it would probably be good to hear it from y'all, too. Because they really are floundering. They do not know what they're supposed to be doing right now. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, that's because they don't have anyone supervising them from above. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask a question. And I'm always real careful when we get into our people within the working family, when we get into names, whether something is implied negatively or positively. I think in all fairness to Kathy, whether we -- if we get into the point of who's in charge, and if we're going to vote on that, and this is the question that I'm asking, it's probably obvious if we're talking about -- and I'm going to be real candid about it, and this is no bad reflection on her. I think it's obvious if we're talking about dealing with applications and probably in terms of a wave of privatizing and outsourcing, then to place a person in charge, whether duties are changing or not, I'm asking -- and this is just from a question standpoint -- are you looking then, if the person is -- whether they're doing something different or even if the wave of responsibility being different if you're putting them in charge, then are you looking at temporary compensation in terms of where you're moving that person in terms of dealing with that? And I'm just throwing that out as a question because this has come up whether it's been in terms of dealing with administrators, whether it's been with comptrollers acting, whether it's been doing the other departments acting, and I'm just throwing that out for the question, that if you're placing the wave of responsibility, and it may be point unknown period, then is it going to deal, you know, with the same salary structure that you're at right now or are you doing with compensation? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mays, my understanding is that there would be no salary increase or anything, that what we're doing here is we're making Ms. Williams the acting internal auditor. It is not intended to be a full-time permanent position. We are recommending that we go ahead and go out and look to see what we're going to do for an internal auditor on a permanent basis. MR. MAYS: And I guess my reason for asking, because the young lady is working a job -- and maybe she won't ask you, but I'll ask you. It seems as though we're putting a lot of point on somebody being in charge. How do you put somebody in charge? You're either -- I'm like Rob now, you're either already in charge or you're getting ready to do something different. And I think if you're getting ready to do something different, then maybe you ought to discuss compensation, and maybe she may be afraid to say whether or not that ought to be done, if you're going to deal with a different level of responsibility. Because this is not the most under-publicized department where you are right now in this new government, and she's taking it on at the responsibility level that you say is going to change and you're going to vote and give it to her and also at the same level of pay at what you're doing. And I think that question ought to be answered. And maybe we ought to ask her if she wants to take on that -- on the responsibility of being in charge down there and we pay her what we're paying her, when we basically have had a history of when we do something else that we deal with compensation. And unfortunately, though, when the women take over the compensation is either none or less, and the men move up to go somewhere else and then they get compensated, and there's a question of whether they ever get a compensation back. And I could deal with that all night, too. But I'd like to get an answer whether or not they can do that in fairness to her, because her name is down there as being mentioned and it's not like we're picking an unknown. She is being voted on in a public meeting with her name up there, and you get direct implications, whether positive or negative. And if you're singling out a person and they're going to take on the responsibility to be in charge, then if you're not going to talk about money, then you ought to automatically leave her in charge of where she is if you're not going to give her anything else. Now, she may not say that to you; I'm going to say it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think the other side of that, too, if we put Ms. Williams in this position, are we going to preclude her from all this advertising we're going to do and all this proposals we're going out for? I think we're putting her in a terrible position if she's not going to be able to apply if she wanted to. She may not want to, but I think if we do this today and not having thought through some of these things, we may find ourselves in a position like we're already in with this same identical thing. And I think it's premature to do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: All department heads are abolished effective March 31st; isn't that correct? That's what the law says? So that would put her, I would think, in the same level playing field as everybody else. Mr. Meyer, did you want to say something? MR. MEYER: I think I have a question for the County Attorney. Having a department that interfaces quite often with the Internal Audit Department, a lot of our county code sections states that the internal auditor has authority to do certain things, and this is interacting with private business, and he does have the authority to go in private businesses and do a lot of things. A lot of these code sections affect my department, and I reckon my position. My question to Mr. Wall is, if we don't have an internal auditor per se -- MR. WALL: You still have an Internal Audit Department, and as -- I mean, whether you have -- MR. MEYER: So you think that -- MR. WALL: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Do y'all need Mr. Bridges' motion read? Do y'all know what we're voting on? CLERK: It was to approve the appointment of Ms. Kathy Williams. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, to approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee. CLERK: From the Finance, as acting internal auditor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be for the County Attorney. If we appoint the individual as acting internal auditor, where do this individual stand as far as the personnel procedures, et cetera? In acting, do they come out from under Personnel and work directly for the Mayor and Commission, or we are doing this to keep them where they're at? I think that we have a lot of unanswered questions, and perhaps that if we're dealing with Personnel matters, that we probably should have dealt with it in a different manner versus out here. There's a lot of questions I have, and I can go either way on it, but some concerns. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION TIES 4-4-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we just have a no vote. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I guess that she stays where -- let's go on with the next item then, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: Item 33 through 36 were approved by the Public Safety Committee in meeting February 27, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these were approved, and unless someone wants to pull out one I recommend approval for 33, 34, 35, and 36. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second it, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't want to pull out one, but I do have some concerns about how the weapons is going to be dealt with as far as the Sheriff's Department go, and maybe someone can explain the plan as far as allowing deputies to purchase the weapons. And if that could be answered, then certainly -- MR. WALL: The proposal was made at the committee meeting, and the request was made to have the weapons appraised by a third party, and then before they were sold to the general public, so to speak, that the officers who had worked with that weapon be given the first opportunity to purchase that weapon at its appraised value. And I was asked to look at that. Essentially, the Georgia code allows items that have a value less than $500 -- and I understand these pistols would have a value of less than $500 -- can be sold on the open market. I see no problem with their being first offered to the officers involved after they have been appraised. Those weapons that are not purchased would then be auctioned, and the first process is to declare them surplus, which is part of this action in the committee. MR. TODD: In this transaction, are you bringing in a licensed arms dealer to take care of the whole transaction or are you making any provisions there? I would have some concerns, too, over ATF and federal regulations, and I think that -- I'd like to amend the motion that we bring in a licensed arms dealer to handle the whole process, the option, et cetera. I don't want to get in the business of selling weapons and have it to come back on me as far as the ATF go. MR. WALL: Well, it was pointed out that only licensed dealers would be able to bid on the -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's pull that one off, if the maker of the motion would allow, and deal with it separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, do you want to pull it off or leave it on? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I have no problem, but I can answer his question. That was answered at that particular time, that it would be a licensed person. Now, if there's further discussion, that's fine. MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor, there's no further discussion as long as I have the understanding that it's a licensed person that's taking care of the weapons -- the transaction on the weapons that the officers is receiving a option to buy and the public is buying. I'd like to include that as an amendment to 35, and I'm ready for the question. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I have no problem with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 33: Consider approval of the appointment of Mr. Bill Foster, NutraSweet Company, to a three-year term on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Joe Rytlewski, Olin Corporation. Item 34: Consider acceptance of the "Local Emergency Planning Committee" (LEPC) Annual Report for 1995. Item 35: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Sheriff to dispose of surplus guns, subject to the review of the Interim Attorney and the appraisal of the guns by a third party in order to determine the fair market value, and that the whole process of the sale of the weapons be handled by a licensed arms dealer. Item 36: Consider approval of an Ordinance prohibiting parking in certain specified areas and designated areas; to provide for summons to be issued by the Richmond County Sheriff's Department for violations; to provide for amounts for violation bond; to provide for enforcement; to provide penalties; to provide an effective date; to provide for repeal for all other Ordinances in conflict herewith; and for other purposes.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: 37 through 40, with the exception of 38, was approved by the Public Services Committee February 27, 1996. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, those items under Public Services as so noted, with the exception of 38, were approved by the committee at that time, and I move for approval of those that were voted on, with the exception of 38 if they want to take that one separate. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question on 39. In fact, maybe the Attorney could answer it for me. I just wondered what's the -- what are we doing here, are we combining the city and the former county and basically no changes, or? MR. WALL: Number 39? MR. BRIDGES: Number 39, yeah. MR. WALL: No, that is creating a new form of license. Currently there are no brewpubs in Augusta-Richmond County. This is creating -- MR. BRIDGES: Right. I read the material, I just wasn't certain as to what changes. So this is entirely new to anything previous? MR. WALL: It is entirely new. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I have no objection. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is to the County Attorney. Is this the first reading as far as -- MR. WALL: This is the first reading. It was discussed at the committee. The request was made by a businessman who is planning to apply for a business pub license -- or a brewpub license. He does have someone coming in from Canada on Monday of next week. Part of the contract is for the equipment to be tested. He has to have a local license before he can get a state license, and -- MR. BAKER: Excuse me, Mr. Wall. I'm sorry. I'm Terry Baker with the King George. The guy from Canada is already here. That's Monday this week. MR. WALL: Okay. I misunderstood then; I thought it was the 11th. So there was a request made that a second reading be waived, but the committee did not approve that, and so this would be the first reading. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. POWELL: My question is for the County Attorney also on Number 39. Is this also going to take into effect you can get a license for liquor still? MR. WALL: No, sir. Not yet. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this is for the County Attorney also. This section does require you to have the proper federal license to brew, does it not? MR. WALL: Yes. He would have to get both a federal license and a state license to operate a brewery. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 37: Consider approval of contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and Cristi Joiner Cole, Angela Collier, Jacqueline Lewis, Justin Meredith and Hope Joyner regarding their participation as officiants in sporting events sponsored by the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department. Item 39: Consider approval of an Amendment to a Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta regulating the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages within Augusta-Richmond County; to provide for the operation of Brewpubs and Breweries under certain conditions; to establish license fees for Brewpubs and Breweries; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. Item 40: Consider approval of an amendment to the agreement with Precision Planning, Inc. regarding the addition of an enclosed pool building at the Belle Terrace Recreation Center.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. WALL: Item 38: Consider approval of an Amendment to a Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta regulating the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages within Augusta-Richmond County; to repeal conflicting provisions of the Joint Ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County and the City Council of Augusta providing, inter alia, for the license and the regulation of sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I may address this. The committee requested that I meet with representatives of the Visitors Bureau as well as certain businesses that were affected by the single-event ordinance. We did in fact meet this morning, representatives from the Sheriff's Department, representative from the License and Inspections Department, including Stewart Walker. And, in essence, the ordinance that you have in your book was agreed upon, with the exception that the paragraph setting $25 per day per location for nonprofit organizations and $50 for other organizations was amended just to put $25 per day per location across the board, which would apply to both nonprofits as well as businesses. And with that -- and I have revised that ordinance, and at this point it's recommended for approval. This is the first reading of the ordinance. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 41 is to consider the settlement of the GEICO subrogation claim arising out of an automobile accident. Mr. Wall. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is one that I had previously discussed with members of the Commission. It's a $18,000 property damage claim that we have requested permission to settle for, for $13,000. Both drivers, including the county driver, were charged in the accident. And this is a subrogation claim, and I recommend approval of settlement for $13,000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We had a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The Interim Attorney has requested that Item 42 and 43 be considered together: Consider approval of Maintenance Agreement with Southern Bell for 911 equipment. Consider approval of the Master Lease Purchase Agreement with BSFS Equipment Leasing for 911 equipment. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor -- I'll yield for the County Attorney. MR. WALL: This is the equipment to go into the new 911 center. It would be paid for with 911 funds. I've spoken to Mr. McKie, who has supported the idea of the lease arrangement. You have a listing of the equipment there, and I recommend approval so that the equipment can be ordered and we can move forward with plans to move in. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 44: Communication from the Interim Attorney regarding Richmond County's conveying its remainder interest in the Lawton B. Evans School property to the Richmond County Board of Education. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, I've got two former City Councilmen contacted me about this. MR. WALL: Do you want to pull it off? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, I think we need to. MR. WALL: That's fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can we do that? Or either we can -- MR. HANDY: I think it's going to be defeated anyway, so that's good. MAYOR SCONYERS AND MR. WALL CONFER. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table this item. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke that we table that. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 45: Communication from the Consolidation Project Manager. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it's a pleasure to be before you tonight for the first time in terms of my engagement here to assist you in developing a new organizational structure for the new government. I wanted to come before you this evening and share with you some initial observations. As you know, tonight marks the 60th day that I have been in Augusta- Richmond, and I have spent a considerable amount of time with representatives from various departments of the new government and with members of the Commission. As the agenda indicates, I'd like to begin my presentation by sharing some observations with you and to proceed through the other items that are on the agenda as quickly as we can, but I will indicate to you that this will require some time. Let me begin by sharing a story with you that some of you have heard because I shared it with a group that I spoke to a few evenings ago. I think it was a Pride and Progress meeting. What we are about here is a formidable task. It is one which brings to mind a story about a small town in New England that was in the process of recognizing the fact that it had to build a new city hall. Their old city hall had just failed to meet their current needs. And being very conservative and a time that was very concerned about the dollars and very concerned about doing things properly, as a lot of New England towns are, the governing body decided that it would consider a resolution which set forth its plans regarding the new town hall. And after great deliberation, they prepared a resolution and presented it for consideration, and the resolution read as follows: Resolve that we build a new town hall. Resolve that in order to save money we use materials from the old town hall to help construct the new town hall. And the third resolve was: Resolve that we continue to use the old town hall until the new town hall is complete. I think you can appreciate the dilemma that they find themselves in. And to some degree, what you are attempting to do, to operate a rather large local government while at the same time you are constructing a new local government, is a formidable task. I share that with you because I think it's indicative of the situation that you currently find yourself in. I'd like to share with you some observations about the last 60 days, which I have summarized on these boards. And I apologize for those of you who may not be able to see it. There's really not a good location in this room where everybody can see what is presented. I'd like to begin by sharing some observations of mine concerning the community and the citizens. And I have had a chance to meet with and speak with a number of citizens in your community. There is a expectation of increased competency and efficiency in government, which is a major feeling currently in the community and a major expectation for this new government. I think the community also expects leadership from this new government in community development, in economic development, and in resolving a number of community issues. I have sensed in my movement around the community that there are some distinct geographic regions of this county. In fact, it is overwhelming how significantly different different parts of the county are. I think those distinct geographical areas have also distinctly different priorities and needs. In South Richmond there are strong needs for new infrastructure, for new development, and a desire for that, but there's also concern about the quality of that development and the type of development that is taking place. In the former City of Augusta and in East Augusta there are great needs for neighborhood rehabilitation; there is great need for reconstruction and redevelopment of neighborhoods and community. In West Augusta you have a rapidly developing suburban area that has a perspective and a sense of need which is broader and which contains some of needs that are similar to other areas but also includes some differences. But I think it's going to be incumbent upon the new government to recognize those differences and to develop a comprehensive strategy that recognizes the different needs of each section of the community. I think the public has a desire to be involved in identifying and prioritizing governmental services. The creation of a new government is a rare opportunity, and the citizens have a great interest in participating and giving their input in how that government is going to focus its resources. I think also as an observation, I would observe that while there is a great deal of information in the electronic and printed media about government, in fact, the citizens receive very little regular communication directly from government on local government services, activities, issues, and projects. What they receive is what the news media presents. As we all know, sometimes that is accurate; sometimes that is incomplete. I think your citizens need and deserve more regular communication than they are getting from government. Let me move from the citizens to the organization. As you know, I've spent the last 60 or so days meeting with about 50 different individual departments and agencies. I asked each of them to prepare a brief summary of what their needs are and what their perspective on consolidation is. It fills this notebook. I believe in the retreat a number of you indicated a desire to have copies of those. We will certainly reproduce it. We might not want to go to the expense of reproducing it for everybody, but it will be available; and if you would like individually copies, we can certainly do that. But I just wanted to give you an idea of the magnitude of the information which is out there within the organization about its needs and about its perspective. The organization and the employees are characterized currently by a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety. There are a lot of people within your organization who are not clear in terms of its direction and its future and what its values are, and that's one of the reasons that I applaud the Commission for the initiative you have taken in developing a mission statement. I think that will be a very important communications tool in communicating what your values and what your directions are for the entire organization. But right now there's a fair amount of uncertainty and anxiety. I would observe that, in my opinion, there is an excessive amount of departmentalization. By that I mean there are too many small units that make up this government. There were almost 50 different agencies that I had to visit with in gaining information on various aspects and various services that are provided. I think in an efficient, modern government that number should be reduced at least by half. And there are a number of operations that are so small they are almost incapable of producing the management and the operations skills that are necessary in today's world, so I think we have an excessive number of small operations that need to be consolidated. I also sense the absence of a unifying identity and strategic direction. Admittedly, there has been a fair amount of trauma within the organization in the past several months, but at the same time there is really, in my opinion, not a strong sense of strategic direction unifying the organization. Again, this is an issue that I think can be addressed with the initiative that you have taken in your mission statement, but it will require other efforts as well. I find inadequate internal communications. There is a tremendous amount of speculation about what is going to happen in every sense of the word, but there really has not been clear messages sent out. And there may be good reasons for that, but I think this is a need that needs to be filled. In the absence of good information, what you get is whatever comes up out of people's imagination and out of people's other ways of producing information. I would also have to observe that, at least from what I have heard, there has been a significant amount of political involvement in the management of the organizations historically. Many of you have expressed to me a desire to change that. I think that it is going to take a concentrated effort, and that effort is going to have to be led, in my opinion, by this Commission in terms of its operation and its values. There is also a lot of territorial defensiveness. In my opinion, different parts of the organization seem to exhibit more concern for protecting their own turf than for identifying and pursing in a cooperative way the overall mission of the local government. There are some agencies which feel very isolated, and I'm not talking about just physically, I'm talking about within the structure, I'm talking about within the overall communication system. There is a feeling of isolation on the part of some agencies, and those agencies need to be brought into the mainstream of our operation and its direction. There's also a perception of hesitant and rigid leadership. And by that I mean they're not quite sure what the leadership wants and they have, at times, a feeling that when initiatives come up from below the leadership is less than receptive to those initiatives from below. That is an issue that needs to be addressed. I see a lot of inconsistent resource allocations. I see some agencies that are well resourced; I see some agencies that appear to be starving for resources. And I know that in many ways that may reflect priorities, but I'm not too sure we have yet established our priorities, and that's why I think it's so important for you to be involved in that process. Finally I will say, in regard to the organization and the employees, there is a real desire for clear direction and leadership, and I think the organization looks to the process of restructuring the government as an opportunity to achieve that direction and that leadership. Now, at some risk, I also think that you deserve for me to comment to you about my observations about the Commission itself and how the Commission operates. As you will hear me say in the latter part of my presentation, to be successful we must be a team and that team must involve the employees, the management, and the leadership. And I wanted to give you observations about those elements. I would observe insofar as this governing body is concerned that you have time and resource consuming meetings. While I think tonight probably is more efficient than some of the other meetings I've observed, I would suggest to you that if you continue to consume the resources and time that you consume in many of the meetings that I have observed, that you're going to be exhausted before you get to some of the tough issues that are ahead of you. I think your agendas are longer than they need to be in an organization that delegates responsibility to the management and operating sectors. I believe that you can reduce the length of your agendas and, therefore, the lengths of your meetings. I observe frequent staff contacts below the administrator level, and this is something that concerns me. I think in a well-managed organization the administrator or administrators should have the responsibility and the authority to take care of operating information and they should relieve the elected governing body from the necessity or the perspective that they need to be involved at contacts below the administrator level. There is, I think, more involvement in operating details on the part of the Commission than should be the case in an efficient organization. I point out these activities that are consuming your time because I think it is taking your time and energy away from a number of major community issues. Among those are a coherent economic development strategy for the total community. Strategic planning, setting the direction and the vision for this community for the next decade so that the resources not only of government but of the private and the not-for-profit community can be joined together in achieving that vision. Community development, which I separate from economic development because I see in this community a real need at the neighborhood level for the development of those elements that make quality neighborhoods and quality development, and I see it present in different ways throughout the community. Citizen participation and communication: As elected representatives, the citizens expect and want to hear from you as their district representative or as their community leaders on a regular basis. Consensus building: In today's world of a very diverse democracy, one of the principal jobs of elected leadership is to be constantly building the consensus that's required in order for the community to move forward. Intergovernmental relations: There are a number of agencies, and certainly the consolidation of governments here has eliminated one level of government, but there are extremely important relationships with the State of Georgia, with the jurisdiction across the river in terms of our regional development, with the various quasi-independent agencies that operate important activities here, whether it be the Port Authority or the Convention and Visitors Bureau or the Civic Center Authority, a wide variety of agencies that are intergovernmental and that the relationship requires maintenance and effort on your part. And finally, partnership building, and by that I mean the partnerships with those agencies that are going to be necessary if we are to move forward in a progressive manner. Now, I took the opportunity to focus on what at least my principal assignment is, to help you consolidate the governments, and I took the opportunity to look at what Mr. Webster has to say about what consolidation is and what to consolidate is. I think there are some words here that should be and will be important to us. To consolidate is to join together into one whole; to make firm and secure; to strengthen. A consolidation is a procedure of uniting; the unification of two corporations by the dissolution of existing ones and the creation of a single new corporation. That objective, I think, is what we have to continue to focus on and to continue to keep high in our set of objectives. I mention to you that in order to be successful I think we have to develop a team, and you are the leader of that team, the governing body. It includes your management and it includes your employees. But there is a differentiation, in my opinion, between the functions of those different parts of the leadership team, and I'd like to share with you some thoughts about that. The community leadership function, which is primarily the function of the elected governing body, includes a number of major elements. Number one, it's the procedures and the way you do business. And that takes some time and investment on your part as a group so that you are comfortable with procedures, with proper recording of those procedures, and the way you are going to handle issues. You need also to concentrate on policy development and legislation. And that, you can say, is your nuts and bolts; that's the biggest part of your job. And it is, the task of creating the laws and ordinances of developing the policies that will lead this organization. But you also have a very important function in financial and performance monitoring. Not doing it, not necessarily controlling it on a day-to-day basis, but in evaluating how your staff performs and how your community and, indeed, your body performs are important functions of the elected governing body. Community issue resolution: They come up all the time, and you are at the point of that task of resolving issues. I mentioned economic and community development, intergovernmental relations, community partnership building and maintenance. Community promotion and marketing: I am impressed by the future potential of this community from an industrial and an employment point of view, and from a point of view of attracting visitors, conventions, and tourism. That promotion and marketing is a job which is going to require your attention and your partnership with many other parts of this organization and this community. Strategic planning and investment: Every five years at least, in my opinion, a community and a governing body should go through a process of strategically assessing your strengths and weaknesses, charting your course, evaluating your past performance, and setting your objectives for the future. And I think it's going to be important -- these functions are functions that, in my opinion, the governing body needs to lead in. Another part of that leadership process and that leadership team is the management function. This is primarily the area of responsibility of your chief administrative officers, your department heads, the leadership team which works directly for you and in support of your objectives. Those functions include staff support for the Commission; in other words, making sure that you have the information and resources and recommendations when appropriate to carry out your job. Managing the public services: And as I said, there are far too many of those units now. They need to be consolidated and reduced, but once they are, there's still going to be a major job of running the day-to-day operation and that is management and administration. Budget development and execution: The annual budget is the most important management tool that any organization, particularly a public organization, develops and executes, and that carries with it a major responsibility in the management area. Financial control and resource management: While you need to monitor, the management needs to control and to make sure that those activities which are carried out are carried out according to the policies and within the financial constraints that you have allocated. Management has a major job in employee communications, training, and development. Without competent and frequently retrained employees, you are not going to meet the level of efficiency that I sense you expect and the community desires. Customer service and information: You can say citizen service and information there, too. The regular management of the process of dealing with citizen complaints, citizen suggestions, and citizen recommendations should be an important part of what management does for the governing body. And finally, special projects management is a major part of the management responsibility. I have taken the liberty of putting these functions together in what I call the leadership pyramid. It is a pyramid. The responsibilities of the governing body are at the top of that pyramid, but unless that team involves management leadership and employee service leadership -- and you can see that the broad base of the triangle where 80 percent of the services that are delivered to citizens are actually housed is the base of that triangle. But that pyramid of policy leadership teams in the leadership area, in the management area, and of the employee area must be present and must work well together. The lines separating these three areas are broken. They're broken because there is a overlap here. There is an exchange of information between management and policy direction. There is an exchange and an overlap and a merging of functions between service leadership and management leadership. But basically there are three distinct roles, in my opinion, that in order to be successful we need to concentrate our efforts over the next year in developing and in providing the resources that are necessary. There are a couple of other aspects of my presentation this evening, but I want to stop at this point and just take a moment to see if there are any questions or observations on your part concerning what I have shared with you. I want to emphasize that this represents my observations in a 60-day period. I am sure many of those observations will become clearer over the next several months, but this gives you an indication of at least the way I perceive the needs of the next eight months of my work with you. And I wanted to share that with you, not so much to get an immediate reaction but so you understand where I am coming from and also to give you the opportunity tonight and over the next few days to share with me your reaction to that and any observations you have. I'll stop at this moment and see if there are any comments or questions at this point in time. MR. ZETTERBERG: Bill, you've been here most of the evening. Of the things that we handled this evening, what percentage do you believe that we are handling as a policy and leadership team? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Zetterberg, you ask tough questions, but I would say that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, let me just, now that you put it on the spot, because -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yeah. I would say there probably -- and I was not here for the whole meeting, but I would say that somewhere around 25 percent. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think you're being very generous, Mr. Carstarphen. I think this body deals mainly with day-to-day type of operations that ought to be powered down, and we do not deal with policy, have not dealt with policy since I've been here, and I think we're going to have to be reoriented. The biggest problem we're going to have with changing this government is with this Commission. That's the biggest problem. The employees will change, but unless we're going to change our ways and adopt -- become more of a policy-making board than an operational board, nothing will change. MR. POWELL: Mr. Carstarphen, are you going to make us a -- have us a copy of this available? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, I will do so. MR. POWELL: Can I request mine in a smaller version? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. And that's one of the reasons why -- but we'll have something for you in an 8x10 version within the next day or so. MR. POWELL: Thank you. MR. TODD: Will you have recommendations on how we can better communicate with the citizens? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, I expect to. What I would like to make sure though, Mr. Todd, is that before I start moving down this road, that this is a road that you share my perspective on the need for me to move down and that you believe deserves our attention. And, again, I want to emphasize that I hope you will think through this. I will get copies of all this to each of you, and I urge you to share any thoughts and observations or disagreements that you have, because it is going to take a real team effort and I want to make sure we're heading in the right direction before we start down that road. MR. TODD: May I just say I'm like a kid that is -- you know, that feels I'm not -- I'm short and I'm not growing fast enough and I have anxieties. I think that's the way that I describe myself as far as the transition of this government. And I think there is tremendous anxieties out there from the taxpayers, too, that the expectation is that we would -- the time line would've been shorter and we'd been closer to the end results. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, in all honesty, I must say to you that it appears to me at least that this decision came fairly quickly after a long period of incubation, but it came probably as a surprise to a number of people and there has not been a great deal of pre-planning either within the organization or, in my opinion, within the community. And I don't mean to downplay the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the work that has gone on, but this is a major and significant undertaking and it is going to require some time. And I refer back to that little story I shared with you about the New England town. You are doing two things at once, two very big things, running a very large organization and at the same time attempting to dramatically reshape it and reorganize it. MR. KUHLKE: It seems to me that when we get this information, that it's going to be very difficult to get a consensus on which way we go without having some serious planning meetings with 100 percent participation. Is that your idea, or are you just asking us to give you feedback? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, I think it is going to require some energy by this body, and obviously to the extent that that energy can be unanimous is important. Obviously people have different schedules and requirements, but I think that to the extent that the body can work as a body on these major issues will be important. And I hope that through perhaps better scheduling and better advance notice we can do -- we can help in that regard. MR. BEARD: Mr. Carstarphen, I just think that -- and I don't know if you're in agreement with this, but I notice that the meetings that we had and the support from you and the other facilitators in the last couple of times that we've gotten together, these type meetings and groupings has really made a difference to me personally in trying to get what you are -- what you have implemented there or what you have brought to us. And I think that if we have more of this togetherness as a Council and coming together for retreats as we've done on a couple of occasions, it would enlighten all of us in trying -- I think we're all in agreement of the things that you have shown us and what we should strive for, but the point is coming together so that we can eliminate some of those things that you've talked about, the long agendas and those type things. I think if we could get together more often in retreat areas -- and I think it has done a lot for us as Commissioners, and I would just like to see more of that done, because then I think we can get on the road of producing a very good government for all the people of this county. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that will be important. I probably didn't spend as much time as I should have. I am not sure y'all have -- you as Commissioners -- have sufficient staff support to do that job, and somehow we've got to find, within our existing resources, a way to provide that staff support. And that's something that I think we need to work on. And in addition to that, the regular periodic planning and strategic thinking sessions for this governing body, I agree, are important. MR. ZETTERBERG: Bill, one issue that I had a discussion with a local leader within the community, and that was on economic development. And the question was, what are we not doing now that we could do, and he couldn't answer that. But I don't think that we're organized the way we are to do economic development. What areas would you see that the government ought to be looking at and things that we could do to enhance economic development in our community? I don't think we do any now basically. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, you've obviously had some good success because you have, I think, a very good and diverse economy here. But in order to maintain that, the community is going to have to continue to be successful. I see government's role in economic development as an important partner to the private sector; not necessarily the single leader, but a co-partner or a co- leader with the Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the planning groups that have worked so successfully in center city development here. I don't see that partnership getting the attention, nor do I necessarily see a way for regular input from the elected representatives, and I think that is important because increasingly successful economic development requires a certain amount of public resources. And unless the citizens and the elected governing body have a common vision of what the other partners are working on, getting those resources through the public allocation process is going to be increasingly difficult. I want to emphasize here that these observations are from a short-timer and there may be gaps in my observations, but I would believe that that requires some attention, and I think you need a coherent vision of what you want to achieve in order to give it that attention. MR. ZETTERBERG: What do you need from us now? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, I want to emphasize again that these are my initial observations. What I would like from you is to share with you all this information in a form that you can have at your home and can think through and can make notes on and perhaps disagree with, and then I would ask you to feed back to me as a body or individually your observations. And the important question is, is the direction that this points in a direction that you are comfortable with as a body in terms of identifying the things that we need to focus on in the next eight months in getting answers to, getting clear direction established, and putting in place the resources and the structures that are needed. So my answer simply is feedback. And if you either agree or disagree, I welcome that and I solicit that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think that we could also add ditto for community development as you've talked about with economic development. I have been personally accused by some of my Commissioners for taking communities, but in my opinion, unless you start with the community and spread out, you're not going to be able to do too much. You can't just drop something down in there that don't know what they're doing, but if you start within a community and spread out, I think you begin to bring those people into your ideas or whatever it might be. But I think that combining those with economic development -- and I don't know, you probably have said it already, but when you start talking about management by objectives, what a couple of us have had to do for the last 20 years or so, 30 years in the system and all, it does take a lot of creativity in getting people to want to change those old ideas and the old ways of doing things into trying to get something new. And I think you've done a good job, in my opinion, of trying to facilitate that sort of thing, but I think that it's going to take -- in our minds, when we start looking at this management and we start talking about objectives, how we within our minds are going to have to do some changing also. MR. CARSTARPHEN: And I would agree with you that there are significant needs in this community for neighborhood and community development, just as there are opportunities and needs for economic development, and I think both require the attention of local government. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. That's what I'm saying, yeah. MR. MAYS: Bill, I want to thank you for being fair, being very candid; and I guess probably I get accused of preaching a lot, so if I'm going to preach I want to say thank God for the outsider. And I say that on a friendly basis as far as being an outsider: one who can come into this area, bring us a wealth of professional knowledge; bring us the experience from, I think, areas which have been very progressive but we as -- a lot of us as Southerners can still identify with and identify with that progress; and to be able to not only speak to us openly as this Commission, but to also bring a word from the people that we are supposed to lead in that pyramid, from those that work here as staff as well as this community, in terms of -- particularly from the employees, all of them -- of being able to maybe once have somebody coming in that we listen to or that we have to listen to. And I think that's one of the beauties that consolidation has brought. Because I've been asked the question, what does that top guy do that you all hired? And you mentioned something when you started about us taking somewhat of our own spin and doing things. And I say this in all fairness particularly to daily media, because Sylvia covers a lot of things basically because she's done -- being here and dealing with retreats, but no one person or no one branch of daily media, electronic or paper, can cover everything. Just a casual observance: We've just gone through our meeting tonight; started at 6 o'clock, roughly to 8:15. We talked about, Rob, what we have in terms of the exchange of debate. I don't think you can ever take debate out of the democratic process. I think you're always going to have that. But one thing, I think if you'll look, ladies and gentlemen, that basic program which goes out to all of our citizens, Government in Action, while we are here doing something with our new Project Manager, this on a project basis communicating to us as a leadership group, our camera is gone. That is a part of that program. We'll see all the minutes of the debate, the hashing out, and what we do, but I think maybe in the future when we have another setting like this, it would be worthwhile to expose what we're doing in this manner and this type of dialogue with our general public, because I think that's positive. And whether we agree or whether we disagree, I think those are the things that need to be shown, too. Because in all fairness, Sylvia can't write all of it. They say a picture speaks louder than 1,000 words, and I think Bill has drawn a very clear picture; maybe not in some areas so beautiful, but, you know, the camera takes what it sees of a community. And I want to thank you for, even though you've been here just a short period of time, for being able to come in to work, probably on a challenge, on what this community is embarking upon that may set the tone for consolidated governments across this country in terms of whether we pass or whether we fail. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Todd, did you have a -- MR. TODD: No, sir. MR. CARSTARPHEN: There are some other things on the agenda that I hope will get your attention. I again emphasize that I welcome your comments and observations over the next few days. If you're comfortable, we can move on to Item B, which is a proposed resolution implementing Section 13(F). And I won't take the Clerk's job of reading that item, but I will indicate that the Attorney -- and I see he is absent -- may want to go over that resolution with you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have concerning my observations on it. The objective here is to address the requirement within the legislation creating the new government that the positions of department heads will be abolished on the date of March 30th and to also provide a method for continuing to operate while we go through the process of evaluating and restructuring each element of the government. Jim, I think I put you on the spot to comment or to explain or present as appropriate the resolution. MR. WALL: The consolidation bill, as everyone knows, provides that department head positions -- if I can find it right quick, excuse me -- would be abolished 90 days after the members of the Commission-Council take office, and at that point such departments may be reestablished, reorganized, or consolidated and new job descriptions established, et cetera. Recognizing through the retreat and the timetable that has been established that the reorganization and the reestablishment of the various departments will not be completed by March 31st, through the discussion with Mr. Carstarphen, this resolution is being proposed to meet that objective. That is, to abolish the department head positions as of March the 31st, however, to retain those individuals who are department heads as acting department heads or interim appointees in those same positions that they are holding as of March 31st, and that would continue through December 31st, 1996, or until such time as a consolidation of a department is accomplished and recommendation is made to complete the consolidation effort. And that is the purpose of this resolution. And let me comment, because the question has come up today and I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Carstarphen, but there are some people who are treated as department heads, however, they are employees of independent agencies that would not be affected by this. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The resolution is simply presented for your consideration. If the Commission would like to consider it over a period of time before you would act on it, we will be happy to address any questions that you might raise during that time period. If you have questions now, I'll be happy to address them. I would want to make a couple of points regarding the resolution as it is designed. It essentially puts in process and directs a review of every department, which I understand to be a principal part of my job, and the bringing back of recommendations to you. And it delays the appointment of any permanent department head until that review has been completed and the governing body has approved the proposed new reorganization. MR. WALL: I think one other thing that it will do is to clarify some of the language that was being used in some of the earlier meetings and discussions which said that all department heads had to resign effective March the 31st. And nowhere in here does it indicate that anyone has to resign; it is simply abolishing the position. It does not do anything to the affected individuals. And as the discussion came forward earlier about supervision of a department, who is to give direction to a department, once you abolish the position of a permanent department head, this would create a position of the interim appointee to that so that that department continues to have the direction and the supervision and the leadership that it needs. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to Mr. Carstarphen is, you stated that no permanent department head would be appointed until there is a review and restructure, and I know that in Finance and in Personnel we somewhat consolidated those departments back in December or early January. Is there something happened there yet like the restructuring and review, or why can't we go on and appoint permanent department heads as we consolidate departments? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think clearly you can and clearly you have already initiated action in those two departments, and that is a matter for the Commission, whatever your desire is. I think it would be important to make that clear, but I believe that's a policy matter for the Board to decide. MR. TODD: Yes. I guess my follow-up question, wouldn't it be a nightmare for this Board if we're -- it seems to me that we would -- I guess a statement and a question. Seems to me that we would need to decide the process and the methodology as far as selecting department heads and whether we're going to advertise and take applications and applicants to be considered along with our folks we have in place. I don't want to have the nightmare for December 31st of not doing the things that we needed to do to have the end results. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The next item on the agenda is a memorandum that begins to address that. And I agree that these things need to be done together, that's why these are both on the same agenda. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question, Bill. On Paragraph 2 it says position until December 31st, 1996. Is there something magic about that date? MR. CARSTARPHEN: There's nothing magic. It is my expectation to have completed my work by that date, and as my work is completed and you act on it, you can make those appointments. But my intent was that no later than that date, that I expect that date is a deadline by which all agencies would have been reviewed and you will have had the opportunity to make a decision on a permanent structure and, therefore, to make an appointment. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just for the record, I'd like to just say that I'd like to move that date up to the end of September. I think we could easily accomplish that and I think we could get at the business that you've outlined here, which is equally as important. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. I'd like to make a motion that the date of completion of this not extend past the 30th of September 1996. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Zetterberg, are you saying -- are you making a motion to adopt the resolution with that exception? Is that what we're discussing here, the resolution as printed with the exception of the date? MR. ZETTERBERG: That probably would be a better one, that the motion -- make the motion that this be accepted with a change of the date from 31 December to 30 September. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we already have a motion and a second. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: I'd just like to ask Mr. Carstarphen if that's going to put him in any kind of distress mode or anything to get it done a little earlier. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think we all have our challenges, but I think that is a reasonable expectation and I will do everything possible to meet it. MR. TODD: I guess I will accept the amendment to, you know, adopt the resolution. I thought we were just, you know, dealing with the dates, and it wouldn't make sense to do one and not the other. But certainly I would hope that we can, as we consolidate departments, that we can come back and appoint those permanent department heads and/or advertise and appoint versus having them all to come up at one time and having to make a decision on them. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I would agree with you, sir, and it would be my anticipation that you would use that incremental approach as the studies are completed and you approve the final permanent structures. MR. TODD: Okay. And I guess, Mr. Mayor, I have one question for the County Attorney, is that we're not changing the legislation by the action, we're carrying out the letter of the law about the positions being abolished. And the law don't say we have to -- do the law address the permanency of what we do after that, abolishing them? MR. WALL: Well, I guess it's a little bit like Mr. Carstarphen's story at the beginning. It says you'll abolish all the positions within 90 days, but it doesn't give a timetable of when you have to fill the new ones. So it carries out the intent of that paragraph and, yes, it is following the law. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, did you want to say something? MR. BEARD: Yes. I guess I would just like to follow up on what Commissioner Todd just said a few minutes ago in that I, too, am a little concerned about there are several departments that have already been consolidated, and yet and still those people are still interim or whatever you want to call them at this point, and I would just like to see those that have already been consolidated get some permanent leadership in there so we can move forward. Because I see that, according to the memo, a lot of these people are going to be making decisions, and they are interim people, and I think that -- assisting you, and they are interim people, and I just think that we ought to move forward on that. As we consolidate, we ought to get through with that department and be through with it, period. MR. HANDY: I'd just like to ask Rob, the changing of the date, why would it matter. Because a little while ago he was saying about we're not setting policies and this Commission is not doing certain things since he's been on. But we hired Mr. Carstarphen to come in and help us, he gave a December 31st date based on his experience and what he needs to get things done, and then you cut it short about three months. So I was just curious about what's the difference. I mean, why would you want to go back to September versus December, and where is that going to benefit us? MR. ZETTERBERG: Is that a rhetorical question? MR. HANDY: I'm asking you that question. MR. ZETTERBERG: You want me to answer it? MR. HANDY: Yeah. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just think we need to get on with the business. I think it's a do-able -- I think if we said 1997, we could do it in 1997, too. And if Mr. Carstarphen doesn't see a problem, let's move this train a little faster. That's the only thing I'm trying to do. MR. HANDY: Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but then we should've asked him what date he think he needs to put on there before he put one on there. MR. ZETTERBERG: He already said that he could make 30 September. MR. HANDY: Okay, then my next question -- I got one more -- two parts to this particular question. To Mr. Todd and Mr. Beard, you was talking about go ahead on and go ahead and make these department heads permanent, whoever you have. I thought we're supposed to go out for advertising and that everybody got to apply from outside and the ones in there. So if you go ahead and put somebody in there, you can go ahead and make them department head when you haven't advertised the position to give other people a opportunity. Not saying that they are not going to be the department head, but I thought the purpose of it, to open it up for everybody to bid on it to see who could be department head. MR. BEARD: Mr. Handy, I think that's in his memo there, that as we consolidate -- that was my intention, that as we consolidate we make these people permanent. It doesn't mean that the people who are there are permanent, but we would follow the procedure that he has outlined and that would be the procedure that go on and do this as we consolidate it. It wouldn't mean that we are putting people who are already there in the position or doing interim, they would be finalized, as the procedure's been outlined. MR. HANDY: I don't understand that, but okay. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think the administrative doctor has an excellent bedside manner. He's given us a prescription and gone over some things tonight; and, of course, sometimes patients often question what they're given, and sometimes doctors give in and they agree. And he mentioned consensus building. And I'm going to keep it with the consensus and I'm not going to debate it if that's the way we want to go, with September, of pushing it up. But I would hope that we would be flexible enough inasmuch as we have hired somebody -- and we have been, I think, eloquently, fairly, candidly lectured tonight about as well as we could be in covering a lot of ground -- that we don't turn around and we ask the doctor what you think we ought to do and we turn around and we're the ones who change it. Now, if there was a reason for setting that date, I think professionally and from what he's observed, there must have been a reason and I think we ought to look to it. When we got started on this thing in terms of when the Task Force was created, when it stopped, there was no person brought on board until after we were elected and sworn in. So he didn't really get off to a running start last year, he got off on one when we got here. So I just hope we keep that flexibility so that if we're still scrambling in September, that we won't forget that the good doctor asked us to go until December and that we won't catch amnesia as we used to do in our old ways and go back to them at that particular time. That's all I wanted to say. And I'll agree with the date and I'll go along with the consensus building. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of keeping the train on time for the next station, can we go ahead and hear the presentation before we debate it? MR. HANDY: Amen. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Since we're going to keep the train on, I would like to add one more onto the train, Mr. Carstarphen, and ask: Is there any way to add into this thinking the ideas we just talked about on community development and economic development, or they are down the ladder as far as trying to get something? Because everything that you do, even when we're talking about -- Mr. Todd was talking about tearing the place down. That's economic development to somebody. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Unless I hear instructions from you to the contrary, I expect to bring you recommendations concerning community development and economic development along with all the others I bring you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we table the motion that's on the floor until after we've heard the presentation -- the rest of the presentation. MR. POWELL: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a nondebatable motion, so we'll vote on the substitute motion first. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to table it, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION FAILS. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, now we'll revert back to the original motion. That's Mr. Zetterberg's motion. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. [LATER CHANGED TO 8-2.] MR. CARSTARPHEN: Item 45-C is a memorandum recommending a procedure for the selection and appointment of directors of new consolidated departments. I will briefly review the major elements of the recommended procedure and then ask the Commission to take the action that you feel is appropriate. The procedure includes three basic steps. The recruitment process: The Consolidation Project Manager, with the assistance of the two administrators, will evaluate the adequacy of the potential candidate pool from within current management employees and consult with the Commission as to the decision of whether the recruitment process is to be restricted to current employees or to candidates from outside the organization as well. Following the Commission's decision on that question, the recruitment and nominee evaluation and recommendation process will be managed by the Consolidation Project Manager, the administrators, with the assistance of the Human Resource director. Essentially what I am saying here in the recruitment process is that you need to make a decision on each departmental position whether or not you wish to recruit from the community at large or whether you wish to restrict that recruitment to within the organization. Once you make that decision, we will proceed with the process and, as the other steps indicate, bring back to you candidates for consideration. Are there any questions about the recruitment process? If not, I'll go on to the selection process, and then we can talk about all of it. MR. HANDY: I just have one question, Bill, please, on recruitment. How are you going to recruit the administrators themselves if you include them in selecting the other people? We're going to have to do them first, right, or what? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's why I told you that story; I do think we've got a little chicken-and-egg situation here. But I think the administrators have a knowledge base of the -- certainly the individuals who have been managers within the organization, and I think that knowledge base needs to be considered in the process. When we get to the point of approving a total organizational structure and you make a decision about how you want to manage this overall organization, then if they are candidates they would be excluded obviously and treated as a candidate. But until we get to that point, I think they have valuable input that I think it would be beneficial for me to have as a part of that process. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Carstarphen, the one question I have -- I guess it would come under the recruitment area here -- is, some of the present department heads -- we've discussed educational requirements; and, of course, as you've read in the paper and I'm sure you already knew, some of the department heads do excellent work without the educational requirements that we might -- or you might recommend or that we might come up with. What is your recommendation as to considering the existing department heads that might not meet those standards? Do you recommend some kind of years of service or workability or what? At what point do we consider that? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Let me first say that that is clearly a policy decision that this body needs to make. In my experience, I believe there are extremely competent people who can do jobs well who have not had the benefit, or some might say the liability, of formal education. But that issue is clearly one that has been discussed and one that I think a decision needs to be made on. As I perceive it, it has been suggested by your Citizens Advisory Committee, it has not yet been acted upon by the governing body. In answer to your question, I believe there are alternative ways of evaluating experience that could produce candidates who do not necessarily have college degrees, but I think that's a decision that ultimately this body will have to make. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a motion that we recruit community-wide, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on Mr. Todd's motion, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I may be recognized. I would have a problem with recruiting community-wide possibly in some departments and not in others. I think that open up for possible liabilities, and that's why I made the motion. I think that the folks that's well-qualified that's in county government is going to survive on their own merits and those that have, you know, deficiencies, they're going to fall on their own merits. And I certainly feel that we should advertise for the positions and do it accordingly with proper Personnel procedures and not have those possible liabilities. MR. KUHLKE: I wanted to ask Mr. Carstarphen, you made the comment that you felt like that we've got too many department heads, maybe twice as many as we need. How do you go through this process before you decide how you're going to be structured? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's an excellent question, and that's precisely why the resolution that I asked you to act on prior to says that we will review the departments and recommend a structure to you before you make your permanent department head appointments. I do anticipate at least recommending to you some significant restructuring of the organization. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question, Mr. Mayor. How do we define community? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let me clarify that, being that I made the motion. Community-wide mean the whole -- whatever area we always advertise in. I would say the Augusta Chronicle as being the daily ledger, and the professional magazines that would be relevant to the position that we are trying to fill, and possibly professional organizations. It's not feasible, in my opinion, to advertise in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, et cetera, but I think we can do it the way that we normally do it. MR. CARSTARPHEN: May I comment on that, just by way of explanation? I would recommend to you that the recruitment process be national in scope and that you utilize the appropriate professional organizations and publications. That will include the local community, but it will also include the opportunity to attract candidates who may be interested in coming to this community. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned with -- unless some of the other Commissioners have had the opportunity to view this before I have, and today is the first day that I've seen this presentation, I think we're getting a little preliminary and little bit reckless. Why don't we just receive it as information? And I'd like to make that in a substitute motion, that we receive it as information, review it, and come back with any changes or decisions that we'd like to make. MR. HANDY: I'll second it, Mr. Mayor. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just say that I think this falls right in the lap of policy, and I think this body needs to have some time -- and I'd like to reinforce what J.B. is saying. We need to sit down and really wrestle the policy decision out before we give it into the mechanical process of recruiting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like some discussion period. Maybe I'm going to follow my heart instead of my consensus. On the previous motion I'd like for my vote, since we are going to be doing the studying -- on one hand we voted to go back and to cut a time scale of what the professional is recommending of a three-month quarter period, and we're slowing that down, but then we're slowing down ourselves in terms of what we're going to deal with on this hand. So I want mine changed to my heart's vote. I'm going to go with what he first recommended, in December, so I guess my vote will be no, and I will vote for the substitute motion that's on the floor. I want to be consistent if I'm going to vote on what we're going to do, because we're left- handed and right-handed in here. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Mays on left hand and right hand. I think the citizens of this community wants to see us get on with this program. I don't think we need to delay it. I don't think that we can do any better than some of the professional people that we have in our government. If we can, I'm willing to take them, but I think we need to evaluate that and I think we need to get on with advertising these positions immediately. Our total community expects us to perform and to perform well and soon. They don't want to see delays, and I think we need to get on with this. And I'm going to stay right where I'm at. I voted for the September 30th deadline and I'm willing to go on and vote and advertise now community-wide, wherever community-wide means. I think it means to go out and search in a national search. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to Mr. Brigham, my colleague, we've tried to rush through some decisions since we've started consolidating this government. Our water works and water rates has been one of them. If we would have rushed and adopted the first rates that we had come through without taking a careful study, we'd be $2 million short in revenue in our urban service district. So I think we need to take some time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do you ever look to your left? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd. You done pretty much dominated the whole meeting, let somebody else talk. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to reiterate what Mr. Powell said initially. And this is a policy decision. I think what we should do, rather than say hey, let's go advertise regionally or locally or whatever, maybe we should wait until Mr. Carstarphen comes up and says I have a department here that we're ready to consolidate and we're ready to get a position on, and then we can make our decision at that time what we want to do as far as advertising. I'm afraid what we're going to do tonight is we're going to make some quick decisions and they may come around and bite us in the end later on, so my recommendation would be with the substitute motion to accept this as information, and as we move along, then we'll make the decisions at that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, but I don't think I have anything else to say on this subject. Seems to me that we're trying to protect turf possibly, you know, versus set policy. And this is not the first time this subject has come up; we've talked about it at retreat and we've talked about it at other times. And I would respectfully wish that the Mayor would either go in the order that hands go up, and if we want to set some rules as far as participation or time to speak, et cetera, then we need to go on and set those rules. I respect the Chair; I expect the Chair to respect this Commissioner. And I certainly would appreciate it that if my -- if the stationery that was printed up, that my name be put on it. I think I am at least one of those ten. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, in contrast to my colleague, Mr. Powell, who wants to bring up water rates, I notice we when studied them six months. It is now March. If we wait the six months, we're talking about the 1st of September, and I think we need to get on with the program. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask this: We're stuck on recruiting. Should we go ahead and let Mr. Carstarphen go to Number 2 and Number 3 and then try to make a decision? I'm like Mr. Brigham, we've waited too long. I may be privileged, I don't know, but I've had this thing for about two or three days. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, what would be your recommendation, so we won't waste anybody else's time? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll be happy to do what the Commission desires. MAYOR SCONYERS: Spoken like a true politician. MR. HANDY: Bill, I'll give you an "amen" on that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got a couple of motions floating around on the floor. Do y'all want to dispense with them first or do you want to listen to the rest of Mr. Carstarphen's debate -- I mean, excuse me, presentation? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one comment. I would like to see us delay on this, but I don't mean delay like we did with the rates for two months. I would suggest that the Mayor call a special meeting very, very quickly and we resolve this issue and move on with it. But I think we need to sit around and, face to face, hammer this out to what's in the best interest of the employees and best interest to the public that we are providing support to, not delay it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we need to dispense with these motions on the floor. Do y'all need the motions read, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I do. MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a substitute motion by Mr. Powell. Would you read that, Ms. Bonner, please. CLERK: Mr. Powell's motion was to receive it as information, review it, and come back to the Commission with any changes or suggestions. That was the substitute motion from Mr. Powell. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, please let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: That kills the original motion, so we're back to Mr. Carstarphen. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll be happy to work with the Commission over time to clarify any aspects of this. I won't go into the remaining details of the memorandum, but I'll be happy to discuss it with you. The next portion of the agenda calls for a brief status report on departmental consolidation activity. We would like to start out with the Water and Sewer Utility. And before I make my brief comments and also provide an opportunity for others who have been involved to comment as well, I want to thank a number of people who I think have worked extremely well together to bring us to this point at which we can recommend to you a structure for the new consolidated utility department for Augusta-Richmond County: George McElveen, Max Hicks, Tom Wiedmeier, Alma Stevenson, Linda Beazley, Charles Dillard, John Etheridge, Moses McCauley, and Merrill Wilkie, Butch McKie, Glenn Greenway; as well as, I might add, the members of this Commission for your action tonight approving the new water rates. I'd like to take just a moment and share with you the organizational structure. I believe that Mr. McCauley or Mr. Greenway has copies of this chart which you can see a little bit better at your position that we're passing out, but I have a large version which I will speak to briefly. As you will recall, you indicated that high priority should be given to Water and Sewer consolidation. We went to work with your staff soon after we arrived in Augusta-Richmond, and through a series of meetings which involved not only the existing departmental managers but also, as I indicated, assistance from the Budget office and from the Human Resources office, we have developed the structure which is before you tonight. I am not going to try to go over it in detail because I think the individuals, Mr. McElveen, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Wiedmeier and Ms. Stevenson, can answer individual questions. But I will indicate to you that the structure includes four major divisions: water treatment; water pollution control; sales, collections and customer service; and construction and maintenance; that the total number of employees--201--is, I believe, seven or eight less employees than the combined departments previously utilized; and that we believe this provides an excellent administrative structure to undertake the physical consolidation of the two utility systems. There are few assets that a government and a community have of greater value in community development and economic development than a good utility system, and I think your priority on moving quickly in this area was well placed. And, again, I would like to thank the managers and administrators who have participated in this process. If there are questions, let me recognize those managers who are present in the audience to address any questions you might have concerning the structure. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm just wondering whether would there be a consensus to go on and approve it. I know that it's new, we've just seen it, I'm looking over it, and certainly if we're cutting seven individuals less that we can transfer somewhere else, I think that we need to look at a timetable if we're not going to do it tonight on going on and approving the structure. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, are we prepared to do this tonight? MR. CARSTARPHEN: We would welcome a decision this evening. We recognize, however, that this is your first time in reviewing it. I think the departmental managers are anxious to proceed, and we would welcome a decision tonight. MR. TODD: I'm going to so move that we approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. I would like to hear from Mr. McElveen and Mr. Hicks before we vote on it, just to see if they -- do you buy in on this? MR. HICKS: As General Superintendent of the former City Water Works operations, yes. We worked very closely together, George and Tom and I, with Alma, in coming up with a good bit of this chart prior to Mr. Carstarphen and Mr. Dillard and Ms. Beazley and others coming into the picture to help us hammer out the final details. But, yes, we do. Now, one thing I did want to point out, the 201 employees are live bodies now in position. There are nine vacancies that are not included. The total allocation is 210, and what Mr. Carstarphen had pointed out was that if we could consolidate and set up the crews that we needed and not increase the total allocation, then that would be great. You know, I had started out by asking for eight folks. As it turns out -- I think one of Mr. Todd's requirements was that we look into vacancies and could we fill those vacancies instead of asking for additional allocations. Yes, we can. With a total of 210 employees, which is the allocated number, then we can fill the crews out. Because you'll notice that under the construction and maintenance crews there are several of those crews -- one of them has zero, the other one has one person. And so we need to fill out those crews, and that's where the eight came from originally. But, yes, we do wholeheartedly sign off on it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm confused. Bill, did you say that we reorganized this, put it together, and we're going to use less people? MR. CARSTARPHEN: It's my information -- and I'll ask John Etheridge to comment on this. It's my understanding that the total number of positions in the proposed new department is either seven or eight less than existed in the previous three operations prior to the downsizing that the City of Augusta went through. MR. BEARD: And they would not have to be filled? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. And I apologize for the confusion in terms of Max's comments and my initial comments. I thought the 201 represented approved positions; it actually represents current employees on board. The actual total number would be 210. That number is seven or eight less than the original allocation, as I understand it. MR. HICKS: That's a correct statement, that it is less. Because if you were to add the departments prior to the downsizing it would have been at least seven or eight more, if not more than that more. So we are doing an equal or better job with less folks; we truly will be. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this the ideal organization, Max? MR. HICKS: Yes, as best we could come up with. And then the organization, as reviewed by the two administrators and the consolidation manager, yes, it is. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm not sure I asked that question right. Is it the ideal? Being king for a day and delivering water services in the city, what would you do? MR. HICKS: This. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this it? Is that right? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm happy then. MR. McELVEEN: I might just make a quick comment. Yes, sir, we think with this organization that we can operate county-wide and give the people better service than what they're getting. In fact, we've already done that by utilizing some of our existing personnel. And it's worked out real well, and I think it's something that you will be proud of once we can get it into full operation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something? MR. POWELL: Yes. In reviewing this thing, I may be overlooking it because my eyes are starting to run together here a little bit, but what is the plan for waste water? I see water and sewer. Is it going to be a separate department all together or how are we -- MR. McELVEEN: Water pollution. MR. POWELL: Water pollution? Okay. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The plan is for a single Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department that would include four divisions. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Carstarphen, I'd like to hear some discussion of why there are two separate branches in sales and collections. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think George and Max can probably best address that. I think part of that recognition is the fact that we anticipate continuing to provide the opportunities for customers to interface with the department at this location and at the suburban location. But I'll ask George and Max, either or both, to comment regarding that. MR. McELVEEN: Commissioner, the branch managers, if you'll notice, is in the sales and collection/customer service area. And as Mr. Carstarphen said, you'll have two particular collection areas, two particular centers where your customers will continue to come, and that way you're going to have senior cashiers, you're going to have senior customer service clerks, the same type operation you're going to have in two locations, and that's where the branch managers came in. Customer services is one of the things that we zeroed in on, and we felt like it was important to set up two branches here to take care of that particular end of it. But only in the area of sales, collections, and customer service. MR. BEARD: Bill, I would like to hear from Ms. Stephenson. She's been in -- what does she think of this? MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Stephenson, you want to come to the mike up there, please? MS. STEPHENSON: Good evening. I think maybe I should have stayed down in the Board of Elections. But I have no problem with the chart as it stands. I think there are some kinks that need to be ironed out in customer service, and because of the fact that we have two separate computer systems right now, it's going to be a thing that we're going to have to work out in the long run, but I think it's important for the senior citizens and the ones in this downtown area to have that service, so I agree that they should have at least two branches. If not, then substations or something like the banks have. So the chart is fine with me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Stephenson. Further comments? Further discussion? MR. POWELL: I just have one more question. I notice you've already got the number of people here in the structure. Have these people pretty well already been picked for these positions or are you utilizing existing positions and just changing names or how are you doing this? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir, we're utilizing existing people. And we don't have names in there at this time because we didn't know what the desire of the Commission would be, but we do have -- we have titles, and then we have agreed among us on names. MR. POWELL: Okay. Well, my question was, I just wanted to make sure that we weren't building a structure around people rather than a structure and then filling it in with people. MR. HICKS: No, sir. But the people are there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve this, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'd like to also report to you that significant progress has been made in merging the two Human Resource -- or Personnel and Human Resource departments, and like to call on John Etheridge briefly to give you a status report on the progress he has made in that area. MR. ETHERIDGE: And I will be brief. I will say this, we're all very excited in the Human Resources Department about what's going on. We see a lot of good things going on. We have a lot of extra work, but we're not going to complain about it, we're just going to go forward. In the situation of the salary disparities, we've been doing the -- studying the Sheriff's Department, and we've already completed a preliminary recommendation that's being reviewed by Sheriff Webster and his staff. The final recommendation should be completed March 15th. We'll present it to the Finance and Administrative Services committees on March 25th, and then come to the full Commission on April 2nd for approval. Other departments: We've done some work in the Fire Department already. I don't think we're far from completing it. When we get through with the Fire Department, we will move into the Water -- or Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department, and then we will work in departments as they are consolidated insofar as the salary disparities are concerned. As far as the benefit package, we've compared and doing evaluations on the existing plans. We are discussing the use of an outside professional benefit consultant on this. We will bring that before the Administrative Services Committee for discussion; and, of course, for the money, of course, we'd have to go back to the Finance Committee. Personnel policy and procedure manual is completed. We've got some kinks to work out this week, but it will be presented to the Administrative Services Committee Monday. General information: We're all physically located together. I feel that all the personalities that we've put together are blending in real well. The process of the Personnel file system, we're in the process and almost completed with that. We're working with each department through the process of consolidation. We've revised and improved our Health Central Wellness Program that's available to both the urban and suburban, and we've revised and put together our Employee Assistance Program. In the Risk Management area, the safety manual has been revised and approved. We're currently training safety sensitive departments on substance abuse. The workers' comp panel of physicians has been consolidated. We're currently working on the bid specifications for the workers' comp TPA so that it can be bid out. And we've also put together -- a vehicle policy has been written, and it will be presented to the Administrative Services Committee. Because we felt that it needed revising and needed a lot of work done to it, so we have done that. And, quite honestly, my brain is kind of dead right now, and -- from today, I'm kind of tired, but all I can say is we are making a lot of progress, we're getting a lot of support from each department, we want to work with each department, and we're available to help in any way that we may. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The next two subjects, Purchasing and Licenses and Inspections, the consolidation process is underway in both; has not been completed. Just very briefly would like to indicate to you that the decision has been made to consolidate the former city Purchasing function into the former county Purchasing function at that location in the building, and we do expect some positions to be relocated as a result of that. We expect to proceed on that basis within the next few weeks. In Licenses and Inspections, as the Commission, I think, is aware, the decision has been made; and, in fact, the Licensing function formerly located in this building has been consolidated into the former county facility and the staff is working very well together. We are proceeding with that process and will bring back to you other reports. In the area of Finance and Comptroller, I'd like to call on the Comptroller to make a brief report to you on the Financial consolidation that has been achieved. MR. McKIE: Thank you, Bill. Gentlemen, our focus in these first few months of consolidation has been on a two-pronged path. One, to wrap up the activities of both old governments. That included restructuring of the 1995 city budget which was passed by Council in its last meeting in 1995 and beginning the consolidating and consolidation budget process for 1996. Both of those have been done, and the technical side of the budget has been passed by yourselves. The management information segment of it is nearing completion. That includes departmental goals, objectives, and some capital financial information in each department. That will be complete shortly and we would anticipate publishing of the total package by April the 1st, or perhaps April the 2nd would be a better day. That budget will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association Standards Committee for review, and it has been constructed with those standards in mind. In terms of financial data reporting and processing of records, we plan to continue using both the old county and city systems for the remainder of the year. This will be necessary because it will take approximately six months to complete the audits of both systems. And we frankly don't think that we could jump to another new system in the last seven months, nor would it be prudent, so our plans are to continue on a parallel path for the rest of this year. However, we will be using the city's 4.0 software system to consolidate and give you consolidated reports beginning March 31st. Our plans for that go no farther than the end of this year. And to accomplish that, a new chart of accounts is being prepared so that we can merge the information of the two governments and prepare for whatever future direction we may take in terms of a software solution or a computer solution. So we are undergoing our basic conversions now, or data conversion, and we will not have to fear that in the future. We anticipate that that will be completed by the middle of March so that we may bring you consolidated statements within 10 working days of the end of the first quarter, and that will be our goal in each preceding month. In terms of physical consolidation, we have not moved yet. We've been waiting on the movements of some other departments and work to be finished in those displaced departments so we can move. At this time we anticipate that Finance will remain basically in its current quarters on the second floor, while Accounting functions, both old city and old county, will occupy the offices formerly occupied by the city Business and Licenses on the first floor. As soon as the work is done in those displaced departments, then we will move along with ours, and we expect that would occur very shortly. Other projects in which we have been involved are the requirements to disclose all the debt and details, which we've done for you last week and then further details this week. We prepared an RFP and subsequent bids for consolidated Shop maintenance. Those bids are in. We had five parties to come to the pre-bid and request RFP information. All questions were taken at that time. All interested parties were taken on a tour of the facilities, and subsequently two of those parties bid -- made a bid on the proposal. Those bids are being evaluated and will be presented to Finance Committee next week with a recommendation. Other projects, the water rates, and we're also involved in an analysis of restructuring of our debt system, which we had mentioned briefly before. The goal there is to not only accomplish financial savings through consolidation or defeasing of high interest rate debt, but it's also to accommodate the requirements of the consolidation bill so that this government can move forward and be on a timetable with Mr. Carstarphen's efforts and truly have a consolidated government by the end of the year and by the time that we have made all the other decisions. We expect to bring you some information on that within a very short period of time to further discuss it. And if you will, when we are discussing these debt issues, the charts that we gave out tonight will give you detailed information on each of those issues, and I think you will find that information quite useful when we're discussing what will be consolidated and some of the new capital that will need to be generated. Additionally, if the Council-Commission chooses to pursue, public building capital may be added to that. As you know, we do have some plans in the sales tax, special purpose, for the next five years to acquire public buildings. And there has been some discussion recently on that, so while we are doing this debt issue, if you desire, we can add that to it to accommodate your wishes. Other goals for the immediate future besides completing our consolidation efforts and those projects which we have begun, we have been working very briefly on initiating a commodity numbering system for all government purchases in the consolidated government. We will be waiting until Purchasing does its consolidation to continue with that, but the goal in that area is to give us the ability to establish a supply catalog, possible central warehousing, and make purchasing decisions based on economic order quantities, buying sufficient quantities to achieve the minimum cost. To do that we'll have to have a standardized system, asystematic system of identification of those commodities, and that's the purpose of our pursuing that. It will be on the same order as is used nationally by the National Purchasing Association, so that will give us the ability to possibly communicate with other governments in this area to further centralize or consolidate our efforts in Purchasing. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McKie. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final two items that we would like to report to you on fall in that category of moving us forward to the creation of a single, unified organization. I'd like to commend and thank the staff members that you have heard from the five departments that reported to you this evening on their consolidation efforts. I think the attitude has been healthy, it's been cooperative, and I believe with a continuation of that approach we can make substantial progress. There is, however, an item which I think we're at a point now at which we can address. As you know, when the new government came into existence you appointed the existing administrators to administrative positions that reflected the old organizations. The fact is that you appointed an Urban Services Administrator that was largely responsible -- is largely responsible for what was the former City of Augusta organization and a Suburban Services Administrator who is largely responsible for what was the former Richmond County organization plus those departments that had been consolidated. I have meeting regularly with Ms. Beazley and Mr. Dillard. We have been, I think, making good progress in exploring some of the issues that need to be dealt with. One of those issues, we think, is the timely elimination of that carry-over division between the former City of Augusta and the former County of Richmond, and we believe that by reassigning responsibilities between the two administrators that discourages that past identity would be an interim step in the direction of creating a single organization. We believe that we are at a point in time at which that can be done. We would like to suggest to you that that be done prior to April 1. We would like to present to you an organization chart tonight which represents our best thinking as to how the responsibilities could be reassigned between the two administrators on something other than an urban/suburban split. I have a chart. We will make small versions of it for you and circulate it. Tonight's presentation is for discussion, and I want to emphasize that there still may be adjustments between the two areas of responsibility, but I would like to speak to you briefly about it. What we are suggesting is a division of the responsibilities on roughly an Administration and Operations basis, with the assignment of one of the interim administrators to be responsible for the management of the basic Administrative functions, and they are listed in this box, and the other administrator to be responsible for and have the authority to manage the basic Operations functions. We have outlined those here. We also are recognizing the position of the Consolidation Project Manager in working with the two administrators and, of course, the position of constitutional and elected officials, and the individuals reporting directly to the Commission: the Attorney, the Clerk of Commission, the Internal Auditor, and the Municipal Courts. But we do believe that the Administrative functions of Finance, Comptroller, Purchasing, MIS/GIS, we've talked about Central Shops a little bit today and we may move that back over here, but Community and Economic Development, Records Retention, Community Services, Animal Control, Landfill, Human Resources, Central Services, Planning and Zoning, Human Relations, Emergency Management, Recreation and Parks, Elections, Tax Assessor, and License and Inspections -- and all those are not pure Administrative functions, but most of the Administrative functions are here, and there a few others that are grouped into that group. On the other side, we believe that the Operations functions of the newly approved Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department, the Water and Sewer function, the Public Works function, the Richmond County Correctional Institute, the Trees, Parks & Cemeteries, Transit, Golf Course, Streets and Drainage, Street Lighting, Engineering, Roads and Bridges, Airport, Fire, Canal and Levee, Electrical, Traffic Engineering, and Sanitation fall logically in an area of Operations. I would like to share this chart with you. It does represent the thinking of the two administrators and myself, but I would hope that the Commission could give consideration to this and perhaps as early as March 19th, your next meeting, act on it so we could put it into effect April 1, which would be the beginning of the quarter. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Carstarphen, is this a recommendation to be temporary until we get a full-time permanent administrator? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, sir. This is an interim organization. It is suggested to be interim pending the development of our final organization for the overall government. MR. BRIDGES: And at that time when we get a permanent administrator, all that would come under that one? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: And those two positions would be gone? MR. CARSTARPHEN: This is an interim step and it is not the permanent organization. MR. POWELL: How does this overlay with the committees? Do we have the committees pretty well in step with this, other than the Landfill, I guess? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Your committees are essentially the way the Commission has chosen to make its decisions. I would anticipate speaking with you more about that. There's nothing about this organization chart that would require you to change that method of operation. I think there are some areas based on some comments I made earlier that I would like to talk to you about, but at this point in time we're not recommending any change in the committee structure. This is the responsibility areas of the administrators. Right now you have this division, but it's based an urban and a suburban responsibility. We think it's time to move beyond that and to move more towards a single organization, and this is an interim step in that direction. MR. TODD: Do I understand you to be saying that we would possibly act on it at the next meeting but it would be implemented April the 1st? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is my proposal, that you consider it on the 19th and that we would like to make it effective as early as April 1, which would be the beginning of the second quarter. MR. TODD: And, also, those positions would be acting? MR. CARSTARPHEN: They are interim appointments. MR. TODD: Okay. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final thing I would like to do is share with you something that some of you -- in fact, most of you, I think, have already had some exposure to. I indicated to you in my earlier comments that I think there is a real need for a unifying identity for the new organization, and over the past several weeks we have worked to present what we call a service mark or a logo. This is something similar to a trademark in private business. A service mark is an identity that, as a governmental organizational, would be registered and would be exclusively the possession of this organization. And if I can get a little help from Mr. Dillard -- hand me that -- I'd like to share with you for the first time publicly what we are suggesting to you as the new logo or identification or service mark for Augusta-Richmond Consolidated Government. The presentations here, one in black and white and two using green and blue, are simply indications of how this might be used on equipment, on business cards, on stationery, but uniformly throughout the new organization to identify whether it be the Utilities Department or the Streets Department as a division of Augusta-Richmond Consolidated Government. And we present this to you tonight publicly for your consideration and, again, hope that perhaps as early as your next meeting you might be able to act on it so we could begin utilizing it. I'd like to thank you for your attention and apologize for the time that it has taken, but I believe that progress is being made and we certainly want to keep you completely apprised of that progress, and we appreciate the opportunity for having done so tonight. Thank you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we receive Mr. Carstarphen's presentation as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is there a second to Mr. Powell's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who seconded that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend Mr. Carstarphen on, I think, a very good job, a lot of hard work, and a lot of information shared with us. And I think that he's got to be a little -- be happy, anyway, with the cooperation he's gotten from the employees and from the Commission. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I am. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Bill, I'd like to say, whether it mean anything or not, that I'm satisfied with your first 60 days, and so I approve the next 60 days already. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we've got a couple more items, don't we? CLERK: Yeah. We have approval of the minutes -- the Augusta-Richmond County minutes for the meetings February 20th and 26th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is a request for permission from the Water and Sewerage Department to accept emergency bids for a sewer replacement and road repairs on Highway 25 at Butler Creek. DOT has requested that corrective action be taken as soon as possible, and the estimated cost of doing this work, including engineering, is $125,000. MR. McELVEEN: Gentlemen, this is a serious problem out on Highway 25 right at the Butler Creek Bridge, and there's really no other way to do it except the way we are proposing to do it. We've got to get in there first and run a new line and then grout the old line that's in there, which apparently is causing the road settling. There's no other way to do it; we've approached it every way we could. We just ask permission that we be allowed to go ahead and take emergency bids. We've already contacted four contractors, hopefully to contact two more in the morning. I think we'll get a minimum of four bids and possibly six on this particular project. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, has funding been identified? MAYOR SCONYERS: Has the funding been identified, Mr. Mac? MR. McELVEEN: Funding would have to come out of contingencies, Mr. Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Out of contingencies for the overall government or for the Water Department? MR. MCELVEEN: Water and Sewer. We don't use any monies through any other part -- any other part of the county government. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I just wanted to make sure. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will the maker of the motion accept an amendment, or is it understood that Mr. McElveen will proceed once he get his emergency bids? I wouldn't want us to go for emergency bids, then have to bring it back here to do the work. That he would take the lower bid and proceed? MR. McELVEEN: That's the normal procedure, Mr. Todd, that we do it this way once we get approval from this board. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That we adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a nondebatable motion. This meeting is adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:57 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council held on March 5, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 180. I further certify that I am not a party to, related to, nor interested in the event or outcome of such proceedings. Witness my hand and official seal this 12th day of January 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER