HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1996 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
June 18, 1996
Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 P.M,
Tuesday, June 18, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham,
Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, member of Augusta-Richmond
County Commission-Council.
Also present were Lena Bonner, Interim Clerk of Commission-Council;
James B. Wall, Interim Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle,
Certified Court Reporter.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Regular
Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commission-Council will please
come to order. After the Invocation by the Reverend Bruce W. Hill, Pastor of
the Servants of God Baptist Church, if you'll remain standing we'll have the
Pledge of Allegiance.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HILL.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir, we have two requests for additions to the agenda:
Item 1 is to discuss the Damascus Road/Village Square property; Number 2, the
purchase of E-911 equipment for the new facility. We have a request from the
Attorney to delete Item 13, the BSFS computer equipment agreement.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it to get it on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, we need some additional information on
Damascus Road project, demolishing that. And I think that in the sense that
it's been put on the agenda as an addendum, we should hear from somebody as
far as what the end results of that is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Drew, do you want to handle that? I tell you what it
is, Mr. Todd, we've got some folks interested in the property, and -- Drew,
you can address that if you'd like.
MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. Mr. Todd, we've been approached by several
individuals about purchasing the property in a as-is condition, and I wanted
to get some direction from the Commission-Council and to proceed with
appraisals of the property rather than demolishing the units that are
remaining.
MR. TODD: I guess I -- if we're talking about acquisitions, then
certainly we probably should have handled this in a legal session possibly, I
don't know. But I'm not going to hold it up, I guess I'm going to go on and
vote to add it to the agenda, but it do concern me when we're dealing with
acquisition or de-acquisition of properties, that we do it with -- adding it
to the agenda versus having information. Mr. Kuhlke, are you on board with
this?
MR. KUHLKE: With what? I made the motion. I understood all we're
going to do is discuss it. Am I correct, Mr. Mayor, just for discussion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, that's correct, Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. TODD: I can support it as far as unanimous consent.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please.
CLERK: Item 1 is a delegation: Mr. J. Conn Ellington, Easley, McCaleb
& Associates, in reference to a request for reconsideration of Commission-
Council's May 7 decision to deny the removal of the 1995 penalty and interest
on tax bills. Mr. Ellington?
MR. ELLINGTON: I'd first like to start by thanking y'all for this time
and to also clarify that I speak on behalf of Easley, McCaleb & Associates, of
which I'm under the employ. The two parcels at hand were acting and pay their
taxes based on what we had informed them and instructed them to do based on
what we had been told by the Commissioner's Office, and with your approval I'd
like to pass out some documentation that I'm not aware if you have or not
supporting --
CLERK: Is that what you sent me?
MR. ELLINGTON: Yes.
CLERK: Yes, sir, they have it.
MR. ELLINGTON: Okay. Well, then I'd like to go right in and reference
it. The first is a cover letter discussing, you know, just basically the
request to have this reconsidered, and the reason I did that is because I was
not aware it was coming before the Council. I had been instructed through
several representatives that the best thing to do would be to address it to
Mr. Wall, the County Attorney, and that's what we did, and then I, in follow
up, was notified of y'alls decision.
But I would like to point out, basically if you go back to the initial
October 9th letter we sent to Helen Marcum stating that there were certain
parcels that we had been instructed to await tax bills upon settling of their
tax assessment values. Easley, McCaleb & Associates is a national property
tax consulting firm in business for over 15 years; we've been working in the
Augusta area for at least the last 10 to 15. And there was a huge list. If
you'll look at the material, this is important documentation. I know y'all
have a lot on your agenda today, but it does rather support what we're
stating. If you will, when you receive it, catch up to me, I'm on the fourth
from the last page, and it lists about 20 parcels that were under review and
they had asked that we wait until they were settled. That was October 9th.
I did not bring Ms. Marcum before the Council because, to my knowledge,
there's been no challenge to any of this information, it's just been a matter
of a vote of how to handle it. But if you'll also note as you go through
this, handwritten on the attachment is a letter from Ms. Marcum signed on
October 24th, and I personally brought this down to see what the status was.
I was here on other matters. And she handwrote, if I could quote: So sorry
about not getting this to you yet. Just be assured you will get new bills
with new discount dates 20 days from date bills are printed and new date.
Thanks again, I apologize, Helen A. Marcum. You have that in front of you.
We went on in -- December 11th, 1995 was our next correspondence. It was
an adjusted attachment based on only about seven parcels, to wit, two of these
that are before you today are referenced. This was not challenged and we,
upon follow up with phones, were told that they would be issued. If you'll
look at the last three pages, what they are are the tax bills that we're
discussing. They're dated -- if you'll look where they typically date right
under -- right next to Richmond County, Georgia, it's February 9th, '96. If
you'll look at the very last page, you'll see that it was mailed out with a
postmeter of February 18th, 1996. Upon getting these bills we called Ms.
Marcum and asked her why they reflected a higher amount showing penalties and
interest. She said -- she handwrote 2/29/96 is the due date, adjusting the
values down to their original amount due, which is basically how we had been
told it would be handled. We had these paid; we then received delinquent
tax bills for that interest and penalties. So the only thing that's not been
paid, and it's still in balance and in limbo, is this amount. Upon calling
Ms. Marcum to ask her why we received these, she said she would check. We
were told that the decision was that -- and I believe you're aware of the law
and the policies of the City of Augusta-Richmond County -- that anything over
$200 would need to come before the Council, and that's what we're doing today.
We were instructed -- we believed that there was not going to be an
issue of penalties and interest because we were just going about our business
waiting for the bills to be mailed, and then we paid them promptly. Since now
it's become an issue, we respectfully ask that since we followed what we were
being told -- we truly believed it to be accurate. We believed Ms. Marcum. We
were told that she did not have the right to grant us that. We didn't really
feel like we were asking for anything special because we were just asking for
the bills as soon as they could get them. We got a letter apologizing for the
delay. I believe both taxpayers, even though both these -- I should say
even though they're under different names, they're being paid by the bank
under the lease. They have a very strong history of paying on time and they
take that very seriously, and I do as well. We ask that because in good faith
we were acting as instructed, that these be removed. I'm sorry I wasn't
before you before when it came before you, but I was not aware it was coming
before the Council, and I ask that not only because it is a monetary issue but
it is a matter of principle. We have a reputation we like to maintain of
following guidelines and due dates, we take it very seriously, and ask that
you vote in our favor on this issue.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do a reconsideration vote on it
and waive the interest and penalty.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Mr. Wall wanted to say something. Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, the information that has been furnished to you is
accurate; however, there was one omission in the information, according to
what I've been told out of the Tax Commissioner's Office. And that is that
even though the tax bills that were mailed on February the 18th showed a
handwritten due date of February the 29th, the taxes were not in fact paid
until March of '96, and that's the reason that the penalty and interest was
imposed.
MR. ELLINGTON: The penalty and interest that's imposed was based back
on the original due date of, I believe, October 19th; is that not correct,
sir?
MR. WALL: Well, it was imposed because it was not paid by the due date.
While the matter was under appeal, no tax bill was sent out. When the
appeals were dismissed and there was a final decision, then the tax bills were
mailed. It had been our understanding that your contention was that you had
not received the tax bill, but as evidenced by the information that you
furnished and has been -- we have been able to obtain earlier, the tax bills
were in fact mailed on February the 18th. But the bills were not paid by the
February 29 due date; they were paid, I believe, on March the 18th.
MR. ELLINGTON: I would like to state that they were actually mailed on
the 18th of February, as so noted, and we received them and then had to
forward them to corporate. They were paid within a reasonable time period. If
any interest and penalty should be applied, it should be appropriate to the
manner of the mailing date, not go back to the -- revert back to the October
19th original due date. They did try to attempt to pay these as soon as
possible. It's a matter of processing. When we received them, we forwarded
them. That was a goal set by Helen Marcum of, you know, if you can get this
to our office by this date they will be removed. What we did was forward them
to corporate, which they were paid upon receipt.
MR. WALL: I'd point out that the 15% penalty doesn't bear into the time
frame. The 15% penalty, you know, whether that dates to February the 29th or
October it's still 15%, so that amount would not change.
MR. ELLINGTON: As I understand it, the actual tax bill process is a 20-
day discount date. We were not --we're not asking for a discount date. We
paid them within 30 days of mailing, which I think if you'll check with
policy, that would be appropriate with City of Augusta-Richmond County. You
stated yourself that they were received in the office by the 18th, which
according to the postmark would be a 30-day turnaround of issuing the bills,
not even receiving. And as you know, with corporate banking it's not --
doesn't go down to the local branch and cut at that point, it does go to a
corporate office.
We were not trying in any way to avoid any taxation. In good faith, we
were trying to make these payments. We tried to make them by the 29th, they
were FedEx'd out of my office, it just was not possible. But I think a 30-day
turnaround from the date mailed from Augusta is quite appropriate, and I ask
again that -- we're not asking for any discount date, which is the 20-day,
we're only asking for the waiving of the penalty and interest because of that.
MR. WALL: The basis of my recommendation before the Finance Committee
that this be turned down was because they showed a February 29th due date and
they were not paid until sometime in March. And the bills were properly
mailed, properly handled by the Tax Commissioner's Office, and I didn't see
any justification. And that was the recommendation that I made then and,
frankly, that's still my recommendation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the bill was
paid late?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MR. ELLINGTON: It was paid within 30 days. It was not paid within the
self-imposed goal of Helen Marcum that she put on the tax bill, but I would
like to state that the --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't know that that was a self-imposed goal or not.
You're assuming that it was self-imposed. Did you not know what the tax bill
was in October?
MR. ELLINGTON: Sir, we had asked to pay for them on a handwritten bill
and they had asked us to wait. I would like to state the last --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, did you not know the amount in October?
MR. ELLINGTON: Oh, we knew what -- we did not know what the final
settlement of the assessment would be.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So it was a matter of when the check was cut, it was
not knowing what the amount was once the settlement was reached, was it?
MR. ELLINGTON: I'm not clear on what you're saying. If you're
suggesting we could've had the check in waiting, they have to receive a bill
in order to cut a check, just for fiscal responsibility. They paid these
bills within 30 days of mailing, and I think City of Augusta-Richmond County
tax bill procedure does not impose any 30-day requirement that I know of, it's
only a 20-day for the discount. And, once again, we are not asking for the
discount, we are only asking for a reasonable period to pay these.
The 29th, if you would -- you can do the math yourself. The postmark is
the 18th; the 29th is 11 days from mailing. We had FedEx'd them in an attempt
to meet this requirement, but we still stand that these were paid within 30
days of mailing, and in good faith, in extreme good faith. And we would have
paid them by handwritten, and we had asked to, but they had asked us to wait.
And in the absence of a tax bill, we could not have the processing begin.
And that's by the tax bill, which seems reasonable. I don't think any taxpayer
in Augusta is asked to pay a bill within 30 days unless they want to claim
that discount.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Further discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I guess we call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Do y'all know what we're voting on now?
Does anybody need the motion reread?
MR. HANDY: Yes, would you do so, Mr. Mayor, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Would you, Susan? Thank you.
MS. WATSON: It was a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell, to
waive both penalty and interest.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Wall, that's the normal procedure, we waive penalty and
interest when they are late?
MR. WALL: No, sir. Normal procedure is the only thing that you ever
waive is penalty where there was some foul up or justification for the delayed
payment. The interest, we have -- when you have waived penalty, except in a
rare case, and I think there may have been some rare cases, but typically you
have just waived the penalty, collected the interest, because they've had the
benefit of the use of the funds during that interim and it was appropriate to
collect the interest anyhow.
MR. ELLINGTON: The only comment I'd like to make to that -- and that's
typical across the state. I would like to ask that -- with that being said,
most people don't receive 1% interest on their investments. We had asked to
pay these, hand-corrected, to avoid such a circumstance as this. And I would
like to refer back to that attachment where handwritten by Helen A. Marcum
said that the bills will have a new discount date 20 days from date bills are
printed and new due dates, and a due date allows you to pay without penalty
and interest, as definition. Helen A. Marcum is a representative of the Tax
Commissioner's Office. We like to think that we don't have to actually speak
to or have written notification from the actual Tax Commissioner all across
the country. I think that allows a natural flow and a smooth flow of
business.
We were never notified that any of these correspondence were out of line
or inappropriate or incorrect, so in good faith we held our stead and waited
for the bills to be issued. And, once again, they were paid within 30 days,
which tax bill procedure stipulates that would not be a late payment. It
would not be qualified for the discount date, but it would not be a late
payment, I would like to clarify that. And we're not asking for the discount.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen? Are
you through, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Where is this lady who gave all this handwritten
information?
MR. WALL: Ms. Marcum is on jury duty this week and could not be here
today.
MR. HANDY: Could we put this off until she can be here to explain why
she did what she did? I could vote on -- I could support it if I could
understand it much better from the person who made this mess. Could I do a
substitute motion to table it until we can get the person who --
MR. ELLINGTON: I believe I can -- if I can --
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, I think we're going to settle this right now.
If you want to do the motion, do the motion. We'll either vote it up or
down.
MR. HANDY: I would like to offer a substitute motion to table it until
we can get some more information on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a
second to Mr. Handy's motion?
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw the primary motion and make the
substitute primary.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Powell, do you withdraw your second?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. Item 2, please -- or Item 1.
CLERK: Items 1 through 9 are all requests for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve petition. Item 1 is on behalf
of the Second Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, requesting a special exception for an
existing church, 1404 Brown Street; Item 2 is the purpose of establishing an
unmanned trans-mission tower at 1510 Gordon Highway; Item 3 is to approve a
petition requesting a special exception for expanding an existing church, 3540
Lumpkin Road; Item 4 is establishing an unmanned transmission tower,
Hephzibah-McBean and Old Waynesboro Road; Item 5 is for a special exception
for establishing a day care, 1842 Wrightsboro Road; Item 6 is for an unmanned
cellular communications tower off Camp Angehele Road; Item 7 is change of
zoning from a B-1 (Neighborhood) to a B-2 (General Business) at 3866 Mike
Padgett Highway; Item 8 is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from a
Zone R-1A to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business), 2731 Milledgeville Road; Item
9 is for a request of change of zoning from a Zone P-1 (Professional) and a
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business), 1109 15th Street and 1513 Laney-Walker
Boulevard. There were no objectors, according to Mr. Patty from Planning, on
these items.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept these.
I was the Planning representative that day and we did not have any objectors.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry
Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, where is 1510 Gordon Highway? That would be
the only concern I'd have.
MR. PATTY: This is a piece of property that's been vacant for a long
time right where 25 and --
MR. TODD: Okay. No problem.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors present today?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors to any of these, Item 1
through 9? [No response] None noted.
MR. HANDY: Call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
[Item 1: Z-96-51 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition from Wilson Gibbons, on behalf of
Second Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of expanding an existing church as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Brown Street and Augusta Avenue (1404 Brown Street). (District 2) Item
2: Z-96-52 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to APPROVE a petition from Hal Kraft, on behalf of William Waters,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an unmanned
transmission tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located
on a Bearing S 41-01'07" E and being 46 feet, more or less, southeast of a
point located on the southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway and also
being 801 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the northwest right-
of-way line of Old Savannah Road intersects with the southeast right-of-way
line of Gordon Highway (1510 Gordon Highway). (District 2) Item 3: Z-
96-53 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission
to APPROVE a petition from Dr. Lenard Chavis, on behalf of Lumpkin Road
Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an
existing church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located
on the southwest right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road, 388.5 feet west of the
southwest corner of the intersection of Pine View Drive and Lumpkin Road (2540
Lumpkin road). (District 8) Item 4: Z-96-54 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition from Steve
Smead, on behalf of J. Kenneth Cox, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing an unmanned transmission tower as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line
of Old Waynesboro Road, 1.2 miles, more or less, north of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road and Old Waynesboro Road.
(District 8) Item 5: Z-96-55 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition from Anthony Franklin, on
behalf of Anthony and Maudree Franklin, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a day care center as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (n) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of
Wrightsboro Road and Spring Street (1842 Wrightsboro Road). (District 5)
Item 6: Z-96-56 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to APPROVE a petition from Victor M. Landau, on behalf of Augusta
Metronet, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
an unmanned cellular communications tower as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Camp Angehele
Road (private), 1,453.85 feet southwest of a point where the southwest right-
of-way line of Hephzibah-McBean Road intersects with the northwest right-of-
way line of Camp Angehele Road. (District 8) Item 7: Z-96-57 - Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to APPROVE a
petition from Nelson Williams, on behalf of ISBE & Benadam Corporation,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-
2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of
Mike Padgett Highway (formerly Old Savannah Road), 1,220 feet, more or less,
southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Road and
Mike Padgett Highway (3866 Mike Padgett Highway). (District 8) Item 8:
Z-96-58 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission
to APPROVE a petition from Tony Mulherin, on behalf of Edna McGahee and Helen
Zimmerman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right-of-
way line of Milledgeville Road, 336.5 feet west of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Melton Road and Milledgeville Road (2731 Milledgeville Road).
(District 5) Item 9: Z-96-59 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition from Maurice
Steinberg, on behalf of Maurice Steinberg, et al., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest right-
of-way line of 15th Street, 86.0 feet north of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Laney-Walker Boulevard and 15th Street (1109 15th Street and
1513 Laney-Walker Boulevard). (District 1)]
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Items 10 through 12 were final plat approvals: Country Place
Subdivision, Pepperidge Subdivision, Eagle Pointe Subdivision.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. On Item 10, is that not
in a flood plain? in a flood plain? What's the status of Country Place?
MR. PATTY: No, there are no flood plains on any of these properties.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be Pepperidge, Monte
Carlo Drive. What is the situation there, are they -- I know we have a flood
area there that we got hit in 1990 by, and I'm wondering how we're going to
impact that. And that's been my concern as we've developed Pepperidge, so.
MR. PATTY: Mr. Todd, the only thing I can tell you, this particular
area is not located in a flood plain, and the Engineering Department has seen
that provisions are made to control the flood water from this section so it
won't, you know, within reason, impact those other areas.
MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion that we accept these?
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.
[Item 10: S-497-IV - COUNTRY PLACE SUBDIVISION - SECTION IV - FINAL
PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
APPROVE a petition from W. R. Toole Engineering, on behalf of Nordahl &
Company, Inc., requesting a Final Plat Approval of Country Place Subdivision,
Section IV. This section is an extension of Country Place Drive off the west
side of Hwy. 56 in Country Place Subdivision and contains 28 lots. (The Plat
was approved by the Planning Commission Staff on June 12, 1996.) Item 11:
S-227-XI-C - PEPPERIDGE SUBDIVISION - SECTION XI-C - FINAL PLAT - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition
from W. R. Toole Engineering, on behalf of Nordahl & Company, Inc., requesting
a Final Plat Approval of Pepperidge Subdivision, Section XI-C. This section
is an extension of Monte Carlo Drive, Millstone Run and Shady Brook Drive in
Pepperidge Subdivision and contains 35 lots. (The Plat was approved by the
Planning Commission Staff on June 12, 1996.) Item 12: EAGLE POINTE
SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition from Cranston, Robertson &
Whitehurst, on behalf of Veterans Realty, requesting a Final Plat Approval of
Eagle Pointe Subdivision. This subdivision is located on the north side of
Skinner Mill Road, 786.87 feet west of Park Place Drive and contains 44 lots.
(The Plat was approved by the Planning Commission Staff on June 12, 1996.)]
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Items 14 through 22 were all approved by the Finance Committee
June 10th, 1996.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends approval of
these items.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor. I guess I see for the first time the
information that I've been requesting in reference the actuary information and
certainly appreciate Finance providing that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
[Item 14: Consider approval of funding in the amount of $18,500 to the
Paine College Summer Sports Program. Item 15: Consider approval of
transferring Fire Department from Smile Gas manual billing system to Fuelman
billing system. Item 16: Consider approval of resurfacing the tennis
courts at Newman Tennis Center. Item 17: Consider approval of
application for Purchase of Prior Year Services into 1977 Retirement Plan by
Robert J. Etterlee, Public Works/Traffic Engineer. Item 18: Consider
approval of application for Purchase of Prior Year Services into 1977
Retirement Plan by George S. McElveen, Water & Sewerage Department. Item
19: Consider approval of funding for 1996 for Greater Augusta Arts Council.
Item 20: Consider approval of a request from the Office of the Tax
Commissioner requesting forgiveness of 1989 City taxes on property of Map 60-
1; Parcel 32.01. Item 21: Consider approval of additional invoices in
connection with the third floor renovation totaling $1,477.80. Item 22:
Consider approval that all requests for ADA modifications be paid from the
requesting department's 1-cent Sales Tax Budget.]
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 23 -- and I'd like to make the correction that the 18
temporary employees will be for the Sanitation Division, and that was approved
by the Administrative Services Committee June 10th, 1996.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 23 be approved.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. Certainly I understand that we
need to do some things in the urban service district, but it's my
understanding that we've authorized the Sheriff to hire five deputies, at
least five deputies, that would be able to put out at least four to five
crews, with the understanding that if somebody's out sick we wouldn't be able
to put out a crew. And I raised a concern I guess the last time we went
through this discussion on where those officers are, what those crews are
doing, and I really haven't got a answer back yet in reference the inmate
labor that we're supposed to be using.
I understand that the cleanup is going well in the inner-city. I rode
some Sunday. One of the biggest problems that I see is that individuals is
putting leaves out that is not contained, dumping leaves out on the right-of-
way. I think that whatever we do here we've got to send a message that we
have a city ordinance against littering in the street, and to dump leaves out
without having them in a box or a bag or a can or something where they can be
picked up properly and to throw limbs out in the street or on the sidewalks at
any time that they want to is not acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable by
this govern-ment or any other government. I'm sure it wasn't acceptable by
the last government. So that's my position on it. And I certainly would like
to know where the inmates and the guards are before I can support it, and I
certainly can't support this growth.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Todd, if you would remember that the
Sanitation Department was cut back to about 25/23 people last year. Those
people have not been replaced, and this is one of the reasons we ask that they
be replaced. And that committee approved that those people be replaced, and
we ask that because of the trash and the debris that has been piled up in the
streets and on the right-of-ways in the urban area, mostly in the urban area
and partly in the suburban area, and this is why we ask that we come back up
to full strength. And this was explained in the committee meeting, that we
were able to come back up to full strength and make it possible so that the
debris and the trash could be picked up.
And for the other question that you asked about, the deputies, if you'll
notice, they are out there and the inmates are cleaning the area. We had
about two to three crews out there this week cleaning areas, and they are
doing a commendable job in cleaning it. And you're right that the public need
to be educated that they should not put the heavy debris out there as the
mattresses, the sofas, and other items that they're putting out there on the
right-of-way. They are putting those items out there -- as soon as we can
clean it up, they're putting them right back out there. I don't know the
answer to that. I don't know how you educate the public to that other than
what we are doing here or through the media that this is not the proper place
to put that. On the other hand, you must remember that we went up on the
fees at the landfill, and this is creating a problem. And we spoke to this
previously, that this was going to create a problem, and this may be part of
the problem, because I really felt that we shouldn't have gone up on those
fees at the landfill. And people have a hard time trying to get out there.
It's quite a distance out there, and a lot of people in the urban areas would
have to rent a truck to get out there, then they have to pay the $7 fee or the
$2 fee after they get out there, so this is a burden also. So I think it's a
matter of working together. But I would say that the inmates are out there
now and they're working and they are -- the Sanitation Department, they have
enough people now to possibly get up some of the trash and let's keep our city
a little cleaner.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm planning on supporting this motion, but
I think it needs to be amended to that it stays within the existing budget of
the Sanitation Department now or either we identify a source of the funds to
be used.
MR. BEARD: We already agreed on that, Mr. Brigham, within the committee
meeting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I wanted to make sure it was stated in this meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all accept that?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, I will.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good. Okay. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have two points. One is, it's my understanding
although the inmates are out with the --picking up the streets, that we no
longer have an inmate crew with the Parks -- I mean, with the Trees
Department. Is that true?
MR. BEARD: I think that they are being utilized wherever needed at this
point. With the Trees and Parks, they were supposed to be in the cemetery
areas. There was supposed to be a crew in there, but I think Mr. Hartley and
Barry Smith, they are able to utilize this wherever --the inmates wherever
they're possible, and I just hope that would continue.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to hear from Mr. Smith on that issue.
MR. SMITH: The Sheriff's Department has been assisting us in the
cemetery -- Trees and Parks Department. Since April 12th, I guess, they've
been in the cemetery 12 days. So they've helped, but it seems like they grow
back up by the time they get back around. So they have been helping. They
haven't been, since May 12, back to the cemetery or Trees and Parks, but we
never have really had them to help with the boulevard maintenance. But I've
appreciated what they have done, and I'd appreciate more help in the future.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I was under the understanding that we were trying to
make this somewhat of a permanent detail so we wouldn't have these peaks and
valleys.
MR. SMITH: Well, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, that's not the
way it's been, but hopefully in the future it'll improve. But the cemeteries
aren't -- a regular crew is not in the cemetery, but I think they have other
priorities possibly, and -- with trash on the street, but I'm ready for them
to stay in the cemeteries on a rotational, full-time basis. So whatever can
be worked out between the priorities of cemeteries and the trash on the
street, I'm certainly ready to let them be in the cemeteries more.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I think that we're in a position now that
one week we'll be complaining about trash and the next week we're going to
complain about grass in the cemetery. I think we ought to take a long-term
view of this and see what's the best for our government and how we resource
those things, and I'd strongly recommend that you appoint a subcommittee to
take a look at this to see if we can once and for all resolve this situation
because it's going to keep coming.
MR. SMITH: Well, not to lengthen the conversation, but I think if we
had a ten-man crew to rotate from Westview to Mag-nolia to Cedar Grove, just
rotationally going five days a week, then we can keep the cemeteries in fine
order. But right now, by the time they leave Westview and go to Magnolia and
go to Cedar Grove, Westview is in horrible order, so there's a big lag here.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold it now. Mr. Powell is next, then Mr. Todd, and
then Mr. Beard. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I just want to state
that inmate labor has been a lot of help to us out there in the area of -- the
urban area, however, inmate labor has its handicaps. Inmate labor has to be
worked in groups, and they have to be guarded groups. What we need is these
temporary people in order to help us with being able to work in more areas, to
operate equipment, because we're working inmate labor in groups of 10 or 15
and they all have to stay in one place, and that's a disadvantage to us. I
think if we'll utilize the inmate labor along with the temporary employees we
can correct the problem that we have, and I just would like to urge each and
every one of you to go along with this temporary employees because we
definitely need to clean up the city. And we've really looked at this hard
and we think it's the best solution.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I don't have a problem with cleaning up
the city. My question is the same as it was last meeting, have we hired five
guards to six guards that would authorize us to put out 40 to 48 men, and if
so, where those men are being worked. And I think that if we're -- you know,
when we started this debate there was individuals that come into the Public
Works meeting over at Public Works, the first committee meeting, and proposed
that we hire for Sanitation to bring us back up to where we're at pre-'96, or
pre-'95 maybe when the cuts was made. We debated whether we needed inmate
labor at that point or whether we could use inmate labor to do the job or
whether we wanted to go and hire folks to do it.
We hired, my understanding, five men. So the question is simple, if we
haven't hired the five men, then I stand to be corrected. If we hired the
five men and we put 40 men out in the street, then certainly I'd like to know
where they're at, how they're working, how they're functioning -- some
feedback. I don't -- you know, there's other problems here, too, even to the
extent of what committee is doing what, but I can live with that as long as we
are going to know where those men are and how it's functioning, and also that
we're going to enforce the ordinance that deals with the trash. Now, if
anybody can just take leaves and dump them out in front of their yard and
we're going to have men to come along with pitchforks and pick them up, or
rakes and shovels, then you're never going to catch up; you're going to have
to hire 100 men to stay up. So we need some enforcement as far as those codes
go, too, as far as the limbs and leaves and when they are put out and how they
are put out.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I just checked with Chief Hatfield and he
assured me they already have the five guards and they are out working as we
speak.
MR. TODD: We shouldn't have a problem then, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add that the Public Works
Department should take -- and I think they will -- take this and make some
long-range plans and suggestions for that and work with the Sheriff's
Department on this, and I think we ought to see some results in that. We do
need long-range plans and I can agree with that, but I think it need to be
coming now from the Public Works Department and working out those plans and
getting some objectives and get some organization in that, and I call for the
question after that.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? I just want -- Barry sat back down, but I just
wanted to ask him one thing. And I know the problem you're going through with
that rotation, but what's probably your status right now on the, say, catching
up of some things other than just cleaning that where when you didn't have the
staffing to deal with in the cemeteries? I know there are some things, you
know, to get done in there to at least to bring up to speed before you could
even just do your normal maintenance. Have we gotten to that point with all
three with where you were there?
MR. SMITH: We're getting there, but I think if we just had ten inmates
to go from cemetery to cemetery we could get it all done and everybody would
be happy. Father's Day was last Sunday, and the complaints just poured in
because I haven't had inmates since May 12th. So we're at a point to where if
we keep cutting the grass with inmates we can please the public. There's a
lot of herbicide spraying that doesn't take a whole lot of men, but it's just
mowing the grass. And the inmates can knock it out in three days per
cemetery, but then they just need to go back to the first cemetery and start
all over again. But we're at a point to where it's going well if we had more
inmates.
MR. MAYS: And, you know, I hope my colleagues won't take it as a
conflict in terms of probably talking about cemeteries on a special needs from
a funeral director's standpoint, but I was out of town for Father's Day, but
the complaints didn't stop, they were here when I got back. And there are
some special needs that are in there because you have in some situations where
you have an entrustment where there are no complainants to a point that where
elderly people where both persons may be deceased and husband and wife,
whatever, that there is nobody to speak in that process.
And I think we should be reminded that regardless of what the minimum
fee was, even though we clean the whole cemetery, there still is a perpetual
care fund that was established for all three of those cemeteries to where
there have been some placed-aside monies, and I think we have a responsibility
probably there or maybe on a priority setting to make sure that they are
cleaned, if nothing else, due to State of Georgia Secretary of State
regulations in dealing with perpetual care. And I just wanted to throw that
out there. It's not a threat, but, you know, I think when we start talking
about, you know, who has placed some money in a trust situation, that even
though it may have been minimum when some of those folks started it, it was
there based on a trust situation within the existing City of Augusta that
those things would be maintained. And those are there in Magnolia,
they're there in Cedar Grove, and they're there in Westview, and I think
because of that status you probably do have some priority setting that we need
to make sure that that's kept done. And I just wanted to put that in there
for the record to a point that that shouldn't continue to be a constant
problem and we need to give you that help in doing that. Not that anyone is
more important than the other one, but I think that when you have that
situation that's there, because of the perpetual care funds, then we have an
obligation to keep those situations up, legally.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion to hire the 18 temporaries, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Item 24 is to consider approval of an option to purchase right-
of-way known as Area D, Parcel 8 of the Barton Chapel Road Intersection &
Drainage Improvement Project.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy --
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: -- seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All
in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 25, please.
CLERK: To consider approval of condemnation of Parcel 6, Area B of the
Barton Chapel Road Intersection & Drainage Improvement Project.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 26.
CLERK: Item 26: Consider approval of an option to purchase Parcel 28
of the Raes Creek Channel Improvement Project.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move for approval.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion? I heard several voices there.
MR. POWELL: I think it was Mr. Brigham.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Brigham, and seconded by Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: That's good. That was Raes Creek, so you can imagine where
it came from.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 27: Consider approval of a request from the Environmental
Engineer regarding further investigation of the White Road service station
leading underground storage tank.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by who, please?
MR. POWELL: Second by Mr. Powell.
MAYOR SCONYERS: By Mr. Powell. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 28 is to consider approval of a request from the
Environmental Engineer regarding surveying services for locating the methane
monitoring wells installed at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further
discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 29: Consider approval of the revised agreement between the
City of North Augusta and Augusta-Richmond County regarding the Material
Recovery Facility.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further
discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what the agreement is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Bridges. Jim?
MR. WALL: And I walked out and left my copy sitting on my table, and I
hope -- Jim, do you have your copy? Is it $2.33?
MR. LEIPER: I don't recall off the top of my head.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Drew here? Maybe he knows.
MR. WALL: Mr. Bridges, while we're looking, basically there was a
slight increase in the per customer charge, and --
MR. GOINS: 1.33 plus the [inaudible], as I recall. I don't have a copy
with me.
MR. WALL: All right. It was an increase from 1.25 to 1.33, and then
there was an additional --because of the transportation cost, North Augusta
had sold the trucks and other things that were being used to transport the
excess that could not be recycled back to the landfill. There was an
amortization of those costs through the balance of the term of the contract,
which would result in an additional 11 cents, so it's $1.33 plus 11 cents, or
$1.44 per customer.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the committee that worked on this was Mr. Goins,
Mr. Dillard -- and I may leave someone out -- I believe the gentleman from the
Sanitation Department and Mr. Leiper and Mr. Smith, and certainly I think we
have a good proposal here in the sense that we continue our recycling as far
as the urban district go. The waste stream, instead of going to a Screaming
Eagle, will now come to the Richmond County landfill. And it will mean -- I
know we're taking money out of one pocket and putting in another, but it beats
taking it out of one pocket and sending it to South Carolina or to New York
City. And what we're doing now is that we are keeping the money in the
community because we are using our landfill versus a landfill that's owned by
a private concern somewhere else, so that's the big winner here, and it's a
win-win situation for Richmond County, the city, and North Augusta.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 30, please.
CLERK: Items 30 through 43 were all approved by the Public Services
Committee on June 11th, 1996, with no objectors present.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that items 30 through
43, subject to the fact that if there being no objec-tors on the alcohol
license, that they be approved by this body.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by -- I mean, excuse me,
by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy. Do we have objectors present to anything?
[No response] Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to know where -- in Number 33,
to Mr. Mays, where is that located? Exactly where is that? Is that next to
the church up there on Milledgeville Road?
MR. MAYS: No, that's further out, Mr. Beard. That's over in Mr.
Brigham's district, but it's further out Milledgeville Road. I know the one
that you're thinking about, where the reconstruction -- it's not that one.
MR. BEARD: Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll support the motion with the exception of
those that contain Sunday sales.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that so noted, ladies?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to also reflect the same.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell's the same. Further discussion, gentlemen?
All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your
hand, please.
[Item 30: Consider approval of a request by Teresa M. Bonds for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. located at 3209 Deans Bridge Road. District 4, Super District 9.
Item 31: Consider approval of a request from Robin Cartwright for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection
with Garden City Bowl located at 1241 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday
sales. District 1, Super District 9. Item 32: Consider approval of a
request from Robin Cartwright for a consumption on premises liquor, beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Masters Lanes located at 1810
Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 5, Super District 9.
Item 33: Consider approval of a request from Ki Chun Kim for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville
Convenience Store located at 2517 Milledgeville Road. District 5, Super
District 9. Item 34: Consider approval of a request from Roger W.
Pollock for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in
connection with Washington Walk Liquor Store located at 2801 Washington Road.
District 7, Super District 10. Item 35: Consider approval of a request
from Cho Sun Chon for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to
be used in connection with Sit-N-Bull Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge
Road. There will be a dance hall. District 6, Super District 10. Item
36: Consider approval of a request from Ae Ree Seo for a consumption on
premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Shogun
Restaurant located at 3043 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 7, Super District 10. Item 37: Consider approval of a request
from Sok Yong Kim for a retail package beer license to be used in connection
with Greene Street Market located at 464 Greene Street. District 1, Super
District 9. Item 38: Consider approval of a request by Michelle Leigh
Price to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to
be used in connection with Copperfields Restaurant and Lounge located at 13645
Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales and a dance hall. Formerly in the
name of Carolyn Anne Tyson. District 1, Super District 9. Item 39:
Consider approval of a request from Ollie W. Lee for a Sunday sales license to
be used in connection with Private "I" Restaurant & Lounge located at 2507
Thomas Lane. This location is currently licensed for consumption on premises
liquor, beer & wine. District 5, Super District 9. Item 40: Consider
approval of a request from the Director of License and Inspections to
advertise for bids for the demolition and clearing of the condemned structures
located at 2843 Deans Bridge Road (Cadles Motel, Map 85-4, Parcel 66).
Item 41: Consider approval of contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and
Douglas Moore, Terrence Perkins, John E. (Eddie) Lord, Erin Marsingill, Dustin
Woods, Charles Murphy, John R. Griganow, Taylor Tom, Maurice Johnson, John
Ellis, and LaTasha Stokes for their services as officiants in sporting events
sponsored by the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department. Item 42:
Consider approval of a proposed Resolution exempting Augusta-Richmond County
from a recently enacted State Law allowing self-inspection by plumbers.
Item 43: Consider approval of a Resolution authorizing the Commissioners of
Augusta-Richmond County to enter into an Agreement with East Georgia Easter
Seal Society, Inc. with regard to a "Fantasy of Lights" display at Pendleton
King Park during the Christmas holiday season.]
MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEMS 31, 32, 36, 38.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEMS 31, 32, 36, 38.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 30, 33-35, 37, 39-43.
CLERK: Item 44: Consider approval of the minutes of the Augusta-
Richmond County Commission-Council meeting held on June 4, 1996.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
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: 45: 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.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the amended ordinance,
and I believe Mr. Wall have a copy of the amended ordinance with him. And the
amendment, Mr. Mayor, is that we wouldn't stop the tax for 90 days from the
date that we have the second reading, and that's in the form of a motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, do I have a second?
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that Mr. Kuhlke or Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: That's mine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd also like to send along with this to the
Coliseum Authority that we certainly expect the Coliseum Authority to come up
with a short-range and long-range plan, and -- if they want consideration in
the future as far as the monies in question. And I think it's essential that
they have goals and objectives that's going to take them to where 60% of the
coliseums are in this country, at a break even, and certainly I'd like to
convey that to them. It's not a part of this motion, but as a comment and
communication.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns on
this, and what my concerns are is we had the Coliseum Authority in yesterday
for a meeting and we gave them 60 days to come back with a plan, is what I
thought. Which it was not voted on, but I'd just like to know if we've given
consideration to possibly sending the Internal Auditor over there to audit the
records of the Coliseum Authority before we make a rash or hasty decision to
see if there is any improprieties going on there.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote against this, and I think I
need to qualify it. Because after listening yesterday, and for the first time
-- and as I stated yesterday, that this is the first time that we've had
communication with the Coliseum Authority, and I think that before we begin to
take away money from them, I think that we ought to give them consideration
and time to work out their differences. And if they don't do that, then I
think that I will be in favor of doing just what Mr. Todd has asked here.
And I don't think we've ever had an audit to review that situation, an
audit to really review that situation and see how things really are over
there, and I think this needs to be done first before we take steps like this.
I think we're all looking for physical responsibility over there, fiscal
responsibility over there, and I think we ought to give them time to do that
before we start taking other measures.
MR. ZETTERBERG: My concern is not in auditing the -- I haven't had a
chance to look at the books. I won't claim that I'm an internal auditor. The
problem was not in expenses; the expenses have been rather stable. The
problem is in the lack of revenue, and the lack of revenue, in my opinion, is
because of the lack of planning on the Coliseum Authority's part and the
management of the Coliseum. They have no plan, I'm not too sure they ever had
a plan, and I think we have to show some resolve today that we intend them to
deliver a plan and that we're going to hold the money until they decide to
come up with a plan and serve the citizens well. I'm satisfied that we did
talk to them on Monday, and that's the reason why I didn't vote last time.
Brought them in to discuss it, I heard what I heard, and I've decided that
they need a little bit more teeth be taken in this particular issue.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, as far as an audit, the Coliseum Authority
has its own CPA and I certainly don't think we need to send another CPA to
review another CPA's work, first off. The other thing is this is not a
ordinance that I particular like, it's one I'm going to support because we
need to move on with this matter, and I understand that this is one that can
be supported and that it will do what I wanted to accomplish to start with.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd just like to maybe ask a question and then make a
comment. I know Mr. Todd mentioned someplace about the 90 days, and I wanted
to know is this the first reading or is this considered as the second and
final reading where we act on this today. Certainly I think the Coliseum
committee came over yesterday in good faith, and they might not have given the
answers that we wanted to hear, but I think they were sincere and honest in
what they did say. They didn't try to -- as far as I could tell, try to hide
anything.
And it seems to me that if they came in good faith -- we invited them to
come, and I thought the understanding we could not vote on it, that they would
come back at a later date to let us know how far they've gone and if they've
gotten another manager or what they have done. But I would hope that we would
give them that courtesy to --since we did invite them to come over, and I'd
hope that we would also give them some more time to bring their plans back to
us. And their honesty is -- to me, if you make a mistake -- and they admitted
it right off that they didn't have a plan. It appears to me that you cannot
just go and just beat it, beat it, over and over because of that, and cer-
tainly I would like to see us give more time in this situation.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would like to put in the form of a motion,
since they was here on yesterday and we had an opportunity to communicate with
them, and they gave us some ideas of some things they were thinking about and
then we gave them some directive what we would like to see. And if we're
giving them 90 days -- 60 days, rather, to come back, I don't think it'd be
right for us to go make a move not knowing what they're coming back with. We
still could keep the ordinance intact. The ordinance is not going anyplace.
When they come back to us within 60 days that we have given them, asked them
to come back with a plan, if the plan is not acceptable to this body I'll be
willing to support Mr. Todd's ordinance. But it doesn't make sense to give
them 60 days to go out and come back to us with an idea of what your plans are
going to be and then we come back here today and take action before we give
them opportunity to come back and explain themselves.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that in the form of a substitute motion, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Handy's motion?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? Okay. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, certainly I think Ray Charles
could see that that was a snow job yesterday by the Coliseum Authority, and
certainly you'd had to been out of town, out of country, and not read the
morning's paper to realize, you know, that it seems that there was -- you
know, what happened here and what happened before and what I understand
happened this morning over there, that we have some serious problems. We can
either deal with those problems or we can toy with those problems like they
toyed with us yesterday. That's exactly what the Coliseum Authority come over
here and done. They had -- the only plan that they ever had as far as I know
was the plan to snow us yesterday, and they went back to their meeting today
and they made no headway as far as a plan go. I don't even think they
discussed a plan as far as a short-range or long-range plan.
So it's my position that I'm going to vote for this ordinance. I've
compromised with some individuals on putting a 90 day on it versus
immediately. They got together on their strategy on how much money they had
and how long it could last, you know, and the two million -- approximately two
million dollars, that the CPA was instructed to come over here and tell us
less than the truth. I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was just
information that he arrived with and he did a report to us, but there was ten
questions that I raised and one of them, the last one, the tenth one, was how
would cutting the 30% impact the Coliseum Authority. He said they could
operate approximately ten months. I also understand that he told the Finance
Committee that they could operate approximately two years. Now, I'm not a
CPA. I know that figures don't lie; sometimes, you know, liars figure, and
they're going to have to answer which one that is, you know. I don't see
sending our CPA over. I think that the proper thing for all of them to do
over there is turn in their resignation to their respective appointees and we
resolve this issue and get some folks over there that can be accountable and
run the Coliseum and Civic Center. I don't want to shut down the Civic Center
and Bell Auditorium, but also as a elected official and as the one that's
responsible for the accountability over there, you know, in the end results, I
don't intend to sit here and toy with them either and play games with them.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, Mr. Brigham asked the question is this considered
the second reading or the first reading since this is an amendment.
MR. WALL: It would be my position that this is the second reading,
because an ordinance can be amended up until its final adoption, so I would
say this is the second.
MR. KUHLKE: And the other thing is that we had requested the Coliseum
Authority come back to us in 60 days, I think, and present us with a plan, so
if this is adopted today, this is 30 days beyond the time that we've asked
them to come back. And from reports that I've gotten today is while we had a
civil meeting yesterday, this morning at the Coliseum Authority it was less
than civil, and I'm going to support Mr. Todd's motion and not the substitute
motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor?
MR. HANDY: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Mays beat you to it.
MR. MAYS: I just wanted to ask Mr. Wall, would that stand even when
there is no action taken on a first reading vote?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, it'd be my position that it would. And I'll tell
you that there is no case authority, there's nothing in Robert's Rules that I
can find, and I'm basing this opinion upon the procedure employed by the
General Assembly. The General Assembly requires three readings. They take no
action -- do not take a vote on the first and second reading, that those are
considered readings of the proposed Georgia statutes, and I'm following that
practice in rendering an opinion that it is -- I think it's the second reading
because the purpose of the two readings is to put the public on notice that it
is being considered. And that was done by virtue of the first reading that
was had at the last Commission-Council meeting, and they've had an opportunity
to have whatever citizen input that they want during the interim between that
date and today's vote, and that's the reason that I take the position this is
the second reading of the ordinance.
MR. MAYS: And since you've been away on vacation and you have nothing
to back that up, I'm going to respect your opinion today. But I wanted to
comment, Mr. Mayor, on one thing very briefly. I just hope that we are not
getting into a throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water situation in dealing
with this. Obviously there are some serious personality problems that exist
over there at that Authority that are not changing, and my main concern is in
keeping it open if they are coming back with a plan, if there is not one and
one is forthcoming. I think we'll either see one or not.
I would hope that whichever one of these motions pass, that obviously if
we're going to be taking away that source of funding, pass that which deals
with the bonded indebtedness, that maybe we start coming up with a plan of our
own to deal with promotions if we're fixing to get directly in that business.
Because if we're not removing the personalities that exist, if that seems to
be where the problem is, then extracting the funding to deal with the
facility's use is not going to cure that if you've got those persons there.
And I personally think that the people that you're punishing gets down to the
general public and this whole community when you endanger the fact of maybe
shutting down the operations of what you're doing, and that's just a personal
observance with it. And I also look at what may have been within the spirit
of the original tax proposal in terms of doing that subsidy. I've heard
back-and-forth accusations from that Authority; I've even heard them from
comments made to us about whether or not other entities around the state are
operating on a profitable basis. And I think that if you would search not
only throughout Georgia but in some other places as well, there are a lot of
places that are having a non-property tax situation that do support civic
centers and coliseums. And that's not to say that there should not be a
permanent plan or a better plan to get out of the situation that they are in,
but I think for that reason the spirit of that tax was devised to do as such
where we are today, and you're in essence changing what the General Assembly
adopted for us to use as a funding source. And I have a problem when we
say cutting off more than what they deserve. Well, obviously there was a
deserving factor when the law was passed and where it was in there. And
they've been through three managers or such now and a lot of disarray that's
there. And I think that I was -- I was out of town, so I was not one that was
absent-minded on that day, Moses, I was absent from Augusta. But at the same
fact that if you're going to have folk that are going to come back with a
plan, I would at least like to at least see what that plan is. And then if
it's nothing there of any substance, then I think we deal with the people who
are there and not punish the entity that serves, and the entity serves the
entire community. And I plan to vote for the substitute motion even though it
probably will not pass.
MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Do we need the substitute motion
read, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I request that both motions be read, and I
call for a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MS. WATSON: The substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Henry
Brigham, if an acceptable plan is not submitted by the Coliseum Authority
within 60 days, then they would go back to this original ordinance and approve
it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. You want to go ahead and read the other motion,
too, please?
MS. WATSON: Okay. The original motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by
Mr. Bridges, is to approve the ordinance as written, not effective for 90 days
from date of approval.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, we're going to vote on the substitute
motion --
MR. KUHLKE: I've got one question. The substitute motion says go back
to the original ordinance, not the amended ordinance. Is that what you meant,
Freddie?
MR. HANDY: No, the one that's on hand today.
MS. WATSON: I think he also meant to include the 90 days from date of
approval.
MR. HANDY: Yes. Right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, we're going to vote on the substitute
motion first, starting to my left.
MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No from Mr. Todd.
CLERK: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Kuhlke's over here.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? I'm sorry.
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: No.
MOTION FAILS 6-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Six no's; four yes's. Back to the original motion.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard?
MR. BEARD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
[Vote ties 5-5.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm going to vote no because I think we need to give
them more time.
MOTION CARRIES 6-5.
CLERK: At the request of the Sheriff's Department, we're going to take
Item 2 on the additions, the purchase of the emergency 911 equipment for the
new facility. Request approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I move for approval.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Mays.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of an Ordinance to
establish User Fees for the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill. Second Reading.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, do I hear a second to Mr.
Todd's motion?
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 47 is discussion of the Emergency Ambulance Service for
Augusta-Richmond County.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I read the letter from University and
have some serious reservations about why they would insist that they do it
their way versus do it the way that we suggested, and it's my position that in
giving them consideration for being the emergency medical provider as far as
ambulance service over the last 20 years and that they are an outstanding
institution that's done a good job there, that the responsibility as far as
making sure that we live up to and go by the state procurement statute is
Richmond County's.
And it's my position that we should certainly, if we're going to let
them go out and subcontract, that we should set the criteria for at least the
specs to an extent of the criteria of the process, that it be competitive here
in this board. So I'm going to make a motion that we direct University to go
out for competitive bidding -- or competitive proposals, rather, correc-tion,
for the emergency ambulance service for Richmond County.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that in the form of a motion, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it is.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we
accept the proposal from University Hospital.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a substitute motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by
Mr. Bridges. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, the substitute motion first.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we're voting on this letter that we received or
we're voting on what we was talking about last week about putting out
proposals to accept the whole entire ambulance service?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't I have the motions read.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Please read the motions.
MS. WATSON: Substitute motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges,
to accept University Hospital's proposal. Original motion by Mr. Todd,
seconded by Jerry Brigham, to direct University Hospital to go out for
competitive proposals for ambulance service.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question for you?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first.
CLERK: Okay, we'll start with Mr. Bridges.
MR. BRIDGES: I vote in favor of the substitute motion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question if we're going to vote on both of
those. On the first proposal, does that mean that University Hospital is the
executive agent for us? How is it -- are they going to go out for competitive
bids? Who's going to evaluate the bids? What's our role in it? I think
there's a lot of things that need to be discussed to flesh out that proposal
before we vote on it. I wouldn't have a problem voting on the second one
unless you all want to know what the real proposal is here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you address that? That's for the
original motion, is that what you're asking for?
MR. ZETTERBERG: What I'm saying is I think the original motion in
itself is not complete. I think there's some things that we have to specify
in there if we're going to carry through on that. And there are some
questions that I would have to ask, some of which I've already articulated.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Certainly, Mr. Mayor, I'd be glad to accept
amendments to the original motion when we get around to the original motion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay.
MR. WALL: If I understand, the substitute motion is to accept the
proposal by University Hospital to subcontract to Rural/Metro under the
subcontract agreement that has been there, so our relationship with University
Hospital would be that of a contractual relationship. We would continue to
have a contrac-tual relationship; they --University Hospital then would have a
subcontract with Rural/Metro. We would look to University Hospital.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That was for the substitute motion.
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And we're going to vote on that and we're going to vote
on the original motion, too; right?
MR. WALL: Presumably, yes. I mean, depending on whether the substitute
motion --
MR. ZETTERBERG: If we were to vote on the original motion, then I just
think that that needs to be fleshed out a little bit in discussion, or we
could go ahead and vote on the --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd rather go through the discussion -- we had
opportunity and we missed that window of opportunity to go through the
discussion, so certainly I will accept amendments to the original motion that
we set criteria further down the process.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I would -- I'd like to see -- because University
Hospital has garnered 20 years of experience in this business and knows a lot
more than the Commission-Council does, that they become the executive agent
for a competitive proposal, that they submit to us the criteria for the
competitive bid, that we approve the criteria, and then they make a
recommendation on who should be the contractor, the prime contractor, and then
we finally approve that. Two parts to that: one is they tell us what the
criteria for it so that we can assure that the citizens of this area are
considered in the proposal, their best interest, and then we have the final
approval after their recommendation of who is the contractor, then we will
make the final decision.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. That's an amendment to Mr. Todd's motion?
Do you accept that, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Accepted, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll accept it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. Don't we have to vote on
the substitute motion first before we --
MAYOR SCONYERS: First. Exactly right.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, really I think what all this boils down to is
that we need to look out for what is best for this community and who is going
to offer the best service for this community, and right now if I, you know,
have to vote, I'm not sure of that question at this time. And I'm not quite
sure on what Mr. Zetterberg said or if he offered a substitute motion or not,
but I think the thing is that, to me, there is some more dialogue needed and a
little more explanation needed as to what we're getting into, and I think at
this time I don't personally have enough information to vote one way or the
other.
And I probably will vote for the -- the only thing I can vote for at
this time is the best service for the people of Richmond County, and I think
in order for me to do that I would need some more information on this and the
proposal that they just -- the letter that they sent today and who is offering
the best service for this county. Because I've heard -- in the last week
we've heard a lot of information and we've been sent a lot of information
about the different companies in this area, and I think some of that
information need to be verified.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, did you want to say something?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I'd like to ask, how long does this contract --
how would the contract be for?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Under the Rural/Metro they were asking for, what, five
years, and I don't believe we can even do that. There's some question about
that.
MR. WALL: Let me point out we're not entering into a contract with
Rural/Metro. The only thing we are doing is approving the contract. The
contract which we have with University Hospital can be terminated according to
the provisions of that contract, and that's the only contract that we're
entering into. If you approve the substitute motion, you're just saying that
University Hospital can enter into a five-year contract, then it becomes their
responsibility.
MR. HANDY: The contract that we have with University Hospital, when
will it expire?
MR. WALL: It has an automatic renewal annually for one year.
MR. HANDY: For what date, though? When is the renewal date for this
year?
MR. WALL: I think it's September the 30th, if I --
MR. HANDY: If we grant this request, then we cancel out University
Hospital's contract, what they're going to do with Rural/Metro for the next
four years?
MR. WALL: They're going to have to terminate that contract. I mean,
that becomes their responsibility, their obligation.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Okay, I'm finished.
MAYOR SCONYERS: You wanted to hear the date, didn't you?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, I'm waiting for that, but I mean I'm finished, I don't
have anything else to say.
MR. WALL: All right, the agreement -- I think it actually went into
place on July the 8th, 1972, and you had one-year renewals thereafter, and so
service went into effect on July the 8th, 1972, so I guess July the 8th.
MR. HANDY: July the 8th of this year it expires?
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's upon 90 days notice.
MR. WALL: Upon 90 days notice. But you could terminate at any point on
90 days notice.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, gentlemen. Now, does
everybody understand what we're voting on or do you want it reread again?
MR. HANDY: No, I need to know what I'm voting on.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Miss Susan, please?
MS. WATSON: The substitute motion made by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr.
Bridges, to accept University Hospital's proposal, which would be with
Rural/Metro.
MR. HANDY: Okay, the original motion.
MS. WATSON: The original motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Jerry Brigham,
to direct University Hospital to go out for competitive proposals for
ambulance service, and there are two --
MR. HANDY: And we had an amendment for --
MS. WATSON: Yes, sir, there were two amendments by Mr. Zetterberg.
University Hospital would inform Augusta-Richmond County of the criteria for
the ambulance service and Augusta-Richmond County Commission would have the
final approval of the contract.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just for the record -- and you won't have to ring
the time bell on me today. I think I probably am on record at the last
committee maybe of having more minutes in that dialogue than the whole
committee did, and I made my position pretty clear on the last two to three
times that we talked about this. However, for the record, and I want to make
sure I'm being very careful, and I can consult back with our own attorney, but
on the advice of my own personal attorney, I am going to have to abstain, vote
present on both motions due to possibility of future conflict that might be in
there. And if our attorney needs that in writing for the record, I can put it
in there for him.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we'll have the roll call vote.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges on the substitute motion?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: J.B. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Lee Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Rob Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
CLERK: Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Bill Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Moses Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
CLERK: Next item, 48: Discussion of the Franchise Agreement with
Jefferson Electric.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I had this put on the agenda and I'm going to, as
brief as I can, state why I requested it be put on the agenda for discussion.
A little refresher: during the debate over consolidation and all the
propaganda that was put out, it was said that consolidation would not cost the
citizens and taxpayers of Richmond County any additional taxes or fees unless
you lived in a service district. What we have is that the Jefferson Electric
franchise agreement that we voted on in good conscious, with the understanding
that this was supposed to be spread out over the users district wide of
Jefferson Electric territory like Georgia Power and not to be a direct tax --
I think it's 3% -- on the Jefferson Electric users.
The other thing that I'd like to point out is that when we're charging
the citizens out in Jefferson Electric service district 3% franchise fee
that's directly passed to them and 1% that's spread out throughout the service
district, 75% of the utility poles, from my understanding, is actually located
on private property -- on the property owners' property. And certainly when
you look at the Tobacco Road corridor, that's the case. And this is
information basically that is not in writing but certainly is from some
Jefferson Electric officials and other citizens that's confirmed this. I
have a hard time understanding how we're going to charge individuals a
franchise fee for having poles on their private property if they're not on the
county property. I seriously think that we have a problem that we need to
correct, and in the sense that the County Attorney is familiar with the
Jefferson Electric policies and their statutorial rights as far as putting
poles on private property, et cetera, he may have some information to share
there. I understand from talking to the County Attorney that whatever we
charge Georgia Power we got to charge Jefferson Electric. That may put us in
a catch-22 situation, but certainly it don't make us right. And I'll take
Spanish Trace for an example. I have at least three families moving out of
there because of this increase in a direct 3% franchise fee tax or whatever we
want to call it on the citizens in my district in South Richmond. And
certainly if we can't repeal this, if the law says we can't repeal it, then
certainly I'm for designating the funds, especially that 3%, to go to the area
in which pay it, and that is the Jefferson Electric area, to be used on
intersection improvement, beautifi-cation, to go to Mr. Smith over at Trees
and Parks, and to Street Lighting to put some street lights on the
intersections through-out the Jefferson Electric service district. And those
are my comments and thoughts, and I'll yield to the County Attorney.
MR. WALL: I passed out a copy of the Georgia Statute 46-3-14 and would
refer you to subparagraph (b) in particular. And basically that says that
when you have the primary supplier and charge them at a certain rate, then any
secondary supplier within that municipality has to be charged on the same,
calculated and payable in the same manner and on the same basis as the primary
carrier. Since Georgia Power Company is the primary supplier within Augusta-
Richmond County, it would be my position and is my position that the secondary
supplier, Jefferson Electric, would have to be charged on the same basis.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to the County Attorney, then a
motion to repeal would be out of order?
MR. WALL: A motion to repeal would be out of order.
MR. TODD: Well, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, then that we
contribute the 3% that the citizens pay directly to beautification and street
lighting for the intersections of the Jefferson Electric service district, and
that's in the form of a motion.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if we're going to put this in -- if we're
going to put 3% of the franchise fee that we collect in Jefferson Electric
into beautification, who's going to pay for the increases in Public Safety
that has already been passed by this Commission? I don't think we can put 3%
of the franchise fee collected in the Jefferson district in beautification
projects, and I will vote against it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think when we look at Public Safety,
certainly that come from the general fund and it's paid for by taxes. What we
have here is, in my opinion, somewhat of a special tax district in the sense
that the users in the same adjoining areas from Georgia Power don't pay
directly that 3% increase. It's passed on and spread out throughout the
state. The 3% is paid by the user and only 1% is spread out district wide,
but the whole 4% is actually paid by the user, so I think it's important that
we do something here to give these folks some relief, to at least give them
something to appreciate that 3%. And I think the other issue is the matter of
utilities that's on private property. You know, we got a double situation
here of unfairness, and I think we need to take corrective action in some way.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to get the Attorney's opinion on this
motion, whether it's legal or in line with the ordinance or whatever.
MR. WALL: I think that you can dedicate the tax funds to a particular
purpose. And Mr. Todd called me earlier today and I have not had a chance to
research it, but my general feeling -- and I guess I would ask for time to
perhaps thoroughly research it. You may want to pass it, if that's the desire
of the Commission, pass it subject to verification that there's no legal
impediment to doing it. But it would seem to me that you could, in essence,
designate the area served by Jefferson Electric as a special tax district and
dedicate the funds to use within that district.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think before I could vote on this particular
item -- and maybe Mr. Todd knows. How much money are you talking about here,
Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: We're talking about, I believe, approximately 750/800
thousand dollars total, less the 1% of that or one-third of that that we're
talking. Mr. Mayor, I realize also that this would have to be a ordinance and
that -- and I would like to amend my motion to direct the County Attorney to
draw up such ordinance. Because this certainly, in my opinion, would have to
be a ordinance and we wouldn't -- this would not be the first reading, this
would just be instructions to draw up the ordinance.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I can understand where Mr. Todd is
coming from and what he's trying to do here, but I would like to know a little
more about this and get a better under-standing of what we're doing. We're
talking about -- you know, we're just saying 3%. 3% of what amount, you know?
And do we really need this in beautification or can we put it somewhere else?
I think we just need a little more research here and coming up with something
more definitive than just saying we're going to take 3% and put it in
beautification. Mr. Todd always refer to long-range planning, and I think
this is one of the things that we need to look at, long-range planning for
this. And I have no objection to what he's talking about, but it's just the
planning and giving it a little more consideration.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if we're going to make such a motion, I want
to make a substitute motion that we take all franchise fees and put it in
beautification projects then.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't want to [inaudible], but y'all better think
about that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I agree with you the problem, but I don't
think we ought to take one area of town and be preferential in it over another
area of town.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I agree with you. Okay, Mr. Brigham made a motion. Do
I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to table it.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a non-debatable motion. Since Mr. Brigham
didn't have a second to his, Mr. Powell's motion --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information from the Parliamentarian.
Is there a time cap on the tabling? Are we talking next meeting or forever
or?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Todd, I'd like to table it for 30 days for further
review.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 30 day cap on it.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Item 49 is to consider approval of a Resolution setting a time
limit regarding discussion of issues during meetings of the Commission-
Council.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of that.
MR. BRIDGES: Second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. And I'll stay within the two
minutes. Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with this as long as we're going
to do the same for citizens that's coming before the Commission, Commission
members, et cetera, as far as any one issue. I've worked by the process and
through the process, and I can go with five seconds or five minutes as long as
that applies to everybody and it's done, you know, that way. So I certainly
don't have a problem with it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: And I'd like to make an amendment to that motion, Mr. Mayor,
that that applies to anyone that's addressing a issue before the Commission-
Council.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MR. TODD: Is that acceptable, Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Todd, if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss that. I
think that there may be certain items that come before this Commission that
might require more time than two minutes.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, then I'd like to make a substitute motion that
that applies to anyone that's coming before the Commission as far as the
public go, delegation, et cetera. I don't think that any member from the
public should have any more privilege to discuss a issue than the Commission
itself. And that's in the form of a substitute motion.
MR. MAYS: I don't agree with it, but I'm going to second it to get it
on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on the substitute motion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would hope that -- and I think probably
now that some coolness has prevailed to some things that have happened
recently, that in the adoption of whatever rules that we're going to govern
ourselves by, if we get to that point -- and I know we had some even in the
past, the old County Commission, and we got off in a situation to maybe where
we didn't vote, and maybe we need to get back to that, but I would hope that
we would do everything at one time.
Because what I see happening, with all due respect to Mr. Kuhlke and
this resolution -- and he's put it on the agenda today, but I'm hearing
conflicts from my good friend on the right, even though he's put it on the
agenda, where he says that at times we're going to have the need to go beyond
two minutes. Well, who then to appoint to decide whose business gets beyond
two minutes and whose is not? Because, you know, somebody's trash being
picked up that's in the most dense population area of this city and maybe in
the lowest income may be on the agenda and we may be discussing the fact to
where we move item 50 up to number one because we have some business
executives who have to get back to work, and they may come and take up
sometimes 35 to 40 minutes and we don't even know that they're coming. I
think that's a lot of latitude to have, and I don't know whether I'm
comfortable with voting on setting that time limit today unless we're going to
give everybody a certain amount of minutes, and then one Commissioner or
Council Member can borrow time from another person out of his two minutes to
yield as you do in some other governmental bodies, and then -- if that person
wants to yield or to give that Commissioner time in order to do that. But
I have a real serious problem -- and maybe it's because I've been accused of
having a big mouth over the last 17 years. But when we start setting that in
terms of where we limit some things on speech -- I'm one of those people that
came here a long time ago that because if certain rights had been limited I
would never have made it here. So when we start getting into the stifling
somewhat process, I have -- even though how nicely something may be intended,
sometimes those things don't turn out to have such nice results. And I'm not
going to comment on it any further, but I can't support the resolution.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say that I would rather to
go ahead on and approve our rules and regulations for the Commission versus
just picking out certain items. In our rules and regulations we have a time
limit and everything on it, so why can't we go ahead on and adopt a set of
rules and regulations rather than to keep making all these ordinances just to
one part of it. We haven't accepted it, and we had one when we was in the
Commission-Council and we never -- we tried to get it the first of the year
and it bogged down and we never brought it back, so I would like for us to
consider that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, I think you were updating those, weren't you?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Before I left on vacation you asked me to update
those, and I made some changes, the secretary has made those changes, and I
have a draft that has all the changes that I made. I frankly haven't had a
chance to look over it since I got back, but I do plan to have it to give to
you. I don't know whether it needs to go through a committee, Mr. Mayor, or
not or whether it just needs to be put on the agenda for July the 2nd, but I
do have that.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering, in light that we have
asked the Attorney to update all the rules and regulations, that during the
interim period we use Robert's Rules of Order until those are adopted or
brought back. Seems like to me that would give us some guidelines to work on.
And I, too, agree that maybe ordinance pick out one area and do it, but could
we possibly consider using Robert's Rules of Order until Mr. Wall has brought
back the revision of most of them?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, we're already operating under it, aren't we?
MR. WALL: Well, we are -- Robert's Rules of Order have not been
formally adopted by the Commission-Council. I would urge you to do as Mr.
Brigham has suggested. I think that in order to alleviate any concern or
confusion as to whether or not we've adopted Robert's Rules, that it would be
appropriate to do so. One Commissioner asked me after I had made a ruling
sometime recently when did we adopt Robert's Rules, and we have not formally
done so. And I think that we have -- Mr. Mayor, you announced at the beginning
of the year that we would operate under it, and we have by pretty much consent
operated under Robert's Rules, but I do think it'd be appropriate, until such
time as other rules may go in place, that that be formalized so that there's
no confusion about that.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if I'm in order, I'd like to move that we
operate under Robert's Rules of Order until the rules are established and
brought back to us by the Attorney.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, now, I think we've already got two motions on the
floor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: We've got too many motions on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what I was saying.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Mr. Mayor, since this is --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, Mr. Kuhlke was next.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I simply wanted to say that the idea of this
ordinance is not to try to cut any of my colleagues off from any conversation,
it's just that in my opinion there's been an awful lot of dialogue that could
be shortened and it could help us expedite our business in a more efficient
and quicker manner. And the idea of introducing this was that when and if we
do adopt any rules of order, that this would roll right into those rules of
order, but we've been here six months and we haven't adopted anything yet, so
that was the purpose of me introducing this ordinance.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was going to offer a motion that we
postpone this till July the 2nd since it's only one meeting away, and that way
we'll have all the written rules in front of us. And I think the majority of
us seem to be ready to adopt some rules.
MR. POWELL: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I might mention something, gentlemen. We need to think
about probably postponing the July 2nd meeting because most of the Commission-
Council is going to be in Savannah.
MR. HANDY: I was going to remind you of that because I'll be in
Savannah.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I know there's going to be five people out.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if we are instructing Mr. Wall to present us
with rules of order at our next regular meeting, whenever that may be, then
I'd like to withdraw my motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you had a substitute motion. Do you want to
withdraw that?
MR. TODD: Certainly, Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw the substitute. But I
also would like to encourage the Mayor, the County Attorney, and my colleagues
to think in terms of the things that's come through here that we alleged we
didn't know about, because in most cases we did not discuss them, consent
agenda, if we're looking at the land deal that's being investigated by the
GBI, and there's other things that kind of slipped through. So I'm not sure
that we're having too much discussion, but as I stated earlier, I can live by
a five second rule or a five minute rule.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we're back to the point we have no motion on
the floor.
MR. POWELL: One motion. Mr. Brigham's motion is on the floor. I
seconded Jerry Brigham's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we already had two motions. Now we can discuss
the motion. Mr. Brigham, do you want to make a motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I thought a motion to postpone and a motion to
table was one and the same. I didn't realize that. But I will make a motion
that we postpone this till our next regular meeting for when we have our
written rules.
MR. POWELL: I second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Powell.
All in favor -- excuse me, Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have just one area of concern with Robert's
Rules of Order. And I'm no parliamentarian, but Mr. Wall, I'm sure, can
enlighten me, but I see some conflicts in Roberts' Rules of Order and in the
way this Commission is set up. Number one, if I'm not mistaken, Robert's
Rules of Order calls for the chairman to vote with the majority on items, and
that would not constitute a tie or it would not make a tie. And if you had --
you've got situations that Robert's Rules Order is going to have to be adapted
to work under this situation.
MR. WALL: Certainly not every rule within Robert's Rules is applicable
because of the legislation that's in place, but there are provisions in there
that cover situations where the Mayor only gets the right to vote in the event
of a tie or to create a tie. So Robert's Rules does deal with that. However,
they're cumbersome, they're bulky -- I mean, they are a maze to work through,
and I think that if we can agree upon a set of rules similar to what the Board
of Commissioners did, then I think it simplifies it and streamlines it.
There's still a provision in there that if in the event those rules don't
cover the given situation, then you do go back to Robert's Rules. So I agree
with Mr. Powell. I mean, there's some -- it clarifies things to have a
separate set of rules.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think Robert's Rules is the best set of
rules to operate by, but certainly I think that state and federal laws
supersedes Robert's Rules when it's in the statutorial method of how you will
govern, and then you would fall back to Robert's when it's not. And so I
don't think that we can pull out one specific part of Robert's and say, you
know, this is the way it works and this is the way it should be here. State
law supersedes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to Mr. Brigham's motion to table --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Postpone till the next regular meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Postpone, excuse me. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT]
CLERK: Item 50: Consider approval of a request for consideration of
donating and deeding Parcels 8, 9 and 38, Tracts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of State Route
56 from McBean to Bennock Mill Road to the Georgia Department of
Transportation.
MR. WALL: It has been the practice, with Richmond County at least, to
donate county-owned property where it was needed by the Georgia DOT. Mr.
Gooding's office has been in touch with those that would be affected by this,
including Water Works, Fire Department, Recreation Department. None of them
have any objection to it, and I recommend approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT]
CLERK: Item 51: Consider approval of Lease Purchase Agreement
regarding the 1996 Police Vehicles.
MR. WALL: Mr. McKie is not here, and back at the Commission-Council
meeting held on May the 21st Mr. McKie and I were asked to review the lease
purchase agreements by GE Capital as well as Bank One Kentucky Leasing. Bank
One Kentucky Leasing has withdrawn theirs because of some IRS regulations that
wouldn't be applicable to this, and in view of the fact that they would not
get tax exempt status, they have withdrawn theirs, and therefore it's the
recommendation that we go with the GE Capital proposal.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, did any local institutions bid on this?
MR. WALL: Glenn was here earlier -- or Johnnie is here. It's my
understanding that --
MR. KUHLKE: Johnnie, is this what I talked to you about?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: And I believe that Trust Company -- SunTrust bid on it?
MR. MITCHELL: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: And that their bid was -- over a three-year period come out
to about $5,000 more than GE Capital?
MR. MITCHELL: About that, yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: And we don't take into consideration a local institution
even though they may be a little bit higher but they're paying enormous taxes
every year into this community, and we're going outside? We don't take that
into consideration at all?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we did take them into consideration, and we do
have business on the books from SunTrust right now.
MR. KUHLKE: You have what?
MR. MITCHELL: We do have business on the books, financing arrangements
with SunTrust right now.
MR. KUHLKE: And this was about a two million dollar deal?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: It was about $5,000 over three years; am I correct? That
was about the difference?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: I think we ought to pay some attention to that in the
future.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is my colleague suggesting that the SunTrust is
the best bid? I think that's the method that we can do it. If someone can
certainly show me where it's the best bid, then I would be willing to withdraw
my second and consider it.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, I'm not saying it's the best bid. Johnnie and Butch,
you know, they evaluate that. All I'm saying is that we have the opportunity -
- whenever we have the opportunity to do business with local people I think we
ought to take advantage of that even though we may spend a little more money
when they're contributing to this community, paying taxes, and then -- so
we're sending the funds outside. I'd like to make a substitute motion, if I
could, that we reconsider the award of this contract to GE Capital and
reconsider the bid to SunTrust.
MR. HANDY: You don't have to make a substitute motion. I'll just drop
my motion if Mr. Todd will accept it, and you can make a motion to do whatever
you'd like.
MR. TODD: I need to hear some language that this is the best bid
because it's local or it's going to be easier to correspond with them or
whatever. You know, I don't think that we can do it just because we want to
give it to someone else. And if that's what I'm hearing, I certainly can
support the motion.
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, as I understand Mr. Kuhlke's motion, it's for the
purpose of going back to evaluate it to determine which is the best bid.
MR. TODD: Okay. I can support that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We didn't have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MR. BRIDGES: Second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
MR. MAYS: I'm going to support Bill's motion, I just wanted to ask Jim
what -- since you basically had an abandonment of city charter, but -- and I
know you've had a lot to look up, you know, and go through in terms of mixing
laws, but under some old provision work that was done -- and I don't know, Lee
would've been the last person familiar with it because I think part of it was
put on by old City Council at that point. But, I mean, the legality -- and I
think this may keep us out of the realm of having to do this on every
individual case, but isn't there ordinance work that we can do legally if we
work on within certain provisions -- percentages, I mean, as opposed to
provisions -- certain percentages that on local companies and that incentive
to do work and pass an ordinance that would relate to that?
And I believe that -- and I may be wrong, but I think somewhere probably
in the neighborhood of about 1990 that City Council adopted such an ordinance
in terms of dealing with local businesses, in terms of that percentage, and
stated the percentage amount that if it came within. Now, what type of follow
up Council did after that point, whether there was a pick-and-choose
situation, I don't know, but I do know that it did come up for a vote, you
know, before your old previous body. And I'm wondering -- you know, I
know that's not necessarily what we're dealing with with this motion, but I
think in the spirit of talking about it, it may be something, while we're
rewriting all these different ordinances, you know, this month, that might be
one that we might want to throw out that everybody could support and it
wouldn't be controversial in doing as long as it's legal.
MR. WALL: If you want me to respond to that, I will.
MR. MAYS: If you could. If there is such or if there is a creative one
that we can do and in making it legal, and if it's a small percentage of where
we are allotted to deal with a local business in that provision and do it,
then maybe that needs to be our next move in doing. I'm very much in favor of
going back and reviewing this one in order to get that done, but I don't think
we're going to be able to just do that on every case, and in order to prevent
that, if we put the legislation in place to legally do that, then I think that
wipes it out. Or if we can't do it, then that answers, you know, the question
of doing it.
But I do know at one time -- whether they were being constitutional or
not, I don't know, and I don't think there was ever any challenge to it.
Maybe they just didn't act on it or maybe they acted on it when they wanted to
act on it, but it was passed by the old previous body here sometime probably
within a period of two years after I left in 1987.
MR. WALL: I am not familiar with an ordinance adopted by the City
Council to that effect; however, as a part of the purchasing ordinance that
was proposed to the old Board of Commissioners that was held in abeyance
because of the consoli-dation process. As a part of the draft code that you
have possession of, in the purchasing part of that, there are prefer-ences as
to certain types of purchases. I don't think that you can do it in Public
Works projects, for instance, but in other projects I think that you can give
a preference to a local vendor and that is a part of the purchasing ordinance
that is incorpo-rated in the code that hopefully we're going to get to work on
and have some further discussion on in the next 30 to 45 days.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Mr. Mayor, since we look like we're all in the middle
of friendly dialogue, I'd like to ask the maker of the motion that maybe we do
two things with it, that we deal with the immediate which is on the floor and
that maybe we expand it to allow the County Attorney to look for those legal
provisions in order to do it and to bring us such an ordinance back.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would like to amend my motion to direct the
Comptroller to award this contract to Trust Company -- SunTrust as being the
best bid and local preference, and also like to direct the County Attorney to
review the ordinance as far as local preference and report back to this board.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does the seconder accept that, too? Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, I didn't second the first one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: I would just like to know who all bidded for this locally.
SunTrust was the only local bank that bidded? And then normally we have the
sheets in the book to tell us who bid what, and we don't have anything to show
anything, like who bidded and how much and everything.
MR. MITCHELL: SunTrust was the only local bank that bidded. The three
people that bid was Bank One Kentucky, GE Capital, and SunTrust was the only
bank.
MR. HANDY: Okay. So SunTrust qualifies. They don't have the problem
that the bank that opt to come out.
MR. MITCHELL: That Bank One Kentucky had?
MR. HANDY: Right.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, they don't have that problem.
MR. HANDY: Okay. And SunTrust, that's the old Bankers First?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
MR. HANDY: Oh, Trust Company. Okay. And then earlier you were saying
that we are -- we have some financial dealings with Trust Company Bank?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We have a tractor that's out at the landfill
financed with them.
MR. HANDY: Okay. I'm in agreement with it as long as it's legal. If
Jim checks it out like you asked, Mr. Kuhlke, and then if there's nothing
wrong with awarding it to the best bidder, then I'll support it, but I want to
make sure that that's understood.
MR. BRIDGES: Is SunTrust the best bid here? Is it lowest bid? Best
terms?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. GE Capital is the lowest interest rate.
Everybody else was identical in the terms. I mean, it's all deferred one-year
-- three-year terms. The only difference is the interest rate.
MR. BRIDGES: How much money are we saving with GE Capital?
MR. MITCHELL: GE Capital came in at 5.875 and Trust Company was 5.99.
MR. HANDY: Over three years?
MR. MITCHELL: Three years.
MR. BRIDGES: How many dollars are we talking about then?
MR. MITCHELL: Roughly, as Mr. Kuhlke said, about $5,000.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I understand what we're doing now, we're not
buying cars, we're arranging finances to buy cars, and I don't have a problem.
I think this falls in the line or scope, as the County Attorney has
indicated, of professional services, and it's pretty much our option which way
we go. We went out for proposals to make sure that we, you know, got a good
deal, and certainly I can support the motion and go with the best bid, local
preference -- best proposal, excuse me, local preference.
MR. WALL: I wouldn't want to call it professional services, but I do
not have a problem with -- if it's the decision that the bid should be awarded
to SunTrust over GE Capital based upon the information that's been submitted,
I do not have a problem with it from a legal standpoint.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Why don't you read -- I think
we've got two motions.
MR. HANDY: No, we don't have but one. I dropped mine. We don't have -
- only have one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: You've totally dropped it?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, I dropped mine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Then we just have Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MS. WATSON: Yes, sir. Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges,
to reconsider the SunTrust bid and direct the Comptroller to award it to
SunTrust as the best bid, local preference, with the County Attorney to
research local preference and to bring his recommendation back to the
Commission.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Item 52: Consolidation Project Manager's report.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have four
items on the agenda today that involve action to move forward. Three of those
deal with approval of position descriptions or structures for individual
departments or offices within the government and the fourth item deals with
the overall organizational structure for the new government. I'd like to
start at the top of the consolidation project agenda first with the Clerk of
Commission Office. And incidently, of course, Ms. Bonner is here, Mr.
Etheridge is here with regard to Human Resources, and Mr. Miller Meyer, I
believe, is still here with regard to the License and Inspections Department,
so if you have questions for the respective interim department heads, they are
available.
The first item -- and incidently, you have material in your booklet on a
number of these items. I have some supplemental material which I would like to
pass out and display today as a part of our discussions. First, dealing with
the Clerk of Commission, in my memorandum of June 7th outlining the duties of
that position I indicated to you that there were four items that we needed
your guidance on. Two of those are quite minor, and we would be happy to make
those decisions if you would like us to, that dealing with whether or not the
distribution of code books would be handled by the Purchasing Department or
the Clerk's Office and where the budget preparation for that office would
occur. We're recommending that the Clerk prepare the budget for that office
and be responsible for administering it. The issue of the distribution of
code books can be handled in either of those departments as you see fit.
The two items, however, which we are asking for your guidance on deal
with, first of all, the responsibility for maintaining records and providing
administrative support for appointments to boards, commissions, and
authorities. In the previous two governments that function for the county was
handled in the Administrator's Office and for the former city it was handled
in the Clerk's Office. We need to make a decision as to where you would like
that function to be performed in the new government. The second major
item in which we seek your guidance deals with the administrative support for
individual Commission members that you are expecting from the Clerk of
Commission's Office. We have suggested that if your expectation includes
light correspondence, making travel arrangements, keeping up with schedules
and agendas, telephone reminders, and occasional light administrative duties,
that should be clarified. If you are expecting more than that, we need to
know that as well. So we seek your guidance on those four areas, and
following that, the approval of the position description for the Clerk of
Commission. If there are any questions, Ms. Bonner or myself would be happy
to respond.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, on the area of maintaining the records for
boards, commissions and so forth, since we are in the process of advertising
for the position of Administrator, would it not be reasonable to maybe at this
point hold that responsibility back to see what the Administrator's position
is in regards to this particular item, which is something that if he doesn't
want it -- if he doesn't want the responsibility, then he can always assign it
to the Clerk, I would guess.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: You could certainly do that. Speaking as a somewhat
experienced administrator, I think probably delegation would be what you would
expect, that it would be delegated to some other office. But that you can
await the guidance of your selected candidate if you would like. That would
certainly be a way to do it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, since our -- in the old County
Administrator's Office, years ago that was the Clerk of Commission and that's
probably why the Administrator actually ended up doing those duties.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that probably is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. So shouldn't that really be assigned to the
Clerk of the Commission-Council?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think probably if you looked at across the country,
the most popular position for that is in the Clerk's Office, but you will find
it in a variety of locations in governments.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I would think that our Administrator is going to
be in rather big demand considering all the tasks they've given him.
MR. HANDY: Or woman.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me. I stand corrected.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I agree with your observation, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: I don't particularly see any need to hold that up. The only
question I would ask at this point, because it was done one way in the county
and I think in the city we did it the opposite, the Clerk handled those
duties. And I would just like to hear, since Ms. Bonner is here, and I don't
want to put her on the spot, but is this something the Clerk could take care
of at this point in time?
CLERK: Yes, sir. We did administer those duties for the City Council
and it's been that way since the duration I've been in the office, 23 years.
I think the question was the method in which we were doing it, but it was,
under the old Board of Commissioners, under the County Commission Clerk.
MR. BEARD: Well, the point is, I agree with the Mayor, that I think the
Administrator is going to have more than he can say grace over, and I don't
see -- if this has been done in the past and it's accessible to do here, I
don't see any reason holding it up. I think that we should continue with this
as it has been done in city government.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think part of the discussion surrounding this dealt
with the fact that in the previous --in the Administrator's Office there was
an automated system using a computer-based system; in the previous City
Clerk's Office it had been done manually. Obviously automation is the way to
go today if we can do so, but those systems can be operated wherever you want
them to.
MR. BEARD: Correct. I don't see where that would present a problem.
You just move it from one office to the other, and people ought to be
qualified to do that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly think that we need to do what's best
and what's going to work best for the new government versus -- and I'll remind
my colleagues what we used to do in the old city or the old county. Certainly
I see the Administrator, whoever that person is, when that person is hired is
going to be the person that's going to work with and deal with the boards and
authorities as far as the Commission-Council go, and I don't know that it's
essential to have the person that would do the application to be connected
from the point of application, talent bank, to the appointments, et cetera.
But the Administrator got to have a working knowledge of who is on the
boards and authorities because the Administrator is most likely who is going
to work with those boards and authorities as far as keeping that chain of
custody or control, as Mr. Carstarphen has talked about earlier on in working
sessions; it's not going to be the Clerk. And certainly I would like to hear
from the Administrator -- the present Administrator, and since we have one
here and I think one out sick, on what's her feelings as far as this go and
how can we make it work in the Clerk's position or vice versa, where it's at
and where the pluses and minuses are there.
MS. BEAZLEY: One's out sick and one's crippled, Mr. Todd. We did meet
at length. I spent three and a half hours with Ms. Bonner discussing various
things about the government. She is convinced that it should be in the
Clerk's Office. My response to Mr. Carstarphen was put it in the Clerk's
Office. I think that that would be an appropriate place for it. There should
not be any more discussion about it.
MR. KUHLKE: My question was not to say it wasn't supposed to be in the
Clerk's Office. My comments were, would it be appropriate to make that
decision once the Administrator is on board.
MS. BEAZLEY: I think it's a decision that can be made now.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we should be here discussing what -
- little small things like that. We don't need to go into every job
description. I mean, that's up to them. We hired Mr. Carstarphen and John to
put all this stuff together and we come here picking out certain items to see
who gets it. We got some more important things besides that bull crap to be
talking about. That's small and that's controversial, and that's going to get
into who's best and who's not best and we don't want that, we don't need that.
So wherever that he deem necessary to put it, let him go on and put it in
there, and then when the new person comes aboard, if they don't want it there,
then they take it out and that'll be finished with that. We don't have to sit
here and decide whether that's wrong. That's just my opinion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I'm just going to say that I don't think we can wait on the
Administrator to make choices, we have to make those now. And I don't intend
to discuss this any more, we'll just let it go like it is.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Carstarphen, is my understanding that all the
purchasing is being removed from the Clerk's Office?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: It is my expectation that all of the purchasing
responsibility will be centralized in a purchasing division and that there
will no longer be any purchasing done in the Clerk of Commission's Office.
That move has not yet occurred. We're in the process of determining how to do
that currently.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In this job description there's no purchasing duties
left in the Clerk's Office?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's correct.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think I heard a couple or three questions, but
one was the expectations of the Commission-Council per the Clerk of
Commission-Council, and my position is that certainly I would like to see that
person or that position or job description take care of my travel
arrangements, certainly getting the itinerary of that, you know, travel, et
cetera, doing some correspondence or clerical, and not necessarily the Clerk
herself or himself but the office, you know, and staff.
So that's what basically I expect of the Clerk's Office, and I think
that the job description pretty much takes care of that. I think anything
additional, you know, that certainly we could decide on as a board on whether
we, you know, need anything in the future additional. The idea or concept was
to keep the cost down as low as possible but give the Commission-Council and
Mayor's Office some support staff to carry out some of the functions like
correspondence. As far as where certain issues or functions should be, if
it haven't been -- we're approving the job description. If it haven't been
decided or ironed out with the professionals, then I certainly think that what
they are requesting is that we iron it out. And I think we've heard the
recommendations, so I'm ready to move on with putting the function of keeping
up with the talent banks for any boards and authorities in the Clerk's Office.
It's that simple. The recommendation's been made, and I don't know whether
we need a motion or whatever, but certainly I'd like to see it incorporated
that way and we vote on it and approve the job description.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want a motion on that, Bill?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: If you would like. And the reason I'm addressing you
on these items, although they may be relatively minor, the Clerk of
Commission, with the exception of the Administrator, works more closely with
the Commission as a group of individuals than anyone else and I feel it's
important that you have a consensus on what you expect that person to do.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move that the job description, with the
function being put in the Clerk's Office to keep up with the talent banks and
boards and authorities.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, do I have a second?
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to ask Mr. Carstarphen, in
this particular motion, has this satisfied or are we going to move to a
different stage -- one of the early things that we talked about, whether it's
been at retreats or whether it's been in this Commission, and you've alluded
to it today and I think are asking for some direction in terms of how far do
we want staff support to do certain things. Are we at that point in this
discussion yet or are we going to take this motion and then move to that area,
you know, in another frame?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: It'd be cleaner to take this motion first, and then I
have a recommendation for you on that that you can vote on.
MR. MAYS: Okay. I'm clear.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MR. CARSTARPHEN: On the second part of the issues involving the Clerk
of Commission's position description, it would be my recommendation that the
support for individual Commission members provided by the Clerk and the Clerk
staff be limited to periodic correspondence, travel arrangements and
schedules, agendas, telephone reminders, and occasional light administrative
duties.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Would you elaborate a little bit on that
occasional or light administrative duties?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I put that in there for the specific purpose of
allowing -- from time to time you are going to have to or you're going to want
to call on the Clerk or a member of the Clerk's staff to do some light
research for you, to hunt up some ordinances, to get copies of reports, to do
what I describe as light administrative work, and I think that's appropriate.
What I don't want you to expect is that on a constant and continuing basis on
ten individual members because I think you'll be overwhelming the Clerk's
staff.
MR. TODD: Yes, but I guess that I'm looking for the clerical assistance
occasionally.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Limited and occasional, yes, that is in there.
MR. TODD: That's in there? Thank you.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that this recommendation be accepted.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes. I probably will vote for the motion that's on the
floor, I just wanted to say one thing. I think in combining the offices of --
well, however they were defined previously, I think the people -- I'll break
it down real simple, folks that were on one end of the hall on the sixth floor
and folks that were on one end of the hall on the eighth floor. I think
you've got a lot of talent that comes out of those two offices, and what I
wanted to get to before we left this part of it, Bill, and that's why I asked
previously on that, one of those observances that has come out constantly in
the new government has been with this level of staff support, you know, or the
lack of it. And I think maybe as we move along, you know, we may ask for some
other things, you know, to be done, but I think we ought to keep an open mind
about it, that if we do that we don't get into an overtaxing situation.
But, you know, I was just wondering if we were going to define that
before we left, because at some point in time -- I know from personal
experience, I worked in the last years more recently with people out of the
old city -- old county government and had worked previously within the old
city government. I think pretty much anything that you need -- and I know the
year that I was chairman in 1994, and I know the Mayor can attest to that,
that in terms of help or pretty much knowing where you're going to keeping
your head on straight, we've got folk in both of those levels that were, are,
and will be capable of doing those things. But I just would hope that we
would define those things to a point that if that's going to be an area that's
going to be needed in the future -- and obviously we're all going to be
working for the same big salaries that we accepted, but the level of
responsibility in terms sometimes of what we may need in staff support -- and
I didn't know whether or not we were going to get into the point of where we
might have -- say whether it was one person assigned to, you know,
Commissioners A, B, C and D from particular districts in order to do that on a
defined basis in terms of that level of staff support or whether representing
that Commissioner, but I see we probably are going to do it on a more limited
basis. And I can vote for that right now, but I think all of us getting
here in January have seen that this job is probably way more than a quasi
part-time position, and a lot of demands that are being placed on us, and I
think we need to seriously think in terms of -- and I can say it because we've
got all ladies, that those ladies are working real hard. But I think that if
we're going to do some other things, that we need to seriously maybe look down
the road at what we may need out of those offices to do because some
responsibilities will go beyond what we do here with meetings and where we
expect to be, to go, that's not necessarily a travel arrangement or dealing
with a hotel. And I think they do that well, but I think a lot of your
metro areas -- one of the things that we've learned from networking of
traveling, whether it's NACO or whether it's National League of Cities, has
been that a lot of those officials who have been able to function on a much
better response basis to constituents has not been so much of what they
receive in salaries -- some receive less than what we do -- but it's been in
the level of defined staff support that's there and a person particularly who
may not be in a private business or who may not be retired that may be on a 9-
to-5 that has to deal with certain responses or can have a person or an office
that's in place to do some of those particular things. And I think this
is -- this is a big government of a lot of expectations from a constituent
level. And I can vote for this today, but I just hope we don't shut the door
that this is where we stop or won't maybe go back to this if we need to from a
staffing standpoint on definition of duties. I think that the people are
there, they are capable of doing the work, but I think if we do it on a basis
where it's divided, where's it's even to a point that we're not overworking
anybody, and if we do it from that basis we can possibly get some extended
other staff support that's in there, and I think they are very much capable of
doing it wherever they come from.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I would just like to -- I've been
listening to everyone talk about it and I've been observing what's going on.
Why are we separated like we are as far as Administrator Office and the
Mayor's Office and -- far as the staff and who helping who when -- actually,
everything that goes on in the Mayor's Office is separated from what the
Administrator does, and then we have, what, I think three ladies down on the
other end, and that means that each Administrator have his own secretary, and
then we have another person, I reckon, just doing something else.
Why can't we combine all these people, consolidate them, and just one
staff does all the administrative work for the government -- I mean, far as
the Mayor's Office, far as the Administrator's Office, and no one particular
person assigned to any particular person. Because they all work together and
it's all administrative work and it's all what you need to take care of the
whole office, take care of the whole floor. We shouldn't be separated as
these on this -- people doing this end. And we could be doing duplication of
services having people on this end separated from people on this end and some
of the things could be being duplicated. I mean, we could be taking
duplication telephone calls, we could be sending out duplication correspon-
dence, when if we just had one person doing certain things, you know. That's
just a suggestion, something to think about.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Bill, do you want to respond to that?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'm not sure. Let me just make an observation.
Number one is that --
MR. HANDY: You don't have to if you're not sure.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: No, the --
MR. HANDY: If you're not sure, you don't have to. Don't try to speak
for me if you're not sure, and I really mean that from my heart.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll try to handle it. Number one, I think experience
that you have should be your best guide in terms of determining what
supplemental staffing levels you might need in the future, but I think at this
point in time this is the appropriate level for you to have. Secondly, I'd
like to remind you that the staffing level for the Clerk's Office has not
finally been determined. We will do that as we review the purchasing and
Clerk function and the separation of those, and I think there will be an
opportunity both through perhaps some use of automation as well as assignment
of staff to meet the needs that you have until you define them as greater.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Do we need the motion read,
gentlemen? It's been a while. Does everybody know what we're voting on?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: It's the approval of the level of support that was
described.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. I just want to make sure everybody's clear.
MR. KUHLKE: Does it also include, Mr. Mayor, authorization to recruit?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's the second item.
MR. KUHLKE: That's another item.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's another item. We'll get to that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Unless you direct to the contrary, we will assign the
sale of code books to the Purchasing Department where they sell and buy
things, and we will hold the Clerk responsible for preparing and administering
the budget, as we recommended. The only other item under the Clerk of
Commission is to, with these amendments, approve the position description and
authorize recruitment. And I would report to you that the recruitment
committee consisting of the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and the Consolidation
Project Manager have met and the committee is recommending that the
recruitment be from within the governmental entity on the position of Clerk of
Commission.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The second item deals with the Human Resources
Department. Mr. Etheridge is here, and I believe he has a -- John, where are
you? If you'll set the chart up. We have reviewed the departmental
organizational structure, have developed a position description for the Human
Resources Department. I would like to ask Mr. Etheridge to review with you
the recommended structure. In addition to the large board which he is setting
up, I have copies of that for each of you which I will distribute to you so
you can follow that a little bit more closely. You have a copy of the
position description that was in your agenda packet. If you have any
questions concerning the position description after Mr. Etheridge reviews the
organization chart, I would ask that you direct those questions to Mr.
Etheridge or myself regarding that. I'll distribute these and turn the
rostrum over to Mr. Etheridge.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, first of all I'd like to do
one thing before I start on this. We have been probably one of the first
departments to go together and begin working together. Today there's two
people out of our office that's up here with us and that's Gail Scott and
Moses McCauley. They were both with the former city side and I just want to
let y'all know, and they can vouch for this, you know, that things -- we've
been working real well together and we've made a lot of progress. We're
working very diligently on numerous things right now, and the organizational
chart that I come to you with today is one that will help enable us to go into
the future with and look toward the future.
Insofar as number of people, it only has one position on here that's not
in the authorized list, but that individual is a contractual employee and I do
ask that we do make that individual one of our people, a full-time employee
within our structure. The Human Resource Department is divided up into -- we
divided it up into three sections. We divided it up into Employment/
Affirmative Action area, the Human Resource area, and the Risk Management
area. And if you'll look on your chart you will -- if you come down you can
see the three managers that we have. The Risk Management manager who does
that function now is Sandy Wright, and Sandy is on vacation today or she would
have been in here also, but she's on vacation this week.
And beside each block that we have here is the number of people that are
in those positions. In all the positions I have, with the exception of one,
which is our benefits coordinators who handle our insurance and everything,
there's one individual on each job. The job that we currently have a
contractual employee on right now is Mr. Steve Reed, and I'm sure most of
y'all know him. He's the one that's out during all hours of the night
responding to people calling with broken water lines or whatever the case may
be, but that's primarily his job from a Risk Management standpoint. The
claims adjuster slot is where we want to put him on. This is very vital to
our operation insofar as the Risk Management or loss control area is
concerned. With that, if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got two. One is, in doing this, did you keep the
boxes here the same number? Were you able decrease any or?
MR. ETHERIDGE: They are the same as authorized with the exception of
the contractual employee that we have on contract, but I added the box on here
for him.
MR. BRIDGES: Where is that at?
MR. ETHERIDGE: It's under the claims adjuster under Risk Management.
MR. BRIDGES: And that's an addition?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: Was that approved in the budget? Is those monies in the
budget?
MR. ETHERIDGE: The money is in the budget from a contractual
standpoint, but it's not in the budget for a full-time individual.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, did we also go out for a
third-party administrator as far as Risk Management go? And if we did, then
actually what do we pay them for, and is there a duplication in claim
assistance, you know, claim adjusters, et cetera?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Are you referring to the Risk Management area?
MR. TODD: Yes, Risk Management area.
MR. ETHERIDGE: The Risk Management TPA that we have primarily does the
bill processing, is what they do. They do not do any of our -- if we have a
claim, we're out doing the analysis ourselves. Now, on the urban side of that
-- and I want to make sure y'all all understand something. The urban side did
not have this function here like we have it set up. It was totally different.
And we have taken on all of those responsibilities primarily with one person,
is what we've done. And there were -- there's 800 people in the city that was
on the urban side, let's say, or 900 people, and we've taken that on with only
one addi-tional person here and that is a contractual employee that we have.
MR. BRIDGES: I guess addressing it to Bill Carstarphen, we've got here
an employment/affirmative action manager. We're going to be discussing later
on the equal opportunity position. If we approve that position, is this
something that can be removed here?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think this is an example of the way that this
commitment to equal opportunity should be addressed in several departments.
In the Human Resources Department, the director has proposed to use the
affirmative action manager also as being the manager over all of the
employment process, and I think that's the proper location for that function
in the personnel function. The commitment to equal opportunity, which we will
be discussing as a part of our overall organizational structure, includes not
only fair employment practices and affirmative action but also fair purchasing
and contracting practices, fair economic development practices, and extending
equal treatment to all citizens in all aspects of the local government.
So this function as it is presented here, which I think is appropriate,
is an example of how I think this function should be carried out throughout
the organization. You use the people in the key departments to take on that
responsibility of equal employment or affirmative action or fair bidding
practices rather than creating just a special job that that person does
nothing else. In this instance, the combining of the employment function,
which is a major function on its own, with the commitment to equal employment
opportunity, you get more bang for your buck and you get a more rational
assignment of the responsibilities to see that that's happening. So I think
this is the right way to do it. It relates to this subject, but it does not,
in answer to your question, remove the need for it, in my opinion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that certainly we're interested in bang
for the buck, but also we're interested in the position functioning proper.
You know, that's my greatest concern when I'm looking at an affirmative action
or equal opportunity officer. And I know that a lot of businesses in the
private sector has gone to labor relations or somewhat pushing away from
personnel in the sense that personnel is probably already going to be ruled
and you're having to go through the personnel director, so do you think this
is the best suited place for the position as far as an affirmative action
officer? That would be my concern.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that for Mr. Carstarphen or for John?
MR. TODD: I'd like for Mr. Etheridge to answer it, he's the Human
Relations manager, you know, and whether he sees a conflict or.
MR. ETHERIDGE: I'll be happy to answer that. If you survey 1,000
corporations in this country you're going to find that the affirmative
action/equal employment people are in your HR areas. They are in there for a
reason. They can be called down just as quick as anybody that you put out to
the side or whatever, they can be called down just as easy. But when it comes
to employment and it comes to equal employment opportunity as far as
transfers, promotions, what better place to be than to be in the Human
Resource section?
I have been associated with two other organizations, and I talked to
some people today within government, and all of their affirmative action and
equal employment is associated with the HR department. So I'm going to be
honest with you, I don't see it being anywhere other than that. Now, I have
heard through discussions that have taken place about equal opportunity for
housing and some other things related to equal opportunity. Those are totally
separate situations in comparison to equal employment opportunity.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess -- you mentioned equal employment
opportunity, and I would assume that we're talking sexual harassment and any
other type harassment, et cetera, along with --
MR. ETHERIDGE: We're talking about Title VII discriminatory practices,
is what we're talking about.
MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, did you want to say something? I thought
you had your hand up.
MR. BEARD: Yes, I was just going to ask one question to Mr.
Carstarphen. You are saying that is needed prior to the other one that we're
going to discuss here?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, I think so. John and I are together on this.
The function of administering equal employment opportunity should be in the
Human Relations --Human Resources Department. That is an element of the
government's commitment to equal opportunity in several areas. Employment is
a very major area, and that function can best be achieved, in my opinion and
in John's opinion, from within the Human Resources Department.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Let me say one final thing on this, because I know y'all
don't want to hear me long. But all your statistics that are going to come as
far as employment are going to come through our office. We're going to get
them from the Department of Labor and what we take and compile through our
office as far as the type of applications and who comes through there, so it's
very logical.
MR. HANDY: I just have two questions, Mr. Mayor. The Human Resource
representative, what -- what --
MR. ETHERIDGE: What do they do?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, what do they do? What that person does is one of the
--
MR. ETHERIDGE: That individual right there deals with a large facet
from the HR side, you know, from answering the phone when people call in about
policy to helping with the payroll to make sure that everything is connected
on that. A large part of the responsibility that goes with that is to make
sure that our payroll is run properly, in regard to making sure that when
things are put into the computer system, that they are charged properly and to
the proper accounts, and that they are set up in EEOC class codes properly and
they are set up in job codes properly. Now, this individual does a lot of
other things, but they're not any kind of union rep or anything like that.
MR. HANDY: Okay. And the other one is this payroll coordinator.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Okay. She does exactly like the title tags that
individual. This individual coordinates the function of the payroll. In
doing the payroll for -- we're going to be doing it for about 2,500 employees.
It's going to take what we've got in there right now to do it. The payroll
function has been being done in our Finance Department. We will start doing
that function either -- I don't know if we're going to make it July or not, it
looks like right now, because there's been some curves, but I know by the
first of next year when we go to one system, because we're running two systems
right now. That individual will be responsible -- those two individuals --
for making sure that payroll is done.
MR. HANDY: Those two. So you're saying that you're combining the old
city payroll person that was in the employment office part along with the one
that's doing the county now?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: They will be doing basically the same thing?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Basically, but there's a lot more to it than what they
were doing it before.
MR. HANDY: Well, I'm not going to deal with what they got to do. I
don't have a -- I can deal with the duties, I mean, there was -- I was just
wondering, but then you explained it that you are taking over payroll now.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: I mean, versus the Finance Office.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: And that's normal in Human Resources?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: Why Finance had it in the beginning then?
MR. ETHERIDGE: I have no idea; I wasn't here. That's pre-John.
MR. BRIDGES: Let me understand that, now. You're issuing the payroll
checks now?
MR. ETHERIDGE: No, we -- the payroll checks are issued out of
Accounting. We will be doing the payroll function and the checks will still
be done just like they've always been done.
MR. BRIDGES: In other words, you're doing the initial input of the
person's federal/state tax rate --deduction rate, that type of thing?
MR. ETHERIDGE: That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we hear a motion that we accept this chart?
MR. KUHLKE: I move.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, do I hear a second to
Mr. Kuhlke's motion?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Further discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I certainly think that if we're approving
the organization chart, in the sense that we have three super directors, we
probably need to call this something other than a director. So I'm suggesting
we amend it and call it Human Resources Department Head. Do everybody see
what I'm saying up at the top of this chart? And if we go to the, I guess the
master plan that we're going to deal with later, we have Human Relations under
the Director of Administrative Services, and do we intend to have different
levels of directors or are we going to call it managers or department heads or
what, and that's the question. I guess we appointed a Utilities Director, but
--
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Let me say this, since y'all are going to
discuss that tonight, we can change this. I mean, we can change that because
the job hasn't even been advertised.
MR. TODD: Okay, no problem. I'm ready, Mr. Mayor, to vote.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote for the motion on the floor, I
just wanted to ask John one thing in there. Commissioner Handy was talking
about -- asking a question on payroll a few minutes ago. Separating total
faces, just positions, we got payroll coordinator down there at the bottom.
Now, something that has come up -- I know you were talking about pre-John, I'm
going to talk about something after John now. From time to time, whether it's
been in Finance or whether it's been in Human Resources under old county
government where you were looking at less than 2,000 people, whether or not
you needed it within your realm -- and, I mean, you probably figured it out
from some position already, and I'm just asking a question in there, whether
or not there is a cross-training mechanism or a backup responsibility.
Because one of the questions that came up in there from time to time was that
whether this was a function for one person or whether it was a function for
two people.
Now, we're looking now at 2,600 people that you got in the mix, and if
I'm looking correctly under here it says one. Now, is there a situation
within that organization -- because one of the worst things in the world that
Mayor Sconyers can have, and all the calls will go to him, is the fact that
2,600 folks don't get their check right. Now, if you got one person that's
doing this now that it's been combined, you have your built-in backup system,
I'm presuming, to deal with that question.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Have three.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Because you know where we would get it from before,
and I'm just asking to make sure that in the new realm, since we're adding on
within the merger here of everybody, you know, that we've got that covered to
a point that -- that's one question that's like the banker that can't take a
holiday. You know, that one there, they leave on a certain day, then somebody
has to deal with that particular function and in doing it.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Actually we have four, and I left out one of
them, but we have four people that will be available to do payroll if we need
them.
MR. MAYS: Okay. But that's just in the head of noting it of who is in
charge and where that is. I just wanted to make sure of that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In the sense that we're talking finances,
also I guess we've had some minor problems with the reporting to the IRS in a
timely manner. That's taken care of?
MR. ETHERIDGE: I don't know that I understand your question, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: I guess as far as sending in the monies that's due them, you
know, and avoiding penalties or whatever.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. We plan on making sure that we make all the,
you know, proper dates and send in --you know, whatever requirements we're
required to do, we'll do that.
MR. TODD: That's going to be in somebody's job description?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir, it is. It is definitely in there.
MR. HANDY: One final question, Mr. Mayor. John, since you rearranged
your whole department, is all those job descriptions going to be changed for
those manager positions you got down there?
MR. ETHERIDGE: They've already been changed, Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: Okay, they already been changed.
MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. We did our job descriptions first thing. And
that's -- quite honestly, that's what you should do in putting a department
together, you do your job descriptions first.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: I'm going to take you at your word, but we sure fell behind
on a lot of other job descriptions if you're supposed to do it first before
we're trying to put people in them. Think about that.
MR. ETHERIDGE: I don't disagree with you.
MR. HANDY: All right then. Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The second item under Human Resources is to approve
the position description which follows the organization chart that you've just
approved.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I so move that we approve it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr.
Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final action under Human Resources is to authorize
the recruitment. And, again, the recruitment committee having met is
recommending that recruitment be from within the organization.
MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Beard.
Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MR. POWELL VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The third category of recommendations deals with the
License and Inspections Department for which you have already acted to approve
the organizational structure and position description. We are recommending
that you authorize recruitment for the department head position of License and
Inspections, and the committee having met on this matter as well is
recommending to you that recruitment be from within the organization.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Beard.
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: Next item, please.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final item under consolidation project is the
proposed organizational structure for the new government. And as I think each
member of the Commission-Council is very much aware of, you have invested a
great deal of time over the last several weeks in reviewing various options,
making adjustments, making modifications and improvements, that activity
continuing through yesterday evening as late as 9:00/9:30 p.m., as I recall.
What I want to do with you today is to present to you two organizational
structure proposals that include the modifications that you instructed that we
make at our workshop session yesterday evening and that also address the issue
of the question of where within the overall structure to locate the
responsibility for ensuring equal opportunity in all phases of the
government's activities. This received a great deal of discussion and input
last evening. When the work session was adjourned, the Commission, in my
perception, had not reached a consensus. I know that many of you have
continued to discuss this among yourselves and to consider options available.
The two proposals which I will share with you reflect some of those options
that have been discussed informally. I would add to you that I commend
you for the progress you have made in finalizing the Administrator's position
description and duties and responsibilities and for the progress that has been
made in finalizing an overall organizational structure. I hope that you find
within these two options an option that will gain the consensus of the
Commission and can be acted on today.
I will pass these out. They are labeled Number 1 and Number 2. They
both include the reflection of the constitutional and elected officials in the
manner that you concluded last night would be most appropriate. They both
show the grouping of responsibilities under the three directors as -- in
general terms, they are not specific as to departments because, as we
reflected last night, those decisions have not yet all been made. And they
both also present the offices that report directly to the Administrator in a
different fashion so as not to imply that those positions are in authority
above the other directors. And I will pass out -- the first chart, which
is labeled Number 2, suggests that the position of the Equal Opportunity
Office be among those departments that report to the Administrator. The
second option I will pass out to you shows a way that the Equal Opportunity
Office can report directly to the Mayor and Commission. That represents, I
think, a somewhat higher profile for that responsibility and it provides the
Equal Opportunity Office with the direct access to the Commission. I will
pass out Number 2 first, followed by Number 1.
[MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES DOCUMENT NUMBER 2.]
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I am now distributing the second, which is labeled
Number 1 and which shows the responsibility for equal opportunity directly to
the Commission and Mayor.
[MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES DOCUMENT NUMBER 1.]
MR. CARSTARPHEN: If I can respond to any questions or comments you
have, or if this does not reflect the directions that you gave last evening
insofar as they were given by the body, please let me know and we'll be happy
to make any changes that you think would be appropriate.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Chart
Number 1.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we
approve Chart Number 1 with this exception, that the Equal Opportunity
Employment Office be deleted and that those duties be assigned to the
Administrator as per Mr. Carstarphen's recommendation to this Council
yesterday and earlier. I feel like what we're doing here is we're creating a
department, we're growing government, we're creating an additional box, and --
excuse me, Mr. Handy, but I'm jarring the table right now.
We're creating an additional box that -- every one of us in here knows
that when you create these new positions all they're going to do is grow. I
mean, that's the nature of government is to grow. And I think it's something
that -- I mean, we've looked down here over in Personnel. We've got an
affirmative action manager. And I don't have any problem with someone being
treated equally; I have a problem with that term, affirmative action, as I've
expressed to some of the Commissioners. But I want to make the substitute
motion that we remove the Equal Opportunity Office, assign those duties to the
Administrator for that Administrator to administer or assign to individuals
within the organization as he sees fit.
MR. POWELL: I'm going to second that motion on the basis of a
duplication of services.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like a reading from the County Attorney on
what the bill called for, whether it calls for a director or whether it calls
for us to assign responsibilities and functions to folks throughout government
that's under the Administrator.
MR. WALL: Well, the bill calls for you to employ a person who would be
the director of the equal opportunity and the minority business -- to serve as
equal employment opportunity director and as director. Now, it does not say
that that individual could not have other functions, but it's my
interpretation of this that the intent of the legislation, as evidenced by the
1992 legislation which had similar language, was that a single person with
those specific duties be hired, not that those duties be commingled with some
other responsibility that another individual had.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: And, Mr. Mayor, it also -- if you would read the bill, it
also states that the Commission-Council would employ this person and not the
Administrator, so I don't see how you can ask that he be put under the
Administrator, and I feel that it is in the best interest of all for it to
remain where it is on Item 1. And the other thing I would just like Mr.
Carstarphen to explain to me, this block here, Comptroller/Finance --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes. The suggestion was made in discussions yesterday
and last evening that individuals may misinterpret having those three
departments: Finance, Information Technology, and Public Service and
Information shown above the other directors and by grouping them here, but
they are still directly responsible to the Administrator. You will see there's
no director above them or separating them from the Administrator, but this is
an attempt to clarify that so that misinterpretation does not occur. These
are departments, and the department heads of these departments will be
similarly situated in the hierarchy to other department heads even though they
report directly to the Administrator, not through a director.
MR. BEARD: Okay, I understand that, and I call for the question.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got something.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges had his hand up. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: As far as what the bill says, I'm looking at it here, it
says the Commission-Council shall employ a person to serve as these two
directorships. We already will be employing an Administrator. I mean, that's
what it calls for, that's what we're doing. Those duties will be under the
Administrator for them to administrate as they see fit, if they wanted to do
it themselves or designate someone else or use the different departments like
we have in Personnel or whatever.
But another thing I want to say at this time is yesterday I heard some -
- as we were discussing this I heard some language on affirmative action, and
I've expressed this to two of the minority members of the Commission, to me
that's an ugly word because it implies racial selectivity. The bill says that
these goals that the bill provides for in Section 14 are to be used as
guidelines to the Commission-Council and are not to be construed as ceilings
or quotas. So I don't think this position is something that is going to be
used to encourage or promote any kind of racial selectivity, I see it as
something that is going to provide equal opportunity for all, and that's what
it says in the bill. And I was kind of disturbed at some of the language that
we used yesterday in that context and I think we need to have that
understanding about what the bill provides for.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, one of my former colleagues, Mr. Lee
Neel, used to talk about often reverse discrimination, and certainly I feel
that if there's someone that feel that they've been reverse discriminated
against, that they could go to this person and get relief as far as a
grievance go. So I don't see affirmative action as a ugly word, I see
discrimination as a ugly word and affirmative action as a mediation of
discrimination.
And certainly I feel that, you know, we're talking about a minority and
small business equal opportunity person, and I think that probably 90% of the
small businesses in this country is majority community-owned with, you know,
about 10%, you know, minority-owned. I may be off on those numbers, but
certainly it's not much more than that. But when we look at whether we have a
level playing field or not, I think that it's quite obvious that we don't as
far as bid practices, et cetera, and that's why the legislators and some local
officials seen fit for this to be put in the bill. You know, if we're
talking about growing government, then certainly I see the Public Service and
Information Office as being a new entity in county government. We are growing
there. And I guess then it's a matter of priorities on what's important to
who, and I think we're gentlemen enough that we can compromise and work this
out and do what's best for this community versus living in the past or, you
know, running from certain terminology. And, you know, that's the way I see
it. And I think this position is going to help majority community, minority
community, and the area that it's helped as far as the 1992 legislation is
minorities, women, minority by race, and small business, and I would hope that
it would continue to do that.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell had his hand up. Mr. Powell, then Mr. Mays,
then we'll call the question.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concerns is this: we just put in a
organizational structure -- just approved it for Human Relations. In that
plan it had an affirmative action officer there. Now we're going to put
another affirmative action and EEO personnel in up at the top administration.
What is the plan here, are we going to have one in every office? Have we got
these people already? Are we going to have to hire them? I mean, that's the
question I just want to ask.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Bill, can you answer that?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll try. The function of the equal employment
opportunity/employment manager in Human Resources deals with equal opportunity
in the employment of individuals for the government, their work with the
government, their grievances, their treatment, their supervision, their growth
and development as employees. And as I indicated, I join with Mr. Etheridge
in recommending that that function best be performed with the Human Resources
Department.
As I perceive the commitment that is made in the legislation, it is to
equal opportunity in all things that the government does. And while it
includes Human Resources in this function that I just described, it also
includes a number of other commitments in the employment, in contracts, in
economic development, in fairness, in service levels. It applies throughout
the organization. I believe the position that you are debating today has that
comprehensive responsibility to see that those commitments to equal
opportunity are carried out throughout the organization. That can be done, as
I have indicated, through assigning that function to the Administrator or
assigning it to an individual who reports either to the Administrator or to
the governing body, and I think that's what you are discussing today at this
moment.
MR. POWELL: I still have a question. How many people --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Currently -- I didn't answer the final part of the
question. Currently, it is my belief that you have two people within the
organization who currently carry out portions of this overall responsibility.
One is located in the Human Resources Department, the position we just
discussed, and a second has been located in the Community and Economic
Development function and involves essentially working with small and minority
businesses to see that they can compete for and successfully gain contracts
from the government, and that's two major elements of this overall process.
MR. POWELL: One more part to the question and then I'll be through.
How many more people are you planning on, as we get down into this thing, Mr.
Carstarphen, adding for this? Are we going to have one in every department?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'm not recommending any people, I am concurring that
the overall responsibility needs to be placed either with the Administrator in
that office or at the governing body level. You have an option of filling
those positions with individuals who are currently in your employ or hiring
new people to do so. There's no recommendation from me on that.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Mays is not quite finished. Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, let me change the air just a little bit
because -- I know y'all are thinking my question was going to be about
something else, but I got a brief question and just two observances. One,
Bill -- and let me apologize for being gone for a week, but I see where your
movement is taking place on both of these where you have your direct line to
your Administrator that's in there.
The question I've got in there is that -- I know you've explained why
you did it, but in the group's thinking, was -- even though they will go to
the Administrator, I noticed before where you had particularly coming out of
that area, particularly involving Finance in there, what was the thinking on
that? Because, I mean, obviously even if it's set aside as one of those
original major groupings it was going to have to go to the Administrator
anyway, and I just would like to know how did you all arrive at that.
Because what I'm getting to I guess gets into my point about my two
observances. And I'm glad in my old age and bullheadedness, Mr. Mayor, I can
still vote for -- I'm going to vote for this thing today and I'm glad we got
to this point where I won't have a hangup that I can't compromise as the
senior citizen of this body. But now, I still believe two things, and I've
got to say it for the record, but I'm going to vote for what you got here.
I still think in the observance of looking at municipalities our size, that
in a lot of places -- and I know this met with a lot of opposition, and I
don't blame you, Bill, for not putting it in here, but I still think that one
of the defined duties -- and we talked about the assistant to the
Administrator being defined, and I guess you all told me last week that that's
going to be left up to the Administrator to do a designated person or that
person might move around. Personally speaking, I would prefer that
Administrator having an assistant as is done, whether it's in the form of an
assistant manager or administrator, in even some comparable Georgia cities
that rank in population along with this one, whether it be in Macon-Bibb or
whether it be in Savannah. But that's something still I can live with, that
ain't debatable. But the other thing up here that I think -- and this is
not the time to deal with it, but I like to bring things out when I see them
because I forget things. We've got Municipal Court up here as it's defined,
and we have across from here our constitutional officers. I think seriously
at some point in time we need to look as to whether or not this is going to be
-- with the way things are going right now, whether this is going to be a
functional court. I mean, it's here as an integral part of this chart, but as
we are channeling the cases and the way these things are done -- and some of
us asked very early on when we were talking about combining and eliminating,
and it was said that there would be a process way that through coding we would
know what cases were to go where. This is not being done. And if this is
going to be a function as to where it's there, then I think we need to decide
whether or not we're going to have Municipal Court and you're going to either
put an assistant under the State Court judge or whether or not you're going to
have a defined way of sending these cases here, if this is going to be a
source of revenue in Municipal Court, to define it and whether or not whoever
the judge is there gets cases on a defined basis. Because, I mean, this is
clear up in our organizational chart and it certainly shouldn't become a ghost
town. And I think it's -- this isn't the time to do it now, but I just
wanted to bring it to your attention because it's on the chart and it ranks
high, and I think we need to at some point take some time and maybe work some
things with all the parties that are involved in this thing. Because it can
be one of those things like the work crew. Whether we want to discuss it or
not, it ain't functioning and it's dying, and that involves money. And if
it's going to be attributed to government as a defined position, high ranking
and standing out here alone up under the Mayor and the Commissioners, then we
need to see whether or not cases are going to be channeled to that darned
court or whether or not we're going to close up shop and we're going to
operate another way. I just wanted to bring that out while y'all are dealing
with it, and I can vote for the chart that's out there.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mays, that received extensive discussion last
night. Many of your fellow Commissioners shared some of your same concerns.
There were some alternatives explored, I think there will be further
exploration of how to deal with that, but the decision to represent the
Municipal Court in this fashion was made following the workshop last night.
I'll observe in good humor and hope that you take it in good humor, by
personal observance, I have experienced the fact that when you're on vacation
for a week sometimes you get left behind and sometimes you get off the track.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't dispute -- I call for the question with
a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do y'all need the motion read, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: No. No, we don't -- there ain't but one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, there are two motions on the floor.
MR. HANDY: It is?
MR. POWELL: Yeah, I'd like them reread.
MR. HANDY: Oh, yeah, we need to read them.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motions, Susan, please?
MS. WATSON: The substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr.
Powell, was to approve Chart Number 1 with the equal opportunity position to
be deleted and the duties to be assigned to the Administrator. The original
motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg, for Chart Number 1 as is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're going to have a roll call vote. Ms.
Bonner, the substitute motion first.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Present.
CLERK: I beg your pardon?
MR. TODD: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Bill Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard?
MR. BEARD: No.
CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Ulmer Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
MOTION FAILS 7-2-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion now. Roll call vote.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Willie Mays?
MR. MAYS: Believe it or not, yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bill Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Rob Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. J.B. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Freddie Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Ulmer Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Absolutely not.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I commend you for your action. I think this will
enable us to move ahead more swiftly. And I would report to you also that the
advertisement for the Administrator position appeared in two national
publications this week.
MR. HANDY: Could we have the names, Bill, so we can see it, too? I
just would like to have it for a souvenir.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The two publications are the National League of
Cities' Nation Cities Weekly and the International City-County Management
Association Newsletters. I have copies of both of them. I'll make copies and
send to each of you.
CLERK: The next item, Item 53: Appointments to the Augusta-Richmond
County Board of Health.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these nominees are coming from these
organizations by state statute. These organizations submitted three
nominations to each one to us for nomination to the Board of Health. Dr.
Rumph asked me to make it known that his selection, if it weighs anything with
this organization, is Dr. Hillsman, and at his request I will place Dr.
Hillsman's name in nomination.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, nominations be closed.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, all in favor of Dr. Hillsman -- excuse me, all in
favor of --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Hilson. Excuse me.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, that's right. All in favor of Hilson, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. BEARD OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, from the other organization he did not make
a recommendation, but I'd like to place the name of Ms. Gail Brantley in
nomination.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Bentley, isn't it?
MR. POWELL: Move that nominations be closed.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Ms. Bentley, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MR. HANDY: Wait a minute, now. Regular see-saw here. Let's get a roll
call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We only got one person.
MR. MAYS: It was moving real quick. I was just going to ask the casual
observer -- sir, you were saying an organization. Did any nursing association
make it or are those just nurses?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: This was supposedly from the Georgia Association --
10th District Association of Nurses.
MR. MAYS: Okay, and they gave us the name?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: They made the nominations.
MR. MAYS: Okay, that was all I was trying to find out. I didn't know
whether -- I saw nurses in there.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: That is not what it says in the book, but that is
supposedly who nominated Bentley.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Ms. Bentley, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. BEARD OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Jim, do we need any legal business?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, you do.
CLERK: We have one other item. You have discussion of the Damascus
Road/Village Square property.
MR. HANDY: That's in under legal or other business? That's legal;
right?
CLERK: I don't know. Is this going to be legal, Jim?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a matter under other business, too.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. What do you want to do about Damascus Road?
Since that is real estate, do y'all want to do that in the legal session?
MR. WALL: I think that there's some legal ramifications. I would --
yes, I would.
CLERK: Okay. We'll go into other business then.
MR. BRIDGES: So we're in other business now?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, what I'm bringing up here has to do -- when we
did those water rate we went back five times with them, and now we're having
to go back again due to the surcharge and the high sewerage expense that's
associated with it and we're having to review those. With that in mind and
the fact that we just approved a salary equalization for the Sheriff's
Department and the Fire Department, I'd like to ask the Commission-Council to
ask Mr. Kip Plowman, our Internal Auditor, to review the equalization
procedure, to review the -- you know, I guess, of course, the math and the
accounting of it as well, and make sure that what we've done and what's going
to take effect July the 1st is in line with what we're going to do throughout
the county as far as hiring, as far as practices, as far as policies, and as
far as procedures.
And I think it's important that we get this right the first time, that
we're not having something coming back to bite us later. We've already voted
on it, it's taking effect July the 1st, so I think time is probably of the
essence here. But I'd like for our Internal Auditor to review that and come
back to us and see what kind of recommendations or what kind of comments he
has to make on those policies and procedures dealing with equalization and
salary throughout the structure.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion to get it on the
floor for discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess what the format -- I mean, the
master that they use is called a grid; is that correct? And there is some
concern about whether we have some special treatment as far as that grid go,
and I'll just get it out front, you know, as far as what I'm hearing. And
certainly we want everybody to be treated equally, but we want it to be per
the procedure that we passed a couple of weeks ago that we're going to
implement July the 1st. And I certainly would accept nothing less than that
being what we actually implement July 1st, and if there is any misperceptions
-- I don't know whether everybody had the opportunity to review the grid, I'm
not expert along those lines, but certainly I think that we want all
misperceptions cleared up because this is dealing with the morale of our
employees, both the former urban and suburban employees of Fire Department and
Sheriff's Department. And we want it implemented right and make sure that
it's done right.
MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MR. MAYS: I'm going to vote present, Mr. Mayor. I was going to ask a
question, but we're voting on it. I really don't understand, because I think
Mr. Bridges made a motion for one purpose and if I'm hearing Moses correctly,
he seconded it for another one.
MR. BRIDGES: I don't think so. I think we're in line.
MR. MAYS: I think he did. I mean, I may be wrong, but I mean, you're
talking about the review to see whether or not -- and I'm not putting words in
your mouth. If I'm hearing correctly, you're asking Kip to examine something
to see what we've done in there properly and comparing that with the water
rate situation. And I was one of those two people that didn't vote for the
water rate, so I'll exempt myself from that amnesia-type question. But Mr.
Todd, on the other hand, basically is talking about dealing with the grids in
there and whether or not we have some inequities in there. I think that may
be a different type of message than what your motion is sending out.
I am very comfortable with us dealing with the equalization. I think
that what we need to be doing is asking Human Resources to do maybe what we
didn't do as an old Commission when the old salary structure was put into
place from University of Georgia and there were falling-through-the-crack
situations. Maybe we didn't go back and evaluate the fall-through-the-crack
people soon enough. I think that we have moved on this thing for a long time.
I think it sends a bad message and look as though you are reversing it. I
think, yes, to make -- I think you have to study everything as you go along,
but I think if there are inequities in what we've done, then we pull those
inequities out, give Human Resources the right to deal with those first, and
not go through a whole review of the process. If we want to be reviewing
something, I think we need to take back what we did on the mad rush of going
in and reducing what would look like water and went up in double sewerage.
Which I don't want to use I told you so, but you see what it's doing
throughout this county. And it's hurting my area that I represented longer
than anywhere else, and I tried to say that, percentage wise, worse than
anybody else. So if you're going to review something, maybe you ought to go
back with the pressure we put on water people to have to come up with a
timetable because it was in the bill more so than going back and trying to
finagle with these folks' money. So, I mean, I'm going to vote here on the
motion. It's already out there and passed, and my vote will be recorded as
here, but I'm not going back and deal with that.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, what was the vote on that?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 9 to 1, with one abstention, Mr. Mays' abstention.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer in the form of a motion to go
into legal session if that one passed.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, under other business -- let me --
MR. HANDY: Oh, we've got another item?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, one more thing. I think we need to go ahead and
decide whether or not we're going to cancel the meeting for the 2nd and
reschedule it for the 9th since most of us aren't going to be here.
MR. HANDY: I think we should, because we'll be gone -- majority of us
will be gone.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, can I have a motion from somebody to do that?
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, isn't there also a group that's going to be
leaving sometime in the second week of July for the NACO, and is that -- how
is those dates?
CLERK: 12th of July.
MR. TODD: 12th. So the 9th would fit in just before. Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. So what we need is a motion to
reschedule the 2nd meeting -- the meeting on the 2nd to be on the 9th.
MR. HANDY: So what you're going to do is just push everything -- the
committee meetings, everything, just push up a week?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, no, the committee meetings will still be next
week, but the regular Commission meeting will be on the 9th.
MR. HANDY: Okay. All right.
MR. MEYER: We have already advertised and posted alcohol license
hearings for the committee meeting for the 9th, so we would still have to do
that even if you had your Commission meeting on the 9th. We would still have
to have that committee meeting on the 9th.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What time does that committee meet?
MR. MEYER: Four o'clock.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to point out I've got a deposition that I
do not have control over. I'm going to be out of town on the 9th. Because of
these rules and my familiarity with them, and the instruction was to bring
those back at the next regular meeting, if those are going to be brought up on
the 9th, Lori would be here. And I know a lot of you would rather she be here
on a full-time basis rather than me, and I defer to that, but I point that out
as a potential problem and maybe we can work around it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, maybe we could do the rules --
CLERK: [Inaudible]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, if they're going to be here on the 3rd, I don't
have a problem with the 3rd.
MR. HANDY: We'll be back the 3rd; right?
CLERK: Yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want to do it on the 3rd? I don't have a
problem with July the 3rd. Give me a motion for July the 3rd. It'll be
Wednesday, July the 3rd.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, somebody give me a
second on that.
MR. HANDY: I got it. Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Handy. Any discussion?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question would be to the County
Attorney. The statutory responsibility to have the meeting on the first
Tuesday, we can, by resolution, change that to any other day; is that my
understanding?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. I think under the circumstances where you're not
going to have a quorum here, that that's the responsible thing to do.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We've done it in the past, haven't we, Jim?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, we have.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are we going to discuss Damascus Road and do
the 911 equipment before we go into executive session?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 911 has already been done.
CLERK: We've already approved 911.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: On the addendum?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. We took it out of order.
MR. WALL: On the Damascus Road, I would ask that we go into legal
session because there's some aspects of that that I would like to give you
legal advice on. I'd also ask you to go into -- I've got a personnel matter -
- or two personnel matters I need to discuss with you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry
Brigham. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MEMBERS RETIRE INTO LEGAL MEETING, 5:47 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 18, 1996.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission-Council