Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS January 7, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 7, 1997, 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; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation this afternoon by the Reverend Bob Matthews, Pastor of the First Southern Methodist Church, and if you'll remain standing, after the Invocation we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND MATTHEWS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Matthews. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission. We have a request for three items to be added to our agenda: Item 1, a Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend the Consolidation Act, to amend Section 13(f) to provide that members of all boards and authorities be appointed by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission; 2, a motion to approve a list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement Program; and 3, to approve a settlement of a lawsuit with F&D Properties. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we add those items to the agenda by unanimous consent. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Do you want me to proceed with the agenda, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am. CLERK: Item one, we will take Item 34 under Other Business: Appointment of the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Chief. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is the floor open for nominations? MAYOR SCONYERS: The floor is open for nominations for the Fire Chief, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Mr. Smeby for Fire Chief of Augusta-Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that Mr. Smeby? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a nomination for Mr. Smeby. Other nominations, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Ronnie Few. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Dennis Atkins. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen. I guess we need a motion that the nominations be closed. MR. BEARD: I move that nominations be closed, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Todd. CLERK: Are we going to do Mr. Smeby first? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Smeby first. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE, MAYS & POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 7-3. CLERK: Mr. Few. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: The Mayor casts no. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL, ZETTERBERG & MAYOR SCONYERS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-5. CLERK: Mr. Atkins. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Abstain. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, sir? MAYOR SCONYERS: In this instance, don't we have to have -- an abstention is considered a no vote? MR. WALL: Well, it has the effect of a no vote. You would still not have six votes and would not be in a position -- you would not have a tie. It would still be 6-4. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may say, I can qualify that no vote if I need to. MAYOR SCONYERS: I would rather you do that, Mr. Todd, than to abstain. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor and the members of the public and the Commission, during the fight against annexation the gentleman in question, Mr. Atkins, and myself had a dispute or a run in. And I don't think I voted against him in the past. As far as this go I've abstained, and I will continue to abstain. There is a con-flict in the sense that I don't think the gentleman know how to talk to elected officials. And outside of that, the qualifica-tions, certainly I would say that he don't meet the qualifica-tions as the other two. But that's my position and that's the reason for that abstention, and I will not vote on this position as far as Mr. Atkins go. That conflict is well documented and there is enough folks in this room that is aware of it and that can attest of it, that he showed total disrespect for a local official, and that's yours truly. And that's my position. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Gentlemen, since we can't come to a consensus, I move that we move on to the next item of business. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, that was -- I so move that we move to the next item of business. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: The next item is a delegation: Dove Broadcasting, Inc, TV-36, Ms. Dorothy Spaulding, reference to Jones Intercable decision not to carry TV- 36 in their lineup. MR. ATKINS: Mr. Mayor, I ask again to please be recognized. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Atkins, at this time let us move on with the order of business, please. MR. ATKINS: Yes, sir. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MS. SPAULDING: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I thank you so much for this time. I'm representing TV-36, your local Christian television station. Jones Intercable says nobody wants local Christian television station. They must like what we play because they chose to choose our programming and play it from five in the afternoon to seven in the morning. So they're using our same programming, but what they've done is they've cut out all these local people, these local taxes, and the local church. And according to FCC rules, I believe Jones cable -- it says is to be a service to the local community, but how can you be a service when you cut out the local church? There are 722 churches represented in this area. We are a melting pot of these churches. If you'll look in this little brochure -- I've given you all a green packet. In the front of the packet it just basically says that Jones cable has said no to Christian television and then -- okay, I'm sorry -- and then it says the purpose of TV-36, why we're here, what we're here to do. It says -- there's a little thing in here about Cablevision. Cablevision may be an alternative to Jones cable. But Cablevision, when we were in Monroe, Louisiana, wrote this, and, David, could you please read that for me? CLERK: Can we have your name for the record, please? MR. JACOBS: David Jacobs. "I am writing this letter to express my sincere support for Russell and Dorothy Spaulding. While they were in Monroe working with KMCT, Channel 39, I found them to be very professional. Russell and Dorothy produced quality television shows that were widely accepted throughout the community. They have helped to turn an average television station into one of our more popular stations within our market." MS. SPAULDING: Okay. Now, the reason that this all came about is this recent article in the Augusta Chronicle. And they were wonderful to us. It's nothing against them because they were great. But Mr. Blackman said -- and I want you to hear what he said. You'll find it in Sunday's Augusta Chronicle, and that was, I think, the 29th, and you'll find it in your packet, a copy of it. MR. JACOBS: Okay, under the Augusta Chronicle article, "But while Jones will be adding six new channels in February, including the Religious Inspirational Network, it won't be adding the North Augusta station, said General Manager, Ben Blackman. From surveys of our customers, we have not seen a desire to launch 36, said Mr. Blackman. I am not going to add a channel my subscribers don't want." MS. SPAULDING: With this, Russell, could you hold up the fish bowl? If you'll look in your packet, there is all our -- everything that we have sent Ben Blackman at Jones cable, every letter I've ever sent him. And in there on the last letter -- and this was written dated November the 20th. We sent him a letter saying--and you can read it, it's a very nice letter--that at the present time we've had over 200 churches and denominations, different denominations, working with us, and we have right now over 6,000 homes, households, and there they are. You can look at them, you can -- maybe you can just go around and show them. 6,000 households that are interested in having TV-36 on the cable system. However, they said nobody wants Christian television. Well, I don't know about these people, but I believe my people want Christian television in this area. I believe it's a local service to the church, and -- so it's all right here, it's right here in front of you. Evidently our wonderful Mayor, who we love, must think that we're okay because he made TV-36 July 21st -- a proclamation of the City that it was TV-36 Day, and that was July 21st of 1996. And it says, "Whereas Dove Broadcasting has established the CSRA's newest and only Christian television, whereas TV-36 provides family and Christian broadcasting, and whereas TV-36 serves the Augusta area and this community with involvement with its commitment to qualified Christian family programming and its ministry to the hurting and it's celebrating its first anniversary..." and then it goes on, he made it TV-36 Day. Also in your packet you will find something that's just really blessed us. It's happened since this wonderful newsletter came out in the -- since this news ad came out. We have churches from -- and it's all in your packet. Abilene Baptist Church, he has 2,000 people that say they want Christian television on the air. We have Victory Baptist Church that say they have 800 people. We have Ken Young, Pastor Ken Young, right here that says that he has a membership of 700 people that want Christian television. Grace Fellowship. We have Baker Woods Baptist, Wood Ridge Baptist, and the Freedom Fellowship, New Life Ministries, Tree of Life Ministries, and the list goes on. You have it there in your package. And we have -- the Baptist Disaster Relief Team also brought us a letter today that said that they represent 63 of the Southern Baptist churches. They have built much of our studio. So I think this shows a lot of people want Christian television, and I don't think we need to sit down and say that, no, we're not going to take this lightly. We're going to say we want to be on cable and we deserve to be on cable. We have the right. In this community we have five hours of local Christian television. Local, showing the local pastors, showing the local community, and it has its right to have a voice, and it needs the voice of Jones cable. And so we're asking you Commissioners, the reason we came here today is to ask you to please do what you can about this matter. I know that the license has to come from you, and if -- we're not bashing Jones cable, we're saying please put us on, and we're asking you for help because we don't know where else to turn. We can fight it with FCC. Congressman Norwood called me today and he said that they are putting legislation through that will go to the House pretty soon, next couple of weeks, that will demand all local cable systems to carry all local programming. And I think it's a shame if we sit here and do nothing and say nobody wants Christian television. I want to show you something else right quick. These here are people who gave their lives to Jesus in the last few months because of Christian television. [inaudible] just came in today. As you can see, there's many, many here. Does this tell you that nobody wants Christian television? How about Eddie, who was an alcoholic for years, watched Christian television the other -- oh, some months back and said, "This has changed my life, I want to give my heart to Jesus." I just want to show one more thing. Pastors, if you will hold up this. We are run by 40 volunteers. There are no paid employees in our station, this is the local community running our station. The local community involvement. These pictures will show many, many people -- maybe you can just walk across the front, Pastors. If you can just take and carry these boards across the front in front of our Commissioners to let them see that local people are interested in Christian television or they wouldn't give of their time. We've got many people that give 20/30/40 hours a week of their time. Why? Because lives count. You won't see smut on our station, you won't hear the foul language on our station, but you know what you're going to find out? The good news gospel of Jesus Christ, because it's He that changes lives. It'll be He that changes the city, and we believe that God sent us here to help change the city. We love Augusta and we love the CSRA and we know that God brought us here. There are many people out in the hallway that cannot get in. There are many people who want Christian television, and we're asking you what can you do to help us. All right? Oh, one more thing. Connie, stand up. This little box just represents some of the prayer requests that have come in. Daily we have 24-hour prayer lines. Thousands of prayer requests come in every day. Now, if Jones chooses -- not thousands every day, I'm sorry, but thousands have come in. If Jones would choose to play other Christian programming other than the local, how is that going to affect the local church? Where do you think all these people are going to go to church? They'll go to the Baptist, the Catholic, the Charismatic, the Full Gospel -- they'll go to all of them. But somebody has got to be here for them, and so we're just asking for your help. Thank you very much. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. OLIVER: In anticipation of this issue being on the agenda today, I sent a letter to Jones Intercable, and Jones Intercable at this point has not really had an opportunity to respond, but I asked them what their basis was for the decisions they've made. And my suggestion would be to receive this as information, and when I get that response back, then we can see -- we can see if we can come to a meeting of the minds between the parties. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm so going to move that we receive it as information. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Starting on the left. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I feel that if we had regulated Jones Intercable in 1995 as I proposed and made a motion to do, that we wouldn't be in this situation today. And I think that there's two important issues here: the rate increase on the basic fee and the premium channels and also the community- friendly or carrying local shows and programs that Jones pledged to us I believe in '95 to do. The historical records will reflect that, I'm sure. But we did not. Then we had the communication act of 1996 that's changed some things as far as what our authorities, powers, and what we can do as a local board, and we're somewhat limited from 1996, and I would hope that Congressman Norwood and others would work those bugs out. I had the opportunity to deal with this issue on a couple of state and national boards or associations, NACCO and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. This deeply concerns me, and I believe the only alternative we have now, once we hear from Jones, is to pass a resolution calling on the FCC to come in and review this situation and make a ruling. And at the appropriate time, most likely that will be the recommendation or the motion that I'll make on this board, once we give Jones Intercable a fair opportunity to come in and explain why they are reneging on their promise to keep local programming on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Brigham? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I was one of those people that got a failed vote. I believe it was 1994, though, because I remember stepping down as chairman in order to second that particular motion to get it on the floor. And we were not successful in doing it, while at the same time the City of Augusta, the old City of Augusta, did vote to get into the regulating business. Now in a consolidated government, with both of those agreements void -- well, at least theirs is somewhat voided, and ours where we agreed in the old county government not to do it. I think one of the things that was positive in doing so -- and I'm going to vote for the motion to receive it as informa-tion, but what I would hope that happens in this first stage of negotiations is that we do at least what we did, number one, with Jones on the last occasion. It was a confrontation with a family channel at that particular point, and we asked them to come to, at that time the County Commission meeting in a formal presentation, to come head to head with the people that were having the problem and were getting ready to be taken off of the cable network and to express publicly what their reasons were. I think we served as a mediating force in that particular situation and made them prevail in keeping them on. I think that efforts to contact the FCC --I would hope that we end up doing that as an after-thought. I would hope that in a first head-to-head confrontation, that we could work this out to a point that they would do what they did before. That still does not dismiss my feelings from the standpoint that we have to at some point make an intestinal fortitude decision to get into the regulatory business, regardless of what those guidelines are. People expect this particular body to be the force that they can come to. If not, they would not be here today, they'd be outside of Jones Intercable. So they're here. And I appreciate the Administrator moving forward on this, but I would hope by the next meeting that, regardless of what that situation is in terms of addressing the FCC, that we ask that they come forward, just as we did in the old County Commission, and that we confront them, along with citizens of this community, of where there is a need and a desire to keep this programming on, and that we do that first, and that maybe along the distant lines we can then at least get into the regulating business in some sort of way that this does not happen to a point when maybe certain programs are coming on, that you do not have the total commercialization and the buying power they may feel is not there. I think that we have to have, yes, separation of church and state, but I don't think that we can separate ourselves from our Creator, and I think that's the point we need to get to. If you're not going to get in the regulating business, then at least get in the helping business, and we can start first by asking them to come in like we did in 1994 and hopefully get this thing resolved face to face. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke, please? CLERK: He passed. MR. HANDY: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Pass. MR. HANDY: Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, I'd like to just say one thing. And I appreciate the effort that you've gone to in mobilizing the church to come in and make this protest, but I also would hope that you're realistic, and you need to sustain your effort and make sure that Jones understands that this is a continuing effort. You've got 6,000 signatures. Maybe 60,000 would really convince them. So I encourage you to go out and continue to mobilize the church to do exactly what you've done. Don't stop now. Jones will respond to the commercial -- to their commercial interest. That's what they're operating in. They're in business to make profit, and if they know that you're watching, they'll make a profit -- they'll support you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Beard? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I pass. MR. HANDY: Ulmer Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Pass. MR. HANDY: I'd just like to say myself that, as being in the broadcasting business as a owner of a radio station, I play Christian music. I don't have anything to say, you should know where I stand. And then when I looked out there I saw so many of my friends out there, and whether you know it or not, the more people you see, you know that you're helping. It will change your mind whether you want to change it or not. And I see one of my good computer friends out there who taught me everything I know about computers at SRS. That was David Jacobs. Good to see you, David. Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank y'all. Thank y'all for coming out today to show your support. Next order of business, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: The next order of business, under Election of Officers, the election of the Mayor Pro Tem. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Freddie Handy. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to be recognized. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to nominate Bill Kuhlke to be Mayor Pro Tem. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion and a second by Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let's get this out of the way first, Mr. Todd. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy first, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Mr. Beard, for Mr. Handy? MR. BEARD: Mr. Handy, yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, & TODD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move on with the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business, please? CLERK: Under Finance, with Item 1 and 2 being disapproved by the Finance Committee on December 23rd, '96, Items 3 through 5 were approved by Finance on December 23rd. [Item 1: A motion to deny a request by Garrett Aviation for the abatement of property tax penalty in the amount of $5,041.08. Item 2: A motion to deny a request for the abatement of property tax penalty by Harold M. Boardman, Jr., in the amount of $412.34. Item 3: A motion to approve the correction of an error in the tax bill for 1995 property tax owned by Larry Hall, Jr., Map 231, Parcel 31, in the amount of $129.30. (Homestead exemption was dropped.) Item 4: A motion to approve adding "City" properties to existing "County" insurance policy for six months. Item 5: A motion to approve subordination agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and Georgia Bank & Trust (Cotton Exchange Building).] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends the approval of these actions as taken in the Finance Committee. MR. BEARD: I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Items 6 through 15 were all approved by the Engineering Services Committee on December 23rd. [Item 6: A motion to approve authorization for staff to negotiate Inter-Governmental Agreement with Corps of Engineers for New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Project. Item 7: A motion to approve the condemnation of a 15-foot permanent utility easement over property of Stanley O. Merritt located on Magnolia Ave., Tax Map 19-2, Parcel 10. Item 8: A motion to approve an option for right-of-way on Parcel 40-E-2 of the Jackson Road Widening Project. Item 9: A motion to approve accepting a deed granting easement from Sara B. Watkins Estate over property where Curtis Baptist Church is located (necessary for sanitary sewer extension). Item 10: A motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Board of Health allowing the ARC Chief Right-of-Way Negotiator to acquire the property on the 900 block of Laney-Walker Blvd. for the new site of the new Richmond County Board of Health facility. Item 11: A motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $23,502.50 for the Resurfacing Various Roads, Phase IV Project. Item 12: A motion to approve a construction contract in the amount of $52,753.00 from J.D. Haire, Inc. Item 13: A motion to approve Change Order #1 for the Constructed Wetlands Project. Item 14: A motion to approve Change Order #1 for the replacement of Discharge Valve Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 15: A motion to approve bid award to lease a 30- ton articulated dump truck for Landfill.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this Engineering Services agenda as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. I'd like to have Number 10 pulled out, please, so it can be discussed separately. MR. POWELL: That'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: All items except Number 10 -- any other items need to be pulled out, gentlemen? All items except Number 10, all in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please? CLERK: Item 10: A motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Board of Health allowing the Augusta-Richmond County Chief Right-of-Way Negotiator to acquire the property on the 900 block of Laney-Walker Boulevard for the new site for the new Richmond County Board of Health facility. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we delay this till the next regular meeting so we'll have a opportunity to establish policy on what we're going to authorize the Negotiator to negotiate with the residents. There is inequities in the sense that we are doing the condemnations and we have no policy for relocation funds or to put someone in a -- in housing comparable to where they're at now. And that's in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Further discussion, gentlemen? Coming around, starting with the left. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: The only thing I would like to add to that, Mr. Mayor, is the possibility that we could somehow meet with the consultant and discuss this to see where they are, because I think they have moved along on this, and I really don't think the Commissioners here know where we are. And I agree with them that we need to know where we are and what we're going to do with the relocation, and I would just like to add that to it, that at some point in time with this we need to meet with the consultant there to find out where we are and where we're going with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: I would like to amend that motion if the maker of the motion will approve that. MR. TODD: I'd hear that motion, Mr. Mayor. Was that the motion -- the amendment, that we meet with the consultant? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I'll accept that amendment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, as our representative sitting on the Board of Health, I would like to report that the point that the Board of Health is at is that all appraisals have been done. There are second appraisals being done on certain properties due to the nature of those properties and the -- certain evaluations. The reason I agreed to let the motion be postponed is because there is no relocation problems, and if we're going to have a policy - -if we're going to do relocation expenses, I think we need to have a policy. But far as the purchase proceedings, the Board of Health is ready to proceed, and I think it would be appropriate to use county personnel for the negotiation of this purchase. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Due to consultation with the Attorney, I think it's obvious that I will be abstaining on this particular motion. I do want to clarify something for the record, probably as the senior office holder from this particular district and a resident of that area for all of my life. My family has had a business in that area for 75 years continuously. Prior to my representing that area on this council, my mother represented that area for three consecutive terms. I do want to say this, and I don't think that this is in conflict of anything: I'd like to remind my colleagues that we -- as the Board of Commissioners we are the trustees and the holders of sales tax monies. We decide in terms of what is dispensed, in terms of what is done right for the people of this city. And if, Mr. Wall, I'm in conflict at this point, then I will shut up, but I don't think that I'm in conflict by saying that. And I will go even further to say this: I will remind my colleagues that if this -- and I've heard it said that some things are speculatory. Well, you don't have to be an Einstein to speculate on everything. And I just want to say this, that if I have to make a choice in leaving this body at some future time before my term is up in order to make sure that the people of that area are treated fairly, then, gentlemen, I will so do, but it will not be my last visit to this chamber, and I want that to be a part of the record. And I will abstain on your vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, with the amendment so noted, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Public Safety: Item 16 was approved in the Public Safety Committee meeting on December 23rd. [Item 16: A motion to approve an increase in the Purchase Order 122137 by $74,078.00 for Geographic Information System.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: The Public Safety Committee met and passed this item, and I move that the Commission pass it. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham -- who seconded the motion? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just make one comment. It is obviously absolutely necessary to pay the bills that we owe, but it's also absolutely necessary that we ensure that the funding for the GIS system, once we approve that budget, those funds are in place. Because we've already spent a tremendous amount of money. This project has the potential of returning tremendous opportunities for this government, and so I encourage my colleagues to pay this bill and then to ensure that the funding is in place as it was established in, I believe, 1993 when the GIS system was approved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MESSRS. BEARD, HANDY & POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 17, please? CLERK: Items 17 through 25 were approved by the Public Services Committee on December 23rd. [Item 17: A motion to approve transferring consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Harriett's Kitchen located at 1702 Jenkins Street. Formerly in the name of Steven A. Gordon. Item 18: A motion to approve a consumption off premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with B & C One Stop Convenience Store located at 711 Laney Walker Blvd. Item 19: A motion to approve a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Starlight Lounge located at 3518 Milledgeville Road. Item 20: A motion to approve a consumption on premises liquor & beer license to be used in connection with Miss Kitty's Lounge located at 1801-B Kissingbower Road. Item 21: A motion to approve a request by Kuan-Shiu Kuo to transfer a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Shangri-La Restaurant located at 2933 Washington Road. Item 22: A motion to approve a request by Wilmer Davis to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Harvey's Place located at 1241 Steiner Avenue. There will be Sunday sales. Item 23: A motion to approve a request by Wilmer Davis to transfer the retail package liquor license to be used in connection with Davis Place located at 1241 Steiner Avenue. Item 24: A 2 motion to approve a contract from EPD which will pay ARC $20,055.00 to clean up three used tire piles in the County. Item 25: A motion to approve a contract for services between Richmond County and Augusta/Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Inc.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 17 through 25 be taken as a consent agenda, including those that involve alcohol, and that we check to see if there are any objectors to any of those items that might be present concerning the alcohol numbers, and that they be shown as being voted on as one but that they be recorded that we voted on them separately. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? Do we have any objectors out here anywhere? [None noted] Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is Number 22 a Sunday sale? According to the detail in the -- at the committee meeting it is. I don't see that noted here. MR. MAYS: It is Sunday sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, where there is Sunday sales, may we have it so noted in the agenda? CLERK: Yes, sir. It was an oversight. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO ON ITEM 22. MOTION CARRIES 8-0, ITEMS 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 & 25. MOTION CARRIES 7-1, ITEM 22 [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 26, please? CLERK: Item 26 is a motion to approve the regular minutes of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission December 17th, 1996. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy -- who was the second of that, please? MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 27 is a motion to approve the list of participants in the Enhanced Early Retirement Program. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll so move, but I'd like to combine this with Number 2 on the addendum. MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to [inaudible]. So we're going to do both of those at one time? Item 2 and 27? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion to do so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just for the record, I want to state that it's not my belief that we're going to save a great deal of money by doing the early retirements, but certainly we changed the bureaucracy of government, and I think that's probably more important than the money that may be saved. CLERK: For the record, these retirements will be effective December 31st, '96. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, just as a question, how many -- what's the total retirements now that these two bring us up to? MR. OLIVER: I can't answer that at this point. Is there someone -- Moses, can you answer that at this point? We can get that figure for you. We'll do that. MR. BRIDGES: I was just curious. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just make one comment in regards to what my colleague said. There is potential for us to save money in this enhanced retirement plan. First of all, we don't have to hire everybody that -- positions that we -- that folks retired from, and certainly we don't have to hire them at the same pay schedule, because most of these people were long- term, and we can also slow the hiring process. So I think there's significant monies that can be saved in this, and I don't want us to get lulled asleep on this particular issue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Zetterberg. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 28, please? CLERK: A motion to approve a Juvenile Offenders Contract for services between James Player and Augusta-Richmond County. MR. HANDY: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Beard. 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: 29, please? CLERK: A motion to ratify the letter authorizing the interim appointments of Mr. Pen Mayson and Pat Blanchard to the Downtown Development Authority. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. These will only be until we reorganize our boards and authorities? MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 30: A motion to adopt a Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to provide for a full-time Solicitor of the State Court of Richmond County. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I hear some -- maybe some discussion from the Attorney why this would be better than the part-time position we've got now or would this be involved in the -- taking some of the load off the Municipal Court or how will this benefit us here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Well, in essence, you have had a full-time Assistant Solicitor there, and this would simply provide that that Assistant Solicitor, who has now been elected as the Solicitor, would be a full-time position such that they would not be engaged in the private practice of law. I think it would enable the Solicitor to devote full time and attention to that court. There has obviously been an increased case load in the State Court, and I think that it would improve the management and operation of the State Court to have a full-time Solicitor in that position, so I think that it is warranted. Obviously you have heard, I think, Ms. Jolles address the Legislative Delegation on several occasions concerning the request and her view that it would operate more efficiently as a full-time position as opposed to simply being a part-time position. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Do this mean that Ms. Jolles is going to make her -- replace her position with a part-time position; or, in other words, what's this going to cost us? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do we know that yet? MR. WALL: I do not know the answer to that. And in the meetings that I've had with -- or attended with the Legislative Delegation, I don't know that that issue has been raised. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we delay this until we know what it's going to cost. And I think it's ridiculous that we vote for a resolution and send it to the General Assembly or local delegation to put it in general law and have no earthly idea what it's going to cost us. I think that they have some idea or someone have some idea of what full-time solicitors make in this state, and we need to know from the Solicitor what her intent is as far as the position that she's going to fill as far as her old slot. And that's in the form of a motion, that we delay until we get the information. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion on that, gentlemen? MS. JOLLES: I did not hear the question, but I'm glad I walked in at the time that I walked in. Is there a question that I can answer? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'll be glad to repeat the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Ms. Solicitor, my question is--Madame Solicitor--what is this going to cost the local government? I understand that we're passing a resolution to send it to the local delegation to put it in general law to make your position permanent -- or a full-time position, it's already permanent, excuse me. What it's going to cost us to do that, and are you going to offset the cost by the person that replace you being only part-time status or limiting the salary there? MS. JOLLES: Mr. Todd and Mayor and Commission-Council, the answer to that question can come about in several ways. You could say yes, it's going to cost the county money, and in other ways the answer would be no, that there are not official costs to the taxpayers of the county. The Solicitor's position is currently a part-time position, which allows the Solicitor of Richmond County to practice law privately as well as maintain supervisory and the prosecuting attorney status for all cases filed in -- for misdemeanor offenses that occur in Richmond County. Insofar as the cost, there are salary issues that would increase from a change from part-time to full-time. The cost of the Solicitor's Office to taxpayers is none. The revenues that are brought in by the Solicitor's Office exceed four million dollars. They will probably exceed five million dollars in the next calendar year. Now, our actual budgetary costs for running business run about $800,000 a year. So if you look at it from the standpoint of is there going to be a salary issue that would need to be addressed, then yes, there's going to be that. But insofar as cost to taxpayers, then no, there's no cost to taxpayers at all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, then maybe I need to restate my question, because I feel that it is. If we take a enterprise fund operation that bring in two million dollars a year, I don't think we can justify -- you know, that if it cost a million dollars to run, we can't justify necessarily to increase costs of personnel by virtue of the fact that next year it's going to bring in 20 million dollars unless you can show me where there's opportunity lost if we don't go full-time. Are going full-time going to contribute to the approximately million dollar increase in what we're going to bring in or would we bring in that million dollars additional funds anyway? MS. JOLLES: There generally is going to be an increase that's going to occur in a prosecutorial office when there are cases coming in the door and there are fines being collected and assessed, or assessed by the Court and collected through collection measures. If you are asking will my being there necessarily correlate to "we're going to get extra money," I can't really answer that question, other than I can tell you that it is probably not in the best benefit of the community to have a prosecuting attorney who is in charge of the prosecution of all cases supervising a staff of 25-plus people. I do have some issues in my budget that I'm requesting consideration by the Commission with regard to by being on a part-time status and not being physically present in the office. I think that there is a point of justice that needs to be served to the community and what the community expects from someone who is their Solicitor General. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Jolles, I hate to argue with you about the cost of your office and whether or not it costs taxpayers money, but if you did not have the Sheriff's Department bringing you cases you would not have a need for the courts or the thing. And if you want to take the [inaudible] all the fines fund the Sheriff's Department, then we -- then I might agree with you. But I'm not going to get into that debate. What I think what we are really concerned with here in this resolution is what is the cap that you're looking for so we'll have some idea what the salary expectations of yours is going to be, not whether your office makes money from the taxpayers. MS. JOLLES: Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were looking for a salary range on that. What I have done is I have a listing of all the full-time salaries for all the solicitors in the state of Georgia that are full-time that I will provide to the Commission and to the Legislative Delegation. I believe that a committee has already been set up with the Delegation for looking at that salary range. I can tell you that the salaries in the state of Georgia range from -- anywhere from the low 60's all the way up to the mid 90's. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think that's what we were really looking for. MS. JOLLES: Okay. All right. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you needed a specific amount. I don't have that chart with me today. I can tell you that most of the salaries are tied in at what the district attorney and state-paid salaries are, or tied in as a percentage of that. Some are tied in at a figure that is quite higher than the district attorney's figures. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. My only question is not really to Ms. Jolles, but in sitting in the meeting the other morning with the possibilities of whether you eliminate Municipal Court -- and that's not one of the things that she's had any control over, whether cases go there or not. But if -- obviously the case load is not going to go away regardless of where you send the cases to, and if there's a Municipal Court or not. In addition to what you have in State Court, one of the questions that came up that morning is that, you know, your office might be asked to provide prosecution level for those cases as well. And I'd like to see us go ahead at least with the authorization, and of what we've got on board to have to deal with, I think that's no more than reasonable in terms of what we're dealing with. If we're talking about revamping and looking at that court system -- we have another meeting that's probably coming soon through Public Safety in reference to how to deal with Municipal Court, what cases are assigned there. Obviously that in itself is not going to lighten the load of what is there on State Court as it is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Madame Solicitor. But I think in terms of efficiency and of being able to supervise and to actually get -- when we look at the type of cases that have gone to State Court, particularly in the last three years, some of them there is a very borderline difference in what's being handled in some ways in Superior Court as in many cases as in State Court. So you're going to need that effectiveness there and a level of professionalism, and I don't think that probably where you're going from the part-time salary range to a full-time -- if it's going to get us the efficiency in moving those cases and of being able to get them -- to prosecute them to get them out of the system, whether or not you're cleaning jail docket or whether you are just simply being able to put them into other types of categories as far as supervised, lock up, as far as electronic monitoring, the whole nine yards of the whole judicial system, I think that it's at least worth a try to be able to go ahead and at least present the resolution. And then if we want to decide later that this thing won't fly, then we have the right to confront you some other time. But I'll be glad to go ahead on and vote for it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Todd's motion is appropriate. And, Ms. Jolles, he just wants to get some background information, and I think if maybe you can present that to Mr. Oliver before our next meeting, I don't see the danger of putting this off for two weeks. But I do think that it's appropriate for us to have all the background information where we're going to vote on the resolution but we don't know all the details of it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think that when we had the informal meeting with the Delegation a few days ago -- we had one also in this -- two in this chamber and we had one out at the Regency Mall, and that question came up each time. And I think that those of us who were there were led to believe how they could -- the Delegation, they were supportive of it and those of us who were there were supportive of it. And I would hope that we would move -- still bring back the information, but I move that -- because they go into session next week, next Monday, and will start to assemble the legislation. I don't know where this would come, but it appears to me that we kind of had them in our own domain a few days ago telling them this is what we were going to do, and I would hope that we would honor that and go ahead on and pass this resolution today. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I wonder if you'd clarify something for me. You were the Assistant Solicitor, you had a full-time position. It's not your intent to add another Assistant Solicitor, what your intention is to become a full- time Solicitor? MS. JOLLES: Okay, let me clarify. There are currently four Assistant Solicitors, a Chief Assistant Solicitor, and then the Solicitor General's position. MR. ZETTERBERG: But you weren't going to add another position on top of your position; there is already a position there? MS. JOLLES: I have already filled the Chief Assistant's slot, I have filed a replacement for the vacancy that occurred, and I have requests in the budget for an additional attorney for the upcoming fiscal year that would have been requested regardless of any change in status because of the caseload that we have and because of the duties of the Solicitor's Office. As Mr. Mays mentioned, some issues with regard to Municipal Court -- and while I am leaving that to the Commission in regard to any recommendations with that, the state law does provide now that the Solicitor General has the authority to operate as prosecutors not only over state law violations but also ordinance violations and to appear in Municipal and Magistrate Courts. So that is available should there be a desire for that to be utilized -- service to be utilized. MR. ZETTERBERG: Just to add a comment to that, I will agree with Mr. Todd that we take it for information and that we put together something that justifies that and shows the salary in it. But I think we ought to fully articulate the reason for it and support it, so that when it comes back to us we don't have a question on why you want to do it, we know how much it's going to cost, what's necessary to do that, and I would encourage Mr. Oliver to do some good staff work on that one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I don't think any of us have a problem with having this as a full-time Solicitor, but I think it is a year when we are --we ought to start things off and do them right and do them the proper way. And I think the proper way to do this has been stated, giving this back to Mr. Oliver -- taking this as information and giving it to Mr. Oliver. Because he has several -- according to my recollection of the Legislative Delegation meeting the other morning, he has several things that he has stated that he would bring back to us. There are a number of resolutions that he would recommend, and I think that if coming and getting all the details, how much it's going to cost, what the cost factor is and all of this, it needs to be presented to us. And I think there will be a meeting of -- a committee meeting next week that it will be presented all through that and brought back to council at the next meeting, and I see nothing wrong with this, and I would solicit that we do it in that way. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if my colleague, Mr. Powell, would yield to me, I would like to amend my motion. MR. POWELL: I'll yield. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion because of the time line with the local delegation and getting advertisement in on time, that we approve the resolution and cap the salary in the resolution that we approve at $70,000 or make a recommendation that it go no higher than $70,000. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I asked the County Attorney to draw up this resolution. I was asked by one of the state legislators had we moved on it yet, and I figured the best thing to do was have it drawn up and get it out here for discussion. But I think I can support the motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Jolles, what does the Assistant make now that's part- time, and if it we cap it at 70, what's the difference there? MS. JOLLES: The Solicitor's part-time salary at this time is $32,000 a year. The solicitors in Athens and in Macon and in one other area of comparable size, and I can't remember -- I'm not sure if it's Waycross, they make 100 percent of the state-paid district attorney's salary, which is 76,417. Milledgeville, Cherokee County, and Forsyth County were created last year at 69,000. Some of those provided automobiles. I'm not interested in a new automobile. I don't need to have one of those, I have my own car. And those are just some of the general salaries that I can state to you off the top of my head. I don't have my sheet with me. MR. BRIDGES: So we're looking at, if we cap it at 70, that's a little bit more than doubling, which probably, from 3 hours to 40-plus, I think is fairly comparable. Mr. Mayor, I think not only the Solicitor but the other legal positions -- we know we're going to be adding deputies, maybe even people in the DA's Office. Those have been requested before. I think as the county grows we're going to see more crime, we're going to need more staff in different -- the legal positions, the law positions, and I would support the motion on the floor to get it passed and get a full-time Solicitor at the cap that's proposed by Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming back around, gentlemen. MR. TODD: No further discussion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming back around. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question. MR. BEARD: Is that something you can live with, 70? MS. JOLLES: If that's what the Commission wishes to recommend, then I'll live with that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Well, let me just see if there's anybody else. Do y'all have anything else on this side, gentlemen? MR. POWELL: No, sir. MS. JOLLES: Could I make a proposal with regard to the cap? That you determine it based at a percentage of the district attorney's salary. And the basis for that would be it would prevent any Solicitor General in the future from having to come back. If you determine, for instance, that that's 95 percent -- and I think that's roughly 95 percent of the state-paid district attorney's salary. If you put it at the percentage so that it tracks that, then as the legislature modifies district attorneys salaries in the future -- it just prevents there having to be ever a request for a salary increase -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move -- I so amend. MS. JOLLES: -- if you modified it to 95 percent of that. MR. BRIDGES: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. Doesn't the legislature set the salary anyway? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: The local act which establishes the Solicitor's position would establish that salary range and -- salary. And so it is done through the Legislative Delegation by the General Assembly, yes. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that amendment to the resolution. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, we have two motions on the floor, gentlemen. We've got a substitute motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, we're going to vote on first. Do y'all want me to have it reread? The first motion was made by Mr. Handy to approve the -- just like it was read. The second one was Mr. Todd's and Mr. Kuhlke's motion with the amendment. Do y'all want them reread or do y'all want to -- MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I can withdraw my motion and we just take one. We don't have to go through that. MR. OLIVER: As a point of clarification, as I understand the current motion, it would be 95 percent of the current district attorney's salary. CLERK: State-paid salary. MS. JOLLES: State-paid salary, not including any of the supplemental salaries. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 31, please? CLERK: A motion to accept the bid of $50 from William Howarth at 2134 Fairview Avenue. MR. WALL: This is property that was declared surplus at the request of another individual, but it was sold. The individual that had actually requested it be sold as surplus property made inquiries on the date of the sale, however, did not bid at the sale. Although this is a low dollar amount, it would get it back on the tax books, and the individual who had requested it be declared surplus did have the opportunity to bid and for whatever reason chose not to bid. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I ask the County Attorney a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the question I have for the County Attorney is what's the fair market value of this parcel? MR. WALL: We do not get these appraised when they're surplus properties and I do not know. MR. TODD: What are they on the tax book as assessed as? MR. WALL: I don't have that information, and I'm not sure, with it being county owned, that it would even carry a value. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly would appreciate future information, the last private assessment on property, to at least have a rule of thumb on whether I'm getting taken to the cleaners or doing a good deed or a good deal for the taxpayers, and that's just for future reference. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, may I ask the Attorney a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Please, go ahead. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Jim, is this a full lot or is this [inaudible]? MR. WALL: I'm hesitant to say. If y'all want to postpone this until I can get the valuation -- I'd recommend that we do that. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we postpone it until we get the information on it that the other Commissioner desires. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 32, please? CLERK: Item 32: A motion to approve a Resolution exercising option to extend the term of the Public Purpose Lease with Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Who is Public Facilities, Inc.? MR. WALL: Richmond County Public Facilities, Incorporated is a non- profit corporation that holds title to the property where the Joint Law Enforcement Center and other facilities are located. It's part of the COPS issue, and this extends that lease. Y'all approve the -- y'all appoint the members of the Public Facilities. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Kuhlke, it's akin to being a subsidiary corporation. It's a corporation that's totally controlled and owned by the county. MR. KUHLKE: We actually have no choice, do we? MR. WALL: No, sir. MR. KUHLKE: So we have to vote on it? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: I move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: 33, please? CLERK: Item 33 is discussion of the proposed Law Department and interim law services. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess that when we were debating consolidation or reorganization of the government I was probably one of the big pushers of a Law Department in the sense that I understand that Statesboro have a Law Department and Wayne County, Michigan. And that's extremes. That's from probably the low end to the high end in the sense that Wayne County is a few million, that's Detroit, and Statesboro is our sister city south of us on 25. And as I've talked to my colleagues and peers throughout the United States, you know, as far as the cost benefit in having a Law Department versus having a County Attorney or outsource attorney, you know, the question come up, why would you insource your County Attorney when you're outsourcing everything else, and everybody is in the transition of outsourcing services as far as governmental services go. The perception is that attorneys that have the contracts, outsource contracts, with county governments is becoming filthy rich. I think if you look at our budget you see that is not the case. They are making a decent living, and if they have the opportunity to do what we call in government, I guess, to float a bond, then certainly they make a little bit of money, but -- and they can have a dry stretch of several years when there's no bond floated, et cetera, and I'm sure that if it wasn't for their other practice, that they would probably be in the poor house like I am. So I don't know that there is cost benefit in having a in-house Law Department unless --and this is some of the issues that we debated in these little focus groups with getting colleagues from all over the country on these mini vacations -- or a conference I prefer them, you know, association conference -- is that if you're going to have a General Counsel and outsource that General Counsel, and that General Counsel represent the government and the Law Department director or staff attorney answer to the General Counsel, then there is a possibility that you can have quality representation and it will work. We are sued every day, not personally but as a government. And when we are sued, the taxpayers of this community is sued. And where I'm interested in doing what's right, I'm also interested in protecting the taxpayers of this community to the best of my ability as a trustee of public trust. And I would hope that we would either stay with outsourcing the Law Department or Attorney, or if we set up a in-house Law Department, that we do a configuration where we would have a General Counsel and that General Counsel would be outsourced, regardless of who that individual may be. I don't want to get into the personalities, but I want to get into the scheme of things as far as what I think is the best representation for this board and for the taxpayers of this community. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, what is your opinion on that? MR. OLIVER: I believe with an organization the size that we are, at some point we have to have some in-house legal counsel expertise. The degree of that expertise, obviously you're not going to be able to -- you know, you're not going to be able to cover all the issues because of the magnitude of the things that we're involved in. However, I think that as it relates to reviewing contracts, to reviewing the way we do purchasing and things like that, that that would be in our best interest to move towards that. Whether the General Counsel is inside or outside is a policy decision, but I believe that we need to have some legal expertise in-house. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that this body retain Jim Wall as our legal counsel for 1997 and that Mr. Oliver be directed to work, and Mr. Wall be directed to assist Mr. Oliver, in coming back to this body by the end of the first quarter of this year with a recommendation concerning an in-house counsel. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got some other folks, Mr. Todd. We always start with the left, so -- MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I understand that, but in case no one else, you know, you don't have to come back this way. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No, I'm going to vote for Mr. Kuhlke's motion. But what I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, and I don't know whether this is confusing at all, the other morning when we were meeting with the Legislative Delegation, and the only thing I was concerned about -- I can live with the time table either way that's in the motion. It was a suggestion in there that we probably would follow an 18-month scale that we were talking about there, which would put us basically through the mid point of this year, and I didn't know whether or not that would be, you know, in their time frame. You said quarter, and I can vote for that quarter, but I know the other morning we were talking about coming back within a six-month period and do it, and that was just in that suggestion meeting. But I can live with what's in the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I understand what Mr. Kuhlke is trying to do here, and the only problem I have with it is you're asking a man that's involved in trying to obtain a contract to rule on whether or not you need an in-house or whether you're going to outsource your legal department, and I think that's putting the fox in the hen house. It's no reflection on Mr. Wall, but I think that we need either some more members to that body or either we need to ask for another attorney maybe. I think it's somewhat of a conflict of interest. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak to just the issue in general. As far as in-house attorney being a savings or not, at some of these different conferences we've gone to that we're required to go to to be certified to be Commissioners, I've talked to a couple of attorneys that are in-house attorneys from different communities around Georgia. And I've talked to two, maybe three, and in each case they all say yes, an in-house attorney does save the county money, and it's because so much of the work that's done by attorneys is -- I don't want to say mundane, but it comes before them regularly, so they know what to do, they know what the law is, they know how to handle it, it's not time-consuming, it's the types of things that they do not have to outsource. And I understand that if there are things that are in a technical area that our in-house attorney might not be familiar with, you may have to outsource with another attorney that has expertise in that area. But normally, generally, the matters that come before the County Attorney can be handled by an in-house attorney at a much lower cost rate, and this is what I've been told by other in-house attorneys around the state, that their counties did save money in going to in-house attorneys. So I don't think -- I can appreciate what Mr. Kuhlke is trying to do and to ease into this thing, but we put this in-house attorney off last year because we said we were handling too many things, that we have -- we were looking for an Administrator and all these departments to pick heads for. And we've only got one or two departments to pick a head for, our Administrator is on board, I think it's time that we move forward at a more rapid pace to create an in-house Law Department to whatever extent that may be. And I would just offer a substitute motion to Mr. Kuhlke's, that we retain Jim Wall for six months and in one quarter have Mr. -- our Administrator come back to us with his recommendation for an in-house law office. MR. POWELL: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's like -- it's a conflict of interest if you're going to have the outside -- in-county department heads try to reorganize their department; it's also a conflict of interest to have an in-house counsel advise you as to whether or not you're saving money. I would think naturally he would advise you you're saving money. It's my opinion that we need to maybe visit this issue. And I think the way that Mr. Kuhlke's motion is formed, I would support that issue, and I think it's the best way to go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Just a matter of clarification. I am not suggesting that Mr. Wall make the determination on whether we need an in-house attorney. I'm suggesting that Mr. Oliver make that recommendation back to us, but only from the standpoint that if he comes back with a recommendation that we need an in- house attorney, then certainly the transitional period is going to require the cooperation and help and support of our present Attorney. And that's not going to happen in six months, it's going to take longer than that. So I just -- I wanted to make it clear to my colleagues that I don't anticipate Mr. Wall having the input as to whether or not it's to our benefit from a cost standpoint of having an in-house attorney or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: One comment. The only thing that I want to ensure in this whole process is that we do a full cost benefit analysis and we give Mr. Oliver sufficient time to conduct that work, and I'm concerned that giving him --just to do it in this first quarter, considering all the other things that we've given him. This is a very important issue. There are potentials of savings or there are potentials of making a terrible mistake, so I want to make sure that we do a professional job, a cost benefit analysis, and that we end up with information that we can make a good decision on versus rushing to change the direction we're going now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to support Mr. Kuhlke's motion. The only thing that I have in mind on that is that I wish he would amend that to a longer period of time. I do agree with Mr. Zetterberg, and I really don't think that we should rush this. And there was some time table on the document that was -- on the consolidation document that we had to do this, that said we will consider this. And I think -- and I know we always want to rush and everybody's rushing us to do it and do it immediately, but I think we need to take time. This is a very serious matter that would be concerning us, and I think we ought to do it right. And I think Mr. Oliver will do it right, but he needs to be given sufficient time to do it, and I would just wish that that would go at least a little longer than a quarter, probably six months or something of that nature, or longer, so that we can do it. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, no pun intended on Mr. Wall. I think he does a fine job for the county. And I could support the motion that Mr. Kuhlke has made, but I would like that portion that states -- that was stated in the motion that Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver get together and bring us back a recommendation, if he can have that portion stricken or accept it to have it stricken from that motion, then I could accept it that Mr. Oliver bring back a recommendation. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me restate it. Maybe this -- I think maybe it was poorly said. I make a motion that we retain Mr. Wall for 1997; that we direct the County Administrator that within the first six months of 1997, that he comes back to this body with a recommendation on whether or not it's cost- effective for us to have an in-house attorney; that Mr. Wall will assist Mr. Oliver on Mr. Oliver's request. Does that clarify it, Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke, I still think it sends the -- well, it just appears like you're putting the fox in the hen house. MR. KUHLKE: Well, it's our hen house. I mean, it -- MR. POWELL: It must be your fox. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got some folks with their hands up. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I have a question. I don't have a problem at all with what Mr. Powell is saying in regards to the language of the proposal, but I would not want to restrict Mr. Oliver from talking to whoever he wants to talk to. But if Mr. Kuhlke would consider my point, to remove that language from it but not restrict Mr. Oliver from talking to anybody, whether he wants to talk to Mr. Wall --Mr. Wall has all the facts, he has all the figures and everything. Mr. Oliver is -- works for us and he is going to make the best decision for us. MR. KUHLKE: Well, let me reword it. I move that we retain Jim Wall as our County Attorney for 1997; that we direct Mr. Oliver to come back to us with a recommendation on whether or not it's cost-effective for us to have an in-house attorney. Period. MR. BEARD: I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we have some folks who haven't finished over here yet. Coming on around. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out the only real difference in Mr. Kuhlke's motion and mine is the time frame for maintaining the current legal staff or legal assistance we have here. He suggested a year, I suggested six months. One thing that I've learned, not only as a matter of economics but just household experience, that expenses always rise to meet income. If we give our staff a year to make a determination, it'll take a year to do it. Give them six months, it'll take six months. So I'm just trying to shorten that time frame down. I think this is something that -- our plate is not overloaded now. We are winding down with consolidation. This is an area that we put off till the last, and I think it's something we can move forward with in less time than a year. And I realize it took us a year to come up with the primary position we wanted, and that's the Administrator, but some of us are of the opinion that that's the one we should have come up with first. So I think we need to move this thing along, and I think six months is sufficient for it, and I would ask that you support the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just a question. In this motion, or either one of the motions, if we come back with something in six months -- I think Mr. Kuhlke's motion said that for the year 1997. That means that Mr. Wall will be here regardless of what is brought back, whether it's overspending or underspending, is that correct, in the motion? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall would be here for 1997 if we bring on an in-house attorney, and that in-house attorney would obviously direct work to Mr. Wall. But if we bring someone in, then the amount of work that is directed to Mr. Wall will be less than what he's doing as the full-time Attorney. But an in- house attorney is not going to be able to wrap up everything that we've got going right now. It's going to require the assistance of an outside attorney, even with an in-house attorney, so -- and Mr. Wall has been involved in this operation for a number of years, and he's probably going to be the one to wrap things up. So while Mr. Wall would be our County Attorney, then the chances are if the in-house attorney takes over a certain amount of workload, then Mr. Wall's bills should be less. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, just for a point of information, no further debate, the county code called for us to appoint an Attorney on the first meeting in January. Point of information. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do we need the motions reread, gentlemen? Why don't you reread the substitute motion. MS. MORAWSKI: The substitute motion was to -- by Mr. Kuhlke was to retain Mr. -- MAYOR SCONYERS: No, no, no, the substitute motion was by Mr. Bridges. That substitute motion. MS. MORAWSKI: I'm sorry. The substitute motion by Mr. Bridges was to retain Mr. Wall for a six-month period and ask Mr. Oliver to come back with a recommendation regarding an in-house attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION FAILS 6-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: The original motion with all the amendments to it? Well, actually, I think it was an amended motion. MS. MORAWSKI: The original motion was to retain Mr. Wall for the year 1997 and to direct Mr. Oliver to come back with a recommendation within six months as to whether or not it will be cost-effective to retain an in-house attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: What have we got left, the addendums? CLERK: Yes, sir. We have one other item under Other -- I'm sorry. Under Other Business, the configuration of the Commission Room. Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: I'm going to have to do my own visual aids here. I talked with the carpentry shop about reconfiguring the room. Candidly, I think that this is one of the poorest meeting rooms I've ever seen in my life. I think it's very difficult for everyone to be able to see each other. And while this is not necessarily a perfect situation, I think that it helps a bit, and I will do a little demonstration. This table is in sections and we can take these sections apart. What I would propose is to put one section high that would be sitting on the same level as the Mayor for two Commissioners, one section at the step-down level for three Commissioners, and face these sections this way. We would cut down this marble so everyone could see over this, and we would shorten this up so that it doesn't take as much space. In this manner I believe everybody would at least be able to see everyone, and I think it would -- I think it would facilitate the meeting. We're trying to work up the cost estimate, but we think it'll be in the neighborhood of $5,000 to do it and it will take us about two weeks to do it. We figure that it could be done two weeks -- starting after the meeting, two weeks from today. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I don't have anything on the reconfiguration of the room, but if the Chair would recognize me, and if no one else have, I have something else. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we do a reconsideration on the Fire Chief position, and that's -- CLERK: We have one other item. MR. TODD: That's in the form of a motion, and -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the next item. CLERK: The next item on the addendum agenda -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. Did we accept Mr. Oliver's -- MAYOR SCONYERS: We didn't do anything. MR. POWELL: I'll make a motion that we accept Mr. Oliver's recommendation. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you add to that that it's subject to see what the cost is first. MR. POWELL: Subject to funding and subject to the cost. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there any way that you can just sketch it out? Some of us -- MR. OLIVER: We'll do that. MR. ZETTERBERG: Some of us can look at things better than we can listen to it. MR. OLIVER: We'll sketch it out. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: No further discussion here, Mr. Mayor. I can support the reconfiguration and push for it early on. I wasn't sure whether we were just receiving information or if it needed action. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: The next item on the addendum agenda: A Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend the Consolidation Act to amend Section 13(f) to provide that members of all boards and authorities be appointed by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 3 on the addendum agenda is to approve the settlement of the lawsuit with F&D Properties. MR. WALL: Mayor and members of the Commission, I ask that you authorize us to proceed with the purchase of the property that is presently owned by F&D, subject to working out certain conditions that presently exist in the deed, and authorize the Mayor to execute such documents as are necessary, and authorize the Mayor and the Administrator and myself to make any necessary decisions concerning the process to implement the settlement. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. POWELL: So move. Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion? MR. KUHLKE: Either one of us. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke and seconded by Mr. Powell? Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to state for the record that this action is being taken per a Court Order, that I consider myself as a trustee of the taxpayers and a officer of the -- a officer here to have no option but to comply with a Court Order per my oath, and I will vote in the affirmative. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: That concludes it, doesn't it? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion, if the Chair would recognize me. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm not going to recognize that, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion then that the board don't go until he recognize me, and that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: This meeting is adjourned. MR. TODD: County Administrator, if the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem is not going to carry out their duties, I call for an election. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of adjournment, why don't you raise your hand. I think we've got enough, don't we? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't -- I'd like to have a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, just for our information, will this have to be -- have a unanimous vote to add it back to the agenda? MR. WALL: No, sir, Your Honor, because the motion is to reconsider, it's not to add something to the agenda. This was on the agenda and no action was taken and it is simply a matter to reconsider it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I do not have to recognize that motion; is that correct? That it's up to me? MR. WALL: I think that, you know, you -- if you deem that the motion is out of order, then it is a parliamentary rule, and then the Commission will have to vote whether or not to sustain your ruling or to overrule your ruling. However, the motion that was made to adjourn the meeting does have to be voted on, and then if there is a motion on the floor and you refuse to recognize that motion because you deem it to be out of order and someone appeals that ruling, then that appeal would have to be voted on by the Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, fine. I rule that motion out of order. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I appeal the motion and call for the motion to -- to vote on the motion to adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, if you can get your fellow Commissioners back, we'll so do it. MR. POWELL: Does that have a second? MR. TODD: Yes, I believe we have a second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, who seconded the motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. CLERK: Brigham. Jerry Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, excuse me. Would you please read the motion? CLERK: To appeal? MR. TODD: No, the motion that I made was to not adjourn. I understand from the Parliamentarian that's the first order of business, to vote that up or down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd, based on y'alls conversation, the meeting never was adjourned, so I don't see that that even comes into play. Is that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I think the question on the floor is whether -- he has made an appeal of the ruling that the motion to reconsider is out of order, and I think that's what's on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's exactly right. MR. TODD: Okay, Mr. Mayor, then that's the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: So do y'all understand what we're voting on now? MR. BEARD: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, I ruled his motion out of order to reconsider the vote for Fire Chief, and that's what we're voting on now. Y'all need to decide whether you want to vote on the Fire Chief now or let it lay like it was. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to -- was it to reconsider? MR. WALL: Well, the first question is whether to sustain the Chair's ruling or not. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. If y'all are in favor of the motion -- or the decision I made to rule it out of order, then you would vote yes. All in favor of that motion, to vote yes to rule it out of order, raise your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I really appreciate y'alls support. I've got two members that support me. Now we know where the hell I stand, don't we? Now, all in favor of supporting Mr. Todd, how about y'all voting for him. [VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MAYOR SCONYERS: So what have we got now, five? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think it takes seven votes to turn around a -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll be honest with you, I'm a little bit -- I'm a little bit confused. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order or information. This is not a motion to support personalities, this is a motion to support a issue that's on this floor. And I'm not asking anyone, Mr. Mayor, to support me. And any time, Mr. Mayor, that I can support you in good conscious I will. MR. POWELL: Point of information, Mr. Chairman. I think it takes seven votes to overturn the Chair's ruling. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like a reading from the Parliamentarian on what the vote is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Wall, do you want to handle that for us, please? MR. WALL: The rules that have been adopted provide that whenever a Commissioner believes that the Chair is mistaken in a ruling, a Commissioner may appeal the Chair's decision. An appeal shall require a second. It shall be debatable, with the Chair speaking first to explain his or her ruling. The Chair may also close out the debate with a statement defending the ruling. An appeal may be made only on a ruling, and then it does not require anything other than a majority vote. A majority vote of the Commission shall be required to overturn the Chair's ruling, so it simply takes six votes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. CLERK: To appeal the ruling? MR. ZETTERBERG: Please read the motions again and what's going to come after that. CLERK: There was a motion to sustain the Mayor's ruling for reconsideration of the appointment of the Fire Chief. That was voted down 8- 2, with Mr. Powell and Mr. Bridges voting no [sic]. We are now voting -- Mr. Todd appealed the Mayor's -- well, there's no need to appeal now since it didn't -- there's no need to appeal. MR. WALL: That's right. The question being is whether or not the motion -- by virtue of the ruling of the Chair not being upheld, then the motion should be voted on as to reconsider the appointment of the Fire Chief, and you have to vote that up or down. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, do y'all understand that, what we're voting on? All in favor of reconsidering to vote for the Fire Chief, let it be known by raising your hand. MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, & POWELL VOTE NO. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: So there's no vote. MR. POWELL: Move we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. [MEETING ADJOURNED] 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 January 7, 1997. ____________________ Clerk of Commission