Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 7, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 7, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Interim Attorney; and Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We'll have the Invocation by the Reverend Max Hicks, Pastor of the First Primitive Baptist Church, then if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REVEREND HICKS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council. We have consideration for approval of a request for retirement from Benny R. Pennington; to receive a presentation by Mr. Don Bray of the University Hospital; on Item 38, we have a request to change from Change Order 1 to Change Order 2. We have five condemnation requests for the Rae's Creek Channel Project, Phase II: Parcel 39, George Harrison; Parcel 55, Earl W. Lewis; Parcel 52, James E. Davis, Jr.; 23.2 acres, George S. Harrison; 2.5 acres, George S. Harrison and Westside Associates, Inc. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: Move that we approve these items to add to the agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, in the sense that we had two weeks to get items on the agenda versus one week and maybe a few days or whatever, why wasn't they able to get those items on the agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Insofar as the condemnations are concerned, they were either brought to my office Friday afternoon or Monday morning and I am not sure which because I didn't see them Friday afternoon, but they were promised at that time. This is an effort to expedite the Rae's Creek right-of-way acquisition. These are all the parcels that will remain, and it's just simply an effort to meet the time schedule that was outlined to the Commission- Council here about two weeks ago. MAYOR SCONYERS: The item from University Hospital, that was my fault. I overlooked it on the desk. MR. TODD: May I have a reading of the items again, Mr. Mayor, in the sense that I don't have an addendum in front of me? CLERK: Item 1 is to consider approval for retirement for Benny R. Pennington. To receive a presentation by Mr. Don Bray, University Hospital. Item 38, change from Change Order 1 to Change Order 2. Five condemnations: Parcel 39, George S. Harrison; Parcel 55, Earl W. Lewis; Parcel 52, James E. Davis, Jr.; 23.2 acres, George S. Harrison; 2.5 acres, George S. Harrison and Westside Associates. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I need some more information on the change orders before I vote to allow them to go on the agenda. I need to know what they're about, the dollar amount, et cetera. CLERK: Mr. Todd, it's on your -- I left a packet on your desk. MR. TODD: Okay, thank you, I have it. MS. BEAZLEY: Actually, Change Order Number 1, Mr. Mayor, was on the agenda in the committee meeting, but there was not a quorum of the committee left to act on Change Order 1. Change Order 2 is for the same company pertaining to pretty much the same thing, Mr. Todd, and has come in from Central Services this morning. And I asked Ms. Bonner if she would add that to the agenda since Change Order 1 was already on there from Mr. Johnson. MR. TODD: I guess my question would be, if this is something that went out for bid, the amendment of this bid, do it significantly change the difference in the low bid and the second lowest bid? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Johnson here? MS. BEAZLEY: No, Mr. Johnson had to go to the doctor this afternoon. MR. WALL: Insofar as Change Order Number 1, and that's the one I'm familiar with, this was additional work that was discovered during the repairs that were being made under the original contract. I'm not familiar with Change Order -- MS. BEAZLEY: It's a $675 change order, if I'm not mistaken, and it was for removing a piece of equipment and putting it back in. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have no further questions. I'll go on and vote on it unanimous consent, but -- and I'll make an exception to my rule as far as not knowing about issues and voting on them before voting to move them to an agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] CLERK: Item 1, Mr. Tom Scanlon, Veterans of the Vietnam War Post 8, reference to donation site for a War Memorial. Is Mr. Scanlon here? We'll go to the next item: Presentation by Mr. Don Bray, University Hospital. MR. BRAY: Mayor Sconyers, Commissioners, I thank you very much for the opportunity to come today and present to you a proposal and a recommendation that we subcontract the management of the county ambulance service to the Rural/Metro Corporation based in Scottsdale, Arizona, for a period of five years. I have with me today a number of people that I'd like to introduce. They will not all be participating in the presentation, but are here to assist in answering questions. Mr. Richard Parks is Chief Operating Officer at University Hospital; Mr. Ed Burr, our Vice-President for Legal Affairs; Mr. Tom Schneider, who was formerly Director of our ambulance service, he retired at the end of last year and has been working with us as a consultant since that time; Mr. Gene Peeples, who is Assistant Director of the ambulance service; Mr. Mark Liebner, who is Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Rural/Metro Corporation; Mr. Derrick Folks, General Manager of the Georgia and South Carolina Rural/Metro; and Mr. Tommy McPherson, Director of Operations for the states of Georgia and South Carolina. University Hospital has been pleased to provide ambulance service in conjunction with the County, under contract with the County, since 1971. We feel that the contractual relationship that we have had with the County has been beneficial to our local government, to the residents of our community, and to the hospital. We trust that you feel that that has been a very good relationship and that we all have achieved the goals that we set out to accomplish when that contract was established in 1971. We want to apprise you today of a significant opportunity, we feel, to enhance our current ambulance service contract. We have an opportunity that will offer savings to Richmond County, operating cost savings, an infusion of capital improvements to the ambulance service at no expense to the County or to University Hospital, and we will be able to provide service enhancements and advancements to the residents of our community. Since 1994 University Hospital has been investigating the merits of subcontracting the management of our ambulance service to one of several national ambulance service companies. A review of this type of outsourcing or subcontracting was done, along with other efforts that we have had underway at the hospital as part of our cost reduction efforts and as part of our efforts to improve our services. Our interest in talking with these companies and meeting with them arose from reports that these companies were able to provide high-quality service at lower operating costs than isolated individual local ambulance services. An arrangement with a national firm would also give our downsized management team more time to concentrate on hospital and healthcare system management. We evaluated the following four firms: The Laidlaw Company based in Canada, that is the largest emergency service operator in Canada; the CareLine Company based in California; American Medical Response headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts; and the Rural/Metro Corporation based in Phoenix, Arizona, which is one of the three largest emergency service organizations in the United States. It became obvious to us as we interviewed and spoke with these companies that Rural/Metro adheres to a philosophy very similar to Richmond County and University Hospital in their approach to the delivery of emergency services. Specifically, they respond to emergency calls regardless of a requester's ability to pay, they are committed to high quality across a broad range of services to community residents, and they engage in human resource practices designed to build strong and healthy relationships with their employees. We would like now to enumerate the significant benefits that a Rural/Metro subcontract would bring to further strengthen our contractual relationships with Richmond County, and to do that I'm going to ask Richard Parks to come up and review those benefits with you at this time. MR. PARKS: Thank you. I know your agenda is heavy today, and while we can't review the contract in depth, I think what I'll present to you this afternoon is some cogent points that you can refer to along with me. And if you would, I'll ask Ed Burr, our Vice-President for Legal Affairs, to pass out a summary. I would just reiterate a couple of points Mr. Bray mentioned. We did take on a national scope in terms of our review of potential management services companies that could run ambulance services and emergency services agreements across the United States. We went through a process of due diligence with each company, and as Mr. Bray mentioned, Rural/Metro certainly seemed to be the company most compatible with what we feel was the quality of service that we provided to the residents of this community. Their ability to respond to emergency calls, as he mentioned, regardless of someone's ability to pay and their human resources practices are consistent with those of the hospital and consistent with those we think you would appreciate in terms of our training of employees, our compensation, employee treatment and retention. So we've seen this and viewed this over time as an extension of our current contract which is annually renewable with the County. It's a management services agreement, in short. It's based on their expertise and economies of scale that they can bring to this type of operation beyond what any other local contractor could, including University Hospital, and I'll speak to that in just a minute. The specifics are that University Hospital would retain the license to run the service, so it would still be in our name, per se. And, again, this would be a management services agreement. We would retain the logo on the ambulance and emergency vehicles, so University Hospital would still have a presence in terms of name recognition. And I think that speaks to the quality of the service -- we hope you feel that way, too -- that Rural/Metro wants to continue the relationship that University Hospital has enjoyed with the community residents in terms of the quality of the service. And I want to assure you that as we went through this process, this service is not going to be managed from Phoenix or Scottsdale, Arizona, it's going to be managed locally, and I'll share with you some safeguards in respect to that issue that will hopefully give you as well as we've had the assurance of running the service locally. But if I could just take a few minutes to run through this handout with you, it'll speak to some of the benefits to the County and residents and University Hospital and some of the safeguards contractually that we put in place to ensure that we continue the quality of the service. I'll just follow down -- you can follow the handout with me. Significant benefits: Number one, let me speak to the subsidy. The subsidy is contractually based at present on the net difference between collections and expense to run the service. Historically, in recent years, that dollar amount has been approximately $700,000 that the County has paid for this service, and I'm pleased to tell you that in our negotiations with Rural/Metro they have agreed to an immediate $100,000 reduction to that subsidy. And as you read there with me, you'll see that in the third year of operation they will eliminate that subsidy altogether, which we feel would bring significant immediate relief to the County as well as, long-term, get you out of the subsidy business with the ambulance service and, again, continue to provide a quality operation. Some may question why can't there be an immediate elimination, and I wanted to speak to that, why couldn't the subsidy be eliminated altogether immediately. And I think you can appreciate, as business people, that any organization has to have time to implement their systems and their operations, set up their operations. There's going to be certain start-up costs that Rural/Metro will incur and, of course, Mr. Liebner can speak to those. It will take time to apply our database of service, also some historical information that they will need, and the technology which they'll bring to bear on the operation. And, again, those types of things take some time to put in place. Just as University Hospital needs the subsidy to provide this service, any local provider would need the subsidy based on the current payer mix of the service unless they increase the rates to transport patients. I'll just quickly speak to how Rural/Metro is able to eliminate the cost of the subsidy over a period of time. Certainly they'll spread the cost of doing business over a larger number of sites because of their national scope. They can bring certain economies of scale that an independent operation such as University can't bring, such as centralized headquarters and vehicle maintenance, since they have a presence already in Jefferson, Barnwell, Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia Counties -- I'm sorry, Richmond County; they also have a presence in Columbia, South Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina. So theirs would be a more regional approach to the business while maintaining local control, and I'll speak to that in just a minute. Certainly with the national scope that they have they would bring to the table national purchasing power in terms of medical and vehicular supply costs. Their capital equipment purchases, their radio supplies and ambulances that they would purchase, since they again buy on a national scale, their expenses there would be significantly lower than an independent operation such as University or any other local contractor, for that matter. They have a significant centralized collections process. They specialize in emergency medical services billing procedures. They also would bring, as I mentioned, technology -- which, again, they have on a national basis -- called a computer-aided dispatch system, which is a vehicle tracking mechanism for each unit that they put on the street, and it ascertains historical data for ambulance placement and provides an even faster response time. So those types of things are something that, again, University Hospital and no other local independent emergency medical response company can achieve singularly or by themselves. Number two, on the next page, is the current contract cost for the County maintenance expense to be paid for all ambulances. That expense in '95 was $92,000, in 1995; and, again, that would be eliminated as a result of this contract. If you're interested, University Hospital currently has 26 vehicles. Those include ambulances and rescue units. The County has four, which I'll speak to in just a minute. Rural/Metro obviously would own the equipment and, therefore, they would pay for the maintenance and that would be an expense that's eliminated. That expense, by the way, is included in the subsidy. The next item, number three, Rural/Metro has already agreed to put $425,000 worth of capital improvements and technology upgrades just in the first year of operation. I think that's a significant contribution that they're willing to make to ensure that the service gets off on the right foot and continue to improve the service as University Hospital has in the past. As you see there, the contribution that we last received, the capital allocation from the County, the last allocation we received from you was in 1989, and that allocation was $40,000. So since 1990 University Hospital has put the entire capital amount into that service to provide the service to county residents, and you see there the total dollar amount that's been expended by University Hospital during the last five years has been $718,588 for ambulances, rescue vehicles, radio equipment, and other capital items. And the benefit to University Hospital here, of course, would be that we would be able to use those capital dollars that we've expended in the past for this type of service for other service enhancements that we can in turn provide to the county residents through improved medical technologies. So that would be of significance to us, that we can use other capital resources to provide for medical technology improvements. Item number four, again, I mentioned that you have some equipment. Currently, according to our records, Richmond County owns two ambulances purchased in 1985 with some 200,000 miles of service for each unit. You also have two rescue vehicles and some minor radio equipment. This item here spells out in the contract that Rural/Metro would be willing to purchase those vehicles at fair market value to be determined by a third party and appraised by a third party. And, of course, again, just as we accrue a benefit there, the County would recoup its capital investment there, too. Number five, the ambulance service rates will not rise during the first year of operation, and I think this is significant, too. Some people would ask, well, what happens when you contract something like this out; what happens to the rate structure? Thereafter, after the first year, University Hospital would be able to provide local oversight to any rate increase request from Rural/Metro, and we would be able to approve those rate increases that -- as long as they're consistent with historical past practices. And just for your information, historically we have increased those rates at approximately five percent. So, again, I think this speaks to the subsidy, that no other local independent ambulance provider could eliminate the subsidy and offer no more than five percent rate increases, and that's what this company is willing to do. Item number six, as far as benefits, is that currently the County is financially and legally responsible for liability exposure for ambulance and vehicle accident claims. And I'm pleased to say that Rural/Metro -- and, again, Mr. Liebner can speak to this --has agreed to put its publicly-traded corporation assets behind this type of exposure. They would offer a $1 million per accident vehicle liability insurance policy and another $20 million excess liability policy, so I think that would be of significance to the County there also. In summary, we think that this provides tremendous leverage to us and to the county residents, as well as the County, to ensure performance standards. We feel like we've negotiated contractually with them as far as a management services agreement for financial service and legal benefits to be seen, again, by the County, the residents, and University Hospital. Lastly, on the last page, some of the safeguards we've enacted, again, with our discussions with Rural/Metro have been that we would have a joint advisory committee to help us manage this operation, as we do now. And what we're talking about here, this speaks to the issue of what I first mentioned in the presentation, that we would still control the service in that it'll be managed locally and not from Scottsdale [sic], Arizona. This joint advisory committee could be composed of representatives from the hospital, including myself as the Chief Operations Officer of the hospital. We would like to include our Medical Director of the Emergency Department, Dr. Richard Eckert; we would also like to include University Hospital's Chairman of our Emergency Department Committee, who is Dr. Dan Duggan this year, a general surgeon. We would also like to have a County representative, perhaps one of the Commissioners or one of your staff. And this would be much akin to what we do with the University Health Services Board, in which Mr. J.B. Powell attends those meetings. And, again, that would provide, we feel, sufficient management oversight of the operations. Again, I think Mr. Bray mentioned that the term of this agreement would be five years, and we've also negotiated some mechanisms for termination of this agreement with 60 days notice to Rural/Metro if the level of service to the community residents is not satisfactory. That's not of concern obviously to us, but we did want that mechanism in place should it have to be invoked. I think the last sentence there summarizes the presentation, and we would perhaps need to discuss the subsidy again from the County because we could not achieve, again, the same economies of scale as a company -- as Rural/Metro in bringing the type of technology and processes to the system that a company of national scope as Rural/Metro could. So, again, financially we feel like this is a better situation for the County and the residents. It certainly improves a continued quality service to the residents that University Hospital has provided, and it certainly saves some capital dollars for the future for University Hospital to provide back to the residents of the county in terms of improved medical technology; and, therefore, we're requesting, if it is your pleasure, to extend a management services agreement to Rural/ Metro to help us assist in running this service. I'll be -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. PARKS: I'm sorry, I was just going to say we'll be glad to answer any questions should you have any. MR. POWELL: I'll let the questions go first, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Dr. Bray, one of the things that concerns me, you know, is whether we looked at our local service provider as far as ambulance service go, the Atkins brothers' Richmond Ambulance Service, and whether there was a proposal from them. I know that they wrote the Mayor; I received a copy of that letter. I'm assuming that they wrote you in reference the service, so that would be the first question. The second question is, out of the total fleet of ambulances over there, again, how many of them do the County own and how many of them do University, Inc. own? MR. BRAY: Mr. Todd, in answer to your first question, we have not received a proposal from anybody locally. We do not feel, in all honesty, that there is any local service that could provide the types of economies and the type of operation that we're talking about here, but we have not been approached with a proposal from any local provider. As far as the number of ambulances, I believe that there are two -- I believe that's correct -- two that belong to the County; the others have either been purchased or leased by the hospital over the past six to seven years. We have detailed records which we would be happy to share and have reviewed, you know, by the County. MR. TODD: Well, it's my understanding that there is other entries, including Richmond Ambulance Service, that's interested in a phase-out and with the same economies, including investments, et cetera. Now, I understand that there's a possibility that they wouldn't be able to buy that complete fleet that University Health Services own. I guess I started looking at this situation a couple of years ago and got real interested in it when it kind of hit the street at the last year's -- or this year's legislative delegation meeting at Regency Mall. I certainly, for one, would need more time to study this overall situation as far as, you know, healthcare delivery as far as ambulance service go. I certainly would want to see some other proposals. I believe that there was legislation passed, or at least it was sponsored -- and I would hope that it passed, I didn't do a follow up on it -- in reference how hospital authorities do contracts without going through County government, their authorizing authority or agency, to do that. I think that it's appropriate that you guys come to this board in the spirit of that, whether that legislation passed or not. And I didn't know what you was going to talk about, but I didn't want to delay that, initiating this discussion today, but I think it would also be fair in the future if I could receive a proposal in advance so I would have time to study it. I would assume that we're going to accept this as information only today and deal with the -- you know, with how we're going to handle our emergency response, et cetera, and emergency service delivery at a later date, so I'm going to just stop with those comments and yield to anyone else. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Todd's concerns, but in the spirit of more efficient government I move that we approve the hospital recommendation pending that the County Attorney verify it's legal we do so. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we receive this as information, that we have time -- we take time to study this proposal and give others opportunity to submit proposals. I don't think that this should be a good-old-boy deal that we're accustomed to making like we did with the outsourcing of the shops. At least I could say, in the sense that this is possibly professional services, that it's legal to go this route today, unlike the shops. MAYOR SCONYERS: Hearing no second to the motion, the motion dies for lack of a second. All in favor of Mr. Powell's -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are we binding a future commission? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: In the letter that apparently accompanied this proposal, it requires a three-year commitment insofar as funding is concerned. And to that extent, yes, you are binding a future -- if in fact that is part of what is being presented and requested, and I have some concerns about that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I need to hear some discussion on it then. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where is the Hospital Authority in the sense that the two ambulances that they haven't already gained from us still belong to the County and go through the Hospital Authority? I would certainly like to see a recommendation from the Hospital Authority. I'm not interested in the for-profit board members that serves over there on the blue cheese committee; I'm interested in those that represent this County, that's appointed by this County government, on the Hospital Authority board and would like to see their recommendation. MR. PARKS: As far as the two vehicles -- the two ambulances and the two rescue units, Rural/Metro has agreed to purchase those at fair market value based on an independent third-party appraisal. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I still haven't heard any discussion on the three years and whether or not we're binding a future commission, and I want to hear something on that because it's not legal for us to bind a future commission. We're asking for a three-year contract and our terms don't go that long, and I want to hear some discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I can't make them discuss it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I think they're finally getting the hint. MR. BURR: Mr. Brigham, in our letter, which Mr. Wall has, we're simply making the point that in order to do this transaction the hospital is having to make a five-year commitment to Rural/Metro. We understand that you all don't have the ability to -- we're not asking you to bind yourself to make a three-year commitment. What we laid out is a proposal where we think there's significant savings for the County and the taxpayers and improvement of quality care, that we're willing to go forward unless you would have strong reservations about it, and go ahead and take the risk that indeed you all will change your minds two years from now. What we're asking you all for is to consider the advantages of this proposal and really look at it seriously and see what's there in the savings, and we're willing -- the hospital is willing to take the risk on that contract for those two subsequent years of the contract. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, is your question concerning the $100,000 contribution for the three-year period of time? MR. J. BRIGHAM: My question mainly is the commitment that we're binding a future commission to submit the funding request for this program for the next three years. It's not the $100,000 reduction, it's the fact that we're being asked to fund something that we don't have the authority to bind a future group on. MR. KUHLKE: But your question is the third year? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right, my question is the third year. Well, my question is the year past our term. MR. KUHLKE: I understand. MR. BURR: The hospital in this particular transaction is subcontracting with Rural/Metro, so it's our subcontract with Rural/Metro; you know, the obligation on that contract is between the hospital and Rural/Metro. Now, since 1971 the hospital -- the contract the County has had with the hospital has said on a year-to-year basis that you all would subsidize the difference between the operating cost of the ambulance service and what we were able to collect. Rural/Metro is coming in, and because of economies of scale and improved collection operations they think they can shrink that over three years to a point where they'd be willing to operate without any subsidy at all. We're asking you all to commit to one year, okay? It's the other years -- the hospital is sitting there realizing we're entering into a contract that's going to require us to subsidize for another two years. And we believe that it's appropriate to bring that issue up and say, you know, the plan is that the County will continue this -- you know, we expect the County will continue this. We can't obligate you -- we're not asking you to obligate beyond one year in terms of continuing it, but, you know, the point is, we're going to be back next year, indeed, asking for a $600,000 subsidy for the second year and be back the third year asking for $600,000 for the third year in subsidy so that this deal then from four, five, and six years out will be free to the County and to us. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I have to agree that we haven't had sufficient time. And this is a plan that I may be able to buy into and may go along with, but I think that in order to make a reasonably intelligent decision -- and I've heard about this, but, you know, I think it should've been on the agenda and we should have had time to look over it, and I'm just not sure I'm ready to vote at this particular time. Maybe at another time when we have researched it a little more and gave it a little more thought I may be able to do that, but right now it really concerns me that we are bringing something in here today to vote on, of this importance, and we haven't seen anything in reference to this before. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, do you want to say something? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would. I'm concerned -- I have a couple of concerns. There was legislation in Atlanta that I have somewhat the understanding that it passed, and I'm concerned about that even though they're coming to us for the authority to do this, but I don't see the Hospital Authority here, you know, requesting authorization to do it. I see the University, Inc. Health Services, and that somewhat concerns me about whether somebody is not in the mix here. And I'm not sure what I'm doing is legal in the sense that, you know, we had abundance of legislation that was -- the intent was to bring these operations into compliance with what they should be as far as the way hospital authorities operate and them selling off or, in some cases, not necessarily University, outright stealing properties and assets from local governments. MR. BRAY: Mr. Todd, there were several pieces of legislation introduced in this past legislative session. I'm not sure exactly which one you're talking about or which action you're interested in. There was no legislation passed that I'm aware of that would impact this decision or this recommendation in any way. University Health Services and University Health, under the terms of the lease we have with Richmond County Hospital Authority, has the authority to make this recommendation and to enter into this agreement. This is not being done to bypass the Authority in any way. It was not necessary to go to the Authority for that approval. We would have no hesitation to do so and to have Authority approval of this recommendation if that would be helpful to the Commission. MR. TODD: I think certainly, Dr. Bray -- MR. BRAY: Mr. Todd, let me -- pardon me. I'm not a doctor. That's all right, just don't get me in trouble with other doctors. MR. TODD: Well, I'll try not to do that. But certainly, Mr. Bray, I can agree with you, but I think that if we're going to be professionals here and we're going to operate like a business, like I've heard from this side of the board -- and I think you could respect and agree, and individuals from the corporation over there, that if I walked in your office and requested an appointment to get on your agenda and presented you a proposal, I think that it would have to be a mighty good proposal, you know, for you to buy into it, take action and vote on it, you know. And my constituents, the taxpayers of Richmond County, or myself haven't had time to review this proposal. I may be on top of this situation because I took a interest in it a year/year and a half ago as I took a interest in indigent care, et cetera, et cetera. But I'm somewhat concerned that my constituents, the taxpayers of Richmond County, and the majority of this board don't have enough knowledge about this issue to make an objective decision in the best interest of the taxpayers of this community. MR. BRAY: Well, that's certainly at the pleasure of this board to make whatever decision is necessary in that regard. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw my motion and make a motion that we table this until the next meeting. That'll give Mr. Todd ample time to study the proposal. I think all the Commissioners have been invited up there to the hospital to go over the proposal and get their questions answered, and obviously he hasn't had that opportunity, so I'll withdraw my motion and make a motion that we table it till the next meeting. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I haven't been, won't go, and I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a -- MR. BRAY: Mr. Mayor, let me interrupt just for a moment and say that we made attempts over a number of days, perhaps a couple of weeks, to reach every Commissioner to invite them to come to the hospital and let us review this proposal. I think six of the ten didn't respond. There were four that never returned a phone call; we never did hear from them. So I can't speak to why that happened, but I want it clear that we made every attempt possible to communicate with every Commissioner about this matter before we got here today. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a motion to table is undebatable and I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd, I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item: Discussion of funding for the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Health. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I have here a letter from Dr. Rumph, who is the Director of Health Services for Richmond County, and he is asking that the Commissioners approve the Laney-Walker site as the future site for the Health Department, and he's also asking that we allocate funds for that in the point of $1 million for the funding of that project, and -- so that they can start immediately with the process of commencing to do the proper work that is necessary to begin the Health Clinic. I've also talked to the Comptroller, and we have been assured that the financing for this could be gotten. So at this point, I move that the Commissioners honor the request of Dr. Rumph and the funding of $1 million to that clinic. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, what is -- Butch, what's the total funds for this year out of sales tax for that? MR. McKIE: Mr. Bridges, 500,000 was allocated; however, we did have 1.1 million set aside for recapture or other emergencies as they came up, and that's where the additional funds would come from. MR. BRIDGES: So then that leaves 600,000 for additional emergencies out of that fund? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beard, would all of the funds be required this year? MR. BEARD: No, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Another question, Mr. Mayor. We're talking about these funds for the purchase of the property at this point. Is that all we're voting on here, for the purchase of the properties at Laney-Walker? MR. BEARD: Yeah, it's basically to get started on that, and that would be the acquisition of property. It'd be whatever you have to do to -- soil testing and that kind of thing, just to get started. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. McKie a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, how many projects have we got left, and have we experienced any cost overruns of the current projects being bid, other projects this year, or do we have any projects that we anticipate that the cost overruns could exceed $600,000? MR. McKIE: We have completed no projects this year. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Have we bid any? MR. McKIE: I don't believe we've bid any. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Have we got any road projects we're going to do this year where we could run over these costs? MR. McKIE: It's very possible that we could overrun every single project that we have. You know, at this point it's impossible to say. MR. TODD: I guess, Mr. McKie, a fair question would be, historical records, how do we look as far as projects that we've bid, infrastructure and road and storm and drainage, and what percentage overrun or underrun that we've had. MR. McKIE: We seldom overrun significantly because of the [inaudible]. I can't give you any exact numbers at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, come up to the mike, please. MR. McKIE: Due to the contingency policy that we have, which is 10 percent on construction, 35 percent on land acquisition, we seldom significantly overrun projects. However, I can't give you any historical numbers; I don't have that at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval to begin the recruitment process for the Clerk of Commission-Council position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may ask a question before -- raise a question or concern before we start, and that is the job description. And I would have this question, Mr. Mayor, for Mr. John Etheridge. Mr. Etheridge, I read the job description of the Clerk of Council and the job description of the proposed Administrator. Who was involved in writing those job descriptions, I guess, would be my concern. MR. ETHERIDGE: Myself and Denise Anderson. Now, let me go a step further in making that statement. We were both involved with it, and in doing so we contacted Athens-Clarke County, Chatham County, and the University of Georgia and got some information to use as a guideline to develop those job descriptions. Those job descriptions have been developed based on that. What I need for everyone to do if you are unhappy with those job descriptions or there's things in there that should be in there, is for y'all to tell me what goes in there because I don't know what y'all want on those jobs exactly. And I did what I was asked to do. MR. TODD: Who was the request made to draw up the job descriptions by? MR. ETHERIDGE: The Mayor. Mr. Sconyers. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Etheridge, I read through these job descriptions and it appears to me that the Clerk's position is a stronger position than the Administrator. It looks to me like it's more an administrative position than a clerk's position, and my question would be why -- it looks to me as if this job description is a combination of a clerk and an administrator. MR. ETHERIDGE: And it is, to some degree, because the job description that we looked at in writing that was a combination of the two. MR. KUHLKE: And so we're going to hire an Administrator and then we're going to have a Clerk that are going to have dual responsibilities to some extent, and who knows where to go? MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, that's -- I need y'all to tell me what y'all want on those job descriptions. I mean -- MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I just asked the question. MR. ETHERIDGE: But you are right. I mean, one of them is strong and one of them is weak there, but it needs redefined and it needs finalizing. MR. KUHLKE: Do you think it needs further massaging? MR. ETHERIDGE: I think that it does need some further work on both of them; deletions, modifications, and additions. Mr. Bill Carstarphen has looked at this job description with me and he had some concerns about it also. And I had some when I wrote it. But I didn't know that I was going to be up here today involved with a public debate about this, I thought this was coming to y'all to look at and then it would be given back to me for the finalization. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, you said, looked at this. Did he have input in developing either one of these? MR. ETHERIDGE: No, sir. Not at the time, no, sir. MR. TODD: Did any other individual in or outside of County government, other than the draft you looked at, have any input in developing the job description? MR. ETHERIDGE: I would say the Mayor. You know, I mean, he and I discussed some things about it. MR. TODD: But what I'm hearing from you is -- I understand you say you didn't know you was going to be in a public debate over job descriptions. MR. ETHERIDGE: No, sir. MR. TODD: But two or three years ago when I sat down to the table and reviewed your job description and you was the finalist, you know, we told you that -- what it entailed to be a public servant appointed, and I think that you probably can look to be embroiled in some heated debate in the next two or three years in your position as far as job descriptions go when there's so many individuals that's excluded from the process. And I make that as a comment, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we take this for information and we go through the process of reviewing it by the appropriate committees. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to ask a question from an official standpoint. What is the current status, since we have so many interims at this point floating around from old City and County government? Has the status of the Clerk's position as it is right now been defined? Is it officially an interim position and has an interim person been named as has been named in most of the other positions, or I might say all? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to modify my motion to include the selection as Lena Bonner to be the Interim Clerk of Commission. MR. HANDY: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Then I'll drop my discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Next item: Consider approval to begin the recruitment process for the Administrator position. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. I make a motion that we approve the process to begin. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that in with the job description of the Administrator, that in regard to all department heads, that the Administrator be the one who initiates the search for and recommends the individuals to hire for those department head positions, subject to the approval of the Mayor and the Board of Commissioners; and also that it be spelled out that the Administrator is to handle the day-to-day activities of the County. And I make that in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concerns as far as the Administrator and the lack of powers as far as the Administrator go, or a manager, is the same and I guess I won't be redundant. I kind of included it in Mr. Etheridge -- the question of Mr. Etheridge, who was involved as far as the process go. I think that this community, the citizens of this political subdivision and this Commission should be for having a professional manager or an administrator with powers. I've been in Richmond County 17/18 years. I've seen two or three administrators kicked around by political strong-arms. I think it's unfair, whether we're talking Dayton Sherrouse or Robert Dixon or Ms. Linda Beazley, the criticism they've received over the years without having authority to take corrective action. I think that we've got to have a strong manager that have the authority to take corrective action and that we don't have to worry about one or two political bullies bullying around as far as politicizing their job or their reaction to any situation. We've had several -- and I like to think in terms of a forest fire. We've had several situations where we've all been out on the line fighting forest fires, and we had -- to keep from being consumed, we had to set a backfire. And my concern is that it is not a political call when we set this backfire, that we set the backfire to do what's best for the taxpayers and citizens of Richmond County and this political subdivision. I hope everybody understand or know what a backfire is when you're fighting a forest fire. So I say that to say that we need a strong administrator or strong manager. I see this effort to hire this Administrator today. To go on the agenda when a retreat that supposedly not to happen again was happening with any -- with most of the Commissioners with the exception of two or three having any input in the job description and to go ahead to hire this Administrator is a political effort to preempt the opportunity of this board and this political subdivision to go to a strong manager/ administrator style of government, and I think it's grossly unfair. And I thought the ground rules was going to be that we would not play politics as far as the restructuring of this government go, that we would at least consider -- give serious consideration to Mr. Bill Carstarphen's recommendation as far as the structuring of the government, and it seems that we're not doing that. I'm probably close to violation of my three minutes, and I'm going to yield to my colleagues, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. BRIGHAM: I'm glad I'm not one of those bullies he's talking about, but I wanted to ask a question to the substitute motion. Mr. Bridges, you're saying that we can go on with the process, begin the process, but the other things that you talked about will be added to the process? MR. BRIDGES: I want this spelled out as part of the job description. And, yeah, we can go ahead and start the process, but I thought this would be a good compromise based on the conversations we had yesterday, that this seemed to be one of the sticklers that we had with the Administrator, as to whether he could hire/fire those under him. And, of course, the bill -- our charter answers that, but I think that should be spelled out in the job description as to what his duties are in regard to the department heads. MR. BRIGHAM: Thank you, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, we spent eight hours yesterday talking about the reorganization of this government. We all found out either Monday or this weekend that this was going to be on the agenda. I just heard the Director of Human Resources say the man that we hired to help us form this government took no part in developing the job description for this position, and I think it would be a shame for us to go forward and advertise this position based on the present job description, including the amendments that Mr. Bridges has added to it, without a full review of the Project Manager that we hired and come back to us with a well-structured job description for this position. I have no problem with the Administrator, but I think that the discussions that we had yesterday should be continued, and I think we need to do further study, and I think we should utilize the professional that we hired. And I concur with Mr. Todd, I think this position needs to be very powerful. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I will not be as vocal as I was yesterday, but I do, I guess, re-emphasis part of what I said. I guess in the scarecrow's famous message to Dorothy, we're at a serious crossroads in what we do for this community, and obviously this yellow brick road can't go both ways. Now, I will not, in good conscious, being the senior citizen of this body, vote for any one of the motions that's on the floor today. I'm going to have to abstain from both of them. I think that -- and I agree with what Bill had said yesterday. I saw a lot of good dialogue, but I saw a lot of unfinished business, and I think the eyes of government and America are upon Augusta-Richmond County in terms of what way we go with this new government. I think while we are on one hand -- whether it's bickering or statesmanship about the form of government, we're here today to deal with an Administrator where defined duties to a certain extent -- whether we want that person strong or weak, whether we want a manager or administrator, whether we want to increase the powers of the Mayor and make that person strong, whether we want to have a Mayor Pro-Tem that presides and the Mayor has no vote. There are many variations. But the point is, I don't think this should get down into who can muster the most votes to move on and to get one-upmanship and I see that happening. And I see this community looking at us where we go through a retreat and of all the things that we've done -- I heard even yesterday -- and I probably have been the most critical person of the constitutionality of what document that was voted on and, quite frankly, as to whether or not we even have a charter. We have a document that spells out two departments that was voted on and that's all. You had three charter commissions in which good, sound governments were put together and those structures were laid out. They were not put into this particular bill. That's a horse of another color. But what is upon us, I think, is to make a decision that this body can hopefully, if not unanimously, move in a direction of where we seriously want to go. I saw four people sitting in that room yesterday, Mr. Mayor, that make in excess of $250,000 collectively: two Administrators, one Project Manager, and a Mayor, and I saw some very mixed directions that I did not like. Because I see us doing one thing today, I saw us doing something else yesterday, and I saw everybody watching. And if we can make a clear direction of that -- and I said yesterday, if I was in Des Moines, Iowa, and I called and asked what did this job entail and you all could not tell me any more, whether it was from Human Resources, Project Manager, any Administrator or you, what it says today or tomorrow as to what those duties would be, then I don't think you're going to get the best and the brightest to come here and to run this government. What you're going to get is some carpetbagger who's basically out of a job and looking for one, and then that's exactly what you're going to land. I will not vote for any one of the proposals that's on there. I think it needs to be studied and discussed and fine tuned, and then when we know where we want to go and what we want to shape this government as, then I think we need to go out at that point and ask somebody to come and join us and help make this the city that it can be. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. Let's vote it up or vote it down, but let's vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg had this hand up. MR. POWELL: Okay. MR. ZETTERBERG: Two weeks ago we met at the Radisson, and at that meeting we decided that we would give until, I believe, the 21st of this month on a motion from Mr. Kuhlke. I made a motion that we have a series of meetings between that date and the 21st so that we could have full debate over this issue. I think it's very important that the citizens of Augusta and Richmond County understand what the rationale is behind this debate here. They're only seeing the surface of it. There is a faction on the Commission that believes that professional management with strong powers in an administrator called a City Manager would serve the citizens best. There's another faction that this faction doesn't know what really wants; they have not articulated it. We were given a charter that has very little power to the Mayor at all. In fact, the power is to the Commission. My position has always been it's a pretty sorry show to have eight people -- eight or nine or ten people trying to run a government. We need to select. So it comes down to this, it appears: Are we going to have a strong Mayor or are we going to have a strong Administrator? And I believe that we should continue that discussion until at least the 21st when we had agreed to do that before. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, the bill plainly states what structure of government we're going to have. My constituents should read the bill that was set forth by State legislation. Any changes to that bill we'll have to wait on till next year, and we need to be moving forward with consolidation. This does not say -- my motion does not say to hire an Administrator, it says to begin the process. And with that, I call for the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: He called the question, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, okay? MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe, if I understand the bill, the bill says that a super majority of this board can change anything after the anniversary of the referendum. The referendum was held, Mr. Mayor, July of 1995, if I'm -- and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it was in the summer of '95, therefore, we're talking about two or three months. And this - - a super majority of this board can change anything, Mr. Mayor, even including if it's the desire of this board to give you all power. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I don't want all the power. Mr. Wall, how about addressing that, please. MR. WALL: There's a distinction between a County Manager and a County Administrator. It was my opinion, is my opinion, as I expressed yesterday, that in order to have the authority to have a County Manager, which implies that there is executive power in that individual, you would have to go back before the General Assembly. It is also my opinion that despite that super majority provision in the consolidation act itself, because of a decision by the Supreme Court -- and I think the name of the case is Dixon, it was a 1982 decision -- I would not feel comfortable in relying upon that action insofar as conveying additional authority on the Commission-Council to appoint a County Manager. I do believe that there is a local act that has not been repealed that grants authority to the Commission-Council to appoint a County Administrator. The County Administrator can have administrative functions. Those functions can be as strong or as weak as you desire to make those, but there is a legal distinction between a County Manager and a County Administrator. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about the other part of his question about the two- thirds majority? MR. WALL: Well, what I had tried to address is, that basically is a Home Rule type provision that's built into that. And under that Dixon decision, I do not believe that you can do that at the local level; I think that has got to come through the General Assembly. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's deal with the dates where the window of opportunity would be there. MR. WALL: You have one year from June the 20th, I believe was the date of the referendum, and so any change in the bill would have to take place subsequent to June the 20th. But there are certain restrictions, I believe, that are imposed on what changes can be made. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion -- do we need the motion reread? MR. BRIDGES: Need a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: He never got a second to his motion. MR. HANDY: I'll second Mr. Powell's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, Mr. Bridges didn't get a second to his. Do y'all want the motion reread, gentlemen, so we know what we're voting on? Susan, you want to reread the motion, please? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, did Ulmer make a substitute motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, but he never got a second. MS. WATSON: The motion was to approve to begin the recruitment process for the Administrator position. There was a substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, but it did not receive a second, so it's back to the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS: My vote is present. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Likewise. VOTE COUNT IS 5-3-2. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think that's an excellent idea. CLERK: We'll start with Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Present. CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays? MR. MAYS: Present and in color. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MOTION FAILS 5-3-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, is present considered a yes vote or a no vote? MR. WALL: I do not believe that an extension such as a present vote creates a tie such that you are given the authority to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the rules of order that we are presently working under, which came over from the former County side, which unless you had a conflict of interest you either voted yea or nay. If you had a conflict of interest you would then abstain and explain why. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor -- MR. MAYS: Point of order. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. The rules was never transferred over, they were never voted on, and the records will reflect that. And in the sense that this was not a County ordinance, per se -- and also, if I understand those rules correctly, and the County Attorney can -- I stand to be corrected if he need to, that those rules are not binding, Mr. Mayor. MR. WALL: I'm like John Etheridge, I didn't know it was going to be so hot up here today. I put on the agenda for the initial meeting of this Commission-Council to approve those rules so that we would not get into a situation such as we are today where it would be defined, it would be spelled out. Those were not voted on at the first meeting of the Commission-Council. Heretofore it has been the practice to go by Robert's Rules as opposed to those rules. I would highly recommend that a vote be taken on that at some point so that we know what rules we're operating under. And we've allowed abstentions in the past, since January the 1st, and we have turned to Robert's Rules as far as the procedures, and I think by implication those are the rules that we've been governed by. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask by whose authority did we adopt Robert's Rules of Order. MR. WALL: I'm saying we haven't. We haven't adopted either set of rules insofar as what we're going to go by. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if we haven't adopted Robert's Rules of Order, by virtue of not adopting rules, then I guess we're running kangaroo court. MAYOR SCONYERS: I won't comment on that. I think the public already knows what's going on. MR. H. BRIGHAM: May I ask just one question? On the last count, where did that leave us? CLERK: We had five yes, three no's, two present. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Five yes, three no, and two present. We need to have six. MAYOR SCONYERS: Move on to the next order of business. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, is the floor open for a motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Not really. We need to move on to the next order of business. CLERK: The next, to consider approval for the proposed new "Service Mark-Logo" for the Augusta-Richmond County Government. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer a substitute motion that instead of saying Consolidated Government that we just say simply Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia. MR. BRIDGES: Second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I had a question. We had been given a suggested logo before; what happened to that logo? CLERK: It was tabled. Wasn't it tabled? MR. WALL: It came up and it was not approved, and it was recommended -- MR. ZETTERBERG: It wasn't even voted on; right? MR. WALL: Right. MR. ZETTERBERG: I guess my problem is that I really liked the other logo. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in order for a compromise and to move it on -- I liked the other one, too, but I think that sometimes we must, you know, vote and move on. MR. BRIDGES: Has the question been called? I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you. All in favor of the motion to approve Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY AND MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: The next item is from Planning: S-413-V-1 - Saddlebrook Subdivision - Phase V - Section I -Final Plat - A petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Tammy Nordahl, requesting Final Plat Approval for Saddlebrook Subdivision, Phase V, Section I. This section is an extension of Saddlebrook Drive in Saddlebrook Subdivision off Morgan Road and contains 22 lots. Approved in house on May 1, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess I have a question. When we say approved in house we mean that the staff approved it, like Engineering, Public Works, et cetera, or we're speaking of committee approval? MR. JACKSON: I'm Robert Jackson from the Planning Commission, and once -- we have got approval from Public Works, County Engineering, County Water, all the appropriate reviewing agencies. Once we get approval from them, the Planning Commission staff approves it in house. It doesn't go before a public hearing, we approve them in house and then pass it on to you for your approval. But the subdivision is complete, all the drainage systems and sanitary sewers and so forth are in place and have been approved by all the appropriate agencies, and now it's ready for -- MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, that's what I need to hear. I'm getting some calls from that side of town in reference storm drainage problems, and I guess Public Works -- they're to be directed through Ms. Beazley or Mr. Dillard to Public Works. But there is some concerns over there, and I would hope that when we're considering these additions in Saddlebrook -- and I believe this is one of those where there was a -- early on there was somewhat of a performance bond or something put up to go ahead with some work -- that we make sure that we're not throwing storm water on other already development without proper and adequate means of handling it. And I'm going to make a motion that we approve it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, motion by Mr. Todd. Do I have a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council meetings held on April 16th and April 22nd, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Items 8 and 9 were both approved by the Administrative Services Committee on April 22nd, 1996. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items, 8 and 9, be approved. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 8: Consider approval of the acceptance of grant funds from the Augusta Housing Authority to Richmond County to administer the Summer Recreation Program for Youth. Item 9: Consider approval to uphold the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Personnel Board to terminate the employment of Maurice Harrison of the Central Services Department.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 12 through 25 were all approved in Engineering Services Committee on April 22nd, 1996. Then we can go back to Item 11. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about 10? CLERK: Oh, I'm sorry. Consideration of the Internal Auditor's position. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we had this particular item put on the agenda. First of all, we carried it through the Admin-istrative Services and I think it was tied up as 2-2, but which it really wasn't 2-2, it was 2-1, because I was not a voting member of that committee at that particular time. And so since there was no decision made, it had to come to the full body. And I'd like to put in the form of a motion that for the remainder of this year, that we hire Kip Plowman to do our internal auditing. And also in that motion, if it's the Commission's desire, to go ahead on and prepare the paperwork to go out to hire us an Internal Auditor, but at this particular time we use Kip Plowman for the remainder of this year for whatever is left in the budget for our Internal Auditor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion to get it on the floor for further discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I just have one question. What you're meaning is take the action on this one now, but then go out on the street and advertise for an Internal Auditor position permanent, in house? MR. HANDY: Right. Right. MR. H. BRIGHAM: For the rest of this year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Two questions, Mr. Mayor. One, I'd like to know how much money is left in the budget; two, I'd like to know -- I understand that we're going to take six months to advertise for an Internal Auditor and we're going to take 30 days to advertise for an Administrator. I don't think there's a equity situation there. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we -- that John Etheridge be authorized to review our job description for the Internal Auditor. If it agrees with the steering committee that we set up for hiring, if there are no problems there, that we immediately go out and advertise for this position and go ahead and get a permanent position here as soon as possible. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with outsourcing the Internal Auditor position. It has nothing to do with the problems that we've had in Internal Auditing recently, but it have to do with a philosophy that I have that I guess I picked up at a ACCG meeting that this is something we can do, in most cases it's something that County government should do, before the buzz word of outsourcing hit Richmond County and the new consolidated government. I also believe that we should look at the two proposals for next year, for Y '97; that is, a proposal to keep it outsourced and a proposal or the merits of bringing it in house. I don't think that we just should say automatically that we're going to bring it back in house. I think when we outsourced the shops and outsourced other areas that we didn't say we was going to do it for a year, then bring it back in. What if it's what's best? What if everybody like it? Why should we commit -- what if it's what works best? Why should we commit to bringing it back in house and advertising? I think at the end of maybe October or November that we should consider which one we want to do, and if it's to bring back in a staff person, then we should advertise at that point and do that. That's a call to be made later. I'm more concerned about what will happen to the two or three employees that's in Internal Auditing now and is there provisions in this proposed contract for professional services to take care of those individuals or are we making plans in County government to hold on to them and find a permanent slot for them. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, I wanted to ask you, I don't know how long it's going to take to identify what may be available out there, but would -- is Mr. Plowman here? MR. HANDY: Yes, he's available. MR. KUHLKE: I was wondering if rather than commit to you for the remainder of the year, if you would consider a position like this on a month- to-month basis in the event that we identify an Internal Auditor that we want to have in house. I know you don't want to do that, but I'm asking you if you would have any interest in it. MR. PLOWMAN: Well, that would be fine. I'll be flexible and do what you want. I think there's going to be several months to get all the kinks and everything worked out and, you know, to determine whether it's effective or not effective. It's really going to take a few months; you're not going to notice one month at a time. MR. KUHLKE: Right, and I can understand that even if we employ an Internal Auditor, that there may be some necessity for you to stay on board for a couple of months to get that department organized. MR. PLOWMAN: Right. What I was planning was if, you know, you go along for a few months and then I could help you identify what specific characteristics you're looking for, help you hire somebody, prolong it, do it quicker. I mean, we could be pretty flexible. You know, I'm going to tie up a lot of my resources, so the more time I have to do this, the more resources I can apply to it and the more effective I can be. But, I mean, I can certainly do it a number of different ways, but I think six months is -- you really need that much time to get a true handle of is it working or not. And, you know, a lot of companies have tried it. Some like it, some don't like it. I mean, it's not for everybody. But, you know, you're not going to have that much of a learning curve since I'm very familiar with a lot of the operations and, you know, we can get going pretty quick. But, you know, I'll do whatever the Commission wants. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. TODD: I guess, Mr. Mayor, I go back to my question in reference to what's going to happen to the two to three individuals that's over there in that office. And if they go with the private contractor, then do they lose their time and grade or seniority, you know, et cetera, as far as County government go? I think that if we're going to do this we've got to have something in place to safeguard our employees. And that's a question that anyone feel like answering it can answer, but I can assure you that when it come to the employees, even though I seconded this motion, my vote is going to be based on what happens to those folks in that office. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have our External Auditor here, Mr. Evans. Do you want to help us a little bit on this, Mr. Evans, please? MR. EVANS: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Council. I can't specifically answer your question, Mr. Todd, on the employees, but I do have the ability to give you a historical perspective of what's been going on from the internal audit from the County, not necessarily from the City previously. In essence, you've had more of a Fire Department than you have an Internal Audit Department, and that Internal Audit Department has gone at the whims of occasions for items to come up sporadically. What we have discussed in the past, and we've mentioned it in our annual audits in the management letter, is that this should be a more defined, structured position where you have employees of the County or employees of the government that operate this position. The first order of business should be for this Council to create an Audit Committee. That committee should be made up of selected members of this Council. That committee would then appoint or create a department, an Internal Audit Department, which would, in my best estimation, include three to four employees at this point in time, based on my understanding of your needs. Then you would go about setting forth policies and procedures for that Internal Audit Department, the Internal Audit Committee, along with those employees. You design an audit plan that is a continuous audit plan. It doesn't happen just once a month or when something occurs and there's a problem. This should be more preventive medicine than it is reactive medicine as opposed to fighting fires when the fires arise. This should be a structured audit program which is monitored, one, by the Audit Committee which is made up of this body and, two, by the external auditors. What you're proposing on the table right now, you've already employed two external CPA firms currently, you're talking about hiring a third external CPA firm, which I find that hard to comprehend that one government would have three external firms working for them. The Audit Committee should take advice, counsel, whatever it may be, from the external audit firm that this government eventually hires for the single government. At this point in time you do have two already hired, one for the City, one for the County, so you need to make the best of the two firms you've already got hired, counsel with them, come up with this Audit Committee and come up with a plan. Currently I don't see a plan and, frankly, there was not a plan in the past. An internal audit program should be a program that is regimented, it's followed on a quarterly basis, monthly basis, with designed ideas for places that need to be looked into. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I don't think my question has been answered and I doubt if it will be answered, but I will make this comment. Sir, I read your proposal, and in the sense that you are opting to be Internal Auditor, in case we don't accept your advice, then I think that there's somewhat a conflict or I take it with a grain of salt, you know, your advice. If I'd have got a recommendation from the External Auditor where you wasn't vying for the possibility if we're going to go on and hire a Internal Auditor anyway, outsource, that you are available, then certainly I would, you know, be more appreciative of your advice here that you're giving us here, you know, verbally. I read your recommendation, I read your proposal, and I understand. But considering that we have two or three County employees, I just simply want to know what's going to happen to those employees. Are they going to go with the private contractor Internal Auditor or are they going to stay with County government? And if they're going to stay with County government, then are there any provisions being made to find suitable slots for them? MR. BEARD: Well, he can't answer that. MR. EVANS: I can't answer that question, but I do have a question, Mr. Todd. I'm not aware of the fact that I have a proposal before you. I don't want the Internal Audit position. I'm trying to advise this Commission on how to create that Internal Audit Department and place people in that position with guidance. MR. TODD: Well, may I ask then who do you work for? MR. EVANS: I'm Rick Evans with Serotta, Maddox, Evans. MR. TODD: Yes, I did see a proposal from your firm with recommendations somewhat as you've outlined. And, you know, I've been fast-tracked lately and a little jetlagged, but I did read a proposal. Now, it might not have been from you, it might have been from one of your junior partners or senior partners. MR. EVANS: Well, if it came -- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold on just a second. Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. -- MR. KUHLKE: I've got a question for Kip. Kip, is it your plan to utilize our present employees in the Internal Audit process if you're employed? MR. PLOWMAN: The plan we had was to try to be flexible. We can do any number of things. What we've proposed to do is use my own staff, but we can use these people until they're able to be relocated into other positions in the government, and that was the plan that we were discussing. And it -- to really maximize the efficiency. But we could use them temporarily until they're able to be put into suitable positions that best meet their needs. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer an amendment to Mr. Bridges' motion, that we employ on a month-to-month basis Mr. Plowman to put together the Internal Audit function of the government and that we immediately go out and advertise for that position, if you'll accept that, Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: I'll accept that on the conditions that it's Mr. Plowman that we're employing on that month-to-month basis, you know, not his firm. In other words, I'm concerned about the employees too now after the statement you just made, but I think what we -- my concern here is, too, that we go -- we immediately go out and start advertising for this position, that we not send it back to committee, we not put it off to another day, that we do that -- you know, authorize the Personnel Department to do that immediately. And, yes, I'll accept that -- I'll accept it as long as that's what we're discussing here. MR. KUHLKE: And you are saying to employ Mr. Plowman based on the proposal that he has given us? MR. BRIDGES: On a month-to-month basis. MR. KUHLKE: On a month-to-month basis. MR. BRIDGES: And that being the balance of the salary left in the budget. MR. KUHLKE: I don't think so. MR. BRIDGES: Not for the total. The way I understand what he's looking for is what -- the salary of the former Auditor, whatever that is, prorated. MR. KUHLKE: I don't think so. Read the proposal, it's more than that. Much more. MR. BRIDGES: Then let's just vote mine up or down and we'll go with something -- you know, if you want to make a -- MR. KUHLKE: So you don't accept the amendment? MR. BRIDGES: No. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask Kip one question. And I have no problem on the individual basis of, you know, of you doing the work and will probably go ahead and vote for the motion. But I do think that if we've got a motion on the floor to start advertising, then I would hope that between Human Resources and the committee that's handling this, that you would make some decision one way or the other in reference to what you do with three people. Now, I -- and I know, Kip, you can't really make that decision. We have to make that decision. But I think if we're advertising -- and you're talking about, you know, phasing them out to a point until we find something else for them to do. And then if you're going to advertise for the job to come right back and hire somebody, then are you going to upstart the department all over again once you've put them somewhere else? And I think that Human Resources and Finance or Administrative Services, whichever one of y'all is handling this, ought to take that under consideration before you start a juggling act with three folks' lives in there. You know, either place them somewhere where they're going to be doing some work or leave them within there to work with Kip, but let it be firm. I think it's a good example of the flip-flopping that we're doing period today. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. I think we probably should have the motions read, because after all this discussion nobody remembers them. MS. WATSON: The original motion was made by Mr. Handy to employ Kip Plowman to do the audit work the remainder of '96 and then prepare to advertise for the Auditor's position to be filled permanently. There was a substitute motion by Mr. Bridges to have John Etheridge review the job description; if it was in order, to advertise immediately to fill the Internal Audit position permanently. MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all heard the motions, gentlemen. I would remind you of one thing -- MR. BEARD: I didn't hear that last part. MS. WATSON: The last part, substitute motion? MR. BEARD: Yes. MS. WATSON: It was to have John Etheridge review the job description; if it was in order, to advertise immediately to fill the Internal Auditor position permanently. Mr. Kuhlke's amendment to the motion was not accepted, so I didn't read it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might remind y'all of one thing. Make sure that whoever writes the job description is qualified, because evidently the earlier two today weren't qualified properly. I'd like to remind you of that. Now, let's move forward. The substitute motion first; that's Mr. Bridges' motion, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: We're not Tyson Chicken here. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Bridges' motion, no. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Bridges' motion, yes. CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays? MR. MAYS: Substitute motion, no. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bridges' motion, yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Substitute motion, no. CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Substitute motion, yes. CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard? MR. BEARD: Substitute motion, no. CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell? MR. POWELL: Substitute motion, no. CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I call the question on the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That was made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. All -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call on the original. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like the original reread, Mr. Mayor. MS. WATSON: The original motion was to employ Mr. Kip Plowman to do the auditing work for the remainder of 1996 and to prepare to advertise immediately to fill the Internal Audit position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. I'm waiting on Ms. Bonner to start the roll call. CLERK: Okay. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bill Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Item 11. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, if we could, Ms. Rommie Thompson from Riverwalk Special Events, she has an appointment. Could we take her item, 38? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. CLERK: It's to consider approval of a bid awarding the 1996 Pyrotechnics Display. That's the fireworks display for Riverwalk. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we move it up on the schedule. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of moving it up, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Ms. Thompson, could you come to the -- give the Commission your recommendation. MS. THOMPSON: Well, after reviewing the bids that were submitted, I recommend that we use the company that we've been using for the past five years simply because this is a -- they provide more than just a service for us, but they have done a wonderful job over the past five years. In addition, I'm not familiar with the fireworks of other companies, that would require extensive travel, and I'm not familiar with the specification. So on the basis of safety and also from working with the crew that I worked with last year, they did a very good job for us and I didn't see any need in switching to another company that I would be unfamiliar with. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess my question is, did we go out for proposals for bid; and if we did, then is this the low bid or best bid? MS. THOMPSON: It was the best bid. We went out for bids. We sent out about six bids and we received approximately three back, and this was the best bid. MR. TODD: What's the difference in this best bid and the low bid in dollar amount? MS. THOMPSON: From what I could tell, the grand finale, this company that I chose would do a better job for us because they are using larger shells. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Ms. Thompson's recommendation. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we still need the difference in the price, please. What is the difference in the price? How many dollars difference are we talking about? MS. THOMPSON: There is no dollar difference because in submitting the bid requests we based it on the budget as it was the past five years. It's been done that way -- each one of the shows, there is a set amount that has been set by the Special Events Department and we don't go over that amount. They bid on the service only. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. In other words, they all bid the same thing? MS. THOMPSON: The same exact amount. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So there's not a best bid or a low bid. This is your recommendation? MS. THOMPSON: Not in a dollar figure, no. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have no further questions. I think that -- it appears that this is the best bid in the sense that we have to have participation from both sides of the river as far as safety go and fire departments, et cetera. And I just wanted to make sure that we were not in violation of bid statutes here, because I haven't heard something that would justify it until a little bird flew by. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Items 12 through 25 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on April 22nd, 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: What about Item 11, did we jump over that? CLERK: We're going to go back to Item 11. It's a presentation. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we take Items 12 through 25 as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 12: Consider approval of the bid award on the Kissingbower Road Sanitary Sewer Project to Eagle Utility Contractor in the amount of $230,408.00, the low bidder. Item 13: Consider approval of the ratification of drilling four Berm Wells for dewatering purposes at the Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to Berrie Well Drilling, Inc. in the amount of $9,820.60. Item 14: Consider approval of a proposed Substation Agreement to allow continuation of existing Substations to collect water bills for the consolidated government. Item 15: Consider approval of the transfer of the ownership of the water tank located at RCCI to the Water Department and the expenditure of $5,100.00 to make the necessary repairs to the tank with a one year maintenance contract. Item 16: Consider approval and execution of contract documents for the Goshen Industrial Sanitary Sewer Extension. Item 17: Consider approval of option to purchase easement from Floyd E. Bliven, Jr. known as Project Parcel 6 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II. Item 18: Consider approval of option to purchase easement from Barbara R. Goldberg known as Project Parcel 3 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II. Item 19: Consider approval of option to purchase easement from Estate of Hattie Mae Mayo Dyson known as Area D, Parcel 11 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 20: Consider approval of option to purchase right-of-way and temporary easement from Atha Lemmon Rachels known as Project Parcel 9, Area D of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 21: Consider approval of option to purchase right-of-way from Simone S. Kortick known as Area B, Parcel 1 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 22: Consider approval of option to purchase right-of-way from Bobby L. Truitt and Margaret H. Truitt known as Area A, Parcel 2 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 23: Consider approval of option to purchase easement from Evelyn D. Nixon known as Project Parcel 5 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II. Item 24: Consider approval of project signs for the Phinizy Road and Fourth Street Detention Centers. Item 25: Consider approval of the condemnation of the Golden property for the Skinner Mill Road Extension.] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 11 is a presentation from Rich Whitehurst regarding an update on Rae's Creek Channel Improvements, Section II. MR. WHITEHURST: Mr. Mayor, I've been asked to update the Commission as I did earlier, I guess last week, with the Engineering Services Committee. And it's a little difficult in this room arrangement, so I've made some copies of a map that will give you a quick overview. And I'll try to keep this short, and then if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. The Phase II of the Rae's Creek Project involves the improvements to Rae's Creek from Boy Scout Road to Wheeler Road, and then Crane Creek, which is a creek that flows into Rae's Creek, from the point of confluence of Crane Creek and Rae's Creek up to Skinner Mill Road. You'll see that shown on the map you're looking at in blue. The bulk of the improvements occur between Boy Scout Road and the point where Crane Creek and Rae's Creek come together. This will be a widening, which will set a minimum uniform width of 25 feet at the bottom of the creek, wherein now there are places that it's as narrow as 12 or 13 feet, so this will increase the carrying capacity of the creek to lessen the times flood waters might come out of the bank. The second point or part of the project is, the point where Rae's Creek and Crane Creek come together is now at a 90 degree angle. You can see that, the black line showing the creek, and then the blue line shows how we're going to turn Rae's Creeks to make the two creeks come together at a better angle to facilitate the hydraulic flow of the water. And thirdly, the section of Rae's Creek from the confluence of the two creeks up to Wheeler Road, the trash debris will be cleaned out and we will be getting permanent easements to have the right to go in there and do that on a periodic basis; that is, the County. Similarly, on Crane Creek from the confluence up to Skinner Mill Road we'll be doing the same thing. And then at a few places along those two branches of the creeks we will be doing some bank stabilization on a case-by-case basis where we'll lay the bank back and riff-raff some places that are sloughing off. The good news is we're finally to the jumping off point. I think there's other items on your agenda having to do with the final condemnation actions to get some properties that haven't been able to be negotiated. And the plans should be out for bid, I would think, by the end of this month in talking with Mr. Murphy, and it'll take five weeks to advertise it, probably another couple of weeks to get the paperwork from the contractor signed, so probably around the middle to the end of July would be the start of construction. Our experience on Phase I, which was from Berckman Road to Boy Scout Road, was that the bulk of the work was done in about three months, so I believe that the bulk of this work will be done during the construction season before the rains and cold set in this year. And I would answer any questions you might have. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we accept the report as information. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion by Mr. Todd, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 26: Consider approval of a request from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. for a waiver of penalty and interest for 1995 tax payments. This was disapproved by the Finance Committee April 22nd, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, these -- I'd like to take all these items as a consent agenda from the Finance Committee. CLERK: Items 27 through 29 were all approved by the Finance Committee April 22nd, 1996. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Further discussion? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, 26 is also included in there? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would like to. MAYOR SCONYERS: It was, wasn't it? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: And it wasn't approved that you waive interest and penalty; right? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MR. TODD: Okay. No further questions, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 26: Consider approval of a request from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. for a waiver of penalty and interest for 1995 tax payments. Item 27: Consider approval of the Capital Project Budget for Pinetucky Skeet and Trap Club, Inc. Item 28: Consider approval of an Agreement to be used by non-profit organizations who receive 1% Sales Tax Funds. Item 29: Consider approval of the funding for the purchase of property adjacent to the Ezekiel Harris House to be paid in installment payments.] MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 30 is to consider approval of Change Order 1 from K & W Mechanical Systems in the amount of $3,989.95 for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system at the Mental Retardation Center. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MS. BEAZLEY: I'd also ask that you approve the second Change Order, too, because they're both related. Change Order 1 and the one that's added, Change Order 2. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll add Change Order 2 to the motion as an amendment. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let me apologize to the Chairman of Public Safety. I didn't notice Public Safety over that item, so I apologize. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's all right, Mr. Todd, just as long as I'm not one of the good old boys. MR. TODD: Okay, Mr. Brigham. CLERK: Consider approval of a recommendation to place on probation for 90 days the game room license of J. B. Newberry for the LO Game Room located at 3625 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Approved by the Public Services Committee April 9th, 1996. MR. MEYER: This item was continued from a previous Commission meeting in order to have a representative from the Sheriff's Department here and, I assume, Mr. Newberry, and I think there is some objections to the 90 day probation. There is a representative from the Sheriff's Department present. Is Mr. Newberry present? MR. HANDY: No, he's not here. We're going to hear from the investigator. MR. BERRY: My name is Roderick Berry, I'm an investigator with the Sheriff's Department, and I was part of an investigation that led to this license being on the floor today. And what happened was, a felony case was made for commercial gambling at this business and, therefore, we go along with the committee in proposing a 90 day suspension in the license. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put in the form of a motion to accept the recommendation, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, what recommendation that we're accepting now, the recommendation from the committee or the recommendation from the Sheriff's Department? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that both of them, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: This is from the committee. The Sheriff's Department didn't give a recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. TODD: Well, you know, the last meeting -- Mr. Mayor, if I may elaborate. The last meeting we had there was a motion made or a recommendation that we not suspend for 90 days, and basically I'm trying to get clear on what we're doing. Are we suspending for 90 days or we're not suspending for 90 days? MR. MEYER: The recommendation from the committee never involved suspension, it was 90 days probation. MR. TODD: Probation. Well, I stand to be corrected there, thank you. So it's a 90 day probation, and that's the one we're going -- MR. HANDY: Yes. MR. MEYER: That's still the recommendation from the committee, 90 days probation, not suspension. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So it is probation then? MR. BERRY: That's correct, I meant probation. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote present because I think I flip- flopped that vote a couple of times and I'm not going to do it again. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: The next item is consider approval of a request from Terence Baker for a Brew Pub to be licensed in connection with The King George Restaurant located at #2 Eighth Street. MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, this license is in the City. Mr. Walker had a death in his family and had to leave on an emergency to go to Oklahoma, so I am -- agreed to present this on his behalf. And everything is in order. The establishment already had alcohol licenses and this is a Brew Pub license, and everything is in order on the application. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second on the floor that we approve the license. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Communication from the Acting Transit Manager with regard to Public Transit Logo. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council, Augusta Public Transit has been known over the years as Augusta Public Transit because we were a department in the City of Augusta. Since consolidation we are a consolidated department, and so therefore we are in the process of trying to go out and to purchase new vehicles; and, also, we have the hydrogen fuel bus in which we are hoping to have ready to present as a innovative technology during the Summer Games. And so I just felt that this was the most appropriate time to have some discussion as to possibly changing the actual logo from Augusta Public Transit to Augusta-Richmond County Public Transit. As you see in the brochure, basically what I'm trying to do is to maintain the Augusta Public Transit basic symbol that people all already knows and putting RC in the A so that we would formally be known as Augusta-Richmond County Public Transit. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Johnson, you don't like the service mark that was just approved for the government? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Todd, it is not a matter of the service mark, but you find very few transit systems that has a service mark on a transit vehicle; such as Metro has their own system even though it's a part of the consolidated government of Columbus. Transit systems normally have their own marks, so to say -- so to speak. MAYOR SCONYERS: Maybe we could set a precedence and start something new. MR. JOHNSON: Well, certainly that would be left up to the Commission- Council. MR. TODD: Mr. Johnson, would your staff consider that? Because I know as far as the hydro bus we're not going to have a whole lot of input on what we can put on there. The Olympic Committee, ACOG, is going to control that. And I'd like to see our service mark on that bus the time that it's in Atlanta, and when you come back, then maybe we'll consider giving you something else. MR. JOHNSON: Well, that will be fine if that is the wishes. But we still have other vehicles that we need to consider, such as the three small -- the mini buses. The only holdup on arming those right now is this logo. That's the only thing which is holding that process up also. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Johnson, how much is it going to cost to change all of these, the service mark? MR. JOHNSON: Well, sir, I was only wanting to change that from this day forth, to change the service mark. As I've discussed before, we will possibly be getting five vehicles this year, in 1998 another five, so that by the turn of the century we will basically have 15 new buses that will have this new service mark on it. And then we would retire 15 of our older vehicles, which means that half of our fleet by the turn of the century would be using this new service mark or logo. I wouldn't want to put on this Commission-Council the expense of trying to change 30 vehicles over, just to start from this day forth to start using a new service mark. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The only thing I would like to give Mr. Johnson leeway on would be on the one vehicle, on the hydrogen bus, since some things are already moving. And if that logo is already in the process of being done, I would advise us that if that's being done at this point, to deal with what we've got to have here if we're going to put the new logos on them. But so that something will be on there rather than nothing, to go ahead if that's in process with what's already been planned, even if it's Augusta. I mean, we're still in Augusta whether we're from McBean to South Carolina, and I don't think we ought to disturb that one because that's being processed. And if changing that one to be on display and representing our city, then I think if that's in process we need to kind of leave that one alone and deal with the ones that we've got here. That's the only suggestion I make with it, and I think he's receptive to whatever logo you want to do on the rest of them. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be to Mr. Johnson. Isn't the target date to give them a color on the paint and logo and all sometime the middle of this month or is it already ordered by -- Bluebird already have the information and it's already in the process? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir, that drop-dead date is by tomorrow. MR. TODD: Tomorrow? So we're in time for the drop-dead date then, so I'd like -- I'm going to make a motion that we drop dead with the service mark that we approved a few minutes ago. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have no problem with that, but we have to have the correct service mark. As I understand, there was a change today, which means that from the approval now I will have to have a art-ready service mark in order to send to Fort Valley, Georgia, by tomorrow morning with the Augusta- Richmond County, Georgia, up under the bottom. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there a problem with that? MAYOR SCONYERS: We can get it. MR. TODD: If there's not a problem, then certainly I'd like to make that in the form of a motion and go on and do it. I believe we're big enough we can make it happen. MR. MAYS: I'll second it, but would you amend it that if there's a hangup, that he doesn't get dropped dead totally and he can use what he's got? MR. TODD: Yes. If there's a hangup, then I'm sure the Mayor will send the one that he originally had art-ready. And we can live with either one of them, I'm sure -- I can; I'm sure the Mayor can. It was his original idea or concept. MAYOR SCONYERS: 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. HANDY OUT] MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, now what is the decision on the other vehicles other than the hydrogen fuel bus? Is that to use the same? MAYOR SCONYERS: That was the motion, wasn't it, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. I would hope that we would stay uniform as much as possible with this service mark. When individuals see, you know, the service mark for Columbia County they are not confused. They are consistent there with one, and I would think that Richmond County ought to be able to do the same and stay consistent with service marks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Your colors are blue and white; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: Right, sir. But on the hydrogen fuel bus, we was going to change to green because the president's hydrogen commission -- green is the color for ecology, and so -- we also wanted to make this bus a distinctive bus, and the recommendation from the advisory committee on the hydrogen fuel bus is that it will be nicknamed the Green Bus. And I have a copy of what that bus would possibly look like if any of the Commissioners after the meeting would like to see it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't see a problem with the green. There's some pretty hedges around that building and they'll really look good in green, so I don't think there's a problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: So you want it green and white instead of blue and white? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir, green and white only on the hydrogen fuel bus. Only on the hydrogen fuel bus, and then we would just stick with the blue and white on the regular buses, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Anything else? CLERK: No, that's it. MAYOR SCONYERS: He's on Item 36, too, isn't he? CLERK: No, he's on Item 34. Consider approval of a recommendation from the Acting Transit Manager regarding sponsorship of a Try Transit Day on May 16th. MR. JOHNSON: My recommendation is that the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council go on record as having a Try Transit Week the week of 14 through 17 May and that also as a part of that week, that we have a Try Transit Day on May the 16th in which all rides for all riders that day will be for a dime. The purpose is to try to generate ridership, to try to get the automobile drivers to try Transit, to get people that use taxicabs and other means to give them a chance that, for whatever reason, for a dime that no one should have no reason not to try Transit for one day, with the hope that with the employees, the condition of the buses, that we hope to hook a few people to try Transit for the rest of the week, for the rest of the month, and for the rest of the year. And this is a promotion in conjunction with the American Public Transit Association. Also, I have been in contact with Foxy 105 to try to have a live remote from the transfer facility possibly on the 14th of May to try to stir up some interest, to stir up energies, to try to make this a successful day. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to so move that we approve Mr. Johnson's recommendation. MR. HANDY: I've got something to say about that, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: I'll second it before he gets up. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, we got plenty of discussion. That's Foxy 103, not 105. And then you are overlooking Classic WKIM, AM 1230, also, and that won't cost you anything. MR. JOHNSON: I understand that, and I'm sorry, Mr. Handy. I apologize, that was a -- MR. HANDY: I just want you to remember, church member, that you do have a church member that has a radio station that you could use for free and you don't have to pay anything for. MR. JOHNSON: Well, we are not paying, sir. We are not paying. MR. HANDY: Okay. That's all I've got to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: Communication from the Acting Transit Manager regarding Bus Advertising. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council, since the last presentation by Mr. Allen Childs I have been overwhelmed with phone calls as to firms and individuals wanting to make a presentation to the Commission- Council concerning advertising on the Augusta Transit System. And so, therefore, I'm asking now that there be a mechanism to where that if it's the wishes of the Commission-Council, to allow me to go out with formal proposals to try to bring in some so that you will not be overwhelmed with each firm individually wanting to come to make a presentation. MR. MAYS: Mr. Johnson, how many do you currently have in terms of written proposals? I believe the committee had two. Because I think the one that Ms. Barnhill did was probably before the one that Mr. Childs did; am I correct? MR. JOHNSON: Right. I have one from Ms. Barnhill, I have one from Mr. Childs, and I have one more from, I believe, Lamar Transit Advertising. And I've had several other phone calls, but basically I've asked them to hold off until there was some ruling from the Commission-Council as to how we would go forward with this. MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, are we on automatic pilot or should the Mayor Pro- Tem be up there in the presiding chair? MR. HANDY: Go ahead on, we can handle it. I'm here, I'll just keep my same seat. MR. TODD: Okay. Just a point of order or information. MR. HANDY: Go ahead. MR. MAYS: Well, what he was suggesting and what I've told Mr. Johnson is that since we -- we've had varying ways in terms of dealing with our public services, but I do think inasmuch as two formal proposals have been given, I'd like to see us give him authorization to maybe seek on a short-term basis some other proposals, but not drag it out. I think they're trying to do some exciting things over there, and I think one of the things or the cries that came out from the public hearing was that pretty much everybody to a tee wanted to see a new source of some type of creative funding. And we realize that advertising may not bring in megabucks, but any monies that we get over in Transit will be greatly appreciated, and anything that we can do means that it's less that we have to come in here and stage a dog fight about. So I'd like to see us maybe deal with this on maybe a 30 to 45 day basis and use the two that he has, and I make that in the form of a motion, and bring it back to us in committee so that we can recommend something to the Commission-Council. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays, you were saying to go ahead on and accept the concept but let other people bid on it or just accept the two bids that you have --proposals you have already? MR. MAYS: No, what I was saying was that maybe 30 to no more than 45 days. While it's still hot and they're trying, you know, to do some creative things over there, open that process up but not drag it out any longer than six weeks. In fact, I prefer 30 days with it, but if he can -- because most of them he can get by phone or either faxed in or somebody will come and bring it to him. And if you need a time limit on it, I'll make 30 days be a part of my motion. But he has two on board and I think that would give him time, if he needs to, to get some others in a formal process so that we can get it back to committee and then recommend something to you all. MR. HANDY: Okay. Jim, how long do we have to advertise anything that we go out for a proposal? What's the shortest term we have to advertise? MR. WALL: Well, you've got different procedures under the City purchasing plan than you do under the County. MR. HANDY: Well, this is a City item. CLERK: Well, you could -- we usually advertise for three days, and then we open up ten days after the last date of publication. MR. HANDY: Okay. What about 15 days, Mr. Mays, that'll be good, instead of 30? MR. MAYS: Well, that's a maximum. I'll accept a lesser time. I don't have a problem with it, I just want to get it passed. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, whatever you all -- you're chairman of that committee, whatever you want. MR. MAYS: That's acceptable to me if you want me to amend it to 15. Heyward, the people that you basically have been in contact with in response, do you think you can get something back and close it out, you know, with enough for you to make some decisions on and bring us back within that 15 day period? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: Okay. Does that coincide with legally what you need to do? CLERK: Uh-huh [yes]. MR. MAYS: I'll accept that as an amendment. MR. HANDY: Okay. All right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I know in the discussion of the first one, in the proposal the gentleman articulated that he wouldn't be doing alcohol/tobacco advertisement. I would hope that's in our specs that we're sending out when we're requesting proposals, that we're not going to advertise tobacco, alcohol, you know, et cetera. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Basically in the ones that we are using now, that we have the right to refuse any advertising. If a citizen called up and says that it is offending, we have the right to ask that that advertising be removed. MR. TODD: Yes, and perhaps political advertisement. MR. JOHNSON: Any type of advertising, we have the right to ask that it be removed. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I have one other question to Mr. Johnson. This is going to be advertising outside the bus or inside the bus or both? MR. JOHNSON: The proposal that we have is for both. Normally we use part of the space inside for some public service announcements such as Girl Scouts, United Way, different organizations here locally, so I would like to keep that going to where some of the non-profit organizations and some of the service organizations still have some space on the inside. MR. HANDY: Okay, but if we're trying to make some money, then we -- I hear what you're saying, but we're out to make money, so why take up that space inside if somebody wants to purchase it and pay for it versus giving it away for public service announcements. MR. JOHNSON: Well, sir, that would be the wishes of the Commission- Council to make that decision. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, that's all I have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have one quick thing, and it's possibly unrelated. Mr. Johnson, I would hope that we are making some plans for the Barton Chapel-Deans Bridge Road route. With the Wal-Mart fixing to open soon, I think that you're going to see some good ridership there, a significant increase, and hopefully we can do some planning there. And that's just my comments as a point of information and, Mr. Mayor, I'm ready for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is to consider a recommendation from the Acting Transit Manager regarding a new funding source for the Augusta Public Transit. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. This year in the Georgia legislature a bill was passed to allow for a three percent rental car fee. The originator of it was Atlanta, for to charge a three percent fee on the use of rental cars in the Atlanta Metro area, and the funding would go toward the Atlanta Hawks' new basketball gymnasium or whatever. Also in the bill it states that other municipalities can use that funding -- that three percent rental car tax for local governmental services. So I am asking that the Commission-Council, with the approval of the Interim County Attorney if it's legal to do so, that we impose that three percent rental car tax on rental cars rented in Augusta- Richmond County and the proceeds from that go toward the Augusta Transit System as a new source of revenue funding. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not opposed to this 100 percent, per se, but I think certainly we need to have public hearings if we're going to implement an aggressive tax against a line item to fund a source, you know, whether it's public transit or anything else. And I certainly think that we should receive this as information, that we should have public hearings and allow for public input in it. And the other thing that I feel, and I and Mr. Johnson discussed this, is that we possibly missed a window of opportunity with the one penny tax on doing some things where it would've been coming from everybody in general versus a line item. And I don't have a problem with it, but I'd like to make a motion we accept it as information until we can have public hearings or receive public input. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham [sic]. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of award of bids for the paving of the parking lot between Garrett Aviation and National Car Rental Service Center, repairing section of entrance lane on North Entrance Road, and for the installation of carpet and tile in the Operations Terminal Building and vestibule of Airline Terminal Building. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Atha? MR. ATHA: Commission-Council, we've received four bids on the small asphalt job and we've received two bids on the flooring, which is carpeting and tile for a couple of buildings out at the airport. In both cases we're recommending that the low bid be awarded: the asphalt to Beam Pavement Maintenance and the flooring to Mastercraft Flooring. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by who? MR. HANDY: Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of a Resolution for Creation of Local Community Partnership. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Brigham asked me to prepare the resolution which would designate the Augusta Coalition for Children and Youth Family Connection as a community partner with Augusta-Richmond County, and I also enclosed in the agenda material information from the ACCG concerning this process. And the thing that the ACCG memo is pointing out is that the designation would establish this entity as the entity that would be responsible for all of these funds, and it would be an independent entity. One of the things that that entity is required to do is to present bylaws, and the various requirements are spelled out in the resolution insofar as the makeup of how those members would be appointed, how their successors would be appointed, but you would not have control over that entity, and that's the purpose of the memo from the ACCG. I would also point out that I made inquiry of Jerry Griffin to speak with him concerning that memo, and the May 30 deadline that is -- he talks about in there is not in fact a firm deadline, there's plenty of time to take this action. What you would basically be doing is designating this entity much like an authority or some independent board, and they would regulate and be the grant recipient and administer the funds. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a serious problem with the intent of the resolution. There has been a lot of initiatives that started out with good intent that turned out otherwise. I feel that I need to hear from other children advocate groups on whether they are in accord with this. I know that there's several that come under DFACS and there's others out there in the community. I think that by setting up this authority through designating this group, which is a good and worthy group, certainly would restrict any other group from participation as far as flow-through funds from the State, et cetera, and I'd just like to have some feedback or at least have time to talk to the other children advocate groups. One in particular that I work with, Safe Kids, bagging groceries at a local grocery store to, you know, raise the awareness there, and I guess everybody have their own advocate group that deals with children. And I'm just concerned that we need to at least hear from some of these other advocate groups before we make a move on this, and I'd like to make a motion that we table it for two weeks or at least delay for two weeks, and that would allow us opportunity to hear and talk with some of the other advocate groups. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke to table, and that's a non-debatable motion, isn't it? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. Does this -- I guess of the Attorney. How is this funded? Where are these funds coming from that's being overseen by the partnership group, and does it cost the County any funds? MR. WALL: Well, it would not cost the County any funds. The funds would come from the State. They would be the recipient of the funds. The funds would pass through them, they would administer the funds. The concern from ACCG is that you have an independent organization, and although legally you're not responsible should there be spending beyond the funding source, they have seen similar situations, not with this particular legislation but with similar legislation, primarily community mental health areas, where they have overspent the funding and the County has had to step in and bail out the programs. And that's the importance that the ACCG places on it, just know what you're getting into when you vote to do it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I agree with the observation from Mr. Todd and this is why there were several groups added as examples. And I think the total amount of groups that's involved in this, there's over 50 groups that is involved with it. But I think that -- and this is why I asked Mr. Wall to put in the safeguards so that the County's liability, the citizen liability, would be minimized or will not be any liabilities, and this is why it was done this way. I talked to Mr. Jerry Griffin also this morning and he was saying the same thing, that if we put in the safeguard that our attorney has indicated here, that he feels that we would be protected. And just like Mr. Todd is indicating, there would be other groups that could be involved in it, and this is why we wanted to spread it out more than just the two groups involved. And I think most of you know the Family Connection was a program started some years ago through the Governor's office, and if anything comes it'll be coming out of that pocket of funds if it does come down. But I would hope that we would do it the other way around and give us permission -- them permission to go ahead on and -- there's an application --there's a process that they're going to have to go through to permit this in. If we could get it in with the observations that were mentioned by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Kuhlke that we would be protected and that other agencies would be protected, and I think that's exactly right. But I think if Mr. Wall would put something in there to that effect, then I think it would satisfy the contingencies of all. But I would like to maybe make a substitute motion that we go ahead on and approve it subject to the fact that Mr. Todd and others be satisfied to that extent, but let them at least go ahead on and put the application together. And I'd like to make a substitute motion for that. MR. HANDY: I'll second Mr. Brigham's substitute motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if there is not a hard -- if there is not a fall- dead or drop-dead, as Mr. Johnson used with the Transit, date to do this application, then I don't know why we are in a hurry to pass this resolution. There is even other concerns as I sit here and brainstorm over this concept, and I think that's what we need time to do, is that oftentimes the legislative delegation will have a group that they want to sponsor as far as a 5,000 or 10,000 dollar grant, and I would be concerned about how the local delegation feel about this. And any flow-through money has got to come through them, and I don't want necessarily to bite the hand that's feeding us as far as these flow- through grants go and certainly would want to talk to the legislative delegation or at least most of those members that work on these grants as far as flow-though. I have some concern about this, and if there is not a hard- line date, you know, to do an application to be considered to be the group, then I think that we need to wait and talk to some folks before we jump into this thing. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's my fault. There is a date. They have been meeting for the last three or four months. There was a meeting in -- Mr. Mayor, you were there. There was a meeting out at Augusta Tech three or four months ago where they invited all of the surrounding counties to come in, the 13 counties. All of them were in, Ms. Joyce Blevins from that particular -- so it's not a rush-rush process. If it's any rush- rush, it's probably my fault and I'd accept that because when they asked us to bring it to you, it's my fault that we did not get it. If you recall, we have not met in the last two or three weeks, last couple of weeks at least. But there is a date when it's supposed to be in, Mr. Todd, and I guess it's my fault. Mr. Brigham was out there that day. Several of the Commissioners were at the meeting at Augusta Tech where this concept was organized. They're trying to get ten grants in the state of Georgia, ten -- not grants, that's not the word, but there's ten areas to be recognized, and this is one of the areas that will be recognized out of the state of Georgia, and we figure that we have a good chance in this area in order to get it done. So there is a time table, and I apologize because this was done some three months ago, I think it was. Mr. Mayor, you remember that day, don't you? Jerry Brigham was there and some of the others of us were out there that day. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly didn't -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute now. Mr. Kuhlke had the floor now, gentlemen. Let's give everybody due time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I called Mr. Griffin this morning myself and talked to him, and my only concern about this is -- if I understood him correctly, Mr. Brigham, and I think this may be one of Mr. Todd's concerns -- is that once the resolution is passed, whoever you designate within that resolution, there cannot be -- no one can be added after that resolution is adopted. Mr. Wall, I don't know what your conversation -- MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. KUHLKE: But was that the way -- MR. WALL: That's my understanding, you designate a single agency. MR. KUHLKE: Right. So I think I'd still go along with Mr. Todd. I'd like to make sure that we're all inclusive here as far as the agencies that do this good work, that they're involved within this entity. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'll yield to my colleagues, Mr. Mayor. I believe Mr. Kuhlke put it in perspective. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe the Family Connection is a coalition of all family groups. It's one that I worked with when I was at the School Board and it was a very recognizable -- it transversed every part of this community. I have no problem with naming that agency as the physical agent to deal with these funds. I think it's a very appropriate agency to name to be in charge of these funds. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Okay, I have a substitute motion by Mr. Brigham -- do y'all need the motion read? MS. WATSON: The substitute motion by Mr. Brigham was to go ahead with approval of the resolution for creation of the local community partnership and to still gather additional information from other entities. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did everybody hear the motion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE AND MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of an Amended Local Elected Officials Agreement for Augusta-Richmond County/Burke Job Training Authority. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, under the old Richmond/Burke Job Training Authority, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County or his designee as well as the Mayor of the City of Augusta or his designee served as the local elected officials, which then also was a part of the chief elected officials insofar as the administration of the job training. All this does is substitute you as the Mayor of Augusta-Richmond County as well as the Mayor Pro-Tem or y'alls designee on that board, and I would ask that you approve that. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question for Jim. Is this State funds, once again? MR. WALL: Federal. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wall, I know that we went into a joint with Burke County a couple of years ago and opted out of a 13-county situation. What's the criteria for being a stand-alone like some counties, I guess in North Georgia around Atlanta, did? Is it 200,000? MR. WALL: 200,000 was the population at the time we did it, and I assume that that's still applicable MR. TODD: Is there any merits for us to stay in a two-county situation? MR. WALL: I mean, I think we've got a good working relationship and things have worked fine. I see no reason to pull out. Burke stood with us in order for us to pull out, and I would hate to pull out and leave them hanging. MR. TODD: Thank you. I think that's basically what I needed to hear. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: To consider ratification of the contract between Richmond County and National Science Center Discovery Center, Inc. for their Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Project. MR. WALL: Earlier in the agenda you approved a form contract to be used by outside organizations insofar as the special purpose local option sales tax. This is an agreement that basically conforms to that; however, inasmuch as the National Science Center or Discovery Center had already let their contract and was already in the process, this contract was amended somewhat. And also in that, we're not paying the entire cost of it, we're only paying a small portion of the cost. But it has the adequate protections in there from the County standpoint, and I recommend approval of it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: We will take Item 42 -- we'll let that be the last item. I think the Attorney indicated maybe a possible legal session on that. Under 43, Other Business, to confirm appointment of Commissioner Henry Brigham as liaison to the Board of Education. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve Mr. Brigham, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of condemnations of the following parcels in connection with the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project, Phase II: Parcel 39, George Harrison; Parcel 55, Earl W. Lewis; Parcel 52, James E. Davis, Jr.; 23.2 acres, George S. Harrison; 2.5 acres, George S. Harrison and Westside Associates, Inc. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, does this bring all parcels to completion on the project, Phase II? MR. WALL: According to the information that has been furnished to me, this is all of the parcels, together with the easements, that have been delivered to my office -- or the options, I'm sorry. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Where was Mr. Fleming's property? That was on a list I saw, that's the reason I'm asking. MR. WALL: I'm sorry, I have not seen all the documentation. I'm assuming that they must have gotten an option for that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It said condemnation on the list I saw. MR. WALL: Well, it has not been brought to my office, and I was told on Thursday that I would have all of them in my office by today's meeting. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: To consider approval of a request for retirement from Benny R. Pennington. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to take my usual vote in the sense that I feel that we should have some kind of report in reference to the overall plan. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. WALL: Let me just point out -- in case any question comes up about this, I want y'all to be prepared to respond to it, and it is my opinion that this is appropriate. The retirement application was turned in for his retirement to be effective April the 1st. Based upon that, he took his last day of work, which was approximately April the 20th. He died on April the 25th. So he is dead, however, this will allow -- I mean, in my opinion it was purely an administrative procedure for this to come before the County Commission. It will not affect the County's exposure cost. The benefits that he has paid in, and he had already paid those in at the time of his death, will be paid to his widow. The life insurance benefits is the same whether he had been an employee or was covered under the retirement. And it is on that basis that I recommend approval, but I did want you to know that he is deceased. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, did you supply us with that information in writing previous to your verbal? MR. WALL: No, sir. I went -- I was called over either Wednesday or Thursday last week to talk about it, and I think the information was submitted to Linda Beazley sometime. She called me about it this morning to discuss it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly want to do right by our employees, and certainly when they're deceased and there's a widow involved, but I think that there is -- I need things put in chronological order. I think there are certain time lines here, and if I'm a trustee of a pension plan, I want to be the very best steward I possibly can be. And if I'm doing something outside of the ordinary, then I certainly would want to know that I'm doing that. And I have certain reservations, maybe it's coincidental here, and I just feel that we've got to handle these situations better when we're dealing with pensions. We need reports from the actuary, we need different information. And I understand that we're voting here to allow an individual to retire, but I'm probably going to vote present and hope I've done the best thing. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Todd, I told David Collins that you were going to ask that question to have something in writing, and he promised me that he would get it to you. And I don't know where it may be, but I knew that question was going to come up and that's the reason, because it's out of the ordinary, very much out of the ordinary, I wanted you to know the details of that. But in my opinion, it's appropriate to do so and I don't have any problem with doing it. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, all in favor of the motion to approve the pension, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the settlement of the wage and hour dispute with Augusta Police Officers. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that we go into a legal session for the purposes of discussing the terms of this settlement prior to it being presented to you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MEMBERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL SESSION, 4:45 - 5:21 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order, please. Mr. Dunbar? MR. DUNBAR: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be in order to consider a motion to accept the proposed settlement of the claim of the Augusta Police Officers on the basis outlined in the letter of April 13, 1996 from me to Sam Maguire, who represents those police officers, with the exception of the proposed compensation to be paid to any exempt employee operating under a written employment contract with the City. That would be -- the only person under that category would be the Chief. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, because of some information that came to me after I added these condemnations on there and since I don't have all the documents here, I would like to ask that you add to the agenda as sort of a housecleaning measure to approve the condemnation of Parcels 20 and 45, which are in the name of John Fleming; Parcel 8, which is in the name of Pat Envelson; Parcel Number 18, which is in the name of Mr. Howard; Parcel Number 31, which is in the name of Harrison; and Parcel Number 57, which is in the name of Harrison, to ensure that we've got all the condemnations necessary to move forward with the Rae's Creek Project. I'd ask that those be added to the agenda and approved. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I have a second, please? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that one. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, does it take a unanimous consent to add items to the agenda? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Well, you don't have that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concerns is whether there have been offers and opportunity for counter-offers before we condemn properties. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we don't have them on the agenda, Mr. Todd, so it's a moot point. Any other business? If not, this meeting stands adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of 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 May 7, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council C E R T I F I C A T E G E O R G I A RICHMOND COUNTY 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 143. 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 13th day of May 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER