Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-1996 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 15, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:44 p.m., Tuesday, October 15, 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. 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'll have the Invocation today by the Reverend Charles W. Bennett, Pastor of the Ward Chapel AME Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND BENNETT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: We'd like to thank Reverend Bennett for coming and bringing our Invocation to us today. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request for deletion of Items 41, 28, and 47. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that 41 or 45? CLERK: 45. Item 45, 28, and 47. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. 45, 28, and 47. Do we have any additions? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have a communication from the Attorney regarding terms of a settlement of a proposed condemnation for an easement. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do it by unanimous consent, and move Number 26 on Public Safety up to Item Number 1. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: I'll second the motion, but what were the three deletions again? CLERK: Item 45 was the reconsideration of the denial of the alcoholic beverage license, Item 28 was to consider approval to solicit bids for the 5,000 gallon diesel tank for emergency 911, and Item 47 and 51 is essentially the same thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: At this time we'd like to welcome some students from Augusta State University, from Dr. Walker's Governmental Organization and Administrative Theory. Would you raise your hands, we'll see who you are. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. We're going to move Item 26 to Number 1 and Item 51 to Number 2. So, Ms. Bonner, if you would take those, please. CLERK: Item 26: Consider approval of the hiring of ten (10) deputies and the purchase of one (1) van for the Sheriff's Department to accommodate the transfer of inmates to RCCI to relieve overcrowding at the Jail. Approved by Public Safety Committee October 8, 1996. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: This item was approved -- these items were approved by the Public Safety Committee, and I'd like to move their approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 51, please? CLERK: Item 51: Communication from the Attorney regarding a request from Mr. Bill Williams to appear before the Commission concerning Harold L. Williams and the Goodale Landing Homeowners Association. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I'll try to make this as brief as possible. My client is Harold Kitchens. He owns a piece of property that's down on the river near what's known as Goodale Landing, and I think to understand this I need to give you a bit of a historical perspective. That property was originally owned by a Mr. John Thompkins, who had several different corporations. The primary one was known as Conspec, Inc. He had an agreement and a contract with the old City of Augusta regarding the development of that property and, in fact, developed two stages in fee-simple townhouses that are there on the river. He had two undeveloped tracts. Unfortunately for him, he experienced some financial difficulties. Had a mortgage loan on the property, the undeveloped property, with Columbia Bank -- First Columbia Bank, who assigned that note to a Mr. Harold Fuller. Unfortunately for Mr. Fuller, he died. His estate then foreclosed on the property, and that was completed on September the 7th of 1995. My client purchased the property from the Fuller estate September the 20th of 1995, and then began the start of this saga that I hope y'all can straighten out for us. He, after many meetings and submissions to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the Riverfront Development Review Board, had plans approved and a building permit was issued by the city on December the 27th, 1995. Shortly thereafter he began the foundation work for the construction of the townhouse units that he was going to build on this property. After he started that work he was contacted by the late Ms. Attaway's office, who told him to stop, that he had to go back in front of the Riverfront Review Board. He had additional meetings with them, resubmitted plans primarily concerned with aesthetics. That board that I assume y'all still have in effect has jurisdiction over how things look down there, and it's a long list of items that are in that ordinance. Anyway, the end result was that on March the 26th of 1996 the board said they were not going to approve his project because of the density. He wants to build ten units, they want him to build seven. I've spoken with Mr. Wall about this and I think he agrees with me, as well as Mr. Patty, that the Riverfront Development Review Board has no authority whatsoever regarding density. The property is zoned R3-B, and I'm informed by the Planning and Zoning Commission that that would allow 15 units. He wants to build ten. Now, the reason I'm here, he sought my advice. I told him we could do several things. One, just go down there and start construction, but I don't want him -- you know, somebody writing him a ticket or dragging him into court. We have an option to go to court, but I said before we do anything let's go before the Commission, let me tell them what's going on and get your approval to proceed. I think everything's in order. Now, it's been suggested that Conspec/Mr. Thompkins had a contract with the City of Augusta when he originally purchased this property, which is true; and he agreed to do a lot of things, the city agreed to do a lot of things. He doesn't own the property. My client has never entered into any agreements with anybody. The foreclosure cut it off, the contract, and I think Mr. Wall will agree with this. There's not a covenant that runs with the property, it's zoned properly, a building permit was properly issued, and then he was just stopped. And I think he's been, in less polite terms, jerked around for the better part of a year, and he wants to go on about building this project. And it's to the benefit of this community. He's going to increase the tax base in that area by a million dollars. And I'd like for someone to tell him -- this board to tell him to go ahead and start building and get them built where you can start collecting more taxes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'm going to so make a motion that he proceed with his building permit. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I have been down there to Goodale Landing with the association on many occasions, and I'm just wondering have they been notified that this building permit was going to be issued by the Commissioners today. And the reason I'm asking is because they are having a terrible problem down there. Mr. Patty has been down there and I think Mr. Dillard has been down there and some other people, Mr. Wiedmeier, trying to help them out. They have a situation down there with the drainage problem down there, and I'm not so sure that I would want to go along with that until I learn a little bit more about what's going on down there. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: This government shouldn't do things to inflict harm on builders and developers. The property is zoned, the building permit was issued, and the builder should be able to proceed with this project. Now, at the time that the property was being zoned, et cetera, the homeowners or the neighborhood association might have had some say, but basically nowhere in this county on a building permit, if it falls within the regula-tions, do property owners have a say as far as this board go. Now, if they want to go for an injunction and go to court to stop that construction, then let them do it. But I have no authority as far as the taking laws go, as far as property rights go, to stop this developer from developing the property per the zoning, and this county or building permit department have no authority to deny or stop construction as long as they are within the regulations and guidelines of the permit of building in this county. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I see Mr. Sherman back there. Have you got anything to say about this? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, I do. I'm Rob Sherman from the Planning Commission. If I could give you a little history on this case. Conspec/Mr. Thompkins purchased this property from the city in the mid 80's, thereabout. There was an agreement when he purchased the property that it be developed in four phases. There would be Section A, B, C, and D. Once he completed each section he could move on to the next. The city was going to go in and put in the roads and the utilities. Mr. Thompkins built Sections A and B. In Section A he was to build eight units; Section B, 20 units; in Section C, 25 units. In Section B, when they were -- as it turned out on the ground, he ended up building 24 units in Section B, so there was some confusion on the ground and actually what was constructed. More units were built in some of the sections than were supposed to be. Mr. Thompkins came in probably -- well, a couple of years ago, what all this is based on, with a site plan showing ten additional units, which he indicated would be the last ten units in Section C, just a continuation of Goodale Landing. I approved those units, and it was fine for him to go purchase a building permit. He did not purchase a building permit. He -- as Mr. Williams was saying, the land went into foreclosure and Mr. Kitchens purchased the land. And I believe Mr. Kitchens went to get a permit based on that plan that Mr. Thompkins had approved. Christy Attaway -- the late Christy Attaway asked him to change some things and to put his name on it. Mr. Kitchens did that, and I approved that plan because it was just the same as Mr. Thompkins'. Come to find out, there was a later agreement between Mr. Thompkins/Conspec and the city. They amended the original sales contract to say that he could sell off the last section, Section D -- divide it up into eight lots and sell them as individual lots, subject to him completing the last seven units in Section C. That's where the seven units comes from. The plan, as I was saying, had ten units on it. There's some confusion as to how many units he can actually build. Mr. Dunbar, at a City Council Finance Committee meeting, gave his opinion that these covenants were binding on this property. Mr. Kitchens revised his plan because he said, well, it will not be associated with Goodale Landing. He revised the plan to meet all the requirements of the Riverfront board and took it to the Riverfront board. I think everything was pretty much in order. Mr. Dunbar was at the meeting; we asked him to be there. He reiterated that this is more units than what is allowed to be built based on this agreement with Mr. Thompkins. That's where we are. The board could not approve the plan. It showed ten units; it was only supposed to show seven, was the legal opinion of Mr. Dunbar. We went to Mr. Dunbar originally because he was handling the city business and this was previous city business. And as far as the zoning goes, it is zoned R3-B. He's allowed 17 units per acre. I think he has enough land for 15 units. I think that as far as the Planning Commission goes the issue would be resolved if we were told how many units he can build, whether this original agreement is binding or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: How many units do y'all want to build, Mr. Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: Ten. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ten? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. See, that was the point I was making. I don't know whether Jim wants to speak to this, but a personal contract between Mr. Thompkins and the City of Augusta does not bind the property. Now, if there's some dispute that still exists, if he didn't do what he was supposed to do, then that's something they can fight over and litigate. But the zoning, there's no restriction on the zoning. It's zoned for 15 acres. The Riverfront Development Review Panel -- or Board has no authority to regulate density. And the matter is proper. If there's some dispute -- you know, my client is not bound by that agreement because the property is not bound. There's nothing in the Clerk's Office that ties that agreement as a covenant that runs with the property, and that's why I'm saying, you know, it's a simple matter. We can make it complicated. We can get it all bogged down in Superior Court. That's what I was hoping to avoid. The man just wants to build the units and sell them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Jim? MR. WALL: Well, let me speak to it. And, Bill, I hope I haven't misled you. I was not involved and have not reviewed this with an idea toward rendering a legal opinion on any aspect of it. Because, again, at the first of the year when this was brought to my attention and Rob Sherman and George Patty asked to whom the question should be directed, and I told them to direct them to Paul because he had been involved in it from the old city and it was a continuing legal matter. So I have not looked at the covenants. I mean, I have had a file open, but I've stayed out of it. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there are no covenants, now. MR. WALL: Well, I haven't looked at the agreements or the contracts. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not against builders or expansions or what have you, but I am aware that there is a problem down there, and I think that really before we enter -- go further on this that it really needs some researching. And it's also -- I would like to hear from Mr. Patty and the zoning people, and I would like this looked into possibly before going any further on this, and I don't think another week or so would deter anything from that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to bring something up that some of you may be familiar with. We appointed a sub-committee because we were having some problems down there with the sea wall. And we've already got an existing problem there, and I don't even think we've got a quote back on exactly what it's going to cost us if we were to fix it, but the estimates that I got was $750,000. Now, if we increase these buildings, then I think we ought to at least set some stipulations or sit down and bring this sea wall into some type of compliance if we're going to build more units down there. Or if we don't, it's going to be an inherited burden on the taxpayers if we have to go fix it. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, let me suggest we're talking about two separate projects. This is not a continuation of any project. It won't tie into any of the infrastructure of the prior project. It's like, you know, one subdivision here and the next one over here. They're not related. MAYOR SCONYERS: It's a stand-alone? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: But they're all on the river, and I think that's what we have to be concerned about. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if the maker of the motion would consider an amendment to the motion, I'd like to amend the motion to approve the request of the applicant, subject to review of our Attorney to make sure that all the legal matters are in order, since this has already been through the Planning Commission. We've had a report from Mr. Sherman, it complies with all the zoning requirements, a permit was issued. And I would like to offer that as an amendment to your motion, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll accept the amendment. And if I may be recognized, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that we've had some situations in some other subdivisions where we had ongoing situations or situations that was developed by developers as far as flooding go, et cetera, and we've gone in there with county taxpayers' dollars probably less than a year of it being turned over to the county, and we're still doing some of that. I'm not so sure that I support doing a sea wall or a erosion wall down there to the extent that we're talking about, but certainly if we got to do something, we got to do it, and it should not hinder this project one way or the other. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not wanting to impose a burden on the developer, but I'm not going to sit here and impose another burden on the taxpayer. Now, I would like to know if the maker of the motion would accept this amendment to his motion: that the sea wall comply, or if there's a sea wall necessary, that they get a Corps of Engineers permit and bring it up to the Corps specs. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, can I -- there's no sea wall in this project. This project has no sea wall contemplated or required. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, no. The answer is no to the -- my colleague's amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Let me ask Mr. Williams this. I know you're talking about a stand-alone type project, Bill, but as far as timing on what you all want to do, with Mr. Wall researching from just the legal side and clarification for us, and I know it's not a part of the motion, but I'd like to see our Public Works people and Engineering involved in it just from the standpoint of this. Now, Mr. Beard has District 1 now. I had it since 1990 prior to the Super District. And I understand what you're talking about about a stand-alone situation, but water has a tendency of not having any kinfolks, and what happens is that -- I inherited one of the worst situations of total Eastview drainage and water drain-off that's in any part of this county. And where I think some of the confusion exists is not with you and your client. I think everything is aboveboard there. But I'd like for everybody on our side of the fence to be singing off the same sheet of music, because we've got a development going up down there now that I fought, and I know Mr. Todd supported me in it and fought with it, however, we lost that battle and it's going up. And it's probably one of the worst situations that we're going to have, and I don't mind saying that. And we had a situation there that Planning and Zoning and Public Works were not together on what they were doing and, in essence, kind of sent us some mixed messages as far as this government is concerned, and we got a thing going up down there now in back of Walker Memorial Cemetery with enough huts back there that you could house, you know, a whole regiment of folk in. It's not related to your project, but what I'm saying is, all of it is still on that same end of town. And in order to protect your client from what he's doing, as well as with this government, I'd like to see everybody who's going to be involved with that thing, not just with Jim, no disrespect to his handling the legal part of it, but I think Public Works ought to be involved in it. Because if this new government is going to be committed to straighten out some things in part of the previous development, or at least knowing what impact this one is going to have down there, then I want to make sure that that commitment is together with us. I don't think the building has got a problem that's in there, but I think that once it's built and once you start dedi-cating streets and ask us to take over, then whatever comes in that aftermath, then it is going to rest on this government to have to take it over, and I think we ought to be concerned about that. Because Planning and Zoning already has -- and this is what bothers me sometimes about Planning and Zoning. We say what we -- what's not going to be a problem out of Planning and Zoning, yet it sends us a message that we are not to have any further residential development in that whole area east of East Boundary. So, I mean, that in itself is a conflicting statement, and that's a part of Planning and Zoning's overall plan. And if I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me suggest this. I think in the final plan approval process, that that agency has already looked at it, but we don't have a problem with that. I mean, what he's proposed to do will meet all the criteria, so I'll agree to that right here. MR. MAYS: I just want to make sure that if it's done, then whatever commitments are going to be asked of us to do on any tie-ins, that we are together on that and that we don't have a negative impact, not only on your new building stuff that's going there -- and while you say it still stands alone, I've seen stuff that's been built five years down the road or up the street or up on the hill have a terrible impact on what's been done in this county five years prior to that, and I think that's spread out all over Richmond County whether you go to the south, whether you go to Rae's Creek, or whether you go to East Augusta. We can say what stands alone, but when that water has no place to escape and you start having those problems, and couple that with Interstate 520 going in that area and we have not completed Phase III of the East Augusta drainage project, then I do think that Public Works and our legal side needs to be involved on what we're going to do. Because if it starts in there backing up, it won't be just the folk that he's building on that's going to have a problem with it, it's going to be everybody on that side that's going to come down here and have a problem with it, so I want to make sure everybody's singing off the same sheet of music. MR. WILLIAMS: Willie, you understand that this land is between the levy and the river? MR. MAYS: I understand where it is, Bill, but I also understand that all of it is still past East Boundary. And you're dealing with the lowest elevation in this county, and you also have an interstate that's going through there, and we have not completed the total drainage package for that area and to go through Phinizy Swamp. And I also understand that it's in writing from Planning and Zoning that nothing else is supposed to be built through there. Now, I'm willing to back up and honor what zoning agreement you've got, but I'll be doggone if I'm willing to back up and it's not done with every standard that we're saying. Because our own Planning folk are saying, hey, don't build anything else down here, but yet here we're coming and we're honoring an agreement -- which we're trying to make this thing work and not deny, you know, a developer or property owner the right to complete that, but if it's going to be done, it just ought to be done right, that's all I'm saying. I don't want us to come back and then two or three years from now we've got to invest money into a situa-tion to correct something else down there. If we're going to have to do it, we ought to go into it with all eyes open. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I -- Mr. Williams, I want to make sure I understand what I'm voting on. Basically what you're doing is asking us to increase it from seven to ten to allow y'all to go ten units on this? MR. WILLIAMS: No, just allow -- just getting y'all to approve going forward under the building permits that were issued, which were for ten units. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Were for ten units? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure of. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I appreciate the accommodation for moving us up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. CLERK: The next item, Item 1 and 2 were approved by the Finance -- well, Item 1 was disapproved by the Finance Committee October 7, 1996; Item 2 was approved by the Finance Committee. [Item 1: Consider approval of a request for a refund from Stacy Bainton Barrowman. Item 2: Consider approval of salaries for two new Marshal Department Deputies.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee would recommend that the two items be taken as a consent agenda and that the Commission agrees with us in the way that we handled these two items. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2(a)? [Item 2(a): Report on Pension Investments.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we didn't receive any pension report. I assume it's going to be ready today. CLERK: Mr. McKie? 2(b) -- 2(a). MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's in the book? Have we got to present them? Do you want to present it? MR. McKIE: Yeah. CLERK: 2(a), a report on the pension investments. MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission-Council, I'd like to present to you Charles May, our investment manager from Robinson-Humphrey, who will give you the report on the activities in the pension fund for the third quarter 1996. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. McKie. MR. MAY: Thank you, Butch. Gentlemen, do you have in front of you the report? On page two, it's a very easy summary to understand. I'm just going to look really at the right-hand column, the combined report --combined portfolio. This is for the '45 and the '77 pension plans -- county's pension plans. We began managing the money on June the 30th of this year. We had $16,252,845. As of September 30th of this year, for the third quarter the balance of the portfolio was $16,912,796. So for that one quarter period of time we are up in value $659,951, which is 4.1%. I don't have any other comments unless there's any questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any questions for Mr. May? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only question would be, this is an excellent report and good performance, but do we have an investment committee under the Finance Committee or anything? Who looks at the backup information of this summary? Mr. McKie? MR. MAY: The Comptroller's Office does, but on October the 1st, I think it was the last full County Commission -- Council-Commission, the Commission approved a statement of investment policy and objectives. MR. KUHLKE: I understand that. MR. MAY: And in that objective and policy statement there is an investment committee that was designed with five members: the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Comptroller, and the City-County Manager. So, yes; the answer to your question is yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we receive this as information. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to receive it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 2(b), please? CLERK: 2(b): Consider approval of the funds appropriated to match the grant from the Federal Government for the completion of the repairs at the Lock and Dam. MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, this is the half million dollars to match the million dollars that the government is going to give us to repair the Lock and Dam. Mr. McKie has identified the funds for us, we had it already put aside, and we would ask you to approve this for us. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Beard. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as I stated I guess all along in this initiative, that I felt that the Corps of Engineers should pay for this endeavor and not the local taxpayers. You know, we have no control over the Lock and Dam, you know, locks. The Corps pretty much controls how they're going to be operated. It's a Corps of Engineers responsibility or Corps of Engineers project, and I think they should fund it 101%. And I'll tell this board and the public here the same message that I -- you know, we took to the Washington chamber trip, that -- to Senator Nunn and to Senator Paul Coverdell, to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and to Congressman Charlie Norwood, that this is a Corps responsibility and the Corps should fund it 100%, and I cannot support this unfunded mandate from the Corps of Engineers to pay $500,000 on a project that they are responsible for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, how much is the grant from the government? MAYOR SCONYERS: A million dollars. I might also say that the Department of Transportation, State of Georgia, has offered to take over the Lock once it's in operable condition and maintain it for us so we don't have to worry about this again. They've already committed to do that. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to support this. I do have one question. I'd like to know what funds that the $500,000 is coming from, if it's coming from the reserve fund or if it's coming out of sales tax or whatever. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Mr. Brigham, these would come from Fund 115 in the old urban city. That's capital replacement funds. Specifically, it's from land sales that were consummated by the City of Augusta in December of last year, and that total is some 2.8 million dollars. MR. BRIDGES: I can't hear you, Butch. MR. McKIE: It's coming from land sales executed by the City of Augusta in late 1995, some 2.8 million dollars that, according to the old city code, was to be reserved for capital use. And so those funds were placed in the capital replacement fund, and that's where they'd come from for this repair. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Is there any other projects that we need worse than this one when we're talking about the water main replacements, et cetera, and other capital projects? Mr. Mayor, that's for the Comptroller. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, do you know? MR. McKIE: Well, that's a matter of setting priorities, which is, you know, something that would require a great deal of discussion by all of you. We do have those water projects, but they are under control by the bond issue, I believe. Other than that, equipment needs in the government, but we have those sufficiently funded, we believe, so I believe these funds could be used for that without any harm to the government. MR. BRIDGES: How much is in that fund again, Butch? MR. McKIE: 2.8 million. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Items 3 through 6 were all approved by the Administrative Services Committee on October 7th. [Item 3: Consider approval of rescinding the facade grant for 1030 Greene Street. Item 4: Consider approval to increase the facade grant for 822-824 Broad Street an additional $15,000. Item 5: Consider approval to rescind Emergency Shelter Grant funds from Bethel Outreach Center and distribute to other eligible homeless service providers. Item 6: Consider approval of a proposed contract with the CSRA Business League to provide management and technical assistance to applicants of our revolving loan funds.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 3 through 6 be approved through consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 7, please? CLERK: Item 7: Consider approval of a recommendation from Foster and Higgins concerning the Augusta-Richmond County Employee Benefit Package. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, at the committee meeting a subcommittee was appointed, and I think Mr. Brigham, Henry Brigham, was the chairperson of that. And I don't know, maybe at this time he may want to hear from our Human Resources Director, but I'll leave that with Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right, I think that's the best at this point, because several of the Commissioners were there, but I'd like for Mr. Etheridge, if he would, to point out the discussion and where we went from it. MR. ETHERIDGE: I'll do my best to do that. As indicated, a subcommittee was formed, and we met a couple --we met one time and we discussed this. At that particular meeting there was concern in regard to the life insurance proposals because there was only one group that did meet the RFP criteria or requirements. And from that committee we were asked to contact the top three so that it wouldn't be that, you know, we'd be looking at one group of people, and we have done so. From that, even with the clarification of the RFP and everything, the recommendation that we had at the outset still remains the same as far as the top person or top group that proposed. With that, what we're doing or what we're -- what I'm asking for today is for approval to continue to get everything finalized so that we can come in for final approval from the Commission. And I'll answer any questions that someone may have otherwise. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move to allow Mr. Etheridge to proceed. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Beard. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. Mr. Etheridge, looking over this, are you coming back with a final recommendation just on the life insurance or are you coming back also on the PPO and the life insurance, or what's -- MR. ETHERIDGE: The entire package will come back, yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: The entire package is what you'll come back to us with? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir, I will. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me ask John this. And he and I talked about this probably personally maybe more than anybody else. I'm not on that committee, but one of the things in there, in the direction that you're moving, does this get us towards the stability that we've been talking about in the life insurance realm? Because I know some of your personal wants of being able to stabilize that and get a good package, and also from the standpoint of where we're having people to retire or get to a certain age, and basically those benefits are gone or you have people working past what will be a normal retirement age just so they can hang on to that type of insurance and, you know, pretty much having to penalize and to stay on because they can't take it with them and be able to get at least some basic, you know, decreasing amounts even, you know, to carry on at a reasonable amount that they can pay. And I just want to make sure that we're moving into that realm and that's what we're trying to get to in the life insurance package. MR. ETHERIDGE: From that standpoint of the life, we are trying to not only benefit the active employee but it will benefit the retiree also. They will have a reduction in their benefit once they reach a certain age, but they will still have a good benefit available to them as a retiree. Stability, we are hoping that this package does offer that. Because it's like you said, we've had some concerns about it, and I think that this program here will offer us that stability that we are seeking. MR. MAYS: I know it's been a personal goal of yours and I just wanted to make sure since I wasn't there on that committee that that's where you're heading in that direction. MR. ETHERIDGE: No, I haven't deviated from that. MR. MAYS: I'm glad. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8, please? CLERK: The next item, under Engineering Services, Items 8 through 21 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on October 7th. [Item 8: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 51, Tax Map 139;399 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project owned by Molly A. Diggs and Amaziah Diggs, Sr. Item 9: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 6, Tax Map 88-3 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Nellie K. Booker. Item 10: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 52, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Earl Eubanks. Item 11: Consider approval of bid award for street light replacements on various streets. Item 12: Consider approval of designation of Augusta- Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Inc. non-profit user of the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill. Item 13: Consider approval of an option for easement on Project Parcel 48 of the Sand Ridge Estates Drainage Improvement Project owned by Lamont R. Smith and Renee M. Smith. Item 14: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 16, Tax Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Estate of Alice Wilkerson. Item 15: Consider approval of an option for easement on Parcel 17, Tap Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Barton Investment Company. Item 16: Consider approval of a counteroffer option for easement on Parcel 53, Tap Map 88-1 of the Hyde Park & Aragon Park Drainage Improvement Project owned by Freddie Font. Item 17: Consider approval of a proposal for Handrail on Long Gate Spillway Platform. Item 18: Consider approval of an Engineering Contract Proposal for Fleming Heights Water and Sewer Improvements. Item 19: Consider approval of Engineering Contract Proposal for Water Main and Appurtenances on Travis Street, Woodward Avenue, et al. Item 20: Consider approval of execution of contract documents for the demolition of Village Square Apartments. Item 21: Consider approval of bid award and execution of contract documents of the 1996 Resurfacing Contract.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept Items 8 through 21 as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 22, please? CLERK: Item 22: Consider approval of the installation and maintenance of street lights for various Street Light Districts. Mr. Gifford? MR. GIFFORD: I'm Charles Gifford. What this item is, it was a standard item on the County Commission meeting. What it involves is the approval of various street lighting districts that want to come in on our system. Briefly, there were two systems that were set: one for the city, which the street lighting taxes and the power company was paid through the millage rate out of the General Fund; but in the county the street lighting is not paid out of the General Fund, it's paid by the taxpayers that have the street lights. And that's all this is, is that the people in these areas want to go on the street lighting system. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Who was seconder? MR. MAYS: I second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? Okay. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I guess my question would be, is there any outstanding street light districts where they've already signed petitions and they're waiting on a list to have them in? There -- well, I'll just give you the concern. On Prince Road off Meadowbrook, it seems that they think they've already done the petition some time ago, but they're still waiting on street lights. And maybe if you can't answer that today, that you can bring us back an answer or bring me back an answer on it. MR. GIFFORD: Well, as far as Prince Road, they have not returned a petition. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, somebody may be able to answer this question. What is the cost of the proposed resolutions and what is the -- where are the funds coming from and what is the payback time on the charge to the taxpayers? Can somebody answer that for me? MR. GIFFORD: The taxpayers pay for the system that they want in the area. It varies whether -- what type of lighting and what type of distribution it is. But there is no General Fund involved in this. The taxpayers pay back the energy cost. The street lighting program cannot make any money, and so only the energy cost is paid for and whatever pole contributions they have to pay back over a four-year period if they get poles. MR. KUHLKE: So who actually installs the street lights? MR. GIFFORD: Either Jefferson Electric, Georgia Power, or P & T Electric -- the utility companies. MR. KUHLKE: And then do they then add that to the power bill of the lot owner or it's on their tax bill? MR. GIFFORD: That comes out in their regular tax bills. There's a separate statement in there says street lighting tax. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. So what the county does or the city does is pick up the cost of the street lights, and then through the tax bill that is reimbursed back to the county; does that make sense? MR. GIFFORD: Correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we send this back to committee and let us review this thing before we approve it. Because, you know, it just popped up on the agenda here and we didn't have any time to do any kind of study on it, and I'd just like to be real sure before we take a vote. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that motion. CLERK: Will that interfere with the time you advertised? Can we go back and advertise? There's no problem to go back and readvertise; right? MR. GIFFORD: There's no problem to go back and advertise, but in the meantime these people are going to be without lighting in their area. CLERK: It'll be Monday. The meeting is Monday. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. TODD: Todd, sir. Mr. Mayor, we're talking about basically street lights that where you have an assessment where we're charging folks for the lights on their tax bill. This is an assessment. And if we've got their money, we surely can't have their lights going off, and I don't know whether that would be the situation or not as stated. But the bottom line is that I think we can go on and approve this, then if we need to fine-tune it later, that we can fine-tune it. If there's individuals that's already turned in petitions and they're 51% or ever what the percentage is, we need to be able to get them online. I understand the concern that it didn't go through committee and that everything actually should try -- we should try to make every effort to put it through a committee. But in some cases timing is not right for getting it to the committee or someone may just make a slip up, and in that case, I think we should try to do what we can to keep the progress going and work out the bugs later. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'd just like to ask him, all these petitions in order? MR. GIFFORD: Yes. MR. MAYS: I don't have a problem with it then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Gifford, is this new districts or is this existing districts? MR. GIFFORD: These are new districts. MR. J. BRIGHAM: These are all new districts? MR. GIFFORD: All new. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I thought we just approved all these petitions. Are these districts in addition to the petitions we just approved? MR. GIFFORD: Those are -- the districts and the petitions are the same thing. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. We just approved a bunch of them; right? MR. GIFFORD: Right. That's the same thing. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What's the difference between what we approved already and Item 22? MR. GIFFORD: I don't know. MR. MAYS: We haven't voted on it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: We voted through Item 21. MR. MAYS: We had a motion and a second, but we haven't voted on 22. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm trying to figure out what's the difference between 22 and the rest of them. If you say they've got to do a petition and we've already approved the petitions, then these -- we approved all the petitions you had; right? MS. BEAZLEY: That's what you're doing now. You only approved through 21. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I thought we approved -- MR. MAYS: Uh-uh [no]. 22 is the only one dealing with street lights. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I'm a little confused then. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Just for my own clarification, who put it on the agenda without putting it through the committee? CLERK: I did. It was brought in the office past the agenda date for Engineering Services, and it was brought to my attention that it had been advertised for the 15th to be heard by the Commission-Council, so we put it on the agenda. It didn't make agenda time for Engineering Services. We could have did an addendum, I guess, but then -- it was an oversight. As Mr. Todd said, it may have been a slip up, so we brought it in on the 22nd. MR. ZETTERBERG: So it wouldn't be a problem if we put it right back through the committee? CLERK: No, sir. Mr. Wall said the advertising date is not something that we could be -- should be concerned with, that we could just go right ahead and put it back in Engineering Services. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I was going to call the question, but I saw Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say I'm not opposed to this at all. I just -- I'm much more comfortable if it goes through the regular process, and so I'm going to vote against it. I'm going to vote for it to go back to committee, but I want you to know that I'm not opposed to this, and when it goes through that process I'll vote for it. MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Powell, that we send it back to the proper committee. CLERK: He didn't get a second, did he? He didn't get a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges. CLERK: Did Mr. Bridges? Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS, AND MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item, under Public Safety, Items 23--with the inclusion of 26, which has already been approved--through 29 were all approved by the Public Safety Committee October 8th. [Item 23: Consider approval of the Elevator Maintenance Agreement for Joint Law Enforcement Center. Item 24: Consider approval of a sub- contract with Mr. Leon Murray for counseling services with 100% reimbursement by the Council of Juvenile Court Judges. Item 25: Consider approval of bid award for two vehicles for the Narcotics Division to Johnson Motors. Item 26: (Approved, Page 4) Item 27: Consider approval to change the Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual as it relates to section B (3) Firefighters selection factors and to change first paragraph page 18. Item 28: (Deleted) Item 29: Consider approval of the proposed change orders for the Fourth Street and Phinizy Road Facilities.] MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we discuss 27 separately? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We're going to pull out 27, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30; correct? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I so move for the approval, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me, through 29. Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, Henry. Do I hear a -- MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: By Mr. Kuhlke. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just make known that I'll cast a negative vote for Item 25. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is that so noted, ladies? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO, ITEM 25. MOTION CARRIES 9-1, ITEM 25. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 23, 24, 29. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 27, now? CLERK: Item 27: Consider approval to change the Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual as it relates to section B (3) Fire-fighters selection factors and to change first paragraph page 18. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move approval. This was approved in committee meeting -- MR. KUHLKE: And I'll second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: -- and I'd like to move for approval here. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hold on just a second, gentlemen. Now, let's take care of the first motion first. We have a motion by Mr. Henry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I have any discussion for that motion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we disapprove. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have any discussion on that motion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the -- John Etheridge and maybe the Fire Chief if they'd like to discuss the reasoning on changing that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Chief Maddox? CHIEF MADDOX: The reason we asked for this is the Fire Chief, whoever he might be, and I will be leaving later on, he should have more input into picking his staff, just like you'd have to have more input picking the people in your office. As it is, the education part -- and we found out that most of the time the same firemen go to the schools all the time, and we rotate that at the present time. But if you'll look at that, that education counts more than the Chief's points. And whoever's going to be the Chief, you should give him the leeway and trust him enough to at least let him pick his staff. And if he's only got ten points and some captain out in the field has got more points -- as much points as he has almost with five, then that's not fair. And if you'll check with the fire services throughout the state you'll find out the trend is going nowadays to let the chief -- because a lot of chiefs have been imported also - - they're letting him pick his staff. And the point system we've got now is really unfair to whoever is going to be the Chief, and that was my reason for asking for it. MR. BRIDGES: But this would apply to all the firemen, not just your immediate staff? CHIEF MADDOX: It would apply to all the firemen to start with, yes, sir. After we take a look at that down the road we might come back and ask for some changes in it, but at the present time -- we're going to be having at least five chief openings between now and the first of the year. That's better than a third of your chiefs. You need to get some people that the Chief can work with, whoever he might be, and that type thing. MR. ETHERIDGE: These are primarily, Mr. Bridges, promotions, is what this applies to right here, the promotion criteria. MR. BRIDGES: What about this request to change the paragraph on Page 18? Is that to get the test inhouse or what? MR. ETHERIDGE: That's to offer us the flexibility of -- to decide what we are going to do, whether it be from a professional service or whether it be an inhouse type test. CHIEF MADDOX: Well, you do have people that's qualified through the State Minimum Council and so forth that actually make up these tests. Under the old city form of government we always made up inhouse tests and we always made the tests up related to the job performance and the equipment and so forth. And when you get these store-bought tests, a lot of them is not even related to the job that the man needs to have knowledge on. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I would think that we would want to bring someone in independent of this government and this fire department, whether you're doing a store-bought test or whether you're doing a test that's devised and the tech writing is done by another department. I have concerns when we're deviating from education, when we're deviating from experience, when we're deviating from knowledge of fire services; and giving the Chief more points to decide who is going to be promoted. you know, that don't put a lot of incentive there for a man to work hard, to do good, and to educate himself, so I have some concerns there. And I think that if there is ever one where we should wait and decide, it should be this one, that we should find out what other departments is doing throughout the country and that we should find out what the Academy of Firefighters is doing as far as this go or what their recommendations are. You know, I have some concerns. We've run into problems in the past with the problem as far as the points that the Chief had, and not necessarily any reflection on this Chief, because this Chief wasn't the old suburban fire chiefs that we've dealt with over the years, and I think there's been two or three that we've dealt with. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I do have a little concern here. If this was going to be -- I would just like to see some modifica-tion here in some of this. And I think if we were talking about the Chief here I would have no problem with it, but we don't know who the Chief is going to be at this point, and I just do have a little problem with giving just the two things here, written examination and discretionary points. I do have a problem with that. I'd like to maybe look at this in another direction and include longevity or -- just a little more inclusive here. I think this is -- and we're not only looking at the present Chief, we're looking at future, and I think that we ought to really be concerned about what we do here at this point in this. CHIEF MADDOX: Let me just say this. Whatever you decide to do is up to y'all, but the present Chief has been able to pretty well pick his staff. And I think over the years, if you'll check our rate and what we've been able to accomplish the last 10 or 15 years, you'll see that it worked out pretty good. As far as the Fire Academy, they're not going to give you any input because all they're over there for is to train. And longevity, I've had people that's been on there 20 years that didn't apply theirself and didn't know as much as a young man coming over with three or four years that really wanted to apply himself. That's why I think the longevity, even under the federal guidelines --when Judge Alaimo took over the police department I think he only gave them five points, if you'll check on that. I think that was the most they was allowed because back then, let's face it, certain people was not allowed to even come on the Fire Department up until about 20 years ago, if you want to tell it like it is, and that's basically what we're talking about. So if you're going to go that route, then I think you're being unfair to some of the people that's coming on later down the line. But it's immaterial to me whether you pass this or not. This is a good recommendation. And, of course, Mr. Todd has his opinion, he always has opinions, and I appreciate it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Jerry Brigham was next. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was wanting to ask Mr. Todd if he would consider amending his motion to change the previous requirements to strike longevity from 15 to 5 and add that to the Chief's evaluation, then I believe I could support his proposal. MR. TODD: Not at this time, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Etheridge, did you want to say something? MR. ETHERIDGE: I'd just like to interject that as part of those points that the Chief has, I feel sure that education, longevity, and all of those factors will be considered as part of the points that the Chief would have there. So, you know, I don't think that it's just put to the side and won't be used at all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's not kid ourselves about what this is about. And I'm going to give you my true opinion, Chief. CHIEF MADDOX: I would like to have your true opinion. MR. TODD: This is about, Mr. Mayor -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think this is unfair of Commissioner Todd [inaudible]. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is about -- MAYOR SCONYERS: That's it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: You can't jump on a department head like that. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's right. We're not going to do that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the department head said I have an opinion, so I'm going to give him my opinion. MAYOR SCONYERS: You can give him your opinion out of this office. MR. TODD: This is about who the next Chief is going to be, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Turn his damn mike off, okay? MR. TODD: This is about who the next Chief is going to be, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, you can talk outside the room, okay? MR. TODD: This is what the points is about, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: And we ought to be fair to the men, not fair to who the next Chief is going to be. MAYOR SCONYERS: When you start running this meeting you can run it. As long as I'm the Mayor I'm going to run the meeting, okay? All right, gentlemen. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief, I don't have a lot of concern with this changing the testing format there. I do have in this first area of changing to --so heavily for written examination and increasing the discretionary points. I understand why -- you know, where you're coming from in wanting an increase in that. It's like Mr. Beard said, we don't know who the Chief is going to be down the road. Rather than move to an area where we've just got two points, 80% and 20%, I'd rather see us move in a direction so that merit plays a bigger role throughout the examination process as opposed to what a particular Chief may think about an individual. I'd rather -- I want to see us move away from that area and let the quality and the persistence and, you know, the testing of the individual carry more weight than maybe some individual discretion, so I would encourage the members of the board to -- at least for the time being, even though I really don't have any problem with the testing, I think we should deny this -- support the amendment -- the substitute motion and leave the personnel policy as it is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I really don't have a big problem with this, and I think the Chief knows that I will support it. But I just didn't have the time to get in with the -- I do have a problem with the -- I just think that longevity, and if we could work out something there with the examination, maybe with 70 points for the examination and maybe making up the other with 10 points for longevity or something like that. But, you know, if the body thinks that -- you know, I'm willing to go along with it as is if the body deems to make that suggestion that I made. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm like Mr. Beard, I don't have a lot of problem with changing the points and procedure and that type of thing, but I do want to see it more in an area of merit and individual initiative and education and that type of thing. And unless somebody else has a comment on it, I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think that the amendments that were mentioned and the things that were mentioned are things that can be brought up. I think that Mr. Etheridge alluded to that, that certainly longevity and those points or what have you would be considered by whatever Chief that we would have. I don't think there's no big issue on that particular part of it. But just to turn the whole thing down on that part, I think that there is some concern. And we do need to move on. We have several vacancies on the -- in the Fire Department that, in my opinion, they ought to be filled. And I think that as we just gave ten more men this morning, they'll start to work the 1st of November, they'll have their money, and here our firemen won't have theirs. And, gentlemen, I think that we put them down a little too low. We don't think that we have the leadership to do it, we don't think the people that we have in charge can do it, and I think that's a little rough. And I'd move the question and I -- well, we've got a substitute motion on the floor; is that right? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And will we vote on that first? MAYOR SCONYERS: We'll vote on that first. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And that's to deny all of it? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. Why don't you read the motion back to us, please, so we'll know exactly what we're voting on. MS. MORAWSKI: The motion was to disapprove the recommendation to change the Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. That was Mr. Todd's motion. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to disapprove, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE, MAYS, AND POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we'll go back to the original motion. That was 6- 4. The original motion was Mr. Henry Brigham's to approve. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, TODD, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CHIEF MADDOX: Thank you, gentlemen. I will be more than fair with it, and I always intended to interview and have a oral examination with these people regardless of who they are. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Chief Maddox. Item 30, please? CLERK: Item 30: Update/Overview from Precision Planning with regard to the Fourth Street and Phinizy Road Facilities Construction. MR. JOE POWELL: Gentlemen, are you able to see the board that we have behind us here or would you like us to locate it in a more convenient spot for the majority? MAYOR SCONYERS: Can everybody see the board, gentlemen? MR. JOE POWELL: Maybe if I duck down that could help. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission-Council, it's with great pleasure that we present to you today. My name is Joe Powell with Precision Planning, and with me is Mr. Doug Shaw. The purpose of our meeting with you today is to provide you with an update on the current status of the Richmond County Joint Law Enforcement Center Phinizy Road facility and the Fourth Street expansion and renovation project. As most of you may recall, in December of 1994 we completed our study looking at the existing situation and conditions of the previous jail project. In February of 1995 we began with the design construction documents of the construction that's ongoing out there today. The chart located behind me is the same bar graph that occurred in the 1994 report of our proposed course of action, then modified once we became under contract in February of 1995. It gives you a current status of these two projects, the green bar representing the Fourth Street facility and the brown bar representing Phinizy Road. As you'll notice, the black vertical bar showing second week of October 1996 is our current status on both of these projects. The date of substantial completion for the downtown facility located on Fourth Street is currently August of 1997, while substantial completion date for the Phinizy Road facility is April of 1998. I'm going to let Doug Shaw give you an update on the current financial status of the two projects. As you know, bundled with your approvals this afternoon was a change order for both of the facilities, and we'd like to bring you up to date as to current financial status of these projects. MR. SHAW: Thanks, Joe. We have two projects that we're talking about that are currently under construction. The first one is a renovation addition to the Fourth Street facility and, again, we do have a new facility under construction at Phinizy Road. This is a short form of the costs associated with both of those projects, the top bar describing the additions and renovations to the Fourth Street facility. We had an estimated budget of approximately 4.789 million; the actual bid contract was a little bit over 4.837 million -- we had an estimated budget of 4.789; we had a bid contract amount of 4.57. We've had a few change orders to date. We had a proposed increase for a conveyor system of $109,000, which was approved by the Public Safety Committee and approved previously this afternoon. We have a total contract amount of around 5 million dollars for that facility. The facility is approximately 61% complete, and the difference between the estimated budget total and the total contract amount is a negative of $212.000. The good news is the Phinizy Road facility. The estimated budget of that was 18.918 million dollars, we had a bid amount of 16.155 million dollars, giving us a surplus on that particular job of 2.65 million dollars. We had a change order amount that was approved by the Public Safety Committee and by the Commission earlier today of $88,000. Really the numbers that we need to remember are that we had a charge to keep it within a approximately 24 million dollar budget. We are at this time 2.462 million dollars under that target of about 18 months to two years ago. What I'm going to do now is just show you very briefly some construction photos. I know y'all had an adventure this morning, but I don't know if you've visited both sites. Currently the Fourth Street facility, which was going to house mainly medical beds as well as a new intake transportation area, these are the construction photos of it. You'll notice the tower in the background with our new construction in the front. We hope to have this portion of the renovation addition to be done this December, with the interior renovations to begin after that, taking approximately six months. Out on Phinizy Road, which are these four shots, right now they have poured a massive amount of slab out there. They're approximately, again, 24% complete with that project. They started with the women's pod and the Central Services portion of the jail, and are moving out toward the male pods at this time. There are five sections to the plan. Pod A is the last section and right now we're just at the plumbing rough-in, and they poured some concrete this morning on Pod C, so that one is progressing very smoothly. And the last one is basically a rendering of -- y'all have seen this before. This is just a rendering of what the Phinizy Road would look like -- the facility would look like completed. To give you an idea from this rendering of where we are in construction, they started with this end of the building, which is the women's area; started with the central plant: the laundry, the kitchen, areas like that; and are moving out this way toward the male pods. And as you see, there's a hole here. There's a fourth pod that -- all the utilities are there for a fourth pod if necessary. All the projects are going very smoothly. We have very good contractors on board. Time is -- we're on the time that we had been under contract to produce, and everything is going very well. And is there anything else? Would you like -- MR. JOE POWELL: I think the courts are interested in how the construction is progressing and is that in accordance with the schedule that was submitted to the federal courts in '95 -- March of '95. And yes, it is, it's on schedule as presented to the courts back then, and under budget, we're pleased to say. If there's any questions regarding either one of the facilities, we'd be glad to provide you with an answer. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Where is Phinizy Road on there? MR. SHAW: Phinizy Road is right here out in front. Basically where y'all are sitting right now. MR. JOE POWELL: The distance wise, it's -- what did we figure, one- quarter mile from the front door to -- MR. BRIDGES: There are two pods; is that right? MR. SHAW: If you're looking at this diagram right here, or this rendering, we've got three male pods and one women's pod. These parts of the building indicate pods. There's a hole here for a fourth pod if necessary. We've got all the services necessary for this pod to just plug in when the time comes. And the other end of the building is a women's pod, and you separate those men and women as far away as possible. MR. BEARD: Where's the baseball field? MR. SHAW: There is no baseball field that's part of this construction. MR. BEARD: That was supposed to have been a joke. MR. BRIDGES: Where is Masters City? MR. SHAW: Masters City is more over in this area right here, and the railroad tracks, of course, would be over here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Other questions, gentlemen? We'd like to thank y'all for coming down and making that presentation to us today. Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. JOE POWELL: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to move that we receive this as information, and a commendation that you're on time on one and under budget on the other one, and I hope the headlines would read so tomorrow morning. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 31, please? CLERK: Items 31 through 40 under Public Services were all approved in committee on October 8th. [Item 31: Consider approval of a new ownership request by Bobbie A. Hammond for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with B & D's Wet Spot located on 1857 Gordon Highway. There 2 will be a dance hall. District 5, Super District 9. Item 32: Consider approval of new ownership request by Charles Gary Verner for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Walton's Station located at 3626 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. District 3, Super District 10. Item 33: Consider approval of new ownership request by Soyop Sierleja for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Club Barcelona located at 2533 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall. District 2, Super District 9. Item 34: Consider approval of a contract for Fire Escape Design with John T. Brown. Item 35: Consider approval of bid award to Blair Construction as the general contractor for renovations to Warren Road Park. Item 36: Consider approval of bid award to Astra Group as the general contractor for renovations to Flagler Road Park. Item 37: Consider approval of a contract for construction for Belle Terrace Swim Center. Item 38: Consider approval of emergency door repairs/ renovations at Dyess Park. Item 39: Consider approval of Settlement Agreement between Augusta Aviation Commission and Bankers First Savings Bank. Item 40: Consider approval for the Dixie Wheels Car Show to be held at Daniel Field on October 12 and 13, 1996.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move they be approved as a consent agenda. And if anyone needs to pull anything out, then we can. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy. Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to pull 37 out if we could, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: 37. Okay. Any others? All in favor of Mr. Mays' -- MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. MAYS: If I might, just in case where we can make sure we're clarified on the funding, I usually wouldn't do it, but I'm going to pull 38 out myself since I put it on in that committee where we can get it clarified. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're pulling out 37 -- MR. MAYS: 37 and 38. MAYOR SCONYERS: -- and 38. Okay. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, with the exception of 37 and 38, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Item 37: Consider approval of a contract for construction for Belle Terrace Swim Center. Approved in committee on October 8th. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I didn't pull this to speak against it or anything, I'm very much in support of the Belle Terrace Swim Center. I see we're going to -- you know, the amount here is for almost three-quarters of a million dollars. My children have been active in different swim meets through the Recreation Department, and in just about every event around the state of Georgia that we go to, those swimming pools are crowded with people, contestants, children -- everybody is there, you can't hardly move around. And I just want to encourage the Commission and those that are involved in the construction of this Swim Center, that hopefully when we build this thing -- I know it's going to be an Olympic-size pool, but from what I'm hearing, we're only going to have bleachers for like 250 to 300 people. I know you're not holding swim meets every day in these pools, but when you are, the ones I've been to, that's not enough seating for the people that are there. And if Augusta is going to make full use of the potential that swim meets/athletic meets could bring to this city, maybe even Olympic events, I think we need to seriously consider looking at a larger seating capacity for this pool. I don't know what that would be, you know, maybe four or five hundred, but I know from the events I've been to around the state -- and that's just in the state of Georgia. 300 people will be -- it's crowded. You can't move around, it's confused, the events are moving slower as a result of all the confusion and the congestion, and I just hope that in this event we can plan for the future and that we can accommodate more than 250 or 300 people to watch a swim meet. And I would support the -- I guess the awarding of this contract, but I hope that there's something we can do as far as looking at this and increasing the capacity for swim meets. It means a lot to Richmond County and the economy of Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate Mr. Bridges' comments. And I think on that one, Ulmer, one that had been promised and had been on the drawing board probably since -- well, prior to all of us getting here, with the exception of Henry Brigham, in reference to that being talked about being done in that area when the original proposal was done to build that neighborhood center, and that's how long it had been on the drawing board. What I think that we can do is that we not lose focus of the fact that we thought, one, it would be a waste if we built any more outdoor situations, period, because we were not getting the usage of them for just a few months a year and we needed to have situations that we could use for 12 months. I think on the longer range basis I would -- I'm glad to hear you say that because I would hope that we would support what's on the drawing board out of the major sales tax proposal and maybe can even step up some timing with it of doing the aquatic center, which is so greatly needed. This is basically to add on and continue swimming, not just in that area but for support groups, you know, to come into Belle Terrace and use it. But I think on a long range basis the full Olympic-size aquatic center that's needed to host meets such as Georgia State Games and other things in this area is what we're going to eventually need to get to, and that's in a part of the long range proposal in terms of seven figures to get to in the sales tax. Whether that can be done on that other seating --and Tom probably may want to speak to that in terms of that immediate seating situation there, but I think we've come a long way with that one. And it was a very good turnout the other morning at the groundbreaking, probably between 150 and 200 people, wouldn't say so, Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Tom? MR. BECK: Just a comment to make about the seating. We have to keep in mind what kind of swimming facilities that we're looking at really. The indoor pool at Belle Terrace will be a versatile facility that can hold swim meets as well as exercise programs, swim classes, that type of thing. The big-time swim complex that this community needs is what I believe we had discussed in a previous meeting, and I know a couple of other Commissioners have expressed some concern about the need for that facility, and that would be a big-time Olympic-size facility that we do have in the Tier II package. So we're really talking about two totally different types of facilities. This facility will seat about 300 with the plans now, Belle Terrace, and will be able to hold some good local and regional type meets. The bigger state and national meets that we would have a possibility in Augusta to host, no, it would not have the capacity to hold those. It will be a very nice indoor facility that this community needs. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm certainly going to support this project. I've supported it from day one, and I'm pleased that we've been able to bring it in, you know, under budget or at least close. But I'm concerned about something, and I think that this is something that we may address as we go along in a change order. And it's not necessarily deceiving, but I've heard that the design that we have and the type building, et cetera, that we may have a draft situation in the wintertime where we would have a problem keeping it warm enough after you come out of the water. We know we can control the water temperature. And that's a concern that was passed on from some folks that swim in other indoor pools, and I won't name the entities. And I would certainly hope that we would engineer that, look at it, and if there's any bugs there, that we would be able to get the bugs out, Mr. Mayor, and have it where it's truly a 12 month per year swimming arrangement. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. I want to thank you, and thank you, Mr. Todd, for that comment, and to the Chairman, thank you, too. I don't know what to say now. Mr. Beck just burst my bubble, so I don't know whether -- he doesn't make recreation too much, I don't guess. But Mr. Powell and those are here who are the engineers on that project, and I think all Mr. Bridges was asking, that if we have not gone too far, just to look at it. And I don't think that's out of the question to look at it and just say flatly that nothing else can be done. You know, I'm with you, Mr. Beck, but I'm not with you on that. I think that -- you know, I'm with you, but you understand what he's asked for, and I think coming from Mr. Bridges, I think that's a compliment to the whole community. And if his children are involved in it and he sees what's, you know, kind of beneficial, then those of us who -- and the pros, our vision ought to be five years out saying, hey, look it can be done, and we ought to be able to tell Mr. Bridges how it can be done. And these men back here, they go back and tell Liz and those, they can fix it up where something else can be done. And, Moses, we'll look at that. I don't know nothing about swimming, and I said I was going to try next year if I could, but -- but I think that ought to be looked at. Will you gentlemen take that back to Liz for us, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion of some kind, gentlemen, on this. Mr. Brigham? MR. MAYS: I'll so move the contract be approved. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays and Mr. Brigham. Did y'all want to add something to it about them going back and see if they can expand the seating some? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, what we just said, if that could be a part of it. I think Mr. Bridges mentioned it. If that could be a part of it, just to look at it and bring it back to us, that's all we're saying. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, that's right. I guess I'd amend that motion just for the engineers to take a look at it and, you know, see if they could have some additional seating capacity there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that okay with you, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I have no problem with it long as it's going inside the building. MR. BRIDGES: Oh, yeah. Yeah. MR. MAYS: I'm not saying that to be funny, but I think we're about to run out of space. And if it can be done internally, Ulmer, I think we can get it done, but if it's going to be external, we've about cut every corner we can cut out there. MR. BRIDGES: I understand there's a shortage of space. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I agree that we shouldn't build it too small. That's the problem we run into with about everything we build, that we've grown out of it before we get in it, like the jail project, and I commend Mr. Bridges for having the foresight in the sense that he's involved in swimming. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, with the modification, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 38, please? CLERK: 38: Consider approval of emergency door repairs/ renovations at Dyess Park. Approved in committee on October 8th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to just recommend that the funds come from reserves. What we're talking about, approximately 30,000? There's a couple of sources that it can come from. It can come from reserves and go back out of one penny back into reserves at a later date, or we can wait until we have the one penny in hand to do it. But if we have a safety problem, then certainly as far as the risk management go I think we should go on and do it out of reserves and take care of that problem versus shutting the building down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I have no problem with the motion and the second on the floor. I better stop while I'm ahead. It's probably estimated around 27,200, and the only reason I pulled it off, I just didn't want it to get caught up in one of those not knowing where the funding sources was coming from. And we'll basically take it wherever it comes from, whether it's out of reserves or whether it's out of the same fund that we did the Lock and Dam on, on the reserves from the urban side. I'm not real choicy about where it's coming from. But I put it on last week because it was not on the original Public Services agenda. We had had another break-in at Dyess Park, and there were already some problems there. And I know there's some major sales tax money down the road to deal with that situation, but right now there are some immediate things that definitely have to be done. Mr. Johnson has gone over on somewhat of a semi-emergency situation. And I thank the committee for siding with me on last week, and I'd hope that we go ahead on and approve it today so that they can proceed. Because it's a dangerous situation over there, and particularly dealing in a old reconverted fire station, and not only using it for recreational use but as a voting place and then having to use it on a two-story basis, so we need to go on and get it done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we -- my question to the County Attorney, Mr. Mayor: Can we pull it out of reserves and put it back into reserves when the one penny come in? We have one penny for the maintenance and repair or renovation. MR. WALL: Yes. MR. TODD: I'm going to add -- I guess I made the motion, so I'm going to amend my motion if the seconder of the motion will accept it, for the funding source to come from reserves and to be paid back to reserves from one penny at a later date. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that okay with you, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item, Item 41: Consider approval of transfer request by R.H. Troup to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Chevy Night Club located at 469 Highland Avenue. There will be a dance hall. Formerly in the name of Danny Savage. District 1, Super District 9. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is the petitioner here? MR. WALKER: Mr. Troup? Will you stand up and give your name and address, please, sir? MR. TROUP: It's Rudolph Troup, and I live at 3612 Richmond Hill Road. MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors? [NONE NOTED] This meets all the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County license ordinance. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Who seconded that, please? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 42, please? CLERK: 42: Consider approval of a transfer request by April L. Nelson to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license used in connection with Comedy House Theater located at 2740 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. Formerly in the name of Patricia Mills. District 7, Super District 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Ms. Nelson here? MR. WALKER: Give your name and address. MS. NELSON: April Nelson, 512 Brian's Way, Augusta, Georgia. MR. WALKER: Any objectors? [NONE NOTED] This meets all the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County license ordinance. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Brigham, Jerry. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, there's no problems as far as percentages from the old -- MR. WALKER: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. HANDY: I just want to say we hope we're doing the right thing. By looks, it doesn't look like that, but I hope we're doing the right thing. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I asked the same question. The law says we can't ask that, but I did ask Mr. Walker here. She doesn't look old enough. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. So that was 8-1 and Mr. Powell was out of the room. CLERK: Yes, sir. Item 43: Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on October 1, 1996. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 44, please? CLERK: Consider approval of an appointment to the Tax Assessors Board to fill the expired term of Mr. Ernie Bowman for a four-year term ending April 24, 2000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to name a nomination, Bobby Cheeks, for that position. Mr. Cheeks is a self-employed accountant, he is located on Lumpkin Road, this is in the 23rd Senatorial District, and he's expressed to me that he is -- has the time and is more than willing to attend the necessary classes to be certified on the Tax Board, and I place his name in nomination for that position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, and then Mr. Todd. That was kind of a race, I don't know which was which. MR. MAYS: Well, I'll gladly accept the M before the T then if that's not in place of nominations being closed. I'd like to renominate Mr. Bowman. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. I have a motion by Mr. Todd that nominations be closed. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Which way do we go on that now? MR. WALL: First one. MAYOR SCONYERS: First one first? MR. WALL: First one first. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Cheeks, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. HANDY, AND MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Item 46: An Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5868 establishing severance compensation for displaced department heads of Augusta-Richmond County; to provide an effective date; to provide for repeal of this ordinance on a date certain; and for other purposes. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on October 1st. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'm sorry, I'm just quick-drawing on you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: What item are we on? CLERK: Number 46. MAYOR SCONYERS: 46, the compensation package. MR. HANDY: What did we do with 45? CLERK: That was deleted. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I was out. Okay, good. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 48: Communication from the Director of Human Resources regarding Enhanced Early Retirement Program Requests. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Mayor and Commission, you have a list, or should have a list of those individuals that have elected to participate in the enhanced early retirement program, and I ask that you approve it. MR. WALL: Just so that there's no confusion, I would ask that insofar as Ruth Bowers is concerned where it shows January 1, 1997, and Miller Meyer January 1, 1997, Jesse Shaw January 1, 1997 -- the enhanced early retirement ordinance said that the last day of work would have to be December the 31st. I think what they're asking -- I mean, I think that's consistent with what they're asking for, but it should read December 31, 1997 [sic]. The first day of retirement under the ordinance will be the first day of the following month, which would be January, but that should read 12/31/96. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to so move, with the recommendations of the County Attorney, and that they all be -- that they all qualified. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a concern and I'm not too sure how to get it on the floor. And the concern is that we are going to start receiving a lot of names in for early retirement, and I don't believe there's a -- has been a discussion for a mechanism for beginning the hiring action for displaced department heads, and if we don't do something about it now, Mr. Etheridge is going to have a problem. And I don't know if it would require a substitute motion on my part to amend this to say that Mr. Etheridge ought to -- in those departments that we have approved the organization in, that he be allowed to begin advertising for those positions. Would that be appropriate to do at this time? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. ZETTERBERG: If we don't do something about it, it's going to come up and bite us. It's a big problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that if the committee--the Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Bill Carstarphen, and yourself the Mayor--has already made a recommendation whether we're going inhouse or outhouse, then certainly we can go on and authorize Mr. Etheridge to start advertising. But if we don't get the committee's recommendation, then we're going to get caught in the same situation as we were caught with some others that we've gone out and advertised where we didn't get directions on how to do it. And I don't have a problem with it, I'm ready to move on, as I told my colleague today, but we got to have that committee recommendation on how we're going to do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask this question. I hear what Mr. Zetterberg is saying, and I agree with him that we don't want to get caught in a trap, but I'd first like to know if the people that are accepting this early retirement, are we going to replace everybody that's going to be leaving? I'd like to have -- he probably can't answer that now, but I think this was one of the things that we were going to take a look at by trying to reduce the size of government a little bit. There are going to be essential jobs that we do have to fill, but there will be other positions that we don't have to fill. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I tend to agree with what has been said, but I also think that the study that we were talking about as far as the number of employees that we were going to have once all of this is over, and I don't know where that is in committee structure. Once that's done, I think what Mr. Todd is saying and what Mr. Kuhlke is saying are things that we can go forward with at that time. MR. ETHERIDGE: Right. We are currently getting requests for those individuals that are leaving, and I can stand here and speak from my own area. One of the people that's on this partic-ular list here is one of my key people, and I have made a request to replace that particular position. There are going to be, in my opinion, in every scenario where we do have an individual leaving, there is going to be a request for a replacement, and the concern that I have from a HR standpoint is are we going to provide for the replacement of all of those positions. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think, gentlemen, too, that we've got the new Administrator coming on board and I don't think we need to jump way ahead of him because there's going to be some places where he's going to be able to rightsize or downsize, whatever you want to call it. I think we need to let that be part of his task when he gets here. Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, looking over the list, I only see one department head on there. I think we need to do something about that one department head. As far as all the other positions, I'm in agreement with you, I don't think we need to do anything until the Administrator gets here and evaluates whether or not we can reduce the number of employees or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make the comment, too, I think the provisions in the early retirement package indicate that they don't have -- they have until December -- MAYOR SCONYERS: 31st. MR. KUHLKE: Well, to accept it is -- MR. WALL: December 23rd. MR. KUHLKE: December the 23rd. And if we have an influx of people at that time -- I would hope that we could maybe direct the Interim Administrators maybe to try to speed up that process by either -- so that we know who really will be going on board on those things to give us a better feel before we get to the end of the year of what's going to be available there. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, I can provide a list whenever -- you know, if it's regarding department heads, and I think that's one of the concerns here, I can provide the Administrator a list of those people as they come in and make application for the program. I think that would help. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: To not get caught up in that situation that Mr. Zetterberg is concerned about, I think as far as department heads go, that we can go on and -- once we get the committee report whether we're going to do it regional or nationwide, we can go on and advertise the position, then the Administrator can decide whether we're actually going to fill that position when he come on board. I think that if we're talking about department heads and we're talking about going outside of government, then we're probably talking about at least a 30-day period of advertising. At the same time, you have a person leaving, and I think once that person announce that he's leaving and put in -- he or she is leaving that's a department head put in for the early retirement, that we should be able to advertise that position and take whatever time we need to fill that position. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one question on that, and maybe I was a little quick on saying just department heads because it runs much deeper than just department heads. By our not addressing the issue right now, or maybe we have, we've basically told Mr. Etheridge that as these people leave he's not to do anything with it. Are we going to make a policy decision to defer all hiring actions until the new Administrator comes on board, and then -- and if that's the case, then Mr. Etheridge has got clear guidance on it. But I'm not too sure I know or anybody else knows, to include employees and the current supervisory personnel, of what's going to happen with their government and with the people who are manning the positions today or will man them tomorrow. So I think that we really need to take a step back and answer that question, maybe not today, but I think we ought to be on fair warning that this could be a very critical issue for our government. Because we're going to take a dip. The enhanced retirement is a double-edged sword. We're going to be benefitted by the fact that we'll create a lot of new opportunities for a lot of different people, but on the other hand we're going to lose a lot of very good people, and what we need to do is protect the best interest of the citizens that we're here working for to ensure that we're going to bring in the right number of people and the timing of bringing those in. So I have a concern. MR. MEYER: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Could I address just one department, the License and Inspection Department. The organization that you approved for this department is downsized by either four or five positions from the previous county department and the two previous city departments. So yeah, this department will -- anybody that retires is going to request to fill the vacancy, because that is -- a true organization, that's what's going to be needed for that department to function. But it's already been downsized. Now, maybe that's the only department -- that's the only one I can address, and I don't know -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I think that's a good point. MR. MEYER: I don't know about the situation with the other departments, you know, that haven't gone through this process, but we met several times with the Administrators and everybody else, and we pointed out in putting that organization together that, hey, we are downsizing it. We are not asking to fill positions that were eliminated by the city or a couple of vacancies we had in the county, so that department has already been downsized. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think Mr. Meyer has brought forth a good point, that throughout our organization we're going to be able to downsize. If you read the paper this morning, it talks about IBM, how they have turned their profits around by down-sizing. And government is no better than big business. We're going to have to downsize and rightsize to do what needs to be done. Now, we're ready to vote. Any other discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear the motion again, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you read the motion for us, please? MS. MORAWSKI: It was to approve the request from Mr. Etheridge for the enhanced early retirements. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges to approve Mr. Etheridge's request for early retirement. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM: For early retirement? MR. KUHLKE: Are you leaving? MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, the list. MR. ZETTERBERG: The list prepared by -- MAYOR SCONYERS: The list. I apologize. MR. TODD: You might have lost some votes there. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 49? CLERK: 49: Communication from the Attorney regarding acceptance of the franchise for Georgia Natural Gas Company granted by the ordinance passed July 3, 1996. MR. WALL: They have signed off on the ordinance, and I'm not sure why they want this letter approved, but they've asked that we indicate the -- note the acceptance, and I recommend approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Is this going to cover them from city limits line to city limits line? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: And I guess my other question is going to be, in the new Federal Communication Act, I guess, or whatever we call it in reference franchises, are we in compliance with all that, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Are we in compliance? Yes, we're in compliance. We are reviewing the zoning ordinance to make any modifications that may become necessary, and we're also reviewing it from the standpoint of the cable franchise agreement as well, and that's been the delay in bringing that before you. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 50: Communication from the Attorney regarding consideration on an Ordinance to change the date for adopting the temporary budget. MR. WALL: I put this on at the request of Butch, and he may want to address it, but currently the temporary -- here he is. The temporary budget has to be adopted by the third Tuesday in November, and he and I were speaking the other day and wanted to know if it could be postponed with the idea that with a new Administrator coming on, since it was his budget, particularly as far as the first year is concerned, that it would be appropriate to wait until the second meeting in December to adopt this budget. And so it's on there, it's just for discussion purposes, and if I'm to draw up such an ordinance to amend it, I need direction from you. Butch, do you want to comment? MR. McKIE: As Mr. Wall said, it was -- I thought that the new Administrator should have the maximum amount of input into the budget, and we are keeping him updated on things. But also, this is probably going to be the most important budget in recent history, and I think it's going to take a great deal of discussion among you and the staff, and I think we're just going to need a little more time. We've got some major issues to resolve, some new people on board to help do it, and we could use the extra three to four weeks. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll move that we approve this first reading of the -- or authorize the Attorney to draw up an ordinance giving us this temporary change. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is for just this year, though. MR. TODD: I have one question, Mr. Mayor. This is going to keep us in compliance with what the state requirements are as far as deadlines? MR. WALL: Yes. That's not a problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I plan to vote for the motion that's on the floor. I've talked to Butch about it, I have no problem with that. I guess I'm going to say the same thing I said about two meetings ago, and I put an item on the agenda and, of course, since that time we have selected an Administrator, and which I think is good and I think this time will allow that person to have input into the new budget. We did, however -- and this is nothing that's written in stone, but we did however pass unanimously that motion that was on the floor. And maybe this can be done after that person gets here, but what I'm still looking at -- and maybe I'm the only one that this bothers a little bit, but --and this is not to dip into any other government's business, but my reason that I put it on the floor at that time, that we spend some extra time in dealing with this whole situation prior to adopting a new budget and maybe even allowing --and, of course, now the situation will be with the new Administrator. At that time it was strictly -- mainly dealing with the Comptroller because of some things that had come up. I've sat here and I've watched us deal with accepting a mid year report in committee. The Comptroller had to rush, had to do it. We've had, I think, still some unanswered questions that are laying out there. Maybe that can be addressed in what I hope will be set aside as some type of financial retreat time. I'm not hung up on when we have a date, Mr. Mayor, but I do think that that definitely needs to be done, I think, in fairness not only to the new Administrator coming but in fairness to the existing Comptroller that we have, and that Administrator is going to have to depend on a lot of those numbers. And I bring that back to us again because we're talking about getting further up into November, and even though this may not be our direct business, on the ballot in November will still be -- and I guess this depends on what side of this issue some of us may be on, but the School Board's bond issue that's out there. And I brought it up at that particular time because there was a hanging situation as to whether or not we might have to deal with a different level of taxation in this county, and one of the things that's occurred at those public hearings and that Board of Education people from Dr. Larke on down have reminded me of, the first question that's come up possibly has been whether or not from our county side whether we will be dealing with additional taxes. Now, I've been assured that that's not going to happen, but I think in this particular forum we have not expressed or diffused or put that in a formal way to rest, and I do think that the future of what happens with the Board of Education, our children as our county grows, city grows, and those schools that have to be built, those that have to be improved on, even though that's a different governmental body, it's important what we do in conjunction with them. Just as we wanted sales tax support from another governmental body, they're going to need that support from this group in terms of what we do in reference to dealing with the bond issue. And I think in some quarters it's still a little fuzzy that that's hanging out there. Maybe it's only hanging out there with me, but I say that -- I'm going to support the motion that's on the floor, but I hope at some point we allow that length of time. I mean, we've had special meetings on the jail, we've had them -- as I said at that meeting that day, I've ate enough danish to pour sugar out of my ears and drinking coffee. We've had a retreat on about everything we can have a retreat on. But I certainly think that when a story comes out -- and this is my second time saying this. When a story comes out there may possibly be a major tax hike and we have not laid that to rest, and if it is still out there floating in whatever form it might be, then this body needs to lay that to rest in some official way. And I can vote for the motion that's on the floor, but I still hope that that's on our minds. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item? CLERK: We'll take Item 2 on the addendum agenda next, and that's a communication from the Attorney regarding the a settlement of a proposed condemnation for an easement. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, y'all had earlier granted approval to condemn this because there had been a lot of haggling about the language of the proposed easement. That's now been resolved. It is for an amount that had been offered. You'll see the security item in there, $1,250, which is the only change, and I think that that is reasonable in light of the fact that the security system is going to be down for a period of time. Any unused funds will be returned to us. And I recommend approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Project Manager's report. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have four items that are detailed in a sub-agenda item that you should have in front of you. The first of those four items is the recommendation on two departmental organization structures, and they are the Information Technology Department, and Ms. Nancy Bonner is here and will speak to that, and also the Finance Department, and Mr. McKie is here and he will speak to that. By way of introduction, let me say before I ask Ms. Bonner to come forward and go over the organization chart you have, or I will distribute to you, you have received in your agenda packet some information on these items. We have updated versions of the proposed organizational structure, which I will distribute to you while Ms. Bonner is speaking to it, and it is reflected on the large chart which is behind me and which Ms. Bonner will speak to. She will also be making some recommendations that adjust that chart, I believe, by deleting a position. In addition to speaking to the overall structure of the department, which I have asked her to do, she will also be speaking to you briefly following that on the current manpower situation or personpower situation within that department. A number of employees have resigned within the last several weeks, and that department is approaching a situation with regard to manpower that is somewhat of a crisis. She will be speaking to that. She has begun working with the Human Resources Department, we have met with Commissioner Zetterberg, and we have some moves underway which are attempts to deal with that, but this is something that the department feels strongly about and will speak to you briefly about. With that as an introduction, let me ask Nancy Bonner to come forward. Nancy, I'm going to take this microphone out and hand it to you so you can be closer to your organizational structure. And while you are speaking I will distribute the chart. MS. BONNER: Thank you, gentlemen. First of all, I'm just going to kind of give you a brief overview of who the Information Technology Department represents, what we do for the consolidated government, how we do that and, most importantly, why we do that. The Information Technology Department is an information service provider. The combined departments--which consist of the MIS, which was former city, the CMS, which was former county, and the GIS Department--manage and support information resources through the use of technology. For an example, in 1989 the Richmond County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the acquisition of a 3.4 million dollar computer system. This system came with a much more upgraded and innovative technology as opposed to the outdated one that we were replacing. And what I'd like to do now before I actually go to the organizational chart is let Beth -- she is going to hand out a handout for you so you can actually see the transition and the growth from 1989 when we started upgrading this technology, through today, and then what we project next year. So as she's doing that I'll give you a minute just to kind of look over that, but it's just really for you to see what you can do with technology as opposed to -- how you can grow your government through the use of technology as opposed to growing it with people. I ask you to take just a minute and look at that time, and I'm just going to hit on a couple of those numbers that I want you to look over carefully. As a result of the more advanced technology, you can see that the number of customers, also known as work units, supported today has more than doubled. We're looking at going from 45 units in 1989 to 95 today, and that will be reduced again in '97 to 90 work units, or we call them customers, departments, offices, et cetera. The number of devices utilized by the customers is almost six times greater, and if you notice the employees, that has changed somewhat, but it's virtually remained the same. So I think this graph or this chart will show you that you can provide more services, efficient services, through the use of technology as opposed to trying to do this through the use of people. Effective management of this technology equips our customers with knowledge, with skills, and with tools for processing and sharing information. And as a result of that, the Commission-Council, you folks, are empowered with timely and reliable information for making informed decisions about value-added government services for this community. And that's basically what it starts with, is the technology that is managed and supported by the Information Technology Department. We've provided those services to the departments, and then those departments can provide you with the information you need for making decisions at your level for the community. The graphic illustrations on the second and third pages indicate a ratio of departments compared to people, and I'm just going to let -- want you to look at that first one, which you will see the total employees when you compare that to the departments, and in 1989 we had one employee per 2.14 depart-ments, in 1996 that's up one employee per 3.8 departments, and we're projecting it to be 3.33 in 1997. And then if you look at the third page of your handout you will see the number of devices and a ratio of the departments to the -- I mean, devices to the employees. And, again, you look at 11.57 devices per employee as compared to what we will be requesting in '97, which you're still looking at a 50 to 1 ratio. And I just say that again to emphasize that our government has come a long way from 1989 to 1997 with the use of the advanced technology that we are currently now operating on. MR. BRIDGES: Excuse me, Nancy. What are devices? Are those terminals or what are they? MS. BONNER: Terminals, printers, and PC's all located in these various 95 departments. And right now we are currently managing and supporting 1,277 online devices that are attached to five large network servers. Okay, are there any other questions before I present the organizational chart? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: As far as your computers, do we have the safeguards in place to keep just anybody from logging in and entering certain data? MS. BONNER: Yes, sir. We have got multiple layers of security, and that is monitored on a daily basis. We have a real good procedure in place for when employees are terminated, how we go out there and remove passwords. But what we try to do is look at what the person is going to be doing and then match their security levels with exactly what they're going to be doing, and that is monitored by staff in the Information Technology Department. MR. TODD: Thank you. MS. BONNER: Okay. If you look at this organizational chart, we've got the top layer which would be the Director, and underneath that you would have an Administrative Assistant. There is a new position which will be a Help Desk Coordinator, and I'll talk about that in just a few minutes. We have the next layer of management, which is Division Management. On the left-hand side there, my left, look at the Software Support Manager -- and I think you all have handouts of this. Good. Software Support Management, that's a team of employees that actually provide the services to these 95 departments that exist now between the former city and former county, and also including the GIS in that area. But this would be for any type of application services, any type of additional programs, modifications to existing programs. When a user has a need to do something in their office and they do not want to do it manually because it's going to take entirely too much time and they're going to need additional people, then we get involved with our systems analyst and our programmers and we sit down and design a system that will meet those requirements. And that is taking place in our Software Support Management area. The second level of Division Management would be the Computer Systems Manager. That is also a team of employees that manage the computer resources. That would be anything to do with operations as far as running any type of jobs. Tax bills, water bills, those are just a couple of good examples of jobs that are run over in the IT Department. We also have to be real concerned with having enough disk space. We have to make sure that the systems and the files are sized properly so that the departments are receiving adequate response times, especially when you're looking at trying to manage and support 1,200 and some odd devices. The next area would be Data Communications and Network Management. We've recently put in a $100,000 network in our District Attorney's office, we also have judges on this particular network, so we have got -- all of those devices that I talked about, I would say in excess of about 200 are particularly located in those areas. Another large area of network devices would be in our law enforcement and in our judicial area. So you've got a team of experts that are out there tweaking those software applications, making sure that all of that cabling, all of those devices are running at optimum efficiencies. Another problem that we encounter and work with on a daily basis would be the troubleshooting. Our phones constantly are ringing off the hook with people having terminal problems, PC's are down, printers won't print, that type thing, so in that particular area we have technicians that are out what we call in the field making sure that that equipment is up and operational and running efficiently. GIS, of course, that is our newer division. We are very excited about having the GIS division and being able to have Terry on board. Terry and I have been working very closely with coming up with plans and how to put the GIS system into full operations. Of course, he's working with several consultants and outside folks in that area for our GIS installation. And then, of course, you do see these two areas here, and that would mean management from this area for the folks that are underneath the datacom specialist as well as the lead computer operator. The total structure consists of 27 -- request is for 27 positions. We currently have 22 authorized positions. We have been working three temporary employees in excess of two years and we are requesting that all three of those positions become full-time. We are also requesting two new positions, one being the Help Desk, and that will be a person that will be sitting in front of a PC all day long monitoring systems, taking these calls from these four divisions so that we can hopefully have a much more efficient operation and can take some of the load off some of the folks that are having to answer those calls in a secretarial position. The other position that we are requesting is in this area right here because of the sheer volume and the demand of our users. Looking at 1997 proposed, we're looking at increasing those figures another 100 or so devices out in the field. So we are requesting 27 full-time permanent positions for the IT structure. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MS. BONNER: Yes, sir, Mr. Todd? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: My question is along the line of growing govern-ment, and that's the term that's a new buzz word around here, if you haven't heard. And in the sense that you have three temporary positions, those don't concern me, but it seems that there is at least one new position or possibly two. And, you know, if we're talking about growing government in the sense of data processing or, you know, data communication, then what are you telling me that you can do with those two additional individuals to become more efficient or help other departments become more efficient so we don't need someone, where we can cut manhours, et cetera? MS. BONNER: Okay. If you're looking at technology -- and I think that's what you're asking me, how is this technology and hiring these people on my staff going to be able to maybe alleviate some additional human resources in other areas. I think we'd have to look at that on a case by case basis. I can tell you that anytime that we are putting in additional PC's or terminals or printers into various offices, that does not necessarily dictate that we need to put a new employee there to maintain or to operate within those guidelines. Normally what happens is if we are adding a new application -- I'm just going to use that for an example. Say we're adding a new process to the Payroll Department. Well, it may be that the person in the Payroll Department has not had any type of hardware on their desk before now. That person already exists, but now they need the terminal or the PC so that they can do the job that we're about to program or find a vendor out there that is going to provide that application. So in that situation I'm growing because I've added additional devices and I've added more technology into that various -- or into various departments, but we've not added additional personnel. I'm not telling you you will delete personnel, but I don't think you'll be adding a lot of personnel. The one area that I believe needs to grow when you look at the size of this government and how this government is totally computer dependent would be in your Information Technology area, because we are the guys that are providing the services so they can meet the demands that you place upon them as far as providing the community with services. I don't know if that answered your question, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I think it's well to point out that -- what is it, less than 1% of the automation budget? The automation budget is only 1% of the total budget of the entire corporation, the entire government, and the personnel are only about 1% of the government. So you're getting a lot of bang for your buck here, and for an organization this size, you really are under-automated. The city was extremely under-automated. There were pockets where there were no automation at all in the city, and still there are some places in our government that there are little or no -- there is little or no automation at all. One of the big problems is the city only had about three people running the entire thing, and so they were never able to either train the people or to service any of the equipment at that time, and so they never took advantage of the leverage that automation can help in an organization. And I think Ms. Bonner has demonstrated that they have done an awful lot with automation, and the number of devices supported by the number of personnel, it's a very small organization. I've asked her to take a look at some of our larger governments in the state of Georgia to do a comparison to see where we are, but I would expect that we are still very much under-automated, and we will probably see a growth in this area over the years to accommodate all the good things that we can do. GIS really accounts for almost three of this -- three of the five increases really, because although we had approved a budget years ago, we had never done anything with it. And we brought on Mr. Lambert, we moved an individual from Engineering, and we now have about -- I think we have one other individual that ought to be hired to launch the GIS effort because we're just in an embryonic stage at the moment in that particular area, and that has the potential of paying high dividends for down range. MS. BONNER: Terry? MR. LAMBERT: Just to add a quick point in reference to automation. You hear downsizing. I've heard that term used quite a bit today, and consolidation is a part of that. What we're looking at doing is -- and I don't like to elaborate on how one department is an exception of another, however, if you look at all your Fortune 500 companies--and many of you are involved in the private sector--a key to downsizing and to making government or any public or private sector more efficient is through automation. I'd like to take the first -- and maybe this will answer Mr. Todd's question and a lot of the questions. This board, and Mr. Mayor in this board, actually to this point has saved this government 2.2 million dollars. And I know as a Commissioner you probably want to sit there and ask, well, where do these figures come from to prove how this is going to benefit us down the road. Nancy and her staff has done a wonderful job over the last three or four years since they went to the open system environment. If anybody has any more specific questions on what that means, it means it took a mainframe operation that required -- for example, somebody updating an appraisal property record card, putting it into a room where you have keypunch and data processing people and basically have them process it from there. It went from that to having somebody in the appraisal department making those updated changes online, so that now you have an appraiser doing two functions: one, they do their normal day-to-day functions, and the other function is they're also doing data entry. This saves the manpower down the road. If you look at those ratios, had you stayed with that current process, a one person to 25 device ratio, that's what you would have had to stuck with. That is hard, solid fact. If you stick with a keypunch/data processing type environment, you would have currently right now 50 employees working in data processing. So over the years, if you average $22,000 a year salary, you saved just alone on salary costs 2.2 million dollars over the last three or four years. Take those facts and expand them down the road. This is where I welcome the challenge of other department heads to utilize this automation to do these type of functions, and instead of seeking additional personnel in their department, going outside and do the automation factor of it so that we can go -- and that's where GIS, MIS, or any technology takes that into place. So that's the core function on an open system GIS/MIS environment and going from there. I hope that may have expanded on the process of this automation. I don't know if anybody has any specific questions on what I just went over. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I don't have a question about what you went over. I have a question in a different direction, I would guess. I am really a little concerned about the organizational structures that are coming -- the structures that are coming before us, and my concern is this -- and maybe you can enlighten me some on this particular one because I'm concerned about others also. In many instances we have not taken into the fact of diversity. I hear this among many of the organizational structures that are being formed, that we are not getting consideration in that. And, you know, with a city that is made up of 42% of another ethnic group -- and I would just like to know on your organizational structure--and I'll be asking other people this question, too--where are minorities fitting into your organizational chart, what percentage do you have of that, and what do you plan to do about it in future hiring practices and this kind of thing? MS. BONNER: That's a very good question, Mr. Beard, and right now we've got a total of 22 positions that are authorized full-time positions. I don't know the percentages, so I'm just going to give you the ethnic breakdown. We've got -- one is Indian, two are black, and where does a Hawaiian fit in there? I don't know if they're -- I guess that's American, so. But what we look at is when we get ready to hire for positions, first of all, we're looking at -- you know, you're not looking at hiring someone as far as -- I don't look at ethnic. I don't look at anything except I'm looking at skills and I'm looking at qualifications and I'm looking at job knowledge and I'm looking at does this person fit into what it is we need them to do, how much education they bring into it, how much am I going to have to train them once they get on board. You know, we go through a criteria as to, you know, what we're looking for versus what the skill set is, and then we make a determination and make our decisions based on qualifications to meet the guidelines of the job. Let me also say in there out of the 22 positions that we have, I think about nine of those are females at this time, two of which are black females. MR. BEARD: Out of 22 you can only find two blacks? MS. BONNER: Well, that is because I haven't had any turnover until recently. The least amount of experience I had on my staff was seven years of experience up until about six weeks ago, and I am down four fill-time positions and two of the temporaries. MR. BEARD: And one of those blacks came from the city side, didn't they? MS. BONNER: That is correct. Yes, sir. A fine employee. MR. BEARD: So you had no blacks? MS. BONNER: Yes, I did. MR. BEARD: Just one? MS. BONNER: I had a black female, and I just recently had a black male that left. So I don't -- you know, I don't have a problem with that at all. I want you to understand that I look at, you know, how you can perform, and based on performance is, you know, whether or not you are considered for the job. MR. BEARD: It just appears to me out of 22, that looks like we could have more representation there. MS. BONNER: And we possibly will because now is a great time. Because like I said, in the last six weeks we've lost four of our major technical employees. MR. BEARD: Well, this just concerns me, not only with your organizational structure but it concerns me with all of them. Because I'm constantly getting complaints that, you know, people are not being moved in the right direction or they're totally being ignored, and I think that we have to address this issue and we have to make managers aware that this is a diversified entity and that we should try as best as we can to make sure that this is upheld, and I don't think all managers are doing that. MS. BONNER: Well, I have no problem with that, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I can assure Mr. Beard that within our -- within this technical field there are sufficient minorities to fill any of the positions that Ms. Bonner has. What we need to do is get them to apply for them, okay? If we get minorities that are qualified and will apply for these jobs, I can assure you there will be a home for them in this government. We'll be more than happy -- and I do know there are sufficient minorities with these kind of skills, but you've got to get them to us. That's where we are. And I would believe that any of the ones in your organization, if they were upward mobile and they had the skills, they could move up. MS. BONNER: Absolutely. MR. ZETTERBERG: Ms. Bonner is a classic example of it. She happens to be a minority in the true sense of the word in the government, and I believe she is the only female department head in our government, so I think that's very significant. And I can assure you of any branch in our government they will be well taken care of down in -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. Mr. Beard, then Mr. Todd -- I mean, excuse me, Mr. Bridges. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the only comment I want to make is I think Nancy has got the right approach here. The people we want to look for -- we should be colorblind. We should not look at skin color, we should not look at sex, but whatever -- if this person applies for job, is qualified, is the most qualified person in that position, that's what we need to look for. And I think Mr. Zetterberg has probably hit on something. If there are minorities out there that are qualified, if they apply for it they should be given the same consideration as anybody else, and this should be a fair process and not a discriminatory process in any regard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to comment this way. I think when we were interviewing and hiring an administrator I stated that I had some concerns that -- and I won't go back into the details, but that we had to have diversity as far as gender go, minorities go, and I was concerned that we were bringing a person in that was anti-labor or didn't have that diversity as far as organized labor go. And I'd like to at least correct one statement, and that is that we only have one department head as far as being female persuasion by gender. That is incorrect, that we have more than one, and I won't get into counting them because it's somewhat embarrassing, you know, because the numbers is not where I'd like to see them. The numbers also are not where I like to see them as far as minorities go. And then when we're dealing with the staffing, if we look at License and Inspection and if we look at some other departments, gentlemen, we have some situations. Even if we look at the minority departments and those department heads, we have some situations. We have some pepper situations or black-and-white situations. And if we look at ourselves when we go to functions or when we go places, we have a situation. Hell, we don't even commingle or sit together. There's four whites or five whites over there somewhere and there's four or five blacks over here somewhere. And I think we've got to get above this. Yes, we've got to do it based on qualifications, education. That's what I talked about when we just debated this thing on giving the Fire Chief all this power. And if you give folks the power and you don't give them direction on diversity, then certainly they're going to hire folks that look like them, they're going to hire folks they went to school with, they're going to hire folks that live in their community. And I don't care whether it's black, I don't care whether it's white; if you don't believe me, look at the departments, with the exception of Central Services where you have black department heads. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Ms. Bonner: I believe you changed charts from -- when you counted 27 I believe you were using another chart. I believe this chart has 28 positions on it. MS. BONNER: And I'm sorry, because right here where we show Programmer -- excuse me, Systems Analyst, when Mr. Carstarphen alluded to a correction, that number went from three to two, Mr. Brigham, and thank you for pointing that out. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I appreciate it. I was just trying to add it up. It didn't add. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, then Mr. Beard. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just to correct the record--and thank you, Mr. Todd--I think we do have four female department heads, to include our Suburban Administrator, that are female. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to set the record straight, that nobody is asking for a handout or just to hire somebody because of their color. No one is asking this. But we all know, and we don't want to just hide our heads in the sand, and most of us want to do that when we're saying that everything is fair and everything is right and everything is aboveboard. You know, some of us know that that's not true. And the only reason I'm bringing this to your attention today is that hopefully people who are in charge at the top management level, if they are not reminded of this, they will not even take notice of this. And I'm only bringing this to your attention so that you will be reminded of this, and when you get to the point where you are considering this, you ought to -- this should be forever present on your mind that this is a city made up of 40-some percent of African-Americans and we ought to be represented. And we do have -- as Mr. Zetterberg said, we do have people out there who are capable -- who are minorities who are capable, and a lot of times they are looked over, they are forgotten about, and when they do apply, a lot of times they are not given a fair share. And all I'm asking is they be given a fair share and that the person in charge do whatever they can and should do whatever is necessary to do that. And I would just like to know from you where are those two blacks in your department. Where are they located? MS. BONNER: Well, one right now -- MR. BEARD: On the chart. MS. BONNER: One right now is still on the ninth floor, but that -- MR. BEARD: No, I meant on the chart. MS. BONNER: On the chart? Okay. We've got -- one of them is here and the other one is in this area. MR. BEARD: In what area? I didn't see that. MS. BONNER: This area right here. Now, we will be making a move -- MR. BEARD: Not in a management position as you have here; right? MS. BONNER: Well, it's almost like anybody that works in technology, they do manage. Because what they are doing is they're out there managing our customers. They're out there meeting those requirements in those departments. The system -- MR. BEARD: Ms. Bonner, in all due respect to you, when we look at a chart we look at the line of authority here, and that's what I'm looking at; okay? So you don't have to explain the rest to me. MS. BONNER: Well, there are team players and sometimes there are team leaders, so it just depends on the situation. But, Mr. Beard, I would just like to add one thing. When the applications come before my desk, the first thing I do is go straight to where they've worked in the past, what kind of educa-tional background they have, how many years of service they've had with whomever their former employer is. I don't even set up the interviews. That is done by somebody else in my department, and I don't have a clue what color they are until they enter my office because I am truly -- you know, I'm right there with you as far as whoever can do the job should have the job. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I've listened to Mr. Beard for eight months, I know exactly where he's coming from. I have no problem in hiring somebody based on their skills, regardless of their color, their sex, whatever. But I think if we're going to get into a debate on this every time something comes up, we are wasting our time. If Mr. Beard has an interest and every minority on this Commission has an interest, then make sure that the applications get in for the positions that are going to be available in this government. And every time an applicant comes up, if we need to go through this process, present it to us with the applications that are available, whether they are black, white, Indian, Greek, whatever it may be, and let's take a look at it. But I don't want to go through this debate. Lee sits up there and everybody that comes in here he harasses the hell out of them, and I'm getting tired of it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke, I don't think it's harassment, I think it's -- MR. KUHLKE: Well, you stay on it all the time. We've heard the thing for eight months. MR. BEARD: Well, that's what you're supposed to hear. And maybe if you hear it for eight months, maybe we'll get a better shake. MR. KUHLKE: I don't need to hear anything. MR. BEARD: Well, then you can leave. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's move on. MS. BONNER: In closing, we are excited about our role, the role that our department plays in the big picture of your consolidated government. I often refer to our department as the life-support system for local government. Without timely and reliable information services our customers cannot make informed decisions. Without the necessary human resources to keep the blood pumping through the vessels the government will be anemic. It is easy to take us for granted because we do not -- we do our work under the skin and out of sight, but our department may very well be the most critical for the functioning of your new government. It is absolutely imperative that you understand that fact and provide us with the necessary resources to keep our blood flowing well. A couple of other comments. In talking with Mr. Etheridge, I understand that there are 2,500 authorized positions for the consolidated government. I'm only requesting a little over 1% of those resources for my organizational structure. The consolidated budget is just over 260 million dollars, and when I submit my budget in about a week I can assure you that it will not exceed 1% of that total, and it just appears to me that this is a very small price to pay for these critical information resources. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. Mr. Carstarphen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept Ms. Bonner's report as information. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is that what we need to do here or are we asking to approve the structure itself? MR. CARSTARPHEN: The two items that are before you, and the Finance Department is coming, what we are requesting is that you approve the structure. This recognizes that the request for any new positions has to go through the budget process, but the structure is what we're asking you to act on. MR. BRIDGES: So we're not really adding people yet? MR. CARSTARPHEN: No, they have to be authorized by specific budget action. But this is what each department head is presenting to you as their need, their organizational need, and identifying what it is. Any positions that are not currently authorized will have to be approved in the subsequent budget. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, then Mr. Todd. MR. WALL: Mr. Carstarphen, I think in the past once we have approved the organizational chart, those then become authorized positions. And so I think that the effect of approving this would be creating those additional positions, so that there would be 27 positions that could be filled. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Whatever y'all -- however y'all choose to do it. It's up to you. MR. WALL: That's been the position in the past. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Where are we on the motion? Is it -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Mr. Todd's got the floor, then we'll come back to you, Mr. Zetterberg. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think it's ludicrous to approve the organization chart without approving the individuals or the posi-tions, and I think that you've got --it's one and the same. And if that's what we want to do today is to grow government by this number, then we can do that, but I think we need to give it seri-ous consideration. And I haven't heard what I need to hear. I heard the report in reference to 2.5 million dollars that's been saved, and certainly we've saved money in other areas, probably tens of millions of dollars since I've been down here in '93. But my concern is that we're growing in the Sheriff's Department by virtue of court order or agreement and court decree, we're growing in Public Safety all over the place, and I'm not sure that I want to see us grow here by five permanent positions. Gentlemen, you've heard my argument about growing government from day one, and I understand that three of those positions was already temporary positions. And I think we need more time to look at this, to digest it, and to get a true understanding of what we are doing. And I also would like to say this, and it may not be germane to the discussion, but it's amazing at the tolerance level of two different Commissioners when something is being debated. Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't have let the debate between the department head and the Commissioner go as far as it did. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve this organizational structure. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. I'd like to comment on it, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We have a substitute by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Nancy, let me make sure I understand what you've got here. Right now you've got 22 permanent positions. You've got three temps in there. They're not full-time employees or they're not permanent employees? MS. BONNER: They have been on our payroll for in excess of two years, all three temporaries: one coming from the former city and two being on the payroll for the county. And so we have been working these in a full-time -- MR. BRIDGES: That's like a three-month -- they update their contract every three months? MS. BONNER: Updated every 90 days. That is correct. MR. BRIDGES: So what you're asking is for five new positions, but you're going to delete three, but you're going to keep the temps -- the three temps? MS. BONNER: We will be keeping the temps and making those from temporary to permanent, is the request. And there is an additional two just to meet the demands of the new consolidated government based on where we are today and where we know we're going in '97, '98, you know, forever with technology. I've got to have the support to go out there and meet the demands at the department level. MR. BRIDGES: Well, I guess my concern is similar to Mr. Todd's. It seems like every department organizational structure that comes up, it -- there's no real -- I guess the number of boxes there happen to match the number of people that happen to be in the department or maybe additional people, so, you know, we do have a concern of we're continually adding people on. Even though we're taking them off through retirement, it seems like we're putting these people back on. I just really don't know where we stand with that as far as total employees. But you don't think that you can cut this as far as the number of positions; this is what you've got to have to function? You don't feel there's anything you can do as far as maintaining the current level into the new government? MS. BONNER: We can certainly go back and look at it again, but based on what we need today, looking at where we're going tomorrow, that is the chart that we need to put in place to meet the demands. And I've gone over it very carefully. I think had we had a similar situation with the MIS Department on the former city side being up to full capacity and they actually had a service department to where they were actually going out doing the training, making sure that their users needs were met, then there certainly would have been some cuts. But when you come into a situation to where you've got to take on an additional 35 departments and you don't have any staff to support and maintain that status quo, then you get into a situation to where, you know, you've got to ask for more people to be able to provide the services that are needed in order for these folks to get their jobs done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask Mr. Zetterberg if he'll amend his motion to staff it at 25 and that the budget process review the two new positions, seeing how we already have three temporary positions, and just make those three temporary permanent positions and let's see if we can't get this - - MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I don't have a problem with amending that motion. But I also would like to make a point here, that we are suffering from a problem of pay for these people. The very fact is that the pay schedules within our government are less than what the competitive industry is getting, and -- in the marketplace today, and unfortunately Nancy has lost a number of people to that marketplace and they got significant raises. We're really going to have to look across the board at the payroll of this department and more than likely increase a lot of these salaries in order to remain competitive and keep good people. The worst thing that can happen in an automation department is turnover. These skills are hard to come by, they are very perishable if they're not used, and it takes a lot of training to bring somebody up to -- it's not standardized across the board. One person just can't come in and do the same thing that they were doing in another place, and so we need to maintain -- if we're going to do a good job in government, this department needs to be stabilized as best that we possibly can and resource it as best that we possibly can. Again, I'd like to say we're less than 1% personnel and capital expenditures. Less than 1% of our budget goes to automation. That's very, very small considering the size of our -- the organization that we have. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I can understand my colleague's argument for better pay so we can stabilize the core confidence in, you know, Technology Information. I think that if I look over there at the Marshal's two officers, we need to do something there. If I look at the Sheriff's Department, the Fire Department -- and we could go throughout city and county government. Some of those positions is not the high tech positions, but still we're losing folks in those areas. I think that if we're going to, you know, push this thing and do it fairly and objectively, then I'd like to see it put on the table as possibly outsourcing, too, and comparative to in the sense that other entities or companies is doing outsourcing of technology information. And if we're willing to put everything on the table, including the additional personnel, the additional increase in pay, and outsourcing, like we're doing with some other departments that's not requesting additional pay, then I think it's fair and we should do that. MR. ZETTERBERG: One of the areas that we had talked about, I had talked to Mr. Etheridge, is the possibility of seeing if the people -- the five positions could be -- we could go out and create a leasing arrangement for employees. That may be one way to reduce our cost on this. There are a lot of creative ways to do that job. All I'm trying to do at the moment is just move this train along, give Ms. Bonner the people that she needs to get the job done with, and that's why the motion is. I'll accept 25 at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: I might say that Mr. Todd is correct. The city of Macon, Georgia, has privatized their computer system and completely done away with it, for what it's worth. Do you want to read the motions we have on the floor, please, so we know exactly what we're voting on. MS. MORAWSKI: The substitute motion by Mr. Zetterberg was to approve the organization structure, with the staffing at 25 as per Mr. Brigham's amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. What's the main motion? MS. MORAWSKI: The original motion was Mr. Todd's motion to receive Ms. Bonner's report as information. MAYOR SCONYERS: As information, that's what I thought. Okay. We're going to vote on the substitute motion, which is Mr. Zetterberg's motion, first. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, MAYS, AND TODD VOTE NO. MESSRS. BEARD, HANDY, AND POWELL OUT. MOTION FAILS 4-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion to receive it as information. That was 4 to 2. CLERK: 4 to 3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did I miss somebody? CLERK: Mr. Todd, Mr. Mays, and Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I missed Mr. Brigham's hand. I'm sorry. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, are those folks that just -- are they gone temporarily or are they gone for good? MAYOR SCONYERS: They're gone for good. Well, I don't know about Mr. Beard, now. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Beard is still here, I think. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day. Motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Todd's motion to receive it as information. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, AND ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MESSRS. BEARD, HANDY, AND POWELL OUT. MOTION FAILS 4-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's move on to the next thing. Mr. Carstarphen, let's go on to Finance. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The next department that we'd like to present an organizational structure on is the Finance Department, and Butch is here to make his presentation. I'll pass out a similar chart for that department as he's speaking. MR. McKIE: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. I'd like to point out a couple of things about the proposed organization chart for the Finance Department. It's divided both vertically and horizontally with respect to function and levels of responsibility. Vertically, in that we have a separate function for accounting and finance, and then within each of those groups there are budgetary cost, capital asset management, and other functional areas. In terms of horizontally, we are proposing that we have three different grades of accountant or analyst, 16, 17 and 18, a supervisory level, Assistant Comptroller, and then the Comptroller, with roughly two grades between each one. This will be the first time that we've had an organization chart where we can give someone a clear path so that they can work and advance within the organization. This is basically the same chart that was recommended by the citizens committee back in December. The only real new job we've got in there is a cost accounting job that was recommended. In terms of people, we'll have two less than the combined depart-ments had before. Ms. Beazley and I talked about transferring two of our people out to assist in another department, and possibly two -- MS. BEAZLEY: Two in and two out. MR. McKIE: Yeah, two in and two out. In terms of promotions within there, there are a couple of promotions for supervisory people who -- these are people who have college degrees and have done outstanding work within the department and who have been loyal employees for some time, and that would be the following positions: the Cost and Revenue Manager, Capital Assets Manager, and Payroll Supervisor. Again, each of these people has been with us a long time, has done an excellent job in their areas of responsibility, although under constant review by others and external auditors, have always been very clean. The additional training that we're doing now consists of ICMA courses and government financial policy, which I am teaching after hours. I am and have taught at the graduate level in universities before and am a certified government management accountant. Which we also have two other people in the department who recently qualified on that issue, and one of those is Cheryl, who is proposed as the Capital Asset Manager. So that's the basic structure. We don't have any other discussion for you except that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: My question, Mr. Mayor, is what's the percentages of the increases? Are they over 10%, which the Administrator can give, or are they under 10%? MR. McKIE: Right now all of our analysts are 16's, and we're the only group in the government connected with finance or auditing that has only one grade. Every other group has 16, 17, and 18's, which would allow someone to progress to a senior level. Ours don't have that opportunity and I'd like for them to. And the supervisory, we would suggest two grades above that, which would be 10%. MR. TODD: So we're talking 10%, not over 10%? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Which the Administrator is authorized to give at this time, so it's not a issue for the -- a policy issue for the board. Thank you. MR. McKIE: Well, it's a change from what we've done in the past and I did want to explain that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Butch, you say that your department, even with this new addition, the Cost and Revenue Manager, is two less than what the two departments had combined, old city and county? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, I believe that's right. We've counted them two or three times. One thing, a number of people resigned from the city late last year. And if you'll recall, the city hired Baird & Company to do their accounting for them, and we took that over in December, did the city budget, and have not replaced anyone. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. And so whatever -- whoever was left when we consolidated at the first of the year and your department, it's still two less than the total of those? MR. McKIE: Right. Right. And one of those has completed a two-year degree in accounting, and we're proposing moving her up from a clerical job to an analyst job, so that's an inhouse transfer and promotion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Butch, I'm going to ask you the same question. I know it don't want to be heard again, but as long as I'm here I'm going to ask it, and I'd like an answer. MR. McKIE: Well, I had to stop and count when you asked Nancy. Depending upon the definition of minority, if it's a white male, there's five of us. We have five right now, not counting women as minorities. MR. BEARD: Are any of those in supervisory positions? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. We proposed this one, our Payroll Supervisor, which is Betty Griffin, and proposed moving Mary Johnson, who was clerical in accounting, to a budget analyst job. She's the one who has the two-year degree. Marcus Lewis also has been temporary. We desperately need him as a permanent employee. He's someone with a great deal of potential for us. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know is all of them qualified. MR. McKIE: Every one of them. And they all do a damn good job, too. I'll stand behind all of them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. McKie, I talked to you earlier today about a concern of mine. Can you address that somewhere in here? MR. McKIE: Mr. Brigham, due to the nature of the urban services district that will still remain even though we are a consolidated government, he'd like to see somewhere in here a urban services comptroller that would pay special attention to that general fund for the urban services district. Would be somewhere on the analyst level, in here. I don't have a problem with it if -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't have a problem with that being the -- an addition to an already assigned job title, I'd just like to see that title in the organizational chart somewhere. I don't want a new position created, I want to see that duty assigned to a position that's already there. Could those be addressed? MR. McKIE: Well, we'll change a budget analyst to that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yeah, that's fine. I don't care what -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: You know, my position on this is unless we got a real justified reason for doing it, when we give folks, you know, titles, along with those titles come pay increases. And even if we're talking about a person that already is going to do this function, I think that we're going to have urban -- we're going to have analysts that take care of the urban service district side and they're called analysts like everybody else, then you got another analyst to take care of the Fire Department and maybe another department or two, and a analyst to take care of Landfill and maybe Wastewater and WaterWorks. So I don't know that I have a serious problem with it if I could get all the details as far as what the concerns are, and maybe, you know, that's in another setting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is there a motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: No. MR. BRIDGES: I'll place -- MR. McKIE: May I make one more comment? MR. BRIDGES: Sure. MR. McKIE: During the discussion on MIS Department we were talking about relative size of that department around the state. I'd like to point out that our department is probably about half the size the typical department for this size government. We've looked at budgets from Macon, Columbus, Athens-Clarke County. They typically run a staff of 40 to 50 and, you know, ours will be 21, 22, 23, in that neighborhood. And since someone addressed pay rates, I have the very same problem that Nancy does. Our beginning pay for a Grade 16 is competitive. Someone can come out of school and come in at that level, but we have no place for them to go. And in industry, someone with comparable responsibility to my analysts who make 23,000 would be making in the high 30's at least. So we are --we're in the middle of the same problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: First, Butch, let me say I think we ought to be the ones on the cutting edge in setting the standards and not, you know, those people with 40 and 50 in there. But I'm going to make the motion -- there seems to be some of the Commissioners think maybe we needed to discuss this urban service comptroller a little bit further. I'm going to make the motion that we receive this organizational chart as information at this time. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: You know, I would have hoped that at some time when we start collecting all the money in one pot that -- you know, I don't know, maybe I get mixed signals from this government on some weeks. You know, we want to consolidate, we want to move hurriedly fast to one government and the new way that we do things, and I think if you're keeping up with money, I think then that person, and then definitely under the direction of the new Administrator, all accounts are going to have to be kept up with, those things coming in, those things coming out, you know. But if we're moving away -- we're hiring an Administrator to deal with not having an urban services administrator and a suburban administrator, and maybe if -- why don't we maybe just spell the real gut reason of this, you know, urban service situation out. You know, if that's something that's on some-body's mind, I'm sure just from the technicality of having it, you know, if it's something there -- and I think there were those of us who supported the Comptroller at the end of last year when we were talking about whatever deficit was left over from the old City of Augusta, and currently called the urban district per se technically, and, you know, there were those that maybe didn't want to discuss it and wanted to put it to rest, let bygones be bygones and we're going to move on with the new government. You know, here we are almost getting ready to go in '97 and I'm hearing this stigma thing about, you know, urban service district. If there's something there, maybe you're hearing the same bell that some of us heard last November when we wanted to really talk about it prior to officially putting this government together. Then if that's what's on your mind, then I think you ought to talk about it. If not, then I think you ought to let the department keep up with one city's money, if that's what you're looking at, and deal with it on that accord. But if there's something there that's not being said, then I think we ought to spit it out and talk about it. Everybody's putting on pants the same way, I hope. You know, if it's there -- if somebody's got a itch, let's scratch it today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that it's so much a financial issue as it is a personnel issue, and I want to go on record as supporting the Comptroller 101%. I've probably got him in more trouble on this board than he could get out of in a lifetime. And I stand by the December '95 projections as far as the finances go, but the finances is not the issue here. We've been there and we've done that, or we've been there and we're doing that, and, you know, so that is not the issue. The finances is not the issue. And I basically feel that we need more time to deal with this issue, and we can deal with it in the next two weeks and bring it back and vote it -- approving the chart as is or adding the responsibility. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. McKIE: If I need to get down on my knees and beg, I at least would like to get Marcus made permanent today. I've been stringing that poor guy along for ten months, and I really am afraid to lose him. So, I mean, even if you -- somebody say yes to that even if you just accept this as information. MR. MAYS: Well, we done had a substitute on everything else today. I'll make a substitute motion that we approve the chart like it is. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays, and seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think that we probably could go on and accept the chart as it is and come back and amend the position later if we need to, so I don't have a serious problem, you know, supporting the chart. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve the Finance Department -- excuse me, are we ready to vote? All right. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. [MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: With regard to the Information Technology Department, would you like for us to place that on the next regular agenda, which will be November 5th, for further consideration? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think that would be a good idea. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. MR. CARSTARPHEN: We will do so then. Moving to the second item on the agenda, which is the report of the Recruitment Committee, the Recruitment Committee consisting of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Project Manager met yesterday and arrived at recommendations on two items: the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development candidates recommendation for interview and the department head positions recommended for open recruit-ment. Mayor Sconyers will be making that report. I will pass out the information that accompanies that report at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: We brought it down to three, and this is in alphabetical order. The three finalists for the Housing and Neighborhood Development are Kevin Mack, Barbara Richardson, and Mary Jo B. Thomas. And we will be interviewing them as soon as we can set up interviews. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: Question: We will see them and interview them and we won't just be looking at their resumes this time; is that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, I believe Bill, Freddie, and myself just interview these. Isn't that correct, Bill? MR. BRIDGES: I'm talking about the Commission as a whole. Before in some of these -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that's a decision for you to make. It's up to the group as to how you want to handle that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to see happen if we're going to get out of the day-to-day operations is for the Administrator to interview the candidates and bring to us the recommendation of the person that the Administrator recommend that we hire. I don't intend to sit and interview some 35 or so or two or three dozen department heads that I don't have authority over as -- that I'm delegating authority as far as to fire and hire. Now, if we're not doing that and we're going to have the -- maintain the authority to fire and hire, then yes, I want to interview. But if we're not going to maintain that authority, then I don't want to interview. I want the Personnel Director and the Administrators to do the interviewing and the hiring, and that's the bottom line. MAYOR SCONYERS: But I don't think that's the process we're going through. Isn't that correct, Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: Well, the Item (C) on the agenda is a review of the department head recruitment and selection process as you have previously approved it, and there have been a couple of questions that have come up and I believe this discussion is symptomatic of that. And so I thought we would go over that process as you have previously approved it, and you can either continue to utilize it or you can modify it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me finish my report to you. Also, the department head positions recommended for open recruitment are Public Works, Information Technology, Citizen Service and Information, Equal Opportunity Office Director. Those are all going to be open recruitment. Okay. Now, Mr. Carstarphen, do you want to go to Item (C)? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think the procedure you approved requires the Recruitment Committee to recommend and the Commission to act on it, so I think the Commission needs to vote on the two items under (B). MR. BEARD: What is open recruitment? What are we talking about here, so I just understand what we're saying. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Open recruitment is recruitment outside of the organization. It usually involves advertisement in appropriate local and regional newspapers and in appropriate professional journals that are circulated nationwide. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve it, with the addition of the Fire Chief to the list. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, gentlemen, we've already completed the Fire process. That ended yesterday afternoon at five o'clock. MR. BRIDGES: I'll withdraw the second, Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. TODD: I'll withdraw the motion, Mr. Mayor, but I think that you know where I'm coming from. And to get back to a discussion earlier today that concerns me, and this may not be germane, but certainly we've changed the procedure to enable or at least better an individual's position, and that gravely concerns me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, all the other departments we've done, we've done inhouse, and I'll just make a motion that with the existing Department of Public Works Director, we advertise for that inhouse. For the other three newly created departments: Information Technology, Citizen Service and Information, and Equal Employment Opportunity Director, that we do that for anybody that wants to apply. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Do I understand Mr. Bridges to say that he wants to eliminate the Public Works Director from the open recruitment process? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, and that'd be consistent with everything we've done for all the other directorships. MR. KUHLKE: I don't think so. Why don't we just go ahead and let everybody stay where they are? I mean, hell, if we're going to stay inhouse - - MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Did he get a second on that? CLERK: Right. Mr. Todd. MR. BEARD: Okay. I would like to offer a substitute motion that we accept the Recruitment Committee's report. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Beard. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to keep it like it is, raise your hand, please. CLERK: Mr. Beard, what did you -- you voted for your motion, didn't you? MR. BEARD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, are you voting? MR. TODD: I haven't voted yet, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, your hand was up, I just wanted to make sure I -- MR. TODD: Well, no, I'm holding a paper, but I will go on and vote for the open recruitment and stay consistent with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-2. [MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL OUT] MR. CARSTARPHEN: The third item on my agenda is to review with you the department head recruitment and selection process which the Commission approved on March 19th. At today's -- during today's discussion and in discussion at previous meetings there have been questions raised about what that process is and some confusion apparently, and I thought it would be appropriate if we reviewed the process that you approved on March 19th. And if you want to make further modifications in it, we can do so. The action to initiate recruitment is action by the Commission approving the organizational structure of the affected department. By virtue of the fact that you have approved the overall organizational structure, that step has now been taken for all departments. The educational requirements which you approved at that time included the requirement that candidates for all department head positions will be required to hold an undergraduate or bachelor's degree. You did make one exception, that in the case in which any incumbent interim department head who does not hold a bachelor's degree applies for a position, then you indicated a willingness to waive that requirement in that case only. But in all other instances, a baccalaureate degree or undergraduate degree is required as a condition of employment as a department head. The policy also set forth the recruitment process. Recruitment for each department head position will be an open recruitment process unless it is determined by the Commission that a sufficient pool of qualified candidates exists within the new government, and that determination is made after a recommendation from the committee consisting of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Consolidation Project Manager. And that committee makes a recommendation to you as to whether or not a sufficient pool of candidates exists within the organization, and then the Commission makes the final decision if it wants to use other than an open recruitment process. The selection process is outlined next, and that involves the Recruitment Committee identifying and inviting to participate in the candidate evaluation process a subcommittee consisting of up to six professional personnel/human resource managers from the local corporate community. We have used that in the Administrator, and the only other department head position which you have had an open recruitment process, which is the Housing and Neighborhood Development position. That process further states that in each selection process the subcommittee, which consists of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and the Project Manager, will evaluate all candidates' resumes and qualifications and select a small number of candidates for personal interviews. Following completion of the personal interviews, the subcommittee--the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Consolidation Project Manager--will identify and recommend to the full Commission a minimum of three individuals who are considered to be best qualified. Now, you brought up the question of whether or not the interview is done by the Commission or by the subcommittee. This process which you approved in March, at least in my interpreta-tion, suggests that the subcommittee does the interviews, but it presents three candidates to the Commission for action. The appointment process, on the final page, is by the full Commission. And the final paragraph relates to the consultant retirement agreement options which were discussed at that time, but I believe which your recently approved early retirement program has addressed those questions sufficiently. My purpose in reviewing this with you is to make sure that we all understand the process that has previously been approved, and unless you want to instruct us to change it, that will be the process we intend to follow. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly I've attempted to change this two or three times and wasn't successful and I think it come back to bite us, but the bottom line is I think we've been with it long enough, we should stay with it. And I'm glad to hear that we're not actually interviewing three of each -- each set of candidates for department head, that we're just looking at applications and recommendations of three. Is that my understanding, Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: That is my understanding. The interviews are conducted by the subcommittee of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Consolidation Project Manager. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further questions or discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: I just have one, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Those Commissioners who want to will be invited to sit in on any of those interviews, or is that strictly a subcommittee thing in itself? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that's a decision you as a group need to make. MR. TODD: If you can get in the car before it leave the red light. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, no, he was moving to adjourn, and I've got something before you -- MR. CARSTARPHEN: I have one more item on the agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Well, a question I've got: Is that permissible for the Commissioners to sit in on the meetings then or did we need to vote on it or? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I don't think I'm the person to address that question to. I think that's a policy decision that the board needs to make. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Can I make a motion that any Commissioner that would like to sit in on the interview can do so? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. POWELL, HANDY, AND ZETTERBERG OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll indicate that as a further amendment to this procedure that we will follow. And if you would like us to make known to you when those interviews occur, we will do so, so anyone wishing to attend may do so. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think if we're voting that we be allowed to sit in, then certainly we would expect the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and Mr. Carstarphen and the Clerk of Council to let us know when they are happening. Other than that, you're going to miss the window of opportunity. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sure that was understood, wasn't it, Mr. Carstarphen? MR. CARSTARPHEN: It was certainly understood by me. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The final thing I have is just to share with you a complete organizational structure and a list of all departments, community and economic development partners, judicial agencies, and intergovernmental agencies. Inadvertently, in the previous copies that you have received there have been some omissions. They were unintended, out of ignorance. I believe this is an absolute complete list, and I intend to distribute this to all of the departments and agencies, but I wanted to share it with you and would like to do so at this time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I remain a little confused on when we get to the point where we start determining what the size of the government is going to be. Something seems to be lacking in the process. We seem to be doing things piecemeal, and I'm very concerned about that and I have absolutely no idea where I'm going. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's what we were trying to say a while ago, Mr. Zetterberg, and you voted against it. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, no, I was for that particular one. But I'm talking about the total government in a row. I mean, if we don't do it this way, how are we going to do it -- what are we going to do? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd be glad to make a motion to say we're going to have zero growth in government if that's what we're looking for. But certainly I've committed not to support initiatives to grow government, Mr. Mayor, other than Public Safety, and I'm going to stay there. MR. CARSTARPHEN: This final item is simply for your infor-mation. I don't think it requires any action on your part. You have, in fact, already approved this, it's just a corrected copy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Carstarphen. MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody have any comments or questions for Mr. Carstarphen? MR. ZETTERBERG: Maybe Mr. Carstarphen can answer my question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Carstarphen, can you answer his question, please? MR. ZETTERBERG: Bill, in the large scheme of things, when we do start rightsizing the organization? MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think that that has to come in your budget deliberations, and I think you have to begin that as you hear from each of the department heads and from your new Administrator. I think, as I have said before, the early retirement proposal offers some opportunity for consolidation of other work units and a reduction in the total number of positions. However, in all honesty, I must say to you that simply on the basis of the number of positions you have added to the Sheriff's Department since I have been here, I don't think you are going to be able to reduce the total number of employees. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Carstarphen, I know you've done a report or a recommendation to us to combine the two airports. Is that still your recommendation? MR. CARSTARPHEN: My recommendation was that you have one airport department. MR. TODD: Authority, yes. MR. CARSTARPHEN: The staff as being one agency. You have a resolution which you have asked the two commissions to give you their thoughts concerning combining the two boards, And I believe you're beginning to get some feedback on that. But my recommendation was that you have one staff department and that all your employees be in one staff department, and that's what the organizational chart shows. MR. TODD: Yes. In the sense that -- I guess this, Mr. Mayor, is a question to the Parliamentarian. In the sense that this is presented to us, I know Mr. Carstarphen said it was not necessarily to be acted on, can we act on anything as far as the Aviation Commission go? MR. WALL: No, sir. I think that that would have to be added to the agenda if you intend to combine -- make a motion to either combine them or to keep them separated. I think that that would be an addition to the agenda that would have to be taken unanimously. MR. TODD: Yes. Well, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we add to the agenda by unanimous consent to consider not combining the two airport commissions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second that. I thought it was going to be something else. MAYOR SCONYERS: That was not to combine them; is that correct? That was not to combine them? MR. TODD: Right, not to combine them, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think you've made a lot of people happy today. MR. TODD: I don't know, but -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion on Mr. Todd's motion, seconded by Mr. Mays? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. What are we -- are we adding this to the agenda to not combine them or just to look at it some more or to see what the Attorney comes up with? I understand there's a legal problem with it anyway. I'm not on speed what's going on at this point. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the motion is to add it to the agenda by unanimous consent to consider not combining the two airport commissions. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear some more discussion on that before I vote for that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Todd if maybe he would amend his motion to -- for the Commission to rescind the resolution previously passed in that regard. MR. TODD: Yes, if we can get it on the floor, Mr. Kuhlke, then certainly we can rescind any previous -- yes, that would also be -- I'll accept that as an amendment, to rescind the previous action also. MR. KUHLKE: Well, what I'm saying is -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's got to get on the floor first. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It ain't even going to get on the floor, so it don't make any difference. MR. KUHLKE: It's not going to get on the floor? MR. TODD: If it don't get on the floor, then I'll make sure that it's on the next regular agenda. I think this is something that we need to deal with. I don't think that we need to create situations, you know, when we have enough to deal with that's already there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with it coming on the next agenda, but just --apparently there's some discussion going on that I'm not aware of and not familiar with, and I wouldn't support adding it on today's agenda. I don't -- you know, I don't follow what's going on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Since we don't have unanimous consent, we're going to move on to -- do we have any other business? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. TODD: I know the County Attorney have something, but I'd like to recognize a gentleman that's here that everybody may not know: Mr. Charles Hardigree. He's the business manager of Local 150. Will you stand up? And you've heard a lot lately negative about union bosses. Well, he's a union boss and he don't have a devil's tail or horns. My union boss. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. It was brought to my attention that we could bring this up under Other Business. Do y'all want to bring it up under Other Business? Do you want to let it slide till next time? We'll just let it slide. Okay. Any other business before this body? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? MR. BEARD: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard that we adjourn. Do I hear a second to that? MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:10 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on October 15, 1996. _________________________ Clerk of Commission 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 188. 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 23rd day of October 1996. ______________________________ CATHY T. PIRTLE, B-1763 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER