Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 1, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council convened at 2:21 p.m., Tuesday, October 1, 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, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Tim Carnes, Pastor of the Southgate Baptist Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND CARNES. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: First item, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The first item on the agenda to be considered is Items 1 through 15(a), which were all approved by the Finance Committee on September 23rd. [Item 1: Consider approval of $20,000 funding for employees Benefits Package to be paid from the Risk Management Account. Item 2: Consider approval to raise minimum wage from $4.25 per hour to $4.75 per hour for employees pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law passed. Item 3: Consider approval of application for purchase of prior year services from Billy M. Eubanks. Item 4: Consider approval of Chart of Accounts for Augusta- Richmond County Consolidated Government. Item 5: Consider approval of the Pension Investment Policy with the amendment to add the Mayor Pro Tem to the Investment Committee. Item 6: Consider approval of date for Pension Review. Item 7: Consider approval of funding for handicap ramp on Riverwalk. Item 8: Consider approval of budget parameters. Item 9: Consider approval of recommended Amendment 73 allocations and guidelines. Item 10(a): Consider approval of $500,000 out of Phase II sales tax fund for Springfield Village Foundation, Inc. from the Phase II sales tax budget from the former City of Augusta. Item 10(b): Consider approval of funding for Bethlehem Community Center. Item 11: Consider approval of refund recommendations for Stacy Anne B. Barrowman, Gloriastein Williams, Tommie and Nellie Neal, Richmond County Motel Corp., Metro Auto Auction, and James M. Hull, et al. Item 12: Consider approval of a request regarding the retirement compensation to Ms. Hamp Manning. Item 13: Consider approval of a proposed contract for the one-cent SPLOST project for the Bethlehem Community Center, Inc. Item 14: Consider approval of a waiver of the penalty in the amount of $551.04 for the 1995 tax bill for the Hardee's located on Washington Road. Item 15: Consider approval of a request from Curtis A. Merriweather of Faith Christian Church regarding abatement of 1996 taxes. Item 15(a): Consider approval to use fund balance to purchase trees for Daniel Field Airport.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to ask that we -- I forgot which ones I wanted to do. I've had questions asked to me about Item Number 5, Item Number 10, Item Number 9, and I'd like to make a motion that we consider the rest of them as a consent agenda, with the recommendation from the Finance Committee that they pass. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by -- MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question on the first one. Is the funding identified for that one, Butch? CLERK: He said the Risk Management account in Finance. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Now, that was for all except 5, 9, and 10; is that correct? MR. J. BRIGHAM: 5, 9, and 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. That's Item 1 through 15(a). Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 5: Consider approval of the Pension Investment Policy with the amendment to add the Mayor Pro Tem to the Investment Committee. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this is the recommendation of the Finance Committee, and we still stand with it. MR. BRIDGES: And I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that a -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm one of the individuals, I guess, that had some concern about the Investment Committee. I've read the recommendation from the Finance Committee, I've talked to Mr. Brigham about the issue, and I understand why he would want to just have members of the Finance Committee. And I'm pleased that for a first time that we're using the Finance Committee versus a committee of staffers to do our investment with Finance --the Comptroller and individuals from the -- just individuals from the Comptroller's staff and other folks throughout county government making those decisions. I have a problem when it comes to delegating authority where I have a policy responsibility, and in talking to Mr. Brigham as far as delegating authority to my colleagues, I don't have as big a problem. And those were my concerns and I registered them, and I won't make a substitute motion to add to that, I'll just accept it as Finance Committee recommending. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item? CLERK: Item 9: Consider approval of the recommended Amendment 73 allocations and guidelines. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this is still the recommendation of the Finance Committee and we'll still move that this be adopted as presented. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, not being on the Finance Committee, but I've been -- we've been watching this thing for quite a while. And I have some concerns with us going out here and funding sporting events when we have cut the Hope House for Women out and the Able-Disabled and a lot of needy programs in our community, and I can't support funding sporting events over these type programs. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. McKie to explain to me if I'm reading this correctly that Amendment 73 is a county program, and there's some reference that the city had a similar program. And as I look at the breakdown, Mr. McKie, I see that you've transferred some of these out of the suburban program into the urban program. Do we have two funds? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, there are two distinct funds. The Amendment 73 was a -- is a constitutional item that the county went by. The urban program was something that -- well, it's not written into the law, it's something that has been historically a policy of the city. That's the second page of your document here. MR. KUHLKE: Right, and that's where I was a little bit confused. But I guess my question is, are those funds available in the urban budget to -- MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And so the things that are outlined on the second page, Child Advocacy and so forth, are they going to be funded this year? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Is that proposed to be funded? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Because I -- Mr. Powell, did you understand that that's the way it was going to be done? MR. POWELL: No, Mr. Kuhlke, to answer your question, I was not familiar with it would be funded out of another fund. I was just looking here where it had been funded last year out of this fund and it had been cut. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Well, that answers my question. So they are still on the agenda for approval out of that other fund? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: My question, I guess, has always been who decides on this Amendment 73, since I'm not that familiar with it. What agencies would be listed here? That's a question. MR. McKIE: There's a committee that met this year, Mr. Beard. Historically, anybody and everybody had been on there from the county side. In the last two years we've been trying to follow as closely to the letter of the amendment as we could insofar as including only those items which would draw in tourists or some other funds into the community, some economic development type program such as Bell Horse and so forth. MR. BEARD: I think we've instituted pretty good guidelines here. The only thing that I consider that would like to be added here is possibly the committee that --the people who are going to decide or make the decision as to what agencies would be involved here. I think we kind of left that out of the guidelines, and I would like to see that possibly included for next year. I know that we're at a point now where we need to go on and do what we should do here today, but I think with the guidelines and if we have a committee formed to institute this for next year or make a decision on this, because I think a lot of us have problems with those listing of the agencies that are listed there. MR. McKIE: Mr. Beard, in our budget parameters for next year we have included that formation of such a committee. MR. BEARD: Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: There is certain criteria that's already in place, and I think this is some -- an amendment to that. But certainly, you know, as far as who we can give money to, it's spelled out in Amendment 73, and you've got to be doing one or two or three things in order to qualify for funds, it's my understanding. And I don't have a problem with what we have here. I think it's a -- it's moving in the right direction. As far as the urban side, there is funding sources there in community block grant and other funding that we can tap to take care of those needs from -- as far as a lot of those funding needs go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, if I may ask a favor on behalf of the agencies listed here. Everyone is well pleased with the recommendations and into going forward with the maximums and so forth for next year, but several have commented that they had already made their plans and developed their budgets this year on what they had requested, and they asked if you could go with the last column of the recommendation column and, in effect, take out the $7,500 limit for this year and let it go up to whatever they had asked for, which in most cases was 10,000 or 8,500. That would change the Business League from 7,500 to 10, the Bell Horse from 6 to 10, the Boshears Fly-In from 7,500 to 10, Sacred Heart from 7,500 to 10, 4-H Club from 2,000 to 3,500, CSRA Classic from 7,500 to 10, the -- my eyes are getting crossed, I believe it's the Geological from 7,500 to 10, the Heritage from 75 to 85. And that would leave 3,000 in excess funds, or you'd be committing 72,000 out of the 75. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion to accept the recommendation from the Comptroller and make the new guideline effective 1 January 1997. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a substitute motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion on that, gentlemen? Let's vote on the substitute motion first. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion made by Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN. MR. MAYS: I'll vote present on it, Mr. Mayor. And since we didn't have a discussion period on it, the only thing I just wanted to ask on those guidelines -- is Mr. McKie gone? Butch -- the only thing I wanted to ask, Mr. Mayor, if we're approving this -- I don't have a problem, I can live either way with the numbers. But on the guidelines, if we're moving strictly to get within the law of what it says technically about Amendment 73, and the county basically used this -- and Mr. Beard asked a question some time ago and Butch said we put in any and everything over in there, which is true, but we were doing that because we did not have a budgetary source as the city did for some other funding, so that was where some of it came from. But if we're technically getting into what Amendment 73 really says, I have a little bit of a problem even with the three-year operational contribution. Because if you get down to technically of what that law says about the promotions and that type of affair, unless you're going to create that type of pool or maybe turn it over to CVB or wherever you have that type of solicitation, then some of these events that are here that we know are coming in some cases work off parts of the seeding money that they do get from us. So if you're going to be cutting back and shifting it some other way, then some of those that are worthwhile that do bring in other monies to this community such as outside visitors and those who come and spend their money in here, then I think that three-year thing can be a dual-edged sword. I know what we're trying to get if we're trying to cut back on any and every agency, but if we're going to narrow it down to those who really legally fit the law, then I see where that three-year provision in there could be a handicap. And that's my only comment with it, and I hope that -- I'll go ahead on and vote for it, but I hope we would, in the overall guidelines of trying to finally get this straight, we would look at that when we adopt some set of final provisions for this deal for next year because that could be very handicapping if we're going to go strictly by the law. And which is good if we do, but then I think you're going to have some that -- maybe the smaller events that use that little funding in order to get off the ground, then they can support themselves. But they do do things within this community that enhance it, and that's all I'm going to say about it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: There was also another item in the guideline, Mr. Mays, that I think we should be cognizant of, and that's the audit report. Some of the smaller businesses probably will not be able to give the type of audit report that maybe the Finance Committee would be looking at, or even the Comptroller, and I think we need some type of leniency declared on that, on the audit reports. I think that, you know, sometimes we have to take what they have if we're going to help a lot of the smaller agencies that are listed here. I think we'd also have to take that in consideration. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, in the past we have substituted our internal auditor's for an external audit report, and that's been acceptable to the Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McKie. Ms. Bonner tells me we don't have an accurate count on the original motion. We need to have a recount on that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Roll call vote is being taken on Item 9: Consider approval of recommended Amendment 73 allocations and guidelines. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: For. Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Which one are we voting on? CLERK: The original motion, sir, Item 9. MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. HANDY AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. CLERK: Item 10. [Item 10(a): Consider approval of $500,000 out of Phase II sales tax fund for Springfield Village Foundation, Inc. from the Phase II sales tax budget from the former City of Augusta. Item 10(b): Consider approval of funding for Bethlehem Community Center.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee still stands by its recommendation and moves for the approval of Item 10. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, part of the reason this was put on is to be voted on by everybody as -- I wanted to make sure that everybody understood that we were reallocating sales tax dollars between funds in Phase II and Phase III. Everything that -- I wanted to make sure everybody understood and that the public understood that we were reallocating the timetable on the Bethlehem project with the Augusta Mini Theater so there would be no mistake. I think sales tax -- local option sales tax is a very important and very serious item, and I think the general public needs to understand our positions on these and that we are not taking it lightly at all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I seconded the motion to get it on the floor, and that was the purpose. When we come for a vote I will probably stick with the schedule --recommended schedule of '95 and vote no. But certainly, you know, I consider the sales tax issue a serious issue. I feel that the referendum had the schedule with it, and there were no -- there wasn't any individ-uals opposing at that time and I haven't heard justified reasons why we should deviate, and my vote will reflect in that way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 16, please. CLERK: Items 16 through 17(a) were all approved in the Administrative Services Committee on September 23rd. [Item 16: Consider approval of the Economic Development Loan and Review Committee with the noted deletion (Blanchard) and addition (Smith). Item 17: Consider approval of a request from the Clerk of Commission to fill an existing vacancy of Secretary/Clerk and to remove the Urban Purchasing function from the Clerk's Office. Item 17(a): Consider approval to receive as information an extension of the contractual services for three (3) years of the Internal Auditor.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 16 and 17 be used as a consent agenda and Number 17 be pulled for consideration by the full Council. CLERK: 17(a)? MR. BEARD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard. Do I hear a second? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: [Indicates affirmatively.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. 16 and 17. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss Item Number 17. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is that all right with you two gentlemen? MR. BEARD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're voting on Item 16, gentlemen. All in favor of the motion to approve Item 16, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 17, please. CLERK: Item 17 is to consider approval of a request from the Clerk of Commission to fill an existing vacancy of Secretary/ Clerk and to remove the Urban Purchasing function from the Clerk's Office. Approved by the Administrative Services Committee September 23rd, 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only concern there is that we are hopefully getting very close to appointing an Administrator. And I understand that the Clerk works for the Commission, but I don't know that I'm totally familiar with the organization of the Clerk's Office, and I think that I, for one, would like to have a little bit more input in regards to how the -- what the function of the Clerk's Office is. And as we begin to do the reorganization, whether or not we -- there may be some way to absorb the position that was lost there, so that's my only concern at this point. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham -- I mean, Mr. Beard? Excuse me. MR. BEARD: We can, you know, go into detail, Mr. Kuhlke, on that as to why the Administrative Services approved that. There is a need now for a person because the person that was there has been assigned somewhere else. And I think we all understand the needs that exist with the Clerk and the amount of work that we've required of her, and I think it's something that needs to be done now, and I move that that Item 17 be approved. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it to get it on the floor for discussion. And I have some discussion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a couple of questions. One, with the Purchasing responsibility and how much time do it take in the Clerk's Office to do that; and, two, with transferring that responsibility to the Purchasing Department from the urban side, are there going to be any individual or personnel being transferred along with that responsibility? So that's two questions, and those questions, Mr. Mayor, is to Ms. Bonner. CLERK: As far as removing the Purchasing functions from the urban side, it shouldn't take that long. It's just a matter of the suburban side installing a terminal. As far as the assignment of duties, there will not be a change in the office. Where I'm exchanging Purchasing side, I'm increasing Clerk's work, so it's essentially a washout. MR. TODD: How many manhours per week do you do in Purchasing at this time? CLERK: It's very limited now because the departments realize that that function is going to be consolidated with the suburban side. So there's not a whole lot that we dedicate to Purchasing. Most of our work is in the Clerk's side of my office. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my concern is -- and I guess to be politically correct I should have said person hours. But my concern is that - - CLERK: Well, we do a lot -- I'm sorry, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Yes, excuse me. My concern is that we don't leave the Clerk's Office short with staff at a time when we're putting, as Commissioners, greater demands on the Clerk's Office. And I can recall, you know, discussions that I have with the Clerk in reference meetings, you know, and she calls or fax out when we're supposed to be at certain places. And there was a debate this week in reference who was responsible for notifying the press as far as the hearings at the government's house -- Old Government House, and I think one of my colleagues, you know, stated that it was the Clerk's responsibility, and that is correct in a sense. If the Clerk is told by the Project Manager and the Mayor that we're going to have a meeting, then it's her responsibility to schedule it, et cetera, and notify the press and post it on the doors. If she is not told or is not included-- and I was somewhat concerned that there was some things was going on earlier on that I felt she wasn't included in--then it's the individual's responsibility that has excluded the Clerk to do it. And the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Mayor and this Commission- Council. But the bottom line is, what I'm trying to get to, is that if we expect a person to do their job, then we need to staff them properly where they can do their job. And I'm going to support the additional person. I don't think that Ms. Bonner would have made the request for this person unless she needed the person. This person is --by virtue of an action by the Mayor's Office and the Personnel Director, the Clerk has lost a person that was transferred in there when she had a person transferred over to the administrative side. And we all know what's happened as far as that go, as far as the memo from Mr. John Etheridge. It's my position to staff the person that was moved out. Now, when the Administrator get here and the Personnel Director feel that all this staff is not needed in this office and they want to downsize this office, then I'll debate that at that time. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Bonner, I'm not -- I want you to understand I'm not opposed for you to have the appropriate people there to do your job, but I am interested to know if there is a chance of a lateral move here rather than going outside and having to hire new people. And I don't know where that would come from -- CLERK: Well, in the beginning I was told this was going to be a lateral move and it didn't materialize that way. Let me say this: this is an authorized position that's in the Clerk's Office, that's in the Clerk's budget that was authorized in April. I'm not asking for anything extra. It's something that I've been authorized to do the job that you've appointed me to do. When I received the memo from Mr. Etheridge stating otherwise, I was just as shocked as maybe you are right now, and I don't know why it took him six months to tell me that. But nevertheless, I've got specified duties that I have assigned to this particular position that's not being done. I'm having to ask the ladies in my office to stay overtime, to come in on Saturdays, come in early, and that's simply unfair to them when we have an authorized position that has been given to us. And the only thing I'm asking is that position be filled. MR. KUHLKE: I understand. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concern with Mr. Kuhlke's comment was that in committee it was approved that this be an in-house movement. CLERK: Yeah. Well, he asked me if I had a problem with it and I don't. I mean, if there's someone within the organization that could come there, I - - my concern is having someone to do the job, that I can give job assignments to, to do what you all have appointed me to do. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just a second, Mr. Beard. Mr. Brigham, did you want to say something before we vote? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concerns over this is last year I believe we had a staff in the Administrator's Office of four people that not only handled the County Administrator plus the Commission, which had eight people. We only have ten people. Even if you assign two of those people to the administrative side, you still have three people that are left in the Clerk's Office to handle ten people. I think that we can do the job with the people we've got. I do not think we need to grow government, and I am not going to vote for this proposal. CLERK: We're not growing government, Mr. Jerry Brigham. In all due respect to you, and I'm not debating you on this, this was a position that -- I don't see why I needed it in January, then it was taken away from me, and now it's not needed. I mean, what it boils down to is that that's a position that was given to the Clerk's Office for a need. I had a need for that. I still do have a need for that. It's someone else who's determined I don't have the need for it, because they're not in the office actually doing the work. And I agree with you, in the Administrator's Office you did, you had essentially six people doing that. You have essentially three people that's doing that now in the Clerk's Office. Now we're in -- we're serving a constituency of 200,000 people plus eleven members of Commission-Council. But the position is justified and the need is there. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's not my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, excuse me, Mr. Beard's motion. Sir? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I just said it wasn't my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. I'm sorry, I looked at the wrong one. Mr. Beard's motion, seconded by Mr. Todd. Let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 17(a): Consider approval to receive as information an extension of the contractual services for three years of the Internal Auditor's position. Approved by the Administrative Services Committee September 23rd, 1996. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I do have a problem with the 5%, you know, in the sense that I don't see the possibility of inflation of 5%, so I'm going to amend the --what come out to 2% or the rate of inflation and so move that we 2 approve it. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. HANDY: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Who seconded that, please? MR. HANDY: Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Plowman and his firm, but I think from a fiduciary standpoint I need to bring up the idea that --there are two things: one is, there was some discussion about us hiring our own Internal Auditor; the second thing that I would like to have some feedback on is, while I do have a great deal of respect for Mr. Plowman and his firm, was there any effort to get proposals from any other firms that have this capability? MR. BEARD: No. To answer your question, Mr. Kuhlke, no, it was not. We thought that -- I believe I'm speaking for the committee, or if not, they can speak for themselves. We thought that Mr. Plowman had done a very good job here in this area, those of us who were on the Internal Audit Committee, and their report that was given to us last week, we thought it was in order. And we thought they were doing a good job, and I think most of the committee people felt that we were satisfied with that and they could continue in there, and we did not go for other sources. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, who's on the Internal Audit Committee? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? Who else is on your committee, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Bridges and -- MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Powell, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you say who's on the Internal Audit Committee? What was your question, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: My question was who is on the Internal Audit Committee. This is the first time it's been made public. MR. BRIDGES: It's Mr. Beard, myself, and Mr. Powell; and, of course, the Mayor, and then the Internal Auditor, Kip Plowman, and his representative. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I do recall a Internal Audit Committee being appointed. This is a special committee, not a standing committee, and I think that we probably can go back and pull this from the minutes somewhere if we researched the minutes. If the problem of a hold up is whether there was a committee that made this recommendation -- you know, I try to make decisions based on what my colleagues, you know, recommend. And I'm going to yield to some other folks that had their hands up. MR. BEARD: Could I just qualify something since the question was asked, Mr. Mayor? That committee was appointed some time ago, and to answer whoever asked the question, it was appointed. But I wasn't speaking of that committee when I said that, I'm speaking from the Administrative Services Committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion to this. I've -- and the substitute motion I want to make is to accept Mr. Plowman's proposal here, with the exception that we do this contract for one year. And, too, I'd like to speak on that at this point. As far as the percentage increase here, what Mr. Plowman has is the average annual percentage of employee salary increase not to exceed 5%. So Mr. Plowman will not be getting a raise higher than our employees get, it will be what they're getting and not to exceed 5%. Also, when we first brought this motion to the floor, and I went back and looked at the minutes when that was done in mid year, we said that we wanted to immediately advertise for an Internal Auditor and we would keep Mr. Plowman and his firm till the end of the year. Apparently that has not been done, and I don't fault -- particularly fault the staff with that. I think that we're going through a transition here where the staff is very busy, we are very busy, we've got a lot of concerns here, and I guess it just fell through the cracks. But at this point, our Internal Auditor, Mr. Plowman and his firm, need to know -- so that they can staff, they need to know what they can expect for the future. And I think it would be reasonable, since we haven't advertised and since it would take two, maybe three months to get an Internal Auditor in here, then get him trained, that I think it's only fair to Mr. Plowman and his firm that we extend his contract for one year. And as part of the Internal Audit Committee, I'd like to say that the proposals that Mr. Plowman has been looking at have been very fair, very professional. He's bringing a lot of questions and maybe looking at a lot of different things that we haven't looked at in the past and that need to be reviewed, and particularly dealing with access to payroll documents and computer access and that type of thing. So I think this is a very critical position and I think it's something we need to -- the Administrative Services Committee looked at this and recommended it, and I agree with that and I think this is something we need to do, but I'll just make the motion that we accept Mr. Plowman's proposal here with the exception that we extend this for one year at this time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw the original motion and second the substitute. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. HANDY: I haven't dropped my second of the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I was just fixing to ask you that. MR. HANDY: You all are going a little bit ahead of things here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd call on the Parliamentarian to make a ruling on whether the original motion is on the floor if the maker withdrew. And my motion stands -- my second stands of the substitute motion and, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call on the Parliamentarian as far as whether I can second the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jim, would you give us a ruling, please? MR. WALL: The original motion is still on the floor. You can second the substitute motion. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Handy, do you want to withdraw your second or? MR. WALL: The original motion -- once the motion is made it belongs to the Commission as a whole and it cannot unilaterally be withdrawn. MR. HANDY: Okay, I'll drop my second. MAYOR SCONYERS: With the drop of a second can it be withdrawn, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just want to make sure. Okay. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we keep Mr. Plowman's contract for two years. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Beard. So that now becomes the substitute motion. Any discussion on any of this? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Plowman a question. Is he still here? MR. PLOWMAN: He is. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Mr. Plowman, how long have you been employed by the county as the Internal Auditor? When was your original contract? MR. PLOWMAN: I think by the time it all got finalized, I want to say we started May 15th. MR. KUHLKE: May 15th? And obviously we have an Audit Committee. I don't know that you'd call it an Internal Audit Committee. And one of the responsibilities of the Internal Auditor is to keep the Commission informed on what's going on, right, through the Audit Committee? MR. PLOWMAN: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And who is chairman of the Audit Committee? MR. PLOWMAN: I'm not sure I can -- I'm not sure. MR. BRIDGES: That'd be the Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. When do -- when can the Commission expect to get a report from the Audit Committee? MR. PLOWMAN: Well, we've done a number of individual reports to you on specific issues, and then we've put together a lot of things to the Audit Committee that are in process, that aren't really necessarily finalized and completed, that are ongoing, and what we're really looking for there is a lot of direction because there's so many things to do, and a priority. And I might make some recommendations of a priority list, but you need to decide what is a high priority for you, and I guess that's really a lot of what that committee is doing. I mean, as we finalize and issue final reports with everything all determined, I just present those individually to you, but we could do it either way. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. But we can come to you individually as Commissioners and talk about it, can we not? MR. PLOWMAN: Yes. Yes. And several have. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I guess Mr. Plowman and myself has had our differences, but business is business and what's in the best interest of this county is what's in the best interest of this county, so I don't go back to what happened December of '95 or '94 or '93. We had a disagreement over a issue when he worked for a previous government, but I support -- I can support the one year or the two year. I withdrew the two year because I thought maybe the support wasn't there for the two year and seconded Mr. Bridges' motion on the one year. The bottom line is that if we have a -- and we're amending a contract, per my understanding. The bottom line is that if we have a entity that we're hiring to do the internal auditing for this county and we expect that entity to give us the very best professional services as they can, we can't give them a six-months contract and expect them in six months to do that. We at least got to give them a minimum of one year because they got to go out and possibly hire folks or reassign folks in their entity. We also, you know, got to give them time because there may be machinery, et cetera, that they may have to purchase just for doing internal auditing for this county government -- city/county government. The other thing, you know, is that I am appreciative of Mr. Plowman in having the foresight to look at setting up a fraud hotline, a 800 number being open to each Commissioner, at least visiting with or, you know, calling on individual Commissioners and talking about things that he'd like to do as far as the Internal Auditing Department go outside of the Audit Committee. I think that I've been probably briefed more in the last few months than I were three years under the old system. I can understand where it may be the wishes of some to go back to the old system, but I believe -- I'm a sound believer when you find something better you stay with it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a number of concerns. One is that, in essence, what we have -- on a de facto basis we're saying that we're going to privatize the internal audit function. That's a policy decision. Now, that may not be all that bad, but you have to go back and look at what we had before. We had an Internal Auditing Department and we had employees in that Internal Auditing Department, and those employees now, I'm assuming, have been absorbed within the organization somehow. MAYOR SCONYERS: Not yet. MR. ZETTERBERG: Not exactly. Well, that's the reason why I'm asking the question now. When this began, one of the thoughts that I had is that -- Mr. Plowman is very capable. I have no problem at all with Mr. Plowman. But why don't we just take Mr. Plowman's talents and price that out and use our own Internal Auditors and let him supervise that rather than the entire Baird company? The reason I say that is we're really paying almost twice as much as we should. We're paying for the salaries of three Internal Auditors --is that the number, three or four in the Internal Auditing Department? MS. BEAZLEY: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. ZETTERBERG: Plus Mr. Plowman and his staff. That just doesn't make sense to me. The other thing that concerns me in it, what's magic about $15,000? I'd like to know why it costs $15,000 a month for an Internal Auditor. In my business I ask those kind of questions and I make sure that people give me the answers before I go out and spend any money. But we seem to be willing to add a new layer in the staff and we're also willing to add -- and just -- without having any competitive nature, even a review or an accountability from Mr. Plowman on $15,000. Kip, I think it's worth $12,000. MR. HANDY: He accepts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Powell. MR. BRIDGES: Kip, I've got a couple of questions if I can. Originally -- this year you're accepting the balance of what was in our Internal Audit position as funding, which is about 170,000, something like that; is that right? MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. MR. BRIDGES: And basically for twelve months next year you're saying you're going to take 180,000 to -- MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. We essentially just took the budget you had, divided it by how much you were paying a month -- that's how much you were already paying a month. Of those three people that were left in Internal, one's been permanently assigned somewhere else where he needed to be --well, where there was a need. MR. BRIDGES: But basically what I'm saying is, you're going -- for what you've provided in seven months, you're going -- for the same amount of money or pretty near the same amount of money, you're going to provide for twelve months next year. MR. PLOWMAN: Yeah. It's just extending what we're doing right now. I mean, it's just an extension of time. Because this is when we're having to do all the scheduling, and we've added, you know, another employee already. And, you know, this is when we look -- we add --for our peak time we usually add about six temporary people to help us out through our busy season. It's just when we do the scheduling. And, really, our initial proposal was three one-year contracts. You could terminate it any time, any year. It wasn't really a three-year contract and, you know, each year you could go through and just stop it whenever you wanted. It was -- it gives us some feel that we can make some long-term plans and long-term strategies for effectively doing the internal audit. Two years, it -- you know. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think what we're getting here for one year is -- since we've paid the same amount of money for seven months, now we're going to pay it for twelve months, that's obviously a better deal than we've gotten this year and I think that's good. My concern here is the bill calls for an Internal Auditor; that is, somebody that works for the Commission who's loyalty is with the Commission. I guess one of the problems I have with going external on the Internal Auditor position is that the loyalty that Mr. Plowman is obviously going to have is going to be to his CPA firm first. I understand the situation he's in. I want to help him. I think it's best for us, considering what the bill requires -- the consolidation bill requires, is that we go ahead and do this for one year and then maybe mid year we can decide if we want to privatize it and continue with Mr. Plowman or bid it out or if we want to go internal and hire a permanent position and staff. So I would recommend that we defeat the substitute motion and pass the original motion, which extends the contract for only one year. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, then Mr. Handy. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman and fellow board members, when this firm first came on board I had questions and doubts, too, but after a few months of working with Mr. Plowman and seeing the job that they do versus the job that we were getting prior to, I'm glad I made that decision. And I'm going to continue to support them because they're doing us an excellent job, and when this audit report comes back to the full board, you'll be glad you made that decision, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I just wanted to make a clarification. I think Kip alluded in his statement that one of the internal audit persons has been assigned to another job, and that person is needed where they have been assigned to. And, also, the other two have a job in the Tax Assessor's Office. So to answer the question that Rob asked, we're not paying three auditors plus doing the other thing. They've been assigned to other jobs where they're needed at, so they have a job, Rob. MR. ZETTERBERG: Are those authorized positions, and has there been a desk audit done on whether those positions warrant the salaries that we're paying for those people? MR. HANDY: I can't answer that. MR. ZETTERBERG: These are the kind of questions we need the staff to answer before we decide on how to shift these things around. They're reasonable questions, and also it's a reasonable request to find out why we pay $15,000 to Mr. Plowman and why he can't do the job for 12,000. MR. HANDY: I can't answer that, Rob, but I can say that -- we keep talking about what the bill said. The bill said that no one will lose their job. And whatever they're making, they're going to be making it whether they have a job or not -- whether you put them out there digging a hole. MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't think the bill says that. I don't think the bill says that. It says nobody will lose their job. It does not say that people won't take downgrades in pay, it doesn't say they won't do other jobs, it just says they will not lose a job. MR. HANDY: I won't get into that. I don't know anything about that phase of the government yet. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're discussing this, I do not believe that we've authorized any new slots in License and Inspections, nor do I believe that we've authorized any new slots in the Tax Assessor's Office. In fact, we voted against a new slot in the Tax Assessor's Office already this year. So we have grown government by reassigning. We are not only paying an external Internal Auditor, we are paying the audit staff, so we have grown government. That's no doubt in that, and it has not changed. Now, my question is, why has not the staff been able to advertise something that we gave six months to do? Obviously they don't care about this Commission or either they would follow our instructions. The other thing that I have a concern with: Mr. Wall, I believe, according to the charter -- bill, that the Mayor cannot be a member of any committee. And how can he be the chairman of the Audit Committee if he can't be a member of any committee? MR. POWELL: Point of information, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beard is the chairman of the Audit Committee. MR. BRIDGES: I'll stand corrected, Mr. Mayor. I just assumed because you were in there you'd be the chairman of it. I'm sorry. MR. J. BRIGHAM: My other question is, when has this Audit Committee met? There's been no public notice, and I certainly haven't been notified of any Audit Committee meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think I need an answer. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, my question is -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold on, Mr. Todd. Do you remember when the Audit Committee met? I think we had an organizational committee meeting one time; is that -- MR. PLOWMAN: The end of -- it's a Thursday at the end of the month. The third or fourth Thursday. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Does that answer your question? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess my question would be, if I'm looking at the committee structure I don't see the Audit Committee as being a standing committee but a special committee like a lot of the other special committees. But when we're talking about whether the folks has been permanently assigned, I think the situation in the Tax Assessor's Office is an emergency situation and they may not be permanently assigned in the Tax Assessor's Office. I think the -- you know, the auditing situation at License and Inspections, I can buy into that because we need our folks doing the auditing as far as Sunday sales go, et cetera, versus a Internal Auditor going out. We need someone from the License and Inspections Department. And as far as either of the three not having a permanent position, I believe we have a opening in the Clerk's Office, which is not growing government. But I've committed to not grow government. Certainly I think that we've grown to an extent, even by virtue of our structure, in the sense that we've put on some individuals in public relations, et cetera, and I think that -- you know, Information Office, et cetera, and I think that's probably necessary. I won't argue with that. But as far as a massive growing of government, I'm opposed to it and would not support it. But I don't see this as being -- growing government, I see it as saving some money in the budget to do things more efficient and for maybe a first, that it actually get done. I'm convinced that we never had a true audit. I'm convinced that we had someone that B-S'd us somewhat as far as a department head in the Auditing Department for the three years I've been here, and it really haven't done the job. So if we're going to get the job done this way, this methodology, I'm going to support it. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. I think we need to have the motions reread because it's been a while. The substitute motion? CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. J.B. Powell to extend Mr. Plowman's contract for two years. It was seconded by Mr. Beard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item is Engineering Services. Items 18 through 38(a) were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on September 23rd. [Item 18: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 53 of the Sand Ridge Estate Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Arthur L. Thomas. Item 19: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 49 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Frances R. Askew. Item 20: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 45 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Jeffrey K. Rasberry, Sr. and Angelique Louis. Item 21: Consider approval of a counteroffer option for easement on Project Parcel 34 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Mae O. Seeley and Lillie M. Warren. Item 22: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 50 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Edward and Beverly Franklin. Item 23: Consider approval of an option to purchase Project Parcel 56 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Sand Ridge, Inc. Item 24: Consider approval of an option to purchase Project Parcel 55 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by Henriette and Jerry C. Bennett, Jr., Sand Ridge, Inc. Item 25: Consider approval of a counteroffer of an option to purchase Project Parcel 57 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project which is owned by David E. Upky and Myong S. Upky. Item 26: Consider approval of a recommendation from the Solid Waste Manager and Environmental Engineer regarding a request for sale of excess soil. Item 27: Consider approval of payment of an invoice to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst for emergency services rendered in connection with the emergency sewer replacement and road repairs on Highway 25 and Butler Creek. Item 28: Consider approval to declare a vacant lot adjoining 1555 Dunn's Lane surplus property. Item 29: Consider approval of a proposed sewer line Engineering Contract with W.R. Toole Engineers for the Jackson Road Widening Improvements Project. Item 30: Consider approval of Surveying and Engineering Services contract with Toole Engineers with regard to the Richmond Hill Water Storage Tank. Item 31: Consider approval of a proposed Engineering Services Contract with regard to the three interconnections between north and south water systems and the conversions of 18" raw water line to finish water line with ZEL Engineers. Item 32: Consider approval of a proposed sewer line Engineering Contract with Southern Partners for the Sunset Ave.-Hernlen Street Area. Item 33: Consider approval of Change Order No. 1, Goshen Industrial Sanitary Sewer Improvements. Item 34: Consider approval of Solids Handling Improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 35: Consider approval to fund the entire Sanitary Sewer Line to service the Kimberly-Clark Industrial Site. Item 36: Consider approval of option to purchase easement on property owned by Michelle D. and Flynn Ducan Broady, Jr., Project Parcel 52 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvements Project. Item 37: Consider approval of the execution of the contract documents and proper bonds for Resurfacing Various Road, Phase IV Project with Hydro Conduit Corp d/b/a Knox Rivers. Item 38: Consider approval of the execution of the contract documents and proper bonds for the Rae's Creek Channel Improvements, Section II with Mabus Construction Company, Inc. Item 38(a): Consider approval of Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road Resolutions for Cedar Ridge Farms, Section IV.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that Items 18 through 38(a) be approved as a consent agenda. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Public Safety items: Items 39 through 42 were approved by Public Safety Committee September 23rd. Item 39: Consider approval of a subcontract from the Department of Children and Youth Services with Norma Miller for counseling and tutoring services with reimbursement at 100% through Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia. Item 40: Consider approval of a subcontract from the Department of Children and Youth Services with Charles G. Bartlett for symbolic restitution-personnel services with reimbursement at 100% through Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia. Item 41: Consider approval of a subcontract from Department of Children and Youth Services with Carol B. Stiger for counseling services with reimbursement at 100% through Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia. Item 42: Consider approval of bid award to Kustom Radar for six radar units for the Sheriff's Department.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these items were discussed in committee and passed, and I'd like to move here they be approved by the major committee. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. 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: Items 43 through 49 under Public Services were approved in committee on September 24th. [Item 43: Consider approval of lease agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and Garrett Aviation. Item 44: Consider approval of a contract between Augusta-Richmond County and Sharon Speights regarding her services as Instructor in activities sponsored by the Recreation Department. Item 45: Consider approval of endorsing the efforts of the Augusta-Richmond County Convention and Visitors Bureau to incorporate. Item 46: Consider approval of the Boshears Memorial Fly-In to be held at Daniel Field Airport, October 18-20, 1996. Item 47: Consider approval of the reassignment of Melinda Moody and John Bennett within the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department. Item 48: Consider approval of the concept of Weed and Seed and the required up-front funding ($15,000). Item 49: Consider approval to receive as information a request from the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department to enter into a contractual agreement for Professional Services for a Project Supervisor of the 1-cent Sales Tax Phase III Program.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Items 43 through 48, which were approved in committee on consent agenda, and that probably Item 49 be pulled out for separate discussion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull out 45, too? And I have a question on Number 43 to the Attorney. I notice in the detail that he had some questions concerning that contract. Were those -- or the lease agreement. Were those -- were you able to satisfy yourself in regards to that? MR. WALL: Yes, I was. A new lease agreement was sent over to my office on Friday that addressed the concerns that I had, and I understand that that's been accepted and it's agreeable with Garrett Aviation. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. The only one I'd like to pull then is 45, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to pull Item 45 and 49. Okay, we had a motion by Mr. Mays. I never did get a second. CLERK: Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? I'm sorry. CLERK: You didn't do the second to Mr. Mays' motion? MR. TODD: Yes, I seconded the motion. I'm sorry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Item 45 and 49 won't be voted on. 43 through 48. CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I want to pull 47. CLERK: That will be all items with the exception of 45 and 47. MR. TODD: And 49. CLERK: Yes, 49 was out. That wasn't in the consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 45, please? CLERK: 45: Consider approval of endorsing the efforts of the Augusta- Richmond County Convention and Visitors Bureau to incorporate. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I guess the question I have, are we here just endorsing the efforts? We're not saying that when -- if they come back, that we're in agreement with incorporation, or are we saying we are in agreement with incorporating here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bridges, the way I understand it, according to the -- is it the ordinance, Jim? MR. WALL: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: That the Convention and Visitors Bureau has the authority to incorporate, but they cannot do that without the approval of this body. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. And in following up to that, once they incorporate and we approve that, as I understand it, they will receive no more funds from us. They're incorporated, they're a separate entity, and they're out there on their own; is that right? MR. WALL: No. MR. MAYS: No, that -- MR. BRIDGES: I need some understanding of, I guess, why not then. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I can point out a situation where a nonprofit entity receive money from county government but they're incorporated, it's the museum. The museum is a nonprofit entity that's incorporated as a nonprofit, have their own board, their board make their decisions independent of county government, but we fund them in capital outlay and at some times in other funding methods. Now, I understand the difference is that this is a legislated funding source. And I'm going to yield with an answer to put an example there and take up my time in discussion when you recognize me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Moses is my attorney today. He answered pretty much what I needed done, and we're in agreement on that. I was going to say Barry White, the director, is here if anybody probably wanted to have any questions directly of Barry that he wanted to answer. But I guess in just -- no, Mr. Bridges, we would not be relieved of support of that organization. But I think of the organizations that our city now is compared to in size, and even the things that other surrounding communities might ask them to do but which that bureau would pay for -- and some of that, particularly if it involves enlarging and bringing in things, they would still in some cases have to be staying in parts of Augusta-Richmond County. But, you know, I would -- I think you probably, if you have something direct, you know, to ask it of Barry. But it also gives them the edge that other cities of this size are able to do that are incorporated, such as being able to enhance their funding, and then maybe some day down the road in a perfect world, then maybe they wouldn't come to us and ask for money. But they are not in that stage yet and I don't think we can even think that way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Let me clarify one thing for Mr. Bridges. Two cents out of the five cents that are collected for hotel/motel and beer tax goes to the CV&B, so that two cents -- two out of the five cents that are collected would continue to go to the CV&B whether it be incorporated or not incorporated. MR. BRIDGES: And that's the only funds they receive? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Hotel/motel tax. MR. WALL: Well, hotel/motel and beer tax. Two cents out of that. I don't know whether you get any additional money from the government or not. I don't think so. MR. WHITE: We receive a small grant from the state of Georgia to operate the Cotton Exchange Club. MR. BRIDGES: But you're convinced incorporation would change that in no way then, Jim? MR. WALL: Correct, it would not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my major concern with this is not the incorporation but the fact that we need to have public access to their actions. I would hate to see an agency that is a governmental agency that is practically totally -- 99% funded by the local government be able to hide behind a corporate veil and not have public access to their information available. I'm not planning on voting for this for that reason until I can be convinced that there would be more funds raised or a substantial portion of the funds raised for the Convention and Visitors Bureau. I will consider voting for it at that time, but until I am convinced that there is that possibility I will not be voting for this resolution. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have all the confidence in the world in Mr. White and in the board and in the direction that the Convention and Visitors Bureau is going in in 1996 and also '95. One of my concerns, and it's been one of my concerns for some time as far as them not being incorporated, is the liability that individuals take on that we appoint to that board or send to that board for their approval. By virtue of the two ordinances, the old urban service district or city ordinance and the county ordinance, there's certain criteria that you had to meet to serve on that board. And by virtue of positions that some individuals hold, they are on that board. And I would not want to serve on that board -- and this is my main reason for supporting this. I would not want to serve on that board if that board wasn't incorporated where it would protect the personal liabilities, you know, of the members. The other thing is, is that certainly if there is a lawsuit as far as liabilities go, then it's going to come directly back to county government today versus the board members because county government have the deepest pockets. And there -- in my opinion, there is a direct connection as far as the county government being ultimately responsible for any and everything that that board do with them not being incorporated, and that's my reasons for supporting it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. White, would you correct me if I'm wrong, but are there not two representatives or maybe even three on your board that would come from this governing body? Is it one from the urban district and two from the suburban? MR. WHITE: Yes. Currently under the enabling ordinances under which we're operating right now there were two County Commission seats and one City Council seat. MR. KUHLKE: But that would continue even after incorporation; am I correct? MR. WHITE: That is our recommendation. MR. KUHLKE: So basically this body would be informed probably on a monthly basis as far as the operation of CVB goes? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. And if I can make a point of clarification also regarding the open records and meetings. All of our meetings would still be public meetings. Our records would be open to the public because of the majority of the funding that we receive. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'm calling for the question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may briefly. I would want to know whether that's going to be in the article of incorporation. That may help as far as the last statement. MR. SHEPHARD: Commissioner Todd, on behalf of the Convention and Visitors Bureau as their attorney, that would be negotiated in the contract. We've been drafting the contract that would apply. Of course, once we're incorporated there would be a contract between this body and the incorporated Convention and Visitors Bureau, and those provisions that you're concerned about in terms of the open meetings and whatnot would be in the contract. This body would have an opportunity to negotiate those type of provisions into that agreement, but we are prepared for that and would expect those to be fully in there already. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: 47, please? CLERK: 47: Consider approval of the reassignment of Melinda Moody and John Bennett within the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department. Approved by Public Services on September 24th. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, the reason why I asked for this to be pulled goes back to the earlier concern about employees and the money they are making swapping jobs or the same equal jobs. Are either of these going to have to be --pay going to be raised because of the swap or are either of their pay going to be decreased because of the swap? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to so move that we approve. MR. HANDY: Without an answer? What kind of doing y'all doing today? I asked a question. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. I believe any Commissioner at any time can make a motion as long as there's not two motions on the floor. And the order of the day, there's a motion on the floor and I'm ready for discussion if my colleague wants to continue. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did we have a second to the motion? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Is anybody here from Human Resources? Can we get somebody -- CLERK: Moses McCauley's here. Mr. McCauley is here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you find that information for him, Moses? MS. BEAZLEY: I can address that, Mr. Mayor, if you'd like for me to. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Beck and Mr. Boyles were at the committee meeting and they did address this matter. They said it would be an increase of about $3,000 a year and that the duties would be split, and they deleted one position. MR. MAYS: And also you might add, Ms. Beazley, that the other person being moved would not have a decrease in their salary. MS. BEAZLEY: That is correct. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. TODD: I believe the minutes for the committee meeting is in the book. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question of my committee chairman. Was this the way it was worded in the committee or was it modified? I didn't have much sleep the night before, but I think this is a change from what we approved -- or we didn't approve it. MR. MAYS: We approved it. Now, are you talking about that one or 49, Rob? MR. ZETTERBERG: We discussed it -- MR. MAYS: Wait a minute, 49 or 47 now, Rob? CLERK: We're on 47 now, Mr. Zetterberg. MR. MAYS: We're not on the one about the Project Manager and doing the specialized projects. We're on there where we did the move with maintenance and in special projects of moving John Bennett. MR. ZETTERBERG: All right. Okay. Thank you. MS. BEAZLEY: When it was on your committee agenda it did not specify names, too. It was Mr. Newly's position. CLERK: He was mistaken. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this the same one then, 47? Is 47 and 49 linked? MR. MAYS: 47 was what we approved in committee, Mr. Zetterberg; 49 was what I pulled out as a part of my motion before the other things were pulled out. And we didn't make a decision on 49. We passed it on generally to this Commission so that it could have discussion. That was the one we didn't make a decision on, the one that's still to come. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there a relationship between 47 and 49? MR. MAYS: None whatsoever. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Thank you. MS. BEAZLEY: Only that they come from Recreation, both of them. MR. MAYS: Yeah, only that they're on the same committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, for the records and for the public, I'd like to just point out that Ms. Moody is the daughter of Ms. Linda Beazley. MS. BEAZLEY: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: 49, please? CLERK: Item 49: Consider approval to receive as information a request from the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department to enter into a contractual agreement for Professional Services for a Project Supervisor of the 1-cent Sales Tax Phase III Program within the department. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I believe Mr. -- well, Mr. Beck is here. Mr. Beck addressed us in committee at that particular time. There is a serious feeling, particularly with Recreation for the first time being involved in sales tax. Generally the things that have been included have been repetitious from year to year, and those departments somewhat have either handled them themselves or they've either had it passed on or done some work through engineering firms. This is a different animal at this time. And part of what we discussed in committee was that maybe we might want to do something that would include all of the areas of sales tax projects and whether we were going to maybe put together a team or a staff to do that, whether there might be one general project manager or there might be something done in Recreation. So we have not made a decision, but we thought it was important enough that it be passed on to this particular Commission because there will be some specifics that involve Rec buildings and projects. And at this time I'd like to yield to the Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks, Mr. Beck, and to let him address us on that part. And then if we want to ask any questions about it, I think we can do so at that time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Beck comes forward I'd like to make a motion that we postpone it until we have the new Administrator on board, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. TODD: And the reason for that motion is that I think we need to do this. We're talking about millions of dollars. And the other reason I feel that we need to do this is that this Commission, you know, debated this issue, went out and advertised for a person to come in and do this for the entire sales tax project, then we got bogged down in whether we wanted to do a person for the entire sales tax project or we wanted to go out and get a consultant to do it. And I think the new Administrator coming in, with his experience on managing a big city, is going to be able to sit down with us and give us some direction there. And I don't believe that the big projects as far as sales tax and Recreation is, you know, at risk. I am concerned about the jail project in that we haven't got someone on board there, but certainly I think that we'll probably have someone on board here in the next 30 to 60 days or maybe even sooner depending on who we decide on. MR. BRIDGES: Just a point of information, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: As I understand Number 49, all we're doing is receiving this as information. We're not going out and hiring this guy or advertising for him or anything like that, so I really don't see a need to postpone this, and I make a motion that we accept -- we receive this proposal as information. MR. POWELL: I'll second it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may further comment? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: The reason that we sent it out of the committee to -- the intent of the proposal wasn't for us to receive it as information. We sent it out of the committee to receive it as information, that we didn't want to make a decision that was going to come to the board without the entire board having the opportunity to debate it. And I'm sure that if there wasn't a motion to postpone there would probably be a motion to act on it. I can live with the substitute motion to receive it as information, either/or. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, then Mr. Mays. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think that the recommendation of the committee was to ask Mr. Beck to go and try to coordinate with other departments that are going to have capital expenditures and to come back to us in the future to make a recommendation on how best we may be able to handle this position to look at all of the sales tax projects that we have scheduled through the next four or five years. And so I don't think that this particular item is to approve that position but to let Mr. Beck tell you what his ideas are, and then I think he'll be coming back to our committee with a recommendation at a later time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, then Mr. Bridges. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, basically what I was going to say was similarly the same. I think probably Tom could be doing something else while he's down here, but felt it important enough the committee asked him to be here. I just would like, mainly out of respect for those who are not on that particular committee -- we're not asking for a position, we're not asking for a position on a position, we're just merely asking you to listen to what occurred in the committee. It's very brief, it's very short, it's from our assistant director. I have no problem as chairman of that committee with the postponement until you get an Administrator on board, but I think at the same time you're going to be making a decision in Recreation in terms of a director. You've got a person in there, and I know you can't separate personalities from positions, but let's be realistic. And I think you need to realize some things that are going on in there currently from the person who at this time is the assistant director and also has been assigned to do the special project work. And just hear that, and then we can postpone it, you know, until that person comes. But I think you need to hear from that person and the importance of why it's being brought to you since you are not on that particular committee, and that's the only thing I'm asking, out of courtesy, and allow Tom to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead, Tom? MR. BECK: Sure, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. When we came before committee last Tuesday, we had put this proposal together. And it was done rather hastily, but it was really done rather hastily because I really hadn't had time to put anything together to bring to you yet. This particular sales tax project plan is something that we have needed and we have wanted and the citizens have wanted for a long time. Now that it's here, it's a tremendous undertaking. And the one thing that I'm wanting to make sure to do is do this program right. I don't want to see and we don't want to see any mistakes made with this program. We want to spend the money the best that we can. The problem that we are having right now is it is a major undertaking. Just in the 1996 projects that you approved for us we have 12 projects that are ongoing this year. Now, that may not sound like much. The amount of money isn't very much, but it doesn't matter if it's a $7 million project or if it's a $100,000 renovation project, it takes just as much work in the preparation to get ready to go out for bid. It's very little difference in time. You've got different scope with those projects, but to get prepared for them it takes a tremendous amount of time. Now, I feel like -- not tooting my own horn or whatever we may want to call it, I think the job is getting done. We've just opened several bids. The bids came in -- have all come in well within the total budget dollars that we've been allocated. The projects are going to be very good. But there's things that are going lacking within our operation right now administratively that --there's no way that we can administratively and in our management manage a huge $5 million regular operation with 53 parks and manage this sales tax program that's going to be close to $28 million over this five years. It's just not good management to expect -- to expect that the same amount of work can get done within an organization that was basically set up to manage what we've got now. And that's the main scope of it. We've got 61 projects over the course of these five years. 61 recreation projects. They range from $50,000 all the way up to $7 million. And it takes a tremendous amount of work and planning, and we just want the program done right, and the way to do it right is to get some specific help within our operation. That is my personal feeling. That's what you've asked me to do is give you my feelings on how it should work. I feel like it should work with someone there in our office that we can direct into this program, not on a -- or on day-to-day level, but not having to go out and meet the architects and meet the contractors and go out with site visits. It's really a tremendous amount of time and undertaking. If we've got someone there that can administer and coordinate that program from within our operation and let us do our job of managing our parks system and our regular operation for our citizens -- because that doesn't stop. The programs don't stop, the park demands don't stop, the grass cutting situation doesn't stop. All that keeps on going, and then we've got to manage this construction program that's going to be very worthwhile for our citizens, but it's a huge undertaking. So with that, I'll leave it for any questions that you may have for me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: I think the Suburban Administrator wanted to say something in reference to that. MS. BEAZLEY: Tom didn't have very much time, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Commissioners, to put his proposal together. We had discussed this, and I felt that it was extremely critical to be brought before you. Mr. Todd is correct when he says that in the previous government on the suburban side there was discussion -- a great deal of discussion about hiring a project manager over these projects, and that most likely will happen in the future. And by your own admission, we'll be getting a new Administrator in 30 to 60 days. That's two more months. I'm sure he is going to be very busy when he comes on board and he's not going to be thinking probably who needs to be out here checking on the projects for Recreation. This is a very small contract for a very, very important, monumental job, and I would like to ask you not to put it off because it does need to be addressed. This is the first time that the Recreation Department has been included. It is a very large amount of money that will basically not be that much supervised. And you indicate the possibility you may have a change in the leadership in Recreation; you're also contemplating adding additional duties to the Recreation Department. Those people who will be left there in management will have their hands full trying to keep up with the day-to-day operation. And I would just like to request that you give it very serious consideration. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Not that I'm in favor of continuing with a -- just a citizens committee to build a $35 million jail, but we've been very successful with a citizens committee on that $35 million jail, and I think they would even tell us, you know, that they need a project manager or a QC/QA person to do the checks and balances or help them because they are volunteers. But I am sure that if we let the public know today that we are looking for someone, a citizens committee and a chairman and someone to work with these projects -- and we're talking about this year probably less than $3 million, the total projects in Recreation, and between '97 and '99 I guess is when the $7 million project come on in South Richmond, and I'm sure that there's other projects that's going to add up for '97/99 in the urban areas in renovations, et cetera. But I believe, you know, if we need to do something desperately right now, we need to appoint a citizens committee. And I can think of one gentleman that already has expressed interest in it, Mr. Andy Cheeks, and there's probably a dozen or so others. But I think that we're worrying about the little ant when elephants is running around. I understand the concern that the staffer have, so I don't have a problem with the staffer. I think the staffer done the proper thing in bringing it to our attention as far as we have problems, you know, as far as this new construction go and we need to bring someone on board to take care of it. But I can't support something -- someone coming on board to take care of the little ant when we're not taking care of the elephants, and I want it all taken care of and all taken care of at one time and probably by the same person. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I think I'll appoint a subcommittee composed of some of the Commissioners and see if we can't resolve that problem. We'll get some RFP's in here and see if we can solve that. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: What did you say, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I recognized -- oh, I'm sorry. I said I would appoint a subcommittee composed of some of the Commis-sioners, we can get some RFP's and then we can move on this. MR. KUHLKE: I was just going to comment that I think -- I don't think Tom came to us to approve the position but to bring the idea to us and express that you needed to do some more work. And I would expect that what you're going to do is to do some more work and come back to the Public Services Committee with a recommendation; am I correct? MR. BECK: I can certainly do that. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I mean, I don't think until you get more specific that we could even think about approving a position, so I'm assuming that's what you're going to do. I would recommend that that's what you do. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. In that case then, I'll certainly accept that. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might say one thing. Other than the year that I chaired the County Commission I probably have had Recreation and probably was so glad to end up getting some money, because I spent most of the time probably raising hell just trying to keep us afloat and where we were. And it feels good to be able to have a funding source for once, because I remember when we were --didn't mind, you know, spending the world for a jail and we had to fight like the dickens to deal with what we were dealing with for children and for senior citizens. But we just wanted -- and we can understand the overall projects that have to be done, but, again, it's just being brought to your attention early. Because we realize the jail may be much bigger, but we're hoping that it's very few percentage-wise citizens of ours that'll be going to jail. Everybody will be basically looking at what we do in the public system that serves the people who aren't going to jail. And I think we can realize just when we were dealing with everything from inmate labor to you name it on building some other projects that have gone on in Recreation, and I think for the most part they did a pretty good job, but we're still suffering from some of those things not being done in a first-class way. And the only thing that we are saying out of Recreation at this time is that we're bringing it to your attention. We want it done right, because that's where the visibility will be in everything from preschoolers to your seniors that will view those Rec projects. They will be out there visibly noticeable in terms of what we do with that money. Now, what you gentlemen decide to do, whether it's attaching it to another committee, whether it's an overall project manager, whether it's giving that group one on its own, that's a policy decision. We can live with any of it. But we just want you to understand that we are concerned about the money that flows through there since for so long we had to fight to keep that that we had from being cut, and now that we've got some going through there, we want to make sure that we don't turn around and get our unfair share of criticism if those projects aren't done properly. And the people who are there now having to do the job are just simply bringing it to you so that you'll have that out there and it can't be said later on that Rec didn't come to you. How you dispense of it, you know -- Mr. Mayor, if your subcommittee basically is going to deal with some of that, then fine. But I just hope that in the postponement or in the hiring, that it doesn't get lost forever in there. Because, you know, it might be a so-called ant project, but I've always been told there's more ants than there is elephants and they watch you a lot closer. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Do you want to read the substitute motion first made by Mr. Bridges, please? CLERK: The substitute motion was to receive as information. Seconded by Mr. Powell. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell, that we receive it as information. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, Item 50, is consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission-Council on September 17th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded -- who seconded the motion? MR. TODD: Here, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT] CLERK: 51: Consider approval of a three-year contract with Serotta, Maddocks, Evans & Company as the External Auditor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we extend the contract for one year. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, please? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, how many different auditing -- external auditing firms do we have now? We've got -- the Internal Auditor is actually external and the county has got one. Did the city have a different one at one point? MR. HANDY: Cherry, Bekaert & Holland was for the city and Serotta is ours, the county -- old county. MR. BRIDGES: So in essence what we're doing here is we're accepting Serotta, and Cherry -- and we'll no longer have Cherry, Bekaert & Holland? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Item 52: Consider approval of the termination of Mr. Alphonzo Forrest from the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. Approved by the Administrative Services Committee on June 24th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Watkins is here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do you want to come forward, Mr. Watkins? MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor Sconyers and members of this honorable board. I'm not going to take too much of your time. Heaven knows last time I was here on August 20th I did that. But I will ask you to consider one issue here. This is not either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Last time we were here I asked you to reconsider remanding -- sending this matter back down to make appropriate findings as to whether or not the proper steps were taken before Mr. Forrest was terminated, and I would ask that you consider that here again. The basic question is, were all the steps taken before and was the law followed appropriately before Mr. Forrest -- before he can be terminated. And as I stated before, according to the evidence that was before the Council, we don't have an appropri-ate chain of custody, the Medical Review Office familiarity with the lab, and almost a week went by before Mr. Forrest was even notified that his test had read positive when, on the other hand, there used to be a time in Augusta when an employee of this government tested positive he would know that same day. So, again, you don't have to vote yea or nay, thumbs up or thumbs down. There's a safer route to take, and that route is remanding this to one of the review boards or personnel boards and to make sure that the appropriate steps were taken, and then you can have a closer view and take a second look at this. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: There was information that was requested the last time, and one of the reasons that this was postponed for 30 days, and I guess I'm looking for the Personnel Director, Mr. John Etheridge. MR. WALL: Ms. D'Alessio, I think, has the responses to those questions that were asked. MR. TODD: Okay. Yes. I would certainly like to hear the answers and that they be made part of a public record. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I think that if you did send this back the result would be the same. The person-nel board specifically asked John Etheridge were all policies and procedures followed correctly, and the response was yes. He was specifically asked was this employee afforded all of the rights and all the due process that he was entitled to. The answer was yes. He was treated exactly the same as any other employee who falls under this random testing program. There are no questions in anybody's mind who was at the personnel board hearing on behalf of the county that everything was done properly. There were some specific questions raised about false positives, I know, and the laboratory that's used. And we have our MRO, Dr. Pollack, here today, and I really think that y'all ought to take a couple of minutes and hear from him. He is much more knowledgeable about this than I am, and I think it would be worth your time if that would be all right. MR. BEARD: Could I ask a question, please? MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes. MR. BEARD: What was the finding of the personnel board? I know, but just for the record. MS. D'ALESSIO: The personnel board upheld the termination. MR. BEARD: That was unanimously? MS. D'ALESSIO: As far as I know. Yes, sir, it was. DR. POLLACK: My name is John Pollack; I'm the MRO for the county. I'm the Medical Director of the Occupational Health Center for University Hospital. I reviewed this drug screen, I reviewed the chain of custody, I spoke with Mr. Forrest, and after reviewing all these things upheld that there was intact chain of custody properly done, that the test was positive, and it was positive for cocaine. A lot of the other things that were brought up at the last meeting in reference to federal rules and regulations and laws, basically none of those things apply to this drug screen because this is not a federal drug screen. It was not a federal program, this is your county program, and the only thing that applies is your county policy for doing random drug screens. This was not done under a federal type of program. Even though it wasn't done under a federal program, what you do do in your policy is follow some of the good things from the federal guidelines such as chains of custody, medical review officers, using a certified laboratory certified by the federal government to do the tests, and that's what you do. The decision was made by the county to use LabCorp, which is the lab that did the test, so as not to have any conflicts of interest with any local laboratory such as the ones I work for, so that the physician, the reviewer, and the lab are totally separate. The other question, I think, that was brought up was trying to do the tests within 24 hours. You couldn't do a positive drug test -- you can get a negative back, but you can't get a positive drug test back within 24 hours in this area because you need to use a federally certified laboratory. The nearest one is Atlanta, so it takes several days. And, actually, the federal guidelines, when you use federal guidelines, allow up to 14 days for evaluation of the drug test after they get returned, so it takes time. Some people have these things done and the medical review officers, the people that review these things, aren't even in the same state. You know, if you work for a big company like a Monsanto, people might be reviewing them in, say, Chicago for somebody in Georgia. So these aren't necessarily done on a local level. But, again, I did review the drug screen, I reviewed the chain of custody; it was signed by Mr. Forrest; it was complete, intact. He had no medical reason to be positive when I inter-viewed him, and in my opinion the test is positive. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. WATKINS: Just for clarification, is this an opportunity to ask the Medical Review Officer some questions? MR. WALL: Need to afford him that opportunity. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. WATKINS: The Medical Review Officer, if he can first of all tell us has he ever visited this lab? DR. POLLACK: No, I have not. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Do you know what city it's in? DR. POLLACK: It's in Herndon, Virginia. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Did you know that at the time that this lab result was taken? At that time, did you know where it was? DR. POLLACK: Yes. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Do you know anything about this particular facility? For example, how many lab results or lab tests do they do a year? DR. POLLACK: No, I do not. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Can you tell us how many lab results come back with a false positive from this laboratory? DR. POLLACK: No, I cannot tell you that. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Do you know how many hands touched this particular sample before a positive result was -- came of this [inaudible]? DR. POLLACK: I have a chain of custody that's certified by the laboratory and by their scientist, and I know how many hands touched it between here and there. MR. WATKINS: Okay. How many hands, once it got to the laboratory touched this particular sample? DR. POLLACK: I don't have the laboratory information. It's not my job to have the internal laboratory information. When they are a certified laboratory and they release that information to me, that has all been because of federal guidelines, and because they're a certified laboratory by the Department of Health and Human Resources, they are required to do all those things internally. MR. WATKINS: Does the drug policy of Richmond County require that a proper chain of custody document the time the lab is -- time the sample was taken all the way through its completion, that it show exactly a chain of custody? Isn't that the requirements of the policy manual? DR. POLLACK: Sure. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Now, can you us then how many hands touched this sample? DR. POLLACK: No. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Now, and you're telling us that although you can't document and this laboratory can't document how many hands touched this chain of -- touched this particular sample, you're telling us in your opinion that is an adequate chain of custody? DR. POLLACK: Yes. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Now, what basis are you using to state that now? DR. POLLACK: I think I've explained it twice. MR. WATKINS: Under what policy manual, what federal guidelines, what state guidelines are you rendering this opinion? What is your basis to say that? DR. POLLACK: My basis is that the test isn't released from the laboratory unless there is an intact chain of custody within their laboratory. I've gotten tests back before from other laboratories where they state right on it that they can't stand behind the test because there was no chain of custody or the chain of custody was broken. MR. WATKINS: So what you're telling us is just because this laboratory tells you that there is an intact chain of custody, you take it on their face value that it is, in fact, an intact chain of custody? DR. POLLACK: I believe the laboratory, yes. MR. WATKINS: Okay. Now, who did you speak with at the laboratory to confirm whether or not this was an intact chain of custody? DR. POLLACK: When they send the results to me, they are certified as having their internal chain of custody intact. MR. WATKINS: Can you tell us anything about the qualifications of the individuals who tested this particular lab sample? DR. POLLACK: No, I can not. MR. WATKINS: Okay. With that in mind, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to -- I'm not going to go any further. I think it's quite obvious that the Medical Review Officer knows absolutely nothing about this laboratory. And before you can take a man's name and his reputation whereas he will not be able to get another job, I think it's only incumbent upon this governing body to have adequate assurances and confidence that this particular lab can give you an adequate sample of how many false positive they have. We don't know that. This may be that one time in a million where it may have been a false positive. We don't know that. There may be ten samples out of 100,000 that come back with a false positive. We don't know that. We don't know whether or not this sample was, in fact, one of those samples that may have been part of that batch that came back with a false positive. We don't know that. The chain of custody is required by the policy manual passed by this government in January, and since he cannot -- DR. POLLACK: The chain of custody is intact. There's no problem with the chain of custody. MR. WATKINS: As previously stated, he cannot tell us anything about that chain of custody. DR. POLLACK: As previously stated, I told you that the laboratory wouldn't release the results without an intact chain of custody internally. I have a chain of custody from here to there. MR. WATKINS: Do you know whether or not I had my hands on that sample? DR. POLLACK: No, I do not. MR. WATKINS: I rest as to that particular issue. Again, since we cannot state what the appropriate chain of custody is -- you can't unring this bell, and now this man is about to be kicked out -- out of his job, his family, who he considers part of his family to be the Fire Department, without giving him adequate due process under the law. Now, a chain of custody requires that everyone who handled a sample, name has to be signed on that particular sample. We don't have that here. We need adequate assurances for that. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, if I may just respond briefly. Again, I think Mr. Watkins is confusing federal regulations and federal requirements with county requirements. The federal requirements apply only to Department of Transportation employees who are in the Transit Department. There are some differences in the way those employees are tested and the way that it's reported. MR. WATKINS: May I ask her a question regarding that federal requirements? Isn't it true that this policy is significantly -- or was adopted pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations under the Department of Transportation regulations? MS. D'ALESSIO: No, sir. Portions of which apply only to Transit employees were adopted pursuant to those federal guidelines. Mr. Forrest and other employees who are not covered by those federal guidelines are tested according to county established policy. MR. WATKINS: Okay. And county established policy doesn't state that there must be an intact chain of custody for a sample? MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, it does, and Dr. Pollack explained that there was an intact chain of custody. MR. WATKINS: In his opinion. MS. D'ALESSIO: Exactly, and that's what he's hired to do. As to -- briefly as to false positives, and I know y'all have heard some of this before. You do an initial test, and that initial test is kind of quick and easy, and there you may get a false positive. But when you get a result that causes any kind of question, that's when you move to the confirmatory test. That's what takes longer. It's much more complicated, it's much more sophisticated, and you really just don't get false positives with a confirmatory test the way that we do it, especially with this laboratory. We have every confidence in what was done in this case, what's done in every case. This laboratory is accredited nationally by the Department of Health and Human Services. That's one of the reasons that we chose it, because we felt like other companies -- I think even Mr. Watkins told y'all last time a lot of Fortune 500 companies use this lab. I gave Mr. Watkins, in writing, the name of the lab and the local address. He had the opportunity to contact them and to talk to them if he needed to. I also told him, in writing -- MR. WATKINS: I'm going to object to that. And the reason I'm going to object to that, because we were never given an opportunity prior to that to bring up any new evidence, so that point is totally irrelevant. You may proceed. MS. D'ALESSIO: I also informed Mr. Watkins in writing that there might be enough of the original sample left -- MR. WATKINS: I'm going to object to that, too, because we were not given an opportunity to bring up any new evidence. I specifically asked you that question also: what would be the purpose of this proceeding, to bring up new evidence or not? The question was no. So all those points that you're bringing up are totally irrelevant. That's why ask again, if we want to remand this, then I will be given an opportunity to bring up those issues that she is now referring to. MR. WALL: Insofar as newly discovered evidence, you were specifically told that in the event that you had evidence that would fall in the category of newly discovered evidence you would have the opportunity to bring that information before this board, and I think that was confirmed in writing. Any information that you wanted --that could have been brought up, that should have been brought up before the personnel hearing, that is the purpose of that personnel board. If you wanted to have any additional tests performed by that laboratory, if you wanted to bring up any additional newly discovered evidence--and you're a trial lawyer and you know where that -- what fits within that category--you would have had the opportunity to bring that information before this body. The information that you are now complaining about that you couldn't provide clearly falls within that category. We dealt with a certified lab, we had chain of custody documents, the procedure outlined in the employment manual and in the county's drug policy was complied with, we had a certification by the lab that internally the chain of custody was followed, and, you know, I don't think that a lab is going to certify for one drug screen that a chain of custody and risk their entire certification process over one incident. MR. WATKINS: Well, first of all, being a trial lawyer I also know what newly discovered evidence is, and this is not newly discovered evidence. That's why I keep bringing up the point if this body would like to remand this issue we can do so, so that we can reopen that can of worms. Furthermore, regardless of what the lab says, this county's law is that the chain of custody shall remain intact and there shall be a documented chain of custody. So this county has the opportunity to demand of that laboratory to certify as to all the individuals who handled this particular chain of custody dealing with this sample. That is this county's law, not this laboratory's law, so you cannot throw that monkey on the laboratory's back, it rests right here on the county's back. MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, and again, we presented evidence at the hearing that that was absolutely complied with in every regard. Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I was going to ask the Mayor: Mr. Mayor, are we ready to - - are you ready to receive a motion now or are we still in court? MR. WATKINS: And furthermore, I will object at this point because, again, Mr. Mayor, my understanding was there would not be an opportunity at this proceeding to present any new evidence, yet and still, we're hearing testimony from the Medical Review Officer. Now, if I had known that, certainly I would have come prepared in a different manner, but I was informed otherwise. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, give us a ruling on that and let's move forward. MR. WALL: We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Watkins, there were questions that were raised at the last hearing by several of the Commissioners as to various things, and that is the purpose for which Ms. D'Alessio and the Medical Review Officer are here to respond to those. You've had an opportunity to question the Medical Review Officer. I think that your client has been afforded far more due process than the law requires, and I recommend that the Commission support the motion that has been made and uphold the personnel board. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly the questions that I raised the last time, you know, in support of information that was being requested by the employee that's attempting to clear his name, and the attorney, I think it's been given. I don't necessarily need to see a manifest from the internal department of the lab. I do need to know that a chain of custody was maintained. I understand that this is a county policy and I also understand that the Fire Department, even as far as the drivers over there, is exempt or excluded by virtue of a act from coming under the CDL, which would require a DOT federal test. So certainly by virtue of that, I don't see a requirement that we go by the DOT federal --all the DOT federal guidelines. If we were under that mandate, then, yes, I would say that we would probably, you know, comply with it. I see this as a serious issue. I see it as a issue of a individual that's been given every opportunity with the Medical Review Officer that we put in place a couple of years ago, with the certified lab and getting the lab work out of the City of Augusta, which we done some time ago when we run into some concerns. And I think the integrity of this test and the integrity of the chain of custody has been protected, and this government has done everything possible to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Todd. CLERK: Yes, sir. It was seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. All in favor of -- read the motion, please. CLERK: The motion was to consider approval of the termination of Mr. Alphonzo Forrest from the Fire Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 53, please? CLERK: Item 53: An Ordinance to amend the Consolidation Act, 1995 Georgia Laws. Pursuant to Section 15 of said Act and pursuant to the Home Rule provisions of the Georgia Constitution, so as to change the name and designation of the Board of Commissioners, to change the name and designation of the Chairperson-Mayor, the Vice Chairperson-Mayor Pro Tempore and of the Commissioners-Councilpersons; to prove an effective date. Second Reading. Approved by Commission-Council on September 17th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor, to ratify the second reading. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item is to consider approval of the estate sales contract and lease between Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club, Inc. and Augusta- Richmond County in connection with the acquisition and lease of 30.42 acres. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, this is a sales tax project and is within the appraised value on the property, and recommend approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. When --where is this on the sales tax list? MR. WALL: It's a 1996 project. I didn't bring the list with me, but -- MR. HANDY: Well, that's what I mean. Was it a '96 project or we're not changing anything? MR. WALL: We're not changing anything. It's a '96 project. MR. HANDY: Okay, that'll be fine. That's the only question I have. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess my question would be, is this in connection with the area that we're thinking about using on the old city landfill? MR. WALL: No. MR. HANDY: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: I guess my question would be, is this the only soccer field that we're doing out of the one penny? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MR. TODD: So there's two projects in there? MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe this is the only project, best of my knowledge, and it's eight soccer fields and it's on property is West Augusta. And I don't remember the exact road, but it's right off I-20. It's off -- the Frontage Road on I-20. MR. WALL: Flowing Wells. MR. ZETTERBERG: What? MR. WALL: Flowing Wells. MR. ZETTERBERG: Flowing -- it is off Flowing Wells Road. MR. TODD: I'm probably going to vote present in the sense that I'm not on board on this one, but what I'd like for us to do is in the future when we're doing projects, that we pull the schedule and the dollar amount as far as the sales tax projects go and we have them in the booklet. I think that's, you know, fairly simple and certainly I can keep up with the recommended schedule and dollar amount a lot easier and the location of these projects. Because I'm at a loss on this one and maybe -- you know, maybe it's just something I missed. MR. WALL: I'll submit that information in the future. MR. ZETTERBERG: The project was originally programmed about a million dollars. I believe we have already had one vote on it early on this year, that we approved it, and I think there was some allocation of a certain amount of the money early on. But it is in the sales tax -- in the '96 sales tax and it will come underneath -- I believe, come underneath the one million dollars scheduled for it. MR. TODD: And this is also going to West Augusta Soccer League? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, it's going to Augusta. It happens to be in West Augusta. MR. TODD: Yes. I'm trying to remember -- well, it's no need to, we'll just move on. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: I'm going to vote present, Mr. Mayor. You know, I'm at a loss, as I said, so I'll vote present on it. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: 55? CLERK: Under Other Business, Mr. Mayor, we would like to consider the following items: Communication from the Attorney regarding an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5868 establishing severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta-Richmond County; a report from the Consolidation Project Manager; consider approval of the hiring of the Administrator; and discussion of the water and sewer bond issue. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve by unanimous consent. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1? CLERK: Item 1 is the amendment to Ordinance Number 5868. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I thought this had been sent over earlier in order to get on the agenda, but apparently it did not make it over for whatever reason. We were contacted after the severance package ordinance was put in place both -- well, primarily by Human Resources concerning the Director of the Stockade, Mr. Jim Cullinan. And for whatever reason he was overlooked, he clearly was a department head that should have been included in the severance package ordinance. We also had questions raised concerning the Traffic Engineering Department. You will recall that that was a combined city and county department. Mr. Homer Moore apparently was occupying the position as the acting head of that department. There had been some discussion concerning that situation prior to the drafting of the ordinance. At the time the ordinance was drafted he was not included, and I think many of you have had some information furnished to you concerning that situation. And I submit the ordinance to you for approval to include those two individuals as displaced department heads that would be entitled to the severance package in the event that they elected the enhanced early retirement. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask the Attorney if we have any more acting heads of department or what have you that should be included in this, because I know in the city we had a number of acting head of departments and I just want to make sure that this included everybody. MR. WALL: Mr. Beard, I truthfully don't know how to respond to that question, because I asked that question before I submitted the last ordinance to Human Resources and others and was told that that was all of them. And not being totally familiar with the city's operation, you know, I have to rely upon the information that is furnished to me. And I'm not aware of any others. I would think that if there were any others at this point I would have heard from them or it would've been passed along to me, and so that's -- I can't say that's all other than that's all who's been furnished to me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: In the sense that we're amending this motion -- I mean, amending the ordinance and in the sense that this is the first reading of the amendment of the ordinance to include acting department heads, I'd like to offer an amendment to the ordinance that we include all acting department heads, then if there's anybody else out there that would be a cover-all. MR. WALL: Well, let me ask you -- may I speak to that, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, please. MR. WALL: The original ordinance included acting department heads who were identified. I think that any further department head that may be in an acting capacity or may contend that they are a head of a department, that y'all need to vote on that and y'all need to decide rather than putting that - - MR. TODD: Okay. So you're saying that they would come back at that time? MR. WALL: Yes. And some acting department heads were included in the original ordinance. MR. TODD: Yes. But I think it's essential that if we have any others out there that we know -- I don't know how the ones we're dealing with today fell through the cracks, but I think that our top staff, the two Administrators, ought to be able to determine whether someone is in a acting department status -- head status, and if they are, then put them on the list and let's go on and get it over with once and for all. You know, I don't want it to end up where there is -- you know, there may be politics involved or almost anything. I think we need to deal with everybody on one plate at one time, and I'd encourage us to do that. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor -- CLERK: Of the amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Amendment. Thank you. Let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. ZETTERBERG OUT] CLERK: Item 2: Report from the Consolidation Project Manager. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I have three items I'd like to go over with you very briefly. You will recall at your last two meetings that you identified a number of department head positions in which you instructed the staff to initiate recruitment for filling those positions from within the new government's organization. I asked the Human Resources Director to develop a schedule for carrying out the posting of those vacancies. He has developed that schedule. I would like to share it with you at this time and ask you to concur with it. And if it is your willingness to concur, I would then ask you to carry that schedule out. MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES SCHEDULE TO THE COMMISSIONERS. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The schedule as proposed suggests initiating recruitment for four of the positions immediately, concluding two weeks hence, and initiating the posting of notices for the other four immediately following that, anticipating completing all by the end of this month. And would request that you approve that, and the Human Resources Department will begin immediately. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess my vote will remain the same, and I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO; MR. ZETTERBERG OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The second item I have is simply a matter of information with the action you have just taken. There remain seven departments in which the selection process for the department head -- the determination of what selection process you will use, and the organizational studies remain to be done. I wanted to make you aware of those. They are the Public Works Department, the Aviation Department, the Central Services Department, the Library, the Information Technology Department, the proposed new Citizen's Service and Information Department, and the Equal Opportunity Office. And I'll simply pass out a list of those so you'll have that information. We'll be bringing you recommendations on those in the future. MR. CARSTARPHEN DISTRIBUTES DOCUMENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Have we advertised for hiring the Equal Opportunity Officer? MAYOR SCONYERS: I believe that's ongoing right now, isn't it, Bill? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Mayor. The -- I know that you have -- as I recall, you have approved the creation of that function, you have approved the position description, but to my knowledge you have not yet authorized recruitment. If you would like to do so -- MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we advertise community-wide for a Equal Opportunity Officer. MR. BEARD: Could I have a question, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: If y'all will wait just a minute I'm going to ask Mr. McCauley, because I think it's already being done, isn't it? MR. McCAULEY: Yes, sir, it is. It was to close out on the 3rd of October. MAYOR SCONYERS: Closes out October the 3rd. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, when I depend on the staffer --and Mr. Bill Carstarphen is a staffer--and when he tells me it hasn't been done, I want to be sure that it have been done. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I apologize. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. McCauley, I would like to ask a question. If this hasn't been approved by the body and Mr. Carstarphen doesn't know anything about it, where did you get the authorization from? MR. McCAULEY: That's a question you'll probably have to ask Mr. Etheridge. MS. BEAZLEY: Mr. Beard, I can address that. MR. BEARD: Okay. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where is Mr. Etheridge? MAYOR SCONYERS: He's at a grievance hearing -- or not a grievance hearing but a -- he's at a hearing today. MR. TODD: I was misinformed then. I was told he was back, Mr. Mayor. MS. BEAZLEY: He is supposed to be back at this time, but I can address that. On August the 20th I appeared before this Commission for -- I stood in for John Etheridge, who was out, and I stood in -- who was standing in for Mr. Carstarphen. I presented that to this body and you approved to accept it, approve it, and authorize the immediate advertisement of that. It was done on the 20th of August, and I went back -- there were some questions about it. I went back, the minutes reflect that it did take place on August the 20th, and it has been duly advertised. MR. TODD: And it's going -- it's being advertised, Mr. Mayor, community-wide, and what's the time table for the closing and open dates? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McCauley, can you -- MR. McCAULEY: It was advertised in the Augusta Chronicle, I believe the Spirit, and the Augusta Focus. MR. TODD: That is not acceptable, Mr. Mayor, for local newspapers. MR. McCAULEY: The Focus also. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, that is not acceptable. It's not acceptable by this Commissioner. I cannot accept that. When we say community-wide we mean community-wide, and you cannot advertise for a position as important as that position in the local community, and that is not community-wide. Now, did we also just advertise for the Administrator which we're getting ready to hire today just in the local area, in the Focus, in the Spirit, in the Chronicle, et cetera? I would think not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I would imagine when we get the applicants in, if you don't like them you don't have to take them. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I trusted you before and I can't say what I got, but I don't think on this one --and I'm going to make a motion that we advertise community-wide like we advertised for the Administrator, in professional trade journals. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think that's nationwide, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: And that's -- well, that's what community-wide mean, Mr. Mayor. And that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Not having a second, the motion dies. Next item, please? MR. HANDY: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. HANDY: Concerning this process here, Bill. Ms. Beazley, you were right about we approved it, but by approving it, that didn't mean that it's supposed to go out for advertising. By approving it -- everything that we approve comes back to the body, and Bill Carstarphen, the Mayor, and myself make a decision whether we want to go outside or stay inside. And then we recommend that back to the full Commission, and then they determine how they want it done, and that step was left out. You can go ahead now. That's all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that I can speak to that issue, but I think that the second list that Mr. Carstarphen sent out, maybe with the exception of the Equal Opportunity Office, the other items I don't think a decision has been made on whether we're going outside or within on these positions. MR. CARSTARPHEN: And the reason I brought this to you is because I sensed there may be some confusion and I wanted to make sure that the full Commission had the opportunity to participate in making this decision. This information was the best of my recollection, and I apologize for the error, but I think it occurred as a result of my being absent for the meeting at which that action occurred. MR. KUHLKE: But I don't -- a decision has not been made of how we will pursue these positions. MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is correct. And the reason that I submit this list is to call that fact to your attention, that no decisions have been made on these, to my knowledge, with the exception of the Equal Opportunity Office, which has been spoken to here. MR. KUHLKE: Right. And the Library should not be on there? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That's your call. It's a part of your responsibility under the organization chart, but there may be a process that I'm not aware of for how the Library Director is selected. I believe you might want to consult your attorney in terms of whether or not you need to delete that. He has made recommendations similar to that in the past. MR. KUHLKE: One other question, Mr. Mayor, if I can. In the area of the Aviation Commission, isn't there some decisions that need to be made by this body before we actually get into that position? Since we have passed a resolution with an intent to consolidate that, would not that have to be resolved before we really go into that? MR. CARSTARPHEN: If you're addressing that to me, I think that probably should be resolved. This is a list of the departments, though, not commissions. These are departments, and the Aviation Department was recommended as a single department. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask the Attorney, since the Equal Opportunity Officer is on this, what would we have to do -- because it look like a lot of people were not involved in this or were not aware of this. Can we include this now and maybe delete what we've done on the 20th, or how can this be resolved giving the Equal Opportunity Officer's position here more time and to be advertised? MR. WALL: Well, I don't have the minutes of the August 20 meeting before me. If, in fact, that motion that was passed was to advertise and that bypassed the step that Mr. Handy referred to, then it needs to go back through that process, to go through the committee of the Mayor and Mr. Carstarphen and Mr. Handy, and then advertised at that point. I'm not sure what this list does at this point other than as just being information for you, and I don't think it's -- being included on this list has any import at all. MR. BEARD: Well, because -- the reason I'm asking, because I think an office as important as this should surely go beyond the government here and it should be --extend farther than that, at least regional, if we're going to fill that position. And if we have omitted a step in the process, then I assume that we ought to go back and rescind whatever we've done so that we can follow through on the proper process that is being held here at this time. MR. WALL: And I would agree with that, and I would suggest that if that is, in fact, the intent, to clear the record, that a motion to rescind the earlier action would be appropriate to clarify that picture. MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. I would like to rescind the order. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's wait till Ms. Beazley gets back with the minutes and see exactly what was said in the minutes. MR. HANDY: Okay. We can do that, Mr. Mayor, but it ain't going to change. MR. TODD: I think that's appropriate. We need to know what we are rescinding, because I'm not sure there was a motion authorizing it -- may I be recognized? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not so sure that we authorized it, number one, and I can't remember several meetings, you know, when we're dealing with issues as important we've dealt with. But I do know that there is things that we authorized, voted unanimously to do it, voted a majority to do, and the previous staff and even this staff haven't carried it out. And I can start naming them, but the one that come to mind is the -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Internal Auditor. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Brigham, don't put words in mouth. Mr. Mayor, the one that come to mind is, one, the consultant for the indigent care issue with a local institution here, that we voted on that, we authorized it, and it never happened. So it concerns me when things that I feel that we haven't authorized, that we haven't acted on, and they done happened. The matter of importance, I think, is going to boil down to it's probably important to some of us, it's less important to others, and I think that we got to get sensitive to what's important to who and we got to get sensitive to who is pushing what and when and why. And that's all I have to say. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you have it now? CLERK: Yes, sir. The action taken on August the 20th. Ms. Beazley: "This is the job description for the Equal Opportunity Director, which also has been reviewed by members, and any recommendations that have been made here incorporated into this description. They're asking that you accept it, approve it, and authorize this position to be advertised." Mr. Todd so moved, Mr. Handy seconded. But it was done without the step -- omitting the step that Mr. Handy had mentioned. MR. HANDY: We're not disagreeing that. We're not disagreeing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Therefore, we need to go to Mr. Handy's motion. It has been seconded, I believe, and I call for the question on that. I'm sorry, I guess we need to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield, because it's in reference to something else that Mr. Carstarphen had said, if I can be recognized after the motion is carried to deal with the Library matter. And that was why I didn't second Mr. Todd's motion when he had it on the floor, because I figured that whatever was done we were going to have to rescind first, and that motion probably could not be carried in order to do this until the previous one was rescinded and gotten out of the way. But if I could be recognized when we finish this. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: As I -- and I'm trying to go on recollection again, so gentlemen, colleagues, you may help me. But as I remember, we debated how we're going to advertise certain things and we debated community-wide versus in-house or local community, et cetera, and I thought we come up with a definition of community-wide meant in the national trade journals and at least -- the trade journals because you can do it a lot cheaper in those, but at least throughout the area or the southeast and maybe the nation versus the local community. And if I'm wrong on that, we need to, you know, correct it in the motion after we deal with the motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Etheridge, do you want to tell us where you advertised that, please, sir? MR. ETHERIDGE: I will be glad to. I received -- in all jobs, I get a letter from the Administrator directing me to do something or not to do something. In this situation, I got a letter directing me to advertise this job. And the job was advertised internally in the organization and outside in the local areas and local papers and that is it. It has not been advertised nationally, in the southeastern region, or in any publications for that particular type position to be published in. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? My other question, Mr. Etheridge, is how long is this position -- how long was it being advertised? MR. ETHERIDGE: This job has been advertised in the papers over the past three-week period, and internally it was advertised exactly like all other jobs, for ten days, within the organization. MR. TODD: And when is the time line -- total days for in the paper? MR. ETHERIDGE: Total in the paper? It was ran two weekends, to my knowledge. MR. TODD: Okay. I guess my question, Mr. Mayor, then: When is the time line for putting in for the position; when does that end? MR. ETHERIDGE: October the 3rd. MR. TODD: October the 3rd. MR. ETHERIDGE: I think that's the deadline date on there. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question on rescinding the previous motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I have a motion by Mr. Handy -- CLERK: Wait, you didn't get a second. Mr. -- he wants to make a ruling on that. MR. WALL: In reviewing -- this simply says advertise. And I think Mr. Todd is correct, that the process calls for it to go before the three member- committee, which would be you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Handy and Mr. Carstarphen, to determine whether that advertising is from in-house or on a larger scale, and that process apparently was not done. And so I don't know that you need to rescind the action, it just -- it just needs to go back before the committee that's been appointed. Because, I mean, this is the process. It says advertise, but the step that was omitted was carrying it before that committee, and I think that the three of you need to look at that, and then depending on whether -- come back before the Commission with a recommendation that it either be hired from within or advertised outside. MAYOR SCONYERS: John, the applications you've got, any of them from out of town? MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be honest with you, I have not looked at the resumes. I was waiting till the deadline date to look at them, so I can't sit here and say that we have any from outside. We've had a lot of local interest, though. We have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I'll yield to Mr. Kuhlke, then you can come back to me. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if it would be appropriate as we look at the list that Mr. Carstarphen passed out, and rather than having to go back and rescind or whatever, that maybe we consider a motion that the committee come back to this body with a recommendation on how we will pursue these positions, which includes the Equal Opportunity Office. And I know we have a motion on the floor, but based on what the Attorney said, if we approached it that way it would require the committee to come back and make a recommendation to us on how we're going to pursue these positions, which has not been done yet. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I guess two questions. Jim, if we don't rescind that action of the committee, does that cover us from any legal standpoint of having a job out there that we've advertised, whether we've done it right or whether we've done it wrong, but where you've got an opening and a closing date on it, but you just basically expand the process on it? MR. WALL: We just cancel that and reopen the job at some later time either in-house or through an advertising on a larger scale if that's the decision that the Commission makes. MR. MAYS: But we require no action on doing it? MR. WALL: No, just -- that can be handled administratively, just not open those job applications and --I'd suggest you keep them on file, but just not open them. MR. MAYS: Okay. My other question, Mr. Mayor -- and I guess what I sense is maybe a substitute motion coming or an amendment to the motion, and I have no problem with that, but it seems as though -- and I was going to wait, but if it's going to -- if you're going to look at this whole list, I guess I was going to go ahead on what I was going to yield for in reference to the Library. And I think that probably -- and we've had a lot of discussion on how we may want to look at the employees in the future, but I think in terms of your director and within the last year where the board has gone through what we're actually going through now and in terms of dealing with that extensive search and of hiring a director, I really think that may be -- and I know Mr. Carstarphen has had a lot on him, but I really don't think that that one applies to us in this list and probably needs to be removed. Now, if we do something else at a future date the way this Commission handle something, then that's different. But I think in terms of that position already being filled, the recruitment process at the retirement of the last director, that has been taken care of and you have a person serving in that position that was not dealt with by this particular body but done so by the Library board, and so I think that would not be involved in this process. I may be wrong. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mays is correct, the Library board is a separate entity that would be responsible for the selection of that -- the head of that Library. I also would recommend that you pull the Aviation Department off until you make a determination about combining the commissions; otherwise, I'm not sure what the Aviation Department would be. And in order to write that job description, I think a decision has got to be made about whether or not you're going to have one or two commissions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concern is if we are going to rescind this for the fact we didn't follow that previous step where we had the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem make a recommendation to us, what about this action we just voted on, because we didn't do that with those eight positions also. Are we going to rescind those at the same time? I think if we're going to do one we need to do all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I just wanted to ask -- the question I'm about to ask is not directed to any particular one as far as being defensive. But like the mixup on the job description that we read here concerning the EEO person, if it's the Clerk's responsibility to take the minutes and take the information, who is responsible for sending out the information and what action was taken on certain issues? That's what I need to know. And then if that will be cleared up, then possibility that we wouldn't have the mixup like we have here now. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I comment? MR. BEARD: I had my hand up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I don't know about Mr. Handy's question, and I'm not planning to answer that. But I would like to make a motion that since the Attorney said that we didn't have to rescind this, I would just like to include the Equal Opportunity Officer, and I move that the Equal Opportunity Office be included in the process that the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and the Project Manager -- in that process, and be brought back to us at the next meeting, and also deleting whatever -- giving them the authority to delete the Library and any other portion of this that they deem necessary when they bring it back to us. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell. Mr. Wall, could the applicants that have sent their application in, could they not be added to the list that we're going to -- if we go out again, if we don't open them? MR. WALL: If the decision is made to go outside of the government for, then, yes, you could take those applications and carry them over. You may have some stale applications. There may be people that would apply for the job if it were going to be filled, you know, October the 3rd or whatever that may not. But I don't have a problem with that, carrying those job applications over. I mean, the purpose of the advertising, if you go outside, is to get as many people to respond as possible. And in the process of reviewing those, I think that there would just need to be some checked to be sure that they were still interested in the position. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, then Mr. Kuhlke. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd just like to ask one question. Did Mr. Beard's motion include the eight departments, or is it not true that we acted on the eight departments to come from within? MR. BEARD: No, I was -- I was talking about the sheet that he passed out here. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. He passed two of them out and that's the reason I asked. MR. BEARD: The last one to be completed by 10/1st/96. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. I was out of the room for a few minutes. But what about the eight departments, where are we on those? MR. BEARD: What eight? MR. H. BRIGHAM: From within? MS. BEAZLEY: From within. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's cleared? That's been approved, from within? MR. BEARD: I'm talking about the last one that was passed out with the Equal Opportunity Office on there. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I got you. All right. MR. BEARD: And they would make the decision, you know, and bring it to us, and looks like we could do that and move on. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think there's still unreadiness. I believe Mr. Kuhlke's name was called, and I've had my hand up probably some time. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted a clarification of Mr. Beard's motion. I'm not -- I don't know whether you amended your motion or whether you added that to your motion to rescind. MR. BEARD: I said since that -- the Attorney said that we didn't have to rescind what was done the 20th or whenever that was done, so I'm saying since we don't have to rescind it we can just act on this. And this is very similar to the motion that you made. I just said that they would --if the Library wasn't supposed to be included in this, we could delete that. MR. KUHLKE: That's fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I spent a great deal of time over in the Radisson at a retreat going over what different individuals' responsibilities are, and being that a question was raised and I didn't ever hear anyone say, I'm going to say--if anyone disagree with me, just tell me I'm incorrect--that it's the responsibility of the Clerk to forward the majority vote that's carried by the Mayor to the Administrator, the appropriate Administrator. It's the responsibility of the Administrator, with the okay of the Mayor, to execute an executive order, to execute that directly from the board and carry it out. And that's my understanding of the way the process is supposed to work. MR. POWELL: Second call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's the way the process worked. Why don't you read all the motions we got out on the floor so we'll know what we're talking about. CLERK: Well, the motion of Mr. Handy to rescind, it didn't have a second. It died for lack of a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Correct. CLERK: And the only motion we have on the floor now is Mr. Beard's motion to include the EEO officer in the process with the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and the Project Manager, and to come back at the next meeting with a recommendation, and to delete the Library and Aviation. For the record, Public Works, Aviation, Central Services, Information Technology, Citizen's Services and Information, and the Equal Opportunity Officer. MAYOR SCONYERS: Were we going to delete the Aviation Commission? CLERK: Well, you all were going to do that in committee when you come back with the recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Beard since we're having this problem with one office, that we also amend his motion to include the other eight that we've already voted on, to advertise it internally so that we won't have to go back and go through this step again at some point in the future. MR. BEARD: I have a problem with that, Mr. Brigham, in that we've already approved that. I don't see the necessity of going back. I think this is to be brought to us and we can either, you know, reject it or accept it. But I don't see the possibility of going back and rescinding -- to me -- haven't we already approved that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I didn't think we -- all I was thinking I was asking for is that they bring back a motion that we look in-house like we've already voted to do, is what I thought I was asking. I just want to make sure we dot the I's and cross the T's. MR. BEARD: I don't quite follow what you are asking. I don't quite understand it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Obviously we haven't done that step, and I want to make sure that we follow our procedures. MR. BEARD: No, I can't go along with that. I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion one more time so everybody knows what they're voting on, please. CLERK: The motion by Mr. Beard was that the EEO Officer be included, along with the Public Works Department, Aviation, Central Services, Information Technology, Citizen's Service and Information, be included in the process with the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and Mr. Carstarphen to determine whether these positions are to be advertised within the organization, outside the organization, with community advertising, and this is to be ready for the next meeting. They're to come back at the next meeting with a recommendation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Final item. In a continuing effort to correct past errors, I have one other item that I'd like to share with you. MAYOR SCONYERS: We might want to change the wording on that from community to regionally. I think that's getting people confused. Or nationally or worldly or whatever we want to put. MR. HANDY: Bill, this was in our box already. I already have this. MR. CARSTARPHEN: You may already have it. It was placed in your box, but I wanted to specifically bring it to your attention here. On September 17th when you approved the organizational structure and certain other associated items related thereto, inadvertently the Natural Resources Conservation Service was omitted from a list of Community, Intergovernmental, and Judicial Partners group, specifically the intergovernmental agencies listed therein. It was an inadvertent omission that was called to my attention by the director of that agency, and I wanted to formally request that you recognize that as one of the partner intergovernmental agencies by a formal vote and indicate that it will be included in future considerations. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. CLERK: Next item: Consider approval of the hiring of the Administrator. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a personnel matter, so we need a motion to go into -- MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING, 4:56 - 5:19 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: The meeting will come back to order, please. Would you read the last item, please? CLERK: Consider approval of hiring of the Administrator. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: I've thought about it, I've consulted with others, and the conclusion is that I would like to make a nomination: William Estabrook for the new Administrator for Augusta-Richmond County. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: I'd like to ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Now, the second motion, we need to vote on it first, don't we, Jim? Or do we? MR. WALL: No. Unless there's objection, I think you can just accept that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just want to make sure we get it right. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Handy's -- excuse me, she's going to do a roll call vote. CLERK: Okay. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Present. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. BEARD AND MR. MAYS VOTE NO; MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I would like to ask my colleagues if they would consider a motion that we make this appointment unanimous. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Is that in the form of a motion? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I will second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to reluctantly go along with this because I think it may be the best for the city at this time to do it unanimously, but I cannot feel that we have done the best for -- or gotten the best person for the city with the baggage that is coming to us from Dayton. I think it's surely a mistake that we have made and that it will create more controversy than we're going to ask for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think between Mr. Estabrook and Mr. Oliver we had two fine candidates, without a doubt. We basically have one without the experience of being the chief and we have one coming with luggage. And I'm going to support the unanimous vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Estabrook has been in the political arena a long time, and anyone on this board knows that if you stay in this business long enough you're going to create some baggage. And I urge all my colleagues to vote for this motion. It sends a good signal to the people of Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. I think -- I believe in sending good signals, but I believe in sending fair signals. And as a representative of four clustered districts--1, 2, 4, and 5--as I have said privately, I have no problem in saying in publicly, I think that certain concessions have already been made. I did not make certain demands. I think certain parts of this community made no demands other than the fact that we pick the best person. I think out of 130 names, if we had that much deliberation to get down to the last three, even from the selection that was brought by the triangular committee of yourself, the Mayor Pro Tem and the Project Manager, to get to this type of controversy, to not be a clear and shining choice for this great new government that we're involved in, and particularly with certain questions coming not only with the baggage -- because I've said before good people have been fired, and I will not be personal with that. But I think there are certain questions that come about that question whether or not this candidate is sensitive in some areas, and I will leave it at that. But I think with the makeup and diversity of this population, that if that was a question, and if certain people wanted to really be fair, then possibly out of 130-some people would we then have that question mark hanging regardless of where the baggage lie. And I don't think necessarily of starting a new government do we start it off with what I consider a political fugitive, yes, with the shackles coming, and my vote will be no. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information or point of order, I believe there was a call for a roll call. CLERK: We did the roll call. This is for the unanimous vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want a roll call for this one, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Roll call vote on the motion by Mr. Kuhlke for a unanimous vote. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I'm going to vote yes. Reluctantly I will vote yes to this because I think that we need to show the force of everybody going along with that. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I wish him well and will respect him and will work with him, but the marriage will be common law. My vote is still no. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Supportively, yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Being that we're qualifying statements, it's going to be a yes with urging for the new Administrator to come in with sensitivity for gender, minorities, and labor. That's organized labor. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. MAYS VOTES NO. MOTION FAILS 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have a new Administrator for Augusta-Richmond County. His name is William Estabrook. Thank you. Any other business? MR. ZETTERBERG: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, Mr. Zetterberg, go ahead. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just wanted to make a statement. I've heard some individuals who were concerned about his ability to handle the diversity that our community does offer. I'd like to first state that this -- the board is responsible for the equal opportunity policies and procedures in this board. Mr. Estabrook works for this Commission. This Commission has demonstrated that it has been very fair in approving many of the interests of the minority community. We will insist as a board that he recognizes the diversity of our community, and it will be paramount as we gauge his performance in this community. And I'm certainly sure that he will be sensitive, especially knowing that that's a concern coming into the job. I have no problem and have a full vote of confidence that Bill Estabrook will do an exception job for the entire community, black and white, woman and child. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Estabrook was not my first choice. I voted for him because I thought he was a very capable administrator. I held out for my first choice as long as I thought was practical. I think that this town is a growing town, I think it is a place that we all call home and that we're all proud of, and I think that Mr. Estabrook is a very capable manager and will do a superb job. I voted for him reluctantly, but I did vote for him, and I do stand with him now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other business, gentlemen? CLERK: Yes, sir, we have one other item. Discussion of the water and sewer bond issue. MR. WALL: I was thinking that Butch was going to be here to present this, and Drew Goins has stepped out to see if he can find him and present him or bring him in. In the meantime, let me address several things. Primarily, I think Butch passed out to you -- do each of you have this sheet here? MR. HANDY: I don't have that. Is it in the book or out the book? CLERK: No, out the book. MR. HANDY: No, I don't have it. MR. TODD: It was passed around outside the book. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, I'll look at Mr. Powell's. MR. TODD: Choices, open or closed is what's on the top of it. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. WALL: Essentially one of the things that -- a decision that has to be made is whether this will be an open system or a closed system, and I think Butch's position is that essentially we really don't have much choice about the thing unless you want to raise taxes within the urban services district. The open system would essentially allow some of the water revenue to flow through into the General Fund. The bond resolution, which hopefully will be adopted next week and which I'll come to in a minute, has to address this issue about whether or not it will be an open system or a closed system. We recommend that it be an open system. That will allow some of the water revenues to continue to flow through to the General Fund, thereby making up the shortfall within the urban services district. And this sheet, the document that has been passed out to you and prepared by Butch, basically explains what the open system is, what the closed system is, why he's recommending an open system, which would be to subsidize the General Fund and the property taxpayers within the urban services district who -- and that is the property taxpayers that would benefit. And then as you go through this you see how the funds would flow in this enterprise fund. First they would be used to pay the operations and maintenance pursuant to a budget that would be adopted by the Commission, then it would be used to pay the debt service according to the debt schedule that is prepared, then it would go into the repairs and -- renewal and extension fund pursuant to a policy and a formula that is discussed, and then what would be left over would be the surplus, and that's the open fund and what is being discussed. I'm going to skip the next page -- next two pages and go to the renewal and extension where you will see his explanation of what the renewal and extension fund is. And then if we can go to the page -- I'm not sure what Butch intended about the other pages. If we can skip over to the priorities. And, again, you have the --the first funds would necessarily go to the operation and maintenance; secondly, the funds would go to service the debt; third, into the renewal; fourth, into the equipment capital; fifth, into the extension fund; sixth, would go into the fund balance reserve; and then seventh, that would allow the transfer of funds into the General Fund up to 2.5 million dollars or 5% of gross revenue, whichever is more. Now, that would be for a time period, and if you'll look at the last page you'll see where with the estimated franchise fees, with the additional cost of opening the jail, you would eventually phase out the necessity of having to transfer some of the revenues over into the General Fund. The schedule that we're on calls for us to make that decision as far as whether or not it will be an open or a closed system. There will be a formula included in the bond which would basically be, as I understand Butch's proposal, those limitations. And then the hope is that you would be agreeable to a special called meeting on Monday, October the 7th, for the purposes of adopting a bond resolution in order that we could have a validation proceeding toward the end of this month, and then price the bonds prior to and have a purchase agreement insofar as the bonds prior to the November election. That is the time frame that we are working on. In order to meet that time frame we, in essence, need some guidance from you. Of course, that time frame is not set in concrete and can be changed, but in order to have the bond sold prior to the November election, which is the recommendation coming from Robinson-Humphrey, we would need to stay pretty close to that. So what I would ask from you is to approve the open system pursuant to a formula that Butch has which would basically phase out the transfer of funds into the General Fund within a five-year period and then, secondly, to agree to a called meeting of the Commission on Monday, October the 7th, at some time in order that the bond resolution itself can be adopted. And I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Jim. You say it's going to be adopted on the 7th. When are we going to discuss it and talk about it and ask questions? MR. WALL: Well, it would be, to some extent, to try to answer questions today, but also on Monday. I mean, obviously if y'all don't have all your questions answered, then I would hope that the resolution wouldn't be approved. But, I mean, we can -- Max Hicks is here and Tom's here, and I think that we hopefully can answer most of the questions. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I think when we were in the budget hearings last year we discussed the Waterworks, whether we was going to revenue bond or not and how long we were going to let it be a cash cow for the urban service district. I didn't have a problem with three years then and I guess I don't have a problem with adding a year, you know, and going four. But there is one concern, and that concern is that now that we are doing the balancing of the systems that's going to tie in the -- you know, everything north of the Gordon Highway with everything south of the Gordon Highway, I have some problem with just designating a funding source if there's a problem with revenue just to the urban service district. If we're going to have it open, then I would want it -- I certainly wouldn't want to do this and wind up having to vote against and see it pass a tax increase on the suburban side and, because of this creative financing, that we don't have to do one on the urban side. I don't wish anyone a tax increase. I understand that the urban side has operated for years by syphoning off or transferring funds from the water and sewer -- or water, I mean. Sewer don't make money, so from water. But the bottom line is, gentlemen, my constituents--and I'm not going to think global here, I'm going to think my constituents--don't want to have to use the water by virtue of us forcing it on them and then turn around and pay the what some feel is a outrageous price to fund the operation of the urban service district or their deficits. And that -- you know, it's just a reality, and I think that we need to set this thing up where either can benefit from it. Now, it's my understanding that the indebtedness -- I don't have a problem with paying off the indebtedness -- bond indebtedness because, as I see it, when we pay off the bond indebtedness we can do away with the special service district down here and do some creative things to, you know, take care of the situation or we can make everything equal as far as service districts, one methodology or another. So I don't have a serious problem with most of it. I do have some concerns, and I'm acting like a constituent today from the 4th District versus a Commission and I just want you to recognize that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that this be an open bond fund to start with. Have I got a second for that, I hope? MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Mr. Mayor, also, in addition to that I would like to state that I've read this very hastily. There is no reference to either urban or suburban, it's only a reference to the General Fund. I know that the Finance Committee's adoption of the accounts receivable, we are trying to eliminate as much as possible any distinction between funds and we - - as to urban and suburban, we are looking at trying to establish universal rates throughout the county for services rendered. I think as we proceed down that path you will see more services on your tax bills and only a county-wide fund. It will not be a urban fund or a suburban fund as years progress, I hope. MR. WALL: And to follow up on that, I -- perhaps I shouldn't have focused on that, but the -- it would be a consolidated water and sewer department and all the funds would go in -- flow in together and there would not be that distinction any further. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I don't see how we can sit here and discuss all of this without having some time to digest this. And to pass this out and then start with making motions and this type thing, I think it's just a little premature, and I need -- personally, I need some more time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we receive this as information. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear from the Attorney, Mr. Mayor. MR. WALL: I just need some guidance from you. It was my hope last week to bring this before you and it was, of course, carried over to this meeting. The goal, as expressed by the Comptroller earlier on, was to try to have this bond issue prior to the November election, and I'm at a loss because, I mean, I had hoped that Butch would be here to explain the process. We can prepare the bond documents and bring it here on Monday, but then it really is cold to you. And, you know, I've heard concerns about three years, four years, and five years. Everything is premised upon a schedule. If we simply need to back up or if y'all are telling us to bring the bond resolution here on Monday in the hopes that we can explain it to you at that time and get your approval, then we can go forward. But everything is premised on the fact that hopefully today we would have explained this to your satisfaction, answered any questions, set the amount of it so that the bond resolution could have been brought before you on Monday, and -- MR. BRIDGES: Jim, basically all we're trying to do today is to decide on an open or closed system. We're not voting on any amount of money or anything like that today, are we? MR. WALL: That's correct. You're not committing to it, but the bond resolution will be drafted based upon the understanding here today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Collins can explain the difference between the open and closed system. Why don't we let him do that and maybe that'll help you make up your minds. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a comment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Rob. MR. ZETTERBERG: We were passed out a piece of paper that said choices; okay? And it said -- my reading this, I imagine it's -- I think it's supposed to be the advantages or disadvantages. And if I read this, why in the world would I ever vote for an open system? I mean, those --just read what it says for an open system: utilizes a cash cow to subsidize General Fund and property taxpayers, utility users pay costs that should be borne by property taxpayers, rates are higher, maintenance high, money for capital must be -- versus a closed fund: priority assigned to funds; no transfers; only overhead charges, operated as a business to sustain itself for perpetual service, each population group pays its fair share, no group subsidize another. I tell you, I'll vote for a closed fund, but I won't really vote for anything because I don't understand it; okay? MR. COLLINS: I can explain it. MR. ZETTERBERG: And I won't understand it after you stand up and tell me about it either. It's going to take me to sit down with -- seek wise counsel on which form we're going to use. But you go ahead and explain. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, do y'all him to explain it or not? There's no need to waste his time if y'all don't want to listen to him. MR. TODD: I think that I understand what a closed and a open is. I think the concern I have is, you know, is some of the language that the County Attorney used earlier which goes into the minutes and we're locked in on that it's only going to urban service district. And if there's a motion that say it go to the General Fund and this Commission decide on how those funds is to be used and where, whether it's for property tax relief, et cetera, then I don't have a problem with it. But I don't think that I'm going to sit here and vote for a revenue bond referendum to deal with a water system where we're doing it to free up cash flow and that cash flow is restricted to the urban service district. At the same time, we are doing things from one-penny tax and we've loaned money over here to the urban service side to do things, and there's questions about whether that's ever going to be paid back, et cetera. So it's not -- you know, I can go with a choice. I bought into it a year ago in budget hearings. But if folks in Richmond County, not the urban service district, is going to be using the water and paying a fee for the water and part of that fee in this increase, et cetera, is going to go to the -- just the urban service district, then I have a serious problem with that, and I think that we need to figure out a way that it go to the General Fund and that this board decide the priorities versus the restriction on it with priorities in the document of opening it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think I made the motion. I thought I made myself very clear that it was the General Fund and it was not one service district or another. MAYOR SCONYERS: I didn't hear a second on your motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Kuhlke seconded it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't -- MR. TODD: Will you accept an amendment, Mr. Brigham, to the motion that -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Depends on what the amendment is, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: That the funds are not restricted to the urban service district only. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was the motion to start with. I'm not going to accept an amendment that it's not restricted. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what I heard was certain comments read from this or implied by the County Attorney, then I heard a motion. And I don't want to, you know, get caught two years down the road in increasing taxes on one side and not on another and getting caught up in what the intent of the motion was. I think we can make the intent of the motion very clear here by the exception of an amendment and it's without question what the motion intent is. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Why should I accept an amendment if that was the original motion? It's the same thing. We're saying the same thing. I'm not trying to limit it to one fund. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I have the motion reread to me so maybe I'll get an understanding of what it was then, a better understanding. MAYOR SCONYERS: Please reread the motion. CLERK: As best I got it, his motion was to have an open bond fund. That was your original motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe that was the only question that it was. That was the question to be answered. I believe in my statement I said that it was going to the General Fund, it was not going to any particular fund. I think I'm repeating myself for the eighth time now. The only question was whether or not we're going to have an open fund. All this where and how it's limited, that needs to be discussed Monday when we've got everything in front of us. CLERK: You also had a substitute motion on the floor. MR. MAYS: That's what I was going to ask. Isn't a substitute motion and a second on the floor to receive it as information? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: Since the Chair is absent, I'm going to -- I'm still going to abstain. I'm going to be ignorant today like I was when y'all did the water rates and didn't nobody know anything about it and you got confused as hell. So I'll just vote present today and maybe by Monday you'll know what you're going to present to us, then we won't have to go back out of stupidity and undo what we didn't know what we were doing at that particular time and everybody claimed ignorance to it. So I don't want you to do the same thing with the bond thing, gentlemen. MR. BEARD: And I think we have a motion on the floor to that effect, don't we, from Mr. Powell? MR. TODD: Yes. Well, we have a sidebar, so when that's going on I'm going to ask Mr. Hicks for a report on something that I requested of him, and that was the bills that went out and whether they were averaged on a multiply --or divider of two or a divider of three. MR. HICKS: They were on a divisor by three. In that particular instance, the values were three, four and six, which gave a total of 13. That was divided by three and it came up with 4.33. It was averaged up and it came up to five. MR. TODD: Was that three months sewer use? MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That particular individual had uses of three, four, and six. Now, they might have had a leak during that time. That's a, you know, pretty good difference in the wintertime usage. But in that instance it was in fact divided by three, but it was rounded up from 4.33 to five. It could be that the desire might be to round it to the closest thousand. In that instance it would have been rounded down to four instead of up to five. But that's how that particular one occurred, and that's why the misconception that if you took the six and four and divided by two you'd also get five. MR. TODD: Mr. Beard, we're still discussing water and sewerage and on how one of the customers -- how it was impacted. And I would certainly hope, Mr. Hicks, that you can get with this individual and sit down--he's pretty good at math--and work it out and explain it to him. MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. It could very -- in other words, this was really an item that I wanted to, you know, bring to you at another time, and that is dealing with should we round down or round to the nearest thousand instead of rounding up. The way it's applied, it's rounded up. But the main thing I wanted to ask and the reason I'm up here is I wanted to find out if each of you has a list of the capital improvements projects. MR. TODD: No. MR. WALL: No. MR. HICKS: Okay. Then I wanted to make sure you did have that. I had given them to Butch earlier and I thought he was going to hand them to you, but I can get copies made right now before you leave. Please don't and I'll get every one of you a copy of this. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I may interrupt, I think that we need to come back when Mr. McKie can be here and answer the questions. I don't think that we'll meet the projected schedule on the bond issue. There's a conference call scheduled for tomorrow and we'll come up with a revised schedule. We won't meet the sales date before the November election, but I think this is too important of an issue for us to make decisions without all the information. And I'd ask that you not take any action today, and if you wish to have a called meeting, we'll try to have that information when Mr. McKie is available or we can simply deal with it when y'all want to. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is can this cost us money; and if so, how much? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think that's what Mr. McKie is going to have to answer. Isn't that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. HICKS: For the benefit of the Commissioners, you know, the open -- I just want to give you the position of the Utilities Department as far as we're concerned. And as you well know, the suburban system operated under a closed condition, the urban operated under an open condition, and I know the intent is to move toward a closed system for both urban and suburban. And insofar as shepherding the funds as they come in, we're well aware of the fact that the desire is that the suburban funds that were raised as a result of the '91 increase, I believe, in the suburban section be applied to projects in those areas, and I want to assure you that we are making sure that that's happening, that the funds are being shepherded properly. But it would be -- we can live with a four to five year projection as far as going from an open to a closed, but definitely the closed system is the best and that's the one we would rather see. But it's up to you gentlemen to arrive at it, you know, and a time frame. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a closing remark. I understand everything everyone has said about the water system in South Augusta, but we got one Augusta now. Some way we're going to have to pay for the water or pay for the bills in the city. Some kind of way they're going to have to get paid for. I'm not saying put the burden on South Augusta water system, but I'm still saying that we got one government. And then as we sit here, we don't know where the money goes once it get into the funds or how they distribute the money or who they're paying out of what fund, but now we're going to sit here and determine whether we're going to do it or not. There's no way in the world that we know how that money is being distributed once it gets in the General Fund. There's no way. So we don't know whether we're taking money from the county right now paying anything for the city. MR. TODD: The answer is yes. MR. HANDY: So we don't know that. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Brigham, do you want to withdraw your motion so we can come back with an answer then this week? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if that's what you want to do, I'll be happy to withdraw my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. I think that would solve a lot of problems, if you don't mind, and then we can come back and have the thing explained to us properly. MR. HANDY: Can we go home now? MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a -- give me a motion for adjournment. MR. HANDY: Move to adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Great. Thank you, gentlemen. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:58 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 October 1, 1996. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission-Council C E R T I F I C A T E G E O R G I A RICHMOND COUNTY I, Cathy T. Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission- Council and supervised a true, accurate, and complete transcript of the proceedings as contained in the foregoing pages 1 through 184. I further certify that I am not a party to, related to, nor interested in the event or outcome of such proceedings. Witness my hand and official seal this 9th day of October 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER