Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS June 4, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 4, 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; Lori D'Alessio, for the Interim Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council will please come to order. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Tony Christie, Pastor of the Woodlawn Baptist Church, and if you'll remain standing after that we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND CHRISTIE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have an addition: a request to consider approval, by Donnie Perryman, for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Salama Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Road; also, to consider approval of a request by Mr. Perryman for a Game Room license to be used in connection with the Salama Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Road. Also in your books, I think it was at the end of your books, a request for a one-percent sales tax for the Laney- Walker Museum. It was approved in the Finance Committee on May 28th. MR. KUHLKE: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that move for approval with unanimous consent if we can amend the Lucy Laney Museum contract to that we will pay out invoices versus transfer money to the entity, that we do a draw-down methodology on paying off invoices. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that amendment. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, did you finish all the additions? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion by Mr. Kuhlke, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Were there any deletions? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: The first item is a delegation: Mr. Larry Fryer, Founder of the Whole Village Concept, in reference to a proposal designating the naming of a significant site in Augusta in honor of Mrs. Carrie J. Mays. MR. FRYER: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Commission-Council members and those of us who are present. In 1970, a woman of rare distinction decided to run for public office to serve her community just as she was dedicated to her family, and that service was guided by a power far greater than any earthly being because her public efforts ran across denominational, racial, and political lines. She was a servant of the people, by the people, and for the people. I speak of the late Mrs. Carrie J. Mays: the first woman elected to City Council in Augusta, the first black woman elected in the southeastern part of the United States, served as Secretary of State for the Democratic Party, a presidential elector for the state of Georgia in 1976 and 1980, and a dedicated funeral director. During her public life she became ill and was unfortunately downed by a stroke, but rose to serve her term completely out. With the recent events happening in the Laney-Walker and downtown areas, buildings and other places being named in honor of other persons, I found it respectfully necessary that we should consider this woman and her legacy, because I have been working and dealing with this for over five years and have even written our Governor because of her association with us, to keep her name and legacy with us and through us. Therefore, I felt it necessary that we do something positive and beneficial for Augusta-Richmond County residents and in her honor. And, of course, with all due respect, I think it is time that we pass just naming streets after someone in the back alleys of Augusta. After learning about facilities that might be placed on the site where she presently is, after knowing about other recreational facilities, educational and political facilities near or in the district where she served, I found it suitable that we should go on record and present to you with my dedication and ask your consideration that, in consultation with those I've shared this hope and dream for so many years, that we do something for a woman so great and has meant so much to so many. Because of her service here first in this building, I felt I should come to you first, knowing that the necessary funding would come from this body for Augusta-Richmond County public buildings and et cetera. After visiting Mrs. Mays in her home, I witnessed her some 20 years laying in her bed, sick from her stroke. Some of us might have visited her, others might not have, and some of us probably thought about her. A woman who had given so much to so many lies stricken 20 years, what better thing to do than to show our appreciation for one of the seniors who served this area so well. So whatever project we undertake, please give careful consideration to this legacy, Mrs. Carrie J. Mays. I recommend highly that we, Mr. Mayor and this august body, do not allow the history pages of Augusta to close on us and we do not have the name of Carrie J. Mays in them erected to some institution. Mr. Mayor, I thank you; I thank this body. I want to say public, Mr. Mayor, thank you for being in attendance at First Baptist Church for the children's prayer vigil. You were there all the way through; you helped make it what it was. And when the young lady, Nichole Hawes, was killed Mr. Zetterberg came and gave assistance. That's the kind of people we need in our community, as so many of you are, that's the kind of leadership and love we need. Please, please consider Mrs. Carrie J. Mays. It is due her. If someone has served that long and has been ill that long, we certainly need to do something for her. Thank you. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept this as information. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Handy [sic]. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend Mr. Beard's motion if possible, that we accept it as information but we -- the Mayor appoints a special committee to start looking at perspective buildings. Because we're going to be doing some things with one-penny sales tax soon, and -- do I need to put that in the motion, Mr. Mayor, or is that automatic? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, is that okay with you? MR. TODD: If the maker of the motion would accept that amendment, I'd like to enter that into the motion as an amendment. MR. BEARD: That's okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Items 2 through 5 were all approved by the Finance Committee on May 28th, 1996. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends passage of these items. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Item Number 6, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, she said 2 through 5. MR. HANDY: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 2: Consider approval to solicit Request for Proposals to change Bond Trustee to Sole Source Trust Agent for both City and County Bond Trust Funds. Item 3: Consider approval to transfer $200,000 from "Capital Recapture Fund" to CMS "Capital Fund Account #06-4151-00-0862" for expenditures regarding CJIS. Item 4: Consider approval of a request from the Office of Tax Commissioner for software to be written to adjust for change in interest rates from 15% annually, until July 1, 1994, and 12% annually thereafter for an estimated cost of $4,000. Item 5: Consider approval of a new Certificate for the distribution of the 1% Local Option Sales Tax.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 6: Consider approval of a proposed Ordinance to limit the County's payments to the Coliseum Authority to which the law mandates which limits the County's obligation to 30 percent of revenues derived from the Beer Tax. Committee deadlocked. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in the sense that the committee deadlocked, we decided to bring it on to the full board, and I so move that we approve. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. After careful consideration given to this particular item, I don't think it would be feasible nor would -- we could be creating a monster instead of getting rid of one by limiting the finances that's going to this organization at this particular time, the way that it came about. And I would like to ask the Council that if we could put a 90-day limit on it until the third quarter, that would be October, first of October, that this would go into effect, rather than just pull the money from under them, because we don't know what their obligations are or what their liability is as of right now. And I'm for doing something for -- against the Coliseum as far as getting it in shape or getting it back right, but I will not vote for just to pull the money out just like effective today or so versus giving them an opportunity, let them know that we will be pulling their money, and that come first of October that this will take effect. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you asking Mr. Todd to amend his motion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Ask Mr. Todd if he would accept that, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, have there been any communications from the Coliseum Authority in the need to do this? I certainly feel that they have communicated with someone, and if they are saying there's a need to do this, I certainly would like to hear that need and give full consideration to that methodology of reducing the funding over there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, can you respond to that? MR. HANDY: No, sir, I haven't heard from anyone, this is just something that I came up with that I thought it would be more than right. Because the idea of just pulling money out, that would put you in a heck of a bind. And I'm not against what Mr. Todd is saying about trying to bring the Coliseum in order, but I do feel that we need to give them an opportunity to bring themselves in order by letting them know ahead of time that effective a certain date that this money will be pulled versus just go pull it out just like that. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to agree with Mr. Handy on this because I think all of us feel that there is a need for the Coliseum Authority to get together and act in a physical and responsible way, but I do think we need to give them some time or some consideration, and maybe in this interim they will get together and they will maybe be able to work out the problems or whatever that's due. But as the chairman of the Coliseum committee stated the other day, that, you know, if we do this at this time there is a possibility of the closing of the Coliseum, and I don't think anybody in the community wants that to happen at this time, so I think it would be best to give them some consideration at this time. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if the maker of the motion would accept an amendment to the motion that we continue and support the ordinance as it is but that we -- the difference between the 30 percent and the funds we would have normally given the Coliseum Authority go into a separate account that is maintained separately, that is just kept separate from our other funds; in other words, it's not used in general -- for general expenses but maintained separately. And that way, if we see that the Coliseum Authority cannot do without these funds, is in trouble, at that time then we can pull the funds back out and use them for that purpose. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with that amendment. I'll accept that amendment. And in good faith as far as the Coliseum Authority go, in the sense that they haven't communicated with us that they may need some consideration as far as the time, I'm sympathetic to Mr. Handy's position. And certainly it's my position that this is a first reading, that we have a second reading, and that this ordinance can be amended between the first and second reading. And I would fully consider amending this ordinance to give them 90 days before we cut the money if I see some movement from the other side or at least see that they demonstrate a need to do this. I haven't had any communication from the Coliseum Authority and I don't know that there is a true need to do this, but I would be willing to give that consideration between the first and second reading. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm concerned that we are not being specific with the Coliseum Authority. We're allowing the newspapers to be the in-between person between us and the Coliseum Authority, and I think that we ought to sit down and decide as a Commission body what we expect the Coliseum Authority to do with the money that we're sending over there and how we expect that facility to be managed. All we're doing is sending a message with the actions we're doing today, and I'm still not too sure it has any degree of specificity. Frankly, if I was on the other end I wouldn't know what we were asking them to do and if we have specific things we want. Do we want managers to be hired competitively? Do we want the Coliseum Authority to manage that organization at a profit or a near-profit level? I think we need to sit down before we do anything and decide what our expectations are of that organization. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Is that a motion -- a substitute motion that you have, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: That was a comment at this time, but if you'd like a motion I would make a motion that we bring this back to committee in a full discussion of what we expect the Coliseum Authority to do, and that we take no action until we know those actions that we want to be done. That would be a substitute motion. MR. MAYS: And I don't mind seconding it. Do you have any problem with bringing them into a full discussion with us? Because I totally agree that there's a lot of sparring going on, and we're being asked to make some decisions about the money as to where we're getting caught between the dailies, the weeklies, and with two entities that are in walking distance of meeting from each other, that I think a simple thing of solving one part of it would be in terms of asking them to come over and meet with us. And whatever we hammer out in that particular agreement, if we don't like it, we still have the power to come back and to change an ordinance, redo it, take money or whatever we want to do. But I think in order to do it, without having at least that dialogue in the spirit of what we want to do -- and I've heard a lot about the spirit of the law and what's mandated by the law with a certain percent. And I laughed at somebody the other day; I said, well, if the spirit of the law is what it says in the 30 percent and the subsidy that they are getting, then obviously the Coliseum Authority must have been illegal from the day that it opened, not from the day that the new body was put over there, because they've been operating out of that ordinance since it was there and the beer tax money and hotel tax money. I think a lot of accusations have been implied, I think they've been implied personally to people, and I just don't like making that kind of decision as a Commissioner on a third-party type basis. And I'll second your motion to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on the substitute motion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think that most of us has known that the Coliseum Authority has been operating in the red and going deeper in the red for a number of years. It didn't start with this administration that's there now. It's something that we've been -- that several of us has been concerned about. My actions is not prompted by the daily paper, the two weekly papers that would have more influence on me politically than the daily paper, or any individual or individ- uals; it's prompted by my responsibility as a County Commissioner and as a member of a entity that have 80 percent of the responsibility of the operation -- smooth operation of this facility. The Coliseum Authority makeup is two from the Legislative Delegation, I believe, and eight from the County Board of Commissioners. I may be wrong on that number, but I think I'm correct. So the responsibility lie with this board. This board had the opportunity to endorse a proposal by Senator Cheeks to dissolve the Coliseum Authority and go to a privatization of the Coliseum and that board over there. It was my position back then that, one, we shouldn't start in-fighting between the two Senators; two, that I'm not sure I support privatization; and that we had a power struggle between two individuals over there, and if those two individuals resigned we probably would resolve 80 percent of the issues as far as the Coliseum Authority go. The board here did not endorse the Cheeks Bill. It went to Atlanta and basically it was defeated, I understand, in the House. I feel that we have a responsibility. We know what the issues are. And if the Coliseum Authority is waiting for this Commissioner to give them the directive on what I expect of them: one, I would expect that they pass a resolution calling for the Coliseum Authority to be put back into the hands of this body where all that authority as far as appointment should be and should never been taken away by the local legislators; two, I expect to see a five-year plan and a ten-year plan, you know, as far as a long-range/short-range plan to put them more into black or less in the red. I think it's ridiculous when you have a entity that's operating as deeply in the red as this one is that's doing nothing to come out of the red. I would expect them to generate the operation funds, at least 80 percent of it, from revenue brought in from putting on events in the Coliseum Authority facilities: the Bell Auditorium and the Civic Center. I don't think that's unreasonable. And that's basically what I would expect out of them. I don't know whether I have a consensus or not, but certainly I feel that there is at least five or six of us that's in consensus on that. The other issue is that if they want -- if we want to do anything other than what we're doing in the original motion, they have opportunity -- they had opportunity in the last week to two weeks to come forward, they have the opportunity in the next two weeks to come forward. I don't believe in delaying, blocking, or giving them additional time to do nothing, and I think it's incumbent upon us to pass -- vote down the substitute and pass the original motion, and we have time to amend this ordinance between now and the second reading. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm planning on voting against the substitute. I do not think this is a time that we need to throw good money after bad, I think it's a time we need to bring this to a head. I think that the original motion is a fair motion. I am willing to listen to concerns of Authority members and also of the Delegation. If we're going to have meetings that occur in the next two weeks, I don't think it only needs to be the Commission and the Authority, I think we also need to have the Delegation involved. I think that this is a item that has got to get behind this community and go away. I don't think that nobody wants to close the Coliseum, I think they want to see the Coliseum be a profitable venture for this entire community. Until we can bring it to a head -- and the only way that I know to bring it to a head is reducing their finances and getting it on the agenda and getting people to act responsibly. Until we can do that, I'm going to stick to voting for the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just make one comment on Mr. Todd's suggestion. I find it very refreshing that Mr. Todd has come up with some potential management objectives to be accomplished. I think in some other forum that we could sit down and we probably could develop more things that we could constructively do. I would seek that we get -- go with the amended motion and that we just carry on and we open up a dialogue with the Coliseum Authority and start getting --constructively answering this problem. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Zetterberg, I wonder if you would consider, rather than having that as a substitute motion, to amend -- ask the amender if he would amend the original motion so we can go ahead and we can collect the funds, and in the meantime we can be discussing with these people what we expect from them and just put it all together. MR. ZETTERBERG: I would not have a problem with that at all as long as we are intent on continuing discussions, opening this thing up for the betterment of our community. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I accept that amendment to the amended motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, is that okay with you? MR. MAYS: No, Mr. Mayor. If he's going to withdraw the substitute, then I'll make it in the form of a substitute. I don't think you can do the two things simultaneously. I think if you're going to have dialogue --if you're going to take action, then take action, don't talk about dialogue. If you're going to have dialogue with people, then sit them down. You still have the power, and as long as you've got the power, then you can call a meeting any day at any time and make that Authority come to it if they don't respond. But I think you're sending an uneven message when you say you want to have dialogue but then you take the action and then you bring the folks in for the dialogue. I think it's very senseless. And I think some of the questions that I'd like to have for them to answer, maybe publicly, that accusations have been made. I mean, we've had different agencies -- we've had heads of other agencies that have called news conferences, we've had accusations in reference to five million dollars plus and contracts that have been lost in terms of mismanagement. I think we ought to determine whether those things have actually been done or not. If they have, then maybe the action of withdrawing the money is not the only thing we need to do. But I don't think that this ought to just float out there where you make that type of accusation, and because some people make it, then it's accepted as gospel truth. And I make it in the form of a substitute motion, and if it dies, I guess it's like Rocky Ford, it dies. MR. HANDY: It will not die, Mr. Mays. I'm with you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, you second the motion? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Now, I hope we got all this correct. We have actually amended -- Mr. Zetterberg amended the motion and it was accepted by Mr. Todd that not only -- do you want to read us the motion to make sure we don't get all confused on this? MS. WATSON: The original motion made by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Kuhlke was to limit to 30 percent of revenue derived from beer tax. The amendment was accepted to take the difference between the 30 percent and the usual funding and place it in a separate account, see how things go with the Coliseum Authority, and the money could be pulled out if necessary. The amendment then was accepted to take it back to the committee and to arrange a meeting between the Coliseum Authority, the Commission, and the Delegation to work out the differences. Then there was a second substitute motion made by Mr. Mays which is to simply take it back to the committee and to arrange the meeting without limiting the revenue. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. The substitute motion first that was made by Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Mays' substitute motion to send it back to committee, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MSSR. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL, AND TODD VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 4-5-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to the original motion made by Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MSSR. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, AND MAYS VOTE NO. MR. ZETTERBERG ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So both motions die; everything stays like it is. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I move to the order of the day, the next item. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 7, please. CLERK: Items 7 through 9 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on May 28th, 1996. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items be approved. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. POWELL: I'd like to pull Items 8 and 9, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, so we're just going to go on Item 7. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read Item 7 so we know what we're voting on? CLERK: Consider approval of the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department Interim Director's recommendations of proposed project budget revisions. MR. BEARD: I move that this item be approved, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8, please. CLERK: Consider approval of the purchase of two (2) passenger vans for the transporting of inmate crews to various cleanup sites. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this was approved by the Administrative Services Committee, and it was to purchase vans that would be used by the urban area to transport inmates from the Correctional Institute so that they would have these inmates and control of these inmates to do the heavier debris and do a possible cleanup in the urban area. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I voted for this in committee; I was mistaken. I just have a problem with paying $22,000 for brand-new vans to haul prisoners around in to clean up garbage. Now, I don't mind going along with getting some used vans or something, and I don't know why -- why do we have to have brand-new vans for this? I don't know if they need to be air conditioned or whatever, but the school buses that the kids ride on aren't air conditioned, so I don't see why we should spend that much money on those vans. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beard, did you -- did anybody investigate with the School Board about getting buses from them? I think we got one for a dollar. MR. BEARD: To answer your question, Mr. Kuhlke, we did investigate that. I think Mr. Dillard was in contact with the transportation office at the School Board. They looked at several buses, but those buses were not in adequate shape to transport the inmates. And we were informed -- I think Mr. Dillard was informed that this would really create more of a maintenance problem than anything else because the buses were very old that they had available. I have no problem with that if we could do it through the School Board, but it was just at this point they decided that the buses were not in that type of condition. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concerns over this is I did not see anywhere in the minutes where we were going to have the funding for this $40,000 come from, and my continuing concern is if we're going to go to the reserve fund, eventually we're going to spend this reserve fund out. And I feel for Mr. Beard and the problem on cleaning up the trash and the debris in the urban area, but we made an original commitment in the original budget for four crews. I'd like to first know why these four crews are not being able to handle the job, and then I would also want to know where the funding for the additional crews and the additional equipment is coming from before I vote on this, otherwise I'm going to be opposed to it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I was supportive of the initiative originally and had some debate on whether this is the right thing to do in the sense that we're getting -- we're hiring one individual and we're using six to eight inmates. And one for six or eight is a pretty good deal, but I'm not sure that we're doing the right thing in the sense that we're putting two individuals on the payroll for long range that's going to cost us approximately 18 to 20 thousand dollars a year, you know, at base and probably when you put the benefits and all at 25 or so, vans at 40, which is going to give us $90,000 the first year, when this may be something that we can subcontract out if we're in a crisis. And that's the reason and my understanding that we're -- I heard at the committee meeting that we may be able to transfer these individuals somewhere else or not have a need for them after we get out of this crisis. If that's the case, I think that we need to look at maybe other methodology in taking care of this crisis versus hiring and buying, et cetera, and maybe even subcontracting out, if it's the leaves and limbs I'm hearing, to someone that's in that business that have a chipper that they can go around and would chip it on site and haul it to the landfill or give it back to the homeowner for composting versus hauling it off to the landfill to do the chipping. I'd like to -- this is one item that probably needs to go back to committee for further study. And my other concern would be on whether we got it under the appropriate committee. And that's my comments and thoughts. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record as saying I'm not opposed to the cleanup efforts, I'm just opposed to us going out and purchasing brand-new vans for the prison inmates. I think that we should buy a I-Wanta and look in there or something and maybe we can come up with a used van or something of that sort, but I just think we need to be a little more feasible with this. MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor, either Mr. Beard or maybe Mr. Dillard. But did I understand you right, Mr. Beard, that we will not be able to get any buses or vans from the School Board? MR. BEARD: We would be able to get the buses from the School Board, but the condition was the problem that we were running into, the condition of the buses that were there. The people who looked into this thought that it would not be feasible to purchase those buses and try to use them because it would do nothing but create a maintenance problem with you in this aspect. I think that if you want to go back and, you know, revisit this as far as the buses are concerned, if that's the only problem, you know, we'll be happy to do that and we'll be able to -- and possibly obtain those buses, you know, but you would continuously have a maintenance problem with them, if that's what you want. But, you know, I would just like to say while I'm answering your question that if you would ride through the urban area, we're not talking about leaves and limbs, we're talking about heavy debris out there. People are continuously calling, and I think our city is in bad shape as far as the right-of-ways are concerned. Two crews -- and I don't care, you know, where they come from, but two crews of inmates would save you a lot of money. We do know that, and I think we're all in agreement, that the Public Works Department up in the urban area is in bad shape as far as personnel is concerned. We don't have anybody out there now cutting the lots, and there are many lots out in the city that are growing up and, you know, I think this needs to be looked into. And as far as what committee it goes into, I don't care. I would like for someone else to --Public Works or anybody else to take this over and do it, but all I want to do is see that this job gets done. And the only reason that I was working with it was because we were appointed by the Mayor to do something about it a couple of months ago, and we tried to do it and we brought it to you. Now, you know, if you want to see the city continue to deteriorate as far as things out there, then we'll go back and we'll try it again. But I will tell you, if you'll ride through the city, it is in very bad shape. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I simply -- I don't want to be accused of micromanaging. I've sat here and I've done something that I said I wasn't going to do and voted to put, because of the cost benefit in it, put guards out with inmates. I originally, I think, made the proposal that we use the inmate labor versus going out and hiring 16 or 24 men. But my position is, where are the men that we've already hired, you know, where are those inmate crews working? And I'm hearing from the cemeteries that they was just in there a brief period of time and that there's nothing ongoing there now. We had men that supposed to be cleaning up the streets and doing that work. Where are they, you know? Are they in District 4 working? You, know, are they in the urban where we hired them to be, in the cemeteries, or where are they working? MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Well, actually, we don't even have a motion on the floor yet. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we send Item Number 8 back to committee to try to find a suitable way -- some way a little less expensive to do this operation. MR. BEARD: Are you talking about 8 and 9 or just 8? You pulled the two. MR. POWELL: We can send both of them back. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll agree with it, except I'd like the amendment also of knowing where the funds are coming from. MR. POWELL: I'll accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm not on that committee either. I remember the day when that committee met and you made a suggestion in there, and I don't know whether it was a part of the motion or not, but we did talk about the possibilities of using maybe some of the smaller firms in this interim of doing some of that cleanup. I can see where we need to deal with Number 8 in terms of the possibility of that transportation, and I may have even jokingly said that, you know, you could probably pitch a pup tent while you had some of them sitting out there and pick them up in the same van that some others were transported in and use the same van for dealing with two different crews if you had to. But I think that it's a situation where we can't afford to deal like -- look like Nero, we sit and fiddle while Rome burns. A lot of the debris and stuff that's out there, a lot of that excess stuff that's there belongs to this new city government. We have a lot of inherited property that's either been through tax acquisition or just things that have not been done through demolition, and a lot of that unsightliness belongs to us. I do think in finding that source, Mr. Finance Chairman, that there's a certain obligation in there that we have, if we're not going to clean up somebody else's stuff, we need to clean up our own. And we found a lot of monies to do a lot of things with, and I think we definitely can find something to deal with our own with, I mean, because we're getting a ton of complaints with it. We have a densely populated area inside much of the urban district. It's not where you're out on a three-acre tract or four-acre tract and you don't see your neighbor every morning, you got houses in some cases that's three feet apart, and that's why you've got a lot of the situation that you've got. So, I mean, if we're going to send it back I would hope that while we're dealing with this two to three week interim in here that we might not at least authorize the Mayor or the Administrator in some way to follow up on what you were talking about, Mr. Mayor, of getting some of this done. Because as the heat goes on, mixed with the rain and hot weather, the grass is not going away, the snakes are not going to go away, the rats aren't going to go away; the only thing that's going to be there is more work for whatever crew that we put out there whether they're paid or whether they're inmates. So at some point it does need to be cleaned up. I can understand the prudence of wanting to deal with Number 8, but I think at some point, if we're going to delay it and do it, then we need to look at what you were talking about in the interim or maybe even a mix of doing that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: You also -- and I was on that committee. You also mentioned in that committee that we could use the community service workers and that there seemed to be quite a few of them that's available, so I think there are some options if we decided to maybe perhaps look at it. And I realize that they went to the School Board and were able to get a bus for the Sheriff, and I think he's using it. So if you want us to revisit that, I would be happy to go back and see could we get a better bus than was offered to Mr. Beard and those at that particular time. I'd be happy to do that if they would want us to. MR. POWELL: Yes, I can accept that as an amendment also. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I understand that school is out now and I understand that the peak season for grass growing and shrubbery growing is now. What would prevent us from going to the School Board and asking them to temporarily loan us some buses, along with guards, so that we can move these prisoners around to do the work that they've got to do? I understand the argument might be that they don't have bars on the windows. Maybe there's some common sense solution that we could take to limit the problems that that might cause. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the School Board, I believe, works two crews of inmates year round, and a common sense solution may be to all of it that we just let the School Board lease the vans that they have for the summer in the sense that they may not need them as much as they would during school time, and also borrow those inmate crews. All it would mean, that they wouldn't pay us, that we would work them for free, and maybe go on and lease the tools from them that they use and put them out there to work. That may be the solution. I don't want to get into micromanaging it, but I do know that the School Board have two crews. I also know that Recreation have a crew of two. And I certainly wouldn't want to take Recreation's with the condition that the playing fields for Little League is in until after Little League is over with, but maybe in two weeks when Little League is over with that we could look at Recreation and borrow a couple of crews there and put out there. You know, it just seems that this thing is so -- it's not as complex as maybe we're making it; it's a matter of not being able to get certain folks to work. And I would hope that Mr. Brigham, being the liaison between the School Board and this board, could talk to them in reference maybe that approach. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Be glad to, Mr. Todd. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that the committee look into the possibility of using alternate methods of transporting crews from the Correctional Institute and whatever the most feasible method that is of doing it, whether it be school buses or whatever or getting the buses from the Board of Education. And also in that same motion, we're going to need people that will do that. We're going to need the guards. That motion would also be that we approve the two guards to oversee the inmate crews. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I can accept that amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Further discussion, gentlemen? Do we need the motion read so we know exactly where we stand? I suspect we do. MS. WATSON: The original motion was to send Items 8 and 9 back to the committee and to designate funding for the purchase of two passenger vans and hiring of two guards to oversee additional inmate crews. The motion was amended to look at alternate methods of transporting inmates and crews and to approve the two guards to oversee the inmate crews. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, that puts Item 9 in direct conflict with one another, doesn't it? Mr. Powell's motion was to deny it, wasn't it? MS. WATSON: Well, his was to send it back to the committee and then to designate funding for where the purchase of vans and hiring of the guards was to come from. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. But his amendment went ahead and approved Item 9. MS. WATSON: But the amendment goes ahead and approves that, and Mr. Powell accepted that amendment. MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that was the intent of that, me accepting that amendment, was pending that the funding was found for it. MS. WATSON: Funding is still supposed to be designated. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, am I understanding that if we vote for this we are voting to hire two new guards? MS. WATSON: If funding is found. MAYOR SCONYERS: Providing funding is found. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, how can we vote if we don't know whether or not we've got funding? I thought that was the question at hand. MR. HANDY: We've got the funding, it's just whether you want to get up off of it or not. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I think it's got to be identified. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, would you like to address that before we go any further? MR. McKIE: Not really, Mr. Mayor, but I will. MR. HANDY: Don't let me down, Butch. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Nor me, Butch. MR. McKIE: Is that between a rock and a hard place or what? We have a sizeable contingency in our two governments. What you're going to act on later today, the salary equalization, will take about two-thirds of that, but we should have about 500,000 in contingency left for the remaining six months after our six-months results and the salary equalization. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. McKie. I know that we are consolidated, but we have two budgets we're running this year, so identify the contingency in the suburban and the urban on what we have left. MR. McKIE: The principal amount of that is on the urban side, and that would be about 80 percent of that total. The suburban side has very little, in fact. MR. TODD: Certainly I'd like to see the motion state that it's going to come out of the contingency on the urban side in the sense that this work is happening in the urban district. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw my motion and make a new motion that we table --send this item back to committee, and that's all the amendments to it, and let the committee study it. MR. BRIDGES: Is that 8 and 9? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: If that motion means that we're not going to do anything about the problem out there, I think we're making a terrible mistake. This is one of the biggest problems we've got on a day-by-day operational issue right now. The city is filthy, and it would seem to me that we ought to be able to come up with some common sense solution to this in this body rather than putting it back in Mr. Beard's committee again. What this says to me is that we can't -- this forum doesn't allow us to have discussions and seek solutions, and that's a problem the way -- I guess the way we meet. And I don't think we can let this one go by. I'd like to have somebody else come up with some sort of a solution that we could all agree on. Mr. McKie says the money is there. I've heard that we don't want to buy new buses -- new vans. I've heard that used vans, that might be a question. But the problem is not going to go away and, in reality, if you send it back to committee you're talking about almost a four to six weeks delay on getting anything done, which is telling the citizens that we can't come up and solve a simple problem like removing trash from the city streets. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we're trying to kill this or anything, we're just sending it back to the committee. From all the discussion and the different viewpoints we've got, we need to come up with a different solution to this problem. probably a more economical solution, and it needs to go back to the committee for them to come back with a economical and maybe a better recommendation to bring before this body. And I think that's the purpose of this and I would support the new motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think we've got the problem worked out. Mr. Smith from the landfill has agreed to send his crews down into the urban district and do a cleanup until such time when we get this mess straightened out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly we have a department head out there somewhere or out there working that's responsible for this initiative that should have worked with this special committee. And it shouldn't be my responsibility to come up with solutions making $12,000 a year, it should be someone's responsibility making 30 to 35 to 40 up to do it. So I can sympathize with what Mr. Zetterberg is saying, and I think he's quite correct that when there is solutions brought to this board that there should be more than one option. But usually those options, when it come in one option, there's a reason for that. And, you know, in the sense that I wasn't involved as far as the think tank on this solution and the one option, I think that I have every right to question whether we're doing the reasonable thing. And I certainly want to do the cleanup, I don't have a problem there, and I welcome the offer from Mr. Smith on his crew. I think this is not the first time that this crew has been into the inner city. But I think that there is some department heads possibly or other bureaucrats that is going to have things their way or no way, and I think this board is telling them it's not going to exactly be that way, that when we want -- when they bring solutions to us, that we want more than one option. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to send it back to committee, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD: Would that be including Mr. Smith's crew going -- is that included in your motion? MR. POWELL: Well, that wasn't in the motion, but that was the intent of the Engineering Services Committee, to go ahead and take action immediately as far as getting some action on cleaning up. Mr. Smith from the landfill agreed, but that's not in the motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that can be an administrative decision versus putting it in a motion, that we know it's the intent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, are we voting on this now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I certainly hope so. MR. BEARD: I was just asking for clarification because the last time we had -- you know, it was for two -- it was for a couple of days, and then after that it evaporated and we didn't have any more people down here. It's the same with the cemeteries. They were in the cemetery for one day, then they weren't there again, and they were down cleaning up for two days and then they were gone again. And all I want to see is some substance in this, that they are there until the committee works out a solution. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the last time the landfill crew was downtown it was until they could get crews set up to do it. My question is still, Mr. Mayor, and I'd like to hear from a department head here, is where are those crews today. What happened to them? Are they functioning? Did the inmates escape, did the guards quit, or where are they functioning today? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have anybody that can answer that question for us? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, weren't we in the middle of taking a vote? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I thought we were, but it's kind of gotten out of hand. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's finish our vote and go on to the next item. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Mayor, could I speak? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, Mr. Hartley. MR. HARTLEY: We have a crew right now that we have got that's out here trying to pick up this bulky trash and carpet, wood, mattresses and everything else, and that's all we've got going. We have got employees -- about 38 employees for the sanitation division. That is not enough people to cover this whole urban district. We cannot get the trash off the street without y'alls help. We have got to have the proper people, the proper personnel, to get the stuff up like we need to get it up. We have phone calls; we've got people out here call us every day concerned about this trash. It is a major problem. This is something that's not going to go away, and without y'alls help and support we're not going to get it done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Hartley. Let us continue and finish this vote, and then we can revisit anything we want to at a later time. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I happened to be out and I want to be a part of this, so I need to know what we're doing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you please read the motion? MR. HANDY: I definitely need to know what we are doing. I don't want to explain where I had to go, but all of you know that I'm over 50, so I'll leave it at that. MS. WATSON: The motion on the floor now is to send Items 8 and 9 back to the committee for a solution. MR. HANDY: And what are we going to do about the trash meanwhile while it goes back to committee, because that's going to be two weeks from now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, can you explain that to him, please. MR. POWELL: I'll let Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: I'd like to address that. I'm going to get with the Administrator and with the inner-city department head of that division and we will have the inmate crew in place by Monday, and we'll leave them there until y'all resolve this situation. Now, I'm going to bleed at the landfill, but it's who's bleeding the worst, and I believe the inner city is, so we'll send them there and work from that point until you get it resolved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Now can we please -- MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I'm ready now. It's just that 50 percent of my people live down here in town. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 8: Consider approval of the purchase of two (2) passenger vans for the transporting of inmate crews to various cleanup sites. Item 9: Consider approval to hire two (2) guards to oversee additional inmate crews.] MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please. CLERK: Items 10 through 22 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on May 28th, 1996. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this as a consent agenda. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is that through 22 or 21? MR. HANDY: She said 22. MR. BEARD: I would like to pull 22. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, are you agreeable to pulling 22? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. No problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to take Items 10 through 21? CLERK: Mr. Bridges, did you ask for Item 21? MR. BRIDGES: No. 22 is the first reading, so I wanted to pull it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one question on Item 10. MR. HANDY: Let us finish up this motion first. MR. ZETTERBERG: You asked for pulls. I'd like Number 10 pulled. CLERK: So that's Items 10 and 22. MR. POWELL: Item 11 through -- 11 through 21 is what I -- CLERK: Through 21, right. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're voting on Items 11 through 21. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 11: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way from Edd Selman, Olga Selman and Angelika Selman known as Area B, Parcel 4 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 12: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way from Edd Selman known as Area B, Parcel 5 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 13: Consider approval of an option to purchase right-of-way from Michael T. Kerr, Georgia M. Kerr and Robert D. Kerr, Jr. known as Area D, Parcel 2 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item 14: Consider approval for authorization to enter into an agreement with CSX Railroad for the purposes of jack and bore under the railroad tracks on Steiner Avenue and Poplar Street. Item 15: Consider approval for authorization to enter into an agreement with DOT for the relocation of a City/County owned 24" water main by the DOT contractors. Item 16: Consider approval for authorization to enter into a contract with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of collecting Air Samples. Item 17: Consider approval of a temporary four-way stop sign at the intersection of Rushing Road and Cadden Road. Item 18: Consider approval to ratify Emergency Sewer Line Repair Contract for repairs on Damascus Road west of Highland Avenue. Item 19: Consider approval of a Deed of Dedication of the Road Maintenance Agreement in connection with the new Wal-Mart Shopping Center and a Quit Claim Deed in connection with the abandonment of the old road. Item 20: Consider approval of contract form from Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. regarding Kissingbower Road Sanitary Improvements Project. Item 21: Consider approval for a Capital Project Budget and engineering proposal from W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. for Tanglewood & Kingston.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please. CLERK: Item 10: Consider approval of an option to purchase easement from James E. Davis, Jr. known as Project Parcel 52 of the Rae's Creek Channel Improvement Project. MR. ZETTERBERG: My only question on this, is this the last parcel on the Rae's Creek thing or do we still have more out there, and what's the status of that? MR. MURPHY: It doesn't make any difference. We're in the process of finalizing the project bid documents right now. It'll probably go out of our office by next week to the printer. We have possession of all parcels. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay, good. That satisfies my question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we approve it, Mr. Chairman. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 22, please. CLERK: Item 22: Consider approval of an Ordinance to establish User Fees for the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've received some calls on this. Some of my constituents are concerned that if we increase these fees that there's going to be -- rather than some of the people taking the trash and paying the fines, they're going to throw the trash out on the shoulder of the road, which is already a problem in our area. I don't have -- I'm going to support this. I think the users of the landfill should be the one that pays the bill. I think that this should be -- we need to make this an enterprise fund as much as possible and not depend on supplementation from the taxpayers. But I guess I have a question from anybody that can answer, but what is being done about enforcement of throwing trash on the highways? I know at one time there were some officers that that's strictly what they did. I don't know if that -- you know, what the status of that is. If I could be brought up to speed on what's going on there by anyone really. MR. SMITH: Mr. Mayor, can I speak on that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Please. MR. SMITH: Mr. Mayor, Council-Commissioners, the Sheriff's Department is now responsible for the enforcement of the litter laws, as that was turned over to them approximately two years ago. Four deputies, four cars and their equipment was turned over to them to handle this, and they are presently handling it. I have spoken with some of the deputies out there who have specialized cases who have come to me asking certain questions about the waste and stuff of that nature, and they are actively seeking out these people doing this. As far as when we had the enforcement division out at the landfill and when I was overseeing it, we found that the people who were actually putting this waste illegally on the side of the road were people who would have put it there whether there was a fee or not a fee. Most of the people we caught were people who would not have been charged if they came to the landfill, it is just a person who does not want to take the time to put it in its proper place. And it has nothing to do with the economics, it has to do with I don't want to do this. And, of course, there's always exceptions to the case, and that is addressed in here in a fair and equitable term as to the cost. We're still letting what we consider the mom-and-pops bring it to the landfill, two to three bags. It's a three-bag limit at no charge, and this makes it equitable for the users of the landfill to pay for the landfill. MR. BRIDGES: In regards to the enforcement then, that's an ongoing thing and those deputies are strictly trash detail? MR. SMITH: The deputies that are handling the enforcement part of it for litter, I understand there is one assigned to it full time, but the Sheriff has a force out there that all of them write for littering. And I don't know about responding to illegal dumping. I do not know that; that would better be addressed by someone from the Sheriff's Department. I'm sure that they'll dispatch any car to an illegal dump if they need to do so, but the Sheriff would have to answer that. CHIEF HATFIELD: Gentlemen, obviously had I had some prior warning I would have been able to provide you with some statistical information, but I assure you that your Sheriff's Department on a daily basis makes a large number of cases against community-based persons, basically two areas as it's being referred to here, in transport to and from the dumping facility. And we're making cases off the road, in back alleys, if you will, of mattresses and that type of material being dumped. We have targeted supervisors within our department who primarily does background research, picking up a paper out of this pile and tracing it back to an individual. We make a large number of cases on a daily basis, I can assure you of that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. BEARD: I can see where possibly this is needed, you know, but when you're getting calls in reference to a fee -- and I do understand that most people, especially when they come out to the urban area, it's a long way to go out there to the landfill. Most of these people who are trying to do the right things and take it to the landfill, they have to either rent a truck or, you know, borrow someone's truck to take the debris out there. And at this point I just feel that it would be a little hard for me to vote for a fee there for these people when we're trying to encourage them to not put it on the right-of-way and to take it out there. But I think when you start saying that you've got to pay a fee after you've gone to all this trouble to borrow a truck or rent a truck or what have you, I think we're just going to have a little problem there, that I think that maybe we could extend that service to the people of our area and, therefore, this is the problem that I have with that. And I know, you know, it may be in the minority on that, but that's the way I feel and I want to get my expression to the committee. MR. HANDY: I'd just like to make one comment concerning this. I know this is the first reading, but I just hope whatever decision that we make here would be different from the one we did on the water and sewerage because I've been bombarded by phone calls after phone calls, and even before I came to the meeting today. Because the water bills must've evidently went out yesterday because I received mine today, and my neighbor is really upset about the sewerage prices. And so here we are adding another fee to the landfill, so I hope whatever decision we make today -- I hope that whoever came up with the idea have studied it to make sure that it is for the best interest of all the citizens, because I think we did a poor job on the water treatment facility. Because I've been getting them, and I don't want to come back here with another one, with adding a fee to the landfill, and end up like the water. So I hope that whoever is making these decisions about generating money makes sure that we can all live with it. That's the only comment that I had. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I was put in charge of trash a few years ago, and Mr. Powell kept me in charge of trash on a special committee, so I'm proud to be the king of trash as I talk to environmental committees and the state environmental folks and Keep America Beautiful and other folks. Certainly we know we have a problem as far as littering and dumping -- illegal dumping. This problem exists in counties where there is no tipping fee for landfill use; it exists in counties where there is courtesy dumpsters throughout the counties, strategically located; it exists in counties where there is high tipping fees, moderate tipping fees. And the main contribution to this is human behavior, a thing that's called sorryism, in my opinion, and not what it costs to, you know, haul it to the landfill, pay for it when you get there, et cetera, because we set priorities as far as other things that we do. This landfill -- and I think it's important to point out that unlike Burke County or unlike Aiken County, this landfill is like Columbia County and many other progressive counties, a enterprise fund operation. It is not paid for by the taxpayers, it's paid for by the users of the landfill, and largely by the commercial users. As stated, we want to run government more like a business. We know the problem we've had at the landfill for a number of years and we know that we're losing money. We're going in the hole $1.50 per ton, you know, into the negative, into the red, on every ton we're receiving there because we have to pay the state $1.50 per ton, Department of Community Affairs, where the users -- some of the users, residential, et cetera, is not paying the landfill one red penny, so we go in the hole $1.50. If we're going to operate similar to a business and we're going to run a enterprise fund operation, I think the best that we can do is have no charge on a minimum or a maximum up to three bags of waste. And if I had my way, that three bags would have to be recycled, you know, with the metals in one, aluminum in one, plastics and paper, and that way we could use that in kind to those individuals as a method for educating folks on recycling. I didn't win my way on that. But I think when we look at the urban service district we must realize that we're just bringing -- part of the problem has been the burden that the urban service district, by a economical decision, put on the landfill that we're just resolving on sending the waste from the urban service district to Screaming Eagle in South Carolina versus using the Richmond County landfill. We've taken care of that. We would request that the urban service district work with us, that they bring their waste to the landfill when they can. But as I understand the policy right now, that virtually everything from the urban service district is picked up and delivered to the landfill, with maybe a few exceptions of things we don't accept at the landfill. We're working on that as far as the white goods go: refrigerators, washing machines, et cetera, and we hope to have something in place to take care of that soon. We hope to have recycling at the landfill soon. And all I'm asking the Commission to do is to work with us. This is not like the water situation, which I maybe was one of the few that understood most of the water equalization rates, but I don't have a problem with this. This is not like the water rate situation, this is a -- the only similarity here is that this is a enterprise operation like Water Works and Sewerage. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, all of these rates are going to be unpopular to somebody. The water rates, I'm convinced, and I'm convinced in the two water directors that helped us work them up, that they're fair. And I've got confidence in the Environmental and Ecology Subcommittee and Mr. Smith that these rates for the trash are very fair. They are not going to make everybody happy, but they are fair. And I think if you cooked everybody in here a steak two inches thick some people would have something to say about it. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Smith, what is the increase based on this schedule? What are we going from to? I see what we're going to, but where are we coming from? MR. SMITH: Your basic increases deal only with the residential, which under Senate Bill 533 the law states that we must be equal with all users of the landfill in the charges. And that's an increase in the residential auto or truck with up to six bags, which is $2.00. The residential truck or small trailer, and we're talking under 6,000 GVW, for solid waste it's $7.50 per load and for inert waste it's $2.00 per load. And we actually have a reduction in charges for the inert waste from $30.00 per ton down to $15.00 per ton, which is a 50 percent reduction, because it costs us less to handle that waste. We have our own cell for that now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Just one other question, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make a comment to Mr. Smith, and no offense to the House Bill that you just gave us on the number that created us, but my neighbor on Bell Haven Drive that called me today -- and I tried to use that same tactic. I said, "When they did the consolidation bill and they said the equalization of the water rates," and he said, "What the hell Atlanta got to do with that?" So don't come here talking about that bill because that don't mean nothing coming from Atlanta when you start talking to people, because they think that Richmond County Commissioners runs and put the laws in and they don't want to hear nothing about from Atlanta. I thought I'd let you know that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. BRIGHAM AND MR. HANDY ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 7-1-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Items 23 through 29 were all approved by the Public Safety Committee May 29th. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull 25. MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to pull 23, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're pulling Items 23, 25; any others? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we pull 24 and 27 as well? I have some questions on those. MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 24 and 27. So we're going to vote on Items 26, 28, and 29; is that correct? MR. H. BRIGHAM: So I move for approval of those items. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion on Items 26, 28, and 29? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 26: Consider approval of bid award to Robinson Textiles (Best Bid) for inmate uniforms. Item 28: Consider approval to ratify a contract between Augusta-Richmond County, the Georgia Emergency Management Agency and the State of Georgia. Item 29: Consider approval to expand 911 system equipment to sixty (60) button sets.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 23: Consider approval to solicit RFP's for ambulance service for Augusta-Richmond County. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I made the motion in committee for this particular item, and I probably did that not thinking thoroughly at the difficulty of trying to go out for request for bids to provide this service, and I will probably vote against this today. University Hospital is an important entity within this community. They've provided ambulance service for over 20 years in this community. Their request to this body is to allow them to subcontract the ambulance service, and I would like to get it on the floor -- I would like to make a motion that this Council approve the request of University Hospital to enter into a subcontract with Rural/Metro to provide ambulance service. MR. BRIDGES: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute motion that Richmond County Board of Commissioners, through the Hospital Authority or whatever methods, go out for proposals for bids on ambulance service for indigent care. Now, there is a vast difference between what Mr. Kuhlke is talking about, which I don't think we have any right to do, and what I'm talking about, which we do, the indigent care, and there is a high likability that the indigent care provider would be considered the health service or emergency service provider for Richmond County. That is not within our jurisdiction, as I understand the legal advice, so I'm going to make a motion just on indigent care, on where that contract go. And if University get it, then so be it, but I think that's what need to go out competitive, that three-quarters of a million dollars we're spending on indigent care, and I so move in the form of a substitute motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, for discussion, I'd like to second Mr. Todd's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Brigham. The substitute motion first, gentlemen. Any discussion on the substitute motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. I know Mr. Bray is here representing University Hospital, and my question is: How do you determine whether it's an indigent care emergency service or it's not an indigent care call? I mean, there's no way you can tell, can you? I mean, but we're asking to decipher those things. And I guess we'd know it afterwards, after the fact, after we dispatch Rural/Metro you find that -- then you try to determine whether we pay or somebody else pays? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. ZETTERBERG: That's my question to -- if I could have Mr. Bray answer that. I'm just asking for clarification. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to answer that, Mr. Bray? MR. BRAY: May I speak from here? CLERK: Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. BRAY: Don Bray, University Hospital. I don't know how you separate indigent care from the county emergency medical services system. What you're talking about is whether or not this Commission is going to offer some subsidy, some support, for providing a county-wide ambulance service, which includes service to everybody. If you try to determine what portion of that is truly indigent, I have no idea how you would do it, prior to rendering the service or after rendering the service. If you try to get into some type of certification process to identify that, you're going to be spending a tremendous amount of money that I suspect will increase the cost in the subsidy over and above what it is today. So I don't know how that would be done. To me, a county-wide 911 emergency medical service system is tied in directly with offering services to those who can't pay. That, to me, is -- they are linked totally and I do not see any way that you can separate those. That's my response. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg is not finished yet. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I appreciate those comments. University Hospital, like Mr. Kuhlke has said, has been in this business for a long, long time and had done a very commendable job for doing it. The issue is whether to go out on the street and ask for a request for proposals after University Hospital has done some preliminary work and are offering us, frankly, a better deal than we have today. My opposition to it and my desire to go out on the street for request for proposals is that I believe that we can get a significant reduction in the subsidies provided and that the marketplace will afford us that opportunity. I respect the work that University Hospital has done, but I really believe that we ought to have -- we don't have anything to lose by going out on a request for proposals, and then Rural/Metro could have that opportunity or any other third-party provider could come in. I don't think we're going to do worse. MR. BRAY: Mr. Zetterberg, in the letter that I furnished to you and the other Commissioners I tried to point out to you what I think the danger is and what you do stand to lose if you take that action without giving it tremendous thought and study, and my point to you and the Commissioners was that that thought and study had not been given at the time the Public Safety Committee met and made their decision last week. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, I'm just saying before you do it you need to think of those consequences and determine what impact that might have on the emergency medical services system in this county. Now, if the driving reason is to save that subsidy, then I think you need to think that through and determine what is the responsibility of the Commission to supporting this service. And if you're saying there is no responsibility on the part of the County Commission to support the emergency medical services in this county and you take that position, then that's a decision that takes it off the table because you do control whether you support it or not. Now, that's one question. Determining how you pay it and who you pay it to is another question, and I think those are getting mixed up in the discussion that's going on. MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't think there's any intent at all for this -- anybody on this body would say that we're not responsible for providing service. All I'm saying is that I believe it can be operated at either a far greater --a far smaller subsidy than we've offered it or potentially no subsidy at all providing a -- all we need to do is write it into the contract, put all the provisions in there that should be put in there, and we go out on the street and we ask for all of the parties to come in and do it. Now, if you can explain to me what's wrong with that -- MR. BRAY: I don't disagree with you because our proposal does just that, it eliminates the subsidy. MR. ZETTERBERG: After three years. MR. BRAY: Right. So I'm saying think about whether you want to bid it before you study that proposal in detail. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if I had an opportunity for no subsidy in no years, that's better than getting it done away with in three years. MR. BRAY: Right. All I'm asking you to do is think about how you -- MR. ZETTERBERG: If you can explain to me the liability that we have or the big mistake that we have of going out to the marketplace and asking that - - and nobody's really outlining that to me. University Hospital is a 371 million dollar effort. They have all the leverage in the world of getting that kind of buying power and I hear that Rural/Metro has such significant buying power that cuts are being done. All I'm saying is what we ought to do is we ought to let the marketplace determine that. And I know that you've done some research and everything and you've -- it's a good deal. If we took it today and we didn't have that option, it's a good deal. I think we can do better. MR. BRAY: My concern was that only one option was being considered, Mr. Zetterberg, and my request was that you look at both options carefully before you make that decision. That was my request. MR. ZETTERBERG: I might have made a mistake because I'm not too sure I saw two options. MR. BRAY: One option was to consider our proposal and the other option that was approved last week was to put it out on bid. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think that's what I'm supporting today. MR. BRAY: Those are the two separate options. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Bray, excuse me, but when y'all reviewed this and you came up with Rural/Metro, you did go out for bids or proposals and you looked at these people and that's the one you chose; is that not correct? MR. BRAY: That's correct, we did determine who we thought could partner with us best, and that was Rural/Metro. MR. BRIDGES: What local people did you consider? MR. BRAY: We did not consider anybody locally because we did not think anybody locally had the expertise and the resources to give us what we could get from Rural/Metro. MR. BRIDGES: How did you determine that? MR. BRAY: Through 20 years of observation and association. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think, you know, the problem here -- and I've supported University when I felt University deserved that support, but I think the problem here is that we have University wanting to broker the three- quarters of a million dollars that we spend in indigent care. And Mr. Bray is right in the sense that you can't tell which call is going to be a indigent care call, and even if you could, I don't think it would be legal to make a decision based on that, so I think you would have to render that service if you arrived on the scene and it was quite obvious that it was going to be a indigent. And I'll agree always you can't tell whether a person is indigent by appearances. But the bottom line is that the question is a question of fairness. The question is whether University should be allowed to broker this deal dealing with three-quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money or whether this board should be the one that broker this deal by going out for competitive bids. In the years that I've sat here and the years that I've been involved, I've never seen an instance where it wasn't worthy of going out competitive bidding. We know that University have a vested interest here. I've considered what I -- I didn't go in for the briefing, but I -- and I think it's inappropriate for me as a Commissioner that's supposed to be representing the interest of the taxpayers to go over to University and to have them to tell me what's in the best interest of the taxpayers of this community. I think that certainly they give me their recommendation or their information, I listen to the other folks that's interested in this, and I make a decision. And certainly I feel that the way to do it is to put the indigent care in the specs; that subsidy or no subsidy, make it a issue; and go out for competitive bidding with the service providers that may be in this local area and outside, and when we get that in, we consider University's proposal along with all the rest and decide what's the best. I can't believe that I have this institution telling me that to go out competitive is not the best way to do business. It would surprise me when they bid or go out to do additions, et cetera, that they don't go out for competitive bids. When they buy equipment, it would surprise me if they don't go out for competitive bids. So, you know, don't come here and tell me that the best methodology is not to go out for competitive bidding, that is not the businesslike way of doing it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I'll yield to Mr. Bray first, Mr. Chairman, if that'd be okay. MR. BRAY: I just have to comment on two things. I'm not here telling you not to go out on bids, Mr. Todd; you're misinterpreting my comment. All I'm saying is for you to give that careful consideration before you do. And the other comment is, when you refused to come and talk with University Hospital to give us the opportunity and the courtesy of sharing information with you, I think you are doing a disservice to this community. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. BRAY: I'm sorry, may I continue? Because you say you listen to other people and that's where you get your facts and information, but you don't come to us and get the information and facts from us, and I just ask for equal time, that's all. We're not trying to influence you beyond anything other than just giving information. Now, I think that's fair in terms of this Commission responding to what we want and what we represent in this community, and I think for you to refuse to have that dialogue with us -- you just got through talking earlier about having appropriate communication with the Coliseum Authority. I think we deserve the same kind of communication. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the place for Mr. Bray to have dialogue with me is -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think I was next on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold it, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: I haven't finished, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, no, Mr. Powell was next. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you yielded to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Hold it. MR. TODD: -- to Mr. Zetterberg to respond, so I'll respond if it's okay with the Chair. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, you're not going to respond until Mr. Powell gets through. I'll have the deputy remove you if I have to. Mr. Powell? MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, then have the deputy to remove me, but I expect the same courtesy that Mr. Zetterberg had when he had dialogue with Mr. Bray, and that courtesy is to finish my thought. And my thought is that if Mr. Bray want to have dialogue with Moses Todd, that he can do it down here in the Commission-Council Office, and that's where I advise him to do it in the future; that Moses Todd will not be summoned to University Hospital to have dialogue; that any -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. You're through, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: -- other citizen that want to have dialogue, Mr. Chairman, can have it down here in the office that's provided by the taxpayers. DEPUTY: Come on, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: No, sir, I'm not going. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, you either be quiet or I'm going to have you removed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not leaving. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy from the Chair, although I don't have the same from my colleagues. I took advantage to go over to University Hospital, and this ambulance service proposal was discussed in great detail. I learned a lot over there that day. University Hospital is a premiere healthcare organization. They have the expertise in ambulance and emergency services, and I think we'll be doing this community a disservice if we don't go along with the proposal of University Hospital. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. I, too, had an opportunity to probably serve on that Authority longer than any of the people who are here. However, I have another proposal in my hand that Ms. Beazley just passed out, and I'm almost sure that we need to hear from other organizations. I think they have a fine group over there, but in my opinion, that this proposal -- some of you may not have even seen it, and if you haven't, I think we ought to see it. And I think that until we do that kind of thing, then I think that we have done perhaps a disservice on it. Have you seen this proposal? If not, Ms. Beazley has -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, I have seen the proposal. I have talked to other people. I have nothing against University Hospital's proposals other than I just -- maybe betting on the come here -- that I think that there's a potential of us saving an awful lot of money if we put it in the competitive market-place. That's a potential. It might not prove true, but for the little cost that it's going to take to develop a request for proposal, put it out in the marketplace, with University consul-tation -- I think it would be very foolish if we didn't bring you in to do that. You're the ones who have decided that you -- you said, "We want to get out of the ambulance business," and -- MR. BRAY: No. No, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, no, wait. Wait, let me just say it. The perception is -- my perception is that you wanted to get out of the University Hospital business -- out of the ambulance business with -- and use Rural/Metro. MR. BRAY: But that's not -- I made that clear last week, Mr. Zetterberg, and I did it purposely because that is a misperception. We are not getting out of the ambulance business. We don't want to get out of the ambulance business. We brought forth a proposal that we thought would improve the service to the community, reduce costs, and make it much more efficient than what we had, that's all. But we're not trying to get out of the business, I don't want that perception to be -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I haven't even had a chance. I've had my hand up and I've waited long enough. I don't want the question called without having an opportunity to speak. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you respect that? MR. POWELL: Yes, I'll show some courtesy to my colleague. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Bray, I've got several questions for you I'm concerned about. You said that this was the best proposal. Was this the only proposal that y'all received? MR. BRAY: It's the only one we received, but it's not the only one we requested. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did we not receive any other proposals? MR. BRAY: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then maybe if we go out for proposals maybe we can stand a better chance, and with y'alls cooperation come to a better ambulance service for the entire community; is that not true? MR. BRAY: That's possible. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The other question I have: If we do go out for proposals, are y'all going to submit this proposal to us as a possibility? MR. BRAY: We will wait to see the request for bid and then we'll make that decision. And I must say -- Mr. Zetterberg said we would assist in that. I think if we're going to be bidding, it takes -- puts us in a difficult position to assist with the development of the bid documents and those kinds of things. We would love to do that, but I don't think we would -- it would be fair of us to do that. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I can understand that position. But I might have misread the tea leaves there because the difference that I have with your proposal -- with what you're saying and what my perception is is that it's two different things, and I have not reconciled those yet myself. I'll leave it at that. MR. BRAY: All I'm saying, I think Mr. Brigham has raised some good questions. I think there are a lot of questions that y'all need to talk about before you make that decision, that's all I'm saying. I think the decision was made hastily to bid it without dialogue, without discussion, and that's all I'm suggesting that takes place before you make that decision to understand what you're doing and why you're doing it. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if you understand the way that we operate, there's only four of us who are going to have the discussion of it, that's in the Public Safety Committee. Unless we discuss it in an environment like this with all of the players out here, we don't get a chance to discuss it. MR. BRAY: Well, there were nine members of that committee present that discussed it the other day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry, were you finished? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Just one other question. I was trying to get my thoughts together. Mr. Bray, you also say y'all are going -- not going out of the ambulance business. But if y'all subcontract it, are y'all not effectively out of the ambulance business? MR. BRAY: No. We are subcontracting the management of it. And we're still involved, we still have the contract, we're still on line, we're still responsible. We oversee the operation and we still have responsibility to make sure it's a quality operation. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But, now, from what I remember of the proposal they were buying all the equipment, so I think that puts us effectively out of the ambulance service. MR. BRAY: Not under the way the contract is set up. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I'm not a lawyer, so you might be right. MR. BRAY: Well, again, these are the questions that I would've hoped we would've had an opportunity to discuss and clarify before a decision was made, that's all, Mr. Chairman. I just felt like after making two proposals there was no dialogue. There was no questions, no opportunity to respond to the questions that are here, whether it's from Mr. Todd or whoever, and we would just welcome that opportunity. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion and make another motion, that we take Item Number 23 and refer it back to committee for further discussion. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We still have the substitute motion on the floor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in light of that, I'll withdraw the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So your motion, Mr. Kuhlke, was to send it back to committee? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we even extend that and maybe have a special called meeting and have all the players here at one time. Would that be better? MR. KUHLKE: That's fine. That'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think that might solve the whole problem if we had the whole Commission and all the other people involved here at one time. When would y'all want to do this? MR. ZETTERBERG: I know I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. When would y'all like to do this? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can we do it at a time when we can all come to agreement with our calendars? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Can we set a time before we leave the building this afternoon? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm free any time that this board want to meet and discuss this issue. I think that this is a issue that we probably should've dealt with a year ago as far as where that subsidy is going to go, and certainly I'm available any time. MAYOR SCONYERS: What we'd like to do, gentlemen, is this afternoon before y'all leave, to get together with you, find out when we can meet, and then we'll be able to get back with Mr. Bray. Is that agreeable with everybody? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's fine. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Bray and other interested parties, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Well, I said and everybody. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can we call the question, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Thank you, I was just fixing to. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, with the addition, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES. 10-0. CLERK: Item 24: Consider approval of salary adjustments for the Fire and Sheriff Departments. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, this was passed in committee and I move that this be passed with this Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if Mr. McKie is still in the room, this came before the Finance Committee as well and we weren't able to fully discuss it that day, are these funds designated and do we have them? Where are they coming from? Is he gone? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, may I comment? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't see Mr. McKie here, but from his earlier discussion today he indicated this was coming out of the contingency in the urban services district, is what I recall. I think that's -- most everybody seems to be nodding the same way, so I hope that's correct. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, he indicated the funds were available, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the problem I have with the funds, if we spend these kind of monies now -- and I'm not opposed to giving Fire and Police a raise to equalize their pay -- is that I don't know whether other emergencies are headed our way between now and the end of the year. And I've always felt like that's what the contingency was for, and I'd much rather see a later start date on this than the 1st of July. My concerns are, if we spend out of our reserve on wages, those are recurring expenses, those are not one- of-a-kind expenses, until we know where the funds are coming to make them to reoccur in the future, I think we need to take a long and careful consideration of these items. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't -- so much has been going on here today, but I'd just like to say that the morale problem that we're having with one officer or one fireman making one thing and one making another, we're going to have to do something. And if the money is not available -- I can understand Mr. Brigham's concern about the contingency and all. This was put in the consolidation bill by our local legislation when they drew it up, so there may be some grant money out there or something that we can look into to bring it up. I mean, if that's the problem of getting it equalized -- because as long as we stay city and county it's not going to ever be right, so we're going to have to come -- somewhere along the line we're going to have to come together as one. Because a lot of stuff went on here today; it's still city and it's still county. But we're one government now. We're not city anymore, we're not county anymore, but a lot of things -- a lot of issues keep coming up that still -- that dividing line is still there and it's getting separated. And we need to do something about the firemen and we need to do something about the policemen one way or the other. We didn't -- this is one of them unfunded mandates that we received from our local legislation delegates, so why not go back to them and ask for a grant. There may be a grant out there, I don't know, but we need to do something. We've got a lot of things that we could be doing other than complaining about the things we're complaining about today. There's a lot of things to get this government right and we're falling way behind with little small nit-picky things. And I stress again, we need to go to the legislation for a grant or we need to come up with some money from somewhere to solve some of these problems that we are creating. These are problems that we are creating now because we have one man riding next to another one and one paid one and one paid another, and that's not good for morale. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that the contin-gency would take care of this year. And the reason that it started July versus being retroactive or started earlier was that it cut down on the amount that it's going to cost for this year, and that's in the contingency. And, plus, after that there's additional funds for other possible emergencies. It's also my understanding for future funding for this, that we expect to see it from the franchise fee increase to the new government, and I think that's in the -- will be coming in sometime in '97 and we will realize that, so certainly there is a method of financing it. I think it's something that we should go on and do. It's called for in the legislation, it's the right thing to do, it's the moral thing to do, and too long we've either misprioritized our personnel in Public Safety or, you know, underfunded them, and I think certainly we need to support this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would concur with the -- what has been said. And if we're going for the grants, I hope that that would have no bearing on going on and passing this today and starting it in July. I think that's fine to try and seek that, but I do think the largest two departments that we have -- and we have done something or would have done something in six months -- there are some other areas, I understand, that have worked for two or three years trying to do the consolidation and they still have not got this thing straight. I think that we're way ahead of the game if our firemen and our policemen are paid equal salaries. And it may not get every individual, but certainly 90 or 95 percent of them will be. And I certainly would move the question, that I hope you would accept the committee's report. MR. MAYS: I serve on that committee and I plan to support the motion, but I do think -- and this is not to make a substitute motion but just as a point of clarification for the record. I don't think we ought to be surprised when anything else comes up because there are going to be some other things to come up. I don't think we're looking at any surprises. I mean, this government is doing this because you have your two largest ones and you have your departments that were named and spelled out in the bill. But I think what we need to be prudent in doing, and I would hope that in this year's budget committee sessions that we do it -- I don't mean to say it's old hat, Mr. Mayor, but I've said all along that part of this is the cost of doing business. We've been the only thing that's merged and put stuff together that hadn't gotten rid of anybody, guaranteed everybody a job, and doesn't have a regular program for downsizing. Now, from the human side of it I'm glad we did that. I think that's good. That was the humane thing to do. But I don't think we ought to consider thinking that there are going to be surprises. We are studying right now every other level of the workforce in this consolidated government, and what I think Finance needs to be looking at, and all of us need to be looking at, is where are we going to get the transitional monies probably for the next two to three years to finance the growing pains of consolidation. The long-range effects, I think, are positive and are going to be there, but in the short run there are some things that are going to cost. And I've said it over and over again, and they are costing and costing, whether you want to talk about water or you want to talk about salaries, but they are costing. And I think we might as well face up to that fact that there are no surprises out there; they are realities. They were realities when the bill was drawn that some of us tried to point out, but they are here now and we have to deal with it. This is the government we've got to live with and it's here, we have to do those things. So they're not surprises. Right now Human Resources is working on those other areas and what they're going to cost us. It's just a matter that we did these first because they were the biggest and they were on demand. And I just wanted to say that for the record. There are no surprises out there. We know it's going to have to cost, and we'll have to make a decision whether or not we do it or whether we don't. And certainly if you're going to do it and equalize it, where you're doing these, then I think from a labor standpoint you're going to have to deal with the others. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mays, I agree wholeheartedly with you that when we do these we've got to do the others. I also agree wholeheartedly with you there isn't very many surprises, but we have had a few this year, needless to say. The other concern that I have is our attitude as a Commission. I think that we need to be concerned about the long-range effects of our decisions. You know, I'm in Finance; I'm only trying to wave the lantern at the train to point out the concern. Because when it comes finger-pointing time and this government is broke, I get the finger pointed at me. And I don't wave the lantern at the train, I don't want to have it said that I didn't even attempt to wave it. Now, all I'm saying is we've got to act prudent and responsible. I think that these deputies and these firemen deserves this money. I have never questioned that. I think the other people that are in Traffic Engineering, Public Works, and Sanitation, whoever they be, also deserves the same pay for the same job. That is not the concern. The concern is whether the taxpayer can afford to do it all in one year. And these people, along with the rest of us, are the taxpayers, and that's my concern. I didn't say I was going to vote against it, I said I was concerned about the way it was being implemented. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, could I speak just a second? I certainly want to thank this body for going ahead and taking care of this problem. Like Commissioner Handy said, it is a bad problem when you've got two lieutenants in the same company doing the same job and one of them is making about $10,000 more than the other. You could stall it off a couple of more months and all you're going to do is cause problems for the Sheriff's Department and also for the Fire Department, and I appreciate you going ahead and taking action on this. It's something that should've been done the first of the year, to be honest with you, but you didn't have the money and we understand that, but after six months it's time to correct this pay salary. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Chief. CHIEF HATFIELD: Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, may I simply echo the comments of the Chief of the Fire Department on behalf of the Sheriff. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Chief Hatfield. MR. HANDY: I did some good then, didn't I? CHIEF HATFIELD: Yes, sir, you did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner, please. CLERK: The next item is consider approval of Rules and Regulations governing the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly we don't have a problem with the rules that we was given on the list, but we understand that this was either pulled from a large list of rules, and we would want to approve all of those as far as the operational rules for the Fire Department per the suburban, you know. And certainly I would like to make a motion that we add those other rules that's in Personnel and in each Fire Station back to these rules here and pass them together, unless there's a conflict with some of the rules that someone can point out. I think all the rules are good and I think we need all the rules for operational to keep that house in order. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Chief, do you want to say something? CHIEF MADDOX: I just want to point out that these rules was taken from the former county and the former City of Augusta's rules and regulations. Most all your departments in the state operates under rules and regulations besides your regular personnel manual, and this is just rules and regulations that govern the Augusta Fire Department and the former Richmond County Fire Department is all it is. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is that is there any of the other rules in that operational guide for the old suburban in conflict with the rules that was given to us. Basically what I'm trying to seek out is why we're not approving all of the rules versus just a select few. And I think that I'm not the only one that have this concern, that there is probably others that have that concern, and we feel -- or at least I feel that you can't have too many rules. And I don't think the men are complaining about the rules, so certainly that's the reasons for the motion, and I just wanted to point that out. CHIEF MADDOX: I don't even know what you're talking about, Mr. Todd. The other rules, what are you referring to, please? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm referring to the operational manual for the Fire Services, suburban, and I would assume that there was a operation manual or daily operation or standard, you know, for the urban. And maybe what we need to do if the Chief don't know what rules I'm talking about is to table this until the next regular meeting, so I'll withdraw my motion and make a motion that we table till next the regular meeting. CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, I'd ask this body to go ahead and approve the rules and regulations. We are working on another operating manual that would be similar to what the personnel manual is, but we need these rules and regulations to go ahead and get started on some of the things we're working on. You cannot point out everything in emergency operation with just a set of rules and regulations. We will be coming back before this committee to recommend some other changes. MR. BRIDGES: Chief, I want to ask a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait, Mr. Beard was next. MR. BEARD: I just want to ask a question. Chief, you were the one working on these rules, you and your committees and your staff working on these rules? CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: Well, you know, really I don't see anything wrong with that. If you are asking the staff to bring forth rules and if they're going to -- they have the opportunity to expand on this in the future to get those straight, I can't see where all the problem is. It seems to me we're going back to county, city, and this kind of thing again, which we just mentioned a few minutes ago, and I think that we're going to have to let a department -- you're going to have to give them that autonomy to work out their problems and get the rules straight. And we must have some rules to guide by, so I can't see where we're talking about one set of rules here, one set of rules there. If they've both been combined and you picked the best set of rules here, let's move on and adopt those rules and continue on. And if they need expanding on in the future, I'm sure they can be expanded on. CHIEF MADDOX: Under the former county policy as far as the operating manual, there was a lot of those things in there that we definitely wouldn't use. They even tell you what to do when you go to a fire at four o'clock in the morning. You can't preplan everything when you go to a fire. And I definitely would not recommend for this body to adopt half of those things. When I read that thing I was surprised, because you almost had a map, you had to do everything at a certain time and everything. And I don't know who got it up. It was a good policy and procedure, but some of that thing should have been changed a long time ago, fellows. And I'll be glad to bring it before you if you want to look at it. But you can't preplan everything in an emergency; you've got to have people that know what they're doing, they're trained to do that, and they're operating on that basis. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute motion that we approve Agenda Item Number 25. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, actually, we didn't have a motion because Mr. Todd didn't get a second on his motion while ago, did he? MR. TODD: No, sir, I did not, Mr. Mayor, a point of information, so there's not a motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We have one now with Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 27, please. CLERK: Item 27: Consider approval of accepting a U.S. Department of Justice Universal Hiring Grant with local participation and to purchase the equipment needed to implement the Grant. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. MR. BRIDGES: I've got some questions on that for the committee chairman or whoever. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to second that motion to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, he just had a question. We don't have a motion yet. MR. BRIDGES: I'll yield to the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Bridges; is that correct? MR. BRIDGES: No, I've got a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion? MR. MAYS: I'll so move that we accept it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I made the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. MR. TODD: And I seconded it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I've got a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Okay, now Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: All right. I've got a couple of questions, I guess for the committee chairman, but one is: Have these local funds been designated? And, you know, I see that the federal -- we're being federally funded to 75 percent. Is that from now on? I mean, as long as we have these people and this equipment, is that -- is the federal government going to finance it 75 percent from then on or is it just going to go for a period of time and then it will be up to us to find the funding for it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hatfield, could you answer that -- Chief Hatfield? CHIEF HATFIELD: Gentlemen, if I might refresh your memory just a minute, this is the same type program we presented to you some months ago when we implemented the six-man task force, and we referred to it as the special team operation. We did this under the COPS program, community oriented policing. We've targeted neighborhoods. I think all of you had some communication with the Sheriff; you've had some reception from community-based neighborhoods reflecting to you what progress has been made. This is the same program, 75/25. It's a three-year program where we provide the personnel, the salaries, the equipment, and we target the neighborhoods. It's the same identical program that you authorized some time ago, it's just the second team. That's what it amounts to. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Hatfield, and when those --my concern is with the funding of it. When those three years are over the program ends; is that correct? CHIEF HATFIELD: Yes, sir. Hopefully it would be absorbed by attrition or some other means of which we would work by the -- and we've always been successful in any grant implementation that we've done in this manner. Over that period of time given us, whatever it may be, we've absorbed it within, and I see no problem with this one. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I support this. It's Justice Department grant where I believe that the reduction is 25 percent per year. It's going to enable us to put another beat, per my understanding of the proposal, in deep South Richmond as far as working those neighborhoods where it's much needed. We're becoming a urban county faster than we probably want to out there on that end, and certainly the cost benefit is there when you can fund 25 percent the first year, then 50 percent the second year, and 75 the third year. It phase you in. We know we're going to have to hire additional peace officers when we bring the jail on line, so even if we transfer them to the jail at that point or do something creative there, it's worth this effort of taking the -- cashing in on the benefits of the grant. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 30, please. CLERK: Items 30 and 31 were both approved by the Public Services Committee May 29th. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we pull -- could we take these separately? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a request to take these separately. So Item 30, please. MR. MAYS: Those are regular routine contracts I move be approved. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [Item 30: Consider approval of contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and Marcus C. Fields, Larry Hawthorne, Mark James Guilfoyle, Jr., Jonay K. Bailey, Marc Anthony Coy, Christopher M. Bryant, and Todd P. Jackson regarding their participation as officiants in sporting events sponsored by the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department.] MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 31, please. CLERK: Item 31: Consider approval to authorize the Augusta Golf Course to use net revenues for the purpose of entering into a three (3) year equipment maintenance program and to allow the Augusta Golf Association to submit a Professional Services Partnership Proposal. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll so move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if I recall correctly from our budget meetings, the Augusta Golf Course was a -- it made money, or it had in past years. I understand due to the financial conditions of the City of Augusta that they ran into some problems and the course is not -- money was pulled out from there that probably could have been turned back to the golf course to maintain the recreational use there. My concern here is we're getting rid of something that's actually a money maker for us, or could be if the course was in proper condition. I question whether -- or are we getting rid of it? Is that what this is to do here? I don't want us to get -- we've got so many things that we're losing money on that we want to privatize, I certainly don't want to get rid of something we're actually making money on. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bridges, it's my understanding that they'll come back with a proposal to us. This particular organization has a relationship with Augusta College now at Forest Hills Golf Course, and it's my understanding that, through their management efforts, that they are able to contribute about a quarter of a million dollars a year back to Augusta College, and I think probably this is the type proposal that we are talking about. MR. BRIDGES: So we're just going to consider their proposal -- allow them to do a proposal and come back to us, and then we'll decide whether we want to do it or not at that time? MR. KUHLKE: Right. Yeah. But in the meantime they need to maintain the golf course, and that's the reason for the lease agreement on the equipment. And I believe Mr. McKie told us that there were about $75,000 in reserve funds or accumulated earnings that went into the old city general fund and that those funds should be available for them to do that. MR. BRIDGES: So we would -- let me understand this. We would be -- the $75,000, which is city money, would be used for the maintenance of the equipment? MR. KUHLKE: No, it would be to -- for them to enter into a lease agreement to get the equipment. They don't have any equipment now, that's the problem. MR. BRIDGES: But it would be our equipment? MR. KUHLKE: It would be our equipment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, let me bring you up to date on something. This money is in assets, it's not in cash. I mean, I have a balance sheet right here. But the money is there, it's just in assets. Now, Mr. Handy and then Mr. Powell. MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was going to say that we authorize Mr. McKie to look into just how much money that's been taken away from the golf course and put in the general fund of the old city and ask that that money be put back into the golf course. And if they put the money back into the golf course that the golf course had already made -- and I don't think we have a problem upkeeping the golf course if it -- it's supposed to be an enterprise fund, and so all the money generated is supposed to go back into the system. And then maybe we can look at about privatizing or letting someone else take it over. I mean, I think we should keep the golf course. If I can remember, the first part of the year it came before this same body about changing that golf course to -- after the late George Fisher. And if I remember correctly, Mr. Kuhlke had a great deal of say-so in that particular move, and I'm just wondering was this something that was already in the plans, in the making, long before we got hooked up or involved in it as far as privatizing or someone taking it over. And I think we should, first of all, give it an opportunity to see can we make our own golf course go by putting the money back into it that it already generated, and then if we cannot make any money, then if it start losing, then we look from there. Because, my opinion, I think we need to keep the golf course and I'm in favor of keeping the golf course, not privatize it out or letting anyone have it until we make sure that it take care of itself first. And then if it start to begin losing us and costing the taxpayers, then we need to look another way of getting rid of it. MR. POWELL: I'd like to also agree with Mr. Handy on it. I'd hate to see us turn something loose that is a money maker. However, if we're going to go out and ask for proposals, let's not have a double standard, let's get proposals from more than one particular group. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, let me understand so I feel sure that I know what I'm voting on. That we're going to lease this equipment, is there a list of equipment and is there -- has that already been done or is this just a request for financing? I want to make sure of that, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, I think this is a request to allow him to do it, and he does have a list with the prices and so forth. But both of these are -- well, the equipment is for them to go ahead and purchase the equipment to be able to maintain the golf course. The proposal for --the request for a proposal on management of the golf course would come back to us. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay, that's two separate items. Now, would the -- I would assume the lease will eventually come back to us when it's finalized? MR. KUHLKE: I would -- yeah, it's got to come back to us. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I have no problem with the motion then. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly don't have a problem with the initiative as far as taking care of the equipment so we can take care of the golf course and that it don't deteriorate but we improve it. I don't have a problem, as I stated in the committee meeting, on spending that money that the old city spent again if we can spend it again. I have serious reservations on whether we can spend it again, so I think that we're going to have to make a decision on whether we want to pull those funds from the urban service district and put them back into the enterprise fund of the urban service entity, the municipal golf course. I did debate vigorously that we need to go out for proposals on this operation, even though what the golfers' association was recommending was a partnership versus a privatization of it. And I think that we need to go out for proposals -- once we accept and receive this proposal, we need to go out for proposals on a partnership. I certainly don't have a problem with that; I'm for being competitive. I understand that now the golf course is bleeding. I am not a golfer. I probably could care less about golf, probably more so than anybody else in this room, other than the Augusta National and what that bring to us. We're in a golf community, and I think it's essential that we do something to improve the Cabbage Patch. I'm for improving the Cabbage Patch, but I'm also for supporting the Cabbage Patch staying the Cabbage Patch as far as fees go, et cetera, because there's a lot of folks that wouldn't have a opportunity to play unless the Cabbage Patch exists. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask a question and then possibly a comment. I'd like to know from Mr. Avery if -- we're talking about equipment and maintenance, if he was able to secure this. And I also saw the letter which you sent out saying that, you know, the possibility if we don't get anything right away we're going to have to close it down. But if you got the equipment and maybe the things that you needed from the city, would there be any need to involve this association at that point? Could we do it if you got the proper equipment? I know this came up a year or two ago in the same aspect. MR. AVERY: Right. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that we are dealing with two separate issues here. The first issue is, and Mr. Kuhlke stated it properly during the committee meeting, and that is either we vote today to let me kind of expedite getting some equipment in here or we close the golf course. That's one issue. The second issue is -- and, you know, I think it's an issue for you folks to decide -- is what is going to be the long-range approach as to how we run this golf course. In the past -- you know, I sat right here three and a half years ago with Mr. DeVaney and was told it was going to be an enterprise account, all the money that we made stayed at this golf course, and for unfortunate reasons it didn't turn out to be that way. I think, you know, we need to really do some soul searching as to whether, you know, we want to be in the golf business. If we're going to be in the golf business, you can't straddle the fence. You can't straddle that fence and say, well, we're going to be in it, but we need your money to do other projects downtown, whatever. It's got to be an enterprise account if we're going to do it. If we're not committed to doing it, then surely let's embrace somebody who has a proven track record like the Augusta Golf Association. That's my point, and that was my point through my letter to Mr. Dillard, that was my point continuously at the committee meeting. You know, it's time for us to make a decision. This has not been the most important thing on y'alls plate and we recognize that, but this has to be addressed and has to be addressed fairly quickly as to what's going to be our long-range approach to this golf course. MR. BEARD: But if you got the maintenance equipment at this point in time, we could maintain this and it could be -- and in the future, if we decided to do this, go into the golf business, this could be a money-making venture for the city? MR. AVERY: It's already been a money-making venture for the city. It's already been. It's been profitable every year, and it's been profitable every year without us pouring any money back into it. But the point is, one reality that has to be understood is that the faces at these tables change, if you know what I mean, and I don't want to be down here next year hat in hand, if you know what I mean. We've got to make a commitment that we're going to let the golf course be an enterprise account, and if we're not going to do -- you know, come whoever is sitting here, that the golf course is going to be let alone. If we're not going to do that, then I would tell you, yes, go straight - - you know, don't walk, run to the Augusta Golf Association if that's not what you're going to do, because they do do a good job at what they do. But truly, yes, if all along we would have run it as an enterprise account, the money would have stayed there, we wouldn't be here talking about the things we're talking about, and probably your revenues and your net would've been much bigger than it is now. MR. BEARD: Well, I think that the city needs a -- I'm in favor of a golf course, a municipal golf course. And being that you're saying that it can be a profitable venture, I think that answers the question that I had. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mark, I heard the proposal from -- or at least an outline of the proposal, and at that time I was led -- my impression was that you were in support of that would be a viable alternative. I'm hearing now that if you get the money and it's operated as an enterprise fund there may not be a need for the Augusta Golf Association? MR. AVERY: I think, again, if you're talking on the immediate, immediately we need equipment and immediately, yes, that gets us over the hump as far as the condition of the golf course now. But what needs to be understood is there's a complete difference between maintaining a golf course and improving and running a golf course, and that's why I'm talking long term, whether it be Augusta Golf Association or whether it be, you know, run as an enterprise account, there has to be some commitment made now because now is when I need to be talking to companies that can assist me in doing some long- range projects. You don't do crisis by management on a -- I mean, management by crisis at a golf course. So, you know, I don't know if that answers your question or not, but there is a distinct difference between maintenance and -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And I thought that there was a distinction between privatization and the partnership effort, and it really looked -- the day that I heard that proposal, I was heartened that there was a group of citizens that were willing to come in here and add their expertise, their management talents, to provide us something that we did need in the long term, and it was not a privatization effort. Is there a distinction, Mark, in your mind? MR. AVERY: If for definition sake you're saying the difference between being a private country club, Augusta Country Club, or being run by a private -- MR. ZETTERBERG: No, we're talking of privatization by bringing in American Golf Corporation or any of these other big mega companies that take over the operation. I thought there was a distinct difference between that and what we're asking here, and I don't think that that's understood here by my colleagues, and I'm not too sure I really totally understand it myself. All we were saying, we would like a proposal, and that's all this says. There's no commitment to privatization, there's no commitment to partnerships, but there is a commitment that we are willing to look at improving the overall health of the venerable Cabbage Patch. MR. AVERY: I think, just for definition sake alone, there is a difference between privatizing a golf course, which is to where it is only open to a few select members who, you know, pay an initiation fee, that sort of thing, and a golf course which is managed and run by a private company. It could still be open to the public. MR. ZETTERBERG: And is it a fact that the Augusta Golf Association is a nonprofit? MR. AVERY: I can't speak -- I don't -- I can't speak for the Augusta -- I don't know. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Kuhlke, are you -- MR. KUHLKE: I'm not -- I don't know. MR. AVERY: I don't know. I can't speak for them. But I will say this, one thing that does concern me is, you know, again, I don't want this to become a political football that's bounded about back and forth and all that. You know, we've got two separate issue here. One, you know, allow me to get some equipment to maintain this golf course. If we don't, July 15th we won't have a golf course worth playing; you might as well close it. The second thing that concerns me a little, I don't think Mr. Grantham -- and I don't for any second mean to speak for Mr. Grantham, but I don't think he could have been any clearer, and correct me if I'm wrong, anybody that was in that room, in saying that if we're going to go out for some long, extended bidding process and all this sort of stuff, that count them out. I don't think he could have been any clearer. Am I wrong or? MR. ZETTERBERG: Could I hear what the motion is now? MR. KUHLKE: Let me see. I moved that we approve Item Number 31, whereby we authorize Mark to lease equipment to maintain the golf course and that we accept a proposal from the Augusta Golf Association for us to consider. Is that what I said, Susan? MS. WATSON: Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. And if that's what you said, then I would heartily endorse that position. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we give Mark the authorization to go ahead on and get the equipment and then we just drop the partnership off until we get together on what we as a body consider is -- whether we want to do that or whether we're interested in even accepting proposals. And I think that we need to talk as a body and make a decision before we get out on the floor and try to beat each other to death on certain issues. And right now we need the golf course equipment and we need it upshaped, and then the part where we are talking about a partnership, we need to drop that off this proposal today and then we come back another time and address that issue, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: And I'd call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I don't have a second to that motion yet. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Bridges. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, as a part of friendly discussion, as chairman of that particular committee I would hope that -- I think maybe we might be able to put something into one motion, I don't know. I think what Mark -- we missed one point in there. And I'm not trying to put words into his mouth, but I think one thing that's missing is that we're getting -- we're dealing with the temporary part of what we're doing today, and I'm hoping that we'll go ahead with that authorization to approve that far as equipment and to deal with that source of it right now. But I think if we're going to delay and leave a question mark as to where we are going with the management of it -- because I've heard around the table and, I mean, I've heard it even in discussions where people have called me since we've had that meeting in reference to keeping it in, say, the city's hands per se. I think in all fairness if we're going to do -- if we're going to consider that, then we need to be clear on what our options are. If we're going to ask for a proposal, which we did out of the committee, in reference to Augusta Golf Association bringing something back to us, I don't have a problem with that. I think if we're going to hear the cries in terms of keeping it municipal, then I think we need to authorize our professional to come back with some overall stats to us of what's going to take us on a further range plan if we're going to keep it under our auspices because this is not going to be the last time for requests. And I think when we get it cleaned up and get it to a state of where you can play over there, that's not what we should have in terms of representing us as a city. We should be moving a little bit further than that. And I think if we're going to depend on his advice to get us through piecemeal stages --and I think we've heard, and none of us can control what happened before in terms of the predicament that he has been placed in in terms of running it and the state of the golf course. Then if this is going to be something that's going to pop up over to Recreation -- and I'm familiar with how we can be handed things in Rec from time to time with a lot of unfunded mandates of where money doesn't always come along with them. If we're going to keep it, then I think as we go out for a private proposal for a partnership, then we ought to solicit some numbers from our own professional so that when we get ready to make a decision, whether we want to go with AGA or whether we want to keep it in the hands of the city, then we know what it's going to take to run it, then we make a decision do we want to make the commitment to put the money there to really run it properly or are we saying, hey, we don't have the commitment to do this, we just want to deal with the equipment to get you started up and we want to now turn it over to somebody else. I think we need to go a little bit further because neither one of these, I think -- you've got some people here that want to answer that question about keeping it in city hands. If we're going to do that, then I think we need to add something maybe to the original motion to do something about getting some numbers that we can speak to. And I can live with either one of those, but I just think if that's the feeling from a group of Commissioners to do that, then we ought to at least let the professional get us some numbers together, and then if we want to keep it, then we ought to support it. And if not, then we ought to turn it over to somebody else to deal with. But we ought to put up or shut up on it, because this cleaning equipment isn't going to get him past but one season. There's a lot of things that need to be done over there, and we ought to either make the commitment to do it or we ought to just go ahead and explore the idea of a partnership. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with going either/or, but I think if we're going to make the substitute motion to keep it -- well, to give him the equipment which they indicated and not go out for proposals, then certainly in that motion we need to amend it to say that this is going to be a enterprise fund operation and there won't be a commingling of funds. And I don't even have a problem as far as loaning this enterprise fund operation some money up front that they're going to pay back, you know, at the year's end or something like that. And I think that would give the golf pro over at the Cabbage Patch the latitude and everything he needs to make long-range planning and decisions if he's operating as a enterprise fund and he have that assurance that there's not going to be monies commingled. The problem right now is that he's not really sure what his funding source is, whether he's got to rely on general fund or whether he's going to have what he generate over there to operate, and I think the incentive to have a good operation is to give him what he generate at the Cabbage Patch. And I would like to amend the substitute motion, if possible, to that effect. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'll accept an amendment. And that's what I had my hand raised for, to say that we need to go ahead on and assure Mark that he could run the club for the next three years by leasing the equipment and come back with a proposal whether or not he could do it or give us the longer range plans everybody's hollering about of what it's going to cost to bring that course up to date and whether or not he thinks that, based on past experience, the money that's been coming in, whether there'll be enough money generated to do what we need to do. And when I was talking earlier I said until we make a decision what we want to do with the golf course. What's the reason of giving him the money to get the golf course up and then come back and say, well, I don't think we're going to keep the golf course today. I mean, I wouldn't sit here and make a motion like that. And you hear all kind of crazy things coming up. I mean, just because I don't say what I'm saying, I don't have to -- all of us are human, I don't have to come out and tell you exact word for word what I meant. So why would I say do the golf course, give him the money, and then I'm going to say, well, we don't need the golf course now? That don't make sense. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a young man in the back who's had his hand up. Do you want to -- PUBLIC CITIZEN: All I want to know is, the motion that you're going to do, can other golf course management companies come in and make a proposal in about three to four weeks, a competitive bid, that you're not going to give it over to Augusta Golf Association? I represent a group and we've been working on this for quite some time, and we're prepared to go ahead and make a proposal for renovation and management of the golf course. And the city can keep it, you know, but I'm going to tell you, if you keep it you're going to go broke because you can't run it, you don't know how. You just can't do it. Giving him equipment -- he's serious about this equipment. We've been out there and I've looked at it and I've spoken with him. If he doesn't get this equipment, you're going to have to sell it and put up houses. MR. BEARD: Well, evidently he wasn't listening, because I think that's what Mr. Handy just said. PUBLIC CITIZEN: But the equipment is just not the only thing he needs. He needs a lot more stuff than that. And we just want to be able to do a proposal we can present to the Council and see what you can do -- see what we can do. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was in the amendment to the motion. PUBLIC CITIZEN: Okay. But we'll be able to present a proposal in three to four weeks then? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Not three to four weeks, Mr. Mayor. We didn't say that because we don't know when. PUBLIC CITIZEN: How long? MR. HANDY: We don't know. We don't even know if we're going to accept proposals. But if we do, you'll be eligible to put one in, I'll put it that way. MR. POWELL: We're fixing to take a vote. MR. HANDY: Right, Mr. Mayor. I'm not saying three or four weeks we're going to go out for proposals, no. I didn't say that in my motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question for clarification. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait just one second. Let's go right down the line, and when we get over to Mr. Todd we're going to vote. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I wondered if the maker of the motion would accept the amendment that we allow -- is it Mr. Avery? -- MR. AVERY: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: -- Mr. Avery to determine if he wants to go out for proposals or if he thinks he can make a profit at it or let him come back with a recommendation to us. Maybe he wants to go ahead and seek proposals and see what's out there. And then if he finds out something that's out there that's more suitable than us running it, then he can present that to us. But I don't think he needs -- you know, I don't think we need to -- he needs to see the proposals first and not us. Would you accept that as an amendment to your motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yeah, I accept that. I'm not going to say that three weeks that we're going to send out proposals, that's what I'm saying. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. But I think that's what department heads are for, to seek things like that. It's not our place to do it initially. PUBLIC CITIZEN: We don't mind giving the proposal to Mark Avery. As a matter of fact, we'd rather do that because he knows golf. MR. HANDY: I'm going to tell you, you know, for you to be trying to get a bid, you're putting your foot in your mouth. PUBLIC CITIZEN: Well, I don't mean to do that. I just wanted to make sure that -- if you're going to accept Augusta Golf Association's proposal, that we want to make sure that we get ours in, too. If you're going to give them extra time, we'd like to have it, too. MR. HANDY: I hear you. Equal time for everybody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming down the line now. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, I'm finished. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: For my own clarification, is there anything in the procurement policies or regulations of the city that prevent any party from making an unsolicited proposal for anything? If not, then the Augusta Golf Association can make a proposal; you can make a proposal. If that's true, then fine. Nobody here can tell you not to make a proposal. MAYOR SCONYERS: Miss Lori? MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Zetterberg, that is correct that anybody can make an unsolicited proposal. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Including the Recreation Center. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say if that's going to be -- if we're leaving something different than what we left the committee with, if we're authorizing Mark to open this up a little bit further, then I think in all fairness let him come back as a professional with what he thinks he can deal with it with. And then as a helpmate in terms of determining numbers, whether it's AGA or whether it's another independent organization, to compare the notes with it. It may say that he doesn't want to deal with all five, we can keep it in our own hands, or maybe one of the others that's there. That's the only thing I want to say. And I can live with any of it that's there, but I just urge this Commission that if it's going to stay in the city's hands, while we're in open body of all of us and no committee, let's give the gentleman the support to do it. Because, I mean, it's been screwed up once, and not of his doing, and maybe not any of ours, but if we're going to keep something, then we ought to support it. If we're not, then we ought to let it go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I pass. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're going to be on the substitute motion first. Would y'all like for me to have the motion read? MR. KUHLKE: Please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you please read the motion? Thank you. MS. WATSON: The substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges, to give Mr. Avery the authority to get equipment, to look at the need for proposals, and to designate the golf course as an enterprise fund, with Mr. Avery to come back with a long-range plan and for him to look at proposals, any proposals that are given, and come back with his recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand the motion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 32, please. CLERK: Item 32: Consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council meeting held on May 21st, 1996. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 33: Consolidation Project Items. Clerk of Commission's Office: (a) Advertise Clerk Position; (b) Review Clerk of Commission Office Organization. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council. I do have three items that are outlined there that I'd like to chat with you about briefly, as outlined by the Clerk. I've prepared some information in the form of a memorandum, which I'd like to give to the Clerk to distribute to each of you, and I will refer to the attachments in that memorandum from time to time in my presentation. At the request of Mayor Sconyers, with a desire to proceed to a point at which you could consider filling the position of Clerk to the Commission on a permanent basis, we have prepared -- or had prepared through the Human Resources Director a proposed position description for the Office of Clerk of the Commission. I want to emphasize that this is a proposed position description. It was developed at the request of the Mayor to share with the Commission. It has been reviewed in a very preliminary fashion with Ms. Bonner. Ms. Bonner has a number of thoughts and recommendations and concerns regarding it, which I have indicated that in my opinion it's appropriate that we consider, and we certainly intend to do that. But this does represent a proposal at this stage and it may be amended in the future. In the discussions that we had in preparing the position description and in the discussions that we have had concerning the function of the Clerk of Commission's Office, it becomes apparent, to me at least, that it would probably be appropriate to consider a review of that function of the office in connection with finalizing the position description. A couple of examples of issues that may have to be considered, in the former City of Augusta it was my understanding that the Clerk to the Commission was also the Purchasing Agent. That was not the case with Richmond County, and that appears not to be the case for the new government, but those issues have not yet been reviewed in connection with the personnel allocation and the functions of the Clerk. There are issues concerning boards and commissions regarding the questions of what is the responsibility of the Clerk's Office concerning those. There are a number of questions that do need review, and for that reason, as the agenda suggests, we are suggesting that with your concurrence, if you are comfortable with that, that we schedule the Office of the Clerk to the Commission as one of the offices that we will review structure and operation as quickly as we can. And that is the first recommendation. In the process, we would ask you to take a look at that draft position description and share with the Human Resources Director or myself or anyone else that you would like to share it with, any thoughts you have concerning it, and we would like to take those under consideration. Are there any questions? Mr. Etheridge is here if there are questions at this point in time concerning the position description. Ms. Bonner, of course, is here. If there are any questions, we'll be happy to try to answer them now. In the absence of that, we'd like to proceed with completing that work. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my main concern would be that a applicant, possible applicant for the position, certainly shouldn't be the one that's influencing what's going to be in the job description, et cetera. It should certainly be per the procedure that we've outlined, that this board has outlined, and I don't think in that procedure that I would want to see the Administrator -- and we excluded the Administrator in the job description of the Administrator in doing the end results of it. I don't know whether there was some input early on. So I don't think that if we're -- if we're dealing with Public Works Director or Utilities Director, I don't think it's professional or possibly even ethical to have that person that's going to be vying for the position as one of the applicants, the interim, to have input. I certainly think it's appropriate that the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Project Manager for Consolidation to have input in the sense that's the process that we voted on, and I would like to at least stay with what we voted for versus deviating from that. That's basically my concerns. I would certainly also like opportunity to maybe sit down with the rest of my colleagues and the Mayor and the Project Manager, the Human Resource Director, and the Mayor Pro Tem and do a markup or a markdown of this proposal, and that we come to a consensus on something that we can come back and agree with. I do see a couple of things that I am concerned about and certainly feel that the Commission-Council, in the sense that this person would be the staff person responsible for the Commission- Council, would have a little more input. I also would like to point out that the Clerk of Council for city government, at least when I moved to this city, was not handling dual duties. It only happened when they had economical difficulties and the Mayor and City Council assigned a couple of duties or maybe even three duties to some department heads, then that person became the Purchasing Officer. The late Mr. Phillips, or Clerk Phillips, was not the Purchasing Clerk, per my understanding. And I may be wrong there, and if I am, I stand to be corrected. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD: Mr. Todd, I think you are wrong in that last statement. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Todd and members of the Commission, let me comment just very briefly on that. I agree with Mr. Todd that given the fact that the Clerk to the Commission is the principal staff support for the Commission, that all of you need to be satisfied with the position description that's finally approved and comfortable with the functions of that office. At the same time, while the final decision on that would be made according to the procedure you have approved, we have solicited in all instances input from the incumbent in that position to get their input and recommendations and concerns. We deal with those that we can, and those that we can't, we report that to the Commission. So we would certainly expect to follow that procedure in this case as well. MR. BEARD: There's just a couple of things that personally -- you know, I don't see anything with the input into any situation. I think anytime that you have people in positions they ought to have input. I think we have a solution and I don't know why we keep battling that over and over again, but we do have something in place to make these selections, and I don't think that the Project Manager was talking about going outside or deviating from the procedure. It wasn't my -- I don't get that understanding here. And as long as we're not deviating from the procedure that we have established, I see nothing wrong with that. And just one correction for the record. In the last statement that was made, the two years that I was on City Council, and probably before that, the Clerk was -- acted in a dual role. Although I don't think that should be the case, and we agreed in this case that it wouldn't be the case, that they would be doing just that particular one duty. But sometimes we make statements that kind of throw people off, and we ought to make sure we know what we're saying when we make those kind of statements. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We are certainly comfortable with following the procedure for the selection of department heads that was approved by the Commission on March 19th. I think there is some desire to move this project - - or move this position along in terms of getting the position filled. Now, the procedure that was approved calls for a study of the function, a recommendation to the Commission, the Commission's approval of that, and then the recruitment of a permanent position. And the decision as to whether or not to recruit outside the organization would be one that is recommended to the full body by the committee consisting of the Mayor Pro Tem, the Mayor, and the Consolidation Project Manager. So we will follow that procedure unless you direct us to the contrary. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, the only statement that I wanted to make was that, as Mr. Carstarphen said earlier, each position that is open here, they had input from everybody, and I don't see why we should exclude this particular one. And especially I, for one, don't even know what goes on in the Clerk's Office, and so how can you draw up something and you don't know what's going on in there. And I think Ms. Bonner has been there long enough to know what's going on, and she have to have some input into what's going on in there. And that's not saying that she's fixing it up especially for her, the way she do it. That'd be the decision that we'd have to make. She may not even get that job. But she need to have some input in what goes on in there to enlighten us what's going on, because I don't know what goes on in that office. And the same is -- there's a conflict between the Clerk's Office and the Administrator's Office in that when we was in the Commission Office, the Administrator did some of the things as what the Clerk is doing. And so we need to know all these things and we need to know where the conflicts are, and then we need to come together and come up with a job description. Because we don't have just Administrator over County Commission anymore and we don't have a Clerk over City Council anymore, we have a consolidated government. So now we got to come up with a position, if we want a Clerk position, which it does not call for a Clerk position, then we're going to have to create one that will be suitable to all of us, not just saying that I used to do this in the County Commission Office, I'm going to do it this way, or I used to do this in the City Office and I'm going to continue on doing it that way. We can't do that. That's the whole thing of it, everybody wants to do what they used to do. So we need to throw everything out and start all over again and come up with something we all can live with. That's all I have to say. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Have we got a motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're listening to Mr. Carstarphen's report right now. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I can continue with the rest of it and you can act on all of it at once or you can act on these individually, however you see fit. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to proceed with the orders of the day, Mr. Carstarphen giving the rest of his report. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The second item is just to update you briefly and share with you a little bit in terms of the schedule and work plan for the Consolidation Project Manager over the next three months. I have included in the memorandum a summary of the work program as outlined in the contract that we signed in January. Generally we are ahead of schedule in some aspects, we're a little bit behind in others, but we are comfortably on schedule so that I am confident that we can complete all aspects of that within the time frame that you have suggested, including the September 30th deadline that you established with regard to the overall structure. Secondly, though, I have also included for your information, and I solicit your input in any way that you see fit, taking the actions that you took at your last Commission meeting with regard to the departments that are scheduled for study and review next. I have developed a proposed activity schedule for the months of June, July, and August. We would obviously add the Clerk to the Commission; in fact, I already have in June placed in that work program the review of the Clerk to Commission Office structure recommendations. But I would simply ask you to take a look at this proposed activity schedule, and if you are comfortable with it, we propose to generally be guided by it. If you have suggestions or modifications that you would like to make, if you'd let me know, I'll be happy to bring that back to the full group and let you act on it. So that is for your information in general. If there are any questions about it, I'll be happy to address them, but I think you probably might want to look over it for a little while. And if any of you would like to call me individually, please don't hesitate to do so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, can not we do these in parallel? In other words, while we're looking at the recommendation structure for the Finance, Human Resources, Purchasing, and the Clerk, can not we go ahead and advertise for those and get that moving? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, I think that the procedure that the Commission approved required that we bring back to the Commission a report first, that the Commission approve that structure, and that then you advertise. We can do what the majority of the Commission would like, but the procedure suggests that we do the study first, that the Commission then approve the study, and then authorize advertisement for filling the position permanently. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to say something, sir? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if Mr. Carstarphen was through. I was going to make a motion that we receive it as information and authorize him to proceed. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: What was the motion, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: To receive it as information. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. Are we talking about A, B, and C down here? You're talking about everything he's presented here? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I haven't commented on the last item, Other Items for Discussion. There are a couple of things I'd like to mention to you. I think Mr. Powell was referring to the second item, which was the work schedule. MR. POWELL: Right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we in the discussion on the work schedule? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. That's what Mr. Powell's motion was; correct, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I'm concerned that when we receive things as information we're just acknowledging that it was given to us and we're not necessarily agreeing with it or ratifying that action as that is this to be the process for the next three to four months. And my concern would be -- and this is just voiced as a concern -- do we need to just accept this as information or do we need to ratify what the Project Manager is proposing and that more or less authorize him to proceed full speed ahead or is that something that can be done administratively? And that's in the form of a question. MS. WATSON: That was part of the motion, to receive it as information and to authorize him to proceed. MR. TODD: Okay, thank you. And I apologize to the Chair. I was in a sidebar discussion and missed that part of it. 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. ZETTERBERG OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. The final items, just under the other items category. I would like, as I do in the cover memorandum which you have, to suggest that we begin utilizing the mission statement that the Commission has approved. I would like to suggest, with your concurrence, that we have those printed up and have them placed on display in all departments and offices of the government and that we consider using them as a part of the orientation program for all new employees and for training by the Human Resources Department. If you are comfortable with that, unless you object to that, we intend to, with your approval, to do so. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we also do it in the official county reading room? And I think we have decided in discussion, maybe tentatively, that the main branch of the library would be the reading room, that we would put it there for the public. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'd be happy to place it any place you would like it placed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: I so move that that be -- MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. HANDY: That's the only other item that you wanted to discuss? MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: On what, just the reading room? MAYOR SCONYERS: On the mission statement. MR. HANDY: Oh, ain't nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with the mission statement. MR. CARSTARPHEN: It's already been approved, I was just simply suggesting to you that we publish it and distribute it throughout the organization. And I think Mr. Todd suggested we also make copies available at the main library, which we're comfortable doing. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. That's fine. That's good. I just want to go ahead on; I didn't want to have that pause on there, hesitating, that's all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final item, I'd just like to make the Commission aware, as we did in a memorandum at the request of the Mayor, that the Administrator position, arrangements are now being made to have that advertised and notices of the vacancy placed in appropriate professional journals. Because of the time frame required to do that, they will probably be appearing in about 30 days. We have set a tentative closing date of July 31st on that advertisement. I would like to indicate to you that in a telephone conversation that the Human Resources Director and staff had with one of the professional associations that publishes the ads, they have indicated that in order to recognize this as a professional position it would be helpful if the governing body could act on the formal ordinance establishing the position as early as is practical. I have a procedure which they utilize in certifying positions, and if the advertisement carries that information I think you will attract a better quality of potential candidate. So that issue, I think, is something you might want to consider. I had a brief conversation with the Attorney before he left, and he indicated that we could either include that as a part of the overall code which he anticipates bringing back to you in a couple of months or you can act on it earlier and include it in that time. So I simply pass that on to you as information. The ads are going out and will be published. MR. BRIDGES: Do we need to act on that today in order to receive applications? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I don't think you can act on it today. I think what you need to do is ask the Attorney's Office to put it in ordinance form and you consider it at your next meeting. MR. KUHLKE: I make that motion. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Also I would request, in the sense of urgency to get this done, that we also request of the County Attorney that he recommend that we waiver the second reading and do one reading. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to add that to your motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that as an amendment. 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. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's all I have. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, let me ask you this. As you go out and advertise for this position, what -- on your schedule, what is the time table for us to get together and finalize what the structure of this government is going to look like? Shouldn't that be part of the package that's sent out to prospective administrators? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that is a question most candidates will ask in establishing their serious interest in the position. And if you will look at the work schedule that I just handed to you, I have suggested that that be completed by July. The closing date for these applications or expressions of interest will be July 31st. If you can act on that within the next 30 to 60 days, then I think that question can be answered when it's asked. MR. KUHLKE: And your procedure on that, so that we don't get bogged down, is to what, send out drafts to us to look at? MR. CARSTARPHEN: We can do it in whatever manner the group is most comfortable with. We have submitted a number of options or iterations and we've had discussions on that, but we've never -- we have not completed those discussions. You could schedule another work session for that purpose if you'd like or you could just ask that I distribute to you the most recent proposal and then you could go from there. I am at your -- MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to request that. Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'd like to request that Mr. Carstarphen furnish us with the latest draft of an organizational structure so that we can begin to work on that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion? MR. HANDY: I've just got a question to ask. I thought we already approved the structure. We didn't approve a structure? What did we approve before we did the Administrator, about the four super department heads and the Administrator. Didn't we do that? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I don't believe you acted on that. It was discussed rather aggressively, and then the focus of the attention turned to the Administrator position. And I congratulate you for having completed those decisions, and the fact that you made them unanimously I think is excellent, but I think you do have to come back to the issue of the overall structure. MR. HANDY: Well, the structure is not going to change from what we have already, is it? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's dependent on the decisions you make. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as I understand or recollect, and I stand to be corrected, that the structure were in conflict with whether we was going to have a administrator or manager, and that's why we somewhat got sidetracked or whatever as far as the structure go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: I'd just like to ask that the Clerk furnish me with a copy of that special meeting we had that night so we'll know what I'm talking about. I don't --something I missed. I know a structure came up. A structure came up and I need to know what we voted on. MR. KUHLKE: We haven't voted on it yet. MR. HANDY: We did it in there but we haven't voted out here, you're saying? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Okay. Ain't no problem with that. But that hasn't changed, that's what I'm asking. Has that changed? MR. KUHLKE: I don't know. That's the reason I'm -- MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. That's the question I'm asking, has it changed from that back room to in here. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Since I was not in the back room, I can't answer that. MR. HANDY: Right. Right. Right. That's what I'm asking. MR. POWELL: I just want to say I wasn't in the back room either. MR. ZETTERBERG: Wait a minute now, what back room? There is no back room. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is a Resolution declaring that Alley fronting on Laney-Walker Boulevard and extending -- MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Could I make a comment to Mr. Carstarphen under his proposal? MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. MR. BRIDGES: I think you and I discussed this earlier, but I hope as you go through these departments and consolidate the two and form up the structure and that type of thing, that one of the top considerations you give it is a downsizing of government or a streamlining of those departments. Because if you're taking two entities and putting them together, it looks like to me we should be coming up with fewer positions than the two added together, and I just hope you -- I want to emphasize that I hope that's one of your primary considerations is to streamline this for us and to downsize government as much as possible. MR. CARSTARPHEN: My primary objective is to bring you my best recommendations concerning the most effective way to carry out your responsibilities in those departments. In some cases there may be opportunities for reducing the number of positions, in some cases -- as you recall in my first report that I made to you I observed that in my opinion some of your departments were overresourced and some of them were starving for resources, so there may be instances in which you need additional resources. But I understand your desire to reduce positions whenever possible. I think probably there is some differences of opinion within the Commission on that and I would welcome, when we get a chance to talk about structure, some further discussion regarding that, but I can certainly do that if it is the Commission's wish. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question on that, because didn't the charter say that nobody would lose their job? And therefore if that's what it says, one cannot downsize, rightsize, or do any sizing. That's a problem that we're faced with. I would support Mr. Bridges 100 percent -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: Let me try to clarify this. It's my understanding, and I agree with Mr. Zetterberg's comment as I read the bill, but there may be instances in which positions currently authorized in one department may not be needed there and can be put into a pool to be considered for needs in other departments or in other functions. And I think that -- that's my interpretation. MR. BRIDGES: That's correct. We're not talking about firing anybody. Of course, the bill will not allow us to do that if we wanted to. But we're talking about as far as structure goes, little boxes on a chart, when we get through with retirees or people that quit to take other jobs, that we have a smaller structure than we do currently. MR. KUHLKE: One other question, Mr. Carstarphen. I believe you and Mr. Etheridge were working on several retirement packages that you were going to get back with us on. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Etheridge and Mr. McKie were working with the Attorney's Office in exploring what types of options might be available. I've had a recent report that they have made some progress in that area, but that there is a need for the Attorney's Office and the Administrators to sit -- and the Human Resources Director to sit down with the Finance Director and go over all that. And I think the Administrators are making an effort to schedule that meeting as quickly as practical and to bring back, as the policy that you approved states, to bring back any proposals to this full body for approval before they are made official. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now can we have Item 34. CLERK: Item 34: A Resolution declaring that Alley fronting on Laney- Walker Boulevard and extending between parcels 297 and 299 of map sheet 456.2 has ceased to be used by the public and that such alley should be considered for abandonment. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I have learned since the meeting began that Mr. Goins has corresponded with some public utilities that may be affected by this, and he's not yet heard back from them and we feel like we might ought to defer action on that until he has a chance to hear back from those letters. MR. POWELL: Move to table. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a move to table and a second. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of a request by Donnie Perryman for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Salama Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Road. There will be a dance hall. To consider approval of a request by Mr. Perryman for a Game Room license to be used in connection with Salama Lounge & Game Room located at 2546 Deans Bridge Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, let's give Mr. Steinberg -- MR. STEINBERG: I just wanted to ask one question. Since I am the prime mover in the fact that I own property on both sides of the alley, and I don't mind the deferment, but I would like to have some time frame when it will come up again. The reason being, I'll be out of the country on the first Monday in July, and that's the week of July 4th, and I would respectfully request that it not come up that week. Earlier or later. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We'll assure that request for you. MR. STEINBERG: Thank you. I'm here at the request of Mr. Wall, because I'm the most interested party in that -- in this movement. MAYOR SCONYERS: We respect your wishes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, these items have been delayed two or three times, and your last meeting it was agreed it would be placed on this agenda, June the 4th. The application and all items required by the alcohol ordinance is in compliance; it meets all the requirements of the License & Inspection Department. The facility meets all the requirements of the Fire Department. But the Sheriff's Department recommends that the license be denied, and Mr. Roderick Berry, a vice investigator with the Sheriff's Department, will speak to this request, with the permission of this Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Perryman here? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. MR. BERRY: Good afternoon. In reference to this license, the Sheriff's Department takes the recommendation to have it denied in reference to this application. The reason being, based on Code Section 6-2-32, subterfuge, and Code Section 6-2-59-4d, untrue and misleading information. Prior to this applicant filing an application for this location there was another applicant filing for an application prior to this one and the license was denied per full Commission. During the investigation of Mr. Perryman's application, on his application he listed himself as 75 percent interest and a Lehoma Brunson as 25 percent interest. Lehoma Brunson is involved in some type of relationship with the applicant who was denied an alcohol application earlier this year. During my investigation there were several vehicles involved. One of them is being driven by the applicant that was denied an application. They both are registered to Ms. Lehoma Brunson at the same address that the subject whose application was denied resides at this same residence. Also, the previous applicant who applied for an application listed Ms. Brunson on his application as being his beneficiary on his life insurance policy. They both list the same child on the applications. So we just believe that this is a simple case of subterfuge and they're just trying to come in the back door. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be: Have Ms. Brunson ever been convicted of anything in the last five years? MR. BERRY: I show none. MR. TODD: Were there any indication -- well, with that, you know, I certainly -- it seems to me that we have a relationship here for sure with the applicant and the female, you know, and I don't think that it's any type conspiracy. I think that it may be love, you know, hopefully it is, and I don't see any reason to deny this applicant and I'm going to make a motion that we approve it. You know, I don't see the hard-line evidence that there is a case of subterfuge. You know, I have your investigative report that you have given me to the conclusion that you've drawn, but certainly -- I think I made the motion, or if I didn't I supported a motion to deny the license to the previous applicant for license. I don't have a problem with that, and until the time has lapsed for what he was involved in I think that I should stay firm there. The applicant that's presently put in a application, I think that the Sheriff's Department would agree have a record to the extent that we have, you know, issued license to this applicant. I don't see a need to deny this applicant because there may be a partnership or a girlfriend or common-law situation and a interest there. I'm sure if they are girlfriend/boyfriend or common-law, then certainly she may had a interest or a percentage of interest in that lease. And so I don't see the point and I'll so move that we approve it. MR. ZETTERBERG: I wonder if anybody could tell me the reason why -- Mr. Brown's application was turned down by the full Commission; correct? MR. BERRY: That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: And the reason behind that was? MR. BERRY: I believe misrepresentation and falsifying information. MR. ZETTERBERG: Right. And now Mr. Brown is going out and having another gentleman apply for the license and he'll manage the club for Mr. Brown? MR. BERRY: Well, I don't know if he's -- MR. HANDY: No, that's not true, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm trying to get to the facts. MR. HANDY: But you're not -- but the facts is coming out wrong. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm not trying to distort them either, I just want to know what the facts are. MR. HANDY: Okay, but that's not what we heard today. No one said anything like that, so why would you ask a question like that? MR. BERRY: I don't know if he's running the club for Mr. Brown or not, but I showed a relationship connection between the 25 percent holder and Mr. Brown. There is a connection there. MR. ZETTERBERG: I might be mistaken here. It says Mr. Perryman is listed as -- MR. BERRY: 75 percent. MR. ZETTERBERG: It said that Mr. Perryman personally told Investigator Berry that he was going to manage the club for Mr. Brown. MR. BERRY: That was under the first applicant's application, not the one now. MR. ZETTERBERG: Under the first. MR. BERRY: Right. MR. ZETTERBERG: I see. So it's changed now? MR. BERRY: That's correct. MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, my question is that is there anything unusual about a change when you have a individual that thought he was -- could be licensed and have a lease or interest in a place and need to unload that lease or interest. I can remember a witch hunt that we went on that involved The Dugout that bankrupted some folks, and I would hope that we're not here on one of those witch hunts again, and at the same time, that this board approves license for individuals that's been investigated for conspiracies to do everything under the sun at those locations. So certainly I want to make it clear that I don't believe in witch hunts; that it seems to me that there is not a effort here to subterfuge, that you have a situation where you have a common-law or a boyfriend/girlfriend situation, and certainly I wouldn't want for my girlfriend or ex-wife or whomever to be penalized for my actions, and I think that should be separate. I think that if you look at the statutes dealing with credit, that it's separate, and I don't see how we can commingle it here and hold the girlfriend or common-law wife accountable for what the male partner has done in this case. MR. BERRY: Well, Mr. Todd, she stated that -- I also interviewed the young lady and she stated she lived in Eastview. I followed up on that and I spoke with an elder male subject there and he stated she don't live there. I then asked her where does she live, she stated that she had no connection with the Mr. Brown who was denied an application. But all the information we got, all the paperwork, everything comes back to this location, so she evidently lives at that location or she just be there late and early into the mornings, because I have did surveillance on the residence also. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm sure that if a surveillance was put on me I'd probably sleep in a couple different places. So, you know, the bottom line, Mr. Mayor, is that, one, I don't see the effort to subterfuge like I possibly have in some other cases, and certainly I don't feel that we can penalize the female that's involved here for the actions of the male. I have every intent to penalize for the time, you know, cap Mr. Brown for his possible illegal activities and involvement in certain areas, and I think that we need to go on and approve this applicant. The other situation that I find difficult -- and I know that we want to support our law enforcement officers when they bring concerns to us. All of us do if we're law-abiding citizens. At the same time, I would respectfully request from our constitutional elected officer that when there is statements being given, that maybe we get them in writing so I have the privilege to review and not have to rely on the recollection of a investigator. And I'm not going to comment any further, I'm through with this issue. MR. HANDY: I want to second that motion, Mr. Todd, to make sure it don't die for lack of a second, and I'd also like to agree with some of the things Mr. Todd said. Seems to me that the Sheriff's Department have gone to a lot of extensive investigation just to try to find out whether Brown and the other person is connected together, and was just curious about whether or not that they do all investigations like this or do -- everybody who apply for a liquor license, do they be put through this same kind of scrutiny or not. And another thing I would like to ask is that you have a right to investigate this club anytime you think something going wrong. If there's things going wrong, if it's not going according to the rules and the regulations and the laws you can close it down. So here we are assuming that something going to happen before it happens, and that's -- I have a problem with that. And there's a lot of things that have been coming through here about nightclubs and about certain people that certain people jumps on, and then there's a lot of clubs come through here that just slide right on through, and just depending on who you know and who you are, and all I'm saying is that treat everybody the same and let everybody eat and drink out of the same trough. And if you want to go through this kind of extensive background check on everybody, then we ought to set laws that everybody should be checked the same way. And that's all I got to say. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just a couple short questions. Is it true that Mr. Perryman is the applicant for the license? MR. BERRY: 75 percent interest of it. MR. ZETTERBERG: 75 percent. And it's true that Ms. Brunson is a 25 percent applicant? MR. BERRY: That's correct, but the license would be in the name of Mr. Perryman. That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Perryman, he's getting the license? MR. BERRY: Correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is Mr. Perryman in the audience? MR. BERRY: Yes, he is. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Perryman, would you answer a question for me? MR. PERRYMAN: Yes, sir, I will. MR. ZETTERBERG: Are you representing Mr. Brown and will he profit from this nightclub? MR. PERRYMAN: No, sir. Again -- MR. ZETTERBERG: No interest whatsoever? Mr. Brown has no interest whatsoever? MR. PERRYMAN: No, sir. Again, 75 percent myself, 25 percent is for Ms. Brunson. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think that's the issue. The issue is not who lives with one another, the issue is if Mr. Brown has an interest in the club. I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, seconded by Mr. Handy, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm sorry, I'm just -- what was the question? MAYOR SCONYERS: You called for the question. MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. It was Mr. Todd's motion to accept, or to approve. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might just ask a question. I know we're in the middle of a vote, but with two of our attorneys present I guess I would like to know on the charge of -- the definition of subterfuge from -- and I've heard what Commissioners have said about it, but what maybe the applicant has said and what the investigators said about it. But from a legal standpoint -- and I think when we rejected this and turned it down, the instructions were -- and we allowed the application to be again withdrawn totally, but clear instructions were given. And Stoney and I, we've bumped heads from time to time; we've been on the same side time to time. I've approved applications for Donnie before. But I think that we maybe in terms of the -- when we talk about a witch hunt, we need to be careful in terms of maybe where we gave directions. Because the directions were given when the application was withdrawn to make sure that there was not a connection because of certain irregularities or illegalities that were brought up because of the previous ownership. And I would like to know from our attorneys from the standpoint is there a line of connection that has been brought forth from our officers that has a tie in, and I do think that probably needs to be answered. If we gave them a direction from this body previously, and to say whether or not there is a connection or whether there's not a connection, then maybe we need to know what the definition of that connection is. I agree with Mr. Zetterberg, it doesn't agree with who lives with each other, but I think in terms of if there is a fact that they are bringing to our attention whether they want to go as far as specifics of saying whether or not you have a laundering situation, then I think that ought to be answered. And then if not, we put it to rest. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, I don't know about what the directions may be, and I'm sure Mr. Turnage can speak to that. But as far as the application goes, it is in Code Section 347. There's also state law that this investigator has cited, but it basically provides that any untrue or misleading information or material omission from an application is cause for denial. And I think that's where the subterfuge issue comes in, that they feel like there may be some untrue or misleading information in the application as to who actually owns that -- if I understand correctly, who actually owns that other 25 percent. MR. KUHLKE: Can I ask a question? Mr. Perryman, is your business a partnership or is it a corporation or? MR. PERRYMAN: At this time, sir, it is a partnership. MAYOR SCONYERS: Before we vote, are there any other questions? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is the lady present? Is Ms. Brunson present? I think that's what the real problem is here. MR. CADDELL: May I make a comment? My name is Dennis Caddell with Meybohm Real Estate Company. I lease the property. Before with the gentleman, he signed the lease for the property, he came down and applied for the application, and I think the committee -- it came before this committee and then it was withdrawn. That lease was cancelled. I drew a lease with Mr. Perryman to lease him this property. I've done business with him before in the past, he's had a license before in the past, and as looking to pay rent on that building I'm looking to Mr. Perryman. I know nothing of a relationship between he and his co-partner or the other, but I do have a building out there that I've got a lease on that I can't collect rent on if the man can't operate a business, and that's -- thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Perryman, did you want to say something? MR. PERRYMAN: I just want to say one thing, that I've held several alcohol licenses within the county and one within the city. Anytime I run an establishment, Richmond County and/or Augusta Police Department was very high profile in my business, and I intend to keep doing that. I do that for several reasons: to safeguard my patrons, to put to bed any problems that may come to rise, and just for the appearance sake. Now, a question was asked within the application, ownership: 75 percent Donnie Perryman, 25 percent Lehoma Brunson. Now, if you're asking me where the 25 percent money that she gets goes, I have no idea. She may go to the mall with it, she may go wherever. Now, I can't go that far. Now, that's how it was presented to me and that's how she came to me and that's how I plan to conduct business. Now, again, in this situation on Deans Bridge I will have several law enforcement officers in there. Now, Mr. Turnage and also Berry, his assistant, they've had an ongoing relationship with me over several years and they know the way I do business. The whole time this application was being filled out I was trying to be cooperative, almost to the point of being a nuisance. I called them routinely and asked them is there any additional info you need, is there anything else you need. At that time I'd been informed or was told that the application was okay, we don't need anything else or anything of that nature. Now, my question is and was, if there was a problem, bring it to my attention. I'm a honest businessman. I also am a sales manager of a industrial supply company here locally. I've owned several other businesses and I have, I think, a pretty good reputation that has helped me survive in doing business, and I don't want to do anything that's going to taint that. Now, if there is a problem, someone should alert me or someone -- that should've been brought to my attention. Now, from my best knowledge or investigation, you know, everything is straight up and everything is legit. Now, that's the best I can say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Perryman. Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen? Any further discussion? MR. MAYS: Unless the legal counsel has any comment on the question that I asked on whether that line has been drawn or not. I mean, I know it's been drawn; has it been connected? And I guess that's probably what the bottom line is that I would want to know, whether we are voting in terms of whether or not, from law enforcement, whether a connection has been made from a legal standpoint. MR. TURNAGE: I'd just like to add that with the initial application on this location that was denied on Mr. Brown, Mr. Perryman was listed as being his manager or was going to be his manager. Right after that application was denied and been withdrawn, Mr. Perryman puts in his application. Same location, and part owner of that business being this Ms. Brunson, who we have explained the connection between her and the previous applicant who was denied. The way I look at it and my partner looked at it, we explained it to the Sheriff and he seemed to go along with us, that it's a cover up. And I believe that between the events that have occurred and the connections that have been made, that that is pure and simple just subterfuge, just using someone else to get a license to get the previous applicant who was denied back in there. MR. HANDY: I just got one statement to make. Mr. Perryman said a few minutes ago that Stoney knew him, the other gentleman knew him; they worked with him several years. And you sit here today and say that he will jeopardize his relationship -- his reputation just to try to help somebody, knowing -- you're telling him that his career is ruined after today if this is true what he's saying and if you all are right in what you're saying. And he's willing to sit here and go along with this saying this license is for himself, and then you're willing to stand here and say that you know him and you've never had any problems before now and you're saying that he's covering up for someone else. MR. TURNAGE: Well, I can't say that he's covering up, I'm saying he may not know what all he's getting into. He just told you he don't know what the lady is going to do with the money, whether she's going to take it to the mall or put it in the club or what, he don't know. All he knows is she's offering him $5,000 up front. MR. BEARD: Mr. Turnage, would you give Mr. Perryman a license -- would he be eligible for a license if he applied and would you -- would he be okay for that license? MR. TURNAGE: I've given Mr. Perryman -- how many licenses before? MR. PERRYMAN: Five. MR. TURNAGE: I don't have a problem with Mr. Perryman, it's the other people that's involved that's iffy. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Beard asked the question I was going to ask. It seems like the 25 percent -- and, Miller, I saw you shaking your head. Does that seem to be the bone of contention? If this young lady or somebody else - - if he find him another 25 percenter, it probably would help you a lot. And I can't tell you how to run your business, but it appears from what I've heard here -- and certainly this is in our neighborhood and I want something to happen out there, but I'm not so sure it's going to happen today. But, you know, this is what you may have to make a decision on, it appears. MR. PERRYMAN: I also made the comment -- this was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago, and it was asked if I would withdraw this from the meeting, and at that time I wanted to know what the problem was. And it was kind of handed to me what the situation was and I said, look, again, I've got a reputation and I've got a certain way that I conduct business. Now, if this is going to create a problem -- granted the $5,000 is money, but I do have -- I can make some type of arrangements to sever my relationship with this individual. Now, all I want -- I'm a capitalist or entrepreneur, however you want to catalog it. I want to make money. This is a situation, again, that Mr. Brown had. I was associated with him in a advisory capacity; it did not come through. I'm a opportunist also, so I wanted to take advantage of the situation, but I'm not -- I don't want to jeopardize my situation if this is going to happen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Lori, did you want to say something? MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, I was going to say in response to Mr. Mays' question that I think what y'all have to decide is whether -- you know, obviously the granting is in your discretion -- is whether the applicant, who I understand is Mr. Perryman alone, has made any material, untrue or misleading statements on his application for this license. And I believe what I'm hearing from him is that he, you know, doesn't believe any of it's -- there's any question about any of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: That answers my question. I just needed an interpretation there in terms of whether the connection -- I've heard the allegation, but I wanted to get some connection or separation from what they put in there in the law. Because I think if it's come up this long, we've had this much about it, there could be damage down the road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are we ready to vote now, gentlemen? Why don't we have the motion reread? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm still not sure -- I've got one question. When you say the applicant, is that the enterprise that owns the business? And if that's the enterprise that owns the business, I believe the Sheriff's Department has made their case. If we're talking about the individual applicant, I kind of agree maybe they haven't made a case. But when you say applicant, are you talking about the enterprise that owns the business or are you talking about the person that holds the license? I need a ruling. MR. TURNAGE: When we do an investigation, we do -- we go all the way through it. If you've got 15 people, each of them owning a percentage, we're going to investigate all 15 of them. Because they are the owners, if you will, and we're going to investigate them just like we would the applicant. MS. D'ALESSIO: I haven't seen the application. I don't know in this instance whose name is on it as the applicant. MR. MEYER: Donnie Perryman is the applicant. MS. D'ALESSIO: Individually? MR. MEYER: Individually. And the ownership is 75/25. Of course, Ms. Brunson is the 25 percent owner, but the applicant -- the license would be in the name of Donnie Perryman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen, or do we need discussion some more? It would appear to me if Mr. Perryman got him another partner and withdrew this without prejudice, it sure would pass a lot quicker. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. HANDY: We either vote it up or down, it doesn't matter, just got to get going. MR. PERRYMAN: Mr. Mayor, again, if this will expedite this situation and if it would ensure -- put all the parties at ease, including Mr. Turnage, his associate, the Sheriff's Department, this is a sole proprietorship. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval based on that amendment on the application where he owns it 100 percent. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MR. BEARD: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would that be good with y'all? MR. TURNAGE: Yes, sir. MR. MEYER: Along with that, the ordinance requires that he does have to tell us where his funding comes from. So if he's got an additional $5,000 coming from a bank or wherever, then that also has to be furnished. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Further discussion? Everybody okay? MR. HANDY: Yeah, everybody's fine. I want to make a final statement, that I hope you don't subject everybody to this kind of bull. That's all I got to say. MR. BERRY: Since I've been with the Sheriff's Department for about five months and I work with Investigator Turnage, we do investigate every situation based on the applicant's information that's given to us, not because of color or anything else. We do do every application the same way, and I've been there for five months, and I do know that for a fact. And far as Mr. Perryman, I consider Mr. Perryman a friend and he knows that. I've had no problem with him. I advised him earlier that he probably could've got the license right on through if it was just in his name, but this second party was the problem. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, for clarification, the Code Section -- the County Code does require the Sheriff's Department to conduct these investigations. They're mandated to by the County Code. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion with the amendment -- does everybody understand what we're voting on now? MR. HANDY: I just got one question, Mr. Mayor. How does he know that he's going to get rid of his partner? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's contingent upon him getting the license. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. All right. Okay, no problem with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: The next item is to consider the proposed contract for the one percent sales tax project for the Lucy Laney Museum. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when that was added to the agenda, I believe there was an amendment to that. CLERK: That it be a draw down, or invoices opposed to straight out payment. MR. TODD: Right. And, Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn if there's no further business. CLERK: No, sir, we have other business. MR. TODD: We'll, I'll withdraw that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Gentlemen, we need to go into a legal meeting. Do I hear a motion to that effect? MR. KUHLKE: I so move, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what's the purpose of the legal meeting? MS. D'ALESSIO: There would be two purposes: one is to discuss a personnel issue and the other is to discuss a real estate issue. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second it. MR. TODD: Certainly, and I think that also I'd want to discuss the right of the Mayor to remove a Commissioner from the seat in here unless that Commissioner is violating a law, and I'll support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'll be happy to discuss that, Mr. Todd. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. COMMISSIONERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL MEETING, 5:35 - 7:12 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will reconvene. Miss Lori? MS. D'ALESSIO: We'd ask for permission to add two agenda items, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have two agenda items we need to add by unanimous consent. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that's going to be three. And I'm going to make the motion, one, that we add by unanimous consent that the County Attorney contact the Attorney General's Office to get a ruling on whether the Mayor have the right to have a Commission member that is not violating any state, local, or federal law thrown out of a meeting or removed from a meeting; number two, that by unanimous consent that we do a condemnation on properties that the County Attorney will give to us; and number three, that by unanimous consent that we appoint a Utility Director to the Utility open slot. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: The first item of business, please. CLERK: To have the County Attorney to check with the Attorney General's Office on state and federal law pertaining to the removal of a Commissioner. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. That wasn't the exact wording of my motion. The wording of my motion was whether the Mayor have the right to throw a -- have a member thrown out that's not violating local, state, or federal law. That was the wording of my motion, and that the -- CLERK: I stand corrected, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: -- okay -- the County Attorney contact the Attorney General's Office on a ruling on that. Thank you. No further questions. I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please. CLERK: Condemnation on property specified by the County Attorney. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion on that? All in favor -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to try to tell the public where the property is. MR. REVELL: Mr. Mayor, this is property owned by Roy Simpkins that is necessary to be condemned or otherwise required in connection with the wetlands project near the wastewater treatment plant. It's approximately 300 acres. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 3, please. CLERK: Appointment of Director of the Augusta Utilities Department. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we appoint Max Hicks. MR. HANDY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we appoint Tom Weidemier. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I move that nominations be closed. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion that nominations be closed - - or, excuse me, is there any discussion first? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Which one, Mr. Chairman? MAYOR SCONYERS: To move that nominations be closed. MR. POWELL: Okay. I didn't quite hear it. I'm sorry. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, do we vote on one or -- MR. POWELL: The nominations are brought up in order; right? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, let's take a roll call vote so there won't be no doubt. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, do we vote on Mr. Hicks or Mr. Weidemier first? Mr. Hicks first. All in favor of Mr. Hicks, raise your hand, please. [VOTE COUNT 6-3.] MR. POWELL: Somebody didn't vote. CLERK: Mr. Mays didn't vote. MR. MAYS: I thought you were voting on both of them. CLERK: No, sir, we were starting with Mr. Max Hicks. You didn't vote. MR. MAYS: I thought you were voting on both candidates. I'm sorry, I was -- I thought it was going on the roll call vote of where you're going to vote candidates, that's what I thought. I'm sorry; I apologize. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry. Do you want a roll call vote? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yeah, let's go on a roll call and get it over with. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. On Mr. Hicks, roll call vote. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays? MR. MAYS: Weidemier. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Hicks. CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Mr. Hicks by unanimous consent. MR. BEARD: I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd; thank you, Mr. Beard. Further discussion? MR. HANDY: I can't vote for that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, then I'll withdraw my motion. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I ask that the motion stand as is. And I think that was the purpose that some of us didn't vote yes or no, because we weren't going to vote against a particular person. If Mr. Todd withdraws the motion, I'll put it back on that the Commission accepts by unanimous consent. And you can vote against or for unanimous consent, but that's a motion if somebody will second it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion that the board accept it by unanimous consent. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:18 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission-Council CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission-Council held on June 4, 1996. _______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 197. 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 10th day of June 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER