HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1996 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
August 6, 1996
Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:00 o'clock P.
M., Tuesday, August 6, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd, and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County
Commission Council.
Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B.
Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court
Reporter.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our
Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We will
have the Invocation by the Reverend John Nordan, Assistant Pastor of the First
Presbyterian Church. And if you'll remain standing, we'll have the Pledge of
Allegiance.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND NORDAN.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Members of Commission-Council, we have
a request to add a proclamation, Miss Georgia; Number 2, to consider approval
of a resolution for the Children and Youth Coordinating Council Grant
Application for local juvenile delinquency prevention and early intervention
in Augusta-Richmond County, Family Connection; a mutual aid agreement between
Westinghouse Savannah River Company and Richmond County Emergency Management
Agency. Deletions: To consider approval to amend Item 5 to include the
Williams Road from Old Mims Road to Wilson Road; Item 26, the termination of
Alfonzo Forrest.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move, and also that we put on the next
regular meeting's agenda discuss the boat dock landing at Lock and Dam.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion?
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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 1, please.
CLERK: Item 1: Miss Georgia, would you please come forward, please.
"Whereas Shea Olliff is endowed with a strong sense of determination to
pursue her goals and objectives, and whereas Shea Olliff has demonstrated that
sense of determination by entering the Miss Georgia Pageant, not one but four
times, and whereas Shea Olliff in the fourth time realizing a portion of her
dream by becoming Miss Georgia 1996, and whereas Shea Olliff will represent
the State of Georgia in the Miss America Pageant to be held on September 14th,
1996, and whereas Shea Olliff not only displays physical beauty but also
mental beauty, and that she is a third-year medical student at the Medical
College of Georgia, and whereas we wish her the best in all of her future
aspirations and endeavors, now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of
Augusta-Richmond County, do hereby proclaim August 6th, 1996, to be Shea
Olliff Day, Miss Georgia 1996, and urge citizens of this community to honor
and celebrate this special event. In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, to be affixed.
Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor."
[MAYOR SCONYERS PRESENTS PROCLAMATION TO MS. OLLIFF.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, would it be in order for the family of this
young lady to stand, a couple of well-known citizens in this community?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I think that would be fitting.
[THE OLLIFF FAMILY STANDS.]
CLERK: Next, Mr. Don Johnson, Chairman of the Olympic Torch Relay
Committee.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, it's my privilege to
be here today. On Sunday afternoon, July 14th, the torch came through the
Greater Augusta area, and I think judging from the attendance along the route,
which some people have estimated as high as 100,000 people, I think it
certainly was a great success and something that this community can take a
great deal of pride in.
Organization for an event such as that doesn't just happen. And, in
fact, under the umbrella of the United Way of the CSRA we put a committee in
place back in January to begin by selecting the community heros who would
carry the torch, and then we spent a half a dozen months planning for the
celebration. And I think most of you would agree that it was a day of fun, of
patriotism, of very intense emotions. It certainly is something that I take
great pride in having been associated with.
But I'm here today to thank this consolidated government for the support
that you provided, the encouragement and the support of so many within the
consolidated government in helping us put this thing together and having it
come off as something this community could be proud of. But not only the
Commissioners, but there are a number of people within the consolidated
government that I'd like to thank: The Electrical Department, Robert
Anderson; the City Parks and Recreation just spent a great deal of time
working with it; Rommie Thompson with Riverwalk Augusta was invaluable in her
guidance in helping us prepare for this; Captain Richard Weaver at the
Sheriff's Department took care of all of the logistics of moving that torch
through the Augusta area, without incident I might add. We had better than
15,000 people down at the Riverwalk, and some people estimate as many as
85,000 along the route. And I couldn't go on without saying that there is
one amongst you who was with us from the first day, and that's Commissioner
Handy, who served as a member of the Torch Run Committee and really managed
all of the logistics of putting this together. So my purpose in being here is
to, number one, thank the consolidated government for all of the support and
for helping make it possible for Augusta to really showcase itself to the rest
of this state and the nation. I do have one person that I'd like to
introduce. I'm going to just ask him to stand, and that is Keith Benson, who
was the chief professional officer of this community's United Way. If Keith
was down here we could say Mutt and Jeff Show, so that's why I didn't ask him
to come down with me. But the United Way is the organization across the
country that ACOG asked to kind of coordinate these celebrations. It was my
privilege to be associated with it. Thank you very much for giving me that
opportunity. I have brought with me and I'd like to leave with you one of
the banners that we have left from that day of celebration. And hopefully
you'll find some place in this facility that you can hang it, and it'll serve
as a reminder of the day that this city truly made itself proud. Thank you
very much.
[MR. JOHNSON PRESENTS THE BANNER TO THE CLERK.]
CLERK: Rommie Thompson, would you come forward, please. "To the Mayor
and the Members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission Council, this is to
commend Rommie Thompson of the Riverwalk Special Events for outstanding
service to the 434th United States Army Signal Corps Band from 1990 to 1996.
Ms. Thompson's support, dedication, and coordinating skills have been greatly
appreciated over the years by the 434th Army Band. Without her experience and
insight, the Riverwalk Special Events would not be the professional program
that it is. The 434th Army Band and the United States Army can rest assured
that Ms. Thompson will work in a professional manner with all the aspects
relating to coordination of events. The 434th Army Band is proud to be a
regular performer on the Riverwalk, and look forward to continued
participation in Riverwalk events. Michael F. Ritter, CW2, USA, Commanding."
[MAYOR SCONYERS PRESENTS PLAQUE TO MS. THOMPSON.]
CLERK: Mr. Jimmy Smith, presentation from the South Richmond County
Pride and Progress Committee.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity of being
before you today. I am Jimmy Smith. I represent South Richmond County Pride
and Progress Committee, who is an arm of the Metro Augusta Chamber of
Commerce, and our first official meeting was in January of '92. We do have a
mission statement and are mainly concerned about litter control, zoning
enforcement, recreation, education, and changing the image that is perceived
in South Richmond County, and economic development.
In our first year, '92, we came before the Commission and asked that you
would purchase land that we could have a recreation department -- a recreation
park similar to Patriot's Park in Columbia County, and I understand this has
been done. There's 200 acres purchased off Windsor Spring and Tobacco Roads,
the old racetrack. And on behalf of our committee, we'd like to say thank
you. We also asked for lighting on the Gordon Highway that would pick up
where it stopped at the city limits, and this was recently completed. And we
can't tell you how much difference it makes out there, and we want to tell you
thank you, each and every one of you, for investing in that because it makes
it so much more secure and the people are very proud of it. We have two
recommendations we'd like to make today. As you know, Doug Bernard Parkway is
now under construction from 520 back to Gordon Highway. And after talking to
the Department of Transportation officials, they tell us this is going to be a
real showplace out there. It's really going to be a drive that we'll be proud
of. People coming from the airport, the future development of the Lock and
Dams, the industry, the travel is going to be very heavy. We're asking today
that you would please consider the smell problem at the sewer treatment plant,
and we respectfully request that you put it on your must-do list. The
other thing that we have is we are concerned about the retention of the
residents in Richmond County and are working hard for growth. The recent
renovation of the Daniel Village Shopping Center has changed completely things
in that area. There's a large housing community behind there, and we're
asking that you consider razing the old dilapidated apartments next to the
golf course and not allow this to be rebuilt and come back with the high crime
area that it has been in the past. Thank you very much on behalf of Pride and
Progress.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this as information, the report or recommendations from Pride and Progress.
MR. BRIDGES: Second it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that.
MR. TODD: And also, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to compliment Pride and
Progress on all that they do. But especially one item that he had on the
list, and that's the smell from the sewage treatment plant, and we had -- I
think Mr. Powell had kind of put me in charge of sewage and garbage. I don't
know why, but maybe I do a good job there. But we was looking at that, and Mr.
Jim Leiper is already working with Mr. Tom Wiedmeier on how we can accomplish
that goal. And we know we can throw money at it and do it, I think we were
told approximately three million dollars, but we're trying to figure out a way
to do it short of the three million dollars. And I'd just like to say that
we're already looking at that, and hopefully we can accomplish that goal short
term.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, second by Mr. Bridges.
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: The Muscular Dystrophy Association.
MS. BEACH: Council and Commissioners and Mayor-Chairman Sconyers, I
wanted to thank you for allowing me to come in and speak with you today. I
wanted to come mostly to point out to you what we at the Muscular Dystrophy
Association feel is one of your most valuable assets, and that is the Augusta-
Richmond County Firefighters. You may or may not be aware of this, but the
firefighters have been raising money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association
for over 50 years, and this area has certainly not been any exception.
Last year the Association came before you and asked that you pass an
ordinance to allow the firefighters to collect, which you most graciously
passed that ordinance, and it made the difference in collecting in this area
to go from approximately two or three thousand dollars to last year raising
almost $20,000. I think that's a significant amount of money that I don't
know that everybody in this community realizes what a wonderful job they did.
I think they represented the area very well in both being out on the streets
collecting in uniform, with their trucks, and then also going on the telethon
that's aired on the Labor Day weekend and presenting that check and giving
credit to both the firefighters and the community at large. What you may
or may not know is where the money goes in your area. One of the things that
the money goes to is to support an MDA sponsored clinic at MCG. We have a
once-a-week clinic that all the patients in the Greater CSRA come in and
provide clinical care at no cost to the patients. Another thing that I think
that is most significant to a lot of our children is our MDA Summer Camp. We
provide a week-long summer camp for our kids to go once a year and to
experience something that maybe they may never have the opportunity otherwise
to experience. I'd like to introduce to you one of our counselors and
campers that came to our camp this year, Patricia Morehouse and Ryan Disney,
and they had a few things to say.
MS. MOREHOUSE: Okay. Again, my name is Tricia Morehouse and I've been
a counselor at Muscular Dystrophy Camp for about eight years. In the eight
years I've learned a whole lot about the human spirit and community teamwork
and such that I never even knew existed. Ryan Disney is my camper at camp,
and we passed out pictures if you all would like to take a look at a few of
the faces that you impact every day.
And many of you know about the heroism that the firefighters show us in
our communities, and I just wanted to let you know about some of the people in
particular that they do help. And to help show this, I brought a story with
me called A Special Hero, and it was written by Jane Miller.
"A hero you read about in the comics and see on television is larger
than life. He slays dragons, swims mighty rivers, and rescues fair maidens in
distress. These are just a few of his accomplishments which are done before
breakfast. There's another kind of hero, however. He does all these things
and more. And I'd like to tell you about him, and others like him, who battle
monsters every day of their lives. We are going to call our hero Jim,
not because Superman wouldn't fit or because he couldn't be Captain Marvel,
but because all those names have already been taken. So Jim will have to do,
and Jim's monsters aren't the garden variety either. They are as ferocious as
the green ones. His mountains aren't the same that other kinds of heros
climb, but they are every bit as high. In fact, the daring feats that Jim
performs are an everyday occurrence for him. He performs them to get from
one day to the next, not by choice but as a matter of survival. Jim meets
every day with a climb up his mountain. The mountain is the act of getting
dressed out of bed in the morning. And you may think that's hardly an act of
bravery, but when you can barely lift your arms off the sheets, Jim has to
work extra hard to do these simple tasks because his muscles refuse to do the
work for him. He could just lay there. I'm sure the thought has occurred to
him from time to time, but he refuses to give in to it. And when he knows the
time will come when the choice will not be his to make, but then he is
determined to fight. Jim is ready to fight his first dragon of the day.
He starts with a bowl of cereal and a glass of milk. I'm sure the snap,
crackle and pop would worry most people, but getting it to his mouth with
hands that can hardly lift a spoon can be a challenge. Of course, with the
help of a straw, the milk is no match for a hero. For now, that is. Soon
it's time for our hero to face the elements. He can't remain behind closed
doors forever. There is the next monster to face, the big yellow beast known
as the school bus. It takes a lot of gumption to face this one, so Jim
summons all the courage he can muster and tackles this beast. This is a rough
one. To accomplish the task, Jim must use his pride, but only a little, for
he's a very proud hero. He must, however, ask for help. This is just another
of his many monsters, and he realizes that eventually he will need more and
more help, and he just wants to put it off for as long as possible. Next
our hero must face the big race, the race to keep up with all the kids at
school. There's the run to bathroom, the lunchroom, and the playground.
There's so much that has to be done, and he falls a little farther behind each
day, but he will always be in the running. A hero can't give up, can he?
Will it all ever get done? Then it will all have to be done again tomorrow.
But tomorrow is another day, isn't it, and heros always have an abundance of
hope. We follow our hero home in the evening to a needed and well-
deserved rest. A glass of milk and a warm hug greet him at the door, and he
settles down to watch television. At last he can relax and be a spectator in
the drama, or can he? He has an itch on the side of his face, but he will
have to figure out a way to scratch it. The feat is accomplished with the
straw from the milk glass. One can always adapt. Another battle won. For
most of us the act of walking across the floor or scratching our nose is taken
for granted. The simple tasks of the day are no more complicated than
breathing. But for kids with muscle disease the day is not a mere 24 hours,
at least 48, and each day gets longer as their limbs grow heavier. They don't
have a choice as to whether or not to become heros. The act of being simply
makes them what they are. There are more than one million American heros
affected by Duchenes muscular dystrophy and 39 other muscular diseases in the
Muscular Dystrophy Association's program. MDA offers them hope good help with
them. As we leave our hero, Jim has fallen asleep. If we could look into
his dreams, we would probably see him soaring high above the clouds, free of
his heavy braces and wheelchairs, and teaching the eagles how to glide on the
wind. After all, someone has to teach them, and who better than the one slays
dragons and swims mighty rivers every day of his life." And the post note
says that Jane Miller's 19-year-old son, James Allen Laney, died of Duchenes
muscular dystrophy in January of 1984, and Jane is currently living in
Berryville, Arkansas. And, again, this story is a story of so many people
that I know and come into contact with each day. And these are, as well,
people that these firefighters are helping. And I guess they realize the
importance of all their hard work and effort and monies raised. Again,
$20,000 is a whole lot of money and helps us out. And because of their
outstanding support, the Governor of Georgia has issued and proclaimed the
following: "Whereas firefighting is acknowledge to be one of our nation's
most hazardous professions, and whereas firefighters daily dedicate their
lives to protect the life and property of fellow citizens, and whereas the
firefighters work together on community projects to make the state of Georgia
a better place in which to live, and whereas these dedicated men and women
contribute hundreds of hours to those less fortunate by conducting annual
charity drives for such worldwide health programs as the Muscular Dystrophy
Association, and whereas it is appropriate and fitting that all citizens join
the Muscular Dystrophy Association in support of our firefighters, now
therefore be it resolved by the State of Georgia that it hereby recognizes
August 26th through September 2nd, 1996, as Georgia Firefighter Appreciation
Week and commends the state's firefighters for their effort on behalf of the
Muscular Dystrophy Association."
MS. BEACH: What I'm here for today is to let you know that without the
support of this community, and the firefighters as a whole, it would be very
difficult for the association to continue its ongoing services. What we're
asking today is for you to once again allow the firefighters to go out. We
think the big difference last year was that they were allowed to go out on
duty and they were allowed to go in uniform with their trucks. I think that
helps to give the firefighters the respect that they deserve from the people
on the streets, knowing that they are firefighters and knowing that they are
out collecting for a worthwhile cause.
We would like to hope that this year, once again, that the firefighters
will be making a substantial contribution on the Jerry Lewis Labor Day
Telethon. We'd also like to invite any of you that are here today to please
come out and join with us during the telethon. Hopefully, they will be making
their check presentation at around -- between 6:00 and 6:30 on Labor Day. So
we do invite all of you to come out, and we hope that we will once again be
able to have the support of Augusta-Richmond County. Thank you very much.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? If the Chair will accept a motion, Mr. Mayor, I'd
like to make a motion that the Board of Commissioners go on record of
authorizing the Fire Chief to do whatever he can legal to support Muscular
Dystrophy. I know there is some concern about Attorney General rulings, but
certainly -- as far as gratuity go, et cetera -- but certainly this is one
initiative that firefighters participate in nationwide.
I just happened to be in Macon, Georgia, last year and a gentleman --
the officers were standing there with their boots and collecting money, and I
had the opportunity to give where I wasn't in Augusta. I know that the Mayor
participates wholeheartedly every year. I see his contributions made public,
you know, when they read off the checks. And I do that in the form of a
motion, that we do whatever -- we authorize the Fire Chief to do whatever's
legal to support Muscular Dystrophy as far as the collection of funds.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Any discussion, gentlemen? All those in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Mr. Rob Bolich, Urban Planner, CSRA RDC.
MR. BOLICH: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Rob
Bolich; I'm a planner with the CSRA Regional Development Center here in
Augusta. The purpose of my visit today is to update y'all on the regional
planning process that the RDC has undertaken over the past 18 months and
provide you with summary information from our technical staff report.
As you know, in 1989 the Georgia state legislature passed the Georgia
Planning Act, which established a bottoms-up, three-tiered approach to
comprehensive planning for the future prosperity of Georgia. The legislation
called for comprehensive planning at all levels of government. By 1995 the
RDC had assisted all local governments in adopting comprehensive plans
intended to guide growth and decision-making over the next 20 years. The
plans considered five central elements: population, economic development,
community facilities and infrastructure, housing, and natural resources. Each
plan included an inventory and analysis of the present local situation, and
identification of local issues and goals, as well as specific strategies and
policies for planning and implementation. The second tier of the planning
legislation called for planning at the regional level. The CSRA Regional
Development Center, in collaboration with planning committees around our
region, began the initial steps of the regional planning in early 1995. The
regional plan follows the same format as the local plans: addressing the
established central planning elements, identifying needs and issues, and
establishing policies and strategies for implementation. Some of the
issues that were identified in the region are to promote economic development,
continue comprehensive planning, highway construction, increase the education
levels in the region, and increase housing opportunities. The initial
inventory and analysis of the regional characteristics began in March 1995,
followed by an identification of needs and issues facing the region. A
priority list of goals and objectives directed toward addressing the region's
needs was completed by the CSRA RDC Board of Directors in May 1996. The
technical staff report portion of the plan was completed and submitted to the
state for review in July of this year. The staff report was approved by DCA
on July 29th. Upon official adoption by CSRA cities and counties, the CSRA
regional plan will be fully effective and in force by September of this year.
The regional plan is based on local plans, input from planning committees
and staff from the RDC. It is a blueprint for the future of the region, a
guide for long-term development. It is a public statement of regional needs
and desires, a guide for public and private actions and decisions, and it
provides a regional system of information and data to local government and the
general public. The issues, goals, and directions generalize what the CSRA
region hopes to achieve over the next 20 years and sets forth general
guidelines that local agencies can follow to ensure that regional issues are
embraced in everyday local activities. The regional plan will serve to
foster cooperation and efficiency, both financial and organizational.
Investment in and commitment to this regional plan will help ensure the future
competitiveness, success, and prosperity of the CSRA region. Once the
regional plan is completed, the RDC is going to place it on the Home Page on
the World Wide Web. In addition, the plan will be available in the CD-ROM
format for those who wish to review it. That is all I have. Are there any
questions?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we receive this
information, pass it on not only to Planning and Zoning but the appropriate
committee within the Commission so that the implementation of this can stay on
course at this time. That's in the form of a motion.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 45. We will now discuss the water rates.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I had this item put on the agenda. I think it was
approximately six weeks ago or a little better that we requested that the
Internal Auditor, Kip Plowman, look into the water rate and sewer rate for
Richmond County and see whether we were implementing what we had discussed and
voted for. And at this time I'd like to hear from the Internal Auditor as far
as his findings and recommendations.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman?
MR. PLOWMAN: All right, thank you. Excuse me for being casual. I was
on vacation and anticipated you might want to hear from me. I've presented
two reports. I did the initial report to you, I guess it's probably been
four/six weeks ago. You asked me to go back and look at trying to levelize
the billing. So we, in conjunction with the computer department and the
utilities department, went through and looked at -- we've got four scenarios
we've run to give you some options of considering, and the prices of what
those reductions in revenue would be.
The last scenario we ran was looking at the utilization of the sewer
rates using December, January and February usage, which puts it basically --
that's what people are using for the sewer. It factors out filling up
swimming pools, watering the yard -- the peak season usage. Other cities are
using those months, three/four months, and what essentially that does is kind
of put a self-imposed cap on the different people's usage. We also ran it
with 15, 18 and 21,000 gallons that, you know, would cap the sewer rates.
The actual usage in December, January, and February would be based on the
previous year's actual usage of that particular house. The cost in terms of
reduced sales by doing the levelized December, January, and February billings
would be about $360,000, is what I think we had -- $319,000. A $15,000 cap on
the sewer would be a reduction of 177,000; 18,000 would be $140,000; and
21,000 would be 121,000. I also presented information that showed how many
users this would affect. We tried to get '93 and '94 data to compare to,
which was a really dry year and a really wet year, so these were averages and
I think relatively effective. You know, you can't ever predict the weather.
All the complaints that we heard really didn't relate to usage. I mean,
usage was up this year compared to last year and the year before because it
had rained a lot up until the last few weeks. It was relatively dry this
year, so we got a lot of complaints that the bills were up higher, however,
usage was up a lot higher. But there were some issues that the sewer was
higher. And another issue was people with larger meters, say over one inch,
were -- they were paying for the water usage, but they were actually also
paying a premium for having larger pipes. If you took that premium off of
those larger pipes, that would be about $94,000, and it effects a smaller
group of people, less than 1,000 users in the primarily old urban districts.
You know, I could go on, or you might want to just ask some questions.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Plowman, which of the options benefit most of the
citizens?
MR. PLOWMAN: The December, January, and February levelized billing
would affect everybody. It would probably reduce just about everybody's sewer
rates. People that don't water their yard at all are probably using this same
amount, so they wouldn't be affected one way or the other. Everybody else
would tend to go down. So the broadest impact would be levelizing the billing
from December, January, and February -- basically just capping at whatever the
actual person's usage was for that previous year.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Does that give us the revenue stream to support the
needs of the --
MR. PLOWMAN: Okay. One thing we looked at was the combined revenue of
the old city and the old county last year was about $31 million. The
projected revenue -- I mean, again this is an estimate on this year's using
the current rates -- was about $31,380,000. So there was, you know, just a
slight increase over the actual combined revenues from the year before. So it
would be a reduction -- this 319,000 is a reduction from the budgeted numbers,
but would not be really a reduction from actual -- from the year before. So
it is a reduction in a sense, but not from actual --
MR. ZETTERBERG: And my understanding is that none of the caps that deal
with 15, 18, and 21,000, that does not change -- the impact does not change
the size of the meter.
MR. PLOWMAN: No, that would -- none of these four scenarios include
that. You would have to take another $94,000 into account. And I have a
sheet here -- I don't know if everybody's got it. Down at the bottom it shows
the total reduction, which includes the $94,000 in there. The $271,000;
234,000 for an 18,000 gallon cap; 21,000 gallon cap would be $215,000. And
levelized billing, plus the reduced premium, would be $413,000, which would
be, you know, a reduction over actual last year's revenues as well when you
take both of those components.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Plowman, I think you've done a very good job of
explaining it, but what can I say to Ms. Miller out on Wheeless Road tomorrow
when she calls and says that her sewage bill is $32 and her water bill is $18?
Out of this, which one could I best give her an answer? She wants that
lowered, as do probably many of them out there. And, you know, she's probably
not going to know all the terms, the many gallons and all that sort of thing,
but I need to give her an answer some kind of a way, you know, as to which one
would probably benefit her the most. Of course, my wife too, now, she wants
to know, but I'm talking about Ms. Miller now, the other Ms. Miller.
MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. She would probably benefit the most -- you know, I
couldn't generalize. It depends on how much water she's using. Right now the
way the current rates -- we're not talking about changing the rates, we're
just putting a cap on the actual usage. Right now if somebody uses one gallon
of water, they can't differentiate where that gallon goes, either to the sink
or to the toilet; you know, was it sewer, was it water in the yard, what was
it being used for. So it's just prorated. So if somebody uses a lot of water
to water their yard, fill a swimming pool up, they're also paying more for
sewage, you know, and we all know they're not using more sewer usage.
Now, the sewer rates are going to be higher than water rates in general
because it costs more money to process, so inherently that needs -- that, you
know, makes sense for it to be higher. And in some areas of the old county it
was reversed, so people saw their sewer bills go way up and their water bills
drop. And, you know, that's been reversed so, you know, they're seeing kind
of a double hit on their sewer bill. And part of it's just perception. And
then also the usage is up; they're using more water than they did last year.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Plowman, I didn't have a copy of your report. I just
got one. But if I'm looking at it correctly, the projected revenue is at $31
million for this year, and the second sheet shows total expenses of about $27
million?
MR. PLOWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. So from the standpoint of having an impact on the
utility operations, if we put a cap on the sewer and if we gave a break to the
people with meters higher than one inch, it should not have any negative
impact at all on the operation of the utility department; am I correct?
MR. PLOWMAN: On the utility department, that is correct. The excess
money is transferred over to other divisions in the county.
MR. KUHLKE: In other words, does it go into the General Fund, the
excess money?
MR. PLOWMAN: It goes into the General Fund, which is where it's
disbursed into some other funds as well. Mr. McKie's here.
MR. KUHLKE: What impact would it have on other things if we cap the
sewer rate and if we did not penalize the people with meters higher than one
inch?
MR. McKIE: [Inaudible]
MR. KUHLKE: Have you already got that earmarked for anything based on
your budget?
MR. McKIE: [Inaudible]
CLERK: Butch, could you come to the microphone, please?
MR. KUHLKE: Butch, the reason I'm asking these questions, what Mr.
Plowman is explaining to us doesn't mean a thing unless we take some action.
And so I want to know if we take some action on both issues, is it going to --
how is it going to impact your area?
MR. McKIE: It will flow through to other funds, into the General Fund
and through General Fund into downtown development for debt service payments.
300,000 out of the 31 million or so is, you know, 10 percent. We did not
have that much contingency in the Waterworks, but --
MR. KUHLKE: Why not? $300,000 is --
MR. McKIE: You know, it's hard to say that we're not going to be
impacted by it, or that we will, because water sales are up. If we sold
exactly the amount of water that was planned, and you reduce the rates, then
we would have a shortfall by 300,000. But as Kip pointed out, sales are up,
and so it's really difficult to say. But it will flow through.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Hicks and see which
one of these scenarios that he could feel comfortable with as far as revenue
generation and expansion of the system and repair of the system. I personally
think that taking the months and averaging those is the fair way to do it, but
I don't want us to get out there in a situation where we don't have the
reserves and the funds to repair a break in the line or to expand it -- expand
that line. So I'd like to hear from him and see what his recommendation might
be.
MR. HICKS: In regards to those items of the budget that we have direct
control over, we would be in good shape. That 27,386,000 actually -- it has
in there a $2,720,000 item for a capital improvements program to be funded by
a bond issue. I know that you gentlemen are considering a bond issue at this
time, so right now that two million dollars wouldn't even be in there,
although those funds are -- they are coming from other sources.
But insofar as we're concerned, that is, the operation and maintenance
of the water and sewer system, we would be in good shape. On the urban side
there would be -- or there are transfers into the General Fund. Butch would be
able to address that better insofar as how that $300,000 would impact that
transfer. On the suburban side the transfers into the General Fund were much
smaller, so therefore there would be not near the impact on the suburban side
so far as this reduction is concerned. Personally, out of a $31 million
budget, if I felt like I could estimate within one percent I would feel like
we was doing real good. That's why I would echo what Butch had said. It's
hard to tell. It would not impact us that greatly at all. What it would
impact would be those funds that could be transferred to the General Fund. We
would have plenty of money to operate the water and sewer system, so other
areas --
MR. BRIDGES: And primarily that's going to affect the urban side, then,
the transfer of funds?
MR. HICKS: More funds are transferred on the urban side than on the
suburban side. Now, you'd have to look into the total income. Now, this one
percent is of the total income. We haven't gone so far as to try to look at
how it would impact each one, that is, urban and suburban. At least I haven't.
But we would be all right even if you went to the levelized billing and also
gave the same base all the way through. I feel like we would still have
sufficient funds to operate with. But then I don't know if 31,380,000 were
used, you know, for the potential budget for this year or if just $31,050,000
were used. I don't know that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm not sure who my question's to. My concern is if we
eliminate this money that we have for renewal and expansion of the system, if
we eliminate it and we're going to fund it out of a bonded issue, what about
next year? What about the year after that? We're not going to pass a bonded
issue every year to fund this additional money.
And I am concerned that the system, the whole system county-wide, both
urban and suburban, is in major need of expansion and renewal, and I don't
want to reduce the flow so that we end up with a second-class water system in
Richmond County due to lack of maintenance. Now, I want that addressed and I
want to know how that's going to affect it.
MR. HICKS: Okay. Again, let me state this, insofar as -- if that were
the only issue to be considered, and that is the renewal and extension of the
water and sewer lines, there would be no problem. There's plenty of funds
generated for that. It's the transfers into other funds that really causes
the problem. But insofar as keeping our system updated, Mr. Brigham, we could
certainly do that, but it would then impact other areas of the budget. It
would. But we can maintain a first-class system, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman wanted to say something. Mr. Plowman?
MR. PLOWMAN: I was just going to address that real quick. In the $27
million that we've got recorded as expenses, that includes $5.5 million in
renewal and extension. The issue you need to be concerned about is that's a
soft number. That is projected out for the next ten years. Every year you
spend $5.5 million. You could either reduce that down and still transfer over
the same amount of money, which gets into the problem you're concerned about,
or you could reduce the transfers over to the General Fund and change
something over there. So that's a valid point, and it could be handled in one
of two ways.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that in discussing the transfers that
we've, you know, somewhat agreed through the budget hearing that we would
limit transfers to three to five years. And we somewhat let the Comptroller
give us a number that he was comfortable with, to my recollection, as far as
budget hearings go, but I'd like to have a clarification on the suburban
transfers, because it was my understanding that that was just the
administrative costs and it's not a transfer that's going to pay other bills
other than what it costs to administrate or do the personnel and payroll, et
cetera, for that enterprise fund. I certainly don't want to, cold turkey, cut
the downtown development money or money that the urban side was using, and
that's why we had some discussion on a three to five year weaning off from the
Waterworks, you know. And If I'm going to support a revenue bond, that is
going to have to become a reality.
The other option that we have as far as capital outlay long range or
comprehensive, and we had the opportunity this time, but we set our priorities
different, and that is the one-penny sales tax. That can be used to do
improvements to your sewage treatment and do infrastructure improvements. And
we'll have opportunity to put that before the voters Year 2000. And I'm not
talking about the Phase III but future. So there is provisions to take
care of the capital improvement. I think that we need to look at the flat
rate using the three months and try to implement that. That was Mr. Bridges
idea, not mine, but certainly I can buy into it when I look at all the
options. I think it's the one that's going to have the greatest positive
impact on the users in this system. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank all the folk that are working with
this, and most recently Mr. Plowman. But I guess I'll bring it up since I
was, I guess, one of the two people that kind of wore the black hat at the
beginning of the year when we were talking about this and maybe was the
stepchild that went the other way on what the bill dictated us to do because I
did see some of these things coming. And probably one of the drawbacks that I
had was the time frame in terms of which we were doing this on very hurry-up
type of basis when you're extracting that much money out of the total system.
And I realize what the bill said, but I think the bottom line is still there.
What I'd like to ask of these gentlemen, or any of my colleagues, not so
much where we separate water and sewage, because they're on the same bill, and
it's not a choice as to whether you pay one of them and, you know, you can
delete the other one, you're going to pay both of them. But for those
probably who realize that the political messiah didn't come in January, there
are a lot of people that probably are looking at those bills, and particularly
-- and some in the suburban area, and I know I've been called to question on
that, but definitely a lot in the urban area and particularly those who are on
fixed incomes, maybe your oldest area of population, and for those who maybe
have not gone up on their usage, who do not water their lawns, in some cases
who do not have a lawn, who basically are using what they've been using maybe
for the last 10 or 12 years but basically have seen both go up. Is there any
answer to them other than the fact that your Commissioner didn't vote for it
that you can give them? Or will there be any changes or are there any options
that can deal with anything different for those folks?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman, do you want to answer that?
MR. MAYS: And I'll take the answer from whatever source it cometh from.
MR. PLOWMAN: I'll take a stab at it. The fixed income people that use
a minimal amount of water year round would probably not be affected, i.e., a
reduction of their usage by doing any one of these things, because this is
really targeting the people that use a lot of water, especially seasonal. So
none of these examples would probably impact them whatsoever. The other thing
is, unless they've got larger pipes in there -- which the people with the --
getting charged the premium for water or sewage that have one inch pipes and
larger, are paying a substantial amount of extra money regardless of what they
use. Those people, it's less than 1,000, and they are all primarily in the
urban district. But I couldn't tell you if it was -- of those 800 or 1,000
people, if it was any of the ones you were talking about.
MR. MAYS: Well, not being sarcastic, Kip, but they didn't get larger
pipes, they just got larger bills, you know, and the usage basically has not
changed. And that was one of my main concerns when we did it. I know the
bill said a lot of things, and some of the things that the bill said we're
still wrestling with and we have not done yet. We may -- now, we're trying to
do those things, and we'll probably complete those things before that
anniversary date rolls around, but this is one of the things that we jumped on
very, very quickly, and it was one of my fears that in terms of trying to push
all these numbers together at the same time and then make them work equitably
for everybody.
And I guess I've just been repeating that same statement, that I didn't
think consolidation was supposed to hurt, and in some areas it has hurt. And
if that's my answer -- and I appreciate you giving it to me, and I know you're
doing the best you can from where you've come in on this vantage point. And
our people in Waterworks, they have, too, because this is what we asked them
to do in terms of making these things equal. But, you know, in the process of
making something equal -- you know, my old math teachers around at Immaculate
Conception, you know, they -- those Franciscan Sisters were pretty tough, but
when they made something equal it was the same thing in the right hand that it
was in the left, and it didn't become unequal and it wasn't painful in terms
of, you know, dealing with the left and the right. And I do think that
as I've been criticized for whining about the small amount that some of these
folk are paying, in some of those cases that small amount gets to be a large
percentage of what's there. And if that's not changed in any way, if there's
nothing in these new equations that's going to help them, then what's being
presented to me basically is, to a certain extent, falling upon deaf ears
because my feelings haven't changed either unless there is some equation to
change something in that vantage point, with all due respect to everything
that you all have done.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I don't think there's anyone
sitting up here on this board that doesn't want to reduce the sewer bills.
I'm going to have to echo what my colleague from the 7th District told you.
We have a reality factor that we've got to plug into this thing, and that is
the fact that we have inherited a dilapidated water system from the City of
Augusta, a system that has not been maintained. And I want to cut the sewer
bills just like everyone else, but we need to be very, very careful before we
go to cutting rates at this time. And let's give it a careful study as far as
Mr. McKie's concerned, make sure we don't have a revenue shortfall, because I
don't want to end up in the same situation that the folks across the river
did.
MR. MAYS: We need to do the same thing with water then.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Gentlemen, while ago you heard we had five million
dollars a year plugged into maintenance and extension. I want to remind
y'all, and all of us are aware of this, we have a 42-inch water main right now
that we're looking at five million dollars for it. That is one year of this
maintenance and extension. That does not include any additional. And I know
my colleagues realize that we have breaks month in and month out that cost
several hundred thousand dollars.
And I am concerned about this very much. I agree with Mr. Powell, it's
very easy to vote for a rate reduction, but the reality of this thing is we
have a system that has not been maintained and we've got to look at this in a
long-range view as to what is best. Where is the most economical water coming
from? Is it coming from a system that is going to be maintained and upgraded
and supply all citizens water, or are we going to do the short-term thing and
reduce rates and save our political hide? Now, we have for years paid
more for sewerage than we have for water. Now, do we want to have the water-
only customers to supplement sewerage? That's fine. But it still doesn't
supplement anything. It doesn't take away from the fact that we've got to
deal with this problem. It's not going to go away, and the problem is that we
have a system that needs to be maintained and expanded. Our greatest economic
source of this county is usable, good drinking water that's available to all,
and if we don't deliver that to our customers, it's not going to get there,
and we've got to do it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, I hear what you're saying, but I think we're
talking about 300 and something thousand dollars right here. I wanted to ask
Mr. McKie this question: If we stabilize sewer rates, if we took care of the
people that have meters over one inch, if we did that, how would that relate
to water rates in previous years?
MR. McKIE: The people with -- residential people with meters over one
inch are being billed in error now. They should not be billed at those
premium rates.
MR. KUHLKE: I'm talking about in general now, okay?
MR. McKIE: Right. So in general, those few people, their rates would
drop down, but they would be consistent with what they're supposed to be. So
they'd be the same as previous years, given the changes. If we go back and do
the cap, then the cap is just what the city had in place in previous years --
the sewer cap.
MR. KUHLKE: So it would be basically no change?
MR. McKIE: No change. And that would keep your rate structure intact,
as you had voted on before, but it would keep the -- this billing structure or
whatever you want to call it, keep those things consistent with what they were
in the prior years as well. And those -- I mean, I could recommend those, and
I think in all fairness both to the Commission and to the water customers,
keeping those things consistent with what they were and changing the rates as
you have done, I think, is both fair and economical and I don't know that it's
going to hurt us all that much.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion, and I don't know
really which scenario we go on, but Mr. Bridges might have the right idea,
that we apply a cap on the sewer rates and that we eliminate the additional
charge on meters, residentially, above one inch, and that that be --take
effect at the appropriate time from a billing standpoint, but maybe beginning
with our next billing cycle.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion if it's to use the
winter months, Mr. Bridges' concept.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question to that, Bill. Which cap are you
looking at? Are you looking at the cap of the winter months or which of the
caps?
MR. KUHLKE: I was looking at the 15,000 gallon cap.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question, Mr. Mayor, on that proposal.
In a point of clarification, is that 15,000 cap not dependent upon the size
of the meter?
MR. PLOWMAN: That's right. They're not -- the meter is an additional
charge.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It doesn't matter whether you have a 15,000 cap?
MR. PLOWMAN: The caps are looking at just the actual usage. The meter
is a separate issue, and that's $94,000. You have to combine the two issues,
two prices, two amounts. The $94,000, plus whichever cap you put in. Is that
clear? The premium --
MR. ZETTERBERG: If it's clear to everybody else, I'll ask the question
later, but I'm not too sure it's clear to everybody else.
MR. PLOWMAN: Okay. We're dealing with two things: one, putting a cap
on there for the sewer usage based on the amount of water that's actually
going through the meters; another issue is the size of the meter irregardless
of the actual usage going through it. The cap premium for those one inch and
larger pipes affects 800 to 1,000 people, and that's $94,000 all by itself
irregardless of how much water is used.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So then the savings or the reduction in revenue then is
about $210,000?
MR. PLOWMAN: It's the 94 plus whichever amount of the cap you use: the
15, the 18, 21, or winter.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Right, or actually 177 plus 94.
MR. PLOWMAN: That's exactly right.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So that's about a $260,000 deduction --
MR. PLOWMAN: That's right. And it's summarized down at the very bottom
of that sheet, total reduction.
MR. ZETTERBERG: 260,000 versus the levelized billing, with no -- and
not regarding the size of the meter is $325,000.
MR. PLOWMAN: That's right.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make -- I was talking with Mr.
Hicks. I'd like to clarify that I'm saying one inch and larger, not larger
than one inch but one inch and larger.
MR. PLOWMAN: That's right. That's what this is affecting, one inch and
larger. Residential only.
MR. BEARD: I just want to get this understanding again. You're still
saying, though, individually it would only affect people in the suburban area
and not in the urban area, or do I understand this correctly?
MR. PLOWMAN: The premium on the cap size -- on the size of the meters
is probably 90 percent in the city, the urban district. The capping of the
water usage for the sewer affects system-wide.
MR. BEARD: And this would have a reduction on the urban?
MR. PLOWMAN: Yes.
MR. BRIDGES: Bill, I'd like some clarification on your motion. You're
saying that you want to cap the residential cap at 15, and that's for 5/8 by
3/4 meters, as well as making all the larger meters that same rate? Is it
doing both of those things?
MR. KUHLKE: From one inch and larger. One inch meter and larger.
MR. BRIDGES: That's all you're affecting then is just larger than the
residential?
MR. KUHLKE: That's right.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Can we call the question?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Not yet. Hold on just a second. Mr. Todd, did you --
do you want to let Mr. Powell go first while y'all are discussing that?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. And Mr. Hicks is tied up
in a side meeting there, but I'd like to know the number of 5/8 meters and --
by 3/4, and I'd like to know the number of one inch meters and larger, and
just see how many people that -- I mean, we're setting a rate here for one
group of folks. I think if we're going to set a rate -- the rate [sic] said
we should equalize it, so let's consider that.
I have two questions. One is for Mr. Hicks, which is on the meters.
The second one for Mr. Hicks is: Is this going to create you a revenue
shortfall so that you can't operate the system? I want a clarification on
that. And then I have one question for Mr. McKie: Is this going to create a
revenue shortfall in any other area? And I want a yes -- simple yes or no
answer for the record.
MR. HICKS: Are we talking about the 5/8 by 3/4 inch?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, just the numbers of people that's going to be
affected there.
MR. HICKS: Okay. The 5/8 by 3/4 meters, you've got a total in both
systems of around 37,400. That's the 5/8 by 3/4 meters. And then -- and
that's by far and away the most of our meters. And then in terms of would we
have enough revenue to operate our system, yes.
MR. POWELL: How many one inch meters do you have, or larger?
MR. HICKS: How many one inch?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HICKS: In the two systems combined we've got about 360. And in
terms of the inch and a quarters, we've got about 52; inch and a halfers,
about 88; three inchers -- residential now, these are residential -- three
inch, one, and that's it.
MR. PLOWMAN: That would be water and sewer, and then there's some with
just water also; right?
MR. HICKS: Right.
MR. PLOWMAN: Which is a couple hundred more.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And just a point of information, the one that has a
three inch meter is because they can't get enough water pressure, it's not his
fault, and he really took a big whack on water. His water bill almost, what,
more than doubled?
MR. HICKS: It did, it more than doubled. But we would have enough
revenue, gentlemen, to operate the system because, like I say, the total
number of meters that are being affected is small in comparison to our total
meters out there. It really is. And the income reduction that we're talking
about, while $300,000 is a lot of money, it truly is only one percent of the
31 million. And I don't know how closely the budget is set up, only Mr. McKie
can answer that, but I would have no fear from water and sewerage from that
standpoint, Commissioner Powell, that we could operate. We sure can.
MR. McKIE: I'm not going to give you a long spiel, I'm going to say no.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I'd like to point out that the
situation that's in our neighboring city across the river was caused by a
gentleman stealing most of five million dollars, and he went to jail for it.
And I don't think any of us is going to do that, so we should be sound as far
as the sewage plant go and the operations.
The other point that I'd like to make, that I believe there's about $15
million new money in this revenue bond. Certainly I would hope that those
funds are planned for expansion and maintenance and contingency funds, so I
certainly don't see a problem. And the plan that I like -- even though I
seconded the motion for a plan that says 15,000 cap, the plan that I like is
the winter months. I think that we're going to find the difference in the
winter months average and the 15,000 cap of about $11 per individual household
in this county. And I don't want to rehash this or have to come back and
relook at it and fine tune it again. I think this is the time to fine tune
it. We're only talking about the difference overall in revenue coming in for
a little roughly over $100,000, and I think this is the time to take care of
it, finish it for once and for all.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? I agree that we ought to try and finish it, but
if that's what we're going to do today, then I want to get clarification at
least on a couple of small items. One, am I hearing correctly, Butch -- and
you may have already stated it, but I just want to be clear on it. One, we're
surviving as we are with what we did according to the bill in reference to the
water side and those reductions that we've taken. We're still alive, okay?
And, you know, I didn't hear the Red Sea part and the earth tremble when that
-- we sat here and done that day.
Okay. Now, the motion that's on the floor deals with a smaller
percentage and those larger water users that are there. Am I hearing from
Water and Finance that you can deal with those smaller users as well and still
survive since that's probably far less a percentage than what we dealt with at
the first of the year on the water side of it?
MR. McKIE: That's correct. We can deal with these numbers as proposed
by Mr. Kuhlke. We can survive. We've already made some other things to change
things around.
MR. MAYS: I'm hearing Mr. Kuhlke's motion, but what Bill is saying
deals with the difference in those sizes there, which is limited down to the
one inch category and not to those, I believe, that are in -- those that would
-- on smaller users that are there. But the smaller users still are being
affected percentage-wise, not dollar-wise but percentage-wise, from an income
side of it, which still maps out the same. If you're making $100,000 a year
and you're taking in $15,000 a year -- if your overall water bill is going up
by X number of dollars, and if that percentage is higher, then it's just still
higher.
And if I'm hearing correctly that we can survive through that, then --
you know, with me it's not a political issue, it's an issue of fairness. You
know, I've won elections and I've lost them, you know, and I'll do the same in
the future or won't be here. But what I'm trying to do, if we're going to
make it equal and if this is going to be the last day of doing this, I don't
want to be caught two or three months after we make this decision coming back
and saying that we were sitting here not knowing what we were doing. And I
heard that after the first of the year. Now, if that's the case, then I think
we ought to include what you say will be a safe zone in taking in those
smaller users. And I'd like to see the maker of that motion make an amendment
to include those, or either I'll make it in a substitute motion and it can
live or die by whatever vote we take.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion to include in that
down to 5/8 and 3/4 meters.
MR. McKIE: Yeah, the cap affects everybody and whatever size.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, I had said one inch and above.
MR. MAYS: That's what I was trying to get the clarification on.
MR. KUHLKE: What I am saying is to reduce it down to 5/8 and 3/4 meters
and above.
MR. MAYS: Well, the riverboat gambler can't get everything he wants,
but I'll accept that. It sounds better than anything else I've heard today.
It certainly sounds better than what I heard the first of the year when I
voted against it.
MR. McKIE: When you're drawing to an inside straight, you've got to
feel good.
MR. MAYS: Like Kenny said, you got to know when to fold them, so that's
the best I can get.
MR. BRIDGES: Bill, I understand your motion was at 15,000 gallons?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we
institute the levelized residential billing based on the previous year's
December, January, February months, and that that include all the residential
taps 5/8 and above.
MR. POWELL: I second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by
Mr. Powell. Discussion on that, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Again, as the redheaded stepchild that voted
against it wearing the black hat, what I'd like to get now -- and, you know,
I'm going to always try and get the best out of any motion I can. Max, out of
the two motions that's on the floor, which gives us the greatest latitude of
protection for everybody. And I think you know where I'm coming from and what
I'm trying to do in there. The way we can affect the most folk in there that
have been impacted by these particular bills that are going up, of these
particular motions that's on the floor right now.
MR. HICKS: The levelized billing and the reduction in the residential
base rate. It would affect everybody. It has the greatest income reduction,
but it does affect everybody regardless of their use.
MR. KUHLKE: I withdraw my motion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Plowman wanted to say something. Go ahead.
MR. PLOWMAN: Well, I was just going to say that the original 15,000
would affect about 19,000 users. The other one would affect system-wide pretty
much, which is 50/60 thousand.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question if there's no further
unreadiness.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do y'all need the motion reread, gentlemen, or
y'all are familiar with the motion? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 1 is to consider acceptance of the 1995 Urban and Suburban
Financial Statements from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland and Serotta, Maddocks &
Evans. Received as information, Finance Committee, July 8th and July 22nd,
1996.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we make this in the form of a motion.
MR. BRIDGES: Second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
[MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. POWELL, AND MR. TODD OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
CLERK: Items 2 through 5 were all approved by the Finance Committee on
July 22nd, 1996.
[Item 2: Consider approval of $25,000 Grant to Georgia Golf Hall of
Fame for Operating Assistance. Item 3: Consider approval of a request
for early retirement for Robert J. Etterlee. Item 4: Consider approval
of Engagement Agreement from Qualified Plan Administrators, Inc., regarding
Richmond County, Georgia, 1945 and 1977 Defined Benefit Plans Administration.
Item 5: Consider approval of abating the taxes on 203.59 acres (Map and
Parcel No. 178-0-008-00-0) of land in the 86th D.G.M (South Augusta Recreation
Complex) which the Commission-Council purchased from Oliver Owens, Paul V.
Davis and Robert L. Meybohm on Tuesday, July 16, 1996.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends these items
for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
[MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. POWELL OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 6: Consider approval of Amendment 73 Allocations.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee, contrary to a lot of
people's speculation, did not make any recommendations on these, and we would
turn it over to our fellow colleagues to make these recommendations.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve it, and
this year and after this year anyone that's been on -- received more than five
years be deleted from the list. That's in the form of a motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry
Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But, now, approve what, Mr. Todd? We ain't got a list
yet. I'll go along with eliminating them after five years.
MR. TODD: Well, approve the recommendations from the Finance Committee
staff. And I do -- as I read through here I do see that they recommend some
of them be approved and some of is not qualified, so I'm -- the motion is to
approve what we have in the Amendment 73 booklet as recommended by the -- not
the Finance Committee but the Finance staff.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. Is in that motion
the five-year stipulation?
MR. TODD: Yes, it is, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: I'll make a substitute motion that we approve the list as it
is, and that we do it on a as-is basis year by year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays. Do I hear a second to Mr.
Mays' motion?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I'll second it. I've got some questions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion now,
gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: I'm concerned about the one that was left off the list, Mr.
Mayor, that we've been given concerning the approval for 1995 versus the
approval for --the request for 1996 and the one that we did not approve of.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Are you directing that to Mr. McKie or who?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Right. The reason why they were dropped off and
what's the logic behind it.
MR. McKIE: Well, basically, Mr. Handy, we got the code section, read
it, evaluated the proposals from all of those who requested funds, and made a
determination as best we could as what qualified and what did not. By not
recommending someone for Amendment 73 does not recommend that you not support
them at all; it simply means that we do not support them in Amendment 73,
which is for promotion, tourism, economic development. We commented on each
one of those individually as to whether we thought they were or not. There are
some very fine organizations that we have supported for years that do not
qualify per the letter of the law but we can deal with under another section,
as we have for other organizations this year. And that's on the urban side,
Department 112, and you've set aside funds for just such a thing. So we're
simply trying to, say, clean up Amendment 73 and make it follow the letter of
what it's supposed to do.
MR. HANDY: Right, but -- so you're saying that although we may have
been contributing to these organizations in the past, that it was wrong, and
now we're cleaning it up?
MR. McKIE: Well, I think we've probably managed to find a legal way to
do it, but we have two different mechanisms to do it now. And I'm simply
recommending that Amendment 73 follow exactly what the code says and that we
support these other organizations through the arts on the urban side. We
never had those mechanisms before, Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: Okay. That's because we consolidated, that's what you're
saying?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: Well, then would you let the organizations know that has
been cut that they're still eligible through another fund? Because I think
there are some here now that did not get an answer, and they're thinking that
they've just been cut loose and we're not going to help them.
MR. McKIE: Well, it is our intention to discuss this today exactly at
the meeting and recommend that those be considered for the other mechanism,
but not simply Amendment 73.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, I mean, my question is would the people that
were dropped off the list, would they be notified that they still may be
eligible through another funding source, not Amendment 73?
MR. McKIE: Oh, yes, sir.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: When?
MR. McKIE: When we bring that proposal back to the Commission.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you through, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, I'm through. I'm through.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We've got Mr. Todd, then Mr. Kuhlke, Mr.
Zetterberg, then we'll go back to -- Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that most folks that's
followed Amendment 73 know that I question whether we have the authority to
give the monies to most of the entities that we're giving it to. We've given
it over the years by virtue of someone making a request and not giving certain
financial statements, non-profit status, et cetera. I'm indeed glad to see
that we're cleaning it up. In my opinion, we give away through one method or
another approximately a quarter of a million dollars versus the $75,000 per
Amendment 73. Whether we're doing it through recreation grants or whatever,
you know, we're doing it, or funding a special event or activity.
I can live with that, but I'm not sure -- you know, we seem to want to
be a city now and we're being told that we're no longer a county government.
Well, Amendment 73 provides that a county government can do this, not the
city. The city is that other fund that Mr. McKie is talking about. So I
think we've got to decide, you know, what we are. And I won't debate that
fully, but I just wanted to throw that out. The other issue is whether we
should give money to help an entity get started, as a incubator, or whether we
should have an entity dependant upon us for the next 100 years. It's my
belief that we should only give entities money to get them started, and not to
have an entity dependant upon taxpayers for 100 years. We just went through
this debate over reducing sewage rates, and we're talking about just a little
more than the quarter of a million dollars we give away. Probably in the
difference in the 15,000 and the flat rate, we're talking about less than the
75,000 that we're going to give away today. Certainly I believe in
helping nonprofits. I volunteer for Safe Kids bagging groceries at Kroger, I
give money through payroll deduction, and I help in other ways. I think
that's the way that we probably should help, that no entity should be relying
on county government year after year, and that's been ever since I've been
here, for funding. That's why I made the motion and that's why I would urge
my colleagues to support the five-year cutoff after this year. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I read through the recommendation of the
Controller's staff. I'm not totally familiar with other sources of funding to
charitable organizations. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we
postpone any action on Amendment 73 until our next meeting, and prior to that,
if Mr. McKie could inform the Commissioners of what other sources are
available out to charitable organizations that may be available and whether or
not he has any recommendations in regards to those funds, the organizations
that were eliminated from the Amendment 73 proposal.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that.
MR. McKIE: That'll be on -- that's planned to be on Finance's agenda
tomorrow, Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. KUHLKE: Tomorrow?
MR. McKIE: I'm sorry, next week.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, that's the second substitute motion. Can we
have two substitute motions?
MR. WALL: Well, this is not technically a substitute motion since it
doesn't deal with the merits of it. It's a motion to postpone till the next
meeting, so it is in order.
MR. MAYS: And if it's confusing, I'll withdraw. I'll withdraw, Mr.
Mayor, on mine and it can either -- be taken either way, a substitute or as a
separate postponement.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Okay, we have a motion by Mr.
Kuhlke to table till the next --
MR. KUHLKE: Postpone.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, excuse me, postpone. And seconded by Mr.
Bridges. Discussion on that, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any discussion, and I'll withdraw the
original motion to let this motion be the only one on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I'll withdraw the original second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make one point. I'm very uncomfortable
finding myself in the month of -- on the eighth month of the year discussing
what we're going to spend during a current budget. I'd like to see the staff
directed to go out and find out a way that we can bring these as budget items
before the budget year, and that we can make the allocation and develop a
process for making the allocation, and make sure that all the agencies that
have been dependant on us before, that they know when to come in. Because I
don't want to vote on anymore things during the budget year when we've already
spent considerable time laying things out unless it's an absolute necessity.
I guess I'm just asking for staff input to work on a program to find a better
way to budget and allocate resources in the non-budget year.
MR. McKIE: We could do that, Mr. Zetterberg. The reason we do it in
the middle of the year, besides the sake of consistency, is that for financial
years we require many of them in on June 30th rather than calendar years, and
we require an audit and prior year numbers from them before we disburse. So
that's why we've waited till the middle of the year. In terms of budget, we
do budget the full amount each year in our financial budgets, we just simply
don't specify who it goes to. But we can disburse it any time of the year,
and we can budget individually.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think in the long run we would be well served
if we knew how much money we were going to allocate, and that possibly we even
had a citizen's committee that reviewed those and made recommendations to this
board in an unbiased fashion, and then we could vote on it. It would get us
more citizen participation and would put it in an orderly manner, and we
wouldn't have these kind of things happening during the budget -- during the
execution year.
MR. McKIE: That's one of the things we've recommended for a number of
years is that we have an umbrella that looks at the entire community. Many of
these organizations are funded from other sources besides the county, and this
year we've written to many of them and asked for those funding sources, which
is information that we'll have for you next time. But I fully agree with you,
a community umbrella that looks at a fixed amount and allocates, such as the
Arts Council does, would relieve all of us here of a great deal of gnashing of
teeth and we'd certainly have more input from the community.
MR. BEARD: I have no problem with the cleaning up of Amendment 73. I
would just like to add -- and I have no problem with the motion that has been
made, but I would just like to add to the staff that I think they should make
sure that what they are bringing back to us at the next Finance Committee
meeting should indicate and be indicative of those things that Amendment 73
called for, and that make sure that we are in compliance there with all of the
organizations that we are going to make this contribution to. And I would just
like to add to that that I am -- for a long time I've thought that we need
someone to kind of examine this, whether it's a citizen's committee or a
subcommittee, but to make sure we are being fair to all of our organizations
and all the people who are requesting funds, and just not to those who we feel
that we have a need to do this for other reasons.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, assuming no one else wants to speak on this --
Mr. Todd, I yield to you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like for the County Attorney to bring
back to us whether we are a boy or a girl; you know, whether we're a city
government or a county government. I have a serious problem with this if
we're not a county government still.
MR. WALL: I can respond to that, Mr. Todd. The charter says that we
have both county powers and municipal powers, but beyond that, Amendment 73
says the governing authority of Richmond County. This was a constitutional
amendment specifically applicable to Richmond County, it applies only to
Richmond County, and it was approved by the voters.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to voice my concerns with the
current list. I have a problem with the going out here and funding rodeos,
football games, and cutting out outreach programs such as Child Advocacy, Hope
House for Women, Community Outreach, and Able/Disabled. And I'm not going to
support this 73 list if we're going to go out here and fund sporting events
and not fund legitimate community outreach programs. And that's economic
development to me.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor and Councilpersons, I'm Jerry Taylor and I'm
director of a Community Outreach program for the handicapped. And a friend of
mine told me today it was better to stand out than to stand up, so I'm sitting
down here. I'm here on behalf of Community Outreach, and each of you received
a letter from me. What we do is unique in this community. We build -- and I
know of no other agency in this community that builds wheelchair ramps to get
physically challenged people out of the house. Some of these people have
fallen through the cracks of our social service system; some of them have
fallen through the cracks of our school system; some of them we have helped to
train and to get them out of the house. We have gotten them -- they've gotten
a GED, and some of them are being computer trained and they're making far more
than minimum wage, and I think that is adding to the economic development of
this community. Therefore, I believe we qualify for Amendment 73 -- is it 73?
-- funds, but it doesn't matter which way you cut that pie. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges called the question. Do y'all want the
motion reread? Is everybody happy with it? Made by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor
of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, seconded by Mr. Bridges, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Items 7 through 22 were all approved by the Engineering Services
Committee on July 22nd, 1996.
[Item 7: Consider approval of a Deed of Dedication/Easement for
sanitary sewer and water systems which have been installed to service Eagle
Pointe Subdivision, 3200 Block of Skinner Mill Road. Item 8: Consider
approval of a proposal concerning Sewer Separation Project, Inner-city Basin,
Phase I-B, 13th Street & Reynolds Street. Item 9: Consider approval of
the redesign of the Vineland Sanitary Sewer. Item 10: Consider
condemnation of property in the name of Julian Osbon, Parcel 8, Area A of the
Barton Chapel Road Intersection and Drainage Improvement Project. Item
11: Consider approval of Option to Purchase Right-of-Way on property owned by
First Union National Bank of Georgia, as Trustee, et al, Tax Map 22, Parcel 93
of the Perimeter Parkway Roadway and Drainage Improvement Project. Item
12: Consider approval of Option to Purchase Right-of-Way on property owned by
Elizabeth B. Rogers, Tax Map 31, Parcel 12 of the Skinner Mill Road Extension
and Agerton Lane Roadway and Drainage Improvement Project (Project Parcel 1 -
Agerton Lane). Item 13: Consider approval of a request to abandon that
portion of Walker Street lying within the proposed Davidson Magnet School
site.
Item 14: Consider approval of necessary easements and indemnity
agreement for location of a foot bridge and service bridge across the Augusta
Canal at the Davidson Magnet School site. Item 15: Consider approval of
bid award to Blair Construction Company for the paving of various Roads, Phase
IV (Louisa Road). Item 16: Consider approval of Deed of Dedication,
Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolution for Saddlebrook Subdivision, Phase
V, Section I. Item 17: Consider approval to execute contract documents
for Kamell West Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project. Item 18:
Consider approval to execute contract documents for Wheeless Road Drainage
Improvement Project. Item 19: Consider approval of Change Order Number
Two for Turpin Hill Roadway & Drainage Improvements, Phase II Project.
Item 20: Deleted. Item 21: Consider approval of the termination of the
Lease Agreement for Water Tower at Augusta State University. Item 22:
Consider approval of award of bid for a Street Sweeper to Elgin Street
Sweeper.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we receive
this as a -- I mean, pass this as a consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it -- excuse
me, I'm sorry, Mr. Zetterberg.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question on 17 and 18. Do you have a
start date on those Mr. Murphy?
MR. MURPHY: What you'll do here is vote to approve the contracts, the
Mayor will sign the contracts, we'll have a pre-construction conference
probably next week. The contractor has ten days after that pre-construction
meeting to begin, so that gives you about three weeks.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So we're going to see it within the next 30 days?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. Further questions,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Items 23 through 31 were all approved by the -- no, 23 through
26 were all approved by --with the deletion of Item 26, approved by the
Administrative Services Committee on July 22nd, 1996.
[Item 23: Consider approval of the termination of Moses Gant from the
Augusta-Richmond County Roads & Bridges Department. Item 24: Consider
approval of the termination of Terry Kelly from the Augusta-Richmond County
Landfill. Item 25: Consider approval of the extension of contractual
services of the Claim's Investigator for sixty (60) days.
MR. BRIDGES: We're voting 23, 24, 25; right?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 23 and 25 be approved as
consent. And I just have one question on 24 that needs to go into the
records.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we're voting on 23 and 25.
MR. BEARD: Yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr.
Zetterberg. Discussion on 23 or 25, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 24.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we stop just a second? I think that what
we're supposed to be doing with these hearings, if I'm incorrect then correct
me on 24, is that we're supposed to be having a hearing here, and we need to
know whether that gentleman is here, I would think would be appropriate,
number one.
CLERK: He's here. Mr. McCauley said he's here.
MR. TODD: Number two, whether a letter was written to him. And I
apologize for thinking or looking ahead, but I think that's important. If
he's not here, then I think we're okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is the gentlemen here?
MR. BEARD: Mr. McCauley, is Mr. Kelly here?
MR. McCAULEY: Yes, he's here.
MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, then certainly I would request the chairman
of the committee would at least allow us to --
MR. WALL: That one was pulled out.
MR. TODD: That one was? No, I thought 26 was pulled.
MR. BEARD: I pulled 24, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Okay. Then I apologize to the Chair and to my colleague, and
we're going to hear 24.
MR. BEARD: Would you want me to continue now, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MR. BEARD: Okay, thank you. Is Mr. Kelly here? I assume, Mr. Mayor,
that Mr. Kelly would like to make a statement at this time. Is that in order?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kelly?
MR. KELLY: I would like to make a statement that I got a wife and three
kids and a mother-in-law who's bedridden, and my income was the only income
that was coming into my household. And I called in for work on several
occasions; not only did I call in, the doctor sent the Landfill a statement on
my condition, that he was seeing me at the time, and they say I didn't call in
for two days.
MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask Mr. Kelly or Mr. Etheridge -- is he
here? Or Mr. McCauley, either one of you. Mr. Etheridge, I'd just like to
ask two questions on this. He said -- and this is what I keep hearing, he
said he called in. And I know Mr. Smith in the committee meeting said that he
didn't get the call, and Mr. Kelly informed us that he talked to Mr. Smith's
secretary. Was she ever asked to ascertain -- did you ascertain from her if
she received a call from Mr. Kelly? Either one of you can answer.
MR. McCAULEY: Let David answer because he talked to him.
MR. SMITH: The secretary did talk to Mr. Kelly previous to the
incidents that took place to this in the time frame, but not during the time
that he did not call in and that the job was -- there was no conversation with
him at the time that he abandoned the job and didn't call in.
MR. BEARD: Are you saying that --
MR. SMITH: It was the previous week -- now, this took place, Mr. Beard,
over a series of two and a half weeks. We had conversation with Mr. Kelly in
the original week, and then there was no conversation after that.
MR. BEARD: And for the two days, according to the policy, that he
missed and didn't call in, you're saying that he did not call in and talk to
the secretary?
MR. SMITH: Did not call in. She stated she had no conversation with
him during that period of time. Either one of the -- and they're not
secretaries, they're clerks. We don't have any secretaries at our facility.
MR. BEARD: Okay. My mistake, Mr. Smith. One other thing that I want
to ask, and maybe this would come from a legal standpoint. If we are
considering one item, Mr. Attorney, should all of this, his previous records,
should that be entered into this or just the incident that we are referring
to? And the reason I'm asking this is because I notice in this a lot of past
records were indicated into this, and I just want to know should we look at
that or the incident which he was released on?
MR. WALL: If I may respond. First of all, this is not a de novo
appeal. What you're being asked to do is -- because the personnel board is
the board that is assigned to hear all the evidence and then to make a
determination, and then they have the right to appeal here. The task of the
Commission-Council is to determine whether or not the finding by the personnel
board is supported by evidence -- supported by substantial evidence to justify
the decision of the personnel board to uphold the termination. And what you
have in the agenda book is the material that was obviously introduced in the
record before the personnel board. The prior incidents insofar as -- I think
is what you have reference to, would certainly have been relevant in the
personnel board as far as what action was appropriate as to the termination.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we concur with
the Personnel Department's decision and uphold the decision made by the
Administrative Services Committee.
MR. KUHLKE: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further
discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. HANDY VOTE NO; MR. BEARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Items 27 through 31 were all approved by the Public Safety
Committee on July 23rd, 1996.
[Item 27: Consider approval of a request from the Warden of RCCI for an
increase in State Inmate Population. Item 28: Consider approval of bid
award for 1996 Vehicles to Bobby Jones Ford. Item 29: Consider approval
of "Master" Contract for electric power service and "Premises Exhibit" for
electrical service at the Phinizy Road Detention Facility. Item 30:
Consider approval of a Renewal Lease for one (1) for the Wrightsboro Road Fire
Station. Item 31: Consider approval of bid awarded to DuraMed for
elevator lift at the Planning & Zoning Office.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these items were approved, and I move for
approval on the consent agenda for today.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, just for the purpose of the record, I would like
to clarify one thing with regard to Item Number 29 that I stated in the Public
Safety Committee. I indicated that I thought that the question concerning the
generator was a part of one of the schedules that was attached to the Master
Contract. Upon reflection and checking and verifying it will be a part of a
tariff that will be added to the Master Contract after the first year of
service, and I did want to correct what I had stated to the Public Safety
Committee on that day.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Further discussion?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Wall, does that mean that the generator will not go in
till after the first year?
MR. WALL: No, the generator will go in as part of the contract for the
construction, but after the generator is in place and you look at the usage,
that is when the credit will be given back.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, did you want to say something?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I've just got a question on Item
Number 8. When you finish the rest of them, could someone answer that
question -- 28, about the cars. In the book it was saying about the Marshal
recommended the other car based on the time frame as well as the paint job.
Are we eliminating the bid because of the paint was peeling off or are we
eliminating because we could get the cars here quicker? That's the question
I'm asking.
CLERK: In the meeting, Steve Smith stated that he wanted the vehicles
from Bobby Jones because they were already -- they came from the factory
painted. The other car dealership had to paint the cars onsite. And they had
bought -- the Sheriff's Department had previously bought some of those cars
and they turned out not to be so good; they didn't work out as well. So he
asked for the best bid.
MR. WALL: Factory paint versus --
MR. HANDY: Right. Well, okay, that's what I wanted to make sure. It
was because the cost of the paint. Okay. All right.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull out Number 29?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir?
MR. BRIDGES: Can we pull out Number 29 and vote on the rest?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges wants to pull out 29, Mr. Brigham; is that
okay?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. When he said pull out, he wants to discuss
it after this?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, he wants to --
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to actually be voting on 27, 28, 30 and 31.
Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion for
27, 28, 30 and 31, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 29, please.
CLERK: Item 29: Consider approval of a "Master" Contract for electric
power service and "Premises Exhibit" for electrical service at the Phinizy
Road Detention Facility. Approved by Public Safety, July 23rd, 1996.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I guess I direct this to Mr. Wall. Could you
explain the statement on the second page of the para-graph up at the top where
it says the customer shall retain the company's sole electrical supplier in
reference to this Master -- are we -- I thought this was passed last time
where we voted on the supplier for the jail. What are we doing here? Are we -
-
MR. WALL: You're actually approving the contract itself. You accepted
the bid from Georgia Power Company. This is the contractual documents that
puts that bid in place.
MR. BRIDGES: What does this statement here do as far as if we're going
to have as the them sole supplier and for some reason that we're not -- you
know, they're not able to supply or we have a problem with them or price or
whatever, what options do we have?
MR. WALL: I'm sorry, you're reading from what?
MR. BRIDGES: It's the first paragraph on second page of the Master
Contract.
MR. WALL: The sole supplier for Phinizy Road, the premises is the
Phinizy Road jail site only.
MR. BRIDGES: And there's no time limit or anything?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. That's on page -- the next page. If you'll look
down, contract terms, five years.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to say this: I'm going to
vote against this because this was the high bid on that job, and Jefferson
Electric had the lower bid. It's my understanding from looking at the
information, that the expert that we retained to review both prices for us,
that we're spending a quarter of a million dollars over a five-year period,
and I'm going to vote against this contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that in the form of a motion?
MR. BRIDGES: I'm not making no motion. I know what the vote is, so --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I think the issue, more so than the
dollar cost, is that we're talking about a critical situation on supplying
power and lights and heat and air conditioning. And I don't necessarily want
to supply air conditioning to them, but the law say we got to, to folks that's
in a captured situation in a jail. Jefferson Electric could not provide a
two-directional supply; Georgia Power could. That's what made them the best
bid. The numbers as far as the five years and how the generator situation
would work, we went over it that day. I think we spent probably a good
hour/hour and a half on it debating it. If the County Attorney don't have a
problem with the contract, then certainly I'm for supporting the contract. Is
there a motion on the floor? I'm going to so move that we approve.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make the comment that -- so that I
don't seem inconsistent -- that I voted from awarding this contract to Georgia
Power. But in this instance, since it was approved, then I will vote to go
ahead with this contract.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: With that in mind, Mr. Mayor, I move for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to
approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Item 32: Consider approval of officiant contracts between
Augusta-Richmond County and participants in the sporting events sponsored by
the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. Were all of these
approved by the Public Services?
CLERK: No, sir, we didn't have a quorum that day.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 33, please.
CLERK: Consider approval of a Memorandum of Understanding from the
Department of Family and Children Services regarding a one-month summer job
training program to be coordinated by the Recreation Department.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like some additional information on this. I
think we've got someone here from Recreation.
MR. BOYLES: Mr. Mayor, this program involves Family and Children
Services, and we hire X numbers of people that they pay for. It costs the
Recreation program and the Board of Commissioners no money whatsoever. We do
handle the interviewing and the administrative work of those people, but DFACS
provides the funds to do this. It's basically an on-the-job training program,
it lasts for one month; it's just about over now because I think the date on
the letter goes back a ways. But this is our third year into this program,
and it's commonly known as the PEACH Program.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. 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: 34, please.
CLERK: Consider approval of the acceptance of a Federal Transit
Administration Grant Agreement.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission-Council, what you
have before you is a approved application, which was approved earlier this
year, and it was for to provide some capital projects for the Transit System
and also for to receive operating assistance from the time period as
specified, which is basically for the year of 1995.
MR. MAYS: Move it be approved.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Further discussion, gentlemen? All those in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 35, please.
CLERK: Consider approval of the recommendations from the Interim
Transit Director regarding Transit Service.
MR. JOHNSON: As you know, I had written a letter earlier this year with
the intent of making the members of the new consolidated government aware of
the approximately loss of 47 percent of our operating assistance from the
Federal Transit Administration. At that time, I also made recommendations as
to ways that we could offset that loss of revenue for the governmental year of
1996.
It went before the Public Services Committee, which in turn we held a
public hearing, which was a requirement from the Federal Transit
Administration since some of the items affected a fourth of the Transit
Service riders. And from that meeting, I also distributed a copy of the
minutes from that meeting to every one of the Commissioners. At that time I
gave everyone a chance to review some of the comments that was made and to let
you review the recommendations that I had made at the earlier part of this
year. After the six-month review of the Transit System I reintroduced my same
proposals, but I did modify some based on what has transpired from January 1st
through June the 30th. As you go through on my recommendations where you
see the January, those were the basic things that I had recommended the first
part of the year. Everything, all the numbers listed, are based on a
annualized basis. Where you see July, the Y means that, yes, I still feel
that those items need to be done. When you come down to Item Number 4,
Central Avenue, January I recommended that we would eliminate the entire
route. I reconsidered that view after reading the minutes from the public
hearing. And, also, in the meantime the Public Services and you, the
Commission-Council, approved purchasing three mini vehicles. And so my
recommendation now is, as you see, I'm going to modify it some. Basically
that will operate the Central Avenue route seven hours a day, with no Saturday
service. I will use one of the new mini buses, which we should have in
operation by the end of this month. And, also, I have contacted one of the
major groups that was concerned with the elimination of the route, which is
the Friendship Community Center. And I did speak to Ms. Holliday, and I
mentioned to her that I had modified my recommendation some to allow for seven
hours of service on that route, and she said that she could reschedule the
people that used her center to fit into those guidelines. The other
modification I did was to the Barton Chapel route. As you know, we have a new
Wal-Mart store which is on that route now, and so therefore we are providing
service at the present time to that new store. So I felt that in order to give
that more time, that I would drop my recommendation to eliminate that one hour
of service on the Barton Chapel route and to look at that at a future date.
Do you have any other questions that you would like to -- oh, one thing
that I would like to mention is basically that I relooked at the numbers as to
the ridership on my basic recom-mendations, and basically that it still holds
true during the time periods that I would like to drop service. And I wanted
to make this understandable that this is not a major reduction to the Transit
System. We are only discussing a hour at necessary points in time. People
are not riding a certain route in between eight and nine o'clock. I'm not
asking to eliminate the entire route, just the bad hour, just the bad time of
the day that there is very little ridership to support that service. It was
first deemed as so it was going to be a major reduction of the Transit
Service. It is not. It is just to fine tune the system, to do away with the
bad parts of it and to keep all of the good parts of the Transit Service that
we are providing at this present time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Johnson, probably not related directly but in the sense
that we're getting some new smaller buses, and how about our new technology
that was developed for the Olympics, when will it be in town, or do you know?
MR. JOHNSON: It should be here -- it's scheduled to be here on October
the 1st. We will be presenting that H2 fuel bus, and I believe all of you
have received a invitation to the premier of it on August the 16th. But that
vehicle will be used in Transit Service.
MR. TODD: Yes. I think that's going to go a long ways in promoting
Transit, and I'm sure you're going to showcase it well.
MR. JOHNSON: Right, sir.
MR. TODD: Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Johnson, if we accept your recommendation, when
will that be effective?
MR. JOHNSON: It will be effective -- there will be one thing would need
to be done, and to get a official ruling from the Public Service Commission.
I have received a unofficial approval that since we are consolidated and we --
and that the governing body governs the entire Richmond County, that we have
the approval to eliminate or to do what we prefer inside the incorporated
areas.
But there is still a matter of the small portion of Columbia County.
Unofficially they said that that is a minute issue and basically that the
Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction inside a municipal boundary. So
that would be something that would just have to be a official ruling from the
Public Service. If it is as I was told, then we could initiate these changes
within 30 to 45 days, but we'll just have to advertise to let the people know.
But in between 30 to 45 days, that we could implement these changes.
MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor -- well, I'll yield. Jerry, do you need to
ask him something else?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I appreciate the answer, but I don't know that I got an
answer. If we've got 30 to 45 days, are you saying that we can't do anything
until we get -- are you saying that if we approve them today they take effect
45 days from now?
MR. JOHNSON: Right, sir. If we do not have to go before the Public
Service Commission of the State of Georgia. Basically, the Public Service
Commission governs all transportation routes in the unincorporated areas.
When we were the City of Augusta, we had to get approval to provide service
outside the municipal boundaries. With a rate change or a rate increase, that
would also have to be approved by the Public Service Commission because at the
past time we were going across municipal boundary lines. At the present time
we are as one.
We are inside and we are governed by only one governing board, except we
do offer about three miles of service outside of the Richmond County line.
Unofficially it is said that is a minute issue, but I would like a official
ruling from the Public Service Commission so that once we implement these
changes, if approved, that we would not have to deal with them coming back to
say that it is not legal for us to do it because we go across the line for
three miles. So 30 to 45 days, once I get the official approval that the
Public Service -- that we will not have to submit any documentation to the
Public Service Commission.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we postpone this till we
receive that official proposal -- official ruling.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Johnson, if it's a gray area, why don't we do it and
then see if anything happens. If it does happen, then we correct it.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, sir, because the Public Service Commission has the
power to fine.
MR. KUHLKE: Oh. They have power, huh?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, they got power, power for to fine us.
MR. KUHLKE: Why do we go in Columbia County?
MR. JOHNSON: Because at that time there was need of Transit Service to
Columbia County. Also, Columbia County is a part of the metropolitan area in
which we do receive Transit funds. Columbia County wishes not to use those
Transit funds, but at that time there was a need and a asking of citizens in
Columbia County that uses services in Richmond for to provide service to the
West Town Shopping Center. That is the only point in Columbia County that we
go to. Also, that's the only stop. Once our vehicle crosses the Richmond
County line, the only stop in Columbia County is at West Town Shopping Center.
MR. KUHLKE: What sort of ridership? What -- statistically, how many
people ride that route?
MR. JOHNSON: That would be on the Washington Road route, and that's
probably one of our -- that's probably our fourth best route as for revenue,
sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, did you ever ask your question that you
wanted to?
MR. MAYS: I yielded to Bill; it was okay. Some of the things were
along the same line. I think Jim's trying to explain something to Jerry, and
then I'll ask him.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Go ahead.
MR. MAYS: What I was going to say: I know, Mr. Johnson, sometimes you
say -- because our conversations start early in the morning, usually around
sun up, and we probably talk more than anybody else probably, other than you
and the Mayor, in the room. But, you know, sometimes I guess you sound like
that cow delivering that bucket of milk, you know, and sometimes I take my
back feet and want to kick it back over. But you know my feelings personally
about this, and I'm not going through the motions on some things that I'm
going to ask you and comment on, but I guess it's hard to be your best friend
and sometimes your worst nightmare.
But, you know, I have a real -- you know, I was accused earlier on one
issue kind of sideways of it being political, and on this one if it gets that
way I'm going to take that blame and I'm going to wear it and not going to
apologize for it. But I have some things in here. One, we had the public
hearing. I think we may not have had the whole community here, but we had a
good cross-section of people, a good full room, it lasted a long time, and I
think we had a lot of loud and clear voices.
I want to applaud you for consistently bringing before us the total
picture about Public Transit, about our numbers, because that's your job, and
I know you've got to do that. And I know you've been in that predicament
where, particularly coming from that urban side, if some things aren't said
then, you know, they just happen. But on the other side of that coin, you
know, some of us do view this -- naturally we have to be prudent, we have to
make our dollar stretch as long as we can, but this is a service. We have
consolidated this city, and as I said in a speech the other day, we made it
bigger, now the task is to make it better. Now, before I think we get off
on making a motion to deal with some of those things -- and I know you had to
bring them before us in January, but I think the other side of it is what
you've done to be given credit for. I look at that department and where those
percentages are and what budget numbers that have been spent this year. I
still believe you all are still down there in the 30's and have basically
carried us -- 38 percent might be the highest percentage of any area that's
been used there in Transit, and it's basically taken us through the summer
months. We have, with the combination over on the rural side of Transit that
we use through Recreation, the largest region that's participating in the
state of Georgia. There are a lot of pluses that's out there, and before
we start taking some backward steps I want to make sure that we can do the
minimum amount of procedures without getting into some of the things -- I
know, you know, we talked about it, you know, even down to where we're talking
about the height of a child, the size of a fare box, and things we're doing.
I know you're looking into every detail in order to save us some money, but I
think that the things that we talked about such as advertising, which I hope
gets us out of that cumbersome jag-a-log, we've gotten that and I know Jim's
been working on it, but I hope that we don't have to reinvent the wheel with
that and we can make some money from it. Those of us who shared in the
Olympic ceremonies, everything from Minute Maid, Coca-Cola, the television
networks and stations, good clean advertising that brought in money, those are
the things that I want to see us doing with Transit. So you got 21 buses up
there, we put 15 to 17 of them -- if somebody's willing to wrap up advertising
that's clean and safe, that's money, rather than getting into the tone of
talking about what we're going to cut back and what we're going to do. I
think you've done an excellent job in being saddled with a lot of temporaries,
not knowing when some positions are going to be filled, not even in some cases
knowing what your own status is going to be. And I just want to say that for
the defense. I know you have to bring up a certain side, but I think I have a
duty as a Commissioner and of a direct representative of close to 100,000
people, when we start talking about Public Transit and a commitment to all
205,000-plus of them, that before we get into that mode, I want to see us
utilize, whether it's with the mini buses, whether it's with maybe scaling
down some routes we got now -- we're getting ready to move into school season.
I know we're talking about with the hours on the students, but all of our
students are not middle school, grammar school, and high school age. One of
the biggest contingents we had was on our college students that came here that
night, both Payne, AC, and Medical College. Some of them, those classes go
beyond where we talk about in this scope of it, maybe even pursuing some
subsidies from some of those areas that might like to help us to subsidize
that system. So I just want to make that counterpoint in there before
the motions start flying on this floor to start cutting back some things. We
came in here when it looked as though -- and you probably have been the most
whipped department on the city side over there, but you came in here and you
honestly brought proposals in here. We were cautious enough to allow you to
make some moderate changes to be prudent in what you were doing. I think it's
got us through over half of this year, and we still have money, we still are
looking good. I think if we do some of those positive things, we can get
along with that. Now, there's no motion on the floor, I don't plan on
making one here. I'm just hoping that this Commission will go ahead and let
you to continue to operate like you're doing without having to do radical
surgery on the Transit Department, because I think it's been one of the most
explainable departments that has come before us. You consistently come up,
almost without considering the danger zone of constantly bringing this stuff
up here. And you know I've told you in private, hell, I didn't want to see
you no more if you came up here talking about some more cuts in dealing with
it. I don't want the headaches, I don't want to have to answer the questions
at night in dealing with it, but that's your job, and I applaud you for it.
But at the same time, I know you're working to try and make this thing work.
So I will just say to the rest of my colleagues I would hope that with the
numbers that have come out of that department, where we were at the beginning,
where we are now, that we allow the discretion of the interim director that's
there to do some things that are in there without getting into the wholesale
talks about elimination and cutting and that we do the positive things that'll
come out of that meeting. And certainly if you're going to talk about scaling
anything back, I would hope that out of that meeting when we talked about the
advisory board, that you all will be thinking about submitting some names,
particularly those that come out of the ridership of our Transit System, to
give them to Mr. Johnson and that we can move forward in those areas. And
that's all I have to say in reference to it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve all of
the recommendations except 1(c).
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion from Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to
Mr. Todd's motion? Okay, gentlemen, we don't have a second to Mr. Todd's
motion. Do I hear another motion?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a motion that Mr. Johnson
proceed with coming back to this committee and this Commission in an expedient
manner with those things that were recommended out of those public hearings,
to keep us constantly apprised on the status of his department, and to give
him the discretion to continue to make those minimum changes that will save us
money but will continue to keep our system at the point that it's on now, and
that with a minimum amount of changes.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Henry
Brigham.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that he's saying -- that
he's making a recommendation that we approve what's here on the list? It's my
understanding, or I would think that the Public Service Commission would want
to see a recommendation or at least approve of this board on the
recommendations before he sent them to Atlanta. I don't see him going to
Atlanta, then coming back here to be approved. I would think that he's making
recommendations that we're setting a policy, we send it to Atlanta, Atlanta
approves or disapproves.
MR. JOHNSON: May I say something, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead.
MR. JOHNSON: I believe with the issue of the Public Service Commission,
that if the County Attorney -- and I can give him the individual name -- would
write a letter asking for a official ruling as to the status of Augusta-
Richmond County Public Transit and the relationship that we presently have as
of this date with the Public Service Commission, and then that would -- and
hopefully that would bring back a response to say yes, that you still have to
bring changes to the system through us or no, since you are a municipality in
its entirety, that you are not governed by our rules and regulations.
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, the question is what you addressed earlier.
They're asking are we a boy or a girl. And if we're a municipality, we don't
have to carry stuff to them. If we're not a municipality, then we do have to
carry it to them. And we're both. And my position is, and I think the
informal ruling that has been obtained thus far, is that we are a municipality
as evidenced by the fact that we've already adopted the franchise ordinances,
et cetera, so we have the powers of a municipality.
MR. BEARD: And I call for the question.
MR. TODD: My other question, Mr. Mayor, is still unraised, so I'd like
to follow up.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead.
MR. TODD: My other concern and the reason that I made the motion to
delete 1(c), and I guess we're not even acting on that, is that is seems to me
with running empty buses all over the county, that if you have a young lady
with three babies, two of them in her arm and one of them under 40 inches
high, that we wouldn't be, for the sake of the fare and funding, charging this
person to carry this other child. And the other side of it would be, you
know, if we charge, then is she going to leave them home alone, you know. I
think that, you know, we should have what a --define what a child is. Then if
she have ten, then she carry ten with her, you know; if she have one, she
carry one. But a child is a child is a child.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, did you want to say something?
MR. BEARD: No, I was just calling for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm a little confused as to what we're
voting on. Can we get the motion restated?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure. Ms. Watson, would you read the motion, please.
MS. WATSON: Motion made by Mr. Mays, seconded by Henry Brigham. I
understood it to be that Mr. Johnson would bring back his recommendations
after his meeting with Public Service Commission if it was required.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: If it was required. Right, that's what I thought it
was.
MR. MAYS: Well, now, what the gist of mine was -- and maybe I need to
restate. What I said was giving him the discretion to go ahead and run his
department as he has been running it since he came to us at the beginning of
the year, and to continue to keep us abreast but giving him the discretion to
make those minor changes that are in there. We're done with the mini buses.
If we have to come back, come back again and make another suggestion to us.
I think before we go running to PSC with a suggestion on a department
that is functioning and a service that we are providing, it almost gets you
into the predicament do you want sometimes what you pray for. Now, sometimes
you best can work it out, you know, if the man upstairs gives you the strength
to go ahead on and do it rather than asking for it to come down. Because
sometimes what you pray for, you may get it, and then you can't reverse what
the blessing is. You know, you may get the blessing and it ends up being a
curse. So if you're working it out and your darn budget is where it should be
or ahead of where it should be, then I think that you go ahead on and you keep
the darn department running. And I guess in essence, Jerry, what I'm saying,
we're two old fellows, to a certain extent we ain't doing no radical changes.
That's what my motion contains.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm trying to help you, Mr. Mays. I'm trying to help
you.
MR. MAYS: I'm giving it to you real plain like the cop on Sanford and
Son, we ain't doing a darn thing as far as cutting back nothing today within a
motion that I'm making other than the fact of letting the man continue to run
the department, bring us back those things with a forecast. He worries us to
death anyway; he's going to keep you informed on the numbers. If he thinks
he's going to lose one penny, he'll be back over here standing up telling you
I'm fixing to lose a penny. And I'll already hear it because he's going to
call me when the sun gets up.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mays, what my problem is is you're moving that we
accept his recommendations --
MR. MAYS: I didn't move -- wait, no, no, don't put no words in my mouth
now. I didn't move that we --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, that's what I heard.
MR. MAYS: I did not move that we accept the recommendation. I moved
basically that we allow him the discretionary power to do a minimum amount of
things that's in there. That's not approving anything he's got on his
recommendation here.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay.
MR. MAYS: Nothing radical that deals with his cutbacks.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make recommendation then that we
reject his recommendation. A motion that we reject his recommendation -- a
substitute motion. If we're within budget, then there's no reason to do
anything. That's a substitute motion.
MR. MAYS: The reason why I said of giving him the discretion, there are
some things in here that I think common sense will bear out if you read his
recommendation that will allow him to work within what he has here other than
just totally destroying what's up here, and that's the reason why I said of
allowing him that latitude to do that, as we do I think in departments that
spend millions of dollars in this government that maybe we don't hear from
until the whole thing breaks and then we've got an emergency.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I think I know what Mr. Mays says, and I think I know
what Mr. Todd says, but I can't remember what Mr. Johnson said. What do you
want? What's the purpose of bringing this to us, and what do we need to do
with the action? And if there's nothing, don't bring us anymore of those.
MR. MAYS: Thank you, Rob.
MR. JOHNSON: Sir, my whole intent is the federal government is leaning
toward getting out of the Transit business. So far in Congress, as far as
operating assistance, right now Congress has approved that we'll basically
keep the same operating assistance as we received in 1995. But this is also a
election year. If they continue to eliminate the operating assistance,
capital -- they will still provide the capital assistance. In the future
there may not be no Transit operating assistance.
I'm looking toward the future, which when I basically made these
recommendations the future was right then, because the word was that we would
not receive no operating assistance in 1997. Zero. So when I made these
recommendations -- and these are good recommendations. We lost 47 percent of
our operating assistance. That means that the ridership -- that means that
now the local share has risen to approximately 55 percent of the cost of the
Transit. If the local government is willing to fund that 55 percent,
disregard my recommendation. But I'm just -- it's my job that I'm making
you aware that we are paying -- the local government is paying more and more
to operate the Transit System. So my recommendation is -- one is these are
ways that the local share can be dropped somewhat and to put part of -- and
put more to where maybe with the federal government backing out, you put a
little bit more on the ridership. Ask them for to raise up their share.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Do we need to go somewhere to get approval to do this,
or can we just do what you're saying? Is that what you're asking, for us to
approve locally and it's -- we can do it?
MR. JOHNSON: Sir, that is my recommendation. The final recommendation
comes from the Commission-Council. That was the reason why I individually
priced out everything. If you want to do them all, we can do them all, and
there's a savings for that. If you only want to do a fare increase to raise
fares and then do not cut service, then that's fine. But that's why I made it
so that each item was individual so it could stand alone and/or you can vote
on it in the whole. But I govern by the wishes of the Commission-Council. I
make these recommendations and I govern by your wishes. If you wish not to
cut Transit Service, not to raise fares, then the vote would be no, Mr.
Johnson, just keep on doing what you're doing, and then you won't see these
recommendations no more.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Which question?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Y'all want the motion read one more time,
gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? I'll make it very brief, I know the question's
been called for. Let's get everything on the table and be honest. There has
been discussions about bringing in management for Transit. I think Mr.
Johnson has been to a few of those meetings. We're either going to do
something to help him manage more efficient or we're going to set him up for
failure, so we bring in this management -- and I'll go on and name one of the
entities that's in here talking, Ryder -- to take over the management of
Transit. So cards are on the table; we can decide. Are we going to help him
or are we going to set him up for failure? I'm ready for the vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you reread the motion, please.
MS. WATSON: From what I understand, the motion made by Mr. Mays and
seconded by Henry Brigham was to give -- let's see, for Mr. Johnson to bring
back his recommendations after a meeting with the Public Service Commission if
it was required, which it was stated by Mr. Wall that it was not. It was to
give him the discrimination to run his department, to make a minimum of
changes, and provide the Commission with periodic reports.
MR. WALL: It was stated by Mr. Wall that we are a municipality. I
don't think that they're going to hold -- that we're subject to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand what we're voting on now?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, TODD, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson, could you address Items 36, 37, and 38 briefly?
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Briefly, as Mr. Mays mentioned, we did have the
public hearing. And what that item references is that if you look at it, that
what I've done is that I basically went through and in parentheses is the page
number in which the comment was made. Briefly, the Transit Advisory Board was
already approved and it's in the process. Bus advertising, number three, the
bid opening for that will be August the 13th. We haven't done anything with
four, five, six. The bus passes, that was in the mini buses. I'm going to
Indiana in the morning to do the final required inspection of those buses, and
they should be here in approximately a week. A bus map with the item that you
approved at first, the -- to receive the federal money, I have money in there
so that we can produce a bus system map inhouse. Keep Central Avenue, we are
going to keep Central Avenue right now. No change in fares, we're going to do
that. And the other is to expand the system and to keep the system the same,
which we are going to do. So basically that was just to bring you up to date
as to what basically the comments were from the public meeting.
The mid-year report is just that, it's just basically to let you see
exactly how we have operated this year. Our revenue is down, but one key
factor that you need to look at in Transit is the rain and the snow days --
maybe not snow, but rain. And that's also the cold days. If you look, we had
15 extra days. If you are a Transit rider and you are deciding that you want
to go to the mall on a Tuesday and it's pouring down rain on that Tuesday and
you have to walk about three blocks, you don't ride. So that on any rain,
cold, or real hot day, our ridership suffers because people that do not ride
basically ride a Transit bus, and that is nationwide, system-wide. So those
type of days will affect your ridership and your revenue on those days. But
this was just to let you be aware of how we stand as of this point in time,
and that we are -- as of June the 30th we had only spent 39 percent of our
operating budget as of that time. The last recommendation is a report
that there was some -- well, it was misunderstood, my intent, when I discussed
charter service. And Mr. Kuhlke's basic comment was if he was going to make
somebody mad if we did not provide charter service, who he would end up making
mad. So, Mr. Kuhlke, there is basically the list of who we will make mad if
we do not provide charter service.
MR. KUHLKE: I think I saw that list, Heyward. All I'm saying is if
we're going to provide charter service, that we ought to charge a competitive
rate and it should be profitable. I don't think you ought to give it away,
and you're in a situation up there where you need to make money on anything
you do. And I think that there are organizations, there are individuals out
there that have a need, have an interest in renting buses at certain times,
particularly the little street car buses you have, but you should charge, and
you don't do it at cost, you do it at a profit -- if you've got the manpower,
and I understand that's a problem.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I don't have the manpower. And also, as I mentioned
before, we have a federal requirement that charter service must be on a
limited basis, except for charter service for a governmental entity or for a
nonprofit organization that serves the disabled. Those are the only two
exceptions. It has to be on a limited basis.
And what is limited? The Federal Transit determines that. We did
approximately $13,000 worth of charter service in 1995, so we have not had no
complaint about that. Talking to the other Transit managers, when you get up
to 40,000/50,000 dollars, then you are actually getting to where it is
actually taking a person a full-time job to basically do charter service, and
that is not the intent of the Urban Mass Transit Act is to have mass transit
buses doing charter service on a regular basis out just to make money. That
is the problem.
MR. KUHLKE: Do you have a recommendation? Should we be in it or out of
it?
MR. JOHNSON: We should not be in Transit Service.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that the Transit Department
discontinue charter service immediately.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Now,
gentlemen, how about some discussion?
MR. MAYS: Is there discussion on that? Go ahead, I yield to you, Lee.
MR. BEARD: The only thing I have here is, I look at this list that you
have here, and from what I see here there are a couple of -- and I don't know
all of them, but I see about two or three down here that you stated charter
service for, and I don't quite understand it because a lot of these -- a
couple of these were organizations that were having conventions here. And I
think if I recall from the city here, that we furnished service that was from
the hotel to the convention center, and it was a charter service at a minimum
fee.
And so I don't understand all of these that you have listed down here
because I know I see a couple of them that qualify for that, and I don't know
-- and this is why I'm kind of afraid of Bill's motion here because I don't
quite understand, you know. If we're doing that, how does that affect that
when we have conventions here, and we do do some of that when people are
bringing that many people into the City.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Bill's language in -- not in the
motion but in reference to the dialogue he's had with Heyward, which this is
not the first day we've had this discussion in reference to the point of
making a profit. But I think we know the players in the game in this area
that are basically in the Transit Service. You don't have to be a rocket
scientist to know who's in business. They basically can be counted on hands
and toes and have some left over. I think it's a matter of communication with
them. I don't think we've gotten anywhere near the point where you've gotten
some folk that are complaining because you're making too much money. I think
we're still in a gray area where we need to be making some more money. I look
at that like I do clean advertising.
And I think what we need to do before we cut that out is -- and I agree
with Mr. Kuhlke on the side that it should be done at a profit, but I think we
put our -- do ourselves a disservice when we say totally no, and then when we
look just even at the list that we have here, a lot of it is tourist related,
a lot of it never leaves this town; it may go as far as Clarks Hill at the
most or one of the resort areas. It's basically dealing, whether it's
nonprofit, whether it's conventioneers, or whether it's just folk that maybe
want to rent a bus that don't get out of this market. And a lot of your
charter folk are not interested in that market because they are interested in
making the mileage fees and taking the long-range trips. I think that's
something -- when I put into the original motion of giving the director the
discretion, that comes with discretion. Let him sit down and have a meeting
and go visit these folk that are in the Transit business, and then let them
know that they're not -- he's not threatening their market of what they're
doing, but at the same time wants to pick up some additional revenue about
marketable resources that they aren't interested in. And that's all I
think that you have that you're doing now. And then when you get up, Heyward,
around $49,000 and you're shy of $50,000 and somebody starts squeaking about
it, then come back here, then you've got a problem. But I think if you're
down to 13 and you've got another 50 you can make and nobody's going to squeal
about it, the federal government or the people that's in transit business,
then you need to go back and make that money.
MR. JOHNSON: Let me -- a part of getting the federal money is the fact
that there are stringent federal guidelines. And the guidelines are basically
that, one, if we do provide charter service, one is that we must advertise
that. Our area can only be basically in Richmond County. It cannot be in
Aiken County, it cannot be in Columbia County, except maybe to the Pavilion
because basically that is city-owned property. But it has to stay in Richmond
County. That's one factor.
But the regulations also say it must be limited. Limited means
basically that -- limited means limited. I mean, that means I can't have
buses going all out all places. Well, yes, I can, but it should be directed.
And if that's the wishes of the Commission-Council, I will provide that
service. But that is a policy -- the decision that must be made by the
Commission-Council.
MR. MAYS: I don't think you ought to make it for free. I don't think
you ought to give it away. I think you ought to cover your manpower and you
ought to make you some money. But, I mean, you're talking about a department
that you brought us recommendations basically because of what you thought the
government was going to do and what this local government was going to have to
pick up. The bottom line and the color of this whole thing is green. You need
some money. And I think what you need to do is you need to find out from the
federal government and from those people that may feel threatened, what
limited may be defined as. And if y'all can work that agreement and you can
make you some money, then I say, young man, go on and make you some money
because you're going to need it.
MR. JOHNSON: If that's the wishes of the Commission-Council, I will --
MR. MAYS: That's the substitute motion I'm going to make.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Mays' substitute motion?
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That was Mr. Powell? Okay.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that my feelings as far as whether we
should be in the charter business, I stated them to the city government a
couple years ago, and it's no, we should not be in the charter business; we
should not be trying to do a service delivery that the private sector can do
best; and we should not compete with the private sector by subsidizing our own
operation. That's all I have to say about that.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Johnson, on the request for bus use, what is your
biggest request?
MR. JOHNSON: It's for the street cars.
MR. KUHLKE: Street cars. Okay. Why don't we sell the street cars to
the Convention and Visitors Bureau and let them handle that? Would you mind
looking into whether that makes any sense or not?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: And, you know, I sit on the Public Safety Committee with
Mays and so forth, and all year long you have come back with some reasonable
recommendations, in my opinion, and this body has not backed you up on a
recommendation that you've come back with.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Okay, we've got a
substitute motion on the floor by Mr. Mays. Would you please read that so
there won't be any mistake about what we're voting on?
MR. MAYS: For the limited.
MS. WATSON: Substitute motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Powell, for
Mr. Johnson to find out from the federal government and charter businesses
what their exact limitations are for the Public Transit to be in the charter
business. The original motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded Mr. Todd, was to
discontinue charter service immediately.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, the substitute motion first. That's Mr. Mays'
motion.
MR. BEARD: Could I ask Mr. Johnson just one simple question?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure.
MR. BEARD: What would be your recommendation on this, no charter
service or?
MR. JOHNSON: My recommendation is no charter service except where
accepted by the federal guidelines. I'm only asking that we go by the federal
guidelines.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that was Mr. Mays' motion; right?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Some of us are in favor of charter service if you do it
and it pays for itself. Why don't you just raise the rates, and some of these
people will drop out, and let supply and demand determine who's going to get
the job?
MR. JOHNSON: People would not drop out of using the street cars, sir.
People will not drop out.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, then maybe Mr. Kuhlke's got a good idea. One
person asks for the street car and they use it and they're the only source,
then maybe what we ought to do is give it to them.
MR. JOHNSON: But, sir, they were bought with federal and state monies.
At the appropriate time when they reach the age and the mileage limit that I
am able to purchase or to sell those vehicles and ask for capital assistance
from the federal and state government to purchase a replacement vehicle, at
that time when I do sell the vehicle, anyone -- individual or business -- has
the right to make a bid on those vehicles.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Are we there?
MR. JOHNSON: Sir?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Are we there with the mileage?
MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. We will be there on the years. They are 1991
models, and that -- 1997. Also, as long as I use the money received, I can
put that money toward the purchase of a replacement vehicle for it.
MR. HANDY: I'd like to make an intelligent decision here today. We
need to make Mr. Johnson the Director of Transit and let him run his
department. We're trying to run his department here today, and we -- I mean,
we should be here getting some reports and asking questions and deciding
whether the federal government running it or not, and we need to make a
department head of that department and let them come back with some decisions
and tell us that these are the guidelines. Why do we have to sit here and go
over every guideline, every way we can run something here today? We haven't
been doing nothing but killing time all day long.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll tell you the best way to do that is Mr. Johnson
doesn't bring the proposal to us. I mean, and he can run the department.
Because I think some of these things -- unless he wants to bring a
recommendation on charter service to discontinue it, then that's what it ought
to be. But the recommendation is just too open-ended for us all. So we've
all got opinions and it makes it very difficult for a ruling body to make a
decision. So my recommendation, Mr. Johnson, to you is don't bring them, just
run it.
MR. HANDY: Right. I agree. Amen.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think from where you are as Mayor of this city,
Mr. Kuhlke at CVB, in reference to that limited charter service the only thing
that I'm trying to provide is a mechanism that whether it's CVB, whether it's
the Chamber, whether it's this group individually, that if in trying to land a
convention package, if in trying to land an event and competing with other
cities and asked the question can you mobilize people and you're now this big
second largest city in Georgia, does this eliminate you from being able to do
that little limited amount of business by the motion that was put on the
floor. And that's what I didn't want to see us lock ourselves into. And the
only thing that I'm saying is to do it limited, not to get into business with
Dutch Boy and Lewis and anybody else. I've got friends with all those places.
But in terms of the limited amount, whether it's moving people from the
Sheraton down to the Civic Center, whether you've got to mobilize them at the
Riverfront, just get that done. I mean, you have no other source. They'll be
worrying the hell out of all of us all night long if we discontinue this and
then go and land an event and can't move no people. That's crazy.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, did you get through? I'm sorry, I didn't
mean to --
MR. MAYS: No, that's okay, Mr. Mayor. But, I mean, it's just the fact
that I just wanted to leave us with a mechanism to be able to do something
intelligently, or groups that we work with, in terms of being able to do
something in that market. It is not trying to knock where Mr. Johnson has
been. If not, I wouldn't be talking with Heyward some mornings at sun up.
I'd just give him that machine and we wouldn't deal with it at all. He and I
talk a lot, we go to lunch together, but he knows to the point that what he's
been through, whether it's been interim, whether it was working under Revelle,
that that has been a department that's had it's behind kicked throughout the
years when it's come to funding. It's almost been on the suicide block many
times, even before we started in the old government of giving it a subsidy.
So a lot of the stuff he brings to you, gentlemen, to a certain extent,
quite frankly, he ain't going to tell you, but he's bringing it to you out of
fear from the standpoint that it might be get chopped up any minute. And
that's why he consistently brings it there and lays it out. It's not to the
fact that where in his heart of wanting to cut those particular services. If
we're going to be a first-class city and if we're going to do the things that
we're supposed to do about being now the big metropolis that we are, 200,000
people in it, some things we've got to get out of a hit mentality of doing and
operate them on a first-class basis and have something to offer people, and
then we can compete.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the order of the day.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, all right, sir. We had that a good while back.
Maybe we can have the motions voted on now. Mr. Mays made the substitute
motion. Is everybody comfortable with Mr. Mays' motion? All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion, let it be known by please raising your hand.
MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, BRIDGES, KUHLKE, AND TODD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD AND
MR. ZETTERBERG OUT.
MOTION FAILS 4-4.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The substitute fails. I think we go to the next
motion, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? We don't have enough to --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. If the substitute failed, then
isn't the next step to go to the original motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Okay, go back to the -
-
MR. MAYS: Did Commissioner Beard leave?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: He's gone.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I call the question on the original motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That was Mr. Kuhlke's motion. All in favor of
Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
[MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS, POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-3. [MR. BEARD AND MR. ZETTERBERG OUT.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we go to the next item on the agenda, Mr. Mayor.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I move that we postpone this item until those people
who are out of the room come back in and take their respective places.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: They had an opportunity to vote. I think we need to go
to the next item.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, the vote just automatically postponed it anyway,
didn't it?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: All right, sir. But if we do that motion we can bring
it back again. That's what I was trying to get to.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to move that Items Number 36 and 37 be accepted as
information.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a motion that 36 and 37 be accepted as
information by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion? All in favor
of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT]
MR. HANDY: What are we going to do with 38?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 38 died because we didn't have a --
MR. HANDY: I know, but are we going to revive it or what?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we've already killed it this afternoon. Let's
bring it back another time.
CLERK: Item 39: Resolution authorizing, adopting, approving,
accepting, and ratifying the execution of a Grant Agreement for Airport
Improvement Project, Project No. 3-13-0011-16 Bush Field Airport between the
United States of America and the August-Richmond County Commission-Council.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham;
is that correct?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to ask a dumb question.
What is Project Number 3-13-0011-16?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Atha, do you want to address that, please?
MR. ATHA: What is the what, sir?
MR. HANDY: What is it? What does the project consist of?
MR. ATHA: It's construction of a short taxiway between the runway and
the air carrier ramp, a small building to put some security equipment in, and
buying a few acres of land in our clear zone so that we can complete our
safety area.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, this is an example that is a problem for us
all. The books that they assemble don't give us any information and they
don't -- the staff is just not giving the information. And I don't know if
they give it to you, Lena, but we've got to have more information in the book
to support a decision. And I'd like for you to take a look at that, Mr.
Mayor, and see how we can have complete staff work done by the staff and we
don't have to ask dumb questions. But this book here is filled with the same
kind of problems.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner, please.
CLERK: The next item is a Resolution authorizing, adopting, approving,
accepting and ratifying the execution of a Grant Agreement for the Augusta
Boxing Club, Master City Baseball Complex, and Eisenhower Park between the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission-Council.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
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: 41.
CLERK: Consider approval for the Subordination Agreement, the UDAG
loan, in connection with the Riverfront Limited Partnership.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Mays.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. I guess I would want to hear from the County Attorney,
Mr. Mayor, as far as are we doing any changes to realize the payback. Is this
the same one?
MR. WALL: This is the one that we had the special meeting on. It will
shorten the term, but it's still subject to the maximum. I mean, they can
refinance again and extend it out to the 30 years, but -- this is called for
under the UDAG documents. It grants them the right to refinance and they are
exercising that right.
MR. TODD: Yes. I don't have a problem with the refinancing, I have a
problem with the payback, and I'm probably going to be voting in the negative.
And I'll call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. KUHLKE OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Item 42: To establish the millage rate for the urban and
suburban districts.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Mayor, my name is David Collins, and I'd like to
address this issue, if you don't mind. As part of the 1996 budget we had kept
the millage rates exactly where they were in '95. And we got the tax digest
in, the growth was 2.91 percent on the net digest, and -- which is what our
expectations were going into the budget. So I would like to recommend we keep
the millage rates where they were last year.
On the suburban service district that would 7.68 -- excuse me, 6.78. On
the urban service district that would be 10.35, which is what it was last
year. The fire districts would be 7.40 percent, or mils, and the Blythe would
be 9.43 mills. We also have a central service district, which is strictly for
downtown revitalization, and I'd like to keep that at 5 mils, which is what it
was last year.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the recommendation of
the Finance staff.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Jerry
Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question. Explain to me once again
why the fees or whatever we're getting from the power companies will not take
effect on this millage, why we can't decrease the millage based on that. Is
monies not coming in?
MR. COLLINS: As I understand, that money won't come in until 1997 for
that budget. Is that correct?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, also, didn't the bill call for the millage rate
to stay the same for two years?
MR. WALL: No, sir. Let me clarify something, because this question
keeps coming up about the millage rate being the same. And I know that
perhaps the voters were told that it would be the same, and they were not told
that by me, and at the public hearings that I went to and that question came
up, I tried to clarify that. What it says -- and this is the confusion. It
says the budget and tax levy of the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County
and the governing authority of any municipality consolidated with such county
adopted for the 1996 calendar year -- and that's where the confusion comes
about -- shall serve as the budget and tax levy of the Commission-Council for
that calendar year. Well, the tax -- the budget was not adopted until
February of 1996. The tax levy is not being set until now for 1996. So what
that's saying is that whatever y'all set this year is going to be what's set
for this year, which is poorly worded, but that's what it says. And I don't
know that that's their intent, but that's what it says.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, maybe the County Attorney can give an explanation
to what the franchise statutes say in reference to possible roll back of
millage rates, or is that --
MR. WALL: Well, the franchise fees themselves do not mandate a roll
back. I think it's anticipated that there will be a roll back of the taxes.
MR. TODD: Or anticipation that we won't have to do an increase, a
future increase.
MR. WALL: Right. Right. But it's not mandated by the franchise fees
that were collected.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Under this adopting the same millage rate, is there any
services that are being paid for in the urban tax district that the suburban
tax district is also receiving but not paying for?
MR. COLLINS: Receiving and not paying for, none that I can think of.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Fire service in a consolidated --
MR. COLLINS: All services in the urban district would be in the
suburban district -- excuse me, all services in the suburban district would
also be in the urban district, which is the old City of Augusta.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And no requirement to adjust any millage rates to
accommodate the differences between what's being delivered?
MR. COLLINS: Are there any requirements, did you say? Not that I know
of.
MR. WALL: Well, the requirement is that no one -- no taxpayer is to pay
for services that is not provided to him. And the question was asked of me by
several Commissioners. The services that the urban -- the old City of Augusta
provided are still being provided by the consolidated government, and so
therefore they are paying for the services that they are receiving. The
suburban taxpayers are paying for the services which they are rendering. And
so, in my opinion, you can have the differentiation and the rates from last
year carry over if that's what y'all choose to do; it's not required that you
do. They obviously paid for the services last year, they're paying for the
services this year. The services have not changed. Albeit some people have
complained about the level of services, but the services themselves are there.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess the question that I have in reference to
franchise fees, in the urban service district, is the franchise fees earmarked
to street lights, et cetera?
MR. WALL: The City of Augusta is receiving franchise fees, which is a
part of the budget insofar as the urban service district. Does that -- am I
answering the question?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. TODD: Are you saying what I -- the question correct or what Mr.
Wall said?
MR. McKIE: No, sir, what Mr. Wall said is correct. The franchise fees
are roughly 1.5 million dollars, and that is in the general revenue of the
General Fund. Street lights are districts which are billed separately in a
separate fund.
MR. TODD: Yes, but I'm talking about the -- Mr. Mayor, I'm talking
about the urban service district street lights, not suburban.
MR. McKIE: Right. Right.
MR. TODD: Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have one concern. I'd like to know
why the district -- the Blythe District has a millage rate two points higher
than the rest of the County.
MR. COLLINS: I can answer that. Richmond County and the City of
Augusta, the old Richmond County and the old City of Augusta, gets insurance
premium fees that are based on the value that you pay for insurance on your
home for fire protection, and you get a rebate in the county and the old city.
Well, Blythe also gets that insurance premium tax. And since we provide the
fire service for it -- they keep that insurance premium tax, so we deduct the
insurance premium tax from the amount that we levy on Blythe since they keep
it for their general fund. It's kind of complicated, but -- it would be
double-dipping if you didn't remove that component from the tax bill.
MR. BRIDGES: I just want to verify that all of these millage rates are
the same as they were last year in each district.
MR. COLLINS: Exactly the same. There is absolutely no change.
MR. McKIE: Mr. Bridges, the assessments in Blythe dropped, I think.
Isn't that correct, David? We could have -- if the assessments had stayed the
same, we could have dropped the rates there, but I believe the assessed value
went down some.
MR. COLLINS: Well, their credit stayed at 2.03, which is what their
insurance premium credit is, and that's why it's different. It's by two
mills, a little over two mills.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Since I did not and I don't think anybody else got any
paperwork on the millage rate and how it's broken down, could you give that to
me now? Especially in the urban district, the millage rate and how it's --
MR. COLLINS: I had left -- I think we left this in your box earlier
today. This has everything you needed. If I can --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm telling you, it ought to be in our hands at
least no later than the Friday before the meeting.
MR. COLLINS: Which ones did you want to go through, the suburban?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I want you to break -- I would like you to break down
the millage rate for the urban tax district.
MR. COLLINS: The urban district, for M&O is 9.45 mills.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And M&O is?
MR. COLLINS: Maintenance and operation.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Is how much?
MR. COLLINS: 9.45. And debt service for that same district is .90
mills, which gives it a total of 10.35. Now, for the suburban service
district, the M&O, which is maintenance and operation, is 6.53 mills. Debt
service is .25 mills, which is a quarter mill, and fire protection is .62
mills for the fire districts, except for Blythe, and Blythe is 2.65 mills for
fire protection.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there anything else in that -- in the millage that
we're setting that --
MR. COLLINS: Except for the downtown -- the central service district,
which is downtown on Broad Street. There is an additional 5 mills levied on
all the businesses on Broad Street as part of downtown revitalization.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And for fire service, it's laid out here?
MR. COLLINS: Yes, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: How much was the fire service?
MR. COLLINS: For the fire districts, which excludes Blythe, it's .62.
And for Blythe it's 2.65.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And that's for the entire -- both the urban and the
suburban tax districts are the same.
MR. COLLINS: No, I think that the urban service district, their fire
tax is paid as part of the 10.35 mills, their general M&O mills. It's not
included. That .62 is not included on the city.
MR. McKIE: All of that's in your budget book. The fire department is
part of the General Fund in the city. A recom-mendation that we're going to
have for the mid-year review is that we make a change on some of these things
as departments are consolidated. But what we brought today is the same thing
we put in the budget book and left them, you know, basically as they were.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, my concern is that I don't think there's
anything more important than we do in setting the millage rates for the city -
- for our area, and the lack of information that we receive prior to this
really hinders our ability to make a quality decision. And what I'm saying is
that I think the staff has to give us information way before the time of the
day of the meeting. And, frankly, if I was called by a constituent I couldn't
tell them what I voted for or what I didn't vote for and, frankly, I'm
embarrassed over it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, do we have a motion on the floor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
MR. POWELL: I'd like to make a motion that we table this item till the
next agenda.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That may be a problem.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we've got to, by state law, adopt a
millage rate and I think we've got to adopt it now so that we can collect it
in the appropriate time, and that we're going to cost ourselves financially if
we don't adopt some kind of rate.
MR. WALL: Let me address Mr. Zetterberg's concern. This was brought to
the Finance Committee Monday a week ago and was received as information at
that time. The question came up as to whether or not it was necessary to
establish the millage rate at this Commission meeting. The statute does not
require that it be adopted today, however, as a practical matter you need to
adopt it today in order for it to meet the flow.
The tax digest is scheduled to go to Atlanta on August the 12th. You
will not have another meeting before then. Once the tax digest goes to
Atlanta, it's going to take a couple of weeks before the Revenue Commissioner
will issue his approval. Once he issues his approval, it will take
approximately three weeks before the tax bills can be printed, prepared for
mailing, and mailed out. That then gets you to approximately September the
15th, which if you're going to have the discount rate by November the 15th, it
needs to be in place. So when I answered the question before the Finance
Committee that, no, it did not have to be adopted on that meeting and then
brought to this meeting, I was correct from a legal standpoint. From a
practical standpoint there wasn't enough time to allow it to get accomplished.
While I was out of town last week, this problem was brought to my
attention. I then spoke with the chairman of the Finance Committee, explained
the situation and requested permission to put it on the agenda. The
information that was passed out at the Finance Committee, I assume, is the
information that you have there or substantially the same information. Now, I
don't know how that -- where it went beyond the Finance Committee members, Mr.
Zetterberg, but that's the reason that it was not included in the agenda book
and the reason that it was handled the way it was.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm thinking from, you know, the time that we were
sitting down and doing the budget till the time that the Tax Assessor put his
work together that we've seen proposed millage, you know, rates on what they
would be. And this is just -- I agree that we should have got a final
recommendation in our hand probably before this meeting, but certainly I'm not
totally in the dark in the sense that it's not changing and it's sufficient
enough to operate this government, as I understand it, urban and suburban.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is everybody comfortable with the motion that we -- do
we need to have it read or are we okay? It's to accept the millage rate, is
what it is. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MR. POWELL AND MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO; MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the recommendations of
the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia for the appointment of
Edward Sheehan and the reappointment of Jean Ellis.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these are the recommendations -- since we
are required -- the Board of Health is required to make this recommendation,
this is the recommendations of the Board of Health of Richmond County.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that in the form of a motion, Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: That is a motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Brigham's motion?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: I voiced this exception to this once before on these
committee appointments, and I just have a little problem with these
appointments going forward. And I think the problem that I have is that, I
think according to the bill, as I go back to that, and I've stated this once
before, that these committees -- the appointment to these committees should --
I think we should look at all of them and then make these appointments from --
and using some kind of form of method in determining where these people are
coming from and what district they live. Because I think this is all in the
bill and a part of the Bill, and this is why I'm just a little concerned about
each meeting we are continuing to make appointments to boards. And I've heard
the argument before, but I just want to get it on the record that I'm opposed
to those appointments until we find out just what direction we're going and
where they're coming from.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I can concur with my colleague on county
appointments, but where we have state appointments, or by state statute, I
think we need to go on and make them to keep those boards functioning. This
is a regional board for the CSRA and it's important that we have our person on
board. And I think that if we review the enabling legislation to merge or
consolidate, and review the state statute that calls for these boards, we'll
see that those boards was excluded from the enabling legislation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 44, please.
CLERK: Item 44: Appointment of Commissioner Henry Brigham as the
liaison to the Policy Council for Children and Families (Family Connection).
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. Mr. Mayor, now this is one of
those that would qualify, would be a county-appointed member even though its
from the Board of Commission. And I think that Mr. Brigham already serves as
liaison on the -- for the School Board, and I feel basically that some of this
needs to be spread out as far as the responsibility go. And that's just my
thoughts.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm not trying to point any fingers at my
colleague, but I think my colleague has an organization that would directly
benefit from this appointment, and I think we ought to appoint somebody else.
I think that Mr. Brigham is a honorable man, but I don't think he needs to be
placed in a situation where he might be perceived to be in a conflict of
interest.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I need to know more about how the
appointment came about and what function this will -- what position this will
put Mr. Brigham in to this conflict of interest that Jerry has raised there.
I mean, what his duties are going to be, and then --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's my understanding that this is the official
representative from this Commission to a task force that makes recommendations
of funding of various agencies that -- Henry, am I wrong? Now, if I'm wrong
I'll back up and I'll say I'm sorry.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll stop you when you're wrong.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. This is a --
MR. H. BRIGHAM: But I don't think that there is a conflict, because if
there is, as we do in other issues, I'll be glad to leave the room as others
do; I'll be glad not to vote on the item as others do. But I think early in
the year, Mr. Mayor, you all actually asked me to work with this committee.
We've already signed off on it, and the Governor has already appointed
Richmond County as one of the ten areas in the state of Georgia. So basically
I'm already there, but if this group does not want me there, I certainly will
abide by the wishes of it. I'm already there, is what I'm saying. This is to
ratify that, that's all this is.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: All I'm concerned about is if you're on the governing
board that determines whether or not your organization receives funding, and
that's what I'm concerned about.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, they haven't so far, Mr. Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, earlier in the year we dealt with designating this
entity to be the entity that will receive all grant money and decide how that
grant money would be disbursed. Certainly I think that's a major undertaking,
and I certainly would like to see my colleague not on but one board as far as
liaison. I think there's ten of us and there is enough to spread around. And
I'd like to commend him for the job that he's done as far as the School Board
go. He's been a tremendous help there. And that's just my concerns. And I'd
like to remind this board, if we're going to serve on several different
boards, then certainly we shouldn't put regulations on the general public that
we're not going to live up to. And that we've talked about language and
debated the issue on whether we're going to have individuals from the general
public serving on more than one board.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? I have a motion on the
floor. All in favor of the motion -- do y'all need the motion reread,
gentlemen, or are y'all happy with it?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is nominations closed, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we didn't have anymore.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would like to nominate Mr. Freddie Handy.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, now we have a nomination for Mr. Freddie Handy.
Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: I don't know what I'll be doing, but -- I don't want to turn
down anything that I could be a help, but I don't want to be going against Mr.
Brigham at the same time. So I think -- I would like to make a substitute
motion that we table this until we get our heads together and we come back,
and I know I'll get a second on that, okay?
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if the controversy arises around whether
some conflict with me, I certainly would withdraw in favor of Mr. Handy. And
I would like to move that Mr. Handy become the representative to the Family
Connection for this, so he will not be in any direct conflict.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, are you agreeable to that?
MR. HANDY: Only if Mr. Brigham holds my hand and guides me.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, we'll do that.
MR. HANDY: I'll accept it. This is to protect Mr. Brigham -- not to
help Handy, to protect Mr. Brigham.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I need it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Brigham,
seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, that Mr. Handy be appointed to the Council for
Children and Families. Further discussion on that? All in favor of the
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 46: Consider notice of appeal of the denial of the alcohol
license of Mr. James V. Fenimore.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I spoke with Mr. Batson, and in view of the fact
that y'all have a public hearing starting at six o'clock, he was agreeable to
moving this. He was going to be on vacation at the next Commission meeting,
so with the consent I would recommend that this be postponed until the first
meeting in September.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Okay, I'll need a motion to accept and approve the Commission-
Council minutes of July 16th, 1996.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Did we add this to the agenda?
CLERK: That's what I said, to add -- and to approve. I need a motion
to add and to approve.
MR. TODD: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, this motion is to add; right?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Add and approve it, wasn't it?
MR. TODD: And to approve?
CLERK: Add and approve.
MR. TODD: Well, I'd like to do the adding, then the approving.
CLERK: Okay. To add.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, so the motion is to add. Any discussion on the
motion to add? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your
hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we need a motion to approve.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 47: An Ordinance to establish a due date for Ad Valorem
Taxes for Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; to
establish the rate of interest and penalty amounts for delinquent ad valorem
taxes for the Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; to
establish a discount for early payment of Ad Valorem taxes by residents of the
Urban and Suburban Districts of Augusta-Richmond County; to repeal conflicting
ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, this is, I assume, the first reading?
MR. WALL: It is the first reading, and this would bring the urban
service district into compliance with the suburban service district.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 48, please.
CLERK: A Resolution to declare official intent to reimburse for
expenditures for improvements to the Water and Sewerage System.
MR. WALL: Under the IRS regulations you have to adopt a resolution
either prior to the expenditure of funds or within 60 days following the
expenditure of funds that you have any intent of putting into a bond issue.
Because of the anticipated purchase of some additional land out by the
proposed wetlands project, I thought it was appropriate to adopt this
resolution so that if the bond issue is ultimately voted to go forward, those
monies could be recouped out of the bond issue.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 49, please.
CLERK: A Resolution establishing the time and place for the meeting of
the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council; establishing the time and
place for the Commission-Council to meet as a committee of the Whole; and for
other purposes.
MR. KUHLKE: I move approval.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke -- who was the second by?
I didn't --
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess my concern would be that, one, we're
changing in the middle of the stream. And the other purposes, I would have to
-- I would need to know what those are. Some of the language that I've heard
was that the Mayor Pro Tem would not have a vote. The legislation spells out
that the Mayor Pro Tem will have a vote. And maybe we can get some
clarification there as to whether there's anything in this resolution that is
-- and I would assume this is the first reading -- that is not stated.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to address that?
MR. WALL: Well, what I attempted to do was to draw up a resolution in
accordance with the discussion that was held at the work session on July the
18th, and it's presented here for your consideration. The question did come
up, Mr. Todd, as to the consolidation legislation and the role of the Mayor
Pro Tem, and the understanding was -- there was a good bit of discussion about
whether the existing committee structure would remain as standing committees
or whether committees would be appointed on an as-needed basis. What appeared
to be the consensus at that time was that there would be committees appointed
on an as-needed basis, and the Mayor Pro Tem would have a vote and would be
fulfilling his responsibility under the consolidation bill on any committee
that was appointed by the Commission-Council on a issue-by-issue or case-by-
case basis.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, are we talking about the
structure that we operate on now, the committee structure and the members of
that committee starting, I guess, after the second reading or are we talking
about provisions to be able to have work sessions as far as a committee as a
whole? And it's my understanding that we're talking about changing the
structure, and I would have a hard time understanding how we can do that in
the sense that we've already, at the first of the year, selected committees
that were agreed upon between the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem. And if both of
them are not agreeing to this change, I would have a problem with voting in
this change.
I've given a lot of thought to it. When I first heard this concept, I
must tell you that I was in favor of it because, with the exception of when
Mr. Mays was Chairman, I think I got a raw deal every time a committee
chairman was appointed and every time a committee was set up. And I don't
bite my tongue on that, you know, as far as past chairman's that's no longer
here and those that's here now. I think I got a raw deal this time, but I
feel that there is a process that you should go through, and when you vote on
something at the first of the year as far as the committee structure go, that
you should stick with that through that year. And if we're going to change
anything, the appropriate place to change it is the beginning of next year.
So if this resolution is going to be to start January 1, then I wouldn't have
a serious problem with it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, a little bit in response to Mr. Todd, since he
was not able to be at that meeting, I think the idea came about because at the
beginning of the year we were under a certain structure of government. We're
going through the process now of restructuring the government, and as we began
to look at the proposed structure as presented by the Project Manager, then it
became clear to some of us anyway that to operate as a committee of the whole
we'd get a lot more accomplished in less time. So it would appear to me that
by September the 30th we ought to have the new structure of the government
formalized, and this approach works into that new structure.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, in reference to the committee as a whole, after
reading the language of the resolution I do have some problem with that
language. And at the beginning I thought that, you know, the committee of the
whole would be something that we could work on and eliminate some of the time
line that we have become accustomed to. But I think that -- I feel that we
need a little more work on this and maybe the language of the resolution. And
after going through today taking items one by one, I'm just not so sure of how
we can regulate the time and get into a time frame where we could reduce the
time that we are spending here. And if this is an example today of how we're
going to work on a committee of the whole, then I really have to give it
second thoughts on this.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I think the way we operated today is a direct result of
not having a committee of the whole. I feel very unprepared sometimes coming
to this meeting after not having enough information prepared by the staff,
having the opportunity to have dialogues with my fellow Commissioners, and
this recommendation gets at the heart of that problem.
It does a couple things. One, it cuts in half the number of meetings
and, two, prepares Commissioners to do a better job. And I think that that's
the basis for that, and it makes a lot of sense and I don't understand why we
would have a problem with that unless there was some that wanted to just grab
power from being a committee chairman. But as far as I'm concerned it's a
good recommendation and I can do a better job in representing the people from
District 3. I feel disadvantaged under the present system.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to say that I'd like to ride one
horse across the stream before I change onto another one before I get to the
other side. I'd like to do one thing completely for the year. And I'm
comfortable with the committee structure we're under. I'm not comfortable
with the meeting times, some of the time we spend in meetings, but many of
those meetings are extra to the committee meetings. They're called meetings,
they're retreats or that type of thing. And, to me, the committee of the
whole would just be another meeting like we've had today. You know, it's the
same thing Mr. Beard was saying. So with that in mind, I'd like to make a
motion -- a substitute motion that we reject the resolution at this time.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like for a roll call vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Just one second, I'm getting my -- all right,
discussion? I'm sorry, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, discussion on the substitute motion. And
the point that I would like to try to make, and -- you know, and I don't know
whether I do a good job at it, but the bottom line is that we operated as a
committee as a whole under the old county government and we was often accused
of having closed meetings in the sense that all the Commissioners was there
and we were in a committee room and the doors were 99 -- well, let's say at
least 80 percent of the time open except when we was in legal session. But the
perception was that we were -- all the Commissioners was in there and we were
making decisions, and when we come out of those meetings, that we had done
deals even though there was committee meetings that were making
recommendations to the full Commission.
But if you have a majority of the Commissioners approving a committee
action, and that's the requirement, then certainly you have the number that
you need when you make the decision. I can see where that would probably be
more efficient in a regular meeting, you know, that you already have your six
or your eight, you don't have to worry about -- other than when you're
selecting a Mayor Pro Tem now, it used to be Chairman, or what those votes
were going to be, because they changed overnight and sometimes over five
minutes. But other than that, it's pretty much a done deal coming out of a
committee as a whole. Now, gentlemen, what we need to decide is what we
want the perception of this new government to be, whether the deals is already
done when we come out of what we used to call pre-meetings, or committee as a
whole or whatever you want to call it, or whether we want to have a --less
than a quorum meeting in a committee and bringing a recommendation to the full
board, with the full board having a open mind about the issue and it's not a
done deal when the public gets down here as far as deciding what way a liquor
license is going to go or what way a zoning issue is going to go, et cetera.
And that's basically my comments, and I would like for us to do the best thing
for this community versus what is expedient for some of us and consider all
facts.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to remind my colleague that,
according to the bill, if we're going by the bill, the committee structure
that is set up now is good for two years. That's what's in the bill. Now, if
you want to change that, then we're going to have to change the bill. That
was put in the bill that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem will select the
committees, set it up for two years, and then it expires.
Also, I'd like to remind you that at the retreat it was my idea that I
came up with that if we're going to start anything we should start the first
of the year. Well, that may be written down in some notes. After going back
thinking about what I said, I'd like to remind you that the committee is set
up for two years, so it must be changed, according to the bill, with the
majority of us to change that. And that's just a reminder.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I've had the pleasure of working under both
systems. Last year we worked with a committee of the whole, this year we have
the standing committee structure. And with the magnitude of the job that
we've got of merging this government, we as Commissioners --or I'll speak for
myself. I can't watch every little detail and every little committee. And
anybody that sits up here and tells you that they can, well, they're way
beyond me, because we have a lot of stuff going on in Richmond County.
We've had a really functional committee in the Public Works and
Engineering Services Committee, and I feel that the standing committee is a
lot more functional. We can pay more attention to detail; we can pay more
attention to progress. And when you just combine all this stuff as a bulk,
you consume it as a bulk. You don't have time to get into detail. And I
think that the standing committee recommendations are a lot clearer, both in
the study that's been given to them, and I feel that they're more functional.
And I've had the privilege to work under both, and that's just my opinion.
Thank you.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I think the committee structure works fine if you have
to make all the decisions. But obviously we need to move this body towards a
policy making board rather than operating day to day and taking care of all
the little things that the staff should be doing. And I can understand why
you want to do that, but if we're ever going to get to a position, this would
be a way that we can move towards making policy versus making day-to-day
decisions.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make it very brief. Point of
information, I believe that it's a super majority to change anything in the
bill, not a simple majority.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to say that when we left that
retreat, I felt like that there was a pretty strong feeling of a committee of
the whole. I come to this meeting and the two people that were not at that
meeting are now opposed to a committee of the whole. They didn't have a
chance to be there, obviously they didn't have a chance to participate in the
discussions that we had for a half a day. I don't even see where the
committee structure that we presently have fits into the proposed
organizational chart that we're going forward with. So I don't know what
we're doing, I think we're spinning our wheels, and I just wanted to make that
comment.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I haven't weighed in on this one and
probably should. Having served on this board and a number of other boards, I
think that we only have ten people, in some governments we would be a
committee. And if we can't operate as a committee of the whole where
everybody can have a full and complete understanding of what's going on in
this government, it don't matter whether we have one-member committees or 550-
member committees. We still have one basic factor we've got to get over, and
that's the trust factor.
And there are some people here that think that if we're going to have
subcommittees reporting back to us, that we're going to go faster. That is
not the case. Y'all have seen what's happened. I haven't necessarily been a
party to it, but I have been a party to it. And if there's items that affect
me or that I'm interested in that I'm not on that committee, I'm going to do
like the rest of you, I'm going to drag my feet and I'm going to question
every bit of it. And y'all do the same to my area, and I don't blame you.
But I think if we had a committee of the whole, if we just went and
attended, which is near impossible when we meet two days/three days a week, so
we at least know what's going on at the other committees. Like you say, this
government's a big government and, yes, you can't be knowledgeable in every
area, but we are responsible for every area down to the most minute detail.
And they don't --just because you represent one section and I represent a
section, they hold us separately accountable for what's done, whether or not
we voted for it and we all know that.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? Let me beg this Commission's pardon for going to
vote, and I'll be very brief. Again, from a piece of senior citizen's advice,
I worked under all of the different structures, and probably when I was
considered a long-haired radical I served on more committees than anybody else
because I got booted from one to another when serving under three different
mayors. So I've been in committees of the whole, committees of the part, a
committee structure, a whole structure -- I've seen it all.
I think it depends upon the attitude of the people serving. I don't
care what kind of structure you've got. Jerry mentioned the trust factor.
Yes, that has to be there. But I think we need to at times make up our minds
what we want to be in terms of serving. Sometimes I think when it's convenient
we want to be a bigger government, some weeks we want a streamlined
government. I think in a committee structured government, if you take where
you're placed, as I did coming up, and use it as an experience, not as a
punishment, I think then you can learn some things on a broad base type of
concept. If there's any one glaring weakness maybe -- and this is no fault of
anyone's, I don't think, in the committee structure, as Mr. Todd has
mentioned, is the number of people. I think in the past city municipal
government, maybe where you had larger numbers on the committee, basically so
much that you basically had somewhat of a policy coming out of that particular
committee, as opposed to maybe where we have four in this case and not enough
to make anything coming out of committee, that may be the only problem that
you would have there, and then you could correct that by dealing with the size
of the committee. But I think when you look at -- and I'm not saying that
Congress is right and state government is right, but I don't think you
necessarily have a senate of the whole, a congress of the whole, a state
legislature of the whole. And all of a sudden now, you know, maybe because
the committee's unstructured -- you know, since we're going to say who's what,
it they're not some folk want them to be, then all of a sudden now we want to
make this again the committee of the whole. If we take an interest in
our committees that we are assigned to, whether we consider them the minor
committees or the so-called major committees -- I'm not there on Finance, I'm
not -- it doesn't worry me. I probably have got the committee maybe that
nobody else wants. I've got Recreation that used to be the first under the
gun, Tommy, that it would always be hit, but we lived through it. I've got
Transit that's always under the gun. We took more time with Transit than
anything else that we took today, but I'm proud of the fact that it serves
people. And I think it's the attitude that you take where you're placed
to serve. And I think if you express that type of attitude, take an interest
in your committee, and then it still leaves the option for the Mayor or the
majority of this Commission to still call a working session where we are not
necessarily having to deal with frivolous things, but if we want to put things
there that maybe we don't understand from various committees, then that can be
the time to do that and at the same time keep us out of the private sessions.
If we want to have a working legal session to go along with those, then maybe
ask the City-County Attorney to bring forth all the legal items at one time
that he can and basically do those at that type of meeting. But I think
at this point to take that particular committee structure apart that we have
at this given time, and particularly before you even select an administrator,
maybe somebody who's here or maybe somebody who's not, I think that's a
preemptive move within itself. We're saying we're doing it to make it work
better for the administrator, we could have an administrator who comes, he or
she may say, oh, I wish that you did have a committee structure. So, I mean,
if nothing else, if you're doing it to say that, then you ought to wait until
you get somebody on board. But, again, I think the legal question with
the resolution -- and Freddie's brought it up -- I'd just like to ask Jim
where do you stand on the resolution that you've written in reference to that?
Or can you move -- is he here? Jim, Freddie brought up a minute ago, in
reference to the two year provision, is that a holding part of the bill that's
in place, this resolution that we have the power in order to change that by
only a simple majority?
MR. WALL: What the consolidation bill says is that at its first regular
meeting in January of each even numbered year the Commission-Council shall
organize itself. And then it talks about the Chairperson-Mayor, the Vice-
Chairperson-Mayor shall recommend to the Commission the appointment of such
committees as they deem appropriate and the proposed membership thereof. Then
it goes on to say that all committees and the membership thereof shall be
created, abolished, and appointed as directed by the Commission-Council. So,
yes, Mr. Handy is correct. In the first sentence it talks about being a two-
year organizational structure, but then it does say that the committees and
the memberships can be abolished as directed by the Commission-Council. So
once again you've got an ambiguity in the bill in a sense.
MR. MAYS: The bill's got a lot of ambiguities, I'd be the first to say
that. I've been saying that since it was written. But, you know, I think it
boils back down to attitude and about saving time. You can take six
committees and put them as a whole and you're still going to discuss the items
that six committees have. You may meet at one time and you still -- if it's
70 items, you're still going to deal with all 70 whether you're going to deal
with them at one time or whether you're going to deal with them in two days.
I think it lends to creativity. I think it gives you something to be
concerned about in a particular area and still at the same time respect the
other ideas of your colleagues. I don't think the retiring senator from
Georgia could have been as strong in Armed Services if he had been a committee
of the whole of the United States Senate tending to everybody else's business
rather than dealing with that for Armed Services, that being Sam Nunn. I
think that committee system can work if you make up your mind that it can
work. And then when you need to come together for a working session, let it
be a working session and not a BS session, and then you can get about the
business that you have to do. And that's my only comment.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do y'all want the motion reread,
gentlemen, so we know exactly what we're voting on?
CLERK: To reject the resolution.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the substitute motion. All right, the
substitute motion made by Mr. Bridges. So all in favor of Mr. Bridges'
motion, let it be known by --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we have a request for a roll call.
CLERK: Roll call. It's a roll call.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I'm sorry.
CLERK: Mr. Lee Beard.
MR. BEARD: I'm voting for Mr. Bridges' motion.
CLERK: To reject?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: The motion is to reject the resolution, the committee as a whole
concept. Ulmer Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No, I don't want to reject it, because this is just the
first reading and we're going to have to read it again and then make a
decision. So I'll just vote present because I don't want to reject it. It
won't make no sense to reject because we're not going to approve it anyway
today.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So the resolution is rejected for the first reading.
Mr. Wall, does that kill it or does it come out for another reading now?
MR. WALL: No, it doesn't have to come back for a second reading. The
resolution is rejected until somebody puts it back on the agenda.
MR. MAYS: Just send it on to the funeral home with me, Mr. Mayor. It's
dead.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, we've got a public meeting that was supposed
to have been at six o'clock. The people are here. What do y'all want to do?
Mr. Wall, what do you think we should do?
MR. MAYS: Invite them in.
MR. WALL: Well, I think that you have advertised a public hearing, and
out of deference to the citizens I would recommend that you adjourn the
meeting. I would point out that under the rules that you adopted, it's
provided that if a scheduled meeting of the Commission-Council is not
completed due to constraints or an emergency, the meeting shall be adjourned
to the following day or to a specific day scheduled by the Commission-Council
to allow for the completion of pending business. And it also spells out that
only the business that was on this agenda can be considered. And so my
recommendation is that you either reschedule, or recess if they wanted to do
that, and then come back after --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we recess until
this public hearing is over with and come back and take care of the people's
business.
MR. BRIDGES: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion to recess and then come back. Eight
o'clock?
MR. BEARD: Well, I would suggest after the public hearing.
MR. TODD: Yes, that was the intent or the statement in the motion, Mr.
Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any discussion? Do I have a second to your
motion?
MR. BRIDGES: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Bridges. Discussion on the motion,
gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: What was the motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: The motion is to recess until the public hearing is
over with and then resume the meeting. Any discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: I'll just say, Mr. Mayor, that we need about a five-minute
break before the public hearing, please, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my discussion would be that we need to try to
coordinate meeting times a little better, and we'd certainly appreciate that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion to recess, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MEETING IN RECESS, 6:11 - 7:31 P.M.
[MAYOR SCONYERS OUT] MR. HANDY: Do we need a motion, Ms. Clerk, to
reconvene?
CLERK: No, sir, we don't need one. The attorney said we don't need
one.
MR. WALL: Just call it back to order.
MR. HANDY: Commission-Council in order.
CLERK: The next item on the agenda is to consider approval of the bid
award for the Belle Terrace Senior Citizens Center Project, Item Number 50.
MR. HANDY: Could you hold on a minute, please. Mr. Brigham, give me my
book. I don't have anything before me. Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we award it to the best bid.
MR. HANDY: That is Item Number 50?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. WALL: It comes as a recommendation from the architect as well as
myself that Continental Construction Company is the best bid and that you
award the base bid of $446,50, plus alternates numbers one, two, three, five,
six, and seven, for a total contract amount of $471,579.
MR. HANDY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any
discussion, please?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like one question, to make sure that
the money is in the budget for it.
MR. WALL: This is being paid for with $500,000 grant, and it's within
the budget.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion
show hands?
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the Lease Agreement for
property known as "Big Farm" between Charles Thompson and the Augusta-Richmond
County Commission Council.
MR. WALL: Members of the Commission, this -- I'll ask that you ratify
this. I polled you, and the lease agreement has actually already been signed
and delivered. It's for 235 acres of cultivatable farm land out of a total of
900 acres. Again, the first year's lease payment would not be paid since we
will be crossing that property as a part of the wetlands project.
MR. KUHLKE: I move approval.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MR. HANDY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
MR. TODD: Yes, sir. Mr. Wall, I guess my only question is that if the
configuration of the land turns out to be some land that we need for wetlands
or for the airport, is there provisions there to terminate the lease and work
that out?
MR. WALL: Well, this is the cultivatable land. And I think that has
already been looked at that there wouldn't be any but, I mean, obviously we
could always exclude some portion of it if we needed to.
MR. TODD: Thank you.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 52: Consider approval of the contract between the
Department of the Army and Augusta-Richmond County to allow an additional
Public Safety Answering Point to be located at Fort Gordon.
MR. WALL: The federal government had authorized some additional funding
to Fort Gordon so that they would have their own basically E-911 facility.
Currently, calls are through what they call a hot button, but if a call comes
in from Fort Gordon it goes into the E-911 facility on Fourth Street through a
call transfer. It's carried right back out to the Provost Marshal's office.
This would allow those calls to go directly to the Provost Marshal's office
since they handle it. This has met the approval of the Sheriff and would not
cost any funds to the county by virtue of allowing them to have their PSAP
facility, and I recommend approval.
MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that.
MR. HANDY: Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any
discussion, please?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Wall, do we collect any 911 funds off
of those numbers at Fort Gordon?
MR. WALL: We do.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion?
MR. WALL: We're going to make the profit off of the calls, we're not
going to make the cost of them.
MR. TODD: Is that the individuals or is the post paying for that? Are
the soldiers paying for it or the post?
MR. WALL: The individuals pay for it because the phone is registered in
their name. Whoever is the subscriber is the one that pays the cost.
MR. TODD: You know, on these Chamber trips we're trying to work out
better relations with the post, and the post can't come to use and say, hey,
we need you to do ABC for us, but we certainly can go to them and say, hey,
this is the way we'd like to help you. And I'd like for us to consider
waiving that -- can't do it?
MR. WALL: Can't do it.
MR. TODD: Okay. If we can't do it, then it's understand-able if we
have to charge everybody the same. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. HANDY: Next item, please.
CLERK: To consider approval of the Special Service Arrangement
Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and the additional E-911
equipment.
MR. WALL: Y'all have previously authorized the additional equipment,
including the 60 button set. This is simply the agreement whereby the charges
are established, and you will see that there's a nonrecurring charge of
$21,268, then there's a monthly rate of -- well, $1,292, plus there's an
additional 105, plus $11, and this will replace the current agreement that we
have on the old E-911 equipment that was in the basement. In other words,
we've upgraded the equipment, we've gotten more sophisticated equipment, and
this would be the new monthly rate. And that is in order and I recommend
approval of it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. BEARD: I second it.
MR. HANDY: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion,
please? If not, all in favor by a show of hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: If we could please take up the Items 2 and 3 on the addendum
agenda. Consider approval of the Resolution for Children and Youth
Coordinating Council Grant Application for local juvenile delinquency
prevention and early intervention in Augusta-Richmond - Family Connection.
MR. WALL: This is a pass-through grant that the county has handled for
a number of years, and the grant is in order and I recommend approval.
MR. HANDY: What's your pleasure?
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. HANDY: I have a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion,
please?
MR. BRIDGES: How much is that?
MR. WALL: I'm looking for my papers, and I can't find it.
MR. BRIDGES: Is that a pass-through from the state?
MR. WALL: It's a pass-through from the state. $30,000 -- well, the
amount requested, 30,000 -- oh, this is the application for 30,000, I'm sorry,
it's not --this goes -- David Evans was here earlier. The money goes toward
hiring a probation officer, as I understand it.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion
show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: The Mutual Aid Agreement between Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Inc. and Richmond County Emergency Management Agency.
MR. WALL: This is, again, something that y'all approved in concept
sometime back insofar as a mutual aid agreement. Pam Tucker has raised the
money through private industry to supply all of the county's portion of those
costs. This will be the first of these agreements that has been signed in the
United States -- well, there will actually be some other signing ceremonies at
the same time. At the time I wrote the letter, it was my understanding that
that was going to be on August the 14th. In talking with Pam today, because
the DOE official could not be there, it's going to be on August the 21st. All
of you will be receiving invitations to that event. It will not cost the
county any money, and I recommend approval of the agreement.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Did I get a second?
MR. MAYS: I'll second.
MR. HANDY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. HANDY: Next item, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: 54: Consolidation Project Manager: Fire Department
Organization Structure. Is he still here? He's gone?
CHIEF MADDOX: I guess I'm next on the schedule. Basically what I'm
supposed to do is go over the organization structure of the Augusta-Richmond
County Fire Department. Let me give you a brief update on it. We consolidated
the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department on December 31st of 1995. At the
time we consolidated we adopted the former Richmond County Fire Department's
work schedule, which was a 56 hour work week. That's one day on and one day
off. In consolidating, we put 19 fire stations in service and housed in those
19 fire stations are 19 pump companies, 4 aerial truck companies, 1 service
truck company, and 1/2 material unit. These are just as information I thought
you'd like to know.
We have a personnel level of 308 people. We have 286 in fire
suppression; we have 22 daily personnel in administrative services. And, of
course, the responsibility of any fire department, particularly the Augusta-
Richmond County Fire Department, is to save lives and to protect property and
to provide the best possible fire --I mean, fire protection at the lowest
cost, and I think we're doing that. Our total budget this year is ten-four,
which is $10,400,000. As of today, we have answered 3,365 calls, so you can
see we are kind of busy. The former Augusta Fire Department had a Class
2 insurance rating. Richmond County had a Class 5-7. We're supposed to get
an insurance evaluation this year. I met with the people in Atlanta about a
month ago and they agreed to hold off until '97 to give us a chance to bring
this thing together. So in '97 we will be getting a new rating. At that time
we will be reducing the Class 5 and the Class 7 in South Augusta and also in
West Augusta. I don't think we'll have any problem doing that. And if
you'll look at your consolidation chart -- and I believe everybody's got one,
it's in your book. If you don't we have some extra ones. Does anybody need a
copy? If you'll look at that, the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department is
divided into five divisions, roughly. We have the Administrative Service, we
have the Fire Prevention Bureau, we have the Operating Division, the Training
Division, and the Support Division. In the Administrative Service we
have three people assigned to that division. In the Fire Prevention we have
eight people that are assigned to that division. We have a battalion chief,
two captains, four lieutenants, and a safety officer. That division's
responsibility is to make sure that all state fire codes, federal fire codes,
and ordinances that this body passes are enforced; to inspect all the
buildings; and also to make sure that all new construction and all remodeling
meets the fire codes that is issued by this body and also by the state. That's
primarily their duties. The Operating Division is the biggest division.
We have 286 people assigned to that division. If you look at your chart
you'll see that we have 3 assistant chiefs, 9 battalion chiefs, 23 captains,
46 lieutenants, and 78 drivers, and 127 privates. That division's primary
duties is to handle all fire suppression and a number of other duties that's
assigned to that division. And then, of course, we have our Training
Division. We have two battalion chiefs, and all the lieutenants and captains
are required to assist those two battalion chiefs in the training of the
Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. And then we have our Support
Division. We have nine people in there. We have one assistant chief, we have
our radio technician, our supply officer and, of course, we have seven
dispatchers -- this says six, but we have seven that's assigned to our 911
communication center, which we moved into on June the 30th of 1996. And
I hope within the next 45 days we will be putting into service our new 800
trunking communication system, which will be a tremendous improvement over
what we're using today. We're using one kind of like a T-model compared to
what we're going to be using in the next 45 days. But we had to revert to
that because the former county fire department had the low frequency and we in
the city already had the 800 trunking system. I don't know how we got it with
the city being broke, but we did. And that's basically the consolidation
list. If somebody has a question, I'll be glad to try to answer it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I have a question. What are we doing as
far as the person that we used to send in the former county government to the
schools to train and work with the, I guess K through --
CHIEF MADDOX: What is that? I didn't understand you, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Excuse me, Chief. Chief, what are we doing as far as the
public relations person that we used to send to the schools to work with the
elementary school children?
CHIEF MADDOX: She will be beginning that as soon as school starts back.
Right now we're having her working on the dispatch system. She was
originally in charge of the Richmond County dispatch system before she became
a safety officer, and probably sometime next month she'll be assigned back to
that. And she will be continuing going to school to improve it. In fact, she
just went to a school about three weeks ago to continue schooling on that.
MR. TODD: Right. Am I misinformed that we didn't run that from January
1 until school turned out, or was there a need to do it in those months?
CHIEF MADDOX: We was inspecting the schools and so forth, but we felt
like it was more important to get this 911 center in operation. And she was
well familiar with that operation, that's why she was assigned there. She
will be going back to the schools and making safety talks and that type thing
right shortly.
MR. TODD: Yes. Well, thanks, Chief, because I hear a lot of positive
feedback from the job that she was doing there. I was over at Humana just a
few days ago and one of the intake nurses there had a small child that -- I
think the child actually might have started a fire, but she remembered what
she was told at school and she actually got out of the house by using what she
learned in school.
CHIEF MADDOX: Well, basically all the Fire Prevention Bureau goes in
the schools, the hospitals, nursing homes, and they hold schools. Of course,
she teaches a lot of young kids, but the full bureau has that responsibility.
They hold safety talks throughout the Richmond County.
MR. KUHLKE: Chief, where do your fire marshal -- inspectors, where do
they come in this chart? Under the Fire Prevention?
CHIEF MADDOX: Fire Prevention. They are certified by the State Fire
Marshal's office to do these type things, enforce the state fire codes and so
forth. They are fire marshals, actually. The state law says anything over
100,000 people, that the local bureau will take care of all the law
enforcement; anything under 100,000, they will assign somebody from the state
to come in. But we take care of all of our own code enforcement and so forth.
MR. KUHLKE: There's been some discussion about the possibility of
having your inspectors working in the office of Licensing and Inspection.
What's your feeling on that?
CHIEF MADDOX: We're looking at that down the road. We've been making a
study of that, and I don't know if we're going to go along with that and
recommend that or not because I don't want to lose control of those people.
Because, actually, that responsibility comes under the duties of the Fire
Chief to make sure that those laws and stuff is enforced, and if they go out
in that particular location we might have a little problem working together.
But we will study it and see what we can do.
We probably will put the two people that reads the plans -- we have two
people that's experts in plan reading that has to approve all of the new
construction as well as remodeling. We'll probably put them out there to
solve that problem. And I did agree at one time to maybe put them out there,
but after making a further study, we probably will just put those two people
out there and keep the rest of them on board.
MR. HANDY: Any other questions?
MR. TODD: I just want to make a comment that I'm 101 percent for
keeping the inspectors in the Fire Department. I think as far as training
goes, and working, that's the place for them to be.
CHIEF MADDOX: I might add one other thing. Since we have consolidated
we have been able to keep three men about 99 percent on duty on the pump
companies, and that was one of our goals to start with. We have a training
class going on at this time. As soon as they finish, we'll go ahead and put
them in all county stations -- former county stations.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Chief, I noticed here on your chart that you say you've
got 15 vacancies. Are you in the process of filling these?
CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir. We just hired seven people, put them in
training Monday, and we'll be hiring the rest of those people.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do you have any idea when we'll have all those filled?
CHIEF MADDOX: I'd say in the next 60 days we ought to have them all
aboard and have them trained and in the stations in service.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Can you give me an update on the training facility?
CHIEF MADDOX: The training facility, we was hoping we'd be farther
along on that. We had -- Mr. Gooding was going to run the roads in there.
And I talked to the Waterworks superinten-dent, he was going to put the water
in there. And this body gave us $60,000, but we ran into a wetland problem
which is being studied, and I hope within the next 30 days that will be solved
and we can go ahead and get started on that full force. Which I hope by the
end of the year we will have something out there that we can begin training
because we need it very badly at this time.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I don't know whether we are supposed to act on this
today, but certainly I would like to congratulate the Chief for bringing in a
report. And it seems that this department, it appears, is moving right along,
and I think that others will do the same identical thing. Now, I don't know
whether -- John, are we supposed to approve this or what are we supposed to do
with this? You've approved all this, now.
MR. ETHERIDGE: We have all -- the Project Manager, myself, and Charles
Dillard and the Fire Chief met last week and we all looked at all of it and it
looked good.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, is the Chief asking for an approval?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's what I was saying, if he is --
MR. TODD: I'm going to so move that we approve it, Mr. Mayor.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MR. HANDY: We have a motion and second that we approve the structure of
the Fire Department. Do we have any discussion?
MR. TODD: Yes. I would hope that we can, as we promised, revisit the
vacation situation and take a look at that, and I look forward to working with
the Chief and whomever as far as that initiative go.
CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Todd, we'll probably be looking at that some time
around the first of the year. Right now we just got the other one straightened
out. If we try to do something now it's going to be real confusing.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Chief.
MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion
show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. HANDY: Next item, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: Fire Chief position job description.
CHIEF MADDOX: You don't want me to give you that one, I assure you.
MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Handy, Mr. Carstarphen is on his way back in. And I
have your food, so if y'all wouldn't -- do you want to take about a five-
minute or so break to eat your food while he gets in here?
MR. HANDY: Well, we just have one item, and that's the description, and
then the agenda calls for a closed session -- a legal session, anyway.
MS. BEAZLEY: Well, maybe you want to go on into closed session, because
I don't think anybody else can address that position description but Mr.
Carstarphen. And he is on his way.
MR. HANDY: I mean, like on the highway, traveling?
MS. BEAZLEY: Yeah, he's on the highway coming back down here.
MR. HANDY: Okay. John, you have something to say?
MR. ETHERIDGE: Please. What it is, he does have the job description.
We've got it prepared, reviewed it with the Chief, and he wants to present it
to you for your approval.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. Could I get a motion to go into closed
session then, please?
MR. TODD: For what reasons?
MR. WALL: One is a personnel issue. There are also two condemnation
actions, one litigation matter, and a couple matters I need to give you legal
advice on.
MR. TODD: I so move all of the above.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. HANDY: We have a motion and second to go into legal session. All
in favor of the motion, show hands.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
[COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL SESSION, 8:12 - 10:50 P.M.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will reconvene. Mr. Carstarphen, do you
want to do (D) for us, please?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I apologize for my absence for the Chief's
presentation, but I understand he made that presentation and you approved the
organizational structure for the Fire Department, and for that I thank you.
Item 54 (B) is the Fire Chief position description. I have prepared and
laid in front of you a copy of that position description. Due to the lateness
of the hour, if you do not wish to go over that tonight I can understand it
and would suggest that, if that is your desire, that you take it and we
consider it a final. If you have any questions or comments, contact Mr.
Etheridge or myself or the Chief. In the absence of hearing any objection, I
would suggest that it be listed on your next agenda for approval, or if you
are comfortable with it you may act on it tonight. It was our intent to
request its approval, but it is late and you have worked hard and long.
MR. KUHLKE: I say we look at it right now.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, can you go ahead and discuss it for us?
MR. MAYS: We'll do like Motel 6, we'll leave the light on for you. You
won't be here by yourself.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: It has been reviewed by the Interim Chief and he has
concurred with it, it has been reviewed and approved by the Human Resources
Director, and we believe it to be a final and a sufficient description. But
if you do have any questions, don't hesitate to ask us. In the absence of
instructions to the contrary, we will list it on the next regularly scheduled
agenda for approval.
Item (C): We have held the closed meeting, and it is my understanding
that the Commission wishes now to consider a series of appointments, and I
would like to yield to the Mayor with regard to recommendations concerning
those. Following that action, I will give you a brief update on the
administrative selection process. And then I have one other item that is
not listed, but if you would like to receive it I have a revised draft and we
think it is a much improved draft for the Equal Opportunity Director, which I
would like to give to you tonight with the same request, that you review it
and we would list it on the next meeting for approval. But I yield at this
point in time to the Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. The Selection Committee has recommended Lena
Bonner for Clerk of Council.
MR. MAYS: I move it be approved.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be -
- I mean, Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The next item, the Selection Committee has recommended
John Etheridge for Human Resources Director.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. 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 three, the Selection Committee has recommended Mr.
Miller Meyer for License and Inspection Director.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr.
Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That concludes our list.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Item 54 (F) is an update on the administrative
selection process. At the close of applications we had received a total of
105 applications. As you know, the procedure calls for the appointment of a
recruitment subcommittee to assist the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the
Project Manager in reviewing the applications and narrowing it down to a list
of ultimately five applicants that would be brought to the Commission. That
group has been identified. It is a group of a total of 10 or 12 -- 10
individuals from various backgrounds, business, professional, human resource
and personnel, and other managerial and personnel related areas. We have a
meeting scheduled with that group for tomorrow morning and we will begin the
process.
That same group will also assist us in screening the applications for
the position of Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, and we
expect to bring to you that recommendation first. Obviously the 105
applications will require some time, but we will make every effort to comply
with the schedule that we have submitted to you and that you have approved.
If any of you have any questions concerning the sub-committee, Mr. Etheridge
or myself will be happy to respond to them.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the subcommittee -- are all 12 individuals on the
list going to be working on the administrator's -- narrowing it down to the
proposed five, is my first question.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I can answer that. Mr. Todd, the original proposal
was that from that group of 10 or 12, depending on their availability and
their schedules -- after all, they are volunteers -- we would have a minimum
of two that would work with us for each department head selection process.
With regard to the administrator position, that is a matter that we intend to
discuss with the full ten. Given the time and the demands on their time, it
will be our objective to use as many of them as we can and as are available to
us.
MR. TODD: Yes. My other question is, and I've missed a couple working
sessions, but did we ratify the side that we were going to go with 5 --
narrowing it down to 5 versus 15, which I understand a lot of public entities
do?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: The most recent working session, which I believe you
were absent, it was the consensus, I believe, that rather than narrowing it to
15 and then narrowing it again to 5, that we make an effort to bring it down
to 5 which would be brought to the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and myself, and
out of that number the Mayor would bring 3 to the Commission.
MR. TODD: I have some concerns about that process. And in the sense
that I wasn't at that meeting, I do understand there are some concerns and we
haven't ratified that action, and I think that if we're setting the process,
then we certainly should ratify it versus consensus. Now, if it was a
publicly announced meeting and you had a vote on it and I wasn't there, then
I'll live by what was voted on. If we had a consensus and I wasn't there,
then certainly I would like to at least have some discussion on the merits in
going down to 5, then you guys dealing with it and bringing it to 3, versus
the 15 where I have a bigger picture of what's out there. Will you elaborate
on that?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Todd, my recollection -- and any member of the
Commission who recalls differently, please correct me if I'm wrong -- my
recollection was that out of that discussion came a proposed process and
schedule, which I then brought back to the Commission and the Commission acted
on it. And that --
MR. WALL: I'm going to disagree with you. I think it came out of there
that there was a consensus that that was the procedure, but --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: And I wrote it up in the form of a memo, but it was
never acted on formally by the Commission.
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I stand corrected.
MR. TODD: Yes, I didn't think we had a full meeting; I don't usually
miss full meetings. I didn't think we had one since the last working session
and I had talked to some of the Commissioners. So give me the merits or the
cost benefit or ever how you want to state it as far as going with 5, then 3
coming to us, versus having the opportunity to look at 15 and work it down to
5, then doing the press notice and going to one or whatever.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Todd, the discussion, as I recall, did not focus
so much on cost benefit analysis as it did the speed of the process, the
desire of the Commission to move through the process as rapidly as it can be
completely processed. And for that reason, the step that was originally
presented for consideration of narrowing it to 15 and then to 5 was eliminated
in that process in order to achieve a tighter time schedule. If the
Commission would like, we can bring that recommended process back to the
Commission at your next regularly scheduled meeting and you can vote on it,
and at the same time we will have had the benefit of meeting with the
subcommittee to get an idea of how many of them will be available to
participate in the process, and we could bring it all back to you at that
time.
MR. TODD: I would think in terms -- unless the Parliamentarian think
differently, I would think in terms of the fact that we're discussing this
issue now, that a motion would be in order to go 15 versus 3. And I'm going
to so move that we start looking at 15 versus looking at 3 individuals.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion on the floor by Mr. Todd, seconded by
Mr. Brigham, that we select 15 people to bring back to the full Commission.
Discussion on that, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Looking at what 15, Mr. Mayor; 15 applications that we the
Commission will look at?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right.
MR. HANDY: How many that you, Bill, and myself are going to look at?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 15.
MR. HANDY: What about the full Commission, still 15?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 15.
MR. BEARD: Well, you know, we've talked about a process, and we've
talked about that all night, and now it looks like we want to deviate from
that process. And, you know, it was a consensus that, you know, the Mayor and
the Mayor Pro Tem and the Project Manager break it down and bring those
recommendations, and now we're going to become a part of those
recommendations. Sometimes I don't understand where we're coming from. I
think if they bring the five to us, that's enough to work with. They're
bringing one and three to us on other events, and that's what we're doing. I
don't understand when we -- we talk one way one time and at another time we're
going to veer from the process. Now, we've talked about process all night, so
let's stick to the process.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think some of us have the same problem because
we -- on the committee of the whole, when we left the meeting the other day
there was a consensus on the committee of the whole, so I'm not too sure
there's any validity in my colleague's argument.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there hasn't been a process set. If you voted on
something in that meeting, then I would dub it illegal and that there was no
action. If you reached a consensus by going the room, then I think you're in
a gray area and you can do that. Certainly I believe in going by the process.
What I'm trying to do here is establish a process. If this is voted down,
then the process is to do it the way the consensus were. If it's voted up,
then it's to do it the way that I made the motion. That's the bottom line.
You don't have a process right now, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm comfortable with what Mr. Carstarphen has
suggested, we go with the five and we look at the five. I don't want to look
at 15 resumes of somebody that's got, you know, four or five pages of resumes.
I trust the committee that we've got to narrow that down. I think we've got
some good people on there, I think they're professional, I think they were
well picked, and I think they're well placed. And I'm comfortable with going
-- with just looking at the five that they bring back to us, and I hope we'll
vote this motion down and go with what we've got.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, is that in the form of a substitute motion maybe?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir, I'll make that in the form of a substitute
motion, that we go with the recommendation of Mr. Carstarphen and that the
Commission-Council only look at the five recommendations y'all bring back to
us.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Point of order, I think there was -- I think Mr.
Carstarphen said three.
MR. BRIDGES: No, the Mayor brings three. There's five --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Brings the three?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, he brings three of the five; the other two come from
the committee.
MR. ZETTERBERG: We don't see five?
MR. BRIDGES: We see five.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, we don't.
MR. TODD: We see three.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think we need to see more than any three or five.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Would you like me to go over the process as it was --
I transmitted it to you in my memorandum of July 22nd and the Commission acted
on it at a special meeting of July 24?
MR. BEARD: I thought we didn't have a process.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, this is being discussed. The process that I
outlined as a suggestion to you was, first of all, approving the selection
criteria and the interview questions, which you did. Secondly, having the
recruitment subcommittee which we just talked about assist the Mayor, the
Mayor Pro Tem and myself in screening applications and identifying 15
candidates. That's at the subcommittee level. The subcommittee would then
reduce that to five top candidates that would be reviewed by the Mayor, the
Mayor Pro Tem and the Project Manager. Out of that five candidates, the
Mayor, in the process you approved earlier, would bring to you the three most
qualified candidates, and those would be the three that you would interview.
Following that, there would be a background investigation of the top
candidates and an interview schedule established and candidate interviews
held, and then the Commission would select the candidate that you wish to
offer the position to, and following that you would negotiate an appointment
and acceptance.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll amend my motion to reflect the
recommendation of Mr. Carstarphen of three coming to the Commission.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, actually, we voted on that on the 24th, didn't
we, Bill?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, my record is that you voted on that and approved
it at a special meeting on Wednesday, July 24th.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I remember that meeting because that's the one I went
to sleep at.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, if you don't hurry up there's going to be a
lot of us going to sleep.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw that motion then.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, because we're ginning right now. All right,
so what do we need to do now? Mr. Wall, are we okay?
MR. WALL: If it's been voted on and approved, I stand corrected. I did
not remember that coming up on the 24th.
MR. BEARD: You must have been asleep that time, Mr. Wall.
MR. WALL: Apparently I was.
MR. TODD: I'd just like to request from the Clerk a copy of the
minutes. I may have them here, and certainly that will verify it for me that
we've already ratified it. And I can get that at a later date.
CLERK: That was a work session, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Oh, that's a work session. I don't recall a work session.
You know --
CLERK: That was the one prior to the Riverfront Develop-ment. We had
scheduled a work session at 5:00 and Mr. Carstarphen asked you to come in at
3:30 to review that information.
MR. WALL: But was there a vote taken? I do not recall a vote being
taken, but I could be -- I don't know. I don't remember.
MR. TODD: It was my understanding, Mr. Mayor, that the last --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I would have to rely on the Clerk for that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'll tell you what. Why don't we -- we'll go back then
--
MR. BRIDGES: Let me reinstitute my motion to accept the recommendations
as given here and that the Commission review the three candidates presented by
the Mayor.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we've got a substitute. Any discussion on
that, gentlemen? We've got a substitute motion on the floor by Mr. Bridges
that we concur with Mr. Carstarphen's suggestion. All in favor of that, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD AND MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other business?
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Yes, there is one other item. I would like to, as I
said, pass out to you a draft of the Equal Opportunity Director position,
which has been revised since we last spoke with you and is more complete, and
I'd like for you to consider it just as you are considering the Fire Chief's
position. If you have any questions or suggestions, to let Mr. Etheridge or
myself know. If not, we will put it on the next regular agenda for your
formal action. I'll pass it out at this time. And that's all I have, Mr.
Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that you add to the agenda and approve
allowing the Ming Lin condemnation proceeding to be amended.
MR. MAYS: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Mays. Who was it seconded
by?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? Okay. Now, was that to add it and
approve it?
MR. WALL: That was my request.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we adjourn.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Non-debatable motion. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNS AT 11:10 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 August 6, 1996.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission-Council